Jump to content
The Education Forum

More than just a rant--


Recommended Posts

It is rather unfortunate that the institutionalized legacy of the presidency of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (aka: The Kennedy Library) has settled on providing a "kinder / gentler" reportage of his service to this country. It is further unfortunate that it is "We The People" and not "them the more powerful" (at least in appearance) who are left with doing the most difficult work in resurrecting our once viable and desirable form of government from the ashes of deception. It is not enough to recognize that the assassination of our 35th president was tragic; it is not enough to celebrate his progressive vision; it is not enough to appreciate his having averted nuclear annihilation more than once during his term; it is not enough to laud his support for the arts, cultural diversity, and integration of race and religion; it is not enough to recognize his wisdom when dealing with powerful forces opposed to his Constitutionally granted authority as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed forces; it is not enough...

He was murdered in a military coup d'Etat. As a nation, before we can truly celebrate his life, we must resist denying the circumstances surrounding his death. I only wish the JFK Library recognized how important this is. JFK himself would have...appearances be damned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It is rather unfortunate that the institutionalized legacy of the presidency of John Fitzgerald Kennedy (aka: The Kennedy Library) has settled on providing a "kinder / gentler" reportage of his service to this country. It is further unfortunate that it is "We The People" and not "them the more powerful" (at least in appearance) who are left with doing the most difficult work in resurrecting our once viable and desirable form of government from the ashes of deception. It is not enough to recognize that the assassination of our 35th president was tragic; it is not enough to celebrate his progressive vision; it is not enough to appreciate his having averted nuclear annihilation more than once during his term; it is not enough to laud his support for the arts, cultural diversity, and integration of race and religion; it is not enough to recognize his wisdom when dealing with powerful forces opposed to his Constitutionally granted authority as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed forces; it is not enough...

He was murdered in a military coup d'Etat. As a nation, before we can truly celebrate his life, we must resist denying the circumstances surrounding his death. I only wish the JFK Library recognized how important this is. JFK himself would have...appearances be damned.

An impassioned post by Greg with which many would agree, I think. The Library's account of the President's death is sanitized to the point of severe brevity. More time is spent dismissing

conspiracy theory than telling the reader how President Kennedy died. It just seems strange to me that they would see fit to include what they did about the HSCA acoustic evidence.

From http://www.jfklibrary.org/

The President Is Shot

On November 21, 1963, President Kennedy flew to Texas to give political speeches across the state. The next day, as his car drove slowly past cheering crowds in Dallas, shots rang out. Kennedy was mortally wounded and died a short time later. Within a few hours of the shooting, police arrested twenty-four-year-old Lee Harvey Oswald and charged him with the murder. On November 24, Dallas nightclub operator Jack Ruby shot and killed Oswald as he was being transferred to a more secure facility, silencing the only person who presumably knew the reason for the assassination and the details of how it was carried out. Conspiracy theories sprang up overnight, and the new president, Lyndon Johnson, established the Warren Commission to investigate the assassination. The commission concluded that Oswald acted alone.

______________________________________________________

The Assassination

Crowds of excited people lined the streets and waved to the Kennedys. The car turned off Main Street at Dealey Plaza around 12:30 p.m. As it was passing the Texas School Book Depository, gunfire suddenly reverberated in the plaza. Bullets struck the president's neck and head and he slumped over toward Mrs. Kennedy. The governor was also hit in the chest.

The car sped off to Parkland Memorial Hospital just a few minutes away. But little could be done for the President. A Catholic priest was summoned to administer the last rites, and at 1:00 p.m. John F. Kennedy was pronounced dead. Though seriously wounded, Governor Connally would recover

.

______________________________________________________

The Warren Commission

On November 29, 1963 President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. It came to be known as the Warren Commission after its chairman, Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States. President Johnson directed the commission to evaluate matters relating to the assassination and the subsequent killing of the alleged assassin, and to report its findings and conclusions to him. To see the Warren Commission's report, go to

______________________________________________________

The House Select Committee on Assassinations

The U.S. House of Representatives established the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1976 to reopen the investigation of the assassination in light of allegations that previous inquiries had not received the full cooperation of federal agencies.

