Terry Mauro
-
Posts
1,791 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Terry Mauro
-
-
"I do have a question as to the identity to which you refer when you assert absolute certaintly about who ordered the assassination. W-H-O W-A-S I-T ?"
You're asking, "the identity to which you refer when you assert with absolute certainty." Asserting with certainty, although I'm not so sure I would call it absolute. But, since you've asked, how about Allen Dulles, at the behest of Rockefeller [David], and McCloy. With E.H. Hunt in charge of the mechanics' detail, and paymaster of that payroll. Just to mention a few names.
I thought I was asking about Charles Black's assertion of certainty, not Terry Mauro's. Nor do I understand the underlying reason for her answering for Mr. Black. I understand that Terry gravitates to the Sullivan and Cromwell axis, representatives of old monied eastern establishmentarians such as the Rockefellers, Harrimans, United Fruit, etc. My question was addressed to the following statement:
I know "WHO" did it, other than the mechanics who actually pulled the trigger. I merely need a way to show the world that the conspiracy of Z film alteration could "only" be accomplished by those "Elite Few" who controlled the assassination and cover up. I know of no other way that there exists an opportunity of proving it."(I also found the assertion that there is no room for doubt about Zapruder's complicity quite astonishing)."Not as astonishing as I found the fact that Zap sold the film to Time for $1.00, to be. I found that to be downright incredulous, but true!
Not true! It was Time that sold the film back to Zapruder for $1.00.
"Another question: do you intend to be so smugly dismissing the work of James Richards, Larry Hancock, Bill Miller, Robert Groden, ad infinitum?"James Richards? Never, will I EVER "be so smugly dismissing of" James Richards' work, nor person, for that matter. I owe him too much for his time and consideration. Not to mention his unflagging dedication to this, as well as to the three other forums I belong to, and to which he's unselfishly contributed over the years.
How can one so single-mindedly support film alteration and simultaneously support the advancements James Richards has made?
Larry Hancock? I've never read his book, never claimed to have done so, and have never recommended it, having not read it, myself. Therefore, I have no comment, except that he seems like a sincere enough person.Bill Miller? Well, after a long talk on the phone today with my good friend, Bernie [bernice Moore], who happened to have pointed out this fact: that in all her research [and believe me, Bernice has been doing some very intensive research work over these past five years], she has come to the conclusion that if there's one thing Bill Miller has gotten correct, it has been with the trajectories of the crossfire, or the triangulation, however you want to phrase it. And Bernie, I hope you don't get pissed at me for using your name in this post, but you made me proud to have known you all these years. Especially, after having taken the time to explain all of that to me, today.
Robert Groden? Is a cheap, petty larcenist for having absconded with Mo Weitzman's copy of the film. Then, turning around and using it as his own, proceeding to go around passing himself off as some kind of cinematographic expert? He's nothing more than a hawker, or a barker, who'd be much more at home in front of one of those strip joints in New Orleans, or Dallas, if you ask me. And no. I do not know him, and personally do not care to, either. But, since you did ask... And yes, Dawnie knows what I think of him, and we agree to disagree on Groden.
Charles' proposition that finding who controlled the Zapruder Film is intrinsic to finding the conspirators has plenty of merit. I have felt the same way about the autopsy photos. But to blame Groden rather than the government (not just the Luce empire) is rather like killing the messenger. Why was the American public kept from seeing the film for almost 12 years? I believe that Groden performed a deed of patriotism, as did his accomplices Dick Gregory and Geraldo Rivera, when they showed the film to the public late one night in March, 1975. It's viewing singularly reawakened the public to the duplicity of the cover-up.
I can't really respond to views of Bill Miller as they relate to Bernice Moore's support or lack thereof. That would be basing one's view of history on who they hang out with in the schoolyard. I have had vociferous arguments with Bill Miller, and consider him too often to take on the role of shill for Gary Mack. But I do recognize his expertise with the film work and do not consider his opinions to be the products of a dishonest promotion of the Secret Government.
Finally, regarding which matters Dawn and Terry "agree to disagree," I have to assume that, according to Carl Oglesby's framework, Dawn considers it Cowboys and Terry considers it Yankees. I am closer to Dawn's position on that one and find the subsequent history to be supportive of the idea that the nouveau riche Big Oil, now aligned with the Saudis, overthrew President Kennedy's Yankees.
Tim
************************************************************
"I thought I was asking about Charles Black's assertion of certainty, not Terry Mauro's. Nor do I understand the underlying reason for her answering for Mr. Black. I understand that Terry gravitates to the Sullivan and Cromwell axis, representatives of old monied eastern establishmentarians such as the Rockefellers, Harrimans, United Fruit, etc. My question was addressed to the following statement:"
Now that you mention it, I guess I probably share a lot more views on this with Charles Black than I previously thought, which is most likely the reason why I answered. Though, I certainly did not intend to answer FOR him. Sorry about that.
