Dead right CD it was Evica. Problem with Piper in the edition I am reading at the moment he doesn't even bother with an index of references till late in the book and he continues with a plethora of unreferenced gibberish for another 200 hundred odd pages! Oh but you can also get his opinions on Mark Lanes 'Executive Action' I've seen not scintilla of evidence there's anything on the floor or facilitator level as of yet. At least nothing tangible.
I have used my moderator powers to edit posts #123 and #125 in this thread.
All members are reminded of Forum rule 5
here:
Quote:Further, when responding to a lengthy post, you will not re-post the original in its entirety. This practice results in the waste of valuable and finite bandwidth. Quote only those passages to which you are directly responding.
[quote=Jan Klimkowski]I have used my moderator powers to edit posts #123 and #125 in this thread.
All members are reminded of Forum rule 5
here:
Yeah man all cool with me.
Seamus - as well as bandwidth, the DPF philosophy is based on readability.
There are entire pages at the Swamp which consist of perhaps two or three fresh comments amidst humongous nested quotes of previous posts. The reader ends up scrolling endlessly through a mass of stuff already posted and noted, just to find a throwaway line.
Once members understand the [ quote ] [/ quote ] language, it is both easy and somewhat satisfying to be able to focus one's response on the actual points they wish to address. :thumbsup:
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Seamus - as well as bandwidth, the DPF philosophy is based on readability.
There are entire pages at the Swamp which consist of perhaps two or three fresh comments amidst humongous nested quotes of previous posts. The reader ends up scrolling endlessly through a mass of stuff already posted and noted, just to find a throwaway line.
Once members understand the [ quote ] [/ quote ] language, it is both easy and somewhat satisfying to be able to focus one's response on the actual points they wish to address. :thumbsup:
Yeah Charles said the same thing and I think its a very good idea. If you ever catch me at it ping me lol.
Seamus Coogan Wrote:Yeah Charles said the same thing and I think its a very good idea. If you ever catch me at it ping me lol.
You've just been caught..... :dancingman:
You've just been caught..... :dancingman:[/QUOTE]
Hahahahaha got me twice now Jan. Gimme some time mate and I'll def check out that doco vis a vis caregiving in UK very interesting!
Mark Stapleton Wrote:Seamus Coogan Wrote:Why is Pipers book so silly. You tell me your the expert Mark!
Jim wanted evidence. Real evidence. This is just bombast and hyperbole of the worst kind.
It's fun rattling the cage. The noisy local Zionist jumps out of the trees, closely followed by a loyal cheer squad of airheads. It's very amusing.
I could carve up your post like a side of beef because you don't know what you're talking about. Fortunately I don't debate Zionist gatekeepers like you. I have standards. I only debate serious people.
Tough luck for you but don't let that blunt your enthusiasm. I want to see some serious shrill. I know you won't let me down.
Mark: You do not have to be a "Zionist gatekeeper" to believe Isreal was not involved in killing JFK. I am very anti Zionist as are many others on this forum but we can separate our condemnation of the things done by Zionists from the issue of who killed JFK.
Dawn
I think it will be interesting if Charles can elaborate further on what he said previously especially to expand his theory on the simulated attack.
I asked Abraham Bolden if he had ever heard of any security test/simulated attack back then and this was his reply:
Although there may have been such a preparation by the secret service, I was not privy to it. It may have been a discussion or activity in the secret service school which I was scheduled to but was not permitted to attend due to the bogus charges lodged against me in Chicago in May of 1963.
Personally i believe that a simulated attck/security test was essential to the success of the plot in Dallas. I have written about this in another thread, "the chicago plot:a hypothesis.
I refer you to
http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/2007/0...ormer.html
Vince Palamara's wandering stance regarding conspiracy in the JFK case has led to well-deserved mistrust among us. I know Vince fairly well, and without violating our friendship I can share my sense that his wanderings, if you will, are not the work of an enemy agent.
When Vince was preparing the first draft of his Secret Service study, he sought George Michael Evica's counsel. The latter kindly -- such was his nature -- walked the young author through the process of rejecting the false choices of certain either/or scenarios and instead looking for "third alternatives" to explain events under scrutiny.
Vince did just that. It is my understanding that George Michael talked to him in some detail (I was not present at any of those sessions) about the likelihood of penetration by conspirators of a scheduled security stripping exercise in Dallas.
Security stripping is the common denominator in almost all attacks on well-guarded targets: in the 20th century see JFK, MLK, Diana, and the WTC and Pentagon on 9-11 for cases in point.
Kennedy's motorcade was stripped of regulation SS configurations.
I'll let Vince speak for himself. He's far more knowledgeable than I on this matter.