Sid Walker

I concur completely with this view. I also don't think we will ever know the who, just that it was the most powerful and they knew they could count on the media to ignore the lack of investigation. Perhaps the lesson of Dorothy Kilgallen also loomed large. I think it is great that some of today's journalists like David Talbot and Jefferson Morley have taken such an interest. But neither of them are mainstream. Even Sidney Blumenthal who was once knowledgeable on this subject ignores it now. Moved on I guess. Dawn If you are correct about this, Don - and I think you are - the mystery is essentially solved. Since before the time of JFKs slaying, ownership of the US mass media has been dominated by (pick the correct answer from this multiple choice list): Islamists Britons Russians Australians Mormons Protestants Africans Catholics Zionists Giving 'Zionists' as the answer to this question - no matter how much evidence is adduced to support the proposition - has characteristically been a career destroying act in the western world. I think that confirms what we need to know.

Thanks Len. Nice to get confirmation on what respectable, conformist people should spend their time researching - and the right questions for decent folk to ask. Doubtless Kuchinich has been made aware of that too. Of course, looking at "a few, specific discrepancies in the public record" (re: 9-11) covers a multitude of possibilities. Let's hope he chooses the best lines to question wisely, with integrity and courage. Kuchinich could certainly crack the whole case open, on C-SPAN if not on Fox. Here are a few possible lines of inquiry where plenty of discrepancies may be found. Anthrax Murders/Scares Collapse of WTC Towers / Contolled Demolition WTC-7 Pentagon Identity of 'hijackers' 'Exercises' on 9-11 Israeli Spies Insider Trading There are plenty more, but that should be enough to bring down the official house of cards.

Spot on Mark. IMO, FWIW, tracking hte people who spun obvious lies - many of whom were media folk - is the route to determining who was behind the assassination. I'd make the same claim in relation to 9/11.

This is mindblowing Myra. Well spotted! Assuming the report is accurate about Valenti handling the proess in Dallas on the murder day, I wonder how he got that appointment? Presumebaly there's a paper trail? Someone in Government appointed him to that role. Who?

Britain is the birthplace of many violent and enjoyable recreational activities, but conkers is the best. The ruling elite never passed laws to compel the proles to play conkers. In that respect, conkers is similar to soccer but quite different from archery. This is what the ever-reliable Wikipedia had to say today. Not only does Wikipedia claim French ancestory for the sport. It even manages to drag Hegel into the narrative!Wikipedia is more reliable on the topic of 'Conkers and Cheating' (cheating is the schoolboy word for terrorism). Amazing how much useful information is available on the internet these days, although one should be wary of disinformation. The final paragraph is a obviously a put-on for the credulous - probably targeted at girls. Real conkers don't use handcream!

I agree with you Sid. This product has been taken off the market after pressure from the British Educational Suppliers Association. Not content with the e-credit system that has forced schools to spend millions on inferior software and online content, it has now removed the main provider of free content on the web. It hopes that schools will now pay for material that in the past they could have obtained free from the BBC website. No doubt, members of the British Educational Suppliers Association will now be making donations to the Labour Party. It might also gain it support from the Guardian who are the owners of one of the largest companies, Learn, in this sector. It's interesting you say that John. While I know we are on the same side in this debate, I'm going to play the role of purist and upbraid you for using enemy language to define terms in this issue. Publicly-funded educational resources made freely available to all-comers is not a 'product' that can be withdrawn from consumers like a discontinued line. It's a free service that can be (and has been) set up by government for public use - then subsequently denied to the community by a political/judicial decision following pressure from commercial vested interests.

