Kirk Gallaway

Yes, we've been through this! I shouldn't have to even talk about this! Declares Jim! The Frontline program is also a sham! Jim has taken care of all guesswork for his followers about this, so over time, the result is we have to overcome the inertia of people blindly accepting anything he says. And right now the message is forum hegemony that Oswald was not in Mexico City! heh heh ******** Well not exactly Mart. Start at 1:44:38 of the clip below. The poor attempts are acknowledged here. But there are several witnesses to Oswald in MXC. 2 Australian women on the bus to MXC. Duran, the 3 Russians at the embassy. Yes, we have the best of both worlds here. We can quote the FBI or CIA whenever it suits our purpose and ignore the testimony of several people here starting at 1:44:38 who say they saw LHO in MXC, because they were obviously complicit or paid off! Right Sandy? One thing that's occurred over and over is there's no economy practiced here. No one employs KISS here, (keep it simple stupid?) But lazily chooses to cast an ever widening net of conspirators. And for every flaw or inconsistency in their argument., more conspirators become necessary. The more, the merrier, ho ho ho! All witnesses to Oswald in this clip were obviously paid off, right? Similarly , no one employs "Occam's razor" here which is ” The principle gives precedence to simplicity: of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred. The principle is also expressed as “Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.” I've seen this recently on the LBJ tab. That's not to say that people who believe that LBJ was involved in the planning are wrong. It's just the degree of planning that has been put forth and the shear number of people involved. I suppose no one who always seems to end up with greater and greater conspiracies has ever had the practical life experience that people just can't keep secrets very long! And because of this lack of everyday experience, we become so sloppy in our thinking. That it's now 60 years and counting!

Hey! Inquiring minds want to know! heh heh

Yeah i know you feel that way, Roger.. I was suspecting someone would mention the appointment of Dulles, but I've heard conflicting things about how Dulles got the job. I've even heard Bobby suggested it. So LBJ just intuitively knew Dulles and what Mc Cloy? had the gravitas to win out over Warren*, ( Boggs and Russell? We have recordings of LBJ agreeing with Russell that the SBT theory was a hoax. Even setting out with a preconceived goal. Explain to me how LBJ knew the verdict would be a slam dunk with no dissent and would play out satisfactorily? LBJ's order to illegally snatch bodies! Source? LBJ's phone call---Details , time, Source. But aren't you confusing the assassination with the coverup? They could be different, you know. You can argue LBJ's choices, when faced with the increasing uncertainty of who killed JFK, were pretty predictable. That is to take suspicion away from the Russians, Cubans, the government (Joint Chiefs and the CIA),appoint a commission and put it on a lone assassin, would be what most executives might do, and so didn't require a lot of guesswork. And that's not even mentioning the fact that LBJ gets a windfall, a makeover and a get out of jail free card, and actually becomes President! It's a good bet to assume LBJ's not in a position to purge the government to find the assassin! Get it? *ok ww3, ehh! some bandy about Warren scandal!

