Kirk Gallaway

He's also nephew to Ferdinand Marcos!

That's right Joe, and now it's over a month! Joe's completely right. It's this same old, "Low hanging fruit" "Low bar of evidence" that we continually fall into. There was so much hoopla here about this, and just general noise on social media. We've been Tucked! (away) heh heh To everybody who was praising Carlson as this being a seismic JFKA event. Didn't you have much greater expectation of some followup from Carlson in this last month? Kirk:Yeah As I say, the story sounds novice. I suppose he might not say another word about it, but when related news comes up, say something like"Of course we have an inside source who says he believes the CIA was behind the assassination!"and just moves on , Will that be enough for you? I'm not familiar enough with his show to know what he routinely can get way with. But it doesn't matter what we think. All that matters is if this story goes somewhere, and Carlson doesn't end up damaging us. Of course, Larry seems confident in talking with I believe Carlson's producers that he's going to be given more air time. It's possible the least substantive Carlson's claims are, the more they may give a nod to honest researchers and the ongoing litigation to give Carlson's claims more foundation even though they're not following up on them. But right now, Aren't we just Tucker roadkill? To Ron's point, doesn't he owe us something? Or are we just like young kid fanboys. Grateful for Tucker's autograph!? Don't you think he should have given us a much better effort?

That's about the answer I expected. Oh, so abusive commentary is a condition for debate now? Well then duke it out with John! Substantively , my money is in John! heh heh

No no no, I asked first, address W's points. Ben: So I tend to stay away from "debate" with various posters. Then why should anybody debate with you your questions?

If you want to show me you're into serious, substantive conversation, answer the points W. makes. Otherwise I'm just going to have fun. I'm sorry you can't, but stop blaming others.

Uh...Well, Welcome aboard, John!. Oh come on Ben, stop making accusations and get that perpetual stick out of your butt. Listening to you whine about your native country is about as powerful as a 70 year old complaining about his parents! Particularly when you haven't seen both in years.

This is a well written piece which counters the usual Ben non specific garbage, and John's piggybacking on it, with neither having any specific knowledge what they're talking, which John can be forgiven for since he's not expected to have any specific knowledge about U.S. politics. It is an infinitely more interesting piece, written out of personal experience and observation as opposed to Ben's repetitive cacophony, of striking out about his current discontent and blaming it on his country of origin, which is purely computer driven, article based, angst because he hasn't been there for over 20 years. I'll take experience and good writing any day to inexperience and regretful moaning.

Circular reasoning?, serving only to confuse and confound. I can see the effect of these agents of befuddlement on this forum. And hear their uttered echos of bafflement!

Bob hits the nail on the head here. I'll try to leave out any reference to a foreign country and It would be unfair to cast everybody leading these hearings in the same light. But we in the JFKAC research are sort of hitching a ride with a bunch of low life scumballs who seek to divert attention from their guilt and complicity, and understandably half the nation is going to see through this from the gitgo, and the people in the middle are at least going to see this as more partisan squabbles. It becomes a Machiavellian question if we can ride their coattails with out getting burned ourselves. Larry thinks so. We have been around much longer than the kooky conspiracies that are being dredged up now by this group. So it could be likely. Though we see how intensely ambitious some of these people are . They've literally sold their soul for their ambitions and I could see the JFKA issue being used for some name recognition and being pushed further and further in the background. Besides, Bob makes a good point, there are much more significant things facing the nation than this right now. And there are powerful people to be punished. Though it's probably true, we're probably beyond any level where we could be destroyed by our association with this. JMO

