Terry Mauro

IMO Trauma Room One is certainly of value to researchers.

The wall tiles in the picture of the room look just like the ones in one of the autopsy photos (left view of JFK). Maybe this tile design was standard issue for hospitals and morgues. But is it possible that this "autopsy" photo was taken in Dallas and not Bethesda?

Ditto the stare of death photo, which doesn't show the amount of head damage seen at Bethesda. Taken at Dallas or Bethesda (or somewhere else)?

Are the floor tiles in the stare of death photo the tiles at Bethesda, or the tiles at Parkland (or somewhere else)?

****************************************************

You bring up some excellent points and observations, Ron.

Hopefully, there'll be someone out there with documented evidence as to which one is Parkland, and which is Bethesda. Because, we sure in hell won't be able to examine them from the Parkland E.R. perspective anymore.

Terry, Executive Action and Winter Kills are playing tonight at the Aero Theater in Santa Monica. FYI

*************************************************

Thank you, luv. Are you going? I've got a copy of Executive Action but definitely would love to get my hands on Winter Kills!

These are almost documentary-worthy, or at least docu-drama. IMHO.

DL worked on Executive Action, but you probably already knew that.

My domestic partner, Jeff just informed me that he has Winter Kills.

Thanks again.

Ter

From Tree Frog:

Very convenient location, central to everyone.

Frog

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...om.37afff4.html

Subject: Executive Intelligence Review briefing

The assassinations, and ensuing cover-ups of issues

motivating the assassinations of both President John F. Kennedy

and his brother Robert, together with Rev. Martin Luther King,

and Malcolm X, during the 1960s, are recognized by any competent

political or economic analyst, as assassinations which caused an

immediate shift in national U.S. policy, and were intended to

bring about those shifts.

President John F. Kennedy ran for President on the ticket

of President Franklin Roosevelt's memorable policies. His

assassination, which made the long and ruinous U.S. War in

Indo-China possible, and the terror this struck in President

Johnson, according to Johnson's own account(!), resulted in a

sudden and ruinous change in direction, against the FDR legacy

which John Kennedy committed himself to renew, and into the

disasters which sent the U.S. economy spinning consistently

downward in measurable physical-economic terms, per capita and

per square kilometer, over the entire period since the U.S.

Federal budget of 1967-68.

On such matters I enjoy the authority of being the only

visible long-range economic forecaster who has been consistently

on the mark since 1968. My "Triple Curve," first published widely

since January 1996, has been the only factually validated

long-range forecast over the entire interval since. Hence I am

greatly feared, and therefore hated by both stubborn fools and

crafty evil-doers, such as George Shultz and fascist Felix

Rohatyn, to the present date.

The U.S.A. is now plunging into the deepest pit it has known

since about 1960. There are actions, actions which confirm to the

stated intent of our Federal Constitution, by means of which we

could do as President Franklin Roosevelt did, to rescue our

nation and its people from a presently ongoing plunge which has

no visible bottom. As this was made clear in the recorded

California gathering of Governors Schwarzenegger and Rendel,

Mayor Bloomberg, and the Rockefeller Foundation's Judith Rodin,

the policy which they outlined (on recorded camera) was

explicitly a fascist "infrastructure" program modeled exactly on

the precedents of Mussolini and Hitler, a program which, by its

nature, must lead to similar outcomes. However, this time, were

the present followers of those fascist intentions to succeed in

gaining the U.S. Presidency, they and their British masters would

be soon destroyed utterly by the results of their own choice of

economic policy.

The word to the wise citizen has thus been given to you. The

rest, you should be capable of thinking through, yourself.

Obama is on the right track. His statements re Reagan were accurate. Reagan made people feel good about being an American, and they voted for him even though he didn't represent their interests. Obama is trying to get people to feel good about being an American and vote for him, even though he does represent their interests.

While I'm somewhat partial to Edwards, in that he's declared war on the special interests running Washington, I think Obama has the potential to reverse the course of history, and return America to a position of respect, instead of fear.

I feel there are elements of truth in all of the posts that have been submitted on this thread, but I think maybe an understated position, even excluding the religious connotations, is that people in all walks of life, need hope, and if Obama is just another product of the machine, then hope is arguably non-existent in the 2008 campaign.

I was watching Marvin Kalb on CSPAN-3 last night talking about the nightmarish State of the Union regarding the American media, his most salient point was, that the words "I think" have no place in authentic journalism, and that many opinion/editorializing pieces are brazenly passed of as news. I believe part of the problem in getting America back on track is getting rid of the culture of idiocracy, which is a big part of why politics can seem so nauseating these days.

*****************************************************

Well, I think I'll just take this opportunity to cut across party lines and vote for Ron Paul, American Independent that I am.

At least his take on The Federal Reserve echoes mine, and hopefully he might be able to really get something done. That is, unless someone decides to put a bullet through his head, or character assassinate him, a la Bill Clinton style. I'm pro-choice, but I won't allow that small issue to get in the way. Not if he's able to pull off what he's claiming to try and accomplish.

Anyhow, your vote only really matters when it involves issues on a local level, such as state, county, or city. And, even then you've got to watch your back. Especially with regard to the state.

When you really come right down to it, it's still the same old story since the late 60's. 1 party - 2 branches, and Wall Street rules.

R. Mason Cargill, a staff member of the Rockefeller Commission to Investigate CIA Activities in the United States, authored a May 1 1975 memo indicating that in his opinion QJ/WIN was probably Jose Marie Andre Mankel. (Mr. Cargill, by the way, is now an attorney in Atlanta.)

Richard Mahoney apparently believes that QJ/WIN was Mozes Maschkivitzan, a Russian emigre who lived in Luxembourg, partly because of a reference to QJ/WIN as "the Luxembourger" in a communique.

Does anyone have information on QJ/WIN? Does he have an e-mail address so John can invent him to join the Forum? Kidding aside, your opinions on QJ/Win would be appreciated.

******************************************************************

"R. Mason Cargill, a staff member of the Rockefeller Commission to Investigate CIA Activities in the United States, authored a May 1 1975 memo indicating that in his opinion QJ/WIN was probably Jose Marie Andre Mankel. (Mr. Cargill, by the way, is now an attorney in Atlanta.)"

Any relationship to the Cargill/Agro Corporation?

Posted for Harry.......

""Most of my fellow activists and many of their superiors, involved in plans and actions to murder J. F. Kennedy, have died. The final activists, in 2006.

Each of them were living when this chart and an expose' of them was written

{1990}

All were protected when the 'NEW AMERICANIST ORDER' seized power on

22 November 1963.

Harry J. Dean ""

B....

