Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mervyn Hagger

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mervyn Hagger

  1. James, when videos appear in place of text that have one message alone, and that is to proclaim "xxxx" - I ignore them until others join in and totally ignore what I have written and begin to chant like parrots. Then I draw the line. I have seen that kind of behavior elsewhere. It is not informative nor helpful. Two people on this Forum have been extremely helpful, one is Larry Hancock and the other one is Gary Murr (who Larry also cited as his source of information.) As a result, the nonsense spewed by the noisy I have ignored, until now, but because it is obvious that Larry and Gary seem to be someone unique, I am pulling back from further contributions at this time.
  2. I can see that you are drowning in your own words. Goodbye Cliff. I will now ignore you.
  3. Chris, I am not interested into petty disputes - take them somewhere else - but I am interested in reading the words of people like Larry Hancock (whose work I have purchased), and from Gary Murr who also contributes here and who I am in contact with by email. It is the same old partisan rubbish that bores me. Gary has assisted Larry and Gary is a true research specialist and not a blogger per se. His specialized interest happened to overlap my interest and his research into firearms and bullets seems to me to be quite exceptional and thorough. But that is not the subject that brought me here. That subject is ships, and you do not seem to have any interest in that topic.
  4. Chris, clearly you intend to also side with personal attacks rather than respond to issues. As for Mark Lane, I have explained many times how I got here, meaning to this Forum, and how Larry Hancock and Gary Murr have been of great help. But as for this petty, silly, childish, anti-Trump and pro-Kennedy nonsense that seems to have control of many on this Forum, I want nothing to do with it. It is all very stupid and it certainly is not educational or informative. It seems to me that going around and around in silly circles repeating the same old crap over and over and over again is all that many on this Forum can contribute. Count me out of that and if you don't like my enquiries, then just ignore anything to do with me.
  5. If you are self-applying that tag, that is your responsibility. I am referring to the people who think that they are smart in responding with videos, etc.
  6. To that list add 'Big Ignorance' within cultism, and the Kennedy adoration tribe is a cult. A dangerous cult because ignorance is very dangerous indeed.
  7. Paul, do yourself a favor and quit the Kennedy cult which is when people with closed minds turn to personal attacks.
  8. When lack of personal research leads to personal confrontation with all that is held near and dear, the cultists - the religious cultists - for that is what they are - stream out of the woodwork with YouTube comments and backhanded remarks. The solution is personal investigative research through reading, but cultists are cozy in their delusions and do not want to be challenged. The only way to deal with them is to ignore them. So I do.
  9. Greg, I read all of your text and I fully appreciate the point you are making. However, and leaving aside the specifics of Reagan for the moment, since his appearance happened in a different time period on a new stage, the fact of the matter is that the people on that stage (Reagan being a good example since he was first a theatrical actor and a body-voice in TV commercials); behind his movies, and behind the commercials were accountants, and behind the accountants were managers, and behind the managers were investors engaged in business plans involving money. Big money. Beginning with the rigged ballots and that first election of LBJ, was the shadowy but flamboyant 'Duke of Duval' in South Texas, and behind him were the guys who came together and huddled in a Houston hotel suite. They drew their numbers from that central geographical hub which included Galveston and Dallas and several points in-between. Here was the money, and the main driving force behind the money was the quest for oil. Showing off their 'good ol boy culture' was achieved by media, both printed and electronic. Here was the power base that controlled the USA in the days of the flashy Fifties and Sixties and bumpy Seventies and onwards. Their quest for oil was not confined to the USA. Since oil made the world at war operate, these guys operated wherever there was oil. To do that they needed protection. Sometimes by stealth, and often by the show of strength. Military power represented jobs, good paying jobs and those jobs represented votes. Votes equaled power. If anyone interfered with the control that the Texas good ol boys used to run their affairs in Washington DC, and therefore that part of the world not controlled by 'The Reds' - which included the 'ChiComs' - they were denounced as people who were out to destroy those good paying jobs and therefore American home-life of the Fifties and Sixties as portrayed in television commercials and supported by commercial radio. In short, they were "un-American"! "Better dead, than Red"! Of course, America of the Fifties and Sixties, as seen on those TV commercials and in the sitcoms that they appeared in, was all an illusion. Airchecked out of the sound and limited in the images were alternative views of women; Blacks and Hispanics - unless their inclusion supported the illusion that these three groups "asked for it", and were getting what they asked for. Listen to the Oval Office tapes of guys who sat around the big desk talking to their buddies in person, or on the phone. These were earthy conversations of the type you might hear in a bar, or even of the type that Donald Trump expressed getting off that infamous bus trip when he was talking about the genitals of women. This is how real men of the real Fifties and Sixties talked and acted: if they were 'in the loop'. That was the oil loop that stretched across the Atlantic Ocean and had the backing and support of the faceless men in London, England. They were in the process of continuing to lose control of the wealth of the Old World which they had gained by force, prior to the disruption of World War II. They were rescued from the clutches of Hitler by the guys who controlled the oil in Texas. (Oil) money talked and bullshit walked, "dooky, or get off the pot" they said. They were a ruthless crowd, and one day when LBJ called Clint Murchison after upsetting him, and Clint was told by his butler that "The President" was on the phone, he asked "president of what?" "Tell him I'm busy", he replied. An apocryphal tale that sums up the power that these guys held. When Reagan came along their power was still in place, just modified. Maggie helped when she came calling.
