Who was your favorite President?

[Wim Dankbaar]

http://www2.lhric.org/pocantico/presidents/vote.htm

It looks like the recent slander campaign (Dallek f.e.) isn't working

Wim

[Jim Hackett II]

It doesn't take much reading of Dallek to figure out his version of history is edited.

In particular the premise he promotes in his book and on TV that Jack Kennedy was ill and going to die anyway.

Not in those words, but that is the image he projects. It seems not to be accidental.

In the end the people are harder to fool than captive audiences.

Great "teachers" promote the idea of one doing one's own evaluation and thinking, and being able to back up any position taken. As opposed to dictation of any one view.

The people know and see through the current of agenda, knowing the "flaws" of a human being do not discount the reality of policy and politics.

We went through a decade of "historians" refuting the premis of Oliver Stone's JFK film, that Jack Kennedy was going to withdraw from Vietnam. Then in the passage of time and the release of documents it is clear now that Stone was correct and the "historians" wrong again.

In the end the people that refuted the idea that Vietnam was NOT Kennedy's war had to eat their words.

But where are the apologies for getting it wrong?

They seem to not see any need to apologize.

To me the episode above reinforces the idea of people needing to examine data and testimony for themselves and develop primary sources, or at a minimum to return to the primary sources when possible. In short to insist on doing our own thinking.

FWIW.

Jim Hackett II

[Jack White]

In a report published Monday, the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania, detailed its findings of a four-month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush. Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the educational community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others. There have been twelve presidents over the past 50 years, from F.D. Roosevelt to G. W. Bush, who were rated based on:

1. Scholarly achievements

2. Writings that they produced without aid of staff

3. Their ability to speak with clarity, and

4. Several other psychological factors which were then scored using the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking.

The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points. In order by presidential term:

142 - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

132 - Harry S Truman

122 - Dwight David Eisenhower

174 - John Fitzgerald Kennedy

126 - Lyndon Baines Johnson

155 - Richard Milhous Nixon

121 - Gerald R. Ford

175 - James Earle Carter

105 - Ronald Wilson Reagan

098 - George Herbert Walker Bush

182 - William Jefferson Clinton

091 - George Walker Bush

In IQ order:

182 - William Jefferson Clinton

175 - James Earle Carter

174 - John Fitzgerald Kennedy

155 - Richard Milhous Nixon

147 - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

132 - Harry S Truman

126 - Lyndon Baines Johnson

122 - Dwight David Eisenhower

121 - Gerald R. Ford

105 - Ronald Wilson Reagan

098 - George Herbert Walker Bush

091 - George Walker Bush

The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest at 155. President George W. Bush rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91. The six Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126. No president other than Carter [D] has released his actual IQ (176).

Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President G. W. Bush, his low ratings are due to his apparently difficult command of the English language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary [6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other presidents], his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an absence of any body of work which could be studied on an intellectual basis. The complete report documents the methods and procedures used to arrive at these ratings, including depth of sentence structure and voice stress confidence analysis.

"All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had at least one book under their belt, and most had written several white papers during their education or early careers. Not so with President Bush," Dr. Lovenstein said. ! "He has no published works or writings, which made it more difficult to arrive at an assessment. We relied more heavily on transcripts of his unscripted public speaking."

Edited May 4, 2004 by Jack White

[Terry Mauro]

Which only goes to show you that G. Dubya has an I.Q.

of only 11 points above that of a moron, which is ranked

at 80. Although, I had read somewhere else that his

I.Q. was only 90, but that was a couple of years ago.

At any rate, still as unimpressive as his father's, and

both at the bottom of the barrel to boot. Money can

buy you anything!

Edited May 16, 2004 by Terry Mauro

[Lee Forman]

My favorite president was Gerald Ford, and I'll tell you why.

- Understands intelligence and had a strong relationship with the FBI

- Knowledgeable about medicine and the human physique and knew how to successfully redistribute wounds on a body for better penetration.

- Dodged bullets better than Keanu Reeves in "The Matrix"

- Doesn't shirk from duty, and continues to uphold his word in regards to the outcome of significant Executive investigations - even when these results are little more than Science Fiction.

- Was 'nimble,' and provided comedy relief to millions of Americans.

- Had a tough campaign for the Presidency in '74.

- Successfuly vetoed almost all non-military legislation.

