Terry Mauro

**************************************************************** "And one should remember that there is NO connection with John Wilkes and Clare Boothe Luce. John's last name did not have an "e" at the end!" Quite rightly. But, many people have changed the spelling of their name, over time, in order to distance themselves from unsavory relatives with skeletons in their closets. Similar to that old disclaimer, "The basis of the story is true. The names have been changed to protect the innocent." As well as the not-so-innocent, or those with more to hide than that which first meets the eye. I'm so glad I was able to bring some laughter and gaiety into you day, my dear! Your, Femme Nikita

Tom, You are making more sense here! Thanks. Tom, you say that the head was in a vertical position, and about this shot, that "entered the rear of the head through the scalp at a point which was at the lower edge of the hairline at the base of the skull. Thereafter, the bullet traversed through the soft flesh at the base of the neck (upwards when the head is held erect), to penetrate the skull 2.5cm right and slightly above the EOP." This is interesting. How have you analysed the path of the bullet, considering that the head is in a "vertical" position, meaning upright? At the same time you say that "the bullet traversed through the soft flesh at the base of the neck (upwards when the head is held erect), to penetrate the skull 2.5cm right and slightly above the EOP." This would mean that a bullet fired from the 6th floor TSBD, travelling in a downward angle, would hit the scalp at the hairline, traverse the soft tissue of the neck, but would then for some reason, change it's path and exit the skull at an upward angle. I do find this analysis quite puzzling in your explanation. What changed the bullet's path? I do find your take here to be quite sound. A few follow-up questions, since you say there were two shots to the head, and the second shot to the head (the final shot) occurred at James Altgens position, what film, or photo would have captured this event? Can you give an approximate Zapruder film frame or other? I do disagree with your claim that John Connally was not already wounded in his back and chest when his wife had pulled him down. Can you show supporting evidence for your claim? I would refer to their testimonies and the Zapruder film, which both indicate to me, that John Connally was already seriously wounded at the time that his wife pulled him down, and out of the line of fire. Thanks. Antti (& any others); I am currently in argument with one of the so-called greats of the medical evidence on another talk show, and since this has more or less been my home for the longest time, then it would be supposed that it should be explained here. 1. Many think there is confusion on the part of Dr. Humes/Boswell/Finck in locating the entrance wound into the back of the head of JFK. (Above the EOP/Below the EOP) Actually, not unlike most of the other evidence, the confusion lies in those who are not listening to what is stated. The entry point through the SCALP was at the lower edge of the hairline at the back of the neck/base of the skull of JFK, and was BELOW the level of the EOP. The bullet tunnelled through the soft tissue at the base of the neck, to strike the skull ABOVE the EOP. NOW! Were JFK sitting in an erect position (as he is at Z313) and such a bullet impact struck on a downward firing angle of approximately 15-degrees downward, then it would be physically impossible for that bullet to have immediately, upon impact, to have turned upwards on an angle which would have taken it through the soft tissue at the base of the skull, to ultimately impact with the skull in the EOP vicinity. So! 1. The actual first point of impact was actually the coat of JFK at the junction of where the collar turns down. Due to the acute/oblique position of the coat/collar at the point of impact, the bullet traversed through the fabric on an angle, and although it penetrated the coat as well as the liner, the two holes are not exactly/directly in alignment when the cloth is flattened out. 2. The bullet then struck the base of the skull of JFK at the lowere edge of the hairline. 3. Due to the position in which JFK was in at the time of impact, leaning/bent/well forward with his head down and his face slightly turned, the back of his neck and head were exposed in a horizontal/horizontal-downward position. 4. This position is how the striking bullet managed to strike at the base of the hairline below the level of the EOP, traverse through the soft flesh of the neck, and then ultimately strike the skull in the vicinity of the EOP. 5. This is also the WHY? that the entrance wound through the skull of JFK had an abnormally extended length, as the bullet struck the skull on the same actute/oblique angle as it penetrated throught the coat and the sof tissues at the base of the skull. Dr. Boswell, in his autopsy sheet drawing merely drew in the direction of the bullet based on the vertical position in which the drawing was made. When one takes the actual pathway of the bullet: Base of skull below EOP at edge of hairline-----to/through soft tissue of neck------------to elongated skull impact slightly above EOP------------------to impact with tip/upper edge of occipital lobe of brain--------------- Then one must either accept that either a midget was hiding in the trunk of the Presidential Limo and fired on an upward position, or else, JFK's head was not in the vertical posiltion at the time of impact of this bullet. I do find your take here to be quite sound. A few follow-up questions, since you say there were two shots to the head, and the second shot to the head (the final shot) occurred at James Altgens position, what film, or photo would have captured this event? Can you give an approximate Zapruder film frame or other? Not unlike other things in the Zapruder film that one will not see, they will not see the impact of this, the final shot. However, one may want to take a close look at: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z341.jpg (as well as those frames on each side of Z341) As well as questioning exactly why the "Sprocket Holes" have the same demonstrated problem as those once missing frames of the film in the Z210 range. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/altgens.htm Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car. Mr. ALTGENS - I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got with my camera. Because, you see, even up to that time I didn't know that the President had been shot previously. I still thought up until that time that all I heard was fireworks and that they were giving some sort of celebration to the President by popping these fireworks. It stunned me so at what I saw that I failed to do my duty and make the picture that I was hoping to make. Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, And, as Mr. Paul Harvey once stated: "Now, you know the rest of the story". At least as to why Jackie determined it prudent to vacate the Limosine! Can you show supporting evidence for your claim? I would refer to their testimonies and the Zapruder film, which both indicate to me, that John Connally was already seriously wounded at the time that his wife pulled him down, and out of the line of fire. JBC suffered a broken wrist from impact of a bullet fragment from the Z313 headshot at the time that he went over into Nellie's side of the car with his head in her lap. Nellie did not "pull him down", she merely grabbed JBC when he went into her direction and held onto him after he went over into her direction and began slumping down into the seat. Mrs. CONNALLY. No, he turned away from me. I was pretending that I was him. I never again looked in the back seat of the car after my husband was shot. My concern was for him, and I remember that he turned to the right and then just slumped down into the seat, so that I reached over to pull him toward me. X was trying to get him down and me down. The jump seats were not very roomy, so that there were reports that he slid into the seat of the car, which he did not; that he fell over into my lap, which he did not. I just pulled him over into my arms And then he just recoiled and just sort of slumped in his seat. I thought he was dead. When you see a big man totally defenseless like that, then you do whatever you think you can do to help most and the only thing I could think of to do was to pull him down out of the line of fire, or whatever was happening to us and I thought if I could get him down, maybe they wouldn't hurt him anymore. So, I pulled him down in my lap. We learned later--I read a lot of stories that upset me later because they said we slipped down into the floor, that John slid off, fell over into my lap. Those little jump seats were not very big and there was no way that he could have slid to the floor, there is no way either of us could have got to the floor. The only thing I could do was pull him down and by leaning over him, I hoped if anything else happened, they wouldn't hurt him anymore. I never looked back after John was hit. I heard Mrs. Kennedy say, "they have shot my husband." and out of the line of fire.[/b] NOPE! When JBC went over/down across the seats with his head in Nellie's lap, he exposed his back and right shoulder to the bullet which exited the head of JFK (aka the third/last/final shot). When this bullet exited: Mrs. CONNALLY- The third shot that I heard I felt, it felt like spent buckshot falling all over us, and then, of course, I too could see that it was the matter, brain tissue, or whatever, just human matter, all over the car and both of us. MR. Altgens - There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, Thus, JBC in fact went over/was partially pulled down, directly into the line of fire for the bullet as it traversed through the mid-brain of JFK, exited the skull in the frontal lobe, and thereafter struck JBC in the shoulder which was exposed across the open area between the jump seats where JBC & Nellie were located. And, as Mr. Paul Harvey stated: "And, now you know the rest of the story". as regards the WHY that JBC's coat had to be laundered prior to being examined. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr2.htm Mr. FRAZIER - It is different in that the President's clothing had not been cleaned. It had only been dried. The blood was dried. However, the Governor's garments had been cleaned and pressed. Sitting upright in the jump seat at Z313, it was physically impossible for cerebral tissue from the head of JFK to have splattered all over the back side of the coat worn by JBC. However, when leaning across the open area between the jump seats with his back and shoulder exposed, at the time of the third/last/final shot impact, which also blew cerebral tissue forward in the limosine, the entire backside of JBC's coat would have been covered with blood/cerebral tissue. One would have thought that some of these "Blood Splatter" experts would have taken the time to have figured this one out also. Tom ************************************************************* "The bullet tunneled through the soft tissue at the base of the neck, to strike the skull ABOVE the EOP." I don't know, and maybe this sounds stupid, but are you saying that the bullet tunneled through the soft tissue at the base of the neck to strike the inside of the skull above the EOP? Therefore, that was where it exited and ended up looking like it exploded along the right side of his skull? I'm confused, or maybe I should just shut up and leave and let you guys duke it out? Can somebody provide some graphics on this? Please? I'd be most appreciative. Ter

