Mark Stapleton

What do your Australians think about your chances in the World Cup?

Let me put it this way, John. The aussie goalkeeper will have an intensive course of back strengthening exercises before the Brazil match so he won't be injured retrieving the ball from the back of the net.

My experience of Australia and Australians is that of an entire nation obsessed with sporting achievement. I will therefore be surprised if Australia does not do well in the World Cup... they will at least perform 'better than expected'.

The modesty Mark appears to be revealing leads me to suspect that he was actually born in New Zealand

New Zillind? Tikit izzy, bro.

.

BTW, what probability do you give Rooney of being fully fit?

None.

Peter Crouch should play.

Also John Simkin, (a self confessed lifelong admirer of Crouch), should be encouraged to participate in that robotic dance every time Crouch scores

http://football.guardian.co.uk/comment/sto...1787348,00.html

Eriksson gets a lot of stick in this country but this is often little more than thinly disguised xenophobia.

His replacement is an infinitely worse manager but bless him he's English

He deserves stick for such a tactical blunder in such an important game. England could have easily gone on to win it if they had got past Brazil in 2002. It wouldn't matter whether his name is Sven-Goran Erikssen or John Smith. He should have been given the hook, IMO.

Rooney's got no chance, eh? Someone told me he was 100% certain of starting. I'll go with you. This leads me to believe England are only an outside chance now.

What do your Australians think about your chances in the World Cup?

Let me put it this way, John. The aussie goalkeeper will have an intensive course of back strengthening exercises before the Brazil match so he won't be injured retrieving the ball from the back of the net.

What did people think of Eriksson’s tactics last night? The decision to play Michael Owen as a lone striker makes little sense. Owen is incapable of holding it up to give time for the midfield to join him. Nor does he seem very sharp. It is clearly a major gamble to take so few strikers to Germany.

Walcott made no impression when he came on and one can see why he has never played for Arsenal’s first team.

It seems strange that Eriksson should ask Carragher to play in a position he has never played before (holding midfield). He did okay defensively but his unwillingness to play a quick pass forward slowed the team down. Hargreaves who replaced Carragher, was awful. What does Eriksson see in this player?

I cannot understand why Eriksson did not play Michael Carrick in this position. He has done well for Spurs in this position this year. He is one of the most decisive passers in the premiership. It is true that his tackling was not great on Saturday but surely he deserves another chance. Especially as he created so many chances for the forwards on Saturday. It was not his fault that the strikers did not take those chances.

I'm no expert on Engish soccer players--or Australian soccer players for that matter--but I've never understood why Erikssen is still manager after the 2002 World Cup quarter final against Brazil. Michael Owen scores a goal putting England ahead and appears to be giving the Brazilian defence trouble. So what does Erikssen do? Yanks him off the field. Brazil eventually win 2-1. What a genius.

BTW, what probability do you give Rooney of being fully fit?

Also, how would you rate their performance?

Sadly for history, democracy and the USA, their performance was good enough to kill JFK. Had they all missed [there were, I believe, more shooters than fired - if needed] we might have had an investigation as to who was behind it and cleaned up the rats nest that now rules the empire.

Peter,

That they succeeded is self-evident. What I wonder about are the things that probably will never be known:

1. Assuming that the plan was to kill JFK in the first volley, who got their tail kicked? I speculate about five shots--but I don't want to debate that. Did the conspirators rate the shooters' performance as outstanding or just adequate? How confident of success were the conspirators prior to the killing? Many feel that given the outcome, they must have been supremely confident. I doubt that, given the fact that there were so many things that could have gone wrong on the day.

2. Had the head shot missed, how many more shots were going to be made? There must have been a limit to how many shots would be fired before someone aborted the assassination attempt. Had JFK escaped from Dallas alive but injured, what would have been the reaction of the panic-stricken conspirators? If the shooters, for whatever reason, had been as competent as, say, the DPD and JFK had weaved a miraculous passage through a prolonged volley of fire, who would the conspirators have placed the blame on? Would a machine gun have been planted in LHO's possession or would an alternative group of patsies been posthumously condemned?

All this is just idle musing, of course, but they are questions that perplex me.

No. US companies have no moral right to outsource abroad, but that will not stop them. As Stephen points out, these decisions are driven by economic factors beyond the control of anyone except those few that benefit. Corporations are unregulated and operate in a vacuum with regards to ethics, morality or the impact of their decisions.

