jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 27, 2010 20:15:45 GMT -5
"Communist!" "Definately."
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Feb 27, 2010 20:43:34 GMT -5
That's good to go back and modify the post - sort of like cleaning your mouth out.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 27, 2010 20:58:12 GMT -5
The things that you and draft dodgers have in common, Mairi, is a big mouth - so for both of yours sakes, you better close it!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 27, 2010 21:06:44 GMT -5
Jack for Marai:
I didn't modify a post - I'm no angel, but as far as I recall I've never said the n or f words on this site - or any other sites, ever. .
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 27, 2010 21:09:23 GMT -5
Is Kevkon trying to get you to change the subject, Marni?
Iz OK kev, I'll drop it.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 28, 2010 7:07:50 GMT -5
To quote myself:
"Nor did he (they) notice CAL & JFC get into . . . " Reich's Ford coupe and drive to the second meeting with CJ.
We're talking about a full size car here - not a tie tack camera.
Now do you believe all those people did not see Lindbergh and Condon get into the car - and follow them? The law may have had some scruples regarding that, but reporters certainly wouldn't. So how many witnesses were there really at Cemetary II, and where and/or what did they say about it?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 28, 2010 9:09:52 GMT -5
Did the Jewish dominated press censure reports of CemetaryII?
As Dave once said, "this is a pretty dull place without you and me on here, Jack."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 28, 2010 9:20:18 GMT -5
I've always been of the opinion that "we" can moderate the board "ourselves" by not venturing to the point where it starts to get out of hand.
I think we all have very strong personalities here and I like that. I've come to understand alot about them over the period of time we've been posting. Woven within some personalities are styles of humor as well as differing "tactics" of debate. Some people might not get it, I do, but I think what's important is to be able to discuss without getting to the point where we don't cross the line.
Where's the line? Let's try to find out....
I'm all for freedom of speech. Anyone who has read some of the things I've written can see I sometimes "push the envelope" myself. I am not perfect and because of my imperfections I'd rather keep my personal judgments out of this as the "ultimate" decision concerning what is the right or wrong things.
This board has a built in feature that changes curse words to predetermined "replacement" words - but that sometimes doesn't kick in right away and I'd rather it not be needed truth be told. Also, we have a unique Karma rating (smite or exalt) system which we can utilize to get whatever point we are trying to get across.
However, I have a line, and although its nearly invisible - its there.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 28, 2010 9:20:46 GMT -5
"Ya what do I do with all these medals?" "Maybe you can hock 'em."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 28, 2010 9:32:18 GMT -5
Lindbergh, Jafsie, "John," "the Lookout," "Man in the back of the Cemetery who John consulted," and possibly Capt. Oliver (although, if true, he got a case of "cold feet" then vacated).
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 28, 2010 11:21:18 GMT -5
BS, Michael! You and I and everyone are supposed to believe that no one followed them? I know the story of the NYC Officer who said he followed for a while but then stepped back. PLEESE - another Condon joke?
That Officer is the only one who ever even claimed to do anything, yet there were probably at least ten observers when CAL and JFC got into Reich's Ford. Now SA LACKEY, as I tried earlier to establish, was no lackey. And he was specifically stationed there to observe Condon's residence, but he neither saw a taxi (which is doubtfull of happening) BUT DID NOT SEE THE ELUSIVE PAIR (CAL & JFC) ENTER REICH'S CAR? Why has it taken so many years to see that this just does not ring true? And not only did SA LACKEY not see them, but two other agents or NYPD who were there to pursue (so it seems they would have actually had Reich's car within sight) did not see them enter that car, and a variety of newspaper people as you stated did not see them as well.
This is not a small issue - it's the delivery of the note which resulted in the ransom payment.
Was this doused by the press?
Why would anyone not want it known what happened at St. Raymond's Cemetary? Is this the real secret of the Lindbergh crime? The one that Anne wrote had happened in 1931 and that the baby was 18 months old? Oddly, in 1931 Charles Agustus Lindbergh Junior would have been 18 months old!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 28, 2010 12:10:53 GMT -5
Here's what probably happened:
After stalling for weeks, Charles Lindbergh is finally forced to pay a ransom to a few hooligans (kidnappers). His associate, John Condon, saves him $ 20,000.00 (the equivelant of $ 200,000.00 today) and they drift off and sit on porches and fly airplanes.
The press of course is there and takes pictures of all - Cemetary John, Charles and John Condon doing their thing. The news media refuses their stories .
Where are those pictures?
Charles Lindbergh suddenly becomes a pacifist and for years speaks against going to war in Europe.
After Pearl Harbor Charles not only becomes a war advocate, he physically participates in the war against Japan.
Who wins in all of this?
Germany wins by stalling the US entry into Europe by several years - time enough for them to invade what they thought would be an easy win over Russia. The Jewish actually win because war is kept alive in Europe (US entering would have quickly ended it) and Jewish/Banking conglomerates keep making money. Also winning was Russia, who was able to keep forces against Germany (their west front) from fighting a war they already had against Japan (their East front).
