Peter McGuire

Can anyone figure out what this guy is saying, or how to answer it? Ok now this depends on the level of conspiracy you believe in. If it is 2 or 3 people I could see it happening. Now a conspiracy as you seem to be talking about(but whih you seem reluctant to directly talk about) would require more people. If evidence was forged, if witnesses were silenced, if there was more than one shooter, if evidence was planted, this involves more and more people. As you are unwilling for whatever reason to specify what level of conspiracy you believe in, I would find it hard to put a number on it. With all conspiracies the most important point is"how many people are involved". The wider the conspiracy the less plausible it becomes. How wide do you believe the conspiracy went?

Wikipedia co-founder seeks to start over By BRIAN BERGSTEIN, AP Technology Writer Sun Mar 25, 10:41 PM ET In just six years, Wikipedia has mushroomed into one of the Web's most astonishing successes, with 1.7 million articles in English alone. The downside is that the free encyclopedia has its share of errors and juvenile vandalism, and sometimes the writing is incomprehensibly arcane. ADVERTISEMENT To Wikipedia fans, these blemishes are an unavoidable — and relatively small — price to pay for the dazzling breadth spawned by its "anyone can edit" open design. But Larry Sanger doesn't buy it. To Sanger — who was present at the creation of Wikipedia (in fact, call him a co-founder, although that, like many things within Wikipedia, is disputed) — its charms seem to outweigh its warts simply because it has no competition. And that's precisely what Sanger hopes to change. This week, Sanger takes the wraps off a Wikipedia alternative, Citizendium. His goal is to capture Wikipedia's bustle but this time, avoid the vandalism and inconsistency that are its pitfalls. Like Wikipedia, Citizendium will be nonprofit, devoid of ads and free to read and edit. Unlike Wikipedia, Citizendium's volunteer contributors will be expected to provide their real names. Experts in given fields will be asked to check articles for accuracy. "If there's going to be a free encyclopedia, I'd like there to be a better free encyclopedia," says Sanger, 38, who has a doctorate in philosophy and speaks slowly, as if cautiously choosing every word. "It has bothered me that I helped to get a project started, Wikipedia, that people are misusing in this way, and yet the project itself has little chance of radically improving." Citizendium is hardly the first Wikipedia alternative. But this is different — not only because of Sanger, but because of the questions at its core: Would Wikipedia be better if its contributors fully identified themselves? Would Wikipedia be better if it solicited guidance from academics and other specialists? To be sure, Wikipedia's egalitarian mantra that "anyone can edit" is a huge draw, across cultures. Few are the people who have even heard of all the languages that now have a Wikipedia (Zazaki, Voro, Pangasinan, Udmurt and Shqip, to name a few). However, critics contend the setup turns off many people with valuable expertise to share. They don't want to wade in with contributions that can be overwritten within minutes by anyone. Stephen Ewen, an adult-education instructor in Jupiter, Fla., who gave up on contributing to Wikipedia and plans to work on Citizendium, believes the quality of Wikipedia entries often degrades over time because someone inevitably comes along to express a counterproductive viewpoint. Contributors are free to hash out such changes on the discussion pages that accompany every article. But Ewen believes Wikipedia's anonymity reduces the accountability that stimulates healthy exchanges. To some dissidents, Wikipedia seems an inscrutable world unto itself — not unlike the devotion-inspiring virtual environs of role-playing games. "When you put everybody in a system that is flat, where everybody can say yes or no, without any sense of authority, what you get is tribalism," Ewen says. "What has gone into the article creation is very often the result of this dysfunctional system. It presents itself with this aura of authority, whereas what goes on behind the scenes is anything but." Whatever authority the system does have was punctured recently by the discovery that an active contributor with the pen name "Essjay" had been promoted to a high post even though he lacked the theology Ph.D. he claimed in Wikipedia editing debates. Even when everything is in the open, the chatter isn't always collegial. It's a well-known problem: Shrouded online, people often write provocative things they'd never say to someone's face. "One more slap from you, and I'll slap back, honestly," one poster with a pen name wrote in the forum accompanying Wikipedia's article on the Sept. 11 attacks. Sanger contends that this and other Wikipedia woes will all but vanish on Citizendium because real names will promote civility — and attract contributors turned off by Wikipedia. Wikipedia's de facto leader, Jimmy Wales, counters that real names are overrated. Sure, he sighs just as heavily about "trolls" and other troublemakers. But he says most Wikipedians who adopt pseudonyms want to protect the reputation of those handles as much as they would with their names. Plus, he says, an online identity — or none at all, since participants can opt to be tagged merely by their computers' numeric Internet addresses — frees contributors to leave their "real world" baggage behind and focus only on what matters: producing