Leslie Sharp

10 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

LS-

I also have theories, which are worlds apart from your theories, on the evolution of US politics, the capture of both parties by the intel state, and the deposing of four postwar presidents.

My views on the JFKA might be worth presenting in the EF-JFKA. 

My other theories likely are not, and if I ever get around to writing them up, I will post them in the designated space, or over at KennedysandKings (if Jame D. accepts them). 

 

You skip the salient issue ... Kennedy's assassination did not occur in a vacuum, and instead allege that Trump was "deposed".   How does one have a meaningful, robust debate with those who duck 'n dive? 

4 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

This should upset the six man football world.  It could affect virtually every school in that category, in many more respects than sports.  E.G., Silverton, Turkey-Valley.

I know, Ron.  Heartbreaking on so many levels.

@Benjamin ColeA JFKA Forum is not the proper venue for anti-Biden or anti-Trump commentary. 

Have you been considering the assassination in a vacuum all these years?

Biden likely won the 2020 election as result of the severe reaction to Donald Trump. Credentialed historians have of late been drawing lines from Trump's rise - to Dallas - to the Cold War - to the rise of Hitler and his mentor Mussolini.  

Carlson and likeminded propagandists are attempting to reverse the history leading to 11.22.63 Dallas.

The JFKA forum is precisely where Trump and his cult should be studied.  From my perspective, your attempts to drag Biden into the equation are falling flat. 

3 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Yeah, I know. And I appreciate your participation. It's important not to feed them. They'll starve to death and go somewhere else.

I hear you.

Private school choice plan is a contemporary euphemism for segregation, a policy John Kennedy struggled to reverse during his years in government.  Trump administration advanced Betsy de Vos's (lifelong commitment to) school vouchers more than any president of the past century, yet another example of the inevitable end result of the past 60 years. De Vos is the sister of Trump's very own private mercenary contractor, Erik Prince.

Inside the rural Texas resistance to the GOP’s private school choice plan'
Classroom battles over racism and LGBTQ inclusion have supercharged the movement for private school choice. Remote public schools like the one in Robert Lee, Texas, could pay the price, opponents warn
Mike HiXenbaugh

Mar 21, NBC News
. . . . Officials in communities like Robert Lee, which has a population of about 1,000, warn these policies will chip away at already razor-thin public school budgets. With only 250 students — about 18 children per grade — even a slight drop in enrollment and funding can force rural schools like Robert Lee to make hard decisions, Hood said.

“We don’t have the same economy of scale as larger districts,” he said, which is one reason he obtained a commercial driver’s license to serve as a substitute bus driver. “If we lose five or 10 students, that’s a teacher salary. But we can’t afford to have one less teacher, so now we’re cutting academic programs, we’re cutting sports, we’re cutting the things that this community relies on.”
https://www.aol.com/news/inside-rural-texas-resistance-gop-211351103.html

4 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Just drop it, Leslie. It's important not to feed the tr@lls.

I'm new here, Bob, and thus far I've no sense Chris is a xxxxx, unless perhaps on behalf of Koch.  I hope he doesn't prove me wrong.

And you probably know from experience that allowing declarative statements such as "you felt humiliated" to go unchallenged indicates the commenter is "right."  I didn't feel humiliated. I did however see Koch's stripes, agent provocateur. Let's hope Chris is not so mesmerized that it's not lost on him. 

***

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, 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 . . . 

A Far-Right Ecosystem Spanning Decades

This analysis began with the question: what might the America First Committee and a figure named Roy Cohn have in common, and how might that commonality relate to contemporary politics? In addition to pointing me in the direction of the history behind Roy Cohn’s protégé Donald Trump’s own version of America First, Albarelli’s thinking before he passed was also influenced by our research into the history of rabid anti-communist Senator Joe McCarthy and the men surrounding him, including Robert Morris of the John Birch Society who served as attorney to one of our prime suspects, General Edwin A. Walker. Morris worked alongside Senator McCarthy’s legal counsel, Roy Marcus Cohn. 

