Mark Stapleton
-
Posts
1,846 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Mark Stapleton
-
-
Mark, around 2001, I found and contacted a former student of Albert Schweitzer College. He agreed to answer a few a questions. One I put was if any other researchers had ever been in touch with him. I was curious to know who else might be digging in the same areas. Yes, came the reply -- George Michael Evica. I obtained GME's email address from the student and contacted him. After a couple of short email exchanges in which I outlined all the areas I was looking into, he asked that I cease any further research on those topics - that he was on the verge of making some big discoveries. He also offered to put me in touch with certain notable friends. If my sometimes scattergun efforts were potentially a problem for him, I was quite happy to agree to his request. Getting the facts out was all that mattered.
For two years or more I left those areas alone, but by then, a little miffed that I hadn't heard any further about being hooked up with his friends (I suspect "&*^# this" may have been what I muttered to myself), I dived back in. Then suddenly, in '04 or '05 I got an email from George Michael congratulating me on a post I'd made here - the contents of which ended up in his book. I guess he'd just plum forgot.
I relate this now, not to disparage the man (I'm sure there were good reasons why he didn't - or couldn't - keep his word), but to let you know that yes - there is - and couldn't help but be - a degree of "meshing". Glad you're reading the book - not surprisingly, I consider it a "must read" - despite not agreeing with all of its premises.
My work in this area also has had a lot of overlap with the work of Jim Olmstead - indeed, over time, has taken some of his work on board. As such, Jim has agreed to look over my time-line to see what he can add...
Greg, I've always been a bit reluctant to play the Oswald game. As GME writes: 'imagine a multi-dimensional game board of intelligence and espionage activities stretching across the Eurasion meta-continent in its developmental mode for over a century or more and being played with greater sophistication by the late 1950's'. It sounds like it's easier to become a chess grandmaster on a three dimensional game board. I'm grateful for your knowledge on this most confusing area of research. Have you considered writing a book yourself?
The first essay was tough going but the book is improving with time, like a nice red. There was a recent thread started by Don Roberdeau about a letter found in Jim Tower's records purportedly written by Oswald to the Senator requesting a return from Russia and I wondered if there might have also been some of the missing documents and letters alluded to by GME concerning the Schweitzer College, the passport application etc. Presumably Tower was friendly with Jim Wright and Sam Rayburn and they all seemed to have had written correspondence of some kind with the Oswald family.
Looking forward to the timeline.
p.s. who's going to win on Saturday?
-
why don't you stay off this thread?
I didn't know you had such a gift for satire, mister 6470.
-
This thread's farcical.
-
And am I to sit silent when supposedly intelligent people seriosly suggest that an unnamed high-level official in the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION made a deal with Norman Mailer to resolve his tax problems if he would adopt the lone nut scenario? Or that Greer shot JFK in front of a multitude of witnesses? Or that Jesuits financed the assassination?
The above amounts to a most revealing example of the trickery that we've come to expect from Segretti Light.
1. Note the wholly irrelevant upper case emphasis on the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. A Democrat! THAT Democrat!
2. Note the attack on a claim that never was made -- in this case, the manner in which Mailer was reached (see next item).
3. Note the unwillingness and/or inability to understand terms and definitions -- in particular, "administration."
4. Note the conflation of hypotheses, illustrating the most notorious, time-honored tactic of the disinformationalist.
It's all piffle, and the only moral response is to expose the perfidy for what it is.
The prime example: Segretti Light's pronouncement to Bill Kelly:
"You are wrong that the questions about the assassination are answerable; many are not."
There's the game in a nutcase ... er, nutshell.
The grand strategy of Segretti Light's masters is the perpetuation of uncertainty and confusion.
Such is his brief and that of Lamby and Purvo (Lamson, Colby, and Purvis; sounds like the Devil's law firm).
And by the way, when you read this guy's intellectually and grammatically impoverished posts, you know where the "Light" in "Segretti Light" comes from.
Charles Drago
Touche! And Tim's disinfo tactics are annoying to any who have debated him. It's a waste of time engaging anyone from that law firm on serious matters.
Although, by a twist of fate the Gratz agenda might clarify something for me, namely the issue of the Oswald defection. My knowledge of this is patchy. I will be keen to see Greg's timeline and how it meshes with Evica's 'A Certain Arrogance".
-
Thank you for these comments. Is the Iraq War an issue in the election? What do you make of Maxine McKew?
John, it's going to be a fascinating election. The Government has been behind in the polls ever since Kevin Rudd became Opposition leader and there are several ministers, including the Prime Minister, who are at risk of losing their seats.
Maxine McKew is a former journalist and presenter who worked for the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commisssion), and is running against the PM in his seat of Bennelong. The PM has held this seat since his entry into Federal politics in 1974. The demographic profile of Bennelong has changed over the years and this, combined with recent changes to the electoral boundaries of the seat, has made the seat marginal. John Howard holds the seat with a margin of just under 5%. Like many inner urban electorates, the people of Bennelong are generally upwardly mobile and wealthy. The Labor Party vote is traditionally low. While economically conservative, the electorate is progressive on social issues and this is where the PM has a problem. His treatment of refugees and their incarceration in detention centres, his indifference to David Hicks and his detainment in Guantanamo Bay and his support for the Bush Administration's intervention in Iraq are all factors alienating him from his constituency. Moreover, the PM has until very recently denied that human activity has contributed to climate change, and used this as one of the reasons for failing to ratify the Kyoto protocol. The electorate, quite correctly in my view, sees him as a meek lapdog of George Bush.