****************************************************************

Thanks, Bean. And, thank you, Harry for all your insights on the LDS and the JBS. Most appreciative.

Ter

Posted for Harry.......

""Most of my fellow activists and many of their superiors, involved in plans and actions to murder J. F. Kennedy, have died. The final activists, in 2006.

Each of them were living when this chart and an expose' of them was written

{1990}

All were protected when the 'NEW AMERICANIST ORDER' seized power on

22 November 1963.

Harry J. Dean ""

B....

Harry, You lean heavily on involvment of LDSs. It seems to me there were others, but it has always been most curious to me that there are a disproportionate [to their population] numbers of LDS persons in the CIA. I had always assumed and been told it was because in their belief system this is 'the chosen land' by god they could be relied upon for religious as well as 'patriotic' reasons to keep secrets and have a strong alliegance to the Country - no matter what. However, I'm not aware that any were high-level leaders in the Company. What makes you so suspicious of them in this matter? I wouldn't argue about some in the JBS knowing or maybe having a hand, but that they were LDS-connected is new to me. H. Hughes surrounded himself with many Mormons and CIA people and his money {I believe} helped fund Dallas. [and other covert operations] He was a controlled CIA - deep pocket, as Murdoch is today. There are others and were others. I can't see the whole thing as a LDS plot, but I'm sure many were involved. Just looking on the internet now, I came across an account of someone Mormon saying his Bishop was CIA analyst and his other Bishop was a CIA operative....and another where the CIA and other intelligence agencies are hiring them for their language skills [and belief America is God's chosen land]...as the Oligarchy that run the CIA do believe on non-theological grounds and many born-agains also do.

Peter

As a deeply involved member of this anti-Kennedy operation at many levels, {mapped out

above}, and as one of them, even religous-wise, I was/am sadly aware of who and what was

in the works. It was motivated by a no-nonsence, but erroneous spirit of patriotism. It did include former military people, and persons posing as agents of the CIA & etc. under what was a nationwide umbrella organization. The purpose, to seize control of the US. Government, an ideal I

favored until 'they' actually murdered Kennedy.

H. Dean

Peter,

I can no longer find my copy, but in the mid 70's a couple of the guys at the Assassination Information Bureau (Harvey Yazijian and Jim Kostman) wrote a piece on this very issue: Mormans high up in the CIA. I believe it was for "Gallery" or some other "skin" mag. You may recall but back in those days these kinds of publications were practically the only way serious articles on maters such as these could get published.

Dawn

Dawan, Harry, the places people had to put articles in the past [before the internet]doesn't effect me in the least - notable such as Prouty and Brussell had to - many others. Also, that H. Hughes and Maheu and many others were involved with both CIA and LDS is clear as can be.....There is even a book [out of print] on this, I see.

I'm not questioning it - as is not believing it...just asking for more definitive references. I once heard that the mid and lower ranks of the intelligence agencies were way out of proportion to % LDS in population.

Excision of state of Utah will begin in two hours.......

***************************************************************

"Excision of state of Utah will begin in two hours......."

How about just the city of Salt Lake City, instead. Monument Valley is there, and we have an obligation to the Native American population to not desecrate their homeland, regardless of what some witless Mormons believe about that fairy tale Joe Smith fashioned of being handed a couple of gold tablets by some outer space angel, with an equally outer space name. Like Smith was some kind of 19th Century modern day "Moses," or something. He never could reproduce those golden tablets from what I understand. But, of course, maybe Citizen Hughes, with all his billions, might have gotten some jeweler to fabricate a set out of 18 carat gold, for their "Tabernacle," just to legitimize the myth.

Because, "myth" is what this "religious" sect is all about, as well as what the Catholic religion, or any other "organized" religion, believing in all this fear-of-the-wrath-of-God, "rapture," this hokus-pokus, slight-of-hand, this sacred bleeding-heart-of-Jesus, and walking-on-the-water, is based upon. Myth and superstition. What better way to control and manipulate the masses of impressionable "sheeple," as well as slapping a guilt complex on them for not tithing their hard earned cash to finance the show. How to "Best Buy" your way into the heavenly promised land... WOW! Doesn't it make you feel real secure to know that these religious "hustlers and hucksters" have the U.S. gov. by the balls? Oh, excuse me, I meant by the "short and curlies."

Sorry folks, but I've been standing here in the corner, losing my religion, ever since I learned how to use a defibrillator.

Posted for Harry.......

""Most of my fellow activists and many of their superiors, involved in plans and actions to murder J. F. Kennedy, have died. The final activists, in 2006.

Each of them were living when this chart and an expose' of them was written

{1990}

All were protected when the 'NEW AMERICANIST ORDER' seized power on

22 November 1963.

Harry J. Dean ""

B....

Harry, You lean heavily on involvment of LDSs. It seems to me there were others, but it has always been most curious to me that there are a disproportionate [to their population] numbers of LDS persons in the CIA. I had always assumed and been told it was because in their belief system this is 'the chosen land' by god they could be relied upon for religious as well as 'patriotic' reasons to keep secrets and have a strong alliegance to the Country - no matter what. However, I'm not aware that any were high-level leaders in the Company. What makes you so suspicious of them in this matter? I wouldn't argue about some in the JBS knowing or maybe having a hand, but that they were LDS-connected is new to me. H. Hughes surrounded himself with many Mormons and CIA people and his money {I believe} helped fund Dallas. [and other covert operations] He was a controlled CIA - deep pocket, as Murdoch is today. There are others and were others. I can't see the whole thing as a LDS plot, but I'm sure many were involved. Just looking on the internet now, I came across an account of someone Mormon saying his Bishop was CIA analyst and his other Bishop was a CIA operative....and another where the CIA and other intelligence agencies are hiring them for their language skills [and belief America is God's chosen land]...as the Oligarchy that run the CIA do believe on non-theological grounds and many born-agains also do.

Peter

As a deeply involved member of this anti-Kennedy operation at many levels, {mapped out

above}, and as one of them, even religous-wise, I was/am sadly aware of who and what was

in the works. It was motivated by a no-nonsence, but erroneous spirit of patriotism. It did include former military people, and persons posing as agents of the CIA & etc. under what was a nationwide umbrella organization. The purpose, to seize control of the US. Government, an ideal I

favored until 'they' actually murdered Kennedy.

H. Dean

Peter,

I can no longer find my copy, but in the mid 70's a couple of the guys at the Assassination Information Bureau (Harvey Yazijian and Jim Kostman) wrote a piece on this very issue: Mormans high up in the CIA. I believe it was for "Gallery" or some other "skin" mag. You may recall but back in those days these kinds of publications were practically the only way serious articles on maters such as these could get published.

