Nathaniel Heidenheimer

http://www.ae911truth.org/donate.php?b=mih Of the 33 working architects (not counting Gage and a retiree) only 17 are from “the S.F. Bay Area and beyond”. One each are from Fresno, Los Angeles and San Diego cities 190 – 505 miles from San Francisco, 3 are from New York the rest are from states where they are the only or only one of two members. Even assuming all 17 joined via one of his lunches (and not via the internet or word of word etc like the others) after all this time has Gage only made his presentation to 23 (75%) or 25 (75% of 90%) architects? If so that would suggest that most firms he approaches or most of the architects who work at them have no interest in the goods he is peddling and that even if gets a “70 to 80%” sign up rate it is an audience predisposed to his messages. 25 architects would be a small to medium firm according to Gage. But on the linked page he seems to indicate he is addressing many more, when asks people to donate money! Even assuming no economy of scale why is he hitting people up to sponsor luncheons for 55 ($ 500) or 100 ($ 900) architects if he has only spoken to a total of at most 25 presumably from more than one firm? Something is wrong with his numbers! EDIT -typo fixed ------ Well Im glad that the Official 9/11 Commission's Conspiracy Theory-- now completely discredited even by the comments of people who directed it-- was paid for by tax dollars I presume? That way we tax payers could pay for their lunch enabeling them to write a report that was more objectively mental sewage. What a stunning level of propaganda we have reached in this society! We have MUCH more time and money being spent on examining the death of a teacher in a space shuttle than what is given as the public justification of the complete redirection of I dunno Seven trilliion dollars in spending over the next ten years. It stuns me how many people with so much knowledge of how disinformation works vis a vis the Kennedy Assassination, are completely unwilling to say or type anything NOT IN SUPPORT OF ANY ONE ALTERNATIVE THEORY, BUT RATHER OVER THE SIMPLE OBJECTIVE FACT THAT THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A REAL INVESTIGATION! Of course the predictable response to this will be to as quickly as possible return the discussion to one of the alternative theories so nobody notices the obvious truth of this point, WHICH WAS NOT AT ALL ABOUT ONE OF THE ALTERNATIVE THEORIES, but rather about the fact that there has never been a real investigation at all.

Len again I ask you the question has there or has there not been examples from 20th century US history of CIA funded publications that were specifically designed to appeal to the left, but with the purpose of winning credibility in order to prevent them from questioning Cold War foreign policy? I would appreciate some sort of actual answer to this question. Is there any credible history of it or can it all be thrown into the oceanic--because it is unmediated-- bathwater called conspiracy thoery. Have you read any of these books? The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letter by Francis Stonor Saunders the New Press 2000 The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA played America by Hugh Wilford Harvard University Press 2008 Nervous Liberals by Brett Gary Columbia University Press 1999. The fact is there is clear historical precedent for left-gatekeeping, Len, and it doesnt surprise me in the least that you are doing your best to steer clear of it.

gotta respond to rest of your stutterings-storm later, but for now Please find it where I called Amy Goodman a "CIA asset" Or is that another example of your putting words in peoples mouths? As I expected it came to something like this. I don't know if there is a name for it but insinuating something then claiming someone "put words in my mouth" when they call you on it is a common sematic trick frequently employed by truthers. An extreme example is when on another forum Fetzer told me, "...you are a dishonest and insincere propagator of falsehood. [name 'redacted'-Len] is a man of great integrity, which cannot be said of you." but denied calling me a xxxx (though he later admitted he had). Below are examples of what you asked me to "find" for you: -------- I ask again to please show me where I called Amy Goodman a CIA asset. If you say it doesnt matter it amounts to the same thing, THEN YOU ARE FLAT OUT WRONG. It is a much much more complicated situation than that which is why CIA intervention in the media has worked so well all these years. I suspect you know that and for some reason dont want to go there. I will later. So I ask again on just one of the countless amalgams of mistranslations and , decontextualizations, and disandreassociations -- CAN YOU PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THAT AMY GOODMAN WAS A CIA ASSET?

