Mark Stapleton

I'm going to give you exactly what you're asking for. Let it serve as a perfect example of your ways. Without taking the time to accurately quote me, your other "approximate" quote of me consisted of this: Your practice of using bogus quotation marks referring to what I said speaks for itself. This is in fact what I said, and you could have quoted: The above is exactly why you don't get much respect around here. You got him bang to rights, Mike. Good post.

Scuse me? What wild claim? If you're alluding to the Fisher/Ford issue, then I don't think there's anything wild about it. Could a wealthy, influential and generous donor to the Republican Party influence and control a feeble-minded mediocrity like Ford, also from Michigan? More of a certainty than a wild claim, imo.

Peter, Thanks for posting that interview. Stiglitz and Bilmes have some shocking information for Americans. I hope they listen. Out of all the messy details, the most odious is the massive burden being placed on future generations to foot the cost for many thousands of disabled and injured veterans--due to the fact that medical advancements have caused the wounded to dead ratio to skyrocket. A consequence of a forty year gap between large scale troop deployments, but obviously overlooked by Iraq's sponsors in their haste to get into the trough.

Bill Miller, perhaps?

I have ordered the book. A friend of mine has developed a good relationship with him. I will ask him to join the forum to discuss the book. That would be a tremendous coup for the Forum, John. I have great admiration for Abraham Bolden and the way he spoke up and then had to endure great injustice for his trouble. My first question would be in relation to the Chicago 'teletype warning' affair and whether he can reveal which particular individuals warned him to keep his mouth shut. That would be interesting.

I got 'the squealer'. Indignant, I tried again. This time I'm 'the wishbone'. Much better.

I have to quibble with your choice of words. IMO you have the right answer but the wrong question. "Who" killed JFK? That's the question you've answered. Criminal conspirators. We just aren't sure who they were and how many make a bunch. "How" was JFK killed? The correct answer is "with bullets." But we don't know using what guns, how many shooters, from what positions, and with whose help. "Why" was JFK killed? We aren't sure about that either. All we positively know in detail after 44 years is when and where. Thanks, Ron. I appreciate your perspective on this. We clearly have an argument over semantics -- nothing more profound. If I ask what I currently term the "HOW" question as "WHO killed JFK?" and if your answer, "criminal conspirators," is to stand, then it prematurely enlarges the argument by focusing on individuals rather than method, and begs the logical demand that, in terms of our new strategy, must be put off for just a bit longer: "Okay, then, IDENTIFY the 'who' if you're so smart!" I haven't answered the "who" question. Yet. A proper answer requires the presentation of proper names. And then we move on inevitably to discussion of what, to my mind, is the three-tiered structure of the conspiracy: sponsors, facilitators, and mechanics (from the top down), with sub-strata in each category. And God knows we're not at the point where we can attain ultimate truth and effect justice by laying THAT BUSINESS on the public. My point is to narrow the focus in order to present a basic reality to the people of world. Let us establish for all time the METHOD of JFK's removal. HOW was JFK killed? AS THE RESULT OF A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY Because we cannot hope to move from our current position until conspiracy is accepted as historical fact. Such is my goal. Toward that narrow but ultimately significant (at this point in time) end, the "who" question remains irrelevant. Charles An excellent point, Charles. The LNers, and even the 'I don't knows' must be kicked off the field. It's a conspiracy. To suggest otherwise is insulting. It's just a matter of drumming this into the public until they demand answers. Not easy when the media is structurally interposed and filters the message accordingly. As for the who, why and how, the problem with focussing on the how is that it's the trickiest piece of the puzzle, imo. I sometimes think there is something fundamentally wrong about our understanding of what actually happened in DP but I don't know what it is. I guess this is why altering the evidence was so important for the conspirators. I speculate the who and why have probably been correctly identified many times over in the millions of words written about this issue over the last 44 years. Without knowing how it was done, the who and why could be debated forever. I third the motion. The LNs and Don't Knowers would have us go back endlessly to 'square one' so we never make progress and have nothing to report. Bull. We have a conspiracy and overthrow and cover-up we can PROVE. The details are important for the experts, but not ready for prime-time, on some. On others there is more than enough work done...but it is complex and too much so for short attention spans and people who expect simple answers. It is NOT a 'who done it' for intellectual exercise...it is the fate of our Nation - past, present and future at stake here and ACTION on what we can now prove and prove to those not willing to engage all the detail . The Borg who maintains the LIE(s) keep pumping in false info; false leads; false documents and other falsehoods - and started before the event. Time to grab the ball and run for the goal line...folks...one more 9/11-like event and this will all be academic from your detention camp or house arrest. Exactly, Peter. I don't think the US public is aware of the importance of discovering who was responsible for killing JFK and how it has a real impact on contemporary US politics. It's too big to be swept aside. It's much more than a Government covering up some bureaucratic fiasco, or corruption of a Government official, as they often do. It's a massive black hole on the political and historical landscape, which succesive Presidents, and everyone else in the power loop, simply dances around, pretending it's not there. They obviously believe that if they ignore it long enough, and show solidarity, it will eventually fade into insignificance. As far as I'm concerned, no subsequent US Administration is or will be legitimate until the matter is finalised. In all the high sounding words of the US Constitution, there's nothing about the Government keeping secrets of this magnitude from the people---the murder of a popular President who the people had elected. The Government's mendacity concerning Dealey Plaza broke the pact. If our Government here in Australia pulled a stunt like that, there would be blood on the streets. Americans must be such a law abiding people. Quite amazing.

