Mark Stapleton

Is this the one, Tim? That looks like William Greer positioned just behind the woman wearing the white scarf. James <{POST_SNAPBACK}> James, Great photo (as usual). Judging by the way that tree's bending, the olbligatory hurricane is on its way.

The only other change to JCS personnel between 1960 and 1963 was Admiral George Anderson, who retired on 1 August 1963 and was replaced by Admiral David McDonald.

Ron, Couldn't the withdrawal of normal security be part of the last minute change of plan ? It was LBJ and his men who made last minute changes at Love Field, including moving the press truck to the back of the motorcade instead of in front of JFK's limo. No need to tell people unconnected with the ultimate purpose (Ruby, LHO etc) about these late changes. I agree that JFK, unless he was totally preoccupied, must have been alarmed at riding around Dallas naked as a baby(security wise). He obviously had faith in the SS. It was Dillon's responsibilty after all, so no need to worry.

I believe there was a large turnover of the JCS between the BOP and the assassination. How many of the men who signed off on Northwoods were even in the government when Kennedy was killed? While I think Northwoods is important in establishing that a simulated assassination attempt on Kennedy is something the JCS would undoubtedly have contemplated, I don't think it can be used to show that these same men used these tactics to actually kill Kennedy. If you read the Northwoods documents, you'll find that they are mostly bloodless, in that almost all the plans call for faking the deaths of people and blaming Castro, and not actually killing people. The documents are incredibly damaging, in that they reveal an utter lack of conscience by the American military when it comes to deceiving the American people and the world as to the actuall causes of war, but they are not the blueprint of an assassination of an American president. Of course, this raises the possibility of a scenario whereby there was supposed to be a simulated assassination ATTEMPT, but that someone in the system turned it around. This may have been what Phillips alluded to towards the end. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Pat, This would be what John Tower told Gary Wean ? (not sure if I've got his name right). The theory that the conspirators made a very late change unbeknown to the lower level operatives appeals to me. Tactically it's shrewd because it leaves all the lower level operatives regarding each other with suspicion. Suddenly they're bound by fear--and silence.

Steve, Sounds like you're saying your prayers already.

John, I concur fully with Mark K's post. While I haven't fully understood the technical aspects of your posts, I believe it's a worthwhile path to pursue. The possibility of some frames being missing from the Z film raises a raft of new questions and could provide answers to others. I applaud your energenic pursuit of answers. p.s. I hope we get to see that list of DCC members. Very interesting reading, IMO.

Two things saved Britain from invasion in 1942, American troups, and operation barbarossa. Thankfully Hitler failed to learn from Napoleon. Of course keeping the Brits under Nazi occupation would have been anoyher thing again. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, but if the Brits had fallen under German control your cricket team might now display more discipline. Never considered that, did you?

Stan, I'm not sure Tim's home will be very safe at the moment. Hurricane Dennis is wreaking havoc down there at the moment. Despite my differences with Tim on the Forum, I hope he's OK.

Tim says he reported Sengretti but it appears he still hung on to the fifty bucks. How much is he getting for his disinformation efforts here?

Here here to that, Steve. There's no such thing as God's chosen people, it's a supreme arrogance for any race to claim they are. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks Mark, It really was not my intention to upset anyone with my comments, and certainly not Charlie, a man who's postings here I usually agree with. But the idea of American exceptionalism is an established fact.This on its own is not a particular problem, But look at the Nazi's if you want an extreem example of where this kind of thinking can lead.. Steve. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Steve and Mark, It was not my intent to take on the "EMPIRE", but if need be I will. I frankly don't place much merit in what either of you feel religiously as I don't know what that is and could care even less. I do take offense to your not well hidden references to what you perceive to be American arrogance! Not in any way backing off, I must mention that even given my prior military, I have been, am now, and will continue to be vehemently opposed to the actions of both your country and mine regarding Iraq. That said however, I am not about to sit back and listen to rhetoric from a country that proudly and vociferously boasted for hundreds of years that "The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire". Speak of "ARROGANCE"? And then you refer to us as NAZI'S. The people that are in large part responsible for the fact that you are not posting in German. And just as a parting thought, do either of you have direct communication with the Divine who has so advised you that there are no "chosen people"? Please remember that it was not me who introduced the references of "God's chosen people" / " more favored by the deity" / "mythological perception..." I think that you two should "re - think" or possibly begin thinking more deeply of what you have said and inferred. Better yet, you should probably quit while you are only behind rather than making yourselves one! Charlie Black <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Charlie, It's probably not the right Forum for this kind of debate as it won't get us closer to finding a solution to this unsolved crime. However, if you have a direct communication link to the Divine, I would be interested to know who his "chosen people" are. Perhaps you could post it in the "Religion" section of the Forum. p.s. I'm not British. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So sorry Mark For the misinterpretation. It was probably foolish of me but when you stated that "there are no chosen people", I just assumed that you would not have said this so forcefully if you did not have a Direct Link. Charlie Black <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Charlie, I've got no direct link (and I very much like Americans--if I didn't, I probably wouldn't care who killed JFK). What I mean to say, minus the provocative language, is that if ANY nation, race or creed can lay claim to being the chosen people, then I would love to see the proof (in the "Religion" section, of course).

