Mark Stapleton

On the recent thread about Jack Valenti, Mark Wilson made the following remark:

There is a short essay in Michael Collins Piper's 6th edition of Final Judgement entitled,maybe a thousand words,The Myth of Dallas:New Revelations.The information included in the essay is said to have arrived to Piper when the 6th edition was to go to press therefore it was an add on.Piper says it was sent anonymously and included 115 footnotes,some of which rely on the mainstream media...in a nutshell the documents attempt to prove that Dallas had a very powerful Jewish community in contrast to " a clique of anti semitic White Anglo-Saxon oil plutocrats"(quote)....The document states that the Citizen Council was the sponsor of the Dallas trip and that Sam Bloom was the long time executive director of the CC.Bloom is described ,"the chairman was Dallas Jewish leader and public relations man,Sam Bloom,the CC's longtime executive director and in retrospect one of the least known but most pivotal figures in world history."

Here is the extract from Final Judgment to which Mark referred:

As the second printing of the sixth edition of Final Judgment was being readied

for press, a detailed 19-page anonymously written document, cited with 115

footnotes, relying on a wide variety of mainstream sources, arrived in the mailbox of

Final Judgment author Michael Collins Piper. The document was in an envelope

(with no return address) postmarked "Dallas, Texas." Entitled "The Kennedy

Assassination and Israel: Some Dallas Connections," the document—apparently the

work of a professional journalist—focused on "the specifics of how the Israelis could

have influenced the events in Dallas," filling in details never explored in previous

editions of Final Judgment. The data is quite explosive, particularly when

contrasted with the mythology regarding "Big D" repeated ad infinitum in JFK

literature. However, understanding the real Dallas—not the city of legend and of

Hollywood drama—prepares one for the revelations laid forth in Final Judgment.

The document buries the tired old myth that a clique of anti-Semitic White

Anglo-Saxon Protestant oil plutocrats ruled Dallas. Instead, the truth is quite the opposite.

Not only did Dallas have an immensely powerful Jewish community, but, more

importantly, the city (and Texas) had been a major center of fundraising and arms

smuggling on behalf of the Zionist cause, going back to the 1940s. Even Jonathan

Pollard, the American spy for Israel, said he was inspired to pro-Israel activism by

stories he heard (while living in Texas) of gunrunning for the Israeli underground by Jews

in Texas. In fact, the official published history of a major Zionist arms smuggling

operation, the Sonneborn Institute, reports its agents smuggled aircraft parts out of

Texas to Israel. This was happening when a then recently discharged Army Air Corps

aircraft mechanic, Jack Ruby, was re-settling in Dallas in 1947, the year prior to Israel's

birth, when Sonneborn's activities were at a zenith. Ruby bragged of having run arms to

Israel and, in 1963, is now known to have part of an arms smuggling operation overseen by

an Israeli intelligence officer. So the Israeli connection to Texas was a lot more intimate

than many today ever realized.

In 1963, JFK's primary interest in Dallas was raising money from the Dallas

elite, and that meant the wealthy pro-Israel Jewish Democrats who were major financial

angels for the ruling Democratic Party there. And since JFK was, at that time, at

loggerheads with Israel over its nuclear arms program, it is critical to recognize how JFK

was lured to Dallas and who was in charge of the arrangements that actually facilitated

his assassination. And while it is well known that the Dallas leg of JFK's Texas trip

was sponsored by the Citizens Council (CC), the elite business group that ruled

Dallas, the little-noticed evidence shows that two of the three key figures who dominated

the CC were Jewish—not "WASPs," as the legend of Dallas would have it. These were

the folks who really ran Dallas, not the conservatives affiliated with the John Birch

Society, as the old myth suggests. In 1963, one of those Jewish power brokers was an

outspokenly pro-Israel liquor wholesaler, Julius Schepps, who held the distribution rights

in Dallas for the Bronfman family's Seagram's products. And as we shall see, there

is evidence that Jack Ruby was on the payroll of the Bronfman family, whose

fingerprints are to be found all over the JFK assassination conspiracy.

