Jump to content
The Education Forum

Kirk Gallaway

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kirk Gallaway

  1. In this case. Really I disagree with both of you. I really think carrying on the debate that Mark Lane started is what Mark would have wanted. But that wasn't my intention. It was to pay my respects, show a clip of his work that first impressed me. In passing I made a specific reference to the photograph of a small whiff of smoke. This is because if this photo is authentic, this literally a "smoking gun", but I do notice that the car in the foreground doesn't look like any car in the immediate motorcade indicating some time had to pass. Then DVP, goes off on his blog about every reference to even cigarette smoke in the plaza, prodigiously quoting his idol VB. He seems to say it was obviously a fake because Groden processed it. End of story. Then Michael and Chuck with their opposition, which I did enjoy. But nobody to this day has refuted the account of the 3 railway workers, without alleging some conspiracy among witnesses. For what? 1)So they could write a book that they never ended up writing? or 2) They were the victims of some whacky, smoky, mass hysteria. We all know that it is difficult to ascertain the origin of gunshots or any noise in a wide open area. But these guys are the only witnesses with front road seats, and good acoustics, (and when I say front row seats, they also an excellent view if there were shots from the depository.) And even if you are LNer, by what measure of investigative justice are these testimonies discounted, disallowed or changed to suit a preconceived theory? Also given the fact that the major networks showed almost no contradictory eyewitness testimony like this, except when they were forced to get their information from the earliest local broadcasts, and that was the only taste we got of it, certainly didn't say much for our democracy.
  2. Mark Lane was the first naysayer I remember. People can't appreciate the courage one had to have to speak up at this time. I have a brother 10 years older than me, whose a surgeon, who rarely gets rattled, but whose vital signs rise significantly when confronted with evidence of a JFK conspiracy. There were many such his age at the time. When confronted with Mark Lane, he'll always conveniently paint him with his later presence at Jonestown. This video below shows a number of the Mark Lane witnesses I first saw that contradicted the Warren Report. I'll never forget S.M. Holland, an everyday common guy speaking out. He seemed to me to be a guy who couldn't lie about anything if he had to. I've heard a contradiction of Price's account that no one else saw someone running from behind the fence. But I'd be curious to hear from DVP or anyone else about the authenticity of the smoke photo at the end. https://youtu.be/HEq63vTOwcI
  3. This has been one of my favorites. I don't think I would have minded being brought up in the Cousin's family at all. You could see why they ended the film with them. It's not a Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy film. But It ends up driving the average viewer to a precipice.The confluence of events leading up to the assassination,Kennedy's enemies, the battle stakes of the Cold war. In my mind, it accomplished exactly what it set out to do. It's tone is not of the plaintive conspiracy theorist. It has to give any halfway open, thoughtful person pause.
  4. I would agree with Greg. I think it fulfilled a very useful function in getting people to question the official story. It did attempt to link many facets of the Assassination, and there were a number of witnesses and experts regarding a number of aspects of the JFK assassination I had not seen before. My criticism would be that it didn't meet a conspiracy theory or conspiracy witness it didn't like, and obviously all of these theories couldn't co exist with each other. I think it was made to raise doubts about the official version and give a number of conspiracy theories (credible and less credible with passing time) equal footing. I personally didn't go for the Corsican mob theory and over time I've come to disregard, Ed Hoffman, Gordon Arnold, Beverly Oliver and later Madeleine Duncan Brown and the Murchison meeting to name a few I can remember. I thought of close eyewitness testimony that was omitted that I was always liked the testimony of S.M. Holland and wondered why he wasn't included, even though he had probably passed by the time of the Documentary.