Well first off, the co opting of JFK by the current right is indeed laughable. Kennedy's "New Frontier" included a belief in science. JFK also wouldn't have seen world climate change as a Gates -Soros scam to make money! , Nor would JFK have thought the Covid pandemic was a Faucci- Gates conspiracy with the Chinese either, whether it accidentally got out of the lab or not, or whether his nephew thought otherwise. JFK would have stood behind the science of his day, and there wouldn't have been near the resistance that there is today. As Jim said, JFK would have expanded the safety net which I think that would have eventually lead to universal Health Care, which you guys, as conservatives would have opposed, and did in fact oppose. He also was pro labor. Interestingly enough Jim, Few people know that Biden was one of 47 who opposed the First Persian Gulf War. But as a typical opposition Senator, he started changing his stripes, after it was deemed successful. And sure enough has done just the opposites in recent years about his voting for Bush's War in Iraq in 2003. We know Hilary fell in line for GW's Iraq War, but it's actually because she's never done anything that wasn't politically calculated. Any aspiring Democrat Senate Presidential hopeful would have probably fallen in line as well, Because believe it or not, it's a political freebie! The Democrat must look pro defense, while if the war fails, as it did, they can always blame the execution on the Republican President and claim they were just supporting the administration in a time of grave foreign crisis! That's just politics! As for her role in the bombing of Libya, any Republican President would have done the same and scoffed at any of the claims that were made later about destabilizing the region. They all fell for the "Arab Spring" commentary! Obama was out of office during the time in 2003, when Bush lead the charge to the War in Iraq. But all politicians release public statements, and Obama was against the War in Iraq. Biden's opposition to the First Persian Gulf War is below. And this is from the "Intercept", which at one time was Glenn Grenwald's own website, which was given, as a 250 million dollar gift to him from Pierre Omydiar, the founder of Ebay! No wonder he's so down on tech! Hint: all Greenwald's obsessive villains have a personal story! https://theintercept.com/empire-politician/biden-1991-iraq-gulf-war/

Whew!....you're right. It is long. Seldom too short--You're obviously no Estonian. But that's cool! Ben does a decent job of what I'm saying.Just trying to help. 40 minutes for Ritter is long. Even on fast speed. Which I employed way too late,---My Bad! ---To the podcast! Chris: Russia is looking more superior. What kind of original statement is that? At the beginning everyone thought that Russia was superior. What happened? Of course, you were the one who posted Ritter back in Feb., Who so as much as said, NATO would never act, and be exposed as the fraud they were and would now be defunct! The only curiosity I have about the first 25 minutes I'd ask you is. Did the narrator ask him how he got his first prediction so wrong? I don't think so. It is kind of a Canadian love fest interview. heh heh a joke! I suppose, it never convinced me. Actually a strong majority of Dems in the house were against the War in Iraq. I give the population a "D-". It was an elective war, that could have been avoided.

Wow Doug! "Still, the current rating is 10 percentage points lower than the highest rating for nurses, recorded in 2020, when they were on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic and their ethics ratings soared." I suppose that's backlash trashing by the remaining covid denier/ anti vaxxers, whose zombie nurse infecting plan ultimately failed, and now hate them for saving their lives because it perpetuated the covid hoax! That's Darwinism for ya" heh heh

I don't find Scott Ritter implausible , Chris. I'm not sure if you remember Ritter, Chris . But he was first a thorn in your side, an outright nemesis to you, being an advocate for the Bush Blair War in Iraq. I first followed him approvingly because he was asking , Where is the WMD? I personally don't have 40 minutes to give to him anymore, but I did enthusiastically watch all your first installment of Scott Ritter, I believe just before Putin invaded. He was very confident and scoffing at the West and Nato, declaring Nato would be totally exposed for the fraud it was once Putin invaded Ukraine as there was no way they were going to be able to keep together because they're all so inherently selfish and will thankfully disintegrate once Putin cuts their off oil, and that goes doubly when winter comes later, but it won't even even last that long! I'm always interested in people's predictions, and like to make a few myself, because I believe, you can only make successful predictions, if you have an unbiased grip on the present reality. When people exhibit that, despite if i like the result of their predictions, I give them credit. I award no bonus points to Scott Ritter for his pre Putin invasion prediction, as I think he got complete egg on his face. His cocky tone of Russian superiority was a bit off putting honestly. I listened to the last 15 minutes to try to get to his futures. He predicts Ukraine should come to the table immediately, accept reality, and thankfully accept that they will lose only Crimea, Kherson, the Donbass Region and province starting with "Z". They should also swear to never join Nato., eliminate the Bandera National Socialist influence, (whose to say to what degree it still exists anyway, apart from anywhere else in East Europe?) and in exchange, Ukraine will be let to live, and can actually keep Zelensky. And his tone at 37:00 is spiteful and punishing as if talking to an errant 6 year old. Do you share Scott's emotions on that Chris? Ritter presumes to have some inside tract on Putin, (even though I don't believe he ever thought Putin was going to invade in the first place!) and confidently predicts that Russia's only intention at first was to seize the Donbass from National Socialist Ukraine and hold on to Crimea! He say the U.S., Russia and Nato should negotiate a more lasting peace after this, (which sounds good!) but a Peace that will benefit everybody except Ukraine, which lost the War! ** Chris, I find myself wanting to cut film lengths that I submit here, so people will watch them, but I realize it's not possible. But what I've done in the last couple of paragraphs, summing up what Ritter's solutions are , you could also be doing for us , rather than just submitting a 40 minute film , and just say "plausible?" It would be interesting hearing in your words , how you interpret Ritter's solutions. Somebody said this recently on the JFK side, when submitted a long video clip. "Could you quickly give us some idea?" and then let us decide if we want to spend 40 minutes on it , or how we're going to handle it. It's a good suggestion, if you want people to listen to you.

