Kirk Gallaway

Certainly in 64, there are more questions left answered. But politically speaking, and after all Nixon is a politician with avowed foreign policy experience. Politically, in 1967 Nixon was in Viet Nam because he had every intention of running for the Presidency in 1968, just like George Romney. Politically, that's just what politicians did because the Viet Nam War was the issue of the day.

Doug said, "The New York Times today carries an article on the death of Herbert Kalmbach, Nixon's personal attorney who distributed "hush" money in Watergate. How many Americans alive today recognize the Kalmbach's name or the role in played in Nixon's career? How many even know what Watergate was all about? " Yes, wouldn't it be nice if we could truly learn from our mistakes. But should anybody here really be surprised or outraged that it didn't go into great detail about Dulles or Lansdale, or more specifically into the nature of the huge train that wasn't about to stop that lead us into Vietnam. The audience of people watching who were not living during the Viet Nam War don't at this point want the overall subject to be about finger pointing. I don't know if that's just human nature about a huge tragedy that people just want to forget about vindication and just try to make things heal. It represents a higher side of us about forgivance, but it does work to the advantage of those in the future, who would show such disregard for humanity and dupe others into such a sacrifice. I've got in late and have only seen the last 3 chapters, so the majority of complaints Jim lists, I've yet to see, though I have no doubt he's correct, and as I've said, I'm not surprised. But I don't feel the film really sugarcoats anything or lets the U.S. policy makers, or in the episodes I've seen Nixon off easy at all. It does go into great detail about the genocide, summary massacre of villages, the defoliation and destruction of the native's subsistence and does portray the native Asians as hopeless pawns in superpower geopolitical game. Burns has always used those anecdotal stories of survivors, and I thought the people he used were very thoughtful people from a number of vantages. It's not impossible that someone could have been on a tour of duty in Vietnam and not seen atrocities or not talked to people who have. I was a teenager against the war at the time, but I teared up a few times. How could the end leave anybody without a sense of emptiness? That's hardly because of our national defeat of what was our evil policy to begin with, but just the devastation to all who were involved. There are certainly facts that are revealed that the average viewer had no knowledge of, for example the fact that Nixon negotiated with enemy while running for President. Those phone calls between LBJ and Dirksen and Nixon, I sent to a number of my friends who are my contemporaries a few years back who are reasonably well informed but didn't even know about that until they heard proof in those recordings. To this day, most people don't remember JFK as the President who took a stand against virtually everyone in the room to refrain attacking Cuba and almost inevitably launching WW3, but remember JFK as the President who stood eye to eye with the Soviets and made them back down in the Cuban Missile crisis. If we want learn from our mistakes in the future, we have to be willing to nail the perpetrators of a disastrous foreign policy as it's happening and then after, and I mean nail them!. We've had a more recent foreign policy disaster, and the amount of fallout is hardly encouraging. I've never understood why Bill Krystol is continually asked over and over again on the major networks, CNN and now MSNBC. He use to be a Fox and major network guy. He and others lead us into a catastrophic war in Iraq, that us, the region and Europe is paying for today. He should be a disgrace. This has definitely been going on a long time Imagine how hard it is to produce something about incidents 50 years and really make a dent. (Not that such an effort shouldn't be applauded) For you who would make this "answer" to the Burns film in the other Burns Vietnam thread, you'd be largely 1) preaching to your choir of associates, as the great majority are not interested in re-litigating it 2)or possibly making inroads to a new fringe of younger people who are largely part of the Trump dynamic. Certainly everybody over 40 has made up their mind about how much they want to be influenced by an expose of a 50 year old major foreign policy blunder.

Interesting Doug, I confess, I got a catch up watching it. I haven't been as big a Burns fan as some.So he's spouting the official U.S. line about the Gulf of Tonkin incident? But there was skepticism at the time.I remember I believe at the Democratic National convention in 1968, Wayne Morse compared the Gulf of Tonkin incident historically to "The Sinking of the Maine". I also remember there was a "60 minutes" piece, I think in the early 70's that raised questions about the official version. .

