Kirk Gallaway

Jeff: Kirk - I have no idea what your post means or is getting at! No it's perfectly clear in my first and last sentence, at the top of this page!. Read it again. The story is above. Now for the third time. This story represents a breach of trust between Prouty and Stone. First sentence: Kirk to Jeff: So to address what I've brought before you. Be clear. You're saying you know with certainty that such an argument involving these issues didn't happen between Stone, Prouty and Newman? Last sentence: :Kirk to Jeff: And Jeff that's a serious question I asked you. Clear enough for ya. Jeff?

Ok Jeff, So to address what I've brought before you. Be clear. You're saying you know with certainty that such an argument involving these issues didn't happen between Stone, Prouty and Newman? and regretted mythic character hero of Stone film lore, supernal Colonel Prouty didn't get pouty? heh heh a joke Let's be clear, the scene involving Donald Sutherland is the most popular scene of JFK. It's also the most essential. Without it, it's just a lot of loose plot weaver's skeins. Stone goes from Ferrie, to Bannister, to Dulles to LBJ to Clay Shaw, to Jimmy Hoffa and who else?. The great majority of the people going to see the movie aren't hardcore JFKA freaks. That scene ties everything together or no serious critic would waste his time on it. That scene reveals the entire whodunit of the film! After spending all the time and money on the film, and getting all the resistance Stone got for making the film, if Stone was to find out Prouty wasn't near as credible as he first thought. You really think he'd scream to the press about it? Of course not! ***** We'll leave aside Prouty's folding like an armchair before the ARRB softball finals* as I realize he is somewhat of a Trumpian figure and his appeal is beyond any performance expectations for you, but regarding the continual denial about Prouty's extensive involvement with right wing organizations asserting that he in essence didn't know who he was with, or what W. and Jeff Carter now boast as the "original" Steve Scalise defense! I mean that's about as believable as Jim Di telling us Jackie was the only one! Heh heh *I understand hard core pro Proutyist's will scream "deep state!" and question if he should have been asked to testify at all, but that was a softball interview! And Jeff that's a serious question I asked.

This article is well worth the read. It reveals of the conflict Oliver Stone was faced with during the shooting of JFK, which eventually came to a boiling point between Stone, Prouty and John Newman. https://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100whox.html First Stone's initial reaction to the charges of Prouty's right wing connections, then the introduction of John Newman. Stone -- whose father is Jewish, as it happens -- seemed unconcerned. After being assured by Prouty that he was neither a racist nor an anti-Semite ("I never met a Jew I didn't like," said Prouty) but merely a writer in need of a platform, he rejected advice to drop the colonel as a technical adviser and to rewrite Mr. X so that Prouty could not be identified. "I'm doing a film on the assassination of John Kennedy," said Stone, "not the life of Fletcher Prouty." The bullheadedness had an element of calculation, because by then, Stone had recruited a Vietnam adviser with far more heft than Prouty, an active-duty US Army major named John Newman. Meticulous, low-key, methodical -- everything, in sum, Prouty was not -- Newman had been quietly working with Stone since the spring of 1991. He'd first learned of the film from a publishing friend who informed him that Stone had an assassination movie in the works, in which Vietnam would figure prominently. Stone's thesis, the friend had said, was that Kennedy, had he lived, would have withdrawn from Vietnam -- precisely the subject that Newman, a highly experienced intelligence specialist, had been privately researching for his Ph.D. thesis for nearly a decade. During that time, he had ferreted out fifteen thousand pages of documents -- three times the total of the Pentagon Papers -- and interviewed scores of top-ranking sources. The data, checked and rechecked, had led him, bit by bit, doubt by doubt, to an explosive conclusion: Not only had Kennedy put in motion the withdrawal just weeks before his death, but an intricate secret operation, involving the US Saigon command and certain US-based foreign-policy officials, had been systematically deceiving the White House about the disastrous course of the war. ***** The showdown onset with Stone, Prouty and Newman.: The showdown took place in an Interior Department office that had been made over to appear like the Pentagon lair of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. While technicians set lights for the next scene, Stone summoned Prouty and Newman and came right to the point. Prouty's association with Livingstone must immediately end. No more information was to be provided to him, and Prouty was to do his utmost to ensure that he would not publish anything that would discredit the film. Then Stone turned to Prouty's misreading of the critical NSAM. "What's the story, Fletch?" he asked. Prouty began by saying that he had confused the four-page draft NSAM 273 with the one-paragraph NSAM 263. When Stone, who had seen both documents, appeared dubious, Prouty switched tactics, claiming that the draft NSAM was a forgery and that the source from which it had come -- namely, the Kennedy Library -- had been "infiltrated." At that, Newman tore into him. Prouty was wrong, he said: about Bundy, about "infiltration," about the NSAMs, about the entire case. Unaccustomed to being dressed down by a junior officer, Prouty erupted. "Fletcher really went into orbit," recalled a witness to the meeting. "He jumped up and went into this long tirade about his forty years and how he had done everything and written everything and briefed everybody and if that wasn't good enough for Oliver, he was quitting." At length, Stone managed to pacify Prouty and the session ended in edgy detente. The incident, though, seemed to mark a turning point for Stone, not only in his unquestioning regard for Prouty, from whom he gently began to distance himself, but in his attitude about the assassination and his film. Never again would he wax quite so rhapsodic about Garrison, whose appalling blunders he had belatedly begun to appreciate. Among his staff, which had long been trying to wean him from the DA, there was hope that, in editing, Stone would loop in a line or two, making his new skepticism clear. Under the growing influence of more of the serious buffs, he was now even willing to admit doubt, not that there had been a conspiracy, or that Vietnam had been its ghastly consequence, but doubt in the certainty that he knew everything.