*****

Nearly seven months before JFK’s assassination, on April 8, 1963, The Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s New York Office sent a brief memorandum to FBI director Hoover marked “Attention: Foreign Liaison Unit.” The memo’s subject was: ALDERSONS, 5803 Burlinghall, Houston, Texas. [IS-FRANCE.]” The memorandum, still partially redacted to date, opens with the words: “For the information of the Bureau and Houston, on 4/3/63, CSNY [Confidential Source New York, name redacted] reliable [several lines redacted].” The memo’s next and final section reads: “Houston is requested to identify the ALDERSONS, and when this information is forthcoming, the Bureau is requested to advise what, if any, information may be furnished to this source.” The memorandum is stamped in bold letters: “EXP. PROC” [Expedited Processing].

About a month later, on May 3, 1963, the FBI office in Houston, Texas sent a memorandum to FBI director J. Edgar Hoover concerning Lawrence Mason Alderson and what was referred to as a “New York letter to the Bureau dated April 8, 1963captioned ‘Alderson, 5803 Burlinghall, Houston, Texas, IS-France.’” (The memorandum was also marked “ATTENTION: FOREIGN LIAISON.”) . . .

On May 20, 1963, the FBI’s Special Agent in Charge sent a memorandum to director Hoover, subject: Lawrence Mason Alderson, but also bearing Jean Rene Souetre’s CIA assigned 201 file number: 105-120510. The memorandum was also marked: “1-Mossburg,” meaning a copy went to the FBI’s E. Hyatt Mossburg, a Special Agent in the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the FBI. Copies also went to the Bureau’s Foreign Liaison Unit and its Houston office.

                  A typed “NOTE” on the document made at least two references to the Confidential Source in New York [CSNY] but five lines were redacted obscuring the paragraph.

                  The memorandum reads: “CSNY [name redacted] should be advised that the Aldersons, referred to in New York letter 4/8/63, may be identical with Dr. and Mrs. Lawrence M. Alderson, who reside at 5803 Burlinghall, Houston, Texas. Dr. Alderson is a dentist in Houston, Texas. He reportedly served in the US Army from 1953–1954. Our files contain no information indicating that Dr. Alderson and his wife have been outside the US or have been engaged in any anti-France activity. [Italics added.]

                  Despite the fact that the memorandum bore the 201-file number for Jean Souetre, it contained no reference to him. 

*****

How do we know that these experienced assassins, who emerged from the ranks of La Cagoule to deal directly with Otto Skorzeny, coalesced in 1963 specific to our investigation of events in Dallas? Some of the answers reside in a series of obscure post-assassination letters addressed to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover from a Mr. Paul Gluc, 112 General Leclerc Avenue, Boulogne Billancourt (92) France. According to one of the letters, Mr. Gluc, a self-described benevolent detective, was employed by French automobile manufacturer Régie Renault and lived in a populous suburb five miles from the centre of Paris.

                  A detailed account of this strange and revealing correspondence over a span of nine years, and the subsequent FBI memo traffic that attempted to discredit its significance and impugn the character of the author, is available to the reader in the endnotes to this chapter. For now, the following excerpts serve to not only validate the aforementioned history of assassins directly associated with one another, and by inference with Otto Skorzeny, but they also provide Gluc’s independent confirmation of certain entries in the 1963 datebook of Pierre Lafitte essential to the investigation of the assassination of John Kennedy.

Mr. Director, only you can clear OTTO SKORZENY of guilt

of being (an) agent in the Dallas operation with (the) passive

complicity of Allen W. Dulles.

                                                      —Paul Gluc, March 14, 1975

 The 1975 letter was Gluc’s fourth and final correspondence with the FBI. The first letter, dated March 18, 1964, just four months after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and later claimed by the FBI to be either lost or misplaced, was hand-written in English to “Mr. Hoover, director of the FBI.” It reads: 

I understand you are very close to the solution of all the mysteries of President Kennedy’s assassination, but I suspect you are without key information. This information concerns the holders of many of the missing cards, Jean Souetre, as well as Jean Paul Filiol, both known to have been in Dallas on 22 November 1963. . . . Included in this knowledge are Mme. Lamy and M. Litt, all mentioned before, and extremely distasteful individuals. . . . I am anxious to spell this out for you by coming to Washington, D.C.

