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

    303
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kirk Gallaway

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Los Gatos, Ca.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,182 profile views
  1. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Paul, My greatest problem with your theory is that upon discovering that Walker was behind the JFK assassination the authorities would have responded by stomping on this faction with their little toe. Remember that up to that point there were no urban race riots, but peaceful protests and on the right there were just singular acts of resistance and a few small cowardly lynchings. (so what else is new?) The capture of Walker would not have incited blacks at all because the media would have seized the narrative just as they did with Oswald and portrayed it as personal revenge for Walker's treatment at the hand of the Kennedys. So I assume you think the capture of Walker would foment an insurgence from the white racists, but the facts are that up to that point they had backed off at every confrontation to Federal forces. Why would the Feds fear them? I can't imagine a government on the fly, as you say, brazenly risking exposure that they covered up the killing of a very popular President to protect a group of white racists. Somehow making this calculus that a largely regional white backlash was much greater to be feared than the broad nationwide revolt across the political spectrum that would have ensued had the public found out that the government had in fear not punished those who negated their choice at the ballot box. I can tell you with certainty, no one would have accepted the excuse that their government was cowering in fear at the feet of this group. It is just a fundamental flaw.
  2. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Certainly the Central Asian link was prominent back the, hence the U'S-Brit invasion of Iran with the thought of securing their oil fields before Hitler. i think the crown jewel of that area were the Baku fields in Azerbaijan. But of course of Central Asia if you don't include Iraq and Iran were controlled by the Soviets. It's a great question Steve. But a very speculative and tough one. If you assume the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. You might think of a link to Texas oil men, but it really doesn't involve that much money that any number of groups could have invested, either separately or jointly.
  3. Who financed the JFK hit?

    Certainly the Central Asian link was prominent back then. Earlier there was the Anglo Russian invasion of Iran in 1941 with the thought of securing their oil fields before Hitler did. i think the crown jewel and long prized assets of that area were the Baku fields in Azerbaijan, that you've mentioned that Cheney Baker and Bushes are now involved in. But of course, Central Asia if you don't include Iraq and Iran were controlled by the Soviets back in the 60's. It's a great question Steve. But a very speculative and tough one. If you assume the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. You might think of a link to Texas oil men, but it really doesn't involve that much money that a government or any number of private groups could have invested, either separately or jointly.
  4. The Biggest Lies.... Untangled

    All right Glenn, you've convinced me. Paul, knock off the f---------n' semantics! Hah Don't let the mighty generals----turn you around S.M.B.---not S.M.!
  5. The Biggest Lies.... Untangled

    Glenn, So anything short of a complete CIA -did-it theory is "defending the CIA" in your judgment?
  6. The Biggest Lies.... Untangled

    Jim, My compliments on a confined and poignant series of presentations. I posted, I believe it was also one of Gil Jesus's clips which look to be identical but extends to capture the accounts of Sam Holland. I've always assumed by Dodd's account "I seen what we all seen" that Simmons, Dodd and Holland were together or very close to each other. These witnesses seemed to be very credible, accounting the same thing. They were all modest men, who seemed completely without guile, who never wrote a book afterwards. I was very impressed with their accounts and asked as to any claims about their credibility. I remember DVP discredited it because in his opinion, that rifle couldn't have smoked, and that's all I've heard. About Krock, there's been some discrediting about Krock that Krock long before was being used by JFK's father to further his ambitions, and was very sympathetic to the Kennedy family. However true that might have been. There can be no doubt that Krock's article was "'inside" and accurately reflected the views of JFK, and the story was made with the purpose of outing his current conflicts with the CIA.
  7. Ken Burns' Vietnam

    At least one of us speculate Nixon might have been trained by and controlled by the Dulles brothers early on. Ron, Isn't that kind of a low bar? One person can speculate anything!! I'm aware of all those connections. I hold more credence to Nixon ties to Prescott Bush because I know of that tie. We can all agree that given Nixon's actions throughout his career, he's hardly above suspicion. But when politicians go to war zones , they confer with military heads, people with knowledge on the ground ( Lansdale's first came to Viet Nam in the mid 50's!) It's also not unusual for politicians to go to their embassy, which is where Lansdale worked. This is what they did then and do to this day. Nobody would find this unusual. Certainly a picture of Nixon with Lansdale is hot and will raise a lot of speculation here. Why not? It would be interesting to hear anything "juicy" in what they might have said. But as for Nixon's being there in the first place, any political campaign manager worth his salt would say "Dick, get your xxx to Nam and reinvent yourself", which is really what that trips about. Having some experience growing up with Nixon in California, no one will convince me otherwise that the foremost drive going on with Nixon at that point in his career is getting elected President.
  8. Burns and Novick Assassinate Kennedy

