Mark Stapleton

Here is the extract from Final Judgment to which Mark referred: Sid, interesting how JFK authors repeat mythology surrounding the Big D on the one hand, but are right on the money concerning the Del -Tex building as a sniper location on the other. How do you suppose that works? Sam Bloom worked on the White House Conference on Equal Employment and the National Advisory Committee on Desegregation at the behest of Kennedy, and was a chief architect in the successful move to desegregation in Dallas. Bloom employed 350 people. His agency had departments. One such department handled PR. The head of the PR department was Helen Holmes. Ms Holmes was the one who handled the bulk of the work concerning the trip. Later, Ms Holmes branched out on her own and did a lot of work for the Republican Party. I guess Bloom just wasn't fussy who he hired... It is a fact that there were wealthy Jews in Dallas, but with only one or two exceptions, their influence did not go beyond the Jewish community. The same can be said for most leaders in ethnic communities in the West. The Citizens Council certainly did have a lot of power, but the leaders of the CC were neither ethnic, nor "anti-Semitic White Anglo-Saxon Protestant oil plutocrats." Despite those types not running the Citizens Council, Dallas was a stronghold of the extreme right. If you think all the literature on this (whether JFK related, or not) is wrong, I suggest you at least read the letters sent by Larrie Schmidt to Larry Jones and Bernard Weissman. In one letter, he urged Jones to convince Weissman to both change religion and name prior to coming to Dallas, and explicitly states how much his hoped for backers hated Jews. All that said, I do not exonerate the Citizens Council from having played a role in manipulating the motorcade route. Pinpointing just who pulled the strings on that isn't so cut and dry, and may require looking at various intricate relationships between those businessmen, certain politicians and intelligence personnel. Greg, Your claim that Jewish influence in Dallas did not extend beyond the Jewish community is merely an opinion, imo. As a statement of fact, it certainly can't be proven. Jewish influence in Dallas circa 1963 (and more importantly, support for the state of Israel in Dallas circa 1963) is often dismissed by those citing the argument that right-wing rednecks are universally anti-Semitic. It's true, the stereotypical redneck hates Jews--and hispanics, asians, africans and all ethnic minorities. However, the possibility that the conflict between JFK and Israel played a role in the assassination can't be dismissed on the basis of a widely held belief in the behavior of stereotypes, imo. Jack Ruby took the precaution of changing his name and subsequently carried out clandestine operations on behalf of Israel while living and working right in the heart of redneck centrale. He moved to Dallas in 1947--one year before Israel's creation. Establishing a base of operations in a locality where it is presumed that an anti-semitic hostility prevails could be regarded as quite dumb--or perhaps the perfect cover. Also, the fact that Bloom was appointed to an official capacity by JFK doesn't exonerate him from suspicion, imo. JFK also appointed Myer Feldman as his advisor--ostensibly as a reward to the Jewish lobby for its support of his 1960 campaign. However, RFK is on record as stating that Feldman's 'major interest was Israel rather than the US' (see Piper thread). Where Feldman's real loyalties lay is very much an open question and I believe Bloom might fall into the same category. It's clear to me that JFK was betrayed by those who had his confidence, as well as by those, like LBJ, who he kept at arm's length.

As an amusing semi-related sidebar, what about Nancy Pelosi's meeting with Syrian President Assad? http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3006905 An envoy of Israel's message of peace, we're told. Well, I'll just reserve judgement on that for the time being. The amusing part is the symbolism of the whole thing. House Leader visits 'sponsor of state terrorism', against strong disapproval from grumbling President. Bush is bypassed....circumvented.....passed over....sidelined. A whining irrelevancy, sent by the teacher to stand in the corner while Pelosi attempts to do something the President is too stupid and weak to do. This man's(?) time is up, surely.

They've just been released. Looks like it's an American issue again.

Steve, I've never heard of the Strategic Stockpiles issue but it does sound interesting. That JFK made specific references to the issue makes this issue very interesting, imo. Some of the connections cited swirled over my head, to be honest. I'll need to read the book to get a grounding on it--I hope it gets published, but I gather from Bernice's post there seems to be a delay. And we're only up to Paley. p.s. who is DEMOH?

