Dawn Meredith

This sums it up totally. To muddy the waters about who he actually was gives left wing gatekeepers like Chomsky the power to say that there was no conspiracy because JFK was just another pol who was not doing anything to cause the powers that be TO kill him. Understanding who Kennedy was answers the question of why he was killed. Before I saw Jim Di's words, that JFK had to SAY certain things in order to get elected, I was about to make the same point. His experience in World War Two had a profound affect on him and this experience set him apart totally from the true Cold Warriors. Dawn

I don't understand why people are surprised. Of course he felt threatened. His brother was blown away in broad daylight in front of thousands while the SS stood down. The entire family "got it". After RFK was killed Jackie did say something: " They are killing Kennedys and my kids are next" or words to that effect. And she was right: they killed her son. So let's just all blame the victims for not "solving this case" . Dawn

It said "server not found " in UK yesterday for about 2 hours mid afternoon, I got depressed with nothing to read and thought about going to McAdams site.But the mouse refused.So glad I got a mac. I would watch the weather channel before "going to McAdams site". Dawn

Sorry Peter, I just became a grandfather for the first time, and life has suddenly become very busy, so I do not have time to go into this in detail right now. It is true that the backyard photos were used as powerful propaganda AFTER Lee Oswald was dead, but they were only valuable because he was not around to defend himself. Oswald's accusers , including Jim garrison, have always had this great advantage. That explains why they had to murder him before he could prove his innocence. So Ray, are you saying that the photos are genuine and that this was just a bit of marital recreation on their part? "What shall we do today Honey? Take the kids to the park? Or, maybe I could dress up as a left wing assassin and you could photograph it?" Under what 'normal' circumstances does a married man ask his wife to take photos of himself posing as an assassin? And how many did she say she took Ray? Can you please give a definitive figure on EXACTLY how many photos were taken by Marina? This is all very entertaining but the level of disinformation on this forum is staggering. I had some run ins with Carroll a few years back and his hatred of Garrison gets very old but to read that he believes the basckyard photos are authenic and that LHO was not part of any intelligence operation demonstrates that his purpose here - imho- is to distort, waste time with straw men arguments, and direct people away from the truth. Double talk indeed. Dawn

If Brad Ayers (or anyone else) claims to have witnessed a murder, and if he failed to report that murder in a timely manner to the proper authorities, then where I come from he would be considered an accessory to murder. But maybe you and I come from different kinds of places. [by that I mean that, where I come from, anyone who tried to cite a guy like Brad Ayers as a reliable witness would be laughed out of town] In my opinion, (not a legal opinion), in most states within the United States, if you fail to report a crime that you witnessed, it could potentially be "Misprison of a Felony" and it is a crime if you actively conceal the fact, as opposed to only "failing to report" the crime. By contrast, "an accessory to a crime" knowingly, actively, and voluntarily participated in the commission of the crime before, during, or after the fact by providing ANY type of support. If a person provides any type of aid, support, shelter, financing, etc. to the perpetrator after the crime is committed they may be an accessory after the fact. In Tx mere failure to report a crime is NOT a crime, unless the crime is child abuse. Dawn

I hardly labled Jim " a lone nut dimwit", I was observing that since Jim- a respected astute researcher- has joined the lone nuts have been attacking him. But twisting things is your stock and trade. "Common cause" with Wilson? You are simply making things up. Good bye LenCo. I will not be engaging with you again, so continue twisting. Dawn

quote name='William Kelly' date='07 August 2010 - 06:32 PM' timestamp='1281198779' post='200722'] So isn't there some Texas Yahoo out there who actually knows what the Texas Gun Laws were in 1963, who can tell us if there were any records kept as to the identity of the purchaser of any over the counter weapon with cash? This would go a long way in setting up the answer to the question of why Oswald ordered the pistol and rifle through the mails with a money order and alias and a PO box with his name on it rather than just go over to Green's a few blocks away and get the same weapons for cash without any documents of the transactions other than the sales receipt? Thanks, Bill Kelly Maybe Jack would know. I just know that records were not being kept, particularily at gun shows, until after the 80's. With gun legialation laws. But to respond to your other question: "LHO" was following orders: told to order guns, done. There HAD to be a record. The Lone nuts here at the Ed Forum have really taken over the joint. I note an influx with the arrival of Jim DiEugenio. Hmmmmm Maybe Jim's onto something requiring round the clock forum surveilance. Dawn

Sure easy to see why these jokers won't debate you, Jim.