good content. "I am unaware of any problems with the quality of discourse on the site," he says. "I don't know of any higher-quality discourse anywhere." A more commonly cited peril of Wikipedia's anonymity is vandalism. In the most infamous incident, someone playing a bad joke wrote that journalist John Seigenthaler Sr. had been a suspect in both Kennedy assassinations. The entry lasted for four months of 2005. Such abuse tends to get quickly swept away by the site's volunteers, especially if an article has been placed on a watch list by editors who are interested in the subject. Still, at any given point, Wikipedia visitors can't be sure of what they're getting. Look no further than the Seigenthaler entry: For 31 hours last September, the poor guy was said to have killed and eaten JFK. Sanger doesn't expect Citizendium will eradicate the puerile urge to defile the product. He just will make it harder to do. Contributors must confirm their identities and submit a short biography. Sanger says he'll allow pseudonyms in special cases, like when a volunteer's employer prohibits outside writing. But the person's name would be known to Citizendium. Wales and Sanger agree that no one should be using Wikipedia — or any other single source — as the final word on a subject, but rather as a starting point for other research. Still, if Wikipedia is going to be so big, it has a responsibility to do things right. That's where these guys really diverge. Wales argues for self-improvement, with Wikipedians constantly tweaking the rules that guide them. Sanger is convinced that the only answer is to carve space for experts, specialists — anyone who could enhance the project's credibility. He has given this a lot of thought since 2000. It was then, while finishing his Ph.D. at Ohio State University, that Sanger joined Bomis.com, a Web portal owned by Wales, a former options trader. While Bomis might have been best known for its erotic photographs, Wales wanted to create a free Web encyclopedia, called Nupedia. Sanger was hired as editor-in-chief. Nupedia aimed to form an online community of volunteers who would create content and perform expert review. But the system for soliciting and producing articles was cumbersome, and progress was slow. Eventually the group turned to free, open Wiki software ("Wiki" is Hawaiian for "fast") to make it easy for volunteers to submit content and even change each other's work. Soon, the infectious qualities of Wikipedia made it subsume Nupedia. Sanger says he intended to keep nurturing Nupedia's expert-review idea as well, but he was laid off from Bomis in 2002, apparently because of cost-cutting in the dot-com bust. After a brief return to academia, Sanger spent over a year with the privately financed Digital Universe project, which follows a more traditional encyclopedia model, albeit online. But he still harbored unease about how Wikipedia was so open to abuse. When a shaken Seigenthaler called him to vent about the incident with his bio, Sanger decided it was time for a fork. A fork, in software-development terms, is when everything about Project A gets copied by Project B, and from there they follow separate routes. A fork of Wikipedia is allowed under its "copyleft" license that lets anyone use its content as long as they are equally generous with their output. In other words, Sanger could cut the vastness of Wikipedia and paste it into a new site, then put it through his own meat grinder, complete with rules about real names and expert review. Last year, Sanger began organizing Citizendium as a fork of Wikipedia. He raised $35,000 from a foundation and a private donor. But he found it hard to motivate the volunteers he recruited online. "I didn't see the kind of excitement I saw in the early days of Wikipedia," he says. "You get excited about something if you've taken responsibility for it, if you've created it yourself. By conceiving of ourselves as a big mop-up organization for Wikipedia, we essentially lock ourselves into being a version of Wikipedia. ... In order to have a robust, distinct identity, it's important, I think, that we start over." Citizendium has been operating in a limited manner that ends with this week's official launch. Its volunteer base numbers roughly 900 authors and 200 editors. The site has 1,100 articles, with 11 "approved" by editors, meriting them a green check mark. Volunteers can revise any article, though already-approved entries are labeled as separate "drafts" while they're being rewritten again. Because the sign-up and other steps are the antithesis of Wikipedia's brazen ease, it's hard to imagine Citizendium garnering 3 million member accounts, like Wikipedia has. Then again, many of those accounts sit unused. Wikipedia's own statistics show that in September, the most recent month for such data, 43,000 people were considered "active" — they each contributed to more than five articles for the English site. The category of "very active Wikipedians" — those who worked on more than 100 items — numbered 4,330. "Let's say we only have one-quarter of the contributors of Wikipedia," Sanger says. "Would we be able to create a credible competitor for Wikipedia within not too many years? Yes, I think." But Sanger allows himself an even grander dream — that Citizendium's professionalism and civility end up attracting more people than the self-organizing hue and cry of Wikipedia. "I don't see why not," he says. "This kind of thing hasn't been tested." ___ On the Net: Citizendium: http://www.citizendium.org

