Mark Stapleton

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.

I thought the official explanation was that it was an involuntary reflexive reaction to the back shot. (but I have no faith in official explanations). If only the Stemmons Freeway sign had been transparent.

In your pursuit of Pamela, you make it sound like Mossad foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks is as remote a possibility as me scoring a hat trick of goals in a World Cup final---'distant country', 'far from Israel' etc etc. However, the link you yourself provided in post #7 stated: "There have been suggestions that some of the Israeli spies lived close to some of the 9/11 hijackers. For instance, a US Drug Enforcement Administration report from before 9/11 noted that Israeli spies were living in the retirement community of Hollywood, Florida at 4220 Sheridan Street, which turned out to be only a few hundred feet from from lead hijacker Mohamed Atta's residence at 3889 Sheridan Street (see DEA report 6/01). Israeli spies appear to have been close to at least ten of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers (Salon 5/7/02). In fact, FORWARD, the most widely circulated publication in the US targeting the Jewish audience has admitted that the spy ring existed, and that its purpose was to track Muslim terrorists operating in the US (FORWARD 3/15/02)" Not really as difficult for Mossad as your 'distant country', 'far from Israel' rhetoric would suggest, Len. As for the statement that Mossad 'must have known', well that's a value judgement isn't it. I would tend to agree with it, given the evidence cited here and elsewhere. Mossad must have known, imo.

Perish the thought.

Thanks for your comments, Peter. You are certainly across these important issues, which I appreciate, although I don't have the time to respond to all of your threads. Cluster munitions have been used extensively in Iraq. I didn't know about this. There'll be a generation of limbless Iraqis. Where's the media? http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/05/5015/

The Christians United For Israel are just a pack of religious extremists. Their version of protecting Israel (and perhaps yours, Tim) is Zionist control of the entire ME, by force if necessary. And their obsession with biblical prophesies overrides any so-called Christian ethics when it comes to the fate of the Palestinians. The tragedy of Palestine is outlined in this thread from the PC section (where this should be): http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11497

I heard part of the meeting and one person was saying the fact, well known in the State Dept., but not to most Americans - when he said, "There are daily rocket attacks INSIDE THE GREEN ZONE!" We'll be pushed out or bombed out in a few years...but there will be little left of Iraq by that time....the real crime, by the real genocidal criminals in the Black House, formerly the White House. 50 years! In 5 years there won't even be scorpions still alive there....just dust....much of it depleted ur nium - a 'love note' from the American liberators. I think the only handfull of Iraqis who still see the Americans as liberators are trapped in the Green Zone too... They'd be killed immediately by other Iraqis, of all groupings, if they were to v nture outside. The game will be 'up' not when the State Dept. people revolt...(but than means the next is coming soon), but when our troops start to shoot their officers, as in Vietnam! That was what got us out of Vietnam, along with the Veterans Against the War so ctive in the demonstrations. Having professional [read poverty draft] military w ll delay this only, not stop it. Let's see if the neocons grab the weapons and go fight all by themselves...... Yes, it's all starting to fall to pieces now. Like you I only saw parts of it and I was surprised when the officer mentioned daily incoming fire in the green zone. It was news to me. The US Government seems completely detached. Public opinion has swung strongly anti-war, yet the USG heads in the opposite direction, threatening to expand the conflict into Iran. It's a Government out of control. If an African nation behaved like that, the US would spearhead intervention. The Congress is useless--it's a fully compromised rubber stamp. The system of elected representatives is so prone to financial corruption that unless some anti-corruption mechanism is discovered, its days are numbered, imo. 51% is all that is required before full control is exercised. Now there's problems in Pakistan destabilising the region. It looks like a revolt in the ranks of the US military might be the only thing that will stop Bush from triggering World War Three.