Dawn

**********************************************************

"I believe it was for "Gallery" or some other "skin" mag. You may recall but back in those days these kinds of publications were practically the only way serious articles on matters such as these could get published."

And, Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, as well, for "Gallery," and Jim Garrison for "Penthouse."

Mainstream Mockingbird wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole back then, and they're not about to give an "unbiased" op-ed on it now.

"All were protected when the 'NEW AMERICANIST ORDER' seized power on 22 November 1963."

And, they ain't about to let go of it any time soon, either.

We're screwed and skewered. Ready for another down home barbecue, folks?

I'd like to cast my ballot for Ron Paul, though I'm a Pro-Choice advocate. Which seems inconsequential, when you think about it, compared to his take on the other issues that appeal to me, upon which I happen to agree.

But, the opposition will find a way to character assassinate him, I'm sure.

To me the most irritating thing about the movie is what I call "genre creep" (It is a relative of the late 1970s tax term bracket creep)

It starts out saying that its purpose it not to takes sides in the debate between LN's and CTers: its supposedly noble purpose is to show the delibilitating effect on the American "left" (Note that the rightwing doesn't seem to NEED such paternalistic gatekeeping)

Then it proceeds to give "both sides of the story" using outdated sources for the CT side.

Then, while clearly having won its own match-- umpired by itself it denies that any match occured at all and the intention was just to investigate a debilitating psychological state.

This is what is so gutless. It gives an biased point of "both sides of the story" and then denies it had any intention of passing gudgement. This might well be what disingenuous means.

************************************************************

Something that just dropped into the box:

Served out of Lighterage division, Naval Support, DaNang. Seeking info on any officers or enlisted. LTjg Hal Henry specifically. LTjg Robert Moinester, KIA during Tet Offensive. Lived at Camp Tien Sha, worked often out of White Elephant, DaNang.

NAME = Paul L. May <EMAIL = PMay[ at ]Empireequity.com>

UNITs SHIPs BOATs = Operations Division

BASEs or LOCATIONS= Naval Support Activity, DaNang

YEARs in VIETNAM = June, 66 - Sept, 68

FROM WHERE = Massapequa, NY

REFFERED By = a friend

-

http://www.aboutus.org/EmpireEquity.com

================================================================================

5. On 3 March 1954, after having utilized the USAR (Reserve Component) as a "stepping stone" into active duty, the applicant was assigned to active duty in the US Army.

Thereafter, on 2 July, 1954, the applicant was released from active duty in the US Army due to "Minority".

================================================================================

And, in that regards: "Enlisted 4 ?TG", as a general rule, meant that the individual had volunteered for "Active Duty for Training"

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/generalinfo/g/actdutr.htm

Definition: (DOD) A tour of active duty which is used for training members of the Reserve Components to provide trained units and qualified persons to fill the needs of the Armed Forces in time of war or national emergency and such other times as the national security requires. The member is under orders which provide for return to non-active status when the period of active duty for training is completed. It includes annual training, special tours of active duty for training, school tours, and the initial duty for training performed by nonprior service enlistees.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0006

http://www.koreanwar-educator.org/topics/p_mos.htm

Basic trainee – 0006

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.440.com/twtd/archives/feb02.html

1959

(“Fee fee fi fi fo fo fum. I smell smoke in the auditorium...”),

*****************************************************************

http://www.440.com/twtd/archives/feb02.html

"1959 - The Coasters tune, "Charlie Brown", was released. The tune went to #2 and stayed there for three weeks, but didn’t make it to the top spot of the charts. A catchy song (“Fee fee fi fi fo fo fum. I smell smoke in the auditorium...”), it was on the charts for a total of 12 weeks. And what song was at number one, preventing "Charlie Brown" from reaching the top, you ask? "Venus", by Frankie Avalon."

O.K. So, the lyrics go:

"Fee Fee Fi Fi Fo Fo Fum...I smell smoke in the auditorium.

Charley Brown, he's a clown...He's a clown, that Charley Brown."

What kind of code are you trying to run down, Purv? How about giving this dummy a leg up on what you mean?

Are you intimating that Plumlee is a clown?

At least Oswald's Ghost showed high quality CBS clips of Oswald while he was in custody. Anyone with a discerning eye and ear can sense Oswald's anger, resolve, frustration and fear. All the psychobabble of McMillan, Aynesworth and Mailer could not overcome those haunting images of Oswald maintaining his innocence and his genuine confusion about the situation he was in.

In the corridor:

Oswald: I work in that building

Reporter: Were you in the building at the time?

Oswald: Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir.

Reporter: Did you shoot the President?

Oswald: No. They've taken me in because of the fact I've lived in the Soviet Union.

I'm just a patsy.

And again in the corridor:

Oswald: These people have given me a hearing without legal representation or anything.

Reporter: Did you shoot the President?

Oswald: I didn't shoot anybody, no sir.

From the midnight press conference in the DPD basement:

Oswald: I positively know nothing about this situation here. I would like to have legal representation.

Reporter: (unintelligible)

Oswald: Well, I was questioned by a judge. However, I protested at that time that I was not allowed legal representation during that very short and sweet hearing. I really don't know what the situation is about. Nobody has told me anything except that I am accused of murdering a policeman. I know nothing more than that. I do request someone to come forward to give me legal assistance.

Reporter: Did you kill the President?

Oswald: No. I have not been charged with that. In fact, nobody has said that to me yet. The first thing I heard about it was when the newspaper reporters in the hall axed me that question.

*********************************************************************

Yes, Mike. The one thing that was impressed upon me while watching Oswald, in Robert Stone's footage was the same feeling I got when I was 18 years old and watching the news reports coming in over the tube in November 1963.

He appeared innocent to me then, asking for counsel, it not being forthcoming, which was an excellent lesson in obstruction of justice and the blatant lack of Due Process being afforded, that day. And, the footage of Robert Stone's only reinforced those impressions upon me again, forty-four years later.

Thank you for bringing those points to the forefront.

Terry, Paul May was on the Lancer Forum, if I recall, filling the role formerly held by David Von Pein: ardent LN supporter. He's but one guy offering his half-baked opinion. You needn't be worried that he represents anything larger.

As far as his contention that Stone's movie was more than fair, that's the LN "moderate" slant. Max Holland wrote a critique of the movie of his website in which he attacked Stone's movie for letting Mark Lane and Josiah Thompson even talk. Stone responded with a defense of his film, and his assertion that not all CTs are liars, etc, and that they should be allowed to speak on camera, if only to show America how misguided they are. Thus, he's now presented as a moderate.

Anyone familiar with Chomsky's (and/or Karl Rove's) theories regarding the building of a consensus should take notice.

