Mark Stapleton

The climate changes which will result from global warming (#3) will force the media to face this issue, imo. Elevated ocean temperatures will have consequences which can't be ignored. The problem has always been dissenting opinions from within the scientific community about what changes will occur. Attempts to cut greenhouse emmissions also meet with resistance from those who claim such restrictions would cause economic hardship. Agreements and protocols are routinely ignored, by rich and poor countries alike. Some type of world government is the only way by which a coherent strategy could be followed, and that isn't likely anytime soon. There's also the body of opinion which believes it's all too late anyway. The matter of KBR's contracting for the overpriced construction of detention centres (#14) within the US is an issue which should really cause US citizens to be demonstrating on the streets, since many of those citizens will be housed inside them one day. Of all the western countries, it is the US which is lurching toward authoritarian rule more than any other. The same US which tries to preach the gospel of democracy to an increasingly disbelieving world. It's all very ironic.

The fifth test has just begun and the barmy army, including all those wacky Monty Panesar devotees decked out in fake beards, are very confident of England's chances. In support of this, they cite as evidence the indisputable fact that England have not lost a single Test match this year.

One of your best, Douglas.

Indeed he was: http://www.veryimportantpotheads.com/site/...S.htm#armstrong

It's a chillingly plausible scenario, Douglas. I posted a similar article from Robert Parry the other day but I can't seem to find it on the Forum. Anyway, here it is: http://www.alternet.org/story/45852/ Parry suggests a plan has been hatched by Bush, Blair and Olmert for Israel to attack Syria and the Iranian nuclear sites, with America providing logistical support. The three leaders have had a round robin of meetings over the last two months. The unholy haste in executing Saddam Hussein is highly suspicious, as Alexandrovna alludes to. I suspect it was an action designed to provoke a response from America's enemies in the region as a pretext for further action. I thought he was originally scheduled to be executed in late January, so there must be a reason for bringing it forward, since my faith in the good intentions of the US/Israel axis has long ago evaporated. I have read several articles suggesting that the US Administration refuses to rule out the possibility of utilising bunker-busting nuclear weapons in its campaign against Iran. Nothing can be ruled out, as I believe this US Administration, supported by unseen forces of apparently limitless evil, is the most dangerous in living memory. The chess analogy is a good one. As in 2003, the Bush alliance may open with a few bold moves. However, as we have seen, their end game stinks. A baboon has more chance against Kasparov. The pawns in this game are us, of course, and the Bush regime is prone to gladly sacrificing pieces in order to achieve their unachievable goal--control of the entire Middle East.

Precisely. Saddam Hussein and his co-defendants were convicted for crimes committed in the town of Dujail in 1982. However, the link below shows Saddam shaking hands with a beaming Donald Rumsfeld in Iraq on December 20, 1983. Is it possible that Rumsfeld and his slimy friends were unaware of Saddam's acts of genocide the previous year? No, it isn't. Is it possible that our disgusting western media (yes, that includes you Rupert) is unaware that American interests were actively courting this 'war criminal' after he had committed these crimes? No, it ain't. Some may say Saddam was a murderous dictator. However, it can be argued that the US administration and its cowardly, mendacious media cheer squad occupy the same position as Saddam on the moral totem pole. I maintain they are even lower. One will never find this picture in the mainstream media. They media is too cowardly to give the public access to all sides of the debate. Yes, that includes you Rupert. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

According to the following piece by Robert Parry, intelligence sources are saying President Bush--along with Israel's PM Olmert and the UK's Tony Blair--are weighing the possibility of Israeli-led attacks on Syria and Iran in early 2007, with the US providing logistical support. The three leaders have held a series of meetings in November and December with no ostensible purpose. The 'strategy' is a last ditch effort to secure regime change in Syria and damage Iran's nuclear programme, while simultaneously restoring the coalition's credibility in the wake of the Iraq fiasco. Too dangerous, bizarre and wacky to be taken seriously? Apparently, the Bush Administration thinks not. If this article has any truth, surely the time has come for Bush and Blair to be removed from office, for humanity's sake: http://www.alternet.org/story/45852/?comme...=410613#c410624 The blogs are interesting, too.

