Mark Stapleton

Good post, Evan. While I don't believe the moderators should be required to inform the forum of where they stand on the various issues of contention, I'm grateful that you have submitted this background information.

Well, what do our eternal optimists think of England's chances? That's you Steve, John and Andy (you're a Pom for mine, Andy). Let's see now.....I'll just unlock this virtual English World Cup trophy cabinet using my special virtual trophy cabinet key...and discover....mmm....yep, it's empty. Zip. Not a sausage. A simple case of non-presence, as Monty Python would say. Sadly, the egg and spoon race trophy cabinet was equally threadbare. Don't give me any stuff about England winning the recent tri-nation circus in Australia--it's common knowledge that the entire summer of cricket here in Australia was a cleverly concieved conspiracy designed to send the barmy army barmy. Has it succeeded? You tell me. Cricinfo has some good previews: http://www1.cricinfo.com/worldcup2007/

Sid, As you probably know, Piper gives Myer Feldman a few mentions. I think it's probably worth putting it on the record here. From 'Final Judgement' (pp 40-41); "One of JFK's first presidential appointments was naming his former campaign aide Myer (Mike) Feldman as his point man for Israeli and Jewish affairs---an important post, especially considering JFK's tenuous relationship with Israel and its' American lobby. According to author Seymour Hersh, "The President viewed Feldman, whose strong support for Israel was widely known, as a necessary evil whose highly visible White House position was a political debt that had to be paid"1. However, the Administration was determined to make certain, according to Hersh, that nobody--Feldman in particular--would be able to circumvent any administration policy insofar as the Middle East was concerned. "The President's most senior advisors, most acutely McGeorge Bundy, the national security advisor, desperately sought to cut Feldman out of the flow of Middle East paperwork"2. Hersh quotes another Presidential aide as having said, "It was hard to tell the difference between what Feldman said and what the Israeli ambassador said"3. President Kennedy himself had his own suspicions about Feldman, according to the President's close friend Charles Bartlett (to whom Kennedy in 1960 had previously voiced concerns about Israeli influence as noted in Chapter 4). Bartlett recalls a visit with the new President at his home in Hyannisport one Saturday (the Jewish Sabbath). Talk turned to Feldman's role in the White House bureaucracy. "I imagine Mike's having a meeting of Zionists in the cabinet room", the President said, according to Bartlett.4 The President's brother, Robert, himself said that his brother admired Feldman's work but added, "His major interest was Israel rather than the United States".5 However, while Feldman was busy promoting Israel's interests at the White House, the President was sending out a message to the rest of the foreign policy-making establishment in Washington. Kennedy was making it clear that he was very much interested in finding a path to peace in the Middle East and was, in particular, looking for ways to solving the problem of finding a home for Palestinian refugees who had been displaced by Israel in 1948". 1. Seymour Hersh, "The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy". (New York, Random House, 1991), p.98 2. Ibid, p.99 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid, p.100 FWIW, the biggest black mark against Feldman for me is the fact that he prospered, and was in fact promoted by LBJ in the aftermath of JFK's death. Because the issue of whether LBJ had foreknowledge of JFK's impending death is a proven fact (for me), I am also inclined to believe such prior knowledge was shared by those in LBJ's close orbit, and therefore quite possibly Myer Feldman. To Feldman's friends and family I would respectfully submit that since the US Government and the American power elite (including the mainstream media) disdainfully refused to investigate the brazen execution which robbed America, and the rest of the world, of its most promising statesman, then it's left to the research community to undertake this task. And we will.

John, Frankly, I find your logic a little confusing here. These reasons you cited which underpin your making such an irrelevant (and slightly disparaging) post are pitifully poor, imo. So far you haven't challenged any specific issues raised in Piper's book, but merely reminded us that one should not forget 'the type of persons Piper has associated with'. You also seem to be making a vague assertion that these 'provocateurs' avail themselves of the Islamic 'talk circuit' as a means of recruiting terrorists---or something. Fascinating, but as Sherlock Holmes once remarked, "an intriguing line of thought Watson, but not entirely relevant to the case". When I said 'delete' the post, I should have said 'edit' the post because of course only the moderators can delete it. Anyway, it doesn't really matter in the end--I just want to finish the book summary for now. I look forward to your comments regarding the subject matter of the book.

