The Straus Family

[Steven Gaal]

Simon Rothschild who co-owned Abraham & Straus ,said fact which is succinct and comprehensible. (GAAL)

]]]]]]]

+++++++++++++++++
It only shows that the Straus business partner was a Rothschild whose relatives and in-laws were connected to Empire Trust and the providing a high position for GHWB.

Said Warburg in-laws also helped the Harriman family rise to power.

I didn't start Straus thread. (GAAL)

Edited April 11, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Thomas Graves]

Simon Rothschild who co-owned Abraham & Straus ,said fact which is succinct and comprehensible. (GAAL)

]]]]]]]

+++++++++++++++++

It only shows that the Straus business partner was a Rothschild whose relatives and in-laws were connected to Empire Trust and the providing a high position for GHWB.

Said Warburg in-laws also helped the Harriman family rise to power.

I didn't start Straus thread. (GAAL)

Oh, I see.

You meant to write "the Strauses business partner" or "the Staus brothers' business partner."

Got it.

--Tommy

[Cliff Varnell]

Of course LHO is pertinent to the assassination. He was the patsy.

No. That means he is pertinent to the cover-up -- unless you think he took part in the murder.

That's just plain idiotic.

You don't have a clue what compartmentalization of intelligence operations means, do you?

I am happy to talk about the first volume. However, you haven't read it, not do you seem interested in any discussion on even just the aspects of it I have posted.

I've asked you what these aspects have to do with the actual murder of JFK and your response is hostility.

Your whole routine has been hostile from the start. I ran through some information for you as to how those things fit into a history.

And I asked if that history had anything to do with the JFK assassination and you lost your xxxx, again.

That you think everything should relate directly to the assassination is your problem.

Bingo! That's all I wanted, an admission that none of this stuff directly relates to the assassination of JFK.

Thank you, Greg!

You should fix that blurb of yours, tho, since you don't share any revelations at all about the JFK assassination directly.

[Greg Parker]

Of course LHO is pertinent to the assassination. He was the patsy.

No. That means he is pertinent to the cover-up -- unless you think he took part in the murder.

That's just plain idiotic.

You don't have a clue what compartmentalization of intelligence operations means, do you?

LOL! The only issue here is that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Compartmentalization is still orchestrated by the same person/group at the top. It's not either/or. LHO being a patsy is pertinent to both the assassination and to the cover-up. Or perhaps you believe the assassination would still have gone ahead in DP without a patsy in place?

I am happy to talk about the first volume. However, you haven't read it, not do you seem interested in any discussion on even just the aspects of it I have posted.

I've asked you what these aspects have to do with the actual murder of JFK and your response is hostility.

Your whole routine has been hostile from the start. I ran through some information for you as to how those things fit into a history.

And I asked if that history had anything to do with the JFK assassination and you lost your xxxx, again.

That you think everything should relate directly to the assassination is your problem.

Bingo! That's all I wanted, an admission that none of this stuff directly relates to the assassination of JFK.

Thank you, Greg!

You should fix that blurb of yours, tho, since you don't share any revelations at all about the JFK assassination directly.

Grasping at straws, Precious. What I said was not about me. It was about YOU. But you have shown a disregard for what is said to you throughout this thread. It gets in the way of your agenda. Now how about that poll? I want see all those votes from your Silent Majority... you now.... so you can back up your claim that "everyone can see you're running a snow job".

If I had made that claim about someone, my ass would have turfed out of here by now. Glad to see the double-standards here are as strong as ever.

But that's okay. I'm used to it. Let's do the poll, eh, Precious... back yourself and your mouth.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Cliff Varnell]

Of course LHO is pertinent to the assassination. He was the patsy.

No. That means he is pertinent to the cover-up -- unless you think he took part in the murder.

That's just plain idiotic.

You don't have a clue what compartmentalization of intelligence operations means, do you?

LOL! The only issue here is that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Compartmentalization is still orchestrated by the same person/group at the top.

Yeah, I covered that before.

What did the people tasked to kill Oswald need to know about the murder of JFK other than time and place?

