Everyone Here Hates Him

[Dawn Meredith]

I feel it is possible to disagree with someone's politics and/or ideas yet admire him/her and appreciate his/her contributions.

Courtney,

Of course you're correct -- to a point.

I would submit that it is not possible for an honorable, informed man or woman who knows that, beyond all doubt, JFK was killed by conspirators to admire/appreciate a person who shares that knowledge yet who wilfully denies it.

We are at war with the killers of JFK.

Sincerely,

Charles

Mailer not only knew, beyond all doubt, about the conspiracy, he also once professed to hold different views: When HSCA was running out of money Mailer hosted a huge party and invited at least one hundred or more citizens who were investigating the case. The following day he invited the Assassination Information Bureau and their girlfriends back for an all day lunch to discuss where to go next the keep the investigation alive. To this end Mailer took out a full page ad in the New York Times. Mailer impressed me that weekend as completely dedicated and sincere. As late as 1992 Mailer wrote the preface for Carl Oglesby' s book "The JFK Assassination The Facts and the Theories".

So his turn around was shocking.

Dawn

[Jack White]

One more time, and this is a blanket rule:

"The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum."

Please refrain from using it when referring to another member..

Thank you.

Kathy...IF there is such a rule, and I DOUBT IT...it amounts to CENSORSHIP of the

most blatant kind, and installs persons of dubious qualifications TO DECIDE WHAT

IS TRUTH AND WHAT IS A LIE. Lies exist. Liars exist. To give them a free pass

to tell lies is to side with the liars.

IF there is such a rule, free discussion of an issue becomes necessarily an exposition

of ONLY ONE SIDE of the issue, since an appointed arbiter of truth can challenge

or restrict discussion of the issue, unfairly protecting the LIARS.

I believe that THE WARREN REPORT IS A MONSTROUS LIE, written by LIARS who

knew the truth but concealed it. I do not hesitate to call them LIARS. For you to

tell me I cannot call them liars is in itself monstrous and mistaken. How can we

search for truth if we are not allowed to expose lies and the liars who tell them?

Anyone who has studied this case and still chooses to support the official position

is often referred to as a "lone-nutter", but I believe in calling them LIARS.

Protecting them and affording them respectability in the guise of "fair debate"

is unconscionable.

I have devoted more than forty years to exposing LIARS and you have the gall

to tell me that I cannot continue? Sorry, put me on moderation again, but my quest to

to expose LIARS and their LIES will continue, regardless of your ill-conceived and

prudish petty declaration.

I hereby challenge the rule that the word xxxx is banned by this forum.

For TRUTH and JUSTICE,

Jack

[Dawn Meredith]

So does anyone agree with Charles Drago that Mailer lied about his beliefs about the assassination?

Yes. Someone reliable told me Mailer's tax problems went away after the publication of Oswald's Tale.

Kathy

Carl Oglesby told me this as well.

Dawn

[Charles Drago]

One more time, and this is a blanket rule:

"The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum."

Please refrain from using it when referring to another member..

Thank you.

Kathy...IF there is such a rule, and I DOUBT IT...it amounts to CENSORSHIP of the

most blatant kind, and installs persons of dubious qualifications TO DECIDE WHAT

IS TRUTH AND WHAT IS A LIE. Lies exist. Liars exist. To give them a free pass

to tell lies is to side with the liars.

IF there is such a rule, free discussion of an issue becomes necessarily an exposition

of ONLY ONE SIDE of the issue, since an appointed arbiter of truth can challenge

or restrict discussion of the issue, unfairly protecting the LIARS.

I believe that THE WARREN REPORT IS A MONSTROUS LIE, written by LIARS who

knew the truth but concealed it. I do not hesitate to call them LIARS. For you to

tell me I cannot call them liars is in itself monstrous and mistaken. How can we

search for truth if we are not allowed to expose lies and the liars who tell them?

Anyone who has studied this case and still chooses to support the official position

is often referred to as a "lone-nutter", but I believe in calling them LIARS.

Protecting them and affording them respectability in the guise of "fair debate"

is unconscionable.

