Kirk Gallaway

That's what I thought. Thanks Gerry

What I've noticed from you Bill, Is that you post with little snippets. So it's apt to become this perpetual scrolling conversation. Why don't you highlight a few of Myers points and make your arguments for them in some depth? Or take one point you feel is major and try to drive it home? I thought we were going to confine this to the Tippit murder but Ok, now that we're not. Obviously there's a logical answer to this question. Can anyone please answer. Why wouldn't it now be easy to verify if the bullet went though 2 bodies simply through dna testing? After all, they are able to test the dna of dinosaurs?

Ben's Russia Gate hero and favorite all time AG, William Barr, (because Trump picked him) finally puts his foot down and says Trump had no right to steal government documents. As if anybody would have disputed that 7 years ago under Obama. But in the current Trump lunasphere, Ben and the other Trump Anons would grant Trump unlimited power to do about anything.

To get back to the initial thread. Russ Baker's story fits in with demonstrating a common illusion about the MSM being "threatened" by the JFKA Conspiracy community. Baker's harbors no such illusion. He's merely accounts the ostracism and general eye rolling he experienced when having dinner with a group of elite MSM publishers. As wrong headed as that resistance is, that is the nature of the resistance to be overcome. I like Russ Baker. I've talked with him online. But his appearances with Alex Jones is a black mark. Just as Oliver's Stones son Sean continual appearances with Alex Jones destroys his credibility. Thank God, Oliver Stone never felt the need to go on with Alex Jones. But as it is, isn't he enough discredited that he came out of a 8 hour interview series with Putin a complete Putin gaga and then spends probably a couple of million, maybe of his own money to make a movie promoting Putin's Ukraine nazzification claims and in essence, give him support and cover for his brutal invasion of Ukraine? A nazzification charge that has turned out to be thoroughly debunked as the populace later overwhelmingly elected a Jewish President with 80% of the vote and dramatically turned over 3/4 of their Parliament! I think a lot of us would welcome such a housecleaning in our Congress as well, and we've never elected a Jew as President either. But apparently Stone was not impressed. And as if that isn't bad enough. Then he goes on to glorify the ex Ukraine President Yanukovych in exile in Russia in his Putin provided Dacha in a long interview, after he pilfered his country for what? Some have alleged, billions of dollars and left behind an opulent estate, and still Stone seems to be doubling down. You don't even have to be a major supporter of the War in Ukraine to know how silly he looks.

Certainly no one here has complained about rising fuel costs more than you Chris. I understand your problem. Chris: What the state will do is make all of these people out to be anti-democratic, right wing revolutionaries and they’ll want to thwart them under domestic terror laws. So this is how you're government is handling these protests and you're projecting on us that we must be doing this as well? What would you have your government do to alleviate your fuel situation, inflation, shortages and so on? Do you know?

Steve, I was thinking the same thing. I wonder if that's the original carpet? Mar a Lago is 95 years old. I wonder if it started out as a casino, or a brothel? This was a little puzzling about the Russian Moguls deaths. Former vice president of Gazprombank, Vladislav Avayev, was found dead in April of a gunshot wound next to his wife and daughter at their Moscow home. Authorities said they suspected the incident was a murder-suicide. You're almost lead to believe from this sentence, it was a triple murder -suicide! *** Gee, my condolences Andrew!

Hey, let's give Trump-a-nons what they want! Lets go all the way with this Hillary witch thing!

Ben to W.: Did you ever tell a patient, "Look, get a lot more exercise and reduce alcohol and sugar in your diet. Then, let's see where we stand?" Whew! How about adding "get off nicotine, and go cold turkey and get off that heroin habit and then get back to me." What kind of therapeutic approach is that? People come because they seek help. That's the first trace I've ever seen of "Tough Love" Ben. With all the rationalizations you passively make for Trump, Have you ever thought of just putting your foot down with Trump? But at least now I can see you put your foot down somewhere. Which is good! I was thinking, Gee, I hope Ben doesn't have a son or he could be a real hellion! But then: Ben :I was just thinking, as a layman, step one for anybody is diet and exercise. That's kind of a wimpy back down, considering you plaintively blasted your post with such a big headline and font, and then presumed to ask W. what you seem to think was such a profound question. Hmmmm You sure you weren't drunk? heh heh heh