I have to quibble with your choice of words. IMO you have the right answer but the wrong question. "Who" killed JFK? That's the question you've answered. Criminal conspirators. We just aren't sure who they were and how many make a bunch. "How" was JFK killed? The correct answer is "with bullets." But we don't know using what guns, how many shooters, from what positions, and with whose help. "Why" was JFK killed? We aren't sure about that either. All we positively know in detail after 44 years is when and where. Thanks, Ron. I appreciate your perspective on this. We clearly have an argument over semantics -- nothing more profound. If I ask what I currently term the "HOW" question as "WHO killed JFK?" and if your answer, "criminal conspirators," is to stand, then it prematurely enlarges the argument by focusing on individuals rather than method, and begs the logical demand that, in terms of our new strategy, must be put off for just a bit longer: "Okay, then, IDENTIFY the 'who' if you're so smart!" I haven't answered the "who" question. Yet. A proper answer requires the presentation of proper names. And then we move on inevitably to discussion of what, to my mind, is the three-tiered structure of the conspiracy: sponsors, facilitators, and mechanics (from the top down), with sub-strata in each category. And God knows we're not at the point where we can attain ultimate truth and effect justice by laying THAT BUSINESS on the public. My point is to narrow the focus in order to present a basic reality to the people of world. Let us establish for all time the METHOD of JFK's removal. HOW was JFK killed? AS THE RESULT OF A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY Because we cannot hope to move from our current position until conspiracy is accepted as historical fact. Such is my goal. Toward that narrow but ultimately significant (at this point in time) end, the "who" question remains irrelevant. Charles An excellent point, Charles. The LNers, and even the 'I don't knows' must be kicked off the field. It's a conspiracy. To suggest otherwise is insulting. It's just a matter of drumming this into the public until they demand answers. Not easy when the media is structurally interposed and filters the message accordingly. As for the who, why and how, the problem with focussing on the how is that it's the trickiest piece of the puzzle, imo. I sometimes think there is something fundamentally wrong about our understanding of what actually happened in DP but I don't know what it is. I guess this is why altering the evidence was so important for the conspirators. I speculate the who and why have probably been correctly identified many times over in the millions of words written about this issue over the last 44 years. Without knowing how it was done, the who and why could be debated forever.

