John Dolva

Initial impression: The version of Wiegman I have is fairly sharp However the sequence relevant is blurred. The section which could possibly show this in the version I have has one frame possibly three that seems to me to be capable of showing such a thing. However they are not sequential. Also they, considering the wind conditions and direction of wind (towards the camera) would make such a thing difficult to percieve. However, If there are frames I am not in posssession of? Also I'd like to see Bills study. Reply to above: OK thanks

Awwright, already, no need to shout. Sure, Stuart, I'm doing other things too but I like to try to help as much as possible. Any more info, links?

Heh, I thought this might have had something to do with it (on the flip side is the fold from MAD topic).

this topic is turning up a number of interesting links. Tha M.A.D. topic reveals Walkers finger in the 'thought police' pie. _________________________________ Through looking at the 'Caddy' topic a link to a Clyde Watts appears "In 1963, Soule was chairman of the 12th Annual National Congress of Freedom. (Who's Who in the South and Southwest 1963 - 1964) General Walker's lawyer, Clyde Watts, was a speaker at this event. (NOTP; April 7, 1963). J. A. Milteer was also in attendance. (Weisberg; Frame-Up; p481)" through this we have a link to Bannister, Martin, Hunt, Eastland, Milteer etc _________________________________ In 1961: (from MAD files, link in MAD topic) A Brigadier General C. J. Watts according to a Bufile from W.C. Sullivan notes General Watts being sued by MAD comics because he alledgedly made a statement that MAD helps the communist cause. Watts had sought out Sullivan in order to try to get help, specifically to see if a Matt Cvetic, or a Herbert Philbrick of the Communist Party could help. Watts sought out Sullivan again, and Sullivan instructed SA Teague to deal with him. General Watts is the lawyer for General Walker of the appropriately named law offices of "Looney, Watts, Looney, Nichols & Johnson" of Oklahoma City. __________________________________ Walker reported being shot at in april 63. (Dallas City archives) In June 1963 Walker apparently had no reason to consider Oswald as a suspect in trying to assassinate him, he was however involved in trying to set up a mr Duff in an attempt. In the dallas archives a document outlines how special investigators under instructions from General Watts from Oklahoma, came to Dallas to befriend Duff and arrange an attempt on Walker. So Walker was involved in plots against himself, and at that time did not appear to have knowledge of Oswald. Duff contacted Hosty who dealt with it. __________________________________ Other documents from the MAD files indicate a flurry of letters that involved Sullivan and DeLoach. __________________________________

A bit more : http://www.serendipity.li/wod/nsmith_chron.htm "Mullen knew Howard Hunt, who had also worked for Marshall's ECA. One of Mullen's biggest clients was General Foods whose Washington representative, Douglas Caddy, worked out of Mullen's office. Caddy would later become Hunt's lawyer. He was a Goldwater supporter and helped form the Young American's for Freedom with William F. Buckley Jr. and Robert Bennett. Caddy was also active in Youth for Nixon and was a member of the Lawyer's Committee to Reelect the President."