The letter was signed: “Mr. Gluc.” 

                  . . . With his letter, Gluc has provided us independent corroboration that Filiol, Lamy and Litt were known associates and that they were in Dallas, and as noted, he did so as early as March 1964. We also see, perhaps for the first time outside of cryptic reports that revealed a smattering of facts, that the FBI was made aware of the possibility that known assassin Jean Souetre had been in Dallas. Yes, Gluc could have simply picked up on the obscure rumors about Souetre being expelled from the Dallas-Fort Worth area, but there was no known trail in the public domain of the presence of Filiol, Lamy and or Litt in Dallas that would tie the three to Jean Souetre.

34 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Respectfully, that’s nonsense. In my opinion you can’t get over the fact that you felt humiliated, for days in debate. You hold @Matthew Koch partly responsible for retorts. Isn’t it time you got over it, moved on? Just a week ago, you said you weren’t sure if you could. I even reached out with an olive branch. You and @Matthew Koch both slighted eachother. 

Felt humiliated?  Where did you come up with that distortion, Chris? You're aware it's a reflection on your discernment.

You seem obsessed with Mr. Koch, and I consider him a distraction, and an energy vampire on a serious forum. Why are you beating this horse?

Can you place my remark "weren't sure if I could" in context?

Directly related to the missing, misidentified, or destroyed Jean Rene Souetre files ...

***

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, 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 . . . 

A Far-Right Ecosystem Spanning Decades

This analysis began with the question: what might the America First Committee and a figure named Roy Cohn have in common, and how might that commonality relate to contemporary politics? In addition to pointing me in the direction of the history behind Roy Cohn’s protégé Donald Trump’s own version of America First, Albarelli’s thinking before he passed was also influenced by our research into the history of rabid anti-communist Senator Joe McCarthy and the men surrounding him, including Robert Morris of the John Birch Society who served as attorney to one of our prime suspects, General Edwin A. Walker. Morris worked alongside Senator McCarthy’s legal counsel, Roy Marcus Cohn. 

*****

Nearly seven months before JFK’s assassination, on April 8, 1963, The Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s New York Office sent a brief memorandum to FBI director Hoover marked “Attention: Foreign Liaison Unit.” The memo’s subject was: ALDERSONS, 5803 Burlinghall, Houston, Texas. [IS-FRANCE.]” The memorandum, still partially redacted to date, opens with the words: “For the information of the Bureau and Houston, on 4/3/63, CSNY [Confidential Source New York, name redacted] reliable [several lines redacted].” The memo’s next and final section reads: “Houston is requested to identify the ALDERSONS, and when this information is forthcoming, the Bureau is requested to advise what, if any, information may be furnished to this source.” The memorandum is stamped in bold letters: “EXP. PROC” [Expedited Processing].

About a month later, on May 3, 1963, the FBI office in Houston, Texas sent a memorandum to FBI director J. Edgar Hoover concerning Lawrence Mason Alderson and what was referred to as a “New York letter to the Bureau dated April 8, 1963captioned ‘Alderson, 5803 Burlinghall, Houston, Texas, IS-France.’” (The memorandum was also marked “ATTENTION: FOREIGN LIAISON.”) . . .

On May 20, 1963, the FBI’s Special Agent in Charge sent a memorandum to director Hoover, subject: Lawrence Mason Alderson, but also bearing Jean Rene Souetre’s CIA assigned 201 file number: 105-120510. The memorandum was also marked: “1-Mossburg,” meaning a copy went to the FBI’s E. Hyatt Mossburg, a Special Agent in the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the FBI. Copies also went to the Bureau’s Foreign Liaison Unit and its Houston office.

                  A typed “NOTE” on the document made at least two references to the Confidential Source in New York [CSNY] but five lines were redacted obscuring the paragraph.

                  The memorandum reads: “CSNY [name redacted] should be advised that the Aldersons, referred to in New York letter 4/8/63, may be identical with Dr. and Mrs. Lawrence M. Alderson, who reside at 5803 Burlinghall, Houston, Texas. Dr. Alderson is a dentist in Houston, Texas. He reportedly served in the US Army from 1953–1954. Our files contain no information indicating that Dr. Alderson and his wife have been outside the US or have been engaged in any anti-France activity. [Italics added.]

