Jump to content
The Education Forum

Kirk Gallaway

Members
  • Content Count

    510
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kirk Gallaway

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Los Gatos, Ca.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,427 profile views
  1. Larry, respectfully I appreciate your work involved in coming to this conclusion, and my take from you is that Hunt is a big mouthed, bungling, CIA hack. Yet still 10 years after the assassination, he manages to elevate himself to the White House. You don't have to go back in history to see that people ascend to high executive and high advisory positions who are completely unfit. Obviously you and Jim have in essence dedicated a good part of your time, effort, just your life pursuing this national tragedy, than I ever will, and I respect that. I have no idea if Hunt is completely shooting in the dark in the last years of his life to partially get revenge for his treatment and using the most current juicy revelations. to spice up his story in order to support his son's future life. . Jim I asked you this. We could also use more information as to your beliefs, Jim. You go to lengths to exclude only Cord Meyer, tell me your hunches about the other cast of characters Hunt named, namely Harvey, Phillips, Sturgis, Morales. The fact that you distanced yourself from this and are non committal, to in my thinking this very central question, I interpret is that you're stymied about this issue. Which is fine. Jim Quote Howard Hunt threw together some popular names in the field and placed them in a Waring blender for people to chew on. The fact that none of them makes much sense placed together, Jim, you're saying this surprised me. I could not agree with you less. This operational cast of characters ( Harvey,Phillips, Sturgis, Morales) is not at all disparate or wacky. Hunt quote in the first 30 seconds of his video presentation: "What is important in the story is that we backtracked the chain of command up through the Cord Meyer(?)and laying the doings at the doorstep of LBJ" Notice his slip up, "through the Cord Meyer" as if he's just some sort of appendage in the story to link to LBJ. The addition of Cord Meyer to LBJ can easily be explained, as I've conjectured for years now with no real support from anyone here. Meyer is the operational link to LBJ, which in my speculation is a planned diversion from Daddy, the Agency, Dulles, (though honestly I think you have to take in account his health to have carried this out at this stage of his life and may have been done in his name.) Angleton, Helms, though possibly he just distanced himself and looked the other way and speculated others. It can explained as a limited hang out, with a diversion at the end, much like the alleged Castro- Russian involvement in the assassination itself, with an expectation of the same results, where the principals end up protected. Hunt gets a measure of revenge and takes care of his son. He is willing to be a historically infamous, (which is true in any case) because he has no remorse, thinks JFK was a security threat and either thinks more people should become aware of that, or is willing to be remembered as perhaps a historically misguided individual who at least was a patriot.. I don't know that any of this is true, but only that it can easily be explained. Hunt's cast of characters (Harvey, Phillips, Sturgis and Morales) really is JFK Assassination, CIA Rogue Conspiracy 1a.
  2. Jim says, The other point was that what Hunt originally said in private differed from what he later said in public. What more do you need? What more do we need? 1)Well let's start with what did he say in private as opposed to what he said in public. I expressed here many times including last week that i thought Cord Meyer was a throw in to link to LBJ. But I've never heard you say that Jim. But Ok. 2) We could also use more information as to your beliefs, Jim. You got to lengths to exclude only Cord Meyer, tell me your hunches about the other cast of characters Hunt named, namely Harvey, Phillips, Sturgis, Morales. 3) If not any of these suspects, Do you believe any of what Hunt says? Don't make this like pulling teeth, Jim. What do you got?
  3. Larry, I want to get your take on it, so I went to your site and see that your blogs go back only to Dec. 2011. So I registered. Can you direct me to your comments in 2010? I realize it wasn't you who couldn't resist letting us know that he had "inside information" about this . It was Jim. And I understand that neither of you may want to reveal the whole story in respect to the person, who I would suspect tried to hard to please his audience and couldn't substantiate his facts to the degree that he was fearful of facing reprisals. But the way this is now. It really invites more questions than it answers. What's unclear to me is,what was his fear? Who would he see reprisals from? Hunt did not die a rich man. His family outside of St. John wanted to disown him for his alleged confession and so would welcome the discrediting an account from their Father that tarnishes their family's name and will forever place him as a conspirator in the JFKA, and St.John has no money to speak of, and would not be feared. His alleged co-conspirators and their families, of course would welcome such a repudiation,, as well as any alleged ongoing government "deep state" conspiracy for those would believe in that. So who would he be afraid of?
  4. I wouldn't put revenge beyond him at all. Nor would I necessarily impugn his "characters" as they would be the only characters he would be involved with, if the story were true... He even prefaced his fingering of LBJ as stating, "in my opinion".
  5. Larry, Let me see if I got this right. So you and Jim are protecting the right of someone who made what he later judged to be a legal gaffe in front of 100 people, to request that what he said is not sold or reproduced, concerning an "outreach" (though I'm not sure what that means) to Hunt? And then I would assume because his information denigrates the Hunt confession, he would then fear reprisals from ... St. John, or the Hunt family?
  6. Kirk Gallaway