**************************************************

"As far as his contention that Stone's movie was more than fair, that's the LN "moderate" slant. Max Holland wrote a critique of the movie of his website in which he attacked Stone's movie for letting Mark Lane and Josiah Thompson even talk. Stone responded with a defense of his film, and his assertion that not all CTs are liars, etc., and that they should be allowed to speak on camera, if only to show America how misguided they are."

HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH! I'm sorry Pat, but the statements made by those fools borders on hysterical absurdity.

Thanks for the clarification and I.D. on this guy, though. Seems I may have struck a nerve, perhaps? Oh well...there you go.

You go girl!!

love ya,

Dawn

*****************************************************************

Just got this in from Tree Frog:

http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/20...-alex-beam.html

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Oswald's Ghost? The truth is HERE, Alex Beam.

Alex Beam wrote a column yesterday that shows the poverty of knowledge in the anti-conspiracy press. He's discussing that propaganda coup "Oswald's Ghost," a masterfully presented, if wildly under-informed special on the Kennedy Assassination.

Beam, who obviously knows little about the case, finds the special persuasive. It doesn't occur to him that the special was a deliberately one-sided presentation designed to try to persuade conspiracy believers that there was no conspiracy.

How do I know he knows little about the case? Because he can write this:

Monday night U.S. public television aired "Oswald's Ghost," an elegantly crafted, 90-minute obituary for the conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy. On the one hand, filmmaker Robert Stone reports that about 70 percent of Americans still disbelieve the official investigation into Kennedy's killing. Veteran conspiracy jockey Mark Lane crows that, unlike the major networks and editorial boards of The Washington Post and The New York Times, "I have been right all along" about the plot to kill Kennedy.

But a more impressive roster of experts, including Norman Mailer, Priscilla MacMillan, and Todd Gitlin, has arrived at a different conclusion. Edward Jay Epstein, who has criticized the official Warren Report on the assassination, now thinks there was no anti-JFK conspiracy. "As we cover decade after decade, not a shred has come out that would indicate what this conspiracy was," Epstein says. "After 40 years none of the theories pan out."

Does Beam really not know that he just used three CIA favorites and one guy who admittedly didn't follow the minutia of the case to rebut the notion that the CIA was involved in the Kennedy assassination?

Let's get rid of Gitlin off the bat. In his book The Sixties, Gitlin wrote:

From the national mélange of rational optimism and free-floating paranoia, and in the face of widely cited mysteries drifting foglike from cracks in the official accounts of the assassination, there emerged conspiracy theories galore. The Warren Commission Report, released on September 27, 1964, was shoddy enough, but something else was operating to discredit it: a huge cultural disbelief that an event so traumatic and vast in its consequence could be accounted for by a petty assassin. Popular books, starting with Mark Lane’s 1966 best-selling Rush to Judgment, punched holes in the Warren Commission’s finding that Oswald was the lone assassin. Serious journals like The New Republic, The New York Review of Books, and Ramparts, not to mention the more sensationalist underground papers, regaled their readers with tale after tale about exit wounds, gunshots from the grassy knoll, missing frames of the Zapruder film, the accuracy of Mannlicher-Carcano rifles, exotic Cuban émigrés, mysteriously murdered witnesses, double agents, double Oswalds. Many objections to the official line were convincing, but one had to become a full-time assassination obsessive to keep up with the intricacies.

In other words, Gitlin, through lack of interest or lack of obsession, couldn't keep up. So he really has no right to dismiss the evidence discovered by those who have kept up.

Next, let's dismiss Priscilla Johnson McMillan. By her own admission, and according to a sheet in her 201 file at CIA, McMillan was a "witting collaborator," meaning, not only did she do things in support of the CIA, but she knew she was working for the CIA (as opposed to others who serve the agency without realizing it, who are characterized in the CIA as "unwitting assets"). She was working for the CIA at the same time she was interviewing Oswald in the USSR, and when she was trying to befriend Marina. Draw the appropriate conclusions here. And I wish I had bought the tabloid in which McMillan was featured on a cover saying she had slept with President Kennedy. Had I known anyone would pretend to give her any credibility I would have paid for it and scanned it and posted it permanently on the Web.

In addition, Priscilla Johnson married George McMillan, author of a book about James Earl Ray who claimed, provably inaccurately, that Ray decided to kill King after watching him on TV in prison. His prison had no such TV viewable from Ray's cell, but facts don't seem to matter to either McMillan.

As for Edward Jay Epstein, come on. By his own admission, he was a protégé of James Jesus Angleton, under whose close watch the Oswald file was created and hidden away in Angleton's personal back-pocket group, CI/SIG - the "Special Investigations Group" within his CounterIntelligence department. So not only is Epstein close to the CIA, he was very close to the one man who had quite a lot of control over Oswald's pre-assassination CIA file, and likely, the man himself. I wrote a long two-part article laying out the case for Angleton's probable involvement in the Kennedy assassination. Get my book, The Assassinations if you want to read it.

And finally, let's talk about Norman Mailer. Mailer had, in his turbulent middle years, spoken out against the CIA quite loudly. Maybe a little too loudly, because I didn't buy it when I read about it later. It sounded more like he was running a false flag operation among the literary elite, painting himself as a CIA critic when he may have been working with them all along. Speaking of false flag operations, I think the fact that Mailer lived in an apartment directly below Rudolph Abel, a valuable Soviet spy we traded for the downed U2 pilot Francis Powers, at a time when Mailer was working on a book about a writer involved with a spy (Barbary Shore), is interesting. I find his latter day near boast, "I could have been a [spy],"1 even more interesting. I find his novel "Harlot's Ghost," (Harlot being James Angleton) in which he hints that the CIA was involved in Kennedy's assassination, extremely interesting. And perhaps most interesting of all, even the New York Times was surprised when Mailer received a standing ovation at a speech he gave at the CIA, by invitation.2

So we have two CIA cheerleaders and one person who didn't care enough to follow the evidnece where it led telling us the CIA didn't kill Kennedy. Is it hard to understand why I can't take that seriously?

Beam went on to say:

I don't know what Stone's agenda was in making "Oswald's Ghost." I understood it as a fairly subtle commentary on time. If there had been more truths to reveal about the Kennedy assassination, time would have yielded them up. But it didn't.

But it did, Alex. Had you read Probe magazine in the 1990s, you would have seen revelation upon revelation stemming from the release of long sequestered files on the case by the Assassination Records Review Board. John Newman, himself a former intelligence analyst, to write Oswald and the CIA, a lengthy book in which he carefully, if perhaps too subtly, lays out the case that the CIA was controlling Oswald and moving him around like a pawn on a chessboard. In The Assassinations, I and others discuss many specific pieces of information that make a strong case for the CIA's involvement in the crime. None of this information, as Jim DiEugenio points out in his review of "Oswald's Ghost", is debunked, because none of it is even mentioned. Stone frames the case by keeping it locked prior to the release of the information that much more clearly makes the case for conspiracy.

