Mark Stapleton

John, this looks like a very important essay. Can I be so bold as to ask that you repost it as a single piece with footnotes to the sources, if not for my sake then for posterity's? For example, the quote above refers to Grand Jury testimony, and Grand Jury testimony, by definition, is secret. Of course there are rare occasions when Grand Jury testimony is made public (as in the Republican attempt to destroy the Clinton Presidency). Even as I ask the question it occurs to me that the source must be Billie Sol himself, and if so when and to whom did he reveal the substance of his testimony? Thank you. Ray, You should check out Larry Hancock's pieces on Mac Wallace and Billy Sol in the online seminars section. Also, the comprehensive thread dealing with Larry's book "Someone would have talked" (2003) in the History Books section is highly recommended.

Tim, You are priceless. Castro's offer of free eye surgery, while admittedly opportunistic, has the potential to grant the gift of sight to thousands of poor Americans and the best return of serve you can offer is that a supermodel was temporarily detained in Cuba and had her film confiscated. Big bloody deal.

Tim, Although the media wants Americans to think that protection from terrorist attacks is the most important issue that they face, I think this is wrong. Far more important issues are the looming global oil crisis and China's apparently unstoppable rise to world economic pre-eminence. Peak oil has now come and gone and shrinking oil supplies must impel western countries to rapidly find and utilise alternatives. The US consumes 20 million barrels of oil per day--4 times more than the second highest consumer, Japan. It's over-reliance on oil puts it in a strategically vulnerable position, considering the enormous foreign debt and the strain being exerted by China on the economies of all western nations (I read yesterday that France's truffle industry is China's latest conquest). The US Government's failure to encourage reduced oil consumption is a gross abrogation of its responsibilty, IMO. When the inevitable oil price rises occur (remember Iran has threatened to greatly reduce its oil production), the effect on the US economy, with its huge consumption level, will be catastrophic. Some believe the writing is already on the wall for the US economy. Don't be fooled into thinking it can't happen. If the US economy collapses all the missiles and tanks in the world won't help it. The threat of terrorism is real, but wrapping it up as a patriotic crusade only prevents the US from focusing on more urgent issues. The media pumps up this issue in America, Britain, Australia and other nations because it sells papers and delivers television ratings points. There's no money in talking about the folly of over-reliance on non-renewable energy sources. China is using its rapidly expanding wealth to undermine western economies. GDP growth was 9.9% last year. By refusing to revalue its currency, other nations are being engulfed by cheap Chinese imports to the extent that China's trade surplus exceeds $100 billion and is increasing at a frightening rate. Basically, that's wealth being tranferred to China every year from its hapless trading partners. It also cleverly allows other nations, primarily the US and Europeans, to pioneer new technology which it then copies, then utilises its massive resource of cheap labor to market these goods at prices which render competition unviable. China has been slow to embrace capitalism but is learning very quickly that it has a strategic advantage over the rest of the world, which it is employing ruthlessly. These are more important issues than the threat of a terrorist attack. Just my opinion, of course.

Ray, Interesting poll. It shows that the media's efforts to dumb down the people have not been successful. JFK and FDR are way in front in the greatness category. LBJ and Ford deservedly own the mediocrity segment but its interesting that while Nixon currently leads the "failure" category at 47%, George W Bush appears to be rapidly overhauling him at 40% and still with nearly 3 years to run. I say he can crack the magical 50% mark by term's end. Come on Dubya, my money's riding on you, old fella!!!!!

Tim, The link you provided in post #55 undermines your own argument (excellent photos and story btw). Tony Zappone himself recalls that the Tampa motorcade travelled so fast that he almost missed getting any snaps of JFK at all--in contrast to the slow turn and crawl into Elm Street in Dallas. Also, the photos of the Tampa motorcade indicate that it travelled past few, if any, clusters of high rise buildings--in contrast to the several high rise buildings with open windows which partially surrounded Dealey Plaza. The plaza almost resembles an amphitheatre, with many potentially lethal vantage points. By arguing that there was no security stripping, you're claiming that the SS were absolutely stupid. I'm surprised, as this must therefore raise a question concerning Dillon's competence in discharging his duties. A couple of questions, if anyone can assist: 1. Who was the driver of the Presidential limo in Tampa? Was it Bill Greer? 2. Did Ken O'Donnell accompany JFK on the Tampa trip?

