Al Carrier Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 John: In the "Queen's English" -- There were NO "confessions" by either Tony or John. This is the total horse-xxxx that was swallowed by PDS, Winslow, Turner, Smith, et al. while socializing with bullxxxx artist Escalante, and which was further overblown in the "cow pies" scribbled out by the "Portagee bitch" Furiarte. They should join arms with the Khazar this year, and sing two choruses of "Kum-Bayah"!! Had they the "stones" to hold the meeting in La Habana, they would have really beenl wetting their communal pants. I mean, dumb-ass P. D. Scott didn't even know that the "Contra/CIA agent" Felipe Vidal was in fact the nephew; Felipe Vidal Rivera, and that FVS had been executed before the "Paredon" during may of 1964 !! Ya got it now??!! Gerry Still having problems with question 3. Is it true that your father was a friend of James Angleton? ----------------------- John: My late father was an Irishman born of a "Limey" father in Colombo, Sri Lanka [then called Ceylon]. He grew up hating the "English", and sometimes my rich uncles [maternal]. But it was those uncles who got him work as a Marine Deck Electrician" at CalShip, and later, work on the Pan-American Highway in Costa Rica. He busted his ass 18 hours a day to raise what became 10 kids. He was against my Cuba, etc. excursions, as he had hoped that upon leaving the Marines, I would sign up with the California Highway Patrol. He operated a radio/television repair shop in Alhambra, California -- constantly struggling to feed too many mouths. He died while I was on No Name Key. For many months afterward, I would call the TV shop telephone [long-distance, and very late at night] just to hear his voice on the answering machine. He wouldn't know an Angleton from a Watutsi, and never once ever showed any interest in anything save electronics, The Classics [large library], Chess [Master], and watching "wrassling" and "roller-derby" on the "Telly". "...Are we clear ?!", Gerry ______________________________ My question to John is, why do you put up with this dribble from this low-life wanna-be who has never produced anything of value in his entire life? He speaks of operations of similar wanna-be's who have succeeded in nothing more than he ever had. He makes indirect connections with those who are no longer around to challenge and then goes into poisenous attacks on minority groups and persecutes others of religous backgrounds. GPH, go burn a cross in your own back yard and leave the intellectuals to decide on issues of fact. I dealt with dereclicts of his type and the safe passage was to stay away from them as they were clinger-oners. He is nothing more than a pecker gnat to the truth of our history. We are doing nothing more than allowing him to feed on those who cannot comprehend that he is a worthless deposit of information. And now he is dissing you in such a bold manner. Why do you put up with this dork? Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 My question to John is, why do you put up with this dribble from this low-life wanna-be who has never produced anything of value in his entire life? He speaks of operations of similar wanna-be's who have succeeded in nothing more than he ever had. He makes indirect connections with those who are no longer around to challenge and then goes into poisenous attacks on minority groups and persecutes others of religous backgrounds. GPH, go burn a cross in your own back yard and leave the intellectuals to decide on issues of fact. I dealt with dereclicts of his type and the safe passage was to stay away from them as they were clinger-oners. He is nothing more than a pecker gnat to the truth of our history. We are doing nothing more than allowing him to feed on those who cannot comprehend that he is a worthless deposit of information. And now he is dissing you in such a bold manner. Why do you put up with this dork? The main reason is because I believe in freedom of speech. It is true that Gerry gets a bit aggressive at times, but I can take that. I also think that Gerry has some knowledge about the events surrounding the assassination. He is unlikely to tell us the full story. However, he does give out interesting information sometimes, especially when he is angry. The third reason is that my main objective was to get as many people as possible to get involved in the debate on the JFK assassination. My main complaint about other JFK Forums is that they tend to restrict membership to those who share the views of the moderator. I think we are more likely to get to the truth by having an open discussion with people who have a wide variety of different views on the subject. That is why I refuse to ban Tim Gratz from the Forum. I have also encouraged those like Gerald Posner, David Perry, John McAdams, Kenneth Rahn, Joe Trento, to join the Forum. So far they have been unwilling to join in our debates. However, I think it would be very educational if they did join our discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 My question to John is, why do you put up with this dribble from this low-life wanna-be who has never produced anything of value in his entire life? He speaks of operations of similar wanna-be's who have succeeded in nothing more than he ever had. He makes indirect connections with those who are no longer around to challenge and then goes into poisenous attacks on minority groups and persecutes others of religous backgrounds. GPH, go burn a cross in your own back yard and leave the intellectuals to decide on issues of fact. I dealt with dereclicts of his type and the safe passage was to stay away from them as they were clinger-oners. He is nothing more than a pecker gnat to the truth of our history. We are doing nothing more than allowing him to feed on those who cannot comprehend that he is a worthless deposit of information. And now he is dissing you in such a bold manner. Why do you put up with this dork? The main reason is because I believe in freedom of speech. It is true that Gerry gets a bit aggressive