Jump to content

Richard Nixon and the Kennedy Assassination.


Lynne Foster
 Share

Recommended Posts

David Ferrie, Howard Hunt and Sturgis were like-minded fanatics who would have enthusiastically volunteered to deliver a patsy like Oswald. I am sure that Garison was in a much better position to expose much more than the critics ever did, he should have been leading, rather than following/hijacking their investigations.

I'll tell you what I'll do for you since you are such an eager student. I will take you under my wing and magnify your estimation of Jim Garrison. Harold Weisberg was wrong when he said that Jim Garrison could not find a pubic hair in a whorehouse. The fact is, Jim Garrison was such a brilliant man that he could find a needle in a haystack. The problem is, J. Edgar Hoover did not allow Jim Garrison or anybody else to expose the truth, because if he ever tried, he would have been a sorry drunk like Dorothy Killgalen. Now we all know that Dorothy Killgalen was not a sorry drunk but that's what Hoover/Posner say. You see, others tend to inherit Hoover's cover up.

Now pay attention to this because it is very, very important. This is what Jim Garrison was in a position to know as early as November 29, 1963, but if he tried to debunk any of it, he would be a dead duck.

It's all really that simple.

Now, who was it that said that you can find the truth buried in a whole lot of graves, he was obviously not talking about Garrison's was he?

Dawn, if you want to help your student, you should explain the above document to him.

***********************************************************************

"Now pay attention to this because it is very, very important. This is what Jim Garrison was in a position to know as early as November 29, 1963, but if he tried to debunk any of it, he would be a dead duck."

Again??? You're a broken record with a one-track mind, Dulles!

"It's all really that simple."

Yeah, maybe to a simpleton such as yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Stephen Turner
That sounds like Lisa Pease and Jim Garrison.

Nice Work.

Lynne, I offered you a mirror, yet you prefer to rub excrement upon your face, and continue with your wild dance. this BTW is of the nature of a farewell. "The most dangerous of people are those misgiuded souls who believe that truth conforms to their inner needs" Jung.... SO LONG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds like Lisa Pease and Jim Garrison.

Nice Work.

Lynne, I offered you a mirror, yet you prefer to rub excrement upon your face, and continue with your wild dance. this BTW is of the nature of a farewell. "The most dangerous of people are those misgiuded souls who believe that truth conforms to their inner needs" Jung.... SO LONG.

Steve,

If you are not paid to be a disinformation agent, then you are violating the practice of normal shrinks [if that is possible] who do not talk shop when they leave the office.

If I was you, I would reserve my brilliant, psychological insights to billable hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lynne, while I share your belief that Nixon may have been involved with people who were behind the JFK assassination--since Nixon obviously didn't pull the trigger himself--I do find that your manner is so abrasive as to discourage, rather than encourage, discussion of the subject.

While I might have had a desire once to defend your premise, I certainly have no desire to defend your methods of "discussion." In the manner of Gratz, you seem to think that anyone not 100% in agreement with you is against you. And as a result of such an attitude toward some very earnest researchers, you have managed to turn some potentially enlightening discussions into dead threads, where the discussion is ultimately about the persons posting and not the topic originally listed.

I take it you've never heard of--or read--Dale Carnegie either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lynne, while I share your belief that Nixon may have been involved with people who were behind the JFK assassination--since Nixon obviously didn't pull the trigger himself--I do find that your manner is so abrasive as to discourage, rather than encourage, discussion of the subject.

While I might have had a desire once to defend your premise, I certainly have no desire to defend your methods of "discussion." In the manner of Gratz, you seem to think that anyone not 100% in agreement with you is against you. And as a result of such an attitude toward some very earnest researchers, you have managed to turn some potentially enlightening discussions into dead threads, where the discussion is ultimately about the persons posting and not the topic originally listed.

I take it you've never heard of--or read--Dale Carnegie either.

Without doubt, those who were actually responsible for the act, were of the opinion that their agenda would be best served with RMN in the whitehouse.

Other than that, and other than an unintentional source of information and diversion, RMN would have had absolutely nothing to do with the event.

That does not mean that he did not later on find out what the WC was about and therefore utilize it to his complete political advantage.

Nice to "know" that Mr. Ford would do whatever directed to do "or else".

Nice to know that one can get JBC to switch over and become a hatchet man if necessary.

