Mark Stapleton

Ben-Gurion's desperation in 1963 appears to have been grounded in mental health issues (depression), not so much in "reality." It is extraordinarily simplistic to say "all Ben-Gurion has to do is remove one man." And Israel got a closer alliance with the US "right after JFK died"? Also extraordinarily simplistic. I can't speak for John, obviously, but I'd say he might have in mind the (to some) obvious fact that the influence of the Klan and similar likemindeds was extremely prevalent throughout the American South in the era.From a probationary member

Maybe you're right, John. What kind of town was Dallas in 1963?

In accordance with my undertaking, here's the first part of my review of Final Judgement. Due to its size and content, I'll do it in several parts. For those who have read it, please feel free to add your comments or offer corrections. This book contains eighteen chapters of varying length, ten appendix dealing with a wide variety of additional topics such as the possible nuclear alliance between Israel and China, the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin and the possible link between George Bush senior and the assassination, over a thousand reference footnotes, an extensive bibliography, a section outlining new revelations (here Piper argues that just prior to going to press, he recieved a 119 page anonymously written document which 'buries the tired old myth that Dallas was a clique of anti-Semitic, white Anglo-Saxon Protestant oil plutocrats', but in fact the city and state was a Jewish stronghold and a centre of fundraising and arms smuggling on behalf of the Zionist cause, dating back to the 1940's), and a Q & A section at the back. He's thrown just about everything in. Some of it is pretty wild stuff (like the Grace Pratt story), but much of it has a powerful resonance, IMO. Piper also cites respected researcher Penn Jones as another who saw the possibility of Mossad involvement. He quotes a Midlothian Mirror column dated 18 January 1968, published on page 51 in the 1969 edition of volume 3 of "Forgive my Grief": Jack Ruby was a close intimate of members of the Dallas Police force and other US law enforcement agencies, as well as the Israeli counter intelligence organisation. His one time employee, Nancy Zeigman Perrin Rich was also close to these same forces. Identifying Ruby and Nancy as being involved with the Israeli intelligence opens up a completely overlooked area concerning the assassination of President Kennedy. And from a column of the same newspaper dated February 24 1972, Jones wrote: Ruby was admittedly used by the FBI in small time information gathering, but he appears to have been a bigger operative for some other agency or country.... There are many indications in the Warren Hearings and other places that Ruby, and 'Honest Joe' Goldstein were intelligence operatives in a small way for someone. And Abe Weinstein's Colony Club seems to have been used at times as a 'safe house' for operatives. Chapters 1-4: The opening chapter gives a brief overview of the books contents. The second chapter poses the question--would the Mossad conspire to murder a US President percieved as hostile? In this chapter, he quotes former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky as saying Mossad had planned to murder former President George Bush in 1991. Chapter three outlines Mossad's use of false flags in global terrorism--pointing the finger of blame elsewhere. Examples cited include: USS Liberty--Egypt blamed. June 28, 1978: Car bomb in Paris kills PLO organiser Mohammed Boubia--Corsican mafia blamed. In October 1976 Mossad kidnaps West German students Brigitte Schulz and Thomas Reuter from their Paris hotel--neo nazis blamed. April 5 1986 bombing of La Belle disco in West Berlin--Libyan leader Gaddafi blamed. Reagan attacks Libya. Lavon affair, 1954. A truly shameful incident which caused a scandal which rocked the Ben-Gurion Government, where Israeli orchestrated terrorist attacks on British targets within Egypt were carried out. Blame for the attacks was placed on the Muslim brotherhood, which opposed Nasser. Piper cites a once-secret cable from Colonel Benjamin Givli, head of Israeli intelligence, to show the true picture: Our goal is to break the West's confidence in the existing (Egyptian) regime. The actions should cause arrests, demonstrations, and expressions of revenge. The Israeli origin should be totally covered while attention should be shifted to any other possible factor. The purpose is to prevent economic and military aid from the West to Egypt. Piper cites Livia Rokach, "Israel's sacred terrorism" (p.34) for the above cable. Chapter four traces the longstanding emnity between Joe Kennedy and Meyer Lansky, dating back to their bootlegging days. It also reveals how JFK, as a young senator, angered the Israeli lobby with his support for Algerian independence. Chapter five, which outlines the genesis of JFK's diplomatic standoff with Israel, is one of the most important in the book. I'll look at it in detail next.

Any discussion concerning a Galveston connection should also include Jack Ruby's call from the Carousel to Breck Wall in Galveston at 11.44pm on Saturday 23 Nov, 1963. Wall and an associate had a musical act and left Dallas earlier that day, arriving in Galveston at 11pm. Ferrie arrived in Galveston the same day. It's possible that Ferrie's arrival was connected with Ruby's call. I don't know where Breck Wall fits in but I feel a tweak of suspicion. However, after reading that thread on Moody which Lee posted maybe they were all rushing to Galveston to attend one of 'those' parties--not that there's anything wrong with that.