  5. Dave Von Pein said: Yes, I guess CBS could have spent many minutes discussing the conflicting witness accounts of the President's head wound, which is, btw, still the #1 "mystery" to me in the whole case---and has been for years. I can't fully explain WHY the Parkland witnesses, as well as some Bethesda witnesses, said they saw a huge hole in the back of JFK's head. But the best evidence--the authenticated autopsy photographs and X-rays (plus the Zapruder Film)--trumps those "BOH" witnesses. No matter how many BOH witnesses there are. Hmm, Interesting Dave, So I guess when it's get down to it, we're all Cter's, We see a conspiracy in that we don't see LHO as a lone gunman, and you see all the first witnesses at Parkland and Clint Hill as a conspiracy to advocate a bullet coming from the front. Is that right ? Or is it that you think all the first people who independently verified that Kennedy's wounds were in the back of the head were simply mistaken? Would that be a sort of a mass hypnosis? Not having heard accounts from others and being verified as official observers to the head wound, isn't it remarkable how many have have said there was a big hole in the back of Kennedy's skull? Surely you can't believe that so many people could be innocently mistaken? That just isn't common sense. Let's try to ferret out motive. What would be the motive of those who falsely claim they saw the hole in the back of Kennedy's head? At that point there was no official story to uphold. On the other hand, As far as the motive to try to establish a lone gunman? Well you've heard all of our theories over and over again.Even someone like you who so adamantly wants to believe the official record and the integrity of his governments investigation could easily see a motive that they just don't believe they can get to the bottom of it, and wanted to quell the potential unrest that could come from a conspiracy. There is so much possible motive in fomenting a story line of a lone gunman, and none on the part of the witnesses to the BOH wound. Another common sense question, Why would there be a more accurate account in Washington hours later then there would be from the first witnesses and Doctors in Dallas? That just isn't common sense. Would you believe that just because the people who said it in Washington are agents of the federal government?
  6. I enjoyed it it too Jim. Here is a Walter Cronkite interview with John J. Mc Cloy about the Warren Report. In his intro he is acknowledged as the former high commissioner for Germany. Not to get too psychoanalytical but what I'm struck with by Mc Cloy in the interview is how in answering Cronkite's questions that he's continually turning his head away from Cronkite as if to check his notes on what is presumably a spontaneous interview. It's as if he can't fix his gaze at his questioner and has to be continually retreat to himself. It's common for people to avert eye contact in an interview to perhaps collect their thoughts. But this "aside bobble head" quality of Mc Cloy looks very awkward. And Cronkite (who I was brought up with) acts like he's just thrilled and privileged that one of the esteemed Warren Commission members would actually condescend to answer questions from the public. This sort of fawning was very common among newsman to political leaders of that time. As an adolescent i remember sort of liking Walter Cronkite, but I had no idea until later that people invested such a huge amount of trust specifically in their TV anchors.His anti Viet Nam War piece was the first thing I remembered from him that was in any way defiant. IMO, He did perfectly represent the people of that time who heartily wanted to believe in their country and wanted what was best for the country despite any say, party affiliations, but definitely had their blind spots. https://youtu.be/vigbW8qdFks
  7. I love it! Always have. Sevareid's words are oh so true. Then and now. Which is why, of course, DiEugenio feels the need to trash Mr. Sevareid. Jim simply cannot accept the basic common sense—and truth—that resides within this one single sentence: "The notion that they would do such a thing is idiotic." Dave,Since you love those 60's news icons. I don't know if you've seen this.. But apparently some others at CBS had their doubts. No less than the executive producer of the CBS evening news at the time and the eventual producer of the most commercially successful TV news magazine of the 20th century, before his death expressed doubt that Oswald was the lone assassin and actually thinks that Nixon and LBJ have some insight as to who was really behind the Kennedy assassination. I would assume if he expresses that former Presidents might be privy, that he probably doesn't have the unquestioned respect that his colleague, Severeid and you have for the WC as well. Of course this begs the question, why didn't he investigate it? Was it just a matter that he couldn't absolutely prove it, as he said? Hewitt starts at 1:15, for some reason they sync up the audio at around 5:06. Then Nixon, Garrison and an excerpt I had never heard from Jesse Curry expressing his opinion of a frontal entry. Sallinger, Yarborough, Gorbachev https://youtu.be/kNcQi46T6ME