Or a car like the new "Ford Pardon" If he were still alive I would give him a pat on the back, but he would report it as the neck. Ed I like the "Ford Duplicity". Standard features include unlimited (hot) air bags.

Irving is not an historian he is a racially motivated propagandist. If you cannot see that distinction then you are an even bigger fool than I thought. You haven't explained how his prison sentence was justified. You're merely name calling--once again.

I agree there's some public jerking off going on here but I don't think it's coming from Sid. You haven't explained the the logic underpinning your argument. By contrast, I think Sid's made his point well. If challenging prevailing orthodoxies is punishable by prison, assassination researchers should be conducting their research from behind bars. Conspiracy theorists publicly denounce the facts--and the figures--which are deemed by 'history' as the final word on the matter. What's the difference here? It's a delicate and complex issue, to be sure. And it's not a high order issue to me, but to imprison a person for expressing an historical opinion by labelling it a hate crime merely points to an agenda driven attempt to conceal the truth, whatever it may be. Racists, murderous dictators and fanatics are everywhere throughout history. Historians can argue over the number of Cambodians killed by Pol Pot without being denounced and imprisoned for inciting racial hatred. It just seems that on this issue--and this issue alone--the historical narrative is inviolate. Anyone daring to challenge the official view invites hellish consequences. I say bollocks to that. By merely insisting that he broke Austrian law doesn't prove he deserved jail. It merely proves it's a stupid and draconian law, just like many others. Irving's a vocal historian and to many his views are offensive. But he's not a criminal. Do you believe offensive people should be classified as criminals? That's the only conclusion I can make from your argument.

Peter, Good post. Obviously the assassination was fully supported by a group which could influence public perception. While JFK's possible changes to the Federal Reserve Act may have caused consternation within its ranks, I doubt his tenure would have resulted in financial disaster for them. I think this scenario is overplayed. Global financiers can outlast antagonistic national leaders. Kennedy's changes weren't going to send them broke. The assassination was a much more desperate act, IMO. LBJ, the Joint Chiefs and Israeli military interests were far more desperate than the Federal Reserve. Also, the owners of the American media weren't too troubled by his death, judging by their enthusiastic support for the WC. There's a unity of purpose involved, IMO. These four parties have legitimate links to the assassination and its consequences.

An interesting scenario, Robert. It would have saved thousands of American and Iraqi lives. However, a proposed boxing match between these two would have had only one possible result--a win for Saddam Hussein by forfeit. Bush was too yellow to even accept Ahmadinejad's challenge to a free and open debate on the issue of Iran's nuclear capability. So much for 'the leader of the free world'.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1219-10.htm This article makes for scary reading. It seems the Christian Right in America's south has been fully infiltrated by a Zionist mindset, intent on seeing the prophesies of Ezekiel fulfilled. These fundamentalist Christian nutcases, as well as fanatical supporters of Israel--sprinkled across America's intellectual and political terrain, are eagerly urging the US to confront Iran--with a pre-emptive strike if necessary. Fortunately, cooler heads in the Pentagon are unlikely to support such psychotic ramblings but if the US Military were ever to fall victim to this type of diseased thinking, the aforementioned prophesies may well come to pass. I recently heard an interview on Australia's Radio National conducted by Geraldine Doogue with some recently retired Israeli military chief--I forget his name--who repeatedly chanted "The West must confront Iran, the West must confront Iran". Naturally, the faint-hearted Ms. Doogue failed to obtain satisfactory answers to the obvious questions like "Why?" and "How is Iran a threat to the West?", and, er, "Have you done any line and length work on what the consequences of a military confrontation might be?". Here in Australia, as in much of the Western media, an icy fear of insulting Israel and being branded anti-Semitic causes many a good reporter and journalist to freeze in the headlights. Maybe the same could be said of certain people here on the Forum. As a resident of 'the west', I am compelled to offer 'General Whatever your name was' some free advice: IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IRAN WHICH IS SO DIRE THAT IT REQUIRES THE URGENT USE OF MILITARY FORCE, THEN YOU AND YOUR FELLOW ZEALOTS IN THE US GO OVER TO IRAN AND FIGHT THE BLOODY WAR YOURSELF. LEAVE 'THE WEST' OUT OF IT, IF YOU DON'T MIND. GUTLESS GLOVEPUPPETS LIKE BLAIR AND HOWARD HAVE PASSED THEIR USE-BY DATE. THAT IS ALL, GENERAL. DISMISSED.

