Dawn Meredith

When I attempt to listen to any of the videos it is all garbled and not even voices, (the part 1 etc. vids)... Anyone else have a problem? Thanks, Dawn

Boy did this thread go off topic....Steve why do you waste your time arguing with this person? I totally agree with Doug on this. All good points. As to the FEMA camps we have seen pics of them. And they don't build things for non use. My problem with Jones is the tone of his voice, and that he screams so much, as well as the ego. I began viewing him in Austin almost 20 years ago and most of what he warned about has come to pass. He is fearless and I greatly admire that. He has a tv show here in Austin and is the SOLE voice - (radio/tv I mean)-of what is truly happening in this nation. He was also the first to obtain the Patriot Act and publish it back before anyone even knew what it was. (Remember the Congressmen and women were not permitted to even read it prior to signing it.) That he deals with all issues of conspiracy is a great service we see nowhere else on the air (tv/radio). But the problems I listed make it hard for me to listen to much, he is offputting in that way. I do not mind that some of his views are "right wing". I learned back in about 73 or so that a right winger was more likely to understand conspiracy truth than any "leftist intellectual". (And I am hard left). You also can't just put some lable on certain people. Some of us are complex with seemingly contradictory views. For example I think of myself as a Libertarian Socialist. I am also deeply spiritual and believe in the teachings of Jesus. (But have little use for Organized religion). I support Ron Paul becasue of his foreign policy and fed issues, which I consider the most important to our very survival. I totally disagree with his infantile Ayn Rand views and believe we need serious regulation in so many areas. I also note that he is not a member of the NWO groups. Anyway I just wanted to get this thread back to the topic of what people think about Alex Jones. Dawn

Why give them a dime? I have never gone to that 6th floor of lies and never will. Nothing up there is worth any price, you're giving your money to the wrong side. Give it to COPA instead. I agree that Jim has put GM in an indefensible position of his own making. He deserves to be exposed, but private emails also need to be respected. Not sure when EF established this rule as my privacy with an email was violated here a few years back and I complained about that HERE. The "response "I got was to see a moderator then re-post that stuff on a different thread. (And it has since been reposted elsewhere, right after after I complained again so I am particularily sensitive to the issue of having an expectation of privacy with email. ) Mack? That puts it all in a different ballgame, as he will not post on forums, and he deserves to be outed. Especially what he and other forces are planning for 11/22/13: silencing us. Dawn

Not trying to be antagonistic but if those recordings ever materialize I'll eat my own underwear. I have kept an open mind on this but I find myself in agreement with this (above) statement, re the tapes. Do you believe Peoples was murdered and do you believe Wallace was involved? Are you aware of another researcher named Stephen P. (withoulding last name for now) who was also writing about all of this, prior to his untimely death and the disappearance of his files. I spoke with Billie Sol about this after being told he had bought the rights to this man's story and work. Estes told me indeed he had and it was going to be made into a movie, he spoke of a woman in Dallas with whom he wss working. Can you shed any further light on this? Thank you, Dawn Clint Peoples died in an automobile accident in 1992. I do not know whether this was a result of murder or not. Malcolm Wallace also died of an automobile accident but this occurred in 1971. So obviously Wallace could not have been involved in Peoples' death. What they shared in common was that both men knew too much about LBJ. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKpeoples.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwallaceM.htm I am aware that there was a researcher on the relationship of LBJ and Billie Sol Estes who died the day he completed his work. I know nothing more about this except the barest of a few details. I know of no woman in Dallas with whom he might have been working on the project. Thank you Doug. I had forgotten the date of Peoples' death. Then lots of important people die in car crashes. Jay (Harrison) (who really liked you, by the way) never believe Mac Wallace died in 1971. I no longer remember what basis he had for that. If only I could call him...So many days I think that of my dear departed friend. I wish someone would write a really GOOD book pulling together all the diverse aspects of the TX part of the plot. Barr's was so error -filled that -save for the fingerprint work- it is ....not a great book. I have not read Nelson's but have been told by enough people that it suffers as much. I hope Ed Tatro gets his book out soon. Joan Mellen hs one coming, as well, that I look forward to. There is a reason it all went down in TX. Dawn

