Terry Mauro

*************************************************** Hey, Myra! Add this to the timeline. I'll never forget it because it scared the hell out of me when I was 12 years old! "Sputnik and The Dawn of the Space Age History changed on October 4, 1957, when the Soviet Union successfully launched Sputnik I. The world's first artificial satellite was about the size of a basketball, weighed only 183 pounds, and took about 98 minutes to orbit the Earth on its elliptical path. That launch ushered in new political, military, technological, and scientific developments. While the Sputnik launch was a single event, it marked the start of the space age and the U.S.-U.S.S.R space race. The story begins in 1952, when the International Council of Scientific Unions decided to establish July 1, 1957, to December 31, 1958, as the International Geophysical Year (IGY) because the scientists knew that the cycles of solar activity would be at a high point then. In October 1954, the council adopted a resolution calling for artificial satellites to be launched during the IGY to map the Earth's surface. In July 1955, the White House announced plans to launch an Earth-orbiting satellite for the IGY and solicited proposals from various Government research agencies to undertake development. In September 1955, the Naval Research Laboratory's Vanguard proposal was chosen to represent the U.S. during the IGY. The Sputnik launch changed everything. As a technical achievement, Sputnik caught the world's attention and the American public off-guard. Its size was more impressive than Vanguard's intended 3.5-pound payload. In addition, the public feared that the Soviets' ability to launch satellites also translated into the capability to launch ballistic missiles that could carry nuclear weapons from Europe to the U.S. Then the Soviets struck again; on November 3, Sputnik II was launched, carrying a much heavier payload, including a dog named Laika. Immediately after the Sputnik I launch in October, the U.S. Defense Department responded to the political furor by approving funding for another U.S. satellite project. As a simultaneous alternative to Vanguard, Wernher von Braun and his Army Redstone Arsenal team began work on the Explorer project. On January 31, 1958, the tide changed, when the United States successfully launched Explorer I. This satellite carried a small scientific payload that eventually discovered the magnetic radiation belts around the Earth, named after principal investigator James Van Allen. The Explorer program continued as a successful ongoing series of lightweight, scientifically useful spacecraft. The Sputnik launch also led directly to the creation of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). In July 1958, Congress passed the National Aeronautics and Space Act (commonly called the "Space Act"), which created NASA as of October 1, 1958 from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) and other government agencies."

Hi Francesca, The June 10th event at the JFK Memorial at American Univeristy began about seven years ago when it was suggested that JFK is remembered on November 22nd because of his death, and not on his birthday, like Washington, Lincoln and other presidents. JFK's Peace Speech was an extremely significant change in policy that many believe led to his death. The first time we did it was the largest group by far, and afterwards we adjurned to a large seminar room nearby and discussed JFK's administration and policies, a discussion led by Professor John Newman. Sometimes there are a few dozen people, sometimes just a few, but we always do the same thing. We take turns talking about JFK and reading excerpts of his speeches and try to see how what he was saying is as meaningful today as it was then. JFK specifically chose a group of students to be the recipient of this major speech, but afterwards he wasn't sure they understood or his message got across. One of the more consistant participants has flown to DC from London on four occassions, while most of those do indeed live in the DC area. John Judge has been defending this event from those who say we are cannonizing JFK, mainly liberals and even a few conspiracy advocates, some of who contend that since RFK knew of and approved of the plots to kill Castro JFK deserved to die. I say that JFK died for a reason, political reasons, and the June 10th speech is one of those reasons and is something we should reflect on, if only for one day. Afterwards, we are holding a COPA luncheon meeting to review efforts to get JFK Act oversight hearings in Congress, November in Dallas conference and the state of the grand jury petitions. I hope anyone interested who can make it will be there. Bill Kelly *********************************************************** "I say that JFK died for a reason, political reasons, and the June 10th speech is one of those reasons and is something we should reflect on, if only for one day." Especially, in light of the fact that Kruschev made JFK's American University Speech required reading for Russian [soviet Bloc] University students' curriculum. Another "extended olive branch" which most assuredly served to put a nail in his coffin.