I meant to comment on this before but got distracted with other threads, so... What the hell is this about? How is the arrest of a Klansman for a 1964 murder related to Piper's thesis? I know you do a lot of good work, John, especially in the film/photo area. I wouldn't consider mischievously interrupting or disrupting your threads on issues which you consider important. It may surprise you but I have spent quite a few hours getting through the Piper summary and intend to finish it in the near future (quite a few more hours work there). Your 'good news' has no bearing or relevance to the subject matter as far as I can see. If it is relevant, please explain how. If not, please do the right thing and delete your post or move it to wherever it is supposed to go. Alternetively, I can complain to the already overworked moderators and we can make a big issue out of this. If you wish to deliberately cheapen or belittle my efforts to summarise Piper's book, you are free to embark on this mischievous path. The Forum will be your judge. See you next month.

Of course.... There are ways to determine those attributes. One can begin by noting those who do not possess them. Nothing against David H. of course.... How do those JFK assassination related facts (you've been interested in for many years) color your postings here, Mr. Hogan? Further praytell, how do they lead you in determining a researchers "attributes"? How do you Mr. Hogan know who does or does NOT possess certain attributes? Please show us your crystal ball! David, I doubt that it requires a crystal ball to divine the attributes cited above, as they are most obvious by their absence. Re: "truth" - anyone who trafficks exclusively in demonstrably insupportable inferences, or cites references that are actually contrary to the points they seek to make [The Warren Commission Report being the first of many such examples], clearly isn't interested in discerning the "truth" of the matter. Re: "character" - anyone who chooses to selectively address only those issues which suit them and their purpose - eschewing any discussion of those points or issues that don't support their own pet biases - clearly lacks character. Again, this is not the hallmark of a truthseeker, but the sign of a propagandist. [There is no shortage of examples to draw from here, so it is unnecessary for me to name names.] "Re: "knowledge" - I believe this is the most self-evident quality we can perceive from Forum members' posts. Those who haven't bothered to plumb the various issues demonstrate this in their own posts, and will be instantly recognizable to all those who have bothered to do their homework prior to posting. Have you Mr. Hogan posted/performed ANY JFK assassination related research one can review, if so, WHERE? Were it a requirement to post here that one must have prior peer-reviewed works to their credit, we'd be able to count Forum members on one hand. While I don't read all posts here [some subjects don't interest me, some are beyond my understanding, while others generate more heat than light], of the Michael Hogan-penned posts I've read since his arrival here, Michael is one of the most generous in providing background information for those seeking it. When a member cannot recall where they read a certain fact, and seeks help in locating it, Michael is often among the first to reply. Perhaps this doesn't constitute "original" research, but is a valuable contriibution nonetheless, to my mind at least. I'm sure that others whom Michael has aided in this fashion in the past would agree. Do you have the credentials to peer comment on specific areas of JFK assassination research, (in particular 11/22/63 films/photos of Dealey Plaza) and if so, please tell me and the lurkers those areas of expertise? Am I correct to infer from the above sentence that Mr. Hogan has commented on photo research, and you disagree with those comments? And for the record, it's perfectly fine to post armchair opinions re ANY phase of JFK assassination related research, here AND other places! Just tell us its opinion! Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems plain to me that any and all comments posted here are speculative and opinion, unless they are accompanied by footnotes and references, and sometimes even when accompanied by them. David, this seems a particularly thin-skinned reply to Michael Hogan's point, one I'm at a loss to understand, particularly considering how long you've demonstrated you can hold your own in far more contentious exchanges over matters of far greater import. Perhaps you and Michael Hogan have a past animus of which I'm unaware, but this seems a peculiar contribution to a thread dealing specifically with the behaviour of Forum members in how they deal with each other. I'll stick my neck out here and state in the most unadversarial nature I can muster, that I have some sympathy with David's original point that a modicum of caution should be exercised when the job of moderator is bestowed. If I have misinterpreted your post, David, I stand corrected. I too applaud John Gerahty's offer to fill the role. Despite a recent exchange with John, I have no problem with him whatsoever. However, I think he might find it a thankless task. There's obviously some animosity among certain members which runs quite deep. In his role of moderating disputes and complaints, parties on both sides of the argument can often feel aggrieved, resulting in some animosity being directed toward the moderator. Being younger than most of the members on the Forum may indeed prove to be a handicap, imo. Members who are older may take issue with having their behaviour scrutinised by a student. It's not really right or fair, but it's the way it is, imo. Also, people both young and old have a tendency to suspect that the judge has it in for them, that the judge favors the other side. This is not meant to discourage John from accepting the role, as John Simkin certainly needs a break from these squabbles. I'm just saying that the role of moderator on the JFK and political conspiracies forum will be a difficult one under these circumstances. A balancing act which I would certainly not want to perform. But to John and/or whoever else consents to the role, you have my best wishes. I'm taking a break for a few weeks (only partially for the sake of my sanity), so I cannot reply to any posts for a time. In the meantime, if any members wish to exercise their democratic right to disagree with these sentiments, feel free to scowl at my avatar. It's highly scowlworthy.