                  Despite the fact that the memorandum bore the 201-file number for Jean Souetre, it contained no reference to him. 

*****

How do we know that these experienced assassins, who emerged from the ranks of La Cagoule to deal directly with Otto Skorzeny, coalesced in 1963 specific to our investigation of events in Dallas? Some of the answers reside in a series of obscure post-assassination letters addressed to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover from a Mr. Paul Gluc, 112 General Leclerc Avenue, Boulogne Billancourt (92) France. According to one of the letters, Mr. Gluc, a self-described benevolent detective, was employed by French automobile manufacturer Régie Renault and lived in a populous suburb five miles from the centre of Paris.

                  A detailed account of this strange and revealing correspondence over a span of nine years, and the subsequent FBI memo traffic that attempted to discredit its significance and impugn the character of the author, is available to the reader in the endnotes to this chapter. For now, the following excerpts serve to not only validate the aforementioned history of assassins directly associated with one another, and by inference with Otto Skorzeny, but they also provide Gluc’s independent confirmation of certain entries in the 1963 datebook of Pierre Lafitte essential to the investigation of the assassination of John Kennedy.

Mr. Director, only you can clear OTTO SKORZENY of guilt

of being (an) agent in the Dallas operation with (the) passive

complicity of Allen W. Dulles.

                                                      —Paul Gluc, March 14, 1975

The 1975 letter was Gluc’s fourth and final correspondence with the FBI. The first letter, dated March 18, 1964, just four months after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and later claimed by the FBI to be either lost or misplaced, was hand-written in English to “Mr. Hoover, director of the FBI.” It reads: 

I understand you are very close to the solution of all the mysteries of President Kennedy’s assassination, but I suspect you are without key information. This information concerns the holders of many of the missing cards, Jean Souetre, as well as Jean Paul Filiol, both known to have been in Dallas on 22 November 1963. . . . Included in this knowledge are Mme. Lamy and M. Litt, all mentioned before, and extremely distasteful individuals. . . . I am anxious to spell this out for you by coming to Washington, D.C.

The letter was signed: “Mr. Gluc.” 

                  . . . With his letter, Gluc has provided us independent corroboration that Filiol, Lamy and Litt were known associates and that they were in Dallas, and as noted, he did so as early as March 1964. We also see, perhaps for the first time outside of cryptic reports that revealed a smattering of facts, that the FBI was made aware of the possibility that known assassin Jean Souetre had been in Dallas. Yes, Gluc could have simply picked up on the obscure rumors about Souetre being expelled from the Dallas-Fort Worth area, but there was no known trail in the public domain of the presence of Filiol, Lamy and or Litt in Dallas that would tie the three to Jean Souetre.

Directly related to the missing, misidentified, or destroyed Jean Rene Souetre files ...

***

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, 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 . . . 

A Far-Right Ecosystem Spanning Decades

This analysis began with the question: what might the America First Committee and a figure named Roy Cohn have in common, and how might that commonality relate to contemporary politics? In addition to pointing me in the direction of the history behind Roy Cohn’s protégé Donald Trump’s own version of America First, Albarelli’s thinking before he passed was also influenced by our research into the history of rabid anti-communist Senator Joe McCarthy and the men surrounding him, including Robert Morris of the John Birch Society who served as attorney to one of our prime suspects, General Edwin A. Walker. Morris worked alongside Senator McCarthy’s legal counsel, Roy Marcus Cohn. 

*****

Nearly seven months before JFK’s assassination, on April 8, 1963, The Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s New York Office sent a brief memorandum to FBI director Hoover marked “Attention: Foreign Liaison Unit.” The memo’s subject was: ALDERSONS, 5803 Burlinghall, Houston, Texas. [IS-FRANCE.]” The memorandum, still partially redacted to date, opens with the words: “For the information of the Bureau and Houston, on 4/3/63, CSNY [Confidential Source New York, name redacted] reliable [several lines redacted].” The memo’s next and final section reads: “Houston is requested to identify the ALDERSONS, and when this information is forthcoming, the Bureau is requested to advise what, if any, information may be furnished to this source.” The memorandum is stamped in bold letters: “EXP. PROC” [Expedited Processing].