And my number one reason:

- Prevented a scandal and ripple of disgrace, the outrage and recriminations that would have followed, risking potential National Security related matters [PepsiCo in Laos, and the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Watergate, etc.] by pardoning Richard Nixon.

[Terry Mauro]

And, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and the freedom to be able to express them in civilized discourse. That's one of the attributes of a true democratic republic, wouldn't you say?

[Lee Forman]

Hello Terry!

No, I would not agree.

I hope first off that you realize how facetious I was being in my previous post!

Secondly, I am outraged, having only recently discovered that the final 2 episodes of "The Guilty Men" have successfully been 'banned' - thanks to Ford, Carter and Ladybird Johnson. I was under the impression that we had the Freedom of Speech here in the United States of America. Apparently not.

'Banned.' I told a friend that these episodes had been banned, and his response was, "Do we live in the Soviet Union?"

Thirdly, let me point out our present situation: A great many people are under the mistaken impression that democracy is something that can be 'rubber stamped' upon other countries successfully, and that the freedom that will result will be worth all the effort -- people will be able to purchase X-boxes, and select movies by Pay-per-view, and communicate via Dense Wave Division Multiplexing technologies over multimode fiber at gigabyte speeds - but they still won't have hot and cold running water. This is altruism at its worst.

We don't have a successful Democracy here in the United States - if we did, there would have been no requirement for a coup, which successfully occurred in 1963.

I've always been told that if you do not care for a particular President and the way he is managing the affairs of the Country, then I have the option to cast my vote and hope for the selection of another candidate in the following election. The assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963 NULLIFIED any concept of the United States as a free and democratic republic.

- lee

[John Simkin]

We don't have a successful Democracy here in the United States - if we did, there would have been no requirement for a coup, which successfully occurred in 1963.

I think this is an important point that is often missed in the debate about the assassination of JFK.

One of the main issues concerning democracy is the amount of freedom enjoyed by the media. The old Soviet Union and its communist allies had regular elections. What they did not have was media freedom. (Russia still does not have it). Here is a recent report on newspaper freedom. I suspect the United States would do far worse in any table on television freedom. As fewer and fewer people read newspapers, television freedom is more important.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/pressurvey.htm

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/press...llscore2004.pdf

The United States has a very flawed electoral system that is not as democratic as most other advanced countries.

To understand why you need to look at the way democracy has developed in the world. The rich and powerful have never been very keen on the idea of democracy. They knew that once everyone had the vote they would start demanding equality in other areas. They therefore used whatever methods at their disposal to prevent the development of democracy.

By the middle of the 19th century male members of the middle classes had obtained the vote in most advanced countries. The majority of males and all women were excluded from this process. Working class males were the next group to get the vote. Their power was coming from the rapidly expanding trade union movement. By the late 19th century working class males in nearly all advanced economies had the vote. In some countries there was legislation put in place to exclude some categories of working class men and in those cases they had to wait like women until the early 20th century for the vote.

In every country a similar pattern emerges. These trade unions helped to fund political parties to contest elections. All these parties embraced the ideas of socialism. As the rich in the 19th century had so rightly feared, the working and middle classes wanted a fairer distribution of the nation’s wealth. Socialism appeared inevitable. The only answer was to try and control the thoughts of these new voters. This involved the control of the mass media and public education. The established church also played an important role in this although this was not consistent and some devout Christians claimed that Jesus Christ had been the world’s first socialist.

Throughout the 20th century the working and middle classes have struggled with this problem. In most advanced countries this struggle has been fairly successful and have become fully functioning democracies. The United States however, has been the most successful at preventing this taking place.

As you probably know, after the American Civil War racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan managed to prevent a large percentage of black men from voting. What is less well-known, is the role played by these organizations in the attempts to destroy the early trade union movement in the United States. The main method used against trade union organizers was the threat of lynching. This was a method of control that was not only used against black people.

Another method was the persecution of socialist leaders. This often involved the “framing” of activists for crimes they did not commit. In some cases, such as Joe Hill, Albert Parsons, August Spies, Adolph Fischer, Bartolomeo Vanzetti, Nicola Sacco, Louis Lingg, George Engel, etc. they were executed. Others, like Eugene Debs, the leader of the American Socialist Party, served long periods of imprisonment.

Even so, socialism continued to grow. By 1913 the socialist journal, Appeal to Reason reached a circulation of over 760,000. The First World War caused problems for the socialist movement in America. Most of its leaders were against the war and as a result large numbers were imprisoned for sedition. However, once the war was over, socialism emerged stronger than ever.

