29 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I’m ‘taken’ Leslie. Thanks 

As am I, Chris.

Now, what about the question of who killed our president in Dallas in 1963, the man who encouraged [intelligent and preferably informed if not fact-based] public discourse?

It's not lost on me that you failed to engage in polite discourse related to my challenge to your subjective and ill informed comments -- you know, the gloating thing, the Hunts, my joint work copyright with Hank, details you now avoid?  I refer to that as "hit and run".  Most unattractive. 

21 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

In the words of Benjamin C; I guess we are worlds apart and we’ll have to just agree to disagree. 

Spoken like a true, fellow sea lion.

21 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I am touched by your reverence to Hank. I think that’s nice and admirable.
I did mean it sincerely when I suggested you are damaging your own as well as his reputation with this written record. It’s a shame you can’t see this self destruction. 

Sea Lion.

1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

Don-t throw this back on me.

You called someone a "known assassin". You could have said, "suspected", or "believed by some to be", but you said, "known"

I'd like to find out how you "know" this. Who is he supposed to have "assassinated"?

Steve Thomas

 

Apologies, and I only meant that I've detected your defense of Souetre since joining the forum.  I'm dumbfounded that among the apparent reasons you come to his defense, assuming I understand correctly, is that he said during one or more interviews that he wasn't in Dallas. I've not seen  documents that are alleged to be signed by witnesses, so if you have access, might you share? If they're in O'Leary's book, I've overlooked them.

We are not the first to identify Souetre as a known assassin.  Dick Russell was among the first to publish the assertion to a wider audience, but  Bud Fensterwald and J. Gary Shaw pursued the expulsion from Dallas of "Soutre" or Mertz or Roux for years. Obviously they didn't spend the time, energy, $$$ in pursuit of a French soldier who may have killed in combat, and clearly they were persuaded of the strong likelihood he was in Dallas pre-and post assassination.  (there's that word again.)  On the contrary, Bud and Gary were in pursuit of Souetre, a former Captain in the OAS, known to have been a paramilitary operative, and alleged to have previously been involved in at least one plot to assassinate de Gaulle as well as concerns he might end up in MC in early '64 to shoot de Gaulle.

Why would French authorities be tracking his whereabouts if he wasn't a known assassin? Why would Hoover have received reports in April and May related to the Alderson's in Houston with reference to the 201 file of Souetre if he was merely a soldier who might have killed in combat? Wasn't he asking CIA for assistance to take out de Gaulle?

Major Ralph Ganis picked up the investigation of Souetre and makes no bones about identifying him as a trained assassin with close association with Otto Skorzeny.  

Did Dick, Bud, Gary — or have we — come across the names of those Jean Rene Souetre assassinated?  Has anyone else? Perhaps not, and perhaps solely because he was never indicted — a fact I believe is worthy serious consideration. Who protected him for decades? Who continues to protect his legacy? (I've actually been threatened by a man who claims to represent both the Souetre family and the Mertz family.)  

Where are the missing Souetre files?  Where is the Dallas INS report? Why did the HSCA say they just didn't have time to pursue Gary and Bud's records of their investigation, in spite of having them for a solid year? Why did ARRB take possession of those records and say they just didn't see any reason to pursue Souetre? If you have any answers, I hope you'll share.

To conclude, had Pierre Lafitte not recorded the name Souetre in his datebook on key dates throughout 1963 — in context of established suspects in the assassination in Dallas, his appearance in New Orleans, travel to Dallas via MC, Silverthorne as his pilot, his departure from "red", and the names of psychopathic killers Filiol, Lamy and Litt in the mix — Hank might have asked questions similar to yours.  

I'm sure you can guess Dick Russell's reaction when Hank shared the Lafitte entries which corroborate Dick's seminal work back in the early '90s.  Likewise, and I believe Gary is comfortable with my saying that he considered the corroboration to be one of the more significant breakthroughs in the case in the past several decades.

 

7 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

You gloated about representing the HR Hunt family in a PR capacity, and we all know the ills of that family.

Gloated? Can you please provide an instance of "gloating"? You mimic Koch's tactic when you invert the facts.  I determined early on, with Hank's blessing, that I would be transparent regarding my stint with the Hunts. If you interpret that as "gloating", you're ignorant. It's also obvious you did not read our book, nor have you read the excerpts directly related to H. L. Hunt posted on various threads.

