Mark Stapleton
-
Posts
1,846 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Mark Stapleton
-
-
Mark and I have sharp ideological differences and he seems to have been particularly bothered that I challenged him to document a wild claim.
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.
-
Can anyone point to where this "Flier" may still be found? Thx.[/color][/b]
Bill Miller, perhaps?
-
Bolden's book is now showing up on Amazon for pre-order.
Presumably he'll do a publicity tour... Of course he wont be as welcome on the circuit as the likes of Bugliosi. Maybe he'll pop up on Alex Jones.
Anyway, I hope people will report on his book when they read it.
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.
-
All other aspects of the case remain open to honest differences of opinion.
But NOT the "how" of the case.
"How" was JFK killed? By criminal conspirators.
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.
-
All other aspects of the case remain open to honest differences of opinion.
But NOT the "how" of the case.
"How" was JFK killed? By criminal conspirators.
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.
-
And the whiskey and hash smoke just keeps pourin' through around here like crap through a goose. Chemtrails, Satanic hand signals, the evil that Len Colby represents.........and "Obama-the-black-Muslim-trained-in-a-madrassa-but-owned-by-Big-Money-Interests" (Jewish interests, I wonder?). So in the interests of whoever has a longer attention span than the average sparrow, I once again post a link for informational purposes regarding false information being bandied about on Senator Obama:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
Btw, my best guesstimate is that we'll have 4 years to look forward to of President McCain, the candidate with the removable spine
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.................
-
And yet you get it wrong.
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.
-
I'm sorry but you are wrong. Bigger bombs and bigger armies are the very backbone of foreign policy.
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.
-
I'm out of this thread.
Bye!
-
I'm sorry but you are wrong. Bigger bombs and bigger armies are the very backbone of foreign policy.
Only if your country is a war-mongering rogue state hellbent on global hegemony.
-
I'm glad you like them, are you willing to pay for them?
Don't you think that policy should be a concern during the primary process?
No one has access to the true cost and we won't until the policy is place.
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. -
Why is is bad? Linkage to the most corrupt body in politics..the UN for one. Losing control over where and to whom our moneys goes, and on what terms it must be used. 800 BILLION dollars...
Enough said.
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.
-
Bollocks!
lol..seems I have a habit of making people reply with what is generally considered foul language.
Mack said on national television that there was no hard evidence
of two plus shooters and I'm discussing hard evidence that there was.
You see Cliff, this is where you guys get all in a tangle. He didn't say what you have just quoted him as saying. I suggest you have another look at what he said. I'll give you a clue though in case you miss it. He said " Virtually" before the word " Hard"
Duncan
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.
-
Why is is bad? Linkage to the most corrupt body in politics..the UN for one. Losing control over where and to whom our moneys goes, and on what terms it must be used. 800 BILLION dollars...
Enough said.
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.
-
Interesting article by Gary Younge on the use of Democratic Party "super delegates".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...ton.barackobama
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.
-
The running mate is their insurance, of course.
Hope he's not Texan.
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.
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 have little technical knowledge of the film side of the case,
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 is entirely possible I suppose that Brzenski is serving with Obama on a private level -- but I doubt it somehow. Brzezinski remains on the executive committee. The TC was a David Rockefeller creation as witnessed by him being listed as the "founder".
Interesting to see that one of my old bosses, Herve "the Swerve" de Carmoy, is still a prominent Trilat.
I think what we have here are the honest establishment crooks as opposed to the dishonest Texan crooks. I suppose being tucked-up by nice people doesn't feel quite so bad as being robbed by the "crazy bunch" of heartless gunslingers...
But robbed you will be either way.
http://www.trilateral.org/memb.htm
Membership
When the Trilateral Commission was first launched, the plan was for an equal number of members from each of the three regions. The numbers soon began to grow, and ceilings were imposed about 1980. These ceilings have been raised somewhat since then as new countries came to be represented in the groups. The European group, which includes members from Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Cyprus, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, now has a ceiling of 160 members. The ceiling for the North American group is 120, including 20 Canadian members, 13 Mexican members and 87 U.S. members. In 2000, the Japanese group of 85 members expanded to become a Pacific Asian group of 96 members, and includes 57 members from Japan, 15 members from Korea, 8 from Australia and New Zealand, 16 from the original five ASEAN countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand). The new Pacific Asian group also includes participants from the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong and Taiwan.
To help preserve the Commission’s unofficial character, members who take up positions in their national administration give up Trilateral Commission membership. New members are chosen on a national basis. The procedures used for rotation off and for invitation of new members vary from national group to national group. Three chairmen (one from each region), deputy chairmen, and directors constitute the leadership of the Trilateral Commission, along with an Executive Committee including 36 other members. The current full membership list is available by e-mail or by contacting any of the regional offices.