I am totally opposed to the way in which all corporations feed on the lives and resources of the rest of the planet, but I also think it's a little 'rich' to be concerned about this particular aspect of predatory capitalism now that the US are for once affected. This is particularly offensive given that the US has been both the primary beneficiary and primary culprit in this area of activity, followed closely by the rest of the Western nations and Japan.

Anyone who sees history for what it really is, will know, that most of what we first world countries do is designed to enrich us at the expense of everyone else. We start wars, topple regimes, assisinate leaders, start revolutions, kill innocents, protect tyrants, create monsters - all to acquire, control and profit from other nation's natural and labour resources. We maintain the poverty and living conditions of the 80% of the globe in order to provide cheap goods and comfort for ourselves.

We use the IMF, World Bank and trade agreements to shackle foreign governments and prise national treasures from the starving, dying hands of those that really should benefit from those treasures.

Most loans to third world governments MUST be spent on certain projects and often must use US and western contractors in their construction. This ensures that nearly all the money comes back to us, leaving behind the debt, the interest and usually a football stadium they don't want or need. Is it any wonder the pittance that remains in the hands of a few locals is squandered on Mercs and foreign holidays. Then we blame 'their' corruption for the seemingly public failure of our 'confidence trick' knowing all along we got exactly what we wanted.

We stay on top by keeping everyone else down. We, or at least the governments and corporations that represent us, are pure evil. Although, most do not see it that way and any one individual action is no more evil on the surface than any other.

The biggest obstacle to the long-term future existence of the human-kind and the planet is this short-term, shock and awe ©, rampant individualism of corporate domination of which out-sourcing is merely a symptom. How are the efforts of 5+ billion individual humans going to change things with regards to global warming when the corporations which dominate us and our governments decide it is in their short-term financial interests to do the opposite? And damn us all in the process.

If we designed a simulation which included the following creatures: resource hungry entities, capable of growth measured in currency (based on resource consumption), reproduction and death where the only rule was to make profit and the only objective is to grow. How long do you think this species would survive? You could probably surmise, without even setting it up, that this race was doomed - after it had consumed and polluted everything, there would be one huge, fat, dying organism sat on a dead and dying planet, happy that it had 'won' at the expense of everyone and everything else. It might even see it's own stupidy, but I doubt it, just before it snuffed it!

Steve,

Great post. There's real hypocrisy involved when citizens of developed countries complain about what globalisation and the corporate profit paradigm will ultimately mean to their own living standards. Third world countries have been experiencing this kind of exploitation for many years.

When our only objective is profit and growth, our ride on this planet will be a fast but very short one.

Rivetting information. The CIA, DEA, Colombian drug cartels, Central American contra groups, a first class PR man named Reagan and the Bush family. One big happy outfit. All Americans should read this.

So much for the "war on drugs".

Owen,

Whether it's law school, journalism, or whatever, if anyone finishes ahead of you, I'd like to know their names . You possess a remarkable lucidity and clarity of expression.

You nailed that brief argument about Garrison like a sharpshooter. The only thing I would add is that, despite Garrison's errors of judgement, he was the only member of the legal establishment who had the balls to stand up and say the WC and the official line on the assassination stank. He did this in the only forum that mattered--the courtroom. IMO, this is the most important fact that his detractors must "face squarely".

Fine words Mike and I'm in total agreement. I've yet to find another venue which can boast such an array of respected authors, educators, researchers and journalists. Prominent among these is John himself.

John, thanks again for your time and efforts.

It is incredible how US companies who have employed their workers and sold their products to American consumers for decades- can suddenly just decide one day to pick up and transfer all of its manufacturing jobs to China- and yet not one moral voice has been raised in opposition.

In the religion of Judaism, there exists guidelines on how society can react to these issues. While there is recognition of private property in Judaism, the profit motive and the individual retention of the wealth created by entrepreneurial endeavors- the issue does not stop there.

In history, the Rabbis and Jewish Sages never denied their co-religionists a basic human condition- such as the desire to work, prosper, and provide the highest standard of living possible for their families. The free market was generally seen as an efficient and pragmatic mechanism for achieving the welfare of the community. Where this was not so, intervention and distortion of the market mechanism was insisted upon.

While free-market advocates claim that the growth and development of the market necessarily involves business failures, and that ultimately, the entire system works more efficiently when there is no interference in this process. But practically speaking, there are some individual instances where the hardship of a business failure really does outweigh the economic benefits to the market.