*************************************************** Well, that's because you're our resident wit, and comedian, T.G. You always seem to know how to pick out the positive, upbeat, and sunny side of life, even in a horror story. That's what I admire and love about you. Your, Femme Nikita

Thanks for that one Terry, I forgot about those guys. BK *********************************************** You're welcome, Billy. I'm just glad that you and John Judge are around to help us get on with our mission. Ter

Kennedy Murder Conspiracy Case Out Into Open. http://wlym.com/PDF-SpReps/SPRP20.pdf

************************************************************ We're not supposed to use that term here on the forum. Your, Femme Nikita

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/22/2295-003.gif ****************************************************************** Not with that gun, Purv. And, I don't put too much stock in any "Mockingbird" History Matters media take on the subject, either. I long ago disregarded ever hearing anything but a white-wash from any form of T.V. fantasyland-waste-of-my-precious-time. So, when it comes to this particular aspect of the case, I'll just have to agree to disagree. In the words of Bob Dylan: "I'm gonna let you pass, and I'll go last. Then, time will tell just who's be felled, and who's been left behind, when you most likely go your way, and I go mine."

******************************************************************** My God in heaven, Peter. It's a wonder you're still alive to talk about this. I am so truly, truly sorry for you. I see this happening to so many friends these days, it really gives me pause to wonder whose turn will be next. In any event, I hope you find this article interesting, as I've always admired Lewis Lapham, especially for all the years he headed up Harper's Magazine, as editor-in-chief. From my recent issue of HARPER'S MAGAZINE/NOVEMBER 2007 NOTEBOOK Blowing Bubbles By Lewis H. Lapham Men have a indistinct notion that if they keep up this activity of joint stocks and spades long enough, all will at length ride somewhere, in next to no time, and for nothing, but though a crowd rushes to the depot, and the conductor shouts, "All aboard!" when the smoke is blown away and the vapor condensed, it will be perceived that a few are riding, but the rest are run over, - and it will be called, and will be, "A melancholy accident." - Henry David Thoreau - Reading the reports from the scene of August's melancholy accident in the country's credit markets - the bursting of the home-mortgage bubble, banks sinking into the sand of subprime loans, hedge funds losing 100 percent of their imagined value in a matter of days, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropping 250 points in the space of half an hour - I was struck by the resemblances between the speculation floated on the guarantee of easy money on Wall Street and the one puffed up on the promise of certain victory in Iraq. To buyers of highly leveraged debt the promoters of the "All aboard!" money schemes issue PowerPoints similar to those concocted in the White House and circulated with former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's proviso that "there are know unknowns... But there are also unknown unknowns." A surplus of both commodities was found in the luggage of the travelers run over in August on the road to El Dorado. A number of them deserve to be renered as military acronyms. The "NINJA Loan" - Extended to borrowers possessed of no income, no job, no assets - comparable to the predatory lending of the United States Army to the freedom-loving sheikhs of Iraq. The "Neutron Loan" - Designed to remove the occupants but leave the property intact. Within the next year over a million American home mortgages are due to foreclose. in August 80,000 people were "displaced by violence" from their houses and neighborhoods in Iraq; another 2.2 million Iraqis have been obliged to flee the country. The "Teaser Loan" - An adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) sometimes requiring no-money-down or up-front but in all variants offered at a low introductory rate that adjusts only in an upward direction. The American liberation of Iraq was originally priced at $50 billion over a span of seven months; the expenses now run to 2 billion a week. Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, estimates the eventual cost of the Iraqi investment at $2 trillion. The "xxxx Loan" - Requiring no documentation attesting to the borrower's net worth, annual income, or intention to repay - the same terms on which the CIA accepted the story about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi detector code-named "Curveball." SIV - "Structured Investment Vehicle" that "securitizes" subprime loans, thus creating credit with "access to liabilities." Soon after the invasion of Iraq the infatuation with a similar method of transforming loss into gain prompted the Pentagon to welcome terrorists arriving in Baghdad and Anbar province from everywhere in the Middle East. The bundling of America's enemies into one target supported the notion that the war on terror could be won at a single blow. Rush Limbaugh delivered the good news to his radio audience in the summer of 2003: "We don't have to go anywhere to find them! They've fielded a jihad all-star team." "Toxic Waste" - Degraded financial material added as ballast to higher-quality assets contained in a mortgage-backed bond or security. AAA - Bond rating affixed by Moody's and Standard & Poor's to SIVs [structured Investment Vehicles] transporting "toxic waste." The certifications correspond to former CIA Director George Tenet's assuring president Bush that finding WMDs in Iraq was a "slam dunk." Risk Assessment Models - Systems of stock-market trading quantified as mathematical algorithms and engineered to guarantee the perpetual motion of profit. They bear comparison to the Pentagon's arsenal of high-technology weapons - the ones incapable of losing a war. Model Misbehavior - In explicable displays of insubordination on the part of the algorithms, believed to account for the August loss of $5.5 trillion in the global stock markets. The Bush Administration attributes its failures in Iraq to model misbehavior on the part of the think-tank construct (computer-generated, ideologically enhanced) of a constitutional democracy in Iraq. CDO - Collateralized debt obligation. A coalition of the willing assembled with debt instruments of a strength equivalent to the armed forces sent to Iraq from Albania. Bubble - Employed as a verb in Eighteenth-Century London. "To Bubble" - i.e., to cheat, swindle, perpetrate a fraud. In contemporary American military parlance, a noun - the "surge" of liquidity in the form of 30,000 troops restoring calm to the Baghdad market in civil obedience. August's misfortunes in the credit markets produced a good deal of collateral damage elsewhere in the economy - severe losses in the construction and retail trades, to school and sewer districts, in the hotel and travel industries, to the 1.7 million families forced to flee their homes - but the proofs of Wall Street's stupefied greed didn't rouse the news media or the season's presidential candidates to exclamations of anger and disgust. [my emphasis, TM] Throughout the whole of its history, the American commonwealth has been subject to the depredations of what George Washington knew to be "a corrupt squadron of paper-dealers"; a hundred or even fifty years ago the brokers of the fast shuffle might have been seen in savage cartoons like those drawn by Thomas Nast (top-hatted dancing pigs) or pilloried in the language once voiced by Walt Whitman ("canker'd, crude, superstitious and rotten...") and E.L. Godkin ("a gaudy stream of be-spangled, be-laced, and be-ruffled barbarians"). Once upon a time in galaxies far, far away we recognized the character of the risk in what was known to the first Dutch settlers in Seventeenth-century New Amsterdam, many of them participants in land or stock-jobbing ventures, as "The Feast of Fools." It wasn't that the new arrivals on the American shore didn't believe or delight in the expectation and promise of fairy gold. Understood as the most demotic of economic activities, expressive of a yearning for freedom, the game of speculative finance aligns with the American passion for gambling, and matches the spirit of the bet placed by the Declaration of Independence on the wheel of fortune set up with the slots