Christopher Hall

Thanks, Bill. I was hoping to see some shooting event coverage by NBC. Chicks with guns is, of course, my favorite genre. Chris

Well said, Paul. Thanks to you and Maggie for the posts. Perhaps the first 'oil pipeline' war is at hand. Can we guess who is behind this outbreak of violence and unrest? A clue for Chris---someone's stirring up trouble in the neighbourhood. Life size photos of George Bush lining the highways? Ah, come on. Mark- I don't need clues or any more sarcasm. Who do you think supplied the South Ossetians' weapons and supplies? I could hazard a very specific guess, which would be that the South Ossetians are shooting Russian AK-47s (pretty nice rifles, I might add) and Russian Wolf 7.62 x 39 ammo (pretty lousy ammo, I might also add). Like so many other wars and skirmishes since WWII, Russia/the Soviet Union has its surrogate and the US has its surrogate. Chris

Then a) you're education is shamefully limited, as the Soviet period of Russian history lasted a mere 70+ years; and you've a very selective memory - not recall what he had to say about the US? Georgia, with obvious US approval, attacked a province of the former USSR which made the same decision to divorce as Georgia did - only the South Ossitians chose to remain with Moscow. Your inability to comment on the obvious fact of Georgian aggression represents precisely the kind of divorce from observable reality that characterises the Bush White House. Paul Paul- Why don't you tell us about your vast education, since you believe that mine is "shamefully limited"? If you want to compare sheepskins, I will be happy to do so, but I think that would be a little silly. Whatever your education is, you obviously missed the day that your professors taught manners and reasoned discourse. You don't have to denigrate me to disagree with my positions. I will debate issues with you in an adult manner anytime. I also don't know what in my post led you to conclude that I thought the Soviet period began many centuries ago. But the USSR period, quite obviously, comprises most of the modern history of Russia, and it is a history of oppression and subjugation of its various "states". I don't see a lot of its former states or Soviet block countries wanting to go back to the days of the USSR and its brand of communism. I'm delighted to see, Chris, that you don't have to denigrate me to debate the issues with me: "Whatever your education is, you obviously missed the day that your professors taught manners and reasoned discourse." Can we say "hypocrite"? I think we can. You are correct, Paul, in that I responded in kind to your personal insult about my education. I should have just ignored your insult. Much more serious is all that irrelevant guff about the Soviet Union, Stalin and Solzhenitsyn. What precisely does any of this have to do with the fact that Georgian forces, armed, trained, financed and advised by both US and Israeli personnel, launched a murderous barrage on an overwhelmingly civilian population which the country's leader proclaims members of its own nation? Paul, this is a dispute among South Ossetia, Georgia, Russia and the US. You and I will not resolve the underlying dispute between South Ossetia and Georgia, but it is noteworthy that the UN and the EU regard South Ossetia as a part of Georgia. As Thomas de Waal, no great lover of Putin, modern Russia etc, put it in today's Observer: Paul, each side claims the other side initiated the fighting on August 1 or 2: http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=18871 In fact, this is all about oil, and has nothing whatever to do with freem, moxy, or any other of the voodoo incantations so beloved of the Anglo-American elites and their mouthpieces in the commentariat. It is certainly about oil to Russia. Saakashvili has committed a war crime and should be brought to book as a matter of urgency. Your inability to recognise and admit this very obvious fact is both staggering and contemptible. Paul, you remain unwilling to communicate in an evenly remotely civil manner, so we are not going to communicate with each other any further on this Political Controversies forum. That is too bad, because I enjoy debating an issue, particualrly with someone who has a diametrically opposite worldview. But I don't hate the party with whom I am debating. Nor do I like being the object of scorn (saying my disagreement with you in a territorial/political dispute which has raged for years is "both staggering and contemptible") by someone who refuses to debate in a civil manner. I should have just declined to discuss anything further when your first response was that my education was "shamefully limited." Let's hope the Kremlin shows a degree of restraint long since lost by the exterminators in Washington. This is Russia's response: http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5555394&page=1[/b]Paul

I didn't know that Canada had any continuing ties to the Queen. I have never liked the British monarchy or the notion that its members are entitled to some kind of birthright privileges. I liked Princess Diana, who tried to use the monarch for good and not for personal aggrandizement.

