Don Jeffries

I don't worry about other nations using nuclear weapons; America lost the right to monitor Iran, North Korea or any other country when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed. To date, we are the only nation to actually use nuclear weapons. Maybe someone ought to be monitoring us.

I think we are on the verge of an unprecedented crisis in America. The people are basically being blackmailed into this monstrous banker bailout. Both "opposing" party leaders are singing the same tune: "If we don't push this through, the Dow will drop 2000 points. You'll lose everything you have!" So, we either give these sinfully wealthy plutocrats money, to save themselves from facing the consequences of bad investments, or our own tiny piece of the pie will disappear forever. Some choice.

Meanwhile, as Huey Long pointed out during the Great Depression back in the 1930s, we are swimming in wealth. There is enough for everyone to enjoy true prosperity. But our leaders, then and now, are so incredibly greedy they demand that the average taxpayer save them from losing a fraction of their fortunes by mortgaging their childrens' future. The overriding issue in this election ought to be; better pay for all workers, so that they can meet the dramatically rising costs of living. I don't hear any Republicans talking about that (no surprise), but only a tiny handful of Democrats mention it, either. Until that issue is addressed, and our immense wealth is redistributed to at least some degree, then everything else is a moot point.

We have a wildly volatile stock market, plumetting real estate values, record high gas prices, skyrocketing food and medical costs, and the only solution our corrupt and incompetent leaders can come up with is to feed the people who least need it a trillion dollars, courtesy of those who can least afford it. But we do have a "choice" in the presidential election next month, despite the fact that both candidates support this disastrous and unconscionable bailout.

Duke,

Thanks for such a detailed, informative post. Having the opportunity to read posts like that is the main reason most of us came here in the first place.

Fair enough, Ron- she doesn't deserve any slack just because she's a woman. Maybe it's just the small amount of chivalry I have left in me that causes me to defend her. Maybe it's because she's cute. Unfortunately, I can be as shallow as any man.

I mentioned the stupid comments of Biden and Gore in the past; why do you think they weren't lampooned like Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin? You know as well as I do that if Quayle had ever stated that FDR addressed the American people on television in 1929, there would have been nonstop jokes on Leno, Letterman, etc. Saturday Night Live would have paid quite a bit of attention to those comments, and he would instantly have been labeled a moron. The "potato" incident at the school spelling bee was nothing compared to Biden's remarks. When you throw in the fact Biden is so insensitive that he asked a wheelchair bound Democratic party official to "get up and let them see you" recently, you have a character that should be the object of ridicule. Instead, his misstatements are ignored. Why? If the idea is not to elect stupid people to office, how is this arrogant moron allowed a free pass?

Most people are addicted to one of the two hack political parties we are allowed to "choose" from. If someone in "their" party is corrupt, or incompetent, or demonstrably stupid, they make excuses for them. If someone in the "opposing" party says or does the same thing, or has the exact same scandal in their background, they are ridiculed and hated. That's the way our vaunted two-party system works. In reality, both parties are filled with corrupt or corruptible people who have enough skeletons in their closets to make them great potential candidates for blackmail, should they happen to get out of line.

I call them all Republicrats. Except for a few, like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, they are all unprincipled parrots whose primary talent is in following orders.

The vitriol directed at Sarah Palin is astonishing. You'd think that many women would at least appreciate her, simply because she's only the second woman ever nominated by one of the major parties for vice-president.

Sarah Palin is hardly an unusually stupid politician. Why is she being singled out? As I pointed out in another post, Joe Biden's remarks about FDR addressing the nation on television in 1929 were far more ignorant than anything Palin has ever said. If the American people are so adverse to allegedly air-headed political candidates, how did George W. Bush get elected (well, at least be given the office) two times? I would be shocked if Palin's IQ isn't higher than that of our beloved "decider." Eisenhower wasn't a brilliant man. Neither was LBJ. Gerald Ford was a dunce. Reagan was clueless, to put it kindly. The elder George Bush was often as illiterate as his son. Al Gore once asked, on live television, who the large bust was supposed to represent, during a tour of Monticello. Like Biden's ignorant remarks, Gore's historical ignorance was not of interest to the same mainstream press corps that has been micro analyzing everything Palin does and says.

