• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! DETAILS HERE:

      We are opening registration!! If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We require you use your real name, a valid email address, and your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. Additionally, you will have to send us your photo for use as an avatar and submit a brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Erick A. Bovik

Members
  • Content count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Erick A. Bovik

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Except for the matter of Supreme Court appointments it makes no difference which qualified candidate becomes president, because the government is bankrupt. The national credit card is maxxed out at 9 trillion dollars. With regards to the war in Iraq, that will end because the US simply cannot afford to prosecute it much longer. The government cannot raise taxes without damaging the economy and the government can only cut domestic spending gradually; to do so precipitously would put a lot of government workers out of jobs and reduce citizens’ benefits. The government is the largest employer and sugar-daddy. Talking about a national health care system is ridiculous; it is un-affordable and un-workable. Having one which works would cost more than the present Pentagon budget. Having one which costs considerably less would likely put lives at risk. Having one which “mandates” citizens to buy coverage won’t work either, because a lot of people won’t bother, and enforcing it would entail repressive “police-state” tactics. I would like to hear one candidate say what he or she is going to do about reducing the national debt and balancing the federal budget. The silence on these topics has so far been deafening. Erick
  2. There is a magazine which is the trade publication for those who blow up buildings for a living. They published an article on the WTC towers. Perhaps those who seek the truth will read the article. http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%...209-8-06%20.pdf http://www.implosionworld.com/ Erick Erick That excellent paper has already been brought up here but it was worth bring up again. I think the only truther on this forum who looked at it was Ron. Can we assume your views on 9/11 differ from your wife's? Len, The way I look at 9-11 is that there are three points of view. One POV is that the government did it. Another POV is that the government didn’t do it but obscenely exploited it. Another POV is that the government didn’t do it, and all the actions the government took in reaction to it were appropriate. My POV is that the government didn’t do it but obscenely exploited it, which is exactly how I would expect politicians to act. I am not an idealist with regards to government; I am a cynic. Erick
  3. There is a magazine which is the trade publication for those who blow up buildings for a living. They published an article on the WTC towers. Perhaps those who seek the truth will read the article. http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%...209-8-06%20.pdf http://www.implosionworld.com/ Erick
  4. Someone should send a copy of this book to the actor, Tom Hanks, who is producing a documentary of Vincent Bugliosi's book of lies about the JFK assassination.
  5. Here is a BBC article on it. The video is no longer available on the BBC websites. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/6169006.stm CIA role claim in Kennedy killing New video and photographic evidence that puts three senior CIA operatives at the scene of Robert Kennedy's assassination has been brought to light. The evidence is a result of a three year investigation The evidence was shown in a report by Shane O'Sullivan, broadcast on BBC Newsnight. It reveals that the operatives and four unidentified associates were at the Ambassador Hotel, Los Angeles in the moments before and after the shooting on 5 June, 1968. The CIA had no domestic jurisdiction and some of the officers were based in South-East Asia at the time, with no reason to be in Los Angeles. 'Decoy' Kennedy had just won the California Democratic primary on an anti-War ticket and was set to challenge Nixon for the White House when he was shot in a kitchen pantry. THE CIA CONNECTION Are you convinced by the evidence in the report? A 24-year-old Palestinian, Sirhan Sirhan, was arrested as the lone assassin and notebooks at his house seemed to incriminate him. However, even under hypnosis, he has never been able to remember the shooting and defence psychiatrists concluded he was in a trance at the time. Witnesses placed Sirhan's gun several feet in front of Kennedy but the autopsy showed the fatal shot came from one inch behind. Dr Herbert Spiegel, a world authority on hypnosis at Columbia University, believes Sirhan may have been hypnotically programmed to act as a decoy for the real assassin. Evidence The report is the result of a three-year investigation by filmmaker Shane O'Sullivan. He reveals new video and photographs showing three senior CIA operatives at the hotel. What were they doing there? It's our obligation as friends of Bob Kennedy to investigate this Paul Schrade Three of these men have been positively identified as senior officers who worked together in 1963 at JMWAVE, the CIA's Miami base for its Secret War on Castro. David Morales was Chief of Operations and once told friends: "I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard." Gordon Campbell was Chief of Maritime Operations and George Joannides was Chief of Psychological Warfare Operations. Joannides was called out of