Infiltration of this forum

[Michael Clark]

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

 I agree with the most recent point of view you expressed, which is that the murder of JFK changed the course of our history in completely negative ways.

Quote me, or I didn't say it.

Edited January 31, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Joe Bauer]

Has there been a loss of focus here relative to the forum's usual and stated historical theme and content?

At least with more current political event postings than I have seen in the last few years?

I am relatively new to it, so I couldn't say for sure.

However, I do think that there is an unprecedented level of anxiety and concern throughout our entire society about Trump's recent electoral victory ( negating the 3 million popular vote victory of HC ) and his immediate aggressive and controversial actions in this position, and many here on this forum are feeling this as well.  So much so, that I think they feel almost compelled to say something in response to what they are witnessing with this new president.

Even at the risk of some criticism about losing some focus on the 11,22,1963 JFK-In-Dallas event and the search for the truth about it.

Not sure if the moderators should do anything about these current political event postings.

Personally however, I think there is still enough of a large majority of JFK focused postings to tolerate a couple of threads like these.

I don't watch too much TV either. My PC takes me where I want to go with my specific interests so well, that I am now addicted to it.

I take it to bed at night. Wake up to it.

Dear God!  Re-reading what I just posted about my intimate relationship with my PC, I just came to an embarrassing question thought ...has this little boxed screen replaced my ... uh... well ... uh...  no, of course not. At least I hope not.

Anyway, Jim D. I too am a rabid Packer fan.  

But, regards our main forum theme focus...it will be with me until my dying day.

The yearning for the truth regards JFK in Dallas.

I was 12 on 11,22,1963. I ran home and was glued to the TV for the next few days. I saw Ruby whack Lee Harvey Oswald on Live TV. I wasn't thinking conspiracy up until that point.

But, even as a 12 year old...when I witnessed strip joint owner Jack Ruby just step out and blow away Oswald, right inside the Dallas Police Department building, with over 70 armed security personnel there for one main reason ( to protect the most important capital crime "suspect" in the 20th century ) my innocent gut told me right then and there that there was so much more to this whole affair than we would ever be told. And my gut has never felt any different since.

That unsureness about the so-called "truths" that we have been told by the-powers-to-be about many major events in our lives since 11,22,1963..has never left me.

 

 

[Paul Brancato]

Michael - what does that mean? What's eating you?

[Kirk Gallaway]

I don't know what's eating Michael either. But maybe in this case he just responded because he didn't know that Michael Walton had also responded.

 

Honestly Paul. For people younger than us, I think the JFK assassination has been hijacked by the Right wing. But it is complicated.. The Democrats have been seen as the establishment party because they bailed out the banks and lost their banner of sticking up for the little guy during the Clinton years..

I use all sources, read  newspapers but mostly internet. Of course we know  the problem with the Internet  is there no shortage of fake news, people flock to the sites that reinforce their biases, blah blah.Traditional media outlets, such as MSNBC have adapted a mainstream stance and now they're afraid to touch the JFK assassination. Which leaves open a lead for right wing TV such as Newsmax and Fox.The thinking propagated by the right wing media is that the Government murdered JFK,. and all government is bad. They use the JFK silver certificate to lure their hard currency freaks  and JFK's legacy to World Peace to  defend their new neo isolationist policies. They try to say that JFK is one of them when in reality, he's nothing like them. He would revile them as being the wealthy class who have now duped the everyday person that he was  standing  up for and his brother who had grown to truly champion before his death. In the Kennedy' era, the rich wore black hats and the poor had white hats and it was easy to tell them apart. He would have hated the cynical manipulation that now goes on.

I know a couple of Trump people. A lot of the Trump demographic is  from approximately 35-54, and things aren't going well for a lot of them. What I do see that is  alarming that I don't know how it happened and fear is too late to change is this great lack of critical thinking. They typically admire the super wealthy and hate professionals. They once had professional friends they grew up with and even though they didn't have quite have their money or status, they could at least live comfortably enough to not feel that class envy until the Great Recession happened and they found their professional friends found their careers continuing with greater seniority while a great number of them lost their jobs. They've lost a lot of aspirations and no longer envy Hollywood stars, politicians, the super fulfilled  and were really thrilled seeing these young college educated women who seemed to flock to Hillary's candidacy, crying when she lost. They've latched on to this Kennedy image, as a super hero, but know nothing about his policies other than he was a champion for World Peace who died at the hands of the government.

