Mark Knight

The Patriot Act is an affront to Americans who cherish freedom. However, there appear to be a majority in America today who cherish security over freedom, who cherish material blessings over constitutionally-guaranteed rights. If such had been the case in 1775, the USA would still be a British colony. Is security so dear that the spying by our own government upon its own citizens--once considered a defining characteristic of Soviet oppression of its citizens--should be considered not only necessary but beneficial? Do we no longer cherish those freedoms that for 230 years the blood of patriots has been spilled to protect and preserve? A recent law passed by Congress included a provision that, in effect, rolled back the current administration's prohibition of negotiating lower drug prices for senior citizens. One of the sponsors was Kentucky representative Anne Northup, an ardent supporter of the Republicans on most other legislation. Northup was LIVID when the White House informed her office that the provision of the LAW was only "advisory" and was not binding on the current administration. This is the same Republican party who spouted the line, "we are a nation of LAWS" during the Clinton administration. Evidently, that must've changed somewhere along the line. When a LAW, passed by Congress and SIGNED by the president, is deemed to be only "advisory" in nature and not binding, the administration has declared, in effect, that they are ABOVE THE LAW. While kings and despots may be above the law, American presidents are NOT...unless and/or until the prople decide that it really doesn't matter anymore. If/when that occurs, the lives of all those who sacrificed for our freedoms are for naught, and freedom is simply a hollow word, devoid of meaning outside partisam political context. And the Patriot Act is merely a symptom, and not the problem itself. The problem is within the hearts and minds of Americans who believe that laws like the Patriot Act make them MORE free, and not less. And apparently, many Americans don't have the mental capacity--or the attention span--to tell the difference.

The appeal, to many people, of the RFK campaign was on several different levels. As a brother of a president, as well as a member of the cabinet, it could be assumed that Bobby knew how to structure a presidency and how to fill a cabinet with qualified people...the old "been there, done that" thing, as he had helped his brother do just that. And with the Garrison investigation gathering momentum in the press, the Kennedy name was once again in the headlines...a positive, as far as political campaigns go. Bobby knew that '68 was probably "now-or-never" for his own presidential campaign...as Teddy's '80 campaign proved, the passing of time--combined with the unanswered questions from Chappaquiddick--meant that the Kennedy name just didn't carry the same magic later that it did in '68. McCarthy awoke the passion in the younger Americans, but he really didn't awaken much of anything in older voters. While he came across as intelligent, to some Americans that put him in the same category as Adelai Stevenson...smart, but not exactly electable. In MY mind, a Kennedy/McCarthy ticket would have made Nixon a loser once again. But after Bobby's death, McCarthy's campaign seemed to lose direction. Sure, there was still the war in Vietnam to campaign against, and LBJ, and Nixon...but after June 6th, 1968, it just seemed that McCarthy's heart was no longer in it. Before Bobby's death, it was obvious that McCarthy wanted the nomination, and wanted the presidency; afterwards, it was as if McCarthy was having second thoughts...or at least that's how it appeared to me. Maybe he was questioning whether the presidency was worth dying for [or in pursuit of]. But McCarthy's confidence, at least in my own eyes, evaporated after Bobby Kennedy died. Did anyone else see it happen that way?

Lee, here's the latest word on "the German"...i.e., Frank "the German" Schweihs: Here's "the German"

From the Louisville Courier-Journal, Saturday, December 17, 2005: "Accused Mobster arrested in Kentucky A reputed Chicago mob enforcer who had eluded capture since April was arrested yesterday in Central Kentucky, the FBI said. Frank "the German" Schweihs, 75, was arrested without incident at an apartment in Berea [KY] on federal charges in connection with his alleged involvement with organized crime, FBI spokesman David Beyer said. Authorities have been looking for schweihs and Joey "the Clown" Lombardo, 76, since they and 12 others were indicted April 25 in Chicago in connection with at least 18 unsolved murders. Lombardo remains at large, the FBI said." Just to update the case...