    That's right Mathias, not all war criminals are Nazis. heh heh
  9. Ken Burns' Vietnam

    Certainly in 64, there are more questions left answered. But politically speaking, and after all Nixon is a politician with avowed foreign policy experience. Politically, in 1967 Nixon was in Viet Nam because he had every intention of running for the Presidency in 1968, just like George Romney. Politically, that's just what politicians did because the Viet Nam War was the issue of the day.
  10. Ken Burns' Vietnam

    Doug said, "The New York Times today carries an article on the death of Herbert Kalmbach, Nixon's personal attorney who distributed "hush" money in Watergate. How many Americans alive today recognize the Kalmbach's name or the role in played in Nixon's career? How many even know what Watergate was all about? " Yes, wouldn't it be nice if we could truly learn from our mistakes. But should anybody here really be surprised or outraged that it didn't go into great detail about Dulles or Lansdale, or more specifically into the nature of the huge train that wasn't about to stop that lead us into Vietnam. The audience of people watching who were not living during the Viet Nam War don't at this point want the overall subject to be about finger pointing. I don't know if that's just human nature about a huge tragedy that people just want to forget about vindication and just try to make things heal. It represents a higher side of us about forgivance, but it does work to the advantage of those in the future, who would show such disregard for humanity and dupe others into such a sacrifice. I've got in late and have only seen the last 3 chapters, so the majority of complaints Jim lists, I've yet to see, though I have no doubt he's correct, and as I've said, I'm not surprised. But I don't feel the film really sugarcoats anything or lets the U.S. policy makers, or in the episodes I've seen Nixon off easy at all. It does go into great detail about the genocide, summary massacre of villages, the defoliation and destruction of the native's subsistence and does portray the native Asians as hopeless pawns in superpower geopolitical game. Burns has always used those anecdotal stories of survivors, and I thought the people he used were very thoughtful people from a number of vantages. It's not impossible that someone could have been on a tour of duty in Vietnam and not seen atrocities or not talked to people who have. I was a teenager against the war at the time, but I teared up a few times. How could the end leave anybody without a sense of emptiness? That's hardly because of our national defeat of what was our evil policy to begin with, but just the devastation to all who were involved. There are certainly facts that are revealed that the average viewer had no knowledge of, for example the fact that Nixon negotiated with enemy while running for President. Those phone calls between LBJ and Dirksen and Nixon, I sent to a number of my friends who are my contemporaries a few years back who are reasonably well informed but didn't even know about that until they heard proof in those recordings. To this day, most people don't remember JFK as the President who took a stand against virtually everyone in the room to refrain attacking Cuba and almost inevitably launching WW3, but remember JFK as the President who stood eye to eye with the Soviets and made them back down in the Cuban Missile crisis. If we want learn from our mistakes in the future, we have to be willing to nail the perpetrators of a disastrous foreign policy as it's happening and then after, and I mean nail them!. We've had a more recent foreign policy disaster, and the amount of fallout is hardly encouraging. I've never understood why Bill Krystol is continually asked over and over again on the major networks, CNN and now MSNBC. He use to be a Fox and major network guy. He and others lead us into a catastrophic war in Iraq, that us, the region and Europe is paying for today. He should be a disgrace. This has definitely been going on a long time Imagine how hard it is to produce something about incidents 50 years and really make a dent. (Not that such an effort shouldn't be applauded) For you who would make this "answer" to the Burns film in the other Burns Vietnam thread, you'd be largely 1) preaching to your choir of associates, as the great majority are not interested in re-litigating it 2)or possibly making inroads to a new fringe of younger people who are largely part of the Trump dynamic. Certainly everybody over 40 has made up their mind about how much they want to be influenced by an expose of a 50 year old major foreign policy blunder.
  11. Ken Burns' Vietnam

