• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
David Von Pein

Discussing The Mindset Of Conspiracy Theorists

140 posts in this topic

May I also suggest that the go rounds between Colby and Cliff be shortened.

I mean can you just snip the parts you are rebutting rather than including the entire exchange. WHo wants to read all that?

Jim: I did my best with the snippage, but it's tricky sometimes to put rebuttals in proper context.

Dean: "Barry from downtown...good!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just sayingthis for the life of the thread, it is annoying to look through all this. Even though I am interested in it.

PS: IMO, he was the best small forward ever.

And BTW, Wilt Chamberlain thought so also.

A case could be made for Elgin, Larry, or Julius.

Of course Barry was the star that carried that great '75 Warriors team, but Keith Wilkes and Clifford Ray were unsung heroes. Coach Attles called guard Butch Beard from Louisville "the glue."

The Warriors went ten deep with a bunch of role players and although they swept the heavily favored Bullets, the series was closer than it seemed, with the four games being decided by 16 points.

That year, they were a true team.

Golden State went into that series as heavy dogs; Varnell went into this exchange as the heavy favorite. This time it was the favorite that won. And none of the games were that close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just sayingthis for the life of the thread, it is annoying to look through all this. Even though I am interested in it.

PS: IMO, he was the best small forward ever.

And BTW, Wilt Chamberlain thought so also.

A case could be made for Elgin, Larry, or Julius.

Of course Barry was the star that carried that great '75 Warriors team, but Keith Wilkes and Clifford Ray were unsung heroes. Coach Attles called guard Butch Beard from Louisville "the glue."

The Warriors went ten deep with a bunch of role players and although they swept the heavily favored Bullets, the series was closer than it seemed, with the four games being decided by 16 points.

That year, they were a true team.

Golden State went into that series as heavy dogs; Varnell went into this exchange as the heavy favorite. This time it was the favorite that won. And none of the games were that close.

Very good Micheal, always nice to see someone who knows what he is talking about when it comes to old school NBA

I agree with Jim that Barry is the best Small Forward ever

I will take it a step farther and say Barry was the best complete player of all time, and dont give me this he wasnt a good defender garbage when Barry led the league (as a forward!) in steals in 74-75

And while I agree that the Warriors that won in 75 were the true meaning of the word team, there is no doubt that Barry was by far the team leader

He was amazing in the finals, the Bullets had no answer for Barry, unless you call Riordan attacking Barry from behind then getting beat down by Al Attles in the final game an answer :lol:

Im biased as Barry is my favorite player, but besides Bird I see nobody who can match Barry in skill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Mike.

Probably just a coincidence, but I was walking down Haight Street a few moments ago and some guy from Brazil threw a Snickers bar at me!

:up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Mike.

Probably just a coincidence, but I was walking down Haight Street a few moments ago and some guy from Brazil threw a Snickers bar at me!

:up

No coincidence. You probably batted a home run with it... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Mike.

Probably just a coincidence, but I was walking down Haight Street a few moments ago and some guy from Brazil threw a Snickers bar at me!

:up

No coincidence. You probably batted a home run with it... :D

Alas, I was dinged by the pitch. I'm okay, tho. It's just a flesh wound.

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s Carnival so I don’t have time to reply at length I’ll try and do so sometime after Fat Tuesday. But some points were too hard to resist:

You asked “Where does it say that Oswald was a lone gunman? Where does he finger Castro for the hit?” and then you posted the part where he said just that. True he didn’t say specifically that LHO was the LONE gunman but since he mentioned no other shooters that seems implicit, in any case he nailed Oswald as the shooter and the scenario spelled out very clearly was the Russo/Gratz ‘Castro did it’ theory, emphasis added.

…as an outgrowth of the Bay of Pigs,
the CIA made several attempts on Fidel Castro's life

[…]

Unfortunately,
Castro knew of the assassination attempts
all the time [and said] . On September 7, 1963…"Let Kennedy and his brother Robert take care of themselves, SINCE THEY, TOO, CAN BE THE VICTIMS OF AN ATTEMPT WHICH WILL CAUSE THEIR DEATH."

After Kennedy was killed, the CIA launched a fantastic cover-up. MANY OF THE FACTS ABOUT OSWALD UNAVOIDABLY POINTED TO A CUBAN CONNECTION.

[Cites 3 examples of LHO’s ties to Cuba]

In a chilling parallel to their cover-up at Watergate, the CIA literally erased any connection between Kennedy's assassination and the CIA. No mention of the Castro assassination attempt was made to the Warren Commission by CIA representatives.

[Discusses CIA cover up]

. And when Nixon said, "It's likely to blow the whole Bay of Pigs" he might have been reminding Helms, not so gently, of the cover-up of the CIA assassination attempts on the hero of the Bay of Pigs, Fidel Castro -- A CIA OPERATION THAT MAY HAVE TRIGGERED THE KENNEDY TRAGEDY and which Helms desperately wanted to hide

So tell us where any of this indicates he thought the CIA was directly responsible for the assassination rather than having “triggered the Kennedy tragedy” via their attempts on Castro? Or failing that why they would want to suppress a theory that by 1995 standards was letting them off the hook?

Numerous bands changed their names, are we to say they weren’t really the same groups?

Yes, because they usually change their sound when they change personnel. The Jefferson Airplane was not the same band as the Jefferson Starship.

I made no mention of personnel changes. The Stone Temple Pilots, Velvet Underground, Dinosaur Jr. and Green Day among other changed their names without changing their sound or line ups. Would it be inaccurate to say “Jayne County has been singing since 1972” because back then she was a man who called himself Wayne County?

The movie industry and the mainstream news industry are completely different animals. It's not unusual to hear a reference to "the Kennedy conspiracy" in Hollywood films, but highly unusual to see such a reference in a mainstream news outlet.

Oh yeah it’s not like there are any companies which are involved in both industries:). Perhaps it is “highly unusual to [reference to "the Kennedy conspiracy" ] in a mainstream news outlet.” Because they are NEWS outlets and make few references to events that took places decades ago.

