Brendan Slattery

Shooter: LHO Radioman: exists only in your imagination Spotter: see above

And why, pray tell, would they bother to doctor a photo as trivial as this? This photo was never in the government's possession before being published, so who doctored it? The private citizen who took it, or the hundreds of outlets/researchers who have reproduced it? The mind boggles.

Well, that's because you're a dope. Did you enjoy it when "photo expert" Groden got his comeuppance at the OJ civil suit? I sure did. Bottom line: Miller is not an authority on anything, but will vainly continue to pass himself off as one. Fraud.

No, I did not take it from that site. Even if I did, so what? You don't think I could find just as many anti-W parodies on the Net? From one Irishman to another, grow up.

P.S. Has McKinney been indicted yet? I'm curious: were you assigned to McKinney randomly, or did you specifically request her? If the latter, I fear for your sanity (and politics). What's your infatuation with left-wing politicians and message boards? Are you unaware of McKinney's connections to CAIR and other radical Muslim groups? Are you unaware of her serial, disturbing run-ins with Capitol Hill law enforcement? http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?Stor...30-120057-3228r Just how was the Fox coverage "despicable"? Are you saying it's okay to assault a policeman and use race and gender as a defense? The Duke case? Um, in case you haven't notice, it's quickly going down in flames: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13392547/site/newsweek/ You see, even "rich, white boys" have rights in this country. If exhonorated, a lot of people should lose their jobs over this fiasco, starting with the race-hustling DA. Of course, you're working for a shameless race hustler this summer, so I don't expect you to "get it."

Brendan, Please point to what you consider the "sleazy Bush hatred". It entirely escapes me. All I see is a Bush policy of pre-emptive war, with the only comment of a personal nature being that Bush "seems a humane man." Real sleazy! Your allegations regarding Kennedy on the other hand, are quite sleazy. (Merriam-Webster gives one definition as: 1 a : lacking firmness of texture : FLIMSY b : carelessly made of inferior materials : SHODDY) You have already been asked to back up your claims, but of course, that's difficult when they are so carelessly made... As for opening line... "you idiots"... speaks for itself really... about you. Neocon??? Try some research Brendan. Aid programs, the Youth Corps, test ban treaty. As for the "luxury"... yeah... must have been a real luxury knowing millions upon millions could die, as opposed to a few thousand absolute max in a single terrorist act - with that number being achieved only once. Of course, terorrists were around in the Cold war, too. But that seems to have been forgotten as small potatoes compared to the nuclear threat. JFK's speech was rendered completely obsolete on Sep 11. That's the difference. You can't compare the two men or Adminstrations because they face two different implacable foes. Therefore, using the anniversary to take a cheapshot at W was petty and nonsensical. Last time I checked, W wasn't opposed to aid programs or efforts like The Peace Corps either. Hell, millions flowed into Palestine before the Hamas victory, and millions flow into Egypt to this very day. The Dems offer little more than obstructionism. Incredibly, their plan for "A New Direction for America" never mentions al Qaeda, terrorism, or any aspect of national security. Either they don't believe this is a real war or think it is a matter of indifference which side wins. Which is it?

They don't exist. Although I had a good laugh when someone spotted a lookout in the flower bed.

Tom, it just occurred to me that those military citations Dan posted are yours, not Bill's. No one bothered to correct me when I ascribed them to Bill, and I just realized the mistake. Now we just have to figure out why your military background would bolster Dan's pro-conspiracy case.

Excuse me Mr. Stalker, but how am I attacking Tom? I thought I was attacking (questioning?) Bill's credentials and the dimwitted defense offered up by Dan. Keep your eye on the ball, Mark.

Indeed he does, but so what? He's good at some things, so therefore he must be good at others? Brilliant lawyers know how to perform surgery? Jumping out of airplanes or manning a post does not confer upon him scientific expertise. Posting his CV was a lame and desperate attempt to change the subject. And when he didn't know enough about a subject, he shut up. Something to ponder.

Actually, it's alt.assassination.jfk

I'm not going to answer that question, Bill. You know why? Because I'm not qualified. And I have a sneaking suspicion that you aren't either. Then again, maybe you are. What are your credentials? Are you certified in the areas of ballistics, forensics, medicine, anatomy, photography, etc? Has your work been peer reviewed by board-certified experts who don't have a stake in the outcome? I'm guessing that's a big fat NO. Of course, real experts have addressed this issue two separate times, with devastating results for "your" side: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy2.txt http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy1.txt I suggest you dig up some qualified experts of your own to contradict them. Until then, you should recuse yourself from this entire discussion. Ah, where would we be without our sources? But from what I can see Tom shouldn't need to click on any links, but it raises the question what he's doing wasting time here when there's a country to run.... Excuse me, Dan, but what exactly have you proven? That Bill's a vet? Whoop-dee-doo. My grandfather stormed Normandy and in his spare time read to the blind. What does that have to do with the case at hand? Is Bill scientifically qualified to read x-rays or spot photo manipulation? If not, stop wasting my time.