  8. Well first off, I don't think it's effect on the Cuban people will be just P.R. And Brad, students were hunkering down under their desks long before the Cuban missile crisis. "Those that advocate giving the Cuban snake a second chance are cordially invited to position themselves at ground zero when the 1st nukes strike the ground." Boy I don't know Brad, you seem to have great uncertainty about where this is all headed. I personally think that's one of the easier questions of the future. Despite the current official posturings. Cuba with it's dirt cheap economy and relatively educated population will become a great source of cheap labor for the worlds multi national corporate engine. From what I'm gathering, Isn't that what you want? .When it's said throughout Cuba that the average Cuban will always remember Diez y Siete de Diciembre, as a historic day in Cuban history. What do you think that means regarding the average Cuban's thoughts about America finally opening diplomatic relations with Cuba, that they dread it and are hell bent in starting a war about it? How many generations of politicians have been held hostage by the Florida anti Castro Cuban community. Clinton wouldn't touch it.One thing I've never figured out is why would would Cuban Americans for generations (50 years) help foment a policy toward Cuba that would virtually ensure that they would never reunite with their own relatives? If Clinton, (who was probably the first President who could have) actually opened had opened the doors to Cuba 20 years ago, do they really think they would be hard core Socialists (or Communist, whatever you choose) now? Is it really just about one man, who probably wouldn't have chosen to ally with the Soviet Union had he not been shunned by the military and government establishments in Washington? It's almost as if they feared if we opened relations with Cuba, and their relatives started coming into the country, after a few weeks they'd have to eventually kick their deadbeat relatives out of their verandas. Ok, maybe that's not fair, but the official stance of anti Castro Cubans toward their homeland shows absolutely no foresight, and in result, really a callous concern about the long term plight over the economic futures of their relatives, and incredibly poor judgment. Isn't it interesting when Marco Rubio is asked his reaction to Obama's opening of Cuba, you can see a general disdain, but it's like, Oh well, it certainly wasn't the end of the world. It as if after 50 years of kicking and screaming, it turned out to just be a paper tiger. It was just a stupid, hostile policy that for at least the last half was allowed to go because almost no one among them, had the courage to speak out against it. Even after everyone knew, it had outlived any usefulness.
  9. From Post #1: "The first three people who were on the scene when the rifle was found, Weitzman, Boone and Craig were all Sheriff's Deputies. In one way or another, they all identified it as a German make." However, this is beside the point. What I am trying to stress is that anyone who claims to have read the calibre stamped on a Mauser rifle is full of beans. How many times does one person have to be wrong before you begin to seriously question his work? I don't know. While I believe Roger Craig may have been telling the truth about a good number of things, he certainly could never have read "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the barrel of an Argentine Mauser; at least, not one direct from the factory anyways. It is possible someone acquired an Argentine Mauser and stamped "7.65 Mauser" on the barrel themselves. One theory I have is that Weitzman, at a glance, ID'ed the rifle as an Argentine Mauser Model 1891, simply because the protruding magazines on this Mauser and the Carcano are so similar. Why no one simply looked closely at the Carcano to read the "6,5 CAL MADE ITALY" stamped behind the rear sight is beyond me. Craig probably heard Weitzman and later embellished the story with the calibre stamping tale. I have often wondered if he was even on the 6th floor at the time the rifle was being examined. There are pictures of Craig on the 6th floor. He said he was searching the NW corner of TSBD for a murder weapon and was 8 feet behind Deputy Sheriff Boone when he discovered the rifle.I suppose Boone's testimony would confirm or not. Craig's account begins 26:30 in link below. All the news reports by all the major news outlets on Nov. 22nd reported that the murder weapon was a German Mauser. It wasn't until I believe the afternoon of the 23rd that they corrected it to MC. News reports of Mauser start at 32:00 https://youtu.be/1pGg-rS26c4?t=1763