Thanks Leslie, You do have to wonder what Hamas was thinking. Sure they have lot of hostages, but they murdered so many innocent people! They had to know that Israel will be so mad they'll be quite willing to lose some hostages, and wreak 20 times the destruction and kill considerably more people first. Of course many of us have been saying for decades there should be a 2 state solution.. Netanyahu has been around since the 80's, and now he just thinks he's indispensable and just won't leave! Earlier this year, I was praying to Jerusalem that he was going to be finished for good, and then he forms that coalition with the super right wing! I don't put much faith in the Bible prophecies but I'm hoping after all this is over, that people finally get rid of Netanyahu, he's been an antagonist to the Palestinians, and he's been overselling his "peace through strength" crap. Hopefully people will put it together when only a couple of weeks ago he was so rosy about the peace talks with the Saudis, and ignoring the situation at home, so that now he's been caught with his pants down. JMO

“Bobby might share the same name as our father, but he does not share the same values, vision or judgment. Today’s announcement is deeply saddening for us. We denounce his candidacy and believe it to be perilous for our country.” Said sisters Rory Kennedy, Kerry Kennedy and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend; and brother Joseph P Kennedy II in a statement posted on X, formerly known as Twitter. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/09/robert-f-kennedy-jr-siblings-presidential-campaign

Hey, do you think we'll at last get an impassioned condemnation of Trump from Jim Di now? heh heh heh Probably still not Ben though. Ben strains with every nerve to say that both RK and Trump are the foremost figures in releasing the JFKA files!. https://t.co/CFMBdFW4GE Anxious’ Team Trump Plans Attacks on RFK Jr.: ‘We Have a Lot of Stuff on Him’ “We’re gonna be dropping napalm after napalm on his head reminding the public of his very liberal views, dating back to 2012,” one unnamed source told the news outlet. “We have a lot of stuff on him.” It is staggering for me to learn how so many avowed Kennedy "experts" and huge Kennedy admirers here on the forum have any real idea of what his Father's legacy really was!

Jim: MM did not have "affairs" with either JFK or RFK! Yeah easy for you to say Pam! But just think if Jim, after 100's and 100's of hours research only was to find out that either of the Kennedy brothers had sex with Marilyn Monroe.? I can't imagine a more profound disappointment in the Kennedy's for Jim. I'd say it's probably historically tantamount to the profound sense disappointment, and even revulsion that Cassidy Hutchinson felt toward Trump after the 1/6 insurrection. It would take awhile to sink in, as Jim would have to grapple with the 7 stages of grief! heh heh Well, First of all I don't believe the Kennedy's killed MM. Of course, if the Kennedy' killed MM that would have been the scandal of the Century. But it falls into that category here where no one will have definitive proof but people do push their credibility and parade their list of credited sources. Let everybody try to assemble facts that support their conclusions But IMO it's important that people don't take their conclusions quite so seriously. Jim has spent so much time and emotional energy defending the Kennedys, I'm afraid he's going to have a heart attack! But this idea that Michael pushes that Rothmiller makes `these horrendous allegations of the Kennedy's but somehow it's mitigated because he thinks the Kennedys "did many great things" and he speaks favorably about their policies and achievements, doesn't make him any more credible in my eyes, in fact he sounds more like a con to me.. Writers do project different credibility to different readers. Once a reader has established an acceptance of an author to the point he has invested his time in reading, and when readers are persuaded by a perceived credibility of an author that also may confirm their possible biases, it's my observation here, that they may never come back to a neutral position. Of course you can't blame the author, because isn't that what they are supposed to do? It's just my opinion It's not impossible, but I'm not near believing the Kennedy's were behind the death of MM. Particularly with her history and susceptibility to drugs. But I would never put it beyond Bobby to use his position as AG to say, first sweep the Monroe premises of any trace of Kennedy presence if there was. And it's not impossible IMO that the mob or someone else wanted to get rid of her. And I'm content to occasionally tune in but probably not too intently. I'll never be an expert because in my mind , unlike the JFKA and RFKA, the ship has passed. IMO