Mike , first of all, there is no significant recoil for that weapon: Secondly, Files does not say he actually SAW the head move forward. What he says is this: Thus he concluded the head snapped forward, because he was aiming for the eye and MISSED, because his bullet came in behind the eye. Thirdly, if Files was not in the military, you must also accept that he invented his military service as far back as the sixties, when he told his wife that he was. He also raised his two daughters with the phantom idea. Talking about ridiculous and obvious, can you give me good reason why makes that up to his blood relatives? http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/faith.htm And the girls from Saigon sending him love letters? He picked those up on vacation, right? Before he went to jail in 1980, right? Saigon was then what Bangkok is now, right? http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/vietnamcard2.JPG Fourthly, absence of physical evidence is never evidence of absence. Besides, in this case much physical evidence has been altered or removed. Or can you give me the cigarette butts from behind the picket fence? Or the photopgraphs of the footprints maybe? The brains of JFK? Now we only have X-Rays and expert opinions as evidence that the "dustlike particles" were mercury .......... Wim Wim, First off a rifle locked in the shoulder firing at 19 lbs, and a handgun fired from the extended arm at 5-6 lbs are completely different. Like comparing apples to oranges. Second, I would like to ask you if you have ever fired an xp, so as to speak from first hand experience? My father was an avid silhouette shooter, owning 2 xps one in .221 and one in .223. I have, over the course of time, had the opportunity to fire many of these, in many different calibers. Aiming for his right eye? Looking through a scope mounted on a handgun, with outstretched arms? On a moving target? That in itself is ridiculous. Mercury eh? I can almost hear the James Bond music playing in the background. Can you offer something in the way of proof that the bullets were mercury, and do you have any idea of what the wound ballistics of a mercury bullet look like ( I do.)? Ah yes the military career, Files may or may not have been in the military. Hard to tell with his tall tales, however there are some serious problems with his time line, as I am sure you are aware of. Kinda nifty how his packet just kinda showed up isnt it? Files is a fraud Wim, and I am sorry if you bought his load of crap, but, to perpetuate this con one becomes a con themselves. Have you no honor? Mike Mike- I agree with a lot of what you say regarding handgun recoil and shooting a scoped handgun. I have never shot a Remington XP 100 or the 221 Fireball round, but I have shot many hundreds of handguns and never shot one with no material recoil. Even when I shoot a heavy bull-barreled 22 Long Rifle, there is still significant muzzle rise, certainly enough to distort (for a brief period) a shooter's ability to hold it on target. Most handguns return to the point of aim if the shooter has a proper grip, but they still sustain some degree of muzzle rise (which some people call recoil, even though I think that recoil is the backward thrust of a fired weapon and not the muzzle rise). Interestingly, though, some scopes give a pretty wide field of vision and some, particularly one's with "eye relief", provide a more (and sometimes exceedingly)narrow view of the target. Although I don't buy into the Files version of the assassination, I can see that someone could take a shot and see the aftermath of its hitting the target. I shot a dot-scoped rifle (in 223 caliber) last weekend, with both eyes open, and made a plastic drink bottle dance around the range, so I can see how someone can see the follow-through of his shot hitting the target. Chris

Maggie- I appreciate your well-reasoned reply to my post. My replies are in the text above. Chris

Then a) you're education is shamefully limited, as the Soviet period of Russian history lasted a mere 70+ years; and you've a very selective memory - not recall what he had to say about the US? Georgia, with obvious US approval, attacked a province of the former USSR which made the same decision to divorce as Georgia did - only the South Ossitians chose to remain with Moscow. Your inability to comment on the obvious fact of Georgian aggression represents precisely the kind of divorce from observable reality that characterises the Bush White House. Paul Paul- Why don't you tell us about your vast education, since you believe that mine is "shamefully limited"? If you want to compare sheepskins, I will be happy to do so, but I think that would be a little silly. Whatever your education is, you obviously missed the day that your professors taught manners and reasoned discourse. You don't have to denigrate me to disagree with my positions. I will debate issues with you in an adult manner anytime. I also don't know what in my post led you to conclude that I thought the Soviet period began many centuries ago. But the USSR period, quite obviously, comprises most of the modern history of Russia, and it is a history of oppression and subjugation of its various "states". I don't see a lot of its former states or Soviet block countries wanting to go back to the days of the USSR and its brand of communism.