Interesting link, Daniel. I agree there will be a mother of a smear campaign by the GOP if Obama wins the nomination. However, I don't agree with your conclusion. The internet has wised everyone up, and it's only taken a few years. I doubt Americans will fall for a phony smear this time. The internet (and recent history) has totally undermined the credibility of the neocon worldview. Foxnews looks like a B grade fifties sci-fi movie---but much less endearing. FoxNews has always looked that way, which may be the appeal -- many people seem to want things simple & authoritative because they don't like to think on their own, or don't know how. I think mostly it's the recent history that's undermined the credibility of the neocon worldview, but I hadn't noticed that neocons had lost power lately so it's not their credibility that worries me. I think you're overly optimistic about the internet. It's full of an amazing amount of information, a good deal of which is various kinds of crap. I haven't seen much evidence that it's "wised everyone up." Likewise, I think it's overly optimistic to think Americans won't "fall for" a smear campaign against Obama. Aside from the Republican Party itself, there's the media that's served as a Bush Administration mouthpiece; the Christian Right who've been under the impression -- long before "The War On Terror" -- that "Bible-prophecies-are-being-fulfilled-in-our-lifetime" (think of a young black man named Barack Hussein Obama in that context, "taking over our Christian nation"); and the often-underestimated bigots of the Far Right (or just bigots in general). We should be so lucky to see only "a mother of a smear campaign by the GOP." I'm not sure what conclusion I came to that you disagreed with, unless it was that McCain will win the presidency...... I'm unconvinced that the results of the 2006 congressional elections should be read as some kind of watershed breakthrough where a majority of Americans are now chomping at the bit to go out and vote for Hillary Clinton or a charismatic young black man for president. They've been conditioned for the past 30 years to seek sanctuary with tired old white guys who think the most important thing in existence is the word "conservative" (which sort of covers everything that's supposed to be "good"). Surely you jest. There's a mood for change in the US, unless I'm mistaken. If Obama is nominated, it's a clear cut case of the old versus the new. As a representative of the status quo, McCain would have no chance. Forget the crap others have mentioned about inexperience. Obama will win. Even the bible won't save the Republicans. PS: Interesting conversation you're having with Mr. Lamson. "Bigger bombs and bigger armies are the very backbone of foreign policy." I may get in on this foolishness if I get the time.......apparently someone's unaware that we've been following a "minimalist" approach where the armies are concerned.................

Yep! Pat, Duncan, Charles, et al.: This might be a back brace. However, I recall seeing somewhere a pic of JFK's back brace & it seemed not as tall, as it were. Also, why would a brace be designed to be so pronouncedly visible through JFK's suit coat? Also, why is this brace seen here & not later? If it is not a brace then what the Dejesus is it? Duncan, Dread Thane, got any more screen captures? Cheers Miles There's no way JFK's back brace extended that far. It was back support not neck support.

Only if your country is a war-mongering rogue state hellbent on global hegemony. Really? Is that why Russia and China for example have a huge military presence and continue growing it? You can't complain about the military spending of Russia and China when the US dwarfs all other nations in military spending. The US spends more than the the rest of the world combined. The US spends more than the rest of the world combined (repeated for emphasis). I fully expect some glib reply but it's clear you are out of juice on this one. Throw in your shocker on the Gary Mack 'kimono' thread, and it's clear that you are having a bad week on the Forum.

Bye!

Only if your country is a war-mongering rogue state hellbent on global hegemony.

Of course policy is important. I wouldn't claim otherwise. I'm hoping more detailed and fully costed policies will be put on the table, but it looks like that won't happen until the one on one race for the White House starts. Maybe not even then. As for the cost of social programmes, the article cited in John's post suggested that the policies would be funded, or at least partly funded, by increasing taxes on the >97K group. With a little hard work and a few important changes, I think America will become a socialist workers paradise. Those more wealthy Americans who might be forced to pay higher taxes can console themselves with the thought that they will at last be legally entitled to smoke a genuine hand rolled Cuban cigar. Viva Obama.

I don't know about that, Craig. You might think the UN is corrupt but how about the US Congress? As for the $800 billion, I don't know if I would endorse the costings of Lawrence Kudlow, especially if he is a former Reagan advisor. A second opinion might be in order. In any case, the money could be well spent. Extending health insurance, green energy plans, and an infrastructure bank sound like great ideas to me. The US needs to reduce oil consumption rapidly, and a co-ordinated strategy is required. If you are an opponent of profligate spending, then look at US military defence spending for fiscal year 2008: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...ding/index.html $623 billion for just one year--more than the rest of the world's military spending combined. All this and not an enemy aircraft in sight. Mark, that 800 billion just the cost of the UN give-a-way over a period of years. As for the US Congress...of course they are corrupt, but nowhere near the UN. Wait untill you see the true cost of his social programs in addition. Defense spending is about the only true reason for the Federal Government. Most everything else is fluff better left to the States. I think the other initiatives sound good, although I haven't read much about them. The real policy detail will emerge when the Presidential contest starts, I guess. If you have access to the 'true' cost of his planned initiatives, I'm all ears.