Edited January 31, 2017 by Kirk Gallaway

[Guest]

How does one "infiltrate" a public forum?  In other weirdness forums on which I participate, the prevailing mode of paranoia is to suspect those who disagree with our pet theories of being "disinformation agents" planted by the Government, the Illuminati or whatever other real or imaginary group feeds our fantasies.  If I were inclined toward paranoia, this would be my suspicion within the JFK research community as well.  Some of the theories that seem to be taken seriously are so laughably, demonstrably preposterous that it would be very easy to suspect they exist only to sow confusion.  Since I am increasingly convinced the Lone Nut theory is correct or at least substantially correct, however, it's hard for me to see what purpose would be served by a disinformation agent promoting wild and crazy conspiracy theories.  Ergo, my conclusion is that what I see here - can I say this, so long as I don't point any fingers or name any names? - is (1) a fair degree of genuine mental illness on the part of some, and (2) the promotion of a leftist political agenda under the guise of "assassination research" on the part of many.  I enjoy the occasional thread that slides off into some side topic like UFOs simply because most of the conspiracy threads are boring and silly, and the political threads are so predictably leftist they serve no purpose except to reinforce the prevailing paranoia.

I am DELIGHTED the Donald was elected.  I am 67, highly educated, financially secure, and stupid enough to have voted for Kerry once and Obama twice.  To repeat, I am DELIGHTED the Donald was elected.  Waking up in the morning to learn he had been elected, after an entire night of truly strange dreams that he had been elected, is one of the genuinely unforgettable moments of my life - really far more stunning to me than the JFK assassination, although I remember the moment I learned of it as well.  I applaud every step Trump has taken in his effort to restore our country to moral and fiscal sanity.  If Hillary had been elected (as I fully anticipated), however, I would have simply shrugged and said "Well, the inmates have spoken.  Four more years of sliding into the cesspool, but I'll just have to lay low and deal with it."  But now we see how the amalgamation of extreme special interests that constitutes the left reacts when things don't go their way; the country is bitterly divided, and perhaps on the brink of a genuine civil war, but the bitterness is almost entirely on the part of the losers who have seen their fantasies evaporate via the elective process and can't deal with it.  Good Lord, people, get over your childish fantasies of what might have been achieved if JFK had lived and your equally childish fantasies that the Dark Forces responsible for his assassination have reached their zenith in the election of Trump.  Hillary Clinton is about as much in the tradition of JFK as Pee-wee Herman (is he still around?).  JFK is no more relevant today than Warren Harding.  The Donald is the new sheriff in town.  Deal with it or go "infiltrate" Canada or France.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Quote

 

Lance said:

my conclusion is that what I see here is... the promotion of a leftist political agenda under the guise of "assassination research" on the part of many. 

 

This has been a privately held theory of mine for a long time, but I am not going to mention any names of course. Great post Lance, but somehow I don't think it will be that popular.

[Larry Hancock]

Lance, meaning no disrespect but I'm just going on record that I think a lot of the current damage to our society is using terms like "lefties"...which is slightly better than "libtard"...or right winger or fascist etc.  It allows people to write other peoples views off without even a discussion.  Personally, depending on different issues my views range from libtard to rabid hawk, you wouldn't know for sure unless we talked.  Hopefully most people are not stuck in such boxes they they truly are confined to one rigid worldview on every issue - that implies never really thinking about anything, just reacting. 

I think its a bad way to approach the world -  just as I keep harping on the fact that throwing around broad terms like Mafia or CIA is a poor way to approach something as complex as conspiracy - I suspect even LN or CT is questionable as well given that you could have a combination of Oswald as a single shooter but influenced by others to take the action.