You'd certainly think so, Doug. That would make sense.. It is remarkable. If you told me 2 years ago that these security blunders could be happening on so many levels, i would ask whereTF is the "Deep State!' They can't even hold on go their secrets!

I really found this Estonian who now lives in the U.K.'s responses to this question interesting. I was hoping for a more pro russian response b to balance it a bit, but i ended up enclosing one response.r https://www.quora.com/The-Baltics-is-made-up-of-Latvia-Lithuania-and-Estonia-and-citizens-of-those-countries-believe-that-if-Ukraine-falls-to-Russia-Vladimir-Purtin-will-lay-his-sights-on-them-next-Is-this-a-likely-scenario-Why-or-why Ervin Puro While I currently live in UK, I believe that I am in a much better position to answer this question than most of my compatriots. In Estonia I originally come from one of the least integrated Russian speaking families and so I regularly come into contact with the most pro Russian people in the country. And while usually I am the only one arguing against them at the table, right now literally no one supports Russia or even tries to defend them. The most pro Russian position you will hear, is that the conflict needs to stop as soon as possible. For many of my own relatives this conflict served as an eye opening moment, that made them stop looking at Russian realities through their rose tinted glasses. There used to be a real generational divide in opinions between those who were born in the USSR and those who were born after but now it is all gone. Another group that is slowly but surely changing their opinion are those who no longer have access to the Russian television as their primary news source. Even the last bastion of Russian propaganda, the orthodox church of Estonia condemned the conflict which helped sway the opinion of the most conservative/reactionary people. Now to why I believe that I am in a much better position to answer. Currently the plurality of my social circle is represented by ethnically Russian Latvians and Lithuanians. Among them I find a much larger degree of difference in their opinions when compared to Estonians. In the first few days of the invasion you could see a real split in opinion that allowed to divide people in 3 groups based on their thinking. Pro Ukrainian side, Pro Russian side and anti politics side (or not my problem side). Surprisingly you could guess a lot about the person based on their position. The biggest difference was what came first: your ethnicity or your nationality? Almost all people who support Ukrainian side think of themselves as russian speaking but first and foremost citizens of their respective country (Latvians, lithuanians and Estonians). Those who supported Russia tended to hold a mirroring position. Those who said: ‘don’t raise your head or you get in trouble’, are usually the most Russian of them all. Also according to most of my mates, people from their parents generation still hold a much more pro Russian position than those in Estonia, and it causes a lot of conflict inside their families. Surprisingly it looks like comparatively, in Estonia older ethnic Russians are much more integrated into social and political life than in our southern neighbours. But the previously mentioned split is changing and right now most people are against the war. Interestingly the biggest factor seems to be the refugees. Among the ethnically Russian people there are much more negative opinions about the refugees whom they see as freeloaders and bane of their future existence. This forces them to look at Russia as a reason for why they have to deal with them and stop their support of the conflict. All in all most of us are pro Ukraine and/or against the conflict, so please don’t name us the 5th column or lump us together with the invading muppets of Putin. ********* I Latvia most russian people do not support Russia in this war. They even organize protest events to show their support to UA, take part in voluntary work etc. But there is a small part of people who do support Russia and still are victims of russian propaganda. Mostly in Eastern parts of Latvia where they are under the russian media space and this influence has lasted for years even with European media alternatives, even if these alternatives are in russian. They live in LV but their country and president is Putin. But as we see this is far not only the Baltic states’ problem. Such people are everywhere. **** .

