HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 03:52:20 GMT
Server: Apache
Last-Modified: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:30:12 GMT
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 77130
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><!-- InstanceBegin template="/Templates/New-template.dwt" codeOutsideHTMLIsLocked="false" -->
<head>
<meta name="keys" content="kennedy assassination, jim garrison, john f. kennedy, assassination, assassination of president kennedy, robert kennedy assassination, bobby kennedy, thane cesar, thane eugene cesar, jack kennedy, clay shaw, david atlee phillips, CIA, c.i.a., central intelligence agency, fbi, f.b.i., ARRB, Assassination Records Review Board" />

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />

<title>CTKA: Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination</title>



<link href="../reviews/styles.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />

<style>
a:hover{color:red; font-style:italic; }
</style>
<link href="../reviews/styles.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
<style type="text/css">
<!--
.style7 {color: #FF0000}
.style8 {
	color: #990000;
	font-weight: bold;
}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body>

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="1200"layout="fixed">
 <tr>

    <td width="789" valign="bottom"><img src="../images/logo_new.jpg" alt="CTKA" width="605" height="131" border="0" /></td>
    <td width="68" valign="bottom" align="right"><b><a href="http://www.ctka.net/index.html" target="_top" class="lnav">Home</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;</b>&nbsp;</td>
    <td width="76" valign="bottom" align="right"><b><a href="http://www.ctka.net/search_c.html" target="_top" class="lnav">Search</a></b>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</td>
    <td width="102" valign="bottom" align="right"><b><a href="http://www.ctka.net/getinfo.html" class="lnav">Contact&nbsp;Us</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;</b></td>
    <td width="174" valign="bottom" align="right">&nbsp;
<div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style">
  <div align="center"><a href="http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&amp;username=xa-4c66d78e47cdd16c" class="addthis_button_compact"><strong>
    <!-- AddThis Button BEGIN -->
    Share</strong></a>
      <span class="addthis_separator">|</span>
      <a class="addthis_button_facebook"></a>
      <a class="addthis_button_myspace"></a>
      <a class="addthis_button_google"></a>
    <a class="addthis_button_twitter"></a>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/250/addthis_widget.js#username=xa-4c66d78e47cdd16c"></script>
    <!-- AddThis Button END -->
  </div>
</div></td>
  </tr>
  <tr height="2" bgcolor="black">
  <td colspan="5"></td>
  </tr>
</table>

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="4" width="1200" layout="fixed">
	
 <tr>
    <td  bgcolor="#DADADA" valign="top" width="188"><p align="left" class="style5"><b>Articles</b><br />
     &nbsp; <a href="http://www.ctka.net/fullarticles.html" class="lnav">Full Article Archive<br />
       
       </a>&nbsp; <a href="http://www.ctka.net/jfkarticles.html" class="lnav">JFK&nbsp;Assassination</a><br />
     &nbsp; <a href="http://www.ctka.net/mlkarticles.html" class="lnav">MLK Assassination</a><br />
     &nbsp; <a href="http://www.ctka.net/rfkarticles.html" class="lnav">RFK Assassination</a><br />
     &nbsp; <a href="http://www.ctka.net/backisss.html" class="lnav"><i>Probe </i>Back Issues</a><br />
     </p>
      <p class="style5"><b>Actions<br />
      </b>&nbsp; <a href="http://www.ctka.net/alerts.html" class="lnav">Alerts</a><br />
      &nbsp; <a href="http://www.ctka.net/Letters.htm" class="lnav">Letters</a></p>
      <p class="style5"><b>About CTKA<br />
        <a href="../getinfo.html" class="lnav">
      &nbsp; </a> </b><a href="../whoweare.html" class="lnav">What CTKA Is</a> </p>
      <p class="style5"><b> Resources<br />
      </b>&nbsp; <a href="http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/" class="lnav">National Archives</a><br />
      &nbsp; <a href="http://www.ctka.net/links.html" class="lnav">Links</a> </p>
      <p class="style5"><b>CTKA</b>&nbsp;formerly&nbsp;published <i><b>Probe&nbsp;Magazine</b></i>. Most of
      the articles on this site first appeared in <i><b>Probe</b></i>. We will
      occasionally add new articles as appropriate.&nbsp;      </p>
      <p class="style5">If you would like to submit an article to be considered
        for publication on this site, please send mail to us at <a href="mailto:ctka@webcom.com" class="lnav">here</a>.</p>
      <hr />
      <div style="background-color:dadada;padding:1px">

<div align="center">
  <p><font  size="+2" color="red"><b>BILLBOARD</b></font><br />
    </p>
  <p class="style1">New Articles/Reviews</p>
  <div align="left">    
    <p>Jim DiEugenio analyzes and
        summarizes Larry Hancock's interesting and unique new book <a href="../reviews/nexus_review.html"><em>Nexus: The
      CIA and Political Assassination</em></a><br />
    Reviewed by</p>
    <p>Jim DiEugenio reviews the <a href="http://consortiumnews.com/2012/01/03/why-mr-hardball-found-jfk-elusive/">work
        of Chris Matthews</a> on the life and death <br />
of President Kennedy, including his latest biography, &quot;Jack Kennedy: <br />
Elusive hero&quot;.</p>
    <p> Mark Lane's latest book, <em><a href="../reviews/last_word_lane.html"><br />
      The Last Word: My <br />
  Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK</a></em><a href="../reviews/last_word_lane.html">.&quot;</a><br />
  Review by 
  Martin Hay </p>
    <p><a href="../reviews/kelly_north_review.html">BETRAYAL
      IN DALLAS</a>:
      LBJ, the Pearl Street Mafia, and the Murder of President Kennedy<br />
      Reviewed by <em>William Davy</em> </p>
    <p><a href="2011/The_Second_Dallas.html"><em>The Second Dallas</em></a>,
      a DVD Robert Kennedy documentary produced, written and directed by Massimo
      Mazzucco. Reviewed by Jim DiEugenio    </p>
    <p class="style5"><em><a href="journalist_&amp;_JFK_King.html">The
      Connally Bullet</a> </em>Powerful evidence that Connally was hit by a
      bullet from a different assassin, by Robert Harris</p>
    <p class="style5"><em><a href="journalist_&amp;_JFK_King.html">Journalists
      and JFK</a></em>, those who were in and around Dealey Plaza that
      day and those who made a career of the case afterwards.<br />
      <a href="journalist_&amp;_JFK_King.html">Intro</a> By Gary King.</p>
    <p class="style5">Joseph Green on the late <a href="../reviews/Manning_Marable_Malcolm_X_Green.html">Manning Marable's new full scale
      biography of Malcolm X.</a></p>
    <p class="style5"><a href="MJ 12 intro_Alien Dulles.html"><em>JFK and
        the Majestic Papers: The History of a Hoax</em></a> by Seamus
      Coogan </p>
    <p align="center" class="style5">- and -</p>
    <p class="style5"><a href="failings_farrell.html">Seamus Coogan on
      Joseph Farrell's new book</a> <em>LBJ and the Conspiracy to Kill Kennedy:
        A Coalescence of Interests</em><span class="style5"><br />
        </span></p>
    <span class="style5"><a href="../reviews/mantik_thomas_review_pt1.html">A Comprehensive Review by David Mantik</a> of <i>Hear
      No Evil: Social Constructivism and the Forensic Evidence in the Kennedy
      Assassination</i><br />
      by Donald Byron Thomas</span>
    <p align="left" class="style5"><a href="../2010/wiki.html">The
      Real Wikipedia?</a> by JP Mroz and Jim DiEugenio (3 part series)<br />
    </p>
    <p align="left" class="style5">Sirhan and the RFK Assassination<a href="Grand_Illusionpt1-a.html"> <br />
      Part I: The Grand Illusion </a> <a href="Grand_Illusionpt2.html">Part
        II: Rubik's Cube</a> by Lisa Pease</p>
    <p align="left" class="style5"><a href="batey_article.html">Who is
      Anton Batey</a>? <br />
      CTKA takes a close
      look at a most curious radio host who is a JFK denier, Chomskyite, and
      yet happens to be in league with John McAdams and David Von Pein. Yep,
      its all true.<br />
      <a href="batey_article.html">Part 1</a><br />
      <a href="batey_article_part2.html">Part 2</a></p>
    <p class="style5"><a href="http://www.ctka.net/reviews/horne_jd.html"><em>Inside
      the ARRB</em></a> Reviews
      of Douglas Horne's multi-volume study of the declassified medical evidence
      in the JFK case. Reviewed by Jim DiEugenio, David Mantik and Gary Aguilar. <br />
    </p>
  </div>
  <div class="bullet" id="mantik_thomas2"></div>
  <hr />
  <p align="left" class="style2"><span class="style5 style7">COMING SOON:</span></p>
  <div align="left">
    <p>Exclusive excerpts from Mitchell Warriner's long awaited new book on <br />
      the Jim Garrison investigation</p>
    <p>Gary Aguilar and Pat Speer continue to critique the work of Professor <br />
      John McAdams, &quot;JFK Assassination Logic&quot;</p>
    <p class="style3">Billy Kelly does an update and addition to the Chicago plot to kill JFK.</p>
    <p class="style5">Joseph Green reviews the new book edited by Caroline Kennedy
      and <br />
      Michael Beschloss, &quot;Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on
      Life with John F. Kennedy&quot;</p>
    <p class="style5">Bill Davy continues our Wikipedia exposure series by examining an entry dealing with the JIm Garrison investigation.</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p class="style3">&nbsp;</p>
  </div>
  </div>
<hr/>
      </div>
      <p>.</p>    </td>
    <td width="815" valign="top" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
	
