Sid Walker

Jonathan... How nice to see you back visiting the forum for another fly-bye. It would be unfair to accuse you of plaigiarism, as you only appear to plaigiarize yourself. Nevertheless, it's interesting to compare your simulataneous entries in three threads about Tony Blair, all of which contain over-lapping extracts from your latest article. This is the briefest of the three. Does it contain a coded message? Or is the key take-home message the proposition that the British PM and Attorney General are even more bent than the heads of MI5 and MI6?

Well said! Personally, I'd rather these rules be applied more stringently - not less. A number of bios don't seem credible or adequately informative to me. Some photos are missing; others are not suitable (one avatar mainly shows a motorbike, another looks like an alien from 'Close Encounters'; today I notice that the burkha has made a mischievous appearance). But I'm happy to leave these things to John's discretion.

Some commentators have opined that the 'real' motivation for attacking Iraq in 2003 was 'oil'. The slogan 'No War for Oil!' was widely displayed at the largest anti-war demos on history in early 2003. A few commentators said at the time that this analysis was proundly mistaken - and that the war could better be explained as as 'War for Israel and the western Military Industrial Complex'. They were branded as 'anti-Semites' - rather odd, given the propensity of Iraqis to speak Semitic languages. Anyhow, it seems the few have been vindicated as the 4-year quagmire deepens, and the Penta-budget enjoys a skyward ride. Yesterday came the news that (US) Defense spending soars to highest level since World War II The author opens by saying:

As you probably know, Peter, Chamish is an odd character. He is published frequently by Rense, where he fits quite well, as Chamish is into conspiracies, including UFOs. In his political views, Chamish takes a hard-right, pro-Likud view. Hence while claiming to believe that Rabin was assassinated in a conspiracy (Peres was the main villain in that instance, according to Chamish), Chamish believes that the policies of compromise to the Palestinians, espoused by Rabin just before his death, are plain wrong. Pesonally, I suspect Chamish's motives and doubt his credibility. But that may just be personal bias. I have a hard time believing in UFOs and I'm repelled by the Likud vision of a strong, 'pure' Israel (Palestinians may apply for scraps only). Nevertheless, an endorsement by Chamish may have helped Piper when he was very isolated a few years ago. At that time, the likes of Deborah Conway had decided Piper was fair game for vilifiation, even persecution. Apparently Conway threatened to picket Piper on one accasion, along with the Jewish Defence League (the JDL is extremist Jewish group in the USA notorious for thuggery and violence). Such is the open-minedness and commitment to free debate of some who purportedly make a career out of establishing the truth.

As you probably know, Peter, Chamish is an odd character. He is published frequently by Rense, where he fits quite well, as Chamish is into conspiracies, including UFOs. In his political views, Chamish takes a hard-right, pro-Likud view. Hence while claiming to believe that Rabin was assassinated in a conspiracy (Peres was the main villain in that instance, according to Chamish), Chamish believes that the policies of compromise to the Palestinians, espoused by Rabin just before his death, are plain wrong. Pesonally, I suspect Chamish's motives and doubt his credibility. But that may just be personal bias. I have a hard time believing in UFOs and I'm repelled by the Likud vision of a strong, 'pure' Israel (Palestinians may apply for scraps only). Nevertheless, an endorsement by Chamish may have helped Piper at a time when he was very isolated as few years ago. The likes of Deborah Conway decided he was fair game for vilifiation and persecution. Apparently Conway threatened to picket Piper on one accasion, along with the Jewish Defence League (the JDL is extremist Jewish group in the USA known for thuggery and violence).

No. I don't thnk it likely. As you say, the WTC-2 fires appear to have been small, localized and not very hot. Not sufficient to explain the unprecedented collapse of the entire building at virtual free-fall velocity. That was my point. What's yours? (other than to demonstrate, yet again, that you have an inordinate amount of time and energy to argue in favour of the official account of the 9-11 mass murders) I read on another related thread that you have been a very busy guy: Larry Silverstein, Frank Lowy, Rupert Murdoch, Michael Chertoff, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Ari Fleisher, Dov Zakheim, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Condi Rice and all the rest of these good, well-meaning and peace-loving folk are indeed fortunate that there are 'volunteers' like you dotted around the world with so much time to invest on their behalf, arguing every point ad infinitum like barristers working for clients with bottomless pockets.

