On 10/12/2023 at 7:52 AM, Kirk Gallaway said:

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.

So we're set now right. Israel has killed maybe double the amount  that they've lost.  2300 lost compared to 4100 (at least by Hamas estimates) and wreaked maybe 1000 times the destruction!

I'd say it was time to negotiate for hostages.

The way it stands now, we're to believe that Israel is going to go door to door taking back hostages? That could take months and will be real messy! 

Is it really realistic to assume that Israel could completely take out Hamas and not eventually just have something else come in it's place?

Unless somehow, the equation was changed?

Harlan Crow donated $3,300 to Cornel West's  2024 Presidential campaign.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwja3vPu6IOCAxXPFzQIHXNCDaQQvOMEKAB6BAgREAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.axios.com%2F2023%2F10%2F19%2Fharlan-crow-cornel-west-2024-campaign&usg=AOvVaw2HbyKJaNxtPZJB99ntUcxb&opi=89978449

Ask all of em if Trump gets the nomination will you vote for him. All will answer "Yes" so these words mean nothing

Uh.........Go girl!

9 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Meanwhile, who are these mysterious new members who have been coming out of the woodwork to repeat the same old defamatory CIA propaganda tropes about Prouty being, "tricky," "nutty," etc.?

It's an odd phenomenon on this forum.

I like Biden's rhetoric about the Israeli War up to now. They are the only Democracy in the region, and that does mean something, But for decades the Israeli's have economically squeezed the Gaza strip, just dribbling in sustenance.

Now Biden's bringing in military ships and fighter jets? Maybe that's  sound strategic posturing, but I'm not sure, we'll see.

Blinken has already been there twice and now Biden's going next week?

It's important that our primary message is to remove all innocent civilians. Maybe the U.N.could get involved, but it's got to start quick!

This is a powder keg. If the U.S. is seen to be behind a situation that devolves into more prolonged destruction and loss of human life. The U.S. will suffer a major loss of credibility on the world scene that will last for years and for who, Netanyahu?

We have to start talking as peacemakers, not just to get our citizen's out in one piece!

A lot of things could turn from this. As far as the 2024 election. It's good for Biden that this is happening now and not 6 months from now. 

58 minutes ago, Doug Campbell said:

The other 50% of the Prattling Podcasters here. Mr. Carter suggests that we were guilty of "failure to 'read the footnotes'", and that we effectively "misled the audience". Let's talk about footnotes and misleading your audience. Specifically, Mr. Carter's Footnote #6 from his recent article.

The document footnoted #6 in Mr. Carter's article is a memo written by ARRB staffer Tim Wray on October 23rd of 1996, following the deposition of Prouty. This memo has been misrepresented and lied about over & over, and Mr. Carter's article was no exception. Read the memo ~in it's entirety (NOT just the few lines Mr. Carter saw fit to include)~ at Page 70 at the following link: https://89e2ba32-c324-491e-a629-eacc27d8f25c.filesusr.com/ugd/325b1c_4ff67bdfd4c74303aeb70a9696d43d88.pdf

Mr. Carter~ in his zeal to tow the K&K/BOR Company Line~ used an age-old and simple device to completely excise every bit of the CONTEXT of Mr. Wray's memo from Mr. Wray's memo. That device?

                                                                                             " ... "

The "dot-dot-dot"-edit. 

Here's how this memo is represented in Mr. Carter's article:

See the " ... " between the words "fluff" and "There's"? So, what did Mr. Carter excise from the memo (so that his readers wouldn't read it)? Let's read it together. The excised portion is bracketed in green:

     

Mr. Carter~ and others writing recent defenses of Prouty~ try over and over again to portray this memo as Wray admitting a premeditated "hatchet-job" on Prouty, and expessing worry that if they only make available the Summary of the interview, that they'll somehow be found-out. "If we don't publish the whole interview transcript, then people will KNOW we ambushed this Truth-Teller!"

Completely misrepresentative, totally effin' WRONG, and disingenuous to say the least. 

When you read the approximately 55 words that Mr. Carter excised from the memo~ PLUS everything AFTER the phrase "hatchet-job"~ you suddenly understand, you suddenly realize, you suddenly GET exactly what Wray was conveying in the memo. 

Wray was NOT saying, "We should publish the entire interview or else folks are gonna know we did a hatchet-job on Prouty." No!

If Wray and the ARRB were trying to hide a premeditated "hatchet-job" on Prouty, why then would Wray *insist that the entire interview be published in transcript-form, word-for-word*? Yeah, that's how you hide stuff! With full and complete disclosure, right??