It was my impression at the time that McCarthy went into Chicago with the best chance to claim the nomination, if he was only able to corral the RFK delegates into his corner. But the Kennedy people wanted to distance themselves from McCarthy, for whatever reason. Personally, I thought that RFK and McCarthy were on the same side, but that Bobby had a slight edge in the charisma department...call it the "Kennedy Mistique," the "Camelot factor," or whatever. I wasn't a Kennedy supporter exactly, but his extemporaneous speech in Indianapolis on the night of April 4th, shortly after the MLK assassination, showed me a level of substance to the man that I hadn't noticed before [hell, it may not have existed before]. But McCarthy was the frontrunner, by most accounts, going into Chicago. And then all hell broke loose, both on the convention floor and in the streets of Chicago...and McCarthy, I thought, was robbed of a nomination that rightfully should've been his at that point. I still have my "Kennedy for President" button with Bobby's picture, but...in all honesty, he wasn't my first choice. And McGovern? I wasn't aware of him as a serious candidate in '68...and in '72, other than being the anti-war candidate, he seemed totally out of touch with Middle America. [Of course, McGovern's "guaranteed annual income" proposal, derided as communistic at the time, has evolved into the ever-popular "earned income credit" today...go figure.] I suppose the nation just wasn't ready for "McGovern-ment," either in '68 or '72. I think that Gene McCarthy would've probably beaten Nixon in '68, had McCarthy obtained the nomination...but I suppose we'll never know, will we?

Why would Ms. Foster do that? Did Mat/Matt Wilson mention Gordon Novel? If not, I would wager Ms. Foster has no interest in him whatsoever...I may be wrong, but I doubt it, based upon recent history on the forum.

While I concur wholeheartedly with Mr. Turner, I must admit that the end result is the same: the thread turns to a discussion of the person in question rather than the original topic of the thread. The difference is that Ms. Foster seems to have an agenda, while Mr. Gratz is merely unable--or unwilling--to understand that his sense of humor often isn't funny to others...and sarcasm loses a bit in print, with no verbal inflections or facial expressions with which to guide us. What might sound like witty repartee' in a face-to-face meeting often loses its humor in print...and Mr. Gratz often fails to recognize that fact. So...returning to topic...I recall the same thing Pat mentioned regarding Mark Lane. After all the press RTJ generated, why was his follow-up barely even reviewed? The Op Mockingbird implication IS there, whether anyone in a position to do so will ever admit it or not.

Mr. Gratz, I meant my comment to say that, no matter how annoying your posts may become, at least they weren't totally disruptive to the community here on the forum. Since Ms. Foster has arrived, she has become a center of attention--not her theories, not her conclusions, not her ideas, but Ms. Foster herself--due to the disruptive nature of her posts, and due to her inability to let facts interfere with what she believes. Mr. Gratz, even YOU have proved to be responsive to FACTS, no matter how obstinantly you cling to the Fidel-did-it scenario. That, to me, shows SOME degree of intellectual honesty...a quality lacking in Ms. Foster's posts. And Tim, none of YOUR links have ever infected my computer [to my knowledge, at least]. But I disagree with your percentages. Lynne is probably 50% right on Nixon, 60% on Hoover, and 40% on Garrison...in MY opinion. And I'm 100% sure of what I think...subject to correction, of course, with FACTS and not just the blind assertions found on the infectious Wilson links. But to Ms. Foster, it isn't about being right; it's about being in-your-face, and about being noticed...hence the repeat posts when her last post hasn't been answered, and the hijacking of legitimate threads that don't happen to mention Hoover, Nixon, or Garrison. [And my comments about YOU, Mr. Gratz, are at LEAST as complimentary as the ones toward me that began with insults about my mental capacity...so please accept my 'faint praise,' for exactly what it is.]

