Kirk Gallaway
-
Posts
3,118 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Kirk Gallaway
-
-
28 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:
Kirk:
You say "the Libya thing". That is incorrect. HRC was not just a hawk on Libya. She was a hawk on the whole Middle East. She voted for the Iraq War, she is very pro Israel to the point that she might as well be a member of AIPAC. She then wanted to start no fly zones over Syria. It is incredible to me that the media and the public do not understand what that would produce. And the end result would be a triumph for Al Qaeda. I do not see how you can separate out Libya from the rest of her Middle East ideas. So no, I am not stuck on Libya, I am just trying to use that as an example for her whole neocon, Robert Kagan type CFR foreign policy orientation. To me, HRC was sort of like the Condi Rice of the Democratic Party. And I will never understand why Obama gave her that job. We needed a really original, bold thinker who really understood the underlying tensions and what had happened there. She did not in any way fit that bill.
Anyone who understands who JFK was and what he was trying to do in the Middle East should be repelled by HRC's policies. Right now we are allied with Saudi Arabia on the Syria front.
Jim, Did you read what I wrote? I was talking about your suggestion that Obama should have propped up Qadaffi's son in the Libya crisis and that it ignores political reality and would have relegated Obama to the political waste basket. And I think your insistence that Hillary "had a bad influence" on Obama is a lame attempt to absolve Obama as he had appointed her, and signed on off everything she did, and certainly would share whatever blame.
-
1 hour ago, Douglas Caddy said:
President Obama will likely pardon Hillary and her close aides that were involved in the email controversy, probably around Thanksgiving or Christmas when the public is absorbed in the holidays and not paying too much attention. The pardon for Hillary will cover both the email and Clinton Foundation controversies.
Doug, that you state this as a likelihood indicates to me that you seem pretty convinced they have an open and shut case against Hillary Clinton.That you think that Trump will choose to prosecute tells me that you think he is a pathologically divisive person and is learning nothing from current trials. I think the distraction of a prolonged court trial would be disastrous for everyone including Trump. And what for? Trumps followers already have Hillary out of the picture. What would really be gained? If you're right, we're headed into a national disaster.
-
29 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:
BTW Pam, the Israel angle is something I will be discussing in Dallas at Lancer. And you might want to read my review of the Grossman book at Consortium News entitled, "How Israel Stole the Bomb." JFK was the last president who really resisted Israel getting the bomb.
As per the Mideast and Russia, its pretty clear that HRC had thrown in her lot with the neocons, CFR types on Putin and the Middle East. Her policy in the latter was so different from Kennedy's. I mean the whole Libya thing was simply a debacle, the likes of which Kissinger and Nixon would have done. She had a very bad influence on Obama. In fact, i cannot understand why he gave her that job. She simply was not really qualified for it. But it turned out great for the Clinton Foundation.
Jim you're back on this Hillary Libya thing.
I didn't mention it at the time but you're suggesting that in the middle of the Libyan crisis Obama could have chosen to prop up Qadaffi's son sounds like a sinister suggestion from PNAC to rocket Obama's political career into absolute oblivion and obscurity, and ignores all political reality, which was that no matter how much money Qadaffi was going to try to buy his victims off with, the American public, given their long history was not going to warm up to Qadaffi. Right or wrong. What makes you think they'd warm up to Obama propping up his son?(much less Lindsey Graham and John Mc Cain, when they smell blood?)
Yes he'd have the entire Republican establishment against him, Obama's use to that, and the usual public political ire given Democrats when they're perceived as being soft on their enemies, but do you realize he'd have about half of the Democrats against him as as well? The limited bombing in Libya was the low hanging fruit most centrist American politician would take. It doesn't make it right, and I don't like it either. Despite how you might interpret his rhetoric, has Donald Trump ever passed up the low hanging fruit? He wades in the mud for low hanging fruit and often falls flat on his face. You think he'd pass up that chance to look tough?
i also don't know why Obama gave Hillary job that and I see no point in absolving Obama. i disagree that Hillary had a bad influence on him, (So that's the tail wagging the dog?) Obama signed off on everything she did.
-
Oh, I don't know Pam. I see a bit of sentiment here that Hillary is trigger happy. My guess is that she'd be just like Bill, and her bark would be worse than her bite. I think we could approach Putin more delicately. Trump might have been better for our relations with Putin, (unless he plays Trump and sucks him into taking measures we'll all regret, even the debates showed, he could get sucked into saying self defeating things) but even if that didn't happen, it's a big world out there, even without Russia.