With the words excised by Mr. Carter RESTORED to the body of the memo, you realize what Wray is actually saying with the memo: "Prouty folded like a pair of dime-store socks, and unless we publish the entire interview, it's gonna LOOK like we were just picking on some crazy old guy." And Wray was 100% correct. 

Mr. Carter is fond of admonishing folks to "read the footnotes." After reading the entire memo on the air, Rob and myself took the opportunity to give our listeners a piece of advice that they should use moving forward:

"If you see a "dot-dot-dot" edit in an article, IMMEDIATELY read the entire piece being quoted, ESPECIALLY what's being excised, because~chances are~ it's important." 

The only "hatchet-job" around here is the one Mr. Carter performed on Tim Wray's memo. The very epitome of "cherry-picking".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

uhhhh, comment coming!

6 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Kirk - you have dredged up a thirty-two-year-old third-hand uncorroborated innuendo-laden report.  If you want to traffiick in rumour, that is your prerogative.

or that your own innuendo - disguised as a “direct question” and expressed a full thirty-two years after it could have assumed any relevance - reflects anything approaching an imprimatur of seriousness or value related to the general discussion appears sadly misdirected.

If you are striking up common cause that the JFK film was fatally compromised by its advisors then just say that.

Jeff: Otherwise your demand that some sort of direct refutation or response was “owed” at the time,

I didn't "demand 'anything.Jeff.  I'm trying to educate you on what was expected, and the world Stone had to live in at the time. It's really simple , you don't want to turn off the press with defiance because you'll need them again. I had the same thing with guests on my radio program.

Jeff, you complicate the situation to the point of complete paralysis.  Believe me if Stone could make a complete refutation and say that it was a complete fabrication, he would have, but he didn't.  If he was holding that hand, unlike you he wouldn't have acted proud and above the fray, because he realizes he's just going to encourage more press BS.

He would have used it. He's not a fool!

Paul, I was trying to have a substantive conversation. I'll deal with your accusations later.

Jeff, Let me educate you in public speak, using your statements. Which I'm sure aren't the only statements.

Jeff reading a quote from Stone.“…filled with numerous errors, omissions, out-of-context quotes, and misunderstandings.”

How many times have I heard that exact litany of denials? That is complete PR. It's a bit of misdirection. Sort of alluding to making a well detailed list of the naysayers sins. But not denying such an event happened.                                             I

It's common, I wouldn't blame Stone at all! Let's break it down.

“…filled with numerous errors",- errors in what? You understand that implies a subject, Jeff?.

"omissions"- probably not but it is always an integral part of that litany.

"Out of context quotes"--You understand Jeff, that implies there was such a dialog to quote?

"Misunderstandings"-- a sort of 10 cent word, which could mean anything, but always sounds good!

Have I lost you yet Jeff?*

Now what would have been a complete refutation?  Let me make it simple for you.

Stone: The Esquire article is a complete fabrication.  There's absolutely no truth to any of it.

Isn't that easy Jeff? Why didn't Stone say that?

Because if he made an absolute denial , they might use alleged witnesses to contradict him and search  into it trying  discredit the film further. You can read from the fact that there wasn't a simple denial that there was such an incident. The magnitude of that incident is unclear.

Then you might ask, why don't  reporters just ask Stone  "what are the "errors" you cite in Esquire article?

Because they usually don't. Stone's under no obligation to go into the weeds about any arguments or disputes that may have happened during the filming.

*Go to top of the page. You notice how i asked you the question twice. The last sentence to you was.

"That's a serious question  I asked Jeff."

How did I know to write that a  second time?  It's because I knew you'd answer everything but the direct question, which is exactly what happened.

He certainly not denying it. Is he Jeff? I covered that too below.

California? I'm not sure how relevant that is. You haven't been to Tehran either. But I'm at least  glad to hear you've been out of Canada!.

Kirk: 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!

On 10/12/2023 at 11:21 AM, Kirk Gallaway said:

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.

 

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.

On 10/12/2023 at 12:06 PM, Jeff Carter said:

Kirk - Anson's Esquire piece was discussed at length here:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/old-wine-in-new-bottles-fletcher-prouty-s-new-critics-recycle-the-past

There are many reasons why it can be fairly characterized as a "hatchet-job".

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.

On 10/10/2023 at 7:16 PM, Leslie Sharp said:

Thanks for sharing Cole's thought provoking analysis.

In spite of the headline on YouTube, Channel 4 provides a degree of balanced reporting here:

 

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!

On 10/8/2023 at 8:29 AM, Pamela Brown said:

Your opinion, (to Jim). You are entitled. I think you are mistaken. Nothing has been "proved".  Positions are being asserted. That's all.  Claiming those in the opposite camp are greedy or 'goofy' is ineffective, imo...

Jim: MM did not have "affairs" with either JFK or RFK!

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!