	<!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="EditRegion1" -->
      <h1>Who is Anton Batey?</h1>
      <h2>Part Two: Batey Backs the Warren Commission Cover-Up</h2>
      <h3>by Brian Hunt with James DiEugenio</h3>
      <hr />
      <h3>Structuralism Makes a Quick Exit</h3>
      <p>As made clear in the <a href="batey_article.html">first part of this
          essay</a>, in his distorted and
        misinformed view of President Kennedy, Anton Batey models himself on
        Noam Chomsky. He uses a structural approach in his analysis of President
        Kennedy. That is, since the USA operates in a sick political and economic
        system, no one can rise above it. Therefore, Kennedy was really no different
        than Presidents Nixon, Johnson, and Eisenhower. Like Noam Chomsky, Batey
        then uses that premise to attack Kennedy&#8217;s presidency. The problem,
        as we showed, is that they both <em>begin</em> with the premise. And,
        to them, upholding that premise is more important than evaluating the
        evidence. Therefore, they have to manipulate and distort and omit so
        much evidence that their analysis is stilted and eccentric. The underlying
        problem&#8212;as writers like <a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKgibsonD.htm">Donald
        Gibson</a> and <a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmahoneyR.htm">Richard
        Mahoney</a> have demonstrated&#8212;is that Kennedy was not part of the
        Power Elite, and did not aspire to be part of it. This is why, as Donald
        Gibson has shown, Kennedy and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Rockefeller">David
        Rockefeller</a>&#8212;the acknowledged leader of the Eastern Establishment
        at the time&#8212;had no time or sympathy for each other. (See Gibson&#8217;s <em>Battling
        Wall Street</em> throughout, but especially pgs. 73-76) The reason Kennedy
        made his historic 1957 Senate speech on the pitfalls of French colonialism
        in Algeria and Vietnam is because he had been in country when the French
        empire there was falling. So he understood that the Vietnam conflict
        was not really about communism, but about nationalism. And he said this
        many times, and took considerable heat for it. (See Mahoney, <em>JFK:
        Ordeal In Africa</em>, pgs. 14-23)</p>
      <p>As we have seen, in his structuralist approach, Batey somehow misses
        all of this pertinent material&#8212;and much more&#8212;which no serious
        historian could do. This indicates the dangers of using this approach
        to history. First, a structuralist approach is only as good as the person
        who uses it. If that writer is too biased one way or the other, the result
        will suffer greatly. To make a point of comparison, <a href="http://www.michaelparenti.org/">Michael
        Parenti</a> is also a structuralist. Yet he understands that there are
        men and women who occasionally manage to rise above the system and do
        some good for a great number of people, e.g., Franklin Roosevelt. And
        Parenti also understands that political conspiracies do exist, and they
        are proven to exist. To use one example, the heist of the 2000 election
        in Florida by Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris. Even though this was done
        in broad daylight&#8212;what with roadblocks set up to hinder people
        from voting&#8212;no person was even interviewed by any law enforcement
        arm, let alone indicted. The political result of this was catastrophic:
        George W. Bush created a totally unjustified war in Iraq. A war that
        Al Gore would not have started. So not only do political conspiracies
        exist, if not addressed, prosecuted, and stopped, they can have horrendous
        results for hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people.</p>
      <p>The second problem with using the structuralist approach is that it
        tends to sweep all contrary facts or evidence into an ideological whirlpool.
        That is, facts get discounted, data gets warped, and key events are sometimes
        omitted. Because, as alluded to above, what matters the most to people
        like Chomsky and Batey is keeping the structure intact. If facts or data
        collide with that structure, it&#8217;s the facts or data that get discarded
        or discounted. This is a serious problem for people who actually care
        about things like accuracy, fairness, and completeness. This glaring
        shortcoming was manifest in the first part of this essay, when Batey
        dealt with Kennedy&#8217;s presidency. It is just as evident in this
        part, dealing with Batey&#8217;s comments and approach to Kennedy&#8217;s
        murder.</p>
      <p>But what is so odd about Batey&#8217;s structuralist allegiance is that
        it now&#8212;with Kennedy&#8217;s murder&#8212;completely disappears.
        That is, in his discussion of the Warren Commission and its presentation
        of evidence, you will nowhere find any discussion of the lives and careers
        of men like Allen Dulles, John McCloy, Gerald Ford, and J. Edgar Hoover.
        This is astonishing, in two aspects. First, it was these men, not Kennedy,
        who had played such a huge role in being &#8216;Present at the Creation,&#8217; that
        is in forming and supporting that Eastern Establishment, which is responsible
        for setting up and maintaining the structure of American government in
        the 20<sup>th</sup> century. Therefore, a structuralist should surely
        be concerned with that. Because in this case, unlike with Kennedy&#8217;s,
        one would not have to juggle, manipulate, and distort the evidence. There
        are books on these men in which tons of evidence exists to make that
        straightforward case. They were clearly responsible for some of the worst
        American crimes of the 20<sup>th</sup> century. Secondly, to somehow
        suppose that these men would not manipulate the evidence if they wished
        to is simply to ignore the reality of who they were. And the proof of
        that is a fact that Batey completely ignores. Sen. Richard Russell, Representative
        Hale Boggs, and Senator John Sherman Cooper had to be gulled into supporting
        the Warren Report. And Russell conducted his own investigation in which
        he came to the opposite conclusion of the Commission. (<a href="http://ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_8_review.html">See
        here</a> for the proof of that, and also for summaries of who Dulles,
        McCloy, and Ford really were.)</p>
      <p>In other words, in an unexplained inconsistency, Batey now completely
        drops his method of approach when he discusses the Commission. Why? Since
        he never tells us, we can go ahead and logically deduce a reason. If
        one were to detail just who these men were, then one would have to question
        what they did, and why President Johnson had them running this investigation.
        After all, President Kenney had fired Allen Dulles , thereby ending his
        long intelligence career. Robert Kennedy was the first Attorney General
        who actually exercised some degree of control over Hoover. After JFK
        was killed, Hoover had Bobby Kennedy&#8217;s private line to his office
        removed. (Antony Summers, <em>Official and Confidential</em>, p. 315)
        As Walt Brown has shown, Dulles was the most active member of the Commission.
        (See, <em>The Warren Omission</em>, pgs. 83-87) The Warren Report itself
        says that Hoover and the FBI were responsible for the vast majority of
        the investigation. (See, p. xii) Why would such men, who clearly had
        no love for JFK, bend over backwards to find out the truth about his
        death? The fact is they did not. For example, the day after the murder,
        Hoover was so concerned about who killed President Kennedy that he was
        at the racetrack. (Summers, op. cit.) To leave things like this out,
        and much more, is not writing history. And it is not honest scholarship.
        It is depriving the listener of important information. As we will see,
        not only does Batey do that, he goes even further. He eliminates any
        record of evidence manipulation, and he then rushes to embrace discredited
        sources who he knows will give him false information without the fingerprints
        of manipulation on it, e.g., David Von Pein and John McAdams and Dale
        Myers.</p>
      <h3>Chomsky Discredits Himself</h3>
      <p>As we have seen, Batey supports Chomsky in his unsupportable take on
        Kennedy&#8217;s intent to withdraw from Vietnam. He supports him even
        though there is now a small shelf of books on the subject featuring new
        evidence to support the thesis set forth in Oliver Stone&#8217;s film
        by Fletcher Prouty and John Newman. One reason these new books are there
        is that the <a href="http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/contents.htm">Assassination
        Records Review Board</a> (ARRB) declassified new documents that support
        Prouty and Newman and discredit Chomsky. This declassification process
        occurred in 1997. Any serious scholar would have to consider new evidence
        when it is declassified. Chomsky did not. In his recent book called <em>Hopes
        and Prospects</em>, in conjunction with this issue, he wrote: &#8220;On