Oh, Hugh Aynesworth, well that settles that. There is a guy who is above reproach on this case. Jim: Someone should be PAYING you to deal with all this disinfo crap.

Colby,You're the worst thing that ever happened to the Education Forum.The truth is, you want to run and moderate the forum....Here's an example, from a few years back, of you telling John Simkin how he should run his forum, where you got your panties in a bunch and gave us a preview of the future. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6130 ....and now you have the audacity to start a thread critcizing the Education Forum of some double standard..You are the double standard.I'm going to be very surprised if your plea turns into a sing along with Len Colby.Your motives are clear, For anyone that has had to sift through your garbage whilst legitimate attempts of debate and discussion are give little or no chance to breath. Really! That question was my laugh of the day. LenCo and his ilk were the reason several of us left EF and began DPF. Interesting now that Jim DiEugenio has joined EF all the lone nut dimwits are out in droves. Dawn

Ranger Peoples is probably the biggest "hero" in my book, as illustrated in this excerpt: Clearly, Estes’s checkered past causes anyone to be skeptical about his general credibility; therefore the veracity of his statements regarding Johnson’s involvement is open to debate. Yet one man—a man whose impeccable credentials and highly regarded reputation among Texas law enforcement officials, a man who knew Estes for more than two decades and was responsible for his finally being arraigned—Texas Ranger Captain Clint Peoples, felt that Estes’s unique knowledge of Johnson’s history of criminal conduct was the key to solving the “crime of the century.” Captain Peoples made the judgment that Estes was then a convincing witness who should be listened to; clearly, Peoples considered the man’s character at that point in time and felt that it justified giving him an equal measure, at least, of the “benefit of the doubt” so long extended to Lyndon B. Johnson. After working on his own time for many years to break the Wallace murders open, and tie him directly into the Kennedy assassination as well, as he was about to announce his findings, his car was broadsided by a large truck, immediately killing him. According to Madeleine Brown, who had gotten to know him and had furnished information to him regarding Mac Wallace, “His wrists showed marks (that apparently were caused) from handcuffs.” Captain Peoples knew too much and was still a threat to certain people and institutions as late as 1992. The statements made by Billie Sol Estes, therefore, are vindicated not by the author but by the estimable Ranger Captain Clint Peoples, whose intimate knowledge of the people and events related to this sorry chapter of American history more than offset any sway of doubt about the veracity of Estes. Thanks for your support (and purchase). I think you won't be disappointed. I will be getting this book as well. I knew Peoples died shortly after the Marshall "suicide" was changed but I did not realize it was just as he was about to "announce his findings". A real hero for sure. Dawm