Very interesting. Douglas Caddy was the man that William Buckley chose to become the first leader of the Young Americans for Freedom. Caddy, like Buckley, had been a strong supporter of Joe McCarthy in the 1950s. In fact, Buckley was one of the few right-wingers who never deserted McCarthy and continued to praise him in the National Review even after he fell from power. According to Buckley, it was the “pro-communist” Eisenhower who was responsible for the undermining of McCarthy. In fact, it was the CIA that brought down McCarthy, but that is another story. I have already found strong links between Buckley to E. Howard Hunt, H. L. Hunt and Robert Welch. It now seems that there is a possible link with Buckley to Guy Banister via Caddy. Some of this might help. (expansion of post#1 'some more coincidences') Jerry Rose, in an article entitled "Nut Country II", (The Third Decade; May, 1990; Volume 6, Number 4; pp 1-5) transcribes a document from the National Archives concerning the activities of Major General Edwin A. Walker in New Orleans on Nov 20, 1963. The Document is a report from the Louisiana State Police. Walker met privately with Perez at his office in the National American Bank Building and also meet with about 35 conservative leaders at the Jung Hotel. On the 21st, Walker held another meeting with 90 people. It is possible that Walker's meeting was ostensibly connected with the Free Elector movement, which developed into a George Wallace for president campaign. It is certainly conceivable that Banister was one of the "conservative leaders" present at this meeting. Perhaps this would be the logical point to introduce a mutual cquaintance of Banister and Walker: Medford Bryan Evans. The first item concerning Evans is his entry from "Contemporary Authors" (Volumes 25-28 (revised); Gale Research Co.; 1971-78). Evans was born in 1907 in Lufkin, Texas. He graduated from the University of Chattanooga in 1927 and took a Ph. D. from Yale in 1933. He taught at various colleges. From 1944 to 1952, Evans worked for the Atomic Energy Commission in Oak Ridge and Washington, D. C. His last position was as chief of security training. He worked for the H. L. Hunt-created Facts Forum Foundation in Dallas from 1954 to 1955. He lived in Natchitoches, Louisiana from 1955 to 1962, teaching at Northwestern State College from 1955 to 1959, and working as a "consultant" from 1959 to 1962. In 1962, he went to work as managing editor of "The Citizen", official publication of the Citizens' Councils of America in Jackson, Mississippi. Evans was also a member of the John Birch Society and a contributor to its publication, "American Opinion". (see also: McMillen, Neil R. "The Citizens' Council". Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1971) My understanding is that Evans died in the late Eighties. M. (Medford) Stanton Evans, a member of William F. Buckley's circle, is Evans' son. In 1962, Evans appeared alongside General Walker at the Senate "Military Muzzling" Hearings organized by Strom Thurmond. (Military Cold War Education and Speech Review Policies; Hearings before the Special Preparedness Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services, U. S. Senate, 87th Congress, 2nd Session, p 1389) A review, by Evans, of three books related to the JFK assassination appeared in "American Opinion" for September, 1977. (pp 67-70). In the course of the review, Evans described Banister as "a friend of mine as it happens." (p69, 1st column, 1st paragraph) An indication that Evans and Banister moved in the same circles in Louisiana is that in 1960 Evans was named as secretary of the Louisiana States Rights Party. Kent Courtney was the party's candidate for governor. David C. Treen, a New Orleans attorney was named chairman, replacing another N. O. lawyer, Felix Lapeyre. (NOTP; January 6, 1960; s1, p11) Kent Courtney was named by the HSCA as a Banister acquaintance. (HSCA; Vol X, 130) General Walker should be asked about the purpose of his trip to N. O. just before the assassination. Was Banister present at the meetings? Did Walker have direct or indirect contact with Banister before this? Did he ever discuss Banister with Medford Evans? Was Banister interested in the Walker shooting? Did Walker discuss Banister with Evans after the assassination? Since David C. Treen's name came up, here's a bit more. In 1960, Leander Perez seized the machinery of the Louisiana States' Rights Party in order to field a slate of Presidential electors in opposition to the Democratic Kennedy-Johnson ticket. David C. Treen, Willie Rainach, Emile A. Wagner and Perez himself were on the slate. (NOTP; September 19, 1960; s1, p3) The next year, Treen attacked the National States' Rights Party, after a "secret" meeting of a purported local branch. He insisted that the Louisiana Party was in no way connected to the national group, which was "a disgrace to the term 'states rights.'" (NOTP; June 3, 1961; s2, p3). A year later, after Treen left, the Louisiana States Rights Party would file suit in Federal Court against the NSRP. The suit sought to enjoin the NSRP from using the words "States' Rights Party" in Louisiana. The complaint was made that the NSRP has falsely claimed an affiliation with the Louisiana group. The NSRP newspaper, "The Thunderbolt", was referred to as "a reprehensible, abhorrent and despicable publication." (NOTP; September 12, 1962; s2, p4) Treen would switch to the Republican party and become a congressman, then governor of Louisiana. In 1966, he was a director of INCA. (NOTP; December 13, 1966; s4, p7) I believe Treen is still alive. He spoke out in opposition to David Duke in the last election. I'm not sure if he would be too thrilled to talk about the good old days with the segregationists. Another Walker-New Orleans link is through George Soule, president of Soule Business College. In 1962, George Soule was "community chairman" of the New Orleans Indignation Committee. (NOTP; February 8, 1962; s2, p4) In January, Walker had addressed this group, via closed-circuit TV, at a meeting held at Soule College. (NOTP; January 4, 1962; s1, p14) In 1963, Soule was chairman of the 12th Annual National Congress of Freedom. (Who's Who in the South and Southwest 1963 - 1964) General Walker's lawyer, Clyde Watts, was a speaker at this event. (NOTP; April 7, 1963). J. A. Milteer was also in attendance. (Weisberg; Frame-Up; p481) "

Based on image provided by Robin, I think the lovelady/osewald figure is visible in the towner film further back, moves/leans forward in the othewr pics.

For those who have an interest in understanding who the people in Germany that helped the Holocaust victims, the following is a contribution: http://ehsli.org/publish.php?page=publish&option=7 "Who were the rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe and why did they do what they did? Why would anyone put his or her own life in danger for the sake of someone who was a stranger? Social psychologist Eva Fogelman sought to find the answers. Fogelman, a founding director of the Jewish Foundation for Christian Rescuers and co-director of Psychotherapy with Generations of the Holocaust and Related Traumas, wanted to know whether there were factors held in common by those who saved Jews. She wondered if the rescuers were a particular nationality, social class, religion, political affiliation or gender. No, is her answer. Some were intensely religious, others atheists, and others non-practicing Christians. Rescuers came from all classes and occupations -- farmers, executives, doctors, blacksmiths, social workers, dressmakers. Gender and politics were not factors either. So, if none of these were determinants, what was? Character, she says. '[it was not] just a haphazard collection of individuals who chanced to rescue Jews, but people who have surprisingly similar humanistic values. It was not a whim that led these people to risk their lives and those of their families, but a response . . . that came from core values developed and instilled in them in childhood,' Fogelman said at a speech at an Amnesty International Chapter on Long Island. As children they experienced one or more of the following: a nurturing, loving home; an altruistic parent or beloved caretaker; a tolerance for people who were different; a childhood illness or loss that tested their resilience; an emphasis upon independence, discipline with explanations, and caring. The values they shared were altruism, independence of mind and respect for differences among people. As children, the rescuers were taught these principles as part of daily living. "This made virtue a habit," says Fogelman. She tells us that the parents of some of the rescuers had involved them in helping others by bringing food to a sick person or sleeping over at a house where a neighbor was about to give birth and her husband was not there. Fogelman says, "Learned altruistic behavior, seeing all people as equals, gave the rescuers the ability to transcend the propaganda against the Jews and to see them as human beings just like themselves. They took the responsibility to help because they knew that unless they did something that person would die." "