Inconclusive and a strawman similar pictures could have been taken in Berlin 1933 - 40 or Chile 1973 - 90 etc etc and you haven't shown that Western media have presented images of Tehran contradicted by those pictures. Len, Your abrupt adversarial comment is unimpressive. The pictures were merely meant to show that there is another side to the Iran commonly portrayed in the western media. I don't know about you, but the images of Iran I see are always apparently designed to portray a regime hostile to the US. Stern faced mullahs and unpleasant crowds are often seen, backed by commentary of a highly unflattering nature. And while on the subject of strawmen, could you please enlighten me as to how you equate Iran in 2007 with Berlin 1933-1940 and Chile 1973-1990? Can you show me why you believe Iran in 2007 must be regarded with the suspicion and disdain accorded to the two aforementioned regimes? I was unaware the three are now 'officially' in the same category.

I've told you once No you never p.s. 'Matching tie and handerkief' was the best of their records, imo (circa 1978 I think). I had it on tape years ago, but it's extremely hard to find these days on CD. It's never included in the boxed MP sets that I've seen. I searched on the now defunct Kazaa unsuccessfully. Have you ever heard it? It seems you can still purchase it over here Aha, thanks for that.

John D and Mark V, You guys are a veritable Holmes and Watson. Who's wearing the deerstalker? (Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce were the quintissential H & W, imo.) I almost had that lawyer 'cuffed and fingerprinted--damn!

I've told you once No you never p.s. 'Matching tie and handerkief' was the best of their records, imo (circa 1978 I think). I had it on tape years ago, but it's extremely hard to find these days on CD. It's never included in the boxed MP sets that I've seen. I searched on the now defunct Kazaa unsuccessfully. Have you ever heard it?

The old tse-tse fly in the box trick.

Any time you vacuous, toffee nosed, malodorous berk I'll have to dig out my old Monty Python records to get more. This is the room for an argument isn't it? That's what the sign on the door said. I can't decide if I'll go for the five minute argument or the full half hour.

That's the best idea I've every heard Ron! Here's my entry: "Is that your nose or are you eating a banana?" Hang on a minute, girly man. I believe I already made that suggestion way back in post #2. (I like your entry, though) It's on the record. Read it and weep. Ron is already showered with adulation. (I think he's a serial glory hogger) Mark, This is exactly the kind of behavious and use of juvenile language that this whole thread is referring to. I should think that if the forum is to gain more respectability you should refrain from using this attack method and conduct yourself in a more civil manner. If not for the good of the forum, but out of respect for John Simkin, who invests money so that we can enjoy the privilege of membership. Respectfully, John Geraghty John, I'm hoping you're just joining the the fun and kidding along with us in this sub-thread, which is intentionally silly and frisky. If not, please take the time to read back over the sub-thread I think you'd see that a few members are sharing a laugh. The respect you show for the forum in your comments is laudable. Now if you could couple that with a sense of humor and awareness of context, we'd make even more progress on improving communication in the forum. Respectfully, Myra John, I have to agree with Myra here. My comments to Myra and about Ron were firmly tongue in cheek (and you'll notice Myra promptly returned serve). Ron is one of my favorite posters on the Forum. I'm joking around. Get a sense of humor--that's what the Irish are famous for aren't they?