Jeff, what I found disturbing about Glenn's post was his blindness to his own blindness. Ditto Sid. Whenever someone talks about the "Zionist agenda" blah blah blah, as if there is some big conspiracy beyond wanting a homeland, financial security, and to be left alone--THE SAME THINGS EVERY OTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE ON EARTH SEEM TO WANT-- I get a little queasy. Such an obvious and lame scapegoating of a relatively small number of people reeks of self-pity. "The world would have been super if those darned Jews didn't want a homeland." Yeah, right. What about every other darned group of people who ever wanted a homeland? Like those freakin' Americans who overthrew their King for lower taxes and gave an heroic face to revolution? What about the American agenda? What about the Aussie agenda? Yeah, let's get thrown out of our homeland for bad behavior and go to some isolated place where our only competition are some dingoes and some backwards natives and take their land and shoot the dingoes and natives alternately for sport? I know this thread will be laced with philosophical debate, but I would like to concentrate on the JFK case. It's an unsolved crime, hence every avenue should be examined. As far as Israel's supposed motivation in killing Kennedy? Yes, I agree...Israel's will to survive was such that IF they felt their backs were against the wall and their ONLY chance for survival was nukes, and IF Kennedy was the SOLE obstacle to their getting nukes, they would have killed him. I believe the answer is yes to all those questions. The entire Piper thesis depends on it. By spring of '63 JFK and Ben Gurion were at loggerheads, more seriously than ever. Piper quotes from Ben-Gurion's biographer Dan Kurzman: "Lonely and depressed, Ben-Gurion felt strangely helpless. Leadership of Israel was slipping from his withered hands....Ben-Gurion began to show signs of paranoia. Enemies were closing in on him from all sides. A mere declaration by Egypt, Syria and Iraq in April 1963 that they would unite and demolish the 'zionist threat' threw him into near panic." After lining up like sheep for Hitler, they'd understandably vowed "never again." However, NONE of these circumstances were true. Kennedy was not a true obstacle. They illicitly developed nukes and faked out the inspectors. Wrong. Kennedy was the only obstacle. They could rely on LBJ to look the other way, which he did. He even looked the other way when the IDF attacked the USS Liberty in '67. In mid-63, the Dimona reactor had not gone critical. That wasn't till two years later. Ben-Gurion, David Bergman and Shimon Peres had put in six years of painstaking wheeling and dealing since construction began in '57. JFK told them to end it or face serious consequences---'it could seriously jeopardise the relationship'. It can be argued that Israel would not have been able to fake out the inspectors had JFK lived. I don't believe there is any indication Kennedy could have prevented that. But, more importantly, there was no pressing need for nukes at that instant in time. Some 4 years later, using only conventional weapons, Israel absolutely obiterated their hostile neighbors. Absolutely destroyed them. Mopped up the floor with them. IMO, only someone with an irrational hatred of Israel would believe that israel was so desperate for nukes in 1964 that they would kill an American President, and risk losing the support of their Ace-in-the-hole, the good will of the American people. With respect, you're looking at it upside down. They mopped up the Arabs in '67 because they had the latest technology US weaponry, courtesy of LBJ. Had JFK lived, they might not have had that weaponry. The Irgun carried out assassinations and terrorist crimes in the 40's and 50's, and you're forgetting that they had many powerful allies in US Government, media, the military, the underworld and intelligence who also wanted JFK dead. It's not as difficult as you think, if you're smart. Maybe you'd have to step into my shoes to understand why I think it's so ridiculous. I was raised Christian but went to school with a number of Jews. Fifty percent of my elementary school friends were Jews. I spent a lot of time in Jewish homes. American Jews are most often Americans first and Jews second. For the most part, they would no sooner harm America to save Israel than an Irish cop would harm America to help Ireland. They think of Israel as their homeland, not as their land. For Israel to harm an American president, it would be risking the good will of not only the American people, but, more specifically, the Jewish-American people. That is unrealistic. That anyone would think that Israel can be ruthless is one thing. That someone would write a whole book whose central thesis holds that Jews are unnecessarily ruthless, and wreckless, and that this nonsensical version of history makes more sense than a book as well-grounded in reality as Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, or Anthony Summers' Not in Your Lifetime, is another. You're assuming that JFK could not have been assassinated by people purporting to be friends. That's unrealistic, IMO. Israel desperately wanted a closer alliance with the US, which they got right after JFK died. The Israeli leadership could see disaster for their nation unless they developed the nuclear deterrent and had access to modern conventional weaponry. Under JFK they could be guaranteed neither, but with LBJ they were confident of both. Ben-Gurion was obsessed with the security of his country. All he has to do is remove one man. Admittedly, it was high stakes but look at the payoff. Some researchers say the best strategy is to search for the parties who benefitted most from the assassination. Israel was the biggest winner. I know it's a concept that is profoundly disturbing but it's a strong possibility, IMO. History has shown that Israel is ruthless when dealing with enemies and Ben-Gurion's desperation in 1963 was definitely grounded in reality. If someone would explain why Israel felt so incredibly desperate for nukes in 1964 that they would have no other option but to kill Kennedy, I'm willing to listen. How does Piper support that they had no alternative? Does he simply subscribe it to "bloodlust?"