Cliff, Ben's most effective communicative tactic is using huge print. Other than that he's the most factually corrected person on this forum. But it's overwhelmingly on this thread as he does play more by meritocracy rules on the JFKA side and is a good contributor. i assume that's due to the stern guidance of Jim Di!!

I read where Matt Taibbi when asked what happened to the twitter files. He now acknowledges that the complications are more formidable than he had realized at the start. Yeah, no kidding Dummy! Since you care so much free speech, maybe you should stop telling us what you think we're ready to hear and get together with your benefactor and release the files! In 2021, Matt Taibbi in a Rogan interview praises Seymour Hersch who was most popular investigative journalist of his day for an incident where the CIA approached Hersch to leak files of information to the public of their catching an Israeli spy. Taibbi praises Hersch because Hersh said because he didn't find it, he couldn't accept it, and Taibbi says "Once you start getting handed things, once you cross that line , you've lost, they have you!".. Then a year later Taibbi accepts files from a billionaire and becomes a conduit to us, declining to disclose what the conditions of the employment were and for how much. . He's later questioned about this Twitter Files situation by Krystal Ball, and starts squirming and says in essence, "well you do trust me?". When somebody says that, it's time to run! We don't have to accept any interpretation he says. Twitter founder Jack Dorsey said it would be best to just release all the files to the public. But keep in mind, they are "selected" files! and the irony here is Taibbi is concerned about certain government influence on the moderation of content but declines to tell us about the Trump Government's influence or communication with Twitter!, but does disclose Candidate Biden. So now we have Matt Taibbi determining what's good for us to see in the Twitter files! Taibbi's first proclamations start segment start at 3:10. Hypocrisy at 9:41.

Thanks, W.! A word to some of our younger conspiracy theorists. Don't emulate figures who sabotage their prospects of getting anywhere, and attaining true greatness! Keep your head to the stars, and act accordingly! I realize with Ben, it's way too late! heh heh