The leadership of the Zionist movement, in Israel, the USA and elsewhere, has played a multi-decade, sadistic game of cat and mouse with Iraq. Few historical documents better illustrate this than the transcript of a December 1975 meeting between US Secretary of State Kissinger and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hammadi. The source is The Middle East Quarterly In the light of the actual history of the last three decades, Kissinger's portrayal of American politics, the likely future of Israel and the region seems surreal. Note the way he speaks of the declining influence of the Zionist lobby in the USA, plays down the threat posed by Israel to Iraq and explains US support for Kurdish insurrectionists as a Cold War strategy. Sa'dun Hammadi was clearly sceptical at the time. He was right to be sceptical. The power of the the US Zionist lobby has grown by leaps and bounds since 1975. In 1981, Israel bombed an Iraqi civilian nuclear facility - an illegal, unprovoked attack on Iraqi sovereigty. US support for Kurdish separatism extended long beyond the lifespan of the USSR. Some of the highlights are below. Today we read Israelis to supply vehicles for Iraq. in "the latest in a long line of Israeli defense sales for use in the (Iraq) war." I wonder if Kissinger read the headline and chuckled? ___________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION PARTICIPANTS: Sadun Hammadi, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq Falih Mahdi ‘Ammash, Iraq Ambassador to France ____ ____, Aide Dr. Henry A. Kissinger, Secretary of State Isa Sabbagh, Public Affairs Officer, American Embassy Jidda Peter W. Rodman, National Security Council staff DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, December 17, 1975, 12:20 p.m. – 1:18 p.m. PLACE : Iraqi Ambassador's Residence Rue d'Andigne, Paris XVI ............................. Kissinger: Our basic attitude is that we do not think there is a basic clash of national interests between Iraq and the United States. For a variety of reasons, Iraq and the United States have been on opposing sides. But we have managed to normalize relations with most of the other Arabs. On purely national grounds, we see no overwhelming obstacles on our side. Maybe you have a different view. Hammadi: We, of course, have different views, and I will tell you why. Iraq is part of the Arab world. We believe the United States has been the major factor in building up Israel to what it is today. Kissinger: True. Hammadi: It was created in 1948 and could not have lived up to this day without the United States. Kissinger: The Soviet Union was active then, too. Hammadi: True. That is why there were some strained relations with the Soviet Union. Our good relations with the Soviet Union are only more recent. The Communists were not popular with the masses then. But the difference is you believe Israel is there to stay. We believe Israel was established by force and is a clear-cut case of colonialism. Israel was established on part of our homeland. You don't believe that. But that is not the whole story. Israel is now a direct threat to Iraq's national security. Kissinger: How to Iraq? Hammadi: Israel has built up to a military power that can threaten Iraq, especially with the recent news that we read of the U.S. supplying sophisticated weapons. So it is not only the Arab world that is threatened, and Iraq being part of the Arab world, but Iraq itself. We think the U.S. is building up Israel to have the upper hand in the area. Even Lebanon—they say it affects Israel's security. A strong, powerful, nuclear Israel with the upper hand in the area. Whatever happens in the Arab world is interpreted as a threat to Israel. Even a change in government in Iraq would be interpreted that way. Kissinger: My impression is if you change your government in Iraq, they won't object. [Laughter]. I understand your problem. Hammadi: This is my painting of the picture now—up to 1980. You say the United States is bringing all its weight to bring about a settlement. But this is a settlement, not peace. A new wave of troubles and clashes will start because Israel is not a state to stay within what they are. Because if there is an opportunity, they will expand. The record shows it. And they are supported by the biggest power in the area. What the United States is doing is not to create peace but to create a situation dominated by Israel, which will create a new wave of clashes. Kissinger: I understand what you are saying. When I say we are willing to improve relations with Iraq, we can live without it. But it is our policy to move toward better relations. I think, when we look at history, that when Israel was created in 1948, I don't think anyone understood it. It originated in American domestic politics. It was far away and little understood. So it was not an American design to get a bastion of imperialism in the area. It was much less complicated. And I would say that until 1973, the Jewish community had enormous influence. It is only in the last two years, as a result of the policy we are pursuing, that it has changed. We don't need Israel for influence in the Arab world. On the contrary, Israel does us more harm than good in the Arab world. You yourself said your objection to us is Israel. Except maybe that we are capitalists. We can't negotiate about the existence of Israel, but we can reduce its size to historical proportions. I don't agree that Israel is a permanent threat. How can a nation of three million be a permanent threat? They have a technical advantage now. But it is inconceivable that peoples with wealth and skill and the tradition of the Arabs won't develop the capacity that is needed. So I think in ten to fifteen years, Israel will be like Lebanon—struggling for existence, with no influence in the Arab world. You mentioned new weapons. But they will not be delivered in the foreseeable future. All we agreed to is to study it, and we agreed to no deliveries out of current stocks. So many of these things won't be produced until 1980, and we have not agreed to deliver them then. ........................................ Hammadi: Given the record, what can make us believe the United States won't continue the policy of the last twenty years of giving unlimited support. Kissinger: It depends on what you mean by unlimited support. One important change in America … Sabbagh was with me when I saw Faisal for the first time. I told him it would take a few years; we would have to move slowly. I have told all the Arabs this. It has now reached the point in America where attitudes have changed. When I testify to congressional committees, I face increasingly hostile questions about Israel. No one is in favor of Israel's destruction—I won't mislead you—nor am I. But the support in the 1960s was $200-300 million. Now it is $2-3 billion. That is impossible to sustain. We can't even get it for New York. It is just a matter of time before there is a change—two to three years. After a settlement, Israel will be a small friendly country with no unlimited drawing right. It will be affected by our new electoral law, strangely enough. So the influence of some who financed the elections before isn't so great. This has not been so noticed. It will take a few years before it is fully understood. ............. Kissinger: We want the survival of Israel but not dominating the area. No one can conquer the Arab world. Even if they take Damascus, Cairo, and Amman, you will be there, and Libya will be there. So if Israel wants to survive as a state like Lebanon—as a small state—we can support them. Hammadi: What is the Israeli thinking? Kissinger: First, they want to get rid of me. Because I made them go back. Second, in 1976, they want to provoke the Arabs—in Lebanon, in Syria—because they think if there is war they can win and create great turmoil. Third, they want to pass legislation in America to antagonize as many Arabs as possible. So we get the anti-boycott, anti-discrimination, anti-arms sales legislation. They hope the Arabs will go back to a situation like 1967-1973 when the Syrians and Egyptians adopt an anti-American line. So they can say they are the only American friend in the Middle East. What they want is what you predict—that they be the only friend. We want other friends, to reduce that argument. Aide: Your Excellency, do you think a settlement would come through the Palestinians in the area? How do you read it? Is it in your power to create such a thing? Kissinger: Not in 1976. I have to be perfectly frank with you. I think the Palestinian identity has to be recognized in some form. But we need the thoughtful cooperation of the Arabs. It will take a year or a year and a half to do it and will be a tremendous fight. An evolution is already taking place. Aide: You think it will be part of a solution? Kissinger: It has to be. No solution is possible without it. But the domestic situation is becoming favorable. More and more questions are being asked in Congress favorable to the Palestinians ............