  10. All good points, Jon, but you left out a few vital facts about Edwin Walkers' special case: (1) Although West Point never teaches assassination, this is no proof that motivated students would never research such a thing on their own. (2) After Edwin Walker graduated from West Point, he quickly joined a "Special Forces" unit. I wonder if "Special Forces" in 1931 meant anything like "Special Forces" meant in 1971. If so, then pinpoint covert activities would not be out of the question. (2.1) While I agree there has never been on-the-job training for political assassinations, ultimately it is a variety of covert operations, is it not? And these skills are taught somewhere, officially, are they not? Perhaps in "Special Forces?" (3) General Walker, after 30 years of outstanding military service in two wars, resigned from the US Army in November 1961 -- he did not retire as he easily could have -- but he deliberately resigned, and deliberately forfeited his 30-year Army Pension. (3.1) This made Edwin Walker the only US General to resign in the 20th century, forfeiting his Army Pension. (3.2) When asked why he did this, Walker said, "It will be my purpose now, as a civilian, to attempt to do what I have found it no longer possible to do in uniform.” (3.3) IMHO, this doesn't explain well enough the rash acting of forfeiting a lifetime service pension -- but that's what Walker did. (3.4) There was something about the Uniform and the Army itself that had turned sour for Edwin Walker. (3.5) What do you say now, Jon, as regards taking this oath seriously? Is it not really a case that Walker took his oath VERY seriously, so seriously that he would not violate his oath by keeping his Uniform and belonging to the John Birch Society? (4.0) As a matter of fact, Edwin Walker submitted his resignation once before, under President Eisenhower in 1959. What happened in 1959? Two things: (4.1) Walker read the Black Book (1959) by Robert Welch, which convinced its readers that President Eisenhower was in fact a Communist. (4.2) This meant that the entire power structure of Washington DC was under the control of the Communists, including the Pentagon. So, to avoid this contagion, Edwin Walker resigned from the US Army. (5.0) Ike denied the 1959 request. Instead, Ike promoted Walker to his new post in Germany (5.1) While in Germany, Walker made lots of enemies, especially with the US Army's Overseas Weekly newspaper there. (5.2) By 1961, the Overseas Weekly newspaper made Walker into headline news as a card-carrying member of the John Birch Society. This started a shore flap, and the JCS decided to remove Walker from his command. (5.3) Long story short, Walker resigned in November 1961, and though JFK offered to keep Walker on in Hawaii, Walker submitted his resignation for the 2nd time, and JFK accepted it. (5.5) So -- although Walker took his oath in 1931 when he joined the Army, he resigned from the Army, because of his newfound political beliefs that FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and JFK had all been Communists. (5.6) Walker joined the Radical Right political cause in the USA -- all without his Army Pension. He got plenty of money, though, from H.L. Hunt and other wealthy backers, as Walker embarked on a political career, in which he would first run for Texas Governor. (6.0) IMHO, the people who killed JFK didn't do it for money -- they did it because they TRULY in their heart of hearts, believed that JFK was a Communist, and therefore a Traitor, and therefore had to die for the good of the US Constitution. Please read the October 1963 newspaper articles I posted above. They confirm the basics of what I'm saying here. Regards, --Paul Trejo 3) General Walker, after 30 years of outstanding military service in two wars, resigned from the US Army in November 1961 -- he did not retire as he easily could have -- but he deliberately resigned, and deliberately forfeited his 30-year Army Pension. (3.1) This made Edwin Walker the only US General to resign in the 20th century, forfeiting his Army Pension. (3.2) When asked why he did this, Walker said, "It will be my purpose now, as a civilian, to attempt to do what I have found it no longer possible to do in uniform.” (3.3) IMHO, this doesn't explain well enough the rash acting of forfeiting a lifetime service pension -- but that's what Walker did. (3.4) There was something about the Uniform and the Army itself that had turned sour for Edwin Walker. (3.5) What do you say now, Jon, as regards taking this oath seriously? Is it not really a case that Walker took his oath VERY seriously, so seriously that he would not violate