McKew is media savvy and has played a smart campaign, stitching up preference deals with Labor and the minor parties, who are all equally keen to see the PM defeated. If John Howard loses his seat, he will be the first sitting PM to lose his seat since Stanley Melbourne Bruce in 1929. Further, we could witness the bizarre spectacle of the Howard Government being returned sans the Prime Minister. I would say there's a strong chance Howard will lose his seat, although they don't call him Lazarus for nothing. I rate it 50/50.
Interestingly, the Minister for Workplace Relations, Joe Hockey, faces a similar challenge in the adjoining seat of North Sydney from another ex-ABC employee, former weather man Mike Bailey. While Bailey is not as high profile as Maxine McKew, the electorate of North Sydney has a reputation for electing independent candidates. Ted Mack, former Mayor of North Sydney, represented that electorate for many years and earned a unique place in Australian political history by refusing to accept his parliamentary superannuation upon retirement. 70/30 for Hockey.
Yet another Government Minister, Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull, faces a battle to retain his seat of Wentworth, in Sydney's affluent eastern suburbs. His Labor opponent, George Newhouse, has a prominent profile among the electorate's large Jewish constituency. However, Newhouse's former girlfriend is also running for the seat with the express intention of fragmenting the vote of her erstwhile lover. I've seen her interviewed--she's as sharp as a whip. Real soap opera material. 60/40 for Turnbull.
As for the overall election result, I slightly favor the Labor Party, although they need to make a net gain of 16 seats nationally, not easy considering there are only 150 seats in the Lower House, with some 80 or 90 of them not considered marginal. A lot will depend on the performance of individual candidates. However, there's an overriding feeling that Howard is yesterday's man. He's already committed to handing over the leadership before his term is up, which reinforces the perception. The Workplace Relations legislation stinks like a dead cat and proves his right wing Thatcherite agenda. He should have passed the baton to Peter Costello 18 months ago when he had the chance, and he could have gone out a winner. This would have given his party the appearance of regeneration after 10 years of Howard rule. Some say his personal animosity towards Costello prevented him from doing this. I think he started believing the media talk of his own invincibility and he took counsel from his wife, who apparently loves living in Kirribilli House. I think Labor will win by 6 seats. There's a possibility they may need the help of Independent candidates to form a minority Government.
I'm going to a party on Saturday night, a traditional Federal election night custom. If Howard is defeated, we will celebrate well into Sunday.
-
Bill,
This is excellent information, thanks. I do have to ask, though, how we know in what capacity Lewin was on that flight? Was he simply doing business or was there something more covert going on? Ant, if there were, which side was he on? If he was, in fact, shot, why? What happened prior to that event?
Daniel Lewin's role is a mystery until more is known of him. I doubt he was on the terrorists side, considering they murdered him before they did anything else. And I can't see a parallel with LHO, because there was no requirement for a lone nut patsy in this case.
It's interesting that the news agencies claim he was ex-Sayeret Matkal. 31 seems a very young age to move on to other things. Maybe Sayeret Matkal has a lucrative early retirement scheme
Is it possible the terrorists discovered his name on the passenger list and decided to kill him because they feared he might tell the other passengers that the plan was to fly into the WTC? (which, one might assume, would cause a mass uprising of all passengers on board and jeopardise the plan).
-
It has been reported in the European press that Dick Cheney has been threatening large corporations that action will be taken against them if they continue to do business with Iran. Apparently, he has also been telling them that if they do not go along with this economic boycott the US will be forced to take military action against Iran.
Maybe he could order Blackwater to invade Iran if the JCS won't do it.
BK
Also, if you haven't been following the Doonsbury comic strip, former Ambassador Duke, now working at his son's Public Relations office in Washington, represents Beserkastan, which Cheney's speechwriters, assigned to come up with a pretext for war with Iran, are trying to stir up a border dispute.
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
In addition:
http://fchap.obworld.com/index.cfm?d=news&...amp;newsid=3537
Will the Military Halt an Iran Attack?
US - Sometimes history -- and necessity -- make strange bedfellows. The German general staff transported Lenin to Russia to lea a revolution. Union-buster Ronald Reagan played godfather to the birth of the Polish Solidarity union. Equally strange -- but perhaps equally necessary -- is the addressee of a new appeal signed by Daniel Ellsberg, Cindy Sheehan, Ann Wright and many other leaders of the American peace movement:
"ATTENTION: Joint Chiefs of Staff and all U.S. Military Personnel: Do not attack Iran."
The initiative responds to the growing calls for an attack on Iran from the likes of Norman Podhoretz and John Bolton, and the reports of growing war momentum in Washington by reporters like Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker and Joe Klein of Time. International lawyer Scott Horton says European diplomats at the recent United Nations General Assembly gathering in New York "believe that the United States will launch an air war on Iran, and that it will occur within the next six to eight months." He puts the likelihood of conflict at 70 percent.