Yeah, LBJ is the ultimate low hanging fruit of JFK conspiracy lore. He just couldn't help it with all his motives. Obviously with a guy like him, nothing would surprise me. But a lot of the people in "The men who killed Kennedy", #9? including Madeleine Duncan Brown, Judyth Baker and Barr Mc Clellan ( FYI, whose son Scott was George W. Bush's press secretary.) I think are just douchebags IMO, as was Billy Sol Estes.. I once was more susceptible to such stories. But having spent so much time studying the JFKA , I've seen so XXXXX and nefarious allegations come and go. What JFKA student wouldn't salivate at the idea that Malcolm Wallace was LBJ's" hit man" and he killed Henry Marshall and his own sister! We love foci of evil here, and If that isn't a sufficient "focus of evil", I don't know what is!. And nothing would surprise me happening in Texas in the 50's, but I don't really believe any of it. Not that I would argue with anyone who did. This is a good thread. The people who were most concerned about JFK were concerned about "appeasement" and the Cold War ending. They didn't have to be very sophisticated to know that LBJ was going to be a big improvement to them. But I've never believed that JFK being killed was purely a binary decision about whether to escalate the war in Vietnam But those issues aren't the bane of JEH or the FBI. Though we know there were unaccounted for minutes in their phone call, was it the following day? between JEH and LBJ. That could be just an acknowledgement of what the direction of the plan will be regarding how they are going to pursue Oswald's guilt. I don't think LBJ was part of the plan, and I don't think he colluded with any group that was, before or after the assassination. But we all know LBJ was part of a coverup. I think he had better suspicions about who killed JFK than Bobby, who at least at first, had a lot of allegations but no specifics. LBJ worked to take suspicion away from the Russians, Cubans, the government (Joint Chiefs and the CIA), and decided to deflect foreign policy objectives away from Cuba and toward SE Asia, and was savvy enough to know that Civil Rights legislation was the current wave of history and knew he had the unique background being the previous Majority Leader of the Senate to pull it off. I don't think there's any sufficient knowledge to speculate LBJ being owned by Hoover, Dulles, or Harriman or anybody, though it's fun to kick around. I don't think there were a lot of strings and negotiations going on between the plotters when LBJ became President. It was relatively seamless. A perceived radical was removed from office. I'm going with what we know , and that paints a somewhat logical story by itself. You can get lost, with dot connecting, assigning dominion over some of LBJ's contacts over others, but we don't have a clear track of how powerful each contact was. But as I say, it is fun to speculate.

Yes, the veto is inexcusable. This is interesting watching CNN and Dana Bash trying to crucify Rep. Jayapal as being soft on Hamas rape of Israeli women. Jayapal acknowledges the atrocities. As if any civilized person doesn't deplore rape in war. But she also makes the case for 17,000 Gazans dead and millions being displaced by the IDF, which is deemed to be "soft on Hamas rape?" Then Erin Burnette who I generally have liked, is employed as sort of a tag team to Dana Bash, implying that Jayapal's response "wasn't strong enough" and asked Ryan Grim if Jayapal's response in the interview is is splitting up "the Squad" and their resistance. Oh yeah? What a BS spin! CNN trying to make front page news headlines from their own interview! And Thank God Grim delivers the goods and shames Erin Burnette's questioning and CNN for trying to deflect the humanitarian nightmare going on in Gaza that we're complicit in.. AIPAC is pledging to spend 100 million dollars in the next election cycle to "educate" members of Congress as to the Israeli struggle. The meat of it starts at 3:30. In this interview, when Ted Cruz cites what he calls racist and genocidal slogans such as "from the river to the sea". Grim counters by confronting Ted Cruz with the statement from the Likud Party platform, "From the river to the sea, there will only be Israeli sovereignty" and cites numerous Netanyahu's cabinet ministers racist, genocidal rhetoric, including threatening the use of nuclear arms and leveling Gaza like Dresden in WW2. Which has already happened. Starts at 1:20.

R.I.P. Donald Trump's sister

Mike Johnson told a gathering of Christian nationalists last night that weeks before he became House Speaker, "the Lord told me very clearly" to prepare to become a "Moses" who will lead the nation through a "Red Sea moment." https://bit.ly/3Ni4oZH

Oh, so this is about me?, I didn't start the previous thread on RP. You did. Jim, You're much more evasive than Ruth! The answer is no perjury. I've actually been told to politically back off here asking serious questions of you on these matters. I'm left to think it's too disrupting to the forum status quo.

Fox ambushes RK again! RK admits to being on Jefferey Epstein's private jet twice! RK "My wife had some kind of relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell!!!!???." This was in the 90's. He went once to Florida and then another time on Epstein's jet to South Dakota to go fossil hunting one weekend with his family!!! These people definitely live in a different world than us!

Yes, just more nothing Jean! If it's not innuendo, it's phony claims of charges that would never hold up. But I do have a personal story I can account. In my whole time living in the U.S. There was only one time I didn't know what state I was in. To any people who've been to D.C. it's very possible to head south and 1) Not know when you've left DC, which i didn't. 2)Not know if you've left DC and be in Virginia, which happened to me. 3)Not know if when you've left DC and be in Maryland. There was nothing worth lying about here.