I sure know why you break down blocks of type into lines every time Len. Destroying context is your strong point. Lenspeak-- "a tedious semantic battle." -- this means when Len-- having translated what you wrote into his own deliberate misinterpretation protests your right to interpret your own words. More on this monotonous crap later on, hope everyone can hold their breath!! Please find it where I called Amy Goodman a "CIA asset" Or is that another example of your putting words in peoples mouths? Wow, I have just been compared to someone who Len says said the some journalists should be executed!!! THANK YOU LEN!!!!!!! Is it Thanksgiving in Brazil yet? Thanks Len thats a keeper!!!! THOSE VITAMINS FOR MORAL CHARACTER ARE WORKING.!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Len: found this while researching one of my three long papers, in order to get background on an article by Mad Max Holland on "the origins" of the Keating Missile disclosure. In my initial post I forgot to mention the House Select Committee. I was typing fast. I post about 50 posts per day on various forums. Sorry my geopolitical bad. Now do you YOU think that the House Select Committee has anything to do with the other two that Amy mentions, other than nominally? DId the House Select Committee involve investigating the CIA at all? (well for a while anyway) Was there any CIA testimoiny involved before the legislators, was there anything that might be called "legislative oversight of the CIA"? Why did Amy Goodman forget to mention this one? Her article was about legislative oversite of the CIA. Does that have to be in the title of the name of the committee to count as such? What if there were revelations about the CIA in the House Select Committee that were just as important or more important in terms of the history of the CIA than the Rockefeller Committee. Whould they not count because the CIA was not in the title of the House Select Committee's designation? Was it pure chance that Amy Goodman left out the House Select Committee or does it fit a broader pattern? The latter requires deeper investigation. Meanwhile heres this about the Church Committee: I found it before I even began my research into this topic. It was really very very strenuous "research" Len I went to a Spartacus site and clicked and pasted. Now please feel free to question the reliability of Lisa Peases account,you might well have valid points to make. I had previously read a much longer account of this in Gaeton Fonzis book. I intend to return to this and other sources asap. (3) Lisa Pease, Probe Magazine (March-April, 1996) During the Church committee hearings, Senator Richard Schweiker's independent investigator Gaeton Fonzi stumbled onto a vital lead in the Kennedy assassination. An anti-Castro Cuban exile leader named Antonio Veciana was bitter about what he felt had been a government setup leading to his recent imprisonment, and he wanted to talk. Fonzi asked him about his activities, and without any prompting from Fonzi, Veciana volunteered the fact that his CIA handler, known to him only as "Maurice Bishop," had been with Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas not long before the assassination of Kennedy. Veciana gave a description of Bishop to a police artist, who drew a sketch. One notable characteristic Veciana mentioned were the dark patches on the skin under the eyes. When Senator Schweiker first saw the picture, he thought it strongly resembled the CIA's former Chief of the Western Hemisphere Division-one of the highest positions in the Agency - and the head of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO): David Atlee Phillips.

and furthermoil... let it here be admitted that Amy Goodman does GREAT WORK and I for one try to catch her show whenever possible. That is the point. If she did not do great work and have tremendous credibility WITH A CERTAIN TARGETTED DEMOGRAPHIC then the value of her program, IF I AM CORRECT IN MY HYPOTHESIS, would be nil for many of her foundation patrons.... and THEIR patrons!! Do I have concrete proof of my hypothesis that Amy Goodman is a "left gatekeeper" To quote another forum member, 'YES A SIGNED CONFESSION"! I Do not live in a society where CIA funding of so called left media would ever be researched or proven to a critical mass of citizens. I live in a society entirely without limits on centralized power. I will voice my criticims of journalists based on many years of listening and reading their work. If this seems a rash J'accuse to you so be it. Your criticisms weigh very little with me as you find so little time to criticize the most powerfull government in world history nor its completely unrivaled propaganda operations, which even as I type is employing people on government payroles with huge stock portfolios in weapons companies used in the "War on Terror" as experts on war, who are brodcast to tens of millions of people every hour. Criticims from such as you is the Great Salt Lake. This does not logically mean that all of your comments are false, and I will try to distill the drop of truth included in your initial, extremelly murky saline solution.

Len first I dont know who Kevin Barrett is but suspect this is another attempt of yours to poison the well, by linking a genreral critique of someone to one of many many others who has also made that connection,then digging up some alledged nazi past and hence throwing out the whole critique bathwater with baby of YOUR selection not mine ad. infin. Len, we have seen Karl Rove's techniques. They are not going to work so well here. You need to mix in a curve with those grapefruits fastballs now and then! Secondly I do not ever intend on completeing your assignment. I intend on answering your criticism in the manner I chose. That involves a considerable amount of research on my part, much more than other posts of mine have on this site lately. My crticism (you call it an "attack" on Amy Goodman) is not based on that article alone, but on an overall pattern of her ridiculously one sided and propagandistic coverage of the JFK. It is very much related to the points I have made about Encounter Magazine, and the history of Left gatekeeping. Do you deny that CIA has a track-record of propaganda aimed specifically at """"""""""""""the left""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""?