Amazing what a small amount of information can accomplish down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, I believe you and I are on the same page here. I think that those behind the assassination had connections to Nixon, but I believe that Nixon, in 1963, wasn't in on the plot [at the level of a conspirator]. It just eventually turned out to be to his advantage, and I believe those responsible made sure of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, I believe you and I are on the same page here. I think that those behind the assassination had connections to Nixon, but I believe that Nixon, in 1963, wasn't in on the plot [at the level of a conspirator]. It just eventually turned out to be to his advantage, and I believe those responsible made sure of that.

Ron is a pretty good Kennedy assassination researcher and he claims that Nixon was in Dallas to give the assassins moral support.

With the large body of evidence that implicates Nixon (the smoking gun memo etc.) and all the Bay of Pigs references that are evidently related to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, I think it is extremely naive to suggest that Richard Nixon was not a co-conspirator.

As a matter of fact, personally, I have to say that I am very, very surprised if that is in fact what you actually believe.

Oh well, half a concession is better than none -Nixon was just a little bit pregnant -fine, let's leave it at that, and if anybody can point to further documents of interest that implicate Richard Nixon -I wouldn't mind reading them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron is a pretty good Kennedy assassination researcher and he claims that Nixon was in Dallas to give the assassins moral support.

I didn't claim that. I said that I thought he may have had foreknowledge and was in Dallas to show his support. But his presence in Dallas may have been just another dadgum coincidence.

There is a difference between suspecting something and claiming it. For example, I don't claim that you're Mat Wilson. I only suspect it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, I believe you and I are on the same page here. I think that those behind the assassination had connections to Nixon, but I believe that Nixon, in 1963, wasn't in on the plot [at the level of a conspirator]. It just eventually turned out to be to his advantage, and I believe those responsible made sure of that.

1. Soft Drink Bottlers convention in Dallas on 11/21/63, thereby making the "best" location for a Presidential visit non-available, which of course also completely affected potential motorcade route.

2. Soft Drink Bottlers convention organized by Pepsi-Cola

3. Richard M. Nixon, guest speaker at convention

4. Richard M. Nixon, lawyer, representing Pepsi-Cola

5. Pepsi-Cola and direct relationship to various CIA endeavors.

6. Klein's Sporting Goods actually owned by Pepsi-Cola

The planning and conducting of the Soft Drink Bottlers Association meeting in Dallas, TX, on the day prior to the visit of JFK, effectively established the "stage" as to where JFK would go for the luncheon, as well as establishing the parade route and time of the parade.

In addition, the presence of RMN in Dallas at the exact same time as JFK created a situation in which the police forces of Dallas were drawn quite thin.

And, although those responsible for the actual event of the convention as well as the participation by Nixon have no direct connection to any part of the assassination, the manipulation of these persons and events which placed the convention in Dallas at the exact same time as the JFK visit, established the "ground rules" for the parade route which JFK would ultimately take through Dallas.

Only a fool would set up an ambush on a mountain top hoping for the enemy to come by when there is only one "pass" through the mountains.

The connections to persons who had knowledge of events and items is evident by the aspects of whom LHO purchased the Carcano rifle from, as well as the purchase being without ammunition. Thereby fully indicating his apparant knowledge that excellent quality ammo was also available for these weapons, and thereby sending the CIA into a "run for cover" attitude with the acquisition of the weapon from a CIA front organization, as well as the "contaminated" history of the actual ammo.

Tom

P.S. One should truly take a close look at exactly how much sugar the soft drink industry consumes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

He wasn't defending Nixon.

Why are you such an asshole?

To which Owen Parsons replied:

This may be even more revealing than your defense of the CIA.

Owen, I take it, then, that you: (a) do not believe that LBJ was involved in the Kennedy assassination (if he was surely he should not have won); and

(:shutup do not agree with John Simkin's assessment that LBJ was one of the most corrupt American politicians.

Of course, if you disagreed with Goldwater's politics but thought LBJ was corrupt, you would have, I suspect, quite a difficult choice.

I suspect this is more revealing than anything you will get from Owen.

Such infantile antics make you look even more foolish than most of your other posts. This is the kind of thing I`d expect from a 12 year old.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The total text of that page is HTTP Server Error 503

No available server to handle this request which is well with in the reading level of most 12 year olds LOL. Maybe you should fix your link [Hint when posting a link click on it to make sure it works]. I don't know the reading level of the document you are referring to but they had me reading 1984 and Brave New World and write an essay comparing and contrasting them when I was 11.

I didn't say I though you were 12 only that the post in which you mooned us showed the maturity of a pre-teen. How ironic that you accuse Owen of immaturity. To be quite honest that is probably the most childish thing I've ever seen seen on a forum.

Interesting that in your bio. it says you study education but not that you teach, which is fortunate because you don't have the temprement or emotional intellegence to handle a classroom

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...