Let’s not forget that decades Jesse Ventura go a show on TruTV (part of Time Warner) and Lou Dobbs continued as a host on CNN and Judge Napolitano continues as commentator on Fox after they spouted bizarre conspiracy theories and appeared on Alex Jones.

Some people have more courage than Chris Matthews.

Ventura is a dishonest clown (see videos below), there is nothing courageous about his show, if he wasn’t peddling his CT BS he wouldn’t have a TV show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujumL1d_L5E&feature=player_embedded

Ventura's show is not considered part of the Mainstream News Media.

TruTV is part of the Time-Warner empire, you can’t get any more mainstream than that and his program focuses on recent events

Given the current anti-government slant of Fox News it isn't surprising that they tolerate a stray reference to the Kennedy conspiracy.

I don’t think the judge has pontificated on the assassination but he fingers Bush Jr. for 9/11

When did Lou Dobbs ever chime in about the Kennedy conspiracy?

When did I ever say he did? He mixed legitimate criticism of NAFTA with anti-immigrant xenophobia and North American Union/Super Highway nuttery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s Carnival so I don’t have time to reply at length I’ll try and do so sometime after Fat Tuesday. But some points were too hard to resist:

You asked “Where does it say that Oswald was a lone gunman? Where does he finger Castro for the hit?” and then you posted the part where he said just that.

Oh really? This is what I posted immediately after I asked those questions:

In a chilling parallel to their cover-up at Watergate, the CIA literally erased any connection between Kennedy's assassination and the CIA.

No mention of the Castro assassination attempt was made to the Warren Commission by CIA representatives. In fact, Counter-intelligence chief James Angleton of the CIA called Bill Sullivan of the FBI and rehearsed the questions and answers they would give to the Warren Commission investigators, such as these samples:

Q. Was Oswald an agent of the CIA?

A. No.

Q. Does the CIA have any evidence showing that a conspiracy existed to assassinate Kennedy?

A. No.

Seems to implicate the CIA in the Kennedy assassination.

How about this crucial aside, which I will examine more closely later:

(Interestingly, an investigation of the Kennedy assassination was a project I suggested when I first

entered the White House. I had always been intrigued with the conflicting theories of the assassination.

Now I felt we would be in a position to get all the facts. But Nixon turned me down.)

No endorsement of the Lone Gunman theory there, or the Castro-did-it scenario.

And what about that bit in the Watergate tapes where Nixon says to Haldeman:

When you get the CIA people in say, “Look, the problem is that this will open up the whole Bay of Pigs thing again.” So they should call the FBI in and for the good of the country don’t go any further into this case. Period.

"For the good of the country." How does that point to Fidel Castro?

True he didn’t say specifically that LHO was the LONE gunman but since he mentioned no other shooters that seems implicit, in any case he nailed Oswald as the shooter and the scenario spelled out very clearly was the Russo/Gratz ‘Castro did it’ theory, emphasis added.

…as an outgrowth of the Bay of Pigs,
the CIA made several attempts on Fidel Castro's life

[…]

Unfortunately,
Castro knew of the assassination attempts
all the time [and said] . On September 7, 1963…"Let Kennedy and his brother Robert take care of themselves, SINCE THEY, TOO, CAN BE THE VICTIMS OF AN ATTEMPT WHICH WILL CAUSE THEIR DEATH."

After Kennedy was killed, the CIA launched a fantastic cover-up. MANY OF THE FACTS ABOUT OSWALD UNAVOIDABLY POINTED TO A CUBAN CONNECTION.

[Cites 3 examples of LHO’s ties to Cuba]

In a chilling parallel to their cover-up at Watergate, the CIA literally erased any connection between Kennedy's assassination and the CIA. No mention of the Castro assassination attempt was made to the Warren Commission by CIA representatives.

[Discusses CIA cover up]

This is what I mean about slimey rhetoric. You cut out the part where Angleton rehearsed denying that

Oswald was a CIA agent!

"Cuban connection" isn't the same as "Castro agent." The Watergate Cubans were anti-Castro, remember?

Haldeman never referred to Oswald as either a lone nut or an agent of Fidel, but he very clearly

suggested that Oswald may have been a CIA agent.

Again, you apparently are incapable of processing information that doesn't conform to your world view.

And when Nixon said, "It's likely to blow the whole Bay of Pigs" he might have been reminding Helms, not so gently, of the cover-up of the CIA assassination attempts on the hero of the Bay of Pigs, Fidel Castro -- A CIA OPERATION THAT MAY HAVE TRIGGERED THE KENNEDY TRAGEDY and which Helms desperately wanted to hide.

One could just as easily conclude that Haldeman was saying that the Bay of Pigs triggered anti-Castro Cubans to kill Kennedy. This is much more likely considering the fact that the Watergate Cubans were part of the effort to kill Castro.

So tell us where any of this indicates he thought the CIA was directly responsible for the assassination rather than having “triggered the Kennedy tragedy” via their attempts on Castro?

In the part you so inartfully snipped out, that bit about Oswald being a CIA agent.

Or failing that why they would want to suppress a theory that by 1995 standards was letting them off the hook?

How does Oswald being a CIA agent let the CIA off the hook?

And having a "Cuban connection" doesn't necessarily implicate Castro since it was Cubans who were trying to kill him.

In his September '63 speech did Fidel Castro threaten JFK with murder, or was he warning that the forces once directed at Castro could be re-directed at Kennedy?

I'm glad to see that you've gotten off the "DiMona made it all up" tip, Colby.

That's progress.

I'll address the entertainment industry in another post.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Richard Nixon was referring to the JFK ASSASSINATION when he referred to the "Whole Bay of Pigs" thing. It's obvious. And that is why GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH freaked out so much when he reading the transcript of the "smoking gun tape" of Nixon. Nixon was using the JFK Assassination as a FIREWALL to prevent any more investigation of himself, in effect saying if you "investigate me" it will risk exposing the CIA murder of John Kennedy in the 1963 Coup d'Etat.