Note to the reader: Point 1B in the link below to the findings of the 1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations states that the committee had found "a high probability that two gunmen fired" at the president. This conclusion resulted from the last-minute “discovery” of a Dallas police radio transmission tape that allegedly provided evidence that four or more shots were fired in Dealey Plaza. After the report appeared in print, acoustic experts analyzed the tape and proved conclusively that it was completely worthless—thus negating the finding in Point 1B. The committee, which also investigated the death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., issued its report on March 29, 1979.

To see the report, go to

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad state of affairs that we must all acknowledge is that the status quo is embraced even by those who have been charged with, indeed entrusted with, archiving the TRUTH. This is the crux of the dilemma: DENIAL.

Denial is less challenging, less demanding of effort, less fear invoking. For many, denial is comforting. Why? Because the alternative requires uncomfortable action. It could involve risk. It could result in ridicule. But, it could also make a difference...as it should.

The spirit of the 35th president should not remain just a lost legacy of what might've, could've, or should've happened--if ONLY blah, blah, blah...and he had lived.

Is that what JFK would have wanted? A whole bunch of coulda, woulda, shoulda's from us? Is that what he would have wanted his legacy to be? Not a chance. I know I'm preaching to the choir for the most part here. But, it never ceases to amaze me how much we are willing to accept as though we have no choice. Hopefully we can collectively bring this together while there remains something worth saving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was murdered in a military coup d'Etat. As a nation, before we can truly celebrate his life, we must resist denying the circumstances surrounding his death. I only wish the JFK Library recognized how important this is. JFK himself would have...appearances be damned.

The problem is that this statement of yours is very hard to back up.

Otherwise we wouldn't be here, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was murdered in a military coup d'Etat. As a nation, before we can truly celebrate his life, we must resist denying the circumstances surrounding his death. I only wish the JFK Library recognized how important this is. JFK himself would have...appearances be damned.

The problem is that this statement of yours is very hard to back up.

Otherwise we wouldn't be here, right?

Then why do you even bother?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad state of affairs that we must all acknowledge is that the status quo is embraced even by those who have been charged with, indeed entrusted with, archiving the TRUTH. This is the crux of the dilemma: DENIAL.

Denial is less challenging, less demanding of effort, less fear invoking. For many, denial is comforting. Why? Because the alternative requires uncomfortable action. It could involve risk. It could result in ridicule. But, it could also make a difference...as it should.

The spirit of the 35th president should not remain just a lost legacy of what might've, could've, or should've happened--if ONLY blah, blah, blah...and he had lived.

Is that what JFK would have wanted? A whole bunch of coulda, woulda, shoulda's from us? Is that what he would have wanted his legacy to be? Not a chance. I know I'm preaching to the choir for the most part here. But, it never ceases to amaze me how much we are willing to accept as though we have no choice. Hopefully we can collectively bring this together while there remains something worth saving.

Greg,

Stop preaching to the choir. Send your message to those we need to reach.

https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_203775696333877&ap=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Facebook? Are you kidding me right now? I'm already at work elsewhere. You can take on the social network quadrant along with the remainder of "Generation Text" on your own...

No, but seriously, I appreciate your enthusiasm. I'm just not one to buy into the effectiveness of that medium yet. I think it is rather naive of those who actually believe that Obama was elected due to his presence on Facebook and Twitter. If you think that is the place to get the message out...more power to you if you do something about it.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Facebook? Are you kidding me right now? I'm already at work elsewhere. You can take on the social network quadrant along with the remainder of "Generation Text" on your own...

No, but seriously, I appreciate your enthusiasm. I'm just not one to buy into the effectiveness of that medium yet. I think it is rather naive of those who actually believe that Obama was elected due to his presence on Facebook and Twitter. If you think that is the place to get the message out...more power to you if you do something about it.