I believe that it is from the James Earl Jones video "JFK conspiracy". Gil: Here is a reply received after reposting your the JFK Conspiracy Video from "JMO": http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=82018 I had alot of questions about that video, then I went and read the relevant section of the warren commission. Oswald was positively identified by 2 witnesses. What is the point of this video? Sorry edit again. There seems to be a glaring factual inaccuracy in this video. The warren report doesn't say he got on the bus 3 mins after he left the building. It is approximated at closer to 6 or 7 minutes after. "The bus ride.--According to the reconstruction of time and events which the Commission found most credible, Lee Harvey Oswald left the building approximately 3 minutes after the assassination. He probably walked east on Elm Street for seven blocks to the corner of Elm and Murphy where he boarded a bus.. McWatters(bus driver) was able to testify that the transfer had been issued by him on a trip which passed a check point at St. Paul and Elm Streets at 12:36 p.m., November 22, 1963. 420 McWatters was sure that he left the checkpoint on time and he estimated that it took him 3 to 4 minutes to drive three blocks west from the checkpoint to Field Street, which he reached at about 12:40 p.m. 421 McWatters' recollection is that he issued this transfer to a man who entered his bus just beyond Field Street.." The report mentioned later that the FBI average for the time it took to walk to the bus was around 6 and a half minutes. Roughly the same time as in the video. So this video starts off on the wrong foot completely and really it is amazing they can get the first time so wrong.

THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY An Amazon review: 5 of 5 people found the following review helpful: Conspiracy, but no theory, February 17, 2007 Reviewer: Alex (Geneva) - See all my reviews To use the phrase 'Conspiracy Theory' after viewing these DVDs, would constitute a breathtaking stupidity beyond all reason and sense. The only 'bias' is towards law and order, detection of crimes and democracy, so 'bias' is not the right word - 'healthy' or 'honest' would be more apt. It was: 1) Criminal Conspiracy to murder; 2) Criminal Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and 3) Treason. Here in these DVDs is enough evidence, which if all put into police statements or affidavit form, would be well enough to justify (at standards of court-level evidence), a number of 'arrests on suspicion' - which would be the logical conclusion, in order to facilitate further investigation, upon which charges and arraignments would be based.