        these matters see my <em>Rethinking Camelot</em>... . Much more material
        has appeared since, but while adding some interesting nuances, it leaves
        the basic picture intact.&#8221;  (pgs. 123, 295) In other words, the
        800 pages of new ARRB documents in release on the subject, and the several
        new books published amount to &#8220;nuances.&#8221;  As we revealed
        in <a href="http://www.ctka.net/2011/batey_article.html">Part One</a>,
        the &#8220;nuances&#8221; include President Johnson confessing in February
        of 1964 that he himself knows he is breaking with Kennedy&#8217;s policy.
        They include the records of the <a href="http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Walkthrough_-_Vietnam_in_Late_1963">May
        1963 Sec Def meeting in Hawaii</a> where McNamara is actually formulating
        that withdrawal plan&#8212;with no reference in that plan to a contingency
        upon victory. We can go on and on. But the point is made. Through a combination
        of arrogance and ideology, Chomsky and Batey are immune to evidence.</p>
      <p>It is imperative to keep the above in mind as we go to Batey now using
        Chomsky as an authority on the JFK assassination&#8212;which he does.
        Consider this quote by Batey on the record of the JFK assassination: &#8220;Chomsky
        studied it, but found no evidence of conspiracy. And he&#8217;s right.&#8221;  (One
        year ago, Batey&#8217;s JFK and Vietnam YouTube channel.) In light of
        what we discovered in <a href="http://www.ctka.net/2011/batey_article.html">Part
        One</a>, this is stunning. For the truth is precisely the opposite. As
        Ray Marcus (in <em>Probe</em>) and Martin Schotz (in his book <em>History
        Will not Absolve Us</em>) have revealed, in mid-1969, Chomsky was utterly
        convinced by just four pieces of evidence that Kennedy was killed by
        a conspiracy. He was so convinced that he seriously contemplated leading
        an attempt to reopen the investigation into the assassination. Now are
        we to believe that Chomsky then read the over 30 volumes of the Warren
        Commission and House Select Committee on Assassinations, plus the total
        of four million documents, including the two million declassified by
        the ARRB, at the National Archives on the Kennedy case? Not a snowball&#8217;s
        chance in Hades. So either Chomsky is lying and Batey is rubber-stamping
        the lie, or Batey is lying and Chomsky did not say this. Either way,
        Chomsky is in no way, shape, or form an expert on the evidence in the
        JFK case. For Batey to proffer him as such is simply piffling.</p>
      <p>But yet, neither is Batey. In the &#8220;comment&#8221; sections of
        his YouTube videos labeled &#8220;Oswald Debate: 1963&#8221;, he admits
        that he has read 14 books on the subject. In the hierarchical pantheon
        of JFK researchers, this would rank him as about a second semester freshman.
        Now, if he has only read 14 books on the subject, then one can imagine
        what his reading level is in regards to official government reports (e.g.
        CIA Inspector General reports on the plots to kill Castro, and the Bay
        of Pigs), and the hundreds of thousands of pages declassified since 1994.</p>
      <p>Now if Chomsky is an amateur on the JFK case, and if Batey is a freshman,
        where does Batey get his information on the assassination? He himself
        says that, &#8220;Concerning the assassination itself, probably Posner&#8217;s
        book.&#8221;  (Batey&#8217;s Channel 6) This is the repeatedly discredited
        Gerald Posner, whose book, Case Closed, was published before the ARRB
        began its work. From that statement one can see
        that Batey is as biased and irresponsible on the facts of the murder
        of President Kennedy as he is on his policies.</p>
      But in his attempt to bolster the bloody corpse of the Warren Commission,
      Batey&#8217;s enthusiasm knows no bounds. Reading Posner is not enough.
      He actually dropped an open invitation to any Commission advocates to debate
      a Commission critic on a radio show he hosts in Detroit. One of the people
      he tried to recruit was David Von Pein. In a recent conversation on alt.conspiracy.jfk,
      Von Pein tried to deny that he knew Batey was in the Warren Commission
      camp from the beginning. But Tom Rossley, who ended up debating John McAdams
      on Batey&#8217;s show, reminded him that Batey admitted this himself at
      the start of his recruitment drive. Why did Anton go on the recruiting
      drive: &#8220;To be frank, it&#8217;s getting annoying because there are
      no lone-gunman advocates that are stepping up to the plate. The guy who
      wrote that JFK 100 [Dave Reitzes] won&#8217;t do it, and I think that is
      messed up because he created that famous page refuting the BS that Stone
      said in <em>JFK</em>.&#8221;  Clearly, Batey in on the war path here to
      find someone&#8212;anyone&#8212;to stamp out the pestilence of the defilers
      of the Warren Commission and to pin JFK&#8217;s murder on that Krazy Kid
      Oswald. It is fascinating that he should turn to Reitzes, especially for
      information on how to rebut Stone. For like the Establishment, Batey is
      outraged that Stone actually made a film that placed the critics in a sympathetic
      light and pictured Kennedy at odds with the Pentagon and CIA, which, as
      we have shown, he was. It&#8217;s rather ironic, actually, since Batey
      also claims that Stone&#8217;s <em>JFK</em> also helped to influence his
      views on politics (Batey&#8217;s Channel&#8212;2).
      <p>The date of this colloquy was in late March of 2009 on the IMDB forum
        concerning Stone&#8217;s film. And in his conversation with Von Pein,
        Batey admits his reason for the recruitment drive. He first calls Von
        Pein &#8220;among the leading lone gunman advocates&#8221; and then adds, &#8220;And
        you obviously know more than me of the subject... which is why I asked
        you to be on.&#8221; Von Pein&#8217;s Youtube channel is also the only
        one in which Batey subscribes to regarding the Kennedy assassination
        (see Batey&#8217;s Youtube Subscriptions, and you&#8217;ll find Von Pein).
        In other words, he knows his 14 books are not anywhere near enough to
        survive a debate with any serious Commission critic. But the crucial
        point to be made here is this: Not only does Batey have only a small
        background knowledge of the Kennedy case; but that he is so biased in
        his viewpoint that he is irritated that so many people believe the opposite
        of what he does that he goes over to the most extreme advocates of the
        Krazy Kid Oswald fantasy. That is John McAdams, Von Pein, and Reitzes.
        In other words, to men who are as imbalanced and monomaniacal as he is.
        Again, this is not scholarship. This is not an appeal to the so-called
        declassified record. This is a man on a Vince Bugliosi type of jihad.</p>
      <h2>Batey on the Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination</h2>
      <blockquote>
        <p><em>&#8220;Yes I believe in the single bullet fact, which I can easily
          defend. If you want to check it fine with me.&#8221;   (Batey&#8217;s
          Channel&#8212;11)
          &#8220;The bullet did not have to curve. Conspiracy theorists don&#8217;t have
          Kennedy and Connally lined up right in their diagrams. In reality, Connally
          was sitting more inward and was lower. When you account for that, it goes in
          a straight line. It doesn&#8217;t curve all over the place.&#8221;  (Batey's
          Channel&#8212;13)</em></p>
      </blockquote>
      <p><strong>Comment:</strong> This is clearly based upon the ABC/Dale Myers
        fraud as represented in the Peter Jennings debacle back in 2003. Evidently
        Batey&#8217;s incontinent scholarship allowed him to avoid all the eviscerating
        critiques of Myers&#8217; simulation. Or the fact that Myers used to
        be in the conspiracy camp, but is making a lot more money now as a Commission
        supporter. Either Batey is unaware of these facts, or if he is aware
        of them he is keeping them from his listeners. (<a href="http://ctka.net/dale.html">Click
        here</a> to see a devastating expose of Myers, that somehow Batey missed.)</p>
      <p>But there is a second point to be made here that is even more potent
        from an evidentiary point of view, and indicates just how uninformed
        Batey is. If there is one thing that the ARRB declassified files reveals
        without question it is this: The single bullet theory never happened.
        And the FBI and Hoover knew it didn&#8217;t. <a href="http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm">Gary
        Aguilar and Josiah Thompson</a> combed the FBI files to find the evidence
        that Hoover had sent an agent to interview the witnesses who had discovered
        CE 399 at Parkland Hospital. The record of said interview did not exist
        in individual summary form. It only existed as part of a large report.
        So the two men went and talked to the agent who reportedly gave the nearly
        pristine bullet, exhibit CE399, to hospital workers Darrell Tomlinson
        and O. P. Wright. When they found Bardwell Odum he said that no such
        thing happened. And he would have remembered if it did because he knew
        Wright. Further, he would have filed a detailed report on it. (<em>The