In 1920 Eugene Debs, the Socialist Party of America presidential candidate, received 919,799 votes while still in Atlanta Penitentiary. His program included proposals for improved labour conditions, housing and welfare legislation and an increase in the number of people who could vote in elections (Debs, like other socialists, was opposed to the way black people were prevented from voting in elections).

The capitalist state in America was in serious trouble. At this stage it looked like America would mirror events taking place in Europe where socialist governments were being established. In fact, conservatives in America described socialism as an European disease.

The next stage in the fight against democracy was to deport all those socialists who had been born in Europe. Over the next few months over 10,000 known left-wing activists were arrested (known as the Palmer Raids or the Red Scare) and accused of plotting revolution. No evidence of a proposed revolution was found but large number of these suspects were held without trial for a long time. Eventually they were released but a large number were deported back to the country of their birth. This strategy was highly successful and America saw a rapid decline in membership of left-wing organisations. This was reflected in the sales of left-wing newspapers and even those that had been selling nearly a million copies before the war were forced to close.

As with most advanced countries, the United States, saw a growth of socialism after the Second World War. Once again the Red Scare was introduced (this time it was called McCarthyism). Officially it was used against communists but its real target was liberals and socialists. People with left-wing opinions were ousted from their jobs (including teaching) and blacklisted. Very few Americans were willing to pay this price for holding onto their political beliefs (an important factor in this was the absence of a welfare state in America).

By the late 1950s FBI agents were reporting that left-wing groups had virtually been destroyed (it was claimed that FBI informants were outnumbering actual members of these groups).

Unlike other advanced countries American right-wingers had much more success at gaining control of the mass-media. There was no mass-circulation left of centre newspapers. More importantly, there was no major public broadcasting organisations like the BBC to provide impartial news reporting.

America also had a democratic system that enabled it to stop people from voting. This was mainly used against black people in the Deep South.

The 1960s saw young, middle class liberals from the North trying to change this system. In 1964 the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE), Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) organised its Freedom Summer campaign. Directed by Robert Moses, its main objective was to try an end the political disenfranchisement of African Americans in the Deep South. Volunteers from the three organizations decided to concentrate its efforts in Mississippi. In 1962 only 6.7 per cent of African Americans in the state were registered to vote..

America once again resorted to its tactic of murder and intimidation. However, they made a serious mistake when they started murdering well-connected white students such as James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner and this resulted in the passing of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Yes, it was as late as 1965 before all adults in America got the right to vote.

Even so, it was still impossible for the people of America to elect a government committed to the redistribution of wealth and power. By the 1960s the United States had established a two party, first past the post, electoral system. Both these parties were right of centre and had control over all local and national government bodies.

What is more, American politics is dominated by money. Without large sums of money you cannot run a political campaign. The buying of television time is vitally important to the success of politicians. The political literacy of the American population is the lowest in the advanced world. For example, a recent study by the University of Maryland showed that 57% of Bush’s supporters believe that “before the war Iraq was providing substantial support to al-Qaida”. Moreover 65% believe that “experts” have confirmed that Iraq had WMD. That level of ignorance does not exist in other advanced nations. But when you consider the way the Americans get their information, you can see why this has happened.

In 1960 the American people elected a conservative politician. As the Director of the CIA, John McCone, in Kennedy's administration said recently: "When Kennedy took office you will recall that he won the election because he claimed that the Eisenhower administration had been weak on communism and weak in the treatment of Castro and so forth." He then adds: "Kennedy, in the weeks prior to his death, realized that we had gone overboard and actually was in the process of withdrawing when he was killed and Johnson took over."

Kennedy was educated by his experiences of office (especially by the events in 1962 concerning Cuba) and decided to negotiate an end to the Cold War. This posed a serious problem for the Military Industrial Complex and so a Coup d’Etat had to take place. Its power over the media was so great it was able to promote the idea that Kennedy was killed by a “lone nut”.

The far right had similar problems in the 2000 presidential elections. Gore’s environmental policies could have caused serious problems for the powers that be. Therefore it was necessary to rely on election practices that most thought had been eliminated by the 1965 Voting Act.

The interesting point is what will the Military Industrial Complex do in 2004? Maybe nothing. It all depends if John Kerry poses a real threat to the status quo.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivilrights.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAsocialist.htm

[Lee Forman]

John,

Your post is simply excellent. I thank you for it.