So I will shut up after this but I've decided to stand up and urge people to talk with each other and I don't think that is going to happen if everyone automatically puts somebody else in a preconceived box - whatever that box might be. When you start a conversation by calling somebody a name its more likely to end in a bar fight.

 

[Paul Brancato]

Thanks Kirk for your voice of sanity. I was unaware of much of what you assert, but completely aware of the problem going back to the assassination that the more leftward or liberal press failed, and still fails, to understand JFK and the effect of his murder.

Lance - you may approve of Trump and his policies. We can differ on that. But your point about lefties getting over the shift of public opinion is not backed up by reality. The Republicans stole this election by dishonest cynical manipulation of voter roles, and their intent for a long time, ever since the Civil War, has been to disenfranchise people who see things differently. In Ohio alone, 2 million people were illegally removed from voter roles. Republican State legislatures are fighting a dirty war. It appears that the Democratic Party has finally woken up, very late in the game. 

You and I are about as far apart as two people could be. We once had a polite private exchange about UFO's which somehow devolved into a Christian rant. I've offered to share with you some alternate but well conceived views of 1st century Palestine. You didn't take me up on it then, or more recently on a public thread here. At least I didn't see it, so if you did respond let me know. One thing for sure Lance, is that your presence here makes no sense. You obviously could care less about JFK, and when you diss an author like Newman without reading what he has to say, you prove your bonafides. 

[Paul Brancato]

I wondered when I started this thread what would happen. I'm surprised that the moderators let it stand, and would accept graciously if they changed their minds. It is divisive. But as it goes on I become more convinced that I am right about the central theme of it. What surprises me at this point is that many who generally agree with me on who JFK was and why his death matters, who have posted here for a long time, who are clearly humanist in their world views, and well read historians, are not posting, and that most who are posting are the ones I worry about. Kirk shed some light on what motivates them, but it is a cynical light. At least he is willing to define them as earnest and not something worse. I truthfully don't know what to think they represent. Maybe Kirk is right. I start a thread suggesting infiltration without defining what I mean. Now there are people posting who are aggressive and just plain nasty. I suppose I gave them a forum to say what they really think. But - what next? I don't wish to exchange with such closed minded people on a website devoted to JFK. On another forum sure, but not here. This was sacred ground to me, a place where smart people using real names engaged in both sharing research and debating conclusions. 

I no longer feel safe. My guess is I'm not alone.

[James DiEugenio]

Tracy Parnell saying that assassination research is really a cover for a leftist political agenda?  This is the guy who once tried to say Vincent DI Maio had no biases in the JFK case, and then defended Case Closed.  Some research there Tracy.

As per Lance P,  well for a guy who sees no problem with Howard Brennan, again, what do you expect?

I have never seen the JFK case as such.  For the simple reason that many people who did it were not considered leftists.  As we can see with Larry above, John Newman even moreso, Jerome Corsi even more than that, Shirley Martin, Mary Ferrell, Ray Marcus etc etc

That chestnut reminds me of the old CIA/Priscilla Johnson technique about, "Well see one way to explain all these fulminations is that when you put a guy like John Kennedy on one side, rich, powerful, charismatic, the leader of the free world, and then you have Oswald on the other, social misfit, career wastrel etc etc etc."  And oh my aching back.  Please spare me any more of this utter baloney.

Way back in 1965, there were several people who took out the WR, and the volumes, and they discovered something rather striking: when you compared the conclusions in the former, with the evidence in the latter, they did not correspond. In fact, at times, they opposed each other.  The late Maggie Field actually based her whole book on that which was called, The Evidence.  On one side of the page she placed one conclusion, on the other side she put down about four pieces of evidence from the volumes which countered that conclusion.  Unfortunately that book was not published since the way Maggie wanted to do it was too expensive.  But it would have shown everyone, in very simple terms, that the Warren Report was simply a shell game, a front, or in simple legal terms, a fraud. And what made it worse is that a bunch of Ivy League lawyers, for the most part, had performed this fraud.  That 1965-66 analysis by Maggie had nothing to do with politics.  It simply had to do with a search for facts.  Something which the Commission was not supposed to do, and we have that from more than one source today.  I mean for heaven's sake, to write an 888 page report, and to never mention Oswald and 544 Camp Street?