Wow, If we ever elected Jesse Ventura, that would be a seismic shift. I'm sure those powers that be would be -------ing in their pants! A candidate who would run on exposing previous corruption.That's interesting. Even so, I think there could be even more spot on potential candidates. My opinion is that while exposing previous corruptions are definitely feared and embarrassing, but because everything's been reconstituted a number of times, none of that will hit the mark. The only circumstance by which that would really take hold would be a once in a lifetime reset brought on by a major global economic catastrophe, where the great mass of people are pointing fingers and there is a major political will to expose major corruption traced back over generations. I think times change and factions change.There have been a great many changes since the 60's, when all these new institutions were in a state of teeming profusion. I think that was the heyday of overt subversion. I think the biggest menaces that exist in the present day and what should be the most feared "Deep State" has gone more mainstream because they can incrementally accomplish more of what they want perfectly legally. So I guess they are no longer a such a "Deep State", but really have been let to become " a Shallow state"", so the danger of exposure is even less. .

Ron said- The assassination itself was a statement, I think, to the USA as a whole and future Presidents in particular. First off Ron, I should say, I appreciate your contributions to the forum. I liked that excerpt from the Lansdale post where it talks about the conflict between Harvey and Lansdale. As if Lansdale was too much a loose canon for Harvey?? Whoa! But in regards to this statement which Joe seems to agree with.If this was a message to future Presidents. It is important to note that there haven't been any Presidential assassinations in almost 55 years! There was one attempt on Reagan!! So what happened? Do you still fear this cabal to this day? What to you or Joe is the likely scenario by which this could happen again?

Agreed Chris, But why would the people who are exposing Trumps conflicts of interest and collusion have to submit to any sort of litmus test about the major assassinations of the 60's? The reason for the contradictions really have to more to do with age, they are generations apart. For the journalists and media reporters and commentators from the 60's. The Kennedy Assassination produced a major schism, if they were skeptics of say the Warren Report, .they in effect sublimated any doubt in choice of their career directions. They have to live with that. There is some overlap, but the newer generation of would be journalists venerate the official version because their journalist heroes did, and they haven't been given real reason to research it. It's a dead issue to the MSM. It certainly has had a corrosive effect on our society. While I see the need to encourage future generations to continue the research into the JFK assassination. There's a great number of new advocates who are using the concept of conspiracies to rationalize inactivity, hopelessness, and a sense of futility, "Why even try, it's all rigged anyway". These people only tend to dilute and discredit the conspiracy to those who would someday be in a position to make real inroads in exposing what happened. But this dilution of credibility is precisely why Fox News and people on this forum who use the phrase "Deep State" as it applies to the current day, should be mindful and be able to define the terms they're using. I personally have seen no one define their terms on that. What does it mean?

Interesting Karl, early 1954?, pre cigarette lighter. He gives you those thin sort of devious smiles, like Nixon. In fact, he's a perfect clone of Anthony Hopkins (Nixon) and Nixon.. Ha ha. That was the youngest I've ever seen Daniel Schorr. Witnauer is a brand name within the Bulova company. I seem to recall, Didn't the Bulova watch company have right wing political internationalist ties? Hyeah," truthful propaganda", my ass!

Pretty good article, Doug. That picture pretty much says it, doesn't it? 2 blacks and a hispanic rescuing a white woman and her child while she's holding her dog! Heh heh All Wall Street sees in the massive spending on the hurricanes is economic stimulus, get in while the getting's good. They'll rebuild it like they rebuilt Iraq.Trump now has an excellent excuse to spend his way into Wall Street hearts, and hopefully boost his historic low ratings. But will it happen fast enough? Houston has always been an unregulated nightmare, market forces over any concept of civil engineering. Tillman Fertitta, is a Houston restaurant mogul who recently bought the NBA Houston Rockets recently said " Look we got a 500 year storm, so we won't see another thing like this for 500 years, right?. "What an idiot, they'll probably see something comparable in 20. Climate change is real and man made, dummies! For fiscal conservatives,it would have been best to have a Democratic President with the Republicans opposing everything they try. Now we'll get a triple whammy, tax cuts for the rich, a massive stimulus, and a big military buildup.

