Dawn Meredith

CD is not fearful of debating anyone, anywhere. So if Andy's not afraid of debating CD why did he close the thread? Why the bait and switch? I have never seen CD claiming unfair advantage in a fair debate. Saying it must be at DPF is simply a diversion. (edited for typo)

After agreeing to debate Charles Drago on the thread announcing Deep Politics Forum ( in the Watergate section), Andy Walker then closes the thread. Andy is someone who has said many times that he has no interest in matters of conspiracy, yet the second anyone from DPF posts here he is quick to respond. This forum used to be a place where one could debate. But then so many anti -conspiracy voices crept in it began to resemble a McAdams web page. I wonder who made these editorial decisons, and I wonder why Andy is so quick to silence view different from his own. Dawn

This book is absurd on its face. The conspirators get more desperate by the year. Books like this are for the sole purpose of making one possessing legit inquiry into the assassination look like a kook. BK: Just because this theory may have been the case in other instances does not give it legitimacy in the assassination of JFK. JFK has no desire to commit suicide. The PTB had every desire to murder him and blame a patsy. Dawn

Tosh: Good to see you. I hope you continue to post on Jay's work as the person with his files is of the opinion that no-one but a handfull of researchers would be interested in Jay's archive. Hardly! Dawn

He seems to have gone - probably not to a better place. I have no information regarding the circumstances of his departure. You will have to quizz another. Maybe if one keeps spinning around in wizened circles this is what happens - gives one hope for Charles does it not? Then how did he get set to "guest" if he was not banned? And he SAYS he was banned, so I believe that settles it. And if I remember clearly Magda was banned too. But who's counting? Dawn "What's your name, who's your daddy?"

AFAIK none of the founders of the DPF were banned, but left of their own volition. Like the rest of them you have difficulty getting your facts straight my-o-my, ol' Len knows a lot concerning the inner workings of this here Ed forum doesn't he... Getting facts straight, hmmm? Doesn't that rely on some sort of interpretation of said facts? And doesn't that lead the one doing the interrupting of said facts to conclude: here we are again, personal *opinion* concerning said facts? and fwiw keeping to the thread topic -- there are but few JFK assassination researchers (narrowly defined subject specialists) left on this forum. (I understand, initially, we were invited here to get the numbers (aka *hits*) up. Which is fine. But lets be realistic, what's left here, after 5 years, are data gatherers and disinfo specialists. Best internet based "political" (local/regional/world) researchers by far, are located at the Deep Politics Forum. (unlike me, all can pen quite a few back-to-back paragraphs) I'm still trying to figure out who, and what function the dude with the bow-tie provides (if anything) around here? He the money guy? Or is that Bill Miller? omg, this is the best post i have read here in so long. lmao. (ok andy, i'll leave now) dawn

AFAIK none of the founders of the DPF were banned, but left of their own volition. Like the rest of them you have difficulty getting your facts straight "smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette..."

Just amazing how fast and how much this thread was hijacked. Many of those who left this forum did so because they were BANNED. Len, have you considered the tobacco industry? I hear there are fortunes to be made. Justa thought. In solidarity, Dawn

'Where does Joan get this stuff?" was arguably an exercise in sarcasm by Stephen Roy, and grounds for a severe reprimand. But when I read some of Joan Mellen's stuff about the JFK assassination I often ask myself the very same question, and I am not being sarcastic at all -- I am just genuinely bewildered. Does that mean I am breaking a forum rule? As I noted, my comment "Where does Joan get this stuff?" was made spontaneously and with gentle sarcasm, but the written words come across differently than I intended. I should not have said this. I apologze to Joan Mellen, Bill Kelly and all those who participate in the Forum. While I disagree with some of her writings, I have great respect for Joan Mellen. I totally agree. I actually loved her book and wrote to her a "fan letter". All the years she put into proving Garrison was correct are to be roundly commended. But I stand by the belief that her animosity for Bobby made certain portions of the book a bit tough. And I never believed one of her main sources. But as a writer, researcher, and woman I have enormous respect for her. I too apologize for the sarcastic remark I made. During our communications I found her to be warm, compassionate and very enjoyable to speak and email with.