Richard Nixon to Howard Baker: “You don’t want to know” replying to Baker’s question “What do you know about the Kennedy Assassination?” Comments relayed by Don Hewitt, producer of 60 Minutes:

Oral History Interview with DON HEWITT

October 8, 2002, New York, NY, By Vicki Daitch

For the John F. Kennedy Library

ALSO, Mark Tracy: http://mtracy9.tripod.com/kennedy.html :

"Other facts linking Nixon to the JFK assassination emerged years later during the Watergate conspiracy, some of which were revealed by Nixon's former chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman in his memoir, The Ends of Power. Haldeman cites several conversations where Nixon expressed concern about the Watergate affair becoming public knowledge and where this exposure might lead. Haldeman writes:

"In fact, I was puzzled when he [Nixon] told me, 'Tell Ehrlichman this whole group of Cubans [Watergate burglars] is tied to the Bay of Pigs.' After a pause I said, 'The Bay of Pigs? What does that have to do with this [the Watergate burglary]?' But Nixon merely said, 'Ehrlichman will know what I mean,' and dropped the subject."

Later in his book, Haldeman appears to answer his own question when he says, "It seems that in all of those Nixon references to the Bay of Pigs, he was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination."

If Haldeman's interpretation is correct, then Nixon's instructions for him to, "Tell Ehrlichman this whole group of [anti-Castro] Cubans is tied to the Bay of Pigs," was Nixon's way of telling him to inform Ehrlichman that the Watergate burglars were tied to Kennedy's murder. (It should be noted that many Cuban exiles blamed Kennedy for the failure to overthrow Castro at the Bay of Pigs, pointing to Kennedy's refusal to allow the U.S. military to launch a full-scale invasion of the island.)

Haldeman also links the Central Intelligence Agency to the Watergate burglars and, by implication, to the Kennedy assassination. Haldeman writes, "...at least one of the burglars, [Eugenio] Martinez, was still on the CIA payroll on June 17, 1972 -- and almost certainly was reporting to his CIA case officer about the proposed break-in even before it happened [his italics]."

The other Watergate conspirators included ex-FBI agent G. Gordon Liddy, ex-CIA agents James McCord and E. Howard Hunt, and Bay of Pigs veterans Bernard Barker, Frank Sturgis and Virgilio Gonzales. E. Howard Hunt's relationship with the anti-Castro Cubans traces back to the early 1960s, to his days with the Central Intelligence Agency. As a CIA political officer and propaganda expert, Hunt helped plan the Bays of Pigs operation and also helped create the Cuban Revolutionary Council -- a militant anti-Castro organization. Hunt would later retire from the CIA (at least ostensibly) to become covert operations chief for the Nixon White House. [Note: Hunt maintained a working relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency even after his "retirement," obtaining camera equipment and disguises from the CIA's Technical Services Division for use in the Watergate burglary.]

Several reports over the years have placed Hunt in Dallas at the time of the Kennedy assassination. In 1974, the Rockefeller Commission concluded that Hunt used eleven hours of sick leave from the CIA in the two-week period preceding the assassination. Later, eyewitness Marita Lorenz testified under oath that she saw Hunt pay off an assassination team in Dallas the night before Kennedy's murder. (Hunt v. Liberty Lobby; U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida; 1985) Click to read transcript

In taped conversations with Haldeman, Nixon is obviously worried about what would happen if Hunt's involvement in the Watergate conspiracy came to light. Nixon says, "Of course, this Hunt, that will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab, there's a hell of a lot of things, and we feel that it would be very detrimental to have this thing go any further ... the President's belief is that this is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again." Click to Listen: Nixon instructs Haldeman on what to tell the CIA (text below)

NIXON: When you get in to see these people, say: "Look, the problem is that this will open the whole, the whole Bay of Pigs thing, and the President just feels that..." ah, I mean, without going into the details of, of lying to them to the extent to say that there is no involvement. But, you can say, "This is sort of a comedy of errors, bizarre," without getting into it, "The President's belief is that this is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again. And, ah because ah these people are playing for, for keeps and that they should call the FBI in and we feel that ... that we wish for the country, don't go any further into this case, period!"

Following instructions, Haldeman informed CIA Director Richard Helms of Nixon's concern that the Watergate investigation would "open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again." Haldeman gives this account of what transpired next:

"Turmoil in the room. Helms, gripping the arms of his chair, leaning forward and shouting, 'The Bay of Pigs had nothing to do with this. I have no concern about the Bay of Pigs.'

"Silence. I just sat there. I was absolutely shocked by Helms' violent reaction. Again I wondered, what was such dynamite in the Bay of Pigs story?"

Eleven days after Hunt's arrest for the Watergate burglary, L. Patrick Gray, acting FBI Director, was called to the White House and told by Nixon aide John Ehrlichman to "deep six" written files taken from Hunt's personal safe. The FBI Director was told that the files were "political dynamite and clearly should not see the light of day." Gray responded by taking the material home and burning it in his fireplace. John Dean, council to the president, acted similarly by shredding Hunt's operational diary.

Futhermore, as former White House correspondent Don Fulsom reveals, "The newest Nixon tapes are studded with deletions -- segments deemed by government censors as too sensitive for public scrutiny. 'National Security' is cited. Not surprisingly, such deletions often occur during discussions involving the Bay of Pigs, E. Howard Hunt, and John F. Kennedy."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm amused by this part of Colby's last post, even though it is meaningless to the discussion.

To re-cap the on-topic stuff: Chris Matthews was a rat on a sinking ship in 1995 when he wrote his

Haldeman article. The network he was on was failing, about to go under, and he had every reason to

suck up to the established, official line on the JFK assassination since his broadcast career was in

doubt.

Colby wants to fixate on the minor issue of Hardball w/CM being the same thing as Politics w/CM because

he doesn't have a leg to stand on anywhere else.

But I find the following a lot of fun in an off-topic sort of way -- like Rick Barry and Snicker's bars!

Numerous bands changed their names, are we to say they weren’t really the same groups?

Yes, because they usually change their sound when they change personnel. The Jefferson Airplane was not the same band as the Jefferson Starship.

Here I was referring to established bands. Once a band has established itself they don't usually change their name unless there is a change in personnel and sound.

I made no mention of personnel changes. The Stone Temple Pilots, Velvet Underground, Dinosaur Jr. and Green Day among other changed their names without changing their sound or line ups.

Stone Temple Pilots changed their name from Mighty Joe Young before their debut album.

