I mistakenly posted this on the JFK Forum.
I admit that my view of Nixon and Watergate has largely been influenced by Oliver Stone's film, Nixon. In the film, the "Watergate horrors" purported by Ashton to have been a CIA conspiracy are portrayed as inevitable events stemming from Nixon's character flaws. As some, including Richard Helms, theorized that Stone's JFK was KGB-influenced, I'm wondering if Ashton feels that Stone's subsequent film, Nixon, was CIA-influenced. If so, were Helms' statements about Stone designed to cover-up his own relationship with the film-maker?
Full Version: Oliver Stone's Nixon
[quote name='Pat Speer' date='Jul 13 2006, 09:14 AM' post='68301']
I mistakenly posted this on the JFK Forum.
I admit that my view of Nixon and Watergate has largely been influenced by Oliver Stone's film, Nixon. In the film, the "Watergate horrors" purported by Ashton to have been a CIA conspiracy are portrayed as inevitable events stemming from Nixon's character flaws. As some, including Richard Helms, theorized that Stone's JFK was KGB-influenced, I'm wondering if Ashton feels that Stone's subsequent film, Nixon, was CIA-influenced. If so, were Helms' statements about Stone designed to cover-up his own relationship with the film-maker?
[/quote]
Pat
This post does not make any sense. What'cha smokin out there in LA land???
I know you are not asking my opinion, but I am responding none the less.
Indirectly and, then directly:
On a different thread you mentioned that you'd just seen Stone the other day. If you see him again would you tell him for me that I personally consider "JFK" the most important film made in my life. (Prior to that "Executive Action" - ( Donald Freed and Dalton Trumbo)- held that position, tied with "Seven Days In May". In fact I advise people to see both movies, in that exact order. What was and what could have been; if only....
So Helms SAID JFK was "KGB influenced"? Do you know how utterly silly this sounds here??? To us? YOu can peddle this bs with the "uneducated -in- the -school -of conspiracy politics, but it won't wash here. Stone read Jim Garrison's book, "On the Trail Of the Assassins" and decided to film it. (I read his words long ago on this in an interview) ... Of course he borrowed from Jim Marrs and that GREAT patriot, Col. Flec Proudy (ably played by Donald Sutherland -"Just cal me 'X')- so who the hell cares what Helms; allegedy SAID??? Are you flipping back to your CIA -spy mode here? Or are you simply still stalking Ashton? Whatever, it comes across as terribly insincere. Imagine that ?
As to Ashton Gray "thinking Stone's "Nixon" was "CIA-influenced" your logic here is sorely lacking:
EARTH TO PAT:
NO ONE THINKS TRICKY DICK WAS A GOOD GUY. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO SAY IT?
THIS AIN'T SOME INSIPID GAME OF 'EITHER/OR' .
Sorry to have to raise my voice but you keep rehashing this same nonsence.
I do not know Ashton Gray, never laid eyes on the guy. But, that said, I have read his work here and there is ZERO to even remotely suggest that he's a fan of the Trickster.
You have seen me on this forum for almost two years now Pat. You have seen the lengths I go to try to have us all work TOGETHER, toward a common goal of understanding and solving this stuff.
But when I see words twisted, repeatedly, I am compelled to take a stand. Makes no difference to me who is doing the twisting. It could be my own husband and I would have the exact same response. A lie is a lie is a lie. Repeating it 40 times does not make it true.
Dawn
I mistakenly posted this on the JFK Forum.
I admit that my view of Nixon and Watergate has largely been influenced by Oliver Stone's film, Nixon. In the film, the "Watergate horrors" purported by Ashton to have been a CIA conspiracy are portrayed as inevitable events stemming from Nixon's character flaws. As some, including Richard Helms, theorized that Stone's JFK was KGB-influenced, I'm wondering if Ashton feels that Stone's subsequent film, Nixon, was CIA-influenced. If so, were Helms' statements about Stone designed to cover-up his own relationship with the film-maker?
[/quote]
Pat
This post does not make any sense. What'cha smokin out there in LA land???
I know you are not asking my opinion, but I am responding none the less.
Indirectly and, then directly:
On a different thread you mentioned that you'd just seen Stone the other day. If you see him again would you tell him for me that I personally consider "JFK" the most important film made in my life. (Prior to that "Executive Action" - ( Donald Freed and Dalton Trumbo)- held that position, tied with "Seven Days In May". In fact I advise people to see both movies, in that exact order. What was and what could have been; if only....
So Helms SAID JFK was "KGB influenced"? Do you know how utterly silly this sounds here??? To us? YOu can peddle this bs with the "uneducated -in- the -school -of conspiracy politics, but it won't wash here. Stone read Jim Garrison's book, "On the Trail Of the Assassins" and decided to film it. (I read his words long ago on this in an interview) ... Of course he borrowed from Jim Marrs and that GREAT patriot, Col. Flec Proudy (ably played by Donald Sutherland -"Just cal me 'X')- so who the hell cares what Helms; allegedy SAID??? Are you flipping back to your CIA -spy mode here? Or are you simply still stalking Ashton? Whatever, it comes across as terribly insincere. Imagine that ?
As to Ashton Gray "thinking Stone's "Nixon" was "CIA-influenced" your logic here is sorely lacking:
EARTH TO PAT:
NO ONE THINKS TRICKY DICK WAS A GOOD GUY. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO SAY IT?
THIS AIN'T SOME INSIPID GAME OF 'EITHER/OR' .
Sorry to have to raise my voice but you keep rehashing this same nonsence.
I do not know Ashton Gray, never laid eyes on the guy. But, that said, I have read his work here and there is ZERO to even remotely suggest that he's a fan of the Trickster.
You have seen me on this forum for almost two years now Pat. You have seen the lengths I go to try to have us all work TOGETHER, toward a common goal of understanding and solving this stuff.
But when I see words twisted, repeatedly, I am compelled to take a stand. Makes no difference to me who is doing the twisting. It could be my own husband and I would have the exact same response. A lie is a lie is a lie. Repeating it 40 times does not make it true.
Dawn
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Jul 15 2006, 03:00 AM' post='68556']
[quote name='Pat Speer' date='Jul 13 2006, 09:14 AM' post='68301']
I mistakenly posted this on the JFK Forum.
I admit that my view of Nixon and Watergate has largely been influenced by Oliver Stone's film, Nixon. In the film, the "Watergate horrors" purported by Ashton to have been a CIA conspiracy are portrayed as inevitable events stemming from Nixon's character flaws. As some, including Richard Helms, theorized that Stone's JFK was KGB-influenced, I'm wondering if Ashton feels that Stone's subsequent film, Nixon, was CIA-influenced. If so, were Helms' statements about Stone designed to cover-up his own relationship with the film-maker?
[/quote]
Pat
This post does not make any sense. What'cha smokin out there in LA land???
I know you are not asking my opinion, but I am responding none the less.