I have devoted more than forty years to exposing LIARS and you have the gall

to tell me that I cannot continue? Sorry, put me on moderation again, but my quest to

to expose LIARS and their LIES will continue, regardless of your ill-conceived and

prudish petty declaration.

I hereby challenge the rule that the word xxxx is banned by this forum.

For TRUTH and JUSTICE,

Jack

Jack, I join your challenge.

The ENTIRE struggle for truth and justice for JFK is necessitated by the existence of lies (as proffered in the Warren Report, Case Closed, Reclaiming History, etc.) and liars (Arlen Specter, Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi, etc.).

Anyone who attempts to stifle our efforts to illustrate the lies and identify the liars justifiably may be identified as accessories after the fact.

Charles

[Kathleen Collins]

So does anyone agree with Charles Drago that Mailer lied about his beliefs about the assassination?

Yes. Someone reliable told me Mailer's tax problems went away after the publication of Oswald's Tale.

Kathy

Carl Oglesby told me this as well.

Dawn

Thanks for the source, Dawn.

Kathy Collins

[Dawn Meredith]

One more time, and this is a blanket rule:

"The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum."

Please refrain from using it when referring to another member..

Thank you.

Kathy...IF there is such a rule, and I DOUBT IT...it amounts to CENSORSHIP of the

most blatant kind, and installs persons of dubious qualifications TO DECIDE WHAT

IS TRUTH AND WHAT IS A LIE. Lies exist. Liars exist. To give them a free pass

to tell lies is to side with the liars.

IF there is such a rule, free discussion of an issue becomes necessarily an exposition

of ONLY ONE SIDE of the issue, since an appointed arbiter of truth can challenge

or restrict discussion of the issue, unfairly protecting the LIARS.

I believe that THE WARREN REPORT IS A MONSTROUS LIE, written by LIARS who

knew the truth but concealed it. I do not hesitate to call them LIARS. For you to

tell me I cannot call them liars is in itself monstrous and mistaken. How can we

search for truth if we are not allowed to expose lies and the liars who tell them?

Anyone who has studied this case and still chooses to support the official position

is often referred to as a "lone-nutter", but I believe in calling them LIARS.

Protecting them and affording them respectability in the guise of "fair debate"

is unconscionable.

I have devoted more than forty years to exposing LIARS and you have the gall

to tell me that I cannot continue? Sorry, put me on moderation again, but my quest to

to expose LIARS and their LIES will continue, regardless of your ill-conceived and

prudish petty declaration.

I hereby challenge the rule that the word xxxx is banned by this forum.

For TRUTH and JUSTICE,

Jack

Jack, I join your challenge.

The ENTIRE struggle for truth and justice for JFK is necessitated by the existence of lies (as proffered in the Warren Report, Case Closed, Reclaiming History, etc.) and liars (Arlen Specter, Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi, etc.).

Anyone who attempts to stifle our efforts to illustrate the lies and identify the liars justifiably may be identified as accessories after the fact.

Charles

I agree with Jack and Charles. However, it was my understanding that the forum prohibition was specifically against calling other members "liars", not the above- mentioned agents of false information.

But Kathy's statement "the word 'xxxx' is banned from use on the forum" does create ambiguity. Please clarify.

Dawn

[Charles Drago]

Dawn,

Here's the problem: There are, as you appropriately use the term, "agents of false information" who regularly post on this Forum.

Late last night I exposed one of them -- Len Colby -- as he made a blatant attempt to spread false information about me and the much larger and vastly more important issue of what happened to the Pentagon on 9-11.

That in response to his latest outing he chooses to retreat, run, hide, prevaricate, change the subject, and alter the record -- and in so doing treat the Forum and its owners, readers, and contributors with utter contempt -- hardly is surprising.

What disappoints is the silence of John Simkin and the mindless parroting of the "you can't call anybody a xxxx" mantra by his moderators.

Charles Drago

[Len Colby]

Dawn,

Here's the problem: There are, as you appropriately use the term, "agents of false information" who regularly post on this Forum.

Late last night I exposed one of them -- Len Colby -- as he made a blatant attempt to spread false information about me and the much larger and vastly more important issue of what happened to the Pentagon on 9-11.