********************************************************* "Where and how is the government to find and attract men and women of experience and judgment to fill its top policymaking positions? It has always been something of an earnings sacrifice to accept a governmental appointment; today it is also likely to be a capital sacrifice. When added to the other costs and the loss of privacy, the impediments become quite serious. Perhaps this is why policy positions in foreign affairs are filled more and more with people from academic life and the military services. Recent history suggests the results are not always good." Among the more affluent and those with the deepest pockets. This seems to be written from the prospectus of a Wall Street investment portfolio. It might be of value if nothing more than to be able to crawl inside the mind of one of the top ten percentile, for the specific purpose of learning how that sector views the rest of the plebes, if at all. What I gleaned from this review, only serves to reinforce my original thoughts as to what little distinction can be made between the elite classes, with regard to which party line serves their better interests. It seems to be at this apex of the economic scale where things begin to blur into what has become known as "one party - two branches." The playing field narrows to include only those chosen few, or their progeny, considered as part and parcel of the more "well-heeled," or with long-established lines of patronage which harken back to the fur trade of pre-revolutionary times. But, will still leave room for the self-made, noveau riche "captains of industry," or the present century's entrepeneurial class of "wildcatters," so long as the vested interests stand to make their bottom line. Apparently, these are the pedigreed determinants deemed requisite for the establishment and formulation of policy, both domestic and foreign. And, consider the source. Remember the old adage, "Know thine enemy..." Therefore, if reading this book might shed a little more light on how they've managed to maintain the stranglehold they've had for the last forty-four, or even the last two hundred and forty-four years, then by all means educate yourself. How could that be a waste of your time?

**************************************************** "In order to advance in their field, particularly the prosecutory field, ONE MUST "WIN" at any cost." I think that's true in just about every walk of life as it pertains to a capitalistic mindset, Charlie. Not to say it's necessarily bad, idealistically speaking. But, in many cases it has surfaced to reveal its wrongheadedness or bullheadedness when taken to the extremes or misapplied to areas in life where fair-mindedness, or plain old-fashioned sportsmanship is concerned. As far as pertaining to the legal system, P.D.'s or Public Defenders, are the last bastion of what I consider to be what REAL attorneys, or those who've decided to dedicate their lives to the letter of the law in helping those less affluent, or less fortunate, and who haven't lost sight of what made them choose to become lawyers, in the first place. Defending those, who's lives had they been better off, may have avoided ending up facing incarceration, or worse. I've always been skeptical of high profilers such as Bugliosi, or those who've made their mark prosecuting or defending celebrities. The spotlight has a tendency to make them appear larger than life, much in the same way as their clients appear in the eyes of the public. The fact that they are able to demand such exorbitantly high fees for services rendered gives the rest of their profession a decidedly bad name. Speaking from my own personal experience, I've had nothing but good service, and courtesy extended above and beyond what I've been charged. Maybe, I've been lucky, but I've never had recourse to look upon any legal help I've received in the past, as being anything less than above board and honest. Bugliosi, on the other hand, seems to be using his past reputation as some sort of a springboard from which to generate enough funds to supplement his retirement, as you've so aptly pointed out. It would be reassuring to think that in writing this tome, he may have inadvertently uncovered some new fact, or piece of evidence to advance the case. Or, maybe if he had been able to have approached it from a less biased P.O.V., allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions, it could have possibly become an excellent textbook or reference guide for research study. But, his vision seems to have been clouded by his desire to win at all costs, as you've also concluded, and to some extent, it's as if he's making a last ditch effort to prosecute this case all over again. This has a tendency to cripple his cause, or weaken it, in my viewpoint. My only hope is that the general public, buying this book will not be swayed by what appears to me, to be a re-hashed overview of the WCR, a weighted defense of Blakely and the HSCA, without mention of the blundering choice of slipping Johannides [and his JMWave, DRE affilitations] on board the HSCA hearings, and the decided effects it had on the outcome of that committee's findings. Little things like that being overlooked or brushed aside, leave me cold.

********************************************************** "My thinking: Justice, at this late date, has nothing to do with throwing anyone in jail, but everything to do with revealing the truth and using it, to the best of our abiities, to make certain that the system will be cleansed." How can that possibly work in our favor, when the assassination itself, was to ensure a free ride on the backs of American taxpayers for the likes of such criminals as the Bush family, elitist wannabes such as the Reagans, the neocons who've managed to outsource our whole economy to The Third World, leaving our industrial base all but vacated and decaying in Detroit, Ohio, Upstate New York, Pennsylvania, and the Midwest. Corporate down-sizing of our healthcare system with the loss of jobs and no reasonable facsimile set in place to catch the rest of us who've been all but disenfranchized and left to fall through the cracks. This was all part and parcel of the royal scam in the form of a coup d'etat on 11-22-63 from which we've now been left to reap the grapes of wrath just so those of the fortunate 15 percentile may revel in the spoils of the war that's been allowed to be waged against the American Middle Class for the last 40 years. How can a system be expected to be cleansed when it continues to be run, and to a certain degree, guided by, the progeny of the very perps who called for the assassination, or sat idly by while watching it happen? "I'm willing to give a pass to everyone, from the prime movers to the mechanics, who will come forward and tell the truth." By the time they decide to come forward, they'll be on their deathbeds, and barely lucid enough to make any sense. Did you think Hunt was going to come clean at the eleventh hour? I didn't. The only thing he had in mind was to muddy the waters even further, advancing no one's cause but his own, and that of his collaborating cohorts. "It is more important to disempower the killers of John Kennedy than to disembowel them." I don't realistically see anything like disempowerment ever being realized by anyone who is even remotely cognizant of the deliberate mechanizations set in place both politically and socially as a result of the assassination. Nor, do I expect anyone born during, or after the event to be able to relate the present economical conditions facing this nation as being a direct result or culmination of the events of 11-22-63. "And hate begets hate." As does ignorance beget the same. I suggest we make tracks for Cuba before the Sugar-Honey-Iced-Tea hits the fan.

