Mark Knight

Or, to clarify Mr. Stapleton's question, at what particular point does an income tax become "confiscatory"?? 60%? 50%? 40%? 39.362537839%? To this point in the discussion, the term "confiscatory" has yet to be defined. Or is this another of those "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it" terms?

Tim, I believe you are missing my point yet again. I don't label anyone a hypocrite simply because they hold a different political belief than I; but when their political beliefs and their personal beliefs are diametrically opposed, by definition hypocrisy has occurred. For example, if you personally oppose abortion as a practice that conflicts with your religious beliefs, yet you campaign for--or contribute money or raise funds for--a party that favors government funding and nearly-unlimited funding of abortion, that activity qualifies as hypocrisy. Another example: I personally oppose abortion on demand, yet the SCOTUS has ruled that there exists a right to abortion. While the court ruling is opposite my personal belief, I also believe that mankind was placed on the Earth to operate as free moral agents, to choose between right and wrong. Therefore, is it moral for me to campaign against someone else's right to be wrong? Or should I refrain from judging them, adhering to the "judge not" admonition of the Bible, and allow the Supreme Judge to perform that function? I may counsel folks not to perform abortions, I may counsel folks not to have an abortion, but the bottom line is we are all free moral agents, and have been dating back to the case of Adam, Eve, Serpent et al in the Garden of Eden judicial circuit. Since the law does not FORCE anyone to have an abortion against their will, the law then makes this a matter of personal choice. As with casino gambling, which my home state has made legal in certain venues...I can also choose not to participate, and can counsel others to do likewise, but the ultimate choice is up to the individual and their own conscience. So neither do I judge you, or anyone else, a hypocrite. One's own words, actions, and beliefs make that call. A man of conscience will work this out for himself. And you haven't answered my question: At what point does a conflict between one's purported beliefs and one's political actions equal hypocrisy? If actions = works, and beliefs = faith, how much of a conflict does there need to be to become a hypocrite? And I really don't think it matters whether one is a liberal or a conservative, as the definition of hypocrisy has no political exceptions, to my knowledge.

Question for Tim Gratz: If one professes to be a Christian, but his politics reflect a different direction, at what specific point does one's politics [works," in the Christain vernacular] betray his faith, and show him to be a hypocrite? At what point do one's works, failing to back up one's proclaimed faith, become a beam in one's eye? Or are James' words concerning faith without works--and by extension, works which are in conflict with one's faith--no longer valid in this day and age? Because of questions such as these, I no longer claim affiliation with ANY political party; blind allegiance to party, if it conflicts with one's core beliefs, should be severed. Someone wiser than myself said that no man can serve two masters [in opposition to one another]. Once you realize this, if you have a conscience, Tim, you'll be forced to choose which master to serve.

John, I'm beginning to believe that the key to understanding a lot of the mystery is to try to gain an understanding of General Walker. As Jim Root has pointed out, he connects to Max Taylor...and as you and others have pointed out, he also connects to the ANTI-civil rights community. If the evidence ever emerges DIRECTLY connecting Walker with Oswald, outside the April '63 potshot, then I believe you'll have your connection to the actual conspiracy. In my freshman year of college, when I thought I might want to study engineering, I had a chemistry class under a professor who was so highly intelligent it was almost scary. It seems that this man had been one of the folks who had been involved in the Manhattan Project during WWII...and the operation had been SO compartmentalized, he had no idea what his work had been a part of until AFTER Hiroshima. Sometime afterwards, his guilt over the colossal destruction wrought by the weapons he'd helped to create caused him to go "over the edge." As I heard later, while his recovery was fairly successful, no references to nuclear weapons, mushroom clouds, or Hiroshima or Nagasaki were allowed near his classroom. It is this sort of compartmentalization that I believe that Mr. Hemming and others have referenced in their comments. For any operation of such a magnitude to occur, certain segments of the operation only need to know what their OWN contribution is to be, and don't have access to the "big picture." This is why I think the "someone would have talked" theory has a flaw; MOST of those involved in the Manhattan Project had no earthly idea where their contributions would culminate, and if they had known, they likely may have balked at participating. I believe the same level of compartmentalization most likely was used in the JFK assassination...which is why the story of the Murchison party on the night of November 21 doesn't ring true to me.