Man, some of these opening acts for Trump in Iowa are about as weirdly American as you can get! We are a divided nation! Now for a welcome pause. I don't want to give anything away. But it's all physics ---in an advanced society??? And Safelite butt cracks! I shudder to think if it was a smaller person! **** Yeah, Mc Carthy's gone. Now I see he was one of 2 abstentions in the George Santos vote.

Oh come on Richard! I've counted nothing short of 13 posts from you here! Are you going to duck out like Di Eugenio? I want to see if you thought this thing out at all. These posts don't give me much confidence. Richard:Though it might be a situation worth examining, as in the recent film The Assassination and Mrs. Paine which was well done and a worthy addition to the subject. You're obviously parachuting in here Richard because Max's film has been made reference to many times on this thread..Ok you can criticize the lengths of Greg's posts, but maybe you should review the thread and make sure you're not saying a lot of stuff that's been said before. Richard: Regarding Ruth Paine I think the truth is self-evident, regardless of what hard evidence exists or doesn't exist. Self evident?, So now you're Ben Franklin? (look it up!)That' just more nonsense Richard. Evidence does matter and RP would never get near being found guilty in a court of law., When Di Eugenio laments that if Carol Hewitt could have lived she would have produced a result that would have put Ruth in jail, that's just another Di Eugenio innuendo pipe dream! Another conspiracy whopper fish that got away turned legend!. Just more arrogant bluster. But I'll ask the question again. Richard, taking this in a completely different direction than you and Greg. Let me ask a question that I asked before on this thread several times before to no answer from Jim,but in fairness the only one who answered is Sandy, with his explanation that I see as a rather hybrid, explanation that neither you, as I understand, or I would embrace. I've addressed Sandy about the flaws I've seen in his theory, as Greg has recently on this thread. But here's what it seems your theory implies. Under the normal practice of spy craft, Ruth having been an accomplice to the the killing of the POTUS, would have spent the rest of her life in seclusion, away from the public eye! She was told to do so by her CIA handlers, who could well have threatened her life! After all, these are the same people who killed a President, killed LHO and numerous others shortly after the assassination and then years later, when they became more sophisticated, took down a sitting President from office ( Nixon) for knowing too much.Do you believe that Richard? If so, fine. But when asked to retire, Ruth would have none of it, and told her handlers to got to hell! Because she was going to take on all comers who question the findings in the WR, And then a decade later, anxious to return to the limelight, Ruth insisted on continuing her spy activities in Nicaragua!, because she saw herself as indispensable to the agency, and no one was going to tell her differently! To believe your account RP accomplished greatest public spy feat of the 20th and 21st century. She been taking on all comers ever since, open to every interview , mockumentary and tv shows for the next 60 years after the assassination and shuts down every tough interviewer. Such an infamously stellar career, I would think has to be begrudgingly acknowledged by you. Do you believe this story? Feel free to modify it.

Ok, We know all that. But Dec. 6th sounds about right. Richard, taking this in a completely different direction than you and Greg. Let me ask a question that I asked before on this thread several times before to no answer from Jim,but in fairness the only one who answered is Sandy, with his explanation that I see as a rather hybrid, explanation that neither you, as I understand, or I would embrace. I've addressed Sandy about the flaws I've seen in his theory, as Greg has recently on this thread. But here's what it seems your theory implies. Under the normal practice of spy craft, Ruth having been an accomplice to the the killing of the POTUS, would have spent the rest of her life in seclusion, away from the public eye! She was told to do so by her CIA handlers, who could well have threatened her life! After all, these are the same people who killed a President, killed LHO and numerous others shortly after the assassination and then years later, when they became more sophisticated, took down a sitting President from office ( Nixon) for knowing too much.Do you believe that Richard? If so, fine. But when asked to retire, Ruth would have none of it, and told her handlers to got to hell! Because she was going to take on all comers who question the findings in the WR, And then a decade later, anxious to return to the limelight, Ruth insisted on continuing her spy activities in Nicaragua!, because she saw herself as indispensable to the agency, and no one was going to tell her differently! To believe your account RP accomplished greatest public spy feat of the 20th and 21st century. She been taking on all comers ever since, open to every interview , mockumentary and tv shows for the next 60 years after the assassination and shuts down every tough interviewer. Such an infamously stellar career, I would think has to be begrudgingly acknowledged by you. Do you believe this story? Feel free to modify it.