Indirectly and, then directly:
On a different thread you mentioned that you'd just seen Stone the other day. If you see him again would you tell him for me that I personally consider "JFK" the most important film made in my life. (Prior to that "Executive Action" - ( Donald Freed and Dalton Trumbo)- held that position, tied with "Seven Days In May". In fact I advise people to see both movies, in that exact order. What was and what could have been; if only....
So Helms SAID JFK was "KGB influenced"? Do you know how utterly silly this sounds here??? To us? YOu can peddle this bs with the "uneducated -in- the -school -of conspiracy politics, but it won't wash here. Stone read Jim Garrison's book, "On the Trail Of the Assassins" and decided to film it. (I read his words long ago on this in an interview) ... Of course he borrowed from Jim Marrs and that GREAT patriot, Col. Flec Proudy (ably played by Donald Sutherland -"Just cal me 'X')- so who the hell cares what Helms; allegedy SAID??? Are you flipping back to your CIA -spy mode here? Or are you simply still stalking Ashton? Whatever, it comes across as terribly insincere. Imagine that ?
As to Ashton Gray "thinking Stone's "Nixon" was "CIA-influenced" your logic here is sorely lacking:
EARTH TO PAT:
NO ONE THINKS TRICKY DICK WAS A GOOD GUY. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO SAY IT?
THIS AIN'T SOME INSIPID GAME OF 'EITHER/OR' .
Sorry to have to raise my voice but you keep rehashing this same nonsence.
I do not know Ashton Gray, never laid eyes on the guy. But, that said, I have read his work here and there is ZERO to even remotely suggest that he's a fan of the Trickster.
You have seen me on this forum for almost two years now Pat. You have seen the lengths I go to try to have us all work TOGETHER, toward a common goal of understanding and solving this stuff.
But when I see words twisted, repeatedly, I am compelled to take a stand. Makes no difference to me who is doing the twisting. It could be my own husband and I would have the exact same response. A lie is a lie is a lie. Repeating it 40 times does not make it true.
Dawn
[/quote]
Dawn, as stated on the Question For Ashton thread, I do not believe he is who he says he is. I do not believe that is even his image on his avatar. One of the things that made me suspicious about him was his vicious attacks on men such as Caddy and Baldwin. I suspected he was a Nixon defender, out to resurrect Nixon's image. I asked him, perhaps pestered him, to answer a direct question--"Was Richard Nixon guilty of impeachable offenses?" To date he has refused to answer that question. He has described Nixon as "irrelevant," etc. He has also ranted regularly and repeatedly about how the release of the Pentagon Papers and the overthrow of Nixon led to untold deaths in Southeast Asia. This is revisionist history at its most bizarre. There is no evidence that North Vietnam would have been satisifed with a divided nation. Ashton's statements, therefore, can only be taken as an indication that he thought Nixon would have WON the Vietnam War if it weren't for that darned conspiracy of peaceniks and the CIA. This is loooneytunes, IMO.
My comments about Nixon were intended to demonstrate the silliness of Ashton's assertions that myself and Mr. Carroll are CIA-influenced. If one is to assume that anyone insisting Nixon brought Watergate upon himself is a CIA disinformationist, then that should extend to Mr. Stone as well. After all, he spent years tryinig to dramatize this very point to the world. But if one concludes that Stone is CIA, one has to grapple with the fact that Helms suggested that Garrison's investigation, and Stone's movie, were both KGB influenced. I was smart-assedly asking Ashton if Helms' statements were designed to provide a cover for Stone. I apologize if my post was more confusing than amusing.
[quote name='Pat Speer' date='Jul 13 2006, 09:14 AM' post='68301']
I mistakenly posted this on the JFK Forum.
I admit that my view of Nixon and Watergate has largely been influenced by Oliver Stone's film, Nixon. In the film, the "Watergate horrors" purported by Ashton to have been a CIA conspiracy are portrayed as inevitable events stemming from Nixon's character flaws. As some, including Richard Helms, theorized that Stone's JFK was KGB-influenced, I'm wondering if Ashton feels that Stone's subsequent film, Nixon, was CIA-influenced. If so, were Helms' statements about Stone designed to cover-up his own relationship with the film-maker?
[/quote]
Pat
This post does not make any sense. What'cha smokin out there in LA land???
I know you are not asking my opinion, but I am responding none the less.
Indirectly and, then directly:
On a different thread you mentioned that you'd just seen Stone the other day. If you see him again would you tell him for me that I personally consider "JFK" the most important film made in my life. (Prior to that "Executive Action" - ( Donald Freed and Dalton Trumbo)- held that position, tied with "Seven Days In May". In fact I advise people to see both movies, in that exact order. What was and what could have been; if only....
So Helms SAID JFK was "KGB influenced"? Do you know how utterly silly this sounds here??? To us? YOu can peddle this bs with the "uneducated -in- the -school -of conspiracy politics, but it won't wash here. Stone read Jim Garrison's book, "On the Trail Of the Assassins" and decided to film it. (I read his words long ago on this in an interview) ... Of course he borrowed from Jim Marrs and that GREAT patriot, Col. Flec Proudy (ably played by Donald Sutherland -"Just cal me 'X')- so who the hell cares what Helms; allegedy SAID??? Are you flipping back to your CIA -spy mode here? Or are you simply still stalking Ashton? Whatever, it comes across as terribly insincere. Imagine that ?
As to Ashton Gray "thinking Stone's "Nixon" was "CIA-influenced" your logic here is sorely lacking:
EARTH TO PAT:
NO ONE THINKS TRICKY DICK WAS A GOOD GUY. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO SAY IT?
THIS AIN'T SOME INSIPID GAME OF 'EITHER/OR' .
Sorry to have to raise my voice but you keep rehashing this same nonsence.
I do not know Ashton Gray, never laid eyes on the guy. But, that said, I have read his work here and there is ZERO to even remotely suggest that he's a fan of the Trickster.
You have seen me on this forum for almost two years now Pat. You have seen the lengths I go to try to have us all work TOGETHER, toward a common goal of understanding and solving this stuff.
But when I see words twisted, repeatedly, I am compelled to take a stand. Makes no difference to me who is doing the twisting. It could be my own husband and I would have the exact same response. A lie is a lie is a lie. Repeating it 40 times does not make it true.
Dawn
[/quote]
Dawn, as stated on the Question For Ashton thread, I do not believe he is who he says he is. I do not believe that is even his image on his avatar. One of the things that made me suspicious about him was his vicious attacks on men such as Caddy and Baldwin. I suspected he was a Nixon defender, out to resurrect Nixon's image. I asked him, perhaps pestered him, to answer a direct question--"Was Richard Nixon guilty of impeachable offenses?" To date he has refused to answer that question. He has described Nixon as "irrelevant," etc. He has also ranted regularly and repeatedly about how the release of the Pentagon Papers and the overthrow of Nixon led to untold deaths in Southeast Asia. This is revisionist history at its most bizarre. There is no evidence that North Vietnam would have been satisifed with a divided nation. Ashton's statements, therefore, can only be taken as an indication that he thought Nixon would have WON the Vietnam War if it weren't for that darned conspiracy of peaceniks and the CIA. This is loooneytunes, IMO.