Chairmen, Deputy Chairmen and Directors
North American Chairman: THOMAS S. FOLEY
Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Washington DC; former U.S. Ambassador to Japan; former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives
European Chairman: PETER SUTHERLAND
Chairman, BP p.l.c., London; Chairman, Goldman Sachs International; Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Migrations; former Director General, GATT/WTO, Geneva; former Member of the European Commission; former Attorney General of Ireland
Pacific Asian Chairman: YOTARO KOBAYASHI
Chief Corporate Advisor, Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd., Tokyo
North American Deputy Chairman: ALLAN E. GOTLIEB
Senior Adviser, Bennett Jones LLP, Toronto, ON; Chairman, Sotheby's, Canada; former Canadian Ambassador to the United States
North American Deputy Chairman: LORENZO ZAMBRANO
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, CEMEX, Monterrey, NL, Mexico
European Deputy Chairman: HERVE DE CARMOY
Chairman, Almatis, Frankfurt-am-Main; former Partner, Rhône Group, New York & Paris; Honorary Chairman, Banque Industrielle et Mobilière Privée, Paris; former Chief Executive, Société Générale de Belgique
European Deputy Chairman: ANDRZEJ OLECHOWSKI
Founder, Civic Platform; former Chairman, Bank Handlowy; former Minister of Foreign Affairs and of Finance, Warsaw
Pacific Asian Deputy Chairman: HAN SUNG-JOO
President, Korea University, Seoul; former Korean Minister for Foreign Affairs; former Korean Ambassador to the United States
Pacific Asian Deputy Chairman: SHIJURO OGATA
Former Deputy Governor, Japan Development Bank; former Deputy Governor for International Relations, Bank of Japan
North American Vice Chairman: JOSEPH S. NYE, JR.
Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA; former Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government; former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs
North American Director: MICHAEL J. O’NEIL
European Director: PAUL RÉVAY
Pacific Asia Director: TADASHI YAMAMOTO
Former North American Chairmen:
PAUL A. VOLCKER (1991-2001) Honorary North American Chairman
DAVID ROCKEFELLER (1977-91) Founder and Honorary North American Chairman
GERARD C. SMITH (1973-77)
Former European Chairmen:
OTTO GRAF LAMBSDORFF (1992-2001) Honorary European Chairman
GEORGES BERTHOIN (1976-92) Honorary European Chairman
MAX KOHNSTAMM (1973-76)
Former Japanese Chairmen:
KIICHI MIYAZAWA, Acting Chairman (1993-97)
AKIO MORITA (1992-93)
ISAMU YAMAxxxxA (1985-92)
TAKESHI WATANABE (1973-85)
Executive Committee
Erik Belfrage, Senior Vice President, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken; Director, Investor AB, Stockholm
C. Fred Bergsten, Director, Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington DC; former U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs
Georges Berthoin, International Honorary Chairman, European Movement; Honorary Chairman, The Jean Monnet Association; Honorary European Chairman, The Trilateral Commission
Jorge Braga de Macedo, President, Tropical Research Institute, Lisbon; Professor of Economics, Nova University at Lisbon; Chairman, Forum Portugal Global; former Minister of Finance
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Counselor, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington DC; Robert Osgood Professor of American Foreign Affairs, Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University; former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
François Bujon de l'Estang, Ambassadeur de France; Chairman, Citigroup France, Paris; former Ambassador to the United States
Richard Conroy, Chairman, Conroy Diamonds & Gold, Dublin; Member of Senate, Republic of Ireland
Vladimir Dlouhy, Senior Advisor, ABB; International Advisor, Goldman Sachs; former Czechoslovak Minister of Economy; former Czech Minister of Industry & Trade, Prague
Bill Emmott, former Editor, The Economist, London
Nemesio Fernandez-Cuesta, Executive Director of Upstream, Repsol-YPF; former Chairman, Prensa Española, Madrid
Michael Fuchs, Member of the German Bundestag; former President, National Federation of German Wholesale & Foreign Trade, Berlin
Antonio Garrigues Walker, Chairman, Garrigues Abogados y Asesores Tributarios, Madrid
Toyoo Gyohten, President, The Institute for International Monetary Affairs; Senior Advisor, The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, UFJ, Ltd., Tokyo
Stuart Harris, Professor of International Relations, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University; former Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, Canberra
Carla A. Hills, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Hills & Company, Washington, DC; former U.S. Trade Representative; former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Karen Elliott House, Writer, Princeton, NJ; Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA; former Senior Vice President, Dow Jones & Company, and Publisher, The Wall Street Journal
Mugur Isarescu, Governor, National Bank of Romania, Bucharest; former Prime Minister of Romania
Baron Daniel Janssen, Honorary Chairman, Solvay, Brussels
Béla Kadar, Member of the Hungarian Academy, Budapest; Member of the Monetary Council of the National Bank; President of the Hungarian Economic Association; former Ambassador of Hungary to the O.E.C.D., Paris; former Hungarian Minister of International Economic Relations and Member of Parliament
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, Deputy Chairman and Senior Independent Non-Executive Director of Royal Dutch Shell; Member of the House of Lords; Director of Rio Tinto, the Scottish American Investment Trust, London; former Secretary General, European Convention, Brussels; former Permanent Under-Secretary of State and Head of the Diplomatic Service, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, London; former British Ambassador to the United States
Sixten Korkman, Managing Director, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy (ETLA) and Finnish Business and Policy Forum (EVA), Helsinki