About a month later, on May 3, 1963, the FBI office in Houston, Texas sent a memorandum to FBI director J. Edgar Hoover concerning Lawrence Mason Alderson and what was referred to as a “New York letter to the Bureau dated April 8, 1963captioned ‘Alderson, 5803 Burlinghall, Houston, Texas, IS-France.’” (The memorandum was also marked “ATTENTION: FOREIGN LIAISON.”) . . .

On May 20, 1963, the FBI’s Special Agent in Charge sent a memorandum to director Hoover, subject: Lawrence Mason Alderson, but also bearing Jean Rene Souetre’s CIA assigned 201 file number: 105-120510. The memorandum was also marked: “1-Mossburg,” meaning a copy went to the FBI’s E. Hyatt Mossburg, a Special Agent in the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the FBI. Copies also went to the Bureau’s Foreign Liaison Unit and its Houston office.

                  A typed “NOTE” on the document made at least two references to the Confidential Source in New York [CSNY] but five lines were redacted obscuring the paragraph.

                  The memorandum reads: “CSNY [name redacted] should be advised that the Aldersons, referred to in New York letter 4/8/63, may be identical with Dr. and Mrs. Lawrence M. Alderson, who reside at 5803 Burlinghall, Houston, Texas. Dr. Alderson is a dentist in Houston, Texas. He reportedly served in the US Army from 1953–1954. Our files contain no information indicating that Dr. Alderson and his wife have been outside the US or have been engaged in any anti-France activity. [Italics added.]

                  Despite the fact that the memorandum bore the 201-file number for Jean Souetre, it contained no reference to him. 

*****

How do we know that these experienced assassins, who emerged from the ranks of La Cagoule to deal directly with Otto Skorzeny, coalesced in 1963 specific to our investigation of events in Dallas? Some of the answers reside in a series of obscure post-assassination letters addressed to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover from a Mr. Paul Gluc, 112 General Leclerc Avenue, Boulogne Billancourt (92) France. According to one of the letters, Mr. Gluc, a self-described benevolent detective, was employed by French automobile manufacturer Régie Renault and lived in a populous suburb five miles from the centre of Paris.

                  A detailed account of this strange and revealing correspondence over a span of nine years, and the subsequent FBI memo traffic that attempted to discredit its significance and impugn the character of the author, is available to the reader in the endnotes to this chapter. For now, the following excerpts serve to not only validate the aforementioned history of assassins directly associated with one another, and by inference with Otto Skorzeny, but they also provide Gluc’s independent confirmation of certain entries in the 1963 datebook of Pierre Lafitte essential to the investigation of the assassination of John Kennedy.

Mr. Director, only you can clear OTTO SKORZENY of guilt

of being (an) agent in the Dallas operation with (the) passive

complicity of Allen W. Dulles.

                                                      —Paul Gluc, March 14, 1975

The 1975 letter was Gluc’s fourth and final correspondence with the FBI. The first letter, dated March 18, 1964, just four months after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and later claimed by the FBI to be either lost or misplaced, was hand-written in English to “Mr. Hoover, director of the FBI.” It reads: 

I understand you are very close to the solution of all the mysteries of President Kennedy’s assassination, but I suspect you are without key information. This information concerns the holders of many of the missing cards, Jean Souetre, as well as Jean Paul Filiol, both known to have been in Dallas on 22 November 1963. . . . Included in this knowledge are Mme. Lamy and M. Litt, all mentioned before, and extremely distasteful individuals. . . . I am anxious to spell this out for you by coming to Washington, D.C.

The letter was signed: “Mr. Gluc.” 

                  . . . With his letter, Gluc has provided us independent corroboration that Filiol, Lamy and Litt were known associates and that they were in Dallas, and as noted, he did so as early as March 1964. We also see, perhaps for the first time outside of cryptic reports that revealed a smattering of facts, that the FBI was made aware of the possibility that known assassin Jean Souetre had been in Dallas. Yes, Gluc could have simply picked up on the obscure rumors about Souetre being expelled from the Dallas-Fort Worth area, but there was no known trail in the public domain of the presence of Filiol, Lamy and or Litt in Dallas that would tie the three to Jean Souetre.