For instance, keeping an inefficient business in operation by limiting competition amounts to no more than a tax on consumers. Perhaps the gross income of this inept firm is a million dollars a year; ten percent of this is just a de facto subsidy paid by customers in the form of inflated prices for the firm's product. Result: $100,000 of consumer money wasted.

However we need to ask what is the alternative and perhaps it is more expensive? For example, what if there are no employment opportunities in the region of the failing plant? If the company goes out of business the burden on the dole may be $500,000 thousand dollars a year in additional welfare costs to care from the newly unemployed. The result is that $500,000 of public funds is spent instead of $100,000.

What will the cost be to the American people if American companies continue to transfer their manufacturing bases to China? Who will be left to tend to the financial and social needs of masses of unemployed workers?

The Rabbis and Jewish Sages would argue that it would make sense to levy a tax on American companies who move their manufacturing jobs off-shore- even if this does go against free market principles. Why shouldn't these companies pay the added cost of providing for the welfare of the workers they are leaving behind- rather than passing that cost off to the general taxpaying public? Closing down a plant because there is no longer any demand for a firms' product- is one thing. Closing it down and moving the factory offshore just so the firm can increase its net profits- is not morally acceptable- even if this violates the tenants of free market economics (what good will a free market be when there are no longer any consumers left to purchase the products that these company's manufacturer- wherever they are produced?)

You can read the rest of the article here:

http://www.joelbainerman.com/articles/china.asp

Perhaps it would be better for the US citizenry if the Rabbis and Jewish sages were in charge of US economic policy, but almost anyone would be better than the current coterie of criminals running the US--a fact which, despite the corporate media's best efforts, is slowly dawning on the American public.

Unfortunately global capitalism has no allegiance to nations or morality but only, as Stephen points out, to the bottom line.

U.S. government aid to Israel is in dispute now as never before. In part, this has to do with the perception that Israel's security needs have diminished, what with the end of Soviet help for Israel's enemies and with advances in the peace process. It also results from the budget pressures that are causing U.S. politicians to cut back on a variety of long-established and popular programs. The new Congress's skepticism toward welfare applies not just to the indigent in urban America but also to foreign states.

Israeli leaders have sought reassurance that these factors will not lead to a reduction in aid. When Israel's Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was in the United States to address the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference in May 1995, he won a pledge from President Bill Clinton to "protect bilateral assistance to Israel."1 And while Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Jesse Helms (Republican of North Carolina) condemns foreign aid in general, he makes an exception for aid to Israel.

But another dynamic is also at work. A number of important voices among those concerned about Israel's welfare are saying that perpetual U.S. financial aid to Israel may not be a good thing. In January 1994, Yossi Beilin, Israel's deputy foreign minister, told a gathering of the Women's International Zionist Organization that Israel may no longer need diaspora Jewry's contributions: "If our economic situation is better than in many of your countries, how can we go on asking for your charity?"2 Zalman Shoval, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States and a leading figure in the Likud party, recently told an American audience that Israel should suggest through its own initiative that the United States gradually phase out civilian economic aid. This skepticism is a positive development, in part because it goes beyond the old, sterile points raised by those trying to hurt Israel by denying it assistance; and in part because it returns the issue of aid to a practical discussion of benefits and losses.

While aid flows into Israel from many countries other than the United States, for simplicity's sake we will look only at the American case, including both its governmental and private dimensions.

THE AID RELATIONSHIP

U.S. government aid. From 1948 to 1993, U.S. military and economic aid to Israel amounted to approximately $37 billion, of which $26 billion was in grants and $11 billion in loans.3 In 1994, Israel received $1.8 billion in military credits and $1.2 billion in economic aid, or 26 percent of the $11.5 billion total U.S. foreign aid bill.4 To put this in perspective, in fiscal year 1995, Egypt, the other major aid recipient, received $2.2 billion, of which $1.3 billion was military aid and $0.9 billion was economic aid.

Israel began receiving large amounts of economic assistance in the mid-1970s, when the United States started financing arms purchases through loans rather than the cash sales that had been the norm up until that point. Aid took a large leap upwards after Israel agreed to withdrawals in the Sinai: after the Camp David agreement with Egypt, an arrangement was informally but effectively codified into a fixed $3 billion a year (inflation has reduced the real value of this aid by about half since 1979).