If you saw what I saw Said the mighty Trump to the Tucker boy "If you saw what I saw what I saw!" " If you saw what I saw!" From his palace warm , said the mighty Trump "If you saw what I saw" "If you saw what I saw" A file, a file, he promised to unfold Let us bring him silver and gold! Let us bring him silver and gold! From the Tucker boy, said the mighty Trump "If you saw what I saw what I saw!" " If you saw what I saw!" Ringing through the sky, said the mighty Trump "If you saw what I saw what I saw!" " If you saw what I saw!" His words, at last will give us some respite With a tale as big as a kite! With a tale- as- big- as- a- kite!

Oh, now foraying into politics, Jim? Ok, I'll bite. Oh yes Jim, I can only "imagine" how silly people will be then . And it's so unwarranted because only about a tenth of RK's supporters are like you, and the rest of his support are Republicans, right Jim? Actually this has been news for a week. And it's the first RK news that Ben is too embarrassed to bring up, because some of us predicted it. Could there be any greater American political family sense of entitlement catastrophe than RK? The closest that comes to mind is Jeb Bush. But RK is actually worse. RK is somewhere between 9-11% in a much smaller field than Jeb, and by his own admission, he is more successful at picking up the opposition Republican Party's votes than he is the party of generations of his own family! Oh, that it's all because of the "Deep State"/ MSM, Operation Mockingbird! Right? But all you have to do is look at his very clever political hack strategy.(a joke ) (Ben, can we knock off this RFK2?) He's the complete antithesis of who his father was becoming. Cowering from Trump, cowering from corporate interests, abandoning his environmental past for industrialists. Nothing about the working man, not pro union, not pro UAW strike. Ben will be happy to know that's he's exported the manufacturing of his campaign T shirts to Honduras! Conveniently nothing about wealth inequality! Gil , as I recall, weren't you a Postal Worker? Don't you know anything about where RK stands? I'd roll back a little of what his uncle did, and slap a wealth tax on his ass!. I didn't read that anywhere in his platform! See how he likes that! heh heh You can make a significant case that Trump's coverage is biased by the political establishment, but it also reflects the true sentiment of 60% of the populace. None of you have anything near the specific knowledge to be making any allegations that RK's miserable failure is in any significant way due to the "deep state". He's never reached the point where he was even near a significant threat.

Jim: BTW its an important point as to who was Carlson's source. Yes, thanks for keeping us on point, Jim. As Tucker says he was told, it's right there in the first paragraph of the files, firmly intact! The CIA did it!! ----------------- Now it's becoming clear! I bet Trump is the source! Well not exactly Jim. Gil's drawing a line between the Deep State and the JFK and Trump cases. But I've got good news. There is something you and Gil can do. Help Trump in his battle against the Deep State. He'll tell everything but he needs your support, and says now he'll take as little as $1 in donation to help him cover his legal fees in these bogus court cases! You know, whatever you guys can spare!

Well, maybe you Gil. I don't think I could have said it any better than Denny. If Trump had any hard evidence against the "Deep State. What in Trump's past or present would lead you to think he wouldn't have used it? Ok, everybody's go their own political axe to grind. Napolitano is a likable guy. But throughout the last 3 years of Trump's term. I don't know how many times I'd hear him comment "I'm disappointed in the President". He reminds me of Bill Barr since Trump left office. They both first left me scratching my head they couldn't see what kind of personality disorders Trump had from just things he'd say publicly. But I've always concluded, that both of them were blinded, as so many others, because they saw Trump as potential stepping stones to their careers. Barr to try to influence Trump policy, and protect Trump legally. And Napolitano, I suspect for high ratings interviews.