Green Day changed their name from Sweet Children before their debut album.

The Velvet Underground changed their name from The Falling Spikes before their debut album.

Colby, your only applicable example of the four cited is Dinosaur Jr., who were originally called Dinosaur,

and the name change occurred after Dinosaur was established.

Fun smoke yer blow'n here, Len. But it's nothing but smoke nonetheless.

Would it be inaccurate to say “Jayne County has been singing since 1972” because back then she was a man who called himself Wayne County?

I actually saw Jayne County at the Mabuhay Gardens back in the early 80's. Her band was originally called

Wayne County and the Electric Chairs. Fun campy punk rock. "If you ain't got time to take a walk with me on my meat rack/Then you can just get the hell right out of my breadline!"

Interesting existential question you pose here, Colby. Can we truly say that "Jayne County has been singing since 1972" when there was no Jayne County in 1972?

How many trannies can dance on a pinhead?

The movie industry and the mainstream news industry are completely different animals. It's not unusual to hear a reference to "the Kennedy conspiracy" in Hollywood films, but highly unusual to see such a reference in a mainstream news outlet.

Oh yeah it’s not like there are any companies which are involved in both industries:).

Apples and oranges. The "entertainment division" and the "news division" of these media giants are completely

different animals. Disney owns both ABC and Disney Pictures. On ABC they'll put Dale Myers out front with Peter Jennings. But Disney Pictures promoted a Nicholas Cage movie "National Treasure" wherein Harvey Keitel refers to "the Kennedy conspiracy." Big ad campaign, ran that spot a lot on TV.

You will probably never hear of "the Kennedy conspiracy" on ABC.

Perhaps it is “highly unusual to [reference to "the Kennedy conspiracy" ] in a mainstream news outlet.” Because they are NEWS outlets and make few references to events that took places decades ago.

Nonsense. I wish I had a dollar for every time I read in the sports pages of the San Francisco Chronicle that Oswald acted alone. The "news divisions" of the MSM are almost always in lock-step with Lone Gunman Theory.

<snip the boring stuff>

Gee, that was fun. Now I think I'll have a Snickers...

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was planned, in advance, and as part of the crime, to falsify the autopsy findings.

LOL.gif

Oh, my poor, poor weak bladder!

So, David, the mentally retarded conspirators who planned President Kennedy's assassination well in advance knew from the GET-GO that they were going to have to fake all kinds of evidence (including the alteration of the "best evidence" in the case--JFK's very own body). Correct?

So, instead of merely firing the shots FROM THE PLACE WHERE THE "PATSY" WAS LOCATED, the goofball assassins of JFK decided it would be much, much better to try and frame Oswald by shooting ONLY from the Grassy Knoll (or various other FRONTAL-ONLY locations). Is that correct, DSL?

You're hilarious, David (in the comedic way).

But why do things the simple way (i.e., shoot Kennedy from the "patsy's" window and using the patsy's gun), when you could do it via an impossible-to-pull-off and ultra-complicated (not to mention, NEEDLESS and totally RECKLESS) "trajectory reversal" way by shooting the President from the exact OPPOSITE direction from where your fall guy is situated. Right, David?

And, just think, this is the kind of topsy-turvy, backward, illogical thinking we are treated to--year after year--by the JFK conspiracy theorists.

IOW--in a CTer's world, the following rule is king:

Since ALL of the evidence positively indicates that Lee Harvey Oswald was solely responsible for the deaths of BOTH John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit, it really means that THE EXACT OPPOSITE IS TRUE, and Oswald was completely innocent of BOTH murders.

Try and get a jury to accept the above philosophy (which is the EXACT philosophy that a lot of online conspiracy theorists are currently clinging to).

Here's a simple (and logical) question for David S. Lifton:

Why not just shoot Kennedy from the TSBD and forget about all the cloak-&-dagger junk of altering the President's body...AND altering all of the photos and films and X-rays, etc.?

Were the plotters TRYING to concoct the most senseless and ridiculous and complicated assassination scenario ever devised by man?

Just asking.

And, btw, is there even ONE other conspiracy believer on this Education Forum website who believes in David Lifton's "No Shots Came From The Rear" scenario?

(If even ONE other CTer answers "Yes" to my last question, my bladder will burst wide open.)

DVP:

Regarding your question of why not shoot JFK with a Carcano rifle from the TSBD, and all other related queries.

You really don’t “get it”—and if this post of yours reflects Mr. Bugliosi’s views (and I wouldn’t be surprised if it did), then apparently he doesn’t “get it” either.

I’m sorry to see that, because it tells me that after all these years, you (and your mentor, Mr. Bugliosi) haven’t advanced very far in terms of a basic understanding of what Dallas was all about.

What you don’t seem to understand is that the purpose of the Kennedy assassination was not just to kill the President (i.e., to cause his death) but to kill the man AND to get away with it.

For that reason, a plan for cover-up had to be included as part of the crime.

That’s responding to your post in very elementary language. Using more abstract vocabulary: to achieve that goal, i.e., “get away with it,” a plan for strategic deception had to be devised, and was, included as part of the crime.

Finally, elevating the language one more notch, let’s put it this way: the plot to kill President Kennedy was not simply a plan to cause the death of a single individual—rather, it was a plan to do that, but, in addition, to disguise the facts of the murder sufficiently so as to facilitate a legal transfer of power in the U.S. Government from Kennedy to Johnson; that is, to use operate the line of succession of the US government under circumstances that appeared “politically innocent,” so as to make Johnson president.

The way it was planned to accomplish this was to create the (false) appearance—both in real time (i.e., at the time of Kennedy’s shooting) but also in the evidence that would come before any future inquiry, that President Kennedy’s assassination was a quirk of fate, the chance coming together of the President, riding in a motorcade, and a maladjusted person—in this case, a pro-Castro Marxist—who took advantage of a target of opportunity.

In other words, the Kennedy assassination was deliberately designed to look like an accident of history.

That was the plan, the blueprint, of those who took Kennedy’s life. Of course, I’m well aware of Oswald’s brief sojourn to Mexico City, but all of that is filigree. The primary design was to create the appearance that the assassination “happened by accident.”