U.S. military and economic aid each have rather distinct motivation and procedures. During the cold war, the U.S. government sent military aid primarily to countries where it had military bases (such as Greece, Turkey, Portugal, and the Philippines), or to countries facing Soviet-backed enemies, be they internal (for example, El Salvador) or external (including Israel). With the end of the cold war, the rationale for military aid has become less clear.

Economic aid has a variety of purposes, including disaster and hunger relief, promotion of democracy and market reforms, and support for Middle East peace. Most economic aid pays for projects either carried out directly by U.S. government agencies (usually the Agency for International Development) or by international and nongovernmental agencies to which the United States makes cash payments (for example, the World Bank). A small part of the money is paid out in cash to the recipient governments; confusingly, some of these cash payments at times have been included as military aid and some as economic aid, though in reality all are more similar to economic aid.

Israel is the only country to receive nearly all of its economic aid in the form of a cash payment. Until recently, that cash payment was more or less equal to the amount of debt service the Israeli government owed the U.S. government. As the debt has declined from the high levels incurred when Israel had such a large weapons-purchase bill and paid for those weapons with loans, the cash aid has become larger than the debt service due.

Diaspora Jewish aid. American Jews and other nongovernment sources provided $17 billion to Israel in the forty-five years between its founding and 1993. Jews in the diaspora also send aid to Israeli institutions, such as the Jewish Agency, universities, hospitals, and other nonprofit organizations. According to Bank of Israel and Jewish Agency statistics, diaspora Jewry donated $1.4 billion to Israeli nonprofit organizations in 1994,5 of which American Jews contributed some two-thirds. Diaspora Jews also provide loans to the Israeli government, mostly in the form of Israel Bonds.

You can read the rest of the article here:

http://www.joelbainerman.com/articles/end_american.asp

Joel,

A very interesting post.

One of the reasons that US aid to Israel is being re-examined may be that the US simply won't be able to afford it much longer. The US economy is stretched to breaking point at the moment. The price of oil, the cost of wars being waged to protect that oil, huge foreign debt and competition from rapidly emerging economies like China and India are all factors seriously threatening America's global philanthropic role. Billions in aid to a small, reasonably prosperous, distant ally may have to be given a lower priority. It might be hard to justify to the American public.

Your figures regarding aid from the diaspora are interesting. I wasn't aware that the amounts were so high--nearly half that of US Government aid. If US Government aid is reduced, then this is the logical group to take up the slack, IMO.

BTW, what is your opinion of the claims made by Dr. Francisco Gil-White, that examination of the US-Israel relationship shows that the US supports the PLO more strongly than it does Israel? Do you agree with this claim? It was the subject of a recent debate on the Forum. (see thread below).

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...topic=6577&st=0

What sidewalk?

Jack

Yeh, right Jack ... crop off the front of the truck so no one can see the sidewalk. Well, here it is again ...

Bill Miller

If we could dispense with the allegations of dishonesty and stupidity this thread might progress a little further.

On the issue of the pickup truck and the visibility of the sidewalk, I'm not so sure it's cut and dried. Bill, on your better frame of the Z-film it looks to me like the middle section of the 'sidewalk' ie. the middle of your three yellow arrows, might actually be the bonnet of the truck, looking somewhat shiny. It may be an illusion and I'm no photographic expert, but crop or no crop, it's a matter of interpretation. From these images, I can't tell for sure what it is. The 'sidewalk' may be partially visible but seems to lack continuity, IMO.

When it comes to the subject of whether the world is running out of oil- just type in the following phrase into any search engine and see how many mainstream news outlets have reported on the subject of "peak oil" in the past six months.

No longer are stories on the subject found on alternative/conspiracy web sites. The mainstream is now reporting on the problem.

Yet surprisingly- the governing class doesn't seem to be paying attention.

Is There Really A Shortage of Oil In The World?

Is the world really running out of oil?

No, but it is most definitely running out of cheap oil.

After surveying the views of the world's leading experts in the field of monitoring and tabulating the world's petroleum supplies- the magnitude of the problem and the complexity of the solution (if there are indeed solutions to this dilemma at all) become clear.

For instance, for new sources of oil to be identified and extracted out of the ground- the price of this important commodity will have to rise- as most of the "cheap oil" that could be taken out of the ground and sold for $20-30 a barrel- is gone. Consumed. The era of cheap oil is over.

What comes next is a steady increase of the price of oil until this new price renders it profitable for the explorers and producers to take it out the more difficult source from the ground. This is inevitable and no amount of investment in alternative energy development or reduction in current consumption is likely to alter this basic fact.