    Merry Christmas

    Hmm........, Well Ron, That has not been Dave or mine's experience. But I quit KFC 10 years ago initially because I didn't like the way I smelled when I sat down. It turned out that was a good health choice on many counts. Ho Ho Ho! Just kidding, Dave And a Happy Holiday to all, and if you celebrate Christmas, may you get your most coveted Holiday wish!, like our hero below, the Great John Candy.
  7. Kirk Gallaway

    A conspiracy theory even a Lone Nutter can love ...

    Joe, don't go, please don't stop posting, you have a lot to contribute. I get some new knowledge from you, and you refresh my memory about some things I forget about, and every once in a while, you elucidate what I think much better than I could have. But get the spelling of my name right. He heh. Just joking. You should preface your comments a bit Lance. (which you did) Joe is one of the most genteel people here. I would remind you as a Christian, "Blessed are the meek". But I'm sure being an expert on Christianity, you'll come up with some interpretation of misinterpretation of that 2000 year old "he said he said", because certainly you're not in that mold. That's fine, neither am I. I remember what brought that "are you crazy Joe" J retort was Joe's response to your post where you describe that being anti conspiracy here as very hostile environment in so many words. I agree with Joe I think you're being treated pretty civilly by in large. Of course you engage in anything more than mild jousts (which are fair game in my mind) with some members, don't be surprised that they'll insult right back. You really don't have a right to feel persecuted. There is a lot of home turf considerations here. When a LNer challenges a traditional CT territory, the usual response is for the CT community to defend the home territory, even involving matters that have been rehashed here 1000 times. As I think you're probably currently doing Lance. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I think a majority of arguments involving certain topics here that always draw attention can't really be absolutely conclusively solved either way. But when some cockamamie theories or particular mindsets are put forward by the CT community here, they're fair game and I'll go after them as well. Lance, Just I think yesterday, DVP responded I believe to your comment about DVP's and Jim Di's arguments, by providing a link to his website of arguments he's had on this forum with Jim Di. Certainly their exchanges is good theater particularly to newbies. Though I'm growing tired of them, because particularly with DVP, they are always about the same topics. But this could be an unspoken conspiracy between the two to promote Jim Di's books and traffic to DVP's website which certainly fits in with Jim Di's grand conspiracy theories where he certainly has never met a conspiracy he didn't like. Hehheh I couldn't resist that. More grist for the conspiracy mill! Lance, I didn't know what to expect in your response to me about your outlook on current affairs. But I do find it pretty funny, and since you're such a political agnostic, I don't feel any particular need to weigh in on matters, but I might comment on it sometime in the future.
  8. Kirk Gallaway

    Don Hewitt

    Pam, I think of Judyth Baker as probably having the same instincts for publicity as say Roger Stone. If she could have produced a lot credible corroborating witnesses to them being a couple and some pictures of her and Lee, that is, if her story was actually true, which it clearly isn't, Then that is the kind of story that "has legs," and invites further investigations.
  9. Kirk Gallaway

    A conspiracy theory even a Lone Nutter can love ...

    This is a no loathing zone here Lance, just a collegial exchanging of ideas. Maybe I can do something to promote peace and less feelings of persecution. I'm not sure if my query to you in the other thread is just getting buried by other posts. But it's now probably more appropriate to this topic.
  10. Kirk Gallaway

    Bush not in Dallas- He is dead

    As far as the onlooker I actually gave you a hint under the link. That was: "I see another ambitious fellow prosecutor there as well, who really just likes to look.". Yes, a long way from Kansas, I mean Arizona. That guy also ran for President under the Republican ticket. An ex prosecutor, ex governor way over there in New Jersey. His name is Chris Christie, and he apparently just interviewed for Trump's chief of staff and probably rejected him. Anyway it's sort of an uplifting picture. I suspected that maybe Trump had it in him, if he was so moved to defer to someone else... I would be more inclined to see it as a beacon for World Peace if it weren't for that mysterious guy in the beach chair. I'm not sure how relevant Christie is, except as a humorous add in for those who are familiar.. So you see them as beacon for World Peace and Trump is being thwarted by a MSM and political"Deep State"? And so is Putin, whose really a good guy, whose very tolerant to those that disagree with him,because after all he's so popular, why does he need to fear anybody? And all this Russian interference is just the same old Cold War propaganda of the MSM "Deep State". Because if you do, I think you and Mr. Scowly Face as you call him, have a lot more in common than you think. You understand I'm only trying to bring people together..
  11. Kirk Gallaway