Pat, While I don't agree with your assessment of the theory, I welcome your participation as you seem to be able to discuss this most serious issue objectively, which unfortunately can't be said for certain other members. You may be right that Piper's personal opinions crept into his theory, I'm not sure about that, but lumping it with the WC or Case Closed is unfair, IMO, especially since you haven't read it. For one thing, it contrasts markedly from those two in that it is an attempt to broaden the parameters of the debate, while the other two are clumsy attempts to close it down. Insofar as tapes and admissions are concerned, of course there aren't--although former Israeli scientist Mordechai Vannunu has publicly claimed that Israel was involved. There was mob involvemnet, IMO, but not the type you are talking about. Jack Ruby, tied comprehensively to West Coast Jewish mobster Mickey Cohen shot LHO you know. He placed a call to Al Gruber before he did it. Since no cohesive summation of the theory appears to exist on this thread, I undertake to do this for those unfamiliar with the theory. I won't place myself in a time frame straightjacket--I've made this mistake before--but I will post the major elements and indications which give the theory a credibility which, IMO, places it at the forefront of all the existing theories about what happened that day. Mark A fine post. Your offer to summarize MCP's book for forum members is, I think, a great offer. Such a summary would be very useful. One footnote. A few weeks ago, I saw a note from Israel Shamir via one of the email lists I subscribe to. Shamir had been asked if Vanunu can be cited as a secondary, independent source on the theory of Israeli involvement in the JFK assassination. This was his reply: I agree, Sid. Vannunu's statement can only be considered a footnote in establishing the efficacy of the case for Israeli complicity.

I'm sure you would. Why not try putting something substantial in your posts? IMHO I did. Jack claimed that the VDoT camera definitely should have captured the attack I produced evidence to show that ain't necessarily so. Perhaps you should try, I have never see you do so. All you seem capable of is cutting and pasting or making (normally negative) comments about others posts, often I agree with you such as when you took stabs at Jack and David Healy but at least they make posts that further debate on the subject of the thread You imagine wrong. Unconvincing cop out reply I seem to be the only one to have looked at your links. You certainly didn't. You seem to have difficulty in accepting constructive criticism, your only retort is name-calling. Nice try Mike but 'constructive' criticism is not made with sarcasm "If you presume that most Forum members are capable of scrolling down, why include citations in the text that don't work and then whine when it is brought to your attention?" I wrote the post using MS Word and used the "insert footnote" function because it is less time consuming and I don't have renumber the notes if I edit the text. I didn't whine I offered an explanation First blaming me, then Andy and Invision, and then using Jack White to excuse your sloppiness and laziness speaks volumes about you. I never blamed you nor Andy nor Invision, nor did I use Jack to "excuse" anything. I pointed out Jack's errors to show that you operate by a double standard. You make a big deal about my typos but are silent about those of others. "On another thread, you told Mark Stapleton that you performed a search for the word straw and added: "Simple, easy and quick but I imagine it could be a complicated, difficult and time consuming task for the intellectually challenged." The same could be said for proofreading your own posts." True but it's not uncommon for people on this forums to make small errors in their posts, odd that you should only comment about mine. My reply to Mark was in response to him seeming to imply that counting the number of times I used the phrase "straw man" was an onerous task. As usual, it appears you don't like to take your own advice. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Ralph Waldo Emerson in Self Reliance 1841 and he never even met Mike, Mark and Peter! What prescience! But I guess the likes of them existed back then too. I was obviously referring to non authoritative sites that don't back their claims. I wrote: Oh I see---the sites you cite are the authoritative one's and all the others are non-authoritative? You're definitely losing it--I submit as evidence this post of yours, which must be regarded as one of the most confusing and difficult to read posts on the Forum. Judging by the way you are being comprehensively carved up by Mike Hogan, it's no wonder you want to exchange clarity for confusion. Too late, Len--I'm afraid the ref has already counted you out. LOL – This is too effing funny for words! Jack thinks that something's existence can be proven by the number of Google hits it gets; is he really that detached from reality? I suggest he google "loch ness monster", Bigfoot, "frosty the showman". "abominable snowman" and 'WMD's +iraq' and see how many hits he gets. The fact that so many sites have similar information only proves that they copy each other note that they don't cite any evidence other than other similar sites and obscure books that don't cite any evidence either except for…. […] Great stuff to bad his sources couldn't cite any evidence to support their claims (Mark): "p.s. to Len and the members of the debunkers association--just because you didn't read about an event in the paper or see it on Fox News doesn't mean it didn't occur." The Strawman from OZ strikes again, when did I ever say something has to be on Fox News? I like to see evidence of something before I believe it exists. All that believers in the illuminati can cite are sources that can not document their claims. LOL Jack you're keeping me in stitches!! Care to cite any evidence? You do know what that is don't you? A bunch of websites saying something is true doesn't constitute evidence. I made such comment 3 times all in the same thread a couple of days apart hardly a regular claim. Let's look at the sources I cited. Footnote(s): 1 and 10. – Primary source an Internet posting by someone who worked at the Pentagon for 6 years including on 9/11. I did not say that what he said was true only that he made those claims. 