Why do you think LBJ was behind the Kennedy assassination? For the life of me I don't understand this thinking. LBJ made his announcement on national television- March 31, 1968 - that he would not "accept" his party's nomination,nor would he "seek" another term as President. So if his motive was to acquire Kennedy's position as President he sure didnt keep it very long. Johnson describes that event that made him President as something that "fell upon me". Some say that his motive in the conspiracy to kill JFK was so he could get into a position to start a war in Vietnam, something JFK refused to do. But if you listen to his conversation with McGeorge Bundy in May 1964 it suggests that LBJ had no interest in expanding the war in Vietnam. In fact his arguments against an expanded war in Asia seems to be the same as his former boss John F. Kennedy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itQdn8Fbs-E&feature=related If you read Donald Gibson's book "The Kennedy Assassination Cover up" you learn that the creation of the Warren Commission was not LBJ's idea, but instead it was created by wealthy members of the eastern establishment. John F. Kennedy's real enemies. Gibson also focuses on the international aspect of the Kennedy murder conspiracy with a focus on certain British interests. Lastly it was Lyndon Johnson who made the ominous and cryptic remark to Walter Cronkite while discussing the JFK assassination "we were running a damn Murder Inc. in the Carribean". Just exactly who and what is this Murder Inc.? Permindex? INTERTEL? I believe LBJ suffered a fatal heart attack right after this interview. The source of power and wealth for the Kennedy political dynasty resides with some of the nastiest British oligarchical families, like the Cecil's. Joe Kennedy was such a rabid anglophile that he married his daughter off to William John Robert Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington. QUOTE: Referring to Kathleen Kennedy's marriage to Lord Harrington. If Lord Hartington succeeds to the title, becomes the 11th Duke of Devon shire, his Duchess will find herself the Mistress of the Royal Robes, first lady In waiting to the Queen. The Queen may well be Princess Elizabeth. Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,850493-2,00.html#ixzz0uziRwnAw It is this kind of power that can successfully assassinate a US President (See Lincoln, Garfield, McKinnley)and cover it up. This is really getting old. Will the real Terry Mauro please stand up. Dawm

I noticed that the only review of Noyes' book is by Dan Moldea. I wonder if Moldea warned Noyes to stay away from the Forum. He got pretty beat up during his short stay. Bill, it seems to me that re-issuing this book without adding material about Braden's subsequent life and testimony before the HSCA is kind of a waste of time. Legacy of Doubt raised questions, questions whose answers could better be reached with information that only came later. Do you know if Noyes did any further research and analysis on Braden? If not, SOMEONE should. I agree Pat. Braden's subsequent two day closed door testimony before HSCA, and then locked away while G. R. Blakey writes up a mob did it story certainly qualifies as new additional info. As well as all the work I've done. Dan Moldea of course, is the Godfather of the Mob did Dealey Plaza thesis. Maybe Peter will cover some of it in his follow up Real LA Confidential. BK I am glad to hear others say this is an important book. I read it probably 30 years ago and thought so but have seen many negative comments over the years since. Looks like Mr. Noyes changed his mind about coming on here. Dawn

I would love to see Jim debate this person because he does just "make stuff up". David if you truly wish to debate Jim it would help if you don't address him as "Jimbo". Name calling is not exactly a way to entice one to have a serious debate. Dawn

Thanks Greg, I was about to write something to this effect but you have done so. I daresay that most of the people I know well I could recognize from behind. I found Prouty's id compelling when I first read it, while looking at the picture. Krulak's id just makes the case for it being Lansdale all that stronger. Dawn Nice to See Jim DiEugenio here. He will make mincemeat of many a fool.

Jim: I told Robert that when he first posted his list on facebook. I am suprised that JFKU is not on this list. Dawn

The problem with these anti- CT authors is that in my opinion they KNOW they are lying. Lairs always KNOW they are lying yet try to persuade reader's of their sincerity. Dawn

You are just plain wrong on the JFk case. The percentage of Americans who believe it was a conspiracy has always been very high. Way higher than 10%. At one point it was about 70%. And higher in counrties outside the US. Most people know the alien autopsy stuff was a scam. But this is what anti- conspiarcy folks like you do: lump true conspiracy with lunacy so you can better debunk it all. Dawn

But it WAS deleted, immediately after CD posted it. First I saw it then it was gone. In fact I posted that it was gone. Then IMMEDIATELY after that CD cannot access the forum. "Having problems with his/her computer" is what you folks always resort to after you disable someone's account. Dawn