So Larry, Do we really disagree at all?, You're reaffirming that almost the entire guest list she enumerated that were at the Murchison meeting was fabricated with the exception of LBJ arriving late and talking to Murchinson. His talk with Murchison was about no sinister plot to kill Kennedy, but to complain how poorly the political trip to Texas had been going for him. So the point you want to get across is really that in your research with her , you felt an empathy for MB, and felt as she became older, other people "manipulated her story to fit their agendas and to make it much more sensational and dramatic". Of course that's quite an understatement, spreading a story that the sitting VP killed the POTUS is the greatest scandal in US History. And she did pick up the ball and very convincingly spread quite a whopper for many years, unless you think that she eventually believed everything she was saying. Larry, I understand if it's important for you to convey that the huge whopper that was perpetuated was not completely MB's fault. Since my aim is to try to get to the truth as best as I can about the Murchison meeting as a supporting story to the "LBJ did it" conspiracy theory. All I'm concerned about is a lie is a lie. I take your statement as acknowledging the Murchison meeting was not to plot the assassination of JFK,, which if the meeting ever happened at all, I'm in agreement with. I also take in account you and Vince's statements as astute researchers that you both debunk the popular conspiracy theory that LBJ wanted to be President so bad that he would do anything to achieve that goal, and interpret that neither of you prescribe to the "LBJ did it" theory. .

But of course your only source is Madeleine Brown. Her only credibility is derived from being LBJ's mistress. I can't understand why you'd be willing to accept that she'd be lying about LBJ being there but be telling the truth about John J. Mac Cloy.? I did take your cue and looked at the segment. The producer's later account only Johnson, Hoover and Texas Oil Men at the meeting. Yet you can find Madeline's account of the entire "Ocean's 22" who retired to the conference room in a later interview set outside in a ranch setting., which again included LBJ, Hoover,Nixon, Jack Ruby, Carlos Marcello, H.L Hunt,, Malcolm Wallace and even Clint People's, who Doug knows was eventually instrumental in encouraging Billy Sol to come out with his book, but why would he do that if he was in fact, one of the plotters? In an earlier "Geraldo "episode in the 90's she accounts Jack Ruby being there. But there's no mention of that in TMWKK. Which leads one to conclude that they're cherry picking only the information that they have reason to think is credible. So Nigel Turner doesn't completely believe her. The story of the meeting just became more inclusive, and more embellished over the years. You know what I think? I think ole' Madeleine's well was running dry, and one day when she was gettin' her hair "fixed", she decided "Hey if I want to continue to keep gettin'' my hair fixed , I better come up with something". Then the ole' gal proceeded to tell the biggest giant Texas whopper she could, and wrote a book, and went after as much publicity as she possibly could and over years the story took on a life it's own.. , JMO

Joe, I agree May Newmann sounded credible. However it is important to note she did not attend the meeting, because there weren't any "Hollywood stars" to be present and is going on an account from Feifer, who drove in J. Edgar from the airport. But was it established in that MWKK Kennedy segment that J. Edgar came to the Murchinson's the night before the assassination? As far as Madeleine Brown is concerned, I can believe she was LBJ's mistress because I've seen her son in an interview, and he looks just like LBJ'. There's little doubt in mind about that. To Denton's credibility, he does mention the inconsistencies in Brown's account of the meeting over the years.It was certainly a star studded event of the who's who of Kennedy Assassination conspirators to hear her tell it. There was LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon, John J. Mac Cloy, H. Lamar Hunt, (reportedly the richest person in the world at that time.)George Brown of Brown and Root, now known CIA agent, Mayor Earl Cabelle, from our friends in the Mafia there was Carlos Marcello, Joe Civiello, and of course Jack Ruby who she has said she's known since 1953. Johnson cronies, Cliff Carter and Malcolm Wallace. One person she said was present that I'd like to hear from Doug about was Clint Peoples. Wasn't Clint Peoples the man who approached Billy Sol Estes about confessing all he knew about LBJ? You'd think he'd worry about being incriminated.This would have to be such a brazen group of people who obviously were confident that they could pull this off with impunity. But then, why so many of them?, Why would more than a handful need to be present? They were obviously very confident no one would ever talk about their presence there. And yet there's only one first hand witness and that's Madeleine Brown! It was like a Kennedy assassination convention. A story as big as all Texas! If they could have held it in that big, bright shiny new Astrodome, they would have, but it was too far away. These people were certainly loose, just like the Malcolm Wallace connection , you'd think these well connected people could hire professional people that so weren't so immediately tied to them. As has been said, Later in life without financial support from LBJ she was forced to do a lot of dubious things to support herself, such as passing off bad checks.

