Jump to content
The Education Forum

Did Brezhnev Do It?


Tim Gratz
 Share

Recommended Posts

As has been discussed in other places, in the book '"The Secret History of the CIA" Joseph Trento argues that a faction of the Politburo led by Leonid Brehznev orchestrated first the assassination of President Kennedy and then, eleven months later, the coup that replaced Khruschev as leader of the Soviet Union.

There is a different thread running relating to the theory that Fidel (or his intelligence service) plotted Kennedy's death. This is in one sense a theory which is independent of potential Soviet complicity. Fidel could have done it alone without assistance or even pre-approval by the Soviets. (But query whether he would have dared assassinate the President of the United States without clearing it with his Soviet masters?)

Trento's book argues that the KGB faction helped Castro kill Kenndedy, but the motives of the Soviets and the motives of Castro for killing Kennedy were distinct.

I recently read that in a 1997 interview, Vladimir Semichastny, the KGB chairman in 1964, stated that Brezhnev, the ringleader of the plot to depose Khruschev, asked him to assassinate Khruschev, but he refused. The interview was in The Times, December 23, 1997 (a British paper, I believe).

The Semichastny interview confirms that Trento's book is correct that it was Brezhnev who orchestrated the ouster of Khruschev. It also demonstrates that Brezhnev was willing to use assassination as a method of regime change. If Brehznev was brazen enough to want to kill Khruschev, presumably he could have also countenanced the assassination of Kennedy. So the Semichastny interview supports Trento's theory.

Since Semichasty refused to kill Khruschev for Brehznez, the argument arises why would the KGB have killed Kennedy but then refused to kill Khruschev? One answer, of course, is that there is a difference in killing a foreign head of state and killing the leader of your own country. Had an assassination attempt against Khruschev failed, the personal repercussions against Semichastny would have been immediate, and fatal. A second answer is that the KGB, according to Trento, used proxies (Cubans) to kill Kennedy.

Semichastny did agree to assist Brehznev in the coup against Khruschev, including bugging his telephone lines.

Overall, I think Brezhnev's initial plan to kill Khruschev adds support to Trento's theory that Brezhnev planned the Kennedy assassination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the thread "Did Fidel Do It", I made reference to the KGB murder of Stephen Bandera. It turns out that the same KGB assassin who killed Bandera also killed another East Bloc dissident two years before the Bandera murder. The first man killed was Lev Rebet in October of 1957. Bandera was killed in October of 1959. The assassin, a member of the KGB's Thirteenth Department (the same department with which Valery Kostikov was associated) was Bodgan Stashinsky.

The following passge is from Andrews' "The Sword and the Shield":

"[The] murder weapon, specially constructed by the KGB weapons laboratory, was a spray gun which fired a jet of poison gas from a crushed cyanide ampule and caused death by cardiac arrest. The [KGB] calculated, correctly, that an unsuspecting pathologist was likely to diagnose the cause of death as heart failure. Stashinsky tested his weapon by taking a dog into the woods, tying it to a tree and firing at it. The dog had immediate convulsions and died in a few moments. Confident of the deadliness of his spray gun, Stashinsky killed both Rebet and Bandera by lying in wait for them in darkened stairways. In December of 1959, . . .at a ceremony in the [KGB] Centre, Aleksandr Nikolayevich Shelepin, chairman of the KGB, read aloud a citation praising Stashinsky "for carrying out an extremely important government assignment" and presented him with the Order of the Red Banner. Stashinsky was told he would be sent to a course to perfect his English before being sent out on a three to five year assignment in the West to carry out further "special actions."

"The Sword and the Shield", pages 361-362.

In August of 1961, however, Stashinsky, encouraged by his girl friend, escaped to the West the day before the Berlin Wall was constructed. He confessed to both murders, was tried in October of 1962 and sentenced to eight years. The presiding judge declared that the main culprit was the Soviet Union which had institutionalized political murder.

In view of a number of premature deaths of witnesses in the Kennedy case that were attributed to heart failure, it is interesting that the KGB had twice murdered dissidents in a method that mimiced heart failure, murders that would have gone undetected but for the defection of Stashinsky.

