Mark Knight

I've also noticed that, if no one responds to Ms. Foster within her allotted amount of time, we are all said to be ignoring her discussion...of course, that would eliminate the possiblilty that we aren't on the Forum 24/7, as we all apparently are, in her opinion. Or, if we fail to continue to respond to her drivel, we are labeled as supporters of whoever it was that we had just denounced three posts previously. At first, I thought she just had comprehension problems and couldn't understand the nature of our posts. But now I understand that, like a "bad" child, it's all just an act to have all eyes on her. Ms. Foster, consider yourself ignored from this point forward. I don't defend Nixon, I don't defend Hoover, and I sure as hell don't defend YOU. [Now I'm waiting for the post accusing me of defending her...if the pattern continues to hold true.]

If you can twist and contort logic enough to interpret my post as a defense of Hoover, then you obviously have powers of reasoning far beyond those found outside locked rooms with padded walls. If you can make that post out to be a defense of Hoover, then evidently you believe that JFK was presented with some kind of award in Dealy Plaza, and Ruby gave Oswald his heartiest congratulations two days later.

Mr. Carroll, I agree...but only from an aesthetic viewpoint. Other than the Rochester fuel injection system, the '57 Chevy was hardly a marvel of engineering.

Sources? Attribution? References? To boldly make such unsubstantiated claims is at the very least irresponsible. Who said this? Who said that? In other words: WHAT MAKES THIS BELIEVABLE, over and above any information to the contrary? Is there any PROOF that this is true? Or is this SPECULATION, based upon accepted truth? WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THIS? Your post makes a lot of claims, but what backs ANY of it up?

So...you're saying that corruption does NOT qualify as a flaw? In case you weren't aware, a flaw is a defect; an imperfection; something that renders a person or object less than perfect. If I have a flaw, that means something is wrong with me. "For all have sinned and fall short..." well, I would hope you know the rest of that quote. Garrison is among those who are less than perfect, whether on purpose or by accident. You can argue the degree of his flaws until the cows come home, but that doesn't make his work worthless. And here's WHY: Garrison's case focused the attention of the American public on the Kennedy assassination at a time when the assassination was NOT in the front of American consciousness. "Top-Of-Mind-Awareness," TOMA to the advertising people, did not apply to the assassination between the time of the WC report and the Garrison investigation. While Garrison may have pulled his punches for whatever reasons, his investigation still served a purpose...even if it DID turn attention from the "right" direction, it still focused attention on the assassination itself. To assert that this was without value whatsoever is disingenuous. Folks who failed to take up their own investigation of the facts upon hearing the WC's conclusions, folks who weren't inspired by Mark Lane's and Epstein's books...many of them WERE energized by Garrison's investigation. Most were convinced that Garrison was "barking up the wrong tree" in the prosecution of Shaw, but at least SOMEONE was doing SOMETHING. To keep harping upon Garrison's corruption, and to continue to rant about him, only makes others--like me--wonder what your TRUE agenda is. Garrison was wrong. Garrison was NOT Kevin Costner, the epitome of the valiant crusader for truth. But Garrison is dead. Continuing to call him names won't change anything he did or said. Consider your point as having been made, and GIVE IT A REST. [And it's quite difficult for Garrison's act in the '60's to represent an impression of O.J. in the '90's, unless he was clairvoyant and could see into the future...are you thus claiming Garrison could see into the future, or was this merely another example of how your mind works? Besides, I don't recall O.J. saying that he knew who did it; O.J. simply said that his acquittal would allow him to find the real killers. BIG difference.]

I've noticed that most of the folks involved in the discussions and investigation of the JFK assassination are folks of the "baby boom" era, most are over 40, and a lot are considerably older. When I tried to interest my 25-year-old son in the information I've been reading and researching, his response surprised me. "Dad," he said, "I really couldn't care less." But, I explained, this is a murder case in which NO ONE has been convicted...no one has served a single day of jail time for killing the President of the United States of America. My son then proceeded to explain to me that the odds are, 40+ years later, the actual perpertator(s) is(are) dead, and, based upon past history, if any researcher gets too close to the truth, they will end up dead as well. "In that respect, I hope you NEVER figure out who did it," he added. As I deal with young people today, I find that my son's attitude is probably in the majority. And of those who do show an interest in the assassination, the majority don't seem to want to do any significant research themselves; most find a scenario they support, and hang their hat on the works of others...even if the work can be discredited by some very simple research of some very accessible documents. Are my perceptions here flawed, or are the folks under 30 just simply not interested in what is the most spectacular unsolved crime of the 20th century in America, if not the world? What have you seen and heard? Have you discussed the JFK assassination with anyone under 30? I'd be interested to learn if my experiences are unique, or if they are commonplace in the world today.