Agreed, Doug Ok, Apart from whether you feel Judyth Baker is at all credible. I find it strange that you're quoting a source whose merely quoting another source, without any first hand information of her own.

Doug, I'm really confused now. The most damning allegation is in this paragraph in the second article from Jerome Corsi. One would think Corsi wrote an article and thought it fitting to quote Judith Baker (JVB) at the end, who has no first hand experience in the matter at hand. Did you just miscopy initials? I'd review my responses and tidy up a bit. *********** [Bobby Baker and Sen George Smathers lured JFK there for primal pleasures, making sure they got him into a position where Kennedy could get blackmailed. Kennedy was vulnerable on this front because the massive doses of steroids he took for Addison's Disease made him impotent. Unscrupulous doctors then loaded his system with overdoses of testosterone. JFK's sex drive then became almost insatiable. As someone trained in the medical sciences, I recognize the stresses on JFK, and give him some slack for his behavior --and also note that LBJ and half the Senate, after all, were also sleeping around !-- especially since JFK, wearing a back brace, was in such chronic pain that most of his actual physical pleasure in life was rare. JFK and Jackie did not become truly close due to his infidelities (and Jackie reciprocated, having some affairs herself!) until after the death of their premature baby, Patrick. They then were seen kissing and holding hands in public for the first time, etc... Note that none of the above had any bearing on Kennedy's love for his country and for the American people. That love was firm and genuine. He truly gave up his life for attempting to break up the CIA, destroy organized crime, and for trying to rein in the military-industrial complex and its warrior mentality. --JVB)

Doug, I think you meant to say in your title , Bobby Baker and not Judith Baker. It does matter, maybe get a few more looks!

Michael, As you probably remember Mac Carthy upset LBJ in New Hampshire, and the tide started turning.Then the Demo-elephants came in the room, that is the Kennedy mystique and RFK in a particular, and automatically made Mac Carthy third in line, despite the fact that he was the first Anti Viet Nam candidate. As I recall Mac Carthy still won in late May in Oregon primary. But after winning the California primary, it was obvious RFK was gaining great steam. Still the pundits were talking about an open convention between RFK and Humphrey because RF had entered late. In that era the party bosses were much more powerful, the outrage over Wasserman Shultz and Bernie in the last election was about injustices that were commonplace back then, thankfully the public will is much more democratic, with a small "d" now. Still I think you and I know RFK wasn't about to be stopped, and probably would have dealt a fatal blow to machine politics way back then. RFK totally eclipsed Mac Carthy, but after his death,Mac Carthy wasn't going to tip the scales to Nixon by running on a third party ticket.The rank and file Democrats had at last found the candidate they had been waiting 5 years for, but he was now dead. Finally settling for the Anti Viet Nam candidate wasn't going to make it for blue collar Democrats,they generally liked Hubert Humphrey and Mac Carthy knew that. After Humphrey won the nomination Mac Carthy's endorsement was vigorously being pursued by Humphrey, who was breaking from LBJ and talking more dovish. I remember going to see Mac Carthy in SF, I think about 2weeks short of the election, where everyone was waiting in bated breathe on his every utterance and he said he would continue to support neither of major candidates. He changed his tune, in the last few days of the election and supported Humphrey. Humphrey very narrowly lost to Nixon. The irony is that if there weren't the anti Viet Nam protests at the Democratic Convention in Chicago , he probably would have won, and we'd have a decent public health care system, because that kind of legislation was what Hubert Humphrey was really all about.