And how would you know the amount of time I will spend on the above vs the other one. THis is the second completely substaneless post you have made to me with the sole attention of annoying me. Why are you wasting this resource. What are you accomplishing besides chasing people away from this forum?

I have not read the WC am walking around with that intention. Are there other questions asked by Spector similar to this one? If so could you post them, I would like to show them to the citizenry. THE WACKY WARREN COMMISSION QUESTIONING SKILLS THAT MADE ARLEN SPECTOR SENATOR FOR LIFE Share Today at 11:55pm | Edit Note | Delete Here is a good example of Arlen Specter's "questioning skills" during his interview of the Parkland doctors. It is about as gracefull as a Hummer turning a corner during the second Clinton Administration, and is taken from James W. Dougless' incredible book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It matters: When the government took charge with its official story of a lone assassin firing from the rear. the doctors were pressured by the Warren Commission to change their initial observations of Kennedy's body. The Warren Commission's staff counsel, Arlen Specter, a future U.S. senator,confronted the Dallas doctors with a question that contained the answer the Commission was seeking: "Assuming... that the bullet passed through the President's body, going in between the strap muscles of the shoulder without violating the pleura space and exited at a point in the midline of the neck, would the hole which you saw on the President's throat be consistent with an exit point, assuming the factors which I have just given to you"(note 551, Chapter 6)[/font] As Charles Crenshaw (who was not asked to testify) pointed out later, Specter had asked the doctors, "If the bullet exited from the front of Kennedy's throat, could the wound in the front of Kennedy's throat have been an exit wound" (note 552, Chapter 6) The doctors went along with Specter's show of logic: Yes, assuming the bullet exited from the the front of Kennedy's throat, that wound could indeed have been an exit wound. Pressed further by Warren Commission member Gerald Ford, who would later become president, Dr. Malcolm Perry repudiated as "inaccurate" the press reports of his clear description of the hole in the throat as an entrance wound.(note 553) That was not enough for Allen Dulles, who wanted the Warren Commission to draw extensively on the doctors' denial of their earliest press statements as a way to counteract the "false rumors" of the hole in the throat as an entrance wound. The Commission, Dulles felt, needed "to deal with a great many of the false rumors that have been spread on the basis of false interpretation of these appearances before television, radio, and so forth (note 554) Dr. Perry's retraction was not only manipulated but given under stress. He had been threatened beforehand by "the men in suits," specifically the Secret Service. As Dallas Secret Service agent Elmer Moore would admit to a friend years later, he "had been ordered to tell Dr. Perry to change his testimony." Moore said that in threatening Perryn he acted "on orders from Washington and Mr. Kelly of the Secret Service Headquarters." (note 555, Chapter 6) Moore confessed his intimidatin of Dr. Perry to a University of Washington graduate student, Jim Gochenaur, with whom he became friendly in Seattle in 1970. Moore told Gochenaur he "had badgered Dr. Perry" into "making a flad statement that there was no entry wound in the neck" (note 556) Moore admitted, "I regrett what I had to do with Dr. Perry." (note 557) However, with his fellow agents, he had been given "marching order from Washington." He felt he had no choice: "I did everything I was told, we all did everything we were told, or we'd get our heads cut off." (note 558) In the cover-up the men in suits were both the intimidators and the intimidated. With the power of the government marshaled against what the Parkland doctors had seen, they entered into what Charles Crenshaw called "a conspiracy of silence." (note 559) When Crenshaw finally broke his own silence in 1992, he wrote: "I believe there was a common denominator in our silence-- a fearful perception that to come forward with what we believed to be the medical truth would be asking for trouble. Although we never admitted it to one another, we realized that the inertia of the estabilished story was so powerful. so thoroughly presented, so adamantly accepted, that it would bury anyone who stood in its path... I was as afraid fo the men in suits as I was of the men who had assassinated the President... I reasoned that anyone who would go so far as to eliminate the President of the United States would surely not hesitate to kill a doctor. (note 560, Chapter 6) The above is taken from James W. Douglass incredible book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. In school we were taught that "to assume makes an *** out of u and me" Apparently it made Arlen Specter Senator For Life.