How pathetiic to kow-tow to crude censorship in this way. When does one hear of attempted interference in what's published in Israel by a Japanese/British/American/Brazilian or any other kind of external, self-appointed lobby group? Who on earth does the Wiesenthal Center think it is? The attempt by these self-appointed global censors to tell the Japanese - or anyone else - what they may or may not read is plain thuggery. Fulford starts by explaining... But he concludes by pandering to these folk: Appreciate what? Bullying? Book banning? Persecution of critics and scholars? Or the leading role played by this sordid institution in what Norman Finlestein has called the 'Holocaust Industry', with many billions of dollars already extracted under duress and many billions more demanded, while Palestinian victims of the Nakba go uncompensated? If the author believes the Wiesenthal Center may use its 'moral influence' to help "tame homicidal neo-con impulses" he lives in fairyland. Does he also pray to The Mossad, beseeching its intercession in securing a fair deal for Palestinians?

Did anyone get it?

I have tried to show him the possible links between the cases of JFK and David Kelly. For example, David Kelly's wife has gone public with the belief it was suicide. I told him the story of Grant Stockdale's suicide and the reaction of his wife and the reasons she made false statements of the case. I have also told him of how the CIA use disinformation to discredit investigators. It seems that he has been a victim of this already. Then there is the interesting case of Tom Mangold. He is a journalist who wrote a book based on information received from James Jesus Angleton (Cold Warrior). He has come forward and claimed he was a close friend of David Kelly and that he is convinced that he committed suicide. Remember, that is what George Smathers did when Stockdale was murdered. By the way, a good joke about Norma Jean. Norman Baker is fortunate to have you help him navigate these very murky waters, John. Decisive for me - back in 2003 - in forming my view of the Kelly death was the strong public statement by some prominent doctors, claiming that the official account of his death was not credible. I trust Mr Baker is in touch with them? Edited spelling. Antti Hynonen