Revealing timing, Maggie, with the US and its Georgian puppets seeking to use the imminent Olympics as a wedge to be driven between Russia and China, the two key components of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). The thinking seems to be as follows: Chinese fears that their great showpiece will be ruined is calculated to induce caution or paralysis in Peking, thus depriving Russia of support in its response to the US-sponsored invasion of South Ossetia. Russia, Washington appears to be gambling, will thus be left on its lonesome to deal with this attack. The US game plan would appear to be, first, to provoke Russian military intervention, then permit a brief truce, followed by a massive escalation – almost certainly a false flag attack of considerable cost in human life - calculated to force reluctant and opposed European states into backing Georgia’s full integration into NATO. The US, we can now be certain, will launch a comprehensive assault on the SCO elsewhere, too, from Tibet to Xinjiang and beyond, not excluding SCO allies in Africa and the Americas – and Iran. In short, the last, desperate, throw of US military-imperialism has begun. Paul That's funny, to me it looks like a last, desperate, throw of Russian military-imperialism. Wasn't Georgia a former captive state in the USSR for 40 or 50 years? Didn't Georgia only gain its independence in 1991, two years after the infamous Soviet massacre of Georgian anti-Soviet protesters on April 9, 1989? I like the comment of (a seemingly disappointed) Vladimir Putin that this battle would result in Russian retaliation. This is quite rich coming from the former head of the KGB, whose former dissident member, Alexander Valterovich Litvinenko, mysteriously died of polonium poisoning in London a couple of years ago. And what is a "Russian peacekeeper"? When I think of Russia, I think of Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn and gulags, not peacekeepers. China doesn't need the fallout of this dust-up to embarass it during the Olympics. Its own human rights and censorship record (both of which must be a complete mystery to NBC) hang like heavy smog over the Olympics.

This proposed nanny-statism should sure help matters in LA: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25896233 I don't need the government to protect me from myself.

That's the point. The old GOP no longer exists. It's been replaced by a menace to any semblance of global harmony. It's over for the GOP. Sorry. I agree with some (but not all) of what you say about the GOP. The GOP exalted political practicality and power over principal, and it got what it deserved. After losing its power, perhaps it will one day regain its soul. Because the GOP is now so marginalized, however, it will be interesting to focus on what the Democrats do with their control of the Federal and state governments. Pelosi and Reid clearly lack the courage to do what the liberal base of the Democrat Party (the ones who rejected HRC and chose Obama, based on what he was then saying) wants them to do. They will do almost anything to avoid debate on bills, prefering instead to reach a concesus with the GOP and tell the taxpayers what they have done. I would rather see Congress debate proposed legislation in the light of day than learning what deals the 2 parties have cut with each other through backroom negotiations. The lack of true debate in Congress is precisely why it is difficult to discern what its Members truly stand for and believe in, which is their intended objective in proceeding down the path of least resistance. It is also why Harry Reid believes himself to be singe-handedly tyrannized by Sen. Tom Coburn (Oklahoma), who routinely exercises the option given to each Senator to require public debate on bills. In other words, Reid is afraid to bring bills to the floor for debate, even though there are sufficient votes for passage. Talk about a lack of political courage. It is also interesting to watch as Obama's previous clearly enunciated positions shift almost daily, presumably as campaign money pours into his campaign, the DNC and liberal 527s from groups and industries who want their interests advanced. Like I said, though, the GOP isn't a threat to anyone these days.

Bill- Please explain. Chris

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...-shot-dead.html Key Benazir Bhutto assassination witness shot dead The bodyguard of Benazir Bhutto, who was to be a key witness in an investigation into her assassination, has been shot dead. Last Updated: 3:19PM BST 23 Jul 2008 Thanks, Paul. This is "deja vu all over again" to quote the inestimable Yogi Berra. I have thought that this was an intelligence hit since it occured.