I'm beginning to think that Mr. Gratz has been dethroned as the person most likely to lead a thread off its original topic and onto one that has been beaten to death. Hoover is dead. Garrison is dead. Nixon is dead. And all we get is speculation that, since these folks all had connections to the Mafia, they did the dastardly deed on 11/22/1963. Now, I believe that Nixon was connected to both Kennedy assassinations, the MLK assassination, and the Wallace shooting. BUT since I cannot PROVIDE IRONCLAD PROOF, what I believe is immaterial; therefore, I don't try to take over threads and send all the topics that direction. Instead, I keep reading and researching, hoping to find that piece of irrefutable evidence that either proves or disproves my theory once and for all. After almost 35 years, I still haven't found it. Oh, I can build a circumstantial case, but I CAN'T [yet] WRAP THIS ONE UP. The Hoover stuff falls into my theory; the Garrison stuff falls into it; the Mafia stuff falls into it. BUT to be so smug as to think that my BELIEFS prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt would be intellectual arrogance...thinking that I'm SO much smarter than ALL these other people who have even MORE time and money invested in the JFK [and other] assassination. I won't be guilty of that sin of ego. And Mat/Matt Wilson? Puh-LEEEEEEEEZE! Besides the propensity of the Wilson sites to try to infect the computers of the unknowing [now THERE'S a good way to convince people that your theories are right!], they simply contain too much information that is not attributed, and therefore can't be subjected to FACT-CHECKING...and aren't we interested in the FACTS? [OK, most of us, anyway.] So now we have the Gratzian "Castro-did-it" theory being challenged by the Foster-proposed "Hoover-Garrison-Nixon cabal" theory, for the championship match in the "who can sidetrack more threads" playoffs. At least I never had to put Mr. Gratz on 'ignore" status. And Gary, you are correct...it's been awhile since Ms. Foster has posted a NEW link. Most are reruns of previously-posted, virus-carrying and popup-encrusted links.

If I understand what Al and Gerry are saying, it's their point that, at ANY public appearance, NO chief executive is 100% safe from a DETERMINED assassin. And in Dealy Plaza, the key was that it was probably no LESS safe than at any other point in the motorcade; it just happened to be where the assassin(s) struck, and it was a successful assassination because the assassin(s) was/were able to escape. Have I got that part straight? A gunman in the window of ANY building along the motorcade route could've done what was done in DP; but in the more congested downtown area, escape and evasion of a shooter would've been more difficult, if I understand the arguments. I'm beginning to agree that, in the planning stages, DP probably APPEARED to be safer than other places on the motorcade route BECAUSE there were fewer windows from which a shooter could strike, and BECAUSE the crowd was a bit less dense (no reference to intelligence intended). So...did the DPD let their guard down in DP? Probably no more than anywhere else on the motorcade route. But because DP is where the assassination occurred, there will always be a lot of "could've-would've-should've" second-guessing going on. And from what Al implies in his post, presidential security is probably a lot LESS secure than what we assume, even to this day...but it's the fact that we AREN'T privy to the info that a potential assassin might need, that assures the safety of the President...since we DON'T know where the weak points are, we the public naturally assume there AREN'T any...and these assumptions work in favor of those providing the security...because 100% security, 100% of the time, is in direct conflict with the term "public appearance." Now, have I kinda/sorta got it, AL? And, having lived thru the "Summer of Love," [1967, for the uninformed], I find the use of the term "love-in" in reference to Gerry and Al to be highly offensive as well, as I don't believe Al and Gerry have ever been together, in a park on a blanket, naked and stoned....egad, THAT's an offensive mental picture!!! [pass the mental floss, please...]

Tim and Adam: You guys have interrupted a perfectly good monologue... ...yeah, I'm referring to the one that says "you have chosen to ignore this user." Remember the old saying, that you're not considered insane if you merely talk to yourself...but if you start to answer yourself, the debate on your sanity is over...? I especially enjoy the logic of "I must be right because I agree with myself," so heavily promoted in threads such as this one. So you may now shake your own hand, Lynne, and pat yourself on the back. It's not that we agree with you; we simply no longer care what you have to say.

