Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      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 these  to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Tom Neal

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tom Neal

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 07/12/1953

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Orlando, FL

Recent Profile Visitors

2,488 profile views
  1. Michael Walton, Pardon the somewhat personal question, but I don't think you would object to responding... It's impossible to read multiple postings from an individual and not form an opinion as to how their minds work. Particularly their methods used to form and defend an 'unpopular' (at least on this site) opinion, such as your insistence that the extant film "came out of Abe's camera." These perceived methods may be extrapolated into fields other than the assassination as an indication of this opinion's degree of accuracy. I have neither posted here, nor read any threads here for many months, so have not read any opinion stated by you in the Hillary v. Trump debacle. I returned to read the comments re John Newman's new publications, but have done a quick scan of the current topics, and you continued denial of Z-film alteration caught my attention. In my opinion, you didn't like either candidate enough to support their election. Despite their vast differences, and the undeniable fact that one of these two would end up in the White House, rather than choose the lesser of the two evils, you chose not to vote at all. Also, you are QUITE confident that you made the right choice so you will have no qualms in responding to my opinion. I am simply curious as to whether or not my opinion is accurate, and I thank you in advance for any response. And yes, I also do card tricks, tell fortunes, and predict the future...
  2. Bennett's testimony is frequently dismissed by several long-term EF members because he is "looking in the wrong direction" when the shot was fired. My response has been; when exactly did this shot occur on the Z-film? None have responded. When asked exactly when still photos were taken of Bennett looking "right" and not at JFK no one responded. Bennett himself states that he was looking "right" when he heard a shot. He was seated on the right hand side of the car and per SS procedure SHOULD have been looking right. He further states that upon hearing the shot he immediately looked at the President, saw the impact of a second shot which struck his back, and turned back to the right looking for the source of the shot. Unless a still photo was taken during the second or two Bennett was looking at JFK he would be seen looking to the right. Considering the lack of a consensus, as to the precise time of the shot, can we determine the direction Bennett was looking on every Z-frame when that shot might have occurred? Not in my opinion... There is a paragraph or two in one of Hill's books where Paul Landis states that at the time he boarded AF-1 after the assassination he was essentially a mental basket case and was not pleased with himself for falling apart like this. He compares his state of mind to the professional manner in which Glenn Bennett sat with notebook in hand writing down his observations of the shooting. Bennett stated the time and location as to when he made these notes which are on record. Many members here dismiss this fact, and state that he 'made the notes the next day' to buttress the autopsy conclusions AFTER the autopsy had revealed the back wound. The fact that Landis not only provides evidence as to when and where Bennett wrote these notes, the circumstances he describes most definitely would remain in his memory. If Landis made up this statement, WHY would he admit to behavior that he himself was ashamed of? He could simply have stated that he was impressed with Bennett's professional behavior when every one else was bouncing off the walls. That would be a perfectly credible statement. IMO, Bennett saw what he says he saw.
  3. Case Closed and Bugliosi's book tied as the least "believable" books ever written about the JFK assassination. Case Closed and United Fruit's relationship to CIA is as well known as CIA's complicity in the assassination. If it wasn't already, your credibility is less than zero... EDIT: Jim D. I responded before reading the entire thread. Your comments as expected are right on the mark.
  4. Trump would choose the presidency, but being Trump he would get caught making business deals. Once a Trump, ALWAYS a Trump.
  5. "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is rather vague even in legal terms. If Trump could be shown to have participated or even encouraged Russian hacking of the election, then that allegation would be enough for impeachment hearings. He did publicly state that he hoped the Russians would hack Hillary's emails. If elected he is signalling that the Russians would have done a good thing with no fear of reprisals. Encouraging election tampering is not a crime, but ethics is certainly an issue.
  6. Newsweek - Kurt Eichenwald 1-10-2017 "Moscow is seen as a direct threat to the interests of NATO and other American allies—both in its aggressive efforts to reshape global alliances and for its power to damage Western Europe, which obtains almost 40 percent of its natural gas from Russia. Should the United States, the last remaining superpower, tilt its policies away from NATO to the benefit of Russia, the alliance between America and Western Europe could be transformed in unprecedented ways. And so, for perhaps the first time since World War II, countries in Western Europe fear that the American election of Trump could trigger events that imperil their national security and irreparably harm the alliances that have kept the continent safe for decades." It was the Brits who first warned us of the Russian hacking. *IF* Western Europe continues to view Trump as a major threat and makes it clear that they want Trump out of office, will the Republicans (who didn't want Trump in the first place) endanger our alliance? What does the party have to lose if they dump Trumpty Dumpty? If the Republicans who have spoken out against Trump were to quietly inform the Democrats that they would support impeachment proceedings, the Dems would start the ball rolling. Even an unsuccessful impeachment would hurt Trump badly, so he would be forced to cut a deal or be ousted.
  7. Trump?