marked "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." But we used to know that sometimes the numbers crap out. The knowledge began to disappear from the American consciousness and vocabulary during the dawn of the new "Morning in America" that Ronald Reagan perceived on the horizon of the 1980's when he set up his rose-colored telescope on the White House roof. [My emphasis. TM.] Convinced that "the difference between an American and any other kind of person is that an American lives in anticipation of the future because he knows it will be a great place," Reagan brought with him the preferred attitude that the dealers in rainbows seek to instill in the minds of the customers shopping for financial salvation and political romance. Everybody a winner; the flowers never die. The attitude has been sustained over the past twenty-five years by the corporate news media's increasingly messianic testimonies to the wonder and wisdom of the free market (Alan Greenspan as infallible as the Pope), by the entertainment industry's loudly applauding the miraculous transformations of frogs into princes (Donald Trump, the hero of our time), by the government's policy of providing the banks with infusions of cheap credit on which to float speculative bubble baths (in 1987, 1998, 2001, again in 2007), by a steadily multiplying herd of eager buyers, their number now estimated at one in every two Americans acting either as independent agents or as participants in mutual and pension funds, seeking to acquire, at steadily rising prices, beachfront property on the coast of Utopia. [My emphasis. TM.] Together with the promises of an always brighter tomorrow (available on the Internet, delivered within twenty-four hours), the widely distributed faith in the philosophers' stone (i.e., the one with which medieval alchemists supposedly turned lead into gold) accords with the revelation bestowed on a correspondent for the New York Times in the autumn of 2004 by a White House sage identified at the time as "a senior adviser to Bush" but now generally assumed to have been Karl Rove, President Bush's recently retired man-for-all-seasons. Disdainful of the meager and obsolete truths that informed the think-tanks of "the reality-based community," the sage opened a wider-angle lens on the vision beheld by Ronald Reagan. Guys like you, he said, "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." [My emphasis. TM] Which didn't mean that the study would be easy to pursue. The Bush Administration's obsessive hiding of its actions and motives (from itself as well as from a public audit) rules against the handing-out of brochures illustrated with the four-color posters of imperial fantasies decorating the walls at the White House, the Pentagon, the Office of the Attorney General. On Wall Street the hedge against having to tell the truth is formed with exemptions from state and federal regulation that yield the elixir of "opacity." Highly valued by the speculators in the Nineteenth-century stock swindles engineered by Commodore Vanderbilt and Daniel Drew, opacity allows the private-equity operations to bubble both the government and their clients, empowering the dealers in SIVs in the same way that it serves the creators of new realities in Mesopotamia and assists the poker players in the Las Vegas casinos. Unfortunately, as with the water in the tale of the sorcerer's apprentice, too much opacity sloshing around on the trading floors makes it impossible not only to see what cards the other players hold in their hands but also to know how much money is on the table. The government in March stopped publishing the figure that measures the extent of America's money supply, possibly because by some estimates the financial risk exposure in the global markets for leveraged derivatives now stands at a sum somewhere in the vicinity of $60 trillion, four times the size of the American economy. [My emphasis. TM.] When the smoke was blowing away and the vapor being condensed at the scene of the August wreckage, the fear of ghosts in the Wall Street attic precluded any movement in the markets for social conscience. The headlines flowed from the springs of panic, not from the wellheads of rage, the concern expressed for the concentrations of America's wealth (its safety, comfort, and good grooming) rather than for the health and well-being of the American citizenry. [My emphasis. TM] Together with most everybody else in the society, the big-ticket print and electronic media are heavily invested in the virtual realities that not only sustain the opulence of the country's rentier classes but also shape the course of the country's politics, sponsor its shows of conspicuous consumption, control the disposition of its armies. God forbid that the emperors of ice cream should be seen standing around naked on the reefs of destruction. The financial press rounded up expert witnesses to cite the canonical distinction between risk ("present when future events occur with measurable probability") and uncertainty ("present when the likelihood of future events in indefinite or incalculable"), to implore the Federal Reserve for a surge of more money (Jim Cramer shouting into the camera a CNBC, "We have Armageddon!... This is not the time to be complacent!") [My emphasis. TM.], to say of the SIVs destroyed by the financial equivalents of improvised roadside bombs, "It is not the corpses at the surface that are scary, it is the unknown corpses below the surface that may pop up unexpectedly." "Corpse" in its Wall Street usage refers to a non-performing financial instrument, not to a dead human being. In the context of the war in Iraq, the word refers to a non-performing geopolitical instrument. If over the past four years Wall Street's deployment of lethal paper has increased the country's mortgage debt to $9.5 trillion, the Bush Administration's deployment of lethal weapons has outsourced or exhausted much of the country's military capacity, meanwhile reducing the credit rating of the All Aboard! American superpower scheme from an investment-grade security to that of a junk bond. [My emphasis. TM.] By the end of August both speculations (the liberalization of America's capital markets, the liberation of the Islamic Middle East) were losing "tactical momentum" in the reality-based community. The Washington politicians faced difficulties similar to those faced by Wall Street's squadron of paper dealers - how to "securitize" the subprime loans backing the Iraqi civil war, where to find leverage in the imaginary numbers attesting to the soundness of the Anbar province ARM, what degree of protection was left in the hedge of opacity. The preoccupation with derivatives forecloses debate about the worth of the underlying investment - the value or non-value of the war as a thing in itself - and shifts the discussion to the positioning of the political risk. Process, not product. Not why or to what end do we continue to kill our own soldiers (the known unknowns) as well as Iraqi civilians (the unknown unknowns), but which artful dodge stands the best chance of beguiling the voters in next year's elections while at the same time preserving the bubble floated on the belief that America's invincible military power serves as collateral for the $2.5 trillion debt to foreign central banks that America has neither the means nor the intention to repay. [My emphasis. TM.] Among speculators in the commodity pits trading geopolitical futures, the rumors speak, as the do among the speculators following the play in the stock markets, to the coming of "the next big thing." Soon after the Labor Day weekend the financial press was unanimous in the opinion that the Federal Reserve was bound to step up the flows of liquidity to the Wall Street banks in order to sustain the world's faith in the American dollar. Informed sources in Washington were predicting a preemptive military strike against Iran. Three Navy battle groups were known to be present in the Persian Gulf, the president was casting the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in an increasingly evil light (terrorists, enemies of civilization), and how better to replenish the credit lost in Iraq than with a weapons-grade CDO spreading the risk to investors everywhere within range of a melancholy nuclear accident. With us or against us; buy American or lose the chance of a lifetime. Lewis H. Lapham is the National Correspondent for Harper's Magazine and the editor of Lapham's Quarterly.