I realized that China owned more than a third of outstanding T-Bills, but I wasn't sure that the figure was now "more than half."

You are correct, John. China is taking over the position as the number one manufacturing nation in the world; simply by increasing its purchasing of raw materials such as oil and steel, China can wreak "economic terrorism" on any industrialized nation in the world. And what about the "less-industrialized" nations? I read an article just this week which stated that China is the leading seller of chile peppers [dried] in Mexico; China can grow them, harvest them, process them, ship them and sell them cheaper in Mexico than Mexico can its own peppers. Economically, all China has to do is but twitch its economic muscle, and the shock waves are felt worldwide. Meanwhile, China is quietly investing in US debt. As long as China continues to buy, the house of cards that is the US economy stands. Should China decide to stop investing, the US economy will screech to a halt. Or worse, should China foreclose on the US' debt to them, they will own us...lock, stock and barrel. It's time the US leaders got their collective heads out of the sand. China holds the power to take over the US without firing a single shot...and if Washington doesn't realize this, they are more myopic than I've given them credit for. To quote a '60's comedian, "Ray Charles coulda seen that coming!"

Does anyone besides me find it more than a little interesting that a short 30 years later, the roles were reversed?

The actual fallout of the Cold War isn't over yet. While folks like Tim Gratz argue that Reagan caused the Soviets to spend themselves into oblivion in the 1980's, current US military spending in Iraq and elsewhere is beginning to have the same effect on the US some 20 years later. And anyone inside America who cannot see that is obviously not looking. Of course, it can be argued that, thanks to the Bush tax cuts, the problem is one generated on the "supply-side" of the government revenue picture. But the result, no matter whence its origin, is unmistakable. And so today it seems that Al Quaeda is taking a page from the handbook of Mr. Gratz's hero, Ronald Reagan, and is in the process of doing to the US economy today what Reagan accomplished with the Soviet economy in the 1980's. As the Soviets had insufficient industrial and manufacturing base to sustain the level of military spending required to "keep up," so the crumbling US industrial and manufacturing base will eventually prove to be the US' Achilles heel if the current scenario continues for more than a few short years. The house of cards that is the US economy in 2005 will "come crumblin' down," to use the words of a fellow Hoosier, John Mellencamp, if there is no course correction. And THAT is why I disagree with Bush's "stay-the-course" mantra. Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to....well, you know.

Yet another question for Gerry: I realize you haven't seen the stuff...but in your opinion, might there be some valuable answers found in this cache of fiche, rather than "just" Dame Edna Hoover's blackmail material? Suggesting here something akin to the revelations found on the Nixon tapes [the fact that Nixon was paranoid and didn't trust the Jews wasn't a revelation, for example; but the fact that he was in on the coverup from the outset WAS valuable]. I'm thinking there just might be some explosive material re: the assassination or the coverup, in amongst the stuff that would've ruined the careers of now-long-dead politicos....if only someone with an eye for such evidence might be able to examine 'em. Maybe the fiche DOES rot from the head down...

Garrison's investigation was flawed. Garrison's prosecution was flawed. Garrison himself was flawed. No argument from me on ANY of these points. Garrison's principal contribution to the investigation of the JFK assassination was similar to Oliver Stone's: HE FOCUSED THE ATTENTION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ON THIS UNSOLVED MURDER. So, in THAT respect alone, there was SOME value to Garrison. Now, let the man alone...he can neither do good nor harm now. Why must you keep playing this one-note song? Will it solve anything? Will it prove anyone's guilt in the assassination? WILL IT PERFORM EVEN ONE POSITIVE FUNCTION? I think not.

