Peter McGuire

They are of course, available on Youtube now.

This is a case in point where you can even believe that Oswald did it and all eyes still point to the Secret Service behavior.

Funny stuff indeed, but the only palace coup that "ultimately" happened was not in Havana, but in Washington.

It sure is nice that Mr. Palamara's book is available online. Thank you Vince!

The first written reports from Dallas on November 22, 1963, stated, “He was shot today by an assassin who sent a rifle bullet crashing into his temple.” On January 23, 1964, the doctors who worked on Kennedy described the effort to save his life in an article in the Texas State Journal of Medicine. “Dr. William Kemp Clark, a specialist in head injuries, said most of the right side of the back of the skull was gone . . . Dr. Charles J. Carrico, the first physician to see Mr. Kennedy, noted two external wounds, one in the neck and another in his head. In the head wound, he saw shredded brain tissue.” An article on November 23, 1963, the day after Kennedy was shot, said that Dr. Clark had described Kennedy’s head wound as “a large gaping wound with considerable loss of tissue.”

Yes. Where has Vince been lately? Vince?

Jean Hill has been rehabilitated regarding her seeing the "dog" in the car.

Was his limousine open in Ireland and Berlin?

Let's try again. And then I am done with this idiot: People engaged in conspiratorial conduct - political murderers and assassins - aren't in the habit of leaving hard evidence of their complicity lying around for others to find. It's bad for one's health in the event that the person is sent to prison for committing high crimes and misdemeanors. I cannot remember the last time when an Oswald-did-it-alone proponent was willing to step out of their childish, fairy-tale naivety and take this hard truth into account, that is if the thought ever occurred to them in the first place. Instead of setting aside their naive demands, they say, "Where is the HARD evidence?" Kennedy's brain was hard evidence to show conspiracy - that there was more than one shooter - but, gee whiz, it seems to have disappeared - imagine that? - and so on with the other hard evidence conspicuously missing in this case. There's also the hard evidence of the bullet fragments in Governor Connelly's wrist that couldn't possibly have come from a bullet as perfect as number 399. What the rest of us have done is to review the available film evidence (movies and stills), the ample eye-witness testimony from honest citizens, the blatant sins of omission and evidence of a cover-up perpetuated by the so-called honorable members of the Warren Commission, and come to our own conclusions. And the verdict isn't pretty. There's been too much evidence that's been destroyed or suppressed that might have confirmed conspiracy, to justify the single-bullet theorists demanding anything other that they themselves begin to educate themselves in common sense, critical thinking, and learn to be a better judge of human nature. They have let the worst scoundrels off the hook and discredited the honest citizen witnesses who tried to tell us that something terribly wrong took place in Dallas more than 40 years ago, and that more than one shooter had to be involved. The legitimate HARD evidence of complicity has been destroyed.

Tim, hundreds of people "talked", where have you been? The problem is that no one in an official capacity listened. Just posted on 1963 Secret Service: Attorney Mark Lane and Dallas Police officer Roger Craig discuss how security was stripped away at all levels. This is not a theory, it is a FACT. For those who say " someone would have talked" well my friend , someone , actually many, did just that. Did anyone listen? What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace. John Fitzgerald Kennedy

If you say so, Tim.