Len, I will respond to your comments no later than 5-19-09 around 9pm Eastern Time. Right now I am trying to finish three very large papers. Until then please meditate on this. Why have we seen almost no references to the BCCI and ENRON scandals in the media even though these were two of the biggest financial scandals in US history at the time they occured and also directly related to intelligece scandals and financial scandals that have occured since then? I am sure you will see absolutely no relevence to my point about the Goodman article, but there is one and it related to what issues and occurances will are likely to be mentioned as background in stories and which are not likely to be mentioned as background. This in turn has a lot to do with whether these events will be a) widely known by a larger group of people than those who read about the story at the time. legitimated by the media as a subject worthy of research that is also related to the focus of the story.

Bill, The mention of penetration agents here made me recall that Alvarado Ugarte was a penetration agent for Nicaraguan Intelligence and had been attempting to go to Cuba at the time of his alleged Oswald sighting. Not sure how likely, but I wonder if there is any more direct connection here? FWIW, I don't think there is much doubt, based on your post, that the arms find was anything other than a Northwoods style false flag op. ----- Bill, noticed you quote from the Rabe book On JFK's Alliance for Progress. I am currently using that book in sort of a mini-historiography of the AFP as part of a paper I am working on about the US role in the 1964 Brazil Coup. Recall that this caused a certain WC member to miss a more than a day of school and the teacher barely noticed. His work for Hanna Mining and its related consortium-- one that had become quite irked with the Goulart government that the US played a very significant role in toppling--seemed more important than the question of who killed JFK. Well I can say that Rabe is on an extreme end of the spectrum when it comes to the quesiton of did the AFP change much from JFK to LBJ. He argues that it changed very little. His argument is very weak in my view, especially in moments when he misjudges people like Adolf Berle and Lincoln Gordon as Liberals and then goes on to suggest that their continued support for LBJ is a sign in the continuity of the program as opposed to change under LBJ. He also gives understates the change represented by Thomas Mann as one of the leaders of LBJ's AFP. In my view he does not emphasize the much greater role that LBJ's Alliance for Progress gave to private US companies in Latin America, as opposed to US AID going to programs that were designed by the Brazilian Government as JFK had emphasized. Berle strikes me as an interesting figure in some ways akin to the former New Deal advisor Tommy Corcoran, trading in on his left-liberal image during the New Deal to help disquise his considerably less progressive work behind a lot of scenery later on in life.

"notice how the number 1 explicit subject of these investigations-- the JFK assassination-- is left out"