****************************************************** "No one -- I mean NO ONE -- includes in criticism of Castro mention of the US-backed horror he overthrew. Viva Fidel!" I want to expatriate to Cuba! At least, I'll get medical benefits down there. I'm just waiting until I'm 70 or 75, when I can retire, have my brother cash my Social Security checks, and send me the money. I'll donate what's left of my ridiculous and worthless 401K Plan to the Cuban government. VIVA CHE! Terry, We'll walk the beach at Giron ... watch the sun set ... scare the gulls. C ******************************************************* "We'll walk the beach at Giron ... watch the sun set ... scare the gulls." I love the way the waves break on the wall along the beach at Giron. Yesssss! And, we'll dance to the music of The Buena Vista Social Club, after working on the banana or sugar plantation doing our collective farming chores, and I'll have my side job on Saturdays rolling Havana Cremes for the rich Yanquis en Los Estados Unidos, so we can have some extra pin money to party in the streets with. I love it! Plantains, ropa viejo, black bean soup, rice, mojitos. Yippee, let's go!!!

But there IS concensus. At least on the "how" question. CONSPIRACY! Yet again I submit that we would be well advised when dealing with the media and the public at large to focus on the presentation of proof of conspiracy -- scientific, quantifiable, falsifiable, unassailable proof, deflect all efforts to conflate "how" with "who and why," and end with the ancient question: What, then, are you prepared to do? Charles ***************************************************** "But there IS concensus. At least on the "how" question. CONSPIRACY!" Absolutely, Charles! "...when dealing with the media and the public at large to focus on the presentation of proof of conspiracy -- scientific, quantifiable, falsifiable, unassailable proof,..." Because, without that documentation in hand, our credibility is nil. "...and end with the ancient question: What, then, are you prepared to do?" Take back our republic, by force if need be. And, where's Charlie Black? What are we going to do with the perps, Charlie? STRING THEM UP BY THE YOU-KNOW-WHATS!!! That's what. If there are any of them still alive, that is. But, all joking aside, if there was some way to hold the perps responsible, we'd probably have a better chance of indicting them for war crimes via egregious disregard for, and for continually and deliberately being in direct violation of The Accords set forth at The Geneva Convention following World War II. Aimed at and including, those Black-Ops committed by U.S.A. hired and employed mercenary S.O.F.'s, covert operators, assassins, and assorted government contracted corporations looking to make a windfall off the expected troop deployment, the general crap-stirrers and agitators, purposely and strategically stationed in SEA, including Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia, as well as in Central and South America, including Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, and Chile, the former Eastern European bloc consisting of and including Kosovo, Albania, Serbia, and what was left of the Czech Republic following the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Middle East, including Egypt, Iraq and Iran, including Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, for the sole purpose of keeping a state of war continually festering in these foreign backwaters specifically in order to make billions of dollars to line the pockets of the corporate structure aligned and in collusion with their Anglo-American empirical business partners. That's what, and that's why.