    Newsweek - Kurt Eichenwald 1-10-2017 Moscow is seen as a direct threat to the interests of NATO and other American allies—both in its aggressive efforts to reshape global alliances and for its power to damage Western Europe, which obtains almost 40 percent of its natural gas from Russia. Should the United States, the last remaining superpower, tilt its policies away from NATO to the benefit of Russia, the alliance between America and Western Europe could be transformed in unprecedented ways. And so, for perhaps the first time since World War II, countries in Western Europe fear that the American election of Trump could trigger events that imperil their national security and irreparably harm the alliances that have kept the continent safe for decades.
  8. Kirk, I'm confident he will destroy himself, but not absolutely certain. I can't see him changing the habits of a lifetime. With his ego, and considering that he just defied all odds (AND the popular vote) and finds himself about to take over the reins of the U$A, he figures no one can successfully oppose him. It all comes down to how his moves will fit in with what orders the Republican party receives. IOW Trump will continue to be Trump, but it's not a certainty what the Republicans will do to achieve their goals. I'm convinced that if Trump's actions are in strong opposition to what his party wants, at the very least he will be neutered by Congress. How much can Trump do if Congress opposes him as they did Obama? *IF* the Republicans want him our of office, how difficult will it be to create enough of a scandal - or simply popularize a real one? There are already allegations of morally unacceptable behavior by Trump while in Russia. If Putin was quietly offered a better deal by the US than Trump can provide considering full Congressional opposition, Putin would throw Trump under the bus in a heartbeat. Trump outed by his own patron would be the poetic justice he deserves... Karma.
  9. Michael, Definitely an interesting article. The last comment about exhuming JFK's remains begs the question: Who could we trust to do it? BTW, are you sure you didn't vote for Trump?
  10. What's in it for Trump, personally? Do you think he cares about "unconstitutional" powers of the intelligence branch? He knows nothing about the Constitution and cares even less. The public believes Trump, so he doesn't have to destroy the intelligence community's power to get what he wants. Trump is riding high, and he thinks he can't be beaten by anyone. If he goes head to head with the intelligence community who is only doing the bidding of the ultra-rich he will be eradicated. He has no idea the power they have... "Dynasty" or not, only Trump or Hillary could end up in the WH in 2017. She was and is better than Trump. That's all that matters. The longer Trump is in office, the better Hillary will look to all of us. Just like Bush there will be many cases of voter remorse, and the public will learn nothing from their mistake.
  11. I don't know why you think that's what I meant; I said "The powers that be." I certainly didn't mean the CIA or "old generals." They are the ones that take the orders from the ultra-wealthy. They do NOT call the shots, and never have. The MICC (meaning those who profit by war or the threat of it) needs a boogey-man to keep a military force almost greater than the rest of the world's forces combined. This includes the oil companies as well as the Fed, Wall St. etc. As far as "The" cold war, we have the one against "communism" that started before WWII ended, and the one that was escalated by Reagan against the "Evil Empire." War hasn't gone out of style, and a cold war with Russian isn't a case of "been there, done that, got the T-shirt." Reagan effectively started a new cold war after Detente was murdered. You think it couldn't happen again??? Do the military contracters want 'peace' with Russia? Do the "bankers and financiers" not profit from cold war as well as business dealings with Russia? Can you have business and cold war simultaneously? Americans do not support another ME war, but another cold war with beloved Reagan's evil empire? People still believe life in the USA under Reagan was the best it has ever been. Why not do it again? Does Congress want to lift the current sanctions against Putin, or increase them? If they want to escalate and drops wants to drop them altogether and embrace Putin then he's putting himself in an unsafe position. IF on the other hand, Congress wants to do what Trump wants to do about Russia, then there is a marriage there for Trump.
  12. "Perfect?" If true, then *why* was Trump so strongly opposed by his own party? He's hardly their "darling" even now. Do professional politicians REALLY want billionaires to replace them in the WH? Trump put Ted Cruz out of a job. If Trump were impeached that would be a warning to anyone else, and they would still have a Republican president. They would play it as they heroically did what was best for the U$A and impeached their own man. They can say that the people elected him, and point to video clips stating that they never wanted him. The only man to become POTUS without being elected as P or VP was Gerald Ford. The forced resignations of Nixon and Agnew hasn't done the Republicans any lasting harm. Trump will go too far, because like the scorpion, that's who he is...
