Jump to content
The Education Forum

Lee Cahalan

Members
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lee Cahalan

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm not sure which is the more obvious sign of subterfuge. Jim's denial of Bush complicity in JFK murder or your insistence that the Zapruder film wasn't altered. Any second grader can see the missing frames. No Olympic athlete could move so quickly as limo driver William Greer. Or make Mary Moorman appear as tall as me (6' 6") To the gallery: See the obvious disinformation? Kinda obvious isn't it? Strange how covert elements would support (unmentioned Education Forum members lol) plants for 20 years only to break their cover due to the work of Fetzer, Baker and Hankey. Thus we can put Park
  2. Even if it is easily provable that a particular member is a tool? For sure name calling must be removed (of which I did NOT engage in) but we simply must take those folk to task who are so obviously blowing smoke the other way. Examples: 1) DiEugenio does not contest the authenticity the FBI memo, signed by Hoover, 5 days after the assassination, entitled "Assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy," signed by Hoover, that names Bush as a CIA officer; Bush is associated by this memo with the assassination; 2) DiEugenio can't contest Russ Baker's discovery that that Dallas Mor
  3. I resurrected this dated thread in order to illustrate a major point: The assassination research community is filled to the gills with tools of the monsters who killed JFK, caused 9/11 and started/profited from all the wars in between and beyond. In fact merely by witnessing Greg Parker's name as the originator of this topic think that we could probably fairly add him to the list of those engaged in subterfuge. Such as Gary Mack, Gerald Posner, Seamus himself and the guy who keeps that attack dog poorly leashed, Jim DiEugenio. Doubt this? Then just ask yourself this question: Would you want
  4. I'm not convinced that DI Eugenio is all that much different than Gary Mack. Remember at one time even Gary was considered a respected researcher but who was then corrupted by money. Then perhaps he felt the hammer coming down from the dark forces who felt Gary's research into the JFK assassination threatened them. Or both. Either way Mack surely is a total sellout. As I see it the main difference between Mack and DiEugenio is the audience: Mack deals mostly with the rather uninformed general public. DiEugenio plays to the more sophisticated assassination research community. Both of them spe
  5. Thanks Len. I'd been worried that my reference to Chris Mathews as an "unprincipled xxxxx" was a violation of some forum rule. Besides I don't truly hate Mathews. He'd probably make a good neighbor. Yet my words had me concerned I was being too harsh on him. But after reading your personal attack I feel confident that the moderators may just let me get away with dissing Mathews as a xxxxx. After all when a person such as yourself dispenses continual literary diarrhea? I needn't fear serious forum censorship of my own opinions. So maybe I should give DiEugenio a second chance: If he refuses t
  6. After twice reading Jim DiEugenio's critique of Chris Mathews lousy book "Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero" I got to state that I'm not surprised that Jim missed the mark. Its ANOTHER typical case of DiEugenio or CTKA for that matter getting consumed with detail and totally ignoring the big picture. You can read DiEugenio's review here: http://consortiumnews.com/2012/01/03/why-mr-hardball-found-jfk-elusive/ For starters I don't disagree with the points posed in DiEugenio's critique. Mathews is a mainstream fair weather phony Liberal who will always find a way to twist his core values (if he even
  7. Multiple unanswered posts often a sign of denial. Twisting words and repeating dogma unsubstantiated by fact or reality. Its an addiction for them. Whenever one sees these multiple unanswered posts by the truth deniers he should remember these words of the late author Edward Abbey; “When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense” We see this (above) in the supporters of the official story of Wellstone's plane crash. That and JFK assassination and 9/1
  8. Len you are so obviously out of bullets that you ought to feel flattered when someone of Jim's stature even acknowledges your posts. Hint: he's just toying with you for amusement. I think that even Gary Mack writes better B/S than that stuff Len. Here's what these tools do: scan through the myriad of elements in a 9/11 argument and find one "T" that wasn't crossed. "See? They don't cross their T's! Just look at them! Conclusively proving that 9/11 researchers are all crazy" What you need to do Len is to find a forum composed of gullible people. A place that might just give you the benefit
  9. I sincerely mean it. Almost wanted to post a poll on the subject. Am going to guess that this forum will largely have a negative opinion of him. Not trying to influence your comments but will give my own. Starting from worst to best. Negatives: 1. Seems entirely too promotional. 2. Too anti Liberal and too much behind Ron Paul. Paul a man who while having some good points would make a terrible president. 3. I hate Jones' bullhorn. Kind of an embarrassment... 4. "Sky is falling" type of rhetoric. Jones seems to be using fear to appeal to that crazy rocking chair redneck already overly a
  10. A perfect prescription for dealing with pre collapse Soviet dissidents. "Comrade Ivan you don't seem to feel feeling so well. Why don't we give you a new setting where you can relax until you feel better? Somewhere in SIBERIA comrade" add laughter by Boris Badanov here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3QXBHYRhpw Gil, I've been having trouble accessing your material on youtube. For some time now. Do you have a home page these days? Also you seem to sound like a Bostonian type. Perhaps we may have crossed paths in my early years. I once lived in Tewksbury.
  11. Interesting responses all of them. Not what i expected at all. I had come back here today fully prepared to watch Jim D and others try and "cut me a new one". Telling myself "just read, digest and respond later". Figuring I would just let the dogs sleep and not respond with excessive argumentation. Or at all.Instead what I see if not agreement on most issues is much common ground. The opinions presented being that the Coogan/CTKA diatribes were if anything were off base and way out of the mainstream of JFK research thought.Good!John Hankey makes a tremendous amount of simple mistakes in his pr
  12. Interesting responses all of them. Not what i expected at all. I had come back here today fully prepared to watch Jim D and others try and "cut me a new one". Telling myself "just read, digest and respond later". Figuring I would just let the dogs sleep and not respond with excessive argumentation. Or at all. Instead what I see if not agreement on most issues is much common ground. The opinions presented being that the Coogan/CTKA diatribes were if anything were off base and way out of the mainstream of JFK research thought. Good!
  13. Kind of a rant. Sorry, not a lot of documentation. If like myself you've looked into the JFK murder of 11/22/63 you may feel disappointed that so little progress has been made in getting the mainstream media to pick up the ball and start some serious reporting. In fact just the reverse has occurred. Hardly a week goes by that some disinformation hit piece plays out on cable television. A Tee Vee show which in addition to supporting the "Lone assassin" BIG LIE has the audacity to exclaim that the murder of JFK is some kind of mystery. Usually a pseudo "documentary" with Gary Mack's well soiled
  14. I have recently wondered why Zapruder or his secretary (whomever held the camera) didn't jump or otherwise react to the rifle shots going off. Self preservation has to be the ordinary instinct in that circumstance. A normal reaction ought to be for him to jump to high heaven as soon as a set of high powered rifles were shot off. Granted a Manlicher Carcano isn't a "high powered rifle" but I'm sure most here would agree that some set of powerful weapons were employed to kill the President. Very loud reports as anyone who has gone hunting with rifles knows. Unless the person filming the death
  15. Am looking for an effective way to condense and utilize the best research on various conspiracies in order to reach the general public. Only about a week ago I was seriously considering making a display table (regarding JFK and other theories) at some busy intersection of my city. To distribute pamphlets and ideas. Now I'm not so sure if I should proceed. Or even if it is such a good idea to begin with. It was after watching a group of Lyndon Larouche type campaigners in my neighborhood that made me reconsider the idea. Too easy to look like an idiot that way. Perhaps some of our crowd h
×
×
  • Create New...