Scott is not a historian in the professional sense. He is an English professor, described on his own website as "a poet, writer, and researcher." That said, Scott certainly stands head and shoulders over the "historian" Dallek. John Simkin is an example of a historian worthy of the name. Though "historians" like Dallek may not be expected to be experts on human anatomy, it shouldn't be asking too much of them to know the difference between the human neck and back (and what a difference it makes in the JFK case). You've forced me to the dictionary Ron: "Main Entry: his·to·ri·an Pronunciation: hi-'stor-E-&n, -'stär- Function: noun 1 : a student or writer of history; especially : one who produces a scholarly synthesis 2 : a writer or compiler of a chronicle" http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sour...mp;va=historian I know what you're saying though; Scott is an English prof. Valid point and I appreciate the info. But I have no problem calling anyone on this forum ('cept the CIA propagandists) a "historian." We're as devoted to real history as any group of people I've ever known. And I refuse to use the frame that propagandists have wielded as a weapon so effectively for decades to discredit us. ************************************************************* And, I'll up you one more with the words, "Theory," "Theorem," "Axiom," and "Aphorism." From my Funk and Wagnalls Standard Encyclopedic Dictionary Copyright 1966: theory (the'er-e, thir'e) n. pl, -ries 1. A plan or scheme existing in the mind only. n speculative or conjectural view of something. 2. An integrated group of the fundamental principles underlying a science or its practical applications: the atomic theory. 3. Abstract knowledge of any art as opposed to the practice of it. 4. A closely reasoned set of propositions, derived from and supported by established evidence and intended to serve as an explanation for a group of phenomena: the quantum theory. -Syn. See DOCTRINE, HYPOTHESIS. [ < LL < Gk. theoria view, speculation] AND, how about, theorem? theorem (the'or-rem, thir'em) n. 1. A proposition demonstrably true or acknowledged as such. 2. Math. a. A proposition setting forth something to be proved. b. A proposition that has been proved or assumed to be true. c. A rule or statement of relations formulated in symbols. [LL < Gk. thorema sight, theory < theoreein to look at ] - the-o-re-mat-ic (the'er-e-mat'ik), the'o-rem'ic (the'er-rem'ik) adj. axiom (ak'se-am) n. 1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth. 2. An established principle or rule. 3. Logic & Math. A self-evident proposition accepted as true without proof. [ < Gk. < axioein to think worthy ] axiomatic (ak'se-e-mat-ik) adj. 1. Of, pertaining to, or resembling an axiom; self-evident. 2. Aphoristic. Also ax'i-o-mat'i-cal. - ax'i-o-mat'i-al-ly adv. As in, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." aphorism (af'e-riz'em) n. 1. A brief statement of a truth or principle. 2. A proverb; maxim. [ < MF < Med.L < Gk. < apo- from + horizein to divide ] - aph'o-rist n. - aph-o-ris-tic (af'e-ris'tik) or - aph-o-ris'ti-cal adj. - aph'o-ris'ti-cal-ly adv. AND, from The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia Copyright 1983: theorem, in MATHEMATICS and LOGIC, statement in words or symbols that can be established by means of deductive logic; it differs from an AXIOM in that a proof is required for its acceptance. A lemma is a theorem that is demonstrated as an intermediate step in the proof of another, more basic theorem. A corollary is a theorem that follows as a direct consequence of another theorem or an axiom. axiom, in MATHEMATICS and LOGIC, general statement accepted without proof as the basis for logically deducing other statements (THEOREMS). Examples of axioms used widely in mathematics are those related to equality (e.g., "If equals are added to equals, the sums are equal") and those related to operations (e.g., the ASSOCIATIVE LAW). A postulate, like an axiom, is a statement that is accepted without proof; it deals, however, with specific subject matter (e.g., properties of geometrical figures), not general statements. So, maybe we should be called "theorem-ists, axiom-ists, or aphor-ists?" It's up for grabs, but anything is better than "theorists."

******************************************************** "In a sense it has always been a problem that opponents of the official story have remained so divided on the major issues as well as the minor ones. People have a vastly different concept of which evidence is the most important when it comes to proving a conspiracy existed. This may be one of the main obstacles to justice in this case and why it has never been served." Wow, Michael. That is SO on the money!

HISTORIANS. ... Except that historians, like journalists, consider themselves to be a breed apart and not just a little better than most other people, especially when viewing something that happened longer than, say, a moment ago. They would take umbrage at unwashed masses as ourselves laying claim to such a high calling! (Journalists, incidentally, are qualified to cover everything equally in depth, with or without expertise, using simple words the rest of us can understand. A journalist's writing can most easily be recognized by their ability to keep people informed throughout their work, such as noting in an article about the Department of Homeland Security that "the agency was formed in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, when two airliners flew into the World Trade Center buildings." Otherwise, how would we know when or why DHS came into existance, or what happened on September 11?) Duke, why would I care if some elite snob doesn't want me in their elite club? I, and many others here, spend hours every day studying history, real history not the lies in text books. I won't be intimidated out of accurately describing myself as a historian. And I won't accept the snide framing of "conspiracy theorist" or even worse "buff" that conspirators strategically use to discredit us. **************************************************** "And I won't accept the snide framing of "conspiracy theorist" or even worse "buff" that conspirators strategically use to discredit us." YESSSSSS, Girlfriend!!! Now, I've always looked at it from the view of say, a forensic investigative analysis. How about Conspiracy Forensics Investigators, or Students of Conspiracy Forensics Investigations, or CFI's?