And the shooting was actually orchestrated so as to make it look that way, to appear that way “in real time.” That’s the way it actually “appeared to have happened,” in real time, and that’s the way the legal record looks—if (and I stress “if”) not examined too closely.

If you can’t understand that, if your response is to chortle, if you truly think Dallas was just an ordinary homicide—i.e., the equivalent of a Charlie Manson run amok on Dealey Plaza (with a rifle, rather than a butcher knife)—then (as my late father would have said) you have bats in your belfry.

As for the bladder problems this concept may cause you, I am empathic. Although not licensed in medicine, my layman’s opinion is that these problems are apparently the result of blockages resulting from your inability to injest ideas to advanced for you, at this time in your life; ideas that require stretching your mental capacity beyond what you find comfortable; and, to alleviate these problems, I suggest you consult a good urologist, but one who also has a consulting arrangement with a good neurosurgeon.

The first problem that should be asked is why, based on ideas that are too big for your mental processes to handle, are you having problems with your bladder?

Check first with a good urologist, and get an MRI, because the result may provide the answer. Perhaps some of your brain tissue somehow has migrated from the cerebellar area, down to the area behind your belly button. If so, you may have to go to a hospital that specializes in “surgery of the head area,” mainly—in the abdominal area. There are, I’m told, special transplant operations to cure this kind of situation. But there are also cures that involves certain home remedies, as in yoga, and which involve bending over all the way, as in yoga, and attempting to peer up through the lower orifices attempting to locate just why brain tissue is located in the wrong area of your anatomy. Admittedly, its not a common problem, and I say that because when my book was a best seller, and a Book of the Month Club Selection, publisher never received any such complaints.

But, don’t give up. The condition can be cured. Keep your chin up (but don’t interpret that too literally, because I don’t want my suggestion to cause any more of your cerebral matter to migrate to the lower portions of your body.)

During your convalescence, you might want to pick up and reread those sections of Best Evidence which deal with the design of the sophisticated strategic deception which, I believe, was used in conjunction with the Kennedy assassination, in order to hide the true source of the shots, and point a false evidentiary vector in the direction of the so-called “sniper’s nest” (of which I gather Mr. Bugliosi is so fond).

With regard to this rather sophisticated strategic deception. . .: FYI: That is what Chapter 14, titled, “Trajectory Reversal” is all about. It is not titled “Strategic Deception.” Rather, it is titled “Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception” and I have no doubt it will stand the test of time. Long after Mr. Bugliosi's tome is viewed as an anachronism, the last hurrah of someone trying to defend the “Oswald-did-it-all-by-himself” thesis, “Trajectory Reversal” will be properly viewed (i.e., ultimately recognized) as the genuine blueprint for a strategic deception utilized in connection with the Dallas shooting, and the best description of what actually happened. (Which it is.)

It is why the media reported one thing, whereas the President’s body provided evidence of something quite different.

Now I realize this may prove stressful. And, by your simply reading this, I don’t want you to have a recurrence of these bladder problems of yours. So if it does, if that should happen, if it proves too much, then for relief of these troubles, you can always pickup an old copy of Helter Skelter for some light reading. I’m told it is very well written, a real “true crime” thriller Nothing disguised there. Nothing subtle. .just plain ole horror, of the very explicit kind. . you know, people killing others and writing awful things on the wall afterwards. . but if you want to get back to thinking about Dealey Plaza on a more abstract, and conceptual level, I do recommend Best Evidence. And particularly Chapter 14 . It is all laid out there, chapter and verse—the witnesses, the Dallas police radio transmissions, etc. the manner in which it was made to appear that all the shooting came from the rear, when something quite different actually happened.

As for who thinks Kennedy was shot from the front, and who from the back, let me bring you back to November and December, 1963, and point out that if you go back to the newspapers, you will find that the Dallas Doctors did not know that Kennedy had any rear entry wounds on the rear of his body on Friday night Nov 22 , 1963. When the body left the hospital, they thought—all of them—that Kennedy was shot from the front.

That’s just a fact.

Let me assure you that as Malcolm Perry put his head on the pillow on Friday night, he thought Kennedy was shot from the front. Not from the back. Just from the front. And so did Dr. Carrico, and so did Dr. Jones. And so did Dr. Peters. And Dr. McClelland. . Believe me, I know. I’ve studied the records, and interviewed them,---back in 1966. (unfortunately, I wasn’t able to interview their wives. . so no, I don’t have a transcript of their pillow talk. . ) But let the records show that until December 11, 1963, when they were visited by SS agents and informed of the Bethesda autopsy report . this is all spelled out in Chapter 3 of Best Evidence. .

(I hope you don’t find this too shocking, because I don’t want to overly stress your bladder.)

Re “Cloak and Daggar”. . .

Now as to your question, “Why not just shoot Kennedy from the TSBD and forget about all the cloak-&-dagger junk of altering the President's body”? –to even pose such a question again drives home the point that you don’t understand what happened on November 22, 1963.

As I said at the outset, this was NOT a simple murder. What you call the “cloak and dagger junk” is about the apparatus of a disguise, all of it necessary to disguise a political murder, as a quirk of fate. Hiding snipers on Dealy Plaza, picking off the president like a deer walking through the park, and then blaming the death on a supposed Marxist working in a nearby building—none of that can happen without utilizing certain tradecraft, which you brush aside when you disaragingly employ the term “cloak and dagger stuff.”

Then you write: “Were the plotters trying to concoct the most senseless and ridiculous and complicated assassination scenario ever devised by man?” Not at all. They were simply trying to get away with a serious political murder, utilizing a serious strategic deception in connection with the crime, to cover their tracks. In posing the question you do, you reveal a sophomoric approach to reality, as well as to your own country's history. Apparently, you subscribe to what is called “American exceptionalism”—that no such thing could have occurred in this country.

But the evidence proves you wrong.

The assassination can be viewed or analyzed in one of basically three ways.

First, as a theatrical exercise—in this case, the easy-to-discredit appearance that Oswald, the revolutionary Marxist, shot the President.

Second (and upon closer study) the assassination is a case study re the falsification of evidence. It is a case study of how the falsification of key evidence can mislead a legal investigation.

