Don Jeffries

David,

I think you are probably referring to "Conspiracy Of Silence," which was scheduled to air on the Discovery Channel back in the mid-1990ss, but was pulled at the last minute due to political pressure. I've seen it, and it is very powerful stuff. For those who are interested, type the title in on Google, and you should find someplace where it can be viewed online.

Gary/Dave,

You both make some great points. I think we are in agreement that the public and media treatment of the McCann's (other than in the tabloids) has been very sympathetic. In the U.S., we saw the same thing in the Jon Benet Ramsey case, where suspicion naturally fell upon the only logical suspects- the parents, but all the talking heads on t.v. were reluctant to point the finger at them. Even in the Natalee Holloway case, where an attractive young high school senior from an upper class suburb in Alabama, vanished without a trace during a graduation trip to Aruba, the chaperones on the trip, who certainly should have been questioned about exactly what it was they were chaperoning, were given a free pass by the media. Also, her fellow students were allowed to leave Aruba, even her best friends, and despite hardly acting grieved during their numerous t.v. interviews, and issuing conflicting statements, have not had their own motives questioned by anyone in the mainstream media. Instead, all attention has been focused on three local Aruban young men (two of them nonwhite), who were supposedly the last ones with her that night. I think the fact that all the Alabama students and chaperones were white and from a wealthy part of the country certainly effected the way the story was covered. I believe that if a group of poor inner city youths attended a graduation somewhere, and the chaperones allowed one of them to disappear without knowing a thing about it, then they would be questioned just a bit more strongly than their upper class counterparts. Certainly, any fellow students and friends in that situation, who issued conflicting statements would have their motives questioned.

Anyhow, good discussion.

Hope this doesn't sound like another sales pitch and I apologize if it's an intrusion. I just wanted to let those of you who might be interested in purchasing my novel "The Unreals" know that my publisher is now giving a portion of the profits to a worthy cause.

Starting this September 1st, my publisher, StoneGarden.net Publishing, will donate $1 to inner city baseball leagues in the Oakland, CA community for every book sold. This is an indefinite program, running as long as there are inner city baseball leagues in the area.

Specifically, StoneGarden.net Publishing will be working with MLB's RBI (Return Baseball to the Inner cities) program. Listed is the contact they'll be using.

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA

Mr. Norman Knowles

Boys & Girls Clubs of Oakland

P.O. Box 23203kn

Oakland, CA 94623-0203

510-654-0307 FAX: 510-839-2078

MLB RBI

Here is the link to my book's Amazon page: Amazon- "The Unreals"

Here is the Barnes and Noble page:

Barnes And Noble- "The Unreals"

Help give city kids something FABULOUS to do so they might choose NOT to join a gang !!!!

Charles,

I echo your sentiments. It becomes tedious to scroll down to the end of a previously read message (especially when that message is long, as it often is), in order to find a new reply. If you aren't really rebutting a specific point in a previous post, but are posting a general comment on the subject matter of a thread (as I often do), you can simply click on the reply button at the bottom of the page, instead of someone's previous post, and you won't even have to delete anything- you'll have a nice empty box to type into.

Michael Chapman,

What kind of asinine, inflammatory and inappropriate response is that? Why don't you be a bit more specific about why I am an "utter clot?" As an American, I'm not familiar with that term, but it doesn't sound complimentary. Are you naive enough to believe that rich and poor alike receive the same standard of justice? Finally, why is my name "notorious?"

I hope a mod looks at your post- it's totally out of line.

As Ron mentioned, this is very similar to the Jon Benet Ramsey case. I think what we have here is pretty simple; wealthy parents (the mother being very attractive doesn't hurt), who were obviously extremely negligent at the least, and most likely responsible for their daughter's death in some way. If this were a poor, uneducated couple, or a working-class couple, you can bet that they wouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt, or any sympathy at all by the police, the press and the public at large. In all likelihood, they'd have their other children taken away instantly by Social Services, who would immediately suspect them. They certainly wouldn't be given softball appearances on television and goodness knows there is no chance they'd be able to meet the Pope.

In the Ramsey case, there was absolutely no evidence of an intruder, and the absurd "ransom note" was unlike any in the history of kidnapping; what kidnapper leaves both a note and the body of the victim in the parents' home? Still, this totally unconvincing couple was given very positive press coverage (except in the tabloids and on the internet), despite a story that was simply impossible.