I would argue that these approaches are not as widely different as Dr. Mantik suggests. According to a great philosopher of science -- Charles Sanders Peirce -- law is a branch of scientific inquiry no less than chemistry or geology. Francis Bacon is considered the father of inductive science, and he formulated the theory of induction after a brilliant legal career in which he successfully applied the inductive method to extract the underlying principles in legal precedents. He realized that the inductive method could be applied to reveal the secrets of nature itself, and induction became the cornerstone of every branch of scientific inquiry. For reasons not clear to me, though Van The Man might have the right idea, many "scientists" see their method of pursuing truth as being different and somehow superior to the Judicial method, as though the judicial method is "unscientific." All methods are as fallible as the people using them, of course. In most scientific inquiries it is possible to "set up a controlled experiment, perform multiple measurements, and then publish [the] results in a peer reviewed journal." If the experiment is repeated by others with the same results, the theory behind it may then be accepted as proven by the community of inquirers in that particular field, and ultimately by the world at large. If not, the theory must be modified or discarded. Medical Doctors, unlike judges and lawyers, are usually thought of as belonging to the "scientific community." but what does a doctor do when a patient presents with a set of life-threatening symptoms? Every patient has only one life to be experimented upon. The patient is in a position not unlike a man accused of a serious crime. He hopes the doctor gets the diagnosis right the first time, but if he is unhappy he can seek a second, or maybe a third opinion, or he can demand further tests to confirm or refute the diagnosis. The defendant unhappy with his conviction can appeal to a higher court, and the appeal process can take years. Sometimes the conviction is overturned, sometimes appellate judges disagree, sometimes a brand new trial is ordered. Sometimes everyone (police, lawyers, scientific experts, juries, appellate judges) screws up and an innocent man goes to the death chamber. Sometimes doctors differ, and the patient dies when an accurate diagnosis might have enabled him to enjoy many more years of healthy living. With the greatest respect to Dr. Mantik, I submit that there is much more to the law than simply "Use expert witnesses, then let a jury vote." For starters, experts are not the only kinds of witnesses, and even in cases where expert testimony is important on specific issues, the testimony of lay witnesses is usually more important in determining the ultimate outcome of the case. "For a scientist, the very notion of a debate, and then a vote on truth, would be absurd, simply laughed out of court in a nanosecond." Here I submit that this is exactly what happens in every branch of scientific inquiry. Depending on the subject, the debate can last for decades, even centuries, until finally a consensus is reached. It took a long time, but everyone now agrees that the earth is not nearly as flat as our ancestors believed it to be. I'd say the jury is still out on that one, and a FINAL VERDICT (Bugliosi's original title) may take a little while longer. Every sensible person, whether academically lettered or not, should find Bugliosi's prosecutor's certitude as scary as Dr. Mantik does. Again I would respectfully disagree. If Bugliosi takes a myopic and close-minded view of this critical data, it is not because his legal training requires or encourages it. The late Dr. Lattimer was reputed to have a brilliant mind, yet he was just as myopic as Bugliosi when it came to the JFK assassination. Somehow I doubt that Dr. Mantik would attribute Lattimer's myopia to his medical training. Shakespeare on Lawyers Shakespeare lived in the time of Francis Bacon, a time of great importance in legal history. "Kill all the lawyers" is a famous line from Shakespeare, spoken by Dick the Butcher, follower of a would-be tyrant. Shakespeare knew that all would-be tyrants aim to eliminate individual freedoms and the people and institutions whose job it is to protect those freedoms. Yes, they were all lawyers, but you can search the Warren Report and the HSCA report and you will find little evidence that they used any of the hallowed legal procedures developed over centuries of trial and error. I have barely glanced at Bugliosi's book, but I note that he is not too impressed by the role played by Walter Craig and the American Bar Association. The introduction to Bugliosi's book cites the hearsay of Ruth Paine as one of the lynchpins of the case he presented at the famous mock trial in London. This is not something lawyers normally do. Bugliosi would never get hearsay before a jury in a real courtroom, and if he did a mistrial would almost certainly be declared. I will be looking for more on Dr Mantik's views on the grassy knoll. Does Dr. Mantik have a copy of Bugliosi's book in electronic form? If so, how many lawyers do I have to kill in order to get one? ************************************************************ "This is not something lawyers normally do. Bugliosi would never get hearsay before a jury in a real courtroom, and if he did a mistrial would almost certainly be declared." Good points, JRC. But, couldn't it, or might it not be allowed under another name, such as "circumstantial evidence?" "Does Dr. Mantik have a copy of Bugliosi's book in electronic form? If so, how many lawyers do I have to kill in order to get one?" Now, cut that out. He's probably got the CD that goes with the book, and was able to make a search from it.