Third (and combining the first two) it offers a case study of how a well executed covert operation can manipulate the political process. Remember: this was not Guatemala, in 1954, or Iran in 1953, where the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mosaddegh (Project Ajax).. This was the United States of America on November 22, 163, where a political murder was successfully disguised as a quirk of fate, a simple homicide committed by a loner named Lee Oswald. In effect, a secret veto was cast on Kennedy’s life and presidency, and we had a secret election.

Mr. Bugliosi—unfortunately—cannot distinguish the false from the real. And so he arrogantly promotes his ignorance as insight. He confuses facts with artifacts, and insists that the cover story utilized by a group of treasonous plotters represents the reality of Dallas. As I have previously stated, I think his limited vision is possibly hindered by the result of his inability to get past his law school education, and his "Joe Friday" (per Dragnet) state of mind.

Mr. Buglioi reminds me of a 14th century astronomer, living in a geocentric universe, unaware that the sun is actually at the center of the solar system. Because he is so thoroughly ensconced there, he is blind to much of the evidence that lies outside this limited paradigm. He will do anything to rationalize away contrary data, endlessly arguing for Oswald’s guilt, with one excuse after another to explain away contrary data. In the final analysis, he is promoting a Ponzi scheme of the mind.

In many ways, the JFK researchers are involved in deconstructing a disguise. Mr. Bugliosi is involved in the opposite; much of his work largely comes down to resurrecting a largely discredited cover story.

Most assuredly, it will not stand the test of time. It is a fruitless attempt to put lipstick on a corpse.

Should you wish to see the policy consequences of this lack of understanding, and the result of the political change that took place on 11/22/63, in the foreign policy area, the next time you’re in Washington DC go visit the Vietnam Memorial, where the names of 58,000 dead Americans are etched in stone, as a consequence of this political murder, which people like you and Bugliosi insist on thinking of as an ordinary homicide. (And that’s not to mention the hundreds of thousands of serious casualties, plus the millions killed in Asia).

DSL

3/6/10; 4:30 PM

Los Angeles, CA

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@David S. Lifton:

The "bladder" thing is an ongoing joke of mine (which apparently you didn't realize; or it could be that I've become immune to the reciprocal humor of conspiracy theorists, and you were joking too). ~shrug~

And I'd like to believe that your latest post [on 3/6/11 at 1:45 AM PST] is also a "joke", but, alas, I'm quite sure it is not and that you were dead serious about all of the pure hogwash and fantasy-filled speculation you have uttered above.

As I have said in previous posts at a different forum, Vincent Bugliosi was way, WAY too kind to David S. Lifton in "Reclaiming History":

"IMO, Vince is far too kind to Mr. Lifton and his "research abilities" (especially when we consider the insane theory that was spawned and endorsed by Lifton via his "research"). VB must have been in a super-good mood the day he wrote the nice things that he penned in his book about Mr. Lifton. But Bugliosi also gets down to the bottom-line brass tacks of the matter when he makes these statements about David L.:

"One theory that perhaps "takes the cake" is set forth by conspiracy author David Lifton in his book "Best Evidence". .... Out of his 747 pages, [Lifton] unbelievably devotes no more than 6 or 7 full pages, if that, to Oswald. .... One could safely say that David Lifton took folly to an unprecedented level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his colleagues in the conspiracy community, that's saying something." -- "Reclaiming History"; Pages 1057, 1058, and 1066"

-- DVP; April 21, 2008

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/16ac9042241cdc95

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The purpose of the Kennedy assassination was not just to kill the President...but to kill the man AND to get away with it.

So the plotters did everything in their power to complicate the shooting and the plot to the Nth degree to make sure it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE for the "All Shots Came From The Front" plot to stay a secret.

Ya gotta love the backward logic of David S. Lifton. LOL.gif

In addition....

The following hunk of logic never occurs to the conspiracy theorists who want to believe that everything connected to Oswald's rifle and revolver purchases is phony and fake:

If the whole rifle transaction was phony from the get-go, then why wouldn't the plotters who cooked up the scheme have made sure that the rifle's length MATCHED the ad from the magazine from which it was ordered?

In a truly "fake" and made-up-from-whole-cloth scenario regarding the rifle, would the conspirators have wanted to have a mis-match of rifle lengths so that the conspiracy mongers could now say what they are saying today? -- i.e., "Look! The C2766 rifle is the wrong length!"

This is just one more example (among dozens) of the built-in idiocy of the so-called "patsy framers" in this case. Everything is supposedly "manufactured" and planted ALL THROUGHOUT THE CASE to make it look as though Oswald did certain things and bought certain things and shot certain people -- but the retard plotters apparently didn't know their asses from the hole in JFK's cranium.

E.G.,

1.) The brainless plotters couldn't tell "36 inches" from "40 inches".

2.) They plant a "Mauser" in the Depository (even though the patsy owned a Carcano).

3.) They shoot JFK from the front (even though their one and only patsy was located in the rear).

4.) They allow their one and only patsy to wander around on the lower floors of the Book Depository at the precise time they need him upstairs on the sixth floor shooting at the 35th U.S. President. (Brilliant planning and organizing here on the plotters' behalf!)

5.) They plant a bullet shell in the Sniper's Nest that could not possibly (per the conspiracy fantasists) have been fired on the day of the assassination, due to the dented lip. And yet the retard plotters evidently expected this "impossible" shell to go unnoticed by everyone in officialdom.

6.) They shoot J.D. Tippit with an AUTOMATIC gun (again, per the outer-fringe CTers who will do and say anything to try and exonerate cop-killer Oswald)....even though their patsy owns a revolver and not an automatic.

7.) And, according to some CTers, they place into evidence a Smith & Wesson revolver (#V510210) that could not possibly have been fired on 11/22/63, due to a bad/broken firing pin. And yet, at the same time, these same plotters (with a combined I.Q. of a Hostess cupcake) are attempting to make it look like Oswald DID, in fact, use that IMPOSSIBLE-TO-FIRE gun to kill Officer Tippit by placing into evidence four phony bullet shells from Revolver V510210.