The initiative also responds to the recent failure of Congress to pass legislation requiring its approval before an attack on Iran and the hawk-driven resolution encouraging the President to act against the Iranian military. Marcy Winograd, president of Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles, who originally suggested the petition, told The Nation:
If we thought that our lawmakers would restrain the Bush Administration from further endangering Americans and the rest of the world, we would concentrate solely on them. If we went to Las Vegas today, would we find anyone willing to bet on this Congress restraining Bush? I don't think so.
Because our soldiers know the horrors of war -- severed limbs, blindness, brain injury -- they are loath to romanticize the battlefield or glorify expansion of the Iraq genocide that has left a million Iraqis dead and millions others exiled.
Military Resistance
What could be stranger than a group of peace activists petitioning the military to stop a war? And yet there is more logic here than meets the eye.
Asked in an online discussion September 27 whether the Bush Administration will launch a war against Iran, Washington Post intelligence reporter Dana Priest replied, "Frankly, I think the military would revolt and there would be no pilots to fly those missions."
She acknowledged that she had indulged in a bit of hyperbole, then added, "but not much."
There have been many other hints of military disaffection from plans to attack Iran -- indeed, military resistance may help explain why, despite years of rumors about Bush Administration intentions, such an attack has not yet occurred. A Pentagon consultant told Hersh more than a year ago, "There is a war about the war going on inside the building." Hersh also reported that Gen. Peter Pace had forced Bush and Cheney to remove the "nuclear option" from the plans for possible conflict with Iran -- in the Pentagon it was known as the April Revolution.
In December, according to Time correspondent Joe Klein, President Bush met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in a secure room known as The Tank. The President was told that "the U.S. could launch a devastating air attack on Iran's government and military, wiping out the Iranian air force, the command and control structure and some of the more obvious nuclear facilities." But the Joint Chiefs were "unanimously opposed to taking that course of action," both because it might not eliminate Iran's nuclear capacity and because Iran could respond devastatingly in Iraq -- and in the United States.
In an article published by Inter Press Service, historian and national security policy analyst Gareth Porter reported that Adm. William Fallon, Bush's then-nominee to head the Central Command (Centcom), sent the Defense Department a strongly worded message earlier this year opposing the plan to send a third carrier strike group into the Persian Gulf. In another Inter Press analysis, Porter quotes someone who met with Fallon saying an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch." He added, "You know what choices I have. I'm a professional. ... There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box."
Military officers in the field have frequently refuted Bush Administration claims about Iranian arms in Iraq and Afghanistan. Porter says that when a State Department official this June publicly accused Iran of giving arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan, the US commander of NATO forces there twice denied the claim.
More recently, top brass have warned that the United States is not prepared for new wars. Gen. George Casey, the Army's top commander, recently made a highly unusual personal request for a House Armed Services Committee hearing in which he warned that "we are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies." While this could surely be interpreted as a call for more troops and resources, it may simultaneously be a warning shot against adventures in Iran.
An October 8 report by Tim Shipman in the Telegraph says that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has "taken charge of the forces in the American government opposed to a US military attack on Iran." He cites Pentagon sources saying that Gates is waging "a subtle campaign to undermine the Cheney camp" and that he is "encouraging the Army's senior officers to speak frankly about the overstretch of forces, and the difficulty of fighting another war." Shipman reports Gates has "forged an alliance with Mike McConnell, the national director of intelligence, and Michael Hayden, the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, to ensure that Mr. Cheney's office is not the dominant conduit of information and planning on Iran to Mr. Bush."
Every indication is that the "war about the war" is ongoing. Hersh recently reported that the attack-Iran faction has found a new approach that it hopes will be more acceptable to the public -- and presumably to the Pentagon brass. Instead of broad bombing attacks designed to eliminate Iran's nuclear capacity and promote regime change, it calls for "surgical strikes" on Revolutionary Guard facilities; they would be justified as retaliation in the "proxy war" that General Petraeus alleges Iran is fighting "against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq." According to Hersh, the revised bombing plan is "gathering support among generals and admirals in the Pentagon." But Israeli officials are concerned that such a plan might leave Iran's nuclear capacity intact.
Appeal to Principle
The appeal for military personnel to resist an attack is primarily based on principle. It asserts that any pre-emptive US attack on Iran would be illegal under international law and a crime under US law. Such an attack would violate Article II, Section 4, of the UN Charter forbidding the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Since Iran has not attacked the United States, an attack against it without authorization by the Security Council would be a violation of international law. Under the US Constitution and the UN Charter, this is the law of the land. Under the military's own laws, armed forces have an obligation to refuse orders that violate US law and the Constitution. And under the principles established by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal after World War II, "just obeying orders" is no defense for officials who participate in war crimes.
But the petition also addresses some of the practical concerns that have clearly motivated military officers to oppose an attack on Iran. It would open US soldiers in Iraq to decimation by Iranian forces or their Iraqi allies. It would sow the seeds of hatred for generations. Like the attack on Iraq, it would create more enemies, promote terrorism and make American families less safe.