Attorney Mark Lane and Dallas Police officer Roger Craig discuss how security was stripped away at all levels. This is not a theory, it is a FACT. For those who say " someone would have talked" well my friend , someone , actually many, did just that. Did anyone listen? What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace. John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Call me paranoid if you like, but, I firmly believe that any HARD evidence of culpability was destroyed a very long time ago. What is left is a maze of conflicting evidence contained in mostly GOVERNMENT controlled documents. If you like to pretend that our government did not have the power to control the evidence produced by it's own investigations that is fine, by all means, continue to live in a self-induced fantasy. Well put. And this from a review on Amazon: Some of you - please grow up. People engaged in conspiratorial conduct - political murderers and assassins - aren't in the habit of leaving hard evidence of their complicity lying around for others to find. It's bad for one's health in the event that the person is sent to prison for committing high crimes and misdemeanors. I cannot remember the last time when an Oswald-did-it-alone proponent was willing to step out of their childish, fairy-tale naivety and take this hard truth into account, that is if the thought ever occurred to them in the first place. Instead of setting aside their naive demands, they say, "Where is the HARD evidence?" Kennedy's brain was hard evidence to show conspiracy - that there was more than one shooter - but, gee whiz, it seems to have disappeared - imagine that? - and so on with the other hard evidence conspicuously missing in this case. There's also the hard evidence of the bullet fragments in Governor Connelly's wrist that couldn't possibly have come from a bullet as perfect as number 399. What the rest of us have done is to review the available film evidence (movies and stills), the ample eye-witness testimony from honest citizens, the blatant sins of omission and evidence of a cover-up perpetuated by the so-called honorable members of the Warren Commission, and come to our own conclusions. And the verdict isn't pretty. There's been too much evidence that's been destroyed or suppressed that might have confirmed conspiracy, to justify the single-bullet theorists demanding anything other that they themselves begin to educate themselves in common sense, critical thinking, and learn to be a better judge of human nature. They have let the worst scoundrels off the hook and discredited the honest citizen witnesses who tried to tell us that something terribly wrong took place in Dallas more than 40 years ago, and that more than one shooter had to be involved. The legitimate HARD evidence of complicity has been destroyed.

We could play smear bingo here. The smears are everywhere. Peter, did they focus on his use of medications for his chronic pain, or on illegal drugs? On edit: Gads I'm slow. Was "Altered Statesman" actually the name of the program??? Yes. I believe that was the name of the program. As I said, I just caught the end of it and did recognize the same people from A Presidency Revealed, which I own. Dr. Max's cocktail did include methamphetamines but supposedly wasnt illegal at the time. I would guess they are going the direction of LSD, Pot and other illegal substances. Its frustrating because I only saw a five minutes or so of the program and cannot locate anything about it. But I am quite sure of the title. Altered State (s) man. Clever Okay. Here is the link to the show: http://www.tv.com/unsolved-history/jfk-alt...89/summary.html

I only caught the end of it but it zooms in on Kennedy's drug use while in office. The same stuff is covered , in my opinion , in great detail in "JFK, A Presidency Revealed" already. It was on the Discovery Channel ( no surprise there) and I cannot pick any information about the release anywhere. It is an obvious attempt to smear Kennedy, but for those of you who feel Kennedy was an unfit President and was dealt with accordingly, it provides a possible justification for the higher ups to look the other way when the operation was going down. If in fact the order didnt come from them. ( the General's Staff)

Alkun writes: Joined: 25 Jul 2006 Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 5:11 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Its correct, but the sentence has two meanings. 1) I'm from Berlin 2) I'm a donut Joined: 17 May 2007 Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 7:02 am Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- alkun wrote: So its always been a big joke with German people. And Centril Cali responds: You are repeating an urban legend: Quote: In fact, the statement is grammatically correct and cannot be misunderstood in that context. The urban legend is largely unknown in Germany, where Kennedy's speech is considered a landmark in the country's postwar history. Is it possible this Urban Legend is part of the smearing campaign? Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 2:33 am Post subject: Ich Bin Ein Berliner -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OP's question: For those who understand the German language, did he say that right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpaab-G6GTs

WARNING: Very graphic! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1811

Document uncovers details of a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by right-wing American businessmen . http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=94336

I thought this was well written. Mind closed is the more appropriate title , July 9, 2006 This book is not only tendentious garbage--it is dangerous as well. All of Posner's deceptive shaping of the evidence depends entirely on the reader not knowing a damn thing about the case. He is a good writer--a genius worthy of Sammy Glick and Joseph Goebbels. Read carefully, Posner's sources are revealed to be official ones--current or former members of governments, police forces, courts. And all sources that he attacks are citizens--and there are thousands of non-governmental sources in this case who provide a mountain of evidence for conspiracy. Posner trashes every one he can get his tricky hands on. So pro-conspiracy witnesses are not just mistaken, they are insane, drunkards, abusers, liars, publicity hounds ( unlike himself , of course) . grudge holders, folks with hidden agendas ( again, unlike all those intelligence agents he believes in so devoutly). Let the reader beware: This is State Propaganda at its most clever and diabolical, and the purpose of the book is to convince the reader that only losers believe in conspiracies, those who have not succeeded in this greatest of all possible societies. Sour Grapes , in other words.