Pam, I noticed white women voted decisively for Trump. Do you think it's because Hillary is perceived as a crook as you said. Or on the other hand, Do you think any part of it is internalized sexism and their participation in oppressing each other as my daughter said. Heh
-
Some great posts!
Trump all long just wanted to prove he could become President. Now the fun's really over. After he became the presumptive nominee, He starting to realize he's in way over his head. It finally occurred to him that he would actually have to govern, and that was something he knew nothing about. He. then toyed with idea of having a kind of Ronald Reagan presidency where he leaves others largely in charge of the details while he attends all the honorary functions and goes out in the stump and becomes a spokesman for a few of his pet political cause, tax and immigration reform etc..
He decided to offer Kasich a unprecedented amount of political policy power to serve as his Vice president, but he refused.It was so important for him to win at any cost,even by bitterly dividing the nation with his rhetoric then he expects forgiveness and now realizes that everyone has been more gracious to him than he ever could be. When he was with Obama he looked old and burned out. He's been campaigning for a year and a half now and he's 70 years old.But he's got a few friends, Wall Street has come to realize that this and a unified government could be their heyday, major income tax reform, cut the corporate tax in half and repatriate all those dollars.Trump makes a conciliatory speech, the markets turn around from a 800 point plunge. The next day HC gives a gracious concession speech, the markets skyrocket. Rumors circulate that Trump wants the CEO of JP Morgan Chase to be the Treasury secretary, great for another leg up. Deregulation on many levels, get the cops out of Wall Street, privatize Social security, all music to their ears. Trump wants increased infrastructure spending, up go all construction and material stocks. Unlike Hillary, Trump will initiate a new buildup now in defense spending, defense stocks pop,which can hardly be good. Cliff's right, the national debt has no impact on economic growth in periods of low interest , or the ability to wage war. Did it stop Reagan in a period of high interest? Yes we could still spend ourselves into another oblivion.
David is right. Trump and Putin as the economic/military bulwark against China was the initial plan, but as all the Trump plans, was not thought out in great detail.. Trump has too much financial interest and connections in Russia and is as conflicted as the Clinton's in many matters. But when it really gets down to it, his friends with interests in Asia, may remind him it's not fair that he should favor his own interests in Russia and I tend to think that after some tough talk and a few days of unsettling market anticipation he gets a quarter of what he wants in renegotiation and claims a massive victory.
Though Trump may not be a mainstream Republican, the effect will historically be the same, the Republicans find the people who feel they've been forgotten so they can forget them all over again as they always have.I stole this because it was good.--- Only in America does anyone ever talk of the "popular" vote. In every other country, it's just called "the vote". -
In the public hearings, the CIA will “admit” that Hunt was involved in the conspiracy to kill Kennedy. The CIA may go so far as to “admit” that there were three gunmen shooting at Kennedy.
Yeah ? coulda,shoulda, woulda. We didn't even get the limited hangout.
-
Douglas, I remember your revealing your conversation at dinner with Hunt on a "Dark journalist" interview a couple of years back,was it? My thoughts about it were that Hunt was under no obligation to tell you any truth about his motives for the Watergate break in, and perfect to the spy cast pathological xxxx he was, after relenting he gave you the most perfect dumfounding response he could think up that would have you leave pondering the implications, and keep his secret in tact. As any good spy, I'm sure he had given it some thought beforehand. JMO
Having said that, you seem open to other reasons as well and I look forward to reading about these documents being pursued that link through a chain of events a decision by Vice President Nixon in 1960 to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy three years later, as you've stated.
-
When you talk of a "penchant" for war , I think of multiple incidents, perhaps the size of Libya. Lets contrast: Papa Bush instigated the First Persian Gulf War: Massive mobilization halfway around the world, 700,000 US troops on the ground, massive aerial bombing over a couple of countries, then the Panama invasion, 30,000 boots on the ground, aerial bombing. Then Somalia, though protecting a relief effort, 25,000 troops, aerial bombing. That's an exponential difference in magnitude, to put it mildly. Now that's a penchant!