I agree with you Sid. This product has been taken off the market after pressure from the British Educational Suppliers Association. Not content with the e-credit system that has forced schools to spend millions on inferior software and online content, it has now removed the main provider of free content on the web. It hopes that schools will now pay for material that in the past they could have obtained free from the BBC website. No doubt, members of the British Educational Suppliers Association will now be making donations to the Labour Party. It might also gain it support from the Guardian who are the owners of one of the largest companies, Learn, in this sector. Actually I never saw the service while it was operational. If it had 170,000 registered users, that suggests considerable interest. I do however strongly support the idea that education should be free. One of the great things about the internet is the possibilities it opens up for making good educational material universally accessible. Many students prefer working largely on their own. I'm not enthused by the argument that an online publicly-funded education facility presents 'unfair' competition to the private sector. Fundamentally, I'd argue that knowledge should not be a scarce resource sold by the old to the young. It should be available to anyone who wants or needs it. In a mixed economy, the appropriate boundaries between the public and private sectors is always a matter for debate, but I think in this case vested interests are defeating the common good. There is another, related issue, however. In more enlightened times, Government might have set up a new public agency to deliver free educational resources. This should not necessarily be the role of the BBC. The BBC has more of a news service function. It is not truly tax-payer funded. Finally, the BBC has a fast-growing credibility problem, caused by its evident infilitration over the years by operatives of the self-styled "intelligence agencies". The WTC-7 fiasco was the last straw for many people. Why pay for information that's blatantly false? The determination of these unpleasant forces to foist false flag operations on an unwitting public - using institutions such as the BBC to purvey disinformation about matters as serious as mass murder - means they have an interest in dumbing down (not enhancing) the state of public education.

I think Citizendium addresses what is possibly the key concern about Wikipedia, that is, author anonymity. I'm not sure it's a good idea to make occasional exceptions to the Citizendium rule that authors real names and bios should be provided, as apparently proposed. It seems to me there should be enough good authors who can put their names to items. Better to make the rule absolute.

The origin and early history of Rugby provides considerable insight into the mentality of the British ruling elite in the Imperial era. Different scholarly institutions contrived variantions on the theme of ritualized violence between two teams of agressive young males. An extreme form of this was developed at Eton, whose famous "wall game" never caught on in the wider community. I seem to recall that in the Eton wall game, goals are as rare as world wars or assassinated US Presidents. Just a few each century. Not enough action for the general public, who prefer thrills in more frequent, smaller doses (if given the choice).

Is this inaccurate?If not, why leave out the significant fact that Johnson was elected as minority leader in January 53 - and naturally became majority leader when the Senate became Democrat dominated in January 55? *********************************************************** "Here's an extract from today's Wikipedia entry on LBJ:" Excuse me? I'm not attempting to hi-jack this thread, but I was under the impression that Wikipedia, or Fakepedia, as I choose to term them, was no longer considered to be that reliable a source of information. Especially, due to the proclivity of its originator to continually condone the allowance of misrepresentation by, as well as, refuse to supply sufficient background checks of, their supposedly qualified (?) contributors. And, since this issue has recently come to light regarding this site, how can one continue to reference this organization as one from which its articles should be able to stand as factual? Or, has a truce been recently called between Spartacus and that particular site, of which I am unaware, at present? In other words, has Spartacus finally become an acceptable link offered by Wikipedia, or are we still being "dissed?" Just wondering. Terry. My posts don't reflect any kind of forum group policy. The post in question carefully said "today's Wikipedia" to draw attention to the fact that I'm well aware (as are most regulars here) of some of the pitfalls of using Wikipedia as a source. What's more, I specifically asked whether Pat (or anyone else) wished to contest the info cited. I sometimes use the CIA Factbook as a source. No overall endorsement of the CIA as an organisation is implicit in such a citation.