        Assassinations</em>, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, p. 284.)
        In other words, Hoover falsified the record. And in fact, the FBI knew
        that CE 399 was planted on the day of the assassination. For they called
        Tomlinson, the man who actually picked it up off a gurney, late on the
        night of the assassination.  &#8220;They wanted to speak to him about
        the bullet. Tomlinson said that thy &#8216;told me to keep my mouth shut...[about]
        what I found....Just don&#8217;t discuss it.&#8217; &#8221; (<em>Best
        Evidence</em>, by David Lifton, p. 591)</p>
      <p>How did the FBI know that CE 399 was a plant that they had to shut up
        Tomlinson about? Because it was not the same bullet found at Parkland.
        Wright had told this to Josiah Thompson in 1966 for his book <em>Six
        Seconds in Dallas</em>. (p. 175) He described the bullet as a lead colored,
        sharp-nosed hunting round, not the copper coated, round nosed, military
        round in evidence today.</p>
      <p>But they knew it that day for another reason. Whatever bullet was found
        on the gurney was turned over to the Secret Service. It ended up at the
        White House and was given to FBI agent Elmer Todd. Todd then gave the
        bullet to FBI examiner Robert Frazier at the FBI lab that same day. Here
        is the problem. Todd got the bullet at 8:50 PM. Frazier received the
        bullet at 7:30 PM. Which, of course, is impossible. Further, Hoover wrote
        that Todd&#8217;s initials are on the bullet. Today, on whatever bullet
        is in the National Archives, <a href="http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html">they
        are not</a>.</p>
      <p>In and of itself, just this point proves that there was a conspiracy,
        and that the FBI was involved in the cover-up the day it happened. So
        much for Batey&#8217;s single bullet &#8220;fact.&#8221;</p>
      <blockquote>
        <p><em>&#8220;Also, there is no &#8216;circumstantial evidence&#8217; that
          suggests that there was a second shooter.&#8221;  (ibid, Chomsky on
          JFK &amp; Vietnam&#8212;3)</em></p>
      </blockquote>
      <p><strong>Comment:</strong> Oh really? What about the testimony of Lee
        Bowers, a worker in the railway yards behind the picket fence. He talked
        about three cars he saw drive into the parking lot area behind that fence
        about 25 minutes before the assassination. The driver of the second car
        looked like he was speaking into a phone or a mike, since he held something
        up to his mouth. At the time of the assassination, Bowers saw two men
        standing between his vantage point and the mouth of the triple underpass.
        The place where many people believe the grassy knoll assassin fired from.
        As immortalized by the film <em>JFK</em>, this is what Bowers then said: &#8220;At
        the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I have
        described were, there was a flash of light... or something I could not
        identify... some unusual occurrence&#8212;a flash of light or smoke or
        something which caused me to feel that something out of the ordinary
        had occurred there.&#8221;  (Jim Marrs, <em>Crossfire</em>, pgs. 75-77)</p>
      <p>But that&#8217;s not all. Not by a long shot. Bowers testimony is especially
        compelling when coupled with that of Sam Holland. Holland was standing
        on the overpass watching the motorcade. He then heard four shots, the
        last two almost on top of each other. He looked over at the grassy knoll
        and said he saw a puff of smoke beneath some trees there. Holland and
        three other witnesses ran to that area because of the sound and smoke.
        (Thompson. p. 121) When he got there, he saw footprints that resembled
        a lion in a cage pacing back and forth. J. C. Price said he saw someone
        running from this area with something in his hand, which he said could
        have been a headpiece. (ibid, p. 123)</p>
      <p>The list could go on and on, but the point is made. Batey&#8217;s 14
        books are failing him. So is his reliance on McAdams, Reitzes, Myers,
        and Von Pein.</p>
      <blockquote>
        <p><em>&#8220;... just as the films shows the back of Kennedy&#8217;s head
          perfectly in [tact], while showing a huge wound to the FRONT, which
          is consistent with a shot from behind. The Zapruder film is also unswerving
          regarding eyewitness testimony, the autopsy photos and X-rays.&#8221;  (ibid,
          Chomsky on JFK &amp; Vietnam&#8212;4)</em></p>
      </blockquote>
      <p><strong>Comment:</strong> This is simply not true. As many commentators
        have proven, e.g., Robert Groden and Jim Fetzer included, you can see
        a hole in the back of JFK&#8217;s head in the Zapruder film. (See the
        last photo in the book <em>High Treason</em>, especially in the hard
        cover version.) You can also see, as Bill Miller has shown with stills,
        the coning effect of the back of his head being stretched out. What this
        indicates is a hit to JFK from the front. What the last part of this
        one means is Batey&#8217;s secret. The film actually backs up the most
        recent critical work on things like the autopsy photos and x-rays. Work
        by people like Doug Horne, David Mantik, and Groden, which indicates
        they were tampered with.</p>
      <blockquote>
        <p><em>&#8220;I think that&#8217;s the crux of the matter. Not only is
          there not a shred of evidence suggesting a &#8220;second gunman&#8221; on
          or around the grassy knoll (if you want to continue the debate I&#8217;d
          love to) but all of the evidence points to Oswald&#8212;ONLY Oswald.&#8221;  (ibid,
          Chomsky on JFK &amp; Vietnam&#8212;4)</em></p>
      </blockquote>
      <p><strong>Comment:</strong> The first part, about the grassy knoll, has
        been discredited already. But to say that &#8220;all of the evidence
        points to Oswald&#8212;ONLY Oswald,&#8221; well, this is again made in
        spite of the evidence not because of it. For starters, there is the ammo
        problem. The FBI searched every gun and ammo shop in Dallas. No one ever
        sold Oswald this particular type of ammunition. And there was no such
        ammo found in his belongings after the fact. (Henry Hurt, <em>Reasonable
        Doubt</em>, p.105) Does Batey think that someone gave Oswald four bullets
        and then said, &#8220;Go kill Kennedy with these.&#8221;?</p>
      <p>What about the fact that the Warren Commission, using some of the best
        riflemen from the military, could not find anyone who could duplicate
        the shooting skill of Oswald, i.e., firing three shots in six seconds
        and scoring 2 of 3 direct hits. (Sylvia Meagher, <em>Accessories after
        the Fact</em>, p. 108) And by doing this, as in other matters, the Commission
        cheated. Because Oswald was a quite mediocre shot. Not anywhere near
        the skill level of the military officers employed by the Commission.
        (Hurt, pgs. 98-100)</p>
      <p>Third, what is the evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor at the
        time of the shooting? According to Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles,
        who were on the stairs headed downward about 20 seconds after the shooting,
        they did not see him. (Gerald McKnight, <em>Breach of Trust</em> pgs.
        113-14, p. 399) Further, Carolyn Arnold said she had seen Oswald on the
        first floor at around 12:25 PM. (ibid, p. 114) How on earth could Oswald
        be downstairs at 12:25, and then go upstairs and do all the things necessary
        to prepare for the shooting in that short of a period of time? Less than
        five minutes. For example, like putting the rifle together, erecting
        a barrier of boxes, and then wiping some of the boxes clean of his fingerprints.
        Especially since Bonnie Ray Williams said he was on the sixth floor until
        12: 20. And he saw no one. (Anthony Summers, <em>Conspiracy</em>, p.
        76)</p>
      <p>The capper in all this is a piece of evidence that David Josephs has
        found: an official invitation for Dallas citizens to attend Kennedy&#8217;s
        speech at the Trade Mart that day. The time of the dinner was twelve
        noon. In other words, the motorcade, as often happens, was late. Oswald
        would have had to be perched with gun in hand at that window from before
        noon until 12:30, and we know he was not. (<a href="http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16336&amp;st=0">Click
        here</a> for the evidence.)</p>
      <p>In other words, Oswald was not in the window when he needed to be, did
        not have the shooting skill necessary, and he never purchased the ammo
        for that rifle. And as we already established, the bullet found at Parkland
        was not the right one for the rifle anyway. So much for &#8220;all the
        evidence&#8221; pointing toward Oswald.</p>
      <blockquote>
        <p><em>&#8220;Going &#8216;back and to the left&#8217; is not an indication
          of where the shot was fired from, especially if you get hit directly
          in the brain. Also, frame 312-313 Kennedy&#8217;s head goes forward.&#8221;  (Chomsky
          on JFK &amp; Vietnam&#8212;5)</em></p>
      </blockquote>
      <p><strong>Comment:</strong> Again, this shows just how current Batey is