Bush Jr? ...........well, ............ -
I do not recall any other Kennedy associate or family member coming out and being explicit as Walinsky is here about how the Democratic Party of today has completely abandoned what the Kennedy brothers stood for in the sixties.Jim, You understand my confusion. You didn't state that Detente with Putin was your focus. Your focus was that the Democratic Party has abandoned the Kennedy legacy though you weren't clear about what Kennedy legacy the Democratic party has abandoned. I would probably disagree with both of you that the Democratic Party was ever a non interventionist Peace party while JFK was President and the closest they came near it, was later, due to a grass roots movement that owed almost none of it's genesis to the Kennedys, their assassinations or martyrdom, and was in full force before RFK ever threw his hat in the ring. But putting that aside.What Adam is doing is very specifically saying that the modern Democratic party has abandoned attempts to achieve detente with Putin. And they have also expanded the war on terror and the penchant to go to war for any pretext.Jim, just to be clear, since you've read the article, despite spending so much of the article professing his Kennedy legacy of peace,Walinsky is advocating expanding the war on terror. He's aligned himself with Trump's most definitive hawkish statement that there will be "no quarter" for Isis, (oooo, tough talk, I feel better!) and enlisting Putin to help us. Right?Penchant, to go to war for any pretext? At the beginning of the Obama presidency we had 185,000 troops in Afghanistan, now we have what 10,000? We can talk about the expanded use of drones and continued military presence overseas. But would you like to explain that "penchant" for me? Maybe contrast it to the previous administration?Frankly, I think Walinsky might some day run for office, as most of this sounds like a foreign policy platform, where's he's blathering on about his connections to the Kennedy's and their legacy of peace, to offset his stump for Trump as the "Peace" candidate.But to deal with your point, and since the press has focused on Trumps alleged love affair with Putin, which of course he inflamed with statements encouraging Russians to hack Hillary's e-mails, (which we know now positively they're doing.) I would agree with you, that we could have friendlier relations with Putin and should make more of an effort, but I don't see that as the panacea that Walinsky does. And it's insane in any way to compare the present U.S- Russia relations as anything resembling the Cold War.Jim, I remember earlier this year, you said you were voting for Hillary. Honestly, I thought that a bit odd as the theme you keep hammering home about JFK in this forum is that Kennedy had a non interventionist foreign policy, a view I share with you. I wondered if you had followed the campaign of Bernie Sanders at all. He seemed much more in tune with your espoused beliefs than Hillary. Since you've already offered who you were voting for, are you still voting for Hillary?
-
Jim, this is really such tripe.IMO, The only thing to be gained in this article is to shed light on the regretful reality that the neocons have somehow co-opted Kennedy as their own and actually evoke memories of the Kennedy's or their assassinations as a powerful recruiting tool. You can see this in a number of "underground" radio stations and tv channels such as newsmax.I'm sure Adam won't see himself as a neocon. But to challenge his thesis, you need only to to look at the last 30 years. Since Bush senior what party has really been more guilty of regime change and interventionist wars,(and one doozy at that) and aggressive troop deployment. And then his wishful naivete about Trump run counter to any of a number of statements he himself has made. It's not hard to supply specifics.
-
I don't understand the Mafia vs. CIA argument that just occurred here. I thought it was well established that the CIA had Mafia types doing work for them. Doesn't everybody agree with that?
(Sorry to keep the OT going. I just want to know if the above isn't true. Does Chris think the Mafia "did it?" Without the CIA's planning?)
In 1977, the House Select Committee on Assassination’s Chief Counsel Richard Sprague and his deputy Robert K. Tanenbaum were both compelled to resign, soon replaced by G. Robert Blakey. From their early questioning of witnesses and their later public statements, it’s clear that both Sprague and Tanenbaum believed that Amercian Intelligence organizations were involved in the assassination of JFK. Sprague’s replacement, G. Robert Blakey, seemed to indicate that he believed the Mob did it.Most researchers today, I believe, would agree with the statement that, at the very least, the fingerprints of American Intel are all over this case. So what about the Mob?There is no question that the CIA made use of the Mob in the 1960s and early 1970s. The most famous of these misadventures probably involved attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro, which were almost comically unsuccessful (enough so to make some people wonder how serious they were).Ever since Blakey’s HSCA diverted attention from American Intel to the Mob, now half a century ago, the true nature of this crime has been hidden, at least in my opinion. Recently here, a researcher began looking at Jack Ruby’s possible ties to organized crime figures, which I think has been largely a cover story to hide the fact that he was probably some sort of CIA asset. (Though, I suppose, in Jack’s line of work it’s pretty easy to rub elbows with some unsavory characters.) But I believe the whole Mob-did-it thing is just an excuse. I believe Ruby was a mechanic who helped create the events of 11/22/63 in Dallas, including the framing of “Lee Harvey Oswald,” and that he took his directions from the CIA’s David Atlee Phillips via the two men’s mutual friend (and Dallas radio station co-founder) Gordon McLendon.Interesting thread.