Is the special persuasive? Sure, to the uninformed. But consider this. Would you be comfortable serving on a jury where the prosecutor was allowed to present both his case and the defendant's case? Absolutely not. But curiously, some, like Alex Beam, have no problem accepting it when the media does it.

I warned the readers of this blog that we were entering a year of disinformation on the assassinations because we're in a 'big' year, the 40th anniversary of the MLK and RFK assassinations, and the 45th year of the JFK case. "Oswald's Ghost" is only the opening salvo. Much worse is coming.

Notes

1. Mary V. Dearborn, Mailer (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1999), p. 409.

2. Elaine Sciolino, "Mailer Visits C.I.A. and Finds He's in Friendly Territory. Really." New York Times, February 3, 1992.

What's with PBS once again joining the ranks of LN's? Who in that outfit is pushing that kind of programing , and why? I know the management has changed over the years, but I'm not familiar with it's present lineup. Anybody?

-Bill

When I confronted Stone after the screening last summer, he insisted that the direction of the film was entirely his own, and that it wasn't tailored to fit anyone's agenda. He claimed he'd made the film and screened it as an independent, and that PBS didn't get involved until after it had been screened. I'm somewhat skeptical, but suspect he was telling the truth.

This, of course, does not get PBS off the hook. Would it invest in a film that presented the evidence for a conspiracy? I think not.

I wasn't impressed with Stone's film at all. It could have been done a decade ago. And the message wasn't clear - the assassination has had an incredible impact on our politics, history and society, and one of the reasons it still is affecting us is its unresolved nature. And that won't end until it is resolved to a legal and moral certainty.

If an independent film maker makes a good film about the assassination and explains the conspiracies, the crimes, and how they were committed, I'm quite confident that such a film will find an outlet.

The PBS is after all the Public Broadcasting Network, financed in part by the government and millionaire philantropists, many of who also shill for the CIA, so what do you expect?

BK

***************************************************************

Does anybody know who this guy is? I found this in my e-mail this morning.

Why couldn't he just post this on the forum to begin with, seeing as it's appropriate to the discussion.

No hard feelings, of course. I could care less what he thinks of my opinion.

See below:

From: "Paul May" < > Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book Add Mobile Alert

To: tmauro@pacbell.net

Subject: Oswalds Ghost

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:20:36 -0800

Ms. Mauro:

Although I infrequently visit the JFK site on the Education Forum, I

had the opportunity to read your critique on the film "Oswalds Ghost".

For myself personally, it was an extremely balanced story. Much time

was given to conspiracy theorists ranging from Jim Garrison to Mark

Lane.

I believe yourself and Mr. DiEugenio missed the point entirely.

The purpose of the film was not to spark debate over the events of

November 22nd, but how those events of that day infected or affected

the population and interests of the United States.

Mr. Stone is no doubt an "Oswald did it guy" but the balanced nature of the story

precludes those "of your ilk" [My emphasis. TM] from screaming "disinformation"

and then blaming PBS for airing the story.

Quite frankly Ms. Mauro, your comments on the Education Forum were

tantamount to a child throwing a tantrum over what snack he was given

after school. You then take the position if PBS does not show what you

believe they SHOULD show, you withdraw your support. How bizarre.

Did you by chance take this same position with the motion picture studio

that produced Oliver Stone's JFK? Oliver Stone essentially got three

things right in that film: The victim, the date and the location. If you are

indeed a seeker of the truth, you already know this.

You cannot have it both ways Ms. Mauro. The truth does not require

anybodys belief. PBS is surely under no obligation to broadcast

opposing points of view. DiEugenio stated "so clearly, with this

talking head line-up, Stone basically announces that he has no interest

in divulging any new information or exloring any outstanding mysteries

of this case". Absolutely true. His sole purpose was the impact of

the events; not one more investigation of the events.

Why is this so difficult for conspiracy theorists to grasp? Whether one

chooses to believe in Oswalds guilt or in a conspiracy, when one throws their

objectivity into the garbage, they throw away opportunities for growth.

For you Ms. Mauro as a representative of the conspiracy side to actually

say...."I hereby withdraw all future support of your station into

perpetuity, unless some steps are taken by your company to present a

more balanced view on the subject" is both immature and foolish.

It is however what I've come to expect from the conspiracy community when

faced with dwindling numbers of public support (according to a Scipps-Howard poll,

summer of 2007) that now 40% of the public believes in U. S. Government involvement

in the assassination itself. I suspect if the Tom Hanks production of Mr. Bugliosi's

"Reclaiming History" is actually made into a miniseries on HBO, that number will shrink

even further.

Paul L. May

To date we have no response to our requests to Oliver Curme to divulge the whereabouts and condition of Mary Ferrell's original archives. Are they secure? Have they been left intact? Have they been sanitized?

And now Jay Harrison's collections are down the memory hole.

Is anyone else concerned?

******************************************************

According to a friend, who was there when the deal went down, who would prefer to remain anonymous, all of Ferrell's database was left sitting in a transport container, in Ollie's backyard, uninsulated, and subject to the extremes in seasonal temperature change known to occur in Massachusetts. FWIW

What's with PBS once again joining the ranks of LN's? Who in that outfit is pushing that kind of programing , and why? I know the management has changed over the years, but I'm not familiar with it's present lineup. Anybody?

-Bill

When I confronted Stone after the screening last summer, he insisted that the direction of the film was entirely his own, and that it wasn't tailored to fit anyone's agenda. He claimed he'd made the film and screened it as an independent, and that PBS didn't get involved until after it had been screened. I'm somewhat skeptical, but suspect he was telling the truth.

This, of course, does not get PBS off the hook. Would it invest in a film that presented the evidence for a conspiracy? I think not.

I wasn't impressed with Stone's film at all. It could have been done a decade ago. And the message wasn't clear - the assassination has had an incredible impact on our politics, history and society, and one of the reasons it still is affecting us is its unresolved nature. And that won't end until it is resolved to a legal and moral certainty.

If an independent film maker makes a good film about the assassination and explains the conspiracies, the crimes, and how they were committed, I'm quite confident that such a film will find an outlet.

The PBS is after all the Public Broadcasting Network, financed in part by the government and millionaire philantropists, many of who also shill for the CIA, so what do you expect?