        in the research field. The man who first publicized this slight, soft,
        forward movement was Josiah Thompson in his book <em>Six Seconds in Dallas</em>.
        He had to watch the film several times to catch the forward movement,
        it was that indiscernible. (pgs. 87-89) At 313, Kennedy&#8217;s entire
        body&#8212;not just his head&#8212;rockets backward with tremendous force,
        bouncing him off the back seat. It is a singular strophe that is unforgettable
        to see. At the time, Thompson matched up this double head movement with
        Holland&#8217;s testimony of hearing two shots almost simultaneously.
        That is, Kennedy was hit twice in the head at almost the same time. (ibid,
        p. 95)</p>
      <p>Batey obviously is trying to explain this in pure Von Pein/McAdams mumbo-jumbo
        about the &#8220;neuromuscular reaction&#8221; as devised by inveterate
        Warren Commission employee Larry Sturdivan. Ignoring the fact that Sturdivan
        has been completely discredited by two peer-reviewed reports for his
        work on the Neutron Activation Analysis, David Mantik and Randy Robertson
        have both discredited him on this issue. First, the experiment used by
        Sturdivan, the shooting of a goat, was misrepresented. All four extremities
        of the animal extended outward. This did not happen with Kennedy. But
        secondly, as Mantik notes, the nervous system of a human is quite different
        and more complex. And there were differences noted in the literature
        for humans. First, the time it takes to get a reaction is not at the
        time of impact but at or near the time of death. Secondly, &#8220;...the
        observed reaction in the film is much too fast to fit with such a reflex&#8221; and
        by a factor of 5 to 10, which makes this explanation highly implausible.
        (<em>Assassination Science</em>, p. 281)</p>
      <p>Third, there is no other way to explain the hole in the back of Kennedy&#8217;s
        head than with a shot from the front. And, as we shall see, although
        Batey tries to deny it, there is no doubt that this rear skull wound
        existed. Fourth, there is no other way to explain the massive damage
        done to Kennedy&#8217;s brain except by two shots. The witness testimony
        on this is almost as convincing as the testimony about the hole in the
        back of the head. And as Doug Horne proves in the third volume of <em>Inside
        the ARRB</em>, the photos of Kennedy&#8217;s brain in the National Archives
        are substitutes, not the originals. This is certified by the powerful
        ARRB testimony of the man who was supposed to have taken them, John Stringer.
        Stringer says they are not his. (Horne, pgs. 806-10)</p>
      <blockquote>
        <p><em>&#8220;The evidence that there was not nor could there have been
          a gunman on the knoll is overwhelming. Lee Bowers did not see him,
          Marilyn Sitzman, Abraham Zapruder, and Emmet Hudson did not see him
          or hear him, even though they should have. This &#8216;knoll gunman&#8217; was
          unseen by anyone, and left no evidence behind.&#8221;  (ibid)</em></p>
      </blockquote>
      <p><strong>Comment:</strong> Of the four witnesses mentioned, only Bowers
        was actually behind the picket fence. Contrary to what Batey writes,
        Zapruder and Hudson indicated the sounds of the shots came from behind
        them, that is behind the picket fence. (Marrs, <em>Crossfire</em>, pgs
        66, 72) We already went over the testimony of Bowers, who said he saw
        moving cars, men, and a flash of light behind the picket fence. But Bowers
        indicated in a letter to bookseller Al Navis that he saw more than what
        he had told the Commission. Or even what he later told Mark Lane. What
        he actually saw finally surfaced in 2001.</p>
      <p>At that time researcher Debra Conway interviewed Olan Degaugh. He was
        the Supervisor of the yard Department Union Terminal Railroad Company.
        He was one position above Bowers&#8217; boss. Olan owned the parking
        lot behind the picket fence. He talked to Bowers after the assassination.
        Bowers told him that, after the shooting, he saw a man run from the fence,
        open the trunk of his car and throw something inside that looked like
        a rifle. The car had been parked next to the picket fence, and it then
        left the area. (<em>Beyond the Fence Line</em>, by Casey Quinlan and
        Brian Edwards, p. 157) James Sterling, a friend of Bowers, told Gary
        Sanders of Jim Garrison&#8217;s staff roughly the same thing back in
        1967.</p>
      <p>Somehow Batey missed all this. But that is what you get by relying on
        the work of Von Pein, Reitzes, and McAdams.</p>
      <blockquote>
        <p><em>&#8220;The Zapruder film also shows the back of JFK&#8217;s head
          intact after frame 313, which, along with the autopsy photos and personnel
          at Bethesda Hospital, contradicts what the doctors at Parkland said.&#8221;  (Oswald
          Debate: 1963&#8212;2)</em></p>
      </blockquote>
      <p><strong>Comment:</strong> Again, as adduced above, the first part of
        this is just plain wrong. The part about the Bethesda hospital personnel
        was exposed as an official lie by Gary Aguilar eleven years ago in the
        book <em>Murder in Dealey Plaza</em>. Using the declassified files of
        the House Select Committee as declassified by the ARRB, he showed that
        what was written in the HSCA report about a difference of opinion about
        this wound to the back of the head was actually a deception. And this
        deception had been bandied about by Commission advocates like John McAdams.
        Aguilar put together a chart in that book which showed that, far from
        there being a difference, the personnel agreed that there had been a
        hole in the back of the skull. (See p. 199) Gary uses over forty interviews
        and affidavits to prove this point&#8212;over twenty witnesses from each
        location, Parkland and Bethesda.</p>
      <p>The clincher in this argument is the testimony of Dr. Robert Canada
        to Michael Kurtz, reprinted by Doug Horne in Volume III of his series <em>Inside
        the ARRB</em>. (pgs. 927-28) Canada was the commanding officer at Bethesda
        that night. He told Kurtz that there was a large avulsive wound in the
        rear of Kennedy&#8217;s skull. When Kurtz replied that this was not in
        the autopsy report, Canada said, &#8220;... the document had to be rewritten
        to conform to the lone assassin thesis... Dr. Canada insisted that the
        contents of this interview be kept secret until at least a quarter century
        after his death.&#8221;</p>
      <h3>Lee Harvey Oswald</h3>
      <blockquote>
        <p><em>&#8220;Although I officially claim to be agnostic on the subject,
          I think Oswald acted alone, and did it to make a name for himself.
          One thing that the Warren Commission did that even Jim Garrison agreed
          with is catalog EVERYTHING Oswald did the 2 or 3 weeks leading up to
          the assassination. Now of course, Garrison uses that to prove Oswald
          was totally innocent, and didn&#8217;t conspire with anyone. But we
          know Oswald shot [Kennedy], and it&#8217;s an indication that he did
          it alone.&#8221;  (ibid, Oswald Debate: 1963&#8212;2)</em></p>
      </blockquote>
      <p><strong>Comment:</strong> This is more of Batey showing his reliance
        on 14 books, and then McAdams and Von Pein. Try and find in the Commission
        volumes any reference to the call attempted by Oswald the night before
        he died. The call was attempted by Oswald in the Dallas jail to former
        military intelligence officer John Hurt in North Carolina. Many people
        today, including former CIA officer Victor Marchetti, believe that call
        sealed Oswald&#8217;s death. (<a href="http://www.groverproctor.us/jfk/jfk80.html">Click
        here</a> for what Batey missed.)</p>
      <p>Further, the Commission tried to discredit each and every instance of
        an Oswald impersonation that occurred in this time frame. A good example
        being the one at the Lincoln Mercury dealership in the first week of
        November. Yet, even Vincent Bugliosi admits that this happened! (<em>Reclaiming
        History</em>, pgs. 1030-35) Also around this time period, Robert Litchfield
        claimed to see Oswald at Ruby&#8217;s Carousel Club. (John Armstrong, <em>Harvey
        and Lee</em>, p. 745) Litchfiield&#8217;s name is not in the Warren Report.
        There were credible reports by Det. Buddy Walthers that Oswald was seen
        a 3126 Harlendale, a reported safe house for anti-Castro Cubans in the
        Dallas area during the second week of November. (Ibid, p.763) This is
        also not in the Warren Report. Two witnesses said that there were records
        of phone calls between Ruby and Oswald in mid-November. (ibid p. 768-69)
        Try to find this in the Warren Report. This list could go on and on.
        And contrary to what Batey maintains, it does place Oswald in a conspiratorial
        backdrop.</p>
      <blockquote>
        <p><em>&#8220;You&#8217;re just talking about [the Fair Play for Cuba Committee]
          in New Orleans. My uncle was a member in California.&#8221;  (Oswald
          Debate: 1963&#8212;4)</em></p>
      </blockquote>
      <p><strong>Comment:</strong> Batey is trying to say here that since the