In my opinion, the morality of taxation, at whatever percentage of income, is dependent upon the morality of the government's expenses. Is a tax rate of 40%, used to burn women and children with napalm, more moral than a tax rate of 60% used to provide better sanitation, security, healthcare, roads, communications, and educational opportunities? Here in America, my income is somewhat below the median. While I might not have all that I wish, I believe that, by and large, I have what I need. Whether it is noble or whether it is robbery to require the rich to part with a higher percentage of their excess than I, I fear I'm not qualified to judge. My incentive to work hard in my young adult years had much to do with acquisition. As a single man, I desired a nice automobile. In my early married years, it was the desire to provide for my family at such a level that my children no longer qualified for subsidized school lunches and textbooks. Now that my children are grown and on their own, my incentive is to be able to help my children acquire the same things that I acquired, but at an earlier age [i bought my first house at age 40], and to secure a retirement that will ensure I have a sound roof over my head, suitable but not ostentatious clothing, and that I not be relegated to "dumpster-diving" in order to meet my nutritional needs. If at all possible, I would desire to leave behind, upon my passing, enough of an estate for my survivors that they should not be in a state of need, but not so large that they lose sight of the value of determination and an honest day's work. What, then, IS a moral tax rate? Depends upon what one decides is a moral government spending rate. If the government is spending at a much greater rate than it is taxing, is it moral to saddle our children, and our childern's children, with the debts of our excesses? Is it moral to cut tax rates and let our children inherit a nation in physical ruin, with crumbling roads and bridges and water and sewer systems and other decaying infrastructure? Is it moral to raise tax rates to justify uncontrolled governmental spending? WHO is moral enough among us to determine the point of perfect balance? The answer is: not I.

Tim, since I have no firsthand information upon which to base my speculation on this matter, this is all from my impressions. I believe that Ruby is genuinely shocked by the assassination. However, since I have no earthly idea of Ruby having any foreknowledge of the assassination whatsoever, I would suggest that the "fireworks" comment would be a reference to the likelihood of the Kennedy visit possibly precipitating another incident similar to the Adelai Stevenson attack of some weeks prior. There just isn't sufficient evidence to read anything more into Ruby's "fireworks" comment. And it's my belief that, initially at least, Ruby's shock at learning of the assassination was like the shock felt by most Americans that day...and just as genuine. But, absent further evidence, this is just my own speculation...drawn from the evidence, but unproven.

Tim wrote: Perhaps this post belongs in one or both of those threads. Or might I suggest the "Pure Speculation" thread. [Now that I've gotten your blood pressure up, Tim, I might remind you that I also believe there might be some credence to this theory...unfortunately, I've also found no proof, which by your own definition makes this "pure speculation."] The theory concerning a hijacked fake assassination attempt is appealing on a lot of different levels, but I don't think the evidence is out there to sell it...although, in some ways, I truly wish it was.

Tim wrote: David: You just posted on an internet site which is designated (by Mr. Simkin) as: "JFK Assassination Debate" You're correct, Tim...some folks cast out de bait, and the rest of us get to see who--or what--gets reeled in.