Any time you vacuous, toffee nosed, malodorous berk I'll have to dig out my old Monty Python records to get more.

Angleton was the key member within Kennedy's Catholic constituency in CIA -- they shared social circles. Losing Angleton sealed his fate, I'd speculate. After all, who would have been Oswald's ultimate boss at CIA if not Angleton at counter-intel? Also, we associate Angleton with an interesting word Ashton cited: mad. The manner in which Kennedy was killed indeed reflected something unhinged. I'll argue that the "unhinged" elements in the American ruling class in 1963 operated within the National Security state and not among the bean counters at the Fed. I also want to point out the sectarian fault lines within the CIA as it relates to the Y/C dichotomy. Robert Maheu's "Mormon mafia" CIA faction controlled the Hughes empire, and those dudes were Cowboys. Here's a passage from the memoirs of CIA case officer Joesph B Smith, PORTRAIT OF A COLD WARRIOR (pg 13), explaining why he quit in 1973 after 23 years with the CIA. Usually when you see a phrase like "CIA memoir" ya need yer back-up bullxxxx detector to be in as good a shape as yer main rig. But PORTRAIT OF A COLD WARRIOR managed to get published without being vetted by CIA -- something to do with Smith living in Mexico, if I recall correctly. That crack about Princeton was a direct slap at WASP blue-blood Richard Helms, key figure in CIA's covert action programs. Most CIA blue bloods went to Yale (like Bush) but Dickie Helms was the Princeton man. As Smith indicates, however, Clandestine Services was dominated by Catholics. Cliff, I don't want to get enmeshed in the ongoing battle here, but I have to state that, in my opinion, Angleton was not really part of JFK's catholic constituency. He was a friend of Israel--that was where his loyalties lay. He covered for Israel in the important early years of their nuclear programme. 'Official' US intelligence was always kept a few years behind the curve, courtesy of JJA's Israel desk. He blamed everything on a communist plot. Again this suited Israel. The communist bloc supported Egypt and Syria in those days. America has unreservedly supported Israel from 11/22 to the present day and has embarked on a dangerous partisan path in this region ever since. The media participates of course. The CIA and Mossad shared intelligence from the early fifties. Influential Jewish Americans like Teddy Kollek helped broker this arrangement. I believe they shared a world view and still do. I really can't see JJA as an ally of JFK or his 'catholic constituency'. If anything JJA willingly betrayed JFK. The result of years of limp aquiescence to this flawed vision may soon be realised in the Middle East. I see Angleton as a malignant influence, infecting US strategic policy at a critical period in its history. He and JFK were poles apart.

That's the best idea I've every heard Ron! Here's my entry: "Is that your nose or are you eating a banana?" Hang on a minute, girly man. I believe I already made that suggestion way back in post #2. (I like your entry, though) It's on the record. Read it and weep. Ron is already showered with adulation. (I think he's a serial glory hogger) That's "Ms Girly Man" to you... banana nose. Though I did look back at post #2 and the record supports your assertion that you are due some glory, and perhaps compensation for pain and suffering. I now foresee a thread discussing how to handle the rash of plagiarism on the ed forum. Blatant nose-ism. I'm with Jack. Disgraceful.

Get idea Stephen and in the spirit of this thread ----- To those forum members who I've been rude to I'd just like to say that you completely deserved it, and to those who believed I have helped them - you completely misunderstood what I was trying to say Well said, Andy--you disgusting pile of parrot droppings.