  13. McConnell opposes literally anything and everything that BO does, so I'm finding it hard to belief his threat to cry election tampering was enough to make BO "back down." Particularly, when he had the intelligence community backing him up. It's already been said that BO didn't do enough about Russian tampering, so as expected he was damned if he do, and damned if he don't. And he's a lame duck - what did he have to lose? What was the reaction of the majority of Congress to BO's proposal of a united front?
  14. Michael, Thanks for your response, and I SINCERELY hope you are correct. Nothing would give me greater pleasure that to be dead wrong, but I foresee another victory for the "invisible gov't." As controlled by the owners as the media was in the JFK era, since Reagan forced them to become entertainment and propaganda driven only, our sole hope is the internet. Trump's rednecks are not online, and would only go to Fox News sites if they were. The gov't is elected by the masses who *choose* ignorance over facts. Until the other half of the voters acquire some knowledge of how things *actually* are done we have no hope of changing the current system. Greed runs the U$A, and about half of the voters are OK with it as they too are addicted to money. Bernie sat down with Wisconsin voters post election and asked why they voted for Trump. They believe that "maybe" Trump will bring bank jobs to America. Right. What about every one of Trump's companies that use only overseas labor? Not going to happen. As dishonest as the average politician's campaign promises are, with Trump they ain't seen nothing yet! They will eventually realize they have been had, but will continue to make the same mistake as their ignorance makes them gullible. Trump is not a business man, he's a con-man. He's made, and lost, his fortune by screwing over the competition and not paying his debts. He won't fare well doing this to China for example, as we will continue to need their money. His notion that "we just won't pay them" what we owe is born from a lifetime of doing just that in his business dealings. I predict his impeachment, but that is far from a happy ending. With Hillary we would have had a liberal Supreme Court and the power to make changes that are desperately needed. With a Republican president we will have a Republican Supreme Court for many years to come who will exacerbate the current already unacceptable situation. With control of the WH, the Supreme Court AND Congress what possible change 'for the better' could come from this administration? PLEASE convince me I'm wrong - - I need *some* hope...
  15. Has any new hacking info appeared since the original DNC hacks? I don't think so - yet, when the release of info that Putin was helping Trump get elected could have hurt his election chances, there was virtual silence from the media and the intelligence services. During the debates, Hillary was clear that the hacks were designed to hurt her, yet that got no traction. Now that Trump is assured as the new POTUS the word is that Russia definitely hacked the election for Trump. If the intelligence services were against Trump they would have come out with this before the election. Like the Kennedy assassination, it isn't the intelligence community making the decision, it's those who intelligence answers to - and I don't mean Barack Obama... Do they want Trump in general, or just his intentions to once again escalate the military? Why bring the hacking up now unless they simply want to kindle Cold War II which was so profitable without the death count of the Iraq War? Trump, on the other hand, wants to drop sanctions and do direct business with his sponsor Putin. Isn't it now Trump-Putin v. US intelligence? Does Trump owe money to China? Does he think that igniting a cold war with China will allow the US to refuse to repay its debt? Is he trying to create a new enemy to take the heat off Putin? With the full knowledge that Russian did in fact hack this election and that their hacking certainly hurt Hillary, and her dramatic win in the popular vote, why is no one questioning Trump's "victory" in a 'tampered with' election? Imagine the Republican reaction if Russia's hacking favored Hillary. What are the Dems doing right now? Once again, "The Powers That Be" have decided who Trump will be President. Bottom line, Trump is only interested in making money for Trump. This POTUS gig is for his ego, and his wallet - nothing else. If Trump does what the real powers want, they will allow him to indulge his greed. If Trump doesn't follow orders (he won't!) the Republican Congress will impeach him, and the party will install a Cheney-like VP to keep bible-thumper Pence on track.