I'm no fool! I'll take the photogenic hearsay over the ugly, 5th amendment li-r anyday! heh heh

Right Matt, right after Ben last night floats a story that Superman Hero Computer Whiz Donald Trump hacks into the FBI files on "Crossfire hurricane" and absconds the files to Mara Lago and is currently holding the FBI hostage to the damning information he uncovered, and Ben believes it enough to float it here.. Let me clu ya Ben. The people who sucked you into that one were the wide eyed Trumpies who early on were obsessed with idea that Trump was playing "3D chess" with all of us. Rather than acknowledge the mess he's in, they concoct another Trump Superman story to keep the Bens and the "Q" grass root support, and also keep the wealthy donor money rolling in.. "A sucker's born every minute" P.T. Barnum

Except Trump can't keep a secret, and hasn't been forthcoming about anything yet. And you haven't been right about anything yet. including the fact that it's actually been the right that's been calling for a civil war. But will they be willing to trade their liberty for the greater security? We'll see how that goes. heh heh Ben:But it makes you scared. You're always scared. And we always have to hear about it. I knew you and Wheeler were a match made in heaven.

Hehe well Put W! And I loved the "Trump and his cultists demand transparency!" ha ha! They certainly need a lot of tending to! Ok, to mix it up a little bit. Let me post something that's way off topic but I think some people here might really enjoy it like I do. THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD: EVERY YEAR Actually it's human history! Let's not insult the planet! It took us quite a while to come out of the cave or get past the starting gate. But once we engaged. There was no stopping us!

That's right Tracy, you notice he goes from, I don't know, perhaps finding an empty office somewhere? to "Ruth Paine has always been a CIA agent". That's quite a leap, with no chewy caramel in the center. It's worth bringing up, but it's like a number of stories here, until he and his story is fleshed out some more, to me he'll just be another old Jack Klugman doing another "Quincy". heh heh Interesting find Jean Paul! I thought the date of RP's leadership was earlier. Then I browsed the Wheaton article, which talks about RP's involvement starting around 1991. But the Contra War was over by 1990. A CIA backed "pro Democracy" candidate Violetta Chamorro beat Sandinista Daniel Ortega in 1990. So this was never going on in the jungles during the thick of the Contra War. I guess I should have realized that. As a young man, I crossed the Nicaraguan border in a car during Somoza's reign in 1976 to be processed by a bunch of army recruits in dilapidated barracks, toting M-16's, and then again with my car in 1980 after the Sandinistas had taken over to find bright new offices manned by a bunch of what looked to be middle class people my age with U.S. made posters of Sandino and Che Guevara on the walls!

It's the same pattern over and over. You're absolving Trump of any responsibility for his actions, and saying we're just being diverted, or we're somehow being manipulated by the msm, because we don't want a President who absconds with government files and either refuses or hides the fact that he's not giving them all back. This thread is largely commenting on current news and Trump in the news as result of his own actions! As I said before, it's obvious it really always upsets you when Trump is being criticized. That's not a desirable condition, I would say to that, bite the bullet, and get a candidate whose not a perpetual embarrassment to you.

The easiest way for the corporate state to swindle Ben out of his lifelong benefits as a U.S. citizen is to tell Ben the National Security State is fighting for Ben to keep his benefits! Game over! Do you ever suspect you've been diverted? Trump has nothing to do with your true political interests. There are actual issues that involve more than personalities. Your political beliefs are based solely on parroting the examples of your idols and being on the other side of their enemies. It's a bit more complicated. Learn the ABC's of you political interests. From what I've seen most people here have a pretty good idea where their interests lie. This below is where your interests should lie, If for some reason in life it's not. I'm sorry, but please don't deny us our interests.

Also a complete accounting of what loans have been forgiven to Congress men or women would be in order. Repubs and Dems, but at least the Dems won't look like complete hypocrites.

Right on Ron! About Texas, Good luck to Beto, Let's start ridding Texas of their fascist overlords!

Whew! Eureka, I have found it! If this isn't a cudgel the Democrats can use to batter the Republicans in the Congressional races, I don't know what is!