Hi Len. No offense taken. Perhaps you need a holiday? You are apparently mirthful because you believe I exposed my stupidity ("blundering lack of critical thinking") and/or ignorance. Whether it is tasteful to be so jocular in the circumstances… well, it doesn’t bother me if you bring shame on your cause. Perhaps you have a Brazilian sense of humour? Yes, I’m broadly familiar with the NIST report (without claiming expertise in engineering). I’m also aware that Mr Cosgrove's last moments were spent on the 105th floor of WTC-2 – significantly above the impact point on the building. The NIST report says fires played a key role in bringing down the twin towers. Without them, the buildings would not have collapsed - or so NIST claims. Yet as has been said so many times before, fires in WTC-1 and 2 were mild compared with the intense fires observed over much longer periods in Madrid's Windsor building, or other raging infernos of the past. None of those other, much more intense fires caused multi-story steel framed buildings to collapse in entirety. The sudden, catastrophic collapse of a frame of bearing steel, whether damaged to some extent as in the case of WTC-1 & 2, or not significantly damaged by impact as in the case of WTC-7), requires explanation. The explosive expulsion of dust also requires explanation. NIST does not seem to account for these obvious observed phenomena. In normal circumstances, should several office blocks collapsed in a city, one would expect the mass media to go into a frenzy of questioning, demanding to know every last detail about the cause of the collapses, who was responsible, whether other buildings might suffer a similar fate etc, How telling that scrutiny of these disastrous collapses has fallen to investigators outside the mainstream only - with the mass media treating the official 9-11 reports with the uncritical reverence once reserved for the Holy Bible.

If you have a strong stomach, listen to the last few minutes of the life of Kevin Cosgrove, who was trapped in the WTC on September 11th 2001. This man was 'collateral damage' in a deliberate mass murder. Of course, debate continues about who was responsible for the murder. The official story - that he was killed by Arab terrorists - rests on the claim that the twin towers did not collapse because of controlled demolition. The official story rests on the belief that the twin towers collapsed because of fuel fies that triggered a catastrophic collapse. is synchronized with footage of the twin towers, taken from a distance. Observe the smoke bellowing from the buildings. Much of it is black in colour. There is no indication of intense heat.Cosgrove stays on the line until the building he was in collapsed. He was on the 105th floor of a building we are told collapsed because the heat was so great the steel lost its strength! His voice can still be heard right up to the moment the building collapsed. Throughout, Cosgrove complains of smoke - not heat.

A couple of weeks ago The Independent reported on a German TV documentary that tells the story - apparently for the first time in the German mass media - of the collosal expulsion of German civilians from eastern German-speaking areas following the defeat of Nazi Germany. It takes some mental effort to grasp the sheer scale of what happened: the article gives a figure of 14 million evictees! Has been a larger forced expulsion in recorded history? Also of note is the way this massive eviction of people has been a taboo topic, within Germany and elsewhere. It was, I believe, another major war crime committed by the World War Two Allies, largely airbrushed out of popular modern history. ________________________________ German TV breaks taboo with story of refugees By Tony Paterson in Berlin Published: 05 March 2007 German viewers tuned in to a taboo-breaking television drama last night that for the first time tackled the plight of millions of their countrymen who were driven out of what is now eastern Europe by Russia's Red Army after the Second World War. The lavish three-hour production - entitled Die Flucht, or the March of Millions - was an attempt to face up to an issue that has been a source of simmering resentment for many Germans for six decades and which is currently the subject of a diplomatic row between Berlin and Poland. An estimated 14 million Germans were expelled from the former eastern territories of East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia and Sudetenland at the end of the Second World War. The areas were annexed to Russia, Poland and Czechoslovakia after 1945 and the overwhelming majority of those expelled lost their property and homes for good. Last night's film, which cost €9m (£6m) to produce and involved the use of more than 2,000 extras to simulate a gruelling trek of refugees across the frozen Baltic, dealt with the expulsion of Germans from East Prussia in early 1945. Starring Maria Furtwängler, whose great uncle, Wilhelm, was a famous conductor feted by the Nazi regime, Die Flucht tells the story of Lena, a Prussian noblewoman who shepherds her retinue of country estate workers to safety by fleeing westwards to escape the invading Red Army. To ensure political correctness, Lena ditches her would-be Nazi husband and falls in love with a French forced labourer. Furtwängler said: "I hope our film will stir discussion among young and old about the worst chapter of German history. Millions were expelled from lands their families had been on for 700 years. I want my children to know what Prussia was and what its virtues were." The actress, who in preparation for her role met German women who were raped by Russian troops during the expulsions, also caused a stir by publicly demanding an apology from the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, for the Red Army's behaviour in 1945. But in Poland, German expellees' legal attempts to get their properties returned through the European Court of Justice have provoked a storm of protest from the country's right-of-centre government. Poland has also dismissed German discussion of the expellee issue as an attempt to portray the instigators of the Second World War as victims.