The CIA may have had murder on its mind, but it failed to kill Castro despite numerous attempts using both mafioso and Cuban dissidents. And, of course, the CIA's attempts to kill Castro were publicly exposed. The fact that the KGB succeeded where the CIA failed may be significant. I believe Trento privately commented to the effect how could the CIA kill Kennedy and successfully cover it up when it could not even kill Castro after numerous attempts? On the other hand, the KGB almost got away with the murders of Lev Rebet and Stephen Bandera.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trento's book argues that the KGB faction helped Castro kill Kenndedy, but the motives of the Soviets and the motives of Castro for killing Kennedy were distinct.

I recently read that in a 1997 interview, Vladimir Semichastny, the KGB chairman in 1964, stated that Brezhnev, the ringleader of the plot to depose Khruschev, asked him to assassinate Khruschev, but he refused.  The interview was in The Times, December 23, 1997 (a British paper, I believe).

The Semichastny interview confirms that Trento's book is correct that it was Brezhnev who orchestrated the ouster of Khruschev.  It also demonstrates that Brezhnev was willing to use assassination as a method of regime change.  If Brehznev was brazen enough to want to kill Khruschev, presumably he could have also countenanced the assassination of Kennedy.  So the Semichastny interview supports Trento's theory.

We don’t need Trento’s book to tell us that Leonid Brezhnev plotted the removal of Nikita Khrushchev. Kremlin watchers in the UK wrote about this before Khrushchev fell in October, 1964. They also wrote that Brezhnev received support from Yuri Andropov, the head of the KGB, in the removal of Khrushchev. Andropov reward was to takeover from Brezhnev when he died in 1982. Andropov was actually more of a reformer than Khrushchev and his protégé was Mikhail Gorbachev, a man he had discovered First Secretary for Stavropol Territory. Andropov attempted to introduce a series of reforms but he died in 1984 before he could complete his programme. These were later carried out by Gorbachev and led to the fall of communism and the end to the Cold War.

As you know, I think the idea that the KGB was behind the assassination of JFK is a lot of bunkum. However, I am always willing to help a friend. If you think a senior CIA agent might have helped the Soviets to carry out this assassination, you might want to take a look at Gerry Droller (Frank Bender).

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKdroller.htm

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3188

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, yes, I saw your post on Bender/Droller and it was intriguing.

Also intriguing is whether Manuel Artime might have been a double agent.

Re Brehznez, remember he did not replace Khruschev but was apparently behind the place coup. What I thought interesting was that he had considered having Khruschev killed. Of course, given the KGB technology (witness the Bandera death which was apparently never even considered suspicious) it probably could have killed Khruschev and made it appear a natural death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KGB?

Did the KGB run the Secret Service?

Did the KGB run Bethesda Naval Hospital?

Did the KGB run the FBI?

DId the KGB employ McCOrd, Barker, Bissell, the Cabell brothers,

David Attlee Philips, David Morales, the BIg Indian and Eugene Brading?

Did the KGB run the Warren Commission, the House HSAC?

DId the KGB control the NSA, DI, NARA, Marine Intelligence and ONI?

Tim, I try to read your posts, but you go against all the other evidence on all the other threads....the link to Moscow is so tenuous, it is absurd.

If you ranked them you might get:

Joint MI/CIA effort.

MI rogue effort.

CIA rogue effort with disgruntled BOP Cubans.

Organized crime taking CIA contract with protection.

Cabal of CD DILLON

Cabal of JOHNSON

Cabal of H.L. HUNT and CLINT MURCHISON

Strange counterintelligence "staged false assassination" turned at the last minute.

The Warren Commission findings: Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

Two unnamed unknown assassins with no institutional ties.

Then, the least likely of all

a) Castro

:lol: KGB

The only thing less likely is a Bolivian or Argentine effort....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KGB?

Did the KGB run the Secret Service?

Did the KGB run Bethesda Naval Hospital?

Did the KGB run the FBI?

DId the KGB employ McCOrd, Barker, Bissell, the Cabell brothers,

David Attlee Philips, David Morales, the BIg Indian and Eugene Brading?

Did the KGB run the Warren Commission, the House HSAC?

DId the KGB control the NSA, DI, NARA, Marine Intelligence and ONI?

Tim, I try to read your posts, but you go against all the other evidence  on all the other threads....the link to Moscow is so tenuous, it is absurd.

