Kirk Gallaway

Hi Kirk - just had to make sure about the message. Yesterday was not good for me. Sorry you went through all that. I guess you wee on your way out of town and got waylaid? Ain’t easy to get anywhere inthe Bay Area these days. Next time for sure especially with some advance. 

Hi Kirk. Jeez - San Pancho seems like ages ago. It was very nice. So were Todos Santos and Pescadero on the Pacific coast above Cabo San Lucas where my daughter had her wedding party last year. 

The book is interesting, yet no one is interested. Jim has a short fuse. He invited me to a Symposium in SF in December which was nice of him, and very interesting. John Newman, Bill Simpich, Peter Dale Scott, Pat Speer, Linda Pease, many others there including David Josephs, who made a presentation on Oswald in MC. Jim does good historical research, but seems very opinionated. I’m not sure what he believes. 

Its not far fetched to think LBJ was involved, and it doesn’t conflict with the general theory that elements of CIA and military, FBI were complicit. It’s for sure a state secret and it does seem futile at times to think anything further will be revealed. I keep reading though, even hoping. I’m curious was John Barbour has going with Garrison files. He seems like a really straight shooter. 

Think we will send troops to Venezuela? I’m not even sure what’s going on. 

Some people, (including Jim Di) never seem to consider  the dangers of a severely weakened Trump looking for a Hail Mary Pass.(football analogy) We should  1)come in with humanitarian assistance, and 2)agree to take in refugees. About #2, yeah fat chance!

About Jim in general, I suppose we could have a long discussion. That's a good lineup at that symposium. I remember my high school history teacher loved John Kenneth Galbraith, who I believe you said Jim Di talked about.Talking to Galbraith's virtue as an influence on JFK might be fine for other wonks like us, at the Symposium, but I'm reminded of a Jim and Roger Stone interview, when Jim has the floor , i believe after a commercial break and he goes into Guillome. We've heard his wrap on that countless times and it's impressive, but in trying to persuade a new audience to consider the JFKAC, it puts audiences to sleep. Don't introduce and try to color some character no one''s heard of. A publicity whore like Stone immediately sensed that and started fidgeting around, I think considering trying to bail Jim out. It was quite an incongruity considering that Stone. as I say, is a complete charlatan as far as the JFKA. Jim is prolific and intensely ambitious, but part of his unwitting frustration that I always sense is really  because he's clueless as to what translates to people.

I've only checked threads I have a particular interest in. Does Robert Card contribute much of use?

Kirk - I completely neglected to post that David Talbot posted on FB this morning that due to the death of Christopher Lawford the interview was cancelled. Talbot hopes to do it at another time. I’m going to post a thread now. It would be a pleasure to meet you sometime.

Maybe we can benefit from unfortunate events and I'll be able to make it next time.

Paul,

The American Empire, I thought you might say the MICC. But they are integral, you can't have one without the other. But If you just follow the money in campaign contributions , though the Democrats have been catching up in the last few decades. The Republicans still have a sizable edge in military procurement. Even some Tea Party reps are big on that. There is an intersection between the alt.right and the left concerning interventionism and the use of military power abroad. The left usually out of humanistic grounds, that the reason we usually get involved is to exploit others for our own ends, with  the right, it's out of an isolationism basically saying it's their business, or let them "do whatever they will to each other."

I'm not sure why you singled the Dems out. I think the traditional roles still apply, The Republicans have always been the Defense party, and since they control all branches, we still are. I think the Dems, since Clinton have almost caught up to  Repubs in that they are now  equally as globalist but the alt right is running a Republican counter trend to that.

Hi Kirk,

i see the confusion. I singled out centrist democrats because they have done a poor job for so long opposing the micc. The Republicans are not in opposition and don't pretend to be, though as you say there are points of conversion between the far right and the more liberal left. Senator Feinstein is a perfect example. While the Republicans move right, beginning with Goldwater actually, the Democrats move center even while their base, or their would be base if we had full voter access, moves left. Bernie Sanders carried a progressive message forward, even though he probably would have been a poor candidate. The center of the Democratic Party did their best to shoot him down, and Hilary Clinton, who I voted for, is still doing so. I haven't read her new book, but I would bet that she didn't really address voter disenfranchisement, which is the biggest problem we face. So basically I'm pissed with the Democrats who try to marginalize their left wing. We know how the CIA made a point  of controlling the message and media by creating and supporting liberal media outlets. Do they still? Are Feinstein and Warner (who voted against Rand Paul in the recent attempt to have a new debate on foreign intervention) willing to fight?

Hi Paul, Forgive me, I'm  waxing  a bit tonight.

We know how the CIA made a point  of controlling the message and media by creating and supporting liberal media outlets.

Yes but the brunt of that was 50 years ago.

Hi Kirk - you're not the only one who feels that way about Graves. I've reported him several times now as I'm fed up with his a@@@@hole ways on EF. I feel like he's taking over the entire site.  But guess what? I remember in the past I was scolded by the admins several times for "vigorous debate" but the admin, Kathy, said that she sees absolutely no reason for scolding Graves for his behavior. So go figure.