Tim, Who's been a naughty boy, then? Dear oh dear.

Here here to that, Steve. There's no such thing as God's chosen people, it's a supreme arrogance for any race to claim they are. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks Mark, It really was not my intention to upset anyone with my comments, and certainly not Charlie, a man who's postings here I usually agree with. But the idea of American exceptionalism is an established fact.This on its own is not a particular problem, But look at the Nazi's if you want an extreem example of where this kind of thinking can lead.. Steve. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Steve and Mark, It was not my intent to take on the "EMPIRE", but if need be I will. I frankly don't place much merit in what either of you feel religiously as I don't know what that is and could care even less. I do take offense to your not well hidden references to what you perceive to be American arrogance! Not in any way backing off, I must mention that even given my prior military, I have been, am now, and will continue to be vehemently opposed to the actions of both your country and mine regarding Iraq. That said however, I am not about to sit back and listen to rhetoric from a country that proudly and vociferously boasted for hundreds of years that "The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire". Speak of "ARROGANCE"? And then you refer to us as NAZI'S. The people that are in large part responsible for the fact that you are not posting in German. And just as a parting thought, do either of you have direct communication with the Divine who has so advised you that there are no "chosen people"? Please remember that it was not me who introduced the references of "God's chosen people" / " more favored by the deity" / "mythological perception..." I think that you two should "re - think" or possibly begin thinking more deeply of what you have said and inferred. Better yet, you should probably quit while you are only behind rather than making yourselves one! Charlie Black <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Charlie, It's probably not the right Forum for this kind of debate as it won't get us closer to finding a solution to this unsolved crime. However, if you have a direct communication link to the Divine, I would be interested to know who his "chosen people" are. Perhaps you could post it in the "Religion" section of the Forum. p.s. I'm not British.

And Bill Shatner should have recieved an Oscar/Emmy for services to hambone acting.

Here here to that, Steve. There's no such thing as God's chosen people, it's a supreme arrogance for any race to claim they are.

Ron, There's something ironic about the possibility of one of the major players being given up inadvertently by his wife......a few years after he himself is assassinated. Thanks for the info. I must congratulate you on your book collection, Ron. You seem to have books on every concievable topic. I've read some of Cohen's excerpts and it's a compelling argument. Interesting that it supports Vanunu. Is Vanunu still around? Your post is full of gems. The standouts are: 1. Why was this November 63 security dialogue a secret? 2. Who's Robert Komer? 3. Who's Meyer Feldman of the White House? Maybe he's known among researchers but I haven't heard of him. 4. Why do Rabin (and LeMay) display such stunning amnesia concerning the assassination? The biggest question for me is why aren't Forum members jumping all over this? It's like an echo chamber in here.

Greg, Excellent account of events surrounding the assassination. Simone, Greg is a knowledgeable researcher and an articulate writer.

Ron, The fact that both LeMay and Rabin fail to mention the assassination is terribly incriminating, IMO. Such an earth shattering event and they don't even mention it? And Rabin never gives JFK a mention in his entire book? Who is he trying to kid? At the risk of stirring up a hornet's nest, I believe the Israeli Government was involved in the assassination with Rabin a major player. A joint US/Israeli military intelligence project, allowing the US Military to have Vietnam and the Israeli Government to continue developingn nuclear weapons at Dimona unencumbered. JFK's determination to prevent Israel from acquiring a nuclear capability was seen in Israel as a threat to its very survival. Ben-Gurion said so himself. Perhaps Rabin's elevation to chief of staff was contingent on him successfully participating in an important project. As an explanation for the media's slavish adherence to the Government's lone nut line, I submit this; 1. Operation Mockingbird. 2. The leadership of much of the US media was (and is) sympathetic to the establishment and maintenance of a Jewish homeland. In June 1967, NBC broadcast "The Case of Jim Garrison", a hatchet job designed to discredit the investigator. Interestingly, NBC was a subsidiary of Radio Corporation of America (RCA). As Garrison points out in his book, by 1963 RCA had become a part of the national defence structure, providing advanced radio and other sophisticated technology for the armed services. It's prime contract awards had increased by over one billion dollars from 1960 to 1967, according to Garrison. It had become part of the warfare machine and its' chairman, General David Sarnoff, was known as a cold war warrior. General Sarnoff was also a strong supporter of the state of Israel. I haven't had time to fully research it, but I believe other media leaders such as William S Paley (CBS) and Arthur Krim (United Artists) shared Sarnoff's views. Krim and his wife Mathilde were close friends of LBJ and often stayed at LBJ's ranch with the President and Ladybird. The other thing which leads me to suspect Israeli Govt. involvement is the so called Jewish connection regarding Jack Ruby which, IMO, has never been fully explained. Was Ruby visited in jail by "representatives of the Jewish community" and, if so, who were they? More later.

