Kirk Gallaway

But Sandy, Of course, if you and I agree that the Badge Man simulated photo is BS. And Arnold professes to be in the photo.What does that say about Arnold's truthfulness? Ok I'll grant that it's not an absolute slam dunk that he's lying, if you believe him. But that hardly supports him..

"Maybe because I wouldn't have wanted to get involved myself if I felt my story wasn't crucial. " But certainly Arnold and Hoffman's stories if they're to be believed are crucial.They identify the location of the shooter (Arnold)and the actions taken between 2 men to dispose of the murder weapon.(Hoffman). People were more involved and trusting of their authorities back then. (or about up to that day!) . The actions described by Hoffman, that a man rushes toward the triple overpass with the murder weapon and passes it off to a man who disassembles it, puts it in a bag and walks off, also sounds kind of conspicuous to me. Yeah, the refutation of "Badge Man" must have been quite an epiphany for Mack. heh heh

c If you don't mind, Kirk, can you tell me briefly why you don't believe the stories of Ed Hoffman, Gordon Arnold, and Beverly Oliver? I don't have an opinion on any of them. (I just barely read about them on Spartacus Educational) I'd just like to know what to look out for. Sandy, My memory may not serve me 100% accurately, as it's been 15 years since I saw TMWKK in it's entirety. In all these cases, we have people who didn't really surface with their testimony for almost 20 years. That to me, is a red flag. Ed Hoffman's veracity was called into question by his Father, who I believe I heard was at the scene as well, though I may be mistaken. He claims to have reported what he saw at the time but no one would pay him any attention. But he could have insisted on going on record but he didn't persist. Gordon Arnold claims are incredible, he who was told earlier by a man who showed his Secret Service credentials to get away from the fence area and then heard a shot pass right by his ear? So what did he do with the information.? He told no one at the time what he saw because he said he left the next day to be stationed in Alaska. What excuse is that? Then they show him that computer image of a photo where he is standing right alongside, (was it badge man and his accomplice?) and ask him if that could have been him, and he said it was. First off I don't believe the photo. I thought it was ironic that despite Gary Mack' reversal over time, he propagated one of the flimsier pieces of evidence in TMWKK with his Badge Man photo. But that's just my opinion. Beverly Oliver also surfaced many years later. Her excuse was that she saw other witnesses meet their death, which was the best excuse of any of the 3. I think I remember the camera model she claims to have had taken away didn't exist at that time. But she did prove to have worked for the rival club to Jack Ruby's Carousel club, though she was quite young. She came out many years later as Babushka lady after probably reading that no one had ever found Babushka Lady. JMO In all 3 of them, to me intuitively there's something very fishy. But that's just me. I tend to be very skeptical of witnesses and authors who provide new revelations after all these years. Like Roger Stone, who claims as an intern (Stone was 21 when Nixon resigned.) he was confided in by Nixon that Nixon positively believed LBJ had Kennedy killed, when there has been no other record of Nixon divulging such information to his aides, cabinet members or personal friends. Any other background information to fill in the dots he just steals from Barr Mc Clellan and Madeline Duncan Brown. But I also tend to be skeptical of more recent revelations such as RFK's desire to launch an investigation into his brother's death once he becomes President. I just felt I would have heard something else about that over all these years. It may be true, believe whatever you will.