The petitioners recognize the potential risks of such action to military personnel. "If you heed our call and disobey an illegal order you could be falsely charged with crimes including treason. You could be falsely court martialed. You could be imprisoned."
But they also accept risks themselves, aware that "in violation of our First Amendment rights, we could be charged under remaining section of the unconstitutional Espionage Act or other unconstitutional statute, and that we could be fined, imprisoned, or barred from government employment."
In ordinary times, peace activists would hardly be likely to turn to the military as allies. Indeed, they would rightfully be wary of military officers acting on their own, rather than those of their civilian superiors -- in violation of the Constitution's provisions for civilian oversight of the military. But these are hardly ordinary times. While the public is highly dubious of getting into another war in the Middle East, there now appear to be virtually no institutional barriers to doing so.
Military-Civilian Alliance
Is there a basis for cooperation between the military brass and citizens who believe an attack on Iran would be criminal and/or suicidal? Perhaps. The brass can go public with the truth and ask Congress to provide a platform for explaining the real consequences of an attack on Iran. They can call for a national debate that is not manipulated by the White House. (They can also inform other players of the consequences: tell Wall Street the effects on oil and stock prices and tell European military and political leaders what it is likely to mean in terms of terrorism.) The peace movement has already forged an alliance with Iraq War veterans who oppose the war and with high military officials who oppose torture; a tacit alliance with the brass to halt an attack on Iran is a logical next step.
Such an approach puts the problem of civilian control of the military in a different light. The purpose of civilian control, after all, is not to subject the military to the dictatorial control of one man who may, at the least, express the foolishness and frailty that all flesh is heir to. The purpose is to subject the military to the control of democratic governance, which is to say of an informed public and its representatives.
What contribution can the peace movement make to this process? We can cover military officials' backs when they speak out -- no one is better placed than the peace movement to defend them against Buxxxxe charges of defying civilian control. We can help open a forum for military officers to speak out. Many retired officers have spoken out publicly on the folly of the war in Iraq. We can use our venues in universities and communities to invite them to speak out even more forcefully on the folly of an attack on Iran. We can place ads pointing out military resistance to an attack on Iran and featuring warnings of its possible consequences from past and present military officials. And we can encourage lawmakers to reach out to military officials and offer to give them cover and a forum to speak out. Says petition initiator Marcy Winograd, "I'd like to see peace activists and soldiers sit down, break bread, march together, testify together and force a powerful union to end the next war before the bloodletting begins." The peace movement leaders who appealed to the military had to break through the conventional presumption that the brass were their enemies in all situations. Such an unlikely alliance could be a starting point for a nonviolent response to the Bush Administration's pursuit of a permanent state of war.
You're white hot at the moment, Bill. Thanks for posting that piece. Very encouraging.
The odds of an attack on Iran would appear to be lengthening. A united brass and peace movement should be called the coalition of the sane, if they're not already.
-
Whoa!
Bill, you just scored a home run. It will be hard to put his role in perspective until more is known about Lewin's background. Seyeret Matkal is news to me. I wonder which assassinations they have apparently put their hand up for? But it changes the 9/11 issue for me.
I'm interested in what Pamela has to say, too.
-
This is big news in the UK. We expect the economic problems of the US to spread to the rest of the Western World next year. Today the BBC carried a report on the economic plight of Michigan. Apparently, one in ten of the adult population in the state are applying for free food. As a European, this figure is mind-blowing.
Recently posted at the website of my local NBC affiliate:
(KSDK) - Local scouts are making it easy for you to help those in need. Saturday, Cub Scouts around the St. Louis region went door to door delivering bags for their annual Scouting for Food Drive.
The food drive is the largest single-day food drive in the country, and got its start here in St. Louis.
The canned foods that will be collected by the Cub Scouts will be divided among area food pantries. The faces of people who rely on food pantries have changed over the last 10 years.
The Circle of Concern food pantry in Valley Park is now open on Saturdays to accomodate people who have to work Monday through Friday. Three-fourths of the recipients are what's called, "Working poor."
In 2005, the pantry saw its first recipient with a PhD. The pantry's executive director believes the problem of the working poor will continue to get worse.
"There's been a change in the economy as we've lost manufacturing jobs and we're switching to the service economy," Glenn Koenen said. The service economy creates a lot of more lower paying jobs than it does jobs that provide for a family."
Every month, 350,000 people in the St. Louis area rely on food pantries. That's enough people to fill Busch Stadium twice, the Edward Jones Dome twice, and the Scott Trade Center.
--Rebecca Wu, KSDK
***
Disturbing, isn't it? I think the middle class is disappearing.
Very disturbing, Courtney.
Some economists have been warning that one of the consequences of globalisation will be that the living standards of the emerging economies will rise, and this will be matched by a commensurate drop in the living standards of Western countries.
However, things are fine for those in the military expenditure sector. One trillion dollars is the global estimate for 2008. The US accounts for nearly half of global military expenditure:
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Ar...ilitarySpending
The burning question for Tim and his ilk---can America still afford the price of a sound night's sleep?
