On Edwin Kaiser and Related Topics

[Mark A. O'Blazney]

I wish Scott had DiEugenio and Hancock working with him as a team.

I wish Scott had Doyle and Cinque working with him as a team….. shall I post your dialogue with Felipe here ? Nah……..

You seem to have a hard on for Hemming and me, I don't blame you, I am attractive. So, I wouldn't want that you miss a word in your dialogue. I'll post it for you!

http://neamg.com/blog/2015/10/24/kaiser-vs-hemming


When you're done master***ing, perhaps, you can watch this and learn something.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1HwspawIMk

Oh, Scott…… you're so…….. specific !!!!!

[LR Trotter]

[quote=Scott Kaiser]Here's an even better question for the intergalactically stupid, of the 636 times they tried to assassinate Fidel Castro who ordered it? Or, was it just planned by his assassins? SMH....[/QUO


[size=12]​I make no denial of stupidity, but what is the "it" that "who" ordered? I tend to believe that if the right "who" was involved, the "it" would have occurred. My comment, as stated, in no way should indicate my approval or disapproval, expressed or otherwise, of any "it"!


[/SIZE]

Mr. Trotter,

I apologize for my post being deleted, please note I had nothing to do with that. I did answer your question, and, though I may not remember word for word what I said, I will do my best to answer it, your question, in the hopes you will read it, my answer, without it, my post, gets deleted again.

Stupidity is not something that can be denied. You ask, what is the "it" that "who" ordered? I said, "who ordered it" being singular, meaning, any assassination attempt on Fidel Castro's life in calculating a daunting total number of 636 times.

Surely, not all 600 assassination attempts on Fidel Castro's life happened all at once? Did it?

With that said, did Richard Helms order any of the hits on Castro's life? Or, did Helms simply allow them, them meaning the "who" to plan, carry out and assassinate Castro?

I also distinctly remember saying the "it" was a representation of Kennedy's assassination, "it" only took one good plan, "it" only took one good shot, and "it" only took one good place to carry "it" out.

I have a lot more to say on this, and as I told someone I would not get myself involved in discussing assassination plots, I am however, responding to your question in the hopes of "it," my post not getting deleted again before you have the chance to read "it," my post. I'm not ignoring you sir.

​The reply with a quote was apparently moved from another thread, bringing the post and reply to this thread.

[LR Trotter]

The decision by the Mods was that Scott spent a lot of time trolling other threads but was also capable to contribute. The decision was to put up with his bullshit. I would have voted him off the island if we had voted.

Mr. Trotter, my counsel is to ask Scott specific questions concerning his area of knowledge or just stay out of this thread.

I agree it's not funny -- not at all. But Scott can troll all he wants in this thread. And in theory he's all about researching and honoring his father.

Cheers.

With all due respect Mr or Ms Johnson, I am sure your counsel is well intended, but "his area of knowledge" may or may not be correct. As JFK's election, the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the murder in Dallas of JFK, all appear to be things he read and/or heard about, those are events and/or situations I remember as they occurred. But, that by all means is not an indication of expertise on my part. And, to "just stay out of this thread" was what I was trying to do. However, due to moderation of Mr Kaiser's posts, his quoting a post I made on another thread has moved to this thread, bringing my name. An irony, is the quote was his reference correction of my grammar. A posted quote, by the way, I had refrained from responding to. And so it goes, on 11/05/2016.

You're right Mr. Trotter, I have no bonafides, I'm just making all this stuff up as I go along because I heard about all these events, in-fact, I don't even know who this Frank Sturgis guy is, you got me!

With all due respect Mr or Ms Johnson

Now that shit really made me laugh, Mr. Trotter, Mr. Johnson is a guy. I was just messing with him when he started moving my [trolling] posts to my father''s thread, but, then I got to thinking, whether it's moved or not, people are still going to read it, lol....

And, to "just stay out of this thread" was what I was trying to do.

I know, the devil made me do it, I've heard it so many times before. I tried to refrain myself, and so it goes, on and on, and it goes without, who knows what the hell I'm talking about?

My quoted response was posted and directed to Lauren Johnson, and being "counseled" to "ask Scott specific questions concerning his area of knowledge or just stay out of this thread"! It was meant to express my feeling that I can decide from where I seek knowledge, and to affirm that a post I made on another thread was quoted and replied to and then relocated to this thread. That was not my choice, and I do not recall any original post by me on this thread prior to the said relocation. That is the reason for my comment, nothing more, nothing less. And, unless any direct insult or untruth occurs, this is my final intended comment directly on this thread.

[Scott Kaiser]

With all due respect Mr or Ms Johnson, I am sure your counsel is well intended, but "his area of knowledge" may or may not be correct. As JFK's election, the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the murder in Dallas of JFK, all appear to be things he read and/or heard about, those are events and/or situations I remember as they occurred. But, that by all means is not an indication of expertise on my part. And, to "just stay out of this thread" was what I was trying to do. However, due to moderation of Mr Kaiser's posts, his quoting a post I made on another thread has moved to this thread, bringing my name. An irony, is the quote was his reference correction of my grammar. A posted quote, by the way, I had refrained from responding to. And so it goes, on 11/05/2016.