2 and 5 – Primary source posting from an Internet researcher he backed with photographic evidence. I cited two of his claims 1)"According to one researcher it (the camera pole) was 60 feet tall" note that 'JohnDoeX' the "no planer" debating the researcher I cited accepted this as correct and Jack has as well. 2) "there is evidence the wing clipped the pole" once again I did not say that my source was correct. 3 – This is related to the angle of view of a photographic lens, this is not something that is disputed the same information can be found in numerous books on the subject. The information came from an extensive photography site run by a Portuguese photographer. Other sites such as this one [ http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm ] run by a photographer and software developer provide the exact same information. 4 - Primary source – I assume we can trust Boeing to give us the correct demotions for its planes, as with the angles of view of lenses this is not something that is disputed and can be confirmed at numerous other sources including "inside job" sites 6 – The geometry of triangles, this is secondary (or possibly even primary) school math once again not something disputed. The site is that of a software company that develops technical and math programs, the odds of them getting something so basic wrong are slim. 7 - Primary source, I didn't say the plane was definitely at 530 MPH only that was its speed based on the FDR. My source in this case was the NTSB's report of the data recorder's readings. 8 – Primary source. I think we can trust the Virginia Department of Transportation's map of the traffic cameras in Arlington, Virginia as to the correct location of its traffic cameras in that city. 9 – Primary source. VDoT workers from the traffic center were interviewed for an article in the department's newsletter. The article was reproduced in an extensive website dedicated to highway and other transportation infrastructure in Washington D.C., Maryland, Virginia and neighboring states. The sites cited by Lee and referred to back Jack on the other hand offer no documentation for their claims are normally written by people with no direct knowledge of the claims they make. Jack Jack's supposed VDoT video camera still does not show the crash site which was to the south (right*) of the area show. If one pays attention they can see that the windows near the right edge of the photo are different than the others that is because they are from the center portion of the wall. As can clearly be seen in this satellite image taken on September 12, 2001 the impact point was well to the south (left in the picture below) of the center. (*to the right in Jack's image) http://www.directionsmag.com/gisresponse/images/maps/dc/16_Pentagon_after_800.jpg A higher resolution (1.5 MB) copy of the same image can be seen here http://www.directionsmag.com/gisresponse/images/maps/dc/06_Pentagon_after.jpg Another problem is that even IF the camera now shows or at some point after the attacks showed where the plane struck there is no guarantee that it did so on the morning of September 11. According to the VDoT "In the same area, the blast from the plane's impact damaged the lenses of one of VDOT's traffic monitoring cameras and knocked the camera sideways." [http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA_Sept21.txt ] and some who claims to have contacted and visited them confirmed that the camera's housing was damaged and had to be repaired [ http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...=15307&st=0 ]. It is also quite possible that the camera was replace or realigned in the last 5 years. If one looks at the actual webcam broadcast [ http://vdot.trafficland.com/trafficvideo.php?system=vdot&token=159f9cd136642f8ecf69f68f8daec3d3&webid=740&random=0.04545012928774861 , if the link doesn't work try http://www.virginiadot.org/comtravel/eoc/eoc-main.asp select Arlington from the scroll down menu over the map and then click the "Traffic Cameras" button on the left the Pentagon camera is the 1st one ABOVE 395 {the blue line} near where it says 'District Of Columbia'] or a still (from this morning) http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l281/lenbrazil/Pentagoncam3.jpg it appears that perhaps now (unlike in Jack's photo) it shows the impact area but once again that is no guarantee it did so 5 years ago. One can also see that its frame rate is about one frame every 2.5 seconds making unlikely that it would have captured an image of what ever struck the Pentagon at 777 feet per second it would have flown almost 2000 feet. Also as can be seen in the still above its "shutter" speed is insufficient to show unblurred images of cars presumably traveling at around 60 mph let alone a plane traveling at 9 times that speed. "If such a tape exists showing the "plane" in plain sight below the camera and hitting the building, you can bet the govt would have shown it to dispell "conspiracy theories"." There is reasonable cause to doubt the camera registered the impact, one question Jack hasn't addressed is if it is so easy to fake such images, all they would need to produce are one or two blurry still images, why haven't they haven't done so?