ROLL CALL I checked the roll call. As Steve has said, all the most powerful Republicans, Mike Johnson, Mc Carthy , Scalise, Stepanik, voted to keep Santos. All the Republicans who voted to overturn the election, voted to keep Santos.That includes Mike Johnson, Kevin Mc Carthy, Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Green,Loren Boebert, Andy Biggs, Paul Gozar, Mo Brooks and Louie Gohmert. All the Republicans who are suspected of directly aiding the Insurrection and the Insurrectionists, Jim Jordan, Andy Biggs, Paul Gozar and Mo Brooks voted to keep Santos. We can celebrate a crook like Santos leaving, but if we check into current Congressman who are leaving office in 2024 it is more sobering. 5 senators are leaving in 2024. 4 of them are Democrats! One Democrat Manchin is leaving a heavily Republican state. 18 Congressman are leaving- this is split 9 Republicans and 9 Democrats. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/26/us/politics/congress-retirements-list.html

Whew! Bow wow! Mad dog on the loose! Yuck, another childish outburst. Same old unfocused gish gallop debating tactic, throwing everything out there but the kitchen sink. For years Jim's minions thought this was Jim winning an argument! Jim to Jean:you did not even look up the testimony did you? Hmm,Do i see a pattern here? this is similar to his commands to Jonathan earlier Jim:Can you show me any investigation into Ruth and Michael done by the HSCA? Jim:Can you show me where Ruth was even questioned by the HSCA? Jim:Can you show me any interview by the ARRB of Ruth Paine? Jim:Let me know when you find this stuff! Jim:Now with what happened to the HSCA, go ahead and show me her examination. Jim:Let me know Jonathan when you find those HSCA and ARRB inquiries. Hey back off pops! They don't have to do anything they don't want to. Uh, let's see, 7 Jim commands! Can we admit Jim used to bossing people around here? And then this paragraph! 6 questions! Jim: Also, let me ask, Jean do you think Oswald was in Mexico City and at the Russian Embassy? Do you think he had a right to an attorney? Do you think that he felt he was a little man who could now be a big man after shooting JFK? If so why did he never say he did so? Why did he say he was a patsy? And why did his brother suspect the Paines were involved? This is such childish nonsense. This is what I meant earlier about trying to have an intelligent discussion with Jim. Jim handles the slightest disagreement by accusing Jean of being an LN!!! Jim earlier said that Max didn't go far enough in going after Ruth. But I think with the amount of evidence Max had, he did a good job. Just imagine Jim being in the presence of Ruth Paine. He'd probably have a heart attack, and it would be the 91 year old calling the ambulance for Jim! heh heh