Count Otto Lambsdorff, Partner, Wessing Lawyers, Düsseldorf; Chairman, Friedrich Naumann Foundation, Berlin; former Member of German Bundestag; Honorary Chairman, Free Democratic Party; former Federal Minister of Economy; former President of the Liberal International; Honorary European Chairman, The Trilateral Commission, Paris
Lee Hong-Koo, Chairman, Seoul Forum for International Affairs; former Prime Minister of Korea; former Korean Ambassador to the United Kingdom and the United States
Marianne Lie, Director General, Norwegian Shipowners Association, Oslo
Cees Maas, Honorary Vice Chairman of the ING Group and former Chief Financial Officer, Amsterdam; former Treasurer of the Dutch Government
Roy MacLaren, former Canadian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom; former Canadian Minister of International Trade; Toronto, ON
Minoru Makihara, Senior Corporate Advisor, Mitsubishi Corporation, Tokyo
Sir Deryck C. Maughan, Managing Director and Chairman, KKR Asia, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., New York, NY; former Vice Chairman, Citigroup
Minoru Murofushi, Counselor, ITOCHU Corporation, Tokyo
Indra K. Nooyi, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, PepsiCo, Inc., Purchase, NY
Yoshio Okawara, President, Institute for International Policy Studies, Tokyo; former Japanese Ambassador to the United States
Susan Rice, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies and Global Economy and Development Programs, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC; former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs; former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs, National Security Council
Luis Rubio, President, Center of Research for Development (CIDAC), Mexico City, DF
Silvio Scaglia, Chairman, Fastweb, Milan; former Managing Director, Omnitel
Guido Schmidt-Chiari, Chairman, Supervisory Board, Constantia Group; former Chairman, Creditanstalt Bankverein, Vienna
Carlo Secchi, Professor of European Economic Policy and former Rector, Bocconi University; Vice President, ISPI, Milan; former Member of the Italian Senate and of the European Parliament
Tøger Seidenfaden, Editor-in-Chief, Politiken, Copenhagen
Petar Stoyanov, former President of the Republic of Bulgaria; Member of the Bulgarian Parliament; Chairman, Parliamentary Group of United Democratic Forces; Chairman, Union of Democratic Forces; Sofia
Harri Tiido, Undersecretary for Political Affairs, Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tallinn; former Ambassador of Estonia and Head of the Estonian Mission to NATO, Brussels
George Vassiliou, former Head of the Negotiating Team for the Accession of Cyprus to the European Union; former President of the Republic of Cyprus, former Member of Parliament and Leader of United Democrats; Nicosia
Paul Volcker, former Chairman, Wolfensohn & Co., Inc., New York; Frederick H. Schultz Professor Emeritus, International Economic Policy, Princeton University; former Chairman, Board of Governors, U.S. Federal Reserve System; Honorary North American Chairman and former North American Chairman, The Trilateral Commission
Marko Voljc, Chief Executive Officer, K & H Bank, Budapest; former General Manager of Central Europe Directorate, KBC Bank Insurance Holding, Brussels; former Chief Executive Officer, Nova Ljubljanska Banka, Ljubljana
Panagis Vourloumis, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Hellenic Tellecommunications Organization (O.T.E.), Athens
Jusuf Wanandi, Vice Chairman, Board of Trustees; Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta
Serge Weinberg, Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Accor; Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Weinberg Capital Partners; former Chairman Management Board, Pinault-Printemps-Redoute; former President, Institute of International and Strategic Studies (IRIS), Paris
Heinrich Weiss, Chairman, SMS, Düsseldorf; former Chairman, Federation of German Industries, Berlin
The full membership list is available by e-mail or by contacting any of the regional offices.
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.
-
Something very interesting was going on with the assassination films on November 25-26, 1963. What it was, and why, offers the potential to shed important light on much more than just the history of the films.
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.
-
Must be a wonderful world you live in, Miller...where you and Gary Mack can make any claims you want, without either of you having the responsibility to back any of it up. So when do those same rules start applying to the rest of humanity?
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.
-
And the whiskey and hash smoke just keeps pourin' through around here like crap through a goose. Chemtrails, Satanic hand signals, the evil that Len Colby represents.........and "Obama-the-black-Muslim-trained-in-a-madrassa-but-owned-by-Big-Money-Interests" (Jewish interests, I wonder?). So in the interests of whoever has a longer attention span than the average sparrow, I once again post a link for informational purposes regarding false information being bandied about on Senator Obama:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
Btw, my best guesstimate is that we'll have 4 years to look forward to of President McCain, the candidate with the removable spine
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.
-
Colby increasingly appears to be associated with someone who
minutely monitors messages on the internet using keywords and
phrases to instantly reply to any postings anywhere which conflict
with official stories. No normal person anywhere WORKING ALONE
can possibly monitor everything "Colby" monitors and provide
immediate highly researched rebuttals. He seems to spend every
waking hour doing this, which no normal single person would
possibly be motivated to do.
Jack
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.
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.
Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...
in The Apollo Moon Landings
Posted
You got him bang to rights, Mike. Good post.