In the broadest definition of the word, yes. Why would you qualify your answer? Unless the allied forces anticipate resisitance from the Iraqi insurgency which would require the presence of a fleet of warships, the naval buildup in the region can serve only one role, imo---to intimidate Iran. No. Tough judge. I would have cited the allied military buildup and brinkmanship as a mitigating factor---at least partially. I assume that you, being fairminded, also demand that nations such as Britain, Israel and the US can display the same stoic forbearance in the face of provocation which you obviously demand of Iran. Maybe we should watch this space. Do plans exist for the invasion of / attack on Iran? Almost certainly. Does Bush intend to try and activate those plans? No. A bet each way is what I would call this answer. Why would plans be drawn up if there was no contingency for their use under certain circumstances? I think your position is similar to that of Len Colby. ie. vocal criticism of any Iranian discretions coupled with mute silence regarding provocations coming from the US and its allies. One rule for us and another rule for our alleged enemies. That's how it appears to me. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. Anyway, thanks for answering my queries.

Bill, I don't want to cause you embarrasment but that is a superb post. Great profile of William Paley. I hope we can build a profile of the main players in the media in '63. The reason, of course, is to help understand what made them so determined to bury the truth about JFK and, maybe, close in on who was behind the whole mess. Also, they seem to be the one relevant group yet to be fully analysed. For my part, I have to admit I'm starting almost from scratch and contributions like this are well appreciated. I hope this thread leads a long and productive life. p.s. I visited the museum of Radio & TV on West 52nd in '98. Saw three episodes of old B&W TV shows for six bucks. Recommended. Good catalogue of old stuff with individual console setup for each visitor.

Actually, that is precisely what I think should have happened. If it it was an Iranian naval vessel, then I have no doubt that is what would happen. Followed by a diplomatic protest, no doubt. This was a regular inspection of a non-Iranian commercial vessel going to a non-Iranian port. The actual location of where the inspection took place is in dispute. The correct action would have been to demand they leave at once. Evan, do you think the allied naval presence in the Persian Gulf is provocative? Do you think this is relevant in the context of the capture of these sailors? Do you think Bush plans to attack Iran, or force Iran into provoking an attack?

Incredible hypocrisy here, Len. When have Israel or the US ever given a damn about the will of the international community? Do you want to discuss the plight of the Palestinians or is their plight just bad leadership? What is the will of the international community regarding America's presence in Iraq?---and I don't mean the mealy mouthed comments of toadies like Blair or Howard---I mean the international community. What is the will of the international community concerning Gitmo detainees like David Hicks---held for five years without trial. And since you've managed to shoehorn my name into your post in an attempt to bolster your rhetoric, my position on Iran's nuclear capability vis-a-vis the international community is this: 1. The US has an arsenal of 10,000 nuclear warheads, so it has no right to demand Iran---or any other country---cease development of same. The argument that we are the goodies and they are the baddies doesn't wash. America doesn't behave anything like a good global citizen. The opposite is more accurate. 2. Israel isn't even a signatory to the NPT. In fact, during its development, their entire nuclear program was impudently quarantined from even the slightest international scrutiny (LBJ's sham inspections notwithstanding), so when it comes to commenting on the nuclear intentions of other sovereign nations, Israel doesn't have the right to say a damned thing. Israel's right to speak on behalf of the international community has long expired. Israel's claim that Iran might use nuclear weapons, which I don't believe at all, can be countered by Iran's claim that such weapons may be required as protection from an Israeli attack. This is supported by the fact that Israel have attacked other nations in the region in the past. Was Israel's strike on Iraq's facility in 1981 sanctioned by the international community? What about the invasion of Lebanon in 2006? Regarding bellicosity, how about Bush including Iran in the axis of evil? Or freezing Iranian assets? Whose naval fleet sits in the Gulf? FWIW, I think the capture of the British sailors was a mistake and they should be released. The fact that you have aggresively seized upon this issue while dismissing the provocations from the other side proves that your reputation for seeing only one side of the argument is, unfortunately, well warranted.