If you ranked them you might get:

Joint MI/CIA effort.

MI rogue effort.

CIA rogue effort with disgruntled BOP Cubans.

Organized crime taking CIA contract with protection.

Cabal of CD DILLON

Cabal of JOHNSON

Cabal of H.L. HUNT and CLINT MURCHISON

Strange counterintelligence "staged false assassination" turned at the last minute.

The Warren Commission findings: Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

Two unnamed unknown assassins with no institutional ties.

Then, the least likely of all

a) Castro

:lol: KGB

The only thing less likely is a Bolivian or Argentine effort....

_________________________________________

Hi Shanet:

Once again the voice of reason on this forum. I do not come here very often of late because all I see are new threads begun by Tim Gratz on yet one more version of how either Castro or the Soviet Union killed JFK.

I guess if enough people post this kind of nonsense the idea exists that those who believe JFk was killed by a coup d'etat will just go away. It is working for me because when there is no longer any meaningful dialogue, but just these same kinds of threads REPEATEDLY, I believe serious researchers will look other places.

And that is too bad, this forum was once very exciting.

I wonder what is going on here now.

Why Tim do you start these threads and just presist in this utter nonsence? I know that this is a debate, but you are just saying the same thing over and over and no matter how much evidence is shown to the contrary, your response is just to start yet one more thread with the same red herring. IMHO.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Shanet and Dawn:

In response to your posts, please tell me if you agree with the following statements:

(1) A KGB assassin killed dissident Lev Rebet in Oct 1957, disguised it as a heart attack.

(2) That the same KGB assassin killed dissident Stephen Bandera in October of 1959.

(3) That it is likely that the KGB killed Dag Hammersjald in 1961 (a belief shared by my fellow right-winger a.j. weberman (whose research and analysis I greatly admire).

(4) That it is likely that the KGB killed British Labor Leader Hugh Gaitskil in the 1960s.

(5) That Leonid Brezhnev asked the head of the KGB to assassinate Nikita Khruschev.

(6) That the KGB was likely behind the 1980s attempt on the life of the Pope.

(7) That the KGB murders of Rebet and Bandera were effected by a weapon designed to make the death look like a heart attack, and that many of the untimely deaths of witnesses in the Kennedy case that assassination researchers consider suspicious were ruled premature heart attacks.

Is it of no relevance to your analysis that most likely the KGB killed the head of the United Nations; a political leader in Britain who was likely to become British Prime Minister; attempted to kill the Pope, and that Brezhnev atempted the assassination of Khruschev?

I am confident that Joseph Califano, Alexander Haig and James Angleton, all whom believe there was Cuban and/or Soviet participation in the assassination, have (had) more knowledge about what was going on than all the members of this Forum put together, which of course includes working with many of the government leaders and Cuban exiles and reviewing information, some of which is probably still classified. My remark on the collective knowledge of Califano, Haig and Angleton intends no disrespect for any of the members of this Forum. John obviously deserves great credit for the masterful way in which he runs and organizes the Forum but I am sure he agrees with me that it is the research and the intelligent posts of the members of the Forum that make it the learning vehicle that it is. I have learned immensely since joining the Forum, including information about the Cold War and American history that may not be strictly relevant to the assassination but is important knowledge nonetheles.

Now, continuing:

I have certainly never seen any evidence of Secret Service involvement in the assassination, I think we demonstrated in a previous post that JFK security in Dallas was no different than security in dozens of other cities to which he traveled.

Most clearly I agree with you that the Warren Commision was a cover-up but history has clearly demonstrated the primary motivation for the cover-up was concern by our leaders that there could be foreign involvement in the assassination and that proof of such involvement might lead to a catacylsmic world war. Do you seriously assert that any member of the Warren Commission had actual knowledge of a government conspiracy and covered it up? Do you accuse former Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren (as loved, I thought, by liberals as he was despised by conservatives) of aiding and abetting a murder? And is that your contention for the Republicans and Democrats who served on the House Select Commitee on Assassinations and who, to a man, signed on its report, also deliberately conspired to cover-up a conspiracy? Re the Cabell brothers, did you know that in 1964 Earl Cabell ran as a Democrat to defeat the very right-wing congresman Bruce Alger in Dallas? With al your posts about Dillon, did you know that he was a close personal friend (and sailing partner of John Kennedy, and (according to Sorenson's biography of Kennedy) one of the Cabinet members Kennedy most admired? Where is your proof that anyone from the FBI or the CIA participated in the assassination? So far, I have seen not one iota of any substantial proof. (We have one drunken remark by Morales, and the story of Gary Underhill who, I understand, was not even a CIA agent-I challenged Robert Charles-Dunne to provide some proof re the Underhill story and that challenge remains unanswered.)

