Smoking Gun memo

[Jason Vermeer]

SMOKING GUN MEMO

A key question to getting to the bottom of any scandal is: "what did they know and when did they know it?"

The above memo proves that J. Edgar Hoover did not spend any time investigating the assassination of John F. Kennedy, all the evidence was concocted by the Watergate burglars, amongst everybody else who had a hand in organizing the plot to kill the President of the United States.

Frankly, I am shocked by the failure to discuss this memo on this message board. As you know, there are many eager learners, like that high school student and myself, who would like to learn as much as possible.

I do not think that it is possible to make head or tails here, without a thorough analysis about ALL the implications of the above memo.

I trust we can all agree on at least that.

Lynne, It's hard to follow the threads following this post due to the level of sarcasm and resultant attacks. This is IMHO of course...Perhaps, if you could outline what your overall theory is and supporting tennants, discourse would be easier. I noticed you took from the memo above that watergate burglars concocted evidence. Could you outline what evidence you feel was tainted by this group and possibly name names? Thank you. Jason Vermeer

[Norman T. Field]

You tried to insult me, it didn't work.

How?

we're here to discuss this, Cowboy.

See? That hostility just creeps into everything you write. And you still haven't answered the question.

[Lynne Foster]

Jason,

I tend to agree with many who have suggested that Howard Hunt and Fank Sturgis were involved in the Kennedy assassination, and when you combine all that with the "smoking gun"memo, I think the main characters flesh out, and they are, Nixon and Johnson, the Watergate burglars and their anti-Castro pals, and that also includes their mafia friends like Jack Ruby, Carlos Marcello and the like. I think that's a good start and I welcome additional input for characters I have certainly missed.

Thanks for a relevant question.

Some of the so called "experts" that post here, think it's all been covered before and we have no right to speculate because its all been covered before.

Edited November 18, 2005 by Lynne Foster

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='Lynne Foster' date='Nov 18 2005, 07:13 PM' post='45635']

You tried to insult me, it didn't work.

Am I missing something here? Tim's comment was NOT insulting. It was commentary about the article mentioned.

"Paranoia strikes deep...."

Geez.....

Dawn

[Mark Knight]

Lynne, I believe you're misinterpreting what some of the longtime forum members are saying. Their reluctance to keep regurgitating the same old arguments is understandable, in light of the vast number of threads in the archives here. Odds are, unless you have a bombshell discovery, it's already been discovered by someone else and been discussed to some degree here. To become resentful when someone points out that your "revelations" have been seen and discussed previously shows what appears to be a lack of maturity...and results in a yet another dead thread, in which personalities are discussed, rather than the topic advertised.

Hijacking someone else's thread is considered bad etiquette; I don't quite know WHAT to call the hijacking of one's own thread, other than quite illogical if your intention is to ACTUALLY discuss the JFK assassination.

[Lynne Foster]

I am not at all resentful, I was disappointed that some people are so full of themselves.

[Mark Knight]

If I was a psychiatrist or a psychologist, I might find it interesting that, from my last post, you seized upon the word "resentful" and ignored the actual, more meaningful part.

But I'm not in the head-shrinking business, so that really doesn't matter. What DOES matter is that you're trying your damnedest to STIFLE discussion, all the while proclaiming at the top of your lungs that you want a discussion. You're not willing to take the time to do the research, the "heavy lifting," and yet you want to be taken oh-so-seriously.

Maybe there's a "JFK-Lite" forum out there where you'll feel more at home...no research, no reading required, no search for documents in the NARA archives...just a neat, tidy package for those who already know what they believe and don't want to be confused with the facts.

[Lynne Foster]

If you read 'Bushworld' by Maureen Dowds, and you tried to psychoanalyze any of the Bushes, you'd be a dead man.

I think you should be more respectful, the Bushes are right in that regard.

Edited November 18, 2005 by Lynne Foster

[Mark Knight]

And if I hadn't read the book, but tried to psychoanalyze the Bushes...what would be the consequences?

Better still, what if I HAD read the book, but REFUSED to psychoanalyze the Bushes?

Woule I become immortal?

And what does ANY of this have to do with your purported desire to discuss the JFK assassination?

[Lynne Foster]

Nothing, it's just a response to your love affair with shrinks.

[Mark Knight]

I have no affinity for shrinks, any more than I do for practitioners of voodoo, acupuncturists, or faith healers [although I have been helped by chiropractors]. Therefore, I have no idea what brought you to such an erroneous conclusion.

But your "smoking gun memo" has been in the public domain for quite some time...the fact that it's news to YOU doesn't make it news to everyone else. It's just another piece of evidence to analyze, and on its own doesn't provide enough evidence to convict anyone of anything in a court of law...other than the fact that, as of November 29, 1963, Hoover still hadn't figured out whether his lone-nut gunman--whose shot from the rear would've hit Kennedy if Connally hadn't got in the way when the bullet apparently U-turned--was on the fifth floor or the sixth floor.

[Lynne Foster]

I think the memo proves a great deal , are you aware of any Kennedy assassination books that discuss or contain this memo?

Edited November 19, 2005 by Lynne Foster

[Robert Howard]

I think the memo proves a great deal , are you aware of any Kennedy assassination books that discuss or contain this memo?

With regards to the "ad infinitum" "your'e either with me or the terrorists" comments by our new self-annointed Forum administrator, there is only one thing that comes to mind, "what do you expect from a pig except a grunt."

[Tim Gratz]

Dawn wrote:

Tim: I tried to click on your link, but it was not hypertext and nothing happened. Would not open. If it is not too much trouble could you summerize what it says.

Dawn, I was "mocking" Lynne and her posts. You can't get anyplace by clicking the Scaife-Mellen connection because, of course, there is none! (In this case I rise to Professor Mellen's defense.)

[Dawn Meredith]

Dawn wrote:

Tim: I tried to click on your link, but it was not hypertext and nothing happened. Would not open. If it is not too much trouble could you summerize what it says.

Dawn, I was "mocking" Lynne and her posts. You can't get anyplace by clicking the Scaife-Mellen connection because, of course, there is none! (In this case I rise to Professor Mellen's defense.)

I keep forgetting you sense of humor. I figured that perhaps she had uncovered something about Scaife that went back further than what we already know. NOT that Mellen had any ties HERSELF to Scaife.

My humor detector is not up to speed. Been ill with the flu and way overworked, with 17 hour work days for past two weeks. Remember when you were an atty how crazy it could get??? Or did you job give you the luxury your presently have? (Of being able to read many hours a day- I am sooo jealous).

Dawn