Dawn Meredith Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 As I ponder the fact that we are fast approaching the 42nd anniversary of the privatal event that shaped US politics from then til now, I cannot help but wonder if we are any closer to the truth. Certainly there has been a lot of progress and sharing of terrific information on this forum. We have had times of excitement, like the 70's and the Church Committee, paving the way for HSCA, which ultimately bombed, but then ARRC got a lot of new records released. People are getting old and some are talking. (Some are also lying for their 15 minute of infamey...) Bill Kelly's idea of a Grand Jury is so very inticing, but how do you make that happen?. YOu need some powerful people to accomplish this. And even then they get overruled by the evil powers that be. There are several conferences next weekend, but that's preaching to the choir. How can we actually affectualte CHANGE? Can we even? I know it's felt very futile for me. I have openly argued this case with professionals at the hightest order and they cling to the LN cover story. "Don't mess up my thinking, dude" . To realize a conspiracy means then DOING something. And people feel powerless. Even people IN power. So what are we all feeling as we approach another sad aniversary? Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 (edited) My feeling is that this website contains the most truth, especially the link, "in his own words." I think we need to understand John F. Kenedy before we can understand the reason behind his murder. Edited November 13, 2005 by Lynne Foster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Parsons Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 Cool! Another link to a Matt Wilson (whoever he is) webpage. Do you have an original thought in your head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 (edited) My feeling is that this website contains the most truth, especially the link, "in his own words."I think we need to understand John F. Kenedy before we can understand the reason behind his murder. I directed your attention to a link which quotes John F. Kennedy and nobody else. Do you have a problem with that? Owen, can you point to ANY other site on the entire Internet that quotes that very same, February 12, 1960 Kennedy speech in its entirety? Edited November 13, 2005 by Lynne Foster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Parsons Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 (edited) My feeling is that this website contains the most truth, especially the link, "in his own words." I think we need to understand John F. Kenedy before we can understand the reason behind his murder. I directed your attention to a link which quotes John F. Kennedy and nobody else. Do you have a problem with that? I have no problem reading JFK quotes, since I admire the man. Why you chose that site of all the possible sources is what bugs me. I do find it passing strange that every link you have posted and position you have taken on any issue comes straight from one of Mr. Wilson's various sites, be it Garrison, Monroe, Chappaquiddick, or "Oswald in the Doorway". Edited November 13, 2005 by Owen Parsons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 My feeling is that this website contains the most truth, especially the link, "in his own words." I think we need to understand John F. Kenedy before we can understand the reason behind his murder. I directed your attention to a link which quotes John F. Kennedy and nobody else. Do you have a problem with that? I have no problem reading JFK quotes, since I admire the man. Why you chose that site of all the possible sources is what bugs me. I do find it passing strange that every link you have posted and position you have taken comes straight from one of Mr. Wilson's various sites, be it Garrison, Monroe, Chappaquiddick, or "Oswald in the Doorway". Well, it doesn't bug me, and if you object to popular Kennedy sites, I think that you can't stand the man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Parsons Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 (edited) My feeling is that this website contains the most truth, especially the link, "in his own words." I think we need to understand John F. Kenedy before we can understand the reason behind his murder. I directed your attention to a link which quotes John F. Kennedy and nobody else. Do you have a problem with that? I have no problem reading JFK quotes, since I admire the man. Why you chose that site of all the possible sources is what bugs me. I do find it passing strange that every link you have posted and position you have taken comes straight from one of Mr. Wilson's various sites, be it Garrison, Monroe, Chappaquiddick, or "Oswald in the Doorway". Well, it doesn't bug me, and if you object to popular Kennedy sites, I think that you can't stand the man. Please tell me how it constitutes a popular Kennedy website. Do a google search on Matt Wilson and John Kennedy and see how long it takes you to find anything. Its a disorganized mess of a network consisting of various websites located on various servers. It contains many dishonest articles (on Garrison for instance). Even when he is right (like on Alger Hiss' framing by the FBI) he defends his position so poorly, I can't help but wonder if his argument wasn't meant to be knocked down as a strawman. The