An axcellent post, Nathaniel. I think you have it right. It's "The Technique of Infamy", as a famous author once said. I noticed soon after the 2003 Iraq invasion how the story that Iraqi WMDs didn't actually exist originated in 'progressive' establishment sources within the USA. Not from the Arab media. Not from the independent left... but from the likes of Seymour Hersh. This quickly led to the development of an "acceptable" position that some social democratic leaders and commentators could safely adopt. The Western anti-war movement was given potential scapegoats, principally Bush and Blair. The war was was blamed on their lies. No mention of the mass media's role in grossly overselling fabricated evidence of WMDs prior to the invasion. No mention, of course, of the role of the Israel lobby. And little mention of the "intelligence agencies", except to note their role as honest brokers, who sometimes got it wrong, but whose greatest difficulty was 'politicization' of their work by politicians. Hence the ironically-titled "Intelligence Services" (aka "Security Services" - God help us all!) came out of the saga smelling like roses. The 2003 Iraq war was rationalized, at the time, as a war to counter Iraq's WMDs. When no WMDs were found, there were three possible outcomes for Anglo-American spookdom: 1/ The spooks could have looked silly, because they were seen to have been wrong about Iraqi WMDs. 2/ The spooks could have looked like liars, because they had provided the seedbed of disinformation about Iraqi WMDs to the media and politicians 3/ The spooks could have looked like thwarted heroes, because they tried to get the truth out but were overridden by their political masters. Not surprising they chose option no 3. Interesting they had the power to get away with it.

"Boiled down" sounds rather reductionist, Jack (only joking)! Anyhow, DNA and Life, when boiled down, usually result in soup. I understand the mainstream answer to your excellent questions postulates that this common culinary process can, on rare occasions, run in reverse.

I woindered the same thing. The first photo of the three posted by Bernice seems to show Ruby quite clearly in the back row, wearing glasses with a dark frame. Three men are shown in immediate proximity. Anyone know who they were? As for the second and third photos posted by Benrice, it's not clear to me that Ruby is in any of them (Not that I make any claims to expertise in photographic analysis). The guy in the center of each photo, with his back to the camera, doesn't seem the same as 'Ruby' in pic no 1. Perhaps I'm wrong? In 1999, Barry Chamish, an Israeli 'alternative' journalist whom I personally suspect mixes fact and fiction, made a remarkable allegation. Chamish claimed that Rabin's wife Leah wrote in her diary that Yitzhak Rabin was in Dallas at the time of JFKs murder - and alleges Rabin may have been one of the "journalists" mentioned in this thread. Here's a photo of Rabin taken some years before the killing in Dallas. Here's Rabin in later years. There's a passing similarity, IMO, between Rabin and the man standing in front of Ruby in photo 1 (he's roughly central in the photo). What do others think? The idea that such a senior Israeli would be posted to Dallas to pose as a journalist seems unlikely to me... and I've always suspected Chamish is pulling our leg, ever since I first read his 1999 article. Can anyone confirm (or refute) Chamish's claim that "Leah Rabin's biography... notes that her husband Yitzhak was in Dallas on November 22, 1963"?

I didn't know that LBJ became majority leader as a result of a death. That's incredible, considering all the other lucky breaks which peppered LBJ's career. LBJ must have had direct access to Murder Inc. Could Pat please spell this out a little please? Which deaths helped elevate Johnson to Senate majority leader? It wasn't a direct lead-in. But in 1952, LBJ was just another Senator, and by 55 he was Majority Leader. Between 51 and 55 there were 9 deaths, as I remember, of active Senators. Most of them were old. There was one suicide, as I remember. Another one. Brion McMahon I think was his name, was fairly young. He was replaced by Prescott Bush, who'd lost an election just two years earlier due in part to his support of eugenics. At one point, I wrote all this stuff down. I may have created a thread on it even. As far as LBJ gaining power from this... when someone dies mid-term he can be replaced on a temporary basis by the Governor of his state. The Governor inevitably picks someone from his own party, which may or may not be the party of the deceased. The Senate was in a virtual deadlock in this period. As a result, the replacement of one senator with one from another party could change the balance of power. This change-over occurred three or four times in this period. There was no stability until LBJ emerged as the big dog in 55. Ironically, he had a heart attack very soon after. It all seems a bit suspicious to me. If I hadn't got sucked into studying the medical evidence, I was thinking of writing a screenplay about a secret history of the U.S., where Senators were murdered to change the balance of power, and where the see-saw only came to a stop when an iron man took control, only to have him get saddled with the vice-presidency. You know what happens next. I think you are drawing a long bow on this Pat. Here's an extract from today's Wikipedia entry on LBJ: Is this inaccurate? If not, why leave out the significant fact that Johnson was elected as minority leader in January 53 - and naturally became majority leader when the Senate became Democrat dominated in January 55?