Tim, journalists rely on tips on a daily basis...they don't simply write about events they have witnessed. So if they get a factual tip, and report on it, they are merely doing what journalists do. But Operation Mockingbird wasn't formed to merely provide news tips to reporters. Its reason to exist was to plant stories in the press that tended to provide a particular slant--or, in current terminology, "spin"--to the news being reported. In my days as a broadcaster at one small station, I was the PSA [public-service announcement] director. All the proposed public service announcements were routed across my desk [OK, for the sake of accuracy, substitute the word "cubbyhole" for "desk"] prior to being aired. This was in the early 80's, and there was a lot of agency copy routed my way that was strictly propaganda for various foreign governments...such as the Soviet Union, other Eastern Bloc countries, and various dictatorial regimes around the world. Since there was no www.snopes.com website to access at the time, I had to do my best to research the factuality of the claims made. If there was any doubt as to the veracity of the message, the PSA was killed before it was ever aired. In the case of Op Mockingbird, for example, sometimes stories about coups d'etat were in print 24 hours before they occurred, as per one of John Simkin's oft-cited examples. The "journalists" who put such stories in print obviously did no fact-checking, or else they would've known that the information was false at the time it was given to them. But under Op Mockingbird, facts weren't checked and yet stories ran, a practice that reputable editors simply wouldn't abide. This then implies that editors' objections were overruled, and reporters alone simply cannot do that; the orders would have had to originated somewhere higher up the "food chain." So that in and of itself adds some flesh to John's claims about Op Mockingbird. So to suggest that Op Mockingbird may have only planted news tips that were true shows what I percieve to be a lack of understanding of true journalism. True information doesn't need someone high on the organizational chart to make sure it gets published; that level of control is only needed for unverifiable information or outright deception.

Tom, you and I became acquainted some time back on the Yahoo "Conspiracy Theories 101" group...I am known there as Buzzman72. While I believe that a lot of the lies we've been told reveal themselves in the 26 volumes of the WCR, I also look upon this investigation as one in which the use of scientific method is a necessity. As technology advances, the work that John Dolva and others here have done with the photographic evidence convinces me that speculation may reveal some heretofore unknown truths. And Thomas Purvis' investigation of the ORIGINAL survey work done in Dealy Plaza reveals the falsification of data points in the WC reenactments conducted in the plaza; unfortunately, your list of 12 sources of "official reports" would eliminate the source of the survey data, namely the person who conducted the original survey. So, upon occasion, there exist sources of ORIGINAL evidence that are NOT part of the "official" reports, and one must NOT overlook them either. Folks like the aforementioned John Dolva and Tom Purvis, as well as Bernice, Jim Root, Pat Speer, and a number of others whose names will soon become familiar to you, may challenge you and your assertions. Don't look upon these challenges as negativism; instead, look upon them as an opportunity to better develop your explanations, so that you may be able to counter the arguments that might conceivably be raised against them. I consider nearly all of the folks here to be sincere in their desire to arrive at the truth; there are only a few whom I believe have an agenda outside the discovery of the truth. So, welcome, Tom; and I hope to read lots more from you in the coming weeks.

Truth is, it's a rare day when Mr. Gratz and I agree...but it certainly does occur, as I mentioned on another thread shortly ago. When it does occur, that doesn't necessarily mean it's the end of the world as we know it; it merely means that we have reached a similar conclusion, often by traveling a different route to that destination. Occasionally, Mr. Dolva and I have a difference of opinion, and probably with similar frequency to my agreements with Mr. Gratz. Again, nothing earth-shaking...just a sign that our processing of the facts as we perceive them has led us to divergent conclusions. Disagreements between and among reasonable persons doesn't necessarily mean that someone has mental problems, as some imply--or deny implying. If someone disagrees with my conclusion, it merely means that I haven't proven my point well enough. Another person's individual knowledge of firearms or ballistics may be superior to my own [true in most cases], for example...while my knowledge of certain processes may be superior to that other person's knowledge. In neither case does it imply that one person is smarter or more clever than the other; it may simply be a case of one person's experiences being more suited to raising the questions he/she raises, either form a wealth of knowledge or from a lack of knowledge. As someone notes in their signature on this forum, sometimes the most enlightening discoveries aren't the ones where one says "Eureka!", but they are the ones in which one says "Hmmm...that's funny..." [i believe it's an Einstein quote]. Often it's the unconventional idea, the untried approach, that bears fruit, both in scientific inquiry and in mysteries of a factual nature. As with the C. Douglas Dillon discussion of awhile back, while we can assume that there's nothing suspicious in a person's background, assumptions aren't always factual. It never hurts to take another look at the evidence. While I personally don't see Mr. Buckley as being involved, I don't see any harm in researching him.