only encounter I had with his website before you started heavily pimping it here was an article he reprinted by Vincent Palamara. Nice insinuation there, that if I object to your lack of original thought and frequent parroting of a dubious source, I must, contrary to my stated feelings, dislike JFK. Edit: Actually, you can find Mr. Wilson on google, this error results from my consistently spelling "Mat" as "Matt." The main thrust of my post stands. Edited November 13, 2005 by Owen Parsons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 Owen, I asked you a question, can you please answer it? I directed your attention to a link which quotes John F. Kennedy and nobody else. Owen, can you point to ANY other site on the entire Internet that quotes that very same, February 12, 1960 Kennedy speech I directed your attention to, in its entirety? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 As I ponder the fact that we are fast approaching the 42nd anniversary of the privatal event that shaped US politics from then til now, I cannot help but wonder if we are any closer to the truth. We can choose to remain consistent in our orientation of what has happened. I think Joan Mellon's book AF2J helps do that. We can acknowledge that any action using the US judicial system and due process will probably fail. It is inspiring that Garrison's investigation pulled out as much information as it did and in the time when it took place. We can anticipate that the govt will continue to encourage its sheeple to follow blindly the LNT scenario, and may try to make life difficult for anyone who questions it in a public environment and gets much press attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 Jim Garrison did not get press attention when it mattered the most. I think you have to make a clear distinction between publicity seekers and competent investigators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Parsons Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 (edited) Owen, I asked you a question, can you please answer it?I directed your attention to a link which quotes John F. Kennedy and nobody else. Owen, can you point to ANY other site on the entire Internet that quotes that very same, February 12, 1960 Kennedy speech I directed your attention to, in its entirety? This question you asked was only later edited into your post. I didn't notice it until this post of yours that I am now responding to. Your tactics are somewhat dishonest. In any case, a quick search is proving fruitless. Not that it really matters. My point is there are numerous other JFK speeches and quotes online, but you will always pick the ones Mat Wilson reprints. I have never seen you post a non-Mat Wilson link. I have never seen you post an opinion that has not previously appeared on Mat Wilson's site(s). Edited November 13, 2005 by Owen Parsons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 (edited) How do you identify what you call a Mat Wilson site? Owen, in my opinion, given your objections, you are just a Kennedy hater who masquerades as an admirer. Like Jim Garrison, you are all diversion and no substance. I am absolutely convinced. Owen, are all the sites that link to all the garbage and the propaganda that John McAdams promotes about the Kennedy assassination, John McAdams sites? Edited November 13, 2005 by Lynne Foster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Parsons Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 (edited) How do you identify what you call a Mat Wilson site?Owen, in my opinion, given your objections, you are just a Kennedy hater who masquerades as an admirer. Like Jim Garrison, you are all diversion and no substance. I am absolutely convinced. Owen, are all the sites that link to all the garbage and the propaganda that John McAdams promotes about the Kennedy assassination, John McAdams sites? I don't think I even need to address your absurd allegation that I secretly hate Kennedy. I can tell something is a Mat Wilson site because they reuse the same graphics and link to each other. The biggest giveaway for this particular site you posted is the link to Mat Wilson's online disinfo book. It is presented as all a part of the same website, not as something separate. No, of course not all sites that link to John McAdams' site belong to McAdams. Edited November 13, 2005 by Owen Parsons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 How do you identify what you call a Mat Wilson site?Owen, in my opinion, given your objections, you are just a Kennedy hater who masquerades as an admirer. Like Jim Garrison, you are all diversion and no substance. I am absolutely convinced. Owen, are all the sites that link to all the garbage and the propaganda that John McAdams promotes about the Kennedy assassination, John McAdams sites? ******************************************************** "Owen, in my opinion, given your objections, you are just a Kennedy hater who masquerades as an admirer. Like Jim Garrison, you are all diversion and no substance." Owen, stick a fork in her. She's done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 (edited) Mat Wilson's online disinfo book? I think Jim Garrison, Gerald Posner, John McAdams and the like, promote disinformation. I haven't read any disinformation by Mat Wilson. Edited November 13, 2005 by Lynne Foster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now