I fail to see the accuracy of the statement "virtually no hard evidence." Cliff, This semantics nonsense gives the game away -- yet again. For Mack and his acolytes would have us believe that word gaming and linguistic subtlety -- especially when coming from an "expert" on the case who allegedly is on the side of the angels and who is speaking on a truly rare-as-hens'-teeth American television forum -- are wholly appropriate within the context of our struggle. "Virtually" + "hard" = "cover-up." Not to mention "accessory after the fact." Charles Those who maintain that Mack is entitled to his opinions are forgetting that he is not like any other researcher. When he makes public comments like this, his position bestows on him the imprimatur of the official museum. That gives him credibility in the eyes of the public. An officially sanctioned expert and public figure has more weight (in the public mind) than a dozen diligent, yet anonomous researchers. It's like a step backwards in the battle to win the hearts and minds of the general public about the urgent need to resolve this unfinished business. And it's a plain slap in the face for the research community. An insult.

I don't know about that, Craig. You might think the UN is corrupt but how about the US Congress? As for the $800 billion, I don't know if I would endorse the costings of Lawrence Kudlow, especially if he is a former Reagan advisor. A second opinion might be in order. In any case, the money could be well spent. Extending health insurance, green energy plans, and an infrastructure bank sound like great ideas to me. The US needs to reduce oil consumption rapidly, and a co-ordinated strategy is required. If you are an opponent of profligate spending, then look at US military defence spending for fiscal year 2008: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...ding/index.html $623 billion for just one year--more than the rest of the world's military spending combined. All this and not an enemy aircraft in sight.

Thanks for posting this and thanks to Forum member Gary Younge. Very informative. The problem with the Democrat primaries is very interesting, as far as party politics is concerned. Why did Florida and Michigan insist on holding their contests in January after being warned by the party that their delegates may be disqualified? What was that about? It's a strong indication of internal party instability, imo. The GOP also has problems. Other posters have claimed there is a grassroots groundswell for Barack Obama. I think there's a real mood for change, not seen in the US in the 20 or so years I've been following US politics. If the superdelegates overrule public opinion and nominate HRC, there'll be widespread bitterness and the grassroots will desert the Democratic Party, imo. If they do that, they will effectively desert the two party system. A fair chunk of the US electorate will realise the current two party system, while providing social and political stability, is not really democratic at all. Making the necessary Constitutional changes might be a problem. A more fragmented political system is not necessarily a bad thing, imo. The current two party system in America is corrupt beyond repair. The fact that 45,000 political lobbyists live in Washington proves it, imo. In Australia, minor parties have held the balance of power in five of the last six Parliaments, and despite our problems with corporate glovepuppet leaders, we don't have the disastrous social, economic and foreign policy problems currently afflicting the US. However, I think Barack will get the nod. The 'it's time' factor is too strong. How he develops as President will be fascinating, considering the problems he faces. Maybe he'll be the JFK of his generation.

My guess is that he will be a she, and she will not be a Texan. Obama has been endorsed by numerous prominent women politicians, including two women Governors (Washington and Arizona). There may be a third woman governor that I can't recall offhand. America has never had a woman vice-president. I kinda like Chris Gregoire, governor of Washington state. http://www.governor.wa.gov/ Gregoire has never had a national profile up to now, but she would become an overnight sensation if chosen as VP and would undoubtedly galvanize women voters across party lines if McCain picks another white male as his running mate. Of course. A female running mate would be a great idea. I've never previously heard of her, but from your link Gregoire looks like an ideal choice. Nice priorities. She also has a spooky resemblance to HRC, but younger. But it could be risky for the powers that be.