Joe, I thought it was a very powerful story too when I first saw it. However, one question I would have asked regards what was presumably the written roster of people who attended that assassinations meeting, of which there was a list of about, I don't know 15 people was it? While it is understandable Marvin would not be able to find David Vanek 30 years later. There was an extensive list of people who could have been contacted to verify the alleged Dealey Plaza mock up and what amounted to be a recognition of a textbook case of how they killed the President and successfully put the blame on a patsy.That was my first thought on a lead that was never pursued in the excerpt. Daniel Marvin has posted here years ago,(died in 2012) and you can access him by merely searching his name. If you then pick "William Bruce Pitzer" you can see both Daniel Marvin and also Dennis David's responses to Allen Eaglesham, who apparently at one point was collaborating with Marvin and later repudiated him. While I haven't read all the material on this, Eaglesham disputes both Marvin and David that Pitzer was left handed, and accuses Marvin of asking Pitzer's wife, who responded he was right handed and omitting this information, and also makes a case regarding Marvin's inconsistent account as to the number of people Marvin said were in attendance. (which again I thought was documented by that list that was shown in that excerpt of TMWKK.) Both inconsistencies don't on the surface seem to merit his calling Marvin a "xxxx". But in the thread entitled "Daniel Marvin" Eaglesham forwards his belief that the death was in fact a suicide, by citing testimony from 2 forensic experts including Cyril Wecht, that the wounds were consistent with suicide while Wecht issues a disclaimer that suicides could be faked. If you run through those threads and find more more salient points in Eaglesham's arguments, I'd curious if you'd share them. I hope this helps.

Cool!, How did you do that? So you're asking me? I'd say John is marching with his hands in pockets. Ringo is waddling. Paul is doing his best version of "boy in the hood', and George? Is doing his best impersonation of an R. Crum character? I don't know, maybe I'm too sober, but I'm sure you'll tell me.

Fetzer's just gotten more disconnected through the years so this is practically no surprise. When I last saw Paul mac Cartney, he was 70 years old and performed as I recall 43 songs in a 4 and a half hour concert. Of course, finding doubles able to do that are just a dime a dozen. Sandy, I remember at the time the speculation "I buried Paul" but I chose to hear the other rumored "I'm very stoned". Though "stoned' admittedly can only be positively as a 1 syllable word with a long "o" as the vowel sound. Now at the bottom link, they play a link where John, later in an interview says it's "cranberry sauce". The other reference was in the White album, Revolution #9 where playing the repetitive "#9" backwards sounds like the phrase "Turn me on, dead man". Just going on Youtube you know there had to be some bloke who listened to 1000's of hours of Beatle tapes trying to ferret out and make sense of backward Beatle recordings. https://youtu.be/l2LxS7SU8wI

I've thought, given the off the wall trajectory of Trumps campaign stump talking points that he might just blurt out another kookie campaign promise like " And this Kennedy Assassination, we're going to get to the bottom of it" I suppose many Kennedy conspiracy theorists would see any kind of dialog being in the news as a positive. But I think he could set the cause further back. The MSM media could just use it to canonize the findings of the Warren Commission all over again just as they used the 50th anniversary of the assassination to that end. It would be another Trump idea trivialized into the trash heap of disparaging comments about women, Mexicans and Muslims, or cockamamie ideas such as the giant 1200 mile border wall and a massive lock down of illegals.

Dave, why do you keep evading this question? And what theory "that anyone with any sense"- (your words) would hold, do you subscribe to as to the accounts of the railway workers with the front row seats and the best acoustics? 1)The conspiracy theory that they are all liars?, that begs the question, why?? or 2)They are the victims of some smoky mass hysteria?

He didn't. Vince merely said that WHATEVER it is that Groden thinks is "gunsmoke" in the Wiegman frame is really something else. And anyone with any sense would agree with that assessment as well. I was just about to leave. "Anybody with any sense" can see through that pompous declaration, that you're faking it because you have no evidence.The question is, do you have any hard evidence that that photo is tampered. A simple yes and citing of sources or "no" is sufficient. Since your answer is reluctant no, and you're sure it's not smoke, that of course begs the question, what is it, Dave? And what obvious theory "that anyone with any sense" would hold, do you subscribe to as to the accounts of the railway workers with the front row seats and the best acoustics? 1)The conspiracy theory that they are all liars?, that begs the question, why?? or 2)They are the victims of some smoky mass hysteria?