Mr. Gratz: Democracy, loosely defined, is the rule of the people. I see how well the black people in America fared, even after constitutional amendments assured them equal protection and voting rights. It took nearly 100 years under "Christian" rule for black Americans to be allowed to participate as full-fledged citizens in this democracy. While I also consider myself a Christian, I am ashamed of this legacy...unlike you, who is apparently proud of what has been wrought by our "Christian" nation. Under the Bush (II) administration, the rollback of individual freedom in America under such legislation as the Patriot Act, and its extension currently under Congressional consideration, has been UNPRECEDENTED in American history. And yet you proclaim these people to be defenders of FREEDOM? And what about the proposed attempts to curtail the right of of habeus corpus, as recently detailed on this forum by Gerry Hemming? THIS PROMOTES FREEDOM? How genuinely Orwellian of you to think so. White is black. Peace is war. War is peace. Slavery is freedom. Troops bringing war are peacekeepers.

Have some of you folks forgotten the posts of about a week ago, in which Tom Purvis--and others--claimed that, unless the US had an actual combat situation into which to send its soldiers, their commanders would be inept? And so it was that 9/11 occurred, and then Afghanistan, and then Iraq...if you follow their logic, these events were necessary in order to prevent our military leadership from being inept in the event of an "actual" combat situation. The events of 9/11, then, rather than being the tragedy they were, are then transformed into something fortuitous, a lucky accident that allows us to train better military leaders, and due to 9/11, to do so with the 100% backing of the American people. So, extending this logic forward, America must ALWAYS be at war if there is ever to be a hope of peace. War is peace, peace is war. And George Orwell was a prophet.

On November 22, 1963 I was a fourth grade student at Corydon Grade School in Indiana. During the after-lunch recess, we were on the asphalt-covered playground playing some basketball when friend and classmate Bobby N. came out of the building from taking a bathroom break and announced, "President Kennedy's been shot!" We all proceeded to call him a xxxx, but he insisted that, as he passed the office, the principal, Art Crowley ["MISTER" Crowley to us] was standing in front of the TV, crying. We dismissed Bobby as having an overactive imagination, until recess was over and we returned to our classroom. In the classroom our teacher, Mr. Shields, announced that what we'd heard was true, that the president had been shot. A short time later, the intercom speaker on the wall crackled to life, and Mr. Crowley made the announcement that I will never forget: "MAY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE? THE PRESIDENT IS DEAD....I REPEAT, THE PRESIDENT IS DEAD..." his voice trailing off as if he really didn't know what else to say. School was dismissed early, and as I rode the bus home, I was really scared. It seemed there were Civil Defense trucks and cars on every corner. At the time, no one knew whether a nuclear attack was imminent, but such a possiblilty was no longer just in the BACKS of people's minds. As a Cub Scout, one of my projects was making a scrapbook of the editorial cartoons concerning JFK that were drawn by Hugh Haynie and published in the Louisville Courier-Journal. While at 9 years old I didn't understand all the political nuances involved, I could at least appreciate the surface humor. [i have no idea what ever became of that scrapbook.] Once home, our TV was tuned to the chain-smoking Chet Huntley/David Brinkley NBC news program for the entire weekend. [i'd love to have some DVD's of the kinescopes that someone MUST have recorded of these programs!] While eating a late Sunday dinner of round steak, mashed potatoes, and some sort of green veggies, my family and I watched Jack Ruby execute LHO in vivid black-and-white. At this point, my dad said, "Looks like someone wanted to keep him from talking!" At that point, I believed in conspiracy. Today, after all these years, I still do.

A query for Gerry: Would you have any idea whether or not these "wire" recordings have survived, lo these many years hence? If so, could they possibly be accessed through any means? [FOI lawsuit?] If so, possibly by whom? [Who might have sufficient standing, in whatever capacity, to access the info?] Or am I poking a stick into a hornets' nest here?

I seem to recall having heard or read that, in Washington, the plan was for JFK's body to go to Walter Reed. However, that apparently conflicted with the plans being made in Dallas or on AF1 for the body to go to Bethesda. The story for public consumption was that, since JFK was a Navy man, Bethesda should get the nod. HOWEVER...IF the body was taken to Walter Reed prior to being taken to Bethesda, it would explain a lot. But I don't know that any evidence exists that this actually occurred, and I've never seen anything in print [that I can recall] that would even hint at this having happened.

Sitting on one's glasses reminds us that hindsight is 20/20...and expensive.