Hi Terry, While this may be worthy of a separate thread, and really has nothing to do with the reviews, I note your "Lisa Pease's input", and what she said at Amazon: "The hard evidence that only two casings (not three) and one live round were found in the TSBD has not changed." Could someone please show me hard evidence that 2 empty casings were found on the 6th floor? Yes, there is dated documentation that evidence turned over to the FBI included 2 shell casings. There is also dated documentation the third was turned over to FBI SA Vince Drain a week later by Will Fritz, having resided in the possession of the DPD. IMO, this is inadequate research that gets us into trouble with conspiracy doubters. You'll notice that people like DVP cannot address the unquestionable evidence of conspiracy(especially the medical evidence), but will jump all over speculative or incomplete research(and they would be right). Stick to the facts, and we can win. Keep speculating, and those like Bugliosi will rub your nose in it. RJS ********************************************************** Thanks for making that observation, RJS. This was one of the reasons I originally stated to DVP that Pat Speer was the one whom I considered to be the most qualified to counter-point his overly idolatrous ravings of Bugliosi's tome. I couldn't help but notice how utterly juvenile DVP's, along with his cheering squad's rebuttals, sounded. I would only hope that those prospective purchasers of Bugliosi's book, were more objectively aware of his lame attempts at rhetoric, as well as his completely unoriginal responses to, what appeared to be logically sound inquiry. Thanks for reminding me. Ter

***************************************************** Don't forget to call, John. tmauro@pacbell.net

**************************************************** Congratulations, Don! We've been down many miles on the forums, and I've always loved your contributions and words of wisdom. I'm heading back over to Amazon, as we speak. Good job, my friend. Ter

If those links don't work, try... http://jfkresearch.com/forum3/index.php?to...picseen#msg6237 Thank you for that interesting review by Mantik. Here is a link to David Lifton's comments on Black Ops Radio http://www.blackopradio.com/inc_archives2007.html ***************************************************** When DL contacted me back in late April, about how Bugliosi was going to be quoting his [DL's] work in "the tonnage" [Myra's apropo description of Bugliosi's book], I immediately told him to sue him for abuse of literary license. When David asked why, I told him because I didn't trust Bugliosi, whom I thought was merely seeking David out, and would proceed to try and make him look like an idiot. And, I was right. Look what he tried to do to Doug Horne. Bugliosi's got a case of Bologna Braggadocio, or Bologna Bloviata.

***************************************************** Thanks for e-mailing that to me, Bean. It really kept me riveted this morning. Excellent review from Mantik!

Great, just what we need, another war to oppress another country. Don't you think the CIA is going to get in there? What makes you think we have the right to murder people and steal their country from them? Castro took over and then informed his people that they were now living under communism. Why do you think Elian Gonzalez's mother lost her life to give him freedom? Do we need their sugar cane? Their bananas? Their vacation climate? It was once a great resort -- before my time. Why should we co-exist with an enemy 90 miles off our shore? What about all the Cuban exiles who went in there in the Bay of Pigs to take back their country? These people have rights and would love a free country. That's why they're here. That's why Kennedy was killed. The Cuban Exiles hoped America would believe Castro did it and want to invade Cuba. Why don't YOU grab a gun and go right now to take over Cuba? I was in the Gulf of Mexico 2 days ago. Had an incident, nearly drowned. And the water is still quite chilly. I'll bide my time. I'll read your obituary in the news. Make sure they spell my name right. That's important to a person when they're dead. What is it about us Americans that makes us think we own the world, or, that we ought to own the world? Castro's regime is our enemy. They're close by. Today we're having trouble with Islamic Extremists from Guyana. Too many enemies nearby. Oh, and Castro being a bastard? No more than George Washington was considered one by the English. You can't compare America with Cuba. He cleaned up a corrupt gov't. and ran OUR American Mafia out of HIS country. Not such a bad thing for the Cuban people. Not a bad thing? Then why do so many Cubans want to live here? You can't compare Cuba with Iraq. These are my opinions. Subject to change. It's what I learned in a Jesuit college: We have a mission in this world -- kill Commies for Christ. Kathy *********************************************************** "These people have rights and would love a free country. That's why they're here. That's why Kennedy was killed. The Cuban Exiles hoped America would believe Castro did it and want to invade Cuba." "These people," the majority of whom were those Cuban aristocrats who co-owned the sugar and banana plantations with American elitists, such as William Pauley, and United Fruit, who treated the guajiros, the REAL Cubanos de nativos, as esclavos trabajados in their cane fields and banana orchards. They had a choice to stay or go, and since they had their Palm Beach, Coco Beach, and Miami Beach residences already established, I really don't see how bad off they actually could be considered living "in exile," here in the U.S. The people you may be referring to were more likely middle class, small business owners who would leave because they were basically capitalistic, and feared losing money in a leveled playing field, or economy. Castro wasn't keeping them there, if they didn't want to stay. That Gonzales kid was from guajiro bloodlines, and his family living in Miami were more than likely boat people, or those considered to be "wet backs," by U.S. Immigration officials. All the "white" Cubans left, with their jewelry and riches back in the late 50's and early 60's. Their homes in Havana were converted into living quarters for foreign ambassadors to Cuba. "That's why Kennedy was killed." Because he was trying to hold up his end of the bargain by abiding by The Geneva Accords? Kennedy walked into a snake-pit created by Dulles' and his band of merry mercenaries, who were all breaking the law, international law.