In this case. Really I disagree with both of you. I really think carrying on the debate that Mark Lane started is what Mark would have wanted. But that wasn't my intention. It was to pay my respects, show a clip of his work that first impressed me. In passing I made a specific reference to the photograph of a small whiff of smoke. This is because if this photo is authentic, this literally a "smoking gun", but I do notice that the car in the foreground doesn't look like any car in the immediate motorcade indicating some time had to pass. Then DVP, goes off on his blog about every reference to even cigarette smoke in the plaza, prodigiously quoting his idol VB. He seems to say it was obviously a fake because Groden processed it. End of story. Then Michael and Chuck with their opposition, which I did enjoy. But nobody to this day has refuted the account of the 3 railway workers, without alleging some conspiracy among witnesses. For what? 1)So they could write a book that they never ended up writing? or 2) They were the victims of some whacky, smoky, mass hysteria. We all know that it is difficult to ascertain the origin of gunshots or any noise in a wide open area. But these guys are the only witnesses with front road seats, and good acoustics, (and when I say front row seats, they also an excellent view if there were shots from the depository.) And even if you are LNer, by what measure of investigative justice are these testimonies discounted, disallowed or changed to suit a preconceived theory? Also given the fact that the major networks showed almost no contradictory eyewitness testimony like this, except when they were forced to get their information from the earliest local broadcasts, and that was the only taste we got of it, certainly didn't say much for our democracy.

Mark Lane was the first naysayer I remember. People can't appreciate the courage one had to have to speak up at this time. I have a brother 10 years older than me, whose a surgeon, who rarely gets rattled, but whose vital signs rise significantly when confronted with evidence of a JFK conspiracy. There were many such his age at the time. When confronted with Mark Lane, he'll always conveniently paint him with his later presence at Jonestown. This video below shows a number of the Mark Lane witnesses I first saw that contradicted the Warren Report. I'll never forget S.M. Holland, an everyday common guy speaking out. He seemed to me to be a guy who couldn't lie about anything if he had to. I've heard a contradiction of Price's account that no one else saw someone running from behind the fence. But I'd be curious to hear from DVP or anyone else about the authenticity of the smoke photo at the end. https://youtu.be/HEq63vTOwcI

This has been one of my favorites. I don't think I would have minded being brought up in the Cousin's family at all. You could see why they ended the film with them. It's not a Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy film. But It ends up driving the average viewer to a precipice.The confluence of events leading up to the assassination,Kennedy's enemies, the battle stakes of the Cold war. In my mind, it accomplished exactly what it set out to do. It's tone is not of the plaintive conspiracy theorist. It has to give any halfway open, thoughtful person pause.

I would agree with Greg. I think it fulfilled a very useful function in getting people to question the official story. It did attempt to link many facets of the Assassination, and there were a number of witnesses and experts regarding a number of aspects of the JFK assassination I had not seen before. My criticism would be that it didn't meet a conspiracy theory or conspiracy witness it didn't like, and obviously all of these theories couldn't co exist with each other. I think it was made to raise doubts about the official version and give a number of conspiracy theories (credible and less credible with passing time) equal footing. I personally didn't go for the Corsican mob theory and over time I've come to disregard, Ed Hoffman, Gordon Arnold, Beverly Oliver and later Madeleine Duncan Brown and the Murchison meeting to name a few I can remember. I thought of close eyewitness testimony that was omitted that I was always liked the testimony of S.M. Holland and wondered why he wasn't included, even though he had probably passed by the time of the Documentary.

Dave Von Pein said: Yes, I guess CBS could have spent many minutes discussing the conflicting witness accounts of the President's head wound, which is, btw, still the #1 "mystery" to me in the whole case---and has been for years. I can't fully explain WHY the Parkland witnesses, as well as some Bethesda witnesses, said they saw a huge hole in the back of JFK's head. But the best evidence--the authenticated autopsy photographs and X-rays (plus the Zapruder Film)--trumps those "BOH" witnesses. No matter how many BOH witnesses there are. Hmm, Interesting Dave, So I guess when it's get down to it, we're all Cter's, We see a conspiracy in that we don't see LHO as a lone gunman, and you see all the first witnesses at Parkland and Clint Hill as a conspiracy to advocate a bullet coming from the front. Is that right ? Or is it that you think all the first people who independently verified that Kennedy's wounds were in the back of the head were simply mistaken? Would that be a sort of a mass hypnosis? Not having heard accounts from others and being verified as official observers to the head wound, isn't it remarkable how many have have said there was a big hole in the back of Kennedy's skull? Surely you can't believe that so many people could be innocently mistaken? That just isn't common sense. Let's try to ferret out motive. What would be the motive of those who falsely claim they saw the hole in the back of Kennedy's head? At that point there was no official story to uphold. On the other hand, As far as the motive to try to establish a lone gunman? Well you've heard all of our theories over and over again.Even someone like you who so adamantly wants to believe the official record and the integrity of his governments investigation could easily see a motive that they just don't believe they can get to the bottom of it, and wanted to quell the potential unrest that could come from a conspiracy. There is so much possible motive in fomenting a story line of a lone gunman, and none on the part of the witnesses to the BOH wound. Another common sense question, Why would there be a more accurate account in Washington hours later then there would be from the first witnesses and Doctors in Dallas? That just isn't common sense. Would you believe that just because the people who said it in Washington are agents of the federal government?

