Peter McGuire

Thanks Dave: Interesting report from Morely Safer in the early days of the Vietnam War ( 1965 ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ObiGtw7m3s

I own them all , Len - and they are great. Darling Pretty, What it is, to name a few off the top of my head. There are two or three good songs from each of his solo albums since he disbanded Dire Straits once and for all in 1995. My question is; why would they not measure up? It is still Mark Knopfler. Dire Straits was Mark Knopfler so what is the difference that he is now " solo?"

This is serious business. And the cause needs level headed energetic people like you Greg. They took my president - I was alive at the time, by public execution. Do you all know public execution methods of other times? Ling chi ( death of a thousand cuts ) European methods - crucifixion - you think of the 'sanitized' version, where the crucified is clothed. Well let me tell you they were not, and their urine and feces spurt out and dropped onto the crowd as this humiliating death went on. Kennedy was publically executed next to his wife in front of a live crowd ,and eventually his death was shown on video to this day. He is killed and the Secret Service just sits or stands there and watches! SHAME ON YOU SECRET SERVICE for publically executing my president.

Yes I am ( obsessed with Mark Knopfler ) He recorded Dire Straits ( thats the name of the first album ) in 1977, in 1995 he went solo, although he was Dire Straits all along. Marks finger picking style is pretty hard to replicate. Look at him play - he does not use a pick and most cannot play like him. He plays guitar so much better than most of his guitar playing friends - Clapton et al, that although you can see Knopfler play with them, there should be more. Clapton , played with Knopfler back in the day, but looked like a fool, in my opinion , just strumming away the flunky rhythm part that Knopfler had fired numerous guitarists, including his own brother. Yes, Knopfler has played guitar with Chet Atkins, Clapton, Dylan, and others and played the hard parts, including on Layla. In this day and age I don't need to tell you specifics - just Google Knopfler / Clapton Layla to start. Best

The public at large is comfortable that there is a conspiracy ( note tense ) so diverting them from Stone's ( and others ) theory of the Military Industrial Complex killing Kennedy is a great plan of action. After all, Kennedy was an effective president who made the right decision to blockade, not invade Cuba, which is the reason while we are all alive today to write on this forum. As you know, nuclear tipped warheads were at the ready had Kennedy invaded Cuba.

My stress levels are fine thanks, Douglas. And I'll be gone for a while soon enough. In the meantime, I am still very interested in seeing how a man of your profession, knowledge and vast experience comes to believe the Mimi Alfords of this world. What evidence convinces you? Why would it be wrong for me to label it just a willful suspension of disbelief? Great post Pat and I hope you are right about JFK's stature as a celebrity growing. I also know what you mean about Mrs. Kennedy's voice. But while true, it is used in Alfords book to put her down. With that being said, I am on the same page as Greg regarding keeping the pressure on those that promote desensitizing the public regarding Kennedy's death by assassinating his character. Anyway, who said it is not working? What evidence do you have of that? In my opinion, if they keep writing these books, it is working. In business, you keep promoting a product only when there are sales. Caddy also talks a clever game with no evidence and while I believe Alford had a consensual sexual relationship that got her on Air Force One and allowed her to live the high life for nearly two years, I have only her word that Kennedy never kissed her, or in The Dark Side nonsense, pimped her off to others. All these things are important parts of the plot. Killing the President of the United States is serious business. The clean up is messy but must be done. Nothing is left to chance.

The "Confuser" is back - where have you been , Purv? In a sense, however, you are right. I grew up with the notion that the Warren Commission served to "heal the nation," while it was an open secret that there was a whitewash of the facts and clearly a conspiracy. Those folks dropping like flies in New Orleans during the Shaw trial, and then again in 1975 made thinking there was not a conspiracy something that only a fool did.

I will miss you, Mr. White.

