Dawn Meredith

I totally agree with the above posts. John has taken on these vast subjects and literally devoured every book in existance, gleening from each nuggets to piece together a most cohesive analysis of not just these assassinations, but the conditions which lead up to them, and even more importantly the resultant consequences for the future and especially today. When friends ask me why I "still wasted time reading about a murder that happened over 40 years ago" I too attempt to direct them to this forum with the explanation that in order to REALLY understand what is going on in the world today one must understand our TRUE history, not the crap in the history books or the CIA controlled media, then connect the dots after the coup of 63 right up to the present. John has gathered on this forum a very knowledgable bunch of people. This forum has earned the respect that has ensured that the very best minds on this case would also come here and let us pick their brains. People like Peter Dale Scott, as just one example. Most of the great authors on these matters have come here, as well as the new generation of true historians and journalists who are determined to unearth the truth about our political past and present. Writers who don't care if they are branded "conspiracy thoerists" as the truth is their sole motivation. WIth Operation Mockingbird even more prevalent today, the net and a forum such as this is valuable beyond words. Thanx John and yes, Andy (tho I know you don't care who killed jfk... Dawn

[quote name='J. Raymond Carroll' date='May 29 2006, 07:38 AM' post='63797'] That is a very logical thought, but I really question whether Nixon had the street smarts/toughness to pull off something that big. I do not hate Nixon, as some people seem to do, and I see him as just a bit of a wuss. I think that is how JFK saw him too. Interesting Ray. Then what is your theory about what was really behind Watergate? Do you not believe that he was threatening to blow the lid on what he knew about the Kennedy assassination (omitting perhaps his own complicity, of course, if such existed)? I knew his reference to "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" was a reference to the assassination decades before Haldamen (sp) spilled that little ditty. I think Scott's post bears considering. Tho, by 68 LBJ was also really close to cracking up, so that could better explain why he left. His concession to the brass on Vietnam really was his undoing, both politically and, I think mentally. Dawn

Excellent posts RObert and John. I did not know the stuff about Hemming. And the last sentence made me smile- yes comedy is in all liklihood exactly what Hemming suppied. The Clinton stuff I had strongly suspected. Having read Terry Reed and John Cummings' "Compromised", it's been long clear to me that Clinton- as much as I do like the guy- is as tied into all this drug corruption as is the Bush family. But I agree with Hillary that there was a vast right wing conspiracy out to get him BUT they were not gonna go near any real dirt as it would track directly back to THEM so they went with Monica in a very similar to Watergate fashion. To his credit - and to Congress' as well- Clinton did not get impeached for lying about matters which he should have not had to even testify about. Ken Star is the real porn king here: just read the damn rerport. It's outright embarrasing in it's salacious details. What a waste of money and time. Tho I was really stunned by Clinton's Mena connection, so now it's no surprise to see him running around with George the first. Just disappointing. The guy does care about people and got a lot accomplished. Too bad he had to come up the political ladder by aiding in the cocaine trade. Dawn

Yes I have. Some time back and I believe he answered that he does not make this determination. (As Terry pointed out). But I got the distinct impression that he's in agreement with the lack of anti- WC books at the 6th floor. I would not go up there even if it were free. I don't suppoprt lies. Dawn

I'll keep it short and sweet. Jim Garrison's bullxxxx case was laughed out of court, with very good reason, and for all the world to see. I really don't need to say much more, because neither you, nor Bill Davy, nor Joan Mellen nor Oliver Stone can do a single damned thing to change that historical fact. I repeat the word fact, in case you you might have missed it the first time. I am not certain that you are yet capable of knowing what a fact is, even when it stares you in the face. From your previous posts you make it seem like you have no respect for the courts of justice. Is that really the case? Why get nasty just because Owen happens to disagree with you? He has done his homework and needs no defense here. It seems that the party losing a given argument is the one who stoops to name calling. Up til this last post above, this was an interesting debate, but you have just cheapened it by resorting to attempting to be condescending and leveling put downs. Owen you take the high ground and I trust you won't respond in kind because you never have. Dawn ps Good to see you back posting Owen. I have missed you. And SHOULD you ever decide to go to law school I think you'd make an excellent lawyer. I have read all your debates here on the forum and you argue like a pro!! Normally I am very impressed with Ray Carroll as well, so the above post seems quite out of character.