Well done. And also thank you for turning a thread in the Education Forum in an educational direction - elementary spelling and the meaning of words. It is a small start at least for this section. All we need now is the oleaginous one to interject with something pompous about syntax and my cup will be full. Happy bickering children. There was a post here a few minutes ago. Thought police again? So now CD has been banned. So much for having a debate. So let's see, David, Jan and now CD. Three of the five co-founders of DPF. And I believe Magda was also banned, so that makes four. I rest my case. Dawn What are you talking about?? No one has been banned. This received from CD, who cannot post it himself: Charles Drago cannot access the Forum. When he attempts to do so, the following message appears: Forbidden. You don't have permission to access/index.php on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. Apache/1.3.41 Server at educationforum.ipbhost.com Port 80 This problem arose on the morning of Saturday, February 28 (U.S. EDT) immediately after the following exchange between Drago and Andy Walker was posted: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry163449 QUOTE(Andy Walker @ Feb 28 2009, 04:17 AM) All we need now is the oleaginous one to interject with something pompous about syntax and my cup will be full. DRAGO'S RESPONSE Your cup, I'm forced to conclude, is anything but full. And that tiny tidbit, as Dr. Freud might note, explains so very much. Oleaginously yours, CD Drago posted a request for explanation on the Political Conspiracies moderation thread. He did not receive a response. Please check with Walker. If he denies this took place, inform him that, before the post disappeared, Drago sent links to this and other correspondents. Drago is telling the truth.

And for further clarification, this from Magda: (Some of this is quoting Evan from the above post, and then Magda's responses, which are preceeded with "-". Respectfully submitted, Dawn Meredith . I think all you have done is demonstrate some of the disinformation and unfounded accusations that can emanate from some of the more infamous members of this forum. Let me explain: - To the best of my knowledge, Charles has neither been banned nor had any posts on this thread removed. Then why is he getting a 'you cannot access' message when he tries? And, here is the removed thread the one Evan claims has not been removed but is no longer there anyway: QUOTE(Andy Walker @ Feb 28 2009, 04:17 AM) All we need now is the oleaginous one to interject with something pompous about syntax and my cup will be full. Your cup, I'm forced to conclude, is anything but full. And that tiny tidbit, as Dr. Freud might note, explains so very much. Oleaginously yours, CD - To the best of my knowledge, David resigned from the Forum and asked that his account be deleted. David never 'resigned'. His status was set to 'guest' by an administrator so he can no longer post there. - Jan has not been banned but has an active account. He is under moderation because he refuses to abide the Forum rules regarding avatar photographs. Disingenuous to say the least. Jan has requested many times to have his account deleted. He wants no connection to the EF at all. He wants all trace of him ever being here gone. Who can blame him. He has put this in writing to John. No answer has been forthcoming despite many requests for a response. When Jan responded to He who must not be named aliased 'peer reviewed' 911 psyops web site saying "What a crock of lying, disinformational, BS." about it, Evan put Jan on moderation even though Jan had not broken any forum rules. It is clear that Jan was referring to the web site itself and not to a person. Jan's description is a fair and accurate description of the web site. Evan told Jan he would take him off moderation if he (Evan) could alter the meaning of Jan's post. Jan did not want Evan to re-write anything of his and at that point wanted out of the EF. - Magda has not been banned but has an active account. She is under moderation because she refuses to abide the Forum rules regarding avatar photographs. There was NO problem with my avatar/photo except in the mind of vindictive moderators. It was there ALL that time before and NO ONE had a problem with it. John S himself put it up on the forum and said nothing. He said nothing when I wrote him asking if it was okay or not. Only Evan (and maybe Antti) has a problem with it as I was the one who spoke out and that was my punishment. No one else except for Jack (his biography link didn't work unknown to him) was treated the same way. Even though David came out and said it wasn't him in that photo still nothing was done to anyone else. All the other people with dodgy photos or no photos were not ever dealt with until they were brought to the attention of the EF moderators by ME and I was busy for days doing that. Boy, I bet they really loved me by then. And doing their bloody moderation too as they keep letting the xxxxx and xxxxxx Craig Lamson call Mark Stapleton a drug addict or heroin user on a public forum which I thought disgraceful. Then Burton was up in arms about poor Craig being moderated. There were other instances of biased moderation too. I believe there are still members with dodgy photos and no photos on the EF. I replaced it as requested EVEN though I feel I needn't have as I was NOT breaking any forum rules just pissing Evan off by not complying with his God Almighty petty command.. But it is still not okay with him. I will not undress for HIM and it is symbolic of how I was treated there in any case but they don't want that in their faces hence their intransigence on the matter. Why wont they respect my cultural and personal needs? Do you think Evan will ever allow me to post? No. It is, in effect, if not name, a ban. Only Myra and you (and Terry) were untargetted and that was only a matter of time. Charles was allowed to return ONCE he did his time in coventry like a naughty child. Meanwhile Len, Craig and Evan ran riot. And NOTHING happened to them. Do they really in their right mind think we would just go and start a forum because we were slightly miffed? It has been a bloody hard slog and cold hard cash has parted from all of us and more to come. I would appreciate it if Evan would not make unfounded accusations against Forum members.

