Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Yin and Yang of the Kennedy assassination.


Lynne Foster
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yin (dark) Yang (light)

Jim Garrison Harold Weisberg

Gerald Posner Dorothy Kilgallen

John McAdams Mat Wilson

The dark forces conspire to cover up the truth while the light forces struggle to expose it.

Now it's not all black and white because the dark forces frequently pretend to be light, and thus create

a great deal of confusion. For example, John McAdams claims that Garrison's investigation was a sham,

and one wouldn'rt expect a dark force to shed light, but that's what makes everything so confusing.

Moreover, even light forces like the incredible, Harold Weisberg can be misleading, when they fail to

divine intent. For example, when weisberg claimed that garrison couldnot find a pubic hair in a whorehouse,

he really should have assumed that an intelligent propagandist like Jim Garrison was capable of finding

whatever he wanted to, including David Ferrie, as early as November 1963.

So in the finalanalysis, it doesn'tmatter who says what,just makesure it makes sense and you will

comecloser to understanding the truth.

The Yin/Yang General list (without counterbalance)

Yin -Hoover, Johnson, Hunt, Nixon, Harrelson, Ferrie, Ruby, Sturgis

Helpless Yang -Robert Kennedy, Katzenback, Florence Smith, Jay Epstein (rendered helpless when Garrison took over)

Please add to the Yin Yang list, it is obviously far from complete.

Hope this thread makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Like a broken record...

What a wonderfully Manichaean view of things you have; the forces of darkness versus the forces of light. Who knew that JFK assassination research was such a mystical area of study?

I am somewhat baffled by your inclusion of Epstein (he pretty much thinks Oswald did it now-a-days) and "Katzenback" (sic) in the "Yang" list. Katzenbach, in his famous memo, stated that "the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial." Are you from Bizarro World? Your posts have me wondering.

BTW, who is David Ferrie? :ice

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stupendous! That's only the one millionth time you've posted that plagiarized "Mat Wilson" article.

Like a broken record...

BTW, I am still having difficulty deciphering your Bizarro logic in choosing Epstein and Katzenbach as Yangs. Can you help me here?

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Owen disagrees with me, I am more than satisfied that I am on the right track.

Thanks Owen, this is the BIG YIN !

Sure, I'll help you.

remember when Bob woodward was a yang, and then, when he became a republican mouthpiece, he became a Yin, but he's not telling anybody. It's like Owen's politically motivated posts or Dick Morris's double dealing, it's all about politics trumping integrity -like the BIG YIN !

It's like making up stories about weapons of mass destruction, because you want to start a war -you know --POLITICS.

It'slike calling Nixon a peacemaker when he was in fact a warmonger....

Edited by Lynne Foster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When has Katzenbach ever been anything but a "Yin?" Has he made some spectacular turn-around in recent years that I missed?

Thanks for the wonderful Mat Wilson link, I missed it the first time.

No, I just think that he is an honest man who was genuinely clueless, regarding the Kennedy assassination.

Again, remember that the thing that distinguished=s the yin from the Yang is integrity, not necessarily knowledge about the Kennedy assassination.

I think he genuinely believed that Oswald was guilty because he was otherwise clueless -which makes him a Yang rather than an in-the-know Yin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, he is pretty proactive in getting his point across. In addition, he stated "very simply, if that was the conclusion that the FBI was going to come to, then the public had to be satisfied that was the correct conclusion." And remember, he arrived at this conclusion only three days after the assassination. What sort of "integrity" is this? Some one who's only contribution to JFK assassination research was ensuring that the public accept that Oswald acted along doesn't belong on the list, let alone as a "Yang."

And really, if you think its so appalling that Garrison believed the Warren report until 1965, how can you honestly excuse Katzenbach?

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, he is pretty proactive in getting his point across. In addition, he stated "very simply, if that was the conclusion that the FBI was going to come to, then the public had to be satisfied that was the correct conclusion." And remember, he arrived at this conclusion only three days after the assassination. What sort of "integrity" is this? Some one who's only contribution to JFK assassination research was ensuring that the public accept that Oswald acted along doesn't belong on the list, let alone as a "Yang."

And really, if you think its so appalling that Garrison believed the Warren report until 1965, how can you honestly excuse Katzenbach?

Katzenback and Hoover were not allies. Katzenback did not investigate Ferrie in 1963.