Robert Charles Dunne rightly attempts to "hold my feet to the fire" re evidence for the facts that suggest Cuban and or Soviet involvement. Now it is my turn. Shanet, please post some evidentiary FACTS, not just idle speculation, to indicate that anyone from the military, the FBI or the CIA involved in the assassination.

I shan't hold my breath.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would really encourage you all to read the Trento book. It has lots of interesting stories other than just his view on the Kennedy assassination. (A hardcover edition can be purchased for less than $10.00 from Edward Hamilton Booksellers.)

(See John's recent post re the suicide of a homosexual CIA agent named James Kronthal.)

I don't want to try to sumarize all of Trento's thesis (because a brief summary would not do it justice) but Trento claims that Angleton's attempt to get to the bottom of the Kennedy assassination was ultimately frustrated by brilliant manuevers by Kim Philby, who was able to succeed because he knew the workings of Angleton's mind.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As noted above, I had some concern why KGB head Semichastny would decline Brehznev's request to assassinate Khruschev if he had participated in the plot to kill Kennedy. So I just reread the portion of Trento's book wherein he names the Politburo members whom he believes conspired to kill Kennedy and depose Khruschev. Interestingly enough, Semichastny is not listed among the conspirators posited by Trento.

Most members of the Forum would agree, I think, that both Kennedy and Khruschev were concerned by how close the world had come to nuclear war during the Cuban misile crisis and they started thereafter to work together to end the Cold War. That, Trento asserts, is why the hard-liners in the Politburo conspired to eliminate both Kennedy and Khruschev.

Here is Trento on the end of Khruschev:

(After Khruschev was accused of numerous "sins" by his comrades in the Presidium) he told them (presciently-Tim) the Soviet Union would spin apart if peace were not made with the West. "We do not have the luxury of being timid," he told them. They voted, and he resigned all his posts. Khruschev's vision of the future-a new world order that he and Kennedy would forge together--would never become reality. He understod that his dreams, like those of so many others, had died in the motorcade in Dallas.

Trento, "The Secret History of the CIA", page 280.

If you believe that Western hard-line militarists were so upset with the efforts of Kennedy-Khruschev to end the Cold War, why is it so hard to accept that there were hard-liners in the Politburo equally upset and may have decided that the very survival of the Soviet Union depended on the elimination of both Kennedy and Khruschev? Only the KGB had the ability to eliminate both leaders.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not come here very often of late because all I see are new threads begun by Tim Gratz on yet one more version of how either Castro or the Soviet Union killed JFK.

I guess if enough people post this kind of nonsense the idea exists that those who believe JFk was killed by a coup d'etat will just go away.  It is working for me because when there is no longer any meaningful dialogue, but just these same kinds of threads REPEATEDLY,   I believe serious researchers will look other places.

And that is too bad, this forum was once very exciting.

I wonder what is going on here now.

This of course coincidences with your posting on Wim Dankbaar’s forum.

Dawn Meredith Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:19 pm

From my short time now on these forums (October 2004) I have seen a lot of disinformation. Not so much on this forum, perhaps because it is still so new (Christmas Day) but on the prior forum I was on it is rampant, IMHO. (Tho there is also a lot of good research there as well, but these forums attract disinfo people due to their very nature, and of what we are trying to accomplish here). Some people have a vested interested in seeing that the truth is twisted in every manner known to man.

Then there are the forums that dedicate themselves solely to disinformation. McAdams, and a second forum which for now shall remain nameless as I am lacking in substantive "proof". But word is getting out and evidence is being gathered.

Are you really suggesting that Tim and other members of this forum are disinformation agents? I disagree with Tim about a great many things (this is not only restricted to his posting of the JFK assassination), however, it has never entered my head that Tim is a disinformation agent. He is just wrong.