 But Lance and Tracy would say:  What's the big deal about that? And remember, Lance is a lawyer.  He would have been right at home siting next to Specter during his cross examination of Humes.  During which the lying Arlen never once asked the doctor, "Why did you fail to dissect the back wound?"  Lance would have then congratulated Arlen, "Nice going partner."

 

Edited January 31, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Quote

Tracy Parnell saying that assassination research is really a cover for a leftist political agenda?  This is the guy who once tried to say Vincent DI Maio had no biases in the JFK case, and then defended Case Closed.  Some research there Tracy.

Lance said "the promotion of a leftist political agenda under the guise of "assassination research" on the part of many." I simply agreed, although since I have no scientific data or the like, I might add the qualifier of "some" to his statement. Other than his involvement in the exhumation, what are DiMaio's biases in your opinion? I am not saying they don't exist, just that I am not aware of them and he is well thought of to my knowledge. You are not saying there is something funny about the exhumation are you?

[Thomas Graves]

23 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Lance said "the promotion of a leftist political agenda under the guise of "assassination research" on the part of many." I simply agreed, although since I have no scientific data or the like, I might add the qualifier of "some" to his statement. Other than his involvement in the exhumation, what are DiMaio's biases in your opinion? I am not saying they don't exist, just that I am not aware of them and he is well thought of to my knowledge. You are not saying there is something funny about the exhumation are you?

Tracy,

I agree about the promotion of a "leftist agenda" / over-the-top conspiracy view of the U.S. by many of this forum's members.

Ironically, I consider myself a Conspiracy Theorist as regards the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK.

Regarding JFK, why else would I interview retired ONI special agent Robert Steel (R.I.P.), point out that the description of the assassin broadcast by Sawyer matched the Popov's Mole-based description attributed to LHO by FBI agent Fain (and incorporated into the CIA's biographical data base in 1960 by Bill Bright, who, coincidentally was working out of the MC Embassy while "LHO" was in MC), etc?

--  Tommy

And fwiw, I DID vote, but not for Trump.

Yep, I voted for the Devil Incarnate, herself.  (lol)

 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[James DiEugenio]

How soon Tracy forgets:

DIMaio was the guy who ran on to the set in Dealey Plaza right before the CNN producer was going to do his laser shot from the sixth floor to demolish the SBT.  The producer did not even know he was there.  But right before the producer was ready to call action, he ran into the plaza.  He then rearranged the dummies in the car so that they would align with the shot.  The producer then ran out and said, wait a minute!  These are blown up stills from the Z film, what you have does not correspond with them.  DiMaio would not relent.  The shoot was cancelled.  

I talked to the producer later on. CNN cancelled the whole program and then let him go.  But he had a meeting with the executive in charge before he was canned.  He said to me:

"Jim, it was really weird.  The guy kept on pacing back and forth in front of me.  He made a fist with one hand and was pounding it into his open hand.  As he did so, he kept on ranting about how DiMaio was right and the pictures were wrong. He was so wrapped up in this, he was not aware that he had a big ring on the fist hand.  As he pounded it into his palm, the palm started bleeding.  But he kept on pounding.  I had to alert him to the fact he was tearing up his hand."

That, Tracy, Lance and Tommy, is politics in the JFK case.  And that is the way the game works when it comes to facts.  Just read my essay on what CBS did.

 

Edited January 31, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

TG:  I agree about the promotion of a "leftist agenda" by many of this forum's members.

What on earth does this mean?

Is saying that Kennedy was intending to withdraw from Vietnam, and that was then overturned by LBJ, that is "leftist"?

John Newman is not a leftist.  He is a libertarian.  But beyond that, it is a conclusion that--unlike the WC-- is adduced from the facts, and the declassified record. Just look at the record of the May/1963 Sec/Def meeting.  I mean we all know what that means correct?  It even convinced the NY Times that Kennedy had a plan to withdraw from Vietnam.  

 

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Jim,

Thanks for the information. I have read part of your CBS material at your website, I honestly didn't remember that story though. I'll go back and take a look sometime.