It is an interesting question about the relationship between the Neo-Cons, the CIA and the JFK assassination. The link between the Neo-Cons and the CIA dates back to George H. W. Bush being appointed by Gerald Ford (a member of the Warren Commission) as head of the CIA. One of the first things that Bush did was to persuade Ford to establish a system where a team of “outside experts” would take an independent look at the highly classified data used by the intelligence community to assess Soviet strategic forces. This became known as the B Team (I assume the CIA were the A Team). The chairman of B Team was Richard Pipes, professor of history at Harvard. Members of the B team included several of those prominent in the Neo-Cons movement today. This included Paul Nitze, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. The group also got support from Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense) and Dick Cheney (Ford's White House Chief of Staff). The B Team came to the conclusion that the Soviet Union posed a far greater than the government realised. They argued that even though the intelligence community could not find hard evidence that the Soviets had a superior system of offensive weapons, this did not mean that they did not exist. All it meant was that they had discovered new ways of hiding this information. The B Team also came to the conclusion that the Soviets were behind all terrorist groups throughout the world. Something they desribed as the "Terrorist Network". Although they could not prove it, they believed it. For them it was an act of faith (a bit like WMD in Iraq). However, they did find some evidence of this in CIA classified documents. In 1981 William Casey became Director of the CIA. He was another Neo Con and worked very closely with the B Team. He demanded an immediate investigation into the claims made by the B Team that the Soviets were behind this “Terrorist Network”. The CIA reported back that they could not find any evidence that the Soviets were behind these acts of international terrorism. Casey then asked how they explained these classified documents suggested that there was a link between the two. The CIA officer replied that they were not genuine. When Casey asked how they knew, the CIA officer replied “because the agency created them as part of a black operation against the Soviets”. Casey was so determined to believe the B Team, that he rejected the CIA report and told Reagan that the Soviets were behind the terrorist network. Researchers have always stressed the political implications of the Neo Cons. This is a mistake. Their ideas are deeply influenced by economics. They are the driving force behind the Military Industrial Complex. The same group who funded the assassination of JFK. The most important implication of this story for JFK researchers concerns the manufacture of false documents. The CIA have not only been involved in destroying important documents, they have created false ones. Therefore, when Oswald’s CIA file is eventually released, should we really trust what it says. The general opinion will be that as the CIA have spent so much energy making sure the file is not published, it must be true. However, for cynics like me, I believe the file was tampered with soon after the assassination. I expect the same is also true of Oswald’s FBI file. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> John: Brilliant summation of how the JFK assassination is totally tied to the events happening now. Why solving this case not only still matters, we will have no legitimate government so long as this lie continues. We need another Jim Garrison to bring a grand jury investigation while there are still some living conspirators. Dawn <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Dawn, Good point, Dawn. I agree the chances of the case being suddenly solved after the release of a CIA document 40 odd years later are negligible, but another Jim Garrison wouldn't be able to do it, although it would be great to see somebody try. The Government and the media can smother an individual. It's got to be the US Government. They covered it up so they will have to untie their own knot. Obviously it won't be this Government, but hopefully a future one. The only other way would be for the media to reveal the true facts behind the assassination. If there ever a major falling out between these two parties, the facts may surface. This is hopeful speculation on my part as they seem to behave like they are one and the same. IMO, public pressure is the most effective way to force future Governments to act, because Governments are not ordinarily disposed to revealing dead cats in their closet, especially one's that stink as bad as this. Those great fault lines of power may yet shift. Optimistic.

Great analogy, Ron. People of Tim's ilk argue that, like evolution, if you don't know its' complete workings then it can't exist. Extrapolating Tim's argument indicates that because we don't know all the secrets of the universe, the universe doesn't exist. He's in universal denial.