I enjoyed it it too Jim. Here is a Walter Cronkite interview with John J. Mc Cloy about the Warren Report. In his intro he is acknowledged as the former high commissioner for Germany. Not to get too psychoanalytical but what I'm struck with by Mc Cloy in the interview is how in answering Cronkite's questions that he's continually turning his head away from Cronkite as if to check his notes on what is presumably a spontaneous interview. It's as if he can't fix his gaze at his questioner and has to be continually retreat to himself. It's common for people to avert eye contact in an interview to perhaps collect their thoughts. But this "aside bobble head" quality of Mc Cloy looks very awkward. And Cronkite (who I was brought up with) acts like he's just thrilled and privileged that one of the esteemed Warren Commission members would actually condescend to answer questions from the public. This sort of fawning was very common among newsman to political leaders of that time. As an adolescent i remember sort of liking Walter Cronkite, but I had no idea until later that people invested such a huge amount of trust specifically in their TV anchors.His anti Viet Nam War piece was the first thing I remembered from him that was in any way defiant. IMO, He did perfectly represent the people of that time who heartily wanted to believe in their country and wanted what was best for the country despite any say, party affiliations, but definitely had their blind spots. https://youtu.be/vigbW8qdFks

I love it! Always have. Sevareid's words are oh so true. Then and now. Which is why, of course, DiEugenio feels the need to trash Mr. Sevareid. Jim simply cannot accept the basic common sense—and truth—that resides within this one single sentence: "The notion that they would do such a thing is idiotic." Dave,Since you love those 60's news icons. I don't know if you've seen this.. But apparently some others at CBS had their doubts. No less than the executive producer of the CBS evening news at the time and the eventual producer of the most commercially successful TV news magazine of the 20th century, before his death expressed doubt that Oswald was the lone assassin and actually thinks that Nixon and LBJ have some insight as to who was really behind the Kennedy assassination. I would assume if he expresses that former Presidents might be privy, that he probably doesn't have the unquestioned respect that his colleague, Severeid and you have for the WC as well. Of course this begs the question, why didn't he investigate it? Was it just a matter that he couldn't absolutely prove it, as he said? Hewitt starts at 1:15, for some reason they sync up the audio at around 5:06. Then Nixon, Garrison and an excerpt I had never heard from Jesse Curry expressing his opinion of a frontal entry. Sallinger, Yarborough, Gorbachev https://youtu.be/kNcQi46T6ME