THE DISMISSAL OF MAJ. GEN. EDWIN A. WALKER - A Special Report by Congressman Morris K. Udall So many of you have written me regarding the dismissal of Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker that I have decided to write this report as a partial answer to your questions. As you know, Gen. Walker was commander of the 24th Infantry Division in West Germany last April, when charges were made that his troop education and indoctrination program was following the pattern of the right-wing John Birch Society. He subsequently was relieved of his command following an Army investigation. Since then charges have been made that Gen. Walker was disciplined because he was a zealous anti-Communist. Considerable light now has been shed on this case. During the week of September 3-9 Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee and answered the questions of Senator Strom Thurmond and other critics of the Army action. From his testimony and the subsequent release of the 973-page transcript of the Army's hearings on the case it now becomes clear that Gen. Walker was dismissed, not because he was a zealous anti-Communist, but because he engaged in political activity. Two facts stand out: first that Gen. Walker advised his troops and their families to consult the so-called "A.C.A. Index" before voting in congressional elections last fall, and second, that Gen. Walker pleaded the military equivalent of the Fifth Amendment (Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) when questioned about this. This article, like the Fifth Amendment, may be invoked when one believes his own testimony might "tend to incriminate" him. For your information, the "A.C.A. Index" is a voting guide published by one particular faction on the American political scene. It can lay no more claim to infallibility or correctness than the "A.D.A. Index", published by the opposite extreme of the political spectrum. For Gen. Walker to urge his troops and their families to consult this guide before voting was to engage in overt political activity in clear violation of the spirit of the Hatch Act, which prohibits government personnel from participating in politics other than voting. There were other points brought out, as well. For example, the testimony revealed that Gen. Walker is a member of the John Birch Society, an organization whose leader says former President Eisenhower, John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles and other high officials of our government have been Communist dupes. Also, it was revealed that Gen. Walker made public statements which were derogatory of other present and former officials of our government. Such statements, of course, are wholly out of keeping for a military officer. Three days before he left office last January former President Eisenhower said in a nation-wide television address, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." I believe Mr. Eisenhower's warning is pertinent to this situation. In the course of our history we have always maintained civilian control of our government by elected officials responsible to the electorate. I firmly believe that this must continue. Everyone will agree, I think, on two propositions: 1) that military leaders have a right and duty to indoctrinate their troops in broad, basic principles of American history and government so they will know why they are asked to serve their country and fight for it if necessary, and 2) that military leaders have absolutely no business taking any part in political campaigns or seeking to influence their troops in matters which are partisan or political. One need only look at some of the South American and Asian nations to see that real democracy and liberty are missing when military leaders participate in elections or political decisions. A non-political military establishment is one of the most vital, indispensable ingredients of the kind of democracy which distinguishes the United States, Britain and other nations of the free world. This whole thing can be seen in true focus, I believe, if we suppose for a moment that the situation had been reversed. Imagine that Gen. Walker had called his troops together to "indoctrinate" them on Americanism. Suppose he had advised them that our country was in great danger of losing the cold war to the Communists, and that we could strengthen our nation for the future only if we had more federal aid to education, more urban renewal to eliminate crime and poverty in the cities, larger aid for undeveloped countries, etc. These are views which have been expressed by President Kennedy, ex-President Eisenhower and other Americans whose sincerity and patriotism cannot be questioned. Had this been the case, I think you would have joined me in expressing outrage at such military interference in these political questions. Yet, if what Gen. Walker did is right, another commander holding the views I have mentioned could properly "indoctrinate" his troops along those lines. On the basis of the facts presented I think there can be no doubt that the reprimand given Gen. Walker was warranted. The above is from the University of Arizona Library Special Collections.

Regarding this meeting, I have a vague memory of the Kennedy's planning to spend the night at the ranch. All I can find on this is an incomplete statement which is ambiguous. : "After a series of rallies and speeches in Dallas, they were supposed to spend the night at the LBJ Ranch near Johnson City. But it was November 22, 1963 ...." The Kennedys were indeed scheduled to spend the night at the ranch, which is what led me to conclude that Pearson's meeting with LBJ scheduled for "late late" in the evening was in fact a secret meeting to discuss Reynolds. My understanding (please correect me as I have no idea what the SS were supposed to be doing during this night.) is that both Jackie and Jack had their own security detail on duty 24/7 who would not be beholden to Johnson? IF such a meeting was indeed sheduled that could certainly tell some interesting things re Johnsons expectations?