"Not true! It was Time that sold the film back to Zapruder for $1.00."
Sorry, I stand corrected. I must have gotten my "time-line" reversed in the heat of discussion.
"I have had vociferous arguments with Bill Miller, and consider him too often to take on the role of shill for Gary Mack. But I do recognize his expertise with the film work and do not consider his opinions to be the products of a dishonest promotion of the Secret Government."
"...a dishonest promotion of a Secret Government." I find what it being passed off to the American people and the world, in this day and age, to be NO GOVERNMENT, at all. Instead, I find this sham being paraded and masqueraded as a democracy, a mendacious form of brain-washing, the culmination of which has been allowed to operate as an autocratic plutocracy since it's first inception. And, if that isn't evidence of compliance with a Secret Government, then I don't know what else is.
-
Tim. What I truly don't understand is why you have taken it upon yourself to critique my writing style and to correct my sentence structure. I feel that it has been a needles waste of forum time and space to do this, since you added nothing substantive to the discussion. Tim, I don't wish to burst your bubble, but if I truly gave a damned about improving my writing style and sentence structure, I probably would have continued my education and at leaste attempted to go on to high school !
Point taken. Charles has no use for education. What seduced my interest in this thread was the title about "ONE simple unanswered question." Rather than finding a single such a question, I found numerous issues raised, ranging from film alteration to the nature of all centuries-old evidence being first person witnessing. Rather than finding a simple question, none was ever posed. I do see a particular emphasis on the Parkland witnesses and their appropriate standing with regard to subsequent evidence from the Bethesda autopsy and the use of altered films of the events in Dealey Plaza.
My "critique" of Charles' writing style was/is directed at the heavy-handed attack on so many sincere researchers who don't consider these matters "simple," and whose efforts were treated in the opening post of this thread as easily dismissible. While admittedly having a strong respect for education and its emphasis on development of critical reasoning, I consider the only "simple" thing about this case to be those who consider it simple. The condescending attitude toward anyone who disagrees with Charles on any point is glaring.
I am ill beyond my own ability to absorb the prospects, and have now acquired a laptop so that I may occupy my time from bed. I tried to find the "ONE simple question" and sincerely could not. I see references to earlier threads, of which I'm admittedly not familiar, and shouldn't have to be, given the title of this thread. But now that I have really tried to "infer" the intended point I can easily say that Ron Ecker's point about Jackie possibly closing the head flap truly is the Occam's Razor explanation. Similarly, Pat Speer has done excellent work toward understanding how the Parkland witnesses could have gotten plenty wrong. I made my own point about how so many witnesses could have heard so few shots without any acknowledgment from Mr. Black.
I am not certain of any point that you were attempting to make, but did you infer that I was attacking the non altered Z film theory at a time when most of its defenders were not present on the forum....which is unfair? Regardless of what your intent, is or was, in choosing to attempt to ridicule me...I suppose that you have that right !Gee thanks.
If you are attempting to ask me a question, I'm afraid that you must lower yourself to a level which I might be able to comprehend.After working through this thread following the false inducement that it came down to "ONE simple question," I do have a question as to the identity to which you refer when you assert absolute certaintly about who ordered the assassination. W-H-O W-A-S I-T ? (I also found the assertion that there is no room for doubt about Zapruder's complicity quite astonishing).
Another question: do intend to be so smugly dismissing the work of James Richards, Larry Hancock, Bill Miller, Robert Groden, ad infinitum?
As for your repeated questioning of my contribution to an understanding of this case, if you have looked at the seminars you've seen that the one I wrote on "The Whole Bay Of Pigs Things" had far more viewings and participation of any seminar by anyone who isn't a forum administrator.
Tim Carroll
**********************************************************
"I do have a question as to the identity to which you refer when you assert absolute certaintly about who ordered the assassination. W-H-O W-A-S I-T ?"
You're asking, "the identity to which you refer when you assert with absolute certainty." Asserting with certainty, although I'm not so sure I would call it absolute. But, since you've asked, how about Allen Dulles, at the behest of Rockefeller [David], and McCloy. With E.H. Hunt in charge of the mechanics' detail, and paymaster of that payroll. Just to mention a few names.
"(I also found the assertion that there is no room for doubt about Zapruder's complicity quite astonishing)."
Not as astonishing as I found the fact that Zap sold the film to Time for $1.00, to be. I found that to be downright incredulous, but true!
