what happened to gary shaw?

[Edwin Ortiz]

mr drago you are quick to insult....simmer down never claimed to have laser like intellect ...only a student with questions and ocasional comments ..not pompous rantings

Mr drago always looking for something that is not there ...i didnt realize that the lemkin reply on the unspeakable had to do with the book ..i have heard good things about the book and i plan to get it ..i thought "unspeakable" meant something mystical or spiritual or a little voice ..obviously i was off base...but than arent great ideas often divinely inspired....

Indeed. I was looking for intelligence, awareness, and above all honest inquiry.

So use of the word "Unspeakable" did not immediately direct your laser-like intellectual focus to the Douglass book?

So you have "heard ... about" the Douglass book, but still the reference to "Unspeakable" meant nothing more to you than an opportunity to imply that Peter Lemkin is a psychotic who hears "little voice[s]."

Bullshit!

All you bring to DPF is ignorance and arrogance. Yet we toy with you for greater purposes. But only for so long.

So long.

[Dawn Meredith]

Mr drago always looking for something that is not there ...i didnt realize that the lemkin reply on the unspeakable had to do with the book ..i have heard good things about the book and i plan to get it ..i thought "unspeakable" meant something mystical or spiritual or a little voice ..obviously i was off base...but than arent great ideas often divinely inspired....
ingharles Drago;51233]

Interesting reply it is food for thought ....however who is the Unspeakable...is "he" similar to The Absolute....in theosophical terms....

Define ... define ... define ... prove prove prove ... that which has been defined and proven repeatedly over many years.

And now "theosophical" comes from the flying fingers of the humble newbie ...

Here's an exercise for you, Mr. Ortiz: Read JFK and the Unspeakable, by James Douglass, and post your best review here. Include your best definition of "the Unspeakable." Then we'll have at it.

Until then, I shall read your "who is the Unspeakable ... is 'he' similar to The Absolute" query as an implicit denigration of the work of Douglass rendered in classic agent provocateur form.

I eagerly await your review.

[/QUOTE]

I find this response to Peter rather difficult to believe. Even a JFK newbie knows that word "unspeakable", when used in reference to the JFK assassination, or harrassment of assassination witnesses, is a direct reference to the brilliant work of James Douglass.

May I also ask a favor: Please use caps where they are intended to be used on this forum. This was taught by second grade when I was a school girl.
Thank you.

Dawn

[Edwin Ortiz]

Hi Mr Drago..i took your recommendation and read Unspeakable ... its quite a revelatory book...well researched...well written.....like siskel and ebert would say its a thumbs up...way up...now i do have a few points to make in contrast to the book's thesis...i recognize his point of view from a peace activist and i deeply appreciate and respect that..however ..i am not convinced that the cold war would have been won via peaceful means...but that is not for this forum and in NO way lessens the evie crime perpetrated against our former president...also i have some qualms in regard to prouty as a source ..some of his ideas are a bit kooky ..i have wondered whether your theory of disguised misinformation by the unspeakable might apply to Prouty...though i believe much of what he says plausible some of his other ideas ie...OIL, churchill killing fdr..scientology..make him seem off base to the generaL public ...also some of the "'new" sources in the book after so many years could be grounds for discrediting the book in the near future. Can those source be trusted now...no matter the book is fabulous and well wiorth reading and keeping in mond in any jfk analysis.

The unspeakable is that evil which is indescribable in words ...which perpetrated a great crime and continues via the media to perpetuate false history...i agree with this definition as so far as the crime ...whether it ACTIVELY continues to this day i just dont KNOW at this point. I have read the j dieugenio article and it is quite a defense of jfk and the kennedy mystique...but if totally true than everything is corrupt ...is this the matrix...has every one in pOwer been bought ...i certainly hope not ...maybe its just points of view . or maybe Jim is right to some extent.... all things to consider and contemplate...

Interesting reply it is food for thought ....however who is the Unspeakable...is "he" similar to The Absolute....in theosophical terms....

Define ... define ... define ... prove prove prove ... that which has been defined and proven repeatedly over many years.

And now "theosophical" comes from the flying fingers of the humble newbie ...

Here's an exercise for you, Mr. Ortiz: Read JFK and the Unspeakable, by James Douglass, and post your best review here. Include your best definition of "the Unspeakable." Then we'll have at it.

Until then, I shall read your "who is the Unspeakable ... is 'he' similar to The Absolute" query as an implicit denigration of the work of Douglass rendered in classic agent provocateur form.

I eagerly await your review.

[R.K. Locke]

The new WhoWhatWhy podcast features Gary Shaw:

http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/11/20/when-th...th-is-out/

[Peter Lemkin]

The new WhoWhatWhy podcast features Gary Shaw:

http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/11/20/when-th...th-is-out/

Good summary by Shaw. I think, however, he must have asked before they began to 'ask me anything except about the R. White matter'. As I stated before in this thread, as have others, I know Gary and know people who know him VERY well. He told them that it was the request of his wife (after certain things happened following the R. White investigation) to please stop active JFK investigation work - for fear of his life and her fear for the family - that caused Gary Shaw to cease active research. He is not the first researcher to be effectively silenced, and likely not the last either. While it was a decision made by him and his wife, I have information it was made based on information and not just speculation.

I'll go one step further. Many laugh at this suggestion because they believe that the information presented in a press conference and press kit re: Roscoe White was entirely or mostly false. I think even G. Shaw would now agree that it was full of inaccuracies and they had been purposely led in wrong directions by those who manage the cover-up. However, in that investigation and as a result of realizing what happened to it, a small group of researchers involved in that found out some real information about Roscoe White that is 'touchy' to those who keep the secrets. R. White was a bit player in the assassination, but an important one, and it leads to those much higher up who planned it, pushed it forward, made it happen, and cover it up still [or their political/financial/intelligence/military/propaganda heirs do now]. That is why G. Shaw 'went silent' - but he keeps up on the case and has done yeoman's work IMHO.