You have exhibited a lack of morality, civilised etiquette and objective reasoning skills IMO.

Won't work, Chris.  Try something else.

IMO people like you socially isolate themselves. 

More psychobabble.

Hank, I am sure worked hard on the book that you finished in his absence.

You know nothing of Hank, or of the circumstances of how this book took shape. For your edification, Hank contacted me in 2017 to co-author the book, 50/50. Pursuant to that call, I was actively engaged with the project, working with him daily and frequently in person. The prelim manuscript was "ours", designated a joint work under US copyright. After his devastating untimely passing, along with his valued friend and colleague — expert researcher and skilled writer in his own right — Alan Kent, I brought our collaboration across the finish line. 

Of course, I am not expecting you to take sound advice. 

Sanctimonious.

@Chris Barnard PS.  You obviously missed the Great Ed Forum Kerfuffle of 2016.  Had you been there, you would know something about Hank's temperament.  He did not suffer fools, he did not pander to an audience, he spoke the truth and truth to power, he challenged the sacred cows.  I speculate you and he would have locked horns immediately,  or he would have ignored you altogether. Having studied mind control operations for two decades, he deplored mind games and psychobabble. He knew their root.

12 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Well, there is a ‘pareto distribution’ here, like everywhere else. Typically, I put little store in the thinking of the 80%. Perhaps its all a little more nuanced than  you’ve considered?! 

Intellectual arrogance is unattractive. 

I prefer simple concepts, like SEALIONING.  

1 minute ago, Chris Barnard said:

I have two points for you to comprehend:

1) This thread was written regarding a very specific situation relating to equality and double standards here on the forum. I have made a case which you apparently can’t refute. Anything else will be off topic / irrelevant. 

2) Why would you assume that anyone would desire to interact with you? You gloated about representing the HR Hunt family in a PR capacity, and we all know the ills of that family. You have exhibited a lack of morality, civilised etiquette and objective reasoning skills IMO. There is no upside for anyone else to interact with you. IMO people like you socially isolate themselves. 
 

Something you may want to consider is; Hank, I am sure worked hard on the book that you finished in his absence. Your posts here have excellent SEO and serve as a written record of your credibility. You aren’t doing his work any favours with this pettiness. With my PR hat on, I would probably scrub all of this silliness and start again, maintaining greater composure and resolve. Of course, I am not expecting you to take sound advice. 

You gloated about representing the HR Hunt family in a PR capacity, and we all know the ills of that family.

Gloated? Can you please provide an instance of "gloating"? You mimic Koch's tactic when you invert the facts.  I determined early on, with Hank's blessing, that I would be transparent regarding my stint with the Hunts. If you interpret that as "gloating", you're ignorant. It's also obvious you did not read our book, nor have you read the excerpts directly related to H. L. Hunt posted on various threads.

You have exhibited a lack of morality, civilised etiquette and objective reasoning skills IMO.

Won't work, Chris.  Try something else.

IMO people like you socially isolate themselves. 

More psychobabble.

Hank, I am sure worked hard on the book that you finished in his absence.

You know nothing of Hank, or of the circumstances of how this book took shape. For your edification, Hank contacted me in 2017 to co-author the book, 50/50. Pursuant to that call, I was actively engaged with the project, working with him daily and frequently in person. The prelim manuscript was "ours", designated a joint work under US copyright. After his devastating untimely passing, along with his valued friend and colleague — expert researcher and skilled writer in his own right — Alan Kent, I brought our collaboration across the finish line. 

Of course, I am not expecting you to take sound advice. 

Sanctimonious.

40 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Well, that’s an expression I haven’t heard before. I guess if it somehow excuses your irrational responses, I am happy for you to clutch at as many straws as you like, Leslie. 🤷‍♂️ 
 

It defines the method others have recognized for some time apparently.  I just arrived at the party late.

In fact, let me repeat it, because your recent posts are indicative of the same method, Seasoning, that Benjamin employs.  

Koch improvised a bit, but managed the same end result - see underlined.

 
Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter. These questions are phrased in a way that may come off as an effort to learn and engage with the subject at hand, but are really intended to erode the goodwill of the person to whom they are replying, to get them to appear impatient or to lash out, and therefore come off as unreasonable.

9 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I encourage you to pursue your viewpoints and flesh them out. 

I may not subscribe to your viewpoints, and that is fine. 