Having seen a thing that I couldn't identify I'm probably not as much of a skeptic as Michael. But there is 1) human nature in a capitalist society where everyone is trying to make a quick buck. 2)And there is a group of people who are mostly now in their 20's and 30's , the biggest mysteries of their lives are the UF0 phenomena and "Who Killed JFK" . They're prone to conspiracy, have found references to UFO's in the hacked Hillary/John Podesta e-mails, are more likely to believe "Pizzagate" , that the Clintons were involved in a teenage sex slave ring, though in fairness not necessarily. (actually there is poster here, that apparently believes that) They can believe in Alex Jones, who gives them all the above. But think about it, if you can concoct a story that connects UFO's, the JFK assassination, throws in maybe a few current conspiracy theories, what the hell, maybe throw in a little Stonehenge, baby you've got GOLD!.

Doug, I also applaud your courage. Please feel free to post any further developments to these actions you've taken. Re Stone: I've always seen Stone as a complete sleazeball, stealing information from every other LBJ conspiracy author, and putting his little cherry on top, which is of course his conversations with Nixon alleging that both and LBJ wanted to be President but LBJ was willing to kill to be President. I don't believe that conversation ever happened. Doug, Like Stone, I also noticed in perusing Billy Sol Este's first book, your name is continually cited through the book. You of course have the unique relationship with Hunt as well. What I think is worth mentioning is that you were also there at the beginning of what became a major American political movement, and your insights into the people involved and the direction and the misdirections it's taken are of great interest to a good number of people. Just your interactions with these influential figures, both good and bad, is very worthy of this book I believe you said you're working on. And if you also truly believe the stories of these infamous historical figures you've come in contact with in your life and say subscribe to an LBJ did it or LBJ was directly involved theory, you shouldn't let any politics or dogma from this site or anywhere impede you.

Corey says to Jim about Kirk: So if you continue to not take the bait and say you dont have the evidence, he will use that to destroy your theory on Ruth Paine. ???? Then Jim says: Hmm, yeah, when I first read this, I thought that maybe if I binge watch CNN, I might understand this "analysis", but apparently Jim can. I guess I'm more clever and cunning than I give myself credit for. Apparently neither of you read fine print. Corey I like your picture, you look like a good guy. I noticed you felt necessary in an earlier post to quote LNer "Mr. Bassman" Mike Huckabee (who I'm sure has spent many years tirelessly researching the JFK assassination) saying that "the conservative city of Dallas was unfairly blamed for years for JFK’s killing when the real culprit – as has been true so many other times in history – was actually an angry leftist trying to murder someone he disagreed with" If you really hold that view. I'm sure you and Jim could find hours of things to talk about.

Wow JIm, that was quite of diversion of stuff that you threw out there that you cite as evidence all the while saying that you're "waiting for the evidence." If you saw the "'suspending of sleuthing skills" as being hostile, I'm sorry, it wasn't meant that way. It's by way of engaging you. Let's simplify this. You've written volumes in your book and on various sites about Ruth Paine. Let's pretend Ruth Paine is Donald Trump, and speculate about his behavior, up to now.I was asking you about Trump behavior that would certainly show a pattern of obfuscation, and whether you would agree. That's all I said.. Since it's Comey and it appears Mc Connells word against Trumps, we'll probably never have the "evidence" as you say. If you're inclined to believe Trump's account, OK. Then Comey and Mc Connell are lying. I'm not sure why you're so defensive, but I should tell you that you are allowed to phone your lawyer. Heh heh Please don't go off on a tangent about Ruth Paine. That was just an analogy.

So you suspend your sleuthing skills on the issue of the day. I don't think we need a gaggle of lawyers to tell us that Trump attempted to obstruct justice with Comey and now apparently with Mitch Mac Connell , he doesn't disclose taxes, does this pattern of obfuscation give you any pause? I know that you would be conflicted, because you've expressed that you thought Julian Assange should be Time's Man of the Year in 2016. So obviously you like him. I personally prefer Snowden, do you know that Snowden has condemned Trump's firing of Comey? http://www.newsweek.com/edward-snowden-condemn-trump-comey-firing-606375 As far Browder, I'm not sure I completely believe him, not saying that I don't think Putin has benefited financially from office, I'm just not sure how much..

So Jim, do you think the " alleged Russian hacking of the election" is true or a creation of our own intelligence agencies fortified by the mainstream media to unseat the populist Trump?