George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html Bush says God chose him to lead his nation http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internation...1075950,00.html Must admit this has me puzzled too Kathy. Are you claiming that Muslims worship Dubya?

I didn't know that LBJ became majority leader as a result of a death. That's incredible, considering all the other lucky breaks which peppered LBJ's career. LBJ must have had direct access to Murder Inc. Could Pat please spell this out a little please? Which deaths helped elevate Johnson to Senate majority leader?

This is a very inteesting thread. It raises a number of questions in my mind. Others better versed in JFK assassination studies may have answers. (1) What's known about Crull's background and activities up to 1963? (2) It seems that maintaining "press access" to Oswald was a planned ruse to expose him to danger. Who controlled access to the Dallas Police Headquarters that weekend? In particular, who controlled access for journalists? (3) was Oswald's move on the Sunday morning public knowledge? If it wasn't, who did know about it? (4) on such a critical matter, the assassins may well have arranged backup for Ruby. Were other suspicous characters spotted on the occasions Oswald "met the press"? (especially people indetifying themselves as 'journalists')

Cricket is a game perhaps a little bit similar to your baseball (baseball being incidentally a game played exclusively by school girls in England and called "rounders" http://www.nra-rounders.co.uk/). Cricket however tends to be played by men and is an infinitely tactically more complex and rewarding game - I urge you to become acquainted with it http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/ It's a good time to get involved, Ron. The main complaint against cricket used to be the unspeakable tedium. A group of 22 men, wearing whites, did essentially the same leisurely thing on a flat grassy surface, rather slowly, for several days on end. Things changed a bit in the 1980s, when Australian media moguls got involved. They made the players wear coloured shirts and trousers, and shortened matches to a single day. That made it more suitable for the era of colour TV and couch potatoes with relatively short attention spans. Advertising revenue boomed. Now the mafia are involved, I expect cricket will become popular in North America, Italy, Israel and Russia. This will do wonders for the game. The action will become even faster. An entire test series could be over in a few moments. Cricket and terrorism compliment each other perfectly. Without terror, cricket is simply too boring for a worldwide audience. Without cricket, terrorim is uncouth. Expect to see Mark Stapleton commentating soon on Fox TV, sharing his expertise with the masses on previously obscure topics such as false flag ops against the umpires, faked action replays, the market in match fixing futures, explosive balls and the controlled demolition of English cricket.

Very nicely said, Evan. Exactly the kind of decency one hopes to find in the Australian armed forces. I will pull my horns in and eshew further speculation about Len's motives. Maybe Len doesn't know what motivates him? (speaking for myself, I often find my own motivations a puzzle) However, while I appreciate the moderators' need to reign in such speculation, lest the forum degenrates into a bare-knuckle brawl full of accusation and counter-accusation, I cannot help but think that it goes with the terrain - whether articulated or not. If one takes the extraordinary view - as I and many others do - that 9-11 was a staged event, with perpetrators quite different from the official patsies, then it is not much of additional stretch to imagine that by hook or by crook, such powerful and well-resourced perpetrators would be able to arrange for extensive disinformation in the follow-up years. In the case of the JFK assassination, it is well accepted by those who don't accept the Warren Commission version of events that an extensive disinformation camapign followed the assassination, and continues to this day. IMO, at the very least, the topic of paid disinformation agents should be open to discussion in general (if not specific) terms. I have not been on a politically-oriented forum of any significance without suspecting their presence. Perhaps I was wrong? A lot of people have been wrong about the Lochness Monster, as far as we know; but no-one claimed we shouldn't take a look in the lake or have a chat about it.