I do not have a problem accepting the fact that Kennedy was an effective president, who saved us from nuclear war at least twice while at the same time engaging in numerous affairs. The problem that I have with this book and others like it is that it desensitizes the reader regarding Kennedy's death. Beginning on page 129 - Chapter Eleven, the indoctrination begins. Readers are told once again that a man was spotted in the Texas Book Depository Building and the patsy is unfairly named as the real assassin. Sex sells, and after reading this book, minds are thinking of sex, not possible conspiracy. But now, we feel somewhat relieved because we can grieve less for the victim Kennedy because of what he did to Mimi and others while he was married to Mrs. Kennedy. He can be viewed as a very flawed man and while his character should not reduce our sympathy for his untimely death, it will. Those writing these books know this. The whitewash continues.

Yes Greg - I am getting a sense as I am finishing this book that a man is writing some of Mimi's parts.

I am about half way through the book and enjoying the heck out of it. The better dead than red comment, however, makes me believe that while true on most accounts, this book is part of the posthumous assassination of Kennedy, in the run - up to the 50th anniversary of the assassination.

I will look for you in that chapter then Jim. What I get now is that for political reasons JFK did not say that he was going to pull out of Vietnam. That is simple to understand but the back and forth spookspeak that when on behind Kennedy's back gets complicated because his enemies ( frenimies really because they were working for him ) could then turn his position back around on him. I understood it when I read it a few days ago but am having a hard time explaining it now. Let's just say that Kennedy was in an impossible situation on Vietnam and could not win the battle within.

David, exactly what was the reenactment attempting to prove, that it was POSSIIBLE or that it was fact ? You take MASTER riflemen Positioned at a different distance Have them firing at stationary targets With a weapon other than the alleged murder weapon What the hell do you think you're PROVING ? None of the controls that existed at the time of the crime are being used. IOW, YOU'RE NOT RE-ENACTING ANYTHING !!! ROFL Good point , Gil - moreover, you can not re-enact something that did not occur! Reminds of the joke about the window on the 6th Floor in the Museum that is there now - "it still looks like it did when Kennedy was shot - Oswald is not there!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11Fl9ZVJ7B8 The Secret Service were there in Dealy Plaza that day, and we can see that they did not move an inch when the shots rang out. And that is not funny.

I believe you have the right guy in Allen Dulles. Thank you Michael and David for the help with vocabulary. I do understand the way this movie comes across David, but still maintain that it lays out the assassination that not only made sense at the time, but has stood the test of time. That it is more accurate that the Warren Commission, is not saying much, I know, and there is some artistic license since it is a movie, not a documentary, but I hope you know that its writers knew the exact street names in New Orleans but chose to change them. I have owned several of these tapes before and either gave them away or sold them on EBay - I believe it is now available on DVD as well. It has probably been 5 years since i viewed this film and it should be interesting to see it from this new perspective

When Kennedy says " This treaty is not the millenium, what does he mean?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUWmItgPs-4&feature=g-vrec

Executive Action has more truth in it, as hokey as it may seem at times, than the Governments version by far.

I think , simply put , if their music has some quality to it in the first place, and was not just riffs in the case of guitar playing, that it would last. Mark Knopfler and the band that was all his, Dire Straits, is a good example. There are numerous bands honoring him, not the least of which is The Straits, which includes Allen Clark, Knoplers keyboard player for most of the duration of the group. Europe got it as far as Mark Knopfler. The US did not. Funny thing. That is the US did not recognize Knopflers talent the extent that Europe, X England ironically, realized this mans talent. That is not to say he was not appreciated in England or the US, it is just that they were bigger markets in his language, that should have faired even better.

Mark Knopfler supports Clapten on Layla:

Oh, you mean the several gunmen who equalled or bettered Oswald's performance while firing a Carcano at a moving target in 1967? Still think Oswald's "feat" was impossible? (Let me guess -- Those tests don't count because they were conducted by CBS.) It does not matter who fired the shots, the Secret Service still enabled them.