Mr. Gratz--to identify exactly which "Tim" to whom I address this comment--while I think you'll agree that your thoughts and mine are usually galaxies apart, I must say that I have come to think of Oswald and his degree of participation in the assassination in pretty much the same terms as you expressed. My thought process to arrive at that point had been evolutionary, as the more evidence I see, and the more information I read, the more plausible this idea becomes. Absent an earthshaking revelation to the contrary, I can hardly understand how anyone could conclude otherwise...but on the other hand, I see no reason to ridicule them if they do conclude otherwise. [i won't even use the "far-be-it-from-me-to-question-their-mentality" sort of line, because that comes across as incendiary as well as condescending...and there's been entirely too much of that going on between and among sincere researchers.] But I believe that you and I have traveled divergent paths to arrive at the same conclusion...so that makes me wonder whether we ought not give that conclusion a bit of added weight.

John wrote: Welch regularly published a "Scoreboard" showing the degree to which various countries are supposed to be under communist control. When he started the JBS he claimed that the USA was 20-40 per cent communist-controlled. By 1978 he claimed it had reached 60-80 per cent. Robert W. Welch died on 6th January, 1965... Now, John...while I may not be qualified to question your facts...if Robert Welch died in 1965, I think it highly unlikely that he claimed anything except perhaps a cemetary plot by 1978...although sometimes I wonder if Welch may have been reincarnated as Rush Limbaugh [just substitute the word "liberal" for "communist," and "moderate" for the phrase "communist sympathizer"].

Pat, I don't have the source in front of me, but I believe you're referring to a Dallas TV reporter throwing film to a fellow station employee from inside the TSBD...I recall reading that account relatively recently, but not sure where I saw it...

Mr. Carroll, I'm actually in agreement with MOST of what you wrote. But while I voted for Bush over Gore in 2000--that was definitely a "lesser-of-two-evils" vote on my part, and one which I regret, I did support Kerry in '04, precisely because of his background. In '80, I voted for Anderson, rather than Carter or Reagan. While I'll agree that under Carter the Iran hostages survived, the ineptitude of the attempted rescue mission just seemed to summarize his entire administration. In real terms, the power of Wallace's candidacy in '72 WAS the power to place the election in the hands of the House of Representatives. In '72, the Democrats held the majority there, and Nixon would've been history 19 months sooner. With a healthy Wallace, the race was too close to call; with a paralyzed Wallace, Nixon picked up the "law-and-order" voters that couldn't bring themselves to vote McGovern. So until his shooting, Wallace, I still contend, WAS the power in the '72 election. And I realize that, under Clinton, deficits went down and prosperity among all classes rose. While I believe that the Democrats are MORE for policies which provide for prosperity for all, and that Republicans would prefer that the rich get theirs FIRST and let the crumbs trickle down to the great unwashed masses, NEITHER party has the self-discipline to keep from financially bankrupting the country. It's merely that the Republicans seem to want to do it at a faster rate than the Democrats, but the eventual result will be the same. You see, when the Democrats were in charge, the Republicans kept pounding the drum for a balanced-budget amendment, and that deficits would be the downfall of the country. Now that the Republicans control both houses of Congress as well as the White House, deficits don't matter as they enact ever-larger tax cuts to drain the treasury even faster. But when it comes to having the cajones to say 'NO!' to the pork, the Democrats come up equally lacking in fortitude and the will to do the right thing. Would the Democrats' response to 9/11 have been different than the Republicans? Aside from the Iraq debacle, I don't see that being any different. So, in THAT respect alone, there's not a dime's worth of difference in the parties...and hasn't been in years. I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative; the government needs to learn to live within its means. Obviously, I think Dubya got it backwards: FIRST you get the spending down to the level of income, and THEN you start talking about tax cuts, if they're possible. That's what the average American has to deal with in making ends meet. Those who cut their own income without reigning in spending end up in bankruptcy....obvious in personal finance, but evidently it's not so obvious in government finance. So when our children and grandchildren finally decide to throw off the yoke of financial bondage that the current generation of politicians are saddling them with, BOTH parties are gonna be found guilty of causing the upcoming revolution...the one which will end when an outside power walks in and takes over what was once the most powerful nation in the world. I hope and pray it doesn't happen, but without something akin to divine intervention, I don't forsee a different outcome. While I commend your motives in trying to make a difference, I believe that trying to effect change through the two existing political parties is akin to trying to bail the Titanic with a thimble...there just aren't enough folks with enough thimbles to have any appreciable effect. The only survivors on the Titanic had one thing in common: they abandoned a sinking ship. I'm not referring to abandoning the "ship of State" which is America, but rather the ships of Democrat and Republican parties, which have run aground without a tugboat in sight. And as with the passengers and crew of the SS Minnow, nobody knows how to fix the boat(s).