THAT is the logical inconsistency I've been pointing out. Hoover contends that Oswald's his lone shooter, that he was firing from either the fifth or the sixth floor of the TSBD...but that the Connally bullet strike occurred because Connally was between JFK and the shooter. And LBJ goes along with that. That would suggest that Hoover thought that Connally was shot from the front...or that he thought Connally and JFK were playing musical chairs in a moving car...yet Hoover's lone shooter was firing from behind the car.

Tim, my contention is NOT that Halberstam didn't make that remark. My contention is that the remark itself, "The general consensus was that Reagan destroyed [Kennedy]," is a conclusion with no supporting evidence. It is merely Halberstam's IMPRESSION, and may or may NOT represent actual public reaction (again I cite the first Nixon/JFK debate and the widely divergent IMPRESSIONS of the radio and TV audiences). Ted Kennedy is obviously an expert on the views of the Democratic Party. Rush Limbaugh is obviously an expert on the views of the Republican Party. If Limbaugh says President Bush's latest speech "hit a home run," is his analysis any more objective than Kennedy's,who would probably state the exact opposite? It's not the IMPRESSION that is important; it's the REAL evidence, the videotape, the audiotape, the transcript in lieu of either of the above, that is the EVIDENCE. There are probably some die-hard Republicans out there who still have the IMPRESSION that Lloyd Bentsen DIDN'T "smoke" Dan Quayle in their debate with the "You are no [JFK]" comment...but that doesn't mean their IMPRESSION is correct. But that's small potatoe (s) today.

Tim, the "information" you posted was merely a pair of IMPRESSIONS about the debate. If I recall correctly, in the first JFK-Nixon debate, TV viewers thought JFK won, while radio listeners thought Nixon won. So impressions prove NOTHING. Now, if you could come up with either an MP3, a video recording, or even a transcript of the debate, then you might have a case. Otherwise, your "evidence" is heresay, and therefore I object, counselor, and ask that it be stricken from the record and that the jurors be instructed to disregard the testimony [yeah, I DID watch "Perry Mason"...].

John, I suggested that Ms. Foster query Mr. Hemming for further information on Sturgis/Fiorini. For that, I will take the blame for the sidetracking of the thread. I should have realized that Ms. Foster was not here to GAIN information, but merely to refer us all to her Holy Scriptures that "solve" the assassination once and for all. Far be it from to to ever again suggest that she might pursue knowledge pertaining to the topic of a thread.

Your "fascinating document" only shows that JEH couldn't either couldn't understand that Connally was sitting IN FRONT OF JFK, and not BETWEEN him and his alleged shooter who was on either the fifth floor or the sixth floor, or that JEH had found the rare Wile E. Coyote ACME direction-reversing bullet, to explain how the shooter in the TSBD would've hit JFK with the second shot if JBC hadn't gotten between Kennedy and the shooter. Or, to summarize: "senility rears its ugly head." The memo shockingly reveals that Hoover actually believed this malarkey, if the memo is to be taken at face value; otherwise, it shows that, a week after the assassination, Hoover didn't have any better clue as to what happened than an amoeba does quantum physics. Or are you implying that Hoover was telling LBJ, "in code," that there had to be a shot from the front? If so, why was Hoover so adamant in the same memo that all the shots came from the TSBD, even if he couldn't decide which floor they came from? To me, it sounda like the confused ramblings of a total fool. In THAT respect, it IS a "fascinating document." But other than the fact that it shows that Hoover himself "couldn't find a pubic hair in a whorehouse," let alone the flaws in his logic, the document is pretty UNremarkable.

I have no affinity for shrinks, any more than I do for practitioners of voodoo, acupuncturists, or faith healers [although I have been helped by chiropractors]. Therefore, I have no idea what brought you to such an erroneous conclusion. But your "smoking gun memo" has been in the public domain for quite some time...the fact that it's news to YOU doesn't make it news to everyone else. It's just another piece of evidence to analyze, and on its own doesn't provide enough evidence to convict anyone of anything in a court of law...other than the fact that, as of November 29, 1963, Hoover still hadn't figured out whether his lone-nut gunman--whose shot from the rear would've hit Kennedy if Connally hadn't got in the way when the bullet apparently U-turned--was on the fifth floor or the sixth floor.

You must be the odd one out...a lot of people here don't understand him when he's NOT joking.