You're right John, that's what it is all about except that you could take instead of christianity any other belief depending where such a forum is running. If this forum would be in Saudi Arabia we sure would have a dicussion about Islam and rationality but what would that change? George Just as there are people like bush who claims to be christians, there are no doubt atheists who claim to have once believed in god. What is almost always true is that christians have once not believed in god. It is not hard for a christian to accept that a rational attitude of someone who has chosen not to believe in god should be an atheist, after all, as rational beings they almost all at one point have been one? The world that is experienced by someone choosing to believe is nevertheless real. It's probably absurd for an atheist to think that they through reason can understand this world. I think, however, that it would be beneficial to all to see one try. EDIT :: I wrote "However discussion about religion and atheism seems to become a discussion about christianity and rationality.The problem that this becomes is that for those who choose to believe in jesus are assumed to be arguing for the irrational aspects of any religion." As a christian I obviously have reasons to believe that christianity IS rational, while religions often lose their rational aspects in servicing earthly attachments such as hierachy and posessions. Such things are best left to society as a whole to nut out.

Moles and Molehunters was a CIA internal document that was produced in October, 1993. The Studies in Intelligence was not the official organ of the CIA. You are obviously getting confused with The Center for the Study of Intelligence (CSI). This was established as an in-house think tank in 1975. The CSI was responsible for inservice training and commissioned Moles and Molehunters. The document was declassified on 11th October, 2003, as part of the JFK Act. The document was written by Cleveland C. Cram, Chief of Station in Europe and the Western Hemisphere. He retired in 1992. The purpose of Cram’s investigation was to discover the sources for 18 books published about the covert activities of the American, British and Canadian intelligence agencies between 1977 and 1992. Cram pointed out that the first book that caused alarm was Edward Epstein’s book, Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald. It became clear that Epstein had a source from within the CIA. However, he had used this information to write lies about what the CIA had been up to. Cram concluded that Epstein was part of a disinformation campaign. The question was – who was he working for? Cram discovered that Epstein’s main informant was James Jesus Angleton. Cram established that Epstein was a willing participant of a disinformation campaign being organized by Angleton (two other former CIA agents, Bagley and Miler were also part of this campaign). They were also helped in this by a MI5 agent named Peter Wright. Angleton and Wright both believed that the KGB had reached the upper echelons of both the American and British agencies. Another source was Clare Petty, who worked for Angleton. The CIA discovered this and he received a warning and came close to being fired. Interestingly, Petty later speculated that Angleton was a KGB agent. This was based on the harm that Angleton’s beliefs had on both the American and British intelligence agencies. Along with Peter Wright, Angleton had argued that top MI5 officials such as Guy Liddell, Victor Rothschild, Roger Hollis and Graham Mitchell, were KGB spies. Ironically, he had never suspected Kim Philby as a spy, in fact they were close friends. The theory goes that it was Philby via Angleton, who seriously damaged MI5 by planting information suggesting that it had been completely infiltrated by the KGB. There were other authors who were willing to make use of information supplied by Angleton. This includes Widows by Joe Trento and William Corson. Cram rather harshly that this book was not “reputable by even the generally low standards of most counter-intelligence writing”. Cram points out that some of these journalists had found CIA and FBI insiders to tell the truth about covert activities that took place in the 1960s and 1970s. This included David Martin’s Wilderness of Mirrors (1980), David Wise’s Molehunt (1987), Ron Kessler’s Spy v Spy (1988), John Ranelagh’s The Agency: The Rise and Decline of the CIA (1988) and Tom Mangold’s Cold Warrior (1991). These authors also interviewed Angleton. However, they also interviewed other CIA officers and discovered he was lying to them. The document was produced for CIA officers. He even includes a list of books they should and should not read in order to discover what the CIA was up to in the 1960s and 1970s. The books that he tells these officers not to read include the books by Joe Trento and Edward Epstein. Also on this list is Thomas Powers’ The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms (1979). He points out that much of what Powers writes about the CIA is inaccurate. Cram especially likes Martin’s Wilderness of Mirrors. Martin portrays Angleton as “self-centred, ambitious, and paranoid”. Cram points out that Epstein wrote a review of the book in the New York Times that was full of “vituperative comments, loose charges, and what some might consider character assassination” (page 30). Cram believes that Epstein wrote the review on behalf of Angleton. The major villain in this report is Edward Epstein. Cram, writing about his book, Deception: The Invisible War: “Like Legend, it is propaganda for Angleton and essentially dishonest” (page 60). Cram also likes Tom Mangold’s book on Angleton (Mangold is a much respected investigative journalists in the UK). “It is an honest and accurate book. Mangold’s conclusion is inescapable: something was seriously wrong with CIA counterintelligence under Angleton. Some trait in the man’s character, at once attractive and repulsive – his intellectual arrogance perhaps – apparently led him to make serious misjudgements”. (page 66) Important information I think. Shortly a movie will appear that may muddy the water. We'll see. The fact that Angleton was into deception si of course no surprise. When was he being deceptive? Did he have moments of truthtelling? "Pesci Returns for De Niro's "Shepherd" Ed Havens over at Filmjerk.com has a scoop that should please fans of the once-prolific and now-retired Joe Pesci: The actor will return to the screen for a "small yet pivotal" role in Robert De Niro's "The Good Shepherd." "From a screenplay by "Forrest Gump" screenwriter Eric Roth, "The Good Shepherd" tells the mostly true story of James Wilson (a character reported to be based on legendary CIA spymaster James Jesus Angleton, and played in the film by Matt Damon), one of the founding members of the Central Intelligence Agency. Beginning as an scholar at Yale, the film follows Wilson as he is recruited to join the secret Skull and Bones fraternity, a brotherhood and breeding ground for future world leaders, where his acute mind, spotless reputation and sincere belief in the American way of life render him a prime candidate for a career in intelligence." In addition to old pals De Niro and Pesci, the ensemble cast includes William Hurt, Timothy Hutton, Alec Baldwin, Billy Crudup, Keir Dullea, Michael Gambon, Gabriel Macht, and John Turturro"