We have hardly been blessed with brilliant presidents or vice-presidents over the past few decades. To be honest, I'm amazed that more women aren't offended by the treatment Palin has received. She's basically been smeared as a vacuous "dumb blonde" caricature. Is the fact she's pro-life and likes guns enough to permit her to be stereotyped and mimicked relentlessly by women who would otherwise feel empowered by her success? Recently, obnoxious comedian Sandra Bernhard launched a disgusting attack on Palin during her stand up act. She declared that she hoped Palin would be "gang raped by blacks" during this very unfunny "act." Not only was she not castigated for her hateful comments, she was actually praised by The Washington Post. Just imagine if any comedian urged a violent assault on Barack Obama, for instance. There would certainly be cries of racism, and that comedian's career would be over. Why was there no outcry from anyone other than the far right, over these despicable, sexist comments?

I despise neo-con politics, so Sarah Palin and I are not political allies. That being said, I find her to have an appealing and likable persona. I just don't understand the hatred that she seems to bring out in so many people.

Polls apparently indicate that over 90% of Americans oppose this massive bailout of the bankers. Both major candidates for President support it. Could there be a better example of why so many people in this country don't vote? Talk about taxation without representation....

This bailout is the financial equivalent of the Patriot Act. It will certainly add to Bush's ignominious presidential legacy.

Christopher,

Thanks for mentioning Biden's incredibly dumb comments about FDR addressing the nation on television in 1929. Again the double standard in the mainstream media is so obvious; just imagine if Sarah Palin ever displayed such stupidity. "Saturday Night Live" would probably devote an entire show to it. Nothing she has ever said or done compares to this. With these remarks, Biden makes Dan Quayle look positively brilliant in comparison. It's doubtful that even Dubya would say anything quite that stupid.

Combined with his inexcusable slipup recently, where he demanded a wheelchair-bound Democratic official "get up and let them see you," these recent remarks from Biden display an unprecedented combination of arrogant cluelessness and startling ignorance about very basic historical facts.

I hope that all those who think Democrats are somehow "better" than Republicans take a good look at Biden (and Obama, for that matter). There's a reason why some of us call them all Republicrats. Just watch them "work together" now to "solve" the economical crisis. These clowns put on a dog and pony show every four years; get the people riled up about abortion, gay marriage, prayer in school, etc., while it's blatantly obvious they agree on all significant issues. I wish there was a true alternative party full of "good guys" to come in and rescue us from the disaster of the Bush years, but those guys aren't modern day Democrats.

I agree with Len (imagine that!)- Biden was a horrible VP choice.

The reaction of our fearless leaders to this huge financial crisis is predictable, and bound to not improve things for the vast majority of citizens.

Under our fractional lending system, all banks basically engage in counterfeiting. I try to explain to people, when I'm feeling especially long-winded, about how this system works. They usually give me that "when's the next reality show coming on" look in response. Because banks are only required to have about 10% reserves on hand in order to make a loan, 90% of every loan that comes into existence is created out of thin air. When you then add in all the interest on every loan- which is, of course, 100% imaginary- then it's easy to understand how impossible the whole situation is. Just imagine having the power to lend a friend $1000, when you only have $100 to your name, and then charge him interest on top of that. That's the power that banks have under this insane system.

Larouche is certainly right- this system has to collapse. There's only a fraction of funds in existence to pay back our accumulated debt, if all loans were ever called in. The "solution" our corrupt and incompetent leaders have devised will help the Goldman, Sachs of the world, and ease the concerns of foreign investors, but do little to cause average Americans to feel more confident about their savings and retirement funds.

The reaction of both McCainiac and Obama to our frightening economic situation is hardly comforting. Where's the concern about poor and working class people? Why no questions about where the estimated trillion dollars for this bailout will come from, and the significant impact it's bound to have?

I'd like to hear the Democrats invoke the memory of Huey Long, and demand that the wealthiest people in our society be forced to share with their less fortunate brothers and sisters. I'd like to hear the Republicans, or someone on the religious right, bring up the biblical tradition of the Year of Jubilee. It's been well over 2000 years now, and I think we're just a bit overdue for the next Jubilee. Funny how they think every word in the Bible is to be taken as the literal truth, but this part always seems to slip by them.