I think there are true things said on both sides. I've mentioned this before, but I take issue on the commentary we've heard for years ,largely from Jim that JFK was a great liberal hope "hence Destiny Betrayed" but JFK was always primarily a centrist for his time. He was a popular president who was going to face an easy reelection, largely for the hawkish reason that he stood up to Khrushchev, so he combined the social progress outlook of the day with a strong cold war stance. Even so there wasn't a great groundswell for JFK in 1964. His policies were measured, all Democrats talked unabashedly like liberals back then, (unlike the 50 years following the 70's!) and Michael's right, the liberal party was was an automatic endorsement. Michael:JFK was determined to do all he could to save South Vietnam but that he did not want to introduce combat troops, that he had every intention of providing South Vietnam with all the weapons and supplies they needed, and possibly air support, even if he eventually decided to withdraw all American troops. I think Micheal's right here. But he seems to downplay it as if not wanting to introduce combat troops is something small, when in reality, that's a lot! When LBJ did aggressively introduce combat troops, we went into an almost 10 year war where we lost 55,000 people and wreaked destruction on millions!. The difference between them would have been monumental! Michael:However, in his 1964 oral interview, Bobby allowed that JFK may have decided to introduce combat troops if South Vietnam had been on the verge of collapse. Yeah, I personally think that's just Bobby cold war posturing. I think when the reality presented itself, JFK would have ducked out, and taken some heat for it. I don't think that would have happened. But because no one would have known what the outcome of fighting the Viet Nam War turned out to be. JFK wouldn't have been given the historical credit he would have deserved for not introducing huge numbers of ground troops. So he wouldn't have been riding a great peace wave. And it's hard to believe that JFK's charisma. alone would have been enough to stop the race riots of the 60's. That was just inevitable. Conversely, Jim never has given LBJ any credit for his civil rights legislation even though it was greater than anything a Northeasterner like JFK could accomplish. It's true Bobby was important to the JFK administration taking out the arms length between JFK and MLK, and he would have been in a great position to do more if he were to be elected President. The JFK Presidency arc could have been good, but not overwhelming. Any idea that the JFK Presidency could have a strong effect on our present history inevitably has to include the idea of RFK being elected for another 8 years. I think he would have been a much greater activist. The greatest, perhaps naive hope anyone could have was that Bobby could have so zealously gone after social justice, and lived to tell about it, while bigotry was backing up a little bit, and perhaps we could have won a messy battle and come out more to the other side than we did 100 years earlier under Reconstruction and we wouldn't have to deal so much now with people who have been causing us trouble for the last 150 years. At least that's my opinion. But perhaps too much had to go right to make that a realistic possibility.

No, no no. Everybody has known about the $1000 toilet seat for what 20 years now? You used this as evidence to further go on your "secret government" theme, but the question is: Find me the source that this information was classified, please.

I realize you just "recall", but can you find a source for that?

This is what I mean by Spam. Ben has posted at least 4 posts on this. Now he dredges up a 5 year article and feigns faux astonishment of Schumer merely saying something everyone here already knows? And citing this as evidence that" Schumer and da donks" being in bed with the "Shadow Government Deep State" and couldn't just be an overall statement of common sense? Just like telling Roger Stone he's a complete fool for his tweets insulting his judge in his ongoing trial? And probably about a dozen posts saying this. Ben: Still waiting for a court trial, with an able well-funded defense, in an open courtroom. State investigations and prosecutions deserve detached, and skeptical review. Ben, We know by now you're an American justice homey who in this case thinks a 1/6 court trial will entirely turn around every testimony of all Trump's personal advisors , lawyers, cabinet members and his own family who desperately urged him to take action to call off the rioters that he ignored for over 3 hours, not even to mention the many who discouraged him from pursuing his election fraud claims in the first place. Just taking your advice, and giving a "detached, skeptical review."

There are definitely trends and counter trends . Certainly there's a more hard core conspiracy element in the population today, and as I've said before, I think the misinformed people and their wacko theories take the JFKA conspiracy down with it. I'm not sure how much faith I put in fluctuating polls about how many people believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. I don't how many here have seen these man in the street interviews with everyday people asking questions about history, politics and geography, but the level of knowledge of the everyday person is just appalling to when I grew up, and these people can seem reasonably intelligent and even articulate! I think with the everyday person in the general population, the general support is soft. Which can be expected in a now almost 60 year historic event, and with the general lack of knowledge or enthusiasm for history presently. I think the general response to the question, "Was JFK killed by a conspiracy" to the average person who of course has never been motivated to study it at all, and whose main exposure is maybe some documentary on TV .has become sort of a sociological weather vane now, or a sort of badge by which he or she might of course acknowledge that JFK died as result of conspiracy to simply reaffirm that they are "no fool" and don't blindly believe what their government or authorities in general say, but will never really translate to any concrete action.