My comments about Nixon were intended to demonstrate the silliness of Ashton's assertions that myself and Mr. Carroll are CIA-influenced. If one is to assume that anyone insisting Nixon brought Watergate upon himself is a CIA disinformationist, then that should extend to Mr. Stone as well. After all, he spent years tryinig to dramatize this very point to the world. But if one concludes that Stone is CIA, one has to grapple with the fact that Helms suggested that Garrison's investigation, and Stone's movie, were both KGB influenced. I was smart-assedly asking Ashton if Helms' statements were designed to provide a cover for Stone. I apologize if my post was more confusing than amusing.
[quote name='Pat Speer' date='Jul 15 2006, 06:07 AM' post='68567']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Jul 15 2006, 03:00 AM' post='68556']
I apologize if my post was more confusing than amusing.
It was neither. Just illogical. On purpose. When one is intending to "amuse" one so indicates by
Dawn
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Jul 15 2006, 03:00 AM' post='68556']
I apologize if my post was more confusing than amusing.
It was neither. Just illogical. On purpose. When one is intending to "amuse" one so indicates by
Dawn
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Jul 15 2006, 02:26 PM' post='68617']
[quote name='Pat Speer' date='Jul 15 2006, 06:07 AM' post='68567']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Jul 15 2006, 03:00 AM' post='68556']
I apologize if my post was more confusing than amusing.
It was neither. Just illogical. On purpose. When one is intending to "amuse" one so indicates by
Dawn
[/quote]
Funny, Oscar Wilde never needed symbols like this to tell his audience when to laugh. I suppose these symbols are a reflection of the dumbed-down age we live in.
[quote name='Pat Speer' date='Jul 15 2006, 06:07 AM' post='68567']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' date='Jul 15 2006, 03:00 AM' post='68556']
I apologize if my post was more confusing than amusing.
It was neither. Just illogical. On purpose. When one is intending to "amuse" one so indicates by
Dawn
[/quote]
Funny, Oscar Wilde never needed symbols like this to tell his audience when to laugh. I suppose these symbols are a reflection of the dumbed-down age we live in.
QUOTE (Dawn Meredith @ Jul 14 2006, 09:00 PM) 
As to Ashton Gray "thinking Stone's "Nixon" was "CIA-influenced" your logic here is sorely lacking
The only thing resembling logic I could dream up was the possibility of buttered popcorn overdose, causing him delusions of thinking this was the Siskel and Ebert Memorial Forum.
Thumbs down. The balcony is closed. (I have a sudden craving for Junior Mints.)
QUOTE
NO ONE THINKS TRICKY DICK WAS A GOOD GUY. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO SAY IT?
THIS AIN'T SOME INSIPID GAME OF 'EITHER/OR'
THIS AIN'T SOME INSIPID GAME OF 'EITHER/OR'
I was the proud owner of a Nixon dartboard. I bet Speer wasn't.
Sorry: don't let me interrupt this fascinating discussion. I was really bored, and it was either this, or hot bamboo shoots under my fingernails.
Ashton Gray
See, Dawn, he still refuses to answer the question... Why is it logical for "Ashton" to jump to conclusions when Mr. Caddy refuses to answer his questions but illogical for me to jump to conclusions when "Ashton" refuses to answer my questions?
[quote name='Ashton Gray' date='Jul 16 2006, 08:21 AM' post='68710']
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' post='68556' date='Jul 14 2006, 09:00 PM']
As to Ashton Gray "thinking Stone's "Nixon" was "CIA-influenced" your logic here is sorely lacking
[/quote]
The only thing resembling logic I could dream up was the possibility of buttered popcorn overdose, causing him delusions of thinking this was the Siskel and Ebert Memorial Forum.
Thumbs down. The balcony is closed. (I have a sudden craving for Junior Mints.)
[quote]
NO ONE THINKS TRICKY DICK WAS A GOOD GUY. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO SAY IT?
THIS AIN'T SOME INSIPID GAME OF 'EITHER/OR'[/quote]
I was the proud owner of a Nixon dartboard. I bet Speer wasn't.
AG: ( RE: Nixon dartboard)
Ohmygod: So was I, in 1968. My second apt. in Boston, (74 Symphony Rd) , co-op living with a bunch of Northeastern students, who were also musicians: (one of whom became first husband, others remain good friends). That dartboard provided many hours of comic relief!!! Now I want a W dartboard.!!!
Dawn
Sorry: don't let me interrupt this fascinating discussion. I was really bored, and it was either this, or hot bamboo shoots under my fingernails.
Ashton Gray
[/quote]
I doubt you were bored. Bamboo shoots are nicer in the backyard
[quote name='Dawn Meredith' post='68556' date='Jul 14 2006, 09:00 PM']
As to Ashton Gray "thinking Stone's "Nixon" was "CIA-influenced" your logic here is sorely lacking
[/quote]
The only thing resembling logic I could dream up was the possibility of buttered popcorn overdose, causing him delusions of thinking this was the Siskel and Ebert Memorial Forum.
Thumbs down. The balcony is closed. (I have a sudden craving for Junior Mints.)
[quote]
NO ONE THINKS TRICKY DICK WAS A GOOD GUY. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO SAY IT?
THIS AIN'T SOME INSIPID GAME OF 'EITHER/OR'[/quote]
I was the proud owner of a Nixon dartboard. I bet Speer wasn't.
AG: ( RE: Nixon dartboard)
Ohmygod: So was I, in 1968. My second apt. in Boston, (74 Symphony Rd) , co-op living with a bunch of Northeastern students, who were also musicians: (one of whom became first husband, others remain good friends). That dartboard provided many hours of comic relief!!! Now I want a W dartboard.!!!
Dawn
Sorry: don't let me interrupt this fascinating discussion. I was really bored, and it was either this, or hot bamboo shoots under my fingernails.
Ashton Gray
[/quote]
I doubt you were bored.
Bamboo shoots are nicer in the backyard
QUOTE (Pat Speer @ Jul 17 2006, 09:15 AM)
See, Dawn, he still refuses to answer the question... Why is it logical for "Ashton" to jump to conclusions when Mr. Caddy refuses to answer his questions but illogical for me to jump to conclusions when "Ashton" refuses to answer my questions?
Pat:
I have no clue as to whatever question you are making reference.
And don't have the time, nor the inclination, to look , AS
I am in trial prep today, so not doing forum stuff, except in tiny amounts.
Dawn
QUOTE (Dawn Meredith @ Jul 17 2006, 03:13 PM)
QUOTE (Pat Speer @ Jul 17 2006, 09:15 AM)
See, Dawn, he still refuses to answer the question... Why is it logical for "Ashton" to jump to conclusions when Mr. Caddy refuses to answer his questions but illogical for me to jump to conclusions when "Ashton" refuses to answer my questions?
Pat:
I have no clue as to whatever question you are making reference.
Hi Dawn,
I always find your posts and questions of interest, but I'm not sure exactly why you'd even be wondering about whatever "questions" Mr. Speer has for me.