The first line here got my attention. Barry Chamish wrote in 1999: Final Judgement by Michael Collins Piper has been ignored or viciously attacked by American Jewish organizations and media. No shock there since Piper makes a pretty cogent case for the Mossad being the moving force behind the assassination of JFK. I will attempt to redress this imbalance and offer a review of the book as a Zionist committed to the strength and survival of Israel. To summarize early, Piper gets lots right and lots wrong. What is bothersome is it doesn't take much of what he gets right to make a case for Israeli involvement in the murder. Piper's central point, and it is a major revelation, is that Clay Shaw, Oswald's handler was on the board of a Geneva-based trade promotion company called Permindex, which I accept was a Mossad front for covert operations. From this point Piper works backwards and connects Clay to the Mossad, the Mossad to Lansky and organized crime, Lansky to the CIA, the CIA to heroin production in South-East Asia, the heroin producers to the heroin processors of Marseilles, the processors to the OAS, the rebellious French intelligence outfit determined to assassinate Degaulle for pulling out of Algeria, the OAS to the Mossad and now we've come full circle. Kennedy infuriated Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion by demanding an end to Israel's nuclear program. He equally infuriated organized crime by promising to end American involvement in Viet Nam, and thus cutting off its major source of raw opium. Even though he frightened many in the CIA with his declarations that the organization had to be replaced, and by his refusal to bring down Castro, that was not a prime motive in the assassination. The CIA was involved because its top gun James Angleton was an Israeli agent. His duty was to prepare the patsy and plant "false flags" in the Cuban exile community. In fact, even the alleged involvement of Italian mafia leaders was a deliberate false flag as well. The real killers were OAS-employed Corsican hitmen, or at least one was for certain, and they were recruited by the Mossad's European chief assassin, Yitzhak Shamir. I would dismiss the whole thing as a fantastic yarn, except four years ago I began researching the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, and I independently discovered too many facts in common with Piper's. The most uncanny is that I also conclude that French intelligence provided the operational guidance behind Rabin's murder. I don't intend to retell Final Judgement. The following points are aimed at people who have already read Piper's book: http://www.rense.com/politics5/zionist.htm

I was thinking the same thing. Not much is said about the "short shot" , that hit the President in the back. That shot would have come first, and had it been a good shot, it most likely would have killed him right, then and there. And if it had , they may have gotten away with it. As it is, things got very messy because of the frontal shot (s), and the fact that the limousine slowed down and Secret Service Agents did nothing once the shots rang out.

I saw this on Ebay for 99 cents. Great title! Has anyone read it? http://cgi.ebay.com/Passion-for-Truth-Arle...1QQcmdZViewItem

Good point Steve. I agree, any assassin, including Lee Oswald would want to be sure of his escape. But in Lee's case, he does his "job" from his place of employment, hangs around for awhile, finally leaves and "escapes" by public transportation and then traps himself in a movie theatre. He should really go down ( if you believe he did it) as the worlds dummest criminal, for operating like that.

Yes, great evidence , Wim. I hear so often, "site your evidence". What more do they want? There is a mountain of evidence, like this , that has been ignored. This guy, and many others, witnessed things that were not included in the "official report". The Orwellian nature of this matter is beyond comprehension.

Great thoughts. I too believe this was done in the interest of "National Security". It had to be.

Greer was in on it. He heard shooting, stopped the car and looked back at Kennedy, who was struggling with his throat. Kennedy got hit in the head from the front-right and Greer took off. I believe in Secret Service complicity. Kathy That is my firm belief, also. Greer could have sped away and Kellerman could have done something besides turn back and look. Both Greer and Kellerman just LOOKED! There has always been some nonsense talk about what Greer heard or what Kennedy supposedly said. I have seen it spun both ways. The problem is , there is no reason to believe anything that Greer or Kellerman testified. And IF, Kennedy could have spoken, he would have said " get out of here" or "take me to a hospital". That order would have been hard to refuse from the Commander in Chief. But, Kennedy said nothing. He wasn't able to say anything. I am sure he was thinking " what in the world are you two guys doing?"

Thanks , Myra, nice catch.

Wikipedia has a team of volunteer editors. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, explains: “Anyone signed up can have a personal watch-list to keep an eye on a particular subject and the changes to it”. Therefore people like John McAdams and Dave Perry will be kept informed of any changes that take place on any JFK assassination related entries. I expect the CIA have got someone in place to moderate covert operation activities. I think the best way of opposing this is to post academic style, referenced articles, onto Wikipedia. Use the Forum to post details of the original posting and your entry. Members can then see how this process works. You will then have a copy of your article that you can repost after it has been edited. An article today on Wikipedia: http://www.slate.com/id/2160222/pagenum/2