The answer is yes--and there'll be hell to pay. I sympathise with your feelings, Douglas. I often remember that JFK speech in which he said the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouths. I've never thought seriously about it, but if the social order broke down and essential services were not supplied for a lengthy period, I wouldn't like to be caught in a big city. A coastal temperate location would be my destination. Of course, who knows what a temperate climate is these days? Just to add to the cheerful conversation, did you know that the polar ice caps are now melting so fast that scientists are unable to factor it into their computer modelling? So they really have no idea how quickly they will melt. But inciting a war which could have global economic and environmental consequences is a more pressing matter for the owners of the fearless western media. However, there's a silver lining to every cloud. Exxon Mobil just reported a $39.5 billion profit--the highest in corporate history. I plan to invest everything I own in oil stocks. Doesn't matter which ones. If I ever do a runner out to the bush, I might as well be driving a luxury car.

If the worst case scenario becomes a reality, the consequences will reach your country. Why would Ireland be immune from economic chaos?

Jan. 30, 2007 17:39 US strike group transits Suez Canal By ASSOCIATED PRESS ISMAILIYA, Egypt A US Navy strike group led by the assault ship USS Bataan steamed through the Suez Canal on Tuesday on its way to join the buildup of American forces in the Middle East. The Bataan, which entered Egyptian waters Monday, spent the night at the Mediterranean harbor of Port Said and was expected to leave the Egyptian part of the Red Sea later Tuesday, a Suez Canal official said, speaking on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to speak to the press. The seven-vessel Bataan group includes 2,200 US Marines and sailors, helicopters and Harrier fighter jets, the Navy said in Bahrain. The US Fifth Fleet, which is based in Bahrain, will be overseeing around 50 warships in the Mideast after the arrival of the Bataan and an American aircraft carrier group in February, said US Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Brown. The Fifth Fleet normally commands a fleet of about 45 ships, about a third of them from US-allied navies, Brown said. The Navy is in the midst of a regional buildup, with the group of the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis on its way as well as 21,500 US soldiers being sent to Iraq. The carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower is already in the region. The United States has not had two carriers in the Mideast since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bataan will join a second amphibious assault ship, the USS Boxer, which was on port visit in Dubai on Tuesday. Brown said the Pentagon recently extended the tour of duty of the Boxer's US Marine Expeditionary Unit, which is in Iraq. The Bataan is on a routine six-month deployment to the region to conduct "maritime security operations" which includes boarding and searching ships suspected of carrying terrorists or nuclear components to Iran, the Navy said. Once the fleet assembles in the Persian Gulf, only the tiniest spark will be required. In possibly the greatest blame shifting exercise of modern times, Bush and the neocons are openly blaming Iranian 'interference' for the debacle in Iraq. It seems the US/Israel axis has intimidated most European leaders into acqiescence. All except Jacques Chirac, who momentarily spoke the truth, before being quickly silenced: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/2...hirac-iran.html ASSOCIATED PRESS 11:00 a.m. February 1, 2007 PARIS – Did French President Jacques Chirac misspeak? Is he, at age 74 and in the waning months of his second and likely last term, losing his political touch, even his mental vigor? Or did he simply voice a fear that a nuclear-armed Iran may be a foregone conclusion? An astounded world asked those questions after the French leader asserted it would not be “very dangerous” if Iran had one or two nuclear weapons, and that its capital, Tehran, would be “razed” if it used them on Israel – assertions that forced Chirac into an embarrassing retraction. Chirac, who was hospitalized for a week in 2005 for a suspected minor stroke, appeared distracted at times, grasping for names and dates, during an interview Monday, according to the International Herald Tribune, the New York Times and a French magazine, Le Nouvel Observateur. The newspapers said his hands shook slightly and that he read from prepared, large-print notes when discussing climate change, the interview's planned main focus. Chirac's office switched to damage-control Thursday, as foreign governments asked for official clarification, opposition politicians howled in protest and experts speculated he was either joking, being brutally honest, irresponsible or simply speaking off the cuff. The president called reporters back a day after the interview to try to have his quotes retracted. The three publications said the interview was tape-recorded and on the record. “I should rather have paid attention to what I was saying and understood that perhaps I was on the record,” Chirac said in the second interview, according to transcripts the publications posted on their Web sites. “Sometimes one can drift off, when one believes there are no consequences ... I honestly believed that the questions aside from the environment were off the record.” The scrambling was all the more unusual because Chirac, a fixture of the French political scene for more than four decades, has long dealt with reporters. Most observers expect he will not seek a third term. Leading candidates to replace Chirac in presidential elections in April and May quickly sought to distance themselves from the president. Jack Lang, spokesman for Socialist candidate Segolene Royal, said Chirac had committed an “unforgivable” error. Nicolas Sarkozy, candidate for Chirac's governing party, said through spokeswoman Rachida Dati that he “does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons.” Chirac's office took the unusual step of asking the reporters to come over in person to hear a clarification Thursday morning. In the afternoon, it issued a statement saying that “France, along with the international community, cannot accept the prospect of an Iran equipped with a nuclear weapon.” “There should not be a controversy on such a serious subject,” it said. It urged Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment in return for a suspension of U.N. sanctions and renewed negotiations. France joined the United States and allies in supporting the sanctions imposed in December to punish Iran for defying demands that it suspend uranium enrichment, a process that can produce fissile material to fuel nuclear reactors or, at purer concentrations, the core of nuclear weapons. The United States and its allies accuse Iran of secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons, an allegation Tehran denies, insisting it only wants to produce energy. U.S. administration officials have said diplomacy was the focus of their policy on Iran but have never ruled out attacks. France's allies, publicly at least, played down the importance of Chirac's comments. “It is not a sentiment I share and from what I understand, the French president doesn't share it anymore either,” said British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett. White House press secretary Tony Snow reiterated that Iran “should not have any nuclear weapons” and should suspend uranium enrichment. “That is not only the stated position of the United States but also its allies, including France,” he said. Experts variously praised Chirac for his frankness, criticized an apparent misstep, brushed off the comments as an unintended slip or said they looked like a bad attempt at humor. “Chirac gave us a moment of honesty,” said Alireza Nourizadeh, chief researcher at London-based Center for Arab-Iranian Studies. “His comment was basically what I believe to be the position of Britain, the United States and much of the West: If Israel is attacked, there will be no hesitation to bring retaliation and destruction on Iran.” But Francois Nicoullaud, who was France's ambassador to Tehran from 2001-2005, said Chirac's comments lost political meaning once he formally withdrew them. “This wasn't one of those controlled slips – one of those little phrases that are dropped to see what effect it produces, then come back if necessary the next day,” said Nicoullaud. “This wasn't a calculation.” “I don't think he meant to break with Europe or America,” added Stefano Silvestri, president of the Rome-based International Affairs Institute, a foreign affairs think-tank. “It is quite strange that journalists are called back to modify a statement.” AP writer John Leicester in Paris contributed to this report.