The title to this post is a joke. The GOP isn't much of a threat to anyone or anything these days. I am not even voting for John McCain, and I never watch politics on television. I will defend the GOP when it represents my values, which are quite different from those of most of the people on this forum. The GOP has not yet lost enough to undergo much needed soul-searching. And I certainly agree with Roberts that the infiltration of the GOP by the neocon movement is what has caused its decline.

1. The fact that a weapons instructor can pull of rapid working of a carcano bolt action and re-sighting for the next shot doesn't mean that most of us mortals can, at least not without a lot of practice. I have never attempted this, because I don't own a bolt action rifle, but I will borrow one sometime and give it a try. It may be easy, I just don't know, but I have seen expert marksmen pull off amazing displays of rapid fire shooting which are beyond someone like myself. Although Massad Ayoob is certainly a "Weapons Instructor", he was not one of the "Southpaws" who managed to operate and fire the Carcano in less than 1.6 seconds. The "Second Chance Shoot" is/was an annual event, and the Carcano experiment held in 1992 was open to volunteers at the event. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chance_(body_armor) The event was begun by Richard Davis of the above. Multitudes of persons have operated and fired the Carcano in less time than the WC's 2.3/2.4 seconds of time. To include JFK researcher & Chiropracter by profession, Chad Zimmerman. I have heard about this. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first attempt, 5.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his exercise using the iron sight. Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit 139, before they began firing? Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin. Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they used in this dry-run practice, each? Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each. Tom- Were any of these people right eye dominant, left handed? 2. I have never heard of a scope mounted to the left side to accomodate a right handed, left eye dominant shooters. As someone who is severely afflicted with this curse, I have shot semi-auto rifles with my left eye closed, albeit with modest success. Even if a shooter is right handed, left eye dominant, however, I think that learning to shoot a bolt action rifle (as opposed to an AR-15, for example) with a scope and with the left eye closed would not be difficult to accomplish. It would be assumed that you are familiar with the left-handed bolt action rifles which are made by a few manufacturer's for the strictly left-handed/left eyed shooters. I am familier with these, but they don't interest me. http://www.pafoa.org/forum/rifles-42/14725...bolt-rifle.html http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?p=401847 The advantages of the "left-side" mounted scope for a right-handed/left eye dominant shooter, is something which has been known by those who instruct rifle accuracy, for many years. This sounds intriguing. Thanks for the article. http://www.surplusrifle.com/reviews/1916bs...mount/index.asp 3. Was the scope on the Carcano just a little off center and to the left, or did it appear to be fitted to a left eye dominant right handed shooter? It was mounted in the exact same position as Klein's mounts their scopes, it was not "off center". Thanks. However, those who attempted to shoot (right-handed/right-eyed), had trouble getting the crosshairs to align on target. Guess What? 4. What was the barrel length on the Carcano recovered from (or planted at) the scene? The pictures that I have scene of the rifle appear to have the barrel sawed off, to some extent, as you have noted in the WC transcript, but what was the actual sawed off length? The reason that I ask is that I perceive the barrel length of a Mauser K-98 (740 mm) to be considerably longer than that of the rifle taken into evidence from the 6th floor of TSBD. If I am correct, then it seems implausible to me that one or more law enforcement personnel mistakenly describe a chopped down Carcano as a Mauser. They may have the same or a similar bolt action (since the Mauser K98 action is copied even today), but they sure don't look the same to me. 1. Since of the shots fired, two of the bullets have been ballistically matched to the Carcano found on the sixth floor, then one can chase mythological "planted" weapons if they so desire. 2. Secondly, the Carcano is in fact a model of the Mauser, and is in fact known as the Italian Mauser. I know the Carcano is a Mauser copy, as are many bolt action guns manufactured since 1898 (e.g. the Springfield 1903 A3). I just don't hear the copies referred to as Mausers. 3. Lastly, the recovered weapon was a Model 91/38 Carcano Short Rifle, and none of the barrel had been cut off. How many inches was the barrel on the recovered rifle? How many inches was the barrel on the recovered rifle? http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm The barrel only is 21.18 inches. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/models.html 91/38 Fucile Corto 6.5x52 Carcano Fixed 200 7 lb. 7 oz. 53.8 101.8 Detachable/Folding (53.8 cm barrel length X 0.39 = 20.982 inches. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I just don't hear the copies referred to as Mausers. [/b] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcano Although this rifle is often called "Mannlicher-Carcano" especially in US parlance, that name was never official, as little as the even less correct moniker "Mauser-Parravicino." The name Mannlicher-Carcano is also misleading because the rifle's bolt action was based on a German Mauser-style bolt action, not the Austrian Mannlicher-style ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/models.html There are also late war official German 8x57 IS conversions, undertaken as an emergency measure for the Volkssturm in both magazine and single-shot configurations (Heinrich Krieghoff branch factory in Tyrol). These are very rare, and must not be confused by the much more commonly offered following variant: Some Moschetti TS M38 were chambered for the 7,92x57 Mauser (aka 7,9x57 Mauser; 8 x 57 IS; 8mm Mauser). We call them "M38 S" here, because they usually bear a large "S" mark on the receiver, and often also on the bolt handle; their receiver breech end has a half-moon cut to accomodate for the longer 8 x 57 IS cartridges (just as with the Norvegian Kar 98k converted to .30-06, and the Turkish M 1903/38 conversions). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The advantages of the "left-side" mounted scope for a right-handed/left eye dominant shooter, is something which has been known by those who instruct rifle accuracy, for many years. This sounds intriguing. Thanks for the article. http://www.hockscqc.com/articles/binocular...cular/index.htm “...if you are left eye dominant (and about 35% of people are), and right handed (about 90% of people are), your gun most likely will not end up being in line with your aim point. Or if you are left handed (and 10% of people are), and right eyed (about 65% of people are), your gun most likely will not end up being in line with the aim point. In short, there are substantial numbers of people who are NOT right eyed and right handed, or left-eyed and left-handed, and "traditional shooting stances and techniques" do little to help them.” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks again, Tom. I may try to contact Hockheim. Chris