I'm sure you would. Why not try putting something substantial in your posts? IMHO I did. Jack claimed that the VDoT camera definitely should have captured the attack I produced evidence to show that ain't necessarily so. Perhaps you should try, I have never see you do so. All you seem capable of is cutting and pasting or making (normally negative) comments about others posts, often I agree with you such as when you took stabs at Jack and David Healy but at least they make posts that further debate on the subject of the thread You imagine wrong. Unconvincing cop out reply I seem to be the only one to have looked at your links. You certainly didn't. You seem to have difficulty in accepting constructive criticism, your only retort is name-calling. Nice try Mike but 'constructive' criticism is not made with sarcasm "If you presume that most Forum members are capable of scrolling down, why include citations in the text that don't work and then whine when it is brought to your attention?" I wrote the post using MS Word and used the "insert footnote" function because it is less time consuming and I don't have renumber the notes if I edit the text. I didn't whine I offered an explanation First blaming me, then Andy and Invision, and then using Jack White to excuse your sloppiness and laziness speaks volumes about you. I never blamed you nor Andy nor Invision, nor did I use Jack to "excuse" anything. I pointed out Jack's errors to show that you operate by a double standard. You make a big deal about my typos but are silent about those of others. "On another thread, you told Mark Stapleton that you performed a search for the word straw and added: "Simple, easy and quick but I imagine it could be a complicated, difficult and time consuming task for the intellectually challenged." The same could be said for proofreading your own posts." True but it's not uncommon for people on this forums to make small errors in their posts, odd that you should only comment about mine. My reply to Mark was in response to him seeming to imply that counting the number of times I used the phrase "straw man" was an onerous task. As usual, it appears you don't like to take your own advice. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Ralph Waldo Emerson in Self Reliance 1841 and he never even met Mike, Mark and Peter! What prescience! But I guess the likes of them existed back then too. I was obviously referring to non authoritative sites that don't back their claims. I wrote: [ LOL – This is too effing funny for words! Jack thinks that something's existence can be proven by the number of Google hits it gets; is he really that detached from reality? I suggest he google "loch ness monster", Bigfoot, "frosty the showman". "abominable snowman" and 'WMD's +iraq' and see how many hits he gets. The fact that so many sites have similar information only proves that they copy each other note that they don't cite any evidence other than other similar sites and obscure books that don't cite any evidence either except for…. […] Great stuff to bad his sources couldn't cite any evidence to support their claims (Mark): "p.s. to Len and the members of the debunkers association--just because you didn't read about an event in the paper or see it on Fox News doesn't mean it didn't occur." The Strawman from OZ strikes again, when did I ever say something has to be on Fox News? I like to see evidence of something before I believe it exists. All that believers in the illuminati can cite are sources that can not document their claims. LOL Jack you're keeping me in stitches!! Care to cite any evidence? You do know what that is don't you? A bunch of websites saying something is true doesn't constitute evidence. I made such comment 3 times all in the same thread a couple of days apart hardly a regular claim. Let's look at the sources I cited. Footnote(s): 1 and 10. – Primary source an Internet posting by someone who worked at the Pentagon for 6 years including on 9/11. I did not say that what he said was true only that he made those claims. 2 and 5 – Primary source posting from an Internet researcher he backed with photographic evidence. I cited two of his claims 1)"According to one researcher it (the camera pole) was 60 feet tall" note that 'JohnDoeX' the "no planer" debating the researcher I cited accepted this as correct and Jack has as well. 2) "there is evidence the wing clipped the pole" once again I did not say that my source was correct. 3 – This is related to the angle of view of a photographic lens, this is not something that is disputed the same information can be found in numerous books on the subject. The information came from an extensive photography site run by a Portuguese photographer. Other sites such as this one [ http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm ] run by a photographer and software developer provide the exact same information. 4 - Primary source – I assume we can trust Boeing to give us the correct demotions for its planes, as with the angles of view of lenses this is not something that is disputed and can be confirmed at numerous other sources including "inside job" sites 6 – The geometry of triangles, this is secondary (or possibly even primary) school math once again not something disputed. The site is that of a software company that develops technical and math programs, the odds of them getting something so basic wrong are slim. 7 - Primary source, I didn't say the plane was definitely at 530 MPH only that was its speed based on the FDR. My source in this case was the NTSB's report of the data recorder's readings. 8 – Primary source. I think we can trust the Virginia Department of Transportation's map of the traffic cameras in Arlington, Virginia as to the correct location of its traffic cameras in that city. 9 – Primary source. VDoT workers from the traffic center were interviewed for an article in the department's newsletter. The article was reproduced in an extensive website dedicated to highway and other transportation infrastructure in Washington D.C., Maryland, Virginia and neighboring states. The sites cited by Lee and referred to back Jack on the other hand offer no documentation for their claims are normally written by people with no direct knowledge of the claims they make. Jack Jack's supposed VDoT video camera still does not show the crash site which was to the south (right*) of the area show. If one pays attention they can see that the windows near the right edge of the photo are different than the others that is because they are from the center portion of the wall. As can clearly be seen in this satellite image taken on September 12, 2001 the impact point was well to the south (left in the picture below) of the center. (*to the right in Jack's image) http://www.directionsmag.com/gisresponse/images/maps/dc/16_Pentagon_after_800.jpg A higher resolution (1.5 MB) copy of the same image can be seen here http://www.directionsmag.com/gisresponse/images/maps/dc/06_Pentagon_after.jpg Another problem is that even IF the camera now shows or at some point after the attacks showed where the plane struck there is no guarantee that it did so on the morning of September 11. According to the VDoT "In the same area, the blast from the plane's impact damaged the lenses of one of VDOT's traffic monitoring cameras and knocked the camera sideways." [http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA_Sept21.txt ] and some who claims to have contacted and visited them confirmed that the camera's housing was damaged and had to be repaired [ http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...=15307&st=0 ]. It is also quite possible that the camera was replace or realigned in the last 5 years. If one looks at the actual webcam broadcast [ http://vdot.trafficland.com/trafficvideo.php?system=vdot&token=159f9cd136642f8ecf69f68f8daec3d3&webid=740&random=0.04545012928774861 , if the link doesn't work try http://www.virginiadot.org/comtravel/eoc/eoc-main.asp select Arlington from the scroll down menu over the map and then click the "Traffic Cameras" button on the left the Pentagon camera is the 1st one ABOVE 395 {the blue line} near where it says 'District Of Columbia'] or a still (from this morning) http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l281/lenbrazil/Pentagoncam3.jpg it appears that perhaps now (unlike in Jack's photo) it shows the impact area but once again that is no guarantee it did so 5 years ago. One can also see that its frame rate is about one frame every 2.5 seconds making unlikely that it would have captured an image of what ever struck the Pentagon at 777 feet per second it would have flown almost 2000 feet. Also as can be seen in the still above its "shutter" speed is insufficient to show unblurred images of cars presumably traveling at around 60 mph let alone a plane traveling at 9 times that speed. "If such a tape exists showing the "plane" in plain sight below the camera and hitting the building, you can bet the govt would have shown it to dispell "conspiracy theories"." There is reasonable cause to doubt the camera registered the impact, one question Jack hasn't addressed is if it is so easy to fake such images, all they would need to produce are one or two blurry still images, why haven't they haven't done so?