The major question is when does demand begin to seriously outstrip supply and production/extraction peaks that causes huge price hikes?

You can read the rest of the article here:

http://www.joelbainerman.com/articles/oil.asp

Joel,

Great article. The era of cheap energy is over. Because of the magnitude of America's consumption of oil, it now finds itself compelled to aggressively pursue dwindling supplies of this resource. Interesting observation that America's invasion of Afghanistan may have been more about establishing a secure route for future Caspian Sea oil supplies than about chasing Osama. I fear the 'war on terror' will become the feeble pretext for all future US efforts to secure global oil supplies for itself. (I think they're already calling Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez a 'threat to peace'). Pathetic.

The boss of Shell's US oil division was interviewd on NBC's 'Today' show yesterday and his attempts to justify the industry's $26 billion profit--for one quarter--were pitiful. Some nonsense about establishing a 'fund' to explore alternatives was mentioned, as well as the usual motherhood statements empathising with US motorists ('we feel the pain, too', 'our executives have to pay the high prices for gas for their cars, you know') and the patronising suggestion that motorists drive slower in order to conserve fuel. He failed to mention the fact that the industry has for decades used its financial clout to discourage research into alternatives.

Just a note on the Moorman drum scan.

It was not a scan direct from the Moorman print but rather a drum scan of a copy negative made of the Moorman original polaroid print. As such its only one generation removed from the Moorman original. Unlike most other scans of the the Moorman that are made from a print of a copy negative (one or many generations removed from the original polaroid) the drum scan was made directly from the negative to remove that additional generation.

It is discussed here:

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/mgap/drum_scan_gap.html

After the scan was completed Tink sent one of the original cd's from the scanner to to Gary Mack and the second to me. I made a number of duplicate cd's and mailed them to the others in our group that were working on this project. I also offered to send copies of this disk at no cost to any menber of the research community that was interested. I did in fact send out quite a few of these disks.

Since the full file is quite large (over 100mb in tif format) I have, from time to time posted crops as requested to the web. I posted those crops in .png format because it is a lossless compression ( does not degrade the image) and because the png format is usable on most web browsers.

Craig,

Thanks for that. This is a technical point I was unaware of.

To me this is truly ironic. I remember back in my youth pitying the poor Russians with their controlled media and wondering why they were content to be such sheeple. I have lived to see the situation almost reversed, with the sheeple being in America with a controlled media, and Russia's Pravda reporting like a free press. I don't know how free Pravda actually is nowadays, but it can't be any worse than what we've got today in the U.S. "republic."

Here is the report that appeared in Pravda:

http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/19...80596-Kennedy-0

Did the U.S. government cover up the details pertaining to the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy? An answer to this question will be much sought after by participants of a conference that kicked off on Monday, May 15th, in Washington, D.C. According to the report of the Warren Commission, President Kennedy fell victim to “Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone.” However, the “alternative” versions of the tragedy argue that two or more people shot at JFK in Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas, on November 22nd, 1963. The above versions allege that U.S. government covered up the truth behind Kennedy’s death.

Douglas Horn, the former chief analyst of U.S. Congress on the Kennedy case, took part in the conference. He was among other experts calling the official version of the tragedy into question. The participants will include the historian from Minnesota James Fetzer, and the specialist in radioactive oncology David Mantic. Thomas Lipscomb, a well-known U.S. author, is expected to unveil more data indicating discrepancies in evidence used by the Warren Commission, which was set up by President Johnson to investigate Kennedy’s murder. In particular, Lipscomb is reported to have found evidence showing that the famous amateur footage (by Abraham Zapruder who happened to witness the assassination) was obviously cropped away by some unknown party.

Some of the participants of the conference have information showing that the 26-second footage filmed by Zapruder on 8 mm camera is just one of eight existing amateur documentaries on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. However, with the help of some interested party, Zapruder’s short film became the main piece of material evidence for the Warren Commission.

Experts are trying to locate other documentaries.

The participants will reportedly present new data to support the version about the “CIA conspiracy.” According to the theory, CIA agents might have replaced Kennedy’s brain with that of another person during the president’s autopsy.

By a strange twist of fate, the plane carrying Senator Ted Kennady, the brother of the late President John F. Kennedy, was struck by lightning right on the day when the conference kicked off in the U.S. capital. No one was harmed during the incident yet the news seemed to serve as yet another reminder of grim fate controlling the Kennedys.