While I haven't followed the McCann case closely, I think the idea that any responsible parent would leave three children that young unattended, while they ate dinner with other couples, is simply not believable. Any poor or working-class parents who came up that kind of ridiculous excuse would be instantly arrested, and they would be laughed out of any courtroom. Just as in the Jon Benet Ramsey case, I can't imagine they intentionally plotted to murder their child, but it's pretty clear, to me at least, that they must bear the responsibility for her being missing. Once again, it is crystal clear just how uneven our systems of justice are. One system for the poor and average folks; another one entirely for those who have the financial means to hire a good attorney and seemingly are always accorded what most defendents never are- thoughtful juries, lenient judges and a true presumption of innocence.

What is really ironic is how willing Craig and his fellow representatives in Congress were to continue creating what is increasingly turning into a real police state in America, and how that turned out to sting him quite literally. How pathetic is it when a government employee is assigned to sit on a toilet in a restroom stall, fishing for gays all around him? How pitiful is it when a man of Craig's age and stature in life feels compelled to seek out strange sex partners in an atmosphere that most of us would consider extremely unenticing? Yes, Craig is a hypocrite, but what he (or any other person) does in public restrooms, is really none of my concern. I do, however, object to having police officers stationed there, looking out for feet tapping or other alleged indications of guilt.

Americans absolutely adore police officers, and are willing to grant them unlimited powers. In the quest to capture potential pedophiles, drunk drivers and other enemies of the state, we are willing to put up with totally unconstitutional highway checkpoints and give shows like "To Catch A Predator" top ratings. Let me state quite clearly that I am not a supporter of pedophiles or drunk drivers (or hypocritical closet gay politicians). However, much as I have never understood the legality of undercover police officers enticing men into what they think are assignations with prostitutes, only to arrest them for solicitiation, or of "narcs" posing as friends to some drug user and then arresting him/her after they've talked him into selling them drugs, I feel uncomfortable with undercover police officers posing as little girls and boys on the internet, in an attempt to set up imagined trysts with middle-aged men, or with undercover police officers sitting in public restrooms, looking for the supposed signals of the gay-sex-in-restrooms-world. But, as our heroic president has said, "we are at war." Anything is fair, I suppose, in our quest to defeat the terrorists.

Seriously, this is a sad case all around. Larry Craig has been publicly humiliated and will regret his toe-tapping in that bathroom stall for the rest of his life. I feel a great deal of sympathy for his wife and children. Craig is a typical Republicrat; the state of Idaho will elect another, who will differ little from him. What we really need are some of the aging hippies to start ranting about the "pigs" again. Our police have WAY too much power.

They should put Schiller's photo alongside the dictionary definition of "sensationalist." From his despicable work on the "Scavengers" book, to Gary Gilmore, Jon Benet Ramsey and O.J., this parasite has managed to inject himself into most of the sensational murder cases in modern history. Imho, he's the print version of Geraldo. As was mentioned in an earlier post, it's a good rule of thumb to consider what Schiller's view is on any given issue, and then take the opposite position.

Myra,

Not long after Freddie Prinze's death, a made-for-t.v. movie about his last days was aired on one of the major networks. I watched it naively, thinking it would have to mention the subject that, according to Mark Lane, completely consumed him at that time. Shockingly enough, no mention of the JFK assassination at all in the movie. Prinze's widow was a consultant to this broadcast, and she had to have known that her husband was thoroughly obsessed with this subject, to the exclusion of all others, in the last year of his life. The fact that she allowed such a piece of sensationalist trash to be aired, with its constant emphasis on his drug abuse, and how that led inevitably to his "suicide," while ignoring the subject that was so important to him, contributed greatly to my growing cynicism about the world.

For those who are interested, Lane told us (myself and another teenage volunteer) that Freddie Prinze had been calling him regularly, and wanted to try and "do something" to get the JFK case reopened. Apparently, his best friend at the time, Tony Orlando, was becoming interested in the subject as well. Prinze had an idea about trying to organize a national telethon to raise funds for a new investigation (this was just prior to Congress establishing the HSCA). He told Lane he was becoming frustrated by the lack of celebrity friends who were interested in the issue. Apparently, only Richard Pryor and Joan Baez had agreed to appear on any such future telethon. It's chilling to consider that, within a few years of this conversation, Prinze would be dead, Orlando would suffer a nervous breakdown and Pryor would nearly freebase himself to death, his life and career never really quite recovering from that. Three out of the token four celebrities who were willing to appear on a telethon to push for a new investigation into the assassination of JFK had terrible things happen to them afterwards. Hmm- I guess we're all familiar with that theme.