        Fair Play for Cuba Committee had several chapters throughout the USA,
        including California, then Oswald&#8217;s chapter in New Orleans was
        genuine. Batey overlooks the facts that 1.) New Orleans was not in any
        way as liberal as say San Francisco. In fact, it was a center of CIA
        and anti-Castro activity at the time Oswald was there. Which would make
        it a rather unusual place to start such an organization. 2.) Because
        of this, there were no other members of this Oswald/New Orleans chapter.
        And further, Oswald had no reported activity with any other person of
        communist persuasion in that city. 3.) As any communist of the time period
        will tell you, if you are trying to encourage citizens in such a place
        to attend meetings, it is not a good idea to leaflet on busy streets
        at the rush hour. It is much better to do it at night, leaving the literature
        in the foyer so people do not have their interest exposed in public.
        4.) As John Newman details in his book <em>Oswald and the CIA</em>, there
        were both CIA and FBI penetration operations going on against the FPCC
        at this time. The CIA operation was headed by David Phillips and Jim
        McCord. (Newman, p. 243)</p>
      <p>All the above, which Batey ignores, is important in regards to his next
        pronouncement.</p>
      <blockquote>
        <p><em>&#8220;I don&#8217;t think there is any credible evidence that Oswald
          was CIA. Of all the research I&#8217;ve done on the subject, the only
          strange thing I keep thinking about is the 531 Lafayette St/544 Camp
          Street connection. Also, on September 17, 1963, Oswald went to the
          Mexican Consulate and got permit number 24085 for a 15 day tourist
          permit. The interesting part is that number 24084 belonged to William
          Gaudet&#8212;someone who DID have established connection to the CIA.&#8221;  (Oswald
          Interview&#8212;3)</em></p>
      </blockquote>
      <p><strong>Comment:</strong> Again, the above shows the dangers of making
        wide-ranging and authoritative declarations on the basis of reading fourteen
        books. Even though there have been entire volumes written about Oswald&#8217;s
        associations with the intelligence community&#8212;e.g., John Newman&#8217;s <em>Oswald
        and the CIA</em>, Philip Melanson&#8217;s <em>Spy Saga</em>&#8212;Batey
        can only surface two pieces of evidence in this regard. Let us fill in
        some more background on the issue. How did Oswald learn Russian as quickly
        as he did in the Marines? And why was he administered a test in the language?
        Why did the Commission receive a report that Oswald was receiving language
        training at the Monterey School of the Army? (Melanson, pgs. 11-12)</p>
      <p>Could this have anything to do with his odd discharge from the Marines
        and his very fast transit to Russia after the suspicious discharge? Oswald
        left the service just three months before his enlistment was up. And
        his mother knew nine months in advance that he was leaving. (Armstrong,
        p. 221) The entire hardship discharge process took all of two weeks to
        process. Yet the HSCA discovered that these usually took from 3-6 months.
        (HSCA interview with Lt. Col. B. J Kozak, 8/2/78) Although the hardship
        discharge was centered on an alleged injury to his mother, Oswald stayed
        with her only a few days before he prepared to leave for Russia. As Melanson
        notes, and as Batey ignores, there was a false defector program being
        utilized by the Pentagon and CIA at the time to garner inside information
        about Russia. (Melanson p. 24) To most objective observers, this is what
        the Russian language training for Oswald and the phony discharge were
        all about.</p>
      <p>And this is just the beginning. There has been so much information released
        by the ARRB on this subject, that in the afterword to the reissue of
        his book, Newman actually named CIA counter- 
        intelligence chief Jim Angleton as Oswald&#8217;s controlling
        officer. (Newman, pgs. 636-37) And his book outlines a scenario in Mexico
        City in which he and David Phillips controlled and segregated Oswald&#8217;s
        files at CIA HQ in order to complete the plot that made Oswald the patsy.</p>
      <blockquote>
        <p><em>&#8220;Oswald missed the fascist ultra right winger Edwin Walker
          in the spring of &#8217;63 by inches with the Mannlicher Carcano, then
          reused it successfully in November.&#8221;  (Oswald Debate&#8212;1)</em></p>
      </blockquote>
      <p><strong>Comment:</strong> Batey is very poor at ballistics analysis.
        As we showed earlier, the bullet found at Parkland did not match the
        rifle found in the Texas School Book Depository and later attributed
        to Oswald. Well the same thing is the case in the Walker shooting. As
        Gerald McKnight writes in his fine book <em>Breach of Trust</em>, Walker
        had held the bullet fired at him in his hand. When he saw it displayed
        on TV during the HSCA hearings he was shocked. It bore no resemblance
        to the bullet he had handled. He then tried to start a campaign to withdraw
        this &#8220;substituted bullet&#8221; from the records of the Kennedy
        case. (p. 52) That makes two bullets fired by Oswald that altered their
        shape, form, and color in transit. Like Von Pein and McAdams, Batey doesn&#8217;t
        bat an eyelash.</p>
      <h3>Jack Ruby</h3>
      <p>(The following series of quotes comes from Batey's Channel&#8212;15)</p>
      <blockquote>
        <p><em>&#8220;Ruby was nuts. For some reason, conspiranoids have issues
          with that particular fact. The idea that Ruby was insane, despite a
          wealth of evidence indicating this, is something they cannot handle.
          There are no prizes for guessing why.&#8221;</em></p>
      </blockquote>
      <p><strong>Comment:</strong> This is where Batey begins to show his true
        colors, and it gets pretty disgusting. Now, instead of using the rubric
        of Oswald being crazy, he shifts it to Ruby. The problem is, that there
        is even less evidence for that in Ruby&#8217;s case than in Oswald&#8217;s.
        No serious biographer of Ruby has ever held the position that Ruby was
        demented at any time before the assassination of President Kennedy or
        when he killed Oswald. Not Seth Kantor, not Tony Summers, not Vincent
        Bugliosi, not even the Warren Commission. But now Batey plucks it out
        of the ozone and asks the listener to supply the reason.</p>
      <p>And note the cheap smear of calling Warren Commission critics, &#8220;conspiranoids.&#8221; More
        than anything else, this shows just how far Batey has descended into
        the Von Pein/McAdams camp. For these are the kinds of personal insults
        hurled by them when they also have no evidence to back up their bald
        assertions. For McAdams it&#8217;s &#8220;conspiracists&#8221; and &#8220;factoids;&#8221; for
        Von Pein it&#8217;s &#8220;kooks.&#8221;</p>
      <p>The truth is this: The HSCA concluded, after a careful consideration
        of the evidence and the uncovering of new witnesses, that Ruby had help
        getting into the police basement to kill Oswald. (HSCA Vol. IX, pgs.
        134-39) In other words, they said the Warren Commission verdict on this
        key issue was flat wrong. This is something that Batey &#8220;cannot
        handle.&#8221;  So he does not tell the listener about it. And then smears
        those who do.</p>
      <blockquote>
        <p><em>&#8220;Beyond doubt, Jack Ruby believed there was a conspiracy,
          and he believed President Johnson was part of it. But wait! That does
          NOT mean he believed President Johnson was involved in the assassination...
          Ruby believed, as his Warren Commission testimony made clear, that
          there was a conspiracy, led by the John Birch Society and supported
          by President Johnson, to blame the murder of President Kennedy on the
          Jews and to use him (Ruby, who was Jewish) as a scapegoat for this
          conspiracy. Nuts? Yes, totally nuts.&#8221;</em></p>
      </blockquote>
      <p><strong>Comment:</strong> If Ruby believed that LBJ was a part of the
        conspiracy, how could he not think he was involved in the assassination?
        What conspiracy is Batey referring to then?</p>
      <p>The second assertion, that Ruby outlined some conspiracy in his Warren
        Commission testimony is more of Batey&#8217;s balderdash. The reader
        can see this is nonsense by looking at <a href="http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=16991">Ruby&#8217;s
        testimony</a> himself. There is no such reference to any such conspiracy
        there. Which makes one wonder if Batey has read this himself, or if he
        is relying on his 14 books again.</p>
      <p>Ruby did compose an erratic letter while in jail which was later smuggled
        out. (Marrs, p. 430) In this letter he did use the term &#8220;Nazi&#8221; and
        he did implicate Johnson as part of the plot. And his behavior did get
        more erratic in jail. But there are two things to remember about this
        point. Ruby&#8217;s behavior was altered after he was in jail. Not before.
        Secondly, while in jail he was visited by the infamous CIA MK/ULTRA doctor