1. The fact that a weapons instructor can pull of rapid working of a carcano bolt action and re-sighting for the next shot doesn't mean that most of us mortals can, at least not without a lot of practice. I have never attempted this, because I don't own a bolt action rifle, but I will borrow one sometime and give it a try. It may be easy, I just don't know, but I have seen expert marksmen pull off amazing displays of rapid fire shooting which are beyond someone like myself. Although Massad Ayoob is certainly a "Weapons Instructor", he was not one of the "Southpaws" who managed to operate and fire the Carcano in less than 1.6 seconds. The "Second Chance Shoot" is/was an annual event, and the Carcano experiment held in 1992 was open to volunteers at the event. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chance_(body_armor) The event was begun by Richard Davis of the above. Multitudes of persons have operated and fired the Carcano in less time than the WC's 2.3/2.4 seconds of time. To include JFK researcher & Chiropracter by profession, Chad Zimmerman. I have heard about this. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first attempt, 5.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his exercise using the iron sight. Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit 139, before they began firing? Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin. Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they used in this dry-run practice, each? Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each. Tom- Were any of these people right eye dominant, left handed? 2. I have never heard of a scope mounted to the left side to accomodate a right handed, left eye dominant shooters. As someone who is severely afflicted with this curse, I have shot semi-auto rifles with my left eye closed, albeit with modest success. Even if a shooter is right handed, left eye dominant, however, I think that learning to shoot a bolt action rifle (as opposed to an AR-15, for example) with a scope and with the left eye closed would not be difficult to accomplish. It would be assumed that you are familiar with the left-handed bolt action rifles which are made by a few manufacturer's for the strictly left-handed/left eyed shooters. I am familier with these, but they don't interest me. http://www.pafoa.org/forum/rifles-42/14725...bolt-rifle.html http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?p=401847 The advantages of the "left-side" mounted scope for a right-handed/left eye dominant shooter, is something which has been known by those who instruct rifle accuracy, for many years. This sounds intriguing. Thanks for the article. http://www.surplusrifle.com/reviews/1916bs...mount/index.asp 3. Was the scope on the Carcano just a little off center and to the left, or did it appear to be fitted to a left eye dominant right handed shooter? It was mounted in the exact same position as Klein's mounts their scopes, it was not "off center". Thanks. However, those who attempted to shoot (right-handed/right-eyed), had trouble getting the crosshairs to align on target. Guess What? 4. What was the barrel length on the Carcano recovered from (or planted at) the scene? The pictures that I have scene of the rifle appear to have the barrel sawed off, to some extent, as you have noted in the WC transcript, but what was the actual sawed off length? The reason that I ask is that I perceive the barrel length of a Mauser K-98 (740 mm) to be considerably longer than that of the rifle taken into evidence from the 6th floor of TSBD. If I am correct, then it seems implausible to me that one or more law enforcement personnel mistakenly describe a chopped down Carcano as a Mauser. They may have the same or a similar bolt action (since the Mauser K98 action is copied even today), but they sure don't look the same to me. 1. Since of the shots fired, two of the bullets have been ballistically matched to the Carcano found on the sixth floor, then one can chase mythological "planted" weapons if they so desire. 2. Secondly, the Carcano is in fact a model of the Mauser, and is in fact known as the Italian Mauser. I know the Carcano is a Mauser copy, as are many bolt action guns manufactured since 1898 (e.g. the Springfield 1903 A3). I just don't hear the copies referred to as Mausers. 3. Lastly, the recovered weapon was a Model 91/38 Carcano Short Rifle, and none of the barrel had been cut off. How many inches was the barrel on the recovered rifle?

