Jump to content
The Education Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'assassination'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Welcome to the Education Forum
    • Forum Information, Development and Communication
    • Biographical Details
    • News, events and member notices
  • Curriculum Subjects
    • ICT
    • Music
    • Media Studies
    • Government and Politics
    • Economics and Business Studies
    • Chinese
    • EFL
    • English
    • Mathematics
    • Design and Technology
    • History
    • Geography
    • Science
    • Modern Languages
    • Social Sciences
    • Art and Design
    • Physical Education
    • Philosophy
    • Dance and Drama
    • Health and Social Care
  • Educational Issues
    • Government Initiatives
    • E-Learning
    • Debates in Education
    • Pastoral Care
    • Special Educational Needs
    • Learning Outside School
    • Cross Curricular Teaching Resources
    • International Schools
    • Non-Academic Discussions
    • Flexible Learning
  • Educational Conferences
    • Schools History Project
    • Learning Technology Conference (LT04)
  • European Virtual School
    • Information
    • Resources
    • Cross Curricular Cooperation
    • History Department
  • International Projects
    • E-Help
    • ENIS
    • Cross Curricular Cooperation
    • Student Collaboration
    • Spring Europe
    • E-HELP
    • E-HELP Seminars
    • Citizenship Project
  • Association of Teacher Websites
    • Information
    • Member Web sites
    • ATW Departments
  • Teacher Training
    • Student Teacher Support
  • European Languages Forum
    • Deutsch
    • Forum en Français
    • Svensktalande
    • Sección en español
    • Nederlands
    • Ellinikos tomeas
    • Italian Speakers
    • Ceská a Slovenská cást fóra.
    • Latin, the Language, the Inscriptions, and the Use
  • Controversial Issues in History
    • JFK Assassination Debate
    • JFK Research
    • JFK Questions
    • JFK Discussions
    • JFK Book Discussions
    • JFK Deep Politics
    • JFK Online Seminars
    • Political Conspiracies
    • 11 September 2001 attacks
    • The Apollo Moon Landings
    • History and Political Books: Debates with Authors
    • Watergate
    • Jack the Ripper
    • Robert Kennedy
    • Cold War
    • Nazi Germany
    • The Death of Marilyn Monroe
    • Martin Luther King and Civil Rights
    • Chappaquiddick
    • Political Discussions
    • TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND PRESIDENCY DISCUSSION
  • Educational Research
    • JFK Debate
    • Environmental Issues
    • Black History
    • Cold War
    • Oral History of the Olympic Games
  • Historical Association
    • News
    • Teaching History
    • Local History
  • Ask an Expert
    • History
    • ICT
  • Online Games
    • Welcome to Online Games
  • Holiday Guide
    • Holiday Recommendations
  • Women's Studies

Product Groups

  • Widgets
  • JFK Items for Physical Sales on the EF E_Store
  • JFK Items for Digital Sales on the EF E_Store

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 13 results

  1. Hi guys, What was JFK really saying in this speech? WC narrative supporters often say it was ALL about the Soviet Union, but, how could it be? There are clear references point regarding his own country. “The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.” It sounds to me in this paragraph that much of it is pointed internally. In fact I find the reference to ’increased security’ very close to the use of ‘national security’ to silence dissenters or conceal information. None more so than the records surrounding JFK’s death. What are your thoughts? Full speech below ... “Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen: I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight. You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession. You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx. We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating." But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war. If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man. I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight. It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration. Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents. Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family. If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm. On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did. It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man. My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors. I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity. This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy. I The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know. But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security. Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired. If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent. It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match. Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion. For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money. The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted. The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration. On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal. I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all. Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests. And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations. Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history. II It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face. No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed. I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them. Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion. This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it. III It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure. And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.” Video: https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/american-newspaper-publishers-association-19610427
  2. I perceive a new interest in the CT that the Radical Right in Dallas was behind the JFK assassination. This would include such WC witnesses as General Walker, Robert Alan Surrey, Revilo P. Oliver, Bernard Weisman, and possibly included Dallas officials, Will Fritz, BIll Decker, Jesse Curry, Buddy Walthers, Harry Holmes, James Hosty, Forrest Sorrels, Earle Cabell and others in their company. Such a theory would attempt to harmonize with Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen's identification of a dozen people in New Orleans, including Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman and Tommy Beckham. Also implied are Rightist elements in the South including Joseph Milteer, Billy James Hargis, Ed Butler, Carlos Bringuier and Kent Courtney. It would also include people who have already confessed, such as Frank Sturgis, Howard Hunt, David Morales, Roscoe White, Loran Hall, Gerry Patrick Hemming and Lee Harvey Oswald. As a starting point, the recent book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015) is presented. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  3. Story in The Guardian today about new documentary on the Dag Hammarskjold plane crash. Bullets involved: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/12/raf-veteran-admitted-killing-un-secretary-general-dag-hammarskjold-in-1961
  4. I have satisfied myself with answering the question "who killed JFK". I no longer look at the magic bullet or the initial lack of Mr Oswald's print on the Italian rifle. I have long decided that this was a conspiracy and that most of the evidence had been manipulated. There are three things that is characteristic of the assassination: Who ever was behind the assassination: 1) They still control the investigation of the assassination, as they did when it happened. This means political control to this day. 2) They control the news media today as they did back then. 3) Whatever the motive it was urgent. One that could not wait until after JFK was out of office. This urgency is the key. Although the CIA, LBJ or the Communist / right wing may have been complicit they were not the mastermind of the entire thing. In fact the people that pulled the trigger may not have known the entire truth. To understand this you have to look at what has happened since the year 1791 and how this cabal tried viciously to take over the creation of money. Once they succeeded in creating most of the money they took control of as many corporations and politicians as money could buy. ONCE MONEY IS COMPROMISED EVERYTHING ELSE FALLS. The power of this cabal is unimaginable to the average person. And their pet project was evident in the Balfour Declaration. Now we turn to the most recently released documents and everything falls into place. The secret negotiations between JFK and Gurion, and the fact that JFK was very motivated to stop nuclear proliferation. Just listen to the UN speech and read what the released documents were about. Put 1 plus 1 together. These bankers that control the money in the USA are an international criminal organization, who will stop at nothing to keep control. Their Modus Operandi is all over this assassination.