The means by which the Dallas elite gained control of JFK's Dallas trip agenda is

interesting. Since JFK's Dallas trip was officially designated as "non political"—in contrast

to other Texas stops such as Houston and Austin which were designated as "political"—

the private entities paying for the Dallas trip gained control of the planning (taking

it out of the hands of the JFK-controlled Democratic National Committee). The

CC designated a "host committee." The chairman was Dallas Jewish leader and public

relations man, Sam Bloom, the CC's longtime executive director, and—in

retrospect—one of the least known but most pivotal figures in world history.

There was an immediate confrontation between Bloom, representing the Dallas elite,

and Jerry Bruno, JFK's veteran advance man. Bruno wanted the president to speak at the

Women's Building, but the rulers of Dallas insisted JFK speak at the Trade Mart.

Although Bruno fought long and hard, after much pressure, the Dallas elite prevailed,

causing the JFK loyalist to comment that "this was one of the few fights like this that I

had lost. On things like this my judgment was usually taken. This time it wasn't."

By forcing JFK to speak at the Trade Mart, the Dallas elite positioned the JFK

motorcade to take the now-infamous "dog-leg" turn into what was a classically sniperfriendly

"kill zone" on Elm Street just below the Texas School Book Depository

(TSBD), from where it later was claimed the alleged assassin, TSBD employee Lee

Harvey Oswald, fired the fatal shots. The spot was also in easy range of the "grassy

knoll" and the nearby Dal-Tex Building, where assassination researchers believe

snipers were located. Had JFK's advance man prevailed—as he usually did—JFK (on

his way to the preferred location) would have traveled two blocks farther away from the

TSBD—out of the kill zone—at a greater speed.

Although the Secret Service objected (for security reasons) to the publication of

JFK's motorcade route, Bloom (the point man for the Dallas elite) nonetheless made

sure a map of the route was repeatedly published in Dallas papers. Thus, later, when

the "patsy" was in custody, there was a plausible explanation as to how he knew JFK

would pass by his workplace.

That an assassin quite probably fired on JFK from the Dal-Tex Building is most

relevant in the context of an Israeli connection. Co-owned by David Weisblat, a major

financial backer of the Israeli lobby's Anti-Defamation League, Dal-Tex housed, on

different floors, a number of firms that utilized the telephone number of Morty

Freedman, an attorney, garment manufacturer, and activist in Jewish affairs. Since

JFK was working to stop Israel's nuclear arms program—which received smuggled

uranium from U.S. sources—it is notable that one Dal-Tex firm linked to Freedman

was the Dallas Uranium & Oil Company. It is also intriguing that one of Freedman's

Dal-Tex business partners was Abe Zapruder, the Jewish dress manufacturer who

filmed the assassination and profited immensely. Today there are some who now

believe Zapruder had advance knowledge of the assassination.

Once the accused assassin was in custody, it was—you guessed it—Sam Bloom,

who had earlier maneuvered JFK into the kill zone, who pressured Elgin Crull, the

city manager, to in turn pressure Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry into making

Oswald accessible to the press and to move him publicly from the Dallas police

station to the city jail. Thus, the situation was in place for Jack Ruby to move in for

the kill. There are several sources, including Dallas FBI agent James Hosty, who

stated Bloom and his backers were the forces behind this. When the police searched

Ruby's home, they found a slip of paper with Bloom's name, address and telephone

number on it.

So it is that the Dallas myth comes to an end. This will be painful for those who

thought the city an anti-Jewish stronghold, ripe for Nazi revolution. Instead, Dallas was

actually an outpost for the advancement of the interests of Israel and today it very much

remains so.

Although Walt Brown suggested in Treachery in Dallas that the city's elite were

prime movers behind the events of November 22, 1963, he rushed to write elsewhere

that the JFK assassination "wasn't done by Mossad . . . as some would have us believe"

(referring to Final Judgment). However, in light of the "Big Picture of Big D"—

details Brown ignored (or suppressed) in terms of their ultimate (and critical) context—

it's time for real JFK assassination truth seekers to take a new look at Final Judgment.