  10. I don't buy any of that. JFK and his brother were two-faced and lied. They were dangerous people.
  11. Isolationist and inward looking Americans who think that the world revolves around them, are probably not aware that the 1964 British Election Manifesto by the Labour Party (think Saunders-AOC), was inspired by an American who went to the UK and married a radical British MP called Tony Benn. That Manifesto called 'New Britain' was modeled upon JFK's idea of 'New Frontier' and it was used by the British Labour Party with Progressive themeology. The Labour Party was out of office in 1963, and before they got a new leader named Harold Wilson, the previous leader was supposedly bumped off by poisoning. Harold Wilson was viewed as a Russian spy by the CIA. Then came the murder of JFK in November 1963 to be followed by the scraped-by Labour Party win in October 1964. It is very interesting that LHO decided to stop off at Southampton, England in 1959, just as all this turmoil was about to take place. Turmoil? Think China-India war of 1959 revived in 1962 (the one that JFK discussed the possibility that the USA would intervene in with nuclear weapons). Then there was the Bay of Pigs; Cuban Missile Crisis and Berlin Crisis, not to mention those USA Polaris Nuclear Submarines stationed in Holy Loch, Scotland. How interesting that the Progressives are back, along with the Chinese and other spies. Perhaps they will bring back the threat of a nuclear World War III. What goes around, comes around.
  12. Greg, no one kills someone for someone else out of the kindness of their heart. Organization that works costs big money.
  13. If the derangement of the never-Trumpers who decided that the truth about Clinton's paid-for dossier, and Biden's big pay offs from foreign governments would never see mainstream media exposure until after the recent and controversial election, then the JFK Cult that drowns out an open-minded reevaluation of the Warren Report, seems to be walking hand-in-hand down that same alleyway in darkness. Because Clinton's paid-for fiction is now beginning to be exposed by more than a limited few outlets, and Biden's corrupt peddling is also being reported at last, surely enough time has now passed by to allow an honest and open-minded examination of who killed JFK and why? At the moment we see the same (old) slabs of never-ending and repetitive text which all seems to have one goal in mind: obfuscation of who murdered JFK, and why did they do it?
  14. While I have read and collected a lot of material about Manuel Artime Buesa, I do not have a biography devoted to his life and times. Can anyone suggest such a book? (In the English language.)
  15. Thanks Robert. I am curious as which "good English word" you are referring to? "XXXXX"? Surely not. EDIT: After I posted this the blanking out of the word that begins with 'l' and is followed by 'i' and then by 'a' and then by 'r' and followed by 's' got translated into 5 'x's ! I certainly don't understand that! It seems that the way I wrote and used that word the first time was okay and it got through the automatic censor. But when I wrote it as spelled out, which is what the other person did, it was not okay. I guess this is what computers do. As to your response to the issue posted, there is indeed a good explanation for the cover-up and it is one that I have been trying to penetrate for other reasons, and it is the seemingly unrelated chain of events that brought me here - with inspiration from Larry Hancock who apparently got his information from Gary Murr who in turn has become a great contributor to my knowledge base. It may be of interest for you to know that in this regard Gary wrote to a friend of mine in Norway who I had been assisting with information I have from the archives of Don Pierson. Gary informed my Norwegian friend that he had been investigating the same ship that my Norwegian friend had been investigating and posting on his web site (which is how Gary became involved.) So several years ago when Gary first made contact, my friend in Norway sent me information about Gary's email. Years went by. Then, very recently, on this Forum Gary very kindly sent me via email attachment, a lot of information he had collected about this ship. This research project about this ship stretches back to 1985! (Actually, back to 1967!) It has taken a lot of years to see the connecting dots, and that is why there is such a huge span of time involved in all this. But I did not come to this topic directly because of my interest in the death of JFK. (I lived in the Dallas / Fort Worth area, so I am well aware of the history, etc.) But this topic is related to the question you have now asked, and the answer is a very unlikely coming together of different interests all tied to big money and business interests and all of it was centered on Houston, Texas (where I also lived for some time.) It isn't Marcello that is the problem, but these other unrelated business interests that found common cause with the elimination of RFK by getting rid of JFK, and from what I understand, that was exactly what Marcello hoped to achieve. The lid came down to protect these other interests, and their story has yet be revealed, but it is the story that I am working on.