Meanwhile, on the trivia thing, which I actually told Kathy was inappropriate, I posted a question that basically was - if a lone nutter was in an empty room except with two people - one being an ex-president who expressed doubts about the WC conclusions, and one on the right being an author hack (as in Bugliosi) who would that lone nutter continue to believe.  And why?

It was basically a dig at lone nutters like Dave Von Pein, who believe it or not, I really don't have a problem with.  At least we know where he stands.

Anyway, hope this helps.  I'm seriously thinking about throwing in the towel with EF.  IMO, the only really two important things with the case are if the TV station releases a pristine copy of the PM footage and it in fact reveals it's Oswald; and the document release this fall.  I don't have my hopes up with either.

But I can tell you that another researcher on EF told me that he, too, is fed up with Graves, Clark and those folks.

i don't have any problem with DVP either. He's very conscious he can't piss us off too much.He argues for the most part honorably.

I'm bored a bit as well with EF.   I understand  going through a stage where i just wanted more and more knowledge about the Kennedy assassination, but there is certainly an obsessive quality to some of the posters here.I actually welcomed the distraction of the Trump election victory on the forum. It just seems like there's a lot of relevant political intrigue going on now, and it's not 50 years old.

Tommy might as well post this forum as where he lives. It's a good cheap living. All he needs is about 15 cups of coffee a day and he's all set. i've thought about going after him and bringing him down a peg, and hopefully clearing out the dynamic a bit. But like you, i'm wondering if it's worth protecting..In the trivia thread, his post after about newbies rubbed me the wrong way. As if he thinks he's some scholar here? He's pure quantity, obsessed with going down lame back roads, which is ok, they might be interesting, but seldom get anywhere.

Clarke is an obsessive  airhead. I thought we were done with him early, and would have been except Paul B. at a critical juncture, when being attacked for posting a certain topic felt he should be more inclusive and extended an olive branch to him.I told him I thought that was a mistake.But in fairness, he's become a little more focused, (if you could call it that), and almost tolerable.

I appreciated what you said about bumping, I've never done it.  it's almost like an adolescent crying out for special attention.I wish other people placed the same values on the relative worth of some posts and lines of inquiry as I do, but that's just the way it is.

Thanks Kirk.  FWIW - David Josephs also sent me a personal message recently.  I've posted it below for your reading pleasure.  And I basically discovered how "researchers" like him think from his reply.  I've put that line right here for you so it stands out:

DAVID JOSEPHS -- "I get the feeling that because they could, they did."

This, in essence, is the problem with many of the people on here.  All pretense of rational thinking is thrown out the window.

So anyway, I just checked in here and noticed the thread called "It wasn't Ruby."  Sure enough, Josephs was in there, too, talking about "Oh, look!  A hanging microphone is seen in some photos but not others.  Very curious, indeed."  And then he goes on with his well-known tendency to take several photos, overlay them, and then add his arrows everywhere. LOL.

I was going to reply and just put:

David - you mean because you get the feeling that because they could, they did?

But then I thought f$$ck it and let it alone.

I agree about Graves too, and that he thinks of himself as some genius here.  His Graves-speak is his "witty" sentences and his tendency to blow up text and add color to it.

I've also posted Kathy the admin's reply to my reporting of Graves.  It's amazing that they kicked John Butler out but not Graves.  Take care and enjoy.

--------------------

From Mike: 

Kathy I'm  not angry. I'm  just frustrated  because  Graves is taking  over the entire site. I'm  not  the  only  only one who  thinks  that. Read my last Report and you'll  see I've  talked  to  another  author  and researcher  one who I  have  a  lot  of  respect  for and he feels  the  same  way.

I  posted on trivia  game which to  be  honest  was inappropriate  and my post  was  removed. I  don't  care  who  it  was and what I'm  concerned  about  is how EF is turning  into  a   "cesspool" like the  other  researcher  said it was.

If the admins aren't  reading  some  of  the  posts and taking action then there's  no  real  moderation going on.

Bottom line is my reports were about Graves.

From Kathy:

We don't read a lot of the posts because of time, etc.

I posted a 24 hour rule regarding bumping threads. We'll see how that goes.

I looked at your last report. The Chicken scratches remark wasn't aimed at Ray Mitcham--it was regarding the illegible letter in Jim' H.'s post.  It looks like, after reading a few more posts, they are getting along fine.

We haven taken some action in the past few weeks against some posters, but we don't discuss it on the board. 

And I am sorry to hear about the sewer comment.  We decided to try to keep the Ed Forum alive some years ago because of its historical content.  We allow folk to come and join, and if they have an opinion that is not believed by many, it is still ok for them to post, unless they begin trolling, etc.  We are not trying to step on anyone.  But if someone believes that the Forum is turning into a sewer, then if I were him, I don't know if I'd waste my time here.

----------------------------------------------------------

From Josephs:

Given how you neither understand or believe the theories Chris offers...  why DO you keep interjecting hyperbole when you're not even interested?