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.

I think that we are jumping the gun a little here.

1. This is a UK problem, not US.

2. The boarding parties board the ships on their planned tracks; they don't ask the ships to go into Iranian waters before boarding them.

3. The correct response (IMO) would have been to escorted the personnel out of Iranian waters. Neither the vessel's crew nor the boarding party have been shown to have been committing any illegal act.

4. The position where the boarding took place is disputed.

5. Boardings by other countries have almost certainly taken place in / around the same area, and have been witnessed by the Iranians. I am unaware of any protests previously made by the Iranians that the UN forces were conducting boarding operations in Iranian waters.

6. The last thing, IMO, the US wants right now is an armed conflict with Iran. It won't admit it, but it's stretched tight and has little surge capability to fight another protracted ground war. IMO that will make them actually try to prevent any UK military action against Iran.

7. It is the IRGN who has committed this action, not the RN.

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?

Evan, do you think the allied naval presence in the Persian Gulf is provocative?

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.

Do you think this is relevant in the context of the capture of these sailors?

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 you think Bush plans to attack Iran, or force Iran into provoking an attack?

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.

Okay Mark, I'll bite. Start with Bill Paley.

I do a lot of my research at the Urban Archives at the Paley Library, Temple University, Philadelphia. There's also a Paley Library at Drexal, on the other side of town. I always thought it was named after William Paley, but I just learned it is the Samuel L. Paley, Bill Paley's pop, a Ukaranian Jew who made his first million in cigars. Where I don't know yet, but he then moved to Philadelphia and bought the radio station network to promote his cigars, and giving his kid a job.

Some Basic Background:

William S. Paley (September 28, 1901 in Chicago, Illinois – October 26, 1990 in New York, New York) was the chief executive who built CBS from a small radio network to one of the dominant radio and television network operation in America.

Paley's father Samuel, a Ukrainian Jewish immigrant, ran a cigar company and, as the company became increasingly successful, the new millionaire moved his family to Philadelphia in the early 1920s. William Paley studied at the University of Chicago and later the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Finance and Commerce in expectation that he would take an increasingly active role running the family cigar business.

The younger Paley's career took a fateful turn in 1927 when his father and some business partners bought a struggling Philadelphia-based radio network of 16 stations called the Columbia Phonographic Broadcasting System. Samuel Paley's intention had been to use his acquisition as nothing more than a medium for advertising promoting the family's cigar business, which included the La Palina brand. Within a year, under William's leadership, cigar sales had more than doubled, and in 1928 the Paley family secured majority ownership of the network. Within a decade, Paley had expanded the network to 114 affiliate stations.

During World War II, Paley served in the psychological warfare branch in the Office of War Information under General Dwight Eisenhower and held the rank of colonel. It was while based in London during the war that Paley came to know and befriend Edward R. Murrow, CBS's head of European news.

Paley quickly grasped the earnings potential of radio, and recognized that good programming was the key to selling advertising time and, in turn, bringing in profits to the network and to affiliate owners. Before Paley, most businessmen viewed radio stations as standalone outlets — in other words, the broadcast equivalent of the local newspaper. The individual stations originally bought programming from the network and were thus considered the network's clients.

Paley changed broadcasting's business model, not only by being a genius at developing successful and lucrative programming, but by viewing the advertisers (sponsors) as the most significant element of the broadcasting equation. Paley provided network programming to affiliate stations at nominal cost, thereby ensuring the widest possible distribution not only for the programming but the advertising. The advertisers then became the network's primary clients and, because of the wider distribution brought by the growing network, Paley was able to charge more for the ad time. Affiliates were required to carry programming offered by the network for part of the broadcast day, receiving a portion of the network's take from advertising revenue. At other times in the broadcast day, affiliates were free to offer local programming and sell advertising time locally.