Greg,

I'm no fan of facebook. I was talked into joining it. My personal concerns were outweighed by the potential to reach people. JFK is the sole reason I have an account.

This isn't even about facebook. It is a group sharing information via facebook. In this case, the information being shared is how to contact the House Oversight Committee about its obligations regarding oversight of the JFK Act and the ARRB. We are encouraging people to write them about this and have provided a number of sample letters for this purpose, so I'm not sure what you are objecting to -- or what it has to do with Obama's election campaign.

Unless you are "at work" SOMEWHERE... then your post really was just a rant on a forum... no more or less so than any rant on facebook... or even just over the back fence to your deaf old neighbor with the double hernia, yappy dog and crotchety wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

I'll make you a deal. Stop dictating how and where I pick my battles and I will refrain from becoming your roto-rooter man. A word to the wise. Maybe I'm feeling a bit irritable with those who have no clue as to my work, which reaches far beyond the internet.

On the other hand, feel free to post my comments about this specific subject on the "social network media" of your choice, unedited and in its entirety, if you feel strongly about it. There are "websites" that I consider effective, such as those administered by The Stanford Law Review, KFI Radio, Len Osanic, Jeff Rense, Joe Backes, Jim Fetzer, among others--even LANCER, et al, that have published and/or referenced my work, or had me as their guest on multiple occasions. I find it a useless exercise in meaningless self-promotion to provide a complete list--and a bit obnoxious--so I'll leave it at that. I can publish and/or appear in those places in good conscience on my own and at my sole discretion. However, I'm not convinced of the innocuous nature of the "Social Networking" mediums, but I respect the sincere intentions of those who do. I just find Facebook and Twitter akin to "Reality TV" -- which is ANYTHING but real.

Peace. I know we're on the same side of this thing. Let's not forget it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

I'll make you a deal. Stop dictating how and where I pick my battles and I will refrain from becoming your roto-rooter man. A word to the wise. Maybe I'm feeling a bit irritable with those who have no clue as to my work, which reaches far beyond the internet.

On the other hand, feel free to post my comments about this specific subject on the "social network media" of your choice, unedited and in its entirety, if you feel strongly about it. There are "websites" that I consider effective, such as those administered by The Stanford Law Review, KFI Radio, Len Osanic, Jeff Rense, Joe Backes, Jim Fetzer, among others--even LANCER, et al, that have published and/or referenced my work, or had me as their guest on multiple occasions. I find it a useless exercise in meaningless self-promotion to provide a complete list--and a bit obnoxious--so I'll leave it at that. I can publish and/or appear in those places in good conscience on my own and at my sole discretion. However, I'm not convinced of the innocuous nature of the "Social Networking" mediums, but I respect the sincere intentions of those who do. I just find Facebook and Twitter akin to "Reality TV" -- which is ANYTHING but real.

Peace. I know we're on the same side of this thing. Let's not forget it.

Greg, let's back up a bit here. You admitted you were preaching to the choir. I merely suggested you send your concerns to the politicians who can help free the files and who are definitely not part of this choir. You don't have to join facebook to do that. The facebook page does however provide sample letters for anyone who may want to do it.

You castigate me me for "having no clue" as to your work on this case, but then claim it would be "obnoxious" to discuss what your work is. And on that subject, I never said you didn't do anything; I said UNLESS you are working somewhere [on this case].... then you are just ranting on a forum. I threw in the qualifier because I suspected your involvement would go beyond discussion.

On the subject of facebook, let me reiterate -- my concerns about it are not in any way shape or form minor. I joined DESPITE those concerns in the belief it may be possible to reach out past this choir. Get the bee out of your bonnet. I have no intentions of pasting your post anywhere. I am NOT a social media supporter. I am using ONE social media site to reach an end.

And just what the freaking hell is Roto Rooter Man? On seconds thoughts, I don't want to know.