The notion that Castro did it is silly enough. Now he's got Chinese Communists and shadowy characters connected to Mexican millionaires helping him? Who's this western diplomat that the CIA made the source of their memo?

Saw this article in the history news network. http://hnn.us/articles/20369.html

The irony is beautiful. Note that Castro's offer extends to the poor of America regardless of religion or political affiliation. What a poke in the eye for America's health system. I wonder if the US media will give this offer extensive coverage? Doubt it, it's way too embarrassing.

Ron, "Ripping off" an actor's name? It took a while, but I get it.

One more time on Jim Phelps 'Mission Impossible.' The fact that LHO allegedly visited Oak Ridge is very intriguing. Wish Jim P didn't adlib so much. He has LHO going to Oak Ridge to get the poison required to off Castro, as opposed to a sitdown on Kennedy. http://www.doewatch.com/jfk.html What's his hit rate in terms of % accuracy? Seems like he puts a lot together on his own, and too much of it doesn't add - like his Sirhan Sirhan scenario, or his record of shots fired in DP, among others. - lee Lee, Just read the Jim Phelps link-it's longer than War & Peace. There's some misses, like his claim that LBJ hated JBC--that isn't right--and his opinion of where the shots were fired from seems to be guesswork without a lot of research. There's also some hits, IMO. The Oak Ridge stuff is interesting. If LHO did visit the site, it starts to become viable, possibly. The whole cancer research, Mary Sherman, Ferrie, Ruby, DuPont, Grant Stockdale hypothesis sounds like the thoughts of someone who smells a rat but can't quite tie it all in a neat bundle. The sensitivity of the Israeli nuclear issue is an undeniable fact though, borne out comprehensively by Avner Cohen's book. Ruby's martyrdom a selfless act to protect Israel's nuclear program at a critical point in its history? I've never heard that before but that doesn't necessarily preclude its conformity to the truth. Less fanciful than patriotic indignation and it definitely proves Jews have guts. Also, Nixon's presence in Dallas. The Pepsi convention a mere pretext for RMN assisting with subtle alterations to the motorcade route, combined with a thinly veiled challenge to JFK to travel the streets without the bubbletop? That could give a guy post-assassination amnesia, I suspect. I recommend members give it a look--if you haven't already--as long as you have an hour or so to spare.

Could this mean the suspicion of "Rip's" presence in DP is being "Torn"? Sorry, couldn't help myself. BTW, Welcome to the Forum, Butch.

Ridiculous. Personally, I wouldn't pay a penny more than 3 million for it. 3.5 tops.

Yes. As Treasury Secretary, the SS operated within Dillon's bailiwick. Evidence suggests that the SS were cleverly nobbled prior to the event, obviously from a senior level, so it follows that Dillon must be investigated, among others. There's been little research on his possible role. I'm not saying he did it, only that he can't be ruled out as being involved or having knowledge of the plan. Remember, he was a Republican and they're a very shifty lot.

And for the umteenth time, his involvement can't be ruled out Tim. He had a lot of connections. Just let the research run its course.