I can only presume you might have missed (or forgotten?) some of what transpired before, so I'm going to make one more record of it here.
All the way back on 27 June 2006, after weeks of an unbroken pattern of Pat Speer willfully spreading gross distortions about things he falsely claimed I had said; after his repeated, unbroken pattern of hijacking and vandalizing and sabotaging important threads with off-topic, inane, and wholly irrelevant "questions;" after days of his following me into every thread I posted in and using debased smear tactics against me with the most juvenile, dishonest, and reprehensible tactics conceivable; and after I observed that moderaters here apparently were content to condone such perverse and destructive forum stalking, I elected to sever all correspondence with the wretch, and made it a solemn vow:
QUOTE (Ashton Gray @ Jun 27 2006, 12:00 AM)
I want to make you this personal undying vow: this is the last response to anything you post in this or any forum that you ever will see from me. Happy trails.
I later elected to suspend that vow briefly, but only to honor a previous vow I had made to debate the issue of the fictional "Diem cables." Even there, I said clearly, declaratively, and unequivocally to Mr. Speer:
QUOTE (Ashton Gray @ Jul 3 2006, 05:13 PM)
My entire rebuttal to your Bazooka Joe comic follies will be posted in this thread within 24 hours of the posting of this message. Watch for it.
When it's posted, fulfilling my vow to answer on the fraud of the "Diem cables," my other vow goes back into full force and effect.
When it's posted, fulfilling my vow to answer on the fraud of the "Diem cables," my other vow goes back into full force and effect.
My "other vow," of course was the one first posted above: "this is the last response to anything you post in this or any forum that you ever will see from me."
And as good as my word, when I had finished demolishing his "case" for the so-called "Diem cables," and had allowed him to rebut, and had further disintegrated his "rebuttal," I issued this statement to him, with my closing argument, a statement that even a rutabega could understand:
QUOTE (Ashton Gray @ Jul 7 2006, 05:52 PM)
This is my last farewell to you, Mr. Speer, because with this summation, I permanently sever all correspondence with you on any basis. And the same goes now for your teammate, Raymond Carroll.
Good-bye.
Good-bye.
I've been toying with the possibility that Mr. Speer and Mr. Carroll both are sub-rutabega life forms, since they still keep stalking me obsessively.
Either that, or, like rapists, they don't care what "NO!" means.
So if any of the above had been missed by you as it was happening—which might have led you to feel, falsely, that there could be some purpose in pursuing that particular line of discussion with Mr. Speer—I hope that with this I have permanently erased any dim fringes where misunderstanding might breed.
Ashton
Ashton, I've been trying to take the high ground with you. Claiming that my asking questions about your inane theory, questions which you hypocritically refuse to answer, is "stalking," is just boring and predictable. Certainly you can find another typo in my posts that will "prove" that I'm the boogie man.
Bottom line: you can create your own webpage or your own website anytime or anywhere you like and I won't give it two thoughts. But you came here to SELL your theory, and I'm not buying, and it burns you up. Fine. If you were really here to educate, and participate in the educational process, you would write on threads you didn't create and answer challenges to your theory. If you were really here to share your research, you'd write an extensive article on your theory, and post it on the online seminars section. But you haven't and you won't. I believe this is cause you came here to disrupt things and bully people. You admitted as much yourself. You said you came to the Forum to confront Caddy and Baldwin. You pretty much called them traitors without any substantiation, outside of evidence you created out of whole cloth.
I ask you again... on what planet does having two conflicting accounts of a crime by two confessed participants in the crime "prove" that no crime occurred and "prove" that the two confessed participants of the crime are in a secret conspiracy to disgrace their employer, even though he was unlikely to ever get charged in relation to their crimes? On what planet does it make sense to believe that a man's closest advisers--his attorney for chrissakes--would conspire against him, and that the most damning thing they could come up with is to confess to crimes that have little to do with him?
Please cite any evidence you have to show that Dean, Liddy, and Caddy conspired with Helms...
Bottom line: you can create your own webpage or your own website anytime or anywhere you like and I won't give it two thoughts. But you came here to SELL your theory, and I'm not buying, and it burns you up. Fine. If you were really here to educate, and participate in the educational process, you would write on threads you didn't create and answer challenges to your theory. If you were really here to share your research, you'd write an extensive article on your theory, and post it on the online seminars section. But you haven't and you won't. I believe this is cause you came here to disrupt things and bully people. You admitted as much yourself. You said you came to the Forum to confront Caddy and Baldwin. You pretty much called them traitors without any substantiation, outside of evidence you created out of whole cloth.
I ask you again... on what planet does having two conflicting accounts of a crime by two confessed participants in the crime "prove" that no crime occurred and "prove" that the two confessed participants of the crime are in a secret conspiracy to disgrace their employer, even though he was unlikely to ever get charged in relation to their crimes? On what planet does it make sense to believe that a man's closest advisers--his attorney for chrissakes--would conspire against him, and that the most damning thing they could come up with is to confess to crimes that have little to do with him?
Please cite any evidence you have to show that Dean, Liddy, and Caddy conspired with Helms...
You have seen me on this forum for almost two years now Pat. You have seen the lengths I go to try to have us all work TOGETHER, toward a common goal of understanding and solving this stuff.
But when I see words twisted, repeatedly, I am compelled to take a stand. Makes no difference to me who is doing the twisting. It could be my own husband and I would have the exact same response. A lie is a lie is a lie. Repeating it 40 times does not make it true.
Dawn
___________________________
Dawn (Pat can jump in, too),
I.
Stone tried to do Shakespeare and, yeah, in look, feel and tone it worked. Anthony Hopkins alone was worth the price of admission and Paul Sorvino as Kissinger was a revelation. But as an attempt at "real" it was as bogus as JFK - in a different way, of course, but not nearly the fiction that was "All The Presidents Men." That doesn't make Stone less than a great filmmaker; in fact, I'm a big fan (like, who cares?).
II.
I'm sure you're familiar with the works of Peter Dale Scott, if not his scholarly, poetic enterprises but at least his LHO essays and related works. One of them tracks what Ashton has described as a CIA staple: the bait and switch. The Lone Nut theory faded into 'the KGB did it' which in turn faded back to Lone Nut. A nice Psy Operation, I'll have to admit. This particular Scott piece, which I found on the 'net and will share if I can get to it again, is utterly eloquent and fascinating. Now, above, you mention Helms as The Pusher...of that KGB envelope, again. These people DO have patterns, just like cockroaches, so we just have to keep the lights on.
III
I abhor all the office/organizational/bureaucratic cliches that sprout and get spewed at meetings and other gatherings, but Pat and others seemingly need to "think outside the box." There, I've said it. But, you know what? They can't. Because, as always, THE AGENDA MUST BE SERVED!! Check out mr. kelly's fulmination at me when I answered someone named Joanne after she asked what book she should read about the Tippit slaying. I recommended Dale Myers' book and kelly and others were like killer bees.