BK

"But it's run by listener supoprted funding, they woudn't engage in disinformation and propaganda for the Corperations "

This was the response I got from a woman who was a long supporter of public broadcast networks, when I told her the show was just the recycled LN garbage that the corperate media has engaged in, for years.

This is why it's even more insidious, because people like this think they can trust things like PBS, that somehow it's different from the networks...the beat goes on.

************************************************************

"This was the response I got from a woman who was a long supporter of public broadcast networks, when I told her the show was just the recycled LN garbage that the corperate media has engaged in, for years."

Well, LaRouche's people tried to warn me about PBS and the BBC back in 1994, but I loved their scientific documentaries, like NOVA, and their "Wild Kingdom" type of venues, so I kind of brushed that all aside, and continued to support it.

Unless they make a concerted effort to present a more balanced view on the subject, I can no longer find it in my heart to take their pledge drives seriously, ever again. At least, not without feeling as if I'm being scammed for contributing to their cause.

This is a serious faux pas, on their part, IMHO.

Duplicate post deleted by T. Mauro @ 11:40 PST on 1-15-08

It's thinking like this that haunts us still.....

http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/t...ory/375809.html

*************************************************

I posted this on their site:

If you're really interested in the powers that be, who were, and to a degree, still are involved in the assassination(s), and the cover-ups, please go to this site:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...10244&st=30

Theresa C. Mauro

----------------------------------

Terry-- Thank you for posting that on a big web site. WE have to build the bridges or nobody will. --an Evangelical from near the Burned Over Region.

***************************************************

And, I ran this one off to www.pbs.org early this morning before going into work. I was so pissed at its Mockingbird stance on the subject:

To The Producers of PBS:

including KCET, KLCS, and KOCE

I am copying and pasting the review of my friend, and fellow researcher, James DiEugenio, regarding your airing of Robert Stone's obviously skewed, biased, and not-so-thoroughly researched documentary, which you and your staff chose as "fit" to place in the public record.

"Oswald's Ghost"

By James DiEugenio

It is difficult to understand why Robert Stone made his new documentary on the JFK case, Oswald's Ghost, which is airing on PBS stations nationwide on January 14, 2008.

There is good reason to approach this film with great skepticism. For one thing, it contains no new information.

The Assassination Records Review Board has been closed down now for several years. There has been abundant time to go through the millions of new pages that have finally been declassified. Yet, Stone chose not to do this. Which, of course, seems rather odd.

What is even more odd is that although the film mentions Oliver Stone and his film JFK, the ARRB is never even mentioned in the picture. In other words, the body that literally almost doubled the amount of documentation available on the JFK case goes unnoticed in a film on that very case.

That tells you something about the film. So does Robert Stone's choice of interview subjects. There are eleven main talking heads in the film.

Four of them deal with the historical, political, and sociological backdrop of the era: Tom Hayden, Robert Dallek, Todd Gitlin, and Gary Hart.

Seven of them deal with the assassination itself.

Two are from the conspiracy camp: Mark Lane and Josiah Thompson.

Five of them are Warren Commission advocates: Dan Rather, Priscilla Johnson, Edward Epstein, Hugh Aynesworth, and the late Norman Mailer.

And, this quintet has a lot more screen time than Lane and Thompson.

So clearly, with this talking head line-up, Stone basically announces that he has no interest in divulging any new information or exploring any outstanding mysteries of this case.

In fact, the very first shot in the film tells us where he is headed. It is of the so-called sniper's nest window, which the Warren Commission alleged that Lee Harvey Oswald fired from.

The end features Mailer's bloviating voice-over about Oswald's ghost not being able to talk as we see first, the accused assassin's gravestone, and then a photo of a young Lee.

So far from being any kind of free form, or even-handed piece of investigatory journalism, the film stacks the deck and tries to lead the viewer to a preordained conclusion.

And if one knows little or nothing about the JFK case, that conclusion may be convincing, not just because of the imbalance of the witnesses, but also because of the cinematic skill of the director.

Few American documentaries I have seen have been done with the technical brio and facility of this one. In sound, pacing, montage, and use of photographic devices, the film is extraordinarily well executed.

And the intermixing of audiotapes, narrative voice-over, archival footage, present day film, and witness interviews, is effective at giving the film a well-knitted surface that implies texture and depth to the uninitiated.

But for someone who is not a novice, the film and its conclusion summon up the famous Chesterton comment. The first time G. K. Chesterton strolled down 42nd Street in Manhattan, he said, "What a wonderful experience this must be for someone who can't read." Because, as with the first and last shots, the film is a transparent set-up.

There is very little discussion of the evidence. The single bullet theory is barely mentioned and is not illustrated. The magic bullet, CE 399, goes unnoticed.

The Zapruder film is used, but only in a very limited way. The only time the head snap at frame Z 313 is shown it is not with the Robert Groden, rotoscoped version i.e. enlarged, slowed down, and stabilized. So therefore, it does not have its usual visual impact.

When Stone does show that version of the film, he cuts right before frame 313, the head snap, to a shot of Oswald walking in the opposite way. To me, this was a clear subliminal message betraying both the director's sophistication and his bias.

The structure of the film is essentially chronological. It begins with the events of November 22nd in Dallas.

As recited by Aynesworth, Stone depicts the assassination, the shooting of J. D. Tippit, and Oswald's apprehension and incarceration.

We then watch the shooting of Oswald by Ruby and how this then provoked President Johnson into creating the Warren Commission.

There is very little discussion of how the Warren Commission worked, or how they arrived at their conclusions.

The third movement of the film tells us about the wave of books and articles that were published in the wake of the Commission's findings. But again, there is very little, if any, enumeration of what was in any of these books.

For example, Stone creates a scene in which we look down at a kind of black pit. He then drops several of these books from above the camera and we watch them disappear into this bottomless hole.

It's quite an achievement to drop a monograph as well done as Ray Marcus' "The Bastard Bullet," and try and tell the audience by visual metaphor that it means nothing.

The film then goes to a fourth section, which is on the investigation by New Orleans DA Jim Garrison. If there were any doubts about the director having an agenda, they are quickly dispelled here.

The two leading witnesses on the Garrison inquiry are Aynesworth and Epstein. This would be like doing a special on Bill and Hillary Clinton and having as your two chief talking heads, Ann Coulter, and Christopher Ruddy.

But director Stone has no qualms about letting these two men expound at length on the DA, with rather predictable results.

Aynesworth brings up the Sodium Pentothal (truth serum) session conducted at Mercy Hospital by Dr. Esmond Fatter with Perry Russo.

And, he dusts off the old chestnut that was used by his friend James Phelan: by rearranging the sessions in time sequence, he makes it appear that Fatter was leading, even implanting, information in Russo's mind.