Doug, I retrieved this summation segment as what I remember as Adam Schiff's finest hour at the first Trump impeachment trial involving Ukraine and Zelensky. The segment starts at 21:00. But he comes off very prophetic at 23:16. Taking a quote from The Big Leibowski, Schiff says of Trump. You're not wrong, you're just an asshole!

Doug, This is a real unique situation because now. They have 3 very good candidates , Adam Schiff, Katie Porter and Barbara Lee( who in case others don't know was the only person to vote against going into Afghanistan after 911, whatever you may think of that) all in the same race to fill Diane Feinstein's seat. I think Adam Schiff , with his high profile leadership in the Trump impeachments and 1/6 will probably win. Which is great and I'd be very satisfied with, But I do also like Katie Porter. Jamie Dimond, head of JP Morgan Chase is considered a rock star among the corporate CEO's and the Wall Street waits with bated breathe at his every comment. This is priceless! Doug, I've seen a few mentions in videos of Pee Wee Herman from you. I was a big fan, having first seen him on David Letterman in the early 80's. My Daughter also loved him. When she was 6, we went to see him. Because of connections I had to the SF comedy scene , we were able to go back stage and meet him! He was dressed normally in a t-shirt and jeans didn't act in character when we met him, but was very cool to her! A memory for the rest of our lives! These are all the clips from his appearances on Letterman in the early 80's. He was an incredible talent! IMO

I was I was looking for a column in the NYT on Oct 3rd, 1963. But it turns out, it's pretty conditional, but still interesting.. I wish I could copy excerpts, but I can't. Check it out. VIETNAM VICTORY BY THE END OF '65 ENVISAGED BY U.S. Officials Say War May Be Won if Political Crisis Does Not Hamstring Effort WARN ON REPRESSION McNamara and Taylor Tell the President and Security Council of Their Mission Based on Recommendations Policy May Be Reviewed PRESIDENT GETS VIETNAM REPORT WASHINGTON, Oct. 2—The United States said tonight that the war in South Vietnam might be won by the end of 1965 if the political crisis there did not "significantly" affect the military effort. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1963/10/03/89964179.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0

Huh, I was I was looking for a column in the NYT on Oct 3rd, 1963. But it turns out, it's pretty conditional, but still interesting.. I wish I could copy excerpts, but I can't. Check it out. VIETNAM VICTORY BY THE END OF '65 ENVISAGED BY U.S. Officials Say War May Be Won if Political Crisis Does Not Hamstring Effort WARN ON REPRESSION McNamara and Taylor Tell the President and Security Council of Their Mission Based on Recommendations Policy May Be Reviewed PRESIDENT GETS VIETNAM REPORT WASHINGTON, Oct. 2—The United States said tonight that the war in South Vietnam might be won by the end of 1965 if the political crisis there did not "significantly" affect the military effort. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1963/10/03/89964179.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0

Whoa Ron, Did you know there's been a million word dispute about this going on here for years? All the mentions of this are post JFKA. What is the source of this material?

Interesting Leslie, they have Trump up by 2 on Biden and with RK as a third party, Biden and Trump are a dead heat. I disagree with Matt that all polls are bs, but it depends on the polls and in general, I don't think they're very useful now, because I think if everyone voted today, Biden would win, not Trump. This far away from election, some people tend to voice their feelings about what's going on in the moment in their lives. What was learned in 2022, is that the Independents went strong for the Democrats despite having strong complaints about the economy and the newfound inflation, and although I have heard more recently Biden is slipping slightly with independents., there is strong anti Trump sentiment among independents. Asking the question if the public is satisfied with either candidate is sort of a bogus question, because 1) it's quite possible a considerable number of people surveyed won't vote, and that likelihood increases the more dissatisfied with the candidates, the voters are. And 2) when voters are confronted with their only 2 choices, as they so often are, they vote for one of them.

Hyeahh, I hope Newsome was aware of that. Otherwise that was kind of a dumb mistake. But I don't think that really matters. Both RFK and Hillary Clinton moved their residence to New York to run for Senate. But it's a standby position. He can't appoint Adam Schiff, Katie Porter and Barbara Lee, because they are all running for Feinstein's seat in 2024. It's probably meant to foster new talent and not cause displacement of an acting Congressman that you then again would have to replace with someone else. If there wasn't this knee jerk tendency to fill it with a minority, I think Jackie Speier who recently retired after serving in the house for many decades probably would have been a good emeritus appointment for a year, even though the title isn't the same, it does represent an honorary promotion of achievement.