        Louis J. West. (Michael Benson, <em>Who&#8217;s Who in the JFK Assassination</em>,
        p. 475) West once injected an elephant with so much LSD, he killed the
        animal. (<em>Acid Dreams</em> by Martin Lee and Bruce Shlain, p. 189)
        The visit by West was made about a month after Ruby was convicted. West
        diagnosed Ruby as being in a paranoid state and suffering from hallucinations.
        Ruby denied this strongly, which West took as further proof he was correct
        in his diagnosis. Ruby now became a candidate for treatment of mental
        disorders. So Ruby was now put on &#8220;happy pills,&#8221; which did
        not seem to work well. Now his behavior got even more and more erratic.
        (ibid)</p>
      <p>Again, somehow Batey leaves out the telling detail that casts a different
        shadow over the event.</p>
      <blockquote>
        <p><em>&#8220;Conspiranoids place great emphasis on Oswald&#8217;s continual
          denials that he was responsible for murdering the President, even when
          he was dying, yet they seem unable to extend the same courtesy to Ruby,
          who, in the days before his death, offered to take another lie detector
          test to prove he acted alone in murdering Oswald, and stated &#8216;There
          is nothing to hide. There was no one else.&#8217; &#8221;</em></p>
      </blockquote>
      <p><strong>Comment:</strong> This is ridiculous and it proves that those
        14 books Batey read must have been written by the likes of David Belin,
        Jim Moore, and Gerald Posner. It does not appear that Batey has even
        read the HSCA volumes. For one of the few good things the HSCA did was
        to do an analysis of Ruby&#8217;s FBI polygraph. The expert panel was
        appalled by what it discovered. (<a href="http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0101a.htm">HSCA
        Vol. VIII pgs. 197-218</a>) They concluded that Bell Herndon, the FBI
        technician conducting the polygraph, broke at least ten rules of good
        practice in this examination. The violations ranged from the preparation
        of questions to the actual equipment used to register reactions. The
        most serious ones were the number of questions Ruby had to answer&#8212;which
        were over a hundred. Herndon also was faulted for posing very poor &#8220;control&#8221; questions:
        those that the operator knew the respondent would probably lie to, but
        he wants to get a sample reading of what a deceptive reaction will look
        like. But third, and most serious, Herndon turned down the Galvanic Skin
        Response (GSR) control as the test wore on. This is one of the best detectors
        of deceptive criteria since it monitors sudden changes in emotion. Well,
        Herndon had this turned down too low at the beginning and then actually
        lowered it from there. The panel said the pattern should have been the
        opposite. Especially in light of all the questions asked.</p>
      <p>Herndon understood that the many, many questions wore Ruby down. As
        the panel stated &#8220;...the more a person is tested, the less he tends
        to react when lying. That is... liars become so test tired, they no longer
        produce significant physiological reaction when lying.&#8221; (ibid,
        p. 209) Secondly, with the faulty &#8220;control&#8221; questions there
        would be no good paradigm to compare Ruby&#8217;s deceptive response
        with. Third, with the GSR turned down, and then turned down even further,
        the best mode of polygraph detection would be neutered. In other words,
        Herndon&#8217;s verdict that Ruby did not lie during the test was vitiated
        by the techniques used. For example, the HSCA panel noted that Ruby&#8217;s
        reaction to an early question&#8212;&#8220;Did you assist Oswald in the
        assassination?&#8221; recorded the largest valid GSR reaction in the
        first test series. Plus it had a constant suppression of breathing and
        a rise in blood pressure. Yet, in spite of all these indications of deception,
        Herndon said Ruby was being truthful.</p>
      <p>Clearly, the fix was in on this polygraph. And either Batey does not
        know it, or he is relying on people like Von Pein or McAdams or Reitzes
        to cover it up for him. For instance, Von Pein likes to say that Ruby
        requested this test. As if that proves something. It only proves that
        Ruby thought that either 1.) The authorities would cover up for him (his
        friend Bill Alexander of the Dallas DA&#8217;s office was in the room
        during the exam) or 2.) He could bluff his way through. The second option
        failed, but the first option bailed him out.</p>
      <blockquote>
        <p><em>&#8220;If Ruby had been hired by anyone to murder the President
          he would have to shut the hell up and done his time. In fact, shutting
          the hell up was something Jack was simply incapable of doing...&#8221;</em></p>
      </blockquote>
      <p><strong>Comment:</strong> No serious critic claims that Ruby was &#8220;hired&#8221; to
        do what he did. What most people believe today is that, as a low-level
        errand-boy for organized crime, he was called in and coerced&#8212;that
        is, threatened&#8212;into doing what the did.</p>
      <p>Why? Because he was the perfect guy to do it since he knew more than
        half the police force and was on very good terms with many of them. This
        would allow him easy access to roam the corridors each day Oswald was
        incarcerated. Batey actually, and incredibly, does not tell the listener
        about Ruby&#8217;s presence at Henry Wade&#8217;s late Friday night press
        conference. There, decked out to look like a reporter, with notepad and
        pencil, he corrected an error by the DA. When Wade said Oswald was associated
        with the Free Cuba Committee, a conservative group hoping to oust Castro,
        Ruby was the only person knowledgeable enough to correct him and say
        it was the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. (Anthony Summers, <em>Conspiracy</em>,
        p. 457) Some nut huh? Most informed people think he was helping to preserve
        Oswald&#8217;s left-wing cover.</p>
      <p>The next day, as authorities were talking about transferring Oswald,
        Ruby horned in, trying to get details of the move. (ibid, p. 458) On
        Sunday morning, several witnesses said they saw Ruby in and around the
        police station early in the morning, around nine or ten. (ibid, p. 460)
        He then arranged with Karen Carlin to send her a very small amount of
        money Sunday morning. And he timed the wire with miraculous precision.
        He was a block away just a few minutes before the transfer. As the HSCA
        concluded, with new witnesses, Ruby did not walk down the Main Street
        ramp. He came in through an alley door, which was left deliberately open
        and unguarded by Sgt. Patrick Dean. (ibid, pgs. 467-68) This allowed
        him to slip into the crowd undetected. When Oswald emerged off the elevator,
        a first horn went off. Will Fritz then broke the protection pocket in
        front of Oswald, leaving him exposed. A second horn went off and Ruby
        instantly plunged forward and killed him. This is not the action of a
        nut. They are the acts of a man who knows precisely what he is doing
        and exactly when to do it. Because he has the cooperation of an inside
        man.</p>
      <h2>Epilogue</h2>
      <p>This could go on and on. We could discuss Batey&#8217;s declarations
        on Operation Northwoods, Kennedy&#8217;s order to print money through
        the Treasury instead of the Federal Reserve, civil rights policies, speeches,
        etc. And we could do the same thing to these bombastic pronouncements
        as we have done to the above. When someone is as rigorously wrong on
        so many points as Batey is, it suggests that this is not a coincidence.
        Clearly, Batey has an agenda. And it&#8217;s quite a weird one. For there
        is no one quite like him in the field. Not Chomsky, not Cockburn, not
        even Gus Russo. The first two tend to concentrate, as we showed in <a href="http://www.ctka.net/2011/batey_article.html">Part
        One</a>, on Kennedy&#8217;s foreign policy forays. Not nearly as much
        on the assassination itself as Batey. Gus Russo does deal with both.
        But in foreign policy he concentrates almost solely on Cuba, so he can
        manufacture his Cuban G-2 plot with Oswald as the triggerman.</p>
      <p>So Batey stands alone, he is a nonpareil at both distorting and smearing
        Kennedy&#8217;s presidency, and then in attempting to prop up the disgraceful
        Warren Commission.</p>
      <p>Which brings the reader full circle on the question at hand: Who is
        Anton Batey? Disinformationalist, simply misinformed, devoted ideologue?
        In essence, all three. As shown, he is greatly misinformed, not only
        on the details of Kennedy&#8217;s assassination, but of his presidency
        as well. Consequently, he feels the need to &#8220;set the record straight&#8221; by
        promoting this revisionist material on the web, in this case YouTube.
        Thus, disinformation is planted on the Internet for all to see and hear.
        And from his own statements, he has a strong political motivation for
        maligning Kennedy&#8212;it&#8217;s part and parcel with his politically