*************************************************************** Thank you for the clarification, Antti. I am truly sorry for everyone. And, I also think that no matter how cordial and congenial we try to temper our discourse, the fact will remain that there will always be those who will continually try to sneak on board and cause disruption and flame wars. It will be up to the moderators, as well as John and Andy to adopt some sort of bloodhound or watchdog attitude to be able to sniff out the perpetrators and perform damage control before it gets too out of hand. That's a pretty labor intensive stance to have to take, but it has to be done. I don't envy your positions. I do wish you luck, though.

Talk about disinformation. This piece by DeEugenio, who used to be a friend of mine is full of it. I will detail them later, I must teach now...but I almost threw up, and wanted people to know a qucik take on this excrement about me and Cryil Wecht - is almost all false or twisted beyond recognition. I never gave that con artist 100,000 dollars. I will read more carefully, and respond later. This is the kind of backstabbing and unresearched bull**** that goes on in the research community all too often. Sad, becuase Jim was a good researcher and not on the 'opposing' side, but once he takes a dislike or a suspicion about someone......and I'm obviously now on his 'XXX list'. The details are all lies or such gross distortions, as to constitute lies, and backstabs, to boot. I will detail. I'm sure Cryil will also have his own reponses to this crud..[but due to his legal problems, may not feel he can respond]. I will for him, to the best of my knowlege. As the 'info' about Cyril is not entirely correct either. Jim needs a lesson in putting out poison suppositories, and not preaching about silver bullets! Sorry Jim - You have defamed me and Cyril, and no doubt others. Thanks [not!] for not checking the facts first. A sad piece. Full of false facts and character assassination. Jim, stick to the facts.....I see few about me or Cryil in this. More shortly. Now I see why DiEugenio doesn't post on the Forums..... Sadly, I once considered him a good friend. It is also the work of the Mockingbirdees/provacateurs to divide us and make the researchers fight by passing on false info about us to the others....I don't know if that was involved here...but somewhere the facts got lost in the part about me! NB- As I don't have Wecht's book at hand, would someone on the Forum with it be so kind as to send me by private email with the pages from Wecht's book on Russell and myself. Thanks. I want this to be as accurate as possible. ************************************************************************ Why was this post of Peter's edited by Antti Hynonen? Because I used one of the seven words the FCC bans on American broadcasts and the EF finds offensive....I find death and war and genocide and false-flag operations and assassinations infinitely more offensive than these words, but I don't set the rules. Is there a specific list of words or when they can be used and not. If I were to post verbatum statements of importance by LBJ or RMN or many others would someone cut those words out? While overuse or gratuitous use should not be encouraged, when one is of strong emotion, strong words are used in real life. We are talking about real world situations here and I was reacting to a post that is probably all over the internet now with a false fact about me. I'm darn/dang upset. ********************************************************************** All of this is very saddening, to me. I suppose everyone has a cross to bear now. It's like someone said, "Why can't we all just get along?" Too much back-stabbing and one-up-man-ship seems to be the rule of the day for whatever reason. I only hope we all haven't been lied to for so long that we actually are ready to jump on the nearest bandwagon that suits our comfort zone in this never-ending search down consistently dead end trails. I believe it's a matter of closure that will never be afforded the American people. It truly is a royal scam.