John: Do you have a source for this quote? It's clear he meant the WC was not the truth. And I doubt he would ever say more than the above in public. Dawn

I will be very interested in learning if Ayers passed on to anyone at the ARRB the secrets he shared with ANderson. (Or if Anderson ever passed this info onto anyone). I always believed that as a few of these men got closer to dying a kind of fear of judgement day would cause some of them to talk. Great thread John. More and more evidence of CIA involvement. Dawn

[quote name='Ron Ecker' date='May 18 2006, 04:46 AM' post='62769'] he was definitely "on to something." The CIA certainly seemed to think so. That should tell you a lot. If Garrison was wrong why was he SO hounded, to this day, in his grave? I think some of the anti -Garrison stuff we read is from people simply repeating what anti Garrison people have said. People who study this case should read Garrison's work before rendering an "opinion". People have trashed Garrison and misrepresented his case and his findings in a similar manner to what Posner has put forth on this case. One has to ask why? Dawn

Bruce, Thanks so much for the recap of the part you saw. Of course when I got in from court and turned on the news there was not a word on this. W will be all over tonite on the immigration issue. Hope someone will post the rest of the conference. This was a big step. NOW how to get the press to cover this stuff. My money says top brass dictates this stuff be ignored, or given the Posner spin. Dawn

But especially so in this one. I have very high hopes for David Talbot on this case. Dawn

[quote name='John Geraghty' date='May 13 2006, 02:49 PM' post='62308'] I found this on page 182 of the forum, well worth a read. John John Found what? Dixie, thanx for the interview. Wish there were more by the family of Lee. One would think they would be more anxious to try to clear his name. Tho I have been told that both daughters have been burned by certain people in the critical communiity, so no wonder they are a bit gunshy. When I was reading the interview with June and she made the comment abouty getting the call from someone who had written a song at first I was a little jarred. I had a conversation like that with her in about 88. I did not call in the middle of the night however and I did not say I wished to sing my song to her. But she was not too happy that I had found her and at that moment in time was not interested in discussing her dad. Dawn

[quote name='John Hunt' date='May 13 2006, 09:43 PM' post='62331'] Moldea - "I hope that your forum leader, John Simkin will...not force me to respond to multiple threads." If Moldea had answered my question in the first place, or the second place, I would not have posted this dreaded multiple thread. :-) John Hunt John: Perhaps just repeating the question on the same thread would prompt a response. I too appreciate Mr Moldea agreeing to respond to questions. Even when I disagree with the person's views on this subject. Dawn

For the record: I am quite unhappy to see posted publicly a PRIVATE email from J to me written in a moment of anger, that we both recovered from in a matter of 2 days. I foolishly shared this email with Richard back in 2003!!! Little did I ever dream it would show up in a public forum. Let this be a lesson learned for me: Some People hold onto email forever and it can turn up when one may least expect it. Unlike JOhn I do not think this is a good thread. When the J to me email was posted the first time by Richard I addressed it privately with Richard. He simply had no right to post it in my opinion. But I suspect I lost my right to object when I shared it with him. Regarding the number of prints and who has what information, I think this has been made clear on these threads. I concur with Walt, that there was not ever any other prints or experts (except Hoffmeister) that J used. If so he never once mentioned this to me and I was in contact with him from when we first met in 97 until his death last May. Perhaps Richard learned of other prints, and examiners somewhere else...I really do not have an explanation. I just doube that J would tell Richard about additional information but not share this with Walt or even me. He was in touch with Walt DAILY on this case, until his death. That the anger between Richard and J has transcended J's death is something I can do nothing about. I simply do not wish to be an instrument for anyone's anger. Or accusations. thank you Dawn

Welcome Barr, Will look forward to your imput here. Dawn

Moldea's problem is that, inspite of the eivdence, he thinks RFK was killed by LN Sirhan Sirhan. He was once more enlightened, but .... who can say what casues journalists to go over to the dark side?