Max, when i saw your post with quotes of Ruth. I was actually expecting more. I do think it's a bit weak. First off, just an anecdotal story, As I recall, Ruth's sister is 8 years older than her. I can speak from some experience being the youngest and having a sister and brother 12 and 10 years older. than me. I never took a more than a passing interest in what they were doing and being the youngest, they didn't take a lot of interest in me. I think it would be very easy to not mention specifics about her employment, and i don't think Ruth would have much reason to be probing. There's nothing unusual there. And as i recall, Ruth stopped by her sister's place while passing through D.C. I've done the same while passing by my siblings locations. Arthur Young was a brilliant person who was into a lot of things, he perfected the helicopter which was a design that was bandied about by brilliant thinkers for centuries and maybe even millennia if you believe some of these ancient accounts. and pictures. You spend all your life working on the concept, finally perfect it and the Government sees it and orders 100,000 of them and makes a grand offer. My guess is you wouldn't turn it down. Michael's employment there was given by his family and was a job he had some aptitude for. I find it believable. We can talk about an alleged penchant of Ruth for secrecy. But I'm not sure any more that we can for you Max. I would find it fascinating to hear your personal thought about how you navigated through this film. You probably weren't lying to Ruth about your intentions in making this film about her. But you weren't entirely truthful , and it's obvious from her reaction to reports about your film that she would never have let you into her life if she knew the film you were trying to make. What did you specifically tell her to get into her good graces, and how did you portray yourself and the movie you wanted to make? As I noted earlier, you got to see Ruth and Michael and their lives at their retirement home. I would imagine if you hadn't had that experience before, wasn't it quite sobering.? I understand the film wouldn't be complete if you didn't also have a small clip of Michael, who was after all also there. Though his presence seemed a bit tentative , he did recount his feeling that Oswald was guilty yet it looked to me he may not remember anything else about it, and now may be only adapting to expectations, maybe like Mark Felt when he finally came out. I saw this sort of adaptation without remembrance going on in the last year's of my Father's life. What is your interpretation of Michael's response? At the Retirement home, there was Ruth and that younger man whose name I've forgotten who had taken it upon himself to help Ruth with her life. (Who i think some people here alluded to him being Ruth's "handler" and I think it was Jim who brought up his military service and a government agency he had worked at that aroused his suspicion.) When Ruth and that man got wind of exactly how you portrayed Ruth in your film. As I recall Ruth didn't choose to watch it? (I think Greg would know.) and Ruth's assistant did and both of them were interviewed about what they thought and it seemed to me both of them, were certainly not happy with it, but were relatively kinder in their thoughts about you, than I would have been. Ok maybe to put it bluntly , did you ever have any doubts along the way about your mission under false pretenses and feel like a pos, (not that I insist you should!) Or were you always completely convinced that of the rightness of your cause, and that your mission was clear? As I've said before, I liked your movie.

Agreed Jean! If Greg could somehow get those 2 together. That could be fascinating or maybe even enlightening! Though I'm sure some here wouldn't like it much, just like the Republicans in my country who after badgering Hunter Biden for years to testify, now refuse to hear him because he insists he'll only do it before TV cameras! heh heh a joke! Greg, I know you're not promising anything!

Advertisers are leaving twitter (X) in droves for Musk's anti Semitic statements. In this interview, . Musk says they are blackmailing him and tells them to f-ck themselves!

You're right W. Yes there is a lot of misperception. The chief issue is really inflation. But it's a worldwide problem brought on by the scarce years of the pandemic. It's considerably worse in Europe than the U.S. There's been a lot of talk about getting inflation under control and people took that to mean that prices would come down. But these new price levels regretfully are here to stay. The only situation by which prices will come down considerably would be a massive recession, and then we'd have a whole new set of big problems. After time, people become use to the new reality. Unfortunately that's what Biden has to depend on. The economy is like a big locomotive.It's a fallacy to think that any President's policies has any effect on the economy for at the very least 2 years. The biggest tools that are used on the economy are by the Fed and their control of interest rates, and purchasing of bonds, and many can disagree that they should have such power as they've been behind the curve and made serious mistakes in the past. Such a mistake was made by the current Fed chief Powell who was appointed by Trump. Trump fired Janet Yellin as he said she was too small and appointed the tallest he interviewed Jerome Powell. heh heh heh. Ok, I'm just telling you what Trump said! You could trash on Trump for appointing Powell who waited too long to raise interest rates, but that' really wouldn't be fair, because inflation has been going on everywhere in the world. Up to now the sort of elitist wisdom when inflation occurs is for the Fed to strangle the economy with higher interest rates which often increases unemployment, and is not at all fair to working people. But some of the traditional wisdom has been turned on it's head as there has been some control on inflation, but the economy and employment remain very strong.. There is some disagreement if the Fed draconian raising of interest rates will end up in a "hard landing" which would result in a recession, or we'd escape a recession and the economy would have a "soft landing". Many people a year ago were predicting a recession in 2023, and it never happened!