It all comes down to the HERESY factor. They insist Oswald [b]must be thought of as total victim instead of the very human, afraid and vulnerable Agent-on-the-run that Friday afternoon. Nothing else is acceptable. Their righteousness increases the more that manipulation by the omnipotent CIA is piled upon this. Ashton's assertions make them itch like men on the fuzzy tree because it's not all comparmentalized into their hatred of Nixon. Think of it in those heretical terms and you'll understand it all and why I say they cannot bring themselves to think otherwise. I mean, Ashton's stuff has gotten us to the brink of something historical and these people are ready to crucify him! Damn, these insistent, simplistic zealots are the reason the CIA and The Elites continue to have so much success. They are, positively and absolutely, NO DIFFERENT then those people who get antsy waiting for "American Idol" to come on...they've just got to get their LEFTIST AGENDA fix.
I mean, you, me and lots of others can agree to disagree, but the agenda types here and elsewhere react just like Linda Blair in "The Exorcist" in the scene when Father Merrin splashes her with Holy Water (by the way, I'm most proud of that metaphor; I believe the word 'apt' comes to mind). They're not just dancing with the devil, if you catch my drift.
Ok, I'm done. To use another religious reference, I feel like I am preaching to the choir. let me know what you think. One last entry: Father forgive them for they know not what they do.
P.S. Yeah, "Seven Days In May" is one of my Hall of Famers (John Frankenheimer - my absolute favorite Director, with Burt Lancaster in "The Train" two years later, directed the unique "Seconds", the incomparable film version of "The Iceman Cometh" with Lee Marvin's definitive 'Hickey.' Oh my, I could go on and on...ok, "Manchurian Candidate", "Ronin" "Black Sunday." This feels like an orgy.............
http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0001239/
See Ya,
JAG[/b][/b]
But when I see words twisted, repeatedly, I am compelled to take a stand. Makes no difference to me who is doing the twisting. It could be my own husband and I would have the exact same response. A lie is a lie is a lie. Repeating it 40 times does not make it true.
Dawn
___________________________
Dawn (Pat can jump in, too),
I.
Stone tried to do Shakespeare and, yeah, in look, feel and tone it worked. Anthony Hopkins alone was worth the price of admission and Paul Sorvino as Kissinger was a revelation. But as an attempt at "real" it was as bogus as JFK - in a different way, of course, but not nearly the fiction that was "All The Presidents Men." That doesn't make Stone less than a great filmmaker; in fact, I'm a big fan (like, who cares?).
II.
I'm sure you're familiar with the works of Peter Dale Scott, if not his scholarly, poetic enterprises but at least his LHO essays and related works. One of them tracks what Ashton has described as a CIA staple: the bait and switch. The Lone Nut theory faded into 'the KGB did it' which in turn faded back to Lone Nut. A nice Psy Operation, I'll have to admit. This particular Scott piece, which I found on the 'net and will share if I can get to it again, is utterly eloquent and fascinating. Now, above, you mention Helms as The Pusher...of that KGB envelope, again. These people DO have patterns, just like cockroaches, so we just have to keep the lights on.
III
I abhor all the office/organizational/bureaucratic cliches that sprout and get spewed at meetings and other gatherings, but Pat and others seemingly need to "think outside the box." There, I've said it. But, you know what? They can't. Because, as always, THE AGENDA MUST BE SERVED!! Check out mr. kelly's fulmination at me when I answered someone named Joanne after she asked what book she should read about the Tippit slaying. I recommended Dale Myers' book and kelly and others were like killer bees.
It all comes down to the HERESY factor. They insist Oswald [b]must be thought of as total victim instead of the very human, afraid and vulnerable Agent-on-the-run that Friday afternoon. Nothing else is acceptable. Their righteousness increases the more that manipulation by the omnipotent CIA is piled upon this. Ashton's assertions make them itch like men on the fuzzy tree because it's not all comparmentalized into their hatred of Nixon. Think of it in those heretical terms and you'll understand it all and why I say they cannot bring themselves to think otherwise. I mean, Ashton's stuff has gotten us to the brink of something historical and these people are ready to crucify him! Damn, these insistent, simplistic zealots are the reason the CIA and The Elites continue to have so much success. They are, positively and absolutely, NO DIFFERENT then those people who get antsy waiting for "American Idol" to come on...they've just got to get their LEFTIST AGENDA fix.
I mean, you, me and lots of others can agree to disagree, but the agenda types here and elsewhere react just like Linda Blair in "The Exorcist" in the scene when Father Merrin splashes her with Holy Water (by the way, I'm most proud of that metaphor; I believe the word 'apt' comes to mind). They're not just dancing with the devil, if you catch my drift.
Ok, I'm done. To use another religious reference, I feel like I am preaching to the choir. let me know what you think. One last entry: Father forgive them for they know not what they do.
P.S. Yeah, "Seven Days In May" is one of my Hall of Famers (John Frankenheimer - my absolute favorite Director, with Burt Lancaster in "The Train" two years later, directed the unique "Seconds", the incomparable film version of "The Iceman Cometh" with Lee Marvin's definitive 'Hickey.' Oh my, I could go on and on...ok, "Manchurian Candidate", "Ronin" "Black Sunday." This feels like an orgy.............
http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0001239/
See Ya,
JAG[/b][/b]
QUOTE (John Gillespie @ Jul 27 2006, 10:02 PM)
THE AGENDA MUST BE SERVED!! Check out mr. kelly's fulmination at me when I answered someone named Joanne after she asked what book she should read about the Tippit slaying. I recommended Dale Myers' book and kelly and others were like killer bees.
It all comes down to the HERESY factor.
See Ya,
JAG[/b][/b][/b]
It all comes down to the HERESY factor.
See Ya,
JAG[/b][/b][/b]
Not if I see you first, you won't. No heresies from Mr. Gillespie, who parrots the standard party line that Dale Myers book is the gospel truth. There is nothing the CIA would like better than to have everyone believe the gospel according to Dale Myers, so it would not be unreasonable to argue that Mr. Gillespie is the leading candidate for resident CIA agent on this forum.
Myers book begins by stating a demonstrable falsehood, and of course his cartoon done for ABC television is a laughing-stock among serious JFK researchers, who do not count Mr. Gillespie among their members.
By the way, the very distinguished name Kelly is spelled with a capital K, you ignoramus.
QUOTE (John Gillespie @ Jul 27 2006, 10:02 PM)
You have seen me on this forum for almost two years now Pat. You have seen the lengths I go to try to have us all work TOGETHER, toward a common goal of understanding and solving this stuff.
But when I see words twisted, repeatedly, I am compelled to take a stand. Makes no difference to me who is doing the twisting. It could be my own husband and I would have the exact same response. A lie is a lie is a lie. Repeating it 40 times does not make it true.
Dawn
___________________________
Dawn (Pat can jump in, too),
I.
Stone tried to do Shakespeare and, yeah, in look, feel and tone it worked. Anthony Hopkins alone was worth the price of admission and Paul Sorvino as Kissinger was a revelation. But as an attempt at "real" it was as bogus as JFK - in a different way, of course, but not nearly the fiction that was "All The Presidents Men." That doesn't make Stone less than a great filmmaker; in fact, I'm a big fan (like, who cares?).