What did the people tasked to kill Kennedy need to know about Oswald?

It's not either/or.

Sure it is. Two separate operations -- one involved killing Kennedy, and the other involved covering up the killing of Kennedy.

LHO being a patsy is pertinent to both the assassination and to the cover-up. Or perhaps you believe the assassination would still have gone ahead in DP without a patsy in place?

There were lots of patsies in place!

That's what you can't grasp.

There was a reason LBJ had a nervous break-down on AF1 -- he knew he'd been set up to take the fall.

[Greg Parker]

There were lots of patsies in place!

I suspect there was. I don't know for certain there was. Neither do you.

Edit: I suspect there were one or two (and possibly three) others. But my question still applies. Take them ALL out and in your opinion, does the assassination still take place in DP, or even anywhere else on the route? If it doesn't go ahead, then patsies are essential to the operation - and therefore should be part of the study of the assassination - not just the cover-up.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Terry Martin]

Cliff,

I don't know what you've got against Parker but that you do is obvious. I don't see how this chest-beating facilitates a better understanding of the case even if it does showcase the depth of your animus.

That you have a theory about the case is also quite obvious. To assume that everyone else's research should support your particular notions is a far stretch. Perhaps you could take this very personal vendetta elsewhere and allow the thread to continue without tangential assaults.

Greg's book shows the beginnings of a method being developed by the intelligence community and how Oswald was coerced into the system. If you read the book you would see how it connects events of the past to the JFK assassination. Yes, I have read the book. And I am anxiously awaiting the second volume's release. (that's a hint, Greg)

Okay, you don't like him, you don't like the way his puts things, but either discuss the case rather than semantics or find something else to do than interrupt the rest of us.

Thank you.

[Cliff Varnell]

There were lots of patsies in place!

I suspect there was. I don't know for certain there was. Neither do you.

I don't look for certainties.

I look for consistencies.

[Greg Parker]

There were lots of patsies in place!

I suspect there was. I don't know for certain there was. Neither do you.

I don't look for certainties.

I look for consistencies.

I was editing at the same time as you were replying to the unedited version.

The edited version:

Edit: I suspect there were one or two (and possibly three) others. But my question still applies. Take them ALL out and in your opinion, does the assassination still take place in DP, or even anywhere else on the route? If it doesn't go ahead, then patsies are essential to the operation - and therefore should be part of the study of the assassination - not just the cover-up.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

I don't know what you've got against Parker but that you do is obvious. I don't see how this chest-beating facilitates a better understanding of the case even if it does showcase the depth of your animus.

I'm not the one slinging homo-erotic insinuations, Mr. Martin.

That you have a theory about the case is also quite obvious. To assume that everyone else's research should support your particular notions is a far stretch.

I never expect support for anything I write.

What I like is collegial, fact-based counter-argument.

I'll ask you, sir: What did the people tasked with the murder of JFK need to know about Oswald? What did the people tasked with the murder of Oswald need to know about the JFK assassination other than time and place?

I'm arguing that these operations were compartmentalized.

Why do you have a problem with me making this argument?

Perhaps you could take this very personal vendetta elsewhere and allow the thread to continue without tangential assaults.

I think it is on-topic to point out that the blurb (and it is a blurb, Greg, like it or not) states that the book for sale includes many new revelations in the Kennedy assassination itself.

But it doesn't.

Greg's book shows the beginnings of a method being developed by the intelligence community and how Oswald was coerced into the system. If you read the book you would see how it connects events of the past to the JFK assassination. Yes, I have read the book. And I am anxiously awaiting the second volume's release. (that's a hint, Greg)

Okay, you don't like him, you don't like the way his puts things, but either discuss the case rather than semantics or find something else to do than interrupt the rest of us.

Thank you.

Greg could have saved all this drama by giving my initial question a straight answer.

[Greg Parker]

I don't look for certainties.

I look for consistencies.

Great. Then you shouldn't have made this definitive statement:"There were lots of patsies in place!"