  5. On September 3rd, 1935, US Senator Huey Pierce Long of Louisiana addressed the senate and told them of a plot by the military industrial complex to assassinate him. On September 8, Huey was in the State Capitol in Baton Rouge for a special session of the Louisiana legislature, pushing through a number of bills including a measure to gerrymander opponent Judge Benjamin Pavy out of his job. According to the generally accepted version of events, Pavy’s son-in-law, Dr. Carl Weiss, approached Huey in a corridor and shot him at close range in the abdomen. Huey’s bodyguards immediately opened fired on Weiss as Huey ran to safety. Weiss was killed instantly, and Huey was rushed to a nearby hospital, where emergency surgery failed to stop internal bleeding. Long died 3 days later. After the shooting, the biggest public controversy was whether Weiss was part of an assassination plot with Long's enemies, not whether he actually shot the senator, but almost a century later, some still insist that Weiss never fired a shot. Anyone else interested in this case? http://time.com/4020709/huey-long-anniversary/
  6. (Perhaps the answer(s) to my questions are already within this vast collection of information already) ------- As it has been 8 years or so, since I even thought about this case, a lot of questions -- I guess -- have been answered, and many of course never will be. I did not even know that Gary Mack passed away in 2015. That was just very sad to hear. He even took of his precious time to answer quite a few questions I had -- via e-mail-correspondence, back in 2006 and 2007. Two of those, - just out of curiousity, - I wonder if any new relevant information has surfaced - even how likely it is not. --------------------------------------- February 22, 2007: **Chicago Sun-Times Sat., Nov.23, 1963 "Senator Yarborough terms it a "Deed of Horror"" Excerpt from the article in the last section: "Charles Hodges 17, a Dallas High school student said he was taking photographs of the president's car when the shooting occurred." Was it a true story?, and if so; is any of the photographs available? GM: Apparently this is a true story, although his location is unknown. I looked into this years ago and concluded that, if the story is true, he must have been on the Stemmons Freeway overpass, which is west of the triple underpass. There was a longer quote from him, or a different news story mentioned him. My memory is that he said his view was down into the car. In other words, he was above. Well, the only place that could happen was the Stemmons overpass. But he certainly could not have seen the assassination very clearly from that location. 1: Anything ? ----------------------------------- December 17, 2006: **Was there any indications made, who/if anyone taped the autopsy, and that it if so, -- in fact were in the possession of William Pitzer? And if so, any theories of what happened to it? GM: There have been rumors in recent years that the Kennedy autopsy may have been filmed, but many in the room insist there were no cameras. 2: Anything ?
  7. After a very short googlesearch, I chose Flickr of all sites, to get some photos online. If of any interest to anyone. * Everything is taken from a 12 year old harddisk,- so many, if not all of the photos are guaranteed to be available today elsewhere, in much better resolutions. ** Have tried to sort for a few hours,- but it in itself is still terrible. *** Included one album with photos I took with my phone , of a Norwegian magazine, - published December 7th. 1963, concerning the assassination. ( My grandmother scared my mother (8 years old) - stiff, - when getting the news of JFK's death,- screaming and running back and forth between the kitchen and the livingroom. My mother says she acted like a family member had died. An example of what an impact JFK made around the world, - even up here in northern Norway, - north of the polar circle. Back then they had radio. Not sure if they had gotten a tv yet. No cellphones, no internet.) My mother's mother, - kept this magazine, and gave it to me. **** Included one album (even though it has nothing to do with the assassination) - from when LBJ, -- ridiculously enough, was scheduled to meet my father's uncle's family, on his visit to my/their hometown Bodø, - September 10th. 1963, - roughly 2 months before JFK was assassinated. My father, and his cousin (my father's uncle's daugher) explained that he actually turned down the LBJ - visit ( if it is true, - I can not prove, - but still kinda fun to think about (for me). He was traumatized in WW2, and felt it would be too much hassle,- with all the police, SS, etc. ). LBJ ended up visiting their neighbours instead. ***** Snapshots of the harddisk from the stoneage included. The Collection : https://www.flickr.com/photos/153357684@N03/albums ( Hope this one will be up longer , than the last attempt, which lasted for half a day ) .
