Mark Stapleton

Actually it's my govt's theory, which I subscribe to. He didn't plan to get away with it, which accounts for his meandering course of action after the shooting. I think he counted on being killed or apprehended on the spot. Soviet Union? Unlikely. Cuba would have been a likelier destination--but just as futile. What makes you think the Texas Theater was some sort of rendezvous setting? Isn't it likely that he happened upon it and ducked in to escape the heat? Why did he dick around the front of the shoe store if the Theater was his goal? And what kind of "innocent" person, upon learning of the President's shooting/death, decides to take in a movie .. with a gun? The rest of the country was huddled around tv sets. Not good ol' Lee. The idea that Lee counted on being killed or apprehended makes no sense. It implies that Lee had little regard for his self-preservation or liberty. This is inconsistent with his words and actions while in custody. In addition to his protestations of innocence, he complained bitterly of being fitted up in the lineups. You haven't reflected on how an innocent patsy would behave. Despite the efforts of the WC, the Government, the agencies and the media to portray him as a deranged loner, he is in fact the perfect patsy. Why, in your opinion, did Ruby kill Oswald? Doesn't this further reinforce Oswald's patsy status? Dead patsies can't complain about their predicament. In order to fully understand what is really quite a straightforward scenario, you might need to distance yourself from your "reality based community".

Brendan, I'm keen to learn more details about this lone nut theory of yours. Did Oswald plan to get away with the assassination? Was he planning to flee to the Soviet Union? Who did he plan to meet at the Texas theatre (he was a lone nut, remember), or did he just feel like taking in a movie? You need to flesh out a few more details of your theory. You're not afraid of doing this are you? I eagerly await your reply to these questions. I have some others too.

Q: What is black and blue and found floating up sidedown in the Irish sea? A: Someone who's tells a stupid Irish joke There was once a Irishman and an Englishman who lived next door to each other. The Irishman owned a hen and each morning would look in his garden and pick up one of his hen's eggs for breakfast. One day he looked into his garden and saw that the hen had laid an egg in the Englishman's garden. He was about to go next door when he saw the Englishman pick up the egg. The Irishman ran up to the Englishman and told him that the egg belonged to him because he owned the hen. The Englishman disagreed because the egg was laid on his property. They argued for a while until finally the Irishman said, "In my family we normally solve disputes by the following actions: I kick you in the balls and time how long it takes you to get back up, then you kick me in the balls and time how long it takes for me to get up, whomever gets up quicker wins the egg." The Englishman agreed to this and so the Irishman found his heaviest pair of boots and put them on, he took a few steps back, then ran toward the Englishman and kicked as hard as he could in the balls. The Englishman fell to the floor clutching his nuts howling in agony for 30 minutes. Eventually the Englishman stood up and said, "Okay, now it's my turn to kick you." The Irishman said, "Keep the damn egg." I'll pay that one. Eggcellent.

Double post. Crackpot mistake.

Mark Stapleton: “I feel sympathy for Lee. Look what the lone nut loonies are doing to his excellent thread.”Mark, I feel the same way, and would ordinarily apologize for sticking my own dim-witted butt into the thread. But apparently that’s the point and the strategy when someone like Lee posts an excellent thread—if you’re opposed to what he’s after or what is being said, then the best approach is to [expletive deleted] all over it. And it works: people get bored, irritated, tired, confused, and then drop out.................And why should anyone bother to stay in when confronted with gems like these? Since the later gems were based on the member’s apparent total confusion as to what he was talking about, and no one had the goodness of heart to correct him, this all speaks for itself, doesn’t it? It’s like watching the drunkest, mouthiest guy at the bar going on and on and on; he deserves to be knocked on his arse, but you always know he’s eventually gonna do something stupid or really embarrassing. And has no shame and/or can't stop when it does happen. (Keep your eye on the ball, and when you don’t know enough about a subject, just shut up. Something to ponder.) This is not, unfortunately, about someone who's totally oblivious and has no self-consciousness. It might seem that way when he writes, "If my posts routinely abused and harassed others in a trollish manner, or contained frequent profanity, then he’d have every right to exile me. But we all know that’s not what's happening here." He has to be aware that he "routinely abuses and harasses others in a trollish manner," doesn't he? That's what trolls are about, and then they deny they're doing it. So keep up the good work, Lee; you must really be onto something to have gained the honor of this kind of all-out assault. And everyone: try as much as possible to ignore this mouthy punk; he ain't worth the strain and effort we all had to endure when we squeezed out the last [expletive deleted] we took. Daniel, You make a good point. When Brendan tries to interrupt and distract a thread it indicates that the thread annoys him, hence the thread must have merit. It's hard to believe we have a real, live Warren Commission disciple in our midst. After all these years, I didn't think any rational person could form such a view--goes to show that life is full of surprises I guess. I wonder what he thinks about alchemy. There's a lot of base metal out there. I like this thread because it's a real attempt to solve one of history's most intiguing mysteries--or at least to throw up a few realistic suggestions. No one knows with certainty where the shooters and those assisting them were located--does anyone really believe the shooters would be out there on their own, with no cover? Lee has put in a painstaking effort to throw light on some possibilities. Unlike Bill Miller's constructive critiques, I feel Brendan's strange and provocative denigration of Lee's efforts to be cheap and tactless. I feel compelled to respond. I agree with Steve Turner that adherents of the lone nut theory have just as much right to be here as those who espouse other crackpot theories. They are always great entertainment value. Where's Gerry Posner? They could be a better act than Martin and Lewis.