Yes, we are on the same side. But so were Brutus and Caesar. Heck, even David Icke is ostensibly on "this" side.

I can certainly see that appearing on Fetzer's show (as an example) is a far better use of time than wasting it writing to a congressional committee with the power to help get files released. I mean, who would do such a stupid thing in lieu of an opportunity to discuss Badge Man or "Harvey"? What was I thinking????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I know you have something to contribute, Greg. I just haven't a clue as to what it is. Nor do I understand why you would pick a bone with me? It is foolish. Like Lifton picking one with Fetzer. Out matched.

This is going nowhere. Why the challenge? I expressed a rant. That's it. I choose to refrain from the FACEBOOK trap. You "require" me to subscribe? Go talk to yourself. I invite you to post whatever you found worthwhile in these specific posts in this thread on the "social media" of your choice.

END OF DISCUSSSION -- unless you would like to return to the topic, which had nothing to do with you requiring me to follow your directives.

Oh, and by the way--I have written to everyone whom is cited in Facebook. You are way behind, my friend. I wrote to them before it was fashionable to do so. My office literally shared a wall with Diane Feinstein separating our suites in the Fifth Avenue Financial Center in downtown San Diego 20 years ago and we remain in contact today. But guess what, "whoop--dee--do!" Who cares? It means nothing as does your well intentioned distracting pseudo-effort. Some of us have long ago "been there and done that" already. You have a lot to learn.

Qualifier: It is late at night and I am rather tired. I will revisit this thread when I have time (hopefully tomorrow). If I came across exceptionally grouchy, my mistake. We shall see.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I know you have something to contribute, Greg. I just haven't a clue as to what it is. Nor do I understand why you would pick a bone with me? It is foolish. Like Lifton picking one with Fetzer. Out matched.

If you choose to align yourself with Abbott over Costello, that's your problem. They're BOTH comedians, even if one plays the straight man. Out matched? Well, you do do a better JFK impersonation than I do... whatever else you think you out match me on, I could care less about. My ego just ain't that big. It might even be "obnoxious" of me to make a list that you have no hope at matching...

This is going nowhere. Why the challenge? I expressed a rant. That's it. I choose to refrain from the FACEBOOK trap. You "require" me to subscribe? Go talk to yourself. I invite you to post whatever you found worthwhile in these specific posts in this thread on the "social media" of your choice.

What challenge? I made a suggestion and gave the congressional letter writing campaign a plug at the same time. You really are getting your knickers in a twist over some delusion that I was directing you to do something. Even if that was my intent, are you that insecure that you couldn't just shrug it off? You act like I am constantly hounding you to do things you don't want to do, and this was the final straw. Talk about over-reaction.

Try and get it straight will you? I didn't "require" you to subscribe - again - that is your delusion. I explicitly said in my last post, you don't have to join facebook to write to congressional committee members.

END OF DISCUSSSION -- unless you would like to return to the topic, which had nothing to do with you requiring me to follow your directives.

There it is again. Over-reaction and insecurity rooted in the delusion that you're being ordered to do something.

Oh, and by the way--I have written to everyone whom is cited in Facebook. You are way behind, my friend. I wrote to them before it was fashionable to do so. My office literally shared a wall with Diane Feinstein separating our suites in the Fifth Avenue Financial Center in downtown San Diego 20 years ago and we remain in contact today. But guess what, "whoop--dee--do!" Who cares? It means nothing as does your well intentioned distracting pseudo-effort. Some of us have long ago "been there and done that" already. You have a lot to learn.

Was it a psuedo effort when YOU did it, oh insecure one? Or was it different then? Hmmm? Do tell...

Qualifier: It is late at night and I am rather tired. I will revisit this thread when I have time (hopefully tomorrow). If I came across exceptionally grouchy, my mistake. We shall see.

Try and get up on the right side this time, ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I mistook you for someone else...