Clearly depends on one's definition of 'Christian'. It's pretty easy to say something like "oh look at what they did! They're not Christians, no matter what they might have said". At that point the whole debate fails to exist. No leader I can think of, regardless of professed status as christian or other or non religion, would meet the criteria of being christian. You might as well call people in the Labour Party socialists! Marx wrote: "The foundation of irreligious criticism is this: man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is indeed the self-consciousness and self-awareness of man who either has not yet attained to himself or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man, the state, society. This state, this society produces religion's inverted attitude towards the world, because they are an inverted world themselves. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in a popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, its universal basis for consolation and justification. It is the imaginary realization of the human essence, because the human essence possesses no true reality. Thus, the struggle against religion is indirectly the struggle against the world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, it is the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. The demand to give up illusions about their condition is a demand to give up a condition that requires illusion. The criticism of religion is therefore the germ of the valley of tears whose halo is religion." An analysis from David L. Morgan - THE METAPHYSICS AND PHENOMENOLOGY OF RELIGION "In this passage we see Marx describing religion as far more than an attempt to escape a miserable existence. It is equally a powerful description of and protest against this existence. The history of religions - including Christianity - is a history of protest. The Old Testament describes the protest of the ancient Hebrews against their enslavement by the Egyptians and their struggle for their liberation. This account also inspired Black slaves in the pre-Civil War American South who sought escape from their bondage. It also inspired the modern civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King and others. The message of the Gospel narrative includes Jesus condemning the rich and upholding the cause of the poor. Contemporary Liberation Theology, popular in Latin America and elsewhere, upholds this Gospel tradition. Thus while religion may at times serve as an escape, it clearly also serves a powerful motivator and transformer of people's lives. In the final paragraph quoted above we seek Marx declaring that the focus of any attack on religion must be diverted to an attack on the oppressive and unfulfilling conditions of existence which give rise to the need for religion. Thus for Marx, religion is truly oppressive when it becomes a device for upholding an oppressive status quo. Yet, as we have seen religion can also contain a revolutionary message of criticism and liberation. Marx and Freud suggest that ultimately religion will disappear in a society in which science rules or in which oppression is absent, or both. Of course, we can ask whether even in such a world would not something like religious hope still function? Much of religion speaks to our mortality and finitude, characteristics that are likely to persist in spite of progress in the scientific and social spheres." and with the following in mind: Wolff, Jonathan, "Karl Marx", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2003 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2003/entries/marx/>. "It is interesting to read Marx here in the light of his third Thesis on Feuerbach where he indicates how it will not happen. The crude materialism of Robert Owen and others assumes that you can change people by changing their circumstances. However, how are those circumstances to be changed? By an enlightened philanthropist like Owen who can miraculously break through the chain of determination which ties down everyone else? Marx's response, in both the Theses and the Critique, is that the proletariat can break free only by their own self-transforming action. Indeed if they do not create the revolution for themselves — guided, of course, by the philosopher — they will not be fit to receive it." So, while a-theist communists (as opposed to a-theist anti-communists) view 'religion as an opiate' a subtler understanding of this 'misquote' can be had. Marx was initially responding to an anti-semitic comment. He recognised the value of progressive religions, and argued that once a truly rational society is achieved, religion will naturally fade away. To me the essence of christianity deals with 'mortality and finitude, characteristics that are likely to persist in spite of progress in the scientific and social spheres.' "...for Marx, religion is truly oppressive when it becomes a device for upholding an oppressive status quo. Yet, as we have seen religion can also contain a revolutionary message of criticism and liberation." It is in the interest of the progressive left and the progressive liberation theologians to recognise each other. Both recognise the value of education as an antidote to oppression. The left that hammers at religious freedom only set the stage for an incomplete liberation and thus are themselves reactionary. Christians trust that jesus provides a true response to essential human spiritual condition, The progressive left trust that in time an educated people will naturally divest itself of opiates. Intolerance is a sign of lack of this trust and hence doubt re. their dogma, which is a good thing.