Instead of hindering this thread, why don't you participate in forums which deal with matters which more closely resemble your bizarre theory. Sites dealing with little green men from Mars and witches on broomsticks have roughly the same level of credibilty as your fantasy about LHO shooting JFK. I have as much tolerance for irrepressible crackpots as the next person, but this thread is asking serious questions about generally accepted facts regarding Dealey Plaza. So go away. Of course, maybe you're not just a harmless crackpot but someone with an agenda. Always a possibility on forums like this.

You appear to have misinterpreted what she was trying to say. Looking over her Dad's shoulder face on at the Stemmons Road sign is "across from it" to some people. I didn't know there was a routine for seeing the President of the United States. Bill Bill, There is no routine for watching the President pass by and I don't think any such assertion was made. You're just being needlessly pedantic.

Lee, Re location #1--What was the height and width of the hedge and bushes in '63 to your knowledge? I can't tell from the images posted. Also, any more info on the other pictures James Altgens took on the day? I assume many were not photos of DP.

I feel sympathy for Lee. Look what the lone nut loonies are doing to his excellent thread.

Surely the most controversial match of the tournament to date. Chances galore, three players ordered from the field, several others departing on a stretcher, the bench threadbare, an amazing display of histrionics by US coach Bruce Arena and an incredible goalkeeping performance by US 'keeper Kasey Keller. Who said soccer was boring?

The commentators here in Australia (Ned Zelic and former coach Rale Rasic) are claiming Beckham has lost his touch. I disagree. I thought he played OK--he put in at least half a dozen promising crosses and his set piece kicks were always dangerous. Therry and Cole were best, IMO. Lennon is very dangerous and Rooney only had limited opportunities. Hey Andy, I thought you said Rooney wouldn't play.

It's the 78 minute mark, 0-0, and Frank Lampard must be setting a record for most unsuccessful clean shots at a goal. Hold on!.....no, it's OK--Lampard's just missed again. p.s. been impressed by young replacement Lennon. p.p.s. Crouch scores!

It appears that some folks cannot refrain from becoming disagreeable when they disagree. Where, in any SANE training for the public-relations biz, do they instruct you to ATTACK the very folks you're allegedly trying to convince of your viewpoint? I would be curious to know whether Mr. Slattery's apparent hatred of JFK stems from what he saw during Kennedy's life, or whether it sprung from what he has read and heard since...i.e, whether his impressions are from someone else's impressions or whether he formed them from watching the events as they unfolded. If they are from secondary sources, they are only as unbiased as the sources themselves. I don't find any "Bush hatred" in a simple comparison of Mr. Kennedy's speech with the actions of Mr. Bush. If Mr. Bush fares poorly by comparison, does the fault not lie with Mr. Bush's actions? And in all fairness, if Mr. Kennedy's philandering ways compare poorly with Mr. Bush's conduct of his own personal life, is that, too, not the fault of Mr. Kennedy? You can't have it both ways. Each man is equally responsible for his own actions, and those who point out these failures are NOT the enemy of EITHER man if what they state is factual. I think GWB stands up pretty well when lined up against JFK's famous speeches and remarks. Here are some of my favorites: "Free societies are hopeful societies....will be allies against those hateful few who have no conscience, who kill at the whim of a hat" "The holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all live in this century. I didn't live in this century." "I have made good judgements in the past. I have made good judgements in the future." http://mindprod.com/politics/bushisms.html You have to admit, he's a far-sighted statesman.

The US have just been clinically dismembered by the Czech Republic 3-0. The US played like Dubya was their coach.

Coming back from a 1-0 halftime deficit to win 3-1 is a great win by any standards. From the moment Supercoach Guus replaced Bresciano with Tim Cahill, Australia's attack looked far more dangerous. Then bringing on Aloisi further bolstered our attack. Japan was let down by its attack more than by its defence, IMO. They had several opportunities in the second half to go 2-0 up but poor crosses or weak finishing prevented them from capitalising on these chances. Had Japan gone two up it might have broken the Aussies' spirit, but instead they didn't go hard enough for the second goal and seemed happy to sit on a one goal lead. Big mistake.