For just a few more disturbing statistics look here http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...meless+veterans
America's economy is well on its way into total collapse except for the top 1% who have been behind the robbery and treachery, long ago planned and now being executed. The sums spent by the current admonsteration on war and not spent on the public good - though never high - are just mind boggling. All middle class people I know in the USA are now struggling. In the 50s a normal middle-class family could live well off of one salary; now they struggle with both parents working overtime and as noted above 40,000,000 don't even have enough money for all the food they need or healthy food. Not to mention [many statistics I didn't mention above] there are now 50,000 home loan defaults each month [that many people loose their homes - and will NEVER EVER have another....it is all downhill now, like the end of Ancient Rome. That some still stand on the deck of the self-torpedoed Titanic and shout 'hurray' is the saddest and most insane manifestation of this self-delusion over the mythology and American Religion. [not here talking about reglion in America, but the 'religious belief that god has chosen America that so many believe - and that by definition is can do no wrong and is being guided by god to better and better things.]
Yes, it appears that from a global perspective, the US is going down. Whether their superior weaponry will help save them is problematical, but with the current Administration in Washington, the only predictable thing is their unpredictability (and their psychopathic condition).
It's interesting that Tim dances around the issue, namely, what does he think of profligate military spending at a time when the US middle class is stretched to breaking point? I wonder if Tim will give this the consideration he gives his many daily posts? If not, one must conclude he cares little about those people.
-
This is big news in the UK. We expect the economic problems of the US to spread to the rest of the Western World next year. Today the BBC carried a report on the economic plight of Michigan. Apparently, one in ten of the adult population in the state are applying for free food. As a European, this figure is mind-blowing.
Recently posted at the website of my local NBC affiliate:
(KSDK) - Local scouts are making it easy for you to help those in need. Saturday, Cub Scouts around the St. Louis region went door to door delivering bags for their annual Scouting for Food Drive.
The food drive is the largest single-day food drive in the country, and got its start here in St. Louis.
The canned foods that will be collected by the Cub Scouts will be divided among area food pantries. The faces of people who rely on food pantries have changed over the last 10 years.
The Circle of Concern food pantry in Valley Park is now open on Saturdays to accomodate people who have to work Monday through Friday. Three-fourths of the recipients are what's called, "Working poor."
In 2005, the pantry saw its first recipient with a PhD. The pantry's executive director believes the problem of the working poor will continue to get worse.
"There's been a change in the economy as we've lost manufacturing jobs and we're switching to the service economy," Glenn Koenen said. The service economy creates a lot of more lower paying jobs than it does jobs that provide for a family."
Every month, 350,000 people in the St. Louis area rely on food pantries. That's enough people to fill Busch Stadium twice, the Edward Jones Dome twice, and the Scott Trade Center.
--Rebecca Wu, KSDK
***
Disturbing, isn't it? I think the middle class is disappearing.
Very disturbing, Courtney.
Some economists have been warning that one of the consequences of globalisation will be that the living standards of the emerging economies will rise, and this will be matched by a commensurate drop in the living standards of Western countries.
However, things are fine for those in the military expenditure sector. One trillion dollars is the global estimate for 2008. The US accounts for nearly half of global military expenditure:
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Ar...ilitarySpending
The burning question for Tim and his ilk---can America still afford the price of a sound night's sleep?
For just a few more disturbing statistics look here http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...meless+veterans
America's economy is well on its way into total collapse except for the top 1% who have been behind the robbery and treachery, long ago planned and now being executed. The sums spent by the current admonsteration on war and not spent on the public good - though never high - are just mind boggling. All middle class people I know in the USA are now struggling. In the 50s a normal middle-class family could live well off of one salary; now they struggle with both parents working overtime and as noted above 40,000,000 don't even have enough money for all the food they need or healthy food. Not to mention [many statistics I didn't mention above] there are now 50,000 home loan defaults each month [that many people loose their homes - and will NEVER EVER have another....it is all downhill now, like the end of Ancient Rome. That some still stand on the deck of the self-torpedoed Titanic and shout 'hurray' is the saddest and most insane manifestation of this self-delusion over the mythology and American Religion. [not here talking about reglion in America, but the 'religious belief that god has chosen America that so many believe - and that by definition is can do no wrong and is being guided by god to better and better things.]
Yes, it appears that from a global perspective, the US is going down. Whether their superior weaponry will help save them is problematical, but with the current Administration in Washington, the only predictable thing is their unpredictability (and their psycopathic condition).
It's interesting that Tim dances around the issue, namely, what does he think of profligate military spending at a time when the US middle class is stretched to breaking point? I wonder if Tim will give this the consideration he gives his many daily posts? If not, one must conclude he cares little about those people.
-
This is big news in the UK. We expect the economic problems of the US to spread to the rest of the Western World next year. Today the BBC carried a report on the economic plight of Michigan. Apparently, one in ten of the adult population in the state are applying for free food. As a European, this figure is mind-blowing.
Recently posted at the website of my local NBC affiliate:
(KSDK) - Local scouts are making it easy for you to help those in need. Saturday, Cub Scouts around the St. Louis region went door to door delivering bags for their annual Scouting for Food Drive.
The food drive is the largest single-day food drive in the country, and got its start here in St. Louis.
The canned foods that will be collected by the Cub Scouts will be divided among area food pantries. The faces of people who rely on food pantries have changed over the last 10 years.