You appear to be an intelligent contributor here...  the FBI fudged many, many things including how the Zfilm was translated to physical reality using math.

and you're surprised? amazed? and contrary all at the same time?  We get you don't agree, yet you offer precious little to support your ideas other than "See, it MUST be that way"

Asking "Why" when you don't first get the "How" negates the WHY question...  Why?  Cause this was a cover-up to implicate something that did not happen...

That the MATH works when applied to these physical scenes additionally proves the deviousness of the FBI and the impossibility of the film we see.

We're truly sorry you do not see or experience the same problems with the film as others...  but try to remember that what we see was not how it happened...  in this case the witnesses supersede the physical evidence since this evidence was so badly altered to conceal the truth.

From Mike:

David, like I said before, your MC caper story is spot on IMO.  The reason is simple.  I believe they framed Oswald from the get-go.  Anyone who doesn't believe that is either ignorant or too blind to see.  I don't mean you but people who believe in the ridiculous lone gunman BS.

So the work you did on MC was outstanding IMO.  I too do not even believe he was down there, just like I believe he was out front with Shelley during the shooting, the BYP were faked, and so on.

But I don't know what else to say about some of the theories you and others have worked on and that includes faking the Z film and the plats and surveys, and so on.  Jeremy B, who I do have respect for, is much better than me at explaining debates against these theories as well as Pat Speer. My comments and rebuttals on them have to go more with instinct and believability and plausibility.

IMO, it was not hard to kill Kennedy.  They had a plan in place, a patsy to take the fall, and once Kennedy was dead at Parkland, as well as Oswald in the basement, they knew they could fudge the record however they could see fit to. I'm sorry to say that although there are some witness statements that are well done, I really cannot hold much faith in many of their statements. Government people testifying could easily be coerced to change their stories, and most of the people in Dealey that day were just every day people caught in a short moment of history.  None of them were standing around totally and completely aware of their surroundings, which means memories and moments are going to not be 100% complete.

That's why too we should be thankful that Z was there that day - can you imagine what the case would be like if he'd not been? Can you imagine if OJ had been captured on a hidden camera at Brentwood? And yet, people go on and on and on refusing to believe that the film is as we've seen it for 54 years.  It shows all of the conspiracy you need to see, yet folks want to see more.  They want EVERYTHING - painted in blobs, the film being shot at 48 FPS then 67% of the frames removed...and on and on.

I'm sorry we don't agree on that and other things and this is the best way I know how to explain it.  On EF, if someone like Chris continues to spout his theories, there needs to be vigorous and open debate on them, especially for new kids coming around. If there IS something I believe in - like your MC caper and others - you can be sure I'll try to say whatever I can to support for the good of keeping things plausible.

Jospehs:

Fair enough Michael....

Thank you for the compliments on the MC work....

With regards to the film and other physical evidence...  I get the feeling that because they could, they did.

"They" being led by David Atlee Phillips.   The group(s) involved were feeling pretty good about their successes yet even worse over their defeats.  The KBG was kicking their asses and their president was talking treason.

If the film was an accurate representation, there would be no need to cut it up, do re-enactments, or change the MATH which the film supposedly represented.  I agree that witnesses can be faulty... what I think is forgotten though is that evidence can be altered, created, removed, replaced.  Without a real trial, authentication is not possible - so we attempt to authenticate ourselves.

While I'm not looking to convince, I believe there is much more to the film and its journey than you allow yourself to see... starting with Zapruder's partner who claims the "original" did not leave Dallas until Tuesday.

The idea of 48fps is one I've been supporting, one that Horne considered and is really one of the only ways to accomplish some of the editing that was done in such a short time...  Of course you;d have to accept there was more that meets the eye with Zapruder, his connections and his film being THE RECORD.

I'd only ask you continue to read Chris, (as well as when Chris and I discuss it) and know for a certain fact that the FBI changed the MATH and in turn moved JFK to different places along the route.  I'd ask you look again at POSITION A as described by Shaneyfelt, read Truly's description of the wide turn, of Zapruder claiming he filmed the motorcade turning onto Elm, limo and all.... and then CE884.  I personally do not have as much at stake with the connection to CE884...  I think it was done under the assumption it would be years until anyone could check these things out...

If there was no reason to change the film...  why doesn't "0183" appear on the "original" film ? and appears at the wrong place on the SS copies, if it was placed at any conceivably correct location on the original film.

An original film has "original" markings.  0183 has none of these.  and 0184 was never accounted for...

Max Philips' note talks of 3 copies and an original without mentioning the "best copy" which Zapruder supposedly kept.  It is my belief that 0184 was sent to Chief Rowley of the SS on the night of 11/22 from which the altered version was created at Hawkeyeworks.

The MATH only illustrates how what is shown could not possibly happen they way it is shown.  It also highlights what Shaneyfelt did...  frame 168 and 171 could not be 9/10th of a foot apart at 11.2 mph...  and according to Shaneyfelt, the 10 inch vertical drop is represented in the movement of the limo from z207 to z210.

If 1'=18.3' for a 3 degree incline...  10"/12" = 5/6 x 18.3 = 15.25' horizontally to move the chalk mark on the stand-in down 10"...   If you have the original film in its original condition, with copies, what's with the re-enactment in May after 3 surveys concluded WCD298's data?