I believe that the subhead on this topic is, "Was "security" adequate or not?" Obviously, since the subject of the security measures was killed, it is OBVIOUS that the measures WERE NOT ADEQUATE to ensure the safety of the subject. If they HAD been adequate, the subject wouldn't have been killed. Now, if the question had been "Was "security" REASONABLE or not, in light of past practices?" then I believe Al has answered the question that, yes, it was. But I, too, find it strange that, with all the assignments of the security detail being spelled out on the way TO the Trade Mart, NONE were spelled out concerning the return trip to Love Field. While it wasn't scheduled to be a parade, as the entrance to the Trade Mart was, surely there would've been SOME assigned security--with time of assignment "to be determined" by departure time from the Trade Mart. Sure, it's even reasonable to assume that the return trip would be made at higher speed and with little fanfare...but to have NO security assignments for the return trip, including security assignments at Love Field itself, seems a bit odd. I realize that, forty-two years later, it's almost impossible to look at this through a 1963 prism. But while security procedures have tightened a lot since 1963, it is almost impossible to believe that the USSS and the DPD believed that the POTUS was 100% secure with NO security plan in place for the return trip to Love Field. Even under the standards affected at the time, I just cannot believe that the USSS was convinced that no one would ever attempt a hit on the Chief Executive as he was LEAVING town. While the timing of the departure run may not have been as predictable as the parade into town, the fact that there was a return trip planned to AF1, sooner or later, is a given [as the kids say these days, "Duh!"]. And to assume NO possibility existed for anyone to try to harm the President on his way out of town is an extremely naive assumption for ANY professional security outfit to make...IMHO.

Tim, I personally believe that the "moron" references aimed at GWB have more to do with a Yale graduate being unable to speak in coherent sentences without the help of a teleprompter, and less to do with policy differences. But that is merely my own impression, and I may be wrong.

This is obviously not the first time that someone named Mr. Libi [Libby?] has let his information cause problems for this administration. [Well, if I hadn't posted that, SOMEONE would have.]

Mea culpa. I failed to differentiate between "missiles" and "warheads." Thanks for clearing that up for me, Gerry.

The problem I see with establishing a People's Commission has surfaced within this very thread: those that wish to sidetrack and/or derail the purpose will evidently be able to do so at will. For if we begin the process of weeding out the disrupters, at what point do we become another version of the WC or the HSCA investigations, in which some witnesses were ignored or not invited, and some important questions not asked? WHO, then would decide which witnesses are important and which are not, and which evidence is germain to the issue and which is not? In other words, how do we go about doing this fairly, and at what point do we concede, in "Pogo"-esque terminology, that "we have met the enemy, and he is us?" Better, how do we AVOID arriving at that point, without becoming a copy of the failed investigations that precede us? Until and unless we can answer these questions, a People's Commission should remain merely an idea. I think it's a GOOD idea, but until we can avoid the pitfalls that have plagued other investigations, we would simply be doomed to repeat their mistakes...in my opinion.

Interesting material, Gerry. But if, as you've previously contended, there were missiles left in Cuba after 1962, why would Castro want them reinstalled in 1981...if they were indeed still there? Or have I misunderstood [or misremembered] what you previously said? Of course, I also realize that it wasn't YOU who said Castro wanted the missiles reinstalled in '81; you're just quoting an article here. So...can you elaborate on this topic, and the apparent contradiction? Or is this something that I should just leave alone?

If you had actually read the previous John Lennon thread, you would already know that Dawn had corrected Tim Gratz's mistake, and Tim had acknowledged his mistake...that John Lennon was actually killed on December 8th, 1980. Of course, that would assume that you've actually read what you are dismissing...and in all fairness to you, I won't make that assumption.

Gerry, that's an interesting take on the assassination. Is this veiled information, or is it just a theory with a basis in law?? Or am I stepping out of bounds here by asking?