I think the timing of this "news" is to try to discredit Talbot before his book comes out. And Ray yes Jim Di's article is great. Dawn Perhaps John could ask Philippe Mora to join the forum? It would give Mr Mora a chance to explain how he came to write this 'new' story - and provide him with the opportunity to counter suspicions that he is participating in an orchestrated campaign, wittingly or unwittingly.

Has anyone else spotted the remarkable similarity between Joe Cocker and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Cocker showing signs of post-Woodstock blues... Mohammed demands Muslims everywhere commit heinous atrocities!

Sid, That site was started off by a nutjob from the Loose Change forum. He is now marketing a DVD which purports to show why the DFDR data from the Pentagon aircraft is wrong. Despite being shown why he is wrong by a couple of people who field of expertise is DFDR analysis (1 x Canadian, 1 x UK), he ignores this and continues with his beliefs. That site is also renown for banning anyone who holds a dissenting view. You might be better off looking at a site like the Professional Pilots Rumour Network, probably the most well-known website for professional pilots around the world. For my part, none of the 30+ pilots I have worked with have any doubt about the aviation aspects of 9/11. I'm not saying you will not find a professional pilot who has problems with the "official" version, but they are in the extremely small minority - small enough to be statistically insignificant. Interesting, Evan. It occurs to me you must be a hard task master. The Pilots For 911 Truth site - escpecially the forum - seems logically organized, well attended and quite busy from a brief encounter. An impressive achievement for a 'nut-job'. But I'm not a member. Have you had direct experience of that forum? Incidentally, one of the first people I corresponded with after 9-11 about the events of that day. who believed the official story was a crock from very easly days, was an ex-airline pilot. Of course, most pilots - like most people in general - have a natural inclination to believe Government is truthful, especially on matters such as intentional mass murder. It's a belief that takes a lot to shift... yet it does seem to me that public certainty about the essential truthfulness of government and the mass media on 9-11 is melting like a snowman in springtime. A little more vanishes each day. Incidentally, many pages earlier in this thread, when the story about the BBC's premature report of the collapse of WTC-7 first broke, you volunteered to see if you could find parallel cases in history. For instance, have there been other reports that towerblocks have collapsed, shortly before the event actually took place? Or is this yet another unique feature of the WTC-7 saga? How are you getting along with that, Evan? Anything to report back?

This attempt to link the Kennedy brothers with the death of Marilyn Monroe has been going on for sometime. This is a CIA document dated 3rd August, 1962, that appeared on the web a few years ago Wiretap of telephone conversation between reporter Dorothy Kilgallen and her close friend, Howard Rothberg; from wiretap of telephone conversation of Marilyn Monroe and Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Appraisal of Content: (Blacked Out). 1. Rothberg discussed the apparent comeback of subject with Kilgallen and the break up with the Kennedys. Rothberg told Kilgallen that she was attending Hollywood parties hosted by the "inner circle" among Hollywood's elite and was becoming the talk of the town again. Rothberg indicated in so many words, that she had secrets to tell, no doubt arising from her trists (sic) with the President and the Attorney General. One such (illegible) mentions the visit by the President at a secret air base for the purpose of inspecting things from outer space. Kilgallen replied that she knew what might be the source of the visit. In the mid-fifties Kilgallen learned of secret effort by US and UK governments to identify the origins of crashed spacecraft and dead bodies, from a British government official. Kilgallen believed the story may have come from the (illegible) in the late forties. Kilgallen said that if the story is true, it could cause terrible embarrassment to Jack and his plans to have NASA put men on the moon. 2. Subject repeatedly called the Attorney General and complained about the way she was being ignored by the President and his brother. 3. Subject threatened to hold a press conference and would tell all. 4. Subject made references to "bases" in Cuba and knew of the President's plan to kill Castro. 5. Subject made reference to her "diary of secrets" and what the newspapers would do with such disclosures. John, This is the so-called Spirgilio Document I was refereing to. It has everything, MM, Dorothy Kilgallon, pillow talk with the Pres, plot to kill Castro and UFOs, all on one page. Appologies for my rant, but the FBI gets on my nerves sometimes. BK I'm interested in how these stories get run. In the case of the SMH article, the author is Philippe Mora, an Australian emigre of Jewish parentage, who lives in Los Angeles and is best known as a film director. Mora has, to my knowledge, no track record of previous interest in the Kennedys or Monroe. Where did he get the story from? What motivated him to rehash an old tale that was never based on anything more than extremely flimsy evidence? It seems to me there's a substantial genre of articles, books and suchlike that denigrate the Kennedy brothers and make them out to be gangsters and sex fiends. Who is behind this and why?