his oath by keeping his Uniform and belonging to the John Birch Society?2) This meant that the entire power structure of Washington DC was under the control of the Communists, including the Pentagon. So, to avoid this contagion, Edwin Walker resigned from the US Army. (5.5) So -- although Walker took his oath in 1931 when he joined the Army, he resigned from the Army, because of his newfound political beliefs that FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and JFK had all been Communists. (5.6) Walker joined the Radical Right political cause in the USA -- all without his Army Pension. He got plenty of money, though, from H.L. Hunt and other wealthy backers, as Walker embarked on a political career, in which he would first run for Texas Governor. (6.0) IMHO, the people who killed JFK didn't do it for money -- they did it because they TRULY in their heart of hearts, believed that JFK was a Communist, and therefore a Traitor, and therefore had to die for the good of the US Constitution. Whew! Paul, that's a powerful closing passage! I see in your mature years, you've at last found a hero, or maybe a. certain group from an era. The only general in the 20th century to give up his pension?? That sounds well researched. True, How many of us, would give up our pensions? To "do in civilian life, what was no longer possible to do in a uniform."!! Whoa! But truly in their heart of hearts?? Wow, I bet nobody really appreciated them at the time either. Now that's courage. I guess some fantasize being part of the March to Washington with Dr. King, some being with Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, and you have some perverse desire to be in that crowd and part oft that last flurry of the last days when white was right. ......Ok, I kinda get it.
  11. Yeah, In their debate Bernie slammed Hillary for her association with Henry Kissinger, who she used as a recommendation, calling him one of the most destructive Secretary of States, obviously he'd cite Chile and Allende.
  12. MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID: Please tell me you have a life beyond this case..... if you can, that is. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I can't tell you that, because I don't have a life. Haven't for years. Sorry if it bothers you. Dave, I do like your posts of recorded JFK conversation that I see in YouTube, and I think you are providing some useful services that you might not get enough credit for here. And if it's any consolation, from what I can see, you're not the only person I've encountered on these forums who has no other life beyond this case. But I appreciate your candor. I think this question can be a bit of a red herring, though I certainly wouldn't want to be reduced to a snippet to be a stooge to make your argument look good. But having said that, I'm afraid to go over to your site and see how much of it is just quoted conversations from other forums and alas realize how little other life you may have. But what I really want to talk with you about is your chicken. I suppose it's because I'm getting older, but I haven't tried it now in a number of years. It's not only because the chicken makes me fart, but I also don't like the smell of them, and in truth, they can be just a little messy. Though I'm no expert on fast food preparation, Might I suggest that you change your grease a little more frequently? Just a thought.
  13. Obama's great achievement I think is twofold: 1.) He exposed Hillary Clinton as begin pretty much a neo con, and 2.) He has made Putin into a hero to many of us. I'm a bit miffed here Jim. How has Obama made Putin into a big hero to many of us? And why for that, is he to be credited with a great achievement?
  14. Re: Paines, So for the down and dirty who absolutely have to some answer about their involvements before they're gone. According to Talbot they're both up in Santa Rosa, Cal. So it wouldn't have to be a bi coastal abduction. ......For anybody from any intelligence agencies that might be monitoring this site. It's just a joke! Yes she's the most interviewed witness in the 26 volumes, and she at times has been accessible. But she really hasn't addressed any of the new evidence that has surfaced in the last 25 years. It's too bad they couldn't be interviewed under the right auspices. It would be nice to see how they react to some of these questions. (is that better?) Hey "The many faces of Ruth Paine", she looks like a sort of hot 60's villainess in a Perry Mason episode. No?
  15. What I tend to think is that is that Hume was approached as others such as Earl Warren by LBJ,(but by maybe a Naval Intelligence source?) that sources on high say that Oswald is tied to Castro and it's Hume's patriotic duty to perform certain tasks as instructed to follow a concocted lone gunman story to avert possible Nuclear War.