II.
I'm sure you're familiar with the works of Peter Dale Scott, if not his scholarly, poetic enterprises but at least his LHO essays and related works. One of them tracks what Ashton has described as a CIA staple: the bait and switch. The Lone Nut theory faded into 'the KGB did it' which in turn faded back to Lone Nut. A nice Psy Operation, I'll have to admit. This particular Scott piece, which I found on the 'net and will share if I can get to it again, is utterly eloquent and fascinating. Now, above, you mention Helms as The Pusher...of that KGB envelope, again. These people DO have patterns, just like cockroaches, so we just have to keep the lights on.
III
I abhor all the office/organizational/bureaucratic cliches that sprout and get spewed at meetings and other gatherings, but Pat and others seemingly need to "think outside the box." There, I've said it. But, you know what? They can't. Because, as always, THE AGENDA MUST BE SERVED!! Check out mr. kelly's fulmination at me when I answered someone named Joanne after she asked what book she should read about the Tippit slaying. I recommended Dale Myers' book and kelly and others were like killer bees.
It all comes down to the HERESY factor. They insist Oswald [b]must be thought of as total victim instead of the very human, afraid and vulnerable Agent-on-the-run that Friday afternoon. Nothing else is acceptable. Their righteousness increases the more that manipulation by the omnipotent CIA is piled upon this. Ashton's assertions make them itch like men on the fuzzy tree because it's not all comparmentalized into their hatred of Nixon. Think of it in those heretical terms and you'll understand it all and why I say they cannot bring themselves to think otherwise. I mean, Ashton's stuff has gotten us to the brink of something historical and these people are ready to crucify him! Damn, these insistent, simplistic zealots are the reason the CIA and The Elites continue to have so much success. They are, positively and absolutely, NO DIFFERENT then those people who get antsy waiting for "American Idol" to come on...they've just got to get their LEFTIST AGENDA fix.
I mean, you, me and lots of others can agree to disagree, but the agenda types here and elsewhere react just like Linda Blair in "The Exorcist" in the scene when Father Merrin splashes her with Holy Water (by the way, I'm most proud of that metaphor; I believe the word 'apt' comes to mind). They're not just dancing with the devil, if you catch my drift.
Ok, I'm done. To use another religious reference, I feel like I am preaching to the choir. let me know what you think. One last entry: Father forgive them for they know not what they do.
P.S. Yeah, "Seven Days In May" is one of my Hall of Famers (John Frankenheimer - my absolute favorite Director, with Burt Lancaster in "The Train" two years later, directed the unique "Seconds", the incomparable film version of "The Iceman Cometh" with Lee Marvin's definitive 'Hickey.' Oh my, I could go on and on...ok, "Manchurian Candidate", "Ronin" "Black Sunday." This feels like an orgy.............
http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0001239/
See Ya,
JAG[/b][/b]
But when I see words twisted, repeatedly, I am compelled to take a stand. Makes no difference to me who is doing the twisting. It could be my own husband and I would have the exact same response. A lie is a lie is a lie. Repeating it 40 times does not make it true.
Dawn
___________________________
Dawn (Pat can jump in, too),
I.
Stone tried to do Shakespeare and, yeah, in look, feel and tone it worked. Anthony Hopkins alone was worth the price of admission and Paul Sorvino as Kissinger was a revelation. But as an attempt at "real" it was as bogus as JFK - in a different way, of course, but not nearly the fiction that was "All The Presidents Men." That doesn't make Stone less than a great filmmaker; in fact, I'm a big fan (like, who cares?).
II.
I'm sure you're familiar with the works of Peter Dale Scott, if not his scholarly, poetic enterprises but at least his LHO essays and related works. One of them tracks what Ashton has described as a CIA staple: the bait and switch. The Lone Nut theory faded into 'the KGB did it' which in turn faded back to Lone Nut. A nice Psy Operation, I'll have to admit. This particular Scott piece, which I found on the 'net and will share if I can get to it again, is utterly eloquent and fascinating. Now, above, you mention Helms as The Pusher...of that KGB envelope, again. These people DO have patterns, just like cockroaches, so we just have to keep the lights on.
III
I abhor all the office/organizational/bureaucratic cliches that sprout and get spewed at meetings and other gatherings, but Pat and others seemingly need to "think outside the box." There, I've said it. But, you know what? They can't. Because, as always, THE AGENDA MUST BE SERVED!! Check out mr. kelly's fulmination at me when I answered someone named Joanne after she asked what book she should read about the Tippit slaying. I recommended Dale Myers' book and kelly and others were like killer bees.
It all comes down to the HERESY factor. They insist Oswald [b]must be thought of as total victim instead of the very human, afraid and vulnerable Agent-on-the-run that Friday afternoon. Nothing else is acceptable. Their righteousness increases the more that manipulation by the omnipotent CIA is piled upon this. Ashton's assertions make them itch like men on the fuzzy tree because it's not all comparmentalized into their hatred of Nixon. Think of it in those heretical terms and you'll understand it all and why I say they cannot bring themselves to think otherwise. I mean, Ashton's stuff has gotten us to the brink of something historical and these people are ready to crucify him! Damn, these insistent, simplistic zealots are the reason the CIA and The Elites continue to have so much success. They are, positively and absolutely, NO DIFFERENT then those people who get antsy waiting for "American Idol" to come on...they've just got to get their LEFTIST AGENDA fix.
I mean, you, me and lots of others can agree to disagree, but the agenda types here and elsewhere react just like Linda Blair in "The Exorcist" in the scene when Father Merrin splashes her with Holy Water (by the way, I'm most proud of that metaphor; I believe the word 'apt' comes to mind). They're not just dancing with the devil, if you catch my drift.
Ok, I'm done. To use another religious reference, I feel like I am preaching to the choir. let me know what you think. One last entry: Father forgive them for they know not what they do.
P.S. Yeah, "Seven Days In May" is one of my Hall of Famers (John Frankenheimer - my absolute favorite Director, with Burt Lancaster in "The Train" two years later, directed the unique "Seconds", the incomparable film version of "The Iceman Cometh" with Lee Marvin's definitive 'Hickey.' Oh my, I could go on and on...ok, "Manchurian Candidate", "Ronin" "Black Sunday." This feels like an orgy.............
http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0001239/
See Ya,
JAG[/b][/b]
John, while we agree on films our paths separate on the "bona-fides" of Mr. Gray. His "Ellsberg is CIA, Liddy is CIA, Dean is CIA, Pat Gray is CIA" theory won't fly even on the windiest of days, and is LUDICROUS, in my opinion. Call me closed-minded, if you like. It's just that I've read probably 20,000 pages on Watergate over the years, from its many participants, and have found they tell a cohesive story. Now someone almost certainly using a fake name calling himself "Gray" comes along, insulting everyone in his path, and tries to sell us that what makes sense is really a cover for a completely incomprehensible plot involving the Church of Scientology and Gerry Ford, and whose only evidence for said plot seems to ibe that Douglas Caddy lied to Bob Woodward. Sorry, I'm not buying.