In Part 5 of TMWKK, "The Witnesses", Officer LC Graves makes an interesting observation: "Chief Curry did not have the final say as to when or how Oswald was transferred, it came from his superior, which was the City Manager at that time, so, again, we knew better than to transfer him under those conditions but we didn't have any choice." Does anyone know who was City Manager at the time? Furthermore, Jim Leavelle and Graves state that the suggestion was made to Curry that LHO be taken out of the building on the first floor at Main, where few people would be waiting. However, Curry couldn't agree because the DPD were already 'obligated' to transfer him 'so the press could take pictures and everybody else could see him'. Don Archer, from the DPD, stated that the original plan of the DPD heirarchy was to transfer LHO during the night, "but outside political pressures coming from as far as Washington insisted that Oswald be shown that he hadn't been coerced into a confession, that he hadn't been beaten and that the world exposure be granted on this subject--after all he was an assassin accused of killing the President of the United States". To me this suggests that LBJ, or someone in Washington, co-ordinated the whole transfer process--overiding the DPD every step of the way--and thereby creating the impression that DPD incompetence was behind Oswald's death. I notice the presence of media in all this. That's the same media which has been so hostile to any genuine investigation into JFK's death. It seems they were a major player in the whole affair, and they still are.

Wikipedia is very concerned about public perceptions. If people believed that its online resource was being influenced by the CIA, they would begin to lose public confidence in the objectivity of Wikipedia. The idea of an objective encyclopaedia is ridiculous. My own online encyclopaedia attempted to expose this idea of objective entries by including a range of points of view on the subject in the source section. Spartacus Educational started in 1997. The following year Jimmy Wales followed my example of producing a free encyclopaedia. However, he found it too time-consuming and decided to make it an “open source” project. This meant that people have had to fight to get their interpretations of the past displayed at Wikipedia. My main victory was over Operation Mockingbird. Initially, Wikipedia claimed it was an urban myth. I edited the entry to explain it was a real CIA secret project to control the mass media. My entry was removed and it took several moths of arguing before they allowed my version of Operation Mockingbird to appear in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird It also comes up first with Google and my page at Spartacus is number 2. This is an example of how you can win your battles at Wikipedia. John, Congratulations on your success but the question is, why should one be required to battle the powers that be in order to have legitimate, well researched work appear on its pages? Looks like Wiki is only of use if you want to learn about birds or rabbits etc. I think you should have included Daniel's post #10 from that thread, which mentions Mack's and Berlet's strong pro-Israel bias. Another brick in the wall, IMO.

Incredible stuff, Daniel. Reading through the threads you linked was most informative (and I only had time to read the first two). From a JFK assassination standpoint, a reference made concerning the 'mega group' was particularly fascinating: Charles and Edgar Bronfman, Leonard Abramson, Leslie Wexner, Max Fisher(former chairman of United Fruit and Gerald Ford stringpuller), Harvey Meyerhoff, Steven Spielberg, Michael Steinhardt (whose father 'Red' was an associate of Meyer Lansky). Hmmm. I hope a photo of the elusive SlimVirgin can be procured. She and others sure seem like agents of influence to me. You don't need to be Einstein to figure out who for. I'll never look at Wikipedia or Google the same way again.