That is absurd. You are basically calling Scott a xxxx. And when Charles Drago asked to be deleted he was also truthful. Just in case you did not notice he has been GONE ever since. A very odd way to seek "attention" at the Ed. Forum. I find it interesting that you are suddenly all over the JFK assassination debate Dawn

Not trying to be antagonistic but if those recordings ever materialize I'll eat my own underwear. I have kept an open mind on this but I find myself in agreement with this (above) statement, re the tapes. Do you believe Peoples was murdered and do you believe Wallace was involved? Are you aware of another researcher named Stephen P. (withoulding last name for now) who was also writing about all of this, prior to his untimely death and the disappearance of his files. I spoke with Billie Sol about this after being told he had bought the rights to this man's story and work. Estes told me indeed he had and it was going to be made into a movie, he spoke of a woman in Dallas with whom he wss working. Can you shed any further light on this? Thank you, Dawn

Yes B. has tons of good stuff....And remember the "we have to satisify the public that LHO acted alone" letter, ....from a very top official...(I don't have time to look all this stuff up.) Yes David, that is exactly what it has degenerated to, and like Vince Salandria told Fonzi so long ago, it is to wear us down...be it JFK triva or outright dismissal of the staggering amount of evidence on this case. I will not engage with the lone nut here, except to say he also twisted my words...again...I said that in four months my husband had read enough books (about 12) to know, then I added that more recently he read Brothers and JFKU. He also read a college research paper I did in early 75 where I had the use of virtually every book on the case (borrowed) and I was going for an overview, not some specific view of who done it. I am willing to talk with any LN who is sincerely interested in becoming knowledgable ..indeed I have been doing this my entire life. And I can see where it might be beneficial to engage with LNs who should know better, as in the case you mentioned. I hope you tell us more about the document you received. I so admire the scores of people who have poured over all the documents, and have come up with so many gems. The Operation NOrthwoods document, as a result of the JFK Act, jumps out...as it relates not just to the JFK assassination but matters today (9-11). Yes Joe, it was proven countless years ago. By many courageous people, the first generation of researchers. All that has come since is a monumental amount of further proof. As to the Warren Commissioners being of integrity...let's just look at two: Dulles, (the fox guarding the henhouse) and Ford, who actually commited fraud and changed crucial evidence in an attempt to prove the nonsense that is known at the MBT. Carry on folks...but you will never change his mind. Dawn