To clarify, while the CIA may very well have made sure that the White House got blamed for the break-in, AFTER THE FACT, it is downright silly to believe, as Ashton does, that the release of the Pentagon Papers, the manufacture of the Diem Cables, the break-in at Fielding's office, the Watergate break-ins, and the appointment of Gerry Ford to the Presidency were all part of a CIA-orchestrated plot. Nixon's men, including Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Dean, Colson, Magruder, Mitchell, Liddy, and even Nixon himself, admitted White House involvement in many crimes. While one might say these crimes were justified in the name of National Security, only someone out of touch with reality, IMO, would hold that these men were mere pawns in some master plan hatched by Richard Helms, a BUREAUCRAT who engendered so little loyalty among his subordinates that his replacement William Colby exposed him as a perjurer.
QUOTE (Pat Speer @ Jul 31 2006, 07:54 AM)
QUOTE (John Gillespie @ Jul 27 2006, 10:02 PM)
You have seen me on this forum for almost two years now Pat. You have seen the lengths I go to try to have us all work TOGETHER, toward a common goal of understanding and solving this stuff.
But when I see words twisted, repeatedly, I am compelled to take a stand. Makes no difference to me who is doing the twisting. It could be my own husband and I would have the exact same response. A lie is a lie is a lie. Repeating it 40 times does not make it true.
Dawn
___________________________
Dawn (Pat can jump in, too),
I.
Stone tried to do Shakespeare and, yeah, in look, feel and tone it worked. Anthony Hopkins alone was worth the price of admission and Paul Sorvino as Kissinger was a revelation. But as an attempt at "real" it was as bogus as JFK - in a different way, of course, but not nearly the fiction that was "All The Presidents Men." That doesn't make Stone less than a great filmmaker; in fact, I'm a big fan (like, who cares?).
II.
I'm sure you're familiar with the works of Peter Dale Scott, if not his scholarly, poetic enterprises but at least his LHO essays and related works. One of them tracks what Ashton has described as a CIA staple: the bait and switch. The Lone Nut theory faded into 'the KGB did it' which in turn faded back to Lone Nut. A nice Psy Operation, I'll have to admit. This particular Scott piece, which I found on the 'net and will share if I can get to it again, is utterly eloquent and fascinating. Now, above, you mention Helms as The Pusher...of that KGB envelope, again. These people DO have patterns, just like cockroaches, so we just have to keep the lights on.
III
I abhor all the office/organizational/bureaucratic cliches that sprout and get spewed at meetings and other gatherings, but Pat and others seemingly need to "think outside the box." There, I've said it. But, you know what? They can't. Because, as always, THE AGENDA MUST BE SERVED!! Check out mr. kelly's fulmination at me when I answered someone named Joanne after she asked what book she should read about the Tippit slaying. I recommended Dale Myers' book and kelly and others were like killer bees.
It all comes down to the HERESY factor. They insist Oswald [b]must be thought of as total victim instead of the very human, afraid and vulnerable Agent-on-the-run that Friday afternoon. Nothing else is acceptable. Their righteousness increases the more that manipulation by the omnipotent CIA is piled upon this. Ashton's assertions make them itch like men on the fuzzy tree because it's not all comparmentalized into their hatred of Nixon. Think of it in those heretical terms and you'll understand it all and why I say they cannot bring themselves to think otherwise. I mean, Ashton's stuff has gotten us to the brink of something historical and these people are ready to crucify him! Damn, these insistent, simplistic zealots are the reason the CIA and The Elites continue to have so much success. They are, positively and absolutely, NO DIFFERENT then those people who get antsy waiting for "American Idol" to come on...they've just got to get their LEFTIST AGENDA fix.
I mean, you, me and lots of others can agree to disagree, but the agenda types here and elsewhere react just like Linda Blair in "The Exorcist" in the scene when Father Merrin splashes her with Holy Water (by the way, I'm most proud of that metaphor; I believe the word 'apt' comes to mind). They're not just dancing with the devil, if you catch my drift.
Ok, I'm done. To use another religious reference, I feel like I am preaching to the choir. let me know what you think. One last entry: Father forgive them for they know not what they do.
P.S. Yeah, "Seven Days In May" is one of my Hall of Famers (John Frankenheimer - my absolute favorite Director, with Burt Lancaster in "The Train" two years later, directed the unique "Seconds", the incomparable film version of "The Iceman Cometh" with Lee Marvin's definitive 'Hickey.' Oh my, I could go on and on...ok, "Manchurian Candidate", "Ronin" "Black Sunday." This feels like an orgy.............
http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0001239/
See Ya,
JAG[/b][/b]
John, while we agree on films our paths separate on the "bona-fides" of Mr. Gray. His "Ellsberg is CIA, Liddy is CIA, Dean is CIA, Pat Gray is CIA" theory won't fly even on the windiest of days, and is LUDICROUS, in my opinion. Call me closed-minded, if you like. It's just that I've read probably 20,000 pages on Watergate over the years, from its many participants, and have found they tell a cohesive story. Now someone almost certainly using a fake name calling himself "Gray" comes along, insulting everyone in his path, and tries to sell us that what makes sense is really a cover for a completely incomprehensible plot involving the Church of Scientology and Gerry Ford, and whose only evidence for said plot seems to ibe that Douglas Caddy lied to Bob Woodward. Sorry, I'm not buying.
To clarify, while the CIA may very well have made sure that the White House got blamed for the break-in, AFTER THE FACT, it is downright silly to believe, as Ashton does, that the release of the Pentagon Papers, the manufacture of the Diem Cables, the break-in at Fielding's office, the Watergate break-ins, and the appointment of Gerry Ford to the Presidency were all part of a CIA-orchestrated plot. Nixon's men, including Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Dean, Colson, Magruder, Mitchell, Liddy, and even Nixon himself, admitted White House involvement in many crimes. While one might say these crimes were justified in the name of National Security, only someone out of touch with reality, IMO, would hold that these men were mere pawns in some master plan hatched by Richard Helms, a BUREAUCRAT who engendered so little loyalty among his subordinates that his replacement William Colby exposed him as a perjurer.
_________________
Jack,
I appreciate your points, Jack. I cannot say I buy into [i]everything Mr. Gray offers but I don't believe in too many coincidences.
Take Care,
JG
QUOTE (J. Raymond Carroll @ Jul 30 2006, 10:25 PM)
QUOTE (John Gillespie @ Jul 27 2006, 10:02 PM)
THE AGENDA MUST BE SERVED!! Check out mr. kelly's fulmination at me when I answered someone named Joanne after she asked what book she should read about the Tippit slaying. I recommended Dale Myers' book and kelly and others were like killer bees.
It all comes down to the HERESY factor.