Few people know that Milton Friedman was a vocal critic of drug prohibition and the carnage it wreaks on society from the day Nixon officially launched the 'war on drugs' in 1972. This recent tribute to the late Mr. Friedman is worth reading. Wall Street has called him the greatest economist of our time: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n1632/a11.html?289127 Eventually, people will realise what prohibition is all about--diverting public resources towards all the people who benefit from an artificially elevated crime rate. More police, more prisons, more prisonguards and more lawyers to process offenders. In Australia, Government statistician Don Weatherburn is on record estimating the annual cost of prohibition to be $5-$6 billion. Less money for schools and hospitals, of course. As usual, the mainstream media is at its mendacious best, holding itself out as a fearless guardian against 'the evil of drugs', while being a major financial beneficiary of prohibition. The media thrives on the public hysteria which this issue generates. They make millions. Why the public can't understand what an onerous and needless burden this places on the taxpayer is a frustrating mystery to me. Part of the answer is, once again, the media and the role it plays in disseminating this issue. Bald faced bullxxxx masquerades as media coverage. Last but not least, the illicit drug cartels are the biggest beneficiary of all. Repeal prohibition and they're out on their ass. No more mansions, helicopters, weapons caches, Swiss bank accounts and bloodbath turf wars. Here's the way I see it: we have the police, the media, the law and the underworld on one side---and an ignorant, unwitting public on the other side. The public don't even know they're being conned.

Former world heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson is my sporting idol. His career was made into a film called 'The Great White Hope' but it barely did him justice, IMO. His adventures in Europe and South America during his flight from American 'justice' from 1913 till his return to the US in 1920 were amazing. For example, I'm confident he remains the only heavyweight champ to have been a successful bullfighter. I believe he is also Muhammed Ali's sporting idol.

Ashton, Betzner #3 and Willis #5 are from Cliff Varnell's post #116. I think they reveal the fence to be a good spot for placing a shooter. I agree with your point about falsehoods being deliberately placed into the record as indisputable facts. I'm just not sure this is one of them. The fence seems an ideal vantage point to me. Your alternative argument that it could have been utilized as the focal point of an elaborate diversion is also worthy of consideration, IMO, but I'm not convinced that the task of escaping detection from this location was an insurmountable barrier to its selection by the conspirators. Just my opinion. p.s. your work on this is greatly appreciated. I'm confident many readers will agree.

FWIW, I think I'm inclined to stay with the fence location--for the moment. There's a good chance both this and the County Records Building were shooting locations. It's true that the fence is a more exposed location for the shooters than a secured section of the CRB but it's more probable that the plotters decided to trade this off for a sure bet on the kill shot, IMO. Craig Roberts' statements posted by Myra are persuasive and the photographic evidence cited (esp. the figures revealed in Betzner #3) and the throat wound and smoke lend it additional credibility, IMO. The problems raised by a possible sighting by a bystander or switchtower guard would be more manageable than the problems raised by an unsuccessful execution carried out from a more distant location (IMO again). Witnesses can be leaned on and even killed (Bowers?) but a failed hit probably means no more opportunities--not to mention a lot of questions being asked and enquiries being commissioned by a shaken but still breathing President. The conspirators' confusion team were thick on the ground to help lessen the risks involved in placing the shooters as close to the target as possible. In saying this, I'm making the assumption that an eye-level fence shot has more chance of success than a rear shot from a building, of course. Kudos to Ashton, Cliff, Bernice and all contributors for an enlightening and entertaining discussion. I hope it doesn't end here.