CIA plot to kill Castro detailed By ANITA SNOW, Associated Press Writer 43 minutes ago The CIA recruited a former FBI agent to approach two of America's most-wanted mobsters and gave them poison pills meant for Fidel Castro during his first year in power, according to newly declassified papers released Tuesday. Contained amid hundreds of pages of CIA internal reports collectively known as "the family jewels," the official confirmation of the 1960 plot against Castro was certain to be welcomed by communist authorities as more proof of their longstanding claims that the United States wants Castro dead. Communist officials say there have been more than 600 documented attempts to kill Castro over the decades. Now 80, Castro has not been seen in public since handing power to his younger brother Raul while recovering from intestinal surgery last July. But in a letter published on Monday, the elder Castro claimed without providing details that President Bush had "authorized and ordered" his killing. And while Cuban government press officials didn't return a call seeking reaction Tuesday, the release of the newly declassified CIA documents had already been noted in state media. "Upon the orders of the White House, the Central Intelligence Agency tried to assassinate President Fidel Castro and other former personalities and leaders," the Communist Party newspaper Granma said Saturday. "What was already presumed and denounced will be corroborated." Other aborted U.S. attempts to kill Castro, who rose to power in January 1959 in a revolution that ousted dictator Fulgencio Batista, have been noted in other declassified documents. The papers released Tuesday were part of a report prepared at the request of CIA Director James Schlesinger in 1973, who ordered senior agency officials to tell him of any current or past actions that could potentially violate the agency's charter. Some details of the 1960 plot first surfaced in investigative reporter Jack Anderson's newspaper column in 1971. The documents show that in August 1960, the CIA recruited ex-FBI agent Robert Maheu, then a top aide to Howard Hughes in Las Vegas, to approach mobster Johnny Roselli and pass himself off as the representative of international corporations that wanted Castro killed because of their lost gambling operations. At the time, the bearded rebels had just outlawed gambling and destroyed the world-famous casinos American mobsters had operated in Havana. Roselli introduced Maheu to "Sam Gold" and "Joe." Both were mobsters on the U.S. government's 10-most wanted list: Momo Giancana, Al Capone's successor in Chicago; and Santos Trafficante, one of the most powerful mobsters in Batista's Cuba. The agency gave the reputed mobsters six poison pills, and they tried unsuccessfully for several months to have several people put them in Castro's food. This particular assassination attempt was dropped after the failed CIA-sponsored Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in April 1961. The CIA was able to retrieve all the poison pills, records show. Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Any thoughts about this from anyone?

I have often confused the ACTOR Clint Eastwood and Clint Hill for some reason! Long before I KNEW what the man did , I had a gut feeling he was putting on a show. Clearly there was guilt, but that was because he knew what he really did. ( Or didn't ) do.

Any luck with that photo, Chuck? I believe it DOES matter what the arrangement was on other days. And I would like to take this opportunity to welcome Vince to the forum. I really appreciate your groundbreaking work on the Secret Service's actions that day. Their actions are a bitter pill to swallow. I believe that is why they got away with it for so long. Who could believe they would do such a thing? But Vince, take it easy on Ms. Baker , ok? Her story does not make or break this case and it would only serve to exonerate Oswald.