In conclusion: here's an angle I'm not sure if you've seen or not -- but in my view, all the Dallas officials who were with Lee Harvey Oswald during his last day alive are, in my CT, agents of General Walker. This includes Will Fritz, James Hosty, Jesse Curry -- and extends to Bill Decker (who confessed to insider knowledge via Audie Murphy) and his top Deputies including Buddy Walthers. The DPD connection (cf. Walt Brown) is identical with the Walker connection. Have you seen my posts on this? This is this string of associations I was talking about, though maybe you can prove some of them. Of course, I could produce for you a video clip of Jesse Curry saying he thought there was a second gunman behind the grassy knoll. If he was an agent of Walker, why would he open his mouth about this rather than just be content he got away with murdering the President? My purpose is not to get in the weeds of your theory with you, but to try to tell you how you might be perceived. I think it's too bad O'Neill and Caulfield don't want to come here. When I say"dying on the vine", I'm referring specifically on this forum.Of course you're entitled to voice your opinion. While i think you do bring up some interesting and useful information that I have no reason to doubt, and while some may like to engage you as a diversion, (and who am I to stand in anybody's way!) Argue whether it's right or wrong. ,What I mean is you're advocacy is barren to much fruitful activity. Part of my interest here is based on my intuition that more people agree with me here than are willing to admit it. I'm looking for a critical mass. Sorry Paul, Despite your intuition, I think you're a long way from critical mass.

Paul. I'll grant there is a one most prevalent theory here. I used your term, "CIA did it theory" but that's not really fair as a number of people who hold that basic theory incorporate other groups, just as you do, but feel the nucleus of planning was probably the CIA. I suspect there are others say who think LBJ had a much greater role, but aren't encouraged to speak out. I think , if you had other followers to your theory, you should be able to incubate your theory in relative peace here, (though you seem to have it all fleshed out yourself.) But the fact that you don't have other followers, and don't use a consensus to build your theory, you're left to just mock and criticize the most prevalent theory, and that makes you a thorn in the side for some. however, I continually get side-lined into defending the same points over and over -- from multiple people and from multiple angles. Ok, I'm not sure I see you that way. I don't see you as always on the defensive, as you seem to. I'm sure there's much more to your theory than I've heard at one time or another. But I think a lot of us got a pretty liberal dose of it. You've made a lot of associations between your principal players that I hadn't heard of. And if your theory doesn't build, (which is in part because you are at a disadvantage not having other proponents), it can be perceived by the rest of us as an unsubstantiated theory with a lot of loose ends that is now just dying on the vine.

"The answer my friend", will all be settled by Oct., 2017, or so Paul says: It's only a matter of months now - and all these CT debates will come crashing to a halt. Yes, and then either we'll all get some respite, or as Paul sees it, there will be an end to all controversy, he will finally get his day in the sun, and we'll all bow before him as the one who first became impatient with that that same old "CIA did it theory" was going nowhere,and courageously found the real answer. I'll hold you to your word on that, Paul. it seems like now you'd be banking on that 9th inning release. Paul, I'll say you are a gentleman and in fairness, even some upstanding CIA -did -it members of this forum when confronted with the problems or witnesses that don't completely fit in with their theories, hunker down just repeating their same old party line as if the repetition somehow makes it true, just as you do, comrade. But yours is such a relentless monotone over the same material. I feel at one point I understood your theory that I could recite it backwards. You've embellished it like a soap opera, continually citing the personal emotional motivations, somebody didn't like somebody so they did such and such... Yes the American government was so concerned about the nation's racism, that a race war would have made the country easy pickins for the Soviet Communists to use as the propaganda tool to take over the nation. Under what authority? Nobody in the U.S. gave the Soviets any credit for being an integrated society because they were seen as being an oppressive society. Whatever race problems we'd be having , it wouldn't affect the allegiance of our European allies who feared the Soviets.But we've been through that. A good subtitle I have suggested for the Caulfield book might be " How one redneck changed the course of American history and brought the American Government and it's National Security State to it's knees.before him". Tell me that wouldn't have generated more interest! So to hear you, we're coming to judgment day and now your theory, through repetition is getting old. If you don't get your victory, please give us a break, and please walk back the incessant indoctrination.---and Good Luck!