Who loses:
Nobody loses unless you're a relate of the approximately million (about ten million internationally) who died in World War Two.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 28, 2010 12:22:48 GMT -5
"Hey we nailed your kid - your mom is next - then your wife - then youse!" "What you talk Rick?" "Go to sleep Junior." "K - I'll dream about her."
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 28, 2010 13:32:31 GMT -5
Here's what probably happened: After stalling for weeks, Charles Lindbergh is finally forced to pay a ransom to a few hooligans (kidnappers). His associate, John Condon, saves him $ 20,000.00 (the equivelant of $ 200,000.00 today) and they drift off and sit on porches and fly airplanes. The press of course is there and takes pictures of all - Cemetary John, Charles and John Condon doing their thing. The news media refuses their stories . Where are those pictures? Charles Lindbergh suddenly becomes a pacifist and for years speaks against going to war in Europe. After Pearl Harbor Charles not only becomes a war advocate, he physically participates in the war against Japan. Who wins in all of this? Germany wins by stalling the US entry into Europe by several years - time enough for them to invade what they thought would be an easy win over Russia. The Jewish actually win because war is kept alive in Europe (US entering would have quickly ended it) and Jewish/Banking conglomerates keep making money. Also winning was Russia, who was able to keep forces against Germany (their west front) from fighting a war they already had against Japan (their East front). Who loses: Nobody loses unless you're a relate of the approximately million (about ten million internationally) who died in World War Two. All that ranting and raving for this???
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 28, 2010 13:52:25 GMT -5
Yup - as Yogi might have said, "the obvious is obvious."
Of importance though, what happened at St. Raymond's Cemetary?
No one really cares nowdays about Lindbergh (80% of people on the street don't even know who he was) or the child or Anne or Betty or any one of those. But it would be nice to know if we were lied to by our supposedly free press. That is my only interest in this particular case. So you can call a spade a spade, or you can call a spade a club, but will that spade someday come back to haunt you?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 28, 2010 14:39:43 GMT -5
It's interesting that you think this. I have always noticed that those who tend to believe in large conspiracies must have an inherent faith in the ability for often disparate organizations to cooperate and in some cases to even identify those entities as a monolithic unit. Is the "free press" a singular organism? These were big times for the news organization and they were highly competitive with one another, Did they lie to the public? I'm sure, especially when it made for headlines and increased readership. Would they band together to withhold news? I think that would be impossible. In doing so, what was in it for them anyway? How could extremely competitive organizations act in unison and guarantee that not a single agency would break rank? If you go back and read through the publications of the time you will see many false statements, especially right after the crime. They couldn't get correct info fast enough. So I guess you could say they lied. Banding together to withhold news, though, is another story. It goes against their grain. Even FDR couldn't get them to do that.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 28, 2010 16:17:08 GMT -5
That's precisely THE problem, Kevkon. If, somehow they did band together, what does that mean to our "free" system - checks and balances?
What does that mean about our ongoing war in Iraq or the many being daily killed in Afghanistan?
What did it mean about our entry very contritely into WW II and probably into WW I?
You seem to think that you're answering questions, but you're really asking more.
As an aside about the YODS - don't they very appear to be SS script? I believe this was mentioned before (havn't really looked) and if that's true what an SS triumph in their infancy. And do you believe anyone would ever tell?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 28, 2010 16:21:15 GMT -5
I have to admit, Kevkon, that you do not write like a carpenter.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 28, 2010 19:08:44 GMT -5
I can sense that Michael is thinking. Michael is thinking, why after all these years - such a simple thing - did no one ever question about CAL and JFC getting into Reich's Ford? And he's thinking why didn't the newspeople and the BI follow that Ford? And he's thinking why, because surely there was a grand story at the end, didn't the newsguys follow up? Why?
CAL may have had punch with the NYPD because of NJSP, but he certainly didn't have any with BI (his effect was probably negative) who WERE watching, nor with the media.
So CAL & Jafsie mosey on to Cemetary II and who is by all accounts the only one to investigate that crime scene - Ralph Hacker.
I has seen the enemy and they is us.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 28, 2010 19:46:12 GMT -5
So where was Ralph Hacker when Cemetary II happened? Home with Myra? No because Myra claimed to be at Jafsie's house. Jafsie said that she opened the door for the second taxi driver, but she never said that. She said she saw the man "through the glass." Then Jafsie said that she wasn't there. Then Jafsie said that he saw the "driver" over Myra's shoulder as he was going away. Then Jafsie said the driver told him he'd gotten the note at 188 street and then Jafsie said he saw him get into a taxi, and that he had a cabbie hat on. Then Jafsie said he had "Jewish sideburns" and was five foot eight.
So why didn't Ralph Hacker, architect and drawer of the plans for the famous ransom box, come to the door to protect his wife in a probably desperate situation? Hacker later redeemed himself by being the only investigator at St. Raymond's Cemetary.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 28, 2010 19:58:36 GMT -5
Rick:
Is your post 2/21 from or an BI/FBI file?