Mr. Carroll, I wasn't quite clear on the Carter issue. I DID support Carter in '76, but not in '80 [hence the Anderson vote]. I bought his "Washington outsider" sales pitch the first time; when I saw how ineffective he was as a leader, how he made "wishy-washy" Charlie Brown look like a rock, I no longer had faith in him. And no matter how much I might have wanted to see Ronald Reagan defeated, I couldn't support a candidate with the spine of Gumby. I ONCE subscribed to the idea that there was an actual difference between the American major political parties. Once I removed those blinders, the differences between Nixon and Clinton, for example, became merely a matter of degree. Each party paints the other as a reflection of the extremes each collects, when the truth about the rank-and-file is somewhere in the middle. Yet neither is so reflective of the middle America of which I'm a part, as to NOT pander to the moneyed interests even while claiming to represent "middle America." I contend that, today in America, the primary difference between the Republican and the Democrat parties is the difference which exists between classes of prostitutes. It is the idea that's been sold in America that a third party CAN'T be viable that has sold America down the river. There simply are not ONLY two options, and no more. Theodore Roosevelt was elected on a third-party ticket, history shows us. So please don't preach "viable" to me in the context of ONLY the two current major parties...because they weren't always the "only" viable alternatives, either. In 1972, before George Wallace was shot in May, polls showed Wallace's candidacy--had he sustained or improved his standing--would almost certainly have placed the presidential race into the hands of the House of Representatives. Wallace would have effectively been "kingmaker," via the hands of the House. When one allows one's vote to degrade to a choice between the lesser of two evils, AND THEN one chooses to actively campaign FOR one of these inferior choices, THAT is the kind of selling out of the soul that, in and of itself, denies one's integrity. If you feel that your country deserves better, then settling for anything less is a form of lying to oneself. Others may choose their own course and rationalize their actions with whatever lies they choose to tell themselves...but if the candidates I've seen lately truly ARE "the best we can do," then it's already too late for America. I pray that they're NOT.

First, it's nice to see that Mr. Gratz is trolling through months-old posts to find things he disagrees with. Nothing like staying up-to date with the current discussions. I still contend that, if a person is "not a big fan" of a candidate, and one wishes to remain a moral individual, one does NOT support that candidate. While I grew up in a family of Democrats, that is EXACTLY the position I took with Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, and Gore. I didn't embrace the policies of Reagan or Bush I in protest, but neither did I compromise my principles and support Democrats I didn't believe in. I voted for John Anderson; I voted for Perot TWICE. I didn't blindly support PARTY, and I didn't blandly support a candidate I couldn't believe in. It's called integrity; when party loyalty outweighs personal integrity, personal integrity ceases to exist. And in anticipation of your question, YES, I believed these independent candidates [especially Perot] to be superior to the paragons of pandering that the two "major" parties offered up. But the difference is, I didn't compromise my integrity by getting behind a candidate I didn't believe in. To do so would have been immoral...and that was my point. In contrast, Mr. Gratz supported someone he didn't like, simply for the sake of the party. I simply don't see the integrity, the morality, in that course of action...and I probably never will. "To thine own self be true," is the ancient saying. Some do, and others make excuses.

