Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

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

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

Kirk Gallaway

Members
  • Content count

    274
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kirk Gallaway

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Los Gatos, Ca.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,038 profile views
  1. In conclusion: here's an angle I'm not sure if you've seen or not -- but in my view, all the Dallas officials who were with Lee Harvey Oswald during his last day alive are, in my CT, agents of General Walker. This includes Will Fritz, James Hosty, Jesse Curry -- and extends to Bill Decker (who confessed to insider knowledge via Audie Murphy) and his top Deputies including Buddy Walthers. The DPD connection (cf. Walt Brown) is identical with the Walker connection. Have you seen my posts on this? This is this string of associations I was talking about, though maybe you can prove some of them. Of course, I could produce for you a video clip of Jesse Curry saying he thought there was a second gunman behind the grassy knoll. If he was an agent of Walker, why would he open his mouth about this rather than just be content he got away with murdering the President? My purpose is not to get in the weeds of your theory with you, but to try to tell you how you might be perceived. I think it's too bad O'Neill and Caulfield don't want to come here. When I say"dying on the vine", I'm referring specifically on this forum.Of course you're entitled to voice your opinion. While i think you do bring up some interesting and useful information that I have no reason to doubt, and while some may like to engage you as a diversion, (and who am I to stand in anybody's way!) Argue whether it's right or wrong. ,What I mean is you're advocacy is barren to much fruitful activity. Part of my interest here is based on my intuition that more people agree with me here than are willing to admit it. I'm looking for a critical mass. Sorry Paul, Despite your intuition, I think you're a long way from critical mass.
  2. Paul. I'll grant there is a one most prevalent theory here. I used your term, "CIA did it theory" but that's not really fair as a number of people who hold that basic theory incorporate other groups, just as you do, but feel the nucleus of planning was probably the CIA. I suspect there are others say who think LBJ had a much greater role, but aren't encouraged to speak out. I think , if you had other followers to your theory, you should be able to incubate your theory in relative peace here, (though you seem to have it all fleshed out yourself.) But the fact that you don't have other followers, and don't use a consensus to build your theory, you're left to just mock and criticize the most prevalent theory, and that makes you a thorn in the side for some. however, I continually get side-lined into defending the same points over and over -- from multiple people and from multiple angles. Ok, I'm not sure I see you that way. I don't see you as always on the defensive, as you seem to. I'm sure there's much more to your theory than I've heard at one time or another. But I think a lot of us got a pretty liberal dose of it. You've made a lot of associations between your principal players that I hadn't heard of. And if your theory doesn't build, (which is in part because you are at a disadvantage not having other proponents), it can be perceived by the rest of us as an unsubstantiated theory with a lot of loose ends that is now just dying on the vine.
  3. "The answer my friend", will all be settled by Oct., 2017, or so Paul says: It's only a matter of months now - and all these CT debates will come crashing to a halt. Yes, and then either we'll all get some respite, or as Paul sees it, there will be an end to all controversy, he will finally get his day in the sun, and we'll all bow before him as the one who first became impatient with that that same old "CIA did it theory" was going nowhere,and courageously found the real answer. I'll hold you to your word on that, Paul. it seems like now you'd be banking on that 9th inning release. Paul, I'll say you are a gentleman and in fairness, even some upstanding CIA -did -it members of this forum when confronted with the problems or witnesses that don't completely fit in with their theories, hunker down just repeating their same old party line as if the repetition somehow makes it true, just as you do, comrade. But yours is such a relentless monotone over the same material. I feel at one point I understood your theory that I could recite it backwards. You've embellished it like a soap opera, continually citing the personal emotional motivations, somebody didn't like somebody so they did such and such... Yes the American government was so concerned about the nation's racism, that a race war would have made the country easy pickins for the Soviet Communists to use as the propaganda tool to take over the nation. Under what authority? Nobody in the U.S. gave the Soviets any credit for being an integrated society because they were seen as being an oppressive society. Whatever race problems we'd be having , it wouldn't affect the allegiance of our European allies who feared the Soviets.But we've been through that. A good subtitle I have suggested for the Caulfield book might be " How one redneck changed the course of American history and brought the American Government and it's National Security State to it's knees.before him". Tell me that wouldn't have generated more interest! So to hear you, we're coming to judgment day and now your theory, through repetition is getting old. If you don't get your victory, please give us a break, and please walk back the incessant indoctrination.---and Good Luck!
  4. That's interesting Karl, but JVB is not the first source about Alton Ochner or his right wing connections. Mary Sherman, who was asked by Ochsner to join Ochsner's clinic was investigated for her connections to David Ferrie way back in the 60's by Jim Garrison. According to Michael Benson's "The Encyclopedia of the JFK Assassination". Ochsner's connections to Guy Bannister and Clay Shaw were revealed by Bannister "investigator" Allen Campbell. But Jim Di reveals in his book that Campbell worked for Bannister. JVB is definitely cunning and well read about the assassination.
  5. Jim Marrs Has Passed Away