The Circle of Concern food pantry in Valley Park is now open on Saturdays to accomodate people who have to work Monday through Friday. Three-fourths of the recipients are what's called, "Working poor."
In 2005, the pantry saw its first recipient with a PhD. The pantry's executive director believes the problem of the working poor will continue to get worse.
"There's been a change in the economy as we've lost manufacturing jobs and we're switching to the service economy," Glenn Koenen said. The service economy creates a lot of more lower paying jobs than it does jobs that provide for a family."
Every month, 350,000 people in the St. Louis area rely on food pantries. That's enough people to fill Busch Stadium twice, the Edward Jones Dome twice, and the Scott Trade Center.
--Rebecca Wu, KSDK
***
Disturbing, isn't it? I think the middle class is disappearing.
Very disturbing, Courtney.
Some economists have been warning that one of the consequences of globalisation will be that the living standards of the emerging economies will rise, and this will be matched by a commensurate drop in the living standards of Western countries.
However, things are fine for those in the military expenditure sector. One trillion dollars is the global estimate for 2008. The US accounts for nearly half of global military expenditure:
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Ar...ilitarySpending
The burning question for Tim and his ilk---can America still afford the price of a sound night's sleep?
-
Or, in the famous words of JFK himself:
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that
we shall pay any price,
bear any burden,
meet any hardship,
support any friend,
and oppose any foe
to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
"What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek?
Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war....."
JFK speech on nuclear testing, Washington DC, June 10,1963.
-
Which prompted a frustrated Howie Long to opine, "Coach Shula should give all this filming and cheating nonsense a rest. After all, we're not talking about the Magruder Film here."
Charles
Not bad, Charles. The best quote I've heard from a gridiron player was the one made back in the seventies, just prior to the introduction of astroturf:
Reporter: How do you think you will perform on astroturf?
Player: Dunno. I ain't never smoked astroturf.
Ah, the seventies. You had to be there.
-
My Two Good Friends,
You're both missing the single, critical point here.
Once the firing started, the conspirators had to ensure that the job was done.
If JFK survived the attempt -- even in a gravely diminished state -- the conspirators were doomed.
Period.
Every angle had to be covered. Absent the best possible conditions on the ground, the "GO" order would not be forthcoming.
But once it was given, even under optimal conditions and after clearly visible, likely fatal hits, the deed could not be considered done.
Parkland had to be covered.
As far as the conspirators were concerned, the most critical period during the hit and its immediate aftermath would be the time between the infliction of initial wounds and the medically certified death of the target.
The danger was great. Great risk was warranted.
JFK's posterior head wound of exit was missed even by some of the attending physicians until the president's body was manipulated into a position that made the massive defect visible.
How would a killer assigned the task of administering the coup d'grace assess JFK's condition immediately upon arrival at Parkland?
Why should we assume that he or she had an option?
The die had been cast. JFK had to die. And unless his head was in a bowling ball bag on the floor next to the gurney, the conspirators had no choice but to inflict one final wound.
Nothing else makes sense.
Nothing.
I have no doubt that JFK was struck by at least one round fired from the front of his limo. There is nothing inconsistent with holding this position and accepting the probability of a Parkland insurance policy.
Nothing.
Charles
Charles,
I agree and still believe a Parkland insurance policy was a logical precaution for the plotters to take. The argument stands independent of the front throat shot discussion. Whether this contingency was used is not clear. It's a persuasive argument but the precondition submitted by Ashton that there was no frontal throat shot appears to be wrong.
-
Humor lost on you David?
Humor for neanderthal knuckledraggers.
-
Cliff,
I must say that after reading all your posts thouroughly and looking at the Z-film evidence, especially the Gil Jesus Youtube series 'Was JFK trying to cough up a bullet' (slomos of Z225-Z237), it's difficult to dispute the claim that JFK was hit by a frontal throat shot. It appears Ashton's claim that no shot struck JFK in the throat is wrong. Perhaps Ashton might submit further evidence in support of the claim.
A tranquiliser immobilising JFK for the triangulated round of fire which followed, and the conspirators being aware that JFK's back brace would help in keeping him upright, permiitted the shooters to administer the coup-de-gras right there in DP. This appears to be the most likely scenario.
For the record.
-
The connection between the outing of Maxwell as Mossad and his sudden death I can't fathom
. Looks like another dreaded coincidence or he was murdered.Ben-Menashe seems like he's telling the truth. I think he's right about Vannunu. I've only seen Vannunu once, a couple of years ago, on TV and he seemed hyperactive and a bit crazy. Of course, Vannunu had been in the jug for a long time.
-
Mark, Ben-Menashe is now living in Canada, I believe. The English newspaper Baron Robert Maxwell, died shortly after Ben-Menache publicly stated that he [Maxwell] was working for Mossad.
Maxwell was almost certainly working for SIS, Mossad and the CIA -- at one time or another.
David
Thanks for that, David.
If he joined the Forum he might start threads which could be quite interesting. But no, I don't think it's likely.
-
I'm very sorry to hear about the passing of your friend, Charles. Ironically, I'm currently halfway through reading A Certain Arrogance.