I guess that you can include the 'films' history to the above statement, as well. That's what disclaimers are all about. Lucky I put one in. Zapruder sold all rights to LIFE late on Monday afternoon. As is clear from the record and all subsequent interviews with those in a position to know, LIFE never authorized any public showings of the Z film except to the Warren Commission and Jim Garrison. I read this post before you edited it. You originally said there were NO MOVIE RIGHTS. Why did you delete this? Were there movie rights? In any case, we all know the assassinations of JFK and LHO were a print and electronic media extravaganza from which the media owners made a large fortune. So it appears that no one had a Zapruder movie film to offer the public by the 26th, 27th, etc., of November 1963 because Zapruder saw to it. Also, this statement you made is incomplete, "which would somewhat undermine the anti-alterationists argument that the necessary technology did not exist in '63." A film could be altered in 1963, but to have had the technology then that could fool the forensic experts today isn't possible. Apparently you lack consensus on that.

It sounds like a defacto Corporate World Government, David. I think they could definitely influence Obama's choice of running mate. This, after all, is the key question of the thread, imo--despite all the bickering about other issues. They can extract undertakings from him through their leverage now, but when, or if, Obama becomes President, he might develop crazy notions about doing his own thing, like JFK. The running mate is their insurance, of course. Hope he's not Texan.

So to the hypothetical. What factors might have prompted the highest echelon of the conspirators to intervene, however clumsily, to suppress the first public version of the Zapruder film (Zpv1)? Three reasons in particular suggest themselves. The existence of any one of the following, given widespread public familiarity with the material, would be sufficient. A combination would be devastating and cause Z(pv1) - unless suppressed, reworked, and buttressed by, for example, public amnesia and further filmic props - to be transformed from asset to liability: 1. Error(s) or oversight(s) in the original; 2. Film or photographs which contradicted Z(pv1); 3. Authoritative (expert) testimony that did likewise. We have evidence of all three: 1. Rather’s descriptions, as offered on both CBS television and radio on Nov 25, of Connally’s posture when shot in Z(pv1) aligns him with neither a shot from the rear, nor one from the knoll; 2. Altgens #4, the most widely distributed single image of the actual shooting sequence; 3. The Parkland doctors’ press conference, which was extensively televised. Paul, I have little technical knowledge of the film side of the case, but I suggest you are close to the mark with your hypothesising. If Zpv1, as you call it, was abruptly removed from circulation and made its public reappearance in 1975, that gives the conspirators a comfortable window of about 11.5 years for 'refinements', which would somewhat undermine the anti-alterationists argument that the necessary technology did not exist in '63. And we have the intercession of the psyops king himself staring us in the face. According to Evica's 'A Certain Arrrogance', C.D. Jackson had never been known to miss a Bilderberg meeting, until his death in '64. Luce, Sarnoff, Paley and the rest of the media owners were keen to make a killing on the films until someone pointed out the inconsistencies which Zpv1 may have revealed. Who knows what it may have revealed? Loose ends can be very tricky and must be tied up immediately. Great research, btw.

Yes Mark ... its a wonderful world where lazy people sit around posting to a JFK forum how others are not jumping to their whims. I have lost track how many times I have suggested that people could contact Mack for details in the event that I have misstated something from memory. The article is what it is ... its obviously something Mack has seen or else why mention it at all. Today is Saturday and a lot of libraries are open to those who really care to use them. Mack gave you several leads, so can we look forward to you reporting back your latest efforts or should we just assume that your interest lies only in trolling this thread. Unbelievable.

Interesting link, Daniel. I agree there will be a mother of a smear campaign by the GOP if Obama wins the nomination. However, I don't agree with your conclusion. The internet has wised everyone up, and it's only taken a few years. I doubt Americans will fall for a phony smear this time. The internet (and recent history) has totally undermined the credibility of the neocon worldview. Foxnews looks like a B grade fifties sci-fi movie---but much less endearing.

I think you might be right, Jack. I seem to recall recently that Charles Drago also made reference to this possibility. Len's apparent ability to monitor and post a myriad of 'rebuttals' on a wide range of subjects with such alacrity would normally indicate a researcher of great diligence. But would such a person behave like Len does here? I doubt it.