Tom- I have several random questions and comments, so I will number them for your ease in responding. 1. The fact that a weapons instructor can pull of rapid working of a carcano bolt action and re-sighting for the next shot doesn't mean that most of us mortals can, at least not without a lot of practice. I have never attempted this, because I don't own a bolt action rifle, but I will borrow one sometime and give it a try. It may be easy, I just don't know, but I have seen expert marksmen pull off amazing displays of rapid fire shooting which are beyond someone like myself. 2. I have never heard of a scope mounted to the left side to accomodate a right handed, left eye dominant shooters. As someone who is severely afflicted with this curse, I have shot semi-auto rifles with my left eye closed, albeit with modest success. Even if a shooter is right handed, left eye dominant, however, I think that learning to shoot a bolt action rifle (as opposed to an AR-15, for example) with a scope and with the left eye closed would not be difficult to accomplish. 3. Was the scope on the Carcano just a little off center and to the left, or did it appear to be fitted to a left eye dominant right handed shooter? 4. What was the barrel length on the Carcano recovered from (or planted at) the scene? The pictures that I have scene of the rifle appear to have the barrel sawed off, to some extent, as you have noted in the WC transcript, but what was the actual sawed off length? The reason that I ask is that I perceive the barrel length of a Mauser K-98 (740 mm) to be considerably longer than that of the rifle taken into evidence from the 6th floor of TSBD. If I am correct, then it seems implausible to me that one or more law enforcement personnel mistakenly describe a chopped down Carcano as a Mauser. They may have the same or a similar bolt action (since the Mauser K98 action is copied even today), but they sure don't look the same to me. Chris

Dawn - wise words. Yes, and above all people should avoid reading these two links: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry127049 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...rning&st=15 Wouldn't want anyone to get any impressions about "provocateurs," considering this thread long ago ceased to be about whether or not Jim Fetzer or Jack White would address themselves to the question posed. Colby Crew Charter Member Good point. The simple questions raised in Post No. 1 remain unanswered.

I finished this book a while back and forgot to post on it. I do not recommend it for anyone seeking to learn about possible involvement by Bill Harvey in the JFK assassination. It was quite interesting in several other respects, though, most notably as a history of some of the early years of the agency. Stockton draws attention to the stark societal contrast that Harvey, as a chain-smoking, alcoholic graduate (both undergrad and law school, I believe) of Indiana University, poses to the Ivy League, up East patricians who apparently dominated the CIA during its formative years. Harvey wokred hard to cultivate his hard-drinking, gun-slinging Midwestern image and, in the process, developed an intense loyalty among his lower ranks whom he led by example by tirelessly working long hours. He started out with the FBI, where I gathered that neither he nor Hoover were fond of each other. After 7 years at the FBI, he took an opportunity to go with the CIA. After working lower level positions, he was awarded with the coveted assignment of chief of the Berlins Operations Base ("BOB") at the time when we dug the Berlin Tunnel to tap into East German/Soviet communications lines. Upon being recalled to Washington, he was given a supervisory role with working under (indirectly) RFK on devising a plan or plans to assassinate Castro. It was in this role (as a participant in Operation Mongoose) that he met and befriended (for life) John Roselli. He lasted 11 months at this position and was "busted down" to the Rome office, where he exhibited his usual disdain for the social obligations (i.e. the formalized type, not the drinking with staff variety) associated with the job. His career trajectory was like the path of a path of a bottle rocket, with alcohol being the common denominator on both the ascent and the descent. He was truly an interesting guy, loving his family and hating Communism with apparently the same fervor. I wish that I had known him. Having said the above, however, the ONLY thing relating to the JFK assassination that Stockton can posit is that Harvey COULD have had some sort of tangential role in it as a compatriot of Roselli's. No other linkage to the assassination is offered. I believe that Harvey was in Rome on 11/22/63. The book does not purport to be a "must have" research tool for those interested in the JFK assassination, although many of us tend to view materials from that perspective.