Thomas Edison once said that "If the American people understood how our banking system works, there would be a revolution tomorrow." Words of wisdom.

Americans are headed for truly hard times. I fear that we could see something worse than the Great Depression. Neither of the two nearly identical political parties will address the real issues. Terry mentioned free trade; any mainstream presidential candidate has to express slavish devotion to free trade, which is exemplified by the disaster that is NAFTA. What kind of country continually cuts deals and formulates plans that ensure the demise of all its industry? Ross Perot tried to point this out back in the 1990s.

Because of these deals, which allow our markets to be flooded with imports, while other countries are allowed to place significant restrictions on what we can export to them, America now makes virtually nothing substantial. While we may not make many clothes, electronic products or automobiles in our country anymore, we do lead the world in "consultants," "analysts," and "vice presidents in charge of looking out the window." We are increasingly becoming a have and have not society, with the middle class being squeezed out of existence. With bloated plutocrats like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates having enough wealth themselves to make hundreds of thousands of families millionaires, a reemergence of Huey Long's "Share The Wealth" movement, which was wildly popular in the early to mid 1930s, is long overdue.

People's pensions, 401K plans and IRA investments are all in jeopardy now. We need a massive redistribution of wealth, as well as a recognition that workers have to be paid enough to meet the costs of living. As it stands now, the cost of living is rising much more rapidly than the meager raises (when there are any at all) most working people receive annually. Combined with the ticking time bomb of Social Security, and we are in dire straits unless our corrupt and incompetent leaders don't finally act in the public interest.

If only I could get my name on the ballot....

Tom,

What's your dispute with Von Pein? You both agree that Lee Harvey Oswald alone fired all the shots from the TSBD. Where's the debate?

It is astonishing to me that any knowledgable researcher bothers to reply to the incomprehensible posts of Tom Purvis. But then again, here I am responding....

So the Warren Commission distorted the truth about the sequence of shots and "covered up" what? Why don't you just say you're an LNer? As irrational as it is to believe the official fairy tale, it is even more absurd to suggest that the Warren Commission engaged in a "cover up" and that the Zapruder film was altered, but all the shots were fired by Oswald.

An awful lot of important people certainly wasted an awful lot of time in covering up the sequence of shots, which according to you was an act of futility since they got the essential facts of the shooting correct. While some of us have been silly enough to think they were trying to suppress the facts in order to protect powerful conspirators, you alone have been brilliant enough to discover that their true motives were far different. Actually, Oswald was a fantastic shot, and the Mannlicher Carcano was a fine weapon- correct? All evidence to the contrary must be ignored, because Tom Purvis has "researched" the subject and found this to be the case.

To the layman, it certainly seems as if the Warren Commission agreed with Tom's conclusions, but Tom still says they are "covering up." Now, you might think perhaps he believes they're protecting the identities of those conspirators behind the assassination, but all I can decipher from his countless posts is that they were lying about the sequence and timing of shots. Simple question- why? You agree with them that Oswald did it alone. What are they covering up, Tom?

I don't know why I'm bothering to ask these questions, because there's no chance the response will be concise or understandable. But I'll try this one- please state, in a few clear sentences, who you believe was behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

I don't understand why anyone would automatically accept the bus transfer as authentic, given all we know about the state of other "evidence" against Oswald.

The bus transfer is not evidence AGAINST Oswald.

Any first year law student could tell you that.

Must you always be sarcastic? It most certainly was used against Oswald, as evidence for his ridiculous post-assassination movements. Those movements make no sense from any standpoint. The best evidence for where Oswald was in the immediate aftermath of the assassination comes from the nearly identical testimony of Roger Craig, Marvin Robnison, Helen Forrest, Richard Randolph Carr and Roy Cooper, who all, independent of each other, reported seeing someone resembling Oswald running to a Rambler station wagon. That's far more impressive than the laughable accounts of McWatters, Bledsoe, Whaley and Markham.