Erm...Hitler was a Christian, not an atheist. He had leanings towards a Folkish tradition, probably influenced by Himmler more than anything, but to claim he was an atheist, is lying. J V Stalin was not 'holding power' in the USSR by the way, and your attempt to align Soviet Socialism with some rabid brand of Nationalist Capitalism (Hitler's) is very twisted. I'm sure the non-Christians living in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Kurdistan, Iraq would take a different view, seeing as WW, WC and TB were responsible for the deaths of thousands of their friends and family. As would the Christians in Guatemala, Yugoslavia and Ireland who were killed in their thousands by WC, DE and TB. Well as Stalin never said such a thing, and the quote came from the mouth of the Christian Adolf Eichmann, we'll leave that one too. Here's a quote: a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, but no knowledge at all is worse. (Dafydd Humphreys, 2005) It might interest you to know Dafydd that Tim Gratz does not consider himself to be a right-wing extremist. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5186 I think it does history (let alone christianity) a GREAT disservice to portray the Nazis as christians, It's like saying Bush is a christian? Sure they came from a country with lutheran traditions, but when questioned about theifr faith, roughly half of gewrman POW's in britain put down their religion as 'Nature' and the other half "Hitler'. During the Nuerenburg trials, defendants were offered priestly counselling, and while most were happy with the added contact and some saw conversion as a means to avoid the death penalty, some were genuine converts (or reverts) and accepted their fate, others like Herman Goering held fast to his non christian beliefs and comitted suicide. Atheists? maybe maybe not, Theists? possibly. Christians? I don't think so. The question was with regards to christians, which often (usually?) seems to be taken as the opposite of atheism. Obviously Theism is the opposite of A-Theism. As argued earlier 'Religion' can be a structured world view around A-Theism. However discussion about religion and atheism seems to become a discussion about christianity and rationality. The problem that this becomes is that for those who choose to believe in jesus are assumed to be arguing for the irrational aspects of any religion. Not fair, I say. This web site could very well become an important historical document, dipped into by future historians. The more insightful of those will be writing some interesting Master thesis'. _________________________ With regards looking for evil in the past? I wonder to what extent the faith or lack of faith of the CEO of for example GMH decides marketing strategy? Companies that concentrate on producing next years untried model at a time when the problems of the current crop are just being identified and a simple retooling and shift in emphasis could concievably save the lives of millions of people, avoid the attendant misery and save the oil, the lack of which drives war. These sanctioned murderers are not held to account, quite the opposite they are encouraged. But then, they are most likely christians? Personally I think that a serious development of the Trabi concept into a model that only changes if necessary would be the way to go.

Erm...Hitler was a Christian, not an atheist. He had leanings towards a Folkish tradition, probably influenced by Himmler more than anything, but to claim he was an atheist, is lying. J V Stalin was not 'holding power' in the USSR by the way, and your attempt to align Soviet Socialism with some rabid brand of Nationalist Capitalism (Hitler's) is very twisted. I'm sure the non-Christians living in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Kurdistan, Iraq would take a different view, seeing as WW, WC and TB were responsible for the deaths of thousands of their friends and family. As would the Christians in Guatemala, Yugoslavia and Ireland who were killed in their thousands by WC, DE and TB. Well as Stalin never said such a thing, and the quote came from the mouth of the Christian Adolf Eichmann, we'll leave that one too. Here's a quote: a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, but no knowledge at all is worse. (Dafydd Humphreys, 2005) It might interest you to know Dafydd that Tim Gratz does not consider himself to be a right-wing extremist. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5186 I think it does history (let alone christianity) a GREAT disservice to portray the Nazis as christians, It's like saying Bush is a christian? Sure they came from a country with lutheran traditions, but when questioned about theifr faith, roughly half of gewrman POW's in britain put down their religion as 'Nature' and the other half "Hitler'. During the Nuerenburg trials, defendants were offered priestly counselling, and while most were happy with the added contact and some saw conversion as a means to avoid the death penalty, some were genuine converts (or reverts) and accepted their fate, others like Herman Goering held fast to his non christian beliefs and comitted suicide. Atheists? maybe maybe not, Theists? possibly. Christians? I don't think so.