The film then heightens this impression by using overexposed photography as a background.

Lisa Pease previously exposed this distorting technique at length, as used by Phelan. (See Probe Vol. 6 No. 5 p. 26).

It was also used by Shaw's defense team, of which Aynesworth was a full-fledged member, an important fact that the film keeps from the viewer.

The next swipe the film takes at Garrison is his use of a questionable codebreaking device, in one of Shaw's address books, to adduce Jack Ruby's unlisted phone number.

The film milks this for all it is worth -- which is not very much -- as we see both Epstein and Aynesworth talk about it, along with Lane.

What the film leaves out, of course, is that when one is dealing with a complex, labyrinthine crime that has been well-disguised, then blind alleys and faulty hypotheses will naturally be encountered. And, eventually discarded, as this eventually was.

This particular attack on Garrison highlights the imbalance of the piece. For if one is going to skewer the DA about a faulty theory he eventually abandoned, then why not blister the Warren Commission about several of its dubious findings which it never abandoned?

To use just one example: the condition of the magic bullet, CE 399. Why didn't Stone show the comparison photographs of test bullets in the experiments Dr. Joseph Dolce did and then have him testify that it was impossible to get such a pristine result by shooting the bullet into flesh and bone?

Dolce was a true authority in the field with no bias involved. Something that cannot be said about Aynesworth and Epstein.

I was really saddened to see Stone allow Epstein to characterize the discovery of Clay Shaw through Russo's characterization of Clem Bertrand as a homosexual.

This is just wrong of course, as Garrison first got interested in Shaw through Dean Andrews' testimony in the Warren Commission. (And, Andrews' testimony interested others, such as Mark Lane and Sylvia Meagher.)

From this faulty assumption, Stone then goes into a segment that actually tries to characterize the Garrison inquiry as some kind of excuse for homosexual persecution.

This is so irresponsible as to border on the malicious.

Culminating this reckless and wild sequence, Stone allows Clay Shaw to tell us that Garrison is a character out of Machiavelli: he will utilize any kind of means to achieve his end. The message being that Machiavelli/Garrison would even falsely accuse an unfortunate closet homosexual of being a conspirator.

And, this is where I thought the film really started to break down and dissolve into a slick propaganda piece.

For to discuss the Garrison inquiry and leave out what is probably his greatest discovery is ridiculous.

I am referring to the address on Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba flyer: 544 Camp Street. Which of course was the location of rabid right winger Guy Banister's office.

But, if you watch the film you eventually understand why the director has to leave this crucial piece of information out.

It relates to the ludicrously outdated and one-sided portrait of Oswald. Which is lifted right out of the Warren Report, only slightly moderated by Johnson and Mailer.

In this film Oswald is the malcontent Marxist loner who wanted to be a Big Man in History, and strike a blow for the cause.

But, if Stone would have gone into the whole 544 Camp Street mystery and how it leads Oswald to people like Banister, Kerry Thornley, the Cuban exiles, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, and then later to the Clinton-Jackson incident, then the viewer will have something called cognitive dissonance.

In other words, he will have to ask himself: What the heck is a Communist doing with all these nutty CIA, and right- wing guys, who want to overthrow Castro?

And, the viewer might then notice another lacunae in the film: If Oswald was a communist, why has the film not produced any communist comrades who were in a cell with him? Maybe, because there weren't any?

Perhaps, because Oswald wasn't a communist at all? Which is precisely what Garrison said in his famous Playboy interview.

Relating to this last point, there is another interesting methodological paradox with which Stone closes the section on Garrison.

He has Epstein say that the DA ended up not just attacking those who defended the Warren Commission, but he then accused his critics in the press of being involved in a coordinated attack on him.

At this point, an honest investigator would have asked Epstein the following questions: 1) Did the CIA distribute any of your articles on Garrison? 2) Did you forward any of your research materials to Clay Shaw's defense team?, and 3) Were you in contact with any of the other lawyers who were defending witnesses, or other suspects, in the Garrison inquiry?

And, if Epstein denied any of this, I could have furnished Stone with documents on camera to contravene the denial.

It would have been interesting to listen to Epstein's response. But, of course, with the releases of the ARRB, the very same thing could have been done with Aynseworth and Johnson. Which is probably why Stone ignored those releases.

And, if you do not tell your audience this, about the loyalties of your "authorities," what does this then say about your honesty toward them, and your own bona fides, in making the film?

After the hatchet job on Garrison, Stone moves onto Gary Hart and the Church Committee investigation.

Hart mentions the CIA coup attempts, the assassination plots against foreign leaders, and the plots to kill Castro.

But even here, Stone curtails his portrait of the Church Committee by concentrating on serial xxxx Judith Exner.

And, I should also note that this is essentially where the story rather arbitrarily stops. I say "arbitrarily" because the natural progression -- both historically, and by cause and effect -- should have been from the Church Committee to the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

The film never even mentions the HSCA. With Stone's record, one has to postulate that one reason could have been because that body (Commission) came to the conclusion that there WAS a conspiracy in the JFK case.

The last part of the film essentially does two things: it pontificates about there being no real evidence produced for a cohesive and convincing conspiracy scenario, and it then hammers home the misfit portrayal of the accused assassin Oswald.

Epstein does most of the former and, of course, if one ignores all the new evidence, one can get away with such a sleight of hand.

But, before Epstein made this pronouncement, I would have asked Mr. Stone if he ever read any of the new ARRB releases.

If he said no, then I would suggest a new documentary to him, based on just four areas of evidence.

In order: 1) the Clinton-Jackson incident, 2) Oswald in Mexico City, 3) the ballistics, and 4) the autopsy.

With just fifteen minutes on each, one could convincingly show that a. Oswald was being manipulated and impersonated in advance of the assassination b. That the "magic bullet" was never identified by the witnesses who discovered it c. That the bullet-lead evidence used to connect Oswald to the crime is phony, and d. That the Bethesda autopsy hid evidence of a blown out back of the head and multiple shooters.

I think that would contravene Epstein rather nicely.

The very end of the film intercuts the Mailer/Johnson triteness about Oswald --actually accusing him of shooting at Edwin Walker, and killing Tippit -- with people visiting Dealey Plaza and buying pamphlets on the case.

The film shows us close-ups of money being exchanged in these transactions.

So Stone's parting shot is that while certain gifted writers (he actually labels Priscilla Johnson an historian) know the truth, there are those who still try and confuse the public about the facts of this case.

And, since the public does not want to believe a loser like Oswald killed a great hero like Kennedy, the business still goes on.

You can only do this, of course, if you ignore the evidence. And, as I mentioned above, that is the worst part of this whole enterprise.