My family have a long tradition of fighting for freedom. My grandfather was killed in France in 1916. My father was badly wounded in the Second World War fighting for freedom. My mother enduring several years of constant bombardment from the skies while working in an armaments factory during the war. What were they fighting for? The freedom to vote. The freedom to organize. The freedom to express their opinions. What was the point of fighting against other countries for these freedoms if you allow them to be taken away by your own government. The CIA may or may not be reading my emails sent to friends in America. What I do know is that they have no right to do so? It will not stop me saying what I think about the world. However, my fear is that it might frighten some individuals to do as they think our masters want us to think. The worse form of censorship is always self-censorship. That is what this issue is really about. ******************************************************** "However, my fear is that it might frighten some individuals to do as they think our masters want us to think. The worse form of censorship is always self-censorship. That is what this issue is really about." And, while I'm in total agreement with you, I'm probably one of the most out-spoken, rage-invecting, devil-may-care perpetrators of these exact same crimes(?). What, with my murderous schemes that leave my brother speechless on his cellphone at least once every Saturday during our transcontinental phone chats. Yet so far, the only repercussions I've experienced are from my Norton corrupting my Outlook Express mail server. This will not curtail the verbal abuse I'll inevitably hurl at the Bush fascists, and their NSA rabid pit bulls. I'll continue to be as vocal about their moronic ineptitude as always, especially to my senators and representatives. As far as frightening some individuals? If they've got that much to lose then maybe they should remain as ostriches with their heads in the sand, because they'll never be of any use to the cause. Let's face it, there are too many creature comforts afforded to those who've never known anything else. And, I seriously doubt they'll ever be capable of risking the familiar for what they'll certainly perceive to be the unknown. They're the ones who'll always run and cower the minute they hear the barbarians are at the gates. What we need are true leaders who'll stand by their right to voice their opinions, and possibly with our own sets of verbal billy clubs and tear gas. Especially, if we ever expect to incite a peaceful riot again, at least during this hostile regime. But, I'm not counting on anyone but myself when the going really gets rough. Just MHO. Thanks Terry! Your comments fully demonstrate why, as frequently "rabid" americans, we will tolerate for short periods of time, government intrusion into our rights and freedoms. Yet, if an when any of those in power think that this will be the "status quo", they will be among the "ex" politicians. Just as those of us here can not fully understand or appreciate the views of those who live in other countries under different realms of government, those who have not lived and travelled throughout this country can not appreciate or understand the "backbone" of the general american public. The Japanese did not understand this, and although told by one of their own to let a "sleeping dog lie", they nevertheless proceeded under the misconception that although at times lax and lackadasical, we would not come together and "bite" anyone who takes it upon themselves to attack our society. Thereafter, as always, we will return to fighting among ourselves, sometimes over important issues, and sometimes over absolutely trivial items. When the Iraq situation is ended, the long term advantages to the general american public will have many far reaching implications. Of those will be the first "true" and completely qualified "Civillian Militia". As a result of usage of our National Guard and Reserve Forces, we are now in the position that we have trained and experienced militia forces which are made up of civillians, and which will insure that our, as well as their rights are not abridged except as dictated necessary. Think about that one! Tom, Can you help me with this one for starters? I've been "thinking about that one!" but I might need some clarification. It's my comprehension problems, you see. What are these "long term advantages to the greater American public which we will see when the Iraq situation is ended"? I see the costs (death of soldiers, permanent incapacitation of soldiers, death of civilians, massive financial drain to the taxpayer, huge increase in the numbers of those volunteering to be suicide bombers, widespread hatred of the US throughout the Middle East etc) so what are these great advantages which will outweigh the costs? A trained and experienced militia made up of civilians, you say? Great. To what end will this be employed? And what other advantages are you speaking of?

I see. So which of your clear and concise postings have I negligently failed to comprehend?

An extraordinary thread, mainly due to some bizarre contributions from Tom Purvis. Here's a brief summary of what Tom's given us: 1. The monitoring of private E-Mails by intelligence agencies is a small price to pay for freedom. Anyone who disagrees lives in Disneyland/Fantasyland. 2. Tom asserts that such practises are necessary to prevent terror attacks and reduce casualties in Iraq. Next, he berates those in foreign lands who criticise this practise by claiming that their systems have failed and refers to them as parasites. For good measure, Tom then adds that the American system has provided you (non-Americans) with the luxuries and time to sit around and complain. 3. Accuses another member (Tim Carroll) of degrading the honour of a soldier who died in Iraq. This is clearly below the belt and Tom should apologise for this. 4. Attempts to rebut the perfectly correct argument from Mark Knight that the powers of the President and Congress are, in the absence of a declaration of war, limited not absolute by citing some vague nonsense which is almost impossible to follow. Now Tom, what's your theory about the assassination? Oh yeah, LHO was the lone shooter and there's "not a shred" of evidence to the contrary. I disagree with that but I guess that just means I'm chasing a shadow down a rabbit hole, my reasoning is that of a third grader or I should first determine what an oak tree looks like before I go walking in the forest. Thanks for setting me straight.