Tim wrote: One of JFK's primary economic programs was an across-the-board tax cut, still applauded and emulated by Republicans. Tim, you need to research the history of the Kennedy tax cut; it was bottled up in Congress by folks such as REPUBLICAN Everett McKinley Dirksen. Maybe it was "applauded" by Republicans LATER, but at the time, it was AMBUSHED by Republicans in Congress. While Republicans have changed their direction SINCE, in 1963 they did everything they could to PREVENT Kennedy's tax-cut legislation from becoming law. If I recall correctly, it was only AFTER the assassination that JFK's economic policy became law.

I agree with your premise. Charlie Wilson ["What's good for General Motors is good for America"] was a prime proponent of the philosophy during the Eisenhower administration. But what occurred with the recession of '58 showed that this wasn't exactly true. In the immediate aftermath of WWII, when rationing ended and soldiers came home with pay they hadn't had a chance to spend in 4 years, the economy boomed. Cars and refrigerators and houses were selling like crazy. The Korean War came along in '50, and an American economy that might not have been able to immediately absorb all the returning soldiers in civillian jobs...didn't have to. In '53, Korea was winding down...and, fortuitously for the civillian American economy, the French were handed their hats in Vietnam and the US inherited another combat zone. Unfortunately, Vietnam didn't crank up quickly enough to dampen the effects of soldiers returning to civillian life. The dampening agent became the baby boom, which took large numbers of women who'd worked in defense plants during WWII and made wives and mothers out of them. While I haven't seen a curve plotted on this subject, I'd wager that when International Harvester finished making M-1 Garands for WWII, the places on the production lines that had been filled by women making guns would have been overrun by returning soldiers making refrigerators and freezers in that same Evansville, IN plant...except that some of the excess potential employees were siphoned off into the military for Korea. But with the cease-fire signed in Korea in '53, and with Vietnam just a speck on the horizon in comparison to what it became in '68, combined with the depletion of the wartime savings being injected into the economy, a slowdown was inevitable. And when GM sells fewer cars, GM can cut back on expenses by laying off employees. Unfortunately, when that occurs, what's good for General Motors is NOT good for the American economy. [As an aside, given the lead time from design to production in the automobile industry at that time, it's probably a good bet that the Corvair and the Ford Falcon, both introduced as 1960 "economy" models, were a response to economic conditions in the US between about 1955 and 1958.] Now, it's NOT that JFK was anti-business. But JFK apparently had an ear for the working-class Americans. In fact, at the time of his death his proposed tax cut was bottled up in an uncooperative Congress. His stance on racial integration [interesting how the term has become "desegregation,' which is akin to a double negative in my perception of the term], his stand on nuclear weapons and the newly-signed Test Ban Treaty, his stand on detente with Cuba and the Soviet Union, his stand on the Federal Reserve System, his stand on the oil depletion allowance...these winds of change could indeed be chilling to those who would benefit more from the status quo. In many ways, the Kennedy administration WAS an attempt to wrest control of the government from the old guard and to head in a bold new direction. Obviously, the "establishment" was threatened ['60's terminology, for those of you who weren't around then]. But was 'the man" threatened enough to commit murder in order to attempt the reversal of this flood of change? Apparently so.

That's what I like about your posts, John...nearly 42 years after the assassination, you seem to always spot the unexplored and underexplored areas. Maybe that's because you have a world perspective, rather than simply an American perspective. IF the assassination attempt had failed....what would have been revealed? Or would there still have been a massive coverup? Would Don Reynolds' testimony before Congress have doomed LBJ's political future? Would Oswald have been flown to Mexico...or Cuba? Pure speculation, of course...but I think that those who might have planned for this contingency [after all, none of the Castro assassination attempts were successful] may have given themselves away somewhere...all we have to do is find the supporting evidence after almost 42 years. I think you may be on the right track, John; the FBI was out to DISprove a conspiracy, and we aren't of any necessity heading in that direction. Some evidence MAY exist.