________________________________________________________________________________ ____ Its importance in the history leading up to the events of November 22, 1963 should not be diminished. ________________________________________________________________________________ ______ And, as stated, such "Far/Far/Far--Right" organizations such as "FOR AMERICA" should be fullly investigated. Especially when they operate out of the same bldg. in which LHO received financial aid upon his return from the Soviet Union. Especially when one of the "Registered Agents" is an attorney from New Orleans, Louisiana who happens to be his Uncle. Especially when another of the "Registered Agents" is is fact a partner with the above referenced Uncle of LHO, and who also happens to be the "Mr. Dunbar" representative of United Fruit from whom and attempt was made to raise 1 million dollars to overthrow the government of Guatemala. Right-wing "Racism" and Right-wing "Politics" can often create a "common carrier". Tom P.S. The "Sumter" as in "Marks" is of course the common family name from the pride of "Ft. Sumter, SC", where General P.G.T. Beauregard of Louisiana expelled the Yankees. And of course, the "Dunbar" is a direct descendent ot the sister of General P.G.T. Beauregard. And the "Claverie" had a sister who married a Beauregard, thus giving LHO a distant cousin with this famous last name. And of course the "Marks" had other descendents named "Malvern" Marks, named after the first of the line of the Marks family to fall at the early Civil War engagement "Battle of Malvern Hill". (Henry Clay Marks, Commanding Officer, Company "B", 10th Louisiana Infantry) And lastly, the last of the family named "Malvern Marks" (Henry Malvern Marks) also resided in Ft. Worth, TX until his death in 1986. Other than those items, (and a few others which encompass George DeMohrenschildt & William Pawley), I see no reason to consider "extremism" in politics or race relations as a potential motive in the assassination of JFK. I see Walker as a 'hot warrior' whom no-one had told the war was over, he simply latched on to the MacCarthy message and soldiered on. It wasn't over with the Kennedy assassination. In a letter* to William Manchester on June 9 1967, Walker warns that he wants nothing to do with the Kennedys. He describes the Kennedy presidency as 'the administration of the two Kennedys'. An indication that he was not as intellectually impaired as he might have been portrayed by others is indicated by the overall structure of the letter. What stands out more is a kind of obsession regarding distancing himself from any incriminating suggestions re 'The Death of a President'. Note that RFK had been assassinated 4 days previously! In the letter Walker writes '...Robert F. Kennedy, who was the U.S. Attorney General and is now Senator,...' Lining up for a plea of insanity?? (*Dallas City archives.)

Mark, the segregationists did indeed use the law to the fullest to stop integration. Quite apart from the OVERT use of the courts to thwart integrationists in a lot of very imaginative ways (for example Tulane University in the end argued that it was a person and therefore not bound by federal laws demanding non-discrimination) Whether this, or Walkers capitalising on the oxford insurrection, is morally lawful is another question. COVERTLY the Law in the guise of highway patrolmen, Sheriffs, FBI agents and SISS et al used any means at hand to control the negroes, by murder, economic subversion, turning a blind eye, etc. This Lawlessness by Law enforcement bodies was apparent to many, but it went on nevertheless. It had a history, and an economic raison d'etre. Sad but true. Rosa and people like her, by assuming rights that many took for granted brought things to a head. At the heart of many of these issues is the economic relationships. A controlled low waged negro doesn't pressure the wages of the low paid white, and provides a pool of labor for the wealthy for the more menial tasks. Divide and rule rules...

Relevant to this is a post from the political conspiracies forum describing "source misattribution" http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=43265

ELVIS LIVES! and stretching it a bit : earl warren : arlen err a 'w' (with the w being the magic bullets path) + for Ron for managing to squeeze fun out of lots of things : corn eker

Ron, I've spent a fair bit of time trying to find answers to those questions. I wonder about the effectiveness of such a facade in diverting, discounting, discrediting serious enquiry? If it wasn't for credible infiltration and exposure of for example the boneheads, they would remain behind this 'mystical' facade. When the inner workings are not laid bare, rumoured rituals, oaths, and decorations such as skulls and foetuses in bottles lends credence to the loony reputation. When fascist connections and racism (genetics) is thrown in, pickled indian skulls, nazi tableware, and secrecy becomes more representative. There are a few people who are not infected with the nonsense who have researched these organisations. They're harder to find than the cosmic conspiracists. I think its good to discuss this Ron, to demystify it so that if there is information worth looking at one may do so and to some extent know how to separate the rubbish out. Not giving a xxxx what some people might think if you do look at this stuff helps as well.

A picture of Harry D. Holmes can be found in the illustrations section of "No More Silence" between pages 166-167. Hey thats good, Ian. Thank you for replying. No chance of posting at least a thumbnail? Or a link to online image? Further, Richard Craig wrote about a division of politics within the DPD basically by the sound of it Right and Moderate. He also wrote of an individual who had a 'stall' in the entrance of the DPD who was a 'focus' for the Right. I don't understand if this means some sort of news-stand or one of those front office/booking desk areas, or what. Any info on helping to understand who he might have meant? Also are there any lists of jail inmates/jailers on the 5th floor 11/22? Ive scoured the Online Dallas database with no luck. John