11 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I know I am in the right, here. It’s not the fault of the forum posters, it’s the way this has been moderated (or the lack of). This is the archetypal double-standard. Disruptive describes a fair few of us, or anyone posting an alternative opinion or news source.

Has anyone suggested that your posts could be compared with those of disruptor Matthew Koch? Do you not recognize the distinction, and are you okay with Matthew's baseless inflammatory comments on what was meant to be a serious discussion thread? Do you agree that the end result was "chaos" which brought the forum into question in general?  Was that his agenda?

5 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

@Matthew Koch’s cousin is a lawyer. I’ll forward it on to Matthew and ‘que sera sera’. 

I was going to ask if you're in private communication with Matthew Koch. Did he share publicly that his cousin is a lawyer?

3 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

@Matthew Koch’s cousin is a lawyer. I’ll forward it on to Matthew and ‘que sera sera’. 

Remember to include that I didn't make the claim.  I repeated a claim made by individuals I trust are knowledgeable of the incident. My experience with the Koch's of the internet is to exercise caution.  His posts are indicative of someone slightly unhinged.

You can also tell the cousin that I'll provide him with records of Koch's attempts at intimidation, gender bias, the works.  Be my guest, Chris.

3 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Let me ease your concerns by clarifying that it was bot directed at you. It’s figure of speech. 

CB. We can’t have one rule for the goose and another for the gander. Or, are you ok with that, Leslie?
CB. Let me ease your concerns by clarifying that it was bot directed at you. It’s figure of speech. 

Chris, Assuming you meant, "it was not directed at you", I'm somewhat confused by "are you ok with that, Leslie"?

I repeat,  I'm not okay with equating the goose — fact-based comments related to the subject of the thread — with the gander — inflammatory, baseless propaganda.

7 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Can you supply definitive evidence of this? Otherwise, I think you may find this is libel and could get in trouble, Leslie. 
 

 

Can you supply definitive evidence of this? Otherwise, I think you may find this is libel and could get in trouble, Leslie. 

Chris, Are you asking who threatened me? Or who claimed that Koch stalked them?

Every lawyer knows never ask a question you don't know the answer.  

19 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Certainly - As it makes a mockery of the rules and is extremely hypocritical. We can’t have one rule for the goose and another for the gander. Or, are you ok with that, Leslie?

Wow

Perhaps you were not to know that @Matthew Koch admires much about JFK. Its one of the things that inspired him to read so many books on the topic. Such a characterisation is presumptuous, incorrect and defamatory. Unless of course you have some solid evidence that you’d like to lay out here for us to scrutinise? If not, as per the forum rules you should probably retract this post. 
 

A danger to unbridled MSNB posting? A danger to misinformation? What are we talking here? 🙂 
 

 

Wow

Perhaps you were not to know that @Matthew Koch admires much about JFK. Its one of the things that inspired him to read so many books on the topic. Such a characterisation is presumptuous, incorrect and defamatory. Unless of course you have some solid evidence that you’d like to lay out here for us to scrutinise? If not, as per the forum rules you should probably retract this post. 

Chris, Our evidence establishes that the far-right ideology that drove Matthew's posts (Posobiec, Yiannopolis among others) fueled the decision to assassinate the president of the United States. My initial posts on the end result of the 56 years thread — a discussion directly related to what we present in Coup in Dallas (thus my reason for joining the thread) —  included excerpts of that evidence.  Rather than challenge the facts presented with a reasonable rebuttal that should logically include facts, Matthew opted to attack my gender, suggested I was drug addled, and somehow scorned.  

If he has read 250 books on the assassination, and admired Kennedy as you purport, would you not require him to be a reasoned, mature commenter on an assassination forum?   

14 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Certainly - As it makes a mockery of the rules and is extremely hypocritical. We can’t have one rule for the goose and another for the gander. Or, are you ok with that, Leslie?