The EF-JFK forum should be a big tent. 

I do think an adequate explanation of why President Biden deep-sixed the JFK Records in perpetuity is a more-relevant topic at this time. 

In my view, a Trump is fleeting figure, with very little, if any establishment or  institutional backing, and much opposition from those quarters. 

In contrast, multiplying globalist institutions in Washington, from the CIA to the Council of Foreign Relations to the Pentagon, to lobbyists from Disney, Apple and WalMart and proliferating outfits such as the Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement, determine foreign, military and trade policies.

Effectively, the US military has become global guard service for multinationals. 

I don't seem to have much time to work on my outlook, which is that intel state, or shadow government, has effectively deposed four US presidents in the postwar era--JFK, Nixon, Carter and Trump.

As you have promised not to read any missives I put together on this score, likely you regard that as no loss. So it goes. 

Well, we are worlds apart in our views, and there it rests.

Good luck with your pursuits. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trump was deposed by the electorate.

Yet again, you appear to be incapable of rebutting specifics, e.g. J. Edgar Hoover  — the mentor of Roy Cohn whose political and business protege was Donald Trump — ruled an agency devoted to White Christian Nationalism a.k.a. "America First," a.k.a. Donald Trump's MAGA movement. 

17 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Well, Leslie. I guess someone has to hang onto some semblance of morality.
 

The best petty criticism you could up with was ‘meddling’. Have you looked at your own posts during the past 2 weeks since you were humiliated? Your sticky beak has been all over the place. 

Your sticky beak has been all over the place.

I see now why you took up the mantle for Matthew Koch. You need his active presence to support you ideologically.  It's humorous to note that one who admonishes me and others to keep a level head was finally triggered. You're not immune after all.

In all seriousness (which means I was just joking, right?) I'm waiting patiently for you to offer a semblance of factual information in a discussion —  any one of a number of threads we both follow.  

Tell me, who do you think killed the president in Dallas, the man who encouraged public discourse? Do you believe it was a coup, and if so, why?

@Chris BarnardI am also astonished that @W. Niederhut thinks @Benjamin Cole is a problem. He is a nice guy who speaks his mind politely. 

I've been having difficulty pinpointing the approach, and it finally came to me.

Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter. These questions are phrased in a way that may come off as an effort to learn and engage with the subject at hand, but are really intended to erode the goodwill of the person to whom they are replying, to get them to appear impatient or to lash out, and therefore come off as unreasonable.

@Chris Barnard Is this unconscious behavior, or a result of training? 

44 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Leslie,

You write that Jean-Rene Souetre was a "known assassin".

To the best of my knowledge, Jean-Rene Souetre never killed anyone.

You write, Jean-Rene Souetre was a "known assassin".

Who did he kill?

Steve Thomas

Steve. I detect incredulity. Maybe you would share your definition of "assassin" and we go from there?
And I can't resist asking, why are you defensive about Souetre?

11 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Not a thread in the way you think----I theorize four postwar presidents were essentially deposed. The intel state, more than anything else, wants a Deep State kompromat. 

But his thread belongs elsewhere...not in the Ef-JFK proper. Just IMHO.

IMHO there is no connection between the JFKA and Trump (except that the Deep State cowered Trump into secreting the JFK records for another two years). 

We are worlds apart in our views, and that is fine. 

@Benjamin Cole On the question of Trump's relevance to the topic of this thread, as I observed previously, credentialed historians have been following the trajectory of the rise of fascist dictators Mussolini, Franco, and Hitler to 1930s far-right ideology and White Christian Nationalism in the US throughout the Cold War, to the lethal attack on the presidency in Dallas, to the rise of Donald Trump who attempted to overturn the peaceful transfer of power in 2020...  ask and ye shall receive. Just yesterday, The Guardian published this review by David Smith.

[Stanford U. prof. Lenore] Martin outlines how the FBI sent agents to services of worship that established religious identity as synonymous with American citizenship; the FBI worked with white evangelicals to promote Christian nationalism as the only form of religion that would protect the US during the Cold War; the FBI policed other forms of religion, for example by persecuting [Martin Luther] King and aiming to discredit the civil rights movement. . . .    

The author adds: “He never saw African Americans as being full citizens. It was something that Hoover believed African Americans needed to work towards in a collective sense, that they needed to show themselves worthy of citizenship, whereas for white Americans, native-born white Americans in particular, that just ‘came naturally’ for them.