  16. Robert: Yes, and your point is what, exactly? I did not use profane or obscene language as did the apparent original writer whose work was then used to attack this thread. Let us stick to the issues and not get into a personal attack. I have now outlined in greater detail my own response to this thread, so perhaps you would now care to discuss that as it relates to Marcello; Manuel Artime Buesa; the southern campus of the UM, and two other contributors: Larry Hancock and Gary Murr?
  17. The unanswered question is why was JFK murdered? A lone gunman carrying out a spur of the moment whim cost no money in organization. The convenient killing of a policeman that was then blamed on the gunman helped to paint a picture of a deranged mind. Again, no money, no organization. But once the story goes beyond that, then problems arise. Even the senseless act by Jack Ruby in killing LHO is an instance of a lone gunman carrying out a spur of the moment whim without cost to anyone else but his own lifestyle from the moment he pulled the trigger. Once matters go beyond the point of two lone gunman in two senseless acts, then money takes over to create an organization. The idea that Marcello was behind the hit does make sense as an act of gangland vengeance. Marcello had money and such a hit was in keeping with gangland violence. Now if a common cause was entered into by 'others' with Marcello, then again the cost goes up in terms of money. There are indeed a lot of unanswered questions in the Warren Report, and there are also a lot of unanswered questions in the weird and deceptive behavior of both JFK and RFK, especially with regards to Manuel Artime Buesa and all of his ilk. If the leads are followed inwards from Manuel Artime Buesa to RFK, then the CIA base at the southern campus of the University of Miami comes into focus, and from it, more leads radiate to actions undertaken by RFK in support of JFK. The starting point of my own interest is not Dealey Plaza, but the leads that arrive at Dealey Plaza. Contrary to what some have attempted to suggest, contributors to this Forum such as Larry Hancock and Gary Murr are among various people who have created their own written works which in turn have provoked my own questions here. If you don't like the topic, avoid it. If you wonder what Larry and Gary have written then I suggest you pay more attention to the fine details of what has already been posted by me.
  18. Michael, is this your idea of dealing with a topic that unsettles you?
  19. Chris, obviously the question itself is something that unnerves you. Please keep your remarks to the topic in hand, or just avoid the topic. Thank you.
  20. Ron, obviously you do not like the topic. Please do not try to cause a disruption by posting items intended to disrupt discussion.
  21. Robert, I don't know what your purpose is in posting that, unless you don't like the topic, because the kind of language you infer has NOT been employed by me.
  22. Jeff, all of that spells money. If an ideologue hired snipers then they had to be paid enough to do the job and offset the risks and keep their mouths shut. Even the organization of that would cost money. But why? What was the reason? The real world does not operate in the way you describe, only the world of Marvel Comics et al does that.
  23. That spells money. Big money and big money leaves trails in places and ties to people. Many gang members got their own training in the military. That spells organization and organization creates its own records that touch base with the world at large. With modern technology and information now available, there is already a wealth of new information that can be fitted into a framework. But to do that requires an open mind, and too many seem to have a dreamy hero-worship view of the Kennedys which is both unreal and untrue. The same people who worship the Kennedys are the same people obstructing a resolution of this case.
  24. Clearly a LOT of people are scared stiff of this issue! It is EASY to come up with all manner of wild stories regarding the murder of JFK, but it is difficult to pin any of these people down as to WHO killed JFK and WHY? It could be this person or that person or this motive or that motive, but when you ask them to put up or shut up as though they were entering a court of law.... what then? Silence. Then a flood of additional rubbish to bury this question: who murdered JFK (and why?) It is indeed a challenge for the great unwashed to be specific, but few are willing to do that.
  25. Perhaps my initial question itself poses a problem for many people, because that which is known - the murder of JFK in broad daylight on November 22, 1963 in front of witnesses surrounding him on all sides - is a very clear and precise bit of information. The official answer is that a lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed JFK. That is very precise. However, the response to that same information is anything but precise, and therein is the problem. LHO was arrested and held in custody only to be shot by Jack Ruby, again in full view of not just ordinary witnesses, but newspaper; radio and television reporters, as well as a bevy of police officials. So it would seem that everything is crystal clear, until those who dispute this chain of events try to explain an alternative interpretation. Instead of basic statements of fact, huge slabs of text appear that go off course into many other issues unrelated to these instant acts. From these slabs of text a huge 'industry' emerges that utilizes printed and electronic publishing to bury clarity in mists of obfuscation. Can anyone stick to the facts and explain who shot JFK and why - without involving a massive organization that requires a command structure and an equally massive amount of money to pull it off? If that kind of money had to be expended, then it had to be financially worth more money to someone, over and above the amount that which was expended. No one wants to address that issue. Who funded this enormous operation, if indeed the official version is untrue, and why did they fund it? Surely no one is going to suggest patriotism out of the goodness of their hearts galvanized such an operation? No charity that I know of runs on thin air. Was the killing of JFK a unique act of some charity? I don't think so, and I am sure you don't either.
  • Create New...