David, Thanks for your thoughts. It will be very interesting to see what becomes of the "Russian Solution". I doubt whether it will be acceptable to Iran in the long run but I may be wrong. On nuclear power, I'm not sure that it's as scary as you believe. I'm definitely not an expert but I've read that reactor technology has advanced rapidly in the last two decades. The new generation 3 and 4 reactors are reportedly much safer than older types, such as the one at the Chernobyl site in the Ukraine which disintegrated in a steam explosion in 1986. This was a Soviet designed RBMK boiling water reactor with a graphite moderator, constructed in the 1950's. There are currently 103 reactors in operation in the US, providing 20% of America's electricity needs to the national grid.

Dalibor, No one's encouraging "civil persons to obtain guns and rifles with the argument that this would increase their security". I think you're referring to a debate currently being conducted by the gun lobby within the USA. I believe you completely missed the point of my argument. Arguing that the states with acquired nuclear capability are safer when dealing with the realities of world policy seems to me to be on the same intellectual level as the argument that I will be safer at my home with acquired guns of my own. As far as I know most people would disagree with the arguments about guns at homes but nearly at the same time the same people argue that spreading nuclear weapons (to whoever it could be, even to Iran ) will enhance countries (Irans) security. I find this kind of argumentations incoherent. What your arguement appears to boil down to is this. Its ok for all your beligerant neighbours to be armed to the teeth,but you must be denied a pea-shooter. This whole debate is beginning to attract a faint whiff of racism, WASP's have allways felt that not only do they own the World, but that it is right and proper that they do. As i said in an earlier post there is a simple solution to this problem, ALL countries should begin immediate destuction of their nuclear capabilities, and once completed, submit to regular UN inspections. Anyone see America, Britain, France, Russia etc agreeing to this? Of course not, and thats where the real problem lies. Oh BTW, who remembers the peace dividend that was promised once the cold war ended, just more lies and deception from the "trustworthy" leaders of the West. Hi Steve, I agree with you that it would be nice if all countries would agree to some kind of ceremonial destruction of all their nuclear weapons, but we all know this isn't going to happen. You can't turn back the clock on technology--it points forward as surely as the arrow of time. Nuclear technology isn't the evil force that many claim, IMO. I've read that France now uses nuclear technology for 80% of its energy needs. Anyway, my guess is that if all nuclear weapons were suddenly wiped from the face of the earth the result would be a return to large scale wars fought with conventional weapons--more modern and more destructive conventional weapons. The reason why I believe in the unlikelihood of a nuclear war is as follows: Consider the case of North Korea's belligerent leader, Kim Jong Il. It is feared by some that because he possesses the technology to strike at Japan and South Korea, and has sometimes behaved threateningly towards them, that there was a high probability that he would actually do it. However, should he ever launch a nuclear attack on these countries (which come under the NATO umbrella), the retaliatory capability of a nation like the US or Russia to launch a counter-strike at North Korea from either land or sea would result in North Korea's certain destruction. Kim is dead, his family is dead, his relatives and friends are dead (assuming he has friends), and his empire is gone. Even if he somehow finds shelter in a deep underground bunker and emerges weeks later he would find his nation is now a blazing, toxic moonscape of rubble. Because of the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the same horrifying scenario which aggressors would inflict on others can be equally, and with great certainty, be projected back on them. This kind of deterrent has few equals. Those cowards in high office who readily launch conventional wars know that a nuclear war is a different ball game altogether. In a nuclear war it's not just the soldiers but millions of civilians, including themselves, who are in the line of fire. They would never launch a nuclear war when other nations have ample retaliatory capability. Remember, the only nuclear attack in the sixty year history of the nuclear age occurred when only one nation possessed nuclear weapons. Nuclear retaliation was impossible. Getting back to the theme of the thread, this is why all the hysteria generated by the US and its allies about Iran's determination to acquire and use nuclear weapons is just baloney. They are mainly worried that if Iran goes ahead they will have to be much more circumspect about throwing their weight around in the Middle East. That's the real issue. p.s. just remembered I haven't done the Jake Levy thing yet (sorry about that). Next week at the latest.