****************************************************** "No one -- I mean NO ONE -- includes in criticism of Castro mention of the US-backed horror he overthrew. Viva Fidel!" I want to expatriate to Cuba! At least, I'll get medical benefits down there. I'm just waiting until I'm 70 or 75, when I can retire, have my brother cash my Social Security checks, and send me the money. I'll donate what's left of my ridiculous and worthless 401K Plan to the Cuban government. VIVA CHE!

I heard from the head of the transplant team at Stanford a couple of days ago and haven't been able to make sense of what he was saying. He informed me that I have a coronary lesion over the left ventricle which would lessen the chances of a successful outcome from a single lung transplant. Since my family history has had me convinced that there was a coronary element to all of this, and because a lung transplant is one of the most dangerous and extensive surgeries being performed, I countered with the whole shebang: how about a heart/lung transplant? His response was that I am now too ill to withstand that surgery. I have read too many case studies of lung transplant patients who died due to the damage to the heart caused by the lungs to be able to elect a surgery with such poor odds and with new problems being found in my heart. David, I will definitely send you my e-mail address and would welcome a visit. My daughter and granddaughter live just minutes from SF, in Alameda, and I hate to think that I've seen SF for the last time, so perhaps we could get together for lunch without you having to drive the three hours to Chico. I enjoyed our exchange at the Adolphus Hotel at the '04 seminar, when I cited Allard Lowenstein as a counterpoint to Jeff Morley's assertion about RFK's relationship with the NY liberals, and discussed with you the seldom considered notion that Bobby and Jack weren't necessarily working off the same page. By the way, I enjoyed your article in Salon about Chris Matthews. He was obviously livid and treated you very badly on his own program which had you debating Bugliosi. Between Matthews' animosity and Bugliosi's prosecutor-on-meth behavior, you were hardly allowed to speak. Ter: mi casa es su casa. If I'm actually able to make the Oregon trip during the first week of July, I will certainly be home for those dates. I have to work on my caregivers to prescribe a bit of an upper for such special occasions so that I can be at my best for an hour or two (which is pretty much the limit). Thank you all for your kind wishes and expressions of sympathy. ****************************************************** "I countered with the whole shebang: how about a heart/lung transplant? His response was that I am now too ill to withstand that surgery." It is that rare occasion, or shock occurrence, to leave me as speechless, as I am at this moment. I feel as if I've been punched right between the eyes. "Ter: mi casa es su casa. If I'm actually able to make the Oregon trip during the first week of July, I will certainly be home for those dates. I have to work on my caregivers to prescribe a bit of an upper for such special occasions so that I can be at my best for an hour or two (which is pretty much the limit)." I haven't been on-line since Wednesday, and that was mainly to check my mail at yahoo. I haven't been on the forum here, since Memorial Day weekend. I'll make a point of touching base more often during this month to check on your status [God, does that sound like I'm still on the job, or what?]. Working at The Hill is turning me into an automaton, but you'd be proud of me, T.C. My skills are operating at full tilt boogie and I'm making my departing boss so proud, as well. Oh, and BTW, Talbot's book arrived on Thursday and I'm just cracking it open this weekend, once the bills have been paid, and the mundane utilitarian functions required in keeping up appearances [laundry, cleaning] are out of the way, so I can relax without the usual distractions coming at me from all sides. I'll be in touch with you and Cris, soon. Love always, Ter