From Spartucus:

Greg Parker was born in Newcastle, NSW, Australia in 1958. Having been to 11 different schools, he left altogether at age 14, bumming around the country doing odd jobs until joining the Public Service in 1988. By 1995, he found himself living in tropical Darwin, where he still resides. Greg Parker left the Public Service in 1999, and is currently the manager of the largest employment agency in the city.

Greg Parker's interest in the assassination started, as it did with so many others, after watching Oliver Stone's JFK.

That interest was short-lived, but rekindled in the late 1990s after reading a borrowed copy of Conspiracy by Anthony Summers. He began his own research in 2000, and since then, has contributed to Joan Mellen's book on Jim Garrison. Greg Parker also had some of his research presented at the Pittsburgh conference in November, 2003. This included strong evidence showing Jack Ruby to be a conduit for funding WMD research in the late 1950s, and the role played by John Edward Pic Jr in USAF human radiation experiments.

Greg Parker runs the Re-open the JFK Case website.

--------------------------------------------------

'nuff said.

Sorry, I know you have something to contribute, Greg. I just haven't a clue as to what it is. Nor do I understand why you would pick a bone with me? It is foolish. Like Lifton picking one with Fetzer. Out matched.

If you choose to align yourself with Abbott over Costello, that's your problem. They're BOTH comedians, even if one plays the straight man. Out matched? Well, you do do a better JFK impersonation than I do... whatever else you think you out match me on, I could care less about. My ego just ain't that big. It might even be "obnoxious" of me to make a list that you have no hope at matching...

This is going nowhere. Why the challenge? I expressed a rant. That's it. I choose to refrain from the FACEBOOK trap. You "require" me to subscribe? Go talk to yourself. I invite you to post whatever you found worthwhile in these specific posts in this thread on the "social media" of your choice.

What challenge? I made a suggestion and gave the congressional letter writing campaign a plug at the same time. You really are getting your knickers in a twist over some delusion that I was directing you to do something. Even if that was my intent, are you that insecure that you couldn't just shrug it off? You act like I am constantly hounding you to do things you don't want to do, and this was the final straw. Talk about over-reaction.

Try and get it straight will you? I didn't "require" you to subscribe - again - that is your delusion. I explicitly said in my last post, you don't have to join facebook to write to congressional committee members.

END OF DISCUSSSION -- unless you would like to return to the topic, which had nothing to do with you requiring me to follow your directives.

There it is again. Over-reaction and insecurity rooted in the delusion that you're being ordered to do something.

Oh, and by the way--I have written to everyone whom is cited in Facebook. You are way behind, my friend. I wrote to them before it was fashionable to do so. My office literally shared a wall with Diane Feinstein separating our suites in the Fifth Avenue Financial Center in downtown San Diego 20 years ago and we remain in contact today. But guess what, "whoop--dee--do!" Who cares? It means nothing as does your well intentioned distracting pseudo-effort. Some of us have long ago "been there and done that" already. You have a lot to learn.

Was it a psuedo effort when YOU did it, oh insecure one? Or was it different then? Hmmm? Do tell...

Qualifier: It is late at night and I am rather tired. I will revisit this thread when I have time (hopefully tomorrow). If I came across exceptionally grouchy, my mistake. We shall see.

Try and get up on the right side this time, ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! What else can I say? Wow! You think this shows.... what exactly about me that makes you feel superior?

And why the hell do you even need to feel superior...? You have some serious issues going there.

Meanwhile back on Planet Earth, if anyone wants to be part of the letter writing campaign, here's the place to go:

https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_203775696333877&ap=1

The aim is to have 200 letters go out.

btw Greg, I did actually think your original post here was a fine piece of writing. It was negligent of me not to acknowledge same in my first post. But then, I may never have had the chance to meet the real you.

Sorry, I mistook you for someone else...