Boy, I don't know Matt. You might be a bit complacent here. I would put about as much credence in RK telling you the score as I would Donald Trump at this point. It is a fascinating discussion in the critical battleground states if RK makes the ballot. Also Cornel West.. if any of this even makes 1% difference, that could be critical! . Obviously Roger Stone and Sean Hannity disagree with you. heh heh “I predict #RFK abandons the rigged Democrat nominating process and runs as an Independent,” Mr. Stone wrote on Sept. 24 on X, the website formerly known as Twitter. Roger Stone I generally really like Cenk but he overreacts to the fact that Biden won't debate with a 50 point lead! He's the only one who thinks the question is a tossup.

Well I suppose RK has done enough polling to know that he would draw more votes from Trump Matt. So we are living in a pretty strange petri dish here on the forum because from statements I've heard I think there are more than a dozen people here who would vote for RFK in a third party. And that's not even counting people on the forum who are not U.S. citizens who are even more overwhelmingly huge RK devotees. Just a lot of goo goo gaga Kennedy blood worship here. But I guess with major influencer Di Eugenio spending hundreds of hours of research trying to establish timelines over months to declaratively state to us that neither JFK or RFK EVER HAD SEX with Marilyn Monroe shouldn't have already told us that, huh?. heh heh heh So RK is doing us a favor? You know Matt, I'm just wondering if he's talking off the top of his head like he seems to do about a lot of stuff, and trying to assure us he'd never intentionally be any threat to us.. So at least at this early stage, 2/3rds of the Democrats don't want Biden to run but are so turned off with RK, that the 11% that he has isn't even 5% of the total Democrat vote? and they still don't know who they want? Hmmm This is good, but I'm still not completely comfortable.

Good comments about the article, KK. As far as the Mockingbird, there's probably some skewering going on as result of getting off on the wrong foot. . But to give you a professional's alternative view, which is always so lacking here, because any professionalism is dismissed as the "establishment". If you're a writer whose probably never had an editor rejecting his content for political reasons and professionally doesn't know anyone else who has, and takes matters of free speech very seriously and hears RK talking about "Operation mockingbird", he probably resents that he's being made an idiot pawn of the establishment or the deep state, ( which doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all) and there probably is some bias in thinking that RK is a coward blaming others for the failure of his campaign, rather than examining the effects of his own actions. But you're right for a Kennedy with such means to be so poor a host and treat a guest so shabbily is particularly without grace and very off putting. W.But what troubles me the most about this article is the author's description of RFK, Jr.'s affect and cognitive style-- his irritability, paranoia, and cognitive rigidity. As the author points out, RFK, Jr. presents as angry and stubborn, lacking in humor and apparent humility. He, certainly, exhibits no genuine courtesy or affability-- even in an interview with a nationally published journalist! (Not very judicious, to say the least.) Yeah very insular, Can we at least match his rudeness and say he acted like "a jerk". If he's going to be that abysmal a host, he probably should just go off to his room, since he likes so much to ruminate. heh heh Honestly he's attributing the fact that he's an absolutely shitty candidate, with some wacky views, He's not at all good on his feet,. and gets played all the time, he's had no success and is blaming it all on the MSM and Operation Mockingbird. And it's bs. It's not the Deep State or Mockingbird. Most of the public actually wants to believe in him for the sacrifices his family has made but just clearly don't want him for President. I'll say he same thing I say to the Trumpists who can't believe that anybody who feels differently about Trump is a member of the "deep state" or has come under the influence of "Operation Mockingbird". We're not the enemy and we're not the deep state, we just objectively listen, and not unduly influenced by blood relation, and don't like your boy! I'm not necessarily talking to you. KK KK:This post has been moved to virtual Siberia which in my view is an editorial way of denying that Operation Mockingbird is real. This is the only thing you've said that I have no agreement with. I've never seen a move from the moderators to suppress mention of "Operation Mockingbird" at all, and all the ones I know believe it to varying extents. And I didn't focus on Mockingbird being a major message of that article at all, and you probably shouldn't let Ben establish one of his 5 repetitive narratives for you. They brought it to this thread because it's political and they're trying to keep the forum focused on the Kennedy assassination, which is hard, but most people don't want the main forum to be talking politics as it's gotten pretty volatile when we've veered into politics before. And this is only siberia if you're posting for attention in the main forum , and lose interest in your discussion because there's not enough people here, like Ben. You can have an excellent discussion with one person, and we'll see how curious you are about this discussion if we hear any more from you here.