That in response to his latest outing he chooses to retreat, run, hide, prevaricate, change the subject, and alter the record -- and in so doing treat the Forum and its owners, readers, and contributors with utter contempt -- hardly is surprising.

What disappoints is the silence of John Simkin and the mindless parroting of the "you can't call anybody a xxxx" mantra by his moderators.

Charles Drago

Mr. Drago is quite full of **it. he is complaining about how I edited something he said in the post immediately before mine. The only thing he "uncovered" ws his own stupidity

Edited November 11, 2007 by Len Colby

[Dawn Meredith]

The only he "uncovered" ws his own stupidity

Is this supposed to be a sentence? .

A brilliant "commentary" on Charles' "stupidity".

Dawn

[Len Colby]

Yes Dawn as do other members of this forum I occasionally make typos and spelling errors or even drop a word or two. I imagine if I went over your posts I would find similar errors.

Drago's characterization of the episode was completely dishonest and idiotic. He wrote for example “he chooses to retreat, run, hide, prevaricate, change the subject, and alter the record -- and in so doing treat the Forum and its owners, readers, and contributors with utter contempt”

What he omitted was that I altered the post he complained about after being asked to do so by a moderator. I imagine most people reading this thread didn’t know that because it happened on another part of this forum. This omission was complexly deceptive especially since he complained about the way I edited his comments in my post which immediately follow his. Obviously complying with the request of a moderator chosen by one of the forum’s owners isn’t “treat[ing] the Forum and its owners, readers, and contributors with utter contempt” No where did I “retreat, run, hide, prevaricate” or “change the subject”

Edited November 11, 2007 by Len Colby

[Charles Drago]

Obviously complying with the request of a moderator chosen by one of the forum’s owners isn’t “treat[ing] the Forum and its owners, readers, and contributors with utter contempt” No where did I “retreat, run, hide, prevaricate” or “change the subject”

It is when doing so hides your cowardly tracks.

[Len Colby]

Obviously complying with the request of a moderator chosen by one of the forum’s owners isn’t “treat[ing] the Forum and its owners, readers, and contributors with utter contempt” No where did I “retreat, run, hide, prevaricate” or “change the subject”

It is when doing so hides your cowardly tracks.

How exactly did it constitute "hiding my tracks"? when I openly admitted to altering the post? If you want to continue this argument I suggest you do so on the "Pentagon" thread where the original 'incident' occured. I will no longer reply to you here.

[Tim Gratz]

To Dawn and Kathleen,

Respecting the writings and logic of Mr. Oglesby, I find the statement attributed to him somewhat hard to believe.

Dawn, did he explain to you how the conspirators managed to recruit Margaret Richardson into their vast conspiracy?

Kathleen, how about you? Can you explain her participation?

[William Kelly]

Is this thread about Norman Mailer?

I must have got lost somewhere.

I certainly don't hate the lier.

We crossed paths twice, once duirng the promotion of the Marilyn book, for which he was supposd to only write captions for the photos, a project that got out of hand, or so he said.

He gave a talk one evening at the University of Dayon (Ohio), after which he met with a smaller group of students in a lounge, an extended question-answer period. He drank the whole time, and by the end of the night he was trashed, but eloquently so. Norman was a fun drunk, whose wisdom I was supposed to inherit excapes me.

The second time was in Dallas, at the ASK conference previously mentioned. I was sitting next to Marina in the very back of the room. When Mailer began to wonder aloud about Oswald's possible homophobic leanings, Marina got up and walked out.

I don't really understand his book on Oswald, which was bankrolled by the same Random House publishers of Posner and some of the other hacks/whores, multi-million dollar deals that if not part of, certainly utilized MOCKINGBIRD assets and techniques.

Mailer got a ton of money for the deal and traveled to Minsk and slept in Oswald's bed in his riverview apartment, and called it research, but when it came time to deliver the goods he fudged the whole thing up.

He inspired a lot of people to read good writing, then wrote some pretty bad books, sandwiched among some really great ones.

I don't know if conspiracy theoriests hate him any more than his ex-wives, whose families will be living off his legacy for the next few generations.

From where I'm sitting, Kathy's tribute is on the money.

BK

Maurice Zolotow accused him of plagiarism when Mailer's Marilyn came out. He may have gotten most of his facts about her from Zolotow, but he interpreted them in a most unique style.