Q: If 9-11 was a false-flag operation, why aren't more pilots talking about it? A: They are! Here's the homepage of Pilots for 911 Truth

Here's an extract from a blog, written a day or so ago: So what? Not much there members of this forum haven't already seen - whatever their views about the collapse of WTC-7. However, this is the blog of Rosie O'Donnell. I am her most recent fan, having only just discovered Rosie for the first time. But I don't watch The View...

The polls are still more than a month away. It seems to me this is an important contest, likely to have significant influence on the direction of European policy. According to this Haaretz article,m the Socialist candidate, Ségolène Royal, is about as popular with the Zionist lobby as Anna Lindh in her heyday. Sarkozy, by contrast, seems to be the favoured candidate of the Israel lobby, with 'The Third Man', François Bayrou, also deemed a reliable ally. Now Le Pen is finally n the race too. My observations have been restricted to English-language media, but from that vanatge point at least, it certainly seems Royal's campaign has been lampooned in the press. It would be interesting to hear from French members of the forum on this election - in particular to gain impressions of the French media's campaign coverage.

What so educationalists on the forum think about the suspension of BBC Jam? BBC suspends net learning project It seems to me a similar argument could be used to close down the NHS - or government-funded schools.

Nah, that was me. Sorry. Well, Evan. I never guessed Al Qaida has infilitrated the moderating team! Just goes to show... one can't be too paranoid, eh? I don't mind admitting my suspicions were first aroused when I heard an announcement that my shed had collapsed on local TV news, half an hour before it happened! Fortunately, all worked out well in the end. The insurers paid up handsomely and I've replaced the rusty old humpy with a 47-storey pagoda. Please PM me if you intend to 'pull it' too, Evan. I need a few days notice to up the premium.

My concerns about 'Mohammed's confessions have increased. He has, apparently, now admitted to a role in some 30 atrocities. However, I have reason to believe he is has not come clean. In Arpil 2002, one of my garden sheds fell over on a windy evening. Fortunately, no-one was hurt. Naturally, I suspected Al Qaida. This atrocity is not, however, on Mohammed's list. I wonder what else might be missing? Perhaps the Americans went too easy on him during interrogation?

I think the concerns you raise about 'moating' of the internet are valid and important. However, I feel there may be other reasons this forum does not get the numbers of 'casual visitors' one might expect. Foremost among these, IMO, is that the site is designed so only members can see the most recent posts, listed via 'View New Posts'. I know when I visit other forums, I like to see what's new and current. It's hard for visitors to see that at a glance on this forum. I also think the search function works poorly. Perhaps I haven't learnt how to use it properly yet. But others may well have the same problem. Short words are not processed. Inverted commas don't seem to work as they should to locate "whole phrases such as this". Search results point to entire threads; these can be quite long and it's hard to search through a long thread to find an exact reference. Taking these factors together, I think newcomers may find the forum hard to navigate, even though they can probably tell it's a great store of info and discussion - especially about JFK. I make these comments as constructive criticism, not to denigrate or downplay the forum's real achievements.

Sid, Don't believe Stone's Weekly/Bi-Weekly is available on-line, but you can buy reprints of whole and/or part volumes - there were 19 in total - by following this link: http://www.periodicals.com/html/ihp_e.html?ei03914 If I could afford it, I'd buy the lot, his shameful acquiescence in the Warren Report nonsense notwithstanding. Paul Thanks Paul. You are a mine of useful info and perceptive commentary.