“For him, that was innate, whereas he never considered the sociological factors that kept African Americans at a distance in many ways from economic security, housing security, educational access. Hoover saw these things as sort of natural as opposed to created and so, in that sense, he was certainly a white supremacist and a racist.”

In addition to the aforementioned, and the circumstantial evidence that FBI Director Hoover played at the very least a peripheral role in the plot to overturn the election of 1960, a look at the ideology that bound Hoover to his protége Roy Cohn, business and political mentor of Donald Trump.
 

From Coup in Dallas ...

In the early 1950s, [Roy] Cohn [future US president Donald Trump’s first political guru] had caught the eye of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who soon recommended the twenty-four-year-old attorney to his personal friend, [red-baiting] Joe McCarthy, to fill the role of his chief counsel. For assistant counsel, McCarthy fulfilled another request, that of his good friend Joseph P. Kennedy who was looking for a spot for his young and restless son, Robert F. Kennedy. McCarthy designated RFK as assistant counsel to his committee, working alongside Hoover’s professional protégé, Roy Cohn . . . 

As published in Business Insider, April 2020
Trump may have scored a decades-old revenge for being sued under a 1973 anti-segregation law —

• Trump last Thursday repealed a Obama-era anti-segregation rule, in a bid to win back the support of suburban voters who are deserting him.
• Trump's first brush with publicity was back in 1973, when he and his father, Fred Trump, were charged with violating the 1968 Fair Housing Act. 
• The rhetoric Trump is using in his attempt to win over suburban voters echoes the fearmongering of the late '60s and early '70s, an expert told Business Insider. 
  
  https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/mar/21/the-gospel-of-j-edgar-hoover-lerone-martin?fbclid=IwAR3WUGWQeqq05CsT29X6ivAYEbF-AjQK1r8LuwKT9ou-cK_rTGnm8w0rU8w

51 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

TBH I don’t know @Matthew Koch’s cousin, I just forwarded the content to Matthew that looks like ‘libel’. I guess you’ll either get a letter through the door or not. We all have to be careful what we say, Leslie. We can all pay a dear price for a moment of silliness or rush of blood. I would caution everybody to keep a handle on their emotions. You should know better having formerly worked in PR (your claim). 

 

I just forwarded the content to Matthew that looks like ‘libel’.

You purport to be the arbiter of fair-mindedness, yet you failed to share your allegation of libel with me directly?

 

Does cousin Koch need my contact information, or will you serve as hall monitor on this as well?  Be careful where you meddle, Chris.  

8 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Your theories may indeed be worthy, or perhaps other conjectures are more worthy.

In the end, in the eye of the beholder. 

I see a thread from JFK to Nixon to Carter to Trump. 

We are worlds apart...but this discussion belong in the Deep Politics thread, IMHO.

I will back perhaps this evening, local time. 

If only by volume, you win this thread. 

 

I see a thread from JFK to Nixon to Carter to Trump. 

An utterly absurd insult to President Kennedy. Trump attempted a coup that peaked on January 6, and has been smoldering since.  You heard Lindell suggest Trump will be president again before 2024.  How will that happen, Ben?

8 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Agreed---do you think Donk LBJ orchestrated the JFKA?

To make sure the interventionist wing of the Donk Party prevailed? 

That idea can be aired out in the Deep Politics thread. 

I won't be following you to that thread.  The subject of this thread is appropriate to debate about Trump's attempted coup. Among recent books related to the trajectory from the rise of Mussolini and Hitler, through the Cold War and the assassination and resultant coup in Dallas, to the rise of Donald Trump, Coup in Dallas lays out in the detail the individuals and their ideology that drove the plot to execute a democratically elected president.  

Trump proposed that the Vice President, a heart beat from the presidency, be hanged if he didn't do his bidding, inciting his thugs to erect a platform with a noose.  Had that murder occurred, we would be comparing the hanging to the murder of John Kennedy.  That you are unable to grasp the significance of the thread is your loss, not mine.

Just now, Benjamin Cole said:

Ron has a worthy theory about modern-day politics.

IMHO, it hops over the deposing of Nixon and Carter, and does not accommodate other views on how the intel-state acted during the Trump Administration. 

This thread obviously belongs in the Deep Politics or other threads. 

Water cooler time, IMHO. 