You can discuss this story on the Pravda Forum:

http://engforum.pravda.ru/

The US mainstream media--yes that's you I'm talking about-- represents the most offensive, gutless, greedy collection of shameless criminals I've ever seen.

Tom,

So was Ossie part of a conspiracy or a genuine lone nut?

Unfortunately!

Due to the misrepsentations of the facts by the WC, the timeframe in which this could be determined based on questioning of those who were in fact closely associated to LHO, was not done.

So, not unlike the timely/untimely deaths of Pawley & others just prior to being questioned, the connections which would demonstrate whether LHO was:

1. The actual lone shooter!

2. Designated scapegoat, with little if any knowledge as to the actual event.

3. Designated "Ozzie Rabbit", made to run and thus be given chase, with full knowledge.

Will never be known.

A "lone shooter/assassin" is nowhere near being an indicator of some "lone nut" who had nothing better than to shoot the President of the US that day.

There should be little doubt in any true researchers mind that a conspiracy to shoot JFK existed.

There should be little doubt in any true researchers mind that LHO played some role in this conspiracy.

There should be little doubt in any true researchers mind that the WC, for whatever the reasons, is a complete mis-representation of the facts as relates to the actual assassination scenario, as well as a COMPLETE & TOTAL failure to delve into the true background and associations of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Now, time has assured that we will in all probability never know the facts and truth in relationship to this matter, and in that regards we have such as the great US Senator Arlen Specter as well as the non-elected President Gerald Ford to thank.

History does at least need to officially record that these persons are in great part to blame for what we will now most probably never know.

Tom,

The more I read your posts, the more confused I become. I know the WC was a complete failure to investigate the assassination etc, etc so don't you think they were trying to hide something?

There's no point having the WC covering up and burying the records for decades if Oswald was a lone nut, with no implication of involvement from anyone else, so that's out.

What's left then, assuming you are right about Oswald being the lone shooter, is that he was a part of a conspiracy. Assuming a conspiracy existed, the conspirators were powerful enough to cover it up and simultaneously silence America's mainstream media for decades. Why then, would these powerful individuals entrust Oswald, with his defective scope and extremely slim window of opportunity, with the most vital part of the plan ie.the hit, when a triangulation of fire promises a much greater probability of success? Come on Tom--it's been a great gag but it's time to let it go.

Tom,

So was Ossie part of a conspiracy or a genuine lone nut?

Great stuff, Lee.

I'm assuming Osborne has not gone on to name his informant in the intervening 12 years since his testimony, but his comment about "intelligence techniques" which are not known to the general public is significant, IMO. If there was a communications group (unknowingly)videotaping the assassination, there must be a chance that the tape(s) will show up one day. Sorting out shooters/spotters/bystanders/light reflections etc, from the available film and photographic record is barely possible. There's more I think.

FWIW, I speculate the triangulation was from the Daltex building, the peristyle bordering Elm and the stockade fence behing the knoll, with the shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD as a diversion or signal.

I hope you get some followup from your post.

Here here to that. The symposium isn't just about the film alteration, although it's a major part. The main issue, as I see it, is getting this whole rotten episode to start registering on the mainstream media's radar. Bill, you were too quick off the mark in starting another brawl about the Z-film.

Mark, I would not even posted in that thread had Jack not come out calling people 'idiots' over the black and white shoe crap he was pushing.

Busted. Jack didn't enter this thread until post #11. You referred to the "film alteration cult" in post #2.

Bruce,

Thanks for your report on the part of the conference you were able to witness.

Dawn, I hope your observation is wrong but I think you may be right. The media agenda setters will either ignore it or paint the conference as a conspiracy theory circus. It's hard to believe they can still get away with this while roughly 80% of the population believe a conspiracy occured. That's the power of the media for you.

Why must these threads nearly always deteriorate into a micturating contest between and among the photo and film folks? The namecalling does nothing to advance the research, and a lot at blackening the image of everyone on both sides of the assassination debate.

If you've got issues with someone's methodology, can the debate at least be civil? A simple "I believe you're wrong, and here's why", or "I don't believe you've proved your case, and here's why" would be SO much more productive...in my humble opinion. It's hard to take EITHER position seriously when the primary product becomes insults rather than information.