See Ya,
JAG[/b][/b][/b]
Not if I see you first, you won't. No heresies from Mr. Gillespie, who parrots the standard party line that Dale Myers book is the gospel truth. There is nothing the CIA would like better than to have everyone believe the gospel according to Dale Myers, so it would not be unreasonable to argue that Mr. Gillespie is the leading candidate for resident CIA agent on this forum.
Myers book begins by stating a demonstrable falsehood, and of course his cartoon done for ABC television is a laughing-stock among serious JFK researchers, who do not count Mr. Gillespie among their members.
By the way, the very distinguished name Kelly is spelled with a capital K, you ignoramus.
_____________
Gee, and I thought we were friends. I surprise myself here by responding to someone who has added NOTHING and who proves my point(s) about the agenda being served. But, on the other hand, you have just called me a name. So, here are a couple of things: 1.) Don't do it again and 2.) go away. Say hello to mr. k.
John Gillespie
QUOTE (John Gillespie @ Jul 31 2006, 02:24 PM)
Gee, and I thought we were friends. I surprise myself here by responding to someone who has added NOTHING and who proves my point(s) about the agenda being served.
John Gillespie
John Gillespie
Dale Myer's book promotes the Warren Commission agenda, so we must conclude that anyone promoting Dale Myer's book is promoting the Warren Commission's agenda. It's a free country, of course, and Warren Commission apologists like yourself are entitled to their say. But you will have to do better than referencing Dale Myers to prove that the Warren Commission was right.
Mike Griffith did a pretty thorough review/debunking of Myers' Tippit tome a while back. It can be read here. I wonder if Mr. Gillespie has ever come across it?
don't answer.
QUOTE (Owen Parsons @ Aug 2 2006, 02:14 AM)
Mike Griffith did a pretty thorough review/debunking of Myers' Tippit tome a while back. It can be read here. I wonder if Mr. Gillespie has ever come across it?
Owen:
Great to see you back. Hope you are enjoying that ocean!!!
Dale Myers? John have you seen his single bullet animation? It's disgraceful. I am surprised.
Dawn
QUOTE (Dawn Meredith @ Aug 3 2006, 12:56 PM)
QUOTE (Owen Parsons @ Aug 2 2006, 02:14 AM)
Mike Griffith did a pretty thorough review/debunking of Myers' Tippit tome a while back. It can be read here. I wonder if Mr. Gillespie has ever come across it?
Owen:
Great to see you back. Hope you are enjoying that ocean!!!
Dale Myers? John have you seen his single bullet animation? It's disgraceful. I am surprised.
Dawn
___________________________
Hi. Yeah, he is wrong on JFK, correct on Tippit. That's my story and I'm sticking to it...for very good reasons. The two things are not mutually exclusive and I think - in sentiment and in fact - that concept is in play on The Forum in most quarters.
JohnG (BTW: check out Jack's latest on photos taken from The Eagle).
Dale Myer's book promotes the Warren Commission agenda, so we must conclude that anyone promoting Dale Myer's book is promoting the Warren Commission's agenda. It's a free country, of course, and Warren Commission apologists like yourself are entitled to their say. But you will have to do better than referencing Dale Myers to prove that the Warren Commission was right.
[/quote]
_________________
You're a nobody, a pathetic wannabe, probably another comfortable liberal and you contribute nothing.
[/quote]
_________________
You're a nobody, a pathetic wannabe, probably another comfortable liberal and you contribute nothing.
QUOTE (Owen Parsons @ Aug 2 2006, 01:14 AM)
Mike Griffith did a pretty thorough review/debunking of Myers' Tippit tome a while back. It can be read here. I wonder if Mr. Gillespie has ever come across it?
_____________________
Owen,
I appreciate your comments. I have read Mr. Griffith's essay and I think it is admirably constructed and written. However, it suffers from the same influences I see throughout this Forum and elsewhere: that entire packages, or agendae, must be preserved in order for theses to be formed and conclusions drawn.
Mr. Myers spent five years of his life INVESTIGATING this murder. That means countless interviews (in which he punctured the Earlene Roberts and Acquila Clemons balloons, among others), examination of evidence, research, BEING THERE and all the other things that good investigators do. After reading "With Malice" I felt Greg had covered every aspect of his investigation as best as one possibly could have and I therefore concluded that Oswald killed Tippit.
The best and most lucid witnesses were the ones who had the longest periods of time to observe him. Barring some truly extraordinary event - something as altering as the Furman tape in O.J. - a jury would have convicted him because it would have been a day at the beach for a prosecutor. Those who believe evidence was manipulated have not provided anything solid, in my view, and the tenor of their collective arguments has a very distinctive and easily recognizeable drift, that of wishful thinking. I Truly believe they are simply offended because there are those willing to say that LHO was not set up in this murder. That represents, to those so persuaded, the removal of the cloak of martyrdom. It doesn't for me, by the way. Oswald is among so very few in my lifetime who I consider true martyrs. As I have written elsewhere, killing Tippit was the right thing for LHO to do. I'd have done the same. Oh yes, he certainly was a patsy regarding the other murder, committed just a bit earlier.
Up until I read Mr. Myers' book I had not seen anything in this matter resembling a full investigation that addressed matters fairly. I believe the work was honest and thorough and I know whereof I speak. As Mr. Myers and I, in several correspondences, have agreed to disagree about Oswald and the JFK slaying, I'm certain you and I can remain gentlemen towards each other while we agree to do the same, disagree.
Yours Truly,
John Gillespie
QUOTE (J. Raymond Carroll @ Aug 1 2006, 11:42 PM)
QUOTE (John Gillespie @ Jul 31 2006, 02:24 PM)
Gee, and I thought we were friends. I surprise myself here by responding to someone who has added NOTHING and who proves my point(s) about the agenda being served.
John Gillespie
Dale Myer's book promotes the Warren Commission agenda, so we must conclude that anyone promoting Dale Myer's book is promoting the Warren Commission's agenda. It's a free country, of course, and Warren Commission apologists like yourself are entitled to their say. But you will have to do better than referencing Dale Myers to prove that the Warren Commission was right.
Ray, there are a number of prominent conspiracy theorists who accept the possibility Oswald murdered Tippit. I agree with them; it's possible. You can smell a pro-Warren Commission agenda only when the person saying it's possible or probable takes from this that it's likely Oswald killed Kennedy. No such connection can be made. If Oswald was involved in some operation, but didn't realize this operation entailed killing the president, he would have had plenty of reason to believe he'd been set up. In such case, he would have distrusted the DPD, a notoriously corrupt outfit, and would have been rightly in fear for his life should Tippit bring him in. That the killer of Tippit was reputed to mutter "poor dumb cop" afterwards has always led me to believe it was indeed Oswald, and that Oswald had harbored no intention of killing Tippit until backed into a corner. If Oswald was crazy and attention-starved he would have expressed no remorse. If the killer was someone trying to frame Oswald he would have said nothing at all for fear the witnesses would realize the voice was not Oswald's. If he did say something, it wouldn't have been "poor dumb cop" or something equally compassionate, but "serves you right" or "down with fascists" or something equally incriminating.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.