 

When you leave for the water cooler, be confident that - subject to a reading by the moderators - some of us will continue this important analysis of the trajectory from Kennedy in Dallas to Trump in Mar-a-Lago.

Just now, Benjamin Cole said:

Verily...meet you in the water cooler, where such modern-day theories belong. 

The assassination in Dallas did not occur in a vacuum. 

25 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

No One in this thread has accused anyone of being racist, National Socialist or fascist. Any of those terms have only been brought up by you, two of them twice now.  You really don't get IT do you?  IT's not about Trump theories and the JFKA.  It's about how a right wing sponsored coup that killed JFK led to a right wing coup attempt on Democracy on 1/6/2021.

Hear, Hear!

26 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Your theories and observations on Trump---or other people's theories on Biden as a Deep State apparatchik---are very worthy...in the proper threads. 

One could argue that a Donk---LBJ---had the non-interventionist JFK murdered, and since then the intel-state has co-opted the Donk establishment.

See Hillary Clinton for example, who is indistinguishable from Liz Cheney, and indisputably Biden descends from the Clinton-Obama neo-con-libs. 

Ergo, Biden is the latest Donk affiliate-compromat of the intel state. 

So it goes, and good theory it is---and that explains why Biden has deep-sixed the JFK Records in perpetuity. 

Not a Deep State apparatchik? 

And such a theory belongs over in the water-cooler section.

Perhaps I will expand on it there. 

The thread has become wearisome, and belongs in the water-cooler section also. 

Head on over to the water cooler then.  

Until the moderators make a determination, I will continue to provide reasons why Trump belongs in a discussion about a right wing pundit who had the audacity to allege that Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Susan Rice have anything in common with the ideology behind the assignation of Kennedy in Dallas. Trump on the other hand . . . 

@Benjamin Cole
The title of this thread refers to Pete Santilli. 
Odd JFKA Reference By Right Wing Radio Pundit?

On March 3, Santilli hosted Mike Lindell.
EP 2348-9AM 'I Have All The Evidence...Trump will be your president long before 2024,': MyPillow's Lindell

[Trump's financial sugar daddy] Mike Lindell's statement "Trump will be your president long before 2024" suggests treason, and another attempted Coup.

Santilli made an "odd" reference to JFKA.

You're fooling no one with your argument that Trump is not central to this thread. I trust the moderators will agree.

 

15 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I do not believe the EF-JFKA forum is the place for general political discussions about Trump or Biden (with the exception of the JFK Records Act). 

The moderators agree. 

If you have theories about Trump, there are designated threads for you to post. Post to you heart's content---in the proper thread.

I'm sorry, Benjamin, but that is simply, historically inaccurate.  Trump's political rise and subsequent attempts at authoritarian rule, including the violent insurrection designed to depose a democratically elected incumbent - an attempted COUP, can be traced directly to the extreme right ideology that permeated our nation in the lead up to the Coup in Dallas. 

6 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Only one. The circle of JFKA buffs...in the larger world is rather small. 

He did not think Trump was being unfairly maligned--like many, he has more nuanced views. There may not be white hats and black hats in DC. 

He contended the anti-Trump posters had befouled the space not only with their rather opinionated and imbalanced observations---not only of Trump but others who held different viewpoints. 

He went back to comfortably reading JFKA books. 

I doubt even a civil Trump supporter would be treated civilly in the EF-JFKA.

Which is why the moderators have carved out spaces for political discussions. Go to the designated threads and post with a full-throated roar! 

I'll just stay right here, Ben, on a thread titled, 

Odd JFKA Reference By Right Wing Radio Pundit?

The opportunity to further expose the symbiosis between right wing radio pundits who advocate violence and Trump who advocates violence is irresistible. 

@Benjamin Cole Can you please expand on why you think this thread isn't an appropriate venue to discuss Trump when he is the instigator of false, dangerous rhetoric?  

Odd JFKA Reference By Right Wing Radio Pundit?
"this entire criminal cabal that came about as a result of the murder of John F. Kennedy, the people that perpetrated the murder of John F. Kennedy, rise up to that..."

 

@Benjamin Cole but do serve to dissuade potential participants from visiting this forum. 

Ben, I'm curious how you know that potential participants are dissuaded from visiting the forum?

Are you in touch with individuals who express an interest but opt out because they are Trump supporters and feel he is being unfairly maligned?