I do think that members of the JFK research community do tend to suffer from paranoia. The idea that this or other forums are full of disinformation agents is very silly. It gives the impression that we are more important than we are.

I do believe that there are some paid disinformation agents at work over the years. I suspect John McAdams falls into this category. In the past people like Jack Anderson, Dick Billings, G. Robert Blakey and Michael Eddowes. have played this role. Others like Drew Pearson, Edward Jay Epstein, Joe Trento and Lee Israel have allowed themselves to be manipulated by the intelligence services.

However, the idea that Tim and other members of the Forum are being paid to put around false information is plain daft. If the CIA did pay people to post disinformation on this Forum, they would do it in more sophisticated ways that arguing that JFK was assassinated on the orders of the KGB.

The real problem of disinformation on Forum concern the postings of people who are motivated by economic factors. However, as long as they are challenged by other researchers, they cannot do too much harm.

It might interest you to know that I have also been accused of working for CIA (on loan from MI5). That my website and this forum is under their control. This of course helps to explain my high-ranking at Google. Of course I deny this, but then again, I would say they would I not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, John.

The idea that I am a disinformation agent (for the CIA, presumably) is, as you say, daft. I have made it clear that I believe the CIA involving itself in assassination plots was both immoral and criminal (hardly a defense of the CIA!. I just believe that Kennedy was killed as a "blowback" from those ill-advised plots. And of course I have also made it clear that while I think the preponderance of the evidence supports my scenario, I could be wrong.

Finally, I doubt that the most partisan Kennedy supporter has any more interest in solving the assassination than I do. The assassination of a president is a crime against the country itself and all of its citizens. It is my hope that if any U.S. citizen who is still alive participated in the conspiracy he will be brought to justice to answer for his heinous crime.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, John.

The idea that I am a disinformation agent (for the CIA, presumably) is, as you say, daft.  I have made it clear that I believe the CIA involving itself in assassination plots was both immoral and criminal (hardly a defense of the CIA!.  I just believe that Kennedy was killed as a "blowback" from those ill-advised plots.  And of course I have also made it clear that while I think the preponderance of the evidence supports my scenario, I could be wrong.

Finally, I doubt that the most partisan Kennedy supporter has any more interest in solving the assassination than I do.  The assassination of a president is a crime against the country itself and all of its citizens.  It is my hope that if any U.S. citizen who is still alive participated in the conspiracy he will be brought to justice to answer for his heinous crime.

____________________________

I was responding to a specific question on Wim's forum , of whether or not people on these kind of forums promote disinformation. I stated my opinion. I did not say or infer that Mr Gratz IS a disinformationist. One can ealily disseminate false and/or misleading information without being paid to do so. And I believe that Tim has taken to doing this. Even you John do not share his opinions that JFK was killed by a foreign conspiracy. I think that Tim is a good man and does not want to believe that his president was killed by forces at the top of his government. I have encountered this sort of thinking all throughout my professional career. People have a vested interst in believing we live in a great democracy and that we are not a murderous imperialistic nation, that our government would never murder its own president!!. I do not share this view and all my study on the assassination points to one answer: JFK bucked the powers that be in his own country and they removed him. For TIm to say there is no "proof off SS or FBI or CIA" involvement is just as silly, in my opinion, as saying that proof exists that LHO acting alone did this.

When this thinking was put forth in just one or two threads that was one thing, but the last few weeks it became almost all the threads. Like "Why the CIA did not do it", after weeks of pushing the Castro did it, or Fidel did it, now the damn Soviets? There is no evidnece for THIS, and John you know this. (I cannot imagine anyone calling you a CIA agent. That is actually funny and totally absurd)

John do you honestly think that no people have posted here with an agenda uunrelated to solving this crime?

Disinformation does not always mean it is someone who is paid, but merely someone with a false agenda. Someone can honestly believe what they say and it still be false. I think this is where Tim stands. I have no quarrel with Tim, I merely believe he is wrong, and further I understand why he needs to believe this. I was just unhappy to see it taking over every thread.

Dawn

I tried to send Tim a PM yesterday re the Watergate thread where we were agreeing, but the computer "told me" "recipeint had no right to utilize private message". This was puzzling. I wished to respond to his remarks, but not do so in public as they were private thoughts that I did not feel belonged on a public forum.

