Jump to content
The Education Forum

Richard Coleman

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,194 profile views

Richard Coleman's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)

  1. ...or is it just me? Can't get on as of right now.
  2. I may be behind the curve on this. Joan Mellen has a harsh and negative view of Turner vis a vis his performance for Garrison. I am quite sceptical of her views since 1) I read the Turner/Christian RFK book years ago and it is an exceptionally fine piece of work, and 2) she ascribes motives and possible culpability to RFK for Dealey Plaza which I believe are not credible. Has Mr. Turner ever discussed or replied to her criticism - attack really - of him?
  3. For a great discussion of Maddow and "conspiracy theories" by Abby Martin on RT TV, go to "http://rt.com/shows/breaking-set-summary/todashev-death-fbi-investigation-324/" click on "download video" underneath the graphic. Maddow segment starts at 22:55. Awesome!!
  4. They can't be the same. Compare noses. Eyebrow arches. Alignment of ears to eyes.
  5. "It would appear, from this morning's Washington Post (1/25/13) that Snowden is in fact going to stay in the Soviet Union." David, that would be a pretty good trick! The Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1989.
  6. Buried among DVP’s video archive is JFK’s civil rights speech of June 11, ‘63. Given that MSNBC has seen fit to reproduce it, I am posting it here also. Does anybody, including him, think that....oooohh just maybe the segregationist/white supremacy types in the south, not to mention higher ups in the military/intell community might, just maybe coulda been, aroused enough to seriously consider killing him for it? OTH, supposing Oswald to be the commie malcontent the WC and its sycophants insist he was, would this speech have motivated HIM to murder JFK? Seriously? http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/11/watch-jfks-civil-rights-speech-50-years-ago/ Fifty years ago today, President John F. Kennedy spoke to the nation after a day of racial turmoil in the state of Alabama. On June 11, 1963, Vivian Malone and James Hood became the first black students to successfully enroll at the University of Alabama. Alabama’s Governor George Wallace–who vowed in his inaugural address, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever”–defiantly stood in the door of the school, moving only under the threat of arrest from the Alabama National Guard. It was a decision by President Kennedy to federalize the state’s National Guard that helped ensure that the two students enrolled. In a televised speech later that evening, Kennedy addressed the campus incident and gave an impassioned plea for civil rights in America. He called upon citizens to “stop and examine [their] conscience” and to uphold the country’s deeply ingrained values of equality for all Americans, not just a fraction of the population. “One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice,” said Kennedy. “They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free.” Read a full copy of Kennedy’s speech: Good evening, my fellow citizens: This afternoon, following a series of threats and defiant statements, the presence of Alabama National Guardsmen was required on the University of Alabama to carry out the final and unequivocal order of the United States District Court of the Northern District of Alabama. That order called for the admission of two clearly qualified young Alabama residents who happened to have been born Negro. That they were admitted peacefully on the campus is due in good measure to the conduct of the students of the University of Alabama, who met their responsibilities in a constructive way. I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was rounded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. And when Americans are sent to Viet-Nam or West Berlin, we do not ask for whites only. It ought to be possible, therefore, for American students of any color to attend any public institution they select without having to be backed up by troops. It ought to be possible for American consumers of any color to receive equal service in places of public accommodation, such as hotels and restaurants and theaters and retail stores, without being forced to resort to demonstrations in the street, and it ought to be possible for American citizens of any color to register and to vote in a free election without interference or fear of reprisal. It ought to be possible, in short, for every American to enjoy the privileges of being American without regard to his race or his color. In short, every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated. But this is not the case. The Negro baby born in America today, regardless of the section of the Nation in which he is born, has about one-half as much chance of completing a high school as a white baby born in the same place on the same day, one-third as much chance of completing college, one-third as much chance of becoming a professional man, twice as much chance of becoming unemployed, about one-seventh as much chance of earning $10,000 a year, a life expectancy which is 7 years shorter, and the prospects of earning only half as much. This is not a sectional issue. Difficulties over segregation and discrimination exist in every city, in every State of the Union, producing in many cities a rising tide of discontent that threatens the public safety. Nor is this a partisan issue. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics. This is not even a legal or legislative issue alone. It is better to settle these matters in the courts than on the streets, and new laws are needed at every level, but law alone cannot make men see right. We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution. The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of patience and delay? One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free. We preach freedom around the world, and we mean it, and we cherish our freedom here at home, but are we to say to the world, and much more importantly, to each other that this is a land of the free except for the Negroes; that we have no second-class citizens except Negroes; that we have no class or cast system, no ghettoes, no master race except with respect to Negroes? Now the time has come for this Nation to fulfill its promise. The events in Birmingham and elsewhere have so increased the cries for equality that no city or State or legislative body can prudently choose to ignore them. The fires of frustration and discord are burning in every city, North and South, where legal remedies are not at hand. Redress is sought in the streets, in demonstrations, parades, and protests which create tensions and threaten violence and threaten lives. We face, therefore, a moral crisis as a country and as a people. It cannot be met by repressive police action. It cannot be left to increased demonstrations in the streets. It cannot be quieted by token moves or talk. It is a time to act in the Congress, in your State and local legislative body and, above all, in all of our daily lives. It is not enough to pin the blame on others, to say this is a problem of one section of the country or another, or deplore the fact that we face. A great change is at hand, and our task, our obligation, is to make that revolution, that change, peaceful and constructive for all. Those who do nothing are inviting shame as well as violence. Those who act boldly are recognizing right as well as reality. Next week I shall ask the Congress of the United States to act, to make a commitment it has not fully made in this century to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law. The Federal judiciary has upheld that proposition in a series of forthright cases. The executive branch has adopted that proposition in the conduct of its affairs, including the employment of Federal personnel, the use of Federal facilities, and the sale of federally financed housing. But there are other necessary measures which only the Congress can provide, and they must be provided at this session. The old code of equity law under which we live commands for every wrong a remedy, but in too many communities, in too many parts of the country, wrongs are inflicted on Negro citizens and there are no remedies at law. Unless the Congress acts, their only remedy is in the street. I am, therefore, asking the Congress to enact legislation giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public–hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments. This seems to me to be an elementary right. Its denial is an arbitrary indignity that no American in 1963 should have to endure, but many do. I have recently met with scores of business leaders urging them to take voluntary action to end this discrimination and I have been encouraged by their response, and in the last 2 weeks over 75 cities have seen progress made in desegregating these kinds of facilities. But many are unwilling to act alone, and for this reason, nationwide legislation is needed if we are to move this problem from the streets to the courts. I am also asking Congress to authorize the Federal Government to participate more fully in lawsuits designed to end segregation in public education. We have succeeded in persuading many districts to de-segregate voluntarily. Dozens have admitted Negroes without violence. Today a Negro is attending a State-supported institution in every one of our 50 States, but the pace is very slow. Too many Negro children entering segregated grade schools at the time of the Supreme Court’s decision 9 years ago will enter segregated high schools this fall, having suffered a loss which can never be restored. The lack of an adequate education denies the Negro a chance to get a decent job. The orderly implementation of the Supreme Court decision, therefore, cannot be left solely to those who may not have the economic resources to carry the legal action or who may be subject to harassment. Other features will be also requested, including greater protection for the right to vote. But legislation, I repeat, cannot solve this problem alone. It must be solved in the homes of every American in every community across our country. In this respect, I want to pay tribute to those citizens North and South who have been working in their communities to make life better for all. They are acting not out of a sense of legal duty but out of a sense of human decency. Like our soldiers and sailors in all parts of the world they are meeting freedom’s challenge on the firing line, and I salute them for their honor and their courage. My fellow Americans, this is a problem which faces us all–in every city of the North as well as the South. Today there are Negroes unemployed, two or three times as many compared to whites, inadequate in education, moving into the large cities, unable to find work, young people particularly out of work without hope, denied equal rights, denied the opportunity to eat at a restaurant or lunch counter or go to a movie theater, denied the right to a decent education, denied almost today the right to attend a State university even though qualified. It seems to me that these are matters which concern us all, not merely Presidents or Congressmen or Governors, but every citizen of the United States. This is one country. It has become one country because all of us and all the people who came here had an equal chance to develop their talents. We cannot say to 10 percent of the population that you can’t have that right; that your children can’t have the chance to develop whatever talents they have; that the only way that they are going to get their rights is to go into the streets and demonstrate. I think we owe them and we owe ourselves a better country than that. Therefore, I am asking for your help in making it easier for us to move ahead and to provide the kind of equality of treatment which we would want ourselves; to give a chance for every child to be educated to the limit of his talents. As I have said before, not every child has an equal talent or an equal ability or an equal motivation, but they should have the equal right to develop their talent and their ability and their motivation, to make something of themselves. We have a right to expect that the Negro community will be responsible, will uphold the law, but they have a right to expect that the law will be fair, that the Constitution will be color blind, as Justice Harlan said at the turn of the century. This is what we are talking about and this is a matter which concerns this country and what it stands for, and in meeting it I ask the support of all our citizens. Thank you very much.