(Don't worry...the "minders" @wikipedia moved in within two hours to remove everything displayed in the above quote box because the details interfered with the eternal, sanitized version of the wikipedia Earl Warren biography, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren ) My guess is that section was deleted because most of the citations were links to Google searches that normally did not support the claim and few, IF any, of the others supported the claims made. Was that your handywork? Funny that neither the LA Times 3x obits nor the AP or NYT obits of Ziffren mentioned him being accused of ties to the mob. The latter said, “[in 1960 Democratic presidential]Hopefuls like John F. Kennedy and Hubert H. Humphrey sought him out.” Hmmm so if Warren is tainted by supposedly making his son a cleark, what does that say about JFK? http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-04/local/me-101_1_paul-ziffren http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-02/news/mn-458_1_paul-ziffren http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-04/local/me-10_1_los-angeles http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1916&dat=19910603&id=7gYhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lXYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3069,164975 http://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/03/obituaries/paul-ziffren-democratic-leader-in-california-in-1950-s-dies-at-77.html Gus Russo however makes similar charges Wow Glen that is indeed quite an admission. That you have actually STUDIED this case all these years and nothing has convinced you of conspiracy. My study began day one, at age 14. It was clear to me from day one, and totally so by the time LHO was shot, that the fix was in. It would color-and virtually dictate- everything else in my life for the next nearly 50 years. Then in 96 I met a wonderful man, an attorney like myself, and we fell in love. Of course the case came up as it always with me (I have an obsession with the truth) and I asked Erick his view. Much to my shock and dismay he replied that he'd never given it a thought. To his credit he began reading books and by the time of our wedding- a mere four months later- he knew enough to (1.) know it was a conspiracy and (2.) be relatively conversant with longtime students of this case. No he does not read all the stuff I do, he did, more recently, read Brothers and JFK and the Unspeakable...so he KNOWS...but YOU???? It is hard to take seriously what you say. The only people I have ever encountered who refuse to believe conspiracy who have actually studied the evidence are people who are ah...assets of some sort. I am not saying you are...I just find your story amazing beyond all belief. As JIm Garrison once said and I paraphrase, "the only way you can believe in the WC is to not study it". But I appreciate you telling your most strange tale and I will just take you at your word, no matter how difficult it is for me to comprehend. I mean it was IN- OUR- FACES blatant.imho. Dawn Dawn, Darn, my intention was by no means to shock anyone the way you seem to have been? Are you alright? Beyond that, I'm really glad that I could give you a good laugh, I'm always inclined to look between my fingers whenever I can achieve that. However, I've admitted nothing - as a lawyer I would expect you to be well aware of the distinction between an admittance and a statement? No? You know, unlike what you seem to think, it's not criminal to have views about this case that differs from yours. I'm not accused of anything, as far as I understand? One thing that I can detect in this posting of yours is that this is a matter of your way or the highway. You, on the other hand, have been working hard and consistently to throw out any evidence of JVBs lies. Some time ago you commented that "we all know why you are here". Above, you are continuing along the same lines: "... who have actually studied the evidence are people who are ah...assets of some sort." You just cant help yourself, can you? If I disagree with you, I'm a CIA agent? Let's sum this up. You knew from the age of 14 that this was a conspiracy. You have an obsession with the truth. Your partner has now read two books and accordingly I do not know what I'm talking about? Moreover, it was all IN-MY-FACE? If nothing else, perhaps I'm "an asset"? Dawn Meredith, I am sincerely glad that I live in a country where I will never be at risk of having you representing me. Dealing with idiots like you is why I left here to start with, so yes I too am glad that I'd never BE representing you. Since most everyone else here is arguing that there was a conspiracy you stoop to that tried and true attack mode. You are such a bore. Glad there is an ignore function here. Note I did not attack you personally nor even inquire what work you do...but people like you always resort to name calling and ad Homs. Goodnight and goodluck. (If it isn't obvious I will not ever respond to a post of yours again) YOur agenda is quite clear.

Pat, thanks for your answer. I believe you are missing my point about bringing those issues forward, which in fact is one of the main reasons to my skepticism. As I said, I could have made that list much, much longer. Don't you find it a bit awkward that while on the one hand there are so many people that are die hard believers in a conspiracy, when on the other hand there's a complete and utter lack of consensus about what the evidence for this conspiracy are? I'm sure you know better than I do how completely divided those who believe in a conspiracy are. What I see is a clearly visible pattern about this. A pattern that leads me to, at least question, the very foundation of a conspiracy. Neither do I neglect the well known and establish fact that when politicians in high positions are assassinated, it's a basic human instinct to react with disbelief to the proposition that someone of such insignificance could actually take out someone as significant as president Kennedy. It's just not comprehensible. In fact, there's a good example of this in this very thread: "My study began day one, at age 14. It was clear to me from day one, and totally so by the time LHO was shot, that the fix was in." Understandable, of course. But very clearly based on anything but evidence. An instinctive psychological reaction which surely didn't have much to do with age as it probably was, and most likely still is, just as frequent among all age cohorts. As I also said, the two areas that I've tried to understand - what happened at the Plaza and the medical evidence - are indeed hard to grasp. In my case, especially the medical evidence. I'm the first to acknowledge that there are a whole range of unanswered questions related to those areas. I believe I have read your take on this but I'll do it again as soon as time allows, and perhaps then comment on what your conclusions are, if you are interested. For the record, I may or may not agree with McAdams on certain issues, I really don't know. Except about Judyth Baker where I do know that I am in complete agreement with his take, but that whole thing is just a distraction and a waste of time. What I also do know is that whatever opinions I have in this case, they're not based any one persons views. I'm trying to look at the evidence from all angles, where that is possible. Again you're 100% wrong. It was based entirely on the evidence that the tv and newspapers were spitting out so fast we barely had time to eat or sleep. I grew up reading murder mysteries and true crime stories, almost from the time I began to read in first grade, so I knew how complex any murder investigation can be. That they KNEW so much about LHO so fast, and it all had such a false ring to it, even at my age. As Jim D said, if you REALLY believe Ruby shot the patsy on tv so Jackie would not have to testify against him then you are pretty qullible. Dawn