This is so telling. This was 4 hours after Jim's posting. There would have been some people who just signed the petition and not "shouted out ' but Paul was worried and needed the validation and reinforcement of some "virtue signaling." * Blinded? What a pompous, presumptuous statement. But when I asked to substantiate. Paul is above having to answer to his arrogance. I've seldom gotten any answer to any question from Paul yet on numerous times, he can't refrain from trying to pile on and ask me 6 questions at once trying to enforce his hegemon forum dogma, which he is as wedded to as anyone here.. . DO YOU BELIEVE IN TALBOT? I wish he i could remember some of the other silly questions. It's just a mask for intolerance. Paul has shown to have no knowledge of issues. He just has faith that in the supreme goodness of RK and the Kennedy blood line , and living so long in a conspiracy bubble just can't see that anyone would disagree with him. Then in response to Leslie, Paul, who sees so much more than the rest of us, goes off on a litany of everything wrong and evil in the world as if we have no idea about any of it.. Mart, when you wrote that this shouldn't be divisive, I agreed, then I went to the site. I have to check a lot of boxes to not be put on an RK mailing lists and the give a phony phone number?. Why wouldn't anyone think this is not just a tacky RK campaign recruitment tool? Ok, I hope this isn't just one of these petitions I never hear about again and has some effect on something. Thank God, we have some mods here, or Jim's next post would be to invite us to RK's next speech at the Brentwood High School Gym. heh heh * Ben might have reassured Paul, but he was asleep.

Interesting Steve, This is from Jonathan Karl about Pence ABC News Exclusive: Pence notes reveal he had initially decided not to preside over electoral count on January 6: “Not feeling like I should attend electoral count. Too many questions, too many doubts, too hurtful to my friend. Therefore I’m not going to participate in certification of election.” You remember at first, Pence was going to coward out and leave the responsibility to Charles Grassley! So it was his phone call to fellow Hoosier VP, Dan Quayle that told him to be there and fulfill his constitutional duty. Good grief! ***** George Conway accounting Liz Cheney's story about Kevin Mc Carthy from her upcoming book. “Cheney also accuses McCarthy of repeatedly lying and choosing the ‘craven’ path of embracing Trump. She recounts the moment she first found out that McCarthy … secretly went to visit Trump at Mar-a-Lago just three weeks after the Jan. 6 attack.  “At first, Cheney thought the photo of the two men smiling and shaking hands was fake. But she was incredulous at McCarthy’s defense of his visit. He claimed Trump’s staff summoned him. “‘Mar-a-Lago? What the hell, Kevin?’ Cheney asked. “‘They’re really worried,’ McCarthy said. ‘Trump’s not eating, so they asked me to come see him.’ “‘What? You went to Mar-a-Lago because Trump’s not eating?’ Cheney responded. “‘Yeah, he’s really depressed,’ McCarthy said.” Yeah, Trump was eating as evidenced by his having McCarthy for dessert!

Paul, I'll grant you made an honest attempt to answer Leslie's questions that in part answers mine. Paul: What’s worse than Trump? Endless war for one. Yes that's what Talbot would tell you. But that's sort of a trap in thinking. As far as Ukraine, both Biden and Trump at first would have done identical things. That is let Putin invade and take Ukraine. Biden was prepared to do that but Zelensky said he didn't need to be provided exile, but needed U.S. and Nato assistance. Biden obliged and revived Nato assistance. It's not at all for sure whether Trump had the courage to resist Congress's will to help Ukraine, or he had no choice but to not help because he was so compromised by Putin, and/ or would have just let Nato sink because he didn't care about it anyway. After all, he could have quickly gotten out of Afghanistan when he first got into office, and released the JFK files, but he did neither of those either. He never proved to be that courageous in anything but rhetoric except trying to overthrow a legal election. As far as Israel. Trump has his Jared tie to Israel. Despite his bold claims that he could solve the Russia Ukraine problem in 5 minutes just getting together with Putin and Zelensky, His public statements made about Israel has been that the 2 sides just have "to play it out", which means more human suffering, and no attempt at a cease fire. It would be even a bloodier mess because there would be no will in Congress to avoid that! The only real opposition would be Bernie Sanders and a handful of lefties, so be careful what you wish for! You would never have heard Trump give rhetoric to a 2 state solution. He was completely behind Netanyahu and his right wing cabinet, which has in part lead to this war. Ok, I'm not holding my breathe, but if a year from now . Biden was actually able to set the region on what the world perceived as a peaceful steady road to a 2 state solution. He would be remembered as the only President in the post war era to a achieve a 2 state solution, which would probably make him go down as a great President. At a certain point, he's going to have to crack down on Israel, possibly withhold aid, and hope that when the smoke can clear that the Israeli people get rid of Netanyahu, and work with the neighboring countries of region for a lasting peace. But all the time that's currently passing is robbing him of credibility in the region. It's probably the most challenging feat any President could achieve since navigating the Cuban Missile Crisis, and you're certainly entitled to think Biden is completely inadequate to pull it off. But if all this mess, could be gradually played out right. All the memories of atrocities and suffering that should have, IMO stopped over a month ago would slowly recede in history's memory because after all history is written by the winners. But if the winners then have to give up their some of their land. As time goes on, all the death and destruction and loss of human life will be seen as a means to an end. As they are in all wars. JMO