i would have thought that. I know the idea that Bobby would have suggested Dulles as emissary is outright heresy here. And though I don't believe that. It is Bobby who goes into very fine detail to Dulles just exactly what the job description is. Whereas it seems LBJ job is just to close the deal and close it in that phone call, as Dulles suggests that they first get together in a meeting and LBJ and Bobby in essence say there's no time for that. isn't it interesting that Dulles tries to put Bobby on the defense about his hurt feelings about the BOP. And Bobby is very detached as if he has one goal, to put aside feelings in order to quickly implement their plan. I liked the Devil's Chessboard too. Of course we do have Phil Shenon, the guy who first suggested that a position on the WC was offered to Allen Dulles by Bobby and Nicholas Katzenbach, in a memo that he got from the Johnson Library. But after all of LBJ's other lies, how credible could that be? However, He quoted RFK from his book "Robert Kennedy, in His Own Words" which was a collection of transcripts of interviews edited by his close friend Edwin Guthman,as praising Dulles below, for how he handled his ouster after the BOP... “”He dealt with his ouster with a great deal of dignity and never attempted to shift the blame…. The President was very fond of him, as was I.” Does anybody have this book? i wonder what year that quote would be from? It seems to me, either the quote is in the book, or it isn't.

Below is a June 1964, 3 way conversation between LBJ, RFK and Allen Dulles. In June 1964, the Mississippi governor asks LBJ to send a representative of the administrative to oversee activities going on during racial tensions where 3 civil rights workers were killed down there. LBJ discusses with AG RFK, what to do and this is a phone call where LBJ and RFK phone Dulles to ask him to represent the administration and be their emissary to Mississippi in an advisory role and come back and report about it. This appears on the surface to be your taxpayer dollars at work. LBJ, RFK putting aside their animosities and enlisting Alan Dulles to help the administration de escalate Civil Rights tensions in the South with Dulles's onsite observance, advice and counsel. ***** 2:08--One part of the recording appears to be edited and repetitively skipping at one point, At first Dulles might be confused about offering condolences. to RFK about his brother's assassination when he's really offering condolences about Teddy's recent injury in a plane crash. 5:20-Dulles to RFK: "What is the timing on this, you know I'm on this other commission you know" (namely investigating your brother's assassination!) But Bobby assures Allen that won't get in the way at all! 7:00 Dulles:Why did you pick me for this? RFK: Because I know you. (Dulles laughs uproariously.) Dulles: I've been a little mad at you because of this Bay of Pigs thing, a little bit, but I can forget that very easily. I don't stay angry long. Dulles is now back with LBJ, 8:40 Dulles: You know you put me on this commission with the Chief Justice and others where we're now reaching a point where I wouldn't want to neglect that. LBJ: No I understand that. I assume some here are hearing this for the very first time.I have brought this conversation up before to what I assume was in some cases a stunned silence, yet the visible reaction was as if it wasn't really noteworthy to a group that largely suspects Alan Dulles had a direct hand in the assassination of JFK. A curious reaction, no doubt. Because in conversation, it touches directly on the alleged Dulles motive, but perhaps it's because it doesn't further the Dulles-and-friends-did-it- narrative. I do remember in print comments to this by a number of JFKA researchers, a sort of scrambling. Though I'm not sure that was really necessary. Because this is not conclusive, but I don't see a hint of suspicion that Bobby suspects Dulles had any hand in his brother's death here.. And I don't think Bobby is a guy who hides what he thinks that well. I've never seriously heard the topic here discussed "What did Bobby truly know, and when did he know it? Or did he positively know anything at all ?, other than someone quoting one author in passing. It could also shed light on another topic that I've posted in the past. Why did the Kennedy's spend decades spurning the JFKA research community? Was there an early opportunity lost, because Bobby was just paralyzed because he had no clue who among a number of enemies were behind the assassination of his brother?, and with no central head, the rest of the family just floundered? A similar topic has been recently posted here with a provocative partisan political title, blaming the Democrats but then everything is politics these days. If anything, this clip should be fun to speculate about, rather than sweep under a rug. What do you think? Does it give any new insight into the relationships between these 3 men?