    Interesting Doug, I confess, I got a catch up watching it. I haven't been as big a Burns fan as some.So he's spouting the official U.S. line about the Gulf of Tonkin incident? But there was skepticism at the time.I remember I believe at the Democratic National convention in 1968, Wayne Morse compared the Gulf of Tonkin incident historically to "The Sinking of the Maine". I also remember there was a "60 minutes" piece, I think in the early 70's that raised questions about the official version. .
  12. The Umbrella Man Feature Film

    Wow, If we ever elected Jesse Ventura, that would be a seismic shift. I'm sure those powers that be would be -------ing in their pants! A candidate who would run on exposing previous corruption.That's interesting. Even so, I think there could be even more spot on potential candidates. My opinion is that while exposing previous corruptions are definitely feared and embarrassing, but because everything's been reconstituted a number of times, none of that will hit the mark. The only circumstance by which that would really take hold would be a once in a lifetime reset brought on by a major global economic catastrophe, where the great mass of people are pointing fingers and there is a major political will to expose major corruption traced back over generations. I think times change and factions change.There have been a great many changes since the 60's, when all these new institutions were in a state of teeming profusion. I think that was the heyday of overt subversion. I think the biggest menaces that exist in the present day and what should be the most feared "Deep State" has gone more mainstream because they can incrementally accomplish more of what they want perfectly legally. So I guess they are no longer a such a "Deep State", but really have been let to become " a Shallow state"", so the danger of exposure is even less. .
  13. The big question I have now (I know I'm way off topic) is whether the 'deep state' which to my mind controls the center of the Democratic Party, has lost control of the Republican right, and of Trump and his criminal gang in particular. When Bush and Romney start looking like good guys you gotta wonder. "

     

    Paul I often find that you and I are in agreement about some of the greater issues behind the JFK Assassination, and our broad viewpoints are similarly humanistic.

    I think it's better to PM you about this, because I notice people on this forum mention the "Deep State" but  it seems to be a topic that no one here ever dares to explain. As if keeping it in the dark will somehow make us better able to deal with it. Nobody wants to bring it out in the open.

    In that paragraph, you seem to have a very good idea what you think it is. Having conversations with you previously, I assume your definition is not say the Fox News definition. (but maybe it is) But you've lost me here.. What specifically are talking about that controls the center of the Democratic Party?.

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. Kirk Gallaway

      Kirk Gallaway

      Paul,

      The American Empire, I thought you might say the MICC. But they are integral, you can't have one without the other. But If you just follow the money in campaign contributions , though the Democrats have been catching up in the last few decades. The Republicans still have a sizable edge in military procurement. Even some Tea Party reps are big on that. There is an intersection between the alt.right and the left concerning interventionism and the use of military power abroad. The left usually out of humanistic grounds, that the reason we usually get involved is to exploit others for our own ends, with  the right, it's out of an isolationism basically saying it's their business, or let them "do whatever they will to each other."

      I'm not sure why you singled the Dems out. I think the traditional roles still apply, The Republicans have always been the Defense party, and since they control all branches, we still are. I think the Dems, since Clinton have almost caught up to  Repubs in that they are now  equally as globalist but the alt right is running a Republican counter trend to that.

    3. Paul Brancato

      Paul Brancato

      Hi Kirk,

      i see the confusion. I singled out centrist democrats because they have done a poor job for so long opposing the micc. The Republicans are not in opposition and don't pretend to be, though as you say there are points of conversion between the far right and the more liberal left. Senator Feinstein is a perfect example. While the Republicans move right, beginning with Goldwater actually, the Democrats move center even while their base, or their would be base if we had full voter access, moves left. Bernie Sanders carried a progressive message forward, even though he probably would have been a poor candidate. The center of the Democratic Party did their best to shoot him down, and Hilary Clinton, who I voted for, is still doing so. I haven't read her new book, but I would bet that she didn't really address voter disenfranchisement, which is the biggest problem we face. So basically I'm pissed with the Democrats who try to marginalize their left wing. We know how the CIA made a point  of controlling the message and media by creating and supporting liberal media outlets. Do they still? Are Feinstein and Warner (who voted against Rand Paul in the recent attempt to have a new debate on foreign intervention) willing to fight?

    4. Kirk Gallaway

      Kirk Gallaway

      Hi Paul, Forgive me, I'm  waxing  a bit tonight.