Since you're so keen, I trust you'll be signing up for the Army reserves to make your contribution. Or are you too scared? I see your memory has failed you again...this has been discussed. Shame on you. I'm disappointed that you would let an injury stop you from performing your patriotic duty. They don't make armchair warriors like they used to. OK, if you can't be in the military how about the diplomatic corps? Had any experience? Doesn't matter, I think they're going to relax that requirement. Have a look at this: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11479

The US State Department's recent decision to force foreign service officers to take posts in Iraq has caused a storm in Washington. One officer said this at a recent meeting in the State Department auditorium, "I'm sorry, but basically that's a potential death sentence and you know it. Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously injured". http://govexec.com/dailyfed/1007/103107ap5.htm I saw General John Elizade say on a news report last night that America might need to be in Iraq for fifty years. He chose the wrong career. Standup comedy is his real vocation.

Since you're so keen, I trust you'll be signing up for the Army reserves to make your contribution. Or are you too scared?

Excellent article from Ray McGovern. Thanks for posting this, Douglas. So there we have it. From the lips of the Israeli Ambassador himself. Israel needs America to attack Iran......for Israel. As for the possibility/probability of thousands of innocent Iranian civilians being killed, America being considered as a nation of warmongering savages, skyrocketing oil prices and subsequent economic chaos etc etc. Hey, that's not Israel's problem.

Israel is in a different position than the US (or used to be) and their objectives are more intense as a result. They are surrounded by Arab countries threatening their destruction. In addition, they are far more sophisticated in intelligence than we are. Our FBI passed over a chance to search Moussaoui's laptop. Do you think Mossad would have been that careless? Look at the raids on Entebbe and those on the perpetrators of the Munich massacre. Quite brilliant. Mossad has its ears to the ground in the Middle East and in Europe. It is my thinking that they had more information than anyone else and probably a better understanding of the possible consequences. You reference the Yom Kippur War. Israeli intelligence was definitely lacking and/or compromised at that time. I believe they improved significantly after that debacle. Another thing about Mossad is that they don't make the same mistake twice. In other words it’s just a hunch and you have no evidence. Don’t forget that it was an attack against the US by a group based in Afghanistan that had never attacked Israeli targets (though they seemed to have funded a few) by a cell based in the US and before that Germany none of whose members were associated with Palestinian groups. "Our FBI passed over a chance to search Moussaoui's laptop. Do you think Mossad would have been that careless?" That had something to due with a pesky little document called the Constitution, even now probable cause is required for a search warrant and they didn’t have any at the he was being held on immigration charges. "Look at the raid on Entebbe" That was an IDF operation. The Entebbe hijacking was just one of many terrorist attacks by anti-Israeli groups against Israeli targets that the Mossad and other Israeli intelligence agencies failed to detect or prevent. Many of those attacks were planned and organized in the occupied territories by people already known to the Israelis. So why would you expect them to have known about 9/11 (see above)? Since when did it become a requirement of this forum that evidence to your satisfaction must be provided for every opinion expressed? Pamela made the perfectly reasonable assertion that for Israel, because of its unique geopolitical circumstances, an intelligence network of the highest order is necessary to guarantee its ongoing survival and prosperity. A perfectly reasonable assertion. The Mossad is regarded as one of the shrewdest intelligence agencies in the world. I've read it in dozens of articles and don't ask me to cite any. Do your own research. Whether by design or not, 9/11 has ultimately served Israeli regional interests well. Others on this thread have expressed agreement to this. It's a fact. Accept it.

Indeed. One of the alluring things about this thread is that it invites the reader to think like a conspirator rather than an outsider trying to solve the unsolvable. I've always believed the master plan was to get both assassin and assassinated on a slab ASAP. The way LHO was killed might have been a hastily contrived backup plan, but they were going to gun him down whether it was at the Texas Theatre, in custody or while he was on the run on the streets of Dallas. Having a person on standby at Parkland to deliver the coup de gras in both cases would be a necessary precaution when one considers the enormous stakes involved here. Members should recognise the distinct possibilty that there was something rotten in Parkland, even though it may take time for the picture to become clearer. Re Burkley, I remain a little skeptical of his witting complicity. At this point, I'm more inclined to agree with the idea that he recognised early on that something was amiss, and concluded that forces far more powerful than himself were involved. Silence, at least publicly, was the most prudent course to follow in the interests of himself and his family.