(Don't worry...the "minders" @wikipedia moved in within two hours to remove everything displayed in the above quote box because the details interfered with the eternal, sanitized version of the wikipedia Earl Warren biography, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren ) My guess is that section was deleted because most of the citations were links to Google searches that normally did not support the claim and few, IF any, of the others supported the claims made. Was that your handywork? Funny that neither the LA Times 3x obits nor the AP or NYT obits of Ziffren mentioned him being accused of ties to the mob. The latter said, “[in 1960 Democratic presidential]Hopefuls like John F. Kennedy and Hubert H. Humphrey sought him out.” Hmmm so if Warren is tainted by supposedly making his son a cleark, what does that say about JFK? http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-04/local/me-101_1_paul-ziffren http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-02/news/mn-458_1_paul-ziffren http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-04/local/me-10_1_los-angeles http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1916&dat=19910603&id=7gYhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lXYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3069,164975 http://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/03/obituaries/paul-ziffren-democratic-leader-in-california-in-1950-s-dies-at-77.html Gus Russo however makes similar charges Wow Glen that is indeed quite an admission. That you have actually STUDIED this case all these years and nothing has convinced you of conspiracy. My study began day one, at age 14. It was clear to me from day one, and totally so by the time LHO was shot, that the fix was in. It would color-and virtually dictate- everything else in my life for the next nearly 50 years. Then in 96 I met a wonderful man, an attorney like myself, and we fell in love. Of course the case came up as it always with me (I have an obsession with the truth) and I asked Erick his view. Much to my shock and dismay he replied that he'd never given it a thought. To his credit he began reading books and by the time of our wedding- a mere four months later- he knew enough to (1.) know it was a conspiracy and (2.) be relatively conversant with longtime students of this case. No he does not read all the stuff I do, he did, more recently, read Brothers and JFK and the Unspeakable...so he KNOWS...but YOU???? It is hard to take seriously what you say. The only people I have ever encountered who refuse to believe conspiracy who have actually studied the evidence are people who are ah...assets of some sort. I am not saying you are...I just find your story amazing beyond all belief. As JIm Garrison once said and I paraphrase, "the only way you can believe in the WC is to not study it". But I appreciate you telling your most strange tale and I will just take you at your word, no matter how difficult it is for me to comprehend. I mean it was IN- OUR- FACES blatant.imho. Dawn

Robert: Good points about Obama. Why indeed? I think -sadly- we know the answer. I thouhgt JImD"s book review did touch on Matthew's avoidance of all conspiracy truth. I only read it one time when it was first published and did not find that problem with it. Dawn

I have posted a link to this new topic on my Facebook page, where it will be read and shared by other Facebook members. Good idea. This is an amazing speech. Glad it is finally on the net. I tried to get it on here when I frist read Marty's book, 98 or so. I first read part of the speech in 74 in a book about the Garrison investigation. Flommonde (sp) Paris' book.

God what horrible lies...I hate him. The left is so suckered by his bs....I mostly will not read him because I know he goes out of his way to lie about JFK's record. Many have tried to correct him over the years. To no avail. I agree that these pieces are the worst. Because we expect more from the left. Dawn

Martin Dugard helped O'Reilly write his book on Lincoln; now he is helping O'Reilly write a book on the JFK assassination. Here is a link: http://books.usatoda...nation/629329/1 Thank you Robert for answering my question, and Gary Mack, who responded too. And Jim, I too think that O'Reilly's former reporting on the subject should be compiled and reposted as I know he did some interesting work on DeMohrenshcildt and the CIA's Moore. Jerry Policoff says: I interviewed O'Reilly for a piece I co-authored in the Village Voice back in the JFK movie days. He was the co-host of Inside Edition back then and had not yet gone insane. He actually ran a segment on Inside Edition about the 14 or so Federal agents who had been revealed to have infiltrated the Garrison investigation. He thought the piece was so important that he held a press conference to promote it. Of course no mainstream media showed up. He expressed his astonishment to USA Today, and I interviewed him as a follow-up. He repeated to me that he could not understand how the media could not even show up at a press conference on such an important issue. Now that he works for FOX it will be interesting to see if he is still so indignant. Jerry Policoff Wow, so there is a lot more to nail him on than I realized. Not that it will make a bit of difference. But it will be all in the record. He can just say he came to his senses and changed his mind. Lies of course. I doubt he reads his email and doubt further that whoever does will pass on any from a CTer. Dawn