Personally, I would like very much to clear Emory Roberts' name from any suspicion of involvement. Trouble is, does anyone know a damn thing about this guy? Did he commit suicide in the late 60's? If so, what circumstances surrounded it? If not, is he still around? Did he go on to work closely with LBJ after JFK's assassination? Was he planted in the SS by someone? Kellerman, Greer, Hill, Rybka--all have elements of their backgrounds and thoughts about Dealey Plaza on the record, mostly courtesy of Palamara. Roberts appears to be some kind of illusion. I've asked these questions on other threads before and the response is always underwhelming. This fellow has the research community stumped. This might sound like persecution but without any background knowledge all one has left is the performance of Roberts on the day. While it was technically Kellerman's shift it seems that it was Roberts giving the orders, the ones which were obeyed, from Love Field to Parkland Hospital. Since his prepared testimony to the Warren Commission, he's dissappeared. Vanished. He's Houdini.

Marcel, The disturbing thing about Roberts, in addition to his actions on November 22, is the mystery surrounding him in the years following the assassination. Palamara suggests he may be the agent who took his own life in the late 60's, "he was beginning to buckle" is the quote from agent Chuck Rochner when referring to this unnamed agent. He apparently worked for LBJ in the capacity of "records secretary" following the assassination, according to Palamara. A little more publicly available information about Emory Roberts could resolve the confusion, but on what's available, I would answer yes--he's a person of great interest to assassination researchers. http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/VP/53-VP.html

They might go one better this time. Portugal's a real sleeper. Very big chance, IMO.

If lone nut Oswald killed JFK, then what was the reason for LBJ locking up the records for 75 years? There's no security issue here. Why did Ruby kill Oswald? Because idolised Jack and Jackie of course. Ho Ho Ho.

Yeh, thats the solution to all you guys sloppy research when it comes to alteration - the images are altered. Your so called shooter/spotter is still seen on the wall in the Bell film long after the crowds have merged onto the walkway ... the reason - he is made up of sunspots on the wall. If you want to see Moorman's photo - check with NBC for it was aired on their network. Also, see "JFK assassination - as it happened". The photo filled the screen. Now you won't be able to tell what color lipstick Sitzman had on, but you won't see a spotter/shooter at the shelter wall either. Bill Miller Bill, you can hardly call Lee's work on this thread "sloppy research". You should keep an open mind on the issue of photo alteration.

Recent history shows that Brazil will make the final because I moved here in 1993 and they've made it every Cup since then after a 24 year absence! LOL They should win it too because they are 5 - 2 in finals and 2 -1 since I've been here. These historic patterns prove little, France never made it to the finals before '98, Germany and Brazil played in every postwar Cup and one or the other made it to every post-war final except '78 (when Brazil came in 3rd) but they never played each other in the Cup till the last final. Also Brazil did make it to the finals in France and Argentina made it to the final in Italy so Mark's prediction off an all European final goes against recent history. Cup history goes against Mark's prediction. There was only Cup where Brazil, Germany or the host country didn't make it to the final that was 1938, there was only one Cup where neither finalist had been a finalist before that was 1934 Brazil as always will be the teem to beat but there are a lot of stong teams and always surprises, no one expected Germany or Brazil to do well lat time and who would have expected South Korea would make it to semis? As for my homeland The US doubt they'll make it to the 2nd round Len There have been nine World Cups held in Europe since the competition began in 1930. Despite being the only nation to have competed in every World Cup, Brazil have only won once (1958) in Europe. They also have won in Chile (1962), Mexico (1970), USA (1994) and Japan (2002). In other words, Brazil have won four of the eight non-European hosted World Cups to date giving them an amazing strike rate of 50%. By contrast, they have only managed one victory in the nine European hosted World Cups, giving them a less impressive strike rate of 11.11% in this category. The historical record is unambiguous. Brazil perform better in non-European hosted World Cups. Despite this, Brazil are the #1 ranked team in the world thus deserve their status as favorites to win. I don't think they will.

This is because my country of birth was not permitted to qualify. This is largely due to the continuing occupation by the English rather than any lack of ability. We are not allowed to be members of FIFA only the English FA. We did however beat Scotland 1-0 in the final of the Celtic Nations Cup in 2000 - not bad of an island of 70,000 people Interesting bio Andy, but who is your selection to win the 2006 World Cup?

That's one for Spain and one for Brazil so far. Andy Walker's predictions are conspicuously absent.

I see what you're doing. Trying to provoke some of these European supporters into a response. I must say I thought there would be more debate about the World Cup. The Forum is widely read in Europe, isn't it? Maybe they've all been spooked into thinking that Brazil have the tournament won already. Ivory Coast to finish ahead of Holland. That's a good one, John

There's only a few days left before the start of the World Cup so it might be time for some of our football experts to give us their fearless predictions. I'll start off by predicting a Holland v. Spain final with Spain the winner. From my reading of the draw it seems that a team from Pool A to D must play against a team from Pools E to H in the final--unless they crossover in the Semi Finals. Please correct me if I'm wrong. This would mean an England-Germany final cannot occur. At the risk of ending with egg on my face, I don't think Brazil can make the final. History shows that Brazil don't go that well in Europe. The only time they have been successful in Eurpoe was in 1958 when they beat Sweden in the final in Stockholm. History points to a European champion.