********************* Mark:..... Here are some photos for you.... Also Dr.Burkley arrived five minutes after the President ..in his own words....and no he never mentions a frontal or neck wound... It had to disappear....from what I have read...it had to be a particle from the rear, not a frontal shot... that would have meant a conspiracy......of course.......He wrote this up on the 23rd.... B..... Bernice, Thanks for those photos. Too much blood, of course. I thought an absence of staining around the necktie and collar area may have lent efficacy to the premise that any wound sustained by JFK a la Ashton's theory may have been sustained after removal of his clothes. The nick in the tie and the slits in the shirt are interesting.

Here we go again.

Manchester writes (p.267) "The throat wound--which was then assumed to be an entry wound, because there was no time to turn him over--was small, and it exuded blood but slowly." So, in order to narrow down the time at which the throat wound was sustained (assuming Ashton is right about the piercing needle/dart), then it is necessary to determine whether the shirt collar and tie were bloodstained (stains on other parts of JFK's shirt notwithstanding). I point out here that I don't know, but I would assume/hope Ashton, Pat or other experts would know. In the absence of bloodstains on the relevant parts of the collar and tie, it could be reasonably assumed that the throat wound was sustained after JFK's clothes had been removed-- "it exuded blood but slowly". Looking again at the photo of JFK which Ashton provided in post #100 and in particular its location vis-a-vis the collar and tie (despite the fact that it shows the wound after Dr. Perry's incisions), it seems most likely to me that blood from the wound would have stained those items of clothing.

Peter, It's incredible that noncompliance with IAEA guidelines is being cited by the US and its proxies as the main reason for military intervention in Iran yet when the head of that organisation states publicly that there is no evidence to indicate Iran is building nukes, America and its cheer squad tell him to mind his own business! It's all quite surreal. Like you say, it's all coming soon. In the event of an attack on Iran, I predict the US bases in Iraq will be the first target of an Iranian counter. When reports start to indicate that America is making extra efforts to reinforce these bases, that will be the signal that it's 'game on', imo.

Just one quick thing. The Apache Longbow is not a missle but rather a helicopter. I'm sure it was just a typo. Carry on. Right you are, Matthew. My mistake. I'll file it under 'B' for boofheaded blunder. An amazing piece of attacking weaponry is the Longbow. Capable of firing Hellfire, Stinger and Sidewinder missiles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AH-64_Apache

Not exactly, Tim. Some of Ruby's calls had connections to Mickey Cohen and Meyer Lansky. One of Larry Hancock's timelines in his excellent book 'Someone Would Have Talked' (2nd ed., 2006) (pp381-383) has Ruby calling Al Gruber in LA on November 17. Interestingly, Gruber had suddenly lobbed on Ruby's doorstep earlier that month after no contact in the previous 10 years. Further, Ruby had appeared at the offices of the Merchants State Bank on the afternoon of November 22 with $7,000 in large bills in his possession. Ruby also made a three minute call to Gruber that same day. Apart from his sister in Chicago, it was the only long distance call he made that day.

Len, Why it's your old sparring partner, Sid Walker. (if you're reading this, sorry about the 'old' Sid) 9/11 is not an issue I have delved too deeply into but I had a quick read of that rather long article. If Mossad had penetrated the extremist Arab network AND they failed to publicly warn of the impending attacks and attempt to prevent them, doesn't that make them an accessory to mass murder? While the evidence presented in the article may be hotly disputed, there's one thing that seems clear to me---the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent frenzy of anti-Muslem sentiment has served Israeli regional interests well. The Iraqi regime is gone and the Iranian regime may be next.

That's my take on it too, Jack. Ashton is onto something, but witnesses can always be pressured into testifying the way others want to see it--and this case is full of that. When a fallacy or a deliberately contrived sequence of events is entered into the official record, the truth of the matter becomes much harder to ascertain. I'm having trouble believing Admiral Burkley could be genuinely implicated in the coverup, but he, among many others, may have been suborned.

Please see following post.