Talk about disinformation. This piece by DeEugenio, who used to be a friend of mine is full of it. I will detail them later, I must teach now...but I almost threw up, and wanted people to know a qucik take on this excrement about me and Cryil Wecht - is almost all false or twisted beyond recognition. I never gave that con artist 100,000 dollars. I will read more carefully, and respond later. This is the kind of backstabbing and unresearched bull**** that goes on in the research community all too often. Sad, becuase Jim was a good researcher and not on the 'opposing' side, but once he takes a dislike or a suspicion about someone......and I'm obviously now on his 'XXX list'. The details are all lies or such gross distortions, as to constitute lies, and backstabs, to boot. I will detail. I'm sure Cryil will also have his own reponses to this crud..[but due to his legal problems, may not feel he can respond]. I will for him, to the best of my knowlege. As the 'info' about Cyril is not entirely correct either. Jim needs a lesson in putting out poison suppositories, and not preaching about silver bullets! Sorry Jim - You have defamed me and Cyril, and no doubt others. Thanks [not!] for not checking the facts first. A sad piece. Full of false facts and character assassination. Jim, stick to the facts.....I see few about me or Cryil in this. More shortly. Now I see why DiEugenio doesn't post on the Forums..... Sadly, I once considered him a good friend. It is also the work of the Mockingbirdees/provacateurs to divide us and make the researchers fight by passing on false info about us to the others....I don't know if that was involved here...but somewhere the facts got lost in the part about me! NB- As I don't have Wecht's book at hand, would someone on the Forum with it be so kind as to send me by private email with the pages from Wecht's book on Russell and myself. Thanks. I want this to be as accurate as possible. ************************************************************************ Why was this post of Peter's edited by Antti Hynonen?

*********************************************************** "I have always been interested in what Lester Prouty said..." Pardon me David, but that's Col. L. Fletcher Prouty. A mentor of mine. And, that "community of bankers" you refer to? I prefer to address them as a "cartel," which seemed to have acquired their strength, in numbers, by becoming united through the enactment of The Federal Reserve Act of 1913. But, that's just my humble opinion, and I'll stand corrected should I somehow be over-generalizing the situation, at hand.

********************************************************************* "Sorry if this is a stupid question but what is a 'jarhead'?" Not a stupid question at all, Francesca. A "jarhead" is a slang term or nickname, mostly used by servicemen in the military, for a member of that branch of service known as, "the Marines." Ain't that right, Purv? Now, how they ended up getting that moniker hung on them is another story, maybe my friend, Purv might be able to elaborate on. Ter

*************************************************************** Don't get me wrong, Kath. I've thanked John many times before, and continue to observe my dream of an incredible database and repository of photographic and documented evidence unfold here, at his site. It's been the first place I've checked into, before and after BlackOps. He's also been quite tolerant of my occasional caustic remarks and opinions, not to mention my cussing out, of certain obnoxious and blatantly asinine individuals, over the years. But, I've learned a lot in the way of discourse, having observed some of my mentors, like Dixie Dea, Pamela McElwaithe Brown, and Barb Junkarrinen, in action. Therefore, I will continue to strive and temper my "tone" with civility, and hope this has not gone unnoticed by John in recent months. Thank you, John and the members of this forum, for giving me the opportunity to express my thoughts on the subject, here today. Ter

I would be interested to know if anyone else shares Myra's view. If a significant number do, I will of course resign as an administrator of this forum. ************************************************************************ "...I will of course resign as an administrator of this forum." Now, let's not get too hasty here, John. I'm sorry to find things had degenerated to this level, and have managed to stay out of the fray simply due to employment schedules, as of late. I want you to know that I do support your efforts at maintaining forum sanity, and realize the pressures you're under at present. Therefore, if you chose to shut it down, I would totally understand and be in agreement with your decision. However, your forum and its format are the culmination of what I had been begging the research sites [Prouty's, Conway's, and DellaRosa's] to join forces and become from the time I first went on-line in 1997, and was able to witness the acrimony between these particular forums. I didn't quite understand the dynamics at the time, and couldn't fathom why they had to be at odds with each other over something they all had a common goal in fighting for. I was also under the idealistic impression that if they could somehow agree to combine their large databases and work together, the research community would eventually become a force to be reckoned with. You have managed to single-handedly do just that using your own intensive reading and research skills on the subject. Created an impressive centralized database with what you've been able to glean from the different sites, including those of the opposition, or the McAdams and Rahn genre of thought, not to mention the various newgroups on the subject. By doing this, you have been able to encourage debate between opposing views, leaving them open to scrutiny and discussion. Are you sure you really want to chuck it all?

******************************************************************** Thanks for posting Chris' message, John. I'm sorry to find things had degenerated to this level, and have managed to stay out of the fray simply due to employment schedules, as of late. I want you to know that I do support your efforts at maintaining forum sanity, and realize the pressures you're under at present. Therefore, if you chose to shut it down, I would totally understand and be in agreement with your decision. However, your forum and its format are the culmination of what I had been begging the research sites [Prouty's, Conway's, and DellaRosa's] to join forces and become from the time I first went on-line in 1997, and was able to witness the acrimony between these particular forums. I didn't quite understand the dynamics at the time, and couldn't fathom why they had to be at odds with each other over something they all had a common goal in fighting for. I was also under the idealistic impression that if they could somehow agree to combine their large databases and work together, the research community would eventually become a force to be reckoned with. You have achieved what I was asking for, and had in mind one long decade ago. It would be a shame to see it dismantled. But, as Pat Speer posted, it might force many of the members to have to frequent Mary Ferrell's and do a little work for themselves on their own, which in the long run might be a more productive way of educating them. In any event, it was good advice and if well-heeded may be an answer to the present dilemma. One would hope.