Totally agree BK and Terry. I read most of Dallek's book when it first came out. The massive amolunt of detail about JFK's health seemed to be more character assination. About 3/4 the way through the book I went to the index to see how he dealt with Dallas. I was sickened. Never read another page after that. Just one more "historian" who lies. Dawn

Sorry for misquoting you Dawn. I misremembered what you wrote. But I doubt any active members besides Terry and Craig would consider being IDed as a former member of the SDS something they would have to "defend themselves against". Ask your friend Terry whether she thinks your friend Carl Oglesby "was a closet fascist or just a dupe?" Would it be fair to classify any of the anti-war groups you belonged to as "New Left"? IF so the question still applies according to your friend's logic you were one or the other. I was defending against being called either a fascist or a dupe, that was your question. And once again you have misread so let me try this ONE LAST TIME: Carl was president of SDS in 1965. When SDS turned violent he severed ties. Waked away. Terry neither considers Carl a fascist or a dupe. Because he was neither, and is neither. He is still anti war, as am I. So whatever the last word is here I am now out of this conversation. Dawn

I hesitate to be judgmental of another researcher, but here's my take: Many writers on the Garrison/NO case are polarized to one side or the other. I get the impression that Joan sincerely believes that Garrison was right about most everything, and that she accepts or rejects evidence to support her preconception. And I find it troubling that she does not accept criticism well. I had actually developed a nice friendship with her until I too dared to be critical on a couple of points in her book. She became so outraged that she emailed me ordering me never to contact her again. I did not. I was full of praise for her book with two major objections but you do not criticize saint Joan; some people are just "never wrong" on anything. Her hatred for RFK has blinded her, imho. That and her reliance on Hemming as a reliable source. Dawn

I said no such damn thing. I was not EVER in SDS or even knew what it was, until I met Carl Oglesby. I said I was "part of the anti- war movement". In 1965 until it ended. I did not even go to college until after I was divorced with a child: 1973. I met Carl Oglesby, via the JFK assassination, in 1973. Look up "Assassination Information Bureau". This was LONG after Carl left SDS. This is ALL in my damn bio. I will not defend myself against the likes of you again, but when you distort what I said I have no choice. Learn to read, or at least not misquote people. Dawn

Your post is a romantic and unreal characterization of Bill Ayers and the Weatherman terrorist. Ayers was the son of a wealthy businessman. His father was chairman and chief executive officer of Commonwealth Edison of Chicago, chairman of Northwestern University and of the Chicago Symphony. I've always considered him nothing more than an agent, a real jacobin terrorist. Quote: He(Ayers) also writes about the Weathermen's sexual experimentation as they tried to ''smash monogamy.'' The Weathermen were ''an army of lovers,'' he says, and describes having had different sexual partners, including his best male friend. In 1967 he met Ms. Dohrn in Ann Arbor, Mich. She had a law degree from the University of Chicago and was a magnetic speaker who often wore thigh-high boots and miniskirts. In 1969, after the Manson family murders in Beverly Hills, Ms. Dohrn told an S.D.S. audience: ''Dig it! Manson killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they shoved a fork into a victim's stomach.'' You do know that after McGeorge Bundy got the Vietnam war started that he left government and took the position of President with the Ford Foundation. Bundy actually funded the SDS terrorists along with the Black Panther movement. You mention "The pedagogy of the Opressed". Is this the same BS that Franz Fanone(sp?) was pushing through Dar E Salam University? This pedagogy produced the likes Angela Davis and other black radical agent provocatuers deployed by Bundy's Ford Foundation to destroy the legacy and work of MLK's civil rights movement. Bundy orchestrated the perfect "gang-counter gang" scenario by first starting the Vietnam war and then turning right around and funding all this left wing anti war fervor. Out of this chaos came the destruction of the US as the leading industrial power on the planet. But Ayer's was an agent. Bought and paid for by the same forces that killed JFK, MLK and RFK. I totally agree with you that Ayers and Dohrn were agents. I have been saying this for years. You do not bomb and murder people and then get rewarded by teaching at a law school. Bullcrap. This kind of treatment is reserved for one type: agents. There was a legitimate anti war movement. I was very much a part of it. One of my dearest and lifelong friends Carl Oglesby was president of SDS. But when SDS went violent Carl walked away, never to be a part of SDS again. (He went on to investigate and write about the assassination of JFK) . We all know here that the government infiltrated the antiwar movement. Every peace movement has been infiltrated. What better way to destroy a peace movement than by having "members" commit terrorist acts. Now there's a sory the media won't touch. Dawn