Here here to that. The symposium isn't just about the film alteration, although it's a major part. The main issue, as I see it, is getting this whole rotten episode to start registering on the mainstream media's radar. Bill, you were too quick off the mark in starting another brawl about the Z-film.

creating a viable delivery system and actually nuking anyone (all without a successful test) - the US, or Israel for that matter, would turn Iran into a giant green glass ashtray!! Not a very smart thing to do...l

Exactly the reason why Iran will never strike its enemies with a nuclear weapon. If it ever does this, Iran will be a memory. The US is fully aware of this.

Q: Why did the Irishman wear two condoms?

A: to be sure, to be sure.

Is there ANY evidence or testimony in this case which is rock solid and irrefutable? Every aspect seems laden with "COULDA, WOULDA, SHOULDA" - EITHER/OR, NOT QUITE, VERY SIMILAR, IN THE SAME BALLPARK, NOT CONCLUSIVE, HE SAID SHE SAID, CAME UP MISSING, ACCIDENTALLY DESTROYED, NO NOTES TAKEN, NO RECORDS KEPT, NO RECOLLECTION, INACCURACIES ATTRIBUTED TO, LOCKED AWAY FOR YOUR OWN GOOD, ETC., ETC., ETC. ...

I couldn't agree more. That's the main theme. In regards to the Tippet slaying, you don't need to become a ballistics expert to know the whole thing was a clumsy frameup by the conspirators to implicate LHO in the assassination by extension.

On another thread Shanet Clark pointed out that the Forum was "getting to be quite an international research consortium".

In no particular order we have Peter Dale Scott, Barr McClellan, Anthony Summers, Lamar Waldron, Gerald McKnight, William Pepper, Joe Trento, Alfred McCoy, Joan Mellen, G. Robert Blakey, Larry Hancock, Barr McClellan, Josiah Thompson, Matthew Smith, Jim Feltzer, Dan E. Moldea, Don Bohning, William Turner, Jim Marrs, William Reymond, Dick Russell, Nina Burleigh, Craig Roberts, David Talbot, Walt Brown, Jeff Morley, James Richards, Ron Ecker, Pat Speer, Nick Cullather, Joel Bainerman, Lee Israel, William E. Kelly, Robert Charles Dunne, John Hunt, Robin Ramsay, J. Raymond Carroll, Jack White, David Mantik, Greg Parker, Martin Shackelford, Alan J. Weberman, Steve Thomas, Gary Buell, Ryan Crowe, Lee Forman, Tosh Plumlee, Gerry Hemming, Stephen Roy, Doug Caddy, Mark Knight, Alan Kent, Robin Unger, Peter Lemkin, David Boylan, Dawn Meredith, Robert Howard, Al Carrier, Harry J. Dean, Vaughn Marlowe, Antii Hynonen, Nathaniel Heidenheimer, Mark Stapleton, Doug Horne, Pamela McElwain-Brown, Bill Miller, David Healey, Stephen Turner, Michael Hogan, etc. etc.

I am currently trying to persuade Philip Agee to join our discussions (that might frighten a few observers). Gaeton Fonzi, Garry Cornwell, Mark Lane, David Lifton, Richard D. Mahoney, Norman Redlich, Victor Marchetti, Noel Twyman, Nigel Turner, Jim Hougan, Peter Kornbluh, Billy Sol Estes, are others I have been trying very hard to get involved in these debates.

My main disappointment has been my failure to persuade “lone gunman” theorists to join the Forum. Gerald Posner, Gus Russo, Dale Myers, John McAdams, Edward Jay Epstein, Kenneth A. Rahn (he said it was not academic enough), Hugh Aynesworth, David Reitzes and Dave Perry have all turned me down.

One thing is clear, lone gunman theorists are much more reluctant to join open debate on these cases. Dan E. Moldea is an exception and is much admired for showing his courage in joining the Dragons Den.

Perhaps the others are neither hard-headed enough nor absolutely certain of their perceptions, work, and evidence to adequately weather the frequent attacks against them which any "Lone Gunman/Lone Nut" follower receives by posting here.

Tom

P.S. Still only a single assassin!

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument"

William G. McAdoo

And, history will, as it usually does, be the final determining factor as to "Who's Who"!

Tom,

I hope you don't take offense at my comments because I like you, but to me LNers are the modern equivalent of flat earthers. The LN theory has been crushed under the weight of contrary evidence for years now.

To debate LNers is a waste of time and time is the implacable enemy. It's hard enough trying to establish consensus within the serious research community.