Oswald's Ghost wants to take us back to 1970. It is as if the HSCA, JFK, and the ARRB never existed. Which makes me wonder about the people at PBS, which helped make this film for the series The American Experience.

In 1993 they gave us the outrageously one sided Frontline special on Oswald, and now this: two Warren Commission carbon copies in 14 years.

Yet, this is not what PBS is supposed to be about. It is supposed to be about alternatives to network offerings.

How can you have a special on the Kennedy case which features Dan Rather and call it an alternative to what the networks are offering? It is not any such thing.

It is more of the same under a different, slicker disguise. But, that does not make the underlying result any less cheap in its approach or worthless in its value."

I couldn't have said it any better than my colleague has worded it here. I am shocked and dismayed that a venue, such as PBS, of which I have contributed to, and been a member of, since 1998, would take such a myopic view of this subject.

I viewed the airing last night, and found Aynesworth, Epstein and McMillan's condescending certainty on the subject equally repugnant. Why wasn't this allowed to be debated on an open forum, after the airing? The short-sightedness of PBS on this subject is alarming, to say the least!

I hereby withdraw all future support of your station into perpetuity, unless some steps are taken by your company to present a more balanced view on the subject.

With deep regret,

Theresa C. Mauro

4070 Jackson Avenue

Culver City, CA 90232

310 836-4095

tmauro@pacbell.net

Then, again, is this actually J.D. Tippit himself?

Kathy

Here's another comparison with Tippit. I just added the sunglasses.

Duncan

It looks a lot like Tippit, especially the "widow's peak" hairline. So did Lee Oswald kill this man? Or is "Lee" Oswald really J.D.Tippit? It would solve the disappearance of "Lee" Oswald -- dead. And there was only one LHO: he went to Russia and "Harvey" came back and was killed by Ruby. But Mailer mentions there were 2 Oswalds at the Texas Theater -- I have to look at Harvey and Lee again about the theater. Tippit was dead by then. Neither looks like Donald O. Norton. My goal is to find out what happened to "Lee" Oswald.

Another problem: Could Tippit be BadgeMan? This is another theory, but I don't buy it.

Harvey Oswald was arrested in New Orleans for giving out fliers re FPCC. This is supposed to be his mugshot (unless it's Lee's). That's an awfully good picture of him; Harvey didn't have much eye appeal. If you put sunglasses on him, would he look like the Tippit gif?

**********************************************************

That's Harvey's mugshot, IMHO.

The ears appear to be placed lower on the head in your picture of Harvey, than those on the super-imposed pictures of Duncan's Tippit.

Also, take into consideration Duncan's super-imposed sunglasses on his B/W photo of Tippit, and remember that the "arms" of the ear "part" of the glasses frames, when in place on some people, have a tendency to cause their ears to appear to "bow" out, making the case for Duncan's Tippit all the more feasible in its comparison.

In other words, had Duncan been able to superimpose the arms of the glasses frame over the ears of his B/W Tippit, the ears would be even more in line with the color picture of Tippit and Files, accounting for the slightly bowed-out appearance. At least, that's how I'm interpreting it. Then again, I could be wrong, too. Such is the enigma of this case.

I hope I haven't confused anyone? It's early in the morning here, and I'm rushing to get off to work.

Good show, BTW!

It's thinking like this that haunts us still.....

http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/t...ory/375809.html

*************************************************

I posted this on their site:

If you're really interested in the powers that be, who were, and to a degree, still are involved in the assassination(s), and the cover-ups, please go to this site:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...10244&st=30

Theresa C. Mauro

Toni Foster, Brehm and son, Babushka, and the two ladies on the Main Huston corner now move on to the grassy area.

The Willis family moves up to the Houston Elm corner.

Toni Foster " Side Step "

The same moment in time captured on two different camera's

Bronson Frame:

Nix Frame:

**********************************************************

Thanks for the coverage on Toni Foster, Robin.

Am I wrong in assuming, from what she's stating about only speaking with her family about this, after all these years, that she wasn't questioned, at all, by the DPD, or by the Warren Commission?

Can you pick out the famous face in this school photo:

JBK -- fifth from the left, top row?

*************************************************

Definitely the prettiest one in that whole class of aristocratic, blue-blooded, debutantes.

My friend, Sabrina, an R.N. working with Doctors Without Borders, seems to have a knack for finding little jewels such as this one below:

(My favorite word, when frustrated which is quite often lately...glad to learn it's not a "curse" word....Sabrina)

Manure... An interesting fact

Manure: In the 16th and 17th centuries, everything had to be transported by ship and it was also before commercial fertilizer's invention, so large shipments of manure were common.

It was shipped dry, because in dry form it weighed a lot less than when wet, but once water (at sea) hit it, it not only became heavier, but the process of fermentation began again, of which a by product is methane gas. As the stuff was stored below decks in bundles you can see what could (and did) happen. Methane began to build up below decks and the first time someone came below at night with a lantern, BOOOOM!

Several ships were destroyed in this manner before it was determined just what was happening. After that, the bundles of manure were always stamped with the term "Ship High In Transit" on them, which meant for the sailors to stow it high enough off the lower decks so that any water that came into the hold would not touch this volatile cargo and start the production of methane.

Thus evolved the term " S.H.I.T. " (Ship High In Transport), which has come down through the centuries and is in use to this very day.

You probably did not know the true history of this word.

Neither did I.

I had always thought it was a golf term.

This is an "urban myth". The word was first used about 1,000 years ago as the Old English verb scitan. In his book, Wicked Words (1989) lexicographer Hugh Rawson claims that the word "xxxx" is related to words like science, schedule and shield, all of which derive from the Indo-European root skei-, meaning "to cut" or "to split."

For most of its history "xxxx" was spelled "xxxxe", but the modern, four-letter spelling of the word can be found in texts dating as far back as the mid-1700s. It most certainly did not originate as an acronym used by 19th-century sailors.

***********************************************************

Thank you for setting the record straight for me on that, John.

Welcome John! I have the greatest respect for your work; "Fair Play" and "Probe" are both indispensable resources for assassination researchers. I plan on reading your book asap; it's about time someone paid homage to the original band of critics who started it all. This forum will be enhanced by your presence.

One quick question- Jim DiEugenio is listed as a member of this forum, but doesn't post. Assuming you have regular contact with him, any chance you could persuade him to start posting?

**********************************************************

Dawn and I are both in contact with Jim Di, and Lisa, and Lisa has always admonished us for wasting our time on the forums. Right, Dawnie?

Yep. Been scaling back on the time I spend, as well. Mainly due to work constraints and trying to get some serious reading done.