Charles, Craig's repeated attempts at baiting me by brandishing a childish manifestation of the anti-semite card (after I asked him to desist) remind me of a recent debate on US TV between John Mearsheimer and Abe Foxman, the subject of which was the recent release of the Mearsheimer/Walt book. While Mearsheimer tried to argue, quite reasonably, that AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobby groups have had a significant influence on US foreign policy for many years (a fact which is perfectly clear from an objective analysis of the facts), he was constantly accused of anti-semitic motives by Mr. Foxman, who appeared so agitated that he seemed almost incoherent. Fortunately, Mearsheimer kept his dignity and his cool, while Mr. Foxman lost his head and the debate. I thought Craig's silly assertion that Iran was the regional superpower would be his biggest gaffe but he has topped it with the incredibly stupid assertion that Iran could launch a nuclear attack on Israel or the US and escape retaliation. It's pointless debating a person who claims black is white. I'm thankful for your posts during this 'debate'. It's nice to engage in discussion with an adult. p.s. 'A Certain Arrogance' has arrived at last. I shall devour it without delay.

For heaven's sake, Craig, you don't have the vaguest idea what you're talking about. Israel is the most powerful nation in the Middle East, not Iran. The Wikipedia page on Israel's air force states that the Israeli Air Force "is considered the strongest air force in the Middle East and one of the best and most sophisticated in the world". It has over 1000 active aircraft including the latest variations of the F-15 and F-16 fighter jets. It also boasts the Raphael Python 5 and Apache Longbow missiles, Stinger, Hawk, Patriot and Jericho 1/11/111 missile systems. The best and latest in American and Israeli air defence and missile technology. Moreover, The 2004 Center for Strategic and International Studies Report claims that, by contrast, the Iranian air forces are "well aged and in poor maintenance" When it comes to ground forces, Israel wins again. The CSIS Report claims Israel has 4300 main battle tanks compared to Iran's 1565 and 9480 Armoured Personnel Carriers compared to Iran's 865. The report adds that Iran's ground forces are mostly older technology, with maybe one to three full divisions of modern equipment: http://www.milnet.com/Iranian-Military.html#in-general Israel has far superior military forces than Iran. Furthermore, Israel has nukes and Iran does not. Yet you say Iran is the most powerful country in the Middle East. Incredible. I'll address the rest of your bizarre post shortly--when I stop laughing. Yea..I knew you would bring up those evil Joo's...let ME stop laughing. Power consists of far more than military might. And right now IRAN has the power. They dominate the world stage RIGHT NOW. And they have the ability to control or disrupt the flow of oil from the Middle east...RIGHT NOW. Most powerful? You bet. You crack me up Mark. I've seen people try to shift the goalposts after the event, but this is ridiculous. You made the foolish claim that Iran is the most powerful country in the Middle East but now you wish to discount military might as a factor in your claim. I can empathise with your embarrasment--I've made a few wrong claims myself but then I try to correct my errors for the record. I've shifted nothing, and I'm not discounting the military one bit, but I am however including political POSITION into the mix which was totally LACKING in your analysis. I can understand why, given your hatred of Israel, but your analyisi was flawed ..period. In the current political climate in the Middle East the most powerful nation is IRAN. If you wish to claim that Iran occupies a part of the Middle East which is strategically significant, I would agree. The Straits of Hormuz are the critical sea lanes for the transportation of Middle Eastern oil. This is one of the main reasons why attacking Iran would be so stupid and reckless, but the US and Israel don't seem to care about that. They seem determined to control the entire region, regardless of the consequences for the rest of the world. Thanks for reinforcing my argument. Talk about argument shifting! Dude, unless the Straits of Hormuz are kept free, the rest of the world is in a world of hurt. Iran controls what happens in the Straits of Hormuz...thanks for reinforcing MY argument about the POWER OF IRAN! LOL! I'm getting a bit tired of your baiting me with this line about 'evil Joos'. This discussion concerns Iran and its Middle Eastern neighbours, Israel included. Israel is the regional superpower, which I pointed out in response to your erroneous claim about Iran. Do I need your permission before I mention Israel by name? I thought you would have had more courage than to hide behind that pathetic little canard, but perhaps I was wrong. Mark you get back what to put out and your hatred for the evil Jooos is quite evident. You don't like it?..tough. Post wahtever you like, just don't bitch when you are called on it. Finally, you are right when you say that Iran dominates the world stage right now. Who put them there? THEY DID! Bloody hell, this guy's lost his mind.

My replies are underlined