Condolences to Professor Evica's family.
-
Len has made reference to two separate issues -- Israeli intelligence prior to 9/11 and Israeli intelligence prior to the Yom Kippur War.
Israel's near-defeat at the hands of the Arabs in the Yom Kippur war was not a failure of intelligence. Israel had been on guard for months prior to the attack. Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan had been given intelligence about the Arabs preparing for attack. However, they didn't weigh it properly. Israel was comfortable with its new land, and believed in their destiny. They fell prey to hubris. The information given to them was not handled properly. This is discussed in the Agranat Commission report:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agranat_Commission
In the 80's, Israel became involved in a highly sophisticated plot involving Inslaw and its amazing software, called Promis. Here is a link to information about it:
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/bugs.html
If Mossad was capable of this level of deception in the 80's, what level of information could we anticipate their having prior to 9/11?
I would go so far as to suggest they must have known, Pamela.
Interesting link to Profits of War. Do you know if Ben-Menashe is still around?
p.s. Maxwell's links to Shamir in the early 60's are interesting. I wonder if the book expands on this. Shamir is high on MCP's list for JFK.
-
Cliff: The sick joke is this thread.
Mark: I don't agree, Cliff.
It's one of the best threads, imo. Worst case scenario is that Ashton
may be wrong but it's a plausible and well-presented case. Why wouldn't
the planners have an operative planted in Parkland?
Cliff:
Because they had the technology to paralyze him, which is exactly what
we see happening to JFK in the limo.
I don't agree that it's a plausible case. It is yet another example of gratuitous
witness-bashing, the amount of which that goes on in this case is repugnant, imo.
Mark in blue...
mo, that's the kind of sentiment which impedes progress towardclosure in this case.
And, in my opinion, it is just this kind of witness-bashing that impedes
progress toward closure in this case.
I would call it exploring a plausible line of enquiry. We have to agree to disagree here.
I'm of the view the first day witness testimony, the Dealey Plaza photos,
and the contemporaneous documentation PRIOR to the introduction of
CE399 tells us the how, which in turn tells us the who, which in turn tells
us the why.
Any speculation not based on the first day evidence is a waste of time, imo.
And yes -- Occam's Razor applies to this case.
All the talk about tarnishing reputations presupposes that the normal rules of society apply. In this case they don't. There was no genuine investigation, no satisfactory explanation of what happened, hence almost anyone is suspect. It's regrettable if fate has dealt the players in this drama such a hand but the blame rests with the USG, not those keen to learn the truth.On 11/22/63 there most certainly was a genuine investigation,
albeit short-lived, which commenced at Bethesda, when Humes, Boswell
and Finck huddled up after the autopsy, in the presence of Sibert
and O'Neill of the FBI.
They couldn't figure out why there was no bullet and no lane of exit for
the back wound.
A very plausible explanation to the men who examined the body
was that the president had been struck with a blood soluble round.
In a direct, genuine investigative action Sibert called the FBI to enquire
as the the existence of rounds that dissolved in the body.
Sibert's enquiry was deflected by news of CE399.
From the moment that the Magic Bullet was presented to the autopsists,
everything Humes, Boswell, and Finck wrote or said was skewed
by the political decision made in DC to blame the crime on a single
gunman.
Prior to that moment, what they had to say about blood soluble rounds was
corroborated by the Dealey Plaza photo evidence and the neck x-ray.
Answer Kathy's question, please.If JFK wasn't reacting to a shot to his throat -- what was he doing with his hands
up around his throat?
It looks that way. Or maybe it was meant to look that way.
Maybe it was meant to look that way?
Okay, so the Zapruder film was faked entirely, same with the Altgens
photo, and any witnesses who described JFK bringing his hands up are
possible perp-accomplices?
I tell you what, since this is such a good line of inquiry, let's track down
all the Dealey Plaza witnesses who described JFK in a manner consistent
with the photo evidence. Let's see if we can find something in their back
ground that might suggest intelligence connections, hm?
Disgusting. Morally repugnant.
Sez you. I don't see it that way.
A front shot seems the most likely explanation to me too. Since we don't know for sure,Sez you.
The DP films and photos show him responding to a trauma in his neck region.
His wife testified that he had a quizzical look on his face. Kellerman testified
that Jackie said -- "What are they doing to you?" or words to that effect.
The Zapruder film shows JFK bringing his hands toward his throat for a
couple of seconds and then acts paralyzed.
At the hospital two contemporaneous written reports refer to a small
wound of entrance in the throat. A half-dozen Parkland witnesses
specifically describe the wound as one of entrance.
According to the neck x-ray there was a bruising of the tip of the lung
consistent with this frontal shot, as well as a minute fracture of the tip
of the T1 transverse process and most importantly a layer of
air overlapping C7 and T1.
According to the autopsists prior to the corruption of their analysis
by CE399 blood soluble rounds seemed like a plausible explanation.
William Colby and Charles Senseney testified to the Church Committee
that blood soluble rounds were developed for the CIA and tested on
humans which would render the target paralyzed within a few seconds
and not show up on x-ray.
Me, I'm not a Co-Incidence Theorist. No.
what's the harm in exploring every possibilty?What's the harm in gratuitously attacking the credibility of anyone
who witnessed the crime?