      We know how the CIA made a point  of controlling the message and media by creating and supporting liberal media outlets.

      Yes but the brunt of that was 50 years ago.

      This forum thinks the "Deep State"   that definitely existed in the 50's and 60 is today.  I'll toss a saIvo out there and say those forces aren't near as prodigious as they were back then.In the 50's and 60's. at that time, they were newly emergent and there were little checks and balances on their power. But the current deep state wasn't 't powerful enough to keep Trump from being elected. The Russians "Deep State" was much more instrumental in our own election than  ours.
       
      A lot of people who talk of the "deep state" today refer to  government intrusion, but the government's no more sinister, it's the power to intrude on our everyday lives is greater than ever as result of the advent of the internet and information technology and a great many people who have grown up under that influence,  are really just  fine with that. There are a lot of Fox viewers who think that the deep "surveillance" state is really some creation of the Democrats. It's true, Obama got caught with his pants down when Snowden revealed the extent and capability of domestic spying. At that point he went the route that "as a free society we have to have a national dialog,about safeguards"" blah blah blah, but in reality , he pushed the limits on an unsuspecting public.,and has there really been any public dialog? But to ascribe deep state to one political party?, I don't think for a second any presidential candidate from either party, Obama,the Bush's, the Clintons, Trump Mc Cain, Romney, or Kerry wouldn't have all done the same thing or simply wouldn't have asked. If people don't care nothing will get done.
       
      Certainly Feinstien and Warner will never change anything. The strongest feature of Bernie Sanders campaign was his simple campaign platform, which most Americans in polls are in favor of.So why don't the Democrats win? There are definitely forces, bureaucratic  and private "deep state" , conspiracies if you will, working against it, but again not sizable enough to defeat Trump. It's a war of ideas, and unfortunately the average American isn't very bright, and considerably less by European and Canadian standard .For example , when Trump did that pre-arranged bombing of Syria, there were a considerable number of people who said" Yay, it's just good that we're finally doing something". That's a big hurdle  to be overcome. This isn't because of military propaganda, it's more of a boredom, anxiety issue.
       
      Off topic, Yeah, we want successive generations to remember and investigate the Kennedy Assassination, but unfortunately  I'm convinced all the conspiracy talk has now just become corrosive to the new generations, and has become an exploitive  tool of the right. It's just a message of paranoia and hopelessness that causes the younger generation to strike out against imagined enemies while having no real concept who the real enemies are..
       
       
  14. The Umbrella Man Feature Film

    Ron said- The assassination itself was a statement, I think, to the USA as a whole and future Presidents in particular. First off Ron, I should say, I appreciate your contributions to the forum. I liked that excerpt from the Lansdale post where it talks about the conflict between Harvey and Lansdale. As if Lansdale was too much a loose canon for Harvey?? Whoa! But in regards to this statement which Joe seems to agree with.If this was a message to future Presidents. It is important to note that there haven't been any Presidential assassinations in almost 55 years! There was one attempt on Reagan!! So what happened? Do you still fear this cabal to this day? What to you or Joe is the likely scenario by which this could happen again?
  15. The Umbrella Man Feature Film

    Agreed Chris, But why would the people who are exposing Trumps conflicts of interest and collusion have to submit to any sort of litmus test about the major assassinations of the 60's? The reason for the contradictions really have to more to do with age, they are generations apart. For the journalists and media reporters and commentators from the 60's. The Kennedy Assassination produced a major schism, if they were skeptics of say the Warren Report, .they in effect sublimated any doubt in choice of their career directions. They have to live with that. There is some overlap, but the newer generation of would be journalists venerate the official version because their journalist heroes did, and they haven't been given real reason to research it. It's a dead issue to the MSM. It certainly has had a corrosive effect on our society. While I see the need to encourage future generations to continue the research into the JFK assassination. There's a great number of new advocates who are using the concept of conspiracies to rationalize inactivity, hopelessness, and a sense of futility, "Why even try, it's all rigged anyway". These people only tend to dilute and discredit the conspiracy to those who would someday be in a position to make real inroads in exposing what happened. But this dilution of credibility is precisely why Fox News and people on this forum who use the phrase "Deep State" as it applies to the current day, should be mindful and be able to define the terms they're using. I personally have seen no one define their terms on that. What does it mean?
×