Paley's recognition of how to harness the potential reach of broadcasting was the key to his building CBS from a tiny chain of stations into what was eventually one of the world's dominant communication empires. During his prime, Paley was described as having an uncanny sense for popular taste, and exploited that taste to build the CBS network. As war clouds darkened Europe in the late 1930s, Paley recognized Americans' desire for news coverage of the coming war and built the CBS news division into a dominant force just as he had built the network's entertainment division previously.

CBS expanded into TV and early through Paley's strong, some would say ruthless, maneuvering rode the post-World War II boom in that medium to pass NBC, which had dominated radio. Paley became the best-known executive in network television, personifying the control and vision which marked the industry through its heyday of the 1980s.

Paley was respected not only for building CBS into an entertainment powerhouse, but for also encouraging the development of a news division that went on to dominate broadcast journalism for decades.

"Bill Paley erected two towers of power, one for entertainment and one for news", 60 Minutes creator Don Hewitt said in his autobiography Tell Me A Story. "And he decreed that there would be no bridge between them...In short, Paley was the guy who put Frank Sinatra and Edward R. Murrow on the radio and 60 Minutes on television.

The relationship between Paley and his news staff was not always smooth. Paley's friendship with Ed Murrow — one of the leading lights in the CBS news division and by then a vice president — suffered during the 1950s over the hard-hitting tone of the Murrow-hosted See It Now series. The implication was that the network's sponsors were uneasy about some of the controversial topics of the series, leading to Paley worrying about lost revenue to the network as well as unwelcome scrutiny during the era of McCarthyism. In fact, See It Now lost its Alcoa sponsorship in 1955 and eventually its weekly Tuesday time slot, though it continued as a series of specials until 1958.

In 1972, Paley ordered the shortening of a second installment of a two-part CBS Evening News series on Watergate — after he was contacted by Charles Colson, an aide to President Richard M. Nixon. And later, Paley briefly ordered the banishment of instant analysis by his news people following Presidential addresses.

CBS was bought by Westinghouse Electric Corporation in 1995, and by Viacom Inc. in 2000.

In the 1940s, William Paley and Dr. Leon Levy formed Jaclyn Stable, that owned and raced a string of thoroughbred race horses.

Paley sold the New York Yankees in 1973 to Cleveland shipbuilder George Steinbrenner and a group of investors. Acting on behalf of CBS, Paley sold the team at its low ebb for $8.7 million. In April, 2006 Forbes Magazine estimated that the Yankees were worth $1.26 billion. To be fair, it was also under CBS stewardship (from 1964 onward), that the dominant Bronx Bombers fell into mediocrity, not making the playoffs during that stretch.

Paley had an avid interest in modern art and built up an outstanding collection. He became a trustee of the Rockefeller family's Museum of Modern Art in the 1930s; in 1962 he was tapped by then chaiman David Rockefeller to be its president. In 1968 he joined a syndicate with Rockefeller and others to buy six Picassos for the Museum from the notable Gertrude Stein collection. He subsequently became chairman, stepping down from the Museum in 1985.^[1]

Paley died of kidney failure on October 26, 1990. He was 89.

Born February 25, 1908 in Los Angeles as Dorothy Hart, only child of Seth and Dorothy Jones Hart, she attended Marlboro School in LA, followed by one year at Bennett College. She was passionate about art.

At 18, she met William Randolph Hearst, Jr., and married him in New York in 1927. While her husband's professional advancement stalled, and he started drinking, she took a job with Harper’s Bazaar, and became quite successful. In 1931, Bill Paley met her and fell in love. After getting a Las Vegas divorce, Dorothy married Paley in Kingman, Arizona on May 12, 1932.