at times, but I can take that. I also think that Gerry has some knowledge about the events surrounding the assassination. He is unlikely to tell us the full story. However, he does give out interesting information sometimes, especially when he is angry. The third reason is that my main objective was to get as many people as possible to get involved in the debate on the JFK assassination. My main complaint about other JFK Forums is that they tend to restrict membership to those who share the views of the moderator. I think we are more likely to get to the truth by having an open discussion with people who have a wide variety of different views on the subject. That is why I refuse to ban Tim Gratz from the Forum. I have also encouraged those like Gerald Posner, David Perry, John McAdams, Kenneth Rahn, Joe Trento, to join the Forum. So far they have been unwilling to join in our debates. However, I think it would be very educational if they did join our discussions. There are more than just a few of us who have "been there, done that" , who become somewhat aggressive when some "wannabee" shows up and runs off as if they had either the experience or qualifications to to discuss various topics. Most of us will tolerate a "wuffo", who at least does not claim to know anything. Gerry's recollections are of critical importance. Time has erased much of the correlating factors, through death of those parties involved, which are necessary to unravel all of the threads of those who were behind the assassination. No doubt, much of the revealed information has aided Mr. Hemming in understanding many of those actions in which he participated. Hopefully, his sharing of his personal experience and knowledge will aid us in making the final tie in the threads of those who were involved. If so, then he has done a great service. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Robbins Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 John: In the "Queen's English" -- There were NO "confessions" by either Tony or John. This is the total horse-xxxx that was swallowed by PDS, Winslow, Turner, Smith, et al. while socializing with bullxxxx artist Escalante, and which was further overblown in the "cow pies" scribbled out by the "Portagee bitch" Furiarte. They should join arms with the Khazar this year, and sing two choruses of "Kum-Bayah"!! Had they the "stones" to hold the meeting in La Habana, they would have really beenl wetting their communal pants. I mean, dumb-ass P. D. Scott didn't even know that the "Contra/CIA agent" Felipe Vidal was in fact the nephew; Felipe Vidal Rivera, and that FVS had been executed before the "Paredon" during may of 1964 !! Ya got it now??!! Gerry Still having problems with question 3. Is it true that your father was a friend of James Angleton? ----------------------- John: My late father was an Irishman born of a "Limey" father in Colombo, Sri Lanka [then called Ceylon]. He grew up hating the "English", and sometimes my rich uncles [maternal]. But it was those uncles who got him work as a Marine Deck Electrician" at CalShip, and later, work on the Pan-American Highway in Costa Rica. He busted his ass 18 hours a day to raise what became 10 kids. He was against my Cuba, etc. excursions, as he had hoped that upon leaving the Marines, I would sign up with the California Highway Patrol. He operated a radio/television repair shop in Alhambra, California -- constantly struggling to feed too many mouths. He died while I was on No Name Key. For many months afterward, I would call the TV shop telephone [long-distance, and very late at night] just to hear his voice on the answering machine. He wouldn't know an Angleton from a Watutsi, and never once ever showed any interest in anything save electronics, The Classics [large library], Chess [Master], and watching "wrassling" and "roller-derby" on the "Telly". "...Are we clear ?!", Gerry ______________________________ Mr. Hemming, Your Dad sounds like he was a great man. We could use many more just like him, today, here in the U.S. Your choice to give information to members of this forum is something I would have never expected from someone with a background in covert ops. I would like to thank you for the work you have done for all of us in the past and also for your contributions which you make here today. Chuck Robbins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Carrier Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 My question to John is, why do you put up with this dribble from this low-life wanna-be who has never produced anything of value in his entire life? He speaks of operations of similar wanna-be's who have succeeded in nothing more than he ever had. He makes indirect connections with those who are no longer around to challenge and then goes into poisenous attacks on minority groups and persecutes others of religous backgrounds. GPH, go burn a cross in your own back yard and leave the intellectuals to decide on issues of fact. I dealt with dereclicts of his type and the safe passage was to stay away from them as they were clinger-oners. He is nothing more than a pecker gnat to the truth of our history. We are doing nothing more than allowing him to feed on those who cannot comprehend that he is a worthless deposit of information. And now he is dissing you in such a bold manner. Why do you put up with this dork? The main reason is because I believe in freedom of speech. It is true that Gerry gets a bit aggressive at times, but I can take that. I also think that Gerry has some knowledge about the events surrounding the assassination. He is unlikely to tell us the full story. However, he does give out interesting information sometimes, especially when he is angry. The third reason is that my main objective was to get as many people as possible to get involved in the debate on the JFK assassination. My main complaint about other JFK Forums is that they tend to restrict membership to those who share the views of the moderator. I think we are more likely to get to the truth by having an open discussion with people