  16. I agree that the biggest revelation for me in DCB was how the French Algerian right wing coupe and the attempts on De Gaulle's life and their parallel to the Kennedy assassination. I wonder what was Talbot's source for Dulles's counsel to JFK that 80% of De Gaulle's military had turned against him and his ouster if not assassination was a fait accompli? Did he site that? Other very interesting things -2 traitors Dulles and Himmler trying to negotiate the end of WW2! -Dulles was emboldened by being the first agency to resist Mac Carthy. Interesting! -Personal :That his wife was having sessions with Carl Jung! That his wife and Mary Bancroft became friends.. -The who's who corporate presence at his funeral. Yes, Talbot does refer to the power elites and Dulles and his brother's connections to them. The book IMO, is a triumph. The life and times of the spymaster, Allen Dulles is a great focus on the dark side of America's 20th Century Geopolitics. Re: the JFK Assassination, I don't come out of it feeling that satisfied, but I didn't expect to, still sadly it may be as close as we can ever get to at least the plotters. Certainly you come out of it with increased resolve that Dulles is quite the DouCh Bag, and you certainly can't put it past him. Another interesting tidbit in the book. I thought Michael Paine was in Woods Hole Mass. So he's now in Northern California, at least near where Ruth is. Hmm,
  17. I've read Brothers and all but the second quarter of DCB. DCB, I'd highly recommend it. Talbot is very convincing but I've tended to lean in that direction for awhile but no one book is going to absolutely convince me that Allen Dulles was the man behind the assassination. But even if he was, he was still answering to others.
  18. Ok Paul, that's a bit more nuanced. Paul Trejo said, Yet I maintain that if the WC had fingered General Walker and the Radical Right, then Liberals in the USA would have gone after them with fury. Professor David Wrone (U. of Wisconsin) said that after JFK was murdered, among the people he knew, men went out with axes to chop down JBS billboards “immediately”. There was real anger in the air. I had never heard that anecdotal story. I assume it's only an anecdotal story, as I hadn't heard much about a liberal backlash. The left's tactics in late 1963 were mostly non violent peaceful resistance with a few people getting thrown in jail for a day or two. Any fear that the left and right would start a civil war was completely unjustified. The left in 1963 would never have gotten in an armed insurrection with the right, because they knew it would be suicide. They weren't as well financed or prone to carry guns. Remember Paul, this isn't 1969, it's 1963 and those 2 years were worlds apart. But still 5 years later the left had 2 of it's major leaders assassinated and outside of a few short lived incidents, stood by pretty passively. Finally, I believe that Hoover, LBJ, Dulles and Warren all agreed – that blaming the Left or the Right for the JFK murder would start riots in the streets – riots that the FBI could not control. And if the riots got really out of hand, the USSR would have been tempted to interfere. Then the violence would have escalated to a fever pitch. I think the real reasons that Hoover, Dulles and Warren agreed to not blame the left or right was better explained in responses to Jon Tidd's recent post and not because of fear of riots in the streets. Part of the evidence of that is that many rightists still believed LHO was a communist and many leftists wondered just what he really was, and no one started a revolution about it.