Well first off, I don't think it's effect on the Cuban people will be just P.R. And Brad, students were hunkering down under their desks long before the Cuban missile crisis. "Those that advocate giving the Cuban snake a second chance are cordially invited to position themselves at ground zero when the 1st nukes strike the ground." Boy I don't know Brad, you seem to have great uncertainty about where this is all headed. I personally think that's one of the easier questions of the future. Despite the current official posturings. Cuba with it's dirt cheap economy and relatively educated population will become a great source of cheap labor for the worlds multi national corporate engine. From what I'm gathering, Isn't that what you want? .When it's said throughout Cuba that the average Cuban will always remember Diez y Siete de Diciembre, as a historic day in Cuban history. What do you think that means regarding the average Cuban's thoughts about America finally opening diplomatic relations with Cuba, that they dread it and are hell bent in starting a war about it? How many generations of politicians have been held hostage by the Florida anti Castro Cuban community. Clinton wouldn't touch it.One thing I've never figured out is why would would Cuban Americans for generations (50 years) help foment a policy toward Cuba that would virtually ensure that they would never reunite with their own relatives? If Clinton, (who was probably the first President who could have) actually opened had opened the doors to Cuba 20 years ago, do they really think they would be hard core Socialists (or Communist, whatever you choose) now? Is it really just about one man, who probably wouldn't have chosen to ally with the Soviet Union had he not been shunned by the military and government establishments in Washington? It's almost as if they feared if we opened relations with Cuba, and their relatives started coming into the country, after a few weeks they'd have to eventually kick their deadbeat relatives out of their verandas. Ok, maybe that's not fair, but the official stance of anti Castro Cubans toward their homeland shows absolutely no foresight, and in result, really a callous concern about the long term plight over the economic futures of their relatives, and incredibly poor judgment. Isn't it interesting when Marco Rubio is asked his reaction to Obama's opening of Cuba, you can see a general disdain, but it's like, Oh well, it certainly wasn't the end of the world. It as if after 50 years of kicking and screaming, it turned out to just be a paper tiger. It was just a stupid, hostile policy that for at least the last half was allowed to go because almost no one among them, had the courage to speak out against it. Even after everyone knew, it had outlived any usefulness.

From Post #1: "The first three people who were on the scene when the rifle was found, Weitzman, Boone and Craig were all Sheriff's Deputies. In one way or another, they all identified it as a German make." However, this is beside the point. What I am trying to stress is that anyone who claims to have read the calibre stamped on a Mauser rifle is full of beans. How many times does one person have to be wrong before you begin to seriously question his work? I don't know. While I believe Roger Craig may have been telling the truth about a good number of things, he certainly could never have read "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the barrel of an Argentine Mauser; at least, not one direct from the factory anyways. It is possible someone acquired an Argentine Mauser and stamped "7.65 Mauser" on the barrel themselves. One theory I have is that Weitzman, at a glance, ID'ed the rifle as an Argentine Mauser Model 1891, simply because the protruding magazines on this Mauser and the Carcano are so similar. Why no one simply looked closely at the Carcano to read the "6,5 CAL MADE ITALY" stamped behind the rear sight is beyond me. Craig probably heard Weitzman and later embellished the story with the calibre stamping tale. I have often wondered if he was even on the 6th floor at the time the rifle was being examined. There are pictures of Craig on the 6th floor. He said he was searching the NW corner of TSBD for a murder weapon and was 8 feet behind Deputy Sheriff Boone when he discovered the rifle.I suppose Boone's testimony would confirm or not. Craig's account begins 26:30 in link below. All the news reports by all the major news outlets on Nov. 22nd reported that the murder weapon was a German Mauser. It wasn't until I believe the afternoon of the 23rd that they corrected it to MC. News reports of Mauser start at 32:00 https://youtu.be/1pGg-rS26c4?t=1763