I go to sign, and I see Kennedy24.com. How tasteless, Everything has to be political these days, doesn't it? Isn't this very myopic of him to link this to this issue to his campaign? His campaign shouldn't be exploiting this issue. I'm wondering how much his sisters and brothers who aren't enthusiastic about his candidacy feel about that. Paul:There are worse things than Trump, but my liberal friends, nearly all of them, are blinded by fear of what he would do if he was re-elected. Veering into politics Paul? Ok, Paul, because you're the one person here with vision, and know the best of all possible worlds, and you can read the tea leaves, tell us how their fears are unjustified?. I'm sorry RK veered into politics as well. Ok I signed, and gave them a phony phone number.

I called attention to Jim's non responses and inability to have a real dialog, in this case with Jonathan. Ron this is actually groundbreaking. The first I recall you guys asking for clarity in Jim's responses in an argument.. And then you Sandy, and I'm applauding you. Now take a deep breathe. This is what started Jim's chain of responses. This is Jonathan's first response to Jim's opening link here with no accompanying explanation. You may disagree with Jonathan, but his message is clear. Stay with me! Jonathan_ Sorry, but this yet another "such and such knew someone and they were college classmates with someone and they once went out to lunch with someone else and so that means Ruth and Michael are CIA spies." There are numerous other dubious conclusions here, including that Ruth would have been "informing on Oswald to the FBI" by giving them the "Kostin" letter, that there's something suspicious about Michael Paine attending meetings with Oswald by groups with opposing ideologies (there isn't), and, even worse, that the Paines had "very limited interactions" with Oswald (total nonsense - Ruth probably spent as much time around Oswald in 1963 as any other human being). To that Jim's response is. Jim:Jonathan: Can you show me any investigation into Ruth and Michael done by the HSCA? Can you show me where Ruth was even questioned by the HSCA? Can you show me any interview by the ARRB of Ruth Paine? Let me know when you find this stuff. Thanks! What kind of response is this? No response, just an attempt to cloud the conversation with a phony attempt to put Jonathan on the defensive with a bunch of questions, that as I said lead nowhere. . But then Jim's immediately follows up in the next post by saying this. Jim:Greg Parker is a very underrated and relatively unknown researcher from down under. Doudna went nutty when Parker unveiled this wonderful piece of research. He tried to attack it, Parker beat it back. Let me know Jonathan when you find those HSCA and ARRB inquiries. https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1632-star-wars-trilogy-at-the-barbers Jim launches into Parker's story, as if this is any kind of follow up in discussion to Jonathan. And as it turns out neither Ron Sandy or I and I assume anyone else here knew the relevance of this story. That Hootkins was a commie? Maybe big news down under, but not here! Which finally causes Ron to asks Jim "what is this all about?." And then evading Jomathan's question, Jim ends with this. Jim- Let me know Jonathan when you find those HSCA and ARRB inquiries. Can we admit this line is just a lot unexplained obfuscatory phony baloney to his minions that he's actually winning an argument?! And then in IMO, unjustified good faith. Jonathan asks of Jim about this series of questions to him. Jonathan:Are you implying the absence of testimony from the Paines to post-Warren Commission official bodies is some indication of their complicity in the crime? Because it’s not … To that Jim answers. Jonathan, I am implying little or nothing. What I am saying is pretty simple. Did the HSCA investigate Ruth and Michael? No. Did the ARRB call them in for questioning? No. Then that leaves people like Greg Parker to investigate things like the Hootkins episode, since they did not. Recall, that incident was before the assassination. ?? A story none of us even understood. Do you guys understand any more now that Jim has supposed explained it in as few words as possible? So that was a satisfactory response for you guys?? Ok, if you think it was, what kind of response was this to Jonathan first inquiry? So Jonathan, who can keep a train of thought, realizes this was no response from Jim at all. So asks again. Jonathan: Again, so what? Many people connected to the assassination in one way or another were not "properly" investigated by the authorities. Does that mean they were conspirators? Or even had anything useful to say? Of course it doesn't. So, I don't know what point you are trying to make. To that, Jim goes off on how things got sidelined when Sprague left, which I've heard from Jim many times before but doesn't get near addressing Jonathan's initial question! And of course , again Jim's phony cherry on top command at the end to convince his followers he's actually putting Jonathan on the defensive!. Jim:Now with what happened to the HSCA, go ahead and show me her examination. What??? You guys hopefully aren't Maga. If you're going to be Jim's followers, you have to demand a higher bar of authenticity in his dialog. You have to ask these questions! No Sandy, the fact that Jim put me on ignore is the fact that I've asked him these questions that I'm asking right now of you! As I've illustrated, this dialog from Jim to Jonathan is just evasive garbage that lead nowhere! Get over your emotions! Amidst this, a positive thing happened, Tony's questions that have lead to a thread.

