Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Evaluating the Case against LBJ
#21
Dawn makes some good points. There are some small mistakes and omissions. I had the initial job of coordinating the project. Essentially I put together all the stuff I had from other essays and discussions. Phil and Vas did much the same with Vasilios being the driving force. Reading the article though I'd like to go back over and do some more stuff with it. No disrespect to Vas, Phil and Jim. I found it didn't read very well in places, I think next time we do this, I think we need to coordinate a style. We're a bit all over show. I put this down to myself not having the time to go over it properly before I gave it to Jim. While my grammar at times is a source of amusement lol. I am pretty good at not being too repetitive in my sentences and I am okay at structure I.E beginning, middle and an end. I also have access to some pretty meticulous editors that could have really looked at it. Nonetheless, some pieces at CTKA are really up to the God's how they will come out. I still have some concerns over my MJ-12 piece. Deb's not 100 percent on the health front and Jim is often juggling other stuff. HTML takes a lot of time and full credit to Deb and CTKA volunteers. But if we had a bigger pool of helpers on the HTML front the quality of our articles could only improve and the smaller errors you mentioned could be ironed out.

All the same cheers to Vas for inspiring the piece and cheers to Phil for the additions he made. The DPF certainly represented well.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992
Reply
#22
Seamus Coogan Wrote:While my grammar at times is a source of amusement lol. I am pretty good at not being too repetitive in my sentences and I am okay at structure I.E beginning, middle and an end.
There's a colonel of truth in that :tea:

I liked the piece. Good work guys.:thumbsup:
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx

"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.

“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Reply
#23
Magda Hassan Wrote:There's a colonel of truth in that :tea:

In general, I agree. -- Private Potts
Reply
#24
You'll never let me that one down you barstad's ROFL.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992
Reply
#25
Seamus Coogan Wrote:You'll never let me that one down you barstad's ROFL.

Is Barstard related to Rik Mayall character, Alan Beresford B'Stard MP?

Fwiw I'm with Spike Milligan on Mayall: "Rik Mayall is putrid - absolutely vile. He thinks nose-picking is funny and farting and all that. He is the arsehole of British comedy."
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War."

Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon

"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta."
The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
Reply
#26
Give me Spike Milligan and the Goons any day over The Young Ones.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx

"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.

“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Reply
#27
My favorite fart joke:

Jim Fetzer.
Reply
#28
Phil Dragoo Wrote:Regarding Allen Dulles in Texas in 1963, a photo (which admittedly may have been taken in 1960) appeared in 1963 showing Dulles at LBJ's Johnson City ranch.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3959[/ATTACH]



From George Michael Evica, A Certain Arrogance, Second Edition, TrineDay, 2006-2011, page 281 Essay Eight: The Oil-Intelligence-Unitarian Universe of Lee Harvey Oswald:

BEGIN EXCERPT

After the assassination, "(Allen Dulles) joked in private that the JFK conspiracy buffs would have had a field day if they had known. . .he had actually been in Dallas three weeks before the murder. . .that one of his mistress Mary Bancroft's childhood friends had turned out to be a landlady for Marina Oswald. . .and that (the) landlady was a well-known leftist with distant ties to the family of Alger Hiss."


END EXCERPT

Oh really. A "landlady."

Harry Truman a haberdasher.

Ruth, Ruth, Ruthwe couldn't have done it without you.

Allen Dulles goes to be in the bubble with those to whom he wishes to communicate securely.

Oh a wink is as good as a nod.

Nodding back, and the the left. Back, and to the left.

Phil,

I just had a chance to look at the enlarged photo from the Tribune (Texas or Chicago Tribune?) newspaper. The caption above the photo is dated August 15, 1963, and the description below the phote refers to Dulles as the "former CIA Director" which establishes the photo as being dated roughly 5-6 weeks before the assassination. However, the excerpt from George Michael Evica's book, A CERTAIN ARROGANCE, states that Dulles had been in Dallas three weeks before the assassination, and it was this time that I was addressing in my posts.

Quote:After the assassination, "(Allen Dulles) joked in private that the JFK conspiracy buffs would have had a field day if they had known. . .he had actually been in Dallas three weeks before the murder. . .that one of his mistress Mary Bancroft's childhood friends had turned out to be a landlady for Marina Oswald. . .and that (the) landlady was a well-known leftist with distant ties to the family of Alger Hiss."

Therefore, it does appear Dulles could have been at the LBJ ranch some weeks before the assassination. However, your post is titled with a question about the date of the photograph being either 1960 or
1963. Phil, why is the year questioned? Is it because the photo was actually taken in 1960, but printed in 1963 with 1963-appropriate captions? And what is the source for Evica's choice of three weeks prior to the assassination?

I'd like to get this sorted out, if possible.

Adele
Reply
#29
Adele

Jim DiEugenio asked Larry Hancock when the photo was taken. Larry's reply at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....ntry253825

Jim, the photo was taken during the Kennedy campaign, it was a national security brief for Johnson as the VP candidate. The stock photo was later used prior to the Texas trip as an example of VIP visitors to the LBJ ranch and that caused many folks to wrongly think it was circa 63.

I questioned the date of the photo, for the visit of Allen Dulles to LBJ on his ranch in 1960 was known, and there was a photo at that time. There was a photo also printed in 1963, and indeed captioned "former director of CIA"--however, it seems the photo was not taken in 1963.

I don't think the photo is necessary to Dulles in Dallas close to the big dance.

And his referring to Ruth Paine as Oswald's landlady is precious, as vintage Dulles as his referring to the murdered president with, "That little Kennedy. . .he thought he was a god."

Landlady. No, Ruth is a treasure to the Hieronymus Bosch corpse of CIA, beneath the 17,000 worker bees, in the creepy innards with the spiders and the millipedes.

In the sense that Colonel Rosa Klegg was a cleaning lady, yes, then Ruth Paine was Marina's "landlady."
Reply
#30
Hey awesome back and forth. Phil here's some direct confirmation for Larrys call. This is from the LBJ oral history collection.

http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/arc...b%2017.pdf

Check out page four it's all there.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  If the case against Oswald was legitimate Gil Jesus 0 21 04-07-2024, 12:11 PM
Last Post: Gil Jesus
  Why the Government's Case Against Oswald is BS --- Part III Gil Jesus 0 352 10-12-2023, 12:08 PM
Last Post: Gil Jesus
  Why the Govenment's Case Against Oswald is BS --- Part II Gil Jesus 1 388 28-11-2023, 03:36 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  Why the Government's case against Oswald is BS --- Part I Gil Jesus 1 425 15-11-2023, 04:55 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  Evidence of Witness Tampering in the case against Oswald Gil Jesus 0 458 28-07-2023, 11:31 AM
Last Post: Gil Jesus
  Was the TFX Case a Scandal? Jim DiEugenio 0 2,167 04-02-2020, 11:58 PM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  The Uses of Public Relations in the JFK case Jim DiEugenio 0 1,792 11-01-2020, 05:41 AM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  Finally: the Hammarskjold case is Moving Jim DiEugenio 14 15,681 04-09-2019, 10:34 PM
Last Post: Richard Coleman
  The Tippit Case in the New Millenium Jim DiEugenio 192 197,249 23-06-2019, 10:25 AM
Last Post: Milo Reech
  A Case of Book Suppression Jim DiEugenio 4 6,677 27-04-2017, 01:37 AM
Last Post: Scott Kaiser

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)