All good points, Jon, but you left out a few vital facts about Edwin Walkers' special case: (1) Although West Point never teaches assassination, this is no proof that motivated students would never research such a thing on their own. (2) After Edwin Walker graduated from West Point, he quickly joined a "Special Forces" unit. I wonder if "Special Forces" in 1931 meant anything like "Special Forces" meant in 1971. If so, then pinpoint covert activities would not be out of the question. (2.1) While I agree there has never been on-the-job training for political assassinations, ultimately it is a variety of covert operations, is it not? And these skills are taught somewhere, officially, are they not? Perhaps in "Special Forces?" (3) General Walker, after 30 years of outstanding military service in two wars, resigned from the US Army in November 1961 -- he did not retire as he easily could have -- but he deliberately resigned, and deliberately forfeited his 30-year Army Pension. (3.1) This made Edwin Walker the only US General to resign in the 20th century, forfeiting his Army Pension. (3.2) When asked why he did this, Walker said, "It will be my purpose now, as a civilian, to attempt to do what I have found it no longer possible to do in uniform.” (3.3) IMHO, this doesn't explain well enough the rash acting of forfeiting a lifetime service pension -- but that's what Walker did. (3.4) There was something about the Uniform and the Army itself that had turned sour for Edwin Walker. (3.5) What do you say now, Jon, as regards taking this oath seriously? Is it not really a case that Walker took his oath VERY seriously, so seriously that he would not violate his oath by keeping his Uniform and belonging to the John Birch Society? (4.0) As a matter of fact, Edwin Walker submitted his resignation once before, under President Eisenhower in 1959. What happened in 1959? Two things: (4.1) Walker read the Black Book (1959) by Robert Welch, which convinced its readers that President Eisenhower was in fact a Communist. (4.2) This meant that the entire power structure of Washington DC was under the control of the Communists, including the Pentagon. So, to avoid this contagion, Edwin Walker resigned from the US Army. (5.0) Ike denied the 1959 request. Instead, Ike promoted Walker to his new post in Germany (5.1) While in Germany, Walker made lots of enemies, especially with the US Army's Overseas Weekly newspaper there. (5.2) By 1961, the Overseas Weekly newspaper made Walker into headline news as a card-carrying member of the John Birch Society. This started a shore flap, and the JCS decided to remove Walker from his command. (5.3) Long story short, Walker resigned in November 1961, and though JFK offered to keep Walker on in Hawaii, Walker submitted his resignation for the 2nd time, and JFK accepted it. (5.5) So -- although Walker took his oath in 1931 when he joined the Army, he resigned from the Army, because of his newfound political beliefs that FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and JFK had all been Communists. (5.6) Walker joined the Radical Right political cause in the USA -- all without his Army Pension. He got plenty of money, though, from H.L. Hunt and other wealthy backers, as Walker embarked on a political career, in which he would first run for Texas Governor. (6.0) IMHO, the people who killed JFK didn't do it for money -- they did it because they TRULY in their heart of hearts, believed that JFK was a Communist, and therefore a Traitor, and therefore had to die for the good of the US Constitution. Please read the October 1963 newspaper articles I posted above. They confirm the basics of what I'm saying here. Regards, --Paul Trejo 3) General Walker, after 30 years of outstanding military service in two wars, resigned from the US Army in November 1961 -- he did not retire as he easily could have -- but he deliberately resigned, and deliberately forfeited his 30-year Army Pension. (3.1) This made Edwin Walker the only US General to resign in the 20th century, forfeiting his Army Pension. (3.2) When asked why he did this, Walker said, "It will be my purpose now, as a civilian, to attempt to do what I have found it no longer possible to do in uniform.” (3.3) IMHO, this doesn't explain well enough the rash acting of forfeiting a lifetime service pension -- but that's what Walker did. (3.4) There was something about the Uniform and the Army itself that had turned sour for Edwin Walker. (3.5) What do you say now, Jon, as regards taking this oath seriously? Is it not really a case that Walker took his oath VERY seriously, so seriously that he would not violate his oath by keeping his Uniform and belonging to the John Birch Society?2) This meant that the entire power structure of Washington DC was under the control of the Communists, including the Pentagon. So, to avoid this contagion, Edwin Walker resigned from the US Army. (5.5) So -- although Walker took his oath in 1931 when he joined the Army, he resigned from the Army, because of his newfound political beliefs that FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and JFK had all been Communists. (5.6) Walker joined the Radical Right political cause in the USA -- all without his Army Pension. He got plenty of money, though, from H.L. Hunt and other wealthy backers, as Walker embarked on a political career, in which he would first run for Texas Governor. (6.0) IMHO, the people who killed JFK didn't do it for money -- they did it because they TRULY in their heart of hearts, believed that JFK was a Communist, and therefore a Traitor, and therefore had to die for the good of the US Constitution. Whew! Paul, that's a powerful closing passage! I see in your mature years, you've at last found a hero, or maybe a. certain group from an era. The only general in the 20th century to give up his pension?? That sounds well researched. True, How many of us, would give up our pensions? To "do in civilian life, what was no longer possible to do in a uniform."!! Whoa! But truly in their heart of hearts?? Wow, I bet nobody really appreciated them at the time either. Now that's courage. I guess some fantasize being part of the March to Washington with Dr. King, some being with Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, and you have some perverse desire to be in that crowd and part oft that last flurry of the last days when white was right. ......Ok, I kinda get it.