From Spartucus:

Greg Parker was born in Newcastle, NSW, Australia in 1958. Having been to 11 different schools, he left altogether at age 14, bumming around the country doing odd jobs until joining the Public Service in 1988. By 1995, he found himself living in tropical Darwin, where he still resides. Greg Parker left the Public Service in 1999, and is currently the manager of the largest employment agency in the city.

Greg Parker's interest in the assassination started, as it did with so many others, after watching Oliver Stone's JFK.

That interest was short-lived, but rekindled in the late 1990s after reading a borrowed copy of Conspiracy by Anthony Summers. He began his own research in 2000, and since then, has contributed to Joan Mellen's book on Jim Garrison. Greg Parker also had some of his research presented at the Pittsburgh conference in November, 2003. This included strong evidence showing Jack Ruby to be a conduit for funding WMD research in the late 1950s, and the role played by John Edward Pic Jr in USAF human radiation experiments.

Greg Parker runs the Re-open the JFK Case website.

--------------------------------------------------

'nuff said.

Sorry, I know you have something to contribute, Greg. I just haven't a clue as to what it is. Nor do I understand why you would pick a bone with me? It is foolish. Like Lifton picking one with Fetzer. Out matched.

If you choose to align yourself with Abbott over Costello, that's your problem. They're BOTH comedians, even if one plays the straight man. Out matched? Well, you do do a better JFK impersonation than I do... whatever else you think you out match me on, I could care less about. My ego just ain't that big. It might even be "obnoxious" of me to make a list that you have no hope at matching...

This is going nowhere. Why the challenge? I expressed a rant. That's it. I choose to refrain from the FACEBOOK trap. You "require" me to subscribe? Go talk to yourself. I invite you to post whatever you found worthwhile in these specific posts in this thread on the "social media" of your choice.

What challenge? I made a suggestion and gave the congressional letter writing campaign a plug at the same time. You really are getting your knickers in a twist over some delusion that I was directing you to do something. Even if that was my intent, are you that insecure that you couldn't just shrug it off? You act like I am constantly hounding you to do things you don't want to do, and this was the final straw. Talk about over-reaction.

Try and get it straight will you? I didn't "require" you to subscribe - again - that is your delusion. I explicitly said in my last post, you don't have to join facebook to write to congressional committee members.

END OF DISCUSSSION -- unless you would like to return to the topic, which had nothing to do with you requiring me to follow your directives.

There it is again. Over-reaction and insecurity rooted in the delusion that you're being ordered to do something.

Oh, and by the way--I have written to everyone whom is cited in Facebook. You are way behind, my friend. I wrote to them before it was fashionable to do so. My office literally shared a wall with Diane Feinstein separating our suites in the Fifth Avenue Financial Center in downtown San Diego 20 years ago and we remain in contact today. But guess what, "whoop--dee--do!" Who cares? It means nothing as does your well intentioned distracting pseudo-effort. Some of us have long ago "been there and done that" already. You have a lot to learn.

Was it a psuedo effort when YOU did it, oh insecure one? Or was it different then? Hmmm? Do tell...

Qualifier: It is late at night and I am rather tired. I will revisit this thread when I have time (hopefully tomorrow). If I came across exceptionally grouchy, my mistake. We shall see.

Try and get up on the right side this time, ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

I do not think nor do I feel that I'm superior. Go back and read what I wrote. I LITERALLY mistook you for someone else. I didn't realize that until I read about you on Spartacus. I find nothing inferior about you on there at all. Sorry for the confusion. Perhaps we just got started off on the wrong foot this time. One miscommunication or misinterpretation led to another and that was that.

To re-iterate, I am not joining Facebook or Twitter, but it is none of my business nor concern if others do so join. I have my reasons. I employed a poor choice of words when I used "pseudo" as its connotation was not my intended meaning. That I fail to appreciate its effectiveness is in no way indicative of the sincerity of one who chooses that method to get the word out. I don't think there is anything "fake or artificial" about your efforts there. My apologies if that's how it came across.