Plusses and minuses: we have technology to analyze evidence now that was unavailable in 1963-64, yet a lot of the first-generation photos and other direct evidence is no longer available. I like what you're doing with the "wave" study, i.e., displaced air, whatever you may call it. While the preliminary results don't correspond with my preconceived ideas of what happened, they HAVE opened my mind to other possibilities. History doesn't occur in a vacuum, as they say. The racial and political climate in the 1950's and '60's are what made the JFK assassination possible. Just last night on PBS I saw a part of a program discussing the racial climate in Selma, Alabama and in Americus, Georgia in 1965...I'd almost forgotten hearing about Americus. So the changes brought about by the JFK assassination weren't overnight change, by any stretch of the imagination. But the JFK assassination, I believe, was the primary catalyst that accelerated the rate of change. After a brief period ['64-'70] in which the more liberal factions influenced change, there has been a 35-year swing toward the right. I believe the Kent State shootings on May 4, 1970 became the bracket on the end of the liberal movement in the US, as fewer liberals decided that the change they desired was worth dying for in rounds of indiscriminate gunfire. [ironic, isn't it, that a protest to end the killing of our young men in Vietnam concluded with the killing of young people in Ohio?] While I won't totally lay the shooting of JFK at the feet of the right [since the evidence, as far as I'm concerned, points in ALL directions, that simply wouldn't be fair], I couldn't help but notice that the response of the right to criticism and activism far too often is violence [Kent State in 1970 and the Democratic National Convention at Chicago in '68 are the two examples that immediately spring to mind]. But to be fair, as left-leaning groups such as the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers illustrated, violence wasn't solely the tactic of the right. And often it's difficult to keep a balanced perspective when we look back at those days, as it's easy to pick out just those incidents that buttress a particular viewpoint and ignore the other side [a favorite Posner line of argument]. A recent PBS special on Bob Dylan, for example, mentioned that in the opinion of one of the principals interviewed, the folk music trend that allowed Dylan's rise to prominence probably would have come along 5 to 10 years earlier, had the "red scare" years that made stars of Nixon and McCarthy not happened...since many of those "bohemians" who fed the system, such as Pete Seeger, were having their credentials as loyal Americans questioned. So, in order to properly assess what happened, we must stir all the factors into this cauldron which is history, and then let the final product become what it is, whatever that might be. I've previously mentioned my own theory, that on November 22, 1963 all the factors--the left, the right, the oil interests, the banking interests, the Bobby Baker mess, the pro- and anti-Castro overtures, the racial and the social upheaval--all reached "critical mass." Had there been no assassination that day, Don Reynolds' testimony before Congress surely would've ended LBJ's career. JFK's own sexual dalliances might've caused his OWN political career to implode. Had evidence of a Castro-led conspiracy been found immediately after the assassination, I believe that Cuba would have been obliterated. Had the assassination not occurred, a lot of the positive legislation that came about in 1964 and 1965 wouldn't have happened, as there would've been no reason for a show of bipartisanship...similar to the polarization of left and right that we see today. As with a volcano, there was a lot smoldering under the dome, unseen by most, on November 21, 1963. On November 22 came the eruption that caught everyone's attention, and the plumes of smoke generated there are still being seen, though more faintly as time passes. While most of the fallout occurred over the next few years, even today we still see some of the ashes occasionally falling...sometimes unnoticed.

Just a point of clarity here. I've seen numerous references to a ".30odd06" rifle, or other such nonsense. I believe the correct terminology is ".30-06", and is spoken as "thirty-ought-six." IIRC, It's a thirty caliber projectile, and was developed around 1906...hence the "thirty-ought six," to distinguish it from the .30-30 and other 30 caliber variations. Anyone out there in the firearms community want to either correct or verify this information?