Pat, While I don't agree with your assessment of the theory, I welcome your participation as you seem to be able to discuss this most serious issue objectively, which unfortunately can't be said for certain other members. You may be right that Piper's personal opinions crept into his theory, I'm not sure about that, but lumping it with the WC or Case Closed is unfair, IMO, especially since you haven't read it. For one thing, it contrasts markedly from those two in that it is an attempt to broaden the parameters of the debate, while the other two are clumsy attempts to close it down. Insofar as tapes and admissions are concerned, of course there aren't--although former Israeli scientist Mordechai Vannunu has publicly claimed that Israel was involved. There was mob involvemnet, IMO, but not the type you are talking about. Jack Ruby, tied comprehensively to West Coast Jewish mobster Mickey Cohen shot LHO you know. He placed a call to Al Gruber before he did it. Since no cohesive summation of the theory appears to exist on this thread, I undertake to do this for those unfamiliar with the theory. I won't place myself in a time frame straightjacket--I've made this mistake before--but I will post the major elements and indications which give the theory a credibility which, IMO, places it at the forefront of all the existing theories about what happened that day.

Fine points, Michael. My favorite is Len's regular claim that posting links to a bunch of websites proves nothing. So what does Len do when debating other members? He posts links to a bunch of websites! Time for reassignment, Len. You're falling apart.

Noveber 22nd 1963 was not a sunny morning in Dallas and JFK was murdered in the afternoon (at precisely 12.30 P.M. Central Standard Time) The rest of your post is equally erronious and is obviously fuelled by anti-semitism and ignorance of the facts of the case. Mr. Carroll, Talk about a nit picking objection! After an early shower or two, it became fine and sunny as the time for the motorcade approached. The motorcade was conducted in blazing sunshine. The rest of your post is a ridiculous rant.

Actually Jack and JL Allen did and John Gillespie seemed to endorse the idea. That was definitely the drift of Lee's 1st few posts which I guess I missed were meant a bit tongue in cheek but I already acknowledged that. But I have yet to see any evidence that they actually do influence government policy anywhere. Right or wrong government leaders have the right to seek the council of those who they see fit. The problem is when these "powerful groups or networks" actually unduly influence policy. There are enough actual cases where this is well documented, such as the excellent film "Iraq for Sale". Truly one of your most bizarre statements. You start by stating that you've yet to see evidence that they actually do influence Government policy anywhere, and conclude by stating the opposite--that there are enough actual cases where this is well documented. And you even put some gibberish in the middle! One of your best. No my I seriously doubt my use of the term will stymie debate on the issue, would that I were so influential. I believe in free speech to the extent that I supported the right of Nazis to march trough a city largely populated by Holocaust survivors but I still think the 9/11 crap is counter productive and in most cases quite baseless. My intent in using the phrase is to show my contempt for those who twist and make up facts to fit their preordained theory which like creation "scientists" and Holocaust "revisionists" has no backing from qualified experts. Strange when others on this forum tried to marginalize me by suggesting I'm some sort of government agent you were silent as you were when Sid accused Peter of posting an article about the Anthrax attacks he (Sid) didn't agree with because he (Peter) is Jewish and thus was presumably covering for Israel (despite being outspokenly anti-Israel) smacks of a double standard to me. Ironically Kevin Barrett, one of the most well known 9/11 revisionists, uses the phrase (damn and I though I had coined it): [/color] "Gravois repeats insulting term "conspiracy theorist" six times in his article. Labeling people with an insulting term that they themselves strongly reject is problematic to say the least… A responsible journalist would either refer to the group using its own term for itself, or attempt to find a neutral term, such as "9/11 revisionists." " http://www.mujca.com/chronicle.htm "Paul Zarembka writes to raise the issue of a possible academic conference on 9/11 revisionism next September 11th...stay tuned to MUJCA for details." http://www.mujca.com/brave3.htm See also - http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLG%2CGGLG%3A2005-32%2CGGLG%3Aen&q=revisionist+site%3Awww.mujca.com As does Justin Raimondo another well know 9/11 revisionist http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6923 As do Holocaust revisionists http://www.barnesreview.org/Newsletter/TBR_June_2006_Newsletter.pdf Yeah I did a search for all of my posts containing the word 'straw' and then used IE's "Find (on this page)" function the whole procedure only took or minute or two and a few dozen mouse clicks / key strokes. Simple, easy and quick but I imagine it could be a complicated, difficult and time consuming task for the intellectually challenged. Not really. You managed it OK. I leveled the charge that someone was making a straw man in less than 3% of my posts, not excessive if you consider how often people like you use them. I've already suggested a way you could prove your point if it was valid, find cases where I used the phrase inappropriately. How is asking you to prove you point being anal? In any case which is worse being "retentive" or being "full of it"? It's kind of hard to believe that the people who take this kind of crap seriously can actually be functioning human beings. Worse is that some of them like Lee Forman cite racist web sites as sources. He like Jack and John are in violation of the forum rule requiring members to link their bios at the bottom of their posts. No longer in violation on one count anyway. I will most likely continue to be in fault on the 'racist' part for website sources. In 1963 the US had issues with racism, no way in getting away from that. - lee The events the link referred to took place in 2001

Hi Lee, lol--yes, it's a sad fact that these corporate round tables require such high security measures in order to protect the participants from their growing band of admirers.

