Subject: Re: JFK Propaganda: 2 Paradigms
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 05:06:33 GMT
From: rfeinman@my-deja.com
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk

In article <82jnn3$oao$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  dlifton@my-deja.com wrote:
> You're a sad case, Roger.
>
> Full of self-righteousness and venom, but basically and essentially
and
> lastingly wrong.  And that---in final analysis---is what really
counts: that
> you're just plain wrong.
>
> Wrong choices. Wrong people. Wrong causes. Wrong point of view.
>
> First, back in the 70s, you got overly involved---intellectually and
> emotionally---with the Mommie Dearest of the JFK assassination. And
becauses
> of that, you adopted a totally incorrect---and truly ridiculous---
view of
> who and what was responsible for the truth not being known in this
case.  The
> problem in this case: falsified evidence, as demonstrted in Best
Evidence;
> and not a huge contingent of Warren Commission attorneys, all
collectively
> committing perjury; and all "accessories after the fact", the sadly
incorrect
> view of your mentor, Sylvia Meagher; someone who writes well, whose
book is
> invaluable in many respects, but who was not exactly a pleasant
person in the
> flesh, and who sure led you down the garden path, finally rejecting
you in
> her last will and testament by kicking you in the nuts from the
grave, when
> she failed to make you her literary executor because you never came
through
> as a writer, and delivered your long-promised "book".

My, my, how the mice will play when the cat's away.  Sylvia Meagher did
not "kick me in the nuts."  She had already given me the greatest gift
that any serious student of the assassination could have: 15 years of
being exposed to her brilliant mind and her, which was far more
discerning than yours, and her confidences.  Sylvia tried to help Greg
Stone, who had reached a dead end in the RFK case and was perpetually
plagued by his sadness over his mentor Al Lowenstein's tragic end and
thoughts that he might end up slinging hamburgers at McDonald's, by
giving him a new project to work on and keep himself going, her papers
and the JFK assassination.

>
> Then, employed at CBS News---your great claim to fame back in the
70s---you
> let your self-righteousness run amock, behaved recklessly, again saw a
> conspiracy; made false accusations (this time it was against former
Warren
> Commission McCloy relations, as I recall), and so you got dismissed
from that
> job. (In fact, you finally admitted you were wrong there, as I
recall).

You're disoriented.  Delusional.  Didn't you read the piece in the
Village Voice from March 1992, the one that was reprinted in Oliver
Stone's book?  John J. McCloy's daughter, Ellen, admitted being a
conduit between her father and the top management of CBS News in a
secret collaboration during the preparation of their 1967
documentaries.  Know why she admitted it?  Because she was confronted
with copies of transmittal notes in her own handwriting.  Know where
those copies came from?  Yours truly.  I never admitted I was wrong
about that; far from it, I'm the guy who proved it.

But you, in your typical fashion of rising to the defense of the high
and mighty  (viz., kissing their butts), call it a "false accusation."
You're simply not a reliable source of any kind of information abut
this subject.

>
> Now, an echo of your past behavior at CBS,  you've done the same
thing again,
> only this time in the legal profession. Again, its Feinman versus the
> world---seeing a conspiracy among those who don't agree with him---
not a
> conspiracy to explain the actual facts in this case, and what actually
> happened in Dallas, but rather one to explain why his view in a debate
> doesn't prevail. Again, you've allied yourself with the wrong kind of
person
> (Groden) and issue (the Random House ad), and behaved badly. This
time,
> you've gotten yourself brought up on disciplinary charges and
disbarred in a
> federal court.

I've taken risks to get at the truth about the assassination.  I've put
everything I had and valued on the line.  And, unlike you, I've never
made too much noise about it because I don't have your same need for
the spotlight and adulation.  What risks have you taken, David?  If you
were really a critic, would you be in this newsgroup now defaming
Groden, or me, in the manner that you have?  Or would you be decrying
the manner in which the powerful and influential in this society have
perverted its professed ideals to suppress the critics of the Warren
Commission?

>
> Yeah, I know. Everybody is wrong. Roger Feinman is right. Like an
eagle
> scount wearing his merit badges, you've got a long list of people and
> institutions that failed you because they didn't see things your way.
>
> What is the moral of this story?
>
> Perhaps: You can't keep a good paranoid down.
>
> DSL
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>

You will not be remembered except as a minor, idiosyncratic footnote to
the history of the JFK assassination controversy.  There will be no
movie film about your life story.  And you will never achieve the glory
that you have craved your entire adult life.  Get over it.

-roger-

Read: "The Closest Living Witness"
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/feinmanr/index.htm

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.