That's the best idea I've every heard Ron! Here's my entry: "Is that your nose or are you eating a banana?" Hang on a minute, girly man. I believe I already made that suggestion way back in post #2. (I like your entry, though) It's on the record. Read it and weep. Ron is already showered with adulation. (I think he's a serial glory hogger)

Gary, That's quite similar to one of my favorites----"Never be seen arguing with a fool. Someone might recognise you". Indeed Mark. Arguments are to be avoided, particularly with fools. As a matter of interest, does anyone have a definitive method of recognising one? A topic unto itself, I think... If you can get to the White House, you'll see one. You'll recognise him immediately.

Gary, That's quite similar to one of my favorites----"Never be seen arguing with a fool. Someone might recognise you".

This seems harder than the arm in the package. At first glance I say the lawyer is the murderer. Or the lawyer in cahoots with the niece. The how and why will require more information, John. Am I correct in assuming that the reason Martin's niece was the beneficiary was because he had no wife and family? What was his occupation? How long had he known the lawyer? Are the contents of the business papers in his briefcase relevant? Was the friend, Dillon, acquainted with the niece? Was the phial of atoxyl small enough to fit within the box?

Excellent stuff, Mark. I've never heard of a King Baboon spider but I think I can guess what it looks like. Uganda has just been struck off my travel list.