Sid, From listening to Piper's radio program, it's obvious the guy is not the fanatical bogeyman that preservers of 'official history' would have us believe. I plan to listen to his recent programs which deal specifically with the assassination and I agree with you that members with a genuine interest in the JFK case would be well advised to hear him out, although he's not an accomplished radio broadcaster. Final Judgement has yet to be effectively refuted, IMO, and it remains the most likely explanation for the crime of the century. Israel and its American supporters were the driving force, aided and abetted by powerful forces within America who where also anxious to see an end to this dangerous experiment in geuine democracy.

I don’t really see how that serves as evidence of the existence of the Illuminati; I’m not a big fan of the Catholic Church esp. not during that period. All that it proves is that there were reactionary elements in the church that were sympathetic to the Nazis. Let not forget that the western Allies and the Soviets also protected ex-Nazis. The exact extent of Vatican involvement is a matter of dispute. The director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center said in 1999 that: “We have mentioned the Rat Line, an escape route for Nazis with Vatican connections (not run by the Vatican, but by a Croatian priest attached to a seminary there), but, as is well known, many unanswered questions remain about the role of the Vatican” [ http://www.archives.gov/iwg/research-papers/weitzman-remarks-june-1999.html - The IWG seems like an excellent resource for researching this issue]. This is especially significant because Wiesenthal who was still alive at the time was one of the first people to implicate the Vatican in helping Nazis escape. I don’t consider Wikipedia an authoritative source but its articles on the issue also indicate dispute over the question of Vatican involvement and cites sources, some of which are available online [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ODESSA ]. On the other hand John Loftus seemed to think that these operations were widespread and had the approval of the Pope [ http://hist.academic.claremontmckenna.edu/jpetropoulos/holocaust/aftermathintro.htm ]. But even if that worse case scenario was true all it would prove is that the church leadership (like that of the US government) was plagued by anti-Semitism and fanatical anti-Communism to the extent it did the Devil’s work instead of God’s (I’m an agnostic, I used the terms figuratively). This would fit with their lack of interference in an at times cooperation with the Holocaust but once again they were not the only ones and there was plenty of blame to go around. Neither are evidence of an Illuminati like conspiracy though. Len What I dispute is the existence of a network of powerful groups/people conspiring to take over the world especially the existence of centuries old organizations trying to do that, the evidence just isn’t there and hasn’t been presented in this thread. Lee indicated he suggested this in jest but I don’t know if he was joking about the idea of such a conspiracy or just the name Illuminati. If he or you or anybody else is seriously proposing such theories I think the categorization of ‘crap’ is justified. One reason I object to 9/11 revisionism is because I think it turns off many people from looking at the real crimes of Bush and his ilk, you can cube that for theories like the Illuminati. Lumping such nonsense with serious issues like the Bush and Blair administrations lying about Iraq, war profiteering by Neo-Con cronies, the cover up of global warming etc etc is Rove’s wet dream. I don't think Lee or anyone else stated that powerful groups or networks are trying to 'take over the world'. That's an overdramatisation by you. However, the existence of powerful groups or networks seeking to influence Governments worldwide could be denied by only the most naive among us, IMO. When the Bilderbergs meet, they would hardly be discussing the latest sporting results, IMO. The fact that this all takes place beyond the reach of public scrutiny only adds to the suspicion. Some may call it a conspiracy, others might simply say that this is how the system works, but 'powerful group or networks' do influence Governments and media to act in their interests. You are entitled to dismiss it all as crap and say so. I'm entitled to disagree with your observation and I do. There was a time when any suggestion of a conspiracy involving JFK's death was regarded as crap. However, it's now become obvious that a 'powerful group or network' conspired to murder him and succeeded in bluffing the public into believing a story which is patently ridiculous. The mainstream media participated in constructing an 'official history' which they knew was false. Despite the fact that most unbiased observers now realise this, the media continues this charade. This is due to the infloence of 'powerful groups or networks', don't you think? I know little about the real story of 9/11 other than what I've read here on the Forum. However, judging by that I would guess that you are in for a tough battle trying to dissuade researchers from delving into it. You state, somewhat arrogantly, that you would prefer researchers to concentrate on the issues which you feel are important, but what you feel is important may not be the same as what others feel is important. Can't you see that branding those researchers as purveyors of '9/11 revisionism' only serves to place you in the camp of those who strive to jealously preserve 'official history'. “p,s the 'strawman' defence is invalid.” I used that phrase about 30 times (out of over 1000 posts) especially in response to your and David Healy’s posts and to a lesser extent Jack’s, Peter’s Sid’s and other people’s posts because the five of you have a tendency to ascribe to others arguments they never made. If you want to show that I’m abusing the phrase do a search for the instances when I used it and show it was inappropriate. To do this you will have to show that I or the person in question actually made the point or argument ascribed to me or them, good luck. Once you stop making straw man arguments I will stop accusing you of making them. You've actually gone back and counted? Len, you've got to get out more and watch some of those crappy bands. As for the rest of the paragraph, I'm amazed that someone could be so anally retentive---but in your case, I'm not surprised. Len

Len, I think after what you have said about this thread---including calling it crap--you owe Lee an answer here. p,s the 'strawman' defence is invalid.