    I really liked Crossfire. I never met Jim. But I've always thought of him as a positive, cool guy and a great spirit.
  6. Lois Liggett: Challenge to Jim Di Eugenio

    Jim Says " That is why they settled in six figure territory." Jim again, you stated that they settled for 6 figures. Cite your sources for that. Not that isn't worthwhile to mention that they came to an undisclosed settlement. But seriously Jim that info's really sketchy. Do you have any more details than the rest of us? So Malcolm Liggett could verify his whereabouts 40 years later? Was Malcolm's wife his alibi? I'll play devil's advocate and employ your typical skepticism. One thing that people don't realize is that it was very easy back in 1963 to not leave a paper trail. (Unless of course you were LHO, and wanted to document you bought a murder weapon you could have bought for cash at a corner gun store or document you took a bus to Mexico City) The average American didn't have a credit card. The first BankAmericard came out in 1966. It was a consumer cash economy, people paid in cash. There were credit cards in the 50's but they didn't gain acceptance because the average American thought 1) that if they got them stolen they'd go into debt to the credit card companies and 2) People were much more concerned with privacy rights than they are now. Because it was easy to leave no record, people chose to leave no record. Not everybody of course, people wrote checks. It just wasn't an intrusive society. And that's always been the chief way people can trace the actions of others. Malcolm Liggett could have left for LA on the the 15th and gotten back to Texas on a private plane with no record at all.
  7. Lois Liggett: Challenge to Jim Di Eugenio

    Jim, What are your sources of the 6 figure settlement? Agreed Sandy, Jim says to Michael, Do you know what his story is about, I mean in detail? I thought maybe Jim was going to deliver the Holy Grail to Michael about the whole John Liggett afair. Then Jim proceeds to copy an article about how Malcolm Liggett and the History channel came to an undisclosed settlement, which is not necessarily evidence of anything. But Jim is very well researched and I often agree with him. I think the best point he makes is that Billy Sol Estes is the origin of the Liggett story. I don't find BSE credible either, as he was giving testimony to save his neck. But is he really the origin of the story? Actually BSE's first book, "Billy SoleEstes, a Texas Legend" and the "Smoking Gun" episode came out within 3 weeks of each other in November 2003. Obviously the"Smoking Gun" was in production prior to BSE's book release. It's not conclusive, But in mind, that probably lends credence to Sol Estes being the first source, because I can't find earlier sources to Liggett than the newspaper articles of his murders. What is important that's not disclosed is who came up with that photo of Malcolm Liggett, his wife, and this woman Iris Campbell who mysteriously entered Lois's life after she had divorced Liggett and moved away to Lubbock, Texas, sitting presumably at the Carousel with Jack Ruby, with Tony Zoppi. Malcolm Liggett denies it's his picture in the photo, but it his word against Lois and presumably their daughter as they were once family. Lois contends not only is it Malcolm Liggett but a very good picture of his wife as well in the photo. So if she's wrong about falsely identifying 2 people, I would say she's probably lying. Liggett's next wife Leona, could have verified it, if she was living. Can anybody here secure a picture of Malcolm Liggett? Were Liggett and Ferrie in the Civil Air Patrol together?(P.S. I believe Michael's video version was edited as I recall Lois's account of first meeting Iris Campbell in Lubbock at her church.) I share David's A's, criticism of the overall story, it is just too fantastic. Particularly later after Liggett is presumably shot down trying to escape. Lois attends JL's funeral and says it is not Liggett in the open casket, noting that JL couldn't grow the mustache she noted on face of the deceased. (What is not mentioned in that piece is is that Liggett's wife at the time of his death couldn't identify the body and had the same observation about the moustache! ), but this account is disputed by a fellow worker with Liggett at the funeral home, who acknowledges it is JL!! Then years later, when vacationing in Las Vegas, Lois . recognizes Liggett at a casino, Liggett notices her, tells a co worker and Lois decides to get lost.So we're assuming he never died. But if Malcolm Liggett and his wife are in that photo, all bets are off!
  8. Ray Marcus: The Left and the Death of Kennedy