Dorothy was socially well connected to help her husband introducing him to Roosevelt liberals. Her opinion counted: “I can’t believe he would have voted Democrat without me.”^[2] She also became a fashion trendsetter through her work at Vogue, Harper's Bazaar, and her social activities. Her knowledge of art influenced and refined Paley’s artistic tastes. When he started to get into collecting art, her direction were invaluable. During an art hunts in Paris, they were introduced to Matisse. Paley commissioned him to paint her, however, the painting was never completed, only charcoal sketches and drawings were made.^[2]

Their main residence was the estate "Kiluna" in Manhasset where they frequently entertained. With later estrangement between Paley and her, and Paley pursuing other women, among them his next wife, Barbara Cushing, the couple got a divorce on July 24, 1947 in Reno, Nevada. Dorothy retained custody of their two adopted children, Jeffrey Paley and Hilary Paley. Her third and last marriage to stockbroker Walter Hirshon lasted seven years.^[2] She died January 29, 1998 from the injuries of an automobile accident.

Paley married the divorced socialite and fashion icon Barbara "Babe" Cushing Mortimer on July 28, 1947. Paley and his second wife Babe, despite their success and social standing, were barred from country clubs on Long Island because he was Jewish. Instead, the Paleys built a summer home, "Kiluna North", on Squam Lake in New Hampshire and summered there for many years, routinely entertaining friends like Lucille Ball, Grace Kelly and David O. Selznick. The house was later donated to Dartmouth College and converted to use as a conference center.

They had two children, William Cushing Paley and Kate Cushing Paley.

Paley was a notorious ladies' man. His first marriage ended when a newspaper published the suicide note written to Paley by a girlfriend. He provided a stipend to former lover Louise Brooks for the rest of her life.

• The Museum of Television & Radio hosts an annual panel series, with casts and crews from new series, that is named after Paley. The museum itself was founded in 1976 as the Museum of Broadcasting, partly with Paley's help. Its main building on West 52nd Street in Manhattan is named after the longtime CBS chief.
  
• When Paley said that he was a fan of CBS's Gunsmoke, viewers knew Matt Dillon (played by James Arness) would not come to serious harm.
  
• Paley, in humor, called NBC chief David Sarnoff "The 5th Cartwright" of Bonanza.
  
• In the 2005 film Good Night, and Good Luck, Paley is played by Frank Langella.
  
• Squam Lake, where Kiluna North is located, was the location for the 1981 Mark Rydell film On Golden Pond starring Katharine Hepburn and Henry Fonda.
  
• In 1974, Paley dedicated the 2nd building at the World renowned S.I Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University
  

<a href="http://" target="_blank"></a>

[edit] Honors

• Croix de Guerre with Palm, 1946
  
• Legion of Honor
  
• Legion of Merit, 1946
  
• Peabody Award, 1958 and 1961
  
• 
  
• References
  

1. 
   <LI id=_note-0>

^ MoMA and the Stein collection - see David Rockefeller, Memoirs, New York: Random House, 2002. (pp.450-58)
^ ^{a b c} Bedell Smith, Sally (1990). In All His Glory. The Life of William S. Paley. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 0-671-61735-4.

• Museum of Broadcast Communication's page on William Paley
  
• Business Week article about William Paley from June 1, 2004
  

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Paley"Categories: American television executives | American racehorse owners and breeders | American businesspeople | University of Pennsylvania alumni | Ukrainian-Americans | People from New York City | Jewish Americans | 1901 births | 1990 deaths

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.

Perhaps the Iranians should have just asked the Brits to leave?

Actually, that is precisely what I think should have happened.

I'm all in favour of peaceful resolution of conflict.

I do wonder, however, how would a boatload of Iranian sailors fare if intercepted off the coast of Christmas Island, Evan?

Would the RAN politely ask them to head north?

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?

Chicken or the egg? The Iranians also have not shied away from bellicosity, or do you think hanging banners with “Wipe Israel off the map” or “Remove the Jerusalem occupying regime from the pages of history” or however you want to translate the Iranian president’s phrase from nuclear warhead capable long range missiles a call for peaceful change? Perhaps if they ceased flouting the will of the international community the hawks in America, Britain and Israel wouldn’t have so much to crow about

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.