    Bush not in Dallas- He is dead

    Good Picture! Phew! Lance, I love that never-in-doubt Christian self righteousness. It leaves me totally assured you could never be wrong about any aspect of George Bush's life. However I do remember after the November election in 2016 when you confidently said in an Arizona twang. "There's a new sheriff coming to town, you better get used to it, and he's going to drain the swamp." You were hoping for a second coming of your native son Arpaio, in a bright, new younger personage, coming on the national scene.Yeah and how did that judgment of character work out? Lance, I might be wrong, but I always like to bring people together, I might be able to bridge this divisive gap between you and Jim Di and bring you together as unlikely but complimentary bedfellows over this link below. Do you, like Jim Di feel this picture is a beacon, a guiding light for World Peace? https://i.pinimg.com/236x/19/f4/12/19f41266aea52a188f4d94ed29593fbc.jpg I see another ambitious fellow prosecutor there as well, who really just likes to look..
  12. Kirk Gallaway

    Don Hewitt

    W. Said PUH-LEEZE Oh I get it, a little everyday man's vernacular. Certainly more of a common touch, than your earlier indignant proclamation of "erroneous blather!!". I like it! But I liked "erroneous blather" too! No link, W. But spare us.You don't think we've been down Dan Rather's account of the head shot 1000 times before you got to this forum? Tells us something we don't already know. Read my earlier posts. W. Neiderhut says: ALL stories de-bunking the WCR were censored because they were bogus. Oh yeah?, Maybe you should research Hunt's supposed confession. There are some of us who think his fingering of William Harvey, David Atlee Phillips, Frank Sturgis, David Morales and Cord Meyer has some merit. Including your mentor. ( though personally I wonder about Cord Meyer) Yes they were bogus in that Hunt IMO, deliberately didn't pin the plot on the right people and chose LBJ as a diversion. But they could have just passed on the story entirely, and you would never have heard about it. What shouldn't be lost in what I'm trying to tell you is 1)The JFKAC Community has not come with a significant breaking story that is understandable to the public in 20 years and 2)I'm trying to tell you about nature of the stories that are going to break the case. So I'm in effect asking you and the JFKAC Community., Is what you're doing really working? Do you really want to get as far trying to convince the public of the JFKAC in the next 20 than you have in the last 20? If so, I'd say that would be disastrous.
  13. Kirk Gallaway

    Don Hewitt

    Thanks Pam, So CBS 60 minutes, the most successful news magazine in history was actually vetting. Judyth Vary Baker??? And Hewitt actually interviews Baker, himself?? Wow! What happened to MSM conspiracy against the Kennedy assassination conspiracy???. It certainly sounds like their first instinct is to look for any excuse to advocate a story about a JFKA conspiracy! But by their standard, there just hasn't been any real certifiable news. Ask yourself, what has been the biggest break in the JFKA news story in the last 20 years that was easily translatable to the public?. It wasn't about whether LHO was in MC, not that that isn't important.. . It was the confession of a known infamous figure, E. Howard Hunt. It was a great story from an admitted participant that could be easily assimilated by the general public, and it wasn't really squelched. It was pursued by no less than again, the most popular news magazine in history who would have gladly made it go mainstream.This they did full knowing that Hunt was actually implicating the Vice President being behind a plot to kill the POTUS. But they started vetting the story. and wondered of the wisdom of accepting as truth, the word of a known spy and convicted Watergate conspirator. They looked into St. John Hunt. They made a decision that there wasn't sufficient evidence to besmirch the reputation of the 36th President, which was a wise decision, as they decided they just didn't have the goods, and if they recklessly went ahead, that would not only have backfired on 60 Minutes. It would have on the JFKAConspiracy Community as well. Ultimately, I don't believe his story either, I think he points in the right direction, but knowingly pins the responsibility on the wrong source. Just another failed attempt at a JFKA breaking news story. The moral of this story is that the JFKAConspiracy Community isn't being stymied at every turn by the MSM, it has to produce a real story.
  14. Kirk Gallaway

    Don Hewitt

    Re: Mc Cloy and Feinman. I remember all that information from you, Jim, I've never researched it but I have no reason to doubt it. As for Bradlee, we know the extent of his knowledge about some personal things as well that he covered up for many years, but it didn't really address my question. Why did Hewitt venture so far out into conspiracy land including 2 Presidents? I assume through no better theory offered , you would say, he's just trying to confuse us.
×