"Democratic institutions themselves are a check on the excesses of power."

Condoleeza Rice

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...6/20030626.html

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

I only would like to add that many US citizens [for some reason we refer to ourselves as 'Americans' which has never made any sense to me] are under the false impression that our system operates under the auspices of a 'democracy.' The US is not a 'democracy,' but a Republic. Out of fear for mob rule, an uninformed majority, etc., a Republic was formed on the basis of a form of Elitism -power would be held in the hands of a certain few, informed and educated individuals, on an elected, and temporal basis.

One of the problems that we see today is a complete lack of ownership or accountability, and a lack of true representation via the Bi-Partisan system that has culminated over the past 100 years. "Public officials best fitted to represent them." This isn't best addressed with a 2-party system for the Executive Branch.

http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvdem.htm

Many of you have seen the reprint of this document. If you have, it's worth reading again. If you have not, it is worth reading, studying, and reciting to your friends, family, and neighbors. It is copied from Training Manual No. 2000-25 that was published by the then War Department, Washington, D.C., November 30, 1928.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Official Definition of DEMOCRACY

NOTE

Here are four (4) facsimile section reproductions taken from a 156 page book officially compiled and issued by the U.S. War Department, November 30,1928, setting forth exact and truthful definitions of a Democracy and of a Republic, explaining the difference between both. These definitions were published by the authority of the United States Government and must be accepted as authentic in any court of proper jurisdiction. These precise and scholarly definitions of a Democracy and a Republic were carefully considered as a proper guide for U.S. soldiers and U.S. citizens by the Chief of Staff of the United States Army. Such definition stake precedence over any "definition" that may be found in the present commercial dictionaries which have suffered periodical "modification" to please "the powers in office. Shortly after the "bank holiday" in the thirties, hush-hush orders from the White House suddenly demanded that all copies of this book be withdrawn from the Government Printing Office and the Army posts, to be suppressed and destroyed without explanation. This was the beginning of the complete red control of the Government from within, not from without.

-------------------

Prepared under the direction of the Chief of Staff.

CITIZENSHIP

This manual supersedes Manual of Citizenship Training The use of the publication "The Constitution of the United States," by Harry Atwood, is by permission and courtesy of the author.

CITIZENSHIP Democracy:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy

CITIZENSHIP Republic:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world. A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of

(1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their government acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

Atwood. Superior to all others.--Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered. Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success. Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy * * * and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."

"By order of the Secretary of War: C.P. Summerall, Major General, Chief of Staff. Official: Lutz Wahl, Major General, The Adjutant General.

WHY DEMOCRACIES FAIL

A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.(Written by Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago while our thirteen original states were still colonies of Great Britain. At the time he was writing of the decline and fall of the Athenian Republic over two thousand years before.

"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive."

Westbrook Pegler: New York Journal American, January 25th and 26th, 1951, under the titles- Upholds Republic of U.S. Against Phony Democracy, Democracy in the U.S. Branded Meaningless

- lee

[Terry Mauro]

Hello Terry!

No, I would not agree.

I hope first off that you realize how facetious I was being in my previous post! 

Secondly, I am outraged, having only recently discovered that the final 2 episodes of "The Guilty Men" have successfully been 'banned' - thanks to Ford, Carter and Ladybird Johnson.  I was under the impression that we had the Freedom of Speech here in the United States of America.  Apparently not.

'Banned.'  I told a friend that these episodes had been banned, and his response was, "Do we live in the Soviet Union?"

Thirdly, let me point out our present situation:  A great many people are under the mistaken impression that democracy is something that can be 'rubber stamped' upon other countries successfully, and that the freedom that will result will be worth all the effort -- people will be able to purchase X-boxes, and select movies by Pay-per-view, and communicate via Dense Wave Division Multiplexing technologies over multimode fiber at gigabyte speeds - but they still won't have hot and cold running water.  This is altruism at its worst.

We don't have a successful Democracy here in the United States - if we did, there would have been no requirement for a coup, which successfully occurred in 1963.

I've always been told that if you do not care for a particular President and the way he is managing the affairs of the Country, then I have the option to cast my vote and hope for the selection of another candidate in the following election.  The assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963 NULLIFIED any concept of the United States as a free and democratic republic.

- lee

And, you obviously didn't catch the sarcasm in my reply to you, either.