Tim I agree with you that If any US citizen can be proven responsible for this crime such person needs to be held accountable. But you cannot fail to notice that every US investigation has been cut off from seeking the truth. We dissagree on "why" , which entities are being protected by this powerful government. We are in Rome Tim, when it comes to the truth about 11/22/63. All the evidence supports this, you just do not like this evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just feel a need to add my own 21/2 cents worth to this discussion! Well, bottom line is that I do not agree with Tim's theory.

However, for awhile I read all of both Tim an R Charles Dunnes posts and was enjoying the discussion. I had never actually read much in regard to Castro Did It, or the KGB did it. I have never actually believed this to be true and yet the thought had crossed my mind, through the years, as a possibility.

I did read Gus Russo's book, LIve By The Sword, when it first came out. Since it was quite some time back, I am not able to actually recall all that much about it, except that I just didn't agree with a lot of his claims, as I was reading it. I have not read Trento's book and can only go by what Tim says about it.

The debate that has transpired here was something that I have wanted to read. I wanted to know the pros and cons of whether Castro or the KGB or Soviets did it. Tim did actually give me something new to think about. Yet from the discussions, I have not been convinced at all, as to his theories. I would say that my reasons have more to do with what Shanet has posted above. I do not believe the continuing cover-up would be possible if either Castro, the KGB or Soviets did it. In my own mind this theory just does not work! Although of course, I am not able to pinpoint who was the guilty ones......just mostly more speculations on my part. However, it just doesn't all add up to Castro etc, did it.

I do believe there has been perhaps some confusion about Disinformation, including on this forum. I also do believe that the word "Misinformation" would be the more appropriate word to use. I could give out some info that I believe to be true, which may not actually be true at all. This is not Disinformation..it is Misinformation. There would be no deliberate attempt to deceive nor would there be any such agenda. It is simply a mistaken belief or theory...just wrong info.

This is one example........I have often thought that LHO was caught in a trap and may even have been confused as to who was actually behind him. Similar to uncertainties Nagell expressed. He may have had certain info or even suspicion in regard to an upcoming assassination. Maybe LHO felt he needed to do something to not only stop this plan, but to get himself out from under any involvement. But,,,what could he do? Who could he trust? Who could he turn to? Anyone around him could be suspect, so who would even listen to him anyway? To do anything might even jeopardize him even more.

He may or may not actually have gone to Mexico as has been indicated. He may or may not have actually gone to the Cuban and Russian Embassies. Yet, supposing that he did so, perhaps he was trying to get some help from those he believed less likely to be involved in this assn. plan. Who else could he trust to perhaps at least help him get out from under any involvement and maybe even to make an attempt to stop the whole thing...maybe like in the way of an abort team, for example.

Now, this is only some wild speculation (or imagination) on my part and I certainly am not trying to claim this is what transpired. This is not meant to be disinformation, nor is there any thought as to an agenda. In my mind it could be a possibility and yet it could also just be misinformation. It just isn't something I am trying to push on anyone..it is only some, "in the back of my mind, thoughts."

So what I am wanting to get across is that wrong info one suggests or speculates does not automatically indicate the person is putting out Disinfo. Although, I do know there is a share of that goes on too, in all forums. But, many of us are able to figure out any attempts to deceive and separate it from just misinformation.

Anyway, I did enjoy the discussion between Tim and Charles Dunne. I did learn from both. But now, I agree it is getting too repetitious, plus with the different threads starting up, are becoming a bit too much. I also do not see much if any, support for Tims claims and yet I do not feel any wrong doing on Tim's part as regards Disinformation. I do feel one should stand up for their beliefs and yet at the same time, especially in JFK Research, to continue studying and to look again at our beliefs from time to time. Especially when we hear something new to us, we should be able to perhaps realize a whole different theory then we previously had. I know that I have needed to change my opinion in various areas through the years and sometimes that isn't so easy to do either.

___________

Dixie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Ron:

Loved your post.

Suggest you write to all the potential conspirators who are still alive, offering to post disinformation to distract attention from them, for a modest sum, and BLAM!, we can nail whoever takes the bait!

May be easiest way to solve the case!

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...