Yeah, In their debate Bernie slammed Hillary for her association with Henry Kissinger, who she used as a recommendation, calling him one of the most destructive Secretary of States, obviously he'd cite Chile and Allende.

MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID: Please tell me you have a life beyond this case..... if you can, that is. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I can't tell you that, because I don't have a life. Haven't for years. Sorry if it bothers you. Dave, I do like your posts of recorded JFK conversation that I see in YouTube, and I think you are providing some useful services that you might not get enough credit for here. And if it's any consolation, from what I can see, you're not the only person I've encountered on these forums who has no other life beyond this case. But I appreciate your candor. I think this question can be a bit of a red herring, though I certainly wouldn't want to be reduced to a snippet to be a stooge to make your argument look good. But having said that, I'm afraid to go over to your site and see how much of it is just quoted conversations from other forums and alas realize how little other life you may have. But what I really want to talk with you about is your chicken. I suppose it's because I'm getting older, but I haven't tried it now in a number of years. It's not only because the chicken makes me fart, but I also don't like the smell of them, and in truth, they can be just a little messy. Though I'm no expert on fast food preparation, Might I suggest that you change your grease a little more frequently? Just a thought.

Obama's great achievement I think is twofold: 1.) He exposed Hillary Clinton as begin pretty much a neo con, and 2.) He has made Putin into a hero to many of us. I'm a bit miffed here Jim. How has Obama made Putin into a big hero to many of us? And why for that, is he to be credited with a great achievement?

Re: Paines, So for the down and dirty who absolutely have to some answer about their involvements before they're gone. According to Talbot they're both up in Santa Rosa, Cal. So it wouldn't have to be a bi coastal abduction. ......For anybody from any intelligence agencies that might be monitoring this site. It's just a joke! Yes she's the most interviewed witness in the 26 volumes, and she at times has been accessible. But she really hasn't addressed any of the new evidence that has surfaced in the last 25 years. It's too bad they couldn't be interviewed under the right auspices. It would be nice to see how they react to some of these questions. (is that better?) Hey "The many faces of Ruth Paine", she looks like a sort of hot 60's villainess in a Perry Mason episode. No?

What I tend to think is that is that Hume was approached as others such as Earl Warren by LBJ,(but by maybe a Naval Intelligence source?) that sources on high say that Oswald is tied to Castro and it's Hume's patriotic duty to perform certain tasks as instructed to follow a concocted lone gunman story to avert possible Nuclear War.

I agree that the biggest revelation for me in DCB was how the French Algerian right wing coupe and the attempts on De Gaulle's life and their parallel to the Kennedy assassination. I wonder what was Talbot's source for Dulles's counsel to JFK that 80% of De Gaulle's military had turned against him and his ouster if not assassination was a fait accompli? Did he site that? Other very interesting things -2 traitors Dulles and Himmler trying to negotiate the end of WW2! -Dulles was emboldened by being the first agency to resist Mac Carthy. Interesting! -Personal :That his wife was having sessions with Carl Jung! That his wife and Mary Bancroft became friends.. -The who's who corporate presence at his funeral. Yes, Talbot does refer to the power elites and Dulles and his brother's connections to them. The book IMO, is a triumph. The life and times of the spymaster, Allen Dulles is a great focus on the dark side of America's 20th Century Geopolitics. Re: the JFK Assassination, I don't come out of it feeling that satisfied, but I didn't expect to, still sadly it may be as close as we can ever get to at least the plotters. Certainly you come out of it with increased resolve that Dulles is quite the DouCh Bag, and you certainly can't put it past him. Another interesting tidbit in the book. I thought Michael Paine was in Woods Hole Mass. So he's now in Northern California, at least near where Ruth is. Hmm,