Jim, I suppose the Maxwell Taylor/John McCloy connection to Walker is what makes this make sense. Without that, either the actions of Oswald make no sense, or the actions of Walker make no sense...or perhaps, absent the Taylor/McCloy factor vis-a-vis those two possibly being the ONLY ones totally in the know, then NEITHER the actions of Oswald NOR those of Walker make sense. This was the link I was seeking to see. It was implied, but I really don't think it was spelled out before as well as you did so here. Thanks, Jim...if any other questions come to mind, I'll be back. [At this point, if Gerry Hemming has anything to add re: Walker and McCloy or Taylor, I'd be much obliged, as ol' Hoss Cartwright might have said, to see what he has to say. Or am I chasing smoke here, Gerry?]

Jim, I've been following your posts regarding the research you and Antti have been doing, and I believe you've come up with a possible Oswald-Walker connection. And there's no doubt that Walker and Oswald were both involved with Military Intelligence, Walker's involvement a lot deeper of course. I guess what I'm wondering comes down to several questions: IF Oswald was the guy who shot at Walker, was he "freelancing," or was he doing it on someone's orders? If under orders, whose? If the Walker attempt WAS done by Oswald under orders from MI, and if MI also informed Walker the name of the person assigned to the job, was this not then indicative of a split in the intelligence community...UNLESS Oswald was also ORDERED to MISS, and only send Walker a message? If freelancing, why? That is, what grudge did he carry against Walker, ESPECIALLY if Walker was instrumental in getting him into the USSR? If Oswald was freelancing, and Walker discovered his identity, why was this not reported to authorities and Oswald not jailed for attempted murder? Walker surely couldn't guarantee that Oswald wouldn't try again, if he was operating independently of his intel connections, could he? If Oswald had tried again, could Walker guarantee he'd miss again? And if Oswald actually tried to take out Walker, ASSUMING he'd try again, why WOULDN'T Walker have him arrested? Wouldn't Walker be as able, thru his mil intel connections, to paint Oswald as a psychotic, just as the Warren Commission attempted to do, and taint any testimony Oswald might give regarding a previous connection to Walker? The idea that Walker might have panicked at the thought of his being connected to Oswald, and thereby to the JFK assassination, just doesn't sell me 100%. Walker was a GENERAL [prior to his resignation], not some lower-level operative. Panic just doesn't fit the Walker persona, IMHO...UNLESS Walker KNEW that MI was involved. In THAT case, Walker was already politically "on the wrong side of the fence," and knew he'd be an ideal "patsy." If Walker merely SUSPECTED MI involvement, his actions become even MORE suspect. Which brings me back to my initial thought...Unless Walker was involved, his actions are illogical. If Walker WAS involved, his actions make PERFECT sense. But to assume that Walker WASN'T involved in the assassination, his actions in regards to Oswald don't make any sense at all. Walker's actions are more along the lines of having received a call telling him that Oswlad's going down, and "You're next!"...but that would be pure speculation on my part.

Robert wrote: That various media paid attention to the assassination several years later is no mystery: the public wasn't buying into the mythology presented by Warren, et al, and the Garrison investigation galvanized public interest in the assassination, necessitating a media response. While I don't disagree with your use of the virtual cat-o'-nine-tails on the media, I believe your chronology in this one instance is in error. The LIFE A Matter of Reasonable Doubt issue was out in November, 1966...and the details of Garrison's investigation didn't seep into the media--or the American consciousness--to any great extent before January, 1967. So, to be accurate, the Garrison investigation didn't do anything to "necessitate" a media response in November, 1966, because it was operating below the radar until January, 1967. Otherwise, I believe you're pretty well on the money as far as having the media "Tied to the whippin' post" [Allman Brothers Band reference, in case you missed it]. They deserve it.