  8. Might as well copy and paste here too: Hi......, ---- time certaintly flies! (Copy and pasted from a private message received last year). Can't believe it is more than 10 years ago I made my Youtube-channel. It has been neglected to say the least. The videos are more than 10! years old,- and it was a different time then. As far as I can remember,- I only made public footage, - which at that time I had yet to see on Youtube or anywhere online. Some of the videos have sadly been removed, as far as I can tell,- but many are still there. I still get comments all the time ( I now discovered). I am so rusty myself now at this subject, compared to then -- - and Youtube is a different world now. I logged in the other day,- and for all I know -- it is low numbers,.- but for me it was quite astounding that such a neglected channel (do not think I have done anything on it since 2010 or somewhere around there) - has 3.5 million views and 1224 subscribers (who haven't gotten anything in all these years). Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/10Garmonbozia01 The collection of photos are gone as that link is deactivated. I have everything on an old harddisk. As far as I can remember, - it was quite a lot. It is so old - I have to obtain an (think it is called an IDE-cable) to transfer the data. I studied the assassination to a manic degree,- communicated with people all over, including Gary Mack, and other very knowledgeable people - and it now feels like time has made 99% of what I remember unacessible. In retrospect it is quite intriguing to reflect on it now,- all the theories, the fantastic people I "met" - - both here and across the globe ,- - through the internet. The initiation-process of the crater / inverted bulge , in the back of J.F.K.'s head -- visible in the Moorman photo -- if it was the moment of impact; -- would it be comparable for instance , - like when a symmetrical object is dropped down unto the surface of the water. (In order to determine angle of origin) ? T.V.J.
  9. A COUP IN CAMELOT is finally here (DVD, BLU RAY, streaming). Head and shoulders, this is the best JFK assassination program ever- most comprehensive, up to date, and factual. https://www.amazon.com/Coup-Camelot-Peter-Coyote/dp/B01MECN1LP/ref=pd_rhf_ee_p_img_3?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=SZ6VHJGVA7NRDY3M63BW UPDATED official site: http://acoupincamelot.com/
  10. I have the book titled "The Assasssination Story" Printed by American Eagle Publishing Co. & President Robert A. Surrey. As it's been stated, this book was apparently printed in the home of General Edwin. A. Walker. It consists of 100's of newspaper clippings all from both The Dallas Morning News & The Dallas Times Herald from dates as early as November 17, 1963 through Late December of 1963. Apparently there were only 3,000 printed & they had sold 900-1,000 before the Dallas Times Herald ordered a cease & desist against American Eagle to stop printing them. The only place I can find this book even mentioned is in The Warren Commission. The articles are simply amazing to read & have them all pulled together in one book. I'm not sure of "The Truth", as I do not believe the truth will ever be known. However, according to the articles in this book, it's hard to see that LHO was alone in this Assassination. I'm sure all these articles can be discovered on microfilm, however being that Dallas Times Herald closed its doors in 1991, I'm not sure of what happened to the history of their news articles. I'm very curious as to what people make of this book, published by Robert Surrey & obviously General Edwin Walker (even though he isn't listed). He is however mentioned in newspaper clippings.
  11. Our most basic problem that has never been addressed is that we allowed the chief suspect in the crime to control all of the evidence and investigations from the beginning. This is absurd. We know of course that new laws have made the killing of the president a federal crime, but even then, the highest federal law enforcement official is under direct control of the successor to the dead president, so the new laws still allow the chief suspect to control all of the evidence and investigations. Does anyone else see a problem with this? An analogy would be if a woman is murdered in her home, and she has a husband or boyfriend, they are usually the first suspect. If the suspect has an alibi, the alibi does not preclude the suspect having hired a third party to murder the victim. This is even more true with a political murder. The new president, Lyndon Johnson, oversaw the murder of JFK, RFK, and MLK.
  12. Reposted from Breakfornnews.com (via urbanspaceman): http://media.blubrry.com/gnosticmedia/p/www.gnosticmedia.com/podcast/GnosticMedia_PC_144_RGordonWasson_md.mp3 I've never heard of R. Gordon Wasson but maybe I have and it has been a long time.
  13. I asked this on another thread and finally decided to come out with it. I couldn't find anything when I searched here. So here's my question: Did the "other" film have a soundtrack? I'm talking about the film that HL Hunt had made of the Assassination. Kathy C
×
×
  • Create New...