    Pathetic, I used to like I.F. Stone. But the others, definitely sounds like some fear of retribution.
  9. Great article Doug, and definitely the most cogent article you've posted regarding the real war of ideas going on now.The real struggle is as lost now to the average person as the meaning of the Assassination of John Kennedy was lost in say, 1965. I'll highlight what I feel are some major passages. The Definition of "exploitation" to this group with this plan:: "but what was exploitation was when less-wealthy citizens went to government for things like public education, good roads, canals and all those kinds of things. So he actually posed it as what we would call today makers and takers. So Calhoun saw himself as a maker and saw other citizens, white citizens at the time, who were the ones voting for these things, as takers, and that idea flowed into modern libertarianism — this notion that there isn’t exploitation in the economic realm, the exploitation comes from the political realm, where majorities gang up on minorities of propertied individuals." **************** And this about a social safety net: "I think you could also watch for their language. This is a cause that has opposed social security from its creation. These people are totally hostile to the principle of social insurance. They think we should all be individually responsible for our needs, ultimately. But they also know that that’s a terribly unpopular thing to say. Huge majorities of American people support Social Security, support Medicare, want to make them better and stronger. Buchanan advised in great detail about Social Security at the beginning of the early 1980s. What they need to do is fear monger and create a sense of crisis that these programs are unsustainable, they’ll never be solvent. So they use an Orwellian language of reform when really what they want to do is undermine the program. I think the first thing to do would be ask them fundamental questions, like do you support the principle of Social Security, do you support the principle of Medicare? " Yes, do you support "the principle" of Social Security, the principle of Medicare? That question could be asked of say, Rand Paul tomorrow! You see such fearmongering all the time about the sustainability of Social Security. A majority of Americans under 40 have come to believe that they probably won't have it, so the letdown won't be as bad. It's a total fraud, but until they realize it's within their power as citizens to demand certain economic rights, they will probably lose them.
  10. Whew, can these people get any more seedy? Most of us have heard that a decade ago, Jared Kushner's father was found guilty for tax evasion and went to prison, and that that case was prosecuted by then prosecutor Chris Christie, which has been cited as the reason for the ousting of Christie by the younger Kushner in the Trump campaign. The conflict was involving an inner family battle where Kushner also pleaded guilty to retaliating against a cooperating witness in the case — his sister. He did so by setting a trap in which he hired a prostitute to lure his sister's husband into a sexual encounter in a New Jersey hotel, where the action was secretly photographed and videotaped. Kushner sent the pictures and tape to his sister as revenge, apparently motivated by the belief that she and her husband were helping U.S. Attorney Christie and his prosecutors. Still according to the article, Jared feels his Father's treatment (a 2 year prison sentence commuted to 14 months) was "obviously unjust in terms of the way they pursued him." Do I see a family pattern of denial? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-the-sordid-case-behind-jared-kushners-grudge-against-chris-christie/article/2620427
  11. Cord Meyer and the Assassination of JFK

    Uh huh, Meyer was Hunt's link to LBJ, which I thought was maybe somewhat incongruent. I've suspected that Hunt was doing a partial hangout,giving up people from his circles that were widely thought at the time to be part of the conspiracy , Phillips,Harvey,Morales, Sturgis, and tying them through Meyer to LBJ to protect Daddy (Dulles, Angleton) and the agency, and tell the ultimate juicy story, that a Vice President killed a standing President to fulfill his ambition to office.
  12. Cord Meyer and the Assassination of JFK

    Prior to Hunt's deathbed "confession", the only thing I had ever heard about Cord Meyer concerning the Kennedy assassination was his response in his later life when asked who killed his ex-wife and he purportedly said "the same people who killed Kennedy". The first I had ever heard of his direct involvement was from Hunt.
  13. JFK to 911 Everything Is A Rich Man's Trick

    I've seen this, that old Englishman, particularly at the beginning, as I recall does have some good historical context and useful information but he is a bit daft. He says with certainty that there were, I think 7 assassins whose intentions were to cut JFK's head completely. off. Well there goes the LN theory! Ok, they failed to make the overkill. But as far as getting away scot free, I guess that was always pretty much in the bag. I hope the guy takes his heart medicine (if he's still alive) because it is easy to get a bit overboard, when you're dealing with........Satan!
  14. Ron, If you're talking specifically about DVP's KFC. As time goes on for me, that would be like saying "Make Flatulence Great Again!"
  15. Frank Rich: How a presidency ends

    Evan, Flynn below was said to blame Clapper for his dismissal from the Obama Administration. This is from Doug's most recent post," The Time I Got Recruited to Collude with the Russians" in which Matt Tait makes reference to my earlier post, "GOP operative sought Clinton E-mails from hackers. implied a connection to Flynn". Although it wasn’t initially clear to me how independent Smith’s operation was from Flynn or the Trump campaign, it was immediately apparent that Smith was both well connected within the top echelons of the campaign and he seemed to know both Lt. Gen. Flynn and his son well. Smith routinely talked about the goings on at the top of the Trump team, offering deep insights into the bizarre world at the top of the Trump campaign. Smith told of Flynn’s deep dislike of DNI Clapper, whom Flynn blamed for his dismissal by President Obama. Smith told of Flynn’s moves to position himself to become CIA Director under Trump, but also that Flynn had been persuaded that the Senate confirmation process would be prohibitively difficult. He would instead therefore become National Security Advisor should Trump win the election, Smith said. He also told of a deep sense of angst even among Trump loyalists in the campaign, saying “Trump often just repeats whatever he’s heard from the last person who spoke to him,” and expressing the view that this was especially dangerous when Trump was away.
×