[Cliff Varnell]

I don't look for certainties.

I look for consistencies.

Great. Then you shouldn't have made this definitive statement:"There were lots of patsies in place!"

Fair enough.

[Terry Martin]

Cliff,

I don't know what you've got against Parker but that you do is obvious. I don't see how this chest-beating facilitates a better understanding of the case even if it does showcase the depth of your animus.

I'm not the one slinging homo-erotic insinuations, Mr. Martin.

That you have a theory about the case is also quite obvious. To assume that everyone else's research should support your particular notions is a far stretch.

I never expect support for anything I write.

What I like is collegial, fact-based counter-argument.

I'll ask you, sir: What did the people tasked with the murder of JFK need to know about Oswald? What did the people tasked with the murder of Oswald need to know about the JFK assassination other than time and place?

I'm arguing that these operations were compartmentalized.

Why do you have a problem with me making this argument?

Perhaps you could take this very personal vendetta elsewhere and allow the thread to continue without tangential assaults.

I think it is on-topic to point out that the blurb (and it is a blurb, Greg, like it or not) states that the book for sale includes many new revelations in the Kennedy assassination itself.

But it doesn't.

Greg's book shows the beginnings of a method being developed by the intelligence community and how Oswald was coerced into the system. If you read the book you would see how it connects events of the past to the JFK assassination. Yes, I have read the book. And I am anxiously awaiting the second volume's release. (that's a hint, Greg)

Okay, you don't like him, you don't like the way his puts things, but either discuss the case rather than semantics or find something else to do than interrupt the rest of us.

Thank you.

Greg could have saved all this drama by giving my initial question a straight answer.

Cliff,

I believe your responses have proven my point.

I do not have any problem with you arguing that the operations were compartmentalized. You have stated your premise several times already and your tautology does not make the premise any stronger nor does your adherence to the idea require others to include the concept in what they theorize.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

I suppose it's a little ridiculous for me to be defending Greg Parker when people on his own forum have churlishly insulted me and he didn't lift a finger, but Cliff, seriously dude - stop being a bitch. It's clear that you are only trying to goad GP. You bring up no points worth making, you defend no cherished principles, you attack no obvious distortions. You're becoming a nagging wife-harridan and everybody sees it.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

I don't know what you've got against Parker but that you do is obvious. I don't see how this chest-beating facilitates a better understanding of the case even if it does showcase the depth of your animus.

I'm not the one slinging homo-erotic insinuations, Mr. Martin.

That you have a theory about the case is also quite obvious. To assume that everyone else's research should support your particular notions is a far stretch.

I never expect support for anything I write.

What I like is collegial, fact-based counter-argument.

I'll ask you, sir: What did the people tasked with the murder of JFK need to know about Oswald? What did the people tasked with the murder of Oswald need to know about the JFK assassination other than time and place?

I'm arguing that these operations were compartmentalized.

Why do you have a problem with me making this argument?

Perhaps you could take this very personal vendetta elsewhere and allow the thread to continue without tangential assaults.

I think it is on-topic to point out that the blurb (and it is a blurb, Greg, like it or not) states that the book for sale includes many new revelations in the Kennedy assassination itself.

But it doesn't.

Greg's book shows the beginnings of a method being developed by the intelligence community and how Oswald was coerced into the system. If you read the book you would see how it connects events of the past to the JFK assassination. Yes, I have read the book. And I am anxiously awaiting the second volume's release. (that's a hint, Greg)

Okay, you don't like him, you don't like the way his puts things, but either discuss the case rather than semantics or find something else to do than interrupt the rest of us.

Thank you.

Greg could have saved all this drama by giving my initial question a straight answer.

Cliff,

I believe your responses have proven my point.

I do not have any problem with you arguing that the operations were compartmentalized. You have stated your premise several times already and your tautology does not make the premise any stronger nor does your adherence to the idea require others to include the concept in what they theorize.

Doesn't that always go without saying?

I know you vowed on Greg's forum to come over here and "get real" with me, but this is weak tea, Mr. Martin.