You're right Mr. Trotter, I have no bonafides, I'm just making all this stuff up as I go along because I heard about all these events, in-fact, I don't even know who this Frank Sturgis guy is, you got me!

With all due respect Mr or Ms Johnson

Now that shit really made me laugh, Mr. Trotter, Mr. Johnson is a guy. I was just messing with him when he started moving my [trolling] posts to my father''s thread, but, then I got to thinking, whether it's moved or not, people are still going to read it, lol....

And, to "just stay out of this thread" was what I was trying to do.

I know, the devil made me do it, I've heard it so many times before. I tried to refrain myself, and so it goes, on and on, and it goes without, who knows what the hell I'm talking about?

My quoted response was posted and directed to Lauren Johnson, and being "counseled" to "ask Scott specific questions concerning his area of knowledge or just stay out of this thread"! It was meant to express my feeling that I can decide from where I seek knowledge, and to affirm that a post I made on another thread was quoted and replied to and then relocated to this thread. That was not my choice, and I do not recall any original post by me on this thread prior to the said relocation. That is the reason for my comment, nothing more, nothing less. And, unless any direct insult or untruth occurs, this is my final intended comment directly on this thread.

Okay, I think I'm understanding you, you want to ask Mr. Johnson for counsel on questions you yourself could ask me directly. Particularly in the specific areas of knowledge, is that correct?

The rest of what you're saying I'm sorry, but I'm having a difficult time in understanding, English please.

[Scott Kaiser]

Curious to know if none, one, or every moderator would be kind enough to answer a few simple questions, so that everyone reading this including myself would know exactly what direction this forum intends to go?

Questions are outlined below:

1. Is this a forum where truth is to be abound? Or, fairy tail stories?

2. If you're a Kennedy lover, or simply in love with the idea of being in love with Kennedy, does that mean there shall be no material posted about Kennedy that could be harmful to his legacy?

3. If truth is posted, corroborated and defined, could posting that information cause harm towards Kennedy? Should it be completely avoided that we may partake in a cover-up?

and lastly,

4. Can anyone tell me where the thread "The Untold Story of The Bay of Pigs" went to? Or, is that part of history that should be omitted from the books?

Sign,

Curious

P.S. Thank you, is there any Moderator brave enough in answering these questions with honesty? I can only assume if there is no reply from any Moderator it's not that you/they didn't read this, it's just that covering up the truth seems to be worthwhile, and yet, these are the same people who attack the Warren Commission? See, now that's what I don't understand, please help me to.

[Scott Kaiser]

I don't get it?

Here's a perfect example, both Jim and Dawn says;

Dawn Meredith
Founding Member

Join DateSep 2008Posts3,579

Originally Posted by Jim DiEugenio
I agree with that Drew.

I don't understand it either.

I concur. Have read both books and his book stands up well without her. For those of us who have long stopped believing JVB, she, in my opinion, detracts from Haslams's work.

Yet, these are YOUR truth tellers, and yet they are willing to poke holes in JVB and the WC? Yet, they cover up the truth about Kennedy? Now, I'm not stating that Jim and Dawn are doing this. God forbid Jim try's to cover up any truth about Kennedy right?

[Albert Doyle]

"Kennedy lover" is inappropriate and insensitive considering he was murdered by a conspiracy that very much resembled the government conspiracy in the movie 'JFK' and the lies are still being enforced by a dark shadow force in America that is passing itself off as a sound democracy.

Your father got caught up in the ugly machinery of that process from his end. How would you feel if someone referred to you as a "dirty underground lover"?

If you had more appreciation of the nuclear wasteland Jack Kennedy pulled you out from with his bravery you might love him too. Kennedy was killed for that bravery.

[Scott Kaiser]

"Kennedy lover" is inappropriate and insensitive considering he was murdered by a conspiracy that very much resembled the government conspiracy in the movie 'JFK' and the lies are still being enforced by a dark shadow force in America that is passing itself off as a sound democracy.

Your father got caught up in the ugly machinery of that process from his end. How would you feel if someone referred to you as a "dirty underground lover"?

If you had more appreciation of the nuclear wasteland Jack Kennedy pulled you out from with his bravery you might love him too.

So was Garfield, and I'm not speaking about the cat. You wouldn't see me cover up anything he did, I think you're missing my point here and what you're really doing is being "selective" in my choice of words, you do understand that don't you?

[Scott Kaiser]

When in God's name will anyone challenge my material? When in God's name will folks start preaching the truth? When in God's name will this start happening? Must I wait another eight years?

I've learned, if you can't challenge material AFTER exposing material that has NEVER, EVER been made public, I'd think that's the time everyone wants to jump all over it to prove that person wrong, but if no one can, well then, that can ONLY mean one thing, the person delivering that material is right, and NO one can discredit truth.

[Albert Doyle]

So was Garfield, and I'm not speaking about the cat. You wouldn't see me cover up anything he did, I think you're missing my point here and what you're really doing is being "selective" in my choice of words, you do understand that don't you?

No more selective then your endorsing wrongful censoring of threads. Or you selecting to ignore the conspiracy and those who endorse it today. Those people, Scott, use your logic to justify their still persecuting Kennedy and defending his murderers.