retirement in 1978 to act as the CIA liaison to the Congressional investigation into the JFK assassination. Now, we see him at the Ambassador Hotel the night a second Kennedy is assassinated. Memory There have been calls for a fresh investigation into the shooting Monday, 20 November would have been Bobby Kennedy's 81st birthday. In Los Angeles, his son Max has just broken ground on a new high-school project in memory of his father on the old Ambassador Hotel site. Paul Schrade, a key figure behind the school project, was walking behind Robert Kennedy that night and was shot in the head. He believes this new evidence merits fresh investigation: "It seems very strange to me that these guys would be at a Kennedy celebration. What were they doing there? And why were they there? It's our obligation as friends of Bob Kennedy to investigate this." Ed Lopez, a former Congressional investigator who worked with Joannides in 1978, says: "I think the key people at the CIA need to go back to anybody who might have been around back then, bring them in and interview them, and ask - is this Gordon Campbell? Is this George Joannides?" This report was shown on Newsnight on Monday, 20 November, 2006. Erick
  6. That's a good one Erick, It seems that SOS has a stronger case than DT and CM have let on. I hope we hear from all three of those guys soon. There you have two, very credible witnesses who ID Morales in the Ambassador films - BEA and Wayne Smith, and BEA saying the other guy is the Gordon Campbell he knew at JMWAVE. Ayers and Smith may be convinced, but I'm not. There's got to be something more positive, especially if it is them. And Erick, a legal opinion - is such photo identification admissible in court? BK BK, Photo identification is admissible in court. It's done frequently. Erick
  7. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=000_1189987768
  8. I don't know whether there was an exit would in Oswald's back. Those more familiar with his autopsy could enlighten us on that. However I do know that a wound to the torso, with no exit wound, may not emit much blood. Nonetheless the victim could still bleed to death ("exsanguinate" is the medical term) internally. Entrance wounds from .38 caliber bullets are not very large. In a wound to the abdomen the skin would close in on the entrance wound and keep most of the blood in. Note that Oswald was wearing a dark sweater, which would conceal blood spots.
  9. A subsonic round would not have sufficient velocity to be accurate at the distances in Dealy Plaza. Only supersonic rifle rounds could be used effectively. Professional assassins would not have used under-powered (hand-loaded) subsonic rounds in their rifles.
  10. I found this on the Internet so it must be true: http://uforeview.tripod.com/gleason.html Jackie Gleason & The Little "Men From Mars" From the book: UFOs Among the Stars By Tim Beckley by Timothy Green Beckley Way back in the mid-1960s, I got a letter in the mail from Jackie Gleason Productions, Hollywood, Florida, ordering a copy of a mimeographed booklet I had put together relating to UFOs. This, to me, was confirmation of what I had heard rumors about for a long time ... that "the Great One" was personally involved in researching UFOs. Supposedly - and I've since found out that this is true - Gleason had one of the greatest UFO book collections in the world. This is where the tale gets a bit wilder. A story circulated by Gleason's ex-wife, Beverly, has Jackie actually viewing the bodies of several aliens who died when their craft crashed in the Southwest. The story was carried originally in the National Enquirer, and though Beverly Gleason later confirmed it to members of the press who were able to track her down, independent confirmation of Gleason's supposed experience could - for the longest time - not be certified. Now with the striking revelations of a young man who knew Gleason personally, it can safely be said that such an event did take place... Larry Warren was an Airman First Class stationed at Bentwaters Air Force Base in England (a NATO installation staffed mainly by US. servicemen) when an incredible series of events took place over Christmas week of 1980. A UFO was picked up on radar and subsequently came down just outside the perimeter of the base in a dense forest. On the first of several nights of confrontation with the Unknown, three security police ventured into the area across an eerie-looking object hovering just above the ground. One of the MPs was mesmerized by the UFO and was unable to move for nearly an hour. While in this mental state, he received some sort of telepathic message that the craft would return. For the next few nights, up to 80 US. servicemen, British bobbies, as well as civilians from some nearby farms, witnessed an historic event. According to Larry Warrenwho stood within feet of this craft from another world-three occupants came out of the ship and actually communicated with a high ranking member of the U.S. Air Force. This close encounter at Bentwaters has become the subject of several books (see "From Out Of The Blue", Jenny Randles, Inner Light Publications) and has been given wide publicity on CNN, Home Box Office and more recently "Unsolved Mysteries." Warren has, in a sense, become somewhat of a celebrity himself as he remains in the public eye, willing to talk about what he observed. "Jackie Gleason was interested in hearing my story first hand," Warren offers as a means of explaining how he met the famous comic in May, 1986. "At the time I was living in Connecticut and both CNN and HBO had run pieces on the Bentwaters case. Through