Lynne Foster

You are a propagandist, Hanoi Jane was serious.

What are you talking about the Mafia did take out the patsy, probably on the orders of Hoover.

Who do you think Jack Ruby represented, Enron?

And the source is good too.

Frankly, I don't care who writes what, as long as it sounds reasonable, but I am tired of all the unecessary attacks. Don't attack the source, attack the substance of what is said -that's the way I judge reports.

People can be killed, information survives.

Lynne, from whom did you appropriate that passage?

This is an important point. This Forum can be sued for publishing copyrighted material without acknowledgement. Always give details of the source and the URL. If you do not do this I will be forced to delete it.

Sorry, it was just a quick google search

I'll try to find the url, and when i read something like "please distribute widely" I didn't think that any copyright was being violated -but I'll look for the url.

Found it, it's a speech by a Harvard law school graduate.

You sound like one of those Pentagon propagandists who feeds the Iraqi media.

post some documents and stick to facts so I can follow you., you know, contemporaneous documents, not forgeries.

WOW, more trashy propaganda.

I think John buried that baby with this succinct post:

Anyone read the recently published Ultimate Sacrifice by Thom Hartmann and Lamar Waldron?

Apparently they argue that the Kennedys were secretly working with a high Cuban official (he refuses to name him for "national security" reasons) to topple Castro in a coup and then follow up with a U.S. military invasion of Cuba on Dec. 1, 1963. He further claims that the Mafia penetrated this plot and realizing that the government would do anything to keep it secret, took advantage of this veil of secrecy to kill JFK. In an interview with another researcher McNamara has denied such an invasion was in the works. The authors claim that McNamara was not in the loop. Dick Goodwin has commented “it's crazy to think the Kennedys, who were still riding pretty high after the Cuban missile crisis, would take such a huge political risk on the eve of the 1964 presidential season. JFK was too shrewd to flirt with another Bay of Pigs fiasco.”

Thank God for original documents.

"There is an enduring tendency to label entire groups as responsible. I think this aids the smoke manufacturers."

That's correct John. That is exactly what many, so called researchers do, they aid smoke manufacturers.

That's why the good ones like Harold Weisberg are attacked by con artists like Gerald Posner.

That's why documents like this are so valuable especially when they are compared with the contemporaneous comments of journalists like Dorothy Kilgallen.

This broad? I do have a name you know.

Tim wrote: To say that Marcello was the boss for Dallas doesn't eliminate H.L. Hunt's potential role as a financial sponsor The Mafia had financial resources of its own sufficient to fund the operation.

It might be beneficial to bring Hunt in, as a matter of respect and mutual cover, as well as financing. Just to provide him with foreknowledge would be a form of protection. Futher, Hunt had his own intelligence capability, as well as a personal armed force. We know that some Kennedy operation planned for Dallas had leaked to Hunt on November 4, 1963. I'm simply saying that people from different walks of life get in bed together. Just as the Kennedys might have been willing to promote a coup as long as it didn't appear that way, Marcello might have been willing to promote an assassination as long as his bedmates were legitimate power brokers and government operatives.

T.C.

Now this is the kind of post that makes a great deal of sense. Good stuff, I can't stand reading all the nonsense that Dawn, Owen and others post.

Thanx.

Terry, if this website makes you rant and rave like a lunatic , I suggest you try to relax because in my understanding, hardly anybody visits websites that are not promoted in the media.

I don't know why you act like a mad cow, I don't really think that John's message board is going to change the world and you need a vacation -try North Korea, I think you'd feel more comfortable there.

Well, I guess this ties everything up quite nicely then.

Harold weisberg would be proud and honoed to read this, I know because the last time i talked to him, he told me that Jim Garrison was planning to use sorry bitches to cover up the truth about richard Nixon. Gidn't work, huh?

I am going to quote this foolishness before you have a chance to think it over and edit it out, like you did for another recent post. So Harold Weisberg told you that Garrison was covering for Nixon, huh? I have no hesitation in calling you a xxxx. Do you actually expect anyone to take this seriously?

OH WOW, A 17 YEAR OLD HIGH SCHOOL STALKER ! lol !

Jim Garrison protected New Orleans Mafia interests, Hoover's FBI didn't have to bug him.

Hoover's FBI shared his interests.

Maybe, you should get yer facts straight, I don't make fun of you, you either don't know what you are talking about or ... for some reason, you want to ignore the Kennedy assassination investigation by turning it into an argument about Jim Garrison.

The best critics who have spent their lives studying the Kennedy assassination, including Harold Weisberg, know that Garrison controlled every whorehouse in New orleans.

I can't believe this, Mark Knight even defends Hoover?

Can you elaborate here:

"The real truth if it was uncovered, beyond strong suspicion, would raise the stakes."

No one can possibly be as dense as you're acting.

Oh right, a high school student with all the answers, pardon me. LOL

Are you talking about the Nixon-Bush connection?

Did Richard Mellon Scaife murder Kangas?

You sound obsessed.

Are you trying to scare people?

Sources? Attribution? References?

To boldly make such unsubstantiated claims is at the very least irresponsible. Who said this? Who said that?

In other words: WHAT MAKES THIS BELIEVABLE, over and above any information to the contrary?

Is there any PROOF that this is true? Or is this SPECULATION, based upon accepted truth?

WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THIS?

Your post makes a lot of claims, but what backs ANY of it up?

Can you be more specific. name one claim that is not believable, in your opinion?