see below

Interesting, Sid. If the changing political landscape in France claims the scalp of Sarkozy, and results in the election of a candidate not supported by the US/Israel axis, it will be interesting to watch the US media marshall its immense but predictable resources at France. The 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' line will get a big run on the Fox network, I predict. It should prove very interesting as this may be the first election in which the internet becomes a major influence on the political process, at the expense of the mainstream media. A sign of things to come I hope.

They told so many lies to the American public in the aftermath of JFK and it has continued ever since. Who were they, what were their motives? I guess the three major TV networks is the easiest place to start. Newspapers, newsmagazines, publishing houses, radio networks, motion picture studios etc can follow later: http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/S/htmlS/...sarnoffdavi.htm That site gives brief bios of some of the pioneers of American media, including the three men who controlled the big three TV networks in 1963, David Sarnoff (NBC), William S Paley (CBS) and Leonard Goldenson (ABC). All were self-made men who largely owned and controlled the companies they founded. Sarnoff, who emigrated to the US from Russia aged nine, also owned RCA which was an innovator in communications with wartime applications such as sonar and radar, and later in the aeronautics and space industries. I plan to add to this as I delve deeper into it but please feel free to add any relevant information. Ideally, a profile of those in control of the media might be established, which might throw some light on why they behaved as they did---disgracefully. The SS, CIA, FBI, DPD, LHO, Ruby, military industrial complex, oilmen, right wing Texan rednecks, organised crime, mercenaries, foreign Governments and anyone else connected with the JFK story have been subjected to much scrutiny over the years. A close look at those who controlled everything that we saw and heard is long overdue, imo.

It seems to me that if Gary is right about this, a number of new questions arise. How (or why) did CNN get this story so wrong? What was Jack Valenti's actual role at the time, before and after the assasination? What is documented about the role played by the Bloom agency? Does Gary have evidence to support the claim that the Bloom agency handled the Dallas trip? The link provided no such evidence, just a brief bio of Bloom. Who has their facts straight, CNN or Gary Mack? Mainstream media or gatekeeper for a museum dedicated to the maintenance of a lie. Anyway, it doesn't really matter. What matters more is discovering facts about the backgrounds and connections of the people who controlled mainstream American media in 1963.

Spot on Mark. IMO, FWIW, tracking hte people who spun obvious lies - many of whom were media folk - is the route to determining who was behind the assassination. I'd make the same claim in relation to 9/11. I agree Sid. Who CONTROLLED the media in 1963 is a question which should be examined by serious JFK researchers, imo. Who ran the media at that time? Why did they all behave as a single unit in endorsing and failing to critically analyse the WC? What was their motive for maintaining the cover-up? What is the connection between the JFK-era media and today's media? Why does today's media maintain the facade? Actually, it should be easier to identify those controlling the media in 1963---before the era of media conglomerates---than those who control it today.

According to Robert Dallek's LBJ bio, LBJ first met Valenti at a businessmen's luncheon in 1956. From p.151: "Impressed with the strength of the senator's personality, Valenti had written a flattering newspaper column about him and then in 1960 managed the Kennedy-Johnson advertising campaign in Texas. After he became President, Johnson brought Valenti to the White House where he began serving as everything from a 'glorified valet' to a chief of staff. He did 'whatever needed to be done'. He was a major liason with Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen; soothed the feelings of congressmen whose districts had lost an appropriation; moved projects through the bureaucratic web; and functioned as Johnson's Ambassador in telling important people things they did not want to hear." If that report is correct in stating that Valenti handled the press in Dallas it is very interesting indeed. Perhaps the bosses of the major news networks were persuaded to allow Valenti to co-ordinate the coverage of events as they unfolded in Dallas. By LBJ perhaps? As far as I'm aware, the media in general and the media bosses in particular have recieved scant focus for their role in the crime of the century. The media has been the driving force behind the 43 year cover-up and they have occupied the enviable position of largely determining what the US public have been permitted to see and hear. FWIW, I think your suspicions are on the money, Myra.