Here is a very very rare article about the only time in US history that there was some legilative oversite over the CIA. Yet notice how the number 1 explicit subject of these investigations-- the JFK assassination-- is left out, even though it was so connected to all the other revelations of the Rockefeller, Church and Pike Commissions. How typical of the foundation funded fake-left. The thing that 300 million people in the country have some basic knowledge about is left out. Only the more esoteric stuff that a tiny fraction of middle class organisms will follow is there. That is precisely why it is not dangerous and is safe for "the alternative media" that is really the prophylactic of the Corporate Media. ----------------------------------------------- Disclosure of ‘Secrets’ in the '70s Didn’t Destroy the Nation by Amy Goodman President Barack Obama promised "more transparent ... more creative" government. His release of the torture memos, and the Pentagon's expected release of more photos of detainee abuse, is a step in the right direction. Yet he assured the CIA that he will not prosecute those who followed the instructions to torture from the Bush administration. Congress might not agree with this leniency, with prominent senators calling for investigations. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, just released a 262-page report titled "Inquiry Into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody." Levin said the report "represents a condemnation of both the Bush administration's interrogation policies and of senior administration officials who attempted to shift the blame for abuse ... to low-ranking soldiers. Claims ... that detainee abuses could be chalked up to the unauthorized acts of a ‘few bad apples' were simply false." Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., also are proposing investigations. The Senate interest in investigation has backers in the U.S. House, from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers, D-Mich., who told The Huffington Post recently, "We're coming after these guys." Amrit Singh, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the Pentagon's photos "provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib. Their disclosure is critical for helping the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse as well as for holding senior officials accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse." The ACLU also won a ruling to obtain documents relating to the CIA's destruction of 92 videotapes of harsh interrogations. The tapes are gone, supposedly, but notes about the content of the tapes remain, and a federal judge has ordered their release. In December 2002, when the Bush torture program was well under way, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld signed off on a series of harsh interrogation techniques described in a memo written by William Hayes II (one of the "Bush Six" being investigated by Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzon). At the bottom of the memo, under his signature, Rumsfeld scrawled: "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?" Rumsfeld zealously classified information in his years in government. A similar crisis confronted the U.S. public in the mid-1970s. While the Watergate scandal was unfolding, widespread evidence was mounting of illegal government activity, including domestic spying and the infiltration and disruption of legal political groups, mostly anti-war groups, in a broad-based, secret government crackdown on dissent. In response, the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities was formed. It came to be known as the Church Committee, named after its chairman, Idaho Democratic Sen. Frank Church. The Church Committee documented and exposed extraordinary activities on the CIA and FBI, such as CIA efforts to assassinate foreign leaders, and the FBI's COINTELPRO (counterintelligence) program, which extensively spied on prominent leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. It is not only the practices that are similar, but the people. Frederick A.O. Schwarz Jr., general counsel to the Church Committee, noted two people who were active in the Ford White House and attempted to block the committee's work: "Rumsfeld and then [Dick] Cheney were people who felt that nothing should be known about these secret operations, and there should be as much disruption as possible." Church's widow, Bethine Church, now 86, continues to be very politically active in Idaho. She was so active in Washington in the 1970s that she was known as "Idaho's third senator." She said there needs to be a similar investigation today: "When you think of all the things that the Church Committee tried to straighten out and when you think of the terrific secrecy that Cheney and all of these people dealt with, they were always secretive about everything, and they didn't want anything known. I think people have to know what went on. And that's why I think an independent committee [is needed], outside of the Congress, that just looked at the whole problem and everything that happened." Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

, forty odd years later, I realize that both he and Bobby tremendously underestimated the power on the right. Yep. "We Kennedy's eat Rockefeller's for breakfast" -- RFK to Peruvian University students on a trip to Peru in 1965. Nelson was no liberal, as we are always told he was everytime his name is mentioned on TV.

Bohnings use of the phrase "extreme left of the Democratic Pary" isn't even oxy. Its just moronic. Has he been sleeping or reporting for the last fifteen years. The only thing the "left" members of the party do is act as lightening rods to periodically distract people when it has become clear that 90% of the population disaprove of the leaderships Bush-enableing instead of the usual 70% The entire party is far to the right of Nixon, if your look at what they actuall do and enable, as opposed to what they are forced to say perhaps once every three years. See Murtha Now supports the Surge et al.finitum.... By forgetting two months ago YOU TOO CAN BECOME A TOP BELTWAY JOURNALIST!

Tom thanks for posting this very important observation. The Story about the News Experts and their Defense Contractor portfolios is an incredibly important one. Please try to post this everywhere so lots can see it. It can do wonders to deligitimate the Corporate Media. One thing that I have noticed about this story in the Times is that it only had 1 follow up .. about 8 months after the initial story. For a story to become "water coolable" ie for enough people to have heard about it to enable discussion among citizens at work around the water cooler, a story has to run a lot over some period of time. This is a variable that is studied in communications research, so it is noticeable that even the Times itself did not "Watergate it" ie make it a story that would build before a national audience from one plot point to the next. Also David, I have to disagree with your point about "the networks" and also the major corporate media. Yes their numbers are down. But they STILL occupy the positions on the Sunday morning, and also PBS agenda setting shows that determine, WHAT WILL BE THE NEWS THIS WEEK and implicitly, what will not. The internet does not have critical mass. Even the bigger alternative sites are geared toward a strategic faction in terms of what stories they legitimate and which stories they dismiss. The importance of Corporate Media in terms of limiting national political dialogue should not be prematurely dismismissed in my opinion.

John would you mind posting this question here as I have a feeling I might remained undubbed by the dispenser of the WAVEY-gravey.

Bump. And I will be bumping this again, as if doing so were my idea of original research.

This thread is a waste of time and space. Threads that start off as personal attacks should not be tolerated.