Craig's claims about seeing Oswald run towards the Rambler were substantiated by at least four other known witnesses. He explained the supposed changes in his testimony over the years by claiming the Warren Commission did not accurately record what he said. He was hardly the only witness to make this claim. Why do you question his credibility?

In my book, Roger Craig was a true American hero.

I think the continual attacks on Sarah Palin by the mainstream media (with the exception of Fox News, which is a de facto arm of the Bush administration) will actually result in more support for her. Most of the polls already reflect this. I'm an independent voter, mistrusting of both major parties, which I believe to be nearly identical to each other. However, the attacks on this one candidate have been unfair, in my estimation, and smack of desperation. In my view, she seems much more of a real person than McCain, Obama or Biden. I don't agree with her politics, or what I know of them, but she's undeniably a well-spoken, attractive candidate. Compared to almost all of the corrupt clowns we've been given during my lifetime, she's a real breath of fresh air. I really don't understand the venom she brings out in people.

Sarah Palin may be a typical vacuous politician, but she hardly differs from McCain, Obama and Biden in this regard. Anyone who criticizes Palin for not knowing what the "Bush Doctrine" is might be interested in checking out Obama's much more serious gaffe, which is widely available all over You Tube, where he referred to the "57 states" in America. If he was a Republican, Obama's unbelievable remark would have been lampooned more than Dan Quayle's "potato" mistake so many years ago. Tonight, I saw Joe Biden humiliate a wheelchair bound Democratic representative by asking him to "stand up and show them who you are." I saw this on the syndicated show "TMZ." I doubt very seriously that Biden will be chastised over this on Saturday Night Live or any news network other than perhaps Fox News.

I will not be voting for McCain, regardless of who his vice presidential candidate is. However, those of us who believe in the spirit of fair play cannot help but object to the way Sarah Palin has been vilified in the establishment press. During the first Clinton administration, I happened to be watching a C-SPAN special on Thomas Jefferson's Monticello home. Then Vice President Al Gore led a group of dignitaries being given a special tour of the mansion, and at one point Gore touched a bust that was obviously that of Jefferson and turned to the cameras to ask, "Now who is this here?" It was an unbelievably stupid statement, at least as dumb as Quayle's, but shockingly enough, no comedians picked up on it. It's that kind of obviously biased coverage that resulted in the popularity of Fox News, which twists the news in favor of the other "opposing" political party. We can only imagine how many skits would be written for Saturday Night Live, or monologue jokes for Leno and Letterman, if Sarah Palin said something like that, or declared there were 57 states, or asked a party representative in a wheelchair to stand up.

My point in all this is not to defend Sarah Palin as some kind of great leader. She clearly got where she is, to a great extent, because of her physical attractiveness. However, I simply don't think she's any different (and actually may be a lot better) than many of the politicians we've been cursed with over the past several decades. If the American people would ever demand "choice" about anything other than abortion, perhaps we'd have a lot more candidates representing truly opposing parties.

Duke,

Great post. I don't understand why anyone would automatically accept the bus transfer as authentic, given all we know about the state of other "evidence" against Oswald.

The entire official account of Oswald's post-assassination movements is ridiculous, imho. Every bit of it ought to be questioned. McWatters, Bledsoe, Whaley and Markham would have been torn apart on the witness stand by any first year law student (Whaley acknowledged this himself in his WC testimony).

The best evidence regarding Oswald's movements just after the shooting is, imho, Roger Craig's Rambler sighting (which was corroborated by three other witnesses, all unrelated to each other). How he got from that point to the Texas Theater is something that a real investigation would have considered a top priority.

Len,

I've heard the 90+% figure on several television news shows, quoting various polls. Of course, since I so often declare that the mainstream media can't be trusted, I suppose it's only fair to say that these figures come from what I believe to be less than reliable sources.

Still, as you mention, other recent Democratic presidential candidates received close to that amount of black support in elections, so it stands to reason that the first black candidate should logically increase that percentage.

Bill,

Furhman's book on the OJ case, as well as his one about the murder of Martha Moxley, were both very good. That makes his slim, lightweight Warren Commission apologia a real disappointment. I remember seeing a "Hard Copy" type of t.v. show about 10 years ago, where Furhman was profiled. He was said to be a long time JFK assassination "buff," and believed that there had definitely been a conspiracy. I guess he's just another in the lone line of mysteriously converted former conspiracy believers.