"Another question: do intend to be so smugly dismissing the work of James Richards, Larry Hancock, Bill Miller, Robert Groden, ad infinitum?"
James Richards? Never, will I EVER "be so smugly dismissing of" James Richards' work, nor person, for that matter. I owe him too much for his time and consideration. Not to mention his unflagging dedication to this, as well as to the three other forums I belong to, and to which he's unselfishly contributed over the years.
Larry Hancock? I've never read his book, never claimed to have done so, and have never recommended it, having not read it, myself. Therefore, I have no comment, except that he seems like a sincere enough person.
Bill Miller? Well, after a long talk on the phone today with my good friend, Bernie [bernice Moore], who happened to have pointed out this fact: that in all her research [and believe me, Bernice has been doing some very intensive research work over these past five years], she has come to the conclusion that if there's one thing Bill Miller has gotten correct, it has been with the trajectories of the crossfire, or the triangulation, however you want to phrase it. And Bernie, I hope you don't get pissed at me for using your name in this post, but you made me proud to have known you all these years. Especially, after having taken the time to explain all of that to me, today.
Robert Groden? Is a cheap, petty larcenist for having absconded with Mo Weitzman's copy of the film. Then, turning around and using it as his own, proceeding to go around passing himself off as some kind of cinematographic expert? He's nothing more than a hawker, or a barker, who'd be much more at home in front of one of those strip joints in New Orleans, or Dallas, if you ask me. And no. I do not know him, and personally do not care to, either. But, since you did ask... And yes, Dawnie knows what I think of him, and we agree to disagree on Groden.
Of course, these are my opinions, and mine alone, except where I may have alluded to others. And, if I've somehow managed to overstep my bounds, or possibly have stepped on anyone's toes, then I duly apologize.
But, I'm glad you took my advice about getting a laptop, T.C. I wish you as speedy a recovery as possible, Bunky.
Love,
Ter
-
It seems reasonable to believe ALL the eyewitnesses...
JFK went into the Texas Parkland Hospital and civilians saw the
back of his head blown out from gunshots from the front, AND
military doctors at the Maryland Bethesda Hospital officers saw
a deep skull wound above the ear
and the skull is shattered in the Xray
........ what is the problem ???
********************************************************
Precisely.
-
Charles, I know we've been over this, but Newman and Zapruder did see the large head wound on the Zapruder film and on the autopsy photos.
What you should be asking yourself is why the Parkland witnesses remembered the wound differently than Newman and Zapruder. And the obvious answer is that they made a mistake.
As far as why the Z-film doesn't show what the witnesses remembered, well, I recently re-read every available statement from every known witness, and it does. The individuals all remembered the incident slightly differently. When one looks at all the statements, however, one sees a substantial amount of overlap, that forms a consensus. These points are all consistent with the Z-film, but one.
This point is that the last two shots were far closer together than the first two. This, when taken with the Z-film, is extremely strong evidence for a conspiracy, as the Z-film shows K and C react as though the first two shots were closer together. Now you can take your road and decide the Z-film must be fake, or you can follow the evidence and see that it suggests the use of a silencer, and a conspiracy. When you play the "we can't trust the Z-film" game you're playing into the hands of the lone-nutters, and folding with a winning hand.
*******************************************************
"What you should be asking yourself is why the Parkland witnesses remembered the wound differently than Newman and Zapruder. And the obvious answer is that they made a mistake."
Who, made a mistake?
"When you play the "we can't trust the Z-film" game you're playing into the hands of the lone-nutters, and folding with a winning hand."
I believe the film was altered, and the splices have always been glaringly obvious, to me. This is the reason I refer to it as a cartoon, serving the exact purpose as you see right here. A means of continually fueling this eternally stuck-in-a-rut debate that never gets anywhere, ad infinitum. I fail to see how this plays into the hands of the LN'ers, considering the fact that the obvious flaws created by the obviously spliced finished product know as the Z-film, apparently serve more as an indictment of the coercion involved from the moment LIFE Magazine took possession of it. And, considering the players [Mockingbird] associated with that syndicated publishing company, the reasons should be as glaringly obvious as the splices made to the film.
-
Hello Tim
You could have at least thanked me for providng you the opportunity of disecting my post in order to give the forum a journalistic lesson regarding my "verbiage".
Other than yourself, I don't feel that many failed to grasp what may have been my "inferred" question!
Since you asked (quote) "What is this question whose answer is so elusive that even the direct asking of it appears to be beyond the abilities of the questioner ? ", I will attempt to explain to you, providing I have the "abilities", the question which if too "compound and run on" for your comprehension, that I was attempting to infer and relay.
My question is a little complicated, so in the hope that you will be able to absorb its elusiveness, I will attempt to break it down into a series of simple statements