One thing that I found very curious, however, about Mark Lane, is the fact that he supposedly told Penn Jones that he didn't remember the JFK connection to Prinze. At least that's what Jones told me in a reply to a letter I sent him, in the early '80s, informing him of the possibly suspicious death of Freddie Prinze. That's one of the questions I'd really like to raise with Mark Lane, if he ever becomes a member here.

I was a teenage volunteer with Mark Lane's organization The Citizens Committe Of Inquiry back in the mid-1970s. We lobbied Congress, called t.v. and radio stations and newspapers, and stuffed envelopes. It was a great thrill to meet him in person one afternoon at his office in Washingtion, D.C. I think I recounted in another post how he related to us his long conversation with comedian Freddie Prinze, who was thoroughly obsessed with the assassination. When Prinze "committed suicide" a few months aftewards, it was yet another unnatural death I connected to the assassination. Actually, I tried to email Mark Lane several months ago, asking him about the Prinze death and also about his conversations with Norman Similas (who I had exchanged some truly memorable emails with a few years ago). He never replied. I thought I had his correct email- does anyone know it?

Anyway, Mark Lane was the first researcher I really looked up to. I have read and own all his books, and they are essential reading.

Great article Bill! Question: Where did the question to LHO [apparently] to the effect of 'are you Oswald 

or Hidell? come from and occur - or did it? His supposed answer was, 'you're the cop - you find out.' I may be inexact in wording...this from memory.

Peter,

Oswald supposedly told the police this after his arrest, when he was confronted with the dual identifications for Oswald and Hidell. I think it was Gerald Hill who originally reported this.

I think we need to look at the big picture here. Most of us agree that some of the most powerful forces in our society were behind the assassination of JFK. Can you honestly imagine that they would choose to exercise what George Bernard Shaw termed "the most extreme form of censorship" on President Kennedy, simply in order to remove the leader of a tiny nation? Keep in mind that not only does this theory make no sense in light of what happened in the immediate aftermath, or over the ensuing years, it also makes no sense in light of what had been transpiring during JFK's term of office. They had been trying to topple Castro, first through the Bay of Pigs, and then with their ludicrous assassination attempts, throughout the Kennedy White House years. Since he obviously couldn't stop them from doing that, and since they were literally at war with each other, why would they feel the necessity of killing the President of the United States in order to achieve a goal they hadn't accomplished despite years of effort? As for imagining that the public would rally around them once the dead assassin was exposed as a Castro sympathizer, why weren't they pushing this theory from the beginning? On the contrary, the lone assassin nonsense was visible as early as a few hours after Oswald had been arrested, when McGeorge Bundy assured the members of the cabinet (who were flying back from Hawaii) that the assassin had been caught and there was no conspiracy. If Bundy was involved in the planning of the assassination, as I suspect he was, wouldn't he have been pushing a "Castro did it" mantra? Also, if you watch the NBC news coverage from November 22, 1963, you will see lots of evidence of the lone nut scenario, even before Oswald was caught. Constant references to "an assassin" or "a sniper," and no mention of all the police and witnesses running towards the grassy knoll. I don't see how the news coverage changed once Oswald was arrested, or after he was murdered. I think the basics of the Warren Report could be seen in the moments right after JFK was pronounced dead that afternoon. Another point- if the plan to topple Castro was scrapped as soon as Oswald was captured alive, then why did the media-who was certainly covering up already by the time Oswald was in custody-keep pushing the defection to Russia and Oswald's connections to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee? What was the need for that, at that point? Were they still planning an invasion, but stopped for some reason? I'm sorry for asking so many questions, but none of this makes any sense to me. It's certainly a lot easier to speculate that Vietnam was the primary reason behind the assassination, since we see an immediate policy shift by LBJ right after the assassination. If JFK was killed by conspirators who wanted us to become more involved in Vietnam, and knew he wanted to pull out, then this is exactly what we would expect to see, isn't it?

