Peter McGuire

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

Could you be so kindly to reveal from which documentary this segment is from

Mark

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

... or could he be reacting to a sharp blow to the back that knocked the wind out of him? (i.e. a bullet that fired short and didn't penetrate very far)

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

John,

An assassin not only has to plan the shot, he also has to plan his getaway. As a matter of fact, I think a professional assassin would be pretty confident about making the kill. What is not so sure is his getaway and escape - preferably without detection.

If the shot had been taken while JFK's limo was still on Houston, there would have been no doubt as to its origin. By waiting until the limo was on Elm, with multiple possible shooting origins, the assassins were able to sew doubt and create confusion, thereby giving them enough time to effect their escape.

Steve Thomas

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.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iYj3FAUHwro

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.

Bernice

Unless those of the Parkland Staff and the onlookers at the scene of the shootings, can be ridiculously believed to have been PRE PROGRAMMED TO LIE.....then how can anyone credibly state that this is not the most, by a great margin, the most immediate and credible evidence of the shooting and the inflicted wounds that can possibly be considered. The Parkland medical opinions would be considered both "expert and best evidence" by any court in ANY LAND !

It is as the body illegally and at gunpoint leaves Parkland, that the Conspiracy to Cover the Coup begins.(and has not yet ended)

The case "against conspiracy" lies ONLY in government controlled film and photographs of both the assassination sequence and the Presidential wounds, and the illegally re - written autopsy report, of the the three "VERY CONTROLLED" U.S. Military Officers who were the government appointed Autopsists, and sworn to secrecy along with the remainder of the Bethesda Staff.

And then you are given a film that shows nothing regarding true evidence of the assassination, but are told that it must be accepted as fact because it is the governments ridiculous position that this film "could not be successfully altered"... "SO IT IS ABSOLUTE FACT"!

I should think that most who participate here, have long known that this case has long been solved.

As a matter of fact, I truly believe that MOST of those FEW active participants, had been convinced that they were doing an absolutely patriotic duty, in the interest of National Security.

My interest in this case has not been to send octogenarians to jail, but to REVEAL FOR HISTORY, THE TRUTH. So that this revelation will disallow anything similar to ever re occur !

Charlie Black

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

Johansson

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?"

http://www.ifilm.com/video/2826077?ns=1

Thanks , Myra, nice catch.

John, do you think it is the site administration that has changed the content to its original form or is it someone who has edited my edit?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

The idea that Kennedy was too radical for the military-industrial complex is the thesis behind the two motion pictures about the case: the dull 1973 version. Executive Action, which starred Burt Lancaster, and Oliver Stone's JFK. Stone emphasised Vietnam: Kennedy was shot to stop withdrawal from Vietnam. This is the thesis of the late L. Fletcher Prouty, former US Air Force Colonel, who had a remarkable book. The Secret Team, published in America in 1973. Prouty was a really important insider, not only the US Air Force's liaison officer with the ClA's covert operations in the 1950s, but someone who had also been in charge of presidential security. As former liaison with the CIA, Prouty had watched the growth of the agency covert operations. As a security officer, Prouty looked at the events that day in Dallas and saw the absence of presidential security. As Prouty pointed out, the absence of security is all you need to arrange. Prouty implied, but never quite stated, that the US Secret Service had to be part of the plot. Unfortunately for Prouty his book got buried under the Watergate scandal.

Extract from Who Shot JFK (2002)

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

I have always thought the single gunman-shooting feat was Impossible.

No body (including master marksman) have ever DUPLICATED it.

And the best passes where made using the steel sights. The carcano was found with

The Telescopic sight fitted.

However lets assume that it was possible. The lone assassin must have not had a nerve in his body and ice water running through his veins if the official version is correct.

Shot 1:- missed everybody in the car and the vehicle also (This is the only shot were the shooter did not have a time constraint)

Shot 2: - Wounds both men (a proverbial ‘can of worms’ if ever there was one)

Shot 3: - The Fatal shot from the rear that defies Newton’s 3rd Law of motion (to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction)

Chris Brown.

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.

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?

"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?

A little off topic but I think the American "standard" for Sniper rifles is/was the M1903 which has recently seen service in Afghanistan. If I were a "real" marine sniper I'd pick a real rifle not a "carbine" such as the Marcano. I happen to own a Springfield and it's an accurate weapon.

From a military standpoint the sniper nest in the TSBD was a fiasco. My top 10 reasons:

1) The sight was not zeroed to the weapon (I'm shocked that this detail didn't bring the LHO theory to a crashing halt)

Let's go through them one at a time.

As I mentioned in the Post JFK in Key West, JFK rode through the streets of Key West in an open Lincoln convertible with no more protection than he had in Dallas. Please explain why his protection in Dallas was any different than any of the other places where he rode in open cars past tall buildings. There were several buildings lining the main street in Key West from which an assassin could eaily have shot at the President. And presumably Key West had a number of unhappy Cuban exiles so protection could have been an issue here.

Again, it does not seem to me that the protection protocols were any different in Key West in Nov 62 than they were in Dallas in Nov 63.

Perhaps Anti-Castro Cubans were not involved in shooting at JFK at all, because they weren't interested in him when he visited Key West nor later when he visited Dallas.

<span style='color:red'>Article in today's Express in India.</span>

Jerusalem, July 26: In a startling accusation, Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu has said that Jerusalem was behind the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy, who was exerting pressure on the then Jewish head of the state to shed light on the Dimona nuclear plant.

In defiance of a ban on talking to media and meeting with foreigners, Vanunu is said to have made the accusation in an interview to London-based al-Hayat newspaper.