************************************************************************* "...if Evan has a "history" of antagonistic exchanges with Jack, it was almost inevitable, once Evan became a mod, that Jack would complain about being singled out for harassment by him. Evan, imo, placed himself in the firing line for what came by volunteering for the role." Now that you've mentioned it. I, for one, was nonplussed to find Evan Burton's name up there as one of the moderators. So much so, that I had to actually go back to the Apollo section to see if maybe I might have mistaken his name for someone else's. But no, it was the same Evan Burton, which IMHO, was equal to accepting applications for volunteer moderator work from someone like myself, or Myra, or Craig Lamson, even. Thanks for addressing that issue.

Terry, I think it likely that things were more complex to this than most imagine. There was much animosity between the US and France dating back from the way De Gaulle was treated by Churchill and Roosevelt. You might recall that France left NATO and threw it out of Paris. De Gaulle also suspected (or wanted to suspect) that the US was behind attempts to assassinate him. So, I expect there was more to the French demand to have their dollars converted to gold than met the eye at the time. On the US delayed decision to participate in WWII, there has also been quite a bit of conjecture and high feelings. On the one hand there was a large volume of pro-Hitler sentiment at the corporate level. Hitler was financed by America and had powerful allies in Britain and France also. On the other hand, US interests were served by entering the war only after Europe and Britain had been sufficiently pummelled by the Nazis that the US would emerge as the dominate world power by a long shot. The still secret War and Pace Study project by the Council on Foreign Relations that commenced in 1939 (what is known about it anyway) clearly spells out America's national interest to be gained from the war. From: http://shwi.alternatehistory.com/American%...Geopolitics.txt. Quote: AMERICA'S MINIMUM LEBENSRAUM- THE GRAND AREA The extensive studies and discussions of the Council group determined that, as a minimum , most of the non-German world, as a new American 'Grand Area', was needed for elbow room.' In its final form, it consisted of the Western Hemisphere, the United Kingdom, the remainder of the British Commonwealth and Empire, the Dutch East Indies, China and Japan itself.(50) Noam Chomsky summarizes the concept of American Lebensraum: "The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe."(51) The whole China was also included. Unquote David ******************************************************************************** ************** From: http://shwi.alternatehistory.com/American%...Geopolitics.txt. "It was John O'Sullivan who in 1845 formulated the concept of American Lebensraum - the Manifest Destiny Doctrine. He coined the term to signify the mission of the United States "to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions."(1) For Josiah Strong, the American missionary imperialist par excellence, the Manifest Destiny had geopolitical destination-the creation of a world empire. The Americas would be the greatest of all empires. "Other nations would bring their offerings to the cradle of the young empire of the West, as they had once taken their gifts to the cradle of Jesus."(2) Since the destiny and its destination were preordained by God, Americans possessed supreme title to space, preempting and superseding the right of others. Combined with the Monroe Doctrine, the theological rationale of the Manifest Destiny Doctrine provided an almost evangelical explanation of the geopolitical manifest design to conquer and subjugate space, first the whole Western Hemisphere and then, beginning with the war against Spain in 1898, the whole world. As Carl Schmitt has pointed out, in 1898 USA embarked on a war against Spain and latter against the world which has not ended yet. In this context the American war against Yugoslavia is only a continuation of the one hundred years war which the United States began in 1898. In the history of the United States the expansionist impulse has been as powerful as religion. The continuity of American expansionist war aims since the time of the Manifest Destiny Doctrine has been the most predominant feature of American foreign policy in which the three components of American expansionist Weltanschauung confluence: The Manifest Destiny Doctrine - the theological component - conquest preordained by God and Providence to carry the will of the Almighty, and subsequently, conquest to establish democracy or in the interests of democracy or mankind, The Monroe Doctrine - the geopolitical component and the Open Door Doctrine - the economical component. It was at the end of the last century that the intellectual foundations of the American geopolitical doctrine were formulated by Frederick Jackson Turner, Brooks Adams, Admiral Mahan, and its implementation begun by Theodore Roosevelt and subsequently Woodrow Wilson. The geopolitical concepts advanced by Frederick Jackson Turner, Brooks Adams and Admiral Mahan "became a world view, an expansionist Weltanschauung for subsequent generation of Americans and ... important to understand America's imperial expansion in the twentieth century," writes the noted American historian William Williams. The policies of American Lebensraum, called "Open-Door" imperialism, and the enlargement of the American empire through expansion of the perimeter of the Monroe Doctrine, is the explanation of America's foreign policy during this century, including the present policies of NATO expansion, assertion of American preponderance of power over the whole Eurasia and the war against Yugoslavia. The architects of the American Lebensraum provided also the rationale for NATO. NATO as a geopolitical construct is firmly anchored in the "Frontier thesis" of the American expansionist foreign policy, appearing as a function and instrument of the Atlantic Grossraum, as envisioned by Turner, Adams and Mahan. Or as Senator Tom Connally stated: "the Atlantic Pact is the logical extension of the Monroe Doctrine." The creation of the NATO signified the extension of the Monroe doctrine to Europe - Europe would become for the United States another Latin America, points out the American historian Stephen Amrose. (3)" Thank you for providing that link, David. I must tell you that I have, since first learning of the concept of Manifest Destiny in Elementary School, abhorred the very basis upon which it was formulated. For one thing, the twisted issues involving the methods of teaching it to school children. I would never have connected The Monroe Doctrine, which I was taught was aka, The Policy of Isolationism, which would have seemed antithesis to the expansion policy of Manifest Destiny in my little pea-brain of mind. At least, that's the way it had been explained to me, as a child. Why would the robber barons be hellbent on expanding and taking over every square foot of real estate they could get their hands on, if their ultimate goal would be to isolate themselves from the rest of the world? Also, the treatment of the people who were already established in their own civilizations here in the Western Hemisphere, why were they not considered as human beings, and treated as viable traders, merchants, and commerce entities, in and of themselves? Which has always left me with a disconcerting question as to who gave these European moneyed venture capitalists the "divine" right to ride roughshod over those who were already established on this continent and in this hemisphere? It is cited that this continent was "pre-ordained by God and Providence..." according to whom? Some bible thumping religious fanaticism which deemed it the right to automatically subjugate and plunder property, preempting and superseding the rights of others? Can you see how sanctimonious and utterly detestable this all comes across as? You may counter that it was the sign of the times, or that this was the way the world was perceived from an 18th Century P.O.V. But, that doesn't make it morally sound. We have quite a few large, indelible stains on this tapestry known as The United States of America and its Manifest Destiny Doctrine. I certainly need not use this post to point them out, without risk of appearing rhetorically redundant on the subject. There were only three instances in the historical record that I can recall where I ever felt even a modicum of national pride in the United States, as a country. It was during Abraham Lincoln's term of office and what he stood for with the Emancipation Proclamation, his Gettysburg Address, and the Fourteenth Amendment, the United State's involvement in WWII, with the defeat of Axis powers, and during John F. Kennedy's administration and his attempts to make good the rights of all men, equal before the law, the New Frontier, Peace Corp, and his foreign policy in bridging the chasm between Communism and Capitalism. Other than those three, I cannot think of anything glowing and illustrious to say about carbon monoxide-emitting combustible engines, petroleum energy resources, strip-mining for coal and other minerals, clear-cutting of rain forests, and other ecological abuses perpetrated against the earth and its people by global industrial and manufacturing power-based cabals. It's a distinct possibility that man has finally burned out his welcome here on this planet. The race has certainly shown no signs of slowing down it's sense of propagation, nor its insatiable consumption. In the end, we will eventually get what we deserve, and end up reaping what we've sown. Thanks for enlightening me, which has served to reinforce my prior disgust and contempt for these bombastic, preferential-seeking, supreme opportunists, attempting to disguise their chicanery, and the malcontented rationale they used to justify their irresponsible abuse of power and annexation of other's personal property, in the name of God and Providence, no less.