Dalibor, No one's encouraging "civil persons to obtain guns and rifles with the argument that this would increase their security". I think you're referring to a debate currently being conducted by the gun lobby within the USA. I believe you completely missed the point of my argument. Arguing that the states with acquired nuclear capability are safer when dealing with the realities of world policy seems to me to be on the same intellectual level as the argument that I will be safer at my home with acquired guns of my own. As far as I know most people would disagree with the arguments about guns at homes but nearly at the same time the same people argue that spreading nuclear weapons (to whoever it could be, even to Iran ) will enhance countries (Irans) security. I find this kind of argumentations incoherent. There's no analogy between households posessing firearms and nations having nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons cost millions of dollars and are not mass produced like firearms. Households can't own nuclear weapons. Firearms can be readily accessed and used in the heat of the moment by anyone, in some cases by children. Linking my argument to the dangers of households owning excessive firearms is ridiculous, IMO.

Mike, This isn't a debate about Iranian history, it's a debate about nuclear proliferation. Perhaps you might like to do some background reading on how Israel acquired nuclear weapons. They weren't exactly honest, decieving all including the US for many years about their intentions. As John Simkin pointed out, if one accepts Israel's argument that they need nuclear weapons to protect them from other states in the Middle East, then you can't logically object to Iran using the same argument (unless of course, you are one of a growing number of people from the West who have been tricked by our media into believing that the people of Islamic nations are a lower life form, not worthy of repect or dignity. Is that your view?) Forget about moralising over these countries. While some of the practises of the Iranians might seem barbaric to you and me, I believe that many of the world's population now believe the title "bloodthirsty and unstable" could equally apply to the US political leadership. The West nas no right to impose its set of values on these other cultures. And if you think that their recent revolutionary history somehow disqualifies them from the right to determine their own national security policy, you should remember that the CIA had been interfering in Iranian domestic politics for over 30 years, including organising the coup which overthrew Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and kept Shah Reza Pahlevi on the throne.

Dalibor, No one's encouraging "civil persons to obtain guns and rifles with the argument that this would increase their security". I think you're referring to a debate currently being conducted by the gun lobby within the USA.