Interesting that the man who used to type such LONG posts (GPH) decided to stop posting just when John asked him some rather to the point questions. Wonder why he is not answering. Guess he wishes his role in history to remain as it is: unreliable, questionable. Dawn And on a DIFFERNT NOTE: "I take a holy vow to never kill again, try to remember peace." Neil Young, Living With War. Check it out. It's online (I got it from Wim's site, Bob posted it). Best album I have heard in years. LISTEN TO IT.

What is the theme of your book? Dawn

[quote name='John Simkin' date='Apr 27 2006, 03:35 PM' post='61066'] Dawn it has to be remembered that Gerry Hemming took Murgado to Joan Mellen. I asked his son, Amaury Murgado, about this. He replied by email on 5th November, 2005: "As to any of Gerry Hemming's comments, my father and him go way back and my father says he is the real John Wayne. My father confirmed that he saved Gerry's life once. My father will never contradict Gerry, right or wrong. My father has never come forward except when Gerry has asked him to, hence the few limited interviews he has granted. Like it or not that's the way it is. They have been through too much together." Murgado only provided information to Joan Mellen as a favour to Gerry Hemming. I find this highly suspicious. Especially as Hemming appears to have been active as a disinformation agent. Also, my contacts in the anti-Castro Cuban community tell me that Murgado was only a minor figure in these events and never had a relationship with Robert Kennedy. Thanx John. Given that Hemming and JOan Mellen are both forum members and that there are such disparities in what each has said- with Joan saying she has what Hemming told her on tape- I would be interested in a side bar between Hemming and Joan Mellen on the forum. But I see that Hemming has flown the coop, seems to have coincided with the departure of Tim Gratz who was also quite critical of Joan well before her book even came out and the rest of us could respond. As for myself I remain a huge fan of her book in spite of what I consider flaws. Anyone can be taken in by someone who is persuasive enough. Murgado clearly was and she still considers him truthful. Sad really because on Garrison this really is a definitive and valuable book. She clearly did massive research and took this particular investigation to a new level, expanding on the great works by Paris Flammonde, Jim DiEugenio and Bill Davey. And for this she is to be commended. Dawn

Dr Scott: Such an honor to have you on the forum. Have you or any other researcher attempted to discuss you disbelief of Murgado with Mellen? And why she might have been taken in by some timely disinformation. I know that Lisa Pease atempted to speak with her on this subject last Novemeber at the conference in Pittsburg but told me Mellen did not respond to any critical comments of AFTJ. I wonder if anyone else had any better luck. (I did not) Thanks, Dawn

Great: Another political science and history professor who admits he "avoids talking about the Kennedy assassination" like the plague. I think one of the big problems that befuddles a person who may try to get a handle on this is all the disinfo on the net. The first site you see on this case is McAdams. One having little knowledge about established facts on this case could be very taken in by this site. I have always thought it would be a good idea to have a 101 site , a kind of JFK assassination for dummies (pardon the expression). A short statement of the WC theory and several reasons why it is nonsence. That would give a new reader a kind of starting point. Interesting about Dillon. Wonder what Shanet has to say on this. Dawn

Thanks for the tip. I have just purchased a copy. Why do so many investigative journalists kill themselves? Perhaps this deserves its own thread, with as many names as possible and we can all do some digging to try to see if we believe the "official" report of suicide. The odds do seem against such a thing. Now I do believe that Gary Webb did commit suicide as I have read about the letters he left to his former wife and children. But what about that invesitgative journalist who was found at RIchard M. Scaife's office? (the name escapes me at the moment)- but that one sounded more like "suicidED". Dawn

[quote name='John Simkin' date='Apr 26 2006, 06:35 PM' post='61003'] I am not convinced that American journalists did fully expose the Watergate Scandal. The real story has never been told. Felt was not Deep Throat (although he did supply some information). Sirica also played his role in directing attention away from Operation Sandwedge (Operation Gemstone was not really the big story). It was the CIA that got rid of Nixon. He could not fight back because the CIA knew about his really serious crimes. So so true. I caught a little bit of Larry King last night. He had Mark Felt on and it was really sad. This poor old guy will just say what he's been told. Which is really very little, but the Washington Post boys were also on: Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee all in agreement that Felt was DT. Given that we've now been told this I doubt we will ever know the real DT's id. Does anyone have any remote idea were to find Hunt? Perhaps before he leaves this world he'd bare his soul a bit... just a thought. Dawn