The article is not there for me. I detest Chomsky for pretending to be a teller of truth. Dawn

No matter what he once knew and /or believed about this case I guarentee his book will be lone nut bs. Just in time for the 50th anniversary. The re-assassination of JFK will be in full swing. History be damned. Dawn

Yes: "The answer is because the people who were threatened by JFK are still in power. This isn't some kooky conspiracy, but the truth". I knew this was an inside job day one at 14. But people here twist your words. I have not time for such games. Dawn

OMG. so the Secret Service, according to Lifton, helped off the President cuz he was screwing around? So then why didn't they do Bill too? I agree that this IS "salacious gossip" and I am very glad to see those refuting it. Loved how Jim D was able to show how Alford lifted parts of her story from Exner. Expect more of this as the 50th anniversary draws near. We'll hear from the left, that he was no different than Nixon or LBJ, and we will hear the rehashed sex trash from the tabloids ...all to try to disprove Douglass on "why it matters". It is sad to see the critical community even having this debate. Predictable of some, however. Dawn

And all the people who saw LHO on the second floor are simply lying? I find it curious that everything Fetzer writes about involves some sort of alteration by the government. Dawn

So sad, I will miss his posts. Barb please give our thoughts and prayers to his family.

Jim: I think we all know what "Colby" is doing here. Dawn

No, you are quite mistaken. Dulles' own basic training was primarily as a lawyer. Even as DCI Dulles did not give orders, he took them. Dulles' experience was primarily as a Nazi operative and financier. And you are worse than mistaken. You ought to be lobotomized. Where is your bio? Is that no longer a rule here? Dawn Merry Christmas everyone....almost....

No, you are quite mistaken. Dulles' own basic training was primarily as a lawyer. Even as DCI Dulles did not give orders, he took them. Dulles' experience was primarily as a Nazi operative and financier. And you are worse than mistaken. You ought to be lobotomized. I really do not understand, Mr. Schweitzer. Your post opening this thread seemed intellegent and well-thought out. While I don't necessarily agree 100% with everything that you wrote, it was good reading. I don't always agree 100% with Mr. Burnham, or Mr. Kelly or anyone else. And I think that is probably true for everyone on this forum: everyone probably disagrees with everyone about one thing or another. I happen to agree with you about Allen Dulles in that I have a hard time believing that he was out of the loop. I just do not think that one could be DCI for as long as he was and not maintain serious contacts. On the other hand, I do also tend to agree with Mr. Burnham that the military played a major part, if not the major part, in the overall operation. You resort to name-calling. I find it all so demeaning and childish. To suggest that Mr. Burnham should be lobotomized: what purpose does it serve? It just makes you look foolish, in my opinion. Do you know Mr. Kelly and all the work he does to try to get to the facts and the truth of this whole nasty business? To suggest he is a "mockingbird" also makes you look foolish in my opinion. For sure, you are not the only person here who resorts to name-calling when their opinion is challenged. We have all seen the large number of threads that have degenerated. But you are new here; maybe I am foolishly hopeful that some of the new members could work to raise the standard of discourse. We have a lot of intelligent and dedicated people here, and this forum contains an enormous wealth of information. Unfortunately too many times the valuable information is lost in the name-calling noise. Can't we all do better than that? Ditto. Some new kid on the block comes here and begins calling serious researchers names. No one is down playing the Nazi connection to the CIA. And Mae did tell us all we needed to know decades ago. As did Carl Oglesby and others. For a lawyer - if indeed you are/were -your logic is most strange. Dawn

As much as I have admired Daniel Sheehan, he is very far off base re the assassination of JFK as a low level rogue op. Dawn

Thank you for posting this, I had never seen this info. So many killed to cover up what E Howard called "the big event". Dawn