As I was actually mocking the fact that we're supposed to be living in

a democratic republic, when that is one of the furthest things from the

truth. I agree to disagree with one of your opinions, which have to do

with your frequent referrals to James Files. But, you are entitled to your

own ideas, as I am entitled to not putting too much endorsement into the

James Files story. Other than that, I can pretty much understand where

you're coming from.

Edited May 18, 2004 by Terry Mauro

[Jim Hackett II]

Boy do I feel better about both of those posts.

LoL.

To Terry and Lee I mean, you folks had me going for a minute.

Dazed and confused but hey I'm medicated at the moment.

So I kept my mouth shut and now I'm really REALLY GLAD I did.

LOL

Jerry Ford is a ... a .... oh a jerk.

I better go before I call him something like a xxxx or worse.

Jim Hackett II

[Wim Dankbaar]

And, you obviously didn't catch the sarcasm in my reply to you, either.

As I was actually mocking the fact that we're supposed to be living in

a democratic republic, when that is one of the furthest things from the

truth.  I agree to disagree with one of your opinions, which have to do

with your frequent referrals to James Files.  But, you are entitled to your

own ideas, as I am entitled to not putting too much endorsement into the

James Files story.  Other than that, I can pretty much understand where

you're coming from.

Hi Terry,

Are you still allied with Rich?

I would be curious on what basis you would not be "putting too much endorsement into the James Files story".

I would also be curious for your opinion on the "Chauncey Holt story", the "Tosh Plumlee story" and the "Joe Granata story".

Wim

Edited May 18, 2004 by dankbaar

[Terry Mauro]

Wim -

1. No, I am not still allied with Rich, and haven't been for over a year now.

2. Chauncey Holt, Tosh Plumlee, James Files, and Granata, IMHO, had they

been players in the assassination, were more than likely small ones.

3. There were many variables at work that day in Dallas, with a myriad

of interconnecting liabilities to deal with. If these people were actually

involved, why are they still alive today to talk about it? Are they seeking

immunity from the law, by somehow coming out to admit their collaboration

in this egregious act? I need more hard evidence than supposed hearsay,

which is what I'm picking up from their stories. Yes, I believe they were/are

involved in covert operations, but what they had to do directly with the JFK

assassination seems to be more on the fringe of what actually happened than

directly related to it, if that. Sorry, but this always seemed to take the people

trying to do research on a wild goose chase, if I remember correctly, with no

one ever giving a straight answer, or getting their whole story out without them

having to take off for parts unknown. Maybe someday, but I'm not holding

my breath.

[Wim Dankbaar]

Wim -

1.  No, I am not still allied with Rich, and haven't been for over a year now.

2.  Chauncey Holt, Tosh Plumlee, James Files, and Granata, IMHO, had they

    been players in the assassination, were more than likely small ones.

3.  There were many variables at work that day in Dallas, with a myriad

    of interconnecting liabilities to deal with.  If these people were actually

    involved, why are they still alive today to talk about it?  Are they seeking

    immunity from the law, by somehow coming out to admit their collaboration

    in this egregious act?  I need more hard evidence than supposed hearsay, 

    which is what I'm picking up from their stories.  Yes, I believe they were/are

    involved in covert operations, but what they had to do directly with the JFK

    assassination seems to be more on the fringe of what actually happened than

    directly related to it, if that.  Sorry, but this always seemed to take the people

    trying to do research on a wild goose chase, if I remember correctly, with no

    one ever giving a straight answer, or getting their whole story out without them

    having to take off for parts unknown.  Maybe someday, but I'm not holding

    my breath.

Granata was not a player at all, never said he was. But that seems to be a problem with many commentators: Lack of information does not inhibit them to form and advocate an opinion.

Yes, they were small players, if you are of the opinion that the shooters and operatives were small players.

I'd be curious to learn what exactly the "hearsay" would be? Did Files hear it say for example that Ruby met with Johnny Roselli in a pancake house in Ft. Worth on the early morning of 11/22/1963? Or did he just make that part up in violation of the general consencus on Ruby's whereabouts, despite of the allegation that Files must have studied the case well? Did he hear that Oswald took a leave from work every day in the week of the assassination, again in violation of the general consencus? Did he hear that a shell casing with dentmarks had been found on the grassy knoll? If so, from whom? Who told him the mark was a dentmark and how could that person have known it was a dentmark? Did he hear that a guy of whom he has a picture, actually killed Tippit? Is this guy dead? Do you have a reason why this man or his family have not come forward to deny Files' hearsay? Or do you think he or his family have never been informed about that picture? Did Files spin his tale around those of Plumlee and Holt? Or are they Holt and Plumlee in on the Jimmy's sham? Was Files tortured to near death for Nicoletti's diary as Files say? Or was this just a mob thing? If so, why was he not killed? Why did the New Orleans authorities want to speak with James Files about the death of David Ferrie? Why did Seymour Hersh want to speak to James Files? Okay, the last two are a little unfair on my part, since you didn't know that yet.