I remember in the 70's when it was divulged that the CIA and organized crime had ties in 60's, it made a lot of sense to me. Still to this day, many have this either/or attitude, as if it had to be one or the other depending on what you believe. I'm reminded in an interview in the later 60's, Garrison bristled and became very adamant about alleged mob complicity. But he didn't deny it either. He just stated the obvious, that the systematic coverup and concealment of evidence could only be carried out with government complicity, and suspected the CIA was the mastermind behind it.
I do agree over investigating JR's mob ties can be a diversion, but in light of the revelations of complicity in the 70's, doesn't it just strengthen the case against the CIA?
-
Did watching that 3 minute and twenty-one second long section whet your appetite to watch more, maybe even the whole thing? Maybe some of the photo evidence you're looking for is in it yet. (What were you hoping for exactly? A full frontal view?) Look at it this way, maybe you'll hear her say something you can prove to be false!
No it didn't really whet my appetite to spend that much more time on it, and I'm not much motivated to prove her wrong but I appreciate you sending me what you thought was the best excerpt. But to be fair, I decided I should watch and watched most of it. My impression was that for someone who claimed to not know that much about the Kennedy assassination, she was foraying into economics and gave her silver certificate rap as a motive for the assassination. Then postulating an assassin. Does anybody really believe her very up front photo of the assassin from that 70's British documentary? (At least that's where I first saw it.) Do you know the narrator actually later positively identified the shooter as David Ferrie?If you're rooting for a credible presentation, don't you think she should just stick to the particular area that she knows?, because she loses credibility going off on these tangents. I did see a better hour interview with her one time, a format that is usually more objective.(she's a big GW fan, she seems more concerned about the lives lost in Vietnam than she was about the lives lost in Iraq, but OK, I digress.) I think she did sound believable in that excerpt but you have to keep in mind this is coming from someone who would occasionally tune around to "Celebrity Apprentice" and thought Donald Trump was a responsible spokesman with his feet on the ground, at least on the show.But it doesn't matter if she was Babushka Lady, because her most noteworthy assertion was not as Babushka Lady, but her assertion that 1)she saw Ruby and LHO together and 2) Ruby introduced LHO as a CIA agent. If you believe her, then you've hit gold. The reason Ruby would be so indiscreet would fit in perfectly with Ruby's need to be a hero or a person of some influence. He was just an indiscreet character.
I just mentioned her reporting about the corroboration of that by Jada because if we don't necessarily believe everything she says, it's a good idea to cross reference what she says with a third party, who in this case did not confirm it after the assassination. There was a lot of speculation in the press after the assassination as to whether Ruby and LHO knew each other. Jada gave numerous interviews, Beverly Oliver didn't. She said it was because she was in fear of her life. But was there really that much repercussion for high profile witnesses on TV who gave interviews before the "official story" came out? Murdering them would only draw more attention to the truth of their testimony. So instead we're lead to believe that Jada, who seemed very forthcoming about her relationship with Jack Ruby in any one of her numerous interviews was lying and that she had in fact, seen Ruby and LHO together? Ok, who can prove otherwise now?
One thing I thought was interesting is that she didn't mention seeing any pictures of the alleged assassin for 2 days until she watched him get murdered on TV, when she realized she had seen him before.
Hey, But if I met Beverly, I'd shoot the sh-t with her. Give her some harmony on "'Amazing Grace". Get down and pray with her for earthquake free fracking.Ok, but seriously, There are a number of witnesses, some I tend to believe and some I don't and I like to hear some of the learned collective wisdom of this forum weigh in on some of them.
I'm not sure this applies to Beverly Oliver but I do think it's unfortunate sometimes that witnesses are discredited because their memories may fade in time,and they accept someone else's account as their own account about some minor details about the assassination. That doesn't mean their whole story is false. Apart from even time decay, it's hard to give a completely accurate account of an incident you just witnessed. But that obviously doesn't mean we discredit the character of all witnesses.
That ankles comment from Mary Ferrell reminds me of a famous quote."She's a dumb broad, with skinny ankles."Frank Sinatra talking about Nancy Reagan.Case closed
-
I don't know whether [beverly Oliver is] the Babuska Lady or not, but the B-Lady certainly looks like she is filming the assassination.
Whether or not she is the Babuska Lady, Beverly Oliver certainly knew Jack Ruby, she worked at the Colony Club, she knew a guy named Larry Ronco who worked for Kodak and at the Texas State Fair and she was with Jack Ruby and Larry Meyers when they had dinner at the Egyptian Lounge on the night before the assassination, contrary to the Warren Report that says Ruby was with Ralph Paul.
I don't know what it is, but there seems to be a spate of attacks on witnesses on this forum and wonder why these witnesses are so threatening and if this is contageous?
BK
bumped
What I've highlighted in red above is the impression I've gotten since becoming a member of the forum. So far, every time I've asked another member why they believe a particular witness is a phony, I've receive IMO lame reasons..
Nevertheless I'm glad there are those on the forum who look for and share reasons not to believe a witness. They save me a lot of time and effort in doing so myself.
Hmm, I don't know Sandy, but in the case of Gordon Arnold, where he admits to being part of a computer simulated photo that once showed just one figure (badge man) and now shows three with the assassin and an accomplice only a few feet behind Arnold and firing by his ear to corroborate his story, and we both agree the photo is bogus, (let others think what they will.) I'm not sure what reasoning would qualify as greater than 'lame' for you. But having said that, maybe it's the rebellion against that gullibility that you profess, that leads you to delve and use some of those unique sleuthing skills you possess.
Thomas, when you recommended to watch that short excerpt from Beverly Oliver, I was expecting more photo evidence of who the Bubushka lady was. Instead the highlight is really her in front of an audience hunkering down and saying "That's me, I'm the Bubushka Lady", and that is relevant for our subjective judgments, she does sound convincing.
On the other hand, Yes, I've always thought Bubushka Lady dresses more like a woman approaching middle age then a sexy 17 year old, wanting to get the attention of her President. She does make a reference in mwkk that Jada who worked at the Carousel (Oliver didn't)had seen Ruby and LHO together, but Jada had denied she had seen them together when asked by newsmen after the assassination.
But what if she was the Bubushka lady? What new evidence did she provide that no one else in that proximity didn't? To me the most noteworthy part of her story is the confiscation of the film she alleges taking. Isn't it?
-
Welcome Toby!, Part of that 1977 confrontation is here. The venue is mistakenly called the University of South Carolina in the caption, but is corrected to Southern California at the beginning of the broadcast.
The contributor, Denis Morrisette said in his comments that this is not the tape of Phillips stating that Oswald was probably not in Mexico City. There is some inconsistency in while he says he read that Phillips said that 2 years earlier (1975), at about 20:27 Lane says Oswald's presence in Mexico City is one thing Phillips has said he's sure of.
Maybe you can look up Denis Morrissete and ask him where to find Phillip's admission, if there is one on tape. Let me know if you find something.
-
Sandy Said: "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.
Yes, you're right about Hoffman, since he actually saw the shooter. But as I understand it, Hoffman did try to alert the SS and FBI, but they couldn't understand him as he was deaf and dumb. His father was afraid for his son's life and it was he who opposed going to authorities.
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKhoffman.htm
I now remember seeing Hoffman explain what happened in a video on YouTube. I found his story compelling.
As for Arnold, at age 22 he was but a kid. And all he knew was that he'd had an encounter with an SS agent. If he had to ship out the following day.... well, there you go. The kid had to leave.
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKarnoldG.htm
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
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
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.
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.
-
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?
-
So much for Mark Lane's wake....
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.
Trump?
in JFK Deep Politics
Posted
You're right Bob. I forgot to mention that. That would be an admission of guilt of the previous Democratic Party Presidential nominee, who had just been campaigning for President for the entire last year and a half. Doug,IMO I wish not to infringe on anyone's rights. But I think you should take Heavy news off your reading list.
Doug, that you state with such certainty indicates to me that you seem pretty convinced they have an open and shut case against Hillary Clinton.That you think that Trump will choose to prosecute tells me that you think he is a pathologically divisive person and is learning nothing from current trials. I think the distraction of a prolonged court trial would be disastrous for everyone including Trump.And what for? Trumps followers already have Hillary out of the picture. What would really be gained. If you're right, we're into a national disaster.