I received this email from Gary Mack and post it here with his permission:

Sid,

CNN's information was wrong. Valenti had nothing to do with the PR aspects of the Dallas visit. Those details were handled by the Sam Bloom advertising agency of Dallas, which was run by its founder, Sam Bloom. Bloom was a personal friend and strong supporter of JFK and he served on the Dallas Citizens Council, which was one of the three civic groups who sponsored the Trade Mart luncheon. Here's more on Bloom: http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online...s/BB/fblvh.html

Gary Mack

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.

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.

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.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/...roke/index.html

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Jack Valenti, who served as president of the Motion Picture Association of America for nearly four decades, has suffered a stroke and has been taken to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, officials said.

Valenti, 85, suffered the stroke "recently," said a woman at the Motion Picture Association of America, which he led for 38 years.

...

In 1952, he co-founded Weekley & Valenti, an advertising agency.

Valenti's agency handled the press during the November 22, 1963, visit of President Kennedy and Vice President Lyndon Johnson to Dallas. Valenti was in the motorcade six cars behind the president's when Kennedy was assassinated.

Less than an hour later, Johnson had hired Valenti as special assistant to the president and the two men were flying to Washington aboard Air Force One.

..."

So how much does anyone know about this guy who was right at the crime scene to handle Johnson's PRopaganda?

Is it odd that he would be in a presidential motorcade that day?

How did he come to be in the motorcade? As Johnson's special guest?

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.)

Gentlemen, and occasional Lady visitor. To prevent topics becoming derailed by moderator adjudications, and subsequant debate, I propose the following. 1, If i feel a member has broken (or severly bent) Forum rules and guidelines I shall, in the first instance, contact them by P/M, offering a chance to either, defend their comments, or self edit them, only on the occasion of neither of these opptions being taken will I edit the post. The last thing I desire is to insert a "politically correct"editorial regime, because without the heat of intellectual debate, topics such as 911, or Apollo become sterile. I shall send a copy of this post to my fellow moderators. Thanks for your time. Steve.

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.

Mark,

A sidebar on Crull:

In 1966, he resigned from the City Manager position and was elected as Vice President of the Republic National Bank. There have been a few threads in the past regarding this bank which has some very interesting connections and board directors.

Crull below.

James

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

As others have tried to make you understand there is no indication Evan was acting as a moderator when he asked Jack to correct his claim. Has Jack been proven wrong? If you think not perhaps you should add your thoughts on the appropriate thread.

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.

TIMED SIGHTINGS OF JACK RUBY BASED ON TESTIMONY

by M.A Moyer & Betty Windsor

(If a time was not given—it is not listed here. ALL sightings are presented on attached annotated Timeline)

See link......

As this will not print out as shown on site.....

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_ev...ne_of_Ruby.html

B..........

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.

Several key figures with important information on the JFK assassination have died from heart attacks. I believe that many of these, including David Morales, were murdered.

I suspect Morales and others were killed by the “carotid sleeper’ method. The murderer stands behind the victim and closes off the carotid artery and therefore starves the brain of oxygen. If the victim is not in good physical condition, they will die of a heart attack within a few seconds. This method leaves little physical evidence that the person has been murdered.

However, sometimes, the person will be able to struggle for around 20 seconds before they die. If the police suspect that the victim had enemies they might organize a detailed autopsy. In that case, the police will discover the victim has died of strangulation rather than of a heart attack. This is what happened in the Bob Woolmer case.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9486

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.

What's known about Crull's background and activities up to 1963? (Sid Walker)

Sid,

Crull was a former city hall reporter for the Dallas Journal. He started with the city in 1939 when the former City Manager, James Aston took him from his newspaper job and made him his assistant.

Crull served in the Air Force during WW2.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think Crull began his career as City Manager in 1952.

James

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.

Are you guys talking about soccer, cricket, or badminton? I thought that the World Cup was soccer ("football"), but maybe there's a World Cup for everything? You'll have to excuse my ignorance, but to us Americans "football" means only one thing. The real thing! And a "cricket" is something that chirps.

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)