Of course, it is necessary to do deals in order to get elected. The point is, how far do you go? You also have to consider the consequences if you have no intention of keeping these promises. For example, JFK had meetings with Richard Bissell and Allen Dulles before he was elected. JFK promised to take a hard-line on Cuba. In fact, during the presidential election, he attacked the Eisenhower and Nixon for being soft on communism in regards to Cuba. In return, JFK was told about the plans to arrange for anti-Castro exiles to invade Cuba. I suspect he was also told about the plans to assassinate Castro just before the invasion. Even though the CIA have always denied this was part of the plan, it does not make much sense without combining the two actions. Yes, but wasn't JFK trying to establish back channel negotiations with Castro after the CMC with a view to normalising relations between the two countries? I think you argued this yourself on another thread, John. JFK also did deals with the Texas oil industry, promising to leave their “oil depletion allowance” alone. I was unaware of this. Did this promise have a use by date? I suspect the Texas oilmen harboured doubts about JFK's intentions had he been re-elected in '64. JFK also sent RFK down to the Deep South to promise no legislation on civil rights. Maybe, his father even made promises on his behalf to the Mafia. The problem about making promises is that if you break them you will be punished, either by the electorate or by the pressure groups you have let down. One also has to look at the record of the JFK administration. JFK did go along with the Bay of Pigs invasion. Nor did he make principled decisions about civil rights. As RFK explained, JFK sacked Harris Wofford, chairman of the Subcabinet Group on Civil Rights (1960-1962), because he was too passionate about the subject of civil rights legislation. Most importantly, JFK and RFK put Martin Luther King under a lot of pressure to call of his civil rights demonstrations. The same tactic was used against the leaders of the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE) who were causing bad publicity for the Democratic Party in the Deep South with their Freedom Rides. Thank goodness they took no notice of JFK. The truth is that the main reason black civil rights were achieved was because of the actions of people like Martin Luther King, James Farmer and Bayard Rustin and not because of the views of so-called liberal white politicians. I believe Kennedy decided that civil rights legislation in 1963 came at too high a political price. As you said, it is necessary to do deals in order to be elected--or re-elected. Had he been re-elected, and with the passing of two or three years to talk Congressmen around, he may well have enacted civil rights legislation. When discussing JFK's legacy, it must be remembered that his tenure was cut short. A re-elected President is emboldened to fulfil his legislative program with fewer political encumbrances. In November 1963, I think he was quite convinced he was going to be re-elected, and his timetable for legislative reform was prepared with this in mind. As the people of Iraq are currently finding out, you have to fight to get freedom and democracy. It is not something that you can have imposed on you.

Ashton, Julia Ann Mercer, a 23 yo Dallas resident, was driving a rented Valiant on Elm Street early on November 22. She noticed a truck parked on the right hand side of the road, half up on the curb, protruding into the street and partially blocking traffic. It was a green Ford pickup with the words 'air conditioning' in black on the driver's side. From Mark Lane's Rush To Judgement (pp29-31): Miss Mercer saw a heavy set middle aged man in a green jacket 'slouched over the wheel' of the truck while the other man 'reached over the tailgate' and took out from the truck what appeared to be a gun case.....The man then 'proceeded to walk away from the truck and as he did, the small end of the case caught in the grass or sidewalk and he reached down to free it. He then proceeded to walk across the grass and up the grassy hill which forms part of the overpass'. Miss Mercer was able to give a rather detailed description of that man. He was 'a white male, late 20's or early 30's, and he was wearing a grey jacket, brown pants and plaid shirt' Mercer submitted an affidavit for the Dallas Sheriff's office on November 22 but was not called to testify before the WC. Interestingly, her description fits that given by Lee Bowers of the two men he saw standing near the fence just before the shots were fired. He described one as 'middle aged' and 'fairly heavy-set' and the other as 'about midtwenties in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket'. It should be noted that Mercer also stated that there were three policemen standing on the bridge overlooking the truck while she was there. All this might indicate that a murder weapon was being delivered, although the gun case may have been empty. IMO, it doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility that the two men were part of a diversion which was implanted, at least partially, under the watchful eye of the DPD.

Ashton, I like your thinking here (and your graphics), although there are some questions. Just one for starters: If the knoll smoke was an elaborate diversion, what about Julianne Mercer's statement that she saw someone resembling Ruby helping to deliver what appeared to be rifles to the area in question earlier that morning? I agree that Decker's order to move his men out of his (County Courts building) office is interesting, and could have been a neat way of shepherding a shooter to safety. Great thread.

having spent two tours in Detroit Homicde, I'm afraid Denis is far from the mark-I worked CSI in the early 70's and honesty and presentation of undoctored evidence was the rule of the day. Maybe. But it wasn't the rule of the day in Dallas on November 22. Detroit's a long way from Dallas. I know most people hate cops, but I was involved in several keys cases in Detroit and honesty was always the rule of the day. cops are people who generally relfect the values of the community they work in-if people are concerned about racist, crooked cops they need to look inward as they rarely brought in from Eastern Europe to patrol the streets of your community. ??????????

That's an interesting and plausible argument, John. The rapid release of the hostages upon Reagen's inauguration adds weight to the argument that the entire hostage crisis was engineered to salvage the investments of the Chase Corporation. More sophisticated than shooting him out of office.