Some thoughts of where this may be relevant Many people prior to viewing the Zapruder film will have had described to them what to expect. Early on there was Time life, Dan Rather and the WC. Then came Garrisons 'back and to the left'. One would then tend to look for this and see it. Then theories were formulated to explain. 'Jet effect', GK shot, and syndromes. How to explain the 'inconsistencies'? The left brain undamaged. OK the brain 'was swapped'. Damage and fragments contained largely on the right side? Xrays forged? And finally, the films altered. How can a shot from rear right cause the head to move towards the right? Particularly when the explosive eruption at the right temple is taken into account? One description of a high velocity bullet hitting a head is: the energy carried by a bullet at High velocity is dissipated to the head in a same way as if a sledgehammer moving at its relatively Low velocity hits the head. Knockdown power! Boom! The shape of the cavitation occurring in a fraction of a second is widest at the point of entry. Where in any witness statements or images is any suggestion of an eruption occurring at the rear of the head? A closed system punctured and pressurised will have that pressure relieved at the nearest existing puncture. There should at least be some indication of such somewhere. Where is it? Auto suggestion can lead one to accept things that perhaps otherwise may be obvious. A shot from the right front makes perfect sense as long as one overlooks the lack of destruction of the left hemisphere and lack of fragments in the left hemisphere. OR adheres to alteration theories. It's possible to look at all the evidence as it is and not need any alteraltions. If one watches carefully sans pre judice, one is more likely to spot the tilt to the right-forward movement and the very brief pause prior to the back, left move. The only way that is dealt with is to ignore it as if it didn't happen. Well, sorry. It did. A shot from the left explains it all. The top of the head hole is an entry. The side and back are exits. The right-forward movement is 'knockdown power' that drives the head against the raised right shoulder which diverts the head forward down tilt. This knockdown also is transmitted through a body held rigid by bracing to the seat springs that recoil and catapults the now limp body naturally back in the direction it came from: up and to the left. The back part of the movement can be understood if one frees oneself from viewing the zfilm as a static screen but rather an image with a time AND place. In other words, the frames not only capture moments in time but these moments occur about a head width apart in a direction towards the triple underpass. The natural habit accuired by car passengers of bracing against movement by adjusting muscular control as is evident with viewing the forward tilt of the live passengers doesn't apply to Kennedy after the headshot. His body is now subject to all these forces sans muscular control. Hence it is primarily subject to the law of physics that states an object will continue to move in the way it does until acted upon by an outside force. In this case outside force is seat springs, Jackies restraining hand, body hitting the seat back and head remaining as is until connection to body drags it forward as well. All one has to do is drop the preprogramming and it falls into place. ___________________________________________ Other instances where this 'intentional blindness' might occur is in the group rush towards the knoll, not unlike that of sheep startled and following the leader. Up near the TSBD there were an other set of cues at work. Pigeons taking off. SS men turning. Sound becomes married to direction where echoes may confuse. There was a shot, people were focussing on Kennedy, sound and shot are understandably joined together. What about the witnesses who were intently looking at Kennedy. How credible can any statement about smoke or movements outside this focus be? This is where the herd mentality kicks in and that then becomes the 'witnessing' while perhaps it was nothing of the sort. In other words, no lies, just natural biological processes. A knowledgable shooter, experienced in hunting, crime detection and war would have an understanding of all this. So to fool an unsuspecting public. Difficult? I don't think so. _________________________________ There is an interesting segment in one film taken up near the corner of houston and main that shows a general rush down towards the assassination site. Except for one figure, who seems to be taking a sunday stroll slowly away from there up main. There are other such anomalies in other photos and films. _________________________________ The witnesses who report things that noone else reports should perhaps be reviewed, particularly if they indicate in other ways that perhaps they were less focused on Kennedy than others?

This seems to me to be another example of trying to disenfranchise classes of people by implying that there is something nefarious in their activism and that the gains made are somehow a response to poor ignorant innocents having graces bestowed on them. It parallels the justifications for lynchings as being responses to outrages against white women by primitives. The facts are quite different. The activism of negroes and demands for education, economic equality, freedom of movement, rights to live where they wish, protection within the law, rights to vote are the prime reasons for the violence meted out to them. Similarly the gains are not due to benevolence of whites but to courageous persons such as Parks continuing an old tradition of protest. To have this sort of history rewriting allowed to go uncommented upon would be deplorable. Quite rightly,this was the case that brought a 25 year old M.L. King to prominence. It wasn't long before the FBI had him tagged as 'the most dangerous negro alive'. Thank you for posting this topic John.

Regarding this meeting, I have a vague memory of the Kennedy's planning to spend the night at the ranch. All I can find on this is an incomplete statement which is ambiguous. : "After a series of rallies and speeches in Dallas, they were supposed to spend the night at the LBJ Ranch near Johnson City. But it was November 22, 1963 ...."

To become aware of an interesting thing perhaps relevant to evaluating witness accounts go to http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/grafs/demos/15.html Note there are three people in white t shirts and 3 in black. once loaded click start and count carefully how many times the white clad people pass a ball from one to another. "The video is contained in a Java applet and it will only play if you have Java installed on your machine (and active in your browser). The applet is fairly large (7MB) so it may take a while to load. When it has finished loading, press the play button to view the video. " ________________________________________ Then read : http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/djs_lab/IB.html for more : http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/djs_lab/demos.html