Mervyn Hagger

James, responding to you is not worth my time. If I make a typo regarding your name you report it to a Moderator as if it was a form of intentional slander, when it was a typo that came to mind because I have a relative with that name. Then, if I divide most responders into the two camps which appear here (most of whom are rapidly appearing on an 'ignore' list), and I associate David Von Pein with 'Establishment' views (ie Warren Report), David says nothing. But on the other hand, if I identify you with a convoluted and conspiratorial interpretation that has umpteen variations, you report that distinction to a Moderator as an insult. Because you were the doyen of this convoluted and conspiratorial "alternative-to-David approach", I did not put you on my 'ignore' list. Now I am, following this post. I am happy to acknowledge the help that Gary Murr and then Larry Hancock gave me to look again at my own area of interest, the ship known as mv Olga Patricia. Their comments and suggestions led me to participate on this Forum. Now that participation is becoming a waste of my time, and so I will not only put you on my 'ignore' list, but I will cease further comments (at least for the foreseeable future.) Since I will not be monitoring this Forum from this date onwards, any responses will not be seen by me.

Paul, you are getting very desperate. If you took time to read anything I have previously published you would know that I don't 'join' organizations and I don't create them. The fact of the matter is that your own convoluted world of conspiracy theories is so tied up in knots that it is now coming back to strangle its creator. David Von Pein is an Establishment man. You belong to the wooly-bully of nonsense that requires a new conspiracy to explain holes in your previous conspiracy. The laugh is on you.

The various groups tangled up JFK and RFK in a web of deceit and criminal activity that no one could ever talk about. RFK depended upon his nepotistic brother for his job, and he went too far when he insulted one of the key members of the Mafia by dropping him in a jungle. It didn't take a Committee or even a large organization to get even. It just took some hit men and it was easy-peasy work for the Mafia to secure these people. No big meetings, no written notes (after all, the 'other' side pin it all on LHO with no notes and not too many smarts). Lo and behold JFK was dead, and then, very soon thereafter, RFK was also gone. There was no massive conspiracy involving Dealey Plaza. But there were bucket loads of criminal conspiratorial plans that JFK and his pals were unleashing on the world. Those plans included turning the United Kingdom into the lap dog for USA nuclear plans to control the world through its military-industrial complex. You do know about Holy Loch and the rest, don't you? For a time the Mafia won. But then the other side struck back. However, the true story remained buried, because no one could ever dare to tell the truth.

Matthew there was one issue: kill JFK to get rid of RFK. All the rest is irrelevant because it was stuff that no one was supposed to know and therefore it was political suicide. It was brilliant. Forget LHO, he is part of the tangled web of deceit, not the murder of JFK. It is not a major operation involving thousands of planners working with groups, but a small plan directed by someone who vowed to get their own back and he did. JFK died. It is Occam's Razor to perfection.

Thanks Larry for taking the time to explain all that!

From Mike's comments above, it seems that James is the sole determiner of what is valid and what is not. That is the hallmark of a cult leader who will not tolerate any form of questioning of his authority to know everything that there is to know. James seems to be hauling up a banner but what is on that banner I am not sure. What is the name of your church James? David Von Pein is a member of the Warren faith. What is yours James, it seems to be a tangled mess.

There is no doubt in my mind that this Forum, like other forums of its kind dealing with specialized topics, is populated by two kinds of people: wanna-be tabloid writers and genuine investigative cops. Notice that I defined my idea of a genuine cop. He or she is not a thug or a glory seeker, but someone with sociology skills who wants to enforce laws preventing violence against people and property. On the other hand there are the wanna-be tabloid writers. Notice too that I defined the kind of tabloid writer that I am discussing. This is someone who has no time for common sense, evidence or cause and effect. They want glory and if possible payment that comes along with it. There are genuine tabloid writers, let's say beginning with Ida Tarbell, who have sought to right social wrongs by exposing wrong-doers by rubbing their faces in the dirt they create. Now look at the stuff that is plonked on to this Forum. The first thing that goes out of the window is cause and effect as defined by the guidelines of Occam's Razor. Some posts are so long-winded that they climb up the trunk of tree, find a major branch and split in that branch and follow it out to the twigs and the minor of the major twigs. Then they build a story that is so convoluted that it would engulf a library of works to understand each point raised. But life is not like that. Crimes are not like that. Murder (for the most part) is not like that. Occam's Razor says look for motive and means. Of course if you look hard enough and long enough you will find blemishes on the most slender of sub-twigs. But answers? No, for murder first look at the spouse, and then go from there. In the instance of Jack Kennedy his wife Jackie seems to have let him off tied to a very long string so that he could screw any female he chose. Sometimes it seems, with his brother. Sex does not seem to be a motive the way that if often is in many murders. Money, well that is a different matter. One guy and his pals, all known killers and thugs, had reason to want John Kennedy dead. But to go there is to go where the biggest tabloid owner of all time got his money to start the National Enquirer. So don't go there! Go abroad where the Mafia has climbed into bed with the CIA who are in bed with people like Gordon McLendon and Clint Murchison. Now look at what is being posted on this Forum. Aside from David Von Pein and his pals who keep shouting "there's nothing to see here, LHO did it all by himself because he was crazy", well apart from David, there is a tribe who are constantly magnifying twigs and looking at them in detail. But the trouble is they obscure the few who ask intelligent questions by following the evidence left at the trunk of the tree, they don't start with minor twigs and work backwards. As for me, I am looking at Carlos Marcello and his pals in Chicago and New Jersey.