Well done. And also thank you for turning a thread in the Education Forum in an educational direction - elementary spelling and the meaning of words. It is a small start at least for this section. All we need now is the oleaginous one to interject with something pompous about syntax and my cup will be full. Happy bickering children. There was a post here a few minutes ago. Thought police again? So now CD has been banned. So much for having a debate. So let's see, David, Jan and now CD. Three of the five co-founders of DPF. And I believe Magda was also banned, so that makes four. I rest my case. Dawn Dawn, I think all you have done is demonstrate some of the disinformation and unfounded accusations that can emanate from some of the more infamous members of this forum. Let me explain: - To the best of my knowledge, Charles has neither been banned nor had any posts on this thread removed. - To the best of my knowledge, David resigned from the Forum and asked that his account be deleted. - Jan has not been banned but has an active account. He is under moderation because he refuses to abide the Forum rules regarding avatar photographs. - Magda has not been banned but has an active account. She is under moderation because she refuses to abide the Forum rules regarding avatar photographs. I would appreciate it if you would not make unfounded accusations against Forum members. [/colorThe accusations are NOT unfounded. Yesterday CD had a post removed, and immediately after that and since he's been denied access to EF. Months ago a similar thing occurred with David G. Magda and Jan were put on moderation. Jan had the audacity to question the veracity of a "Colby" post. Andy knows full well he both deleted CD"s post yesterday and then disabled his account. Here is the now-deleted post: QUOTE(Andy Walker @ Feb 28 2009, 04:17 AM) All we need now is the oleaginous one to interject with something pompous about syntax and my cup will be full. Your cup, I'm forced to conclude, is anything but full. And that tiny tidbit, as Dr. Freud might note, explains so very much. Oleaginously yours, CD For the record no one, least of all CD has asked me to do this. After Andy said yesterday I was not posting the truth I let it go, but now to have Evan come back and call me a xxxx, without actually using the offending term, I am setting part of the recore straight. Dawn

Well done. And also thank you for turning a thread in the Education Forum in an educational direction - elementary spelling and the meaning of words. It is a small start at least for this section. All we need now is the oleaginous one to interject with something pompous about syntax and my cup will be full. Happy bickering children. There was a post here a few minutes ago. Thought police again? So now CD has been banned. So much for having a debate. So let's see, David, Jan and now CD. Three of the five co-founders of DPF. And I believe Magda was also banned, so that makes four. I rest my case. Dawn

Well done. And also thank you for turning a thread in the Education Forum in an educational direction - elementary spelling and the meaning of words. It is a small start at least for this section. All we need now is the oleaginous one to interject with something pompous about syntax and my cup will be full. Happy bickering children. There was a post here a few minutes ago. Thought police again?