Marilyn Monroe was just a little before my time. I remember the day she died because the adults were all talking about her "suicide." But when Mailer's book came out with her photographs, I became a Marilyn fan. I enjoyed his writing style and I'd never seen anyone so beautiful in my life -- and neither had Mailer. He admitted a certain love for her, and hated Arthur Miller for not introducing Monroe to him. He condemned Miller for not deriving more inspiration from her -- a cowboy story (The Misfits) and a short story (Please Don't Kill Anything). Mailer felt he would have made a much better husband for her. Marilyn's perfume, Chanel No. 5, smelled like the worst of dimestore stink, he said -- but he didn't know how it smelled on her skin. He went on to write Of Women and Their Elegance, a novel about the secret life of Monroe and a play Strawhead, which I never saw or read.

Mailer described the outrage met when people saw Miller's Broadway play, After the Fall. This play would succumb to Opening Night Death except for the tragic character of Maggie, aka Marilyn Monroe. The play "comes alive" when she's onstage, Mailer noted. After the resultant roar, Miller stupidly denied the play was about her.

Miller depicted her as phony and stupid. His character, Quentin, goes on to realize he never loved her; breasts? Other women had breasts. Maggie becomes a drunk. In short, he created an unflattering portrait of his ex, dead from "suicide" and childless. He and his new wife immediately had a child.

Fellow writers and actors condemned Miller for putting his dead wife onstage. After the Fall debuted in 1964, but he had begun writing it when Marilyn was alive. I can't imagine how she would have reacted to his public characterization of her. This was once love?

Mailer wrote The Presidential Papers about President Kennedy, which was published in November 1963, the same month of Kennedy's death. Mailer said his worst moment came when he was in a bar on Nov. 22, 1963 and it came over the TV that Kennedy was shot. Oh, he's just doing this so we'll know how much we need him, Mailer said skeptically. Then it came over that Kennedy was dead, assassinated, and the reality hit him.

JFK researchers know Mailer best as the author of Oswald's Tale, a book in search of Lee Harvey Oswald and conspiracy. Mailer failed to find anything provable about a Conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. He more or less wrote that Oswald could have killed Kennedy alone, while a conspiracy to kill Kennedy may have been in effect -- shooters on the Grassy Knoll. Oswald may or may not have been involved. Mailer has a section where he describes activity in the Texas Theater. Oswald was dragged out of the movie theater from the front of the building in a near riot of policemen. Then Mailer mentions that at the same time a merchant next door to the theater saw cops peacefully taking Oswald out the back of the building. This here might be why Mailer's book failed. Did he realize that 2 people had used the identity Lee Harvey Oswald? Did this possiblility overwhelm him? Confuse him? Was he threatened, emasculated, about the outcome of the book?

Researchers came to believe that Mailer wrote this book for some entity in the govt or big business. And his rumored tax problems disappeared like dust from the pages of old Conspiracy books. Mailer was excommunicated from the company of Conspiracy believers: a turncoat.

Norman Mailer was my favorite author. One phrase sticks in my mind: "...with the breath of a turnip." He had an imagination like no other writer, a skill for getting into the skin of his characters or the famous people he wrote about. Except for Oswald's Tale, his point of view was always unique and his interests varied. I, for one, will miss him along with his imperfections. Whether it was stabbing his Puerto Rican wife in 1960; or liberating an inmate from prison because of his writing skill, only to have the man stab a waiter to death because he looked at him funny.

Norman Mailer was 84.

Kathy Collins

[Kathleen Collins]

To Dawn and Kathleen,

Respecting the writings and logic of Mr. Oglesby, I find the statement attributed to him somewhat hard to believe.

Dawn, did he explain to you how the conspirators managed to recruit Margaret Richardson into their vast conspiracy?

Kathleen, how about you? Can you explain her participation?

Who is Margaret Richardson? I've just searched the Internet. There's more than one M.R. I couldn't find a link between her and Mailer.

And yes, Mailer was one of the founding members of FPFC, along with William Kuntsler and Jean Paul Sartre and others.

Kathy Collins

Edited November 12, 2007 by Kathleen Collins