Wow

Perhaps you were not to know that @Matthew Koch admires much about JFK. Its one of the things that inspired him to read so many books on the topic. Such a characterisation is presumptuous, incorrect and defamatory. Unless of course you have some solid evidence that you’d like to lay out here for us to scrutinise? If not, as per the forum rules you should probably retract this post. 
 

A danger to unbridled MSNB posting? A danger to misinformation? What are we talking here? 🙂 
 

 

We can’t have one rule for the goose and another for the gander. Or, are you ok with that, Leslie?

Chris, I'm not okay with equating the goose — fact-based comments related to the subject of the thread — with the gander — inflammatory, baseless propaganda.

10 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Certainly - As it makes a mockery of the rules and is extremely hypocritical. We can’t have one rule for the goose and another for the gander. Or, are you ok with that, Leslie?

Wow

Perhaps you were not to know that @Matthew Koch admires much about JFK. Its one of the things that inspired him to read so many books on the topic. Such a characterisation is presumptuous, incorrect and defamatory. Unless of course you have some solid evidence that you’d like to lay out here for us to scrutinise? If not, as per the forum rules you should probably retract this post. 
 

A danger to unbridled MSNB posting? A danger to misinformation? What are we talking here? 🙂 
 

 

In my instances, online threat to "come kill me", and another to "send Corsicans to my house to teach me a lesson."

I believe the term "stalking" was introduced in context of Matthew's being banned.  Correct me if I'm wrong because gossip and rumor is corrosive.  

11 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

       IMO, JFK would have been shocked and appalled by the decline in journalistic standards and the rise of corporate right wing propaganda and disinformation in the U.S. mainstream media today-- Fox News, Breitbart, OANN, Newsmax, et.al.

       He had to work, tactfully, within the constraints of the prevailing culture of the Cold War and Red Scare, and his focus on open dialogue and freedom of speech needs to be understood in the context of a society that had completely banned Pete Seeger and Hollywood "communists" from the mainstream media.

      JFK's advocacy of Civil Rights was also a political tinderbox-- the diametric opposite of anti-Woke-ism in current Trumplicon/GOP circles in the U.S.  It alienated the Dixiecrats who are now Trump's base.

Hear, Hear!

21 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

It’s a highly speculative question, Leslie. Any answer from anyone would be strictly an ‘opinion’, which some here often confuse with ‘facts’. 
 

My own analysis and opinion would suggest that JFK would insist on equality. There cannot be one rule for the goose and another for the gander. JFK believed in public discourse, criticism and even dissent being vital components of any functioning democracy. He has a very good insight when it came to the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century and knew the pitfalls of censorship, authoritarianism and religious discrimination.
However, if it was the North Korean leader making the decisions from his dictatorial platform then, this is exactly what I’d have expected. 

Everything that @Matthew Koch is alleged to have done has been done by other members who have not received an equivalent punishment. Nor has the forum’s own process been followed, as outlined earlier in the thread. 
 

It just looks very bad. I see the latest step is segregation of views. Where have we seen that before? Do we need to protect diversity of views on the forum? Or, is it simply “follow the party line” ? 
 

 

You're stating opinion when you allege that an error occurred related to Matthew Koch.

Kennedy knew Nut Country when he arrived in it. It is my informed opinion that had Koch been in a Texas crowd at the time and shouted his vitriol, Kennedy would have recognized him as representative of that nut country.  Would he have him arrested? NO. Would he have challenged him? Maybe. Would he have indulged him? Not likely.

Would he endorse Koch being banned from the gathering if he posed a physical threat? Yes.

Apparently some on the thread felt that Koch posed a danger.  Having been there, I respect the concern, and I think the moderators would feel responsible if they allowed the behavior to continue on this forum.

14 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I thought there was evidence the FPCC was an intelligence operation or at least it was infiltrated at a high level early on in it's existence.  Maybe something about a break in to their office when the founder was out of town.  Hmm, where might I have read such?

I think that's the direction Jefferson Morley is going with his focus on the withheld batch of Joannides records.