A brilliant patsy plot all the way around, wasn't it? (Well, maybe if the plotters were Gomer and Goober Pyle.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The premise that reasonable people that refuse to accept the conclusions of the Warren Report possess a mindset or belong to a group that can conveniently labeled as conspiracy theorists

is a faulty premise.

The truth is that the originator of this thread is on the fringe. It is he that represents a clear and distinct minority. That minority has existed ever since people started examining the conclusions of the Warren Report and comparing them with what was contained in the accompanying 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits.

People of intelligence and good faith don't buy a story which is ridiculous and impossible on so many levels. Bugliosi calls these people kooks, when the label fits him and his syncophants

much more accurately.

This article appeared the other day and the views of the author are much in tune with what the overwhelming majority of people believe today. This is an excerpt: (A link to his entire article is below.)

"I am not a conspiracy theorist by nature. I'm far more inclined to think that behind every such happening there is a logical, simple explanation.

Do I believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report, the sanitized American government-generated study of the Kennedy assassination? Do I think their main finding, that a "lone nut assassin" (Oswald) was the only person involved in the murders? A Dallas police officer was also shot and killed if you recall.

Above all else, do I agree with the commission's finding that there was no conspiracy involved in Kennedy's murder?

No, I don't believe it - none of it. And according to polls conducted over the years neither does the majority of Americans who were alive at the time, or Canadians either for that matter. Far too simplistic. Much too tidy!

If Oswald was the only shooter - and that is very much in question - I feel that at the very least he received some assistance. And I think it is highly probable there was a second shooter in Dallas that day.

Conspiracy likely

The Zapruder film and the so-called "magic bullet" don't lie. They point to some kind of conspiracy, no matter how limited that may have been.

I have read numerous books, articles and watched countless hours of television documentaries relative to the assassination. Despite the economic engine which drives so much of this stuff, there are simply too many unanswered questions. I can't possibly accept the Warren Commission's findings and forget about the matter."

The author, Jeff Maguire, doesn't know the truth about President Kennedy's murder. He simply makes the reasonable and understated claim that conspiracy was likely. He also makes the claim that the Warren Commission left too many unanswered questions. The truth of those two claims is beyond dispute today, except to people like Bugliosi who like to boast that they are paragons of logic, when they continually demonstrate the opposite with their weak arguments and tiresome evasions of legitimate questions.

Maguire closes his article expressing the wish that many have had for a long time:

"My hope remains that the complete story behind the assassination of JFK will eventually be revealed and in my lifetime."

Tony Summers told him it wouldn't. Unfortunately, the complete story will likely never be known and that's part of what keeps people interested and invested after what has been too many years.

The author of this thread can post all the links he wants to blogs that proclaim the Warren Commission got it right and Oswald did it by himself and he can quote Bugliosi and Myers and himself until the cows come home. The vast majority of thinking people don't and never will never buy that crap.

There are literally thousands of indicators that the Warren Commission didn't want to find and publish the truth. It only takes one of those indicators to be accurate. The odds are overwhelming to the point of certainty. This is nothing new.

In this case, numbers don't lie.

David Von Pein can believe whatever he wants, quote whomever he wants, and blog until he's an old man. It's really of little consequence.

Jeff Maguire's full article: http://www.emcwestcarleton.ca/20110303/lifestyle/Will+we+ever+know+truth+about+JFK%27s+assassination%3F

Edited by Michael Hogan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

= My latest replied in bold and preceded by equals signs (=)

It’s Carnival so I don’t have time to reply at length I’ll try and do so sometime after Fat Tuesday. But some points were too hard to resist:

You asked “Where does it say that Oswald was a lone gunman? Where does he finger Castro for the hit?” and then you posted the part where he said just that.

Oh really? This is what I posted immediately after I asked those questions:

In a chilling parallel to their cover-up at Watergate, the CIA literally erased any connection between Kennedy's assassination and the CIA.

No mention of the Castro assassination attempt was made to the Warren Commission by CIA representatives. In fact, Counter-intelligence chief James Angleton of the CIA called Bill Sullivan of the FBI and rehearsed the questions and answers they would give to the Warren Commission investigators, such as these samples:

Q. Was Oswald an agent of the CIA?

A. No.

Q. Does the CIA have any evidence showing that a conspiracy existed to assassinate Kennedy?

A. No.

= My, bad you omitted that part from your reply.

Seems to implicate the CIA in the Kennedy assassination.

= Lawyers and witnesses / candidates and handlers rehearse likely questions and answers all the like sometimes those answers are accurate sometimes they are not. Haldermona never said directly that LHO was CIA or that the agency was directly involved in the assassination. The part about “No mention of the Castro assassination attempt was made” leads us back to the Russo/Gratz theory so does his use of ‘connection’ rather words like ‘involvement’, ‘role’ etc. Why would he only say they were ‘connected’ if he believed they were the assassins?

How about this crucial aside, which I will examine more closely later:

(Interestingly, an investigation of the Kennedy assassination was a project I suggested when I first

entered the White House. I had always been intrigued with the conflicting theories of the assassination.

Now I felt we would be in a position to get all the facts. But Nixon turned me down.)

No endorsement of the Lone Gunman theory there, or the Castro-did-it scenario.

= I didn’t say he exposed the Gratz theory in every sentence, those fit both his and yours.

And what about that bit in the Watergate tapes where Nixon says to Haldeman:

When you get the CIA people in say, “Look, the problem is that this will open up the whole Bay of Pigs thing again.” So they should call the FBI in and for the good of the country don’t go any further into this case. Period.

"For the good of the country." How does that point to Fidel Castro?

= Once again it fits the Russo/Gratz theory as much as yours (if not more so), the discovery that the CIA triggered the assassination by their failed attempts on Castro would be scandalous. If he Nixon meant that the CIA had killed Castro he would have said something like “for their own good” because they would be face life in prison or the death penalty.

True he didn’t say specifically that LHO was the LONE gunman but since he mentioned no other shooters that seems implicit, in any case he nailed Oswald as the shooter and the scenario spelled out very clearly was the Russo/Gratz ‘Castro did it’ theory, emphasis added.