        slanted view of history, which is ostensibly Chomsky&#8217;s with regard
        to American foreign policy.</p>
      <p>Ever since Chomsky began his &#8220;career&#8221; as a political writer
        in the late 1960&#8217;s, John F. Kennedy and his administration have
        factored into most of his political writings before and after <em>Rethinking
        Camelot</em> was published. Early on, as his books such as <em>American
        Power and the New Mandarins</em> and <em>At War with Asia</em> show,
        Chomsky managed to take some potshots at the Kennedy administration,
        though not as intensely and profusely as he did later. And it appears
        to be part of a gradual process. From the time he first became a political
        writer, you could see a variety of ridiculous claims about the Kennedy
        administration. As the years progressed, those claims slowly became more
        numerous and more outlandish. By the time he did <em>Rethinking Camelot</em>,
        Chomsky had already made up his mind about JFK years beforehand. Now,
        JFK was to be rewritten not as a visionary, a source of inspiration,
        and a capable leader wanting to initiate peace during the Cold War, but
        as a hardened Cold Warrior, a Hawk, a sponsor of &#8220;state-terrorism,&#8221; and
        a war criminal. Since <em>Rethinking Camelot</em>, that has been the <em>modus
        operandi</em> for Chomsky whenever referring to Kennedy and early 1960&#8217;s
        foreign policy. In most of Chomsky&#8217;s political works, it is nearly
        impossible to go through the pages without eventually reading portions
        of misinformation/disinformation about Kennedy. Some of the material
        is recycled from earlier books of his to promote the same revisionist
        historical constant about Kennedy. So from this, Kennedy is a prominent
        element in Chomsky&#8217;s version of history, despite claiming that
        Kennedy was no different from any other Cold War president. And this
        is why Kennedy is important. Had it not been for his assassination, the
        Vietnam War would have never have happened the way it did. The U.S. would
        not have been involved militarily; over 58,000 American soldiers wouldn&#8217;t
        have died; millions of Vietnamese, Lao, and Cambodians wouldn&#8217;t
        have perished; millions of Americans would have never had the incentive
        to protest in the streets out of anger of war abroad and civil discontent
        at home; and America as a whole wouldn&#8217;t have become so disillusioned
        with the veracity, competence, and ability of its government. With the
        assassinations of the prominent political leaders and activists during
        the decade, the political Left was short on motivating leadership. From
        the turmoil, alongside many others, Noam Chomsky emerged to take the
        reins, thus formally beginning his political odyssey, and a new era of
        stagnation for the Left. Without the tumultuous events of the 1960&#8217;s,
        including the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Noam Chomsky would probably
        never have had the incentive, or really a genuine basis, to begin his
        political writings; would have never found a large, disillusioned audience
        of young adults willing to listen; and would have probably never have
        been recognized (let alone revered) outside of academic circles.</p>
      <p>But there is one important distinction between Chomsky and Batey. Batey
        has said he agrees with Chomsky almost completely on foreign policy,
        but he differs with him a lot of the time on domestic policy. This is
        undoubtedly true insofar as Batey writes for the Von Mises Institute.
        (<a href="http://mises.org/articles.aspx?AuthorId=1342">Click here</a> for
        his work there.) Ludwig Von Mises was the founder of the Austrian School
        of Economics, and his two most famous followers were Friedrich Hayek
        and Murray Rothbard. The Austrian School was virulently opposed to any
        kind of government planning and therefore strongly criticized communism,
        socialism and, most of all, the work of John Maynard Keynes. Hayek eventually
        was brought to the University of Chicago where his ideas were adapted
        for America by Milton Friedman. So with the combination of Chomsky on
        foreign policy and Freidman and Von Mises on economics, Batey becomes
        a very rare bird indeed. And as we have seen, it doesn&#8217;t matter
        to him that he is doubly wrong. As seen in his pleas to the likes of
        Von Pein and Reitzes, he can&#8217;t seem to control himself.</p>
      <p>At bottom, these antics are the ultimate result of the motivation behind
        the smears and the lies. And this is why we have written this two-part
        essay. Such individuals have to be called out and warned against, for
        they are dangerous to the analysis and interpretation of history, especially
        if it is meant only as a means to an end in some sick political game.</p>
      <p>&nbsp;</p>
      <p><script src="http://connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1"></script><fb:like href="" layout="button_count" show_faces="true" width="450" action="recommend" font=""></fb:like><!-- TemplateEndEditable -->&nbsp;</p>
    <!-- InstanceEndEditable --></td>
    <hr align="center" />
    <p align="left">&nbsp;    </p>
  <td width="145" valign="top" bgcolor="#DADADA"><p align="left"><strong>
        <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=c0a52-20&amp;o=1&amp;p=8&amp;l=as1&amp;asins=0922915822&amp;fc1=000000&amp;IS2=1&amp;lt1=_blank&amp;m=amazon&amp;lc1=0000FF&amp;bc1=000000&amp;bg1=FFFFFF&amp;f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="No" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe>
          <br />
        The Assassinations: Probe Magazine
        on JFK, MLK, RFK, and Malcolm X</strong></p>
    <p align="left" class="style8">FLASH! This book is now available
        on KIndle for the lowest price 
        ever, of $13.25.</p>
<hr align="center" />
        <p><iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=c0a52-20&amp;o=1&amp;p=8&amp;l=as1&amp;asins=1442112158&amp;ref=tf_til&amp;fc1=000000&amp;IS2=1&amp;lt1=_blank&amp;m=amazon&amp;lc1=0000FF&amp;bc1=000000&amp;bg1=FFFFFF&amp;f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="No" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe>
          <br />
          <b>The 13th Juror: The Official Transcript of the Martin Luther King Assassination Conspiracy Trial</b><br />
          <span class="style3">This book is the actual trial transcript, from beginning to end with no editing, no deletions, no opinions or commentary. This is an important and historic book for anyone interested in history or the law, or who really killed
          Martin Luther King. <a href="http://www.MLKtheTruth.com">Additional link for discount and more information.</a></span></p>
      <hr />
      <div align="center"><iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=c0a52-20&amp;o=1&amp;p=8&amp;l=as1&amp;asins=B004H4XKVQ&amp;fc1=000000&amp;IS2=1&amp;lt1=_blank&amp;m=amazon&amp;lc1=0000FF&amp;bc1=000000&amp;bg1=FFFFFF&amp;f=ifr" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="No" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</div>
      <p align="center">CTKA Recommends:<strong><br />
        &nbsp;Dissenting Views </strong> <b>by Joseph E.
      Green</b></p>
      <hr />
      <iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=c0a52-20&amp;o=1&amp;p=8&amp;l=as1&amp;asins=B004PYDLYE&amp;fc1=000000&amp;IS2=1&amp;lt1=_blank&amp;m=amazon&amp;lc1=0000FF&amp;bc1=000000&amp;bg1=FFFFFF&amp;f=ifr" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="No" frameborder="0" class="style3" style="width:120px;height:240px;"></iframe><br />
<br />
<p class="style3">Now, available in e-Book format, the 1999 groundbreaking work on the
        Jim Garrison investigation, <strong>&quot;Let Justice Be Done&quot;</strong>.
        William Davy's classic book on the Garrison case is now available from
        the Amazon Kindle store. &nbsp;Hailed by many as the definitive treatment
        of the New Orleans DA's case, <script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/s/link-enhancer?tag=c0a52-20&amp;o=1">
</script>
<noscript>
    <img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/s/noscript?tag=c0a52i-20" alt="Let Justice Be Done" />
</noscript>

&quot;Let Justice Be Done&quot; can be
        ordered with one click.<br />
        <br />  
        Please note that
        you don't need the Kindle device to read the book. You can download the
        Kindle reader app for your PAC, Smartphone or Windows 7 Cellphone for
      free from the Amazon site.</p>
      <hr />
    <p align="center"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect-home/citizensfortruth?tag-id=citizensfortruth&amp;placement=holiday-home-btn-120x90.gif&amp;site=amazon"> <img src="http://www.associmg.com/assoc/us/holiday-home-btn-120x90.gif?tag-id=citizensfortruth" border="0" height="90" width="120" alt="Shop at Amazon.com!" /></a></p></td>
  </tr>
   <tr>
     <td  bgcolor="#DADADA" valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
     <td valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
     <td valign="top" bgcolor="#DADADA">&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</table>
 
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
  
  <tr>
    <td colspan="3"></td>

  </tr>
</table>



</body>
 
<!-- InstanceEnd --></html>