Dr. Fetzer, it's not my intention to misrepresent Dr. Mantik's work. My attempt was merely to point out to Mr. Dolva that his use of computer-aided imaging technology has independently caused him to arrive at some of the same conclusions as Dr. Mantik in relation to the orientation of x-rays and autopsy materials. While I personally have no opinion one way or the other as to whether there was alteration in the case of the X-rays and autopsy photographs [maybe there was, maybe there wasn't...I'm not qualified to say], I do believe that there have been some misrepresentations as to orientation of certain evidence, in order to promote conclusions that the evidence fails to support, if viewed properly. I hope this clarifies the intent of my comments. I am not qualified to judge the quality or the content of Dr. Mantik's work, and don't wish to give that impression. But I do think that certain images have been oriented in certain ways to conform to the "official" explanation, and to obscure the truth. So I believe that the truth may still be out there in the existing images; but it has been twisted to the point of being unrecognizable, at least prior to modern computer image enhancement technology.

John Lennon, in my estimation, was an incredibly talented singer, songwriter and musician...and one who just happened to be in the right place at the right time with the right bandmates to gain fame and fortune. Nothing mystical there...just another man who used his talents, and was rewarded by the public. While SOME of the "Beatlemania" generation might have followed him anywhere, many of us had moved on in our lives. What that means is, that in 1980, it was entirely possible that his 1980 "Double Fantasy" album just might have crashed and burned like his '72 effort...so there was no guarantee of a "Pied Piper" effect, and therefore Nixon et al had little reason--aside from Nixon's terminal paranoia--to "snuff" Lennon. While I think it's worthwhile to recognize Lennon's life and death, I see no more need to idolize him in 2005 than I did in 1980...or 1976, or at any other time in his career. You wanna idolize someone based on record sales? Try Garth Brooks. You wanna idolize someone based upon song lyrics? Try the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens, for "Peace Train." Personally, while I concede that Lennon and the others deserve recognition, they are, after all, only mortals doing what they do. And I don't think there's a pedestal reserved for any of them...at least not in MY home. But following the hype of society, it would be terribly easy to make John Lennon more in death than he actually was in life.

Careful, Stephen...it appears you're about to be labelled an apologist for Garrison/Nixon/LBJ/Garrison/Nixon/Hoover/Garrison/Nixon/Roselli/Garrison/Nixon/Marcello/Garrison/Nixon/Trafficante/Garrison/Nixon/Howard Hughes/Howard the Duck/Daffy Duck/Mickey Mouse/Bullwinkle J. Moose...and did I mention Garrison and Nixon? And why is this thread being ignored? Don't you want to know the truth? It's been nearly two hours since Ms. Foster has replied on this thread...what's she afraid of? Why is she ignoring it? Maybe because she's now defending Nixon and Garrison and LBJ and Hoover and the ice cream man who doesn't run his truck down her street in the wintertime? What's up with THAT? Maybe HE's busy defending Nixon et al in the winter.... Have I yet reached the level of absurdity that Ms. Foster does? And WHY am I defending Ms. Foster? And WHY is she ignoring this thread? [How'm I doing on the Lynne impression?]

John, your work here reflects favorably on what I've read in Fetzer's "Murder In Dealy Plaza," in regard to Mantik's assertions that the autopsy photos weren't altered, but that the problem with them was in the orientation of the photos. Your work here seems to confirm that, to some degree. Please continue, as I think much can be learned from this sort of work.

Interesting work, John. Quite revealing. Pat Speer, are you catching this? How does this possible match with YOUR evaluation of the medical evidence?

Tim, the '59 Rambler station wagon wasn't known for reliability problems. In November of '63, the '64 models now being on sale, the '59 Rambler wagon was 5 [model] years old. It would've been a perfect vehicle in which to "blend into the crowd," because there were a ton of similar cars sold, and most of the '59 Rambler station wagons were colored similarly [usually beige and copper 2-tone]...beige being the most unobtrusive of colors. [My dad and Granddad were still Rambler dealers in 1959, so I can probably give you more information on the '59 Ramblers than you'd care to know.] Reliability? My grandparents kept their '59 Rambler station wagon until 1970, when they traded it on a newer car...and they had no significant probelms in over 90,000 miles.