Good point about the 12:36 time stamp on the bus ticket. That's just another reason to think that the guy on the bus was not the same "Oswald" who'd been working at the TSBD just a few minutes before. About the shirt he was wearing; Oswald's alleged claims to have changed his shirt have to be taken with a huge grain of salt. I've never placed much credence in those unrecorded interrogation sessions. Oswald's supposed comments often make no sense ("You know what boys do, they get their gun," in reference to why he supposedly had a pistol on him when arrested at the Texas Theater), and I think he may actually have been saying something completely different behind closed doors. Something like, "Come on, guys, I told you I'm an undercover agent who was infiltrating a plot to kill the president. I was trying to stop this... Now, where's my lawyer?"

It's hard to take seriously anyone who uses the word "retard" like that on television. This word, as recently as ten years ago, was absolutely considered beyond the pale, at least for anyone over the age of 12. Now, we see the allegedly "coolest" celebrities sprinkling it in their conversation as freely as they use garden-variety profanity.

Leaving this guy's ignorant, childish language aside, what does an entertainment awards show have to do with electing a president? Why do these Hollywood idiots, who are usually incapable of managing their own lives in spite of resources virtually no one else in America has, always have to be so sanctimonious? Why do they assume anyone cares what they think about politics?

I object to the notion that America is or isn't "ready" to elect "a black president." That makes Obama, or any other black candidate, more of a thing than an individual person. That's probably why about 95% of black voters support Obama. They are, in effect, electing his skin color and not his platform. I don't understand this mentality; I'm a Catholic and I can't believe I would ever support a candidate just because of his religion. It wouldn't even be an issue (and, of course, the only Catholic ever elected president was JFK; only one other Catholic was ever even nominated- Al Smith in 1928).

As I've said before, I'm afraid the powers that be will use Obama's "difference" (i.e., his half-black racial background) in order to trumpet what a great advance his election represents.

He will also not have to propose much, if any, real reform, because people will keep seeing how different he looks, and the media will certainly remind us about that, lest we forget for one moment. Thus, I doubt if Obama could accomplish much, even if his intentions are honorable. With all the references to the historic nature of his election, and the idea that Americans had done something profoundly good in electing him, who's going to notice if he continues business as usual in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at home?

As someone who doesn't like more than a handful of Democratic or Republican lawmakers, I really have no stake in this. However, I have to say that I believe McCain made a politically brilliant choice in Sarah Palin. She will help him where he's weakest (pro-lifers, gun enthusiasts, conservatives in general). She also will, I think, provide him with a lot more female voters, thanks to the disaffection of many Hillary supporters from Obama. And no matter how shallow it seems, her looks will certainly not turn people away from voting for her.

Unless her daughter's pregnancy becomes a much bigger scandal (which I think would be unfair, as Obama so eloquently put it), then I think McCain just significantly increased his chances of winning.

I think that McCain made a startlingly astute choice in Palin. I had never even heard of her before, and know little or nothing of her politics. I assume she's acceptable to the powers-that-be, or she wouldn't have been chosen. That being said, I was very impressed with what little I heard her say. I readily admit my impression might easily have been skewered by her good looks. Never underestimate the power of a pretty face. She seemed unusually sincere to me. Maybe she's just a great actor.

I also admire her decision to have a Downs Syndrome baby at age 44. Many pro-lifers talk the talk, but Palin proved rather demonstrably that she also walks the walk. I have a close family member with Downs Syndrome, so perhaps I'm not looking at this impartially. As for her daughter's pregnancy, again she is walking the walk by encouraging her to have the baby. Right or wrong, that's the thing you'd expect a right-to-lifer to do. I suspect that many who are pro-life in public secretly would urge their daughter to have an abortion in such a situation. Most 17 year olds are having sex, so this is no surprise. Getting pregnant as a result is also quite common. I admire Obama's reaction to the news, especially the reminder that his own mother was that age when she gave birth to him. That was the kind of reaction that the average politician wouldn't have, and he scored some points with me because of it.