  7. P.S. Stone's JFK didn't name anyone specific as a conspirator or assassin. Evidently the DiCaprios will. Can a case of libel or slander be brought on behalf of a dead person by his/her relatives? Slippery.........
  8. Just spitballing here. If their movie ids Marcello as complicit in the assassination, would his relatives have a basis to sue? I realize this subject is pretty slippery. I haven't read Waldron's tomes, but if he did this, and they didn't sue...well I don't know.... My latest wet dream is that they somehow drag Garrison as an ally of Marcello or something like that into it and give his kids a case for slander or libel to bring into court. Wouldn't that be something?
  9. This doesn't have much to do with JFK except for maybe two details. 1. What I boldfaced in the paragraph. 2. Unless I missed it, Allen Dulles isn't mentioned once in the piece. Maybe that's not important though. Kind of mind-blowing anyway..... "Ruth Fischer, code-named "Alice Miller," was considered a key Pond agent for eight years, working under her cover as a correspondent, including for the North American Newspaper Alliance. She had been a leader of Germany's prewar Communist Party and was valuable to the Pond in the early years of the Cold War, pooling intelligence from Stalinists, Marxists and socialists in Europe, Africa and China, according to the newly released documents." I wonder if Fischer knew Priscilla Johnson....Marina Oswald..... Full article: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-Spy-Agency-The-Pond/2010/07/29/id/366034
  10. Greg, I appreciate your response. What I had in mind was not a duplication of DP, but an approximation showing a car at about the distance of the limo from Zapruder moving in the same direction, etc. etc. Doesn't have to be Dallas especially. Can an 8 mm film be altered the way the alterationists say it was....that was my only point. Obviously using current technology it could. As to 1963 era technology, doesn't Douglas Horne describe how it would have been done? Optical printers, traveling mattes and such? I've seen documentaries showing how effects were achieved in the silent era - surely there are techies who could explain what was possible in the 60s. Ektachrome, Kodachrome, Anscochrome, who cares? This would only be a demonstration, not courtroom worthy proof. I'm agnostic on the subject of alteration, but if it can be demonstrated it was at least possible, wouldn't that be a valuable contribution to the discussion? Likewise, if it can't be done, well......
  11. I have a suggestion that might help to clarify the Z alteration issue. How about somebody take an 8 mm movie camera and film a similar scene of a car traveling at 11 mph from left to right with people moving in the background, then slowing to a stop then picking up speed. Process it. Then alter it taking out the stop, using techniques available in 63-64 as much as possible. Release both. At least that would show whether the alteration scenario is plausible. Wouldn’t it?
  12. Greg Parker said: "But if were writing a bio on the man, I know I could put aside personal feelings and do an honest and balanced job." "Despite that, and my obvious animus toward him in every mention of his name in these threads, if I had to write a piece on him that was needed for a site like this or wikipedia, I would do a fair and balanced job." Whew, Greg, you are a paragon. Very few people other than msm "journalists" would make that claim I think. On what basis for example would you decide that certain facts or events were unimportant or irrelevant? How much emphasis to put on this or that circumstance? Etc. Case in point: I read two biographies of the genius Nicola Tesla. They were different in at least one respect. One reported that Tesla claimed he literally "saw" the device he was thinking about in the air in front of him just as if it were a real physical object. (In other words a coherent hallucination.) He would watch it "work" and be able to to "see" whether the design was good or not, which parts needed to be redesigned, etc. and make the necessary corrections. This was all on an imaginary machine! When it was humming along to his satisfaction, he would go ahead and build it. The other bio didn't mention this. It smacked too much of the quasi-occult that the author didn't believe in. And so it goes. Are the standard histories of the U.S. "fair, honest, balanced and objective"? Then what are we to make of Howard Zinn's People's History?
  13. As I'm sure most of you know, Wikipedia's treatment of JFK has been pretty thoroughly dissected (autopsied might be a better term) at CTKA. I thought a current discussion of Wiki's unreliability might be of some interest although not specifically about JFK. http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/ http://www.salon.com/2013/04/29/wikipedias_shame/
  14. Speaking of suspicious characters, have you ever noticed "hard hat man" as I call him in the Algtens photo? Here the shots have already started, one of the later car doors is open, I believe it was LBJ's car or his bodyguard, and this guy is standing with his feet planted, arms crossed, looking backward, AWAY from the President. I've always wondered who he was and what his story was. As far as I know, nobody else in DP was wearing a hard hat that day.
  15. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/11/jfk-assassination-50-years_n_3259817.html?ref=topbar Execrable article. Video clip shows Thompson beginning that he foisted a false fact upon the world back in 66 or 67. He doesn't actually say what it was however. What was it?
  • Create New...