Wim

Edited May 23, 2004 by dankbaar

[Terry Mauro]

Wim -

1.  No, I am not still allied with Rich, and haven't been for over a year now.

2.  Chauncey Holt, Tosh Plumlee, James Files, and Granata, IMHO, had they

     been players in the assassination, were more than likely small ones.

3.  There were many variables at work that day in Dallas, with a myriad

     of interconnecting liabilities to deal with.  If these people were actually

     involved, why are they still alive today to talk about it?  Are they seeking

     immunity from the law, by somehow coming out to admit their collaboration

     in this egregious act?  I need more hard evidence than supposed hearsay,  

     which is what I'm picking up from their stories.  Yes, I believe they were/are

     involved in covert operations, but what they had to do directly with the JFK

     assassination seems to be more on the fringe of what actually happened than

     directly related to it, if that.  Sorry, but this always seemed to take the people

     trying to do research on a wild goose chase, if I remember correctly, with no

     one ever giving a straight answer, or getting their whole story out without them

     having to take off for parts unknown.  Maybe someday, but I'm not holding

     my breath.

Granata was not a player at all, never said he was. But that seems to be a problem with many commentators: Lack of information does not inhibit them to form and advocate an opinion.

Yes, they were small players, if you are of the opinion that the shooters and operatives were small players.

I'd be curious to learn what exactly the "hearsay" would be? Did Files hear it say for example that Ruby met with Johnny Roselli in a pancake house in Ft. Worth on the early morning of 11/22/1963? Or did he just make that part up in violation of the general consencus on Ruby's whereabouts, despite of the allegation that Files must have studied the case well? Did he hear that Oswald took a leave from work every day in the week of the assassination, again in violation of the general consencus? Did he hear that a shell casing with dentmarks had been found on the grassy knoll? If so, from whom? Who told him the mark was a dentmark and how could that person have known it was a dentmark? Did he hear that a guy of whom he has a picture, actually killed Tippit? Is this guy dead? Do you have a reason why this man or his family have not come forward to deny Files' hearsay? Or do you think he or his family have never been informed about that picture? Did Files spin his tale around those of Plumlee and Holt? Or are they Holt and Plumlee in on the Jimmy's sham? Was Files tortured to near death for Nicoletti's diary as Files say? Or was this just a mob thing? If so, why was he not killed? Why did the New Orleans authorities want to speak with James Files about the death of David Ferrie? Why did Seymour Hersh want to speak to James Files? Okay, the last two are a little unfair on my part, since you didn't know that yet.

Wim

Let me say this about that, Wim.

It's not the shooters per se, who I consider to be the heavy hitters here. The shooters could have been any mercenary, hot-shot, contracted agents, IMHO.

I'm after the higher eschelon who made the deal, contracted the killers for hire,

and paid for the coup to go down the way it did. And, I'm not referring to the

already theorized and hypothecized oil barons, Wall Street financial houses, and/or bottom feeders. I'm talking about the chess players above the Rockefellers, above

the Rothschilds, whom BTW, I consider to be mere lackeys to the orchestration of what went down in Dallas. No, I truly believe there are those whose names are never going to roll off the tongues of any investigator of this crime, for the world to be privy to their identities, because they are the true barons controlling the

world's economy to their own advantage. JFK's first mistake was to try and smash

their lieutenants and legal cartels by busting up their "so-called" Federal Reserve

club of international money-changers, and firing their lapdog, Allen Dulles. But,

this was still only at the bottom-feeder level. I seriously doubt that JFK actually

knew what forces he was up against. And, although I'd love to see this crime

solved in order that this country finally be allowed closure on it, I don't believe

the true players who set this thing in motion, will ever be held accountable for his

murder. They have too much collateral and power that goes beyond any idealogy

set up two hundred years ago, and by which Americans have been brainwashed

into believing. There is no Santa Claus, Virginia. And, there hasn't been one since

Lincoln, FDR, JFK, MLK, or RFK. So, what are you going to do about it?