The access of no access was controlled by Hoover and his allies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

THREAD TITLE STARTED BY QUOTE

Yin & Yang Lynne foster " Yin (dark) Jim Garrison"

Dorothy Kilgallen Lynne Foster " clearly explains my visceral dislike of the

circus that Garrison created"

Smoking Gun Memo Lynne Foster " Jim Garrison was a fraud"

Richard Nixon Lynne Foster " I guess you are all Garrison, Posner McAdams

disinformation supporters"

J Garrison, & O Stone Lynne Foster " I dont think that the investigation Garrison

started was a serious one"

JFK, & Vietnam war Lynne Foster " Even O Stone, who claimed that a scam artist

like Garrison was a hero"

These are just a very few of the anti Garrison quotes that MS Foster "scatter guns" though every thread she has started on this forum, and many she didn't start.She, with respect, is either obsessed with Garrison, or has an agenda that she is not making plain. I have noticed that each time one of her threads slips down the listings, she starts a new one, and the anti Garrison rhetoric continues. She is doing little more than spamming these threads. I ceased to respond directly to her some time ago, may I suggest others do the same. Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THREAD TITLE STARTED BY QUOTE

Yin & Yang Lynne foster " Yin (dark) Jim Garrison"

Dorothy Kilgallen Lynne Foster " clearly explains my visceral dislike of the

circus that Garrison created"

Smoking Gun Memo Lynne Foster " Jim Garrison was a fraud"

Richard Nixon Lynne Foster " I guess you are all Garrison, Posner McAdams

disinformation supporters"

J Garrison, & O Stone Lynne Foster " I dont think that the investigation Garrison

started was a serious one"

JFK, & Vietnam war Lynne Foster " Even O Stone, who claimed that a scam artist

like Garrison was a hero"

These are just a very few of the anti Garrison quotes that MS Foster "scatter guns" though every thread she has started on this forum, and many she didn't start.She, with respect, is either obsessed with Garrison, or has an agenda that she is not making plain. I have noticed that each time one of her threads slips down the listings, she starts a new one, and the anti Garrison rhetoric continues. She is doing little more than spamming these threads. I ceased to respond directly to her some time ago, may I suggest others do the same. Steve.

Her "agenda", and she does have one, is so transparent it's downright silly. I say we just ALL ignore her.

If you respond she comes right back. When she begins a new thread we all know where it will go eventually: back to her anti Garrison , hey let's all read Mat Wilson, crap . Don't feed her hysteria.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not hysterical Dawn.

I don't know why you are attacking me, but I'll make my agenda very clear, once and for all.

I think this world is hysterical. The Bush regime has convinced 42% of the American people that Sadaam Hussein was directly responsible for 911. We can't even get that right, and you think I have an agenda simply because I slam Garrison for keeping his intent hidden? Hardly. I think I have better things to do than to have an agenda that is connected to Jim Garrison. As far as I am concerned, Jim Garrison was an irrelevant con artist.

Why do I think this world is hysterical. Well, contrast President Reagan who was reveered and feared, to president Bush who is loathed and feared, because the US has abandoned the "us versus them" coalition and has adopted the philosophy that they can go it alone. Big difference.

I think the world's capacity to promote deception has never been greater, and that is what I call hysterical.

I have absolutely no agenda beyond sorting out the truth from the lies, and unfortunately, in a hysterical world, there are more lies than truth.

If you get the impression that I am anti-Bush, you are wrong. Bush is controlled by Chenie and Rummie, former Nixon allies, and that is perhaps the real problem here.

I think, in the near future, we are all going to look back to the Clinton, the Reagan and even the Bush SR. years with great nostalgia. Now that's what you call MASS HYSTERIA.

And I certainly hope my assessment here is wrong, because I am pro- North American, Canada and the US take each other for granted, and I think we are both weaker as a consequence.

Do you see any agenda there, because if I have one, I would like to know what it is?

My advice to Bush: he has to find a way to be reveered as well as feared, but I fear that it's not in his character to be able to pull that off, beyond his close fans that will love hime no matter what. So unfortunately, not having a clue to what the answer is, I really do not think that you can say i have an agenda -but feel free to define it for me -I'd like to know what my agenda is myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her "agenda", and she does have one, is so transparent it's downright silly. I say we just ALL ignore her.

If you respond she comes right back. When she begins a new thread we all know where it will go eventually: back to her anti Garrison , hey let's all read Mat Wilson, crap . Don't feed her hysteria.

Dawn

Yes, I know I shouldn't feed her fire, but this thread was so silly I couldn't help myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her "agenda", and she does have one, is so transparent it's downright silly. I say we just ALL ignore her.

If you respond she comes right back. When she begins a new thread we all know where it will go eventually: back to her anti Garrison , hey let's all read Mat Wilson, crap . Don't feed her hysteria.

Dawn

Yes, I know I shouldn't feed her fire, but this thread was so silly I couldn't help myself.

A transparent agenda theat nobody can define LOL.

You all sound like the axis of no access, you know, Hoover and Garrison.

There is a difference between gathering intelligence and denying access to intelligence.

Sorry Steve, I can't control this evidence:

In response to the question of how he came to obtain

David Ferrie's phone records of January to October of

1963, Garrison stated that he asked for and received them

from Marcello's attorney G. Wray Gill.

If its Garrison, Garrison Garrison, it's because he asked for all the publicity, publicity, publicity.

I am just reporting the facts -NOT AN AGENDA.

Edited by Lynne Foster
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...