mutual friends who knew members of his family, I was told that Gleason would like to talk with me privately in his home in Westchester County, and so the meeting was set for a Saturday when we would both have some time to relax'". After being formally introduced, the two men ventured into Gleason's recreation room complete with pool table and full-size bar. "There were hundreds of UFO books all over the place," Warren explains, "but Jackie was quick to tell me that this was only a tiny portion of his entire collection, which was housed in his home in Florida." For the rest of the day, UFO researcher and UFO witness exchanged information. "Gleason seemed to be very well informed on the subject," Larry says, "as he knew the smallest detail about most cases and showed me copies of the book "Clear Intent" that had just been published, as well as a copy of "Sky Crash", a British book about Bentwaters that was published, actually, before all the details of this case were made public. I remember Gleason telling me about his own sightings of several discs in Florida and how he thought there were undersea UFOs bases out in the Bermuda Triangle." But it wasn't till after Warren had downed a few beers and Gleason had had a number of drinks-"his favorite, Rob Roys"-that conversation really got down to brass tacks. "At some point, Gleason turned to me and said, 'I want to tell you something very amazing that will probably come out some day anyway. We've got em!' 'Got what', I wanted to know? 'Aliens!' Gleason sputtered, catching his breath." According to Warren, Jackie proceeded to tell him the intriguing set of circumstances that led him to the stunning conclusion that extraterrestrials have arrived on our cosmic shores. "It was back when Nixon was in office that something truly amazing happened to me," Gleason explained. "We were close golfing buddies and had been out on the golf course all day when somewhere around the 15th hole, the subject of UFOs came up. Not many people know this," Gleason told Warren, "but the President shares my interest in this matter and has a large collection of books in his home on UFOs just like I do. For some reason, however, he never really took me into his confidence about what he personally knew to be true... one of the reasons being that he was usually sur- rounded by so many aids and advisers." Later that night, matters changed radically, when Richard Nixon showed up at Gleason's house around midnight. "He was all alone for a change. There were no secret service agents with him or anyone else. I said, 'Mr. President, what are you doing here?' and he said he wanted to take me someplace and show me something." Gleason got into the President's private car and they sped off into the darkness - their destination being Homestead Air Force Base. "I remember we got to the gate and this young MP came up to the car to look to see inside and his jaw seemed to drop a foot when he saw who was behind the wheel. He just sort of pointed and we headed off." Warren says that later Gleason found out that the secret service was going absolutely crazy trying to find out where Nixon was. "We drove to the very far end of the base in a segregated area," Gleason went on, "finally stopping near a well-guarded building. The security police saw us coming and just sort of moved back as we passed them and entered the structure. There were a number of labs we passed through first before we entered a section where Nixon pointed out what he said was the wreckage from a flying saucer, enclosed in several large cases." Gleason noted his initial reaction was that this was all a joke brought on by their earlier conversation on the golf course. But it wasn't, as Gleason soon learned. "Next, we went into an inner chamber and there were six or eight of what looked like glass-topped Coke freezers. Inside them were the mangled remains of what I took to be children. Then - upon closer examination - I saw that some of the other figures looked quite old. Most of them were terribly mangled as if they had been in an accident." According to Larry Warren's testimony (regarding Gleason's lengthy conversation about UFOs and space visitors), "I forget whether he said they had three or four fingers on each hand, but they definitely were not human...of this he was most certain!" For three weeks following his trip with Nixon to Homestead Air Force Base, the world famous entertainer couldn't sleep and couldn't eat. "Jackie told me that he was very traumatized by all of this. He just couldn't understand why our government wouldn't tell the public all they knew about UFOs and space visitors. He said he even drank more heavily than usual until he could regain some of his composure and come back down to everyday reality." Larry Warren is convinced that Gleason wasn't lying to him. "You could tell that he was very sincere - he took the whole affair very seriously, and I could tell that he wanted to get the matter off his chest, and this was why he was telling me all of this." And as far as Larry Warren was concerned, the Great One's personal testimony only added extra credibility to his own first hand experience with aliens while he was in the service. "Jackie felt just like I do that the government needs to 'come clean,' and tell us all it knows about space visitors. It time they stopped lying to the public and release all the evidence they have. When they do, then we'll all be able to see the same things the late Jackie Gleason did!" Hopefully this day may arrive soon. NOTE! The book UFOs Among the Stars can be purchased directly from the Conspiracy Journal Bookshop.