I am indeed not just "implying" but stating clearly and unequivocally that the Iranian leadership "can't be trusted with a nuclear weapon". And yes, "the leadership of Iran [is] unstable and barbaric." Anyone who cannot see the difference between a leadership which encourages torture of "terrorist suspects" and prasies the torturers and one which twists desperately in the wind first trying to deny it and then to limit it, or between a government which states that all true believers have a duty to murder writers who write things which the leadership finds offensive with one which won't allow the display of religious symbols in public buildings for fear of offending the separation of church and state, or between a government which decorates the bridges of the main highway through Tehran with the corpses of hanged "criminals", including homosexuals, and one which not only permits but encourages diversity... anyone, who can't see these differences should, as I suggested, go live in Tehran for a couple of years. It's really fashionable to claim moral equivalency between the perceived -- and sometimes genuine -- "crimes" of the West and the barbarism of regimes in other parts of the world. I'm certainly not a fan of Pres Bush and his government, but this constant sniping at all things American and silly suggestion that there's "no difference" between a country like Iran where there are no infringements of human rights simply because no human rights are recognized and a country like the USA in which they are sometimes elevated to almost sacred status (and quite rightly so...) I now eagerly await the stream of vitriol suggesting that there's "no difference" between the incarceration of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and the imprisonment of newpaper editors in Evin Prison outside Tehran... that there's "no difference" between Schwartzenegger allowing the execution by lethal injection of an old, infirm prisoner and the regular public hangings from cranes which take place in Tehran. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4615172.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2303845.stm http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/arti...hp?storyid=3688 http://www.coc.nl/dopage.pl?thema=any&pagi...&artikel_id=406 http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=iran http://www.opcofamerica.org/press_freedom/..._iranletter.php http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswi...ory.asp?id=8893 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051219/wl_nm/iran_bahai_dc Read and compare! Mike, I know the Iranian leadership represses its people with policies which border on barbaric. However, so do countries like China and North Korea. These countries have not used their nuclear weapons and despite their hubris, are no more likely to use nuclear weapons than the USA or Israel. The major change which occurs after the acquisition of nuclear weapons is that those countries then become immune from bullying by more powerful nations. America, Israel and Europe knows this and are desperate to maintain the current status quo in the Middle East, for obvious reasons. This is a debate about nuclear technology and its inexorable advance. Attempts to push the argument that a Government's brutality should be a reason for preventing it from using available technology misses the fundamental point that brutal regimes already possess this technology, and more will follow. Jumping on a bandwagon of righteous indignation--a highly selective one which condemns some regimes and ignores others--is just denial by proxy. America should display maturity and accept the fact that nuclear technology and its by-products are not the exclusive right of the US and its allies. Read more widely.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In that regard, I will have to check with my distant cousin "Tom Purvis", former Sheriff of Mobile County to find out if his daughter ever dated LHO's kin folk. http://www.mobileso.com/MobileSO/About/ Tom Purvis 1975 - 1995 Perhaps you are confusing it with LHO's trip to Mobile on his speaking engagement for his first cousin. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oswald.htm On July 27, 1963, Lee was accompanied by Dutz and Lillian Murret (his aunt and uncle) and Marina to speak at the House of Studies at Spring Hill College in Mobile, Alabama. There he discussed his experiences in the Soviet Union before an audience of Jesuit seminarians. Among a variety of views he expressed was the following: Not sure whether a "Jesuit Priest" in training is or is not allowed to date! But I will, for the sake of clarification, ask Ann (Tom's Daughter) if she ever dated any of this bunch. Who knows?????????? Perhaps there is an even closer association between the "Purvis" & "Harvey" families than even I am aware. Thomas Harvey Purvis (Born in Mobile, AL, but from MS) Humor trumps sarcasm. Purvis wins this round. Very noble Pat but the adversaries don't get to judge the outcome--that's the task of those who witness the debate--and my scorecard has you way ahead. Tom's consistent maintenance of the theme that "there's zero evidence to suggest anything other than a lone gunman" sways me not in the slightest. There were at least two and possibly as many as four or five gunmen and while Tom brings lots of information to the Forum (much of it irrelevant, but that's just my opinion), how much of this information has convinced me to change my opinion on this pivotal issue? Zero, that's how much.

I see. So you're implying that the Iranians can't be trusted with a nuclear weapon? The problem with this reasoning is it's completely subjective. While many in the West may consider the leadership of Iran unstable and barbaric, many in the Middle East believe the same can be said of the U.S. leadership. Many would also say this about Kim Jong Il in North Korea, yet he also has the bomb. Countries can't deny other countries the use of globally accessible technology because they don't like their system of Government. It's incredibly arrogant and history has shown (with so many countries now in possession of nuclear capability) that it doesn't work anyway. Just because America possesses a ridiculous 10,000 nuclear warheads doesn't give it the right to determine which of the world's countries should possess nuclear weapons. Nuclear proliferation is a strange phenomenon. There are now nine countries in the club: the USA, Russia, France, Britain, China, North Korea, Israel, India and Pakistan. Membership of the club costs plenty but it's still becoming less exclusive all the time. With all these new members in the nuclear club you would think the world would be permanently gripped by fear of nuclear war. However, this has not occurred. Paradoxically, the fear of nuclear war--at its peak during the cold war when membership of the club was limited to two (France and Britain possessing the nuclear technology but not the efficient rocket delivery systems of the US and USSR)--has subsided as the world has watched membership of the club grow. It should also be remembered that the only occasion a nuclear bomb has been used on a civilian population was in 1945 by the US, when it was the only member of the nuclear club. The magnitude of destruction caused by a nuclear weapon--it must be remembered that a nuclear weapon is unlike convention weapons in its ability to devastate civilian populations--is the very reason why its use is so unlikely. New members of the club can be certain that use of a nuclear weapon to destroy another nation will result in the destruction of their own. That's a powerful deterrent.