Such an approach guarantees the crime could NEVER be solved.
No matter how well trained the assassins were, there was no guarantee a kill shot would be made. It would have been foolish for JFK's killers to assume as such. Shooters get nervous. Greer might have unwittingly moved the target. Anything could have gone wrong. If JFK's gets a non-fatal hit, where's his next stop?That's why they paralyzed him first.
They had the technology, and the evidence is consistent with its use.
I'm not disputing the probability of your scenario, Cliff. They had the technology. They (may have) paralysed him. But you didn't really address my conundrum, ie. what if something went wrong with the plan? What if they couldn't get in a clean headshot and he wasn't fatally wounded? What then? In my view, it makes sense for the planners to have a presence at Parkland, because that's where JFK was going.
-
Ok I’m a bit dyslexic but you should have been able to figure out that by “I’m not saying there is know way the Mossad could have known but rather contesting your claim they “must” have known.” I meant “I’m not saying there is NO way the Mossad could have known”. In that case what part of that did you fail to understand
I don't know what you're talking about. I fully understood the meaning of your post and didn't mention your spelling error at all.
As for the rest of your post, forget about it. It's yet another invitation to embark on a tiresome journey of nit-picking semantics---your favored style of debate. It's boring, and we've done it all before on other threads anyway.
Try someone else.
-
The sick joke is this thread.
I don't agree, Cliff.
It's one of the best threads, imo. Worst case scenario is that Ashton may be wrong but it's a plausible and well-presented case. Why wouldn't the planners have an operative planted in Parkland?
Beats me.
Because they had the technology to paralyze him, which is exactly what
we see happening to JFK in the limo.
I don't agree that it's a plausible case. It is yet another example of gratuitous
witness-bashing, the amount of which that goes on in this case is repugnant, imo.
imo, that's the kind of sentiment which impedes progress toward closure in this case. All the talk about tarnishing reputations presupposes that the normal rules of society apply. In this case they don't. There was no genuine investigation, no satisfactory explanation of what happened, hence almost anyone is suspect. It's regrettable if fate has dealt the players in this drama such a hand but the blame rests with the USG, not those keen to learn the truth.
Answer Kathy's question, please.
If JFK wasn't reacting to a shot to his throat -- what was he doing with his hands
up around his throat?
It looks that way. Or maybe it was meant to look that way. A front shot seems the most likely explanation to me too. Since we don't know for sure, what's the harm in exploring every possibilty? No matter how well trained the assassins were, there was no guarantee a kill shot would be made. It would have been foolish for JFK's killers to assume as such. Shooters get nervous. Greer might have unwittingly moved the target. Anything could have gone wrong. If JFK's gets a non-fatal hit, where's his next stop?
-
1. Someone, who has quite obviously not taken that much time and effort in examination of the medical condition of JFK ...
To Purvis, the Moderators, and all Readers of the Forum:
Until and unless the author of the comment quoted above -- Thomas Purvis -- is prepared to document his claim that George Michael Evica, whose work is the subject of this thread, "has not taken that much time and effort" in examining JFK's medical condition, then I have no choice but to post a warning to all stakeholders in this Forum that Purvis is either a fool or worse.
The "worse" would be an agent of the forces who killed JFK.
Purvis has not the slightest factual basis whatsoever on which to build his slander of a researcher whose contributions to the searches for truth and justice for JFK are as unsurpassed in terms of their importance as they are universally recognized and honored.
Purvis is the worst kind of provocateur: one who will slash and burn without concern for the truth. He is devoid of personal honor. He is, in a word, the enemy.
But prove me wrong, Purvis, and I'll publicly apologize to you and the entire Forum. Cite chapter and verse on the breadth and depth of Evica's research on the medical evidence. Show us that you have read and understood the book length studies And We are All Mortal and A Certain Arrogance, that you have read and understood the 40-plus JFK-related papers published by Evica over his professional lifetime, that you have demonstrated even a pitiful approximation of Evica's grasp of detail and power to reason.
Show us, Purvis. And I'll apologize.
But you can't, can you?
You are the laughing stock of this Forum, Purvis.
And I reserve my heartiest laughter for when I think about how, late at night, the demons come to reward you for your perfidy.
Charles Drago
I agree, Charles. Tom Purvis regularly hands out haughty insults to those who hold a different view. He gets a good run from the mods.
Tom's posts are confusing. Tom thinks LHO killed JFK (correct me if I am wrong) and the WC was a coverup. That doesn't make sense. Tom also floods threads with irrelevant material.
Tom's a xxxxx.
. Looks like another dreaded coincidence or he was murdered.
Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...
in The Apollo Moon Landings
Posted
Predictably, you have your nose out of joint whenever Israel or Mossad are considered with suspicion. Of course, you are not as strident in defence of other agencies.
I know zip about Lewin and little more after reading your post. Can you find where I have claimed Lewin was anything but a mystery? Lose the attitude.
Lewin may well have been a mild mannered millionaire going about his regular routine but my suspicion is tweaked when it is reliably reported that the hijackers considerd his summary execution to be their first order of business.
Maybe the terrorists just hated those technology millionaire types.