Interesting piece about the origins of English football, John. In particular, I note the significant role played by the introduction of the six and a half day week in bringing the sport to the masses. I believe that some of our current corporate leaders yearn for the good old days of the 6 and a half day week (in the interests of increased productivity--read shareholder returns--of course). In fact, many would prefer the full seven days if they could get away with it. (Families?--why should we care about workers' families? They're not on our balance sheet.)

Above is my original post, what in the name of Julius Ceaser it has to do with what followed (John Dolva excepted) I can only guess. Some of you lot could start a fight in an empty room. If you have problems with Moderator ajudication report your concerns to another Mod, failing that John S, or Andy W. What you do not do is derail another members thread with yet more juvinile bickering. Steve, I thought Jack's original post, while not directly addressing your proposals, was still on topic. I just wanted to state my opinion for the record. A barbrawl was not my intention but 'Sixgun' Colby seems to take exception to my view and he can be an 'ornery varmint. I think your proposals are fine, with the rider that I strongly oppose the concept of members being asked to correct their posts. I don't like the idea of posts being edited or deleted by moderators, either. It can become, you know, a habit. I know the moderators, to a man and woman, have the best of intentions but sometimes the best of intentions can still lead to bad rules. Extreme profanity or legal risks excepted. But it's not my forum, so I'll abide by the consensus. p.s. You should have added that the last and final resort always should be.........the comfy cushion.

James, Crull's resignation was timely. The Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, during 1966 hearings on Free Press and Fair Trial, raked over the Oswald transfer fiasco. That's very interesting, Greg. Did they issue any statements on their findings? (vis-a-vis Crull and the Oswald transfer).

see below

There's a difference between a moderator asking someone to correct his/her post and a member asking someone to correct a post. Moreover, there's no indication that Evan wasn't acting as a moderator when he requested that Jack correct his post. Can you show me where Evan indicated that he was speaking as a mere member and not also as a moderator when he requested Jack correct the post? In 1000+ posts I can't recall a member or a moderator asking me to correct a post, although I've probably made dozens of errors. IMO, it comes down to whether readers can determine for themselves if a member is talking rubbish. I believe they can. Moderator intervention is not required in these cases and it would be a dangerous precedent which could serve to stifle debate. I happen to disagree with you on this issue as I do on many other issues, Len. I'm afraid you'll have to accept that others are entitled to dissent with the majority. I know it can be annoying.

No one's disputing the fact that moderators are entitled to express opinions. That's not the argument as I see it. It's the perception that a member will confront a moderator as both an opponent and as a referee. I've been a member since March 05 and I don't think I've yet seen a member being asked to correct his post. And does one photo constitute sufficient proof to justify a correction from alleged offender? The moderator in this case has determined that it does and intruded into a debate which, imo, had not run its full course. Nothing personal against Evan, whom I greatly respect. Asking members to correct their posts is a quantum leap in precedent and Jack White is correct to draw attention to this, imo.

Bernice, That Moyer and Windsor timeline for Ruby is a very comprehensive record. In the past I've spent hours reading it without getting to the end. It's interesting that in addition to the other eyewitness statements placing Ruby in the DPD on Saturday night, Ronald Jenkins (KBOX news editor) saw him standing outside Fritz's office and Vic Robertson (WFAA-TV) saw him trying to enter Fritz's office. Particularly interesting, imo, is the 1AM Saturday timeline entry in which James Gilmour (DPD) says he saw Ruby in the basement of the DPD and asked him what he was doing there. Of course, Ruby replied with his usual excuse (or cover story), "I'm passing out sandwiches". Maybe, just a guess of course, there's a connection here with the interesting point raised by Steve Thomas in the 'Dallas City Manager' thread that the original records state that LHO was placed in the Sheriffs custody about that same time on Saturday morning and that Ruby learned of this before the change in plans regarding LHO's tranfer was made.