Bill: Thanks for the report. I wish I could have been there. Lisa said it was great. PDS has said the same thing. Do you happen to know the line up for Dallas? Thanks, Dawn

This is a very important point. I wish someone here would broadcast this kind of thing. But, it IS a Bananna republic, and the Kennedys know just how bad it is. I read RFK Jr's incredible article on the stolen election in 04. And Kerry? Well, then there is Skull and Bones. Because he has never commented on the enormous amount of evidence of the stolen election. Even though Obama is way ahead in the polls I am very nervous that the Republicans will pull something to ensure their continued power. Dawn

John: I am so sorry that someone has started this rumor. I do believe however whomever the person was who passed it onto another did so with very good intentions. I know that someone who emailed you did have the very best intentions. Then it was learned that this rumor had not been established by you, only surmised by the initial person expressing it. (And I do not know who this initial person was). I nearly emailed you to tell you how sorry I was but then I decided to wait to see if you announced this. Because you had posted on Judith's illness sometime back several people here were feeling much compassion at the pain you had to be in. I have no idea how this rumor begun but I offer my condolances that you were privvy to something unfounded. However well-intentioned that person was. I do hope that Judith is doing much better. Dawn

Try again "Drago" I already quoted John's post in full you obviously completely misunderstood what he said. Posts made by you, me or others have no bearing on what he said which is all that's relevant. I'll take your failure to say what exactly in his post backs your interpretation as proof that even you now realize you were wrong. A simple google search will turn up plenty of "Drago". Under his real name, playing himself. Should not that be the standard here? If we are to use real names, real pics, real bios, should we also be able to prove we are who we say we are? Now for example if Peter Dale Scott should happen to grace us here with his presence, whould we even ask if this were the real deal? Would we not know by the very words he choose to utilize in a post? How a person presents truely is signature. Like Terry or Myra? Now NOONE could impersonate either of those ladies. Especially the "terror" Do ya think someone pretending to be "Drago" gave the presentation referenced below? Just curious. Dawn CONFERENCE VIDEOS CONFERENCE VIDEOS THE DEATH OF JFK 14-16 MAY 1999 CONFERENCE HELD AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Robert B. Livingston Honorary Program Chair James H. Fetzer Program Chair Speakers include John Newman, Gary Aguilar, David Mantik, John Armstrong, George Michael Evica, and Douglas Weldon; commentators: Stewart Galanor, Debra Conway, Jack White, Charles Drago, Roy Schaeffer, and Robert Groden. COMPLETE SET: $140.00. INDIVIDUAL TAPES: $25.00 EACH. Prices include shipping and handling. DVD versions are also available: $30.00 for individual discs; $150.00 for the complete set. Prices include Media Mail USPS shipping within the USA only. SEND A PERSONAL CHECK MADE OUT TO ASSASSINATION RESEARCH. TAPE #1 "OSWALD IN MEXICO: THE KEYS TO CONSPIRACY" Speaker: John Newman; commentators: Debra Conway, Ron Redmon (TOTAL TIME 2:31:53) TAPE #2 "THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE" Speaker: Gary Aguilar; commentators: Stewart Galanor, Charles Drago (TOTAL TIME 2:20:47) TAPE #3 "THE ZAPRUDER FILM" Speaker: David Mantik; commentators: Jack White, Robert Groden (TOTAL TIME 2:12:19) TAPE #4 "Harvey, Lee and the FBI" Speaker: John Armstrong; commentators: Jack White, Debra Conway (TOTAL TIME 2:21:50) TAPE #5 "Perfect Cover: A Theory of the JFK Assassination" Speaker: George Michael Evica; commentators: Ron Redmon, Charles Drago (TOTAL TIME 1:58:34)

I would be in favour of this also. It goes without saying that he has my vote. It would add some much needed balance. Dawn

What?? So the term "ranker" which is NOT a swear word but could be "confused" with a word that is is now off limits?? At first I thought this had to be a joke. What on earth is happening here? "And the rest is silence" Dawn