I know that there are now many researchers who argue that the conspiracy and the coverup were separate and that different people were involved in each. That certainly has to be true, but how do we explain the continuing nature of the coverup? What forces could compel the top brass at ABC and talking head Peter Jennings to produce the ridiculous special they aired during the 40th anniversary time frame? What, beyond financial reward, motivates someone like Vince Bugliosi to produce his mammoth disinformation piece "Reclaiming History?" What possible reason lies behind Tom Hanks agreeing to become involved in this farce (it certainly can't be for financial reward)? Do we honestly think that the media, and every elected political figure, continues to lie about the assassination of JFK to protect the planned coup of Castro, and the fact it was abandoned because Oswald was captured alive? Common sense tells us that, at this point in time, 40 years after the event, there had to have been extraordinarily important reasons behind the assassination, in order to trigger these continuing lies. I believe that those who covered up the truth, and continue to cover up the truth about the assassination of JFK, did so at the behest of the same powerful forces who killed him, and that the reasons behind both the murder and the coverup did not really involve our policy towards Castro.

This has been a great discussion. I truly respect Cliff and RCD, but strongly disagree with them. I think the tendency to connect Cuba to the assassination is misguided. Imho, JFK was killed because he threatened the status quo, and the powerful forces that run our world. I believe John F. Kennedy was the first true idealist to live in the White House since Thomas Jefferson. There were so many things that could have provided a motive to murder him:

-Intending to withdraw all troops from Vietnam by 1965

-Literally at war with the CIA

-At odds with FBI director Hoover

-Supposedly was going to drop LBJ from the ticket in 1964

-At odds with the leaders of Israel over their blossoming nuclear program

-The first president to curtail the power of the mafia

-Antagonized senior military folks in the Pentagon

-Made two of the most courageous speeches in American history- the American

University "peace" speech and the fantastic one about freedom of the press and

the consequences of secret societies

-Infuriated big business with his attempts to eliminate the oil-depletion allowance

and his riveting public condemnation of the steel industry

-Despised by segregationists for his support of civil rights

-Hated by anti-Castro Cuban exiles for his "failure" at the Bay of Pigs

I placed the anti-Castro motivation at the bottom of the list, along with segregationists, on purpose. Imho, on the list of possible motives, it belongs that far down the list. JFK was a special leader who made a lot of powerful enemies during his short term in office. Yes, I believe that people were ticked off at him for his attempts at rapproachment with Castro, but I think there were several more significant reasons for those powerful enemies to hate him and want him assassinated. I think that Oliver Stone's depiction of the conspiracy was probably pretty accurate, with a variety of powerful forces coming togther, like "something in the air," to achieve their objective.

There are legitimate questions surrounding the death of JFK, Jr. Tom Flocco may or may not be a credible source, but since only internet researchers bother to question the official stories of significant political events like this, we don't have anywhere else to turn. The New York Times, "60 Minutes" or "The O'Reilly Factor" certainly aren't going to tackle issues like this. I have done some research on this subject, and I believe there is reason to question whether JFK, Jr.'s death was accidental. There was a well-reported phone communication between JFK, Jr. and the FAA, at 9:39 p.m., just about the time that his plane was supposedly going into a death spiral. Later, the FAA would claim this communication never happened, even though UPI, ABC News and local news stations reported it as fact throughout their news coverage. I have tape of some local television coverage of the event, and an official Coast Guard spokesman, Todd Bergun, was actually interviewed on air about this communication from JFK, Jr. It happened. So, we know that officials lied about this communication. Why would they lie about this, unless they were covering up something?

I haven't seen any posts from David Talbot recently. Is he still coming to the forum?

I know I've broached this subject before, but here goes again. If the primary motive behind the JFK assassination was to invade Cuba, and those powerful forces who engineered it felt strongly enough about this issue to construct a coverup so enormous it is still in full force today, then why did Cuba as a political issue die with JFK in Dallas? Even accepting the premise that Oswald's capture changed everything (which I don't), why wouldn't these powerful conspirators have addressed this overriding concern of theirs (the invasion of Cuba, ouster of Castro) at some future point in time? LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, Helms, etc., all remained active for a number of years after the assassination. Certainly the CIA remained active in clandestine affairs. Why was nothing more done about this whole "Cuban" thing? Do you honestly believe that these men risked the assassination of a sitting U.S. president, and engaged in an all-emcompassing coverup that lasted decades, all for....nothing? If the motive was the overthrow of Castro, they achieved nothing by killing JFK.