As far as I'm aware, all Michael Piper's other books are listed here Best Witness, with an Intro by Mark Lane, is also available as a free download via this link. Thanks Sid. I added it to Dixie's thread "JFK Assn ebooks, Free Downloads" @ http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry104936 In "Say Goodbye to That" by Grover Proctor he and Dr. James R. Black write: As Peter Dale Scott put it so well, the assassination of President Kennedy was not fundamentally an aberration at all; it was simply a routine technical adjustment of the machinery of government. Such things have happened before; they will happen again; indeed, they happen all the time. That day in Dallas the machinery was just a bit more visible than usual, the target a bit more important than usual, the cleanup perhaps a bit sloppier than usual. And so for once the mask of state slipped, and the face beneath was revealed--but only to those who are not afraid to look. http://www.groverproctor.us/jfk/ This leads me to believe that there would have to be a very big reason to put an operation into motion to kill an American President. Most of the reasons given so far just don't seem big enough. State Survival is big enough. (Israel's) And it isn't that the CIA or Johnson didn't want him gone it is just that I dont think they got the ball rolling, but happily went along. Since the Secret Service was compromised it ultimately was from within. But we all know many people had the need to get rid of Kennedy and that does not preclude outside influence at some point. Kennedy could have also been an unfit President killed illegally under Amendment 25 of the Consitution, which wasn't ratified until after his death and didn't include murder as a means of removal. Amendment 25 - Presidential Disability and Succession. Ratified 2/10/1967. Note History 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President. 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President. 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office. Sid: Sorry. I didn't mean to piggyback your thread with the 25th amendment argument and kill it. That seems to be the second most unpopular argument to make. You notice that I do not say theory. What most of us say is not theoretical. It is based on facts. Or at least good research countering a bunch of lies that were made in the first place. I am preparing something more in line with your original posting and will get back with it. Peter

As far as I'm aware, all Michael Piper's other books are listed here Best Witness, with an Intro by Mark Lane, is also available as a free download via this link. Thanks Sid. I added it to Dixie's thread "JFK Assn ebooks, Free Downloads" @ http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry104936 In "Say Goodbye to That" by Grover Proctor he and Dr. James R. Black write: As Peter Dale Scott put it so well, the assassination of President Kennedy was not fundamentally an aberration at all; it was simply a routine technical adjustment of the machinery of government. Such things have happened before; they will happen again; indeed, they happen all the time. That day in Dallas the machinery was just a bit more visible than usual, the target a bit more important than usual, the cleanup perhaps a bit sloppier than usual. And so for once the mask of state slipped, and the face beneath was revealed--but only to those who are not afraid to look. http://www.groverproctor.us/jfk/ This leads me to believe that there would have to be a very big reason to put an operation into motion to kill an American President. Most of the reasons given so far just don't seem big enough. State Survival is big enough. (Israel's) And it isn't that the CIA or Johnson didn't want him gone it is just that I dont think they got the ball rolling, but happily went along. Since the Secret Service was compromised it ultimately was from within. But we all know many people had the need to get rid of Kennedy and that does not preclude outside influence at some point. Kennedy could have also been an unfit President killed illegally under Amendment 25 of the Consitution, which wasn't ratified until after his death and didn't include murder as a means of removal. Amendment 25 - Presidential Disability and Succession. Ratified 2/10/1967. Note History 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President. 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President. 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Yes, I read through those threads also and I agree it was not Michael Piper's greatest moment. On the other hand, I thought his treatment was, in general, shameful - and I've said so before. Before he arrived and had a chance to speak for himself, he was viciously attacked. I'm unaware that any other author invited to the forum has been treated with equivalent rudeness. It's behaviour to which he had already been sensitized. He blew his top. I think members might like to reflect on how long other authors would stay around on the forum if they were insulted in like fashion. What choice retorts might they make before making their exit? You and I, Myra, were not members of the forum at that time, so we need feel no personal responsibility. I gather Piper gave away copies of Final Judgment 6th edition to participants in the debate, freind or foe. A nice touch. A pity his fine example is not more often emulated, IMO. I have a few books on my wishlist written by members of the forum I am also glad that I was not a member of the forum at that time too. I read through some of the posts and they are pretty shameful. If you ignore what Piper has to offer in this case you are not even close to solving it. And that is what they are hoping for. On that note, I think I am going to head for the fridge and have a cold one.