Len didn't cause anyone to leave. It was their choice, not his. That is not correct. It was in part due to posts of Jan and David being made invisible-unfairly so, where as Len gets preferential treatment for his blather and anti- conspiracy nonsense. Ok this is a forum ABOUT conspiracies. We all know that they exist and the intent of John Simkin was that researchers all over the world could better expose these antidemocratic, even fascist acts of various government entities by sharing reasearch, and insight. To that end there had been much meaningful work and discussion. Then the anti CT's arrive and reek havok. It's their MO. Anyone who has been to a JFK assassination lecture has witnessed some agent type standing up and calling the presenter "CIA". It's what they are paid to do. Cause dissention and chaos. Anything to impede furterance of understanding the conspiracy, and exposing its member. All one has to do is to read an article on co-intelpro and know these are the methods that were employed to destroy the black panther movement and the anti viet nam peace movement. Does anyone truely think these folks don't moniter and post on these forums for precisely the same reasons taught by the proponents of the counter intelligence program? As for those who have left it's not a question of not standing up for what they believe. When they stood up- daily- they were censored. Kudos to CD for his perserverance! Dawn

Mark, I'm happy to be able to number you among those who doubt that the two posts I referenced were written by the same person. As I'm sure you appreciate, the issue here is not spelling or vocabulary or grammar or punctuation or subtext, but rather all of these elements and others, combined. Some may try to pass off the significant, telling differences between posts as inconsequential lapses of literary ability due to any number of external factors (weariness, distractions, etc.). In doing so, they are sidestepping -- intentionally or otherwise -- the deeper analysis. The alleged "poster" of the materials I reference presents numerous similar examples of external and internal literary inconsistencies. Permit me to make my point in a more demonstrative fasion: Readers of this Forum have been exposed to my writing style and whatever perspectives, values, and intellectual underpinnings it reveals. Suppose a post appeared over my signature that was constructed and read as follows: Mark you get my point and I'm glad that your with us. At least two people are responsible for the postings I gave to your atention. Im not talking about mispelling or no comas but really everything shared together and it happens ofen. Would you sense a ... problem relating to the putative "poster's" identity? Charles Very good points CD.

On the face of it it appears to be two different persons. The writing style is so different. However, that said, the first post could have been the result of sheer lazy swinging from the hip, while the second may have been given more thought. However, many of the words in the second post are not the kinds of words I have ever seen from this poster. On the complaints thread Evan brough up the issue of how any of us can prove we are who we say we are and if members would be willing to do so. For myself I can offer a few proofs: I am listed both on google and on the TX Bar Website as an Austin attorney. (And so identify myself in my bio). I have met some forum members, email and phone conversation with others, Terry Mauro stayed at my home for 10 days in 06. I guess if we had to scan our drivers licences to prove we are who we say we are that would not be a big deal to me. Dawn

[quote name='Stephen Turner' date='Aug 11 2008, 01:38 PM' post='151980'] Just to let the general membership know, I have today PMd John to resign as a Moderator. despite attempting to act evenhandedly here, some now seem to feel that I have ulterior motives, I am afraid that this makes my job impossible. I will continue to post and be an active member, and will continue in post until a replacement can be found. Steve. Stephen, I am on record as saying I am sorry to hear this. You have always been fair, evenhanded and employed humor to defuse sticky situations. There are no simple solutions here and I must also say that Charles Drago's most recent post outlining the problem hits the nail squarely on the head. We are losing the best researchers in droves and this IS a war. Surely the mods who know there are deep conspiracies also know that forums dealing with these grave matters are monitered 24/7 and said moniters' task is to utilize any and all methods of derailing research. Indeed we had a CIA playbook on how to deal with WC dissenters from the beginning. What John was able to clearly see as Tim Gratz' role here is now blurred in the name of "fairness". And this is a tragedy. Compare the contributions of Jan, David, Charlie (etc.) to those of Colby and Lamson. Not even in the same ballpark. The enemies of forums such as this are toasting as we speak. As for me, I am saddened. In the four years I have been here I have found this to be a place where I could depend on finding kindered spirits, and always augmenting my own awareness and knowledge of the evil that exists in the name of governing. Now I see a lot of flaming, and worse, constant denial of this evil. Dawn

As Maggie realizes, a simple question is not answered by posting a link to a website that takes a considerable amount of time to read, let alone the time required to check all the links referenced, particularly when much of the information is not germane to the question that was asked in the first place. Life is too short. If Maggie's question was answered, it would not be necessary to write a bad term paper on why it was. Because his sole purpose here is to derail the thread from any meaningful discussion to bs. Irrelevent links, websites that no-one is interested in, divert, divert, divert. In fact I am surprised Maggie and Michael are even still posting. Soon ...."they"....-whoever they really are- will have their playpen to themselves.