I'll say it again- I think the whole "Cuban" connection to the assassination is a red herring (much like the "Mafia-did-it" theories). The people who had JFK killed did so for far more important reasons than ousting a tinpot dictator in another country. If you want to see what changes were brought about by JFK's assassination, you don't have look very far. If you look at Vietnam as a primary motive behind the assassination of JFK, it's a matter of record that his death dramatically altered what JFK had planned (the gradual withdrawal of all troops by 1965). But then again, all I can do is speculate, like everyone else. Imho, we ought to be looking at the individuals whose actions that day reveal a strong probability that they were culpable, to at least some degree, in the conspiracy to assassinate JFK. I'm thinking of Secret Service agents Emory Roberts, Roy Kellerman and Bill Greer (at least) and National Security advisor McGeorge Bundy. That's my two cents.

Len,

The 9:39 p.m. time of the crash was repeated ad naseum by the media, and emanated from the most official sources like the FAA, the NTSB and the Coast Guard. The reporter from the Hyannisport Gazette definitely existed; WCVB-TV reporter Steve Sbraccia told me in an email that he talked to the guy, but didn't get his name (Sbraccia was not on duty, his wife was sick, and he only arrived on the scene inadvertently, without all his normal reporter trappings). That reporter has still never been identified. Also, lawyer Victor Pribanic heard a "loud bang" in the area where the crash took place, around the relevant time. He contacted local and state police, who passed his information on to the FAA and the NTSB. He was never contacted again.

Even if we assume that the communication from JFK, Jr. happened a few minutes before the alleged death spiral into the water, that would be extremely odd and difficult to explain. Regardless, the 9:39 p.m. call is crucial for me; if it's insignificant, why cover it up? But then again, I don't see how it could be insignificant, since it is pretty hard to accept that a pilot would state that everything was fine one minute, and suddenly plummet out of the sky the next. Someone needs to do real research on this case.

I've looked into the JFK, Jr. death a bit myself. There a few main reasons why "conspiracy theorists" find his death suspcious. First, UPI, ABC-TV and local television stations reported that there was a final radio communication from JFK, Jr. at 9:39 p.m., in which he declared all was fine and he was preparing to land. Another researcher sent me a videotape of unedited t.v. coverage of the search for JFK, Jr.'s plane, from local station WCVB. The 9:39 p.m. communication is mentioned several times, and a Coast Guard representative, Todd Burgun, is even interviewed on air, specifically about this communication. So, clearly, it happened. Burgun did not answer questions in an interview about an imaginary communicaton. But, after the plane was found, this communication officially went down the memory hole, and no further mention was made of it. When researchers later obtained videotape of local news coverage of the search, they found that all mention of the 9:39 communication had been edited out. There is no innocent explanation for that, imho. The importance of this communication can not be overstated; the official story is that JFK, Jr.'s plane went into a death spiral at exactly 9:39 p.m. Obviously, that could not be the case if he was talking on the radio, reporting all was well, at that exact moment. There is also the question of the reporter from the local Hyannisport Gazette paper, who reported seeing an explosion in the air, in that exact area, at that exact time. The reporter was never identified, and researchers who attempted to track him down later were rebuffed by the paper. They were first told that the reporter had been mistaken, and then that the reporter no longer worked for the paper, having "gone back to college."

I contacted WCVB-TV reporter Steve Sbraccia in July of 2006, and in an email response, he stated that the Hyannisport Gazette reporter was definitely real, and also declared, without any prompting from me, that something about JFK, Jr.'s death didn't seem "right" to him. I have since attempted to followup with him, but he has not answered any of those emails.

As for Tom Flocco, he represents what we get on the web, as far as "conspiracy" stories go. Because mainstream reporters won't investigate these issues, it's left for the Tom Floccos and Alex Jones's of the world to do that. Regardless of their level of credibility, they're all we have on these kinds of stories.

Terry,

I'm so sorry to hear about your situation. It's disgusting that in a country as rich as ours, anyone has to worry about the cost of being sick. I've worked for a giant health care institution for over 30 years, and I could tell you some unbelievable first-hand horror stories. Michael Moore should read some of your passionate, well-reasoned posts on this forum and others- he couldn't find a more capable fighter for the cause. I wish you all the best- my thoughts and prayers are with you.