Hello all I am wondering if anyone has read the following article by Mad Max Holland. It focusses heavily on Claire Booth Luce and William Pawley, has a lot of details about each and leaves out even more details. The article is about the mystery surrounding the source of Senator Keating's info re the missiles in Cuba, and how he heard about it before JFK. The author suggests that the source was either Claire Boothe Luce or Pawley or some combination. But the whole thing reads like its seved up from past serves. For expamle at one point Holland claims that James McCloy shopped the infor to Kearing, because he was angry that nothing was being done, but that Keating was reluctant to cooperate. But the source of that tale was Helms. Hmmm. He talks about the role of private companies in US intelligece while being dellicate about whether these companies were actually CIA or not. THis one is a doozie and im not sure how to spell that word. Has anyone else read it? There is so much worth decoding here we should perhaps send it to Washington Recoded! ----- A Luce Connection: Senator Keating, William Pawley, and the Cuban Missile Crisis.Preview By: Holland, Max. Journal of Cold War Studies, Fall99, Vol. 1 Issue 3, p139-167, 29p; DOI: 10.1162/152039799316976832; (AN 6934207) I would like to print it here but its on JSTOR which doesnt coppy well. Has anyone read it and what do you make of it.

I had been following the debate only lightly but have now formally switched into high gear and find it quite interesting. For some, ANY protest is too much I guess.

Fellow Citizens: I wish to report on Something Wacky. As was suggested in my last post on this thread, I am a frequent observer of Amazon Sales Rankings of books that I have been "promoting" on lots of big newspaper internet sites. Beginning with Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked I about two and a half years ago I have been folloing sales figures by Amazon ranking virtually every day very often more than once. The reason is that I think critical mass is the essential factor in ""solving"" the JFK Assassination i.e. enabeling a large enough group of citizens to share enough common variable in their analysis so that social communication is possible. Of course that is precisely what our top-down media system is actively working to prevent. Yea SOOOOOO? Well about an hour after posting the Amazon sales numbers re the book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Mattered I checked the Amazon Sales rank again. Funny thing: 'twas gone! utterly. Had the wife check if sales rank came up on her computer: she checked some book she was intereste in and the rank was there. Then she typed in JFK and the Unspeakable and suddenly no Amazon Sales Rank. Funny that this should happen immediatly after my last post on this thread-- one which explicitly mentions Amazon Sales Ranks as the subject. Funny after finding Amazon Sales Ranks freely available for two and half years that I am apparently no longer privy to said info. Circumstance makes strange evidence! Bellow is what is now available on my coputer for JFK and the Unspeakable. This is where the Amazon Sales Rank Used to be. --------------- Hardcover: 510 pages Publisher: Orbis Books (April 30, 2008) Language: English ISBN-10: 1570757550 ISBN-13: 978-1570757556 Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 6.2 x 1.4 inches Shipping Weight: 1.9 pounds (View shipping rates and policies) Average Customer Review: (40 customer reviews) Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?

Robert, sorry laboriously cryptic as usual. What I mean is to include linkes to sites like this one and links to books with much truth that otherwise would not get mentioned at all. This is important that we make these links into bigger audiences, because --for example a book like Six Seconds In Dallas could get a lot of attention in the Corporate Media BUT TODAY a book like JFK and the Unspeakable will be completely ignored, left to the internet so we need to use opportuinities like this to get new audiences in a way that earlier peoples did not. It works. For example I have recently been forced to stop promoting Unspeakable on the Internet. Although it had maintained very consistent postion btw 2,000 and 5, 000 on Amazon over the last five months (while a few times going higher) PRETY GOOD FOR A TOTALLY IGNORED BOOK NOT AVAILABLE EVEN IN (especailly in ?/) so called alternative bookstores which today means any store not Barnes and Noble-- Well after I mentioned JFK and the Unspeakable in the comments while mentioning Ellsberg and Raskin endorsements and tonight it went up to 1,217. One link like that can have multiplyer effect because how many of those 1217 will tell others. One spike like that can impact for weeks. These articles mentioning JFK with comment possibilities constitute opportuniteis for bridge building to books and forums like this. There is no ad budget other than ourselves for this truth.

http://100days.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/0...lost-the-south/ Please offer informed comments with lush links.

Thanks a million John. I dont know which will require more mulling-- the Pheonix Program stills or the passe durre of that advanced rice crispie verse. Note the fallout from the Dynamics General Dallas F111 handywork. Need more time to mull over CIA stuff.