  19. Paul Trejo said: The 60's were only leftist in a relative way -- JFK spoke about letting the Vietnamese fighting their own war, but JFK also spoke about helping the South Vietnamese so that the "dominos" would stop falling. JFK was liberal, but he was also super-rich, and there was nothing socialist about JFK. Ok, Perhaps the word "leftist" could be misconstrued. ( Though it was a period of big government) But I didn't say Socialist, you did. Your response is neither here nor there. I'm talking about the movements of people, not about John Kennedy's personal political views. All the movements of people in the 60's were in place before Kennedy even got elected. For example, Do you think MLK thought Kennedy was enough into Civil rights? Do you know they were at odds? Do you really think Kennedy had anything to do with the civil rights movement? Outside of one good speech, he tried to avoid dealing with it at all costs and only confronted it when he had to. Did Kennedy have anything to do with the Free Speech movement? Understandably no. And Kennedy had already died before the anti Viet Nam war movement. However, Nixon was elected because LBJ bowed out, thank you very much. No Paul,...thank you. You just illustrated my point that Nixon's election was a fluke. You can extend that further, and also say if RFK hadn't been assassinated, Nixon never would have been elected. Your view is myopic -- its focus is strictly on the USA, without considering the USSR in the equation. The Cold War was still as white-hot as the Cuban Missile Crisis. If the fight was strictly in the USA, then it could have been resolved quickly, as you suggest. However, the entire planet was involved -- with the USSR looming large. Talk about Russian warmongering! About the only other person who would share your viewpoint on that would be Walker himself. Do you realize it was OUR military and intelligence who approached Kennedy about launching a first strike against the Russians while we still had clear missile superiority? Talk about myopic! Is there really any doubt that the USSR would have been tempted to get involved? That the CPUSA would have made a grandstand of it? That this would have energized the Radical Right to another extreme level? Is there really any doubt??? Is that called Bravado Paul? In one word: yes! IMO, you're world wide apocalyptic view of General Walker being brought to justice is totally bananas! If the Left had gone after the Minutemen on the Right-wing (who were massively well armed, including military grade equipment) the FBI would have needed more help -- and the Coast Guard would have not been enough. Riots in the streets were plausible -- but this was during the Cold War! If the left had gone after the right wing??? And what do mean by the left? Martin Luther King and his non violent protesters? There were no radical student groups before the Viet Nam War. Who specifically are you talking about in this war you were projecting? Don't underestimate the Minutemen of the 1960's, please, Kirk. Don't underestimate the power of the American military, Paul. The minutemen would squashed out like a toad on the road. You also write: "Even in the South, the Civil Rights Movement was non violent." Excuse me?! It was only a few months before JFK was murdered, that Medgar Evars was shot in the back in his driveway in Mississippi. It was only a couple more years after JFK was murdered that MLK was also murdered in cold blood. The Civil Rights Movement in the South was non-violent? Nonsense. I think you better check you scorecard Paul. Do you understand that General Walker, the KKK and the various other White Supremacist groups are not part of the Civil Rights movement? With all due respect Paul, I like some of your diggings. But If Caulfield's book veer into these contrived, paranoid right wing apocalyptic visions you enumerate here. I think I'll pass on it.
  20. Agreed, this is a point Paul T. mistakenly makes over and over again. But it's a fallacy, and it ignores the context of the 60's. Paul T., despite the revisionist media articles you may have read about the 60's, tauting the Goldwater republican candidacy being the start of the modern conservative movement, the 60's was a leftist decade, the last one since. Both houses were overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats for the entire decade. Nixon was elected on a fluke, by the riots in Chicago, at the Democratic convention in 1968, where the left clearly shot itself in the foot, or there wouldn't have even been a enlected Republican president for the entire decade. If the Kennedy assassination conspiracy was revealed to have been fomented by General Walker and his assorted group of rednecks, as you assert, the left would have gotten their small pound of flesh and outside a more vigorous prosecution for white hate crimes, that would have been the end of it. No politicians from that time would be afraid of an all out left right war. Even in the South, the Civil Rights Movement was non violent. Sure there was the JBS, and some Texas millionaires, but the organized right civilian resistance was largely a segregationist movement in the South. Your motive for all this involved government cover up, to protect this one disillusioned general, is completely at odds with the historic facts on the ground.
  21. With the Cuban missile only a year passed, the public had hopes that we had traversed the last hurdle to World Nuclear War. In the days following the assassination, the immediate feed of information was to intentionally portray Oswald as leftist, pro Cuban revolution and possible agent of Castro, which was the the greatest fear in the public mind. The following day, Hoover expressing doubts to LBJ about the CIA story line ( Oswald visiting the Soviet embassy in Mexico City,) started the pretext for a cover up to disavow Oswald connections to the right or the left, and portray him as a lone, deranged nut. All the high level officials and/or possible conspirators knew, whatever may be divulged in the future, about their criminal cover up of conspiracy would be judged leniently in history as the custodians of the public good in diverting a possible WW3 scenario, or domestic unrest at home. That of course precludes the possibility, that the conspiracy was carried out at the highest levels of government and/or a cabal of the worlds power elites, which was not at the time seriously considered in the public mind. Well put!, I think it was an elegant, beautiful plan that has now escaped detection for 50 years. Where I might tend to disagree is that the elegance of the cover up falling into place doesn't necessarily mean that the plotters weren't also part of the cover up.