What is the point of looking back at Bobby Kennedy, and searching for the truth of what he stood for and how he behaved? There is, of course, the obvious value in discovering the truth of history no matter where it leads. But in my mind is also the danger that just as there is a tendency to look at the Kennedys with rose-colored glasses firmly in place, and to look backward with nostalgia to what never was, so today there may be the impulse to look to the Democratic Party for a meaningful alternative to Bush and Cheney. In accepting the facts about the Kennedys, we sharpen our analytic approach to similar false alternatives in the present.

What, then, is the point of looking back at anything? What was the point of your book? Of course, truth should always matter, especially to those of us who write books about historical events. I agree with you about looking to the Democrats for any real alternative to Bush (unless Kucinich is able to garner some real media attention). But then again, I think the real issue there is the bogus nature of our antiquated two-party system. We're long overdue for some truly alternative political parties, so that voters actually have some real choices.

Maybe we could get Michael Moore to take on Vincent Bugliosi.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/121.html

John,

I saw Michael Moore on an episode of Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect" some years ago. Gerald Posner was another panelist, and while the obnoxious (and anything but politically incorrect) Maher couldn't agree eagerly enough with Posner's Oswald-did-it mantra, Moore just smiled and said nothing. So, I have to assume he either accepts the official fairy tale, or just knows nothing about it and doesn't care enough to learn. Either way, he would obviously not put up much of an argument on this subject.

Joan,

Many people, including lots of well-informed researchers and students of the assassination, believe that the CIA murdered John F. Kennedy and then killed his brother Bobby five years later. Sources emanating directly or indirectly from the CIA who maintain that brother Bobby was indirectly to blame for JFK's assassination are thus, in many eyes, highly dubious. I read "A Farewell To Justice" and respect your views; however, on the matter of RFK, and his alleged culpability in the plots against Castro (and by extension, to those plots "backfiring" into the assassination of JFK), I have to strongly disagree with you. I admit to having a bias here- the Kennedys have always been heroes of mine, and I would find it difficult to believe any of them capable of the kind of chicanery and corruption that so many of our politicians have been guilty of. However, if clear and incontrovertible proof were produced (and I don't mean an old CIA memo or some snippets of conversation between the likes of Kissinger and Ford), then I'm not so smitten with them that I would deny the obvious truth. I just don't accept that Bobby Kennedy was fighting a crusade against the Mafia, and was in lockstep with his brother's plans for rapprochement with Castro, yet at the same time was directing a Mafia team of assassins to kill Castro. What possible sense does that make? But then again, what possible sense does the Lamar Waldron-school of thought make, wherein the JFK assassination was originally intended to spark a coup against Castro? Let's see, Castro and Cuba died as an American political issue with JFK in Dallas. Never again would the CIA or the Mafia try to overthrow him, even though under these theories the main impediment towards his removal (JFK) had been removed himself. What, then, stopped LBJ or even Nixon from acting against Castro? I think the whole "Cuban" connection is a red herring, and the "blame Bobby" stuff is just the most offensive part of it.

Stephen,

Great post- I agree with everything you said. The fact that only wealthy persons truly have any power or influence, in America and all over the world, is a simple and obvious fact that is conveniently ignored by everyone. In America, it's the reason why every piece of legislation always benefits those who are wealthy, because only those who are wealthy (the politicians who craft and vote on leglislation, the courts who interpret and enforce it and the mainstream media moguls who decide on how it is all reported) have any say in the matter. Working men and women are forever scratching their heads in wonder at the various indignities going on all around them, but as long as no one from their economic level has a vote in Congress, or runs a television station or a daily newspaper, they will continue to scratch their heads in wonder. We won't even mention the lack of power for those llving below the povery level, struggling just to maintain shelter and eat daily. The rich count on the gullibility and short memories of the public when they front or pose as working-class, everyday people, whether they are politicians dressing casually to get votes or entertainers like Bruce Springsteen wearing torn blue jeans and singing about working in a factory.

Nearly everyone aspires to wealth, although very few like to admit it. It's part of human nature to dream of being rich. However, this curious group denial is the reason why Jesus's declaration that "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" is every pius Christian's least favorite and least quoted biblical verse. It's my favorite quote, and I have yet to meet a single Chrisitan who doesn't react to it in the same way. Invariably, they attribute Jesus's crystal clear statement with a "well, you have to understand what he really meant," or "he isn't saying that no rich people can get into heaven." Uh, yes he is. And very few human beings want to acknowledge that, because while they want to get to heaven, they also would like to still dream about becoming rich. The Born-Againers usually provide the best reactions to this verse.