This is, as you say Jim, basic stuff - that the plan had this feature built into it; that a cover - up was assured because of Oswald ties to Russia and Cuba. Of course that information had to be witheld from the public when the Lone Nut cover was used. Nevertheless, we must know why Warren did what he did, and the multiple layers this conspiracy had, not just the two contradicting plans noted here to really understand the complexity of this conspiracy.

I read JFK and Vietnam in 1993 or so, long before I understood what really happend in Dealy Plaza. Looking forward to your new book Jim. I also see you in a couple places in The Unspeakable. Best Peter

Don, Why not just accept the obvious fact that Oswald killed Kennedy? The looming question that I'd like to have answered is this one -- Why do so many conspiracy theorists fight the "Oswald Did It" evidence so vigorously? The only possible way to make Oswald an "innocent patsy" is to either totally ignore the evidence against him (for two murders, not just one)...or for the CTers to fall back on the lame claim of "All the evidence is fake". Because the only way that Oswald can be innocent of killing both JFK & Tippit is for all of the evidence to be manufactured. And just exactly how likely is that (even in a CTer dream world)? If Oswald had anything to do with the assassination, whether as a patsy, sniper, or killing Tippit, then because of his operational background as an intelligence operative, in USSR, New Orleans, Mexico City and Dallas, then whatever you believe happened at Dealey Plaza was a covert intelligence operation and not the result of The Lone DeRanger. BK JFKcountercoup Good point Bill. The looming question that I'd like to have answered is this one -- Why do so many lone nut theorists focus soley on the "Oswald Did It" evidence so vigorously? While ignoring everything else. Try looking at the evidence, the mountain of evidence uncovered by private researchers and see where it leads.

Have not seen this in a while - great work. I must say now that I do not care if it was Rybka or another Agent called off at Love - makes no difference. I also do not care if "Mac" Malcolm Kilduff says he did not say, or point to his temple when explaining the president's fatal wound. The first explanation is usually the correct one and those covering up this Coup D' Etat are experts at trying to explain away the truth.

Have you read Mark Lane's recent "Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK"? Of course, Mr. Lane has only been researching the Kennedy assassination since 1964. Your comment says you've majorly surpassed him. Mark Lane, like Vince Salandria and others, often blame the CIA for anything that was a covert action, when in fact, the military has been doing covert - need to know - plausible deniable operations years, centuries before the CIA came along. I have not yet read Lane's Last Word, but of course it won't be the last word we hear from Lane. Are you familiar with Lane's role at Jonestown? Or know of his defense of Posner's plagerism? I don't know what how long one has been investigating the case has to do with anything. I have been researching the assassination since 1969, when I was a teenager and didn't know anything. You may be right, depending on what majorly means. BK JFKcountercoup Bill, John Simkin has spoke to the word "CIA" in the past as a term that includes all intelligence organizations in the US. This is what I have adopted and I am sorry if I have not made that clear in my posts. I want you to know that I have been following your work for a long time and have appreciated it. I too, believe that when used literally, the "CIA" is a patsy of sorts, part of the layering that was formed early in the plot. I guess where we move away from each other is in the matter of Mr. Lane. I am surprised that you of all people try to discredit him because of other things that he has done. The man has been in the field interviewing actual witnesses since day one, and gave up his law practice to do so. After a while he probably felt the need to earn some money and took on paying jobs in addition to gathering evidence in the JFK case. I have questions too - one is why Mr. Lane is not mentioned in a CNN report on Jonestown when we know he was there. But that does not change what witnesses he interviewed said, or any other basic research on his part that has helped us understand the JFK case. I could have said that after reading countless books on the subject, reading Last Word would not be necessary, and I do not for a minute put myself at your level in this case , Mr. Kelly, but Last Word reads with a certain clarity not found anywhere, including even The Unspeakable. ( which is also an excellent summary of the case ) I also apologize for not knowing the posters here anymore, and you may have reasons that I do not know of, for writing what you do.