According to the IHT, Russia is pulling technical personel out of Iran. Russians yanking key personnel from Iranian nuclear site

A plausible and alarming article, Douglas. Here's an interesting piece from the excellent website 'News Hounds', that performs a public service comparable to the wonderful folk who clean municipal lavatories for a living. News Hounds "watches Fox so you don't have to". Is FOX News’ Foreign Affairs Analyst A Former Terrorist? points out the interesting background of one of Hannity & Colmes' recent guests. Apparently a Saddam era "terrorist" is now being used to talk up attacking Iran. Whatever it takes, I guess? The article says "Just in case that didn’t get the message across, the screen read “Only one option?” and “Time to attack Iran?" I've noticed helpful subtitles are used on all the major networks. They are usually more informative than the chattering heads when it comes to a clear, precise summation of the intended take home message.

I could say that OBL and Hitler etc must be lucky to have so many people like you to act as their apologists and be just as accurate (if not more so) than you were with the statement above. Another low blow. Your bogeymen are dead, Len - kept alive these days in the popular consciousness mainly by the propaganda machine of those you slavishly support. Yet some things are very much in evidence. The military budget continues to go through the roof, civil liberties go out the window and the prospect of peace and prosperity in our times goes down the drain.. That's thanks, to a signifiacant extent, to the team I mentioned above and their allies, who are also regarded by many as prime suspects (among others) in the unsolved mass murder mystery aka 9-11. LOL, Got any conclusive evidence that OBL is dead? I’ve heard it theorized but haven’t seen anything conclusive. Who is worse those who keep Hitler “alive these days in the popular consciousness” or apologists for his genocide? Who are the people you think I “slavishly support” Your avoidance of the question asked of you is duly noted. I assume that’s because you don’t have a good answer. “the team I mentioned above and their allies, who are also regarded by many as prime suspects (among others) in the unsolved mass murder mystery aka 9-11” Millions of people think Elvis is still alive. Indeed it seems more people believe that than believe the towers were demolished with explosives. Even more believe God created heaven and earth in 6 days. A few years ago over 70% of Americans thought Bush was doing a good job. Just because a lot of people believe something to be true doesn’t make it so. Len, I realize it's important to you to give the appearance of winning every argument you engage in. Your bonus points probably depend on it. I do not accept I have avoided any of your questions - just the obvious logical traps you set from time to time. I do not intend to banter with you. The substance of many threads had been tainted by the kind of deliberate silliness you introduce. I suspect this is a deliberate tactic. Not playing Len. For me, at any rate, this is a serious topic - not something to use to stir up xenophobia, hatred and wars - then laugh about. I'll post material about 9-11 as I please. If you want to reply, I can't stop you. I can stop myself engaging in a tedious, tit-for-tat exchange - and I shall. o

I could say that OBL and Hitler etc must be lucky to have so many people like you to act as their apologists and be just as accurate (if not more so) than you were with the statement above. Another low blow. Your bogeymen are dead, Len - kept alive these days in the popular consciousness mainly by the propaganda machine of those you slavishly support. Yet some things are very much in evidence. The military budget continues to go through the roof, civil liberties go out the window and the prospect of peace and prosperity in our times goes down the drain.. That's thanks, to a signifiacant extent, to the team I mentioned above and their allies, who are also regarded by many as prime suspects (among others) in the unsolved mass murder mystery aka 9-11.

Interesting article John. A few questions for you or any otrher Briton who'd care to respond... 1/ What has happened to the pro-Arab lobby in the Tory Party, which Wheatcroft suggests was alive until fairly recently. Is it still in evidence? 2/ Wheatcroft says a "large majority" of Tory MPs are members of The Conservative Friends of Israel. When did this remarkable majority membership first occur? I assume there are comparable pro-Israel groups within the Labour Party and the Lib Dems. How much support do they command? 3/ Are there any outspoken supporters of Palestine / critics of Israel in the Tory parliamentary party these days? 4/ Hypothetically, what would happen if a prominent Tory made a strong statement criticizing Israel? How would pressure be applied on that individual by the Israel lobby? Would there be any countervailing forces of support? Would any major British newspaper support him/her? How many newspapers would attack him/her? 5/ How much is the Tory Party reliant on donations from Zionist supporters? (put another way, what proportion of donations to the Tories would be conditional on pro-Israel policies?)

I blame KSM