As per the interview published in newspaper's Arabic supplement al-Wassat on Sunday, Vanunu said according to "near-certain indications", Kennedy was assassinated due to "pressure he exerted on then head of government, David ben-Gurion, to shed light on Dimona's nuclear reactor".

"We do not know which irresponsible Israeli Prime Minister will take office and decide to use nuclear weapons in the struggle against neighbouring Arab countries," he is quoted to have said, adding "what has already been exposed about the weapons Israel is holding can destroy the region and kill millions."

The whistleblower, who was released in April after 18 years of imprisonment on charges of treason for divulging state secrets, also said that the reactor in Dimona, could become a second "Chernobyl", local media reported.

He said an earthquake could cause fissures to the core and that would cause a massive radiation leak threatening millions.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?...34249#compstory

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.

As for that pristine bullet, it was actually found on the floor.

In 1967, a New York Times article reported on an interview with O.P. Wright, chief of security at Parkland Hospital. Mr. Wright recounted that a bullet “had dislodged after a stretcher had been moved and it was lying on the floor.”

“Mr. Wright said that for more than half an hour Secret Service men ‘didn't seem interested in coming in and looking at the bullet in the position it was in’ . . . His efforts to get a Federal agent to take the bullet finally led to a matter-of-fact acceptance without questioning or additional investigation, Mr. Wright said.”

The “official” story alleges that President Kennedy was struck by two bullets, one that “disintegrated” after causing the fatal head wound and the other allegedly passing through his throat and causing Governor Connally’s wounds in the chest and wrist (the magic bullet). The bullet that the “Secret Service” was trying to ignore didn’t officially exist, but maybe this bullet was to become the “magic bullet.”

If this bullet had actually become “dislodged,” Mr. Wright’s unwanted help was interfering with plans for a cover-up. If Mr. Wright was mistaken and it hadn’t become “dislodged,” then it was there to factor into the fabricated story of how Kennedy’s wounds were caused. Either way, it was undoubtedly very important that “Secret Service” agents ignore the security chief’s attempts to call their attention to the bullet on the floor.

Twenty-six days after Kennedy was assassinated, a Washington Post article headlined “Kennedy Autopsy Report: Final Bullet Was Lethal” said, “Both bullets that struck the President were tied by ballistics tests to the rifle found in that building where Lee Harvey Oswald worked,” and one of the bullets was “found deep in his shoulder,” but “the one bullet that struck Governor Connally, however, could not be similarly traced to any rifle because it fragmented.”

In this scenario, the “Secret Service” would have to be ignoring the bullet that struck Kennedy in the head, which has since officially “disintegrated.”

The “magic bullet,” which the new story alleges passed through Kennedy’s throat and wounded Governor Connally, is officially the only bullet in evidence, and it was “officially” found on a stretcher, but the “Secret Service” was the source of that official information.

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

I find it quite shameful the work John Mcadams has done on his website, mis-quoting people, using credible researchers work to prove his theories and then criticising them on another page. It is all quite convenient that anytime a search is made for 'jfk' or 'assassination' the Mcadams site is one of the first to appear, it is sites like these that undo a lot of good work when people who have just heard rumours of a cover-up and want to do their own research into it and are thrown off the scent by a piece of garbage such as that site. I especially think that Mcadams is a hypocrite who laughs off the idea of conspiracy and calls everyone who believes in it 'buffs' while he accuses district attorney jim garrison of using mind control techniques, who is the real crackpot?

shame on you Mr. Mcadams

john

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

The idea that Kennedy was too radical for the military-industrial complex is the thesis behind the two motion pictures about the case: the dull 1973 version. Executive Action, which starred Burt Lancaster, and Oliver Stone's JFK. Stone emphasised Vietnam: Kennedy was shot to stop withdrawal from Vietnam. This is the thesis of the late L. Fletcher Prouty, former US Air Force Colonel, who had a remarkable book. The Secret Team, published in America in 1973. Prouty was a really important insider, not only the US Air Force's liaison officer with the ClA's covert operations in the 1950s, but someone who had also been in charge of presidential security. As former liaison with the CIA, Prouty had watched the growth of the agency covert operations. As a security officer, Prouty looked at the events that day in Dallas and saw the absence of presidential security. As Prouty pointed out, the absence of security is all you need to arrange. Prouty implied, but never quite stated, that the US Secret Service had to be part of the plot. Unfortunately for Prouty his book got buried under the Watergate scandal.

Extract from Who Shot JFK (2002)

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?

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?

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.

A little off topic but I think the American "standard" for Sniper rifles is/was the M1903 which has recently seen service in Afghanistan. If I were a "real" marine sniper I'd pick a real rifle not a "carbine" such as the Marcano. I happen to own a Springfield and it's an accurate weapon.

From a military standpoint the sniper nest in the TSBD was a fiasco. My top 10 reasons:

3) A "real" sniper would never poke his (or her - sorry ladies) weapon out the window. That's like saying "Hi! I'm up here!".

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?

Whoever controlled the Secret Service detail , on that day, was involved. Did the CIA have control of the Secret Service Agents in Dallas that day? If the answer is yes to that question, then the answer is yes, to your question.

Do you have an opinion - tentative or otherwise - about the question you have posed, Peter?

Who, in your view, was in control of the Secret Service detail at the time of the assassination?

The Secret Service detail of that day is locked. They are the smoking gun. We can all see what they did and didn't do.

We can also see Radio and Cuban man. They had no business being there and acted suspiously. They also did not move after the shooting. Everyone around them were scattering in panic.

There seems to be a connection between RM and CM to the CIA, and they also seemed to be working towards the same goal.