Some good deduction Richard! I thought I'd mention what I thought was most noteworthy of what Reiner said that I wouldn't expect others to mention. Jeff Morley does a good job of letting Reiner talk and Reiner willfully obliges. I like a lot of Reiner's politics but I do find him sometimes pompous and self righteous. True, He does rely on his own instincts and his own his group of conspiracy heroes and witnesses that he deems important. But that could be said of this forum as well. I share some of them, and not others. Ben:Or, Reiner may think the political need to frame a narrative supersedes the need for verifiable truth. That is, the political truth trumps historical truth. I knew Reiner's interest in Russiagate would incite jeers. We won't open that can of worms for now.. . But if there are people here, Maga or otherwise who still think that members of the CIA know who killed JFK and are desperately seeking to keep that information secret. I would think at least the Maga wing would allege that former CIA director John Brennan 2013-2017 would be one of "the gatekeepers" as Trump , when he took away his security clearance called him "the worst CIA director in history." I don't tend to be a big fan of any CIA Director. Reiner in his Russia gate investigation accounts having dinner with Brennan and at first doesn't want to bother him with his JFKA notions but Brennan then asks him" So what are you working on". Reiner then tells him, and asks if he ever heard about Richard Nagle, and Brennan asks him "what do you know about Richard Nagel?" When Reiner tells him, Brennan's wife asked if he has any problems with Reiner's pursuing the JFKA. Brennan says no, "it's a good idea to revisit history." Then a couple of weeks later Brennan connects Reiner with former Moscow bureau chief Rolfe Larsen, who also speculates CIA involvement. Apparently Brennan isn't worried about the JFKA secret getting out and a massive defunding of the CIA! Ok,I know, limited hang out now? So I hope we're not saying Brennan and Larsen positively deliberately mislead Reiner down the wrong path and any answer that doesn't point at Dulles and Angleton is a limited hang out. Larsen just may believe it was a rogue CIA operation. Charles and Ben don't have a problem with it and while part of me may feel a letdown because I cling to a "focus of evil"- Dulles/ Angleton Grand Slam nailing! I don't have a problem with it either. But like Ben, after so many people have spent so many years investigating it. The idea that Rob Reiner comes in and cracks the case is a bit hard to swallow!