I would add EHH to DAP, Jack, as the chief suspects. And they had other similariites, such as being novelists.

"I don't buy the official Doyle, Gedney and Abrams identifications but do give serious consideration to Charles Harrelson being the Tall Tramp." I don't buy the official story either. Alibis, witnesses and cover story substantiation can be bought at a modest cost. I feel confident that EHH is one of the tramps and that the tall one may be CVH. As to Frenchy, I just don't know. Kudos to everyone on their astute observations on this thread (e.g. vertical vs. horizontal brow wrinkle, collar turned up notwithstanding the heat), though.

I’m surprised that someone who claims to have researched 9/11 has read NIST’s interim report on WTC 7. A common truther tactic is very selectively editing quotes. Here’s he complete passage from the webpage he cited As per Jack’s claim that what was in the photo I posted was dust rather than smoke there are 2 videos which clearly show this to be untrue. Another thing which makes such a claim doubtful is that the smoke/dust can seen to be rising up from the WTC 7 roofline, exactly what we'd expect from smoke from that building and the exact opposite of what we'd expect from duct comming from across the street. http://911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi (5MB) http://911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi (700KB) He has now indicated at least twice there are images showing the south face of the building with little or no damage and intact windows after WTC 1 collapsed. I’m calling his bluff I want to see them. Here are a few showing damage to that side of the building as well as heavy smoke emanating from it. Thanks, Len. That bottom pic is quite revealing.

Doug- I certainly don't expect John McCain to surround himself with the best and the brightest, nor do I intend to vote for him. But, to dredge up the behavior of one of his advisors (or former advisors) from 30 - 35 years ago, while at the same time completely ignoring the reign of the Clintons for the last 16 years, including their sordid advisors, hacks, hitmen, bundlers and other fundraisers, tells only half of the story. When it comes to sleazy fundraising, the Clintons are, without a doubt, unparalelled. All of which brings us to the extent to which Obama utilizes the Clinton fundraising relationships and apparatus for the remainder of his campaign. I commend Obama for his ability to raise funds via the Internet, but his recent repudiation of his prior agreement to run his race on Federal funds, and his recent unity events with HRC, make me suspicious that he may fall in with the Clinton crowd. Furthermore, money chases success, and he has been quite successful. The magnitude of interest groups (and their checkbooks) pursuing him right now must be incredible. It will be interesting to see how things unfold.

C-SPAN 3 (History) ran several previously recorded lectures, symposia and speeches on Watergate over the weekend. They took place in the 1990s and included a bevy of speakers, ranging from preidential historian Hugh Sidey (formerly of Time Magazine) to Carl Bernstein, Bob Woodward, John Dean, Jim McCord and others. I recommend catching some of the replays if CSPAN-3 re-runs them.

It looks like not everyone is welcome on the stage with Obama: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11168.html This is sad, because these people came out to support Obama.

I appreciate your insights, John. They are more educated than mine, and you are truly an affected party, while I am an observer. I admire your country's expression of the importance of national sovereignty and resistance to the EU, which fell on its own sword when the French people declined to ratify the proposed Constitution a few years ago (after Dominique DeVillipain had analogized himself to Thomas Jefferson in crafting the 400+ page EU Constitution. I wish that the US would close all of its European military bases and deploy the troops to our own borders. Congrats again on your country's success in this matter.