John, So you're ruling out the CIA and the military. That's new. Judging by you're posts, I assume you believe the DCC may have been behind it, with LBJ obviously involved. Intriguing. They're an interesting group, that DCC. Can't help you with the barking dog, though.

Norman, Well put. JFK's established a hotline, signed a nuclear test ban treaty, pulled the missiles out of Turkey and made dove-like speeches about how we all breathe the same air.....so then the Soviets knock him off? It's so ridiculous it doesn't merit serious consideration. There's also the minor details concerning how on earth the Soviets could nobble the SS, change the motorcade route and get the DPD to assist in the coverup. Then there's Jack Ruby. Those who propound such a theory insult our intelligence.

John, My guess is a bullet fragment sheared off at a slightly different angle. Nice image.

It is of course true that the Nation did publish some critical articles on the Warren Commission but eventually fell into line. This is a similar pattern to what happened in other “liberal” newspapers and journals. There were brief revivals during the House Select Committee of Assassinations investigation. Despite the HSCA discovering that there was a conspiracy the media soon lost interest. It was as if it never happened. The same goes for liberal newspapers in the UK. The Guardian was the one that most questioned the Warren Report when it was first published. Even though it still employs several investigative journalists they will not touch the JFK assassination with a barge-poll. In November 2003 the BBC put out a documentary arguing that the Warren Commission got it right. It was actually an American documentary that had been repackaged to give the impression that it had been made by the BBC. The next day the Guardian ran an article claiming that the documentary had at last proved that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman that killed JFK. Recently we have had a discussion about why so few historians who have written about JFK and LBJ show so little interest in the assassination. Although they rarely say that they agree with the Warren Commission, they are unwilling to investigate the actual assassination. The only one to do this over the last few years is Richard D. Mahoney (Sons & Brothers) and I am told he is no longer willing to discuss the case. One only has to carry out a brief investigation into the JFK assassination to know that he was killed as a result of a conspiracy. Why have our historians and journalists ignored this evidence? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4061 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is the big point, the major abberation in this whole sordid affair. Why, why won't the mainstream media seriously investigate this unsolved crime. Yes, basically every media institution in America was (and is) part of a grand lie. I feel that every media institution in America fell into two categories; those who participated in the coverup and those who said as little as possible. There were no others. IMO, there are many people who don't want to look into this closely because of what a stinking pandora's box it might--no,will open. Corruption and worse of the highest level of American institutions--Government, military and corporate. And it may not be only American institutions.

Mark, Coincidentally, between my last post and yours, I received my used copy of Mission with LeMay: My Story, by Curtis LeMay with MacKinlay Kantor. It's a 581-page autobiography. There is not a word in it about the JFK assassination. That says a lot about LeMay, but I'm surprised that an author of Kantor's stature would leave such a relevant, important, and interesting subject out of a book with his name on it. Before tossing the book into the box for recycling, I tried to find anything in it about Michigan. LeMay and his wife were both from Ohio, but his wife was a graduate of the University of Michigan. Max Fisher was not in the index. Ron <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ron, I might be overestimating its importance, but I think this is quite significant. No-one has Taylor in photographs of Andrews airfield, McNamara's explanation is faulty and Manchester is given to lapses in detail re Lemay and occasionally uses poetic license. Moreover, there's a photo of a man walking past the tramps who (from behind) looks remarkably like Taylor. I'd love to know where Jim Root places Taylor on the 22nd. p.s. don't throw out LeMay's bio--it would be interesting to know what his opinions of various politicians were.

I think all that John should require is that to post on a thread you ADD to it, not take it over with your own personal agenda. For some reason I had not read anything on this thread and last night read most of it. When going from day to day with posts, Tim's same old gets annoying, but when attempting to read a long thread from start to finish in one sitting, and having to consistently "go around" these annoying posts they take on a whole new sense of insidiousness. I have come to the conclusion that this is TIm's whole deal: take over the conversation, break up the dialogue, stear it back to Castro. In short don't let the information build, but keep having to come back to discussions of English grammer, libel suits over your opinion, and of course, that Castro really did do this. I found my self getting very peeved at this last night. It seemed so obvious that this was very staged. Kudos to the other posters here for not letting yourselves be pulled into these diversions for too long, but kept gettig back to the thread itself. I now see Tim's presence here in a more sinister light. I do not think he cares at all who killed JFK. He's got his fall back CIA position and so long as he just spreads this over and over he achieves his clear purpose: hyjacking every thread to become a personal argument with him, or inserting his right wing view. What EVER the subject he changes it and brings it back to his one mantra. I no longer see this as merely "an honest disagreement". Dawn <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Dawn, Bullseye!