  22. Thanks Ron and Sandy for those anagrams. There has been a bit of "trickery" in Curtis. We do appreciate your "awestruck' by this forum but not to the point of being "one scintilla" persuaded is a bit hard to swallow. I suppose if that wasn't trickery, you're a guy whose always wanted to be seduced by someone else, but would let never let himself. Pity! You certainly must be a "bickerer' to just to undertake posting in the first place. But you're not the only one. Anyway this is all in good fun. I have some anagrams I'd like to contribute. Curtis, Dave, (love your JFK film library!) This onslaught of anagram diversion might be rather disconcerting, but I urge you guys to just relax and walk a little on the wild side. I often think of the empty void a LN would face without a CT. Some critical thought is good, but in every forum I've visited, I think the LN needs us more then we need them. I've done some personal research on anagrams and I really think there's something to this anagram thing. ANAGRAMS I'm pretty sure I got them all right. Sometimes it reads almost a time line, or a progression. President George W. Bush Greed rips the U.S.! Now Beg! Enthused, bigger powers! White person begrudges! Purge those dweeb grins! Begrudge this new poser! George Walker Bush, President of the USA The bugger seeks of oil! He's a warped runt! President Bush of the USA Phase of untested hubris Hothead usurps benefits USA President George Bush Huge, depressing saboteur Ass... one stupid bugger here! Ronald Wilson Reagan Ran on all wrong ideas Hey I can put down the Democrats too. But for now, I'll just put out a teaser on Obama. Remember Obama's short honeymoon period at the beginning of his Presidency? Actually he never had one, but there was some good will seeping around when he was President Elect, but of course, it just couldn't last. President Elect Barack Obama America pretends to be a black
  23. Later, and after the internet became a staple of our lives (sometime around 2000-01, maybe?), and it [the Warren Report] was readily available, I still felt a pang of honest hesitation in reading it. For reasons unknown at the time, but which become clearer with the dual benefit of both age and hindsight, I now know that I put it off for so long, simply because I was afraid of what I might find, and worse, that it would all make sense, and that my own intellectual honesty would force me to sacrifice even the last vestiges of any possibility of my conspiratorial beliefs." Curtis Berkley Usually the more people read the WR, the more stunned they are at the WR conclusions. Perhaps you were just looking for set answers and were unable to ask any questions of your own. "Not one scintilla of evidence" , I assume you're a big Jerry Ford fan. I read this forum from time to time, and quite enjoy it. I am often amazed, awe-struck even, at the depth and breadth of knowledge assembled here, and the expert-level attention to the faintest or most minutest detail. Awestruck, but not "one scintilla" persuaded by the depth and breadth assembled here? Were you just being kind, or just not entirely truthful about where you're coming from? But, I often get lost in those weeds, and I fear that I (and perhaps others) often miss the larger picture. And it is that desire, to understand where it all begins for each of you, which prefaces my question. Really?, it doesn't sound like you're "one scintilla" lost at all. You've gotten a very energetic response to your one question. Your respondents are positively engaged and responding to one another whether you're participating or not. I'll assume you didn't just pose this question to suck everybody's energy and give none of your own, or at least that wasn't your initial intention. Ok, maybe it was short sighted of you to bring up this question during the xmas holiday, but now that we have more time and that's over. Where are you? Are you planning to bring anything to the table?
  24. I haven't read the book yet. I appreciate very much Jim Di's well written, thorough review, and have personally noted in his and others past reviews, his list of revelations that he just posted from the book. But isn't it fair to say we don't have a smoking gun?
  25. Honestly, I think it's the editors. Over the years the Kennedy assassination has become this mutually reinforced little piffle. No news is good news.
  • Create New...