Huey Long is my all-time favorite politician, simply because he was only national figure to ever point out the huge elephant in the room, and no one else has done it since. His "share the wealth" program certainly would have been difficult to enact and enforce, but his general theme that a very small handful of people should not have so much, when so many have barely enough, and too many don't have enough at all, was a universal one that still resonates to this day. This guy was advocating a 30 hour (or maybe even less) work week in the early 1930s! He was urging politicians to enact legislation to make life better for everyone, so that all could have more leisure time to "enjoy the blessings the Lord has provided." Read his speeches- they are truly remarkable. No political figure has ever said the things he did on a regular basis.

The rich are defintely not, as Fitzgerald wrote, "the same as you and I." Ferdinand Lundberg wrote a few great books on this subject some years ago. I think his most well-known work was the classic "The Rich And The Super Rich."

Okay, "T.Folsom," I'll bite, a little bit.

Here are a few counter-questions:

1. Why is there a bullet hole in JFK's coat, some 5-6 inches down on his back? Why is there a matching hole in the exact spot on his coat? Why did Dr. Boswell "mistakenly" mark the non-fatal rear back wound in this exact spot on his original autopsy face sheet? Why did Sibert and O'Neill verify this exact location in their FBI report? Why did JFK's personal physician, Admiral Burkley, describe the rear back wound as being in this exact location? Remember- even in the world of Arlen Specter and Vince Bugliosi, shots fired from six floors above CANNOT enter 5-6 inches down on someone's back, hit nothing, and exit from their throat.

2. Why did the crackerjack legal staff of the Warren Commission seek out and find Mrs. Viola Peterman, whose only connection to the assassination was the fact she'd babysat for the INFANT Oswald, and hadn't seen any of the family for over twenty years? Even knowing about her was no small task, let alone tracking her down- yet the nation's brightest young legal minds, conducting an "investigation" into the death of a sitting U.S. president, somehow determined that THIS woman was of relevance? The same legal wizzards, however, could not locate some of the closest witnesses to the assassination itself. They did not even attempt to find out who the "Babushka Lady" or the "Umbrella Man" were, even though they stood out distinctly in the films of the crime, and should have been identified and interviewed. While tracking down the totally obscure Mrs. Peterman, they somehow were unable to contact Admiral Burkley, who was one of the most important witnesses imaginable (in the motorcade, at Parkland, on Air Force One, at Bethesda), because he was never called as a witness. Please provide an innocent explanation for all this.

As for your questions, most of them seem designed to elicit a "from behind" answer. I think I speak for most researchers when I say that we believe that shots were fired from behind by someone, just not Oswald. We also think shots were fired from the front. Like Jim Garrison and many others, I believe Lee Harvey Oswald was an undercover intelligence agent who was assigned, at the time of the assassination, to infiltrate a group he was told was plotting to kill the president. I think the medical personnel's recollections of the head wound are crucial, and differ from the official story because the autopsy was a sham and photos/x-rays have been altered. In other words, I don't think all those doctors and nurses were lying or mistaken. At the time of the shooting, I think Oswald was either in the doorway of the TSBD (I'm in the minority who think that it still may be Oswald in the Altgens photo) or in the lunchroom.

Todd Vaughn is one of those infamous "ex-conspiracy believers" who have converted to lone-nutterism for inexplicable reasons. When he used to post regularly on another forum several years ago, I asked him, as I do all supposedly "ex-conspiracy believers" who have made this miraculous transformation, just what was it that made him reject all his former views and suddenly accept the nonsensical official story that he had ridiculed before. Just like all the others, the silence of his answer was deafening. Other "converts" would be Dave Perry, Greg Jaynes, Dave Reitzes and, of course, Gary Mack (who, despite his claim to still believe in a conspiracy, is for all intents and purposes an LNer during his frequent t.v. appearances). There are others, less well-known than these, some of them posters on this forum, who fit into this category. I have yet to hear a rational explanation for their "conversion," and I have asked the question several times. Interestingly enough, there is not a single example, that I know of, of a long-time lone-nutter suddenly converting into a believer in conspiracy.