Jeff published this article about Gibson at jfkfacts.org. c. 2018. He doesn't mention Tangier, by the way.  It's possible he wrote a follow up piece that I've missed.

https://jfkfacts.org/jfk-cointelpro-and-the-curious-case-of-richard-gibson/

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

It's proving increasingly difficult to get candour from @Mark Knight and other silent moderators. I don't think it's much to ask for some honest answers, transparency, equality, and a fair approach to moderation. If the answer is that "we don't like Catholic Conservatives here", then come out and say it. As far as I am aware @Matthew Koch still has had zero communication from the moderators. That's very shabby, indeed IMHO. What happened to the initial warning outlined in the rules? Come on guys, please put your egos and biases aside here. 

"An error doesn't become a mistake unless you refuse to correct it." 
This is one that JFK liked. 

Chris, the salient word is "error."  How do you think JFK, a Catholic himself, might have responded to Matthew Koch?  I suspect he would have initially brushed him off with sardonic humor. Were Koch to persist, Kennedy would have him for breakfast, and chances are he would rescind Koch's invitation. 

I believe he's speaking to the decisiveness of party politics — considering the threat the John Birch Society posed to the stability of our democracy at the time —  not the dark side of US history which reared its head during the Trump regime.

June 19, 1963 
I warned of "a rising tide of discontent that threatens the public safety" in many parts of the country. I emphasized that "the events in Birmingham and elsewhere have so increased the cries for equality that no city or State or legislative body can prudently choose to ignore them." "It is a time to act," I said, "in the Congress, in State and local legislative bodies and, above all, in all of our daily lives."

14 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I note that Mr. Reid doesn’t know whether the National Zeitung article came up with the idea of tying Oswald to the Z Walker shooting, or if it was Walker himself. It’s easy to assume it originated with Walker, but it may have been the German editor who suggested it. But what of Marina’s testimony? Has she ever been asked directly by researchers like Reid?

            Gen. Edwin Walker always maintained that the German newspaper was the first to alert him about Oswald having taken a shot at him, but jottings in Pierre Lafitte’s datebook made a few days before the attempt on Walker occurred make this seem unlikely. As noted in a previous chapter, Lafitte wrote on April 7, 1963: “Walker – Lee and pictures— planned soon- can he do it? Won’t.” [it is possible the last word is Wait.] The following day, Lafitte made a note: Hal du Berrier (Salan R.).

Lesser known than the German newspaper’s scoop positioning “the patsy” a hundred yards from the window of Walker’s house on the night of April 10, are the remarks made in the aftermath of the assassination by “Hal” du Berrier, the correspondent who wrote primarily for the American Mercury which was owned by J. Russell McGuire with General Edwin Walker as the magazine’s military advisor. Du Berrier revealed that he was staying in Walker’s home in Dallas on November 22. It should also be noted that du Berrier’s history included a role in the Spanish Civil War, service in Bill Donovan’s OSS perhaps providing him introduction to Frank Ryan and Otto Skorzeny, and spying for Italian fascists. By the late 1950s, he had begun publishing H du B Reports, A Foreign Affairs Letter, with particular focus on Saigon, Vietnam, a concern he shared with his close friend, French rightist General Raoul Salan. 

11 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I'd read something about, but never the details of Finnegan and Harkness observation of the guy passing out pro Castro flyers in downtown Dallas in late spiring, early summer 1963.  They did see the Viva Castro placard on the back of whoever they saw, as mentioned in the note.   Surrey is hooey.

I've thought for years the note might have been manufactured by the CIA.

Oswald and the rifle did it for me on this story.  Carrying it on a bus?  Burying it afterwards?  Did he carry along a shovel to bury the rifle?  What did he do with the shovel?  Obviously hid the shovel nearby to dig up the rifle so he could shoot JFK.

Ron, re. I'd read something about, but never the details of Finnegan and Harkness observation of the guy passing out pro Castro flyers in downtown Dallas in late spiring, early summer 1963. 

I've been searching for the citation for this for months. I seem to recall the incident occurred in front of S&H Green store - or maybe Sanger-Harris?  The timing would be significant if it's alleged that Joannides initiated an operation using Oswald in New Orleans in August of 1963.