It would still be almost impossible for me to vote for McCainiac, but I think he made about the best VP choice he could (outside of pleasing those like me by picking Ron Paul). Unlike those gamblers in Ireland, I would venture that she helps the ticket a lot more than hurts it. There are still a lot of Hillary supporters out there who are mad at Obama. I believe a good number of them will now vote for McCain because of Palin. She unquestionably will bring him more female voters. I think it's going to be another very close election.

I didn't watch much of the convention, and saw none of Obama's speech. However, a guy I work with had seen Obama in person a few months back at a local high school, and he was shocked that his acceptance speech was mostly, word for word, the one he delivered at the high school. I thought those speeches were supposed to be special....

As for Afghanistan, Obama has talked tough on that situation before, even when he was a more overt anti-Iraq war candidate. Combined with Bill Clinton's "tough" references to Bin Laden and terrorists in general in his convention speech, I think we can safely predict that Obama/Biden will not take the Republicans to task for their foreign policy blunders. Unfortunately, they will probably continue the status quo in this perpetual "war" on terror, as our fearless leaders attempt to foist our concept of "freedom" on people who quite rightfully resent our interference in their countries.

I agree that, no matter what, it would be very hard for Obama not to be better than Bush.

In America, the people seem to be just as enamored with Police State-style surveillance. Now that we are "at war " (apparently perpetually) with a foe that is both everywhere and nowhere at once, the people seem to be willing to give up what's left of their rights to maintain "order."

It almost looks as if Obama is purposefully throwing the election. Joe Biden? What a horrible choice for VP! I only could stand a bit of it, but Biden's speech at the convention tonight could have been written by McCainiac. He was basically trying to incite the crowd against Russia. Is that the Democrats' answer to the disaster in Iraq; proposing war with Russia?

I can't understand why Americans are willing to settle for these kinds of puerile, cookie-cutter candidates. After eight years of unmitigated disaster under Bush, the Democrats should have been able to nominate just about anyone who could win the next election. But then, a real opposition party would be constantly stressing the monstrous failures of the Bush administration; the pointless, immoral occupation of Iraq, the worst economy in 75 years, the absolute refusal to address critical issues like alternative energy, Social Security, etc. Instead, we hear the same tired old rhetoric as always- "change we can believe in." Well, we certainly need a whole lot of change here, but something tells me this guy isn't going to propose much that will make things better.

So that's our choice; a certified lunatic in McCain, who is possibly the only politician in America that might actually be worse than Bush, or an empty suit who seems far too willing to compromise and would probably be pushed constantly to show how "tough" he is (in other words, continue the same kind of evil, global policeman-type of foreign intervention everywhere).

Maybe someday the American people will actually demand some other choices. As usual, we have some better alternatives in smaller parties (Libertarian, Green, and a few others), but the media ignores these candidates even when they are relatively well-known. This year, the Libertarians nominated Bob Barr, who served several terms in Congress as a Republican and is not, to my knowledge, much of a real Libertarian. Ralph Nader is running again, but is keeping an extremely low profile, and will not be allowed in any debates regardless. Only Republicrats are permitted to "debate" the issues. Okay, end of rant.

I want to say, first of all, that I think John Simkin runs a great forum here. It's a wonderful resource and I value it very much. It's also certainly his right to run this forum the way he wants, and to ask that we all abide by the rules he sets. I agree with Bernice and Dixie about Jack being understandably confused about the email we all received. While I wasn't offended by the email, I also don't consider myself part of any "rebel" group here, and possibly Jack might have felt that he is looked upon as a "rebel," and figured the email was only meant for those who might fall into that category.

Gary made an excellent point about members being excessively concerned about the rules. My view is that the moderators should handle this, and the rest of us shouldn't be getting worked up over someone's signature or avator. One rule I feel is violated frequently is the one against personal attacks. Although the definition of "attack" is open to interpretation, I think a lot of posts are too mean-spirited in tone. But, I realize this is not my call, and everyone has the right to express themselves. If something is over the line, I trust the moderators to handle it. That being said, my own opinion is that Jack White takes a lot more abuse here, from several members, than he hands out. In fact, while it is a valid criticism to point out that Jack often is overly sensitive and perhaps almost as paranoid as me, he never resorts to the sort of nastiness that is directed at him. Again, jmho, and I readily admit that I'm a great admirer of Jack's and agree with him most of the time, so I'm hardly unbiased.