Jack
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 28, 2010 20:09:14 GMT -5
Jack, this one of the most honest and profound statements I have ever read on this site. Honest, because it is uncensored. Profound because it sheds light on one of the fundamental reasons for the myriad of conspiracy theories. You find it unusual that a carpenter is literate ( thanks, though I don't feel particularly talented in the writing dept). In the same manner, many find it hard to accept that a German carpenter could carry out the "crime of the century" or that a semi employed warehouse worker could kill the president ( ever listen to Oswald or look at his range card?) and so on and so on. The point is, allowing one's pre-conceptions to dictate what may or may not have happened can have disastrous results. As they say; never judge a book by it's cover.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 28, 2010 20:31:10 GMT -5
Iz truth, Kev.
You're a VERY good writer.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 28, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Jack for Michael:
Witnesses to Cemetary II - "Man in the back of the cemetary who John consulted." According to Michael.
According to Wright (pp 77 - 78) "I will have to talk to my partners . . . " and he went back to talk with TWO men.
Wright may not be the greatest source, but that had to have come from somewhere.
Jack
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 1, 2010 7:34:55 GMT -5
He said to them at this time you must tell me where we can get the baby and they said we will let you know, he said no you must tell me and John said I will have to talk to my partners and he went off to two men standing in the background some distance off and he came back and said all right if you will promise not to open this for two hours I will give you a letter telling you where the baby is..... [May 18, 1932 - NJSP Strategy Conference] I hear what you are saying Jack. I have looked into this, and from all of the sources I could find (e.g. NY, JC, NJSP, Various Reporters, and FBI) they all give a piece, from their own perspective, as to what happened. Attempts were made to follow but failed for one reason or another. Sounds lame, but consider most of these were official documents reporting to their Superiors what was going on. It's not like the Bornmann Attic Reports where you had multiple re-writes and back-dated reports. And so, I see no other choice but to accept what information they contain. The only alternative would be to invent actions and dialogue, you know, like Jim Fisher did in his first book.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 1, 2010 8:05:43 GMT -5
Fisher claimed just to make it readable. I gotta agree - most of this Lindbergh stuff is pretty droll, though Fisher gets all the way to the edge of the window.
More to the point, though, was the Condon comment(s) about extra men in the cemetary ever brought out at BRH trial. I know that doesn't absolve him (Richard) but seems some more peeking should have been done.
It comes down to what some other major crimes do - as you stated earlier - one bad guy.
I have some FBI (and BI) stuff coming and will let you know if there's anything new - probably not, but you never know. Considering that the BI didn't even investigate the crime, why are there thousands of pages of BI/FBI reports about it? By the way, the Agent (Retired) I talked with about SA LACKEY of course said LACKEY could do no wrong. Police take care of police. My initial thread there was to establish that LACKEY was incompetent (which he wasn't) but when I found out there were quite a few others watching as well - hey they probably weren't all incompetent.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 2, 2010 7:04:48 GMT -5
Steve,
Flip to any page in either of his two books. Give me the page number. I am willing to bet I can disprove something he has written there. He simply didn't do enough research to write those books. At one point I was going to do this myself but I found so many mistakes that I gave up. Concerning these mistakes - sometimes he gives sources (which are wrong), sometimes he gives none, and sometimes he invents dialog to make it appear as though it happened. The good thing is that in his preface he explains that he invented it.... how his book is classified as "non-fiction" after such action is beyond me.
Lloyd doesn't shy away from any evidence Steve. He presents it then allows the Reader to decide for themselves. He actually did the research Fisher should have done. And he doesn't make anything up.
Stuff like this was hidden from the Defense. Next, Wilentz offered Fawcett a deal if Hauptmann told on his Confederates. This, among many other things, seems to show they were aware others were involved. But in the end, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush....so they did what they "had to do" in order to win their case.
There will be. They did a ton of investigative work on the Case. The "back and forth" was due to their crossing Schwarzkopf (or the appearance of it) which created all the complaints. Schwarzkopf was both Lindbergh's puppet, and very jealous concerning this investigation.
Everyone who was watching Condons house did so without the NJSP's knowledge. This was because everyone was afraid of Lindbergh who laid down the law before all of this went down.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 2, 2010 7:27:25 GMT -5
i disagree mike. gardner had alot of things handed to him and jim wrote his book pre computer world and the case wasnt as popular. ive seen debates and the wood and the handwriting is very damaging. id hate to be on the other side of kelvin and mike krawkoski. if you think jim had mistakes, which gardner points out in his book, he dosnt point out the tons of mistakes in moniers and scadutos books. thats being one sided on gardners behalf
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 2, 2010 10:29:30 GMT -5
I think it's important to remember that Fisher and Dr Gardner are coming from entirely different backgrounds.
Sometimes it can be more fruitful to look at what didn't happen as opposed to attempting to affirm what did.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 2, 2010 14:32:27 GMT -5
kevcon, gardner is quick to knock jim fisher in his footnotes, but fails to point out the problems in scadutos and moniers book. i have a big problem with that
|
|