Kirk Gallaway

At this point, I think the only break we could possibly get in 6 months, would be the suppression of records of Harvey, Angleton, Phillips, Morales as I heard rumored earlier. We should jump on that like leeches in heat!

Yes, unbriefed, speaking off the top of this head, promising the world. Unable to effectively pull any levers of government. Unable to anticipate, Always caught with pants down, Declares a national war on opioids, but may not even know it yet, he's not going to spend a dime of Federal money on it. I can' believe that he's happy about it He'll forget about it soon enough. This is about the only time I've been sad that he can't get anything done. About the only way one could shift some of the blame away from Trump is to say he got bad advice because after appointing all of his friends to cabinet positions only to be exposed as crooks, that leaves the only ones around him to be generals. Just venting, he's a great guy.

Hey i say: If Trump and Stone don't finally solve this assassination once and for all tomorrow. Let's impeach their as-es!! Impeach Trump as President and impeach Stone as the self appointed savior of our JFK conspiracy movement! ---Oh I'm sorry for any Trumpsters, I got carried away---Well how about Stone?

I'm not sure I find that as unlikely, they probably see themselves as being more independent thinkers.I'm not sure how much independent voters overlap with the "undecided voters" that can't make up their mind until the last days of the Presidential elections. Who can figure out what those people are thinking? About Dave's comment about the numbers reaching parity among the well educated. Sandy, I thought you made a really good observation about that a few days ago about a respected,well educated friend or acquaintance of yours who was a LN. that i wanted to comment on at the time. I think the future journalists, academics, historians, the more educated, people who run for political office , the people in broadcast media, who shape public opinion in the future will increasingly be more inclined to be LNer's. I think the only thing that can disturb this trend is a major break in the case, and if this new release of documents doesn't produce that, there will be another small spike up in the LNer numbers. Just my observation, I'd be curious to hear anyone else.

Jim says: He actually said in public that the CIA must have something to hide if they are still resisting this 54 year later. I don't know what's so profound about that? You or I could have said it. Jim says: I think he deserves some credit for this and I will try and do so in my appearances. About the only sure asset that anyone can say with certainty that Trump has is that he knows his own personal interests. After Trump's own rhetoric of distrust about his justice, law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and some of their persecution of him. i hardly think he needs any counsel from Roger Stone to tell him that. I don't why you'd insist on legitimizing by even mentioning Roger Stone particularly in light of some of your criticism of him. He's irrelevant. The most helpful thing I can say is, find your own voice in these interviews.That's my media advice, for whatever it's worth...---K

Steve, undoubtedly. Any reference to past CIA wrongdoing Trump sees as a plus for him. Particularly in light of the ongoing investigations into Trump.

Steve, undoubtedly. Any reference to past CIA wrongdoing Trump sees as a plus for him. Particularly in light of the ongoing investigations into Trump.

I remember Mort Sahl as largely political comedian from a very early age before I cold understand the meaning of his jokes. As any political humorist of his day, he was never really a huge commercially successful comedian. His heyday was when he was a frequent on the Smothers Brothers show, during the Viet Nam War period. I remember, he would use the exclusive "we" a lot, pertaining to be of the liberal movement of that day, which I related to. Though I thought it spanked of a "we are the other people" sort of snobbishness. I have heard his 70's foray into the Kennedy assassination on FM radio at the time and there's no doubt, he held to his beliefs. In the early 80's he became an avid follower of Ronald Reagan and alluded to being a close personal friend of Nancy Reagan. My friends and I at the time thought that was a real 180. I saw a TV interview where the interviewer remarked that came as a surprise to him as he had always thought Sahl as a Liberal, which sort of embarrassed Sahl, and he denied any real political affiliation.

So they're overcompensating now. I've heard they've hired a total of 4000 people this year to go through posts. Doug, i wonder if you're given a forum or you intend to ask them what specifically is their issue with what you've written. It makes me wonder if they're actually doing this to try to make a statement about how difficult what they're being asked to do is.