Mark, I don't believe we are familiar with each other, but I think if you go back and re-read what you wrote to Dixie, maybe you will realize how she was bound to be offended by it. And ridiculing her for her number of posts- what does that have to do with anything she has to say? Are you suggesting that forums be ruled by those with the most number of posts? I remember Dixie from Rich's old JFK Research Forum, as well as Lancer. She's a very polite lady who treats other posters with respect. Again, just my two cents worth.

Now, having said that, I think we all need to develop thicker skins. Forums are about debate and disagreement; if you think another poster is ridiculous, or a disinfo agent, or mentally unbalanced, simply ignore their posts.

Mike,

I think you're swallowed the line that was first started by Gerald Posner, about the shots taking longer than 5-6 seconds. This is simply not possible, for a number of reasons. The original critics came up with the 5.6 second figure by slowing down the Zapruder film, calculating the number of frames per second and watching the reactions inside the limousine. While there is still debate about exactly when the first and second shots were fired, we are only taking about a second or less difference, and since we know that the shooting stopped at frame 313 (despite what a Tom Purvis might claim), we are left with a time frame that is very close to that 5.6 second figure.

I have heard others claim that they could get off 3 shots with "some accuracy" as well. On a particularly bad "Hard Copy" t.v. show back in the early 1990s, Lee's brother Robert Oswald was trotted out to make this exact claim (this was just one of the many attempts network television made at that time to counter the influence of Oliver Stone's "JFK"). What is clear is that neither you, nor Robert Oswald, nor the foremost experts the government could find (and yes, every shooter ever used in these recreations, by the government or CBS, possessed a level of proficiency with a rifle that Lee Harvey Oswald never came close to) ever have done what this "rather poor shot" is alleged to have done. If the shots are so easy, and the Mannlicher Carcano was not the old, unreliable and half-broken weapon the original critics said it was, then it ought to be simple to trot out some sharpshooters to accomplish exactly what Oswald allegedly did.

As for this Donohue guy you mention, I'm not sure what you're talking about. CBS performed tests designed to "recreate" the assassination during their 1975 special documentary. The conditions were not exact (shorter distance, as much time as needed for the first shot, and the shooters were all top experts), but still no one duplicated Oswald's fantastic performance. In fact, Walter Cronkite came up with one of the most memorable lines of all time in an effort to "explain" this failure. Cronkite acknowledged that none of CBS's shooters had done what Oswald purportedly did, but then closed with a bit of irrefutable logic; "This was not a normal circumstance- Oswald was shooting at a president" (may not be exact quote, but that was essentially what he said).

I agree with Bill- why does Gary Mack's opinion matter so much? So many of us on these forums continue to cite this guy as the ultimate expert on everything related to the assassination. While I certaijnly don't question his knowledge, I most certainly do question his almost complete support of the official story.

The different people who thought they saw a T&T hole in the windshield pointed to different locations. Ellis saw a hole low on one side, Nick saw a hole low on another, Dudman saw a hole high up. Any attempt to make them all appear to be addressing the same spot is simplistic. There are obviously other factors involved.

In addition, there was a defect in the windshield, that has been captured in CE350, and is also visible in Altgens 1-7, as well as in CE 351, the windshield removed from the limo on Monday following the assassination.

The real question that we need to be asking is why there was so little damage to the limo? How could someone who was never seen shooting the M/C able to kill one person and nearly kill another without damaging the vehicle?

Pamela,

The short answer is that there were no misses inside the limo. These shots were not difficult at all.

Mike

Mike,

I hear this mantra all the time now about the shots not being difficult. If they were so easy, why has no one ever been able to duplicate them? The government tried, CBS tried, and each time they used better shooters, as well as making the conditions easier for them. Still, they could never match the feat of this "rather poor shot," as Oswald was grudgingly described by a Marine Corps spokesman to the Warren Commission. So, apparently they weren't that easy.