John, as I remember the CIA had a program in the fifties and sixties that studied the toxicological effects of every form of poison. I think this was a spin-off of MKULTRA. Anyhow, they were looking for poisons that could simulate heart-attacks. I believe they were successful. The KGB had similar poisons. Somewhere I remember reading about a Soviet turncoat being murdered in London in the early seventies. It looked like a heart attack. The coroner, once tipped off that it was a possible murder, did a re-inspection, and found a small needle-mark on the man's arm (as I remember). Somebody had bumped into him on the street, and stung him with a tiny needle. Within a few minutes he was dead. Without a trace. After reading this, I remembered that Adlai Stevenson dropped dead on the streets of Paris after denouncing the Vietnam War on a radio show. Made me kinda wonder.... At another point I looked into a series of Senatorial deaths and heart attacks. As a result of this quick series of deaths, Prescott Bush became a U.S. Senator and LBJ became majority leader. Something like 9 sitting Senators (of 96) died in a 3 year stretch--more than in all the time since. Of course, shortly afterwards LBJ had a heart attack of his own. Made me kinda wonder... I didn't know that LBJ became majority leader as a result of a death. That's incredible, considering all the other lucky breaks which peppered LBJ's career. LBJ must have had direct access to Murder Inc.

You're right, James---52 to 66: http://www.ci.dallas.tx.us/cso/managers.shtml Do you know when or how he died? I assume he is deceased or otherwise now about 100 years old. Background information about Crull doesn't seem to widely available on the net, although I'm not the world's finest researcher. As a person connected to the JFK story, he seems to have eluded scrutiny. Obviously, few have focused on the role he played in Oswald's death. I have about 15 books on the assassination and he doesn't get a mention, not even in the 600+ pages of Manchester. Very strange.

I agree with Jack White. The issue of moderators entering into a debate is an important issue and could have potential problems if not properly clarified. Thanks to Kevin for presenting the issue clearly. When a moderator enters a thread and requests a correction it will always cause trouble if that moderator is a regular participant with firm opinions about the thread in question. The aggrieved party sees the moderator as his opponent and his umpire. Evan blew the whistle and ordered a penalty against Jack, although it was framed as a question. Football referees can do that because they are not participating as a player in the game. However, Evan is a player with strong loyalty to one side of that debate. Asking a member to correct himself is different to asking one or both sides to tone down their language, especially under these circumstances, and I can sympathise with Jack's complaint.

Cricket is a game perhaps a little bit similar to your baseball (baseball being incidentally a game played exclusively by school girls in England and called "rounders" http://www.nra-rounders.co.uk/). Cricket however tends to be played by men and is an infinitely tactically more complex and rewarding game - I urge you to become acquainted with it http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/ It's a good time to get involved, Ron. The main complaint against cricket used to be the unspeakable tedium. A group of 22 men, wearing whites, did essentially the same leisurely thing on a flat grassy surface, rather slowly, for several days on end. Things changed a bit in the 1980s, when Australian media moguls got involved. They made the players wear coloured shirts and trousers, and shortened matches to a single day. That made it more suitable for the era of colour TV and couch potatoes with relatively short attention spans. Advertising revenue boomed. Now the mafia are involved, I expect cricket will become popular in North America, Italy, Israel and Russia. This will do wonders for the game. The action will become even faster. An entire test series could be over in a few moments. Cricket and terrorism compliment each other perfectly. Without terror, cricket is simply too boring for a worldwide audience. Without cricket, terrorim is uncouth. Expect to see Mark Stapleton commentating soon on Fox TV, sharing his expertise with the masses on previously obscure topics such as false flag ops against the umpires, faked action replays, the market in match fixing futures, explosive balls and the controlled demolition of English cricket. I'm breathlessly anticipating that life changing phone call from Fox TV. Have I mentioned before that I'm a huge fan of their fair and balanced approach to political reportage? Well, not yet but I soon will be. (if the price is right)