Ask Larry

James, you wrote: "Hey maybe McLendon's ship Mervyn?" and then "I am explaining why the material used by those who argue as such is not credible today."

"Hey maybe McLendon's ship Mervyn?" James, you clearly think that you can be disrespectful of me, but I am not allowed to accidentally enter a typo when referring to you? What exactly has this last line of yours to do with me, or anything that I have discussed on this Forum? I have no idea what you are rabbiting on about, but it is not connected to anything I have been discussing on this thread.

Ron, the truth is not only "out there", it is right under your nose - to the west. Yes, I corrected my geographical typo. The link goes from Abilene, Texas to Chicago, Illinois.

James, your reliance on one person to dismiss a lot of people, is not exactly the way to an open mind, especially when your one and only source fails to mention the most important link in my own chain of people who caused me to take a second look at the topic of the JFK murder. As I previously stated, I am here to learn thanks to hints initially by Gary Murr and then by Larry Hancock - neither of whom necessarily know what I know, or what I am not trying to uncover.

If your response is that you have no specialised knowledge about the specialised topic you are commenting upon, and since all you can post is a gif, I need to place you on my ignore list.

Churchill carved-up Europe and handed it to Stalin. Even Stalin was shocked. Churchill is no more of a 'saint' than the two Kennedy brothers.

I was referring to your own comment which I reproduced. You switched topics.

This is Gordon McLendon who created the Liberty Broadcasting System that originated in the basement of the Oak Cliff hotel in Dallas, Texas. Although it is stated that he was actually watching this particular game, his broadcasts were recreations using sound effects. His standard means of obtaining information was by wire and telephone relayed to him by someone who was watching the game. His LBS was the second in number of outlets to the Mutual Broadcasting System and his recreations were successors to those of Sefton Delmer who was employed during WWII by Winston Churchill to create and direct fake broadcasts towards Nazi occupied Europe. Gordon McLendon with his CIA pal David Atlee Phillips then used the same techniques to direct fake 'pirate' broadcasts into nations where its national government was one that the USA wanted to overthrow. I have heard about the talents of Gordon McLendon with regards to commentary, but this is the first time I have heard it for myself.

"..... the nutty claim that Churchill poisoned FDR ...." Leaving aside the claim that Churchill poisoned FDR, what we do know is that "nutty Churchill" wrote a full page article that was published by a newspaper in 1920, in which this Scottish MP promoted the idea that "bad Jews" created the USSR and that they belonged to a secret society called 'Illuminati'. How 'nutty' is that?

Then follow Larry's references. I have bought many more than that of his is books. I also paid to join Mary Ferrell, etc., etc. The evidence has already been posted by others concerning pre-1964. For a continuation post-1964 you will have to wait for the publication of our own series.

The New York Times infamous CIA quotation from 1966 is hearsay, unsupported by the facts in evidence. The Kennedy brothers were playing a game, and their supporters have attempted to turn their untruths into truths.

The emerging evidence about events from 1960 to 1963 when John Kennedy died, show something very different.

Robert, you remarks are totally unwarranted and over the top with insults. I do not 'hate' anyone. I dislike many people. I dislike your comments. I do not know you and I do not 'hate' you. But you are ramping up your own assault on me to a new level. Clearly this infringes upon the rules of this Forum and could be interpreted as a form of 'hate speech'. Please retract it by editing.

Obviously you have not read what I have already posted. Have a look at Larry's book for a hint. Now to the question on this thread. Well, what is your response?

I have so far encountered only two people on this Forum who have been very helpful by sharing with me their own original research. The two people are Gary Murr and Larry Hancock. This is not implied to mean that I am in lock step with their views, only that their research has been very helpful to me personally. There are people commenting on here who are dealing with specialized topics for which they appear to have no educational basis upon which to base their comments. Therefore I would like to know the basis upon which individuals have stated various opinions. Are these opinions based upon documented knowledge?

Why are you asking me this question? This is not my area of speciality. Is it your own?

W