  11. In a separate thread, some forum members compared Holocaust deniers to those who deny a conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. See: FROM FRED LEUCHTER to VINCENT BUGLIOSI, "Science" and the Denial of Truth Rather than respond on that thread, I felt that comparison was so erroneous that I should begin a new thread on that subject. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Virginia v. Black, a case involving the question of a First Amendment right, i.e. whether it is “protected speech,” to burn crosses with intent to intimidate. Since 1866 the Ku Klux Clan has used cross burning as a method of intimidating and terrorizing black citizens. During arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas said that cross-burning has no other purpose than to cause fear and terror (meaning that it is not protected speech). It is thought that Justice Thomas’s comment heavily influenced the Court’s final opinion. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opinion which held that a state may, without offending the First Amendment, outlaw cross-burning done with intent to intimidate because burning a cross is a particularly virulent form of intimidation. The Holocaust--which was the systematic extermination of six million human beings, primarily Jews, but also Gypsies, homosexuals, and other so-called “undesirables”--like cross-burning, has a special meaning in history. The most important element of its meaning is that we must carefully preserve the evidence of what occurred and continue teaching it to future generations, so that it will be remembered, and it never happens again, to any group of people. Even one generation removed, we have too quickly forgotten the lesson of the Holocaust. The Cambodian killing fields, Rwanda, Kosovo and Darfur are reminders that genocide and ethnic cleansing can happen again. The evidence for the Holocaust is overwhelming. The Nazis kept meticulous records which were preserved, and there were thousands of survivors who gave first-hand accounts of the horrors. The gas chambers, crematoria and silent remains of millions in the concentration camps shout the truth of what occurred. For these reasons, and especially because we must preserve history for the coming millennia, I believe that Holocaust denial for the purpose of revising history, like cross-burning with intent to intimidate, is not “protected speech.” I do not believe there should be a right of free speech to cast doubt on the Holocaust. As for comparing Holocaust deniers to those who deny a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, that is a false comparison. The Holocaust was open and notorious, the Nazi government kept records of it, and some of the perpetrators were tried and convicted in trials which were open to international scrutiny. The assassination of JFK was carried out by unknown men firing rifles from shadows. The other conspirators kept virtually no records of the plot, and the guilty were never brought to justice. Comparing Holocaust deniers to conspiracy deniers, elevates JFK’s assassination to the same historical significance as the Holocaust. I do not mean to diminish the importance of JFK’s assassination. It was a coup d’État which subverted the foundations of our democracy, and led to a decade of war that killed millions of Vietnamese and thousands of Americans. Our freedoms and democracy in the United States survived the 1960's and remain largely intact, the Patriot Act notwithstanding; if it were not so we wouldn’t have the freedom to debate on the Education Forum. We cannot, however, compare the casualties of war, even an unjust war, to the victims of the Holocaust. The truth of the Holocaust must remain unchanged and preserved forever in history so that future generations do not allow its repetition. Erick A. Bovik
  12. Interesting idea, but if true Ruby would logically have been at the hospital waiting for JFK to arrive. (Where else would they take the wounded president?) He would have needed to be in position to get to the limo and shoot, just as he was in position two days later in the DPD basement to get Oswald. But wasn't Ruby (at least said to be) in a newspaper office up to the time of the shooting? Ron, What better place to be than a newspaper office to find out whether the job was done? Initial news reports did not say the President was dead, thus Ruby's trip to Parkland. If the President had lingered Ruby would have gotten past the police guards the same way he did in the basement of the police station--by familiarity--and shot the President in his hospital bed. The Secret Service, of course were in on it and would have been on a coffee break when that happened. Obviously Ruby knew he was on a suicide mission. To solve the case, look for the payoff to Ruby, or what "they" had on him. Erick
  13. Ashton, Here is a possibility to consider for discussion: The President's back wound could have been caused by the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the 6th floor of the Book Depository. That rifle was never intended as the primary killing weapon, because no serious sniper would have used it. It was a throw-down gun, a diversion, but someone fired it nonetheless. Old military surplus ammo can have what is called a "dud round" whereby not all of the powder propellant burns. This results in a low-velocity discharge, with a rapid bullet drop rate. This would explain the shallow back wound. It could also explain the so-called pristine bullet found at Parkland Hospital. I realize that bullet was not found on the President's stretcher, but the person who found it could have been mistaken. The bullet could have been forced out during resuscitation efforts. Erick Erick: Admittedly you know all about guns and I know zero. But I seriously doubt that the Mannlicher-Carnaco was fired on 11/22/63. And CE 399 was found, allegedly, on Connolly's stretcher. Most researchere, including myself, are of the belief that it was planted, possibly by Jack Ruby who was seen at Parkland hospital, by journalist Seth Kantor, about an hour after JFK had been shot. (Now just what would Ruby be doing at Parkland?) Dawn Dawn, Below is an excellent link to photos of the “magic bullet,” courtesy of the Mary Ferrell oganization. The bullet has clearly been fired, as you can see from the rifling. Also note from the bottom view of the projectile, that is ovalized. The ovalizing would most likely occur as a result of the bullet tumbling in flight, and striking its target in a somewhat sideways profile. The entrance wound in the back was also ovalized, which corresponds to the deformation of the bullet. A low-velocity dud round would be more likely to tumble in flight. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php?..._-_Magic_Bullet Even a team of professional snipers cannot know in advance the precise location of their shots, and they cannot know in advance the precise damage their shots will cause. Thus, the assassins could not have known in advance that it would be necessary to “plant” a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet on a stretcher at Parkland to support a “magic bullet” theory. The simplest explanation is usually truest. The CE 399 bullet came from the rifle in the Book Depository. This brings us to what Jack Ruby was doing at Parkland Hospital. Again, the simplest explanation is usually truest. We know Ruby was a hit man because we all saw him kill Oswald. There may be a few naive folks who still believe Ruby’s explanation that he wanted to spare Mrs. Kennedy the trauma of testifying at Oswald’s trial, but I doubt any of them visit this forum. I suggest that Ruby was at Parkland Hospital that day with a Colt Cobra .38 special in his pocket with instructions to finish off the president if the other gunmen hadn’t done their jobs properly. I further suggest that Ruby knew a lot more than he ever attempted to tell Earl Warren and Jerry Ford. He hinted at it when he warned them, "a whole new form of government is going to take over this country, and I know I won't live to see you another time." Jack Ruby knew this because he was in the thick of it. Erick
  14. Ashton, Here is a possibility to consider for discussion: The President's back wound could have been caused by the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the 6th floor of the Book Depository. That rifle was never intended as the primary killing weapon, because no serious sniper would have used it. It was a throw-down gun, a diversion, but someone fired it nonetheless. Old military surplus ammo can have what is called a "dud round" whereby not all of the powder propellant burns. This results in a low-velocity discharge, with a rapid bullet drop rate. This would explain the shallow back wound. It could also explain the so-called pristine bullet found at Parkland Hospital. I realize that bullet was not found on the President's stretcher, but the person who found it could have been mistaken. The bullet could have been forced out during resuscitation efforts. Erick
  15. Are you saying that sworn testimony before the Warren Commission or the HSCA would not be admissable today? Granted that neither of these esteemed bodies saw fit to allow defense attorneys to cross-examine witnesses, but it seems to me that anyone defending Lee Oswald today would have no objection to any of the WC testimony or affidavits, and I can't imagine that the Government would object. If there are no objections, should'nt the testimony be admissable? Would it not be admissable in any case under the "Official Records" exception to the Hearsay Rule? If the argument that witnesses are dead means their testimony is inadmissable, then one could argue that the Zapruder film is inadmissable, since Abraham Zapruder is dead and cannot now authenticate his film. The reason I brought up court-admissibility is because there are still living conspirators who could potentially be brought to justice. There are two perspectives from which to approach this case, the legal and the historical. Historians are not obligated to follow the rules of evidence, however good ones do well to keep them in mind lest the veracity of their work fall into question. Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8), which is the public records exception to the hearsay rule, allows statements setting forth the activities of the agency, matters observed which there was a duty to report, and factual findings resulting from an investigation, unless they are for some reason untrustworthy. Police reports are specifically excluded from this exception. Committee testimony may or may not fall into this exception. If challenged it would be the subject of much brief-writing. Under Fed.R.Evid. 804((1) former testimony is a hearsay exception if the opposing party or a predecessor in interest had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Committee testimony could arguably be admissible if there was an opportunity for cross-examination, otherwise it violates the 6th Amendment right of cross-examination. The Supreme Court recently ruled on this issue. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). The Zapruder film could be admissible utilizing this exception. The chain of custody would have to be proven first, which, after 43 years, could be problematic. One useful hearsay exception which would likely apply to this case is Fed.R.Evid. 803(4), statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. Anything said by any doctor during the President’s hospital treatment and autopsy, would be admissible under this exception. Below are links to the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Crawford decision. http://expertpages.com/federal/federal.htm http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-9410.ZO.html Erick