who have a wide variety of different views on the subject. That is why I refuse to ban Tim Gratz from the Forum. I have also encouraged those like Gerald Posner, David Perry, John McAdams, Kenneth Rahn, Joe Trento, to join the Forum. So far they have been unwilling to join in our debates. However, I think it would be very educational if they did join our discussions. John, I respect your support of freedom of speech, but in the case of Hemming, he is spouting hatred and disrespect to everyone beyond his small world. He had provided nothing in the 40 plus years since the assassination and it is sad that those believe he has. To believe Hemming with his loud-mouthed look-at-me persona would be trusted to have any information pertinent to the JFK Assassination is rediculous. Look at his background and who he was surrounded with. What did they accomplish. They were a joke in the clandestine world. He was a soldier-of-fortune and they are a dime a dozen. They are as reliable as a 20 year old microwave oven. Just because he name pops up periodically during that period of history does not make him important or on the inside. No more than Lee Oswald was. If he was worth his weight in water in the case of the JFK Assassination, would he still be around? His story of providing protection at the Airport in Miami is comical. They were so hard up that they had to rely on this guy? I could go on and on and challenging the likes of Hemming could fill a book. This is a classic example of why I have went from being so active in the research community to simply popping in from time to time. So many researchers cannot judge what is valuabel and pertinant and what is a challenge without merit. I am tired of defending my research against those who cannot comprehend what I doing and they are being supported by their like. Hemming is a tired old man who wanted to be important in the early 60's and couldn't. He now is trying to re-write his own history and make himself important. Note his testimony and how seriously it was taken. So much was already widely known and the links he tried to make subtley were rediculous. Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 Al wrote: They are as reliable as a 20 year old microwave oven. Just because he name pops up periodically during that period of history does not make him important or on the inside. No more than Lee Oswald was. A rather strange thought. Whether he was a conspirator or "only a patsy", Lee Harvey Oswald certainly played an important role in history. Since the assassination is often, correctly, called the greatest unsolved crime of the twentieth century, it would be difficult indeed to write a history of the twentieth century without a mention of Oswald. Perhaps I misunderstood Mr. Carrier's point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 Dick Russell wrote (in response to a post by Gerry Hemming): Gerry, you are not the first to tell me that Nagell was working for the G.R.U., not the KGB. Interestingly enough, so did Fabian Escalante, the former head of the Cuban spy agency, at a researchers' meeting in the Bahamas in 1996. This is described in the revised edition of my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Carrier Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Al wrote:They are as reliable as a 20 year old microwave oven. Just because he name pops up periodically during that period of history does not make him important or on the inside. No more than Lee Oswald was. A rather strange thought. Whether he was a conspirator or "only a patsy", Lee Harvey Oswald certainly played an important role in history. Since the assassination is often, correctly, called the greatest unsolved crime of the twentieth century, it would be difficult indeed to write a history of the twentieth century without a mention of Oswald. Perhaps I misunderstood Mr. Carrier's point. Tim, So you consider a possible "patsy" as being an important link to the truth? Now I can see how you can view a blowhard like Hemming as one who holds the secrets to the truth. I keep asking the same question and get no response. What exactly did Hemming accomplish in his escapades of the late 50's and early '60's. If he was so valuable as to have known about the truth of the JFK assassination or had any valuable insight into it, then he must have had some successes in his so-called covert operations. I am glad I am not holding my breath to hear what they were! I have recently received an e-mail from Nancy asking me to back off as she feels Hemming may eventually start telling us what he knows. Need I say more. If you all are waiting for Hemming to give the research community a breakthru in this case, then we have really hit a low in assassination research. Maybe Col. Ollie can also tell you all what a sincere patriot he was twenty years later... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Al, obviously Lee Harvey Oswald even if a patsy is a critical link to the assassination. Assuming he was not a lone nut, the true conspirators are only one step from Oswald, regardless of his involvement on non-involvement. If he was involved, the question is who his sponsor(s) was (were). If he was a patsy, the question is who made him the patsy. About as close as it gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry J.Dean Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Al, obviously Lee Harvey Oswald even if a patsy is a critical link to the assassination.Assuming he was not a lone nut, the true conspirators are only one step from Oswald, regardless of his involvement on non-involvement. If he was involved, the question is who his sponsor(s) was (were). If he was a patsy, the question is who made him the patsy. About as close as it gets. Who. .........the planned 'New Americanist' scheme with it's framework so cunningly in place for more than a half century {upon removal of Kennedy} moved quickly to consolidate and hold perpetual power over a bewildered government and a confused nation. Who then can ever be tried or convicted for the awful crimes, when the