Terry, I agree with you. Nixon made big mistakes with his bombing and withdrawal with Honor. But I've always felt sorry for him after Watergate. A penny ante burglary and the President has to resign. He was the butt of more jokes on TV, radio, etc. for so long; more than any other person I can remember (except maybe O.J. Simpson). He was so proud to be President at his Inaugurations. I think he felt he was doing his mother proud. I think that was his drive. But this thing happened while he was in China and he had nowhere to go exept down. He was alcoholic and also took sleeping pills, according to Billy Graham. These tendencies grew as he was castigated. Also, people were surprised that he cursed so much. The funniest thing to me is when he was with Haldeman, he'd refer to Henry Kissinger as "Jewboy." For me, finding out that he cursed made me like him. Under all the pressure, he deteriorated physically and mentally. But possibly after a drink or two, he gave such a great Au Revoir speech to his staff and America. Another one bites the dust. Kathy ************************************************************************ "The funniest thing to me is when he was with Haldeman, he'd refer to Henry Kissinger as "Jewboy." For me, finding out that he cursed made me like him." But seriously, and all religious slurs aside, when people labeled Nixon as a paranoid, I would venture to say that after witnessing Dallas 1963, standing by while Johnson announced his intentions of not seeking presidential office for another term, then finally running, being elected and exercising his own style of foreign policy with China, led him to come to terms with what his shadow gov. really had in mind for him. In a way, he was trying to run the gov. with the same idealistic fervor that JFK had, albeit from a Republican platform. I believe he saw the handwriting on the wall, so to speak, when he discovered that Kissinger was already a part of that cabal, which most likely had him elected for the express purpose of using him as a puppet. Kind of like they've done with every president since, and including, Reagan. Making that diplomatic trip to China, back in the day when China wasn't even allowed to be a member in the United Nations General Assembly, had to have put many a Cold War Hawk's nose out of joint. But Nixon, as a Naval officer in WWII, had made allied contacts with China in the war against Japan. He obviously held those contacts in higher esteem, and may have recognized the absurdity of Winston Churchill's brandishing the term "Iron Curtain," as a means of creating a barrier against our former allies, the Soviet Union, Mainland China, and the whole Communist Bloc, as well. But, I'm merely speculating in this paragraph, here. I do believe Nixon's suspicions were in the right place as to what he believed Kissinger's role in the Conservative Party actually consisted of. Big money, corporate oligarchy, and the usurpation of the centralized government of the United States for the benefit of this new World Bank, the IMF aka the International Monetary Fund, a cartel of international bankers, out to use the U.S. taxpayers money, savings, pension funds, etc., as a way of leveraging and financing their war machine efforts. But, that's just my humble opinion on the subject.

************************************************************** "...Nixon's actual purpose in doing this was to close the gold window as he had France demanding repayments of its dollars in gold. There was not enough physical official gold to meet this demand..." I wasn't aware of this fact at the time, but I vividly recall my father always castigating the French for not having paid the U.S. back for the war debts they incurred and owed to us from WWI and WWII.

What Nixon says is catching. Nixon talks about "international speculators" who both create and then profit from the very "crisis" they create. And, his assessment is essentially truthful. That is how they do things. Nixon was wrong to go to a floating exchange rate system (speculators love this) but he had people like John Connally and George Schultz advising him. Note also that he imposes a 10% tax on imports! Of course, back in 1971 this country still produced it's own physical wealth and didn't require cheap imports. Is it possible that Nixon may have been character assassinated in a bloodless "coup d'etat" with Watergate of 1971, just as JFK had been physically assassinated in a "bloody" coup d'etat in Dallas of 1963? Did the Watergate coup plotters no longer need "Tricky Dicky" after he ended the Bretton Woods Monetary System? See for yourself.

I looked at the Google group, of which I was previously unaware. Von Pein certainly is a prolific poster. ****************************************************************** "Von Pein certainly is a prolific poster." Yeah, a prolific poster of bull-puckey.