Brendan, I will ask you the same question ... What direction was a bullet traveling in order to spring open the bones to the rear on the back of JFK's head? Bill I'm not going to answer that question, Bill. You know why? Because I'm not qualified. And I have a sneaking suspicion that you aren't either. Then again, maybe you are. What are your credentials? Are you certified in the areas of ballistics, forensics, medicine, anatomy, photography, etc? Has your work been peer reviewed by board-certified experts who don't have a stake in the outcome? I'm guessing that's a big fat NO. Of course, real experts have addressed this issue two separate times, with devastating results for "your" side: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy2.txt http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy1.txt I suggest you dig up some qualified experts of your own to contradict them. Until then, you should recuse yourself from this entire discussion.

Thomas, I am not convinced you are really interested in having an intellectual debate about this subject. However, if you are, I suggest you take a look at the following threads. Cover-Up of the Medical Evidence http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6849 The Autopsy Photos: A New Perspective http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2398 JFK Rear Head Wound http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2349 Headshot Theory http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3937 Trajectory Analysis and the Assassination of JFK http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6386 Christ, could you be more smug and condescending? Tom dares to stray from the party line and he's not being "intellectual" enough for you? As opposed to the grossly anti-intellectual, anti-US poison you spread here and at Spartacus? No wonder anti-Americanism is on the rise in Europe. Tom, don't bother clicking on any of those links. It's the same recycled nonsense from amateurs who are not board certified or credentialed in any way. Hell, even the 1976 House investigation concluded that the (alleged) Knoll shot MISSED. But when has reason ever mattered to the buffs?

I rather doubt it. He was fighting for the Union Army that day.

Pat, help me understand why you're so hung up on the Parkland wipe down. Are you concerned that they wiped away blood spray patterns? That bullet fragments were accidentally removed or suppressed?

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty ... "To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." JFK: neocon. Of course, he had the advantage of an adversary that valued life and their own existence. W has no such luxury. Nor was JFK a stranger to using force to remove dictatorial regimes. Were he alive today, he wouldn't recognize his own defeatist party. He sure as hell wouldn't recognize his own brother, or the other Sen from Massachusetts.

Brendan, I think that you have demonstrated in this post better than any other how closed minded you really are. I don't doubt that you are an intelligent man, this is why I have such trouble with the fact that you prefer to degrade the tone of the conversation. Why must you do so? I can accept that you don't like the Deomcrats or that you have differing beliefs to myself, but why must you be so confrontational about it? I suppose some people just go out looking for a fight. John John, I'm no more rude than the original poster. I just don't like it when opportunists piggyback on a speech anniversary to take a cheap shot at the President. It's off-topic, childish, and decidely unfair. In any event, welcome to DC.

Jeez, you idiots can't commemorate a simple speech without throwing in some sleazy Bush hatred. And is this a Kennedy assassination site or a Kennedy idolatry site? Can't tell the difference sometimes. You do realize your "hero" attempted to overthrow and assassinate foreign heads of state, not to mention wiretapped civil rights leaders, right? I thought only Bush and the eeeeeevil Republicans did those things. Hmmm. Oh, and trotting out senile Schlesinger to sing the praises of his old boss? Priceless. P.S. Has McKinney been indicted yet?

No, it was an innocent oversight.

I'm second to no one in my contempt for this jackass. He always had a stupid grin on his face. Palamara interviewed his son, who said his dad had no regrets and that he never warmed up to JFK because of his Catholicism. They should have put "Crappy Driver, Bigot" on his tombstone.

But she did get Jackie's bloody gloves, which stained this letter when she put them in her purse.

Well, Evelyn Lincoln got away with his wallet, watch, and sunglasses, so Greer didn't get everything. That woman moves fast! :-)

You can see him momentarily leave the QM in the Nix film. He did this when Hill was still struggling to get a grip on the limo. In other words, Kennedy was a corpse by the time Ready put one foot on Elm, so Roberts was right to recall him.

Hill (unfairly) beat himself up over not getting to the limo in time, but you never hear anything from John Ready, who was closest to the Prez. Is Ready still alive? Did he give WC testimony?