Thank you for the compliment at the end of your post, backhanded though it was, I appreciate it. We most likely have a lot more in common than not.

GO_SECURE

monk

Wow! What else can I say? Wow! You think this shows.... what exactly about me that makes you feel superior?

And why the hell do you even need to feel superior...? You have some serious issues going there.

Meanwhile back on Planet Earth, if anyone wants to be part of the letter writing campaign, here's the place to go:

https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_203775696333877&ap=1

The aim is to have 200 letters go out.

btw Greg, I did actually think your original post here was a fine piece of writing. It was negligent of me not to acknowledge same in my first post. But then, I may never have had the chance to meet the real you.

Sorry, I mistook you for someone else...

From Spartucus:

Greg Parker was born in Newcastle, NSW, Australia in 1958. Having been to 11 different schools, he left altogether at age 14, bumming around the country doing odd jobs until joining the Public Service in 1988. By 1995, he found himself living in tropical Darwin, where he still resides. Greg Parker left the Public Service in 1999, and is currently the manager of the largest employment agency in the city.

Greg Parker's interest in the assassination started, as it did with so many others, after watching Oliver Stone's JFK.

That interest was short-lived, but rekindled in the late 1990s after reading a borrowed copy of Conspiracy by Anthony Summers. He began his own research in 2000, and since then, has contributed to Joan Mellen's book on Jim Garrison. Greg Parker also had some of his research presented at the Pittsburgh conference in November, 2003. This included strong evidence showing Jack Ruby to be a conduit for funding WMD research in the late 1950s, and the role played by John Edward Pic Jr in USAF human radiation experiments.

Greg Parker runs the Re-open the JFK Case website.

--------------------------------------------------

'nuff said.

Sorry, I know you have something to contribute, Greg. I just haven't a clue as to what it is. Nor do I understand why you would pick a bone with me? It is foolish. Like Lifton picking one with Fetzer. Out matched.

If you choose to align yourself with Abbott over Costello, that's your problem. They're BOTH comedians, even if one plays the straight man. Out matched? Well, you do do a better JFK impersonation than I do... whatever else you think you out match me on, I could care less about. My ego just ain't that big. It might even be "obnoxious" of me to make a list that you have no hope at matching...

This is going nowhere. Why the challenge? I expressed a rant. That's it. I choose to refrain from the FACEBOOK trap. You "require" me to subscribe? Go talk to yourself. I invite you to post whatever you found worthwhile in these specific posts in this thread on the "social media" of your choice.

What challenge? I made a suggestion and gave the congressional letter writing campaign a plug at the same time. You really are getting your knickers in a twist over some delusion that I was directing you to do something. Even if that was my intent, are you that insecure that you couldn't just shrug it off? You act like I am constantly hounding you to do things you don't want to do, and this was the final straw. Talk about over-reaction.

Try and get it straight will you? I didn't "require" you to subscribe - again - that is your delusion. I explicitly said in my last post, you don't have to join facebook to write to congressional committee members.

END OF DISCUSSSION -- unless you would like to return to the topic, which had nothing to do with you requiring me to follow your directives.

There it is again. Over-reaction and insecurity rooted in the delusion that you're being ordered to do something.

Oh, and by the way--I have written to everyone whom is cited in Facebook. You are way behind, my friend. I wrote to them before it was fashionable to do so. My office literally shared a wall with Diane Feinstein separating our suites in the Fifth Avenue Financial Center in downtown San Diego 20 years ago and we remain in contact today. But guess what, "whoop--dee--do!" Who cares? It means nothing as does your well intentioned distracting pseudo-effort. Some of us have long ago "been there and done that" already. You have a lot to learn.

Was it a psuedo effort when YOU did it, oh insecure one? Or was it different then? Hmmm? Do tell...

Qualifier: It is late at night and I am rather tired. I will revisit this thread when I have time (hopefully tomorrow). If I came across exceptionally grouchy, my mistake. We shall see.

Try and get up on the right side this time, ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...