**************************************************************** Thanks for posting this, Bill. I know my "dues" are long overdue. Does John take VISA? If he does, could you ask him to e-mail me a form to enter my info if you get the chance, please? I know, as a member of COPA that he has my e-mail address on file, but if John has a form for VISA payment that he could personally e-mail me to fill out, I might be able to facilitate a quicker transfer of funds for my dues. I don't have PayPal, that's why I'm asking. Thanks, Billy. Ter tmauro@pacbell.net

******************************************************* "Except $$$$ of course." Oink! Oink! PIGGIES by George Harrison Have you seen the little piggies Crawling in the dirt And for all the little piggies Life is getting worse Always having dirt to play around in. Have you seen the bigger piggies In their starched white shirts You will find the bigger piggies Stirring up the dirt Always have clean shirts to play around in. In their styes with all their backing They don't care what goes on around In their eyes there's something lacking What they need's a damn good whacking. Everywhere there's lots of piggies Living piggy lives You can see them out for dinner With their piggy wives Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon.

There are some here who would say that the time Doug spent opposing LBJ was time well spent indeed. You were ahead of your time then, Mr. Caddy, and maybe the same is true again today. ********************************************************* "There are some here who would say that the time Doug spent opposing LBJ was time well spent indeed." I can't argue with that. But, from what I gathered, Mr. Caddy held almost the same views about LBJ that I did, at the time. "You were ahead of your time then, Mr. Caddy, and maybe the same is true again today." Total agreement. That's why I made the statement about how nice it would have been to have had him on our side of the fence, gifted as I believe he truly is, and has demonstrated as much, from a quite notable career. And, I'm not trying to be a smart aleck by stating what I have to say, here. I'm acknowledging what I perceive as an honest explanation being made by Mr. Caddy. I am fully aware, speaking from my own experience, how at different points in our lives, we've all made choices we had believed in, based upon what we thought was the best decision possible for all concerned at the time we're making them. Sometimes we may discover we've quite possibly been misled. Or that a misrepresentation may have occurred due to an unexpected transition within an organization, committee, or other affiliation in which we had invested an enormous amount of time, energy, and faith. We wake up one morning only to find we no longer recognize the vision it once held for us. That is what I consider to be one of the "hard" lessons life can have in store for us. This is the gist of what I believe Mr. Caddy was relating to us. And why I appreciated his coming forth to share with us the history of his relationship and involvement in the political community. By no means did I not recognize a unique opportunity, nor was I seeking to alienate Mr. Caddy from answering the forum members' questions. I merely sought to express my regrets for not having had his expertise available during some of the most troublesome times this country was forced to go through, with the assassination deaths of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy, the Kent State Massacre, as well as the overall pall cast by the Vietnam War, itself.

Interesting viseo. Maybe Al Jazeera would be interested in interviewing David Talbot. Two of the experts claimed that political assassinations are rarely successful in achieving their objectives. However, that was not the case in the assassination of JFK, RFK and MLK. Hello!!!! I hope most of you are reading the last post first here because......... I want the forum members to know that in many of the past threads that I have read , links placed by Ms Foster in her posts were said to contain viruses. This may or may not be true, but don't risk it!!!! Please be very careful with opening any of them!!!!!!!!!! Kathy Beckett ****************************************************** "I want the forum members to know that in many of the past threads that I have read, links placed by Ms Foster in her posts were said to contain viruses. This may or may not be true, but don't risk it!!!! Please be very careful with opening any of them!!!!!!!!!! Kathy Beckett" Yes, sweet child. We all became infected with it at the time. Even Gerry Hemming cried foul over that one! I'm just surprised John or Andy hadn't eliminated her tripe from the forum, or at least checked to see if her links still carried those active viruses. All the more reason to wipe her from the face of the database server, wouldn't you think? A totally toxic individual, in more ways than one. Ter

Oops, just now saw that you asked the same thing. Sorry Terry. Dawn, Could you elaborate on "strange things began to happen. Terry ***************************************************** "Right after Clinton told aids to look into JFK strange things began to happen. This stuff is bigger than the president. These forces more powerful and still in control of the history that was not. We need more brave souls in the press like David Talbot and Jeff Morely...but what are THOSE chances?" I'm just guessing here, since I haven't spoken with Dawnie yet today, what with the holiday and all. But, possibly it could be the events surrounding what happened to Vince Foster, the ensuing Whitewater scandal, culminating with the Lewinsky affair, and the resulting character assassination of Bill, and to a lesser degree, Hillary during the Kenneth Starr Grand Jury fiasco?