W. I wanted to take some time and give you neither a perfunctory or forum validation speak response, (which I don't disparage) But try to delve into this article. You have to be able to cut through innuendo here, ask what is Baker really saying, and then observe the interview. Let's start with this template. Baker:This of course is an astonishing claim being made by a major figure, yet it passed without further comment. It also goes to the growing desperation of the establishment to head off at the pass any further movement in the direction of a broader conspiracy. Baker seems to be inferring in this interview,Alba and Bechloss are delivering a concerted message serving the establishment's baiting us into a accepting a limited hang out short of admitting CIA complicity in the JFKA. Though I do agree with a chuckle Baker's assertion that Bechloss seems almost anointed by NBC to be their Presidential history "go to guy". Bechloss isn't some errand boy for the establishment. I think Baker's totally "grand conspiracy" theory is off there! * Quite the contrary, Bechloss has been a clown, who for years has been in over his head. His appearance on "Morning Joe after the files were to be released, was the first time I ever saw him express any doubt about the LN theory, though he seemed compelled to let you know, that no matter what, Oswald did fire the shot that killed Kennedy!! Pffffff! The truth, up to now is he could never come up with anything more articulate to say about Presidential politics in the 60's than Bobby hated LBJ, LBJ hated Bobby, Hoover hated the Kennedy's, and he's never synthesized any of this previously! Baker: Beschloss then went on to provide what seems meant to explain one reason certain documents have been withheld: He actually claims that the former director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, and perhaps others, knew in advance that a so-called Soviet defector would be in the book depository window the day Kennedy would be driven by — and that they did nothing to have him removed. Beschloss speculates this is possibly because Hoover and his colleagues “hated and disapproved of” Kennedy; and that, if Americans had known all this, they would have had Hoover prosecuted. Bechloss may be a great academician, but that's far from being a sleuth and for years, as I say, has been in way over his head.. But IMO, yes as a guy whose never been sleuth enough to ask the essential questions, he probably incrementally first asked himself that question. But in fairness, if left at simply this, that would have been a good place for a limited hang out. But what Baker omits is that Bechloss does say that Oswald was in touch with CIA operatives. He then goes on to say "the chances that Oswald did this alone becomes" less and less likely with every document release." Then Bechloss asks: Bechloss: What are the chances of a person having connections with the Cuban embassy in Mexico, the Soviet embassy in Mexico City,the anti Castro Cubans, the FBI, the CIA, maybe this is all a coincidence but let's keep asking these questions. Once Bechloss makes that leap, 1) that Oswald isn't alone, and 2)what are the chances of a person having all these connections?, he invites all sorts of questions! That's cat's out of the bag! What the hell is Baker thinking? This isn't some sponsored limited hang out! In the 2 Bechloss responses, he emphasizes the first JEH quote because it reinforces his "limited hang out theory" but totally ignores Bechloss second response about the increased likelihood Oswald wasn't alone and how unlikely it would be that Oswald has all these connections! It appears Baker doesn't know gold when he finds it, and had his mind made up what his narrative was to be before even writing the piece! Maybe not what you may have been expecting to hear, but at least with Bechloss this isn't some planned limited hang out. These statements lead to "the plot starts to unravel". *There are a lot of people here into film and screenwriting. To those here who buy Baker's assertion that Bechloss and Alba were coached by the deep state establishment to promulgate a JFKA limited hang out. I would suggest, as a writing exercise. Write the key dialog of the MSM establishment sitting down with Alba and Bechloss in preparation for the show! I'd love to read it! It would be the type of dialog that if perfectly done in a film, could IMO be the most definitive MSM/on air talent dialog in film history!, greater than "Network" 50 years ago, which after all, was largely a parody. I'm surprised nobody's given thought to writing such a script, since they believe it.

So Michael, are you saying Noam Chomsky claims 911 was an inside job? I hadn't heard that. As i think maybe, you've just seen. Do you associate the "911 inside job" theory with just the left wing? There's really no comparison Michael, you have half the Republican believing some of this nonsense. And the crazy theories that the right attributes to the left, represents is maybe 6-10% of the of the left. Hence the phrase "false equivalency".

Pelosi: You know he's crazy , don't you? Regarding the period after 1/6, and Pelosi phoning General Milley and convincing him to tell his staff to not take calls from Trump. Now we have Paul Gosar vowing to prosecute both Pelosi and Milley in these committee hearings, claiming Trump should have had control of the Military when he was threatening to the end to not leave office! hat's how crazy these people are. Rep. Paul Gosar, DDS @RepGosar· Jan 7 Remember - we will conduct a real investigation into J6. The effort to attempt a coup between traitor Gen. Mark Milley and Pelosi will be reviewed and exposed. Quote Tweet @JohnFugelsang · Jan 6 Remember - Kevin McCarthy, Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert & Paul Gosar all share the same pre-existing sedition. #January6th

Is there any question about the power of the corporate state and Repubican government for the rich now?.

Raskin was head of the 1/6 committee That is a victory toward bi partisanship and should be celebrated! We'll see what turns out. Larry, as I've mentioned to you. Thankfully, You're going to continue doing what you're doing , no matter what partisan squabbles we have here . So why involve yourself?. Particularly with Ben's "Spe ctacular Greenwald" thread which is just Ben's impatience to spread his partisan politics everywhere. You should probably just establish a thread, and update us on the latest news. I'd appreciate that. Hate to clu' ya, but Massie is not going to chair the committee.

Some people are just not worth associating with for the newest conspiracy fix. We really have to draw the line somewhere, or you'll bring us down with you.. Take your absolutist free speech and go to a website that loves Alex Jones, and after a few months, let us know where it is. So we can drop in and see the marvelous level of conspiracy exchange you can create. My guess is you know that level already.

Adam Schiff recalls a slimy story about a conversation with Kevin Mc Carthy on a plane back to Washington.