guilty control, all legal and moral judgements, and dictate their own version of history. Harry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Carroll Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Al wrote: They are as reliable as a 20 year old microwave oven. Just because he name pops up periodically during that period of history does not make him important or on the inside. No more than Lee Oswald was.A rather strange thought. Whether he was a conspirator or "only a patsy", Lee Harvey Oswald certainly played an important role in history. So you consider a possible "patsy" as being an important link to the truth? Now I can see how you can view a blowhard like Hemming as one who holds the secrets to the truth. I keep asking the same question and get no response. What exactly did Hemming accomplish in his escapades of the late 50's and early '60's. If he was so valuable as to have known about the truth of the JFK assassination or had any valuable insight into it, then he must have had some successes in his so-called covert operations. Oswald didn't have to be an accomplished covert operative, on the inside, or have had any successes to require silencing. Perhaps he didn't even fully understand the significance of what he knew, but the fact speaks for itself that if Oswald had to be eliminated then he must have held important knowledge. Contrarily, there is no evidence that anyone finds anything Gerry Hemming has to say to be threatening or even particularly revealing. A bunch of guys running around No Name Key playing war games is more reminiscent of what one will find at any paint ball field. I have read numerous books and postings containing Hemming's disclosures and can think of no reliable information being provided, while there is plenty that is laughable. The Martino relationship and Kevin Costner's anger at Kenny O'Donnell are two recent doozies that come to mind. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 While Gerry's posts are undoubtedly reflective of his unique perspective, I find them consistently interesting. And he is extremely relevant to the case. His association with Hall, who quite possibly assisted the FBI in shutting down inquiries into the Odio incident, and his association with Sturgis, who quite possibly was used in an attempt to set up Oswald, and who may have been connected to Hunt and Nixon, would by themselves make his presence here worthwhile. Keep posting, Gerry. Al, I understand your frustration. Gerry's said some very insulting things about you, as well as others. If you really believe EVERYTHING he says is b.s. and unworthy of our attention, you should try to counter him point by point, like Robert Charles-Dunne does with Gratz. If you find this prospect too enfuriating, you should probably just avoid reading his posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Carrier Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 While Gerry's posts are undoubtedly reflective of his unique perspective, I find them consistently interesting. And he is extremely relevant to the case. His association with Hall, who quite possibly assisted the FBI in shutting down inquiries into the Odio incident, and his association with Sturgis, who quite possibly was used in an attempt to set up Oswald, and who may have been connected to Hunt and Nixon, would by themselves make his presence here worthwhile. Keep posting, Gerry. Al, I understand your frustration. Gerry's said some very insulting things about you, as well as others. If you really believe EVERYTHING he says is b.s. and unworthy of our attention, you should try to counter him point by point, like Robert Charles-Dunne does with Gratz. If you find this prospect too enfuriating, you should probably just avoid reading his posts. Pat, It has nothing to do with his attacks on me as I brought them on when I called him like I saw him, a legend in his own mind. And what would you like me to debate him on. He has never proven his credibility. He cannot provide one ounce of proof of his level of operation that he likes to sell himself off as being then. What exactly did he do other than run around with a bunch of other wanna-be's that the government wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole? If he could provide some substance to his importance of the time that would make it realistic that he would have knowledge of matters of such importance, I would gladly address them. But as it stands, I would be shadow boxing with his own legend that he has created. Nobody took him seriously then, in the aftermath and I see no reason to take him seriously now. I will ignore him if that is what the majority of the forum wants. Apparently Nancy thinks so. Do you and others agree. This is not a personal issue with this man. I am simply calling him as he is. Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Al, for my five shillings, it is impossible to judge, as yet Mr Hemmings worth, or otherwise, in matters pertaining to the assassination, yours however with particular reference to matters ballistic, is well established. If you can stand to do so ignore the man, he either has a tale worth the telling, or he is a blowhard. Time, as they say, will reveal all. Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Cox Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 Hey Harry, Thought of you as I picked up recent issue of Newsweek. Cover was the growing power/membership rolls of LDS. Read recently Joe Smith was Mormon and Mason FWIW. Best to you as always Al, obviously Lee Harvey Oswald even if a patsy is a critical link to the assassination.Assuming he was not a lone nut, the true conspirators are only one step from Oswald, regardless of his involvement on non-involvement. If he was involved, the question is who his sponsor(s) was (were). If he was a patsy, the question is who made him the patsy. About as close as it gets. Here, here. I'd take a one hour intervu with LHO over many hours with Garrison, Russo or whichever piper readers choose to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now