I am not a big the Military - Industrial Complex did it believer, but I do believe Prouty when he says that Lansdale was in the Plaza that afternoon. A recent question asked if the CIA was involved and or did they have control over the Secret Service. So what was Lansdale doing in Dealy Plaza that afternoon? Peter ~ Lansdale was very close to HL Hunt and the Murchisons, is said to have received large sums from them for various covert ops, and was also very close to the top rung at the CIA under Dulles. Prouty had been working at G-2 in Manila in 1945 when Lansdale arrived from the USA to work in G-2. Their direct superior was Col. Joseph McMicking, during the absence in Tokyo of Gen. Willoughby (MacArthur's "lovable fascist"). Willoughby, Whitney, and MacArthur were all tight with former President Hoover and Secretary of War Stimson, and were hoping MacArthur would succeed Truman as president, a campaign being funded in part by Hoover, Hunt and the Murchisons. It was Lansdale (working with Filipino-American agent Santa Romana) who persuaded General Yamaxxxxa's chauffeur, Major Kojima, to reveal twelve sites where the Japanese had hidden gold bullion in northern Luzon -- sites to which Kojima had driven General Yamaxxxxa on inspection tours. Ultimately, the looted gold recovered from those sites was pooled with recovered Nazi gold to create a covert global slush fund through a network of banks including CIA-owned banks set up by Paul Helliwell. Lansdale and Helliwell worked together for Dulles, and Lansdale was known to be moving around East Asia with a team of assassins from the Philippines, killing leftists and war-crimes investigators. The channel used to move the gold bullion was given the name The Umbrella, combining elements from CIA, MI5, the USTreasury, Opus Dei, yakuza, and the Sicilian Mafia; later expanded to include Cuban exiles, Meyer Lansky's hit-men, and Central American death squads. It has been noted in a posting on another thread that the opening of an umbrella at Dealey Plaza is considered by some to have been "the signal". The number of people who have been linked together in multiple threads herein makes it clear that there was much more involved in the JFK killing than merely the Military-Industrial Complex, or The Octopus, or any other single element or clique. I prefer the "aggregate" theory: That JFK unfortunately made it known he was preparing to make certain changes, sack certain people, and end certrain privileges, and that this produced a "frisson" throughout so many cliques that it all syncopated in a joint effort. Most of these cliques had interlocking directorships that pervaded the entire Establishment. Brings to mind the bromide that you must never let a troop of horse trot across a wooden bridge, because their hooves syncopate, and the bridge collapses. Sterling Seagrave Sterling: Thank you for your response, Peter

Chris, Newton's 3rd law of motion does not apply to John Kennedy, he was special! You are right, his first shot should have been the most accurate. The "magic bullet" , crazy little devil , wasn't it. I dont know anything about guns and sights , so no comment on that one. The cover story is a sham. Impossible to believe. Amazing that it is still defended. I am insulted when it is.

"As I said , I am sure they will censor it, they can't afford to have things like that on the air" Words to ponder. "although I never met him" "he was friend of mine" Question: Would the tumultuous 60's ever happend if Kennedy had not been killed?

Let's go through them one at a time.

When the real reason for eliminating JFK is known, it will be something of this magnitude. You don't take out a President unless there is some real , big reason. I am not saying it is this one. Just that it was as big.

Ah, that chain of evidence thing.....

I see many people quote McAdams when they don't to believe the truth.

I am not a big the Military - Industrial Complex did it believer, but I do believe Prouty when he says that Lansdale was in the Plaza that afternoon. A recent question asked if the CIA was involved and or did they have control over the Secret Service. So what was Lansdale doing in Dealy Plaza that afternoon?

Glad you guys liked it. Of course what I meant to say about Ford was that he supposedly was not elected to the Presidency because he pardoned Nixon, which had to do with Watergate. But what is not ever reported is that many people, including myself, did not vote for Ford because he was on the Warren Commission. I felt this way , at that time, without 2% of the evidence I have now. And I am sure many people did. As far as the Vietnam War protests. I think Gary Angular wrote that the genisis of these protests was how the students felt the government was lying to them about the assassination. Although the lyrics take the party line, the introduction by the singer does not. And he mentions bullets coming from several different directions and how the truth was being surpressed-in 1967! The evidence is , and always has been there. But the American Sheeple just dont want to hear it.

Let's just focus in on one of the ten. Needs to be put in the "it was obviously a frame job" list.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noswW9LtXGU...ted&search= Who says the protests were ( only ) against the Vietnam War? That Ford was not elected because of Watergate?