A suitably reverent tone for communicating with a towering intellect like Tom's. At least I am not lost in some rabbit hole chasing mythological creatures! You mean the other shooters? You're right, they are almost mythological. Don't you think a lone assassin is a slightly risky strategy for the conspirators? I realise you are more of a CT than a LN. I agree with you about the probability of Z-film alteration, although I don't know about that vehicle speed analysis you posted. Like most, I'm dwarfed by your apparent mastery of technical analysis, so you could have stuck any numbers in there for all I know. Three shots from one location--behind JFK? What about all the witnesses who saw smoke coming from the knoll and fence? Those shots all missed, I assume. A conspiracy theory utilising a lone assassin? It's too weird.

A suitably reverent tone for communicating with a towering intellect like Tom's.

LOL – This is too effing funny for words! Jack thinks that something’s existence can be proven by the number of Google hits it gets; is he really that detached from reality? I suggest he google “loch ness monster”, Bigfoot, “frosty the showman”. “abominable snowman” and ‘WMD’s +iraq’ and see how many hits he gets. The fact that so many sites have similar information only proves that they copy each other note that they don’t cite any evidence other than other similar sites and obscure books that don’t cite any evidence either except for…. Can’t fault humble Jack for his logical fallacy though, his sidekick Fetzer with his Ivy League education, fancy degrees, books and self proclaimed status as (America’s? the World’s?) most accomplished academic [1] tried using the same argument. [2] 1] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/3858 he wrote “I know of no faculty member anywhere whose combination of achievements exceeds my own!” 2] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaimsDEBUNK/message/1856 (membership required), he wrote “If you do a google search and enter "RF weapons", there are 397,000 items. If you enter "EM weapons", there are 21,000,000 items. And if you enter "HERF guns", there are 4,630 items--pretty good for a class of weapons that, according to some on the forum, do not exist!” The number of hits he reported was greatly exaggerated (“RF weapons” only returned 576 hits) and no one disputed the existence of or at least research on such weapons. Len Great stuff to bad his sources couldn't cite any evidence to suppoert their claims You have your opinion and I have mine "The illuminati knows this and has plans to reduce the populations of third world countries accordingly..." Do you really believe this crap? You seemed reletively rational to me and not part of the Forum's lunatic fringe. When I joked about the Illuminati, Ron got pissed of I'm not sure--which means I don't rule it out. When Lee posted this thread, I don't think he was canvassing for disciples--it was more in the way of food for thought. You seem fear that this thread may result in the sudden appearance of an illuminati cult. Very irrational. I'm gratified to think that you consider me relatively rational and not part of the Forum's lunatic fringe. Sadly, I can't reciprocate. "p.s. to Len and the members of the debunkers association--just because you didn't read about an event in the paper or see it on Fox News doesn't mean it didn't occur." The Strawman from OZ strikes again, when did I ever say something has to be on Fox News? I like to see evidence of something before I believe it exists. All that believers in the illuminati can cite are sources that can not document their claims. If they ever remove the word 'strawman' from the vocabulary, you'll have trouble making posts. It peppers so many of your contributions. The standards of modern xxxxx academies must be slipping. They're certainly neglecting vocabulary. You did graduate didn't you? You're not a xxxxx college dropout, I hope. So Len, you're an individual who requires 'evidence of something before you believe it exists'. Logical. However, do you sometimes suspect the existence of something prior to corroborating its existence? If so, do you keep you opinions in a holding pattern until the appearance of corroborative evidence or do you just debunk and deny all the way up until the evidence appears---necessitating a hasty retreat and about face? It might be advisable to hold fire until more data comes in. Imagine your embarrassment should the 'illuminati' prove to be real. It would be like your hasty reversal on the issue of Meyer Lansky's relevance. LOL Jack you're keeping me in stiches!! Care to cite any evidence? You do know what that is don't you? A bunch of websites say somethig is true doesn't constitute evidence.

From the Guardian comes this report of strange injuries being suffered by Palestinians in Gaza since July. They report many cases where tiny external shrapnel wounds belie major damage to internal organs. They also report some patients dying suddenly after apparently stabilising. We're talking about civilians, of course. An experimental weapon has been suggested, although Israel has predictably denied this. As if the cluster bombs in Lebanon weren't bad enough. What will these cruel bastards think of next? http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1018-05.htm

Great stuff, Lee. Eugenics is an interesting subject. Overpopulation is shaping up as the biggest threat to the planet's survival. In Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", he highlights the fact that when he was born in 1948, world population was 2.6 billion. If he lives to his statistically expected lifespan (78, I think), the population will be 9 billion. 2.6 billion to 9 billion in one man's lifetime. The illuminati knows this and has plans to reduce the populations of third world countries accordingly, if necessary. Of course, these plans should be withheld from the less enlightened who might suggest more humanitarian ways of controlling world population growth, including the suggestion that economic systems based on endless growth, profit and exploitation of non-renewable resources are ultimately incompatible with the planet's survival. Ah well, the illuminati has managed to go part of the way already. According to the respected British medical publication Lancet, Iraq's population has been reduced by 1/40th since the war began--without resort to biotech weapons: http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligen...11-101852-9569r Way to go guys! p.s. to Len and the members of the debunkers association--just because you didn't read about an event in the paper or see it on Fox News doesn't mean it didn't occur. By now you should have learned from recent history that the media is tightly controlled and keeps the public in the dark about many, many things.

Tom, thanks for the advice. I'll consider it carefully before I disregard it. Before the thread becomes shrouded in a blizzard of entry wound facts and figures, may I just ask if you still believe LHO killed JFK? That's the meat of the thread. A Lone Nutter who is critical of the WC is still a Lone Nutter.