…as an outgrowth of the Bay of Pigs,
the CIA made several attempts on Fidel Castro's life

[…]

Unfortunately,
Castro knew of the assassination attempts
all the time [and said] . On September 7, 1963…"Let Kennedy and his brother Robert take care of themselves, SINCE THEY, TOO, CAN BE THE VICTIMS OF AN ATTEMPT WHICH WILL CAUSE THEIR DEATH."

After Kennedy was killed, the CIA launched a fantastic cover-up. MANY OF THE FACTS ABOUT OSWALD UNAVOIDABLY POINTED TO A CUBAN CONNECTION.

[Cites 3 examples of LHO’s ties to Cuba]

In a chilling parallel to their cover-up at Watergate, the CIA literally erased any connection between Kennedy's assassination and the CIA. No mention of the Castro assassination attempt was made to the Warren Commission by CIA representatives.

[Discusses CIA cover up]

This is what I mean about slimey rhetoric. You cut out the part where Angleton rehearsed denying that

Oswald was a CIA agent!

= As I said before I won’t stoop to your level, I also “cut out” LHO’s 3 connections to the Castro regime as both had already been posted and were not directly relevant. He (whoever he was) never said LHO was CIA but did say he was a supporter of Castro.

"Cuban connection" isn't the same as "Castro agent." The Watergate Cubans were anti-Castro, remember?

= Except that the 3 points which he cited pointed to Castro as opposed to anti-Castro Cubans, especially if we look at the passage in context:

According to Schorr, as an outgrowth of the Bay of Pigs, the CIA made several attempts on Fidel Castro's life. The Deputy Director of the CIA at the time was named Richard Helms.

Unfortunately, Castro knew of the assassination attempts all the time. On September 7, 1963, a few months before John Kennedy was assassinated, Castro made a speech in which he was quoted, "Let Kennedy and his brother Robert take care of themselves, since they, too, can be the victims of an attempt which will cause their death."

After Kennedy was killed, the CIA launched a fantastic cover-up. Many of the facts about Oswald unavoidably pointed to a Cuban connection.

1. Oswald had been arrested in New Orleans in August, 1963, while distributing pro-Castro pamphlets.

2. On a New Orleans radio program he extolled Cuba and defended Castro.

3. Less than two months before the assassination Oswald visited the Cuban consulate in Mexico City and tried to obtain a visa.

In a chilling parallel to their cover-up at Watergate, the CIA literally erased any connection between Kennedy's assassination and the CIA. No mention of the Castro assassination attempt was made to the Warren Commission by CIA representatives. In fact, Counter-intelligence chief James Angleton of the CIA called Bill Sullivan of the FBI and rehearsed the questions and answers they would give to the Warren Commission investigators, such as these samples:

Q. Was Oswald an agent of the CIA?

A. No.

Q. Does the CIA have any evidence showing that a conspiracy existed to assassinate Kenndy?

A. No.

And here's what I find most interesting: Bill Sullivan, the FBI man that the CIA called at the time, was Nixon's highest-ranking loyal friend at the FBI...It is possible that Nixon learned from Sullivan something about the earlier CIA cover-up by Helms. And when Nixon said, "It's likely to blow the whole Bay of Pigs" he might have been reminding Helms, not so gently, of the cover-up of the CIA assassination attempts on the hero of the Bay of Pigs, Fidel Castro -- a CIA operation that may have triggered the Kennedy tragedy and which Helms desperately wanted to hide.

So the cover-up was of "the CIA assassination attempts on the hero of the Bay of Pigs, Fidel Castro"

Haldeman never referred to Oswald as either a lone nut or an agent of Fidel, but he very clearly

suggested that Oswald may have been a CIA agent.

= No, he directly suggested that LHO was working the behest of the Castro regime a few times and only once made a comment that could be interpreted as suggesting he was CIA.

Again, you apparently are incapable of processing information that doesn't conform to your world view.

= The cognitive dissonance is yours not mine

And when Nixon said, "It's likely to blow the whole Bay of Pigs" he might have been reminding Helms, not so gently, of the cover-up of the CIA assassination attempts on the hero of the Bay of Pigs, Fidel Castro -- A CIA OPERATION THAT MAY HAVE TRIGGERED THE KENNEDY TRAGEDY and which Helms desperately wanted to hide.

One could just as easily conclude that Haldeman was saying that the Bay of Pigs triggered anti-Castro Cubans to kill Kennedy. This is much more likely considering the fact that the Watergate Cubans were part of the effort to kill Castro.

= If that was what he meant to suggest then explain why he wrote “Unfortunately, Castro knew of the assassination attempts all the time” and then included the Castro threat that JFK and RFK could also “be the victims of an attempt which will cause their death." And then follow that with LHO’s support of Castro and say that this lead to a cover-up? Any remotely neutral reading of that passage would be “the CIA assassination attempts on…Fidel Castro…triggered the Kennedy tragedy”

The burglars being part of BoP and the assassination attempts fits both scenarios. Investigation of the burglars could lead to discovery of the attempts which could lead to (if that were the case) the discovery that this lead to JFK being killed in retaliation.

So tell us where any of this indicates he thought the CIA was directly responsible for the assassination rather than having “triggered the Kennedy tragedy” via their attempts on Castro?

In the part you so inartfully snipped out, that bit about Oswald being a CIA agent.

= See above.

Or failing that why they would want to suppress a theory that by 1995 standards was letting them off the hook?

How does Oswald being a CIA agent let the CIA off the hook?

= See above

And having a "Cuban connection" doesn't necessarily implicate Castro since it was Cubans who were trying to kill him.

= Nonsense because as spelled out above the three things he cited which ‘connected’ LHO to Cuba indicated support of not opposition to Castro.

In his September '63 speech did Fidel Castro threaten JFK with murder, or was he warning that the forces once directed at Castro could be re-directed at Kennedy?

= Either on its own or in context the former is the reasonable interpretation Haldermona introduced the quote with “Unfortunately, Castro knew of the assassination attempts all the time”

I'm glad to see that you've gotten off the "DiMona made it all up" tip, Colby.

= Who says I did?

That's progress.

I'll address the entertainment industry in another post.

=So will I Carnival is calling

Edited by Len Colby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now