****************************************************************************** "Although I have not visited JFK Lancer in some time, in event that anyone else sees Mr. "Von Pain"s" heroic attempts to defend VB; the WC; and Posner, if they will let me known than I will be more than glad to acquaint Mr. "Pain" with the true facts of the assassination." I thought Debra had kicked his sorry ass off Lancer a long time ago, Purv? I carried on a heated exchange with him on Amazon.com's Book Review when Bugliosi's Baloney was first released. I told him he came off sounding like an hysterical female when attempting to defend his theory. When he finally ran out of counter-points to sling at me, he stated that I was probably a really nice person to know, outside of the assassination forums. Yeah, in his worst nightmare. Well, methinks that he may have bitten into the wrong apple! http://openlettersmonthly.com/issue/he-died/#comment-1968 Thomas H. Purvis says: In Continuation: ————————————————– And I just love the way Tom relies much more heavily on eyewitness accounts (like those of James Altgens and Emmett Hudson) with respect to the wounds on JFK, rather than place more heavy reliance on the MUCH BETTER EVIDENCE provided by the autopsy doctors and the autopsy report which was produced by those doctors. (Not to mention the autopsy photos and X-rays.) ————————————————– Mr. Von “Pain”, with his quite obvious lack of reading comprehension is under some misguided impression that referencing eye witness testimonies which clearly state of having observed the impact to the head of JFK of two separate shots, constitutes some form of relying on witnesses to describe the anatomical injuries sustained by JFK. This no doubt is why Mr. Von “Pain” can not accomplish research for himself, and thus must rely on others to inform him of what he apparantly readily accepts as the facts. So it goes with those who, for whatever reason, lack the ability/capability for separate and independent thought process. However! In event that I wanted someone to discuss the assassination of JFK who merely “Parroted” what Posner/the WC/VB stated, then I would go to the local pet store, purchase a parrot, and thereafter read “CASE CLOSED”/The Warren Report/and/or VB’s book to them. Then, merely sit back and observe while the “Parrot”, repeats back the same, often incorrect information. Personally, I would expect more from the human species! Especially someone who goes around acting as if they were some sort of researcher with experience in research methodology who had at least taken the time or made the attempt to gain “first source” information. As example: Did Mr. Von “Pain”; VB; the WC; and/or any other LN supporter happen to inform that LHO was an absolutely excellent shot at targets of 500 meters or less when firing from a fixed/stable firing platform? Nope! Ole “know nothing” Tom is the one who informed of this little known fact. Now, one can search this out for themselves quite easily by a review of LHO’s rangefire records as demonstrated and presented in the WC. Yet! This is why other experienced USMC Experts truthfully testified to the lack of difficulty for LHO to have achieved the shots of less than 100 yards distance in Dealy Plaza. So, exactly why would the WC not tell us all this little known fact (assuming that one accepets it as fact, and if they conduct the appropriate research, they will find that it is fact)? Try telling the american public that LHO was an absolutely excellent, to the extent of being in the upper EXPERT range of firing, at such short ranges, and then try to sell them on “THE SHOT THAT MISSED” in which one is attempting to convince that this absolutely EXCELLENT shooter could not even hit the Presidential Limo with one of the three shots fired. We, the american people, may at times be somewhat gullible, but we are certainly not all as dumb as those who have fallen for and believed “THE SHOT THAT MISSED” scenario as presented by the WC, and I might add, is highly expoused by Mr. Von “Pain”. So, when all is finally said and done, there will be those who clearly will possess the imprint of “Dumb A**” imprinted across their forehead. And specifically, all those who fell for “THE SHOT THAT MISSED” will no doubt get it stenciled in large block lettering. ********************************************************************* "We, the american people, may at times be somewhat gullible, but we are certainly not all as dumb as those who have fallen for and believed “THE SHOT THAT MISSED” scenario as presented by the WC, and I might add, is highly expoused by Mr. Von “Pain”." And, all that bluster and falderal coming from a twit who's never fired a gun in his life, never bothered to go to a range to observe, firsthand, the effects of the different grades of projectiles, and their weight, or load, fired from different types of firearms, and their subsequent ballistic effect, on different forms of matter, entrance or exit, not withstanding. We live among fools, Purv. Dumb, ignorant, fools. We really do.

There you go talking for everyone again. Mark Lane is a hero of mine & to accuse me of trying to discredit him is a bit much. We are talking about one thing here, not his whole involvment in the case. What I would suggest to you & others who haven't seen it for a while is to go watch RTJ again the first chance you get. What Bowers said in it(or rather what was left out) may surprise you if you haven't took that much notice before. If you think he referred to the area behind the fence in that film you are very much mistaken, it was Lane who suggested that, not Bowers. To help, Bowers makes his first appearance in the film around twenty minutes in, his second almost thirty minutes later, right after Charles Brehm. The first portion deals with Bowers observation of the three cars, the second concentrates on the time of the shooting itself & the aftermath. If you don't have it handy, this is what happens. After a minute or two in the later segment, Bowers mentions the two men for the first & last time! It happens real fast, be ready with the remote. The scene changes from the intimate interview, to an overhead photo of DP with a great big "X" plastered on the corner of the fence as Lee says the following; Bowers: "At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where these two men I described where.... there was a flash of light, or something which caught my eye in this immeadiate area on the embankment" That's it. Bowers does not say there were men behind the fence & he does not talk about the two men at all other than this one small side reference to them. If this was the only mention of the two men we had to go on then we might be forgiven for considering them irrelevant & not part of the murder at all, since the filmakers did not incude but this one tiny reference to them. If you don't believe me, go watch the film or turn to p118 in "SSID" where Thompson has quoted what was said in the film about these two men word for word. While your there "you" can also ponder why Thompson refers to these two men on that exact same page as being "behind the fence". It's a mystery to me since he too gives his audience the exact same evidence to back that statement up as Lane did. Absolutely nothing. Now let's review again the quote from "A Citizens Discent". That is Mark Lane quoting the transcript of RTJ word for word. With just one major difference. Can you notice that the words "men behind the fence" are in brackets? Does that not strike you as slightly odd? Now read the the exact same portion of the transcript taken from Dale Myer's web page. The words in brackets are missing. So I guess what you really want to know is, which do you believe? Lane & his bracketed words or the less than trustworthy Myers? Well your kinda in a bad spot there Terry because the only man who can confirm what the original transcript says is Gary Mack. If you really feel you can trust him, then ask him yourself & while your at it you can ask him if there is even one mention in the entire transcript that either these two men or the strange occurance were behind the fence. ***************************************************************** "Mark Lane is a hero of mine & to accuse me of trying to discredit him is a bit much." Oh, my stars and garters, you could've fooled me! Listen, if you and those numbnuts you've been hanging around with are so hell-bent on trashing Lane's transcript, then fine, who are we to argue with you for one minute more? All you've managed to succeed in doing is forcing a lot of people to search for a document, video, kinescope, or what have you, where Bowers utters those exact words you proclaim to be "bracketed" thoughts of Lane's. Then, you'll proceed to attempt to blow holes in some semantic form of minutiae with regard to what "was really meant" by that statement. What are you really trying to do here, Alan?