Paul, My greatest problem with your theory is that upon discovering that Walker was behind the JFK assassination the authorities would have responded by stomping on this faction with their little toe. Remember that up to that point there were no urban race riots, but peaceful protests and on the right there were just singular acts of resistance and a few small cowardly lynchings. (so what else is new?) The capture of Walker would not have incited blacks at all because the media would have seized the narrative just as they did with Oswald and portrayed it as personal revenge for Walker's treatment at the hand of the Kennedys. So I assume you think the capture of Walker would foment an insurgence from the white racists, but the facts are that up to that point they had backed off at every confrontation to Federal forces. Why would the Feds fear them? I can't imagine a government on the fly, as you say, brazenly risking exposure that they covered up the killing of a very popular President to protect a group of white racists. Somehow making this calculus that a largely regional white backlash was much greater to be feared than the broad nationwide revolt across the political spectrum that would have ensued had the public found out that the government had in fear not punished those who negated their choice at the ballot box. I can tell you with certainty, no one would have accepted the excuse that their government was cowering in fear at the feet of this group. It is just a fundamental flaw.

Certainly the Central Asian link was prominent back the, hence the U'S-Brit invasion of Iran with the thought of securing their oil fields before Hitler. i think the crown jewel of that area were the Baku fields in Azerbaijan. But of course of Central Asia if you don't include Iraq and Iran were controlled by the Soviets. It's a great question Steve. But a very speculative and tough one. If you assume the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. You might think of a link to Texas oil men, but it really doesn't involve that much money that any number of groups could have invested, either separately or jointly.

Certainly the Central Asian link was prominent back then. Earlier there was the Anglo Russian invasion of Iran in 1941 with the thought of securing their oil fields before Hitler did. i think the crown jewel and long prized assets of that area were the Baku fields in Azerbaijan, that you've mentioned that Cheney Baker and Bushes are now involved in. But of course, Central Asia if you don't include Iraq and Iran were controlled by the Soviets back in the 60's. It's a great question Steve. But a very speculative and tough one. If you assume the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. You might think of a link to Texas oil men, but it really doesn't involve that much money that a government or any number of private groups could have invested, either separately or jointly.

All right Glenn, you've convinced me. Paul, knock off the f---------n' semantics! Hah Don't let the mighty generals----turn you around S.M.B.---not S.M.!

Glenn, So anything short of a complete CIA -did-it theory is "defending the CIA" in your judgment?

Jim, My compliments on a confined and poignant series of presentations. I posted, I believe it was also one of Gil Jesus's clips which look to be identical but extends to capture the accounts of Sam Holland. I've always assumed by Dodd's account "I seen what we all seen" that Simmons, Dodd and Holland were together or very close to each other. These witnesses seemed to be very credible, accounting the same thing. They were all modest men, who seemed completely without guile, who never wrote a book afterwards. I was very impressed with their accounts and asked as to any claims about their credibility. I remember DVP discredited it because in his opinion, that rifle couldn't have smoked, and that's all I've heard. About Krock, there's been some discrediting about Krock that Krock long before was being used by JFK's father to further his ambitions, and was very sympathetic to the Kennedy family. However true that might have been. There can be no doubt that Krock's article was "'inside" and accurately reflected the views of JFK, and the story was made with the purpose of outing his current conflicts with the CIA.

At least one of us speculate Nixon might have been trained by and controlled by the Dulles brothers early on. Ron, Isn't that kind of a low bar? One person can speculate anything!! I'm aware of all those connections. I hold more credence to Nixon ties to Prescott Bush because I know of that tie. We can all agree that given Nixon's actions throughout his career, he's hardly above suspicion. But when politicians go to war zones , they confer with military heads, people with knowledge on the ground ( Lansdale's first came to Viet Nam in the mid 50's!) It's also not unusual for politicians to go to their embassy, which is where Lansdale worked. This is what they did then and do to this day. Nobody would find this unusual. Certainly a picture of Nixon with Lansdale is hot and will raise a lot of speculation here. Why not? It would be interesting to hear anything "juicy" in what they might have said. But as for Nixon's being there in the first place, any political campaign manager worth his salt would say "Dick, get your xxx to Nam and reinvent yourself", which is really what that trips about. Having some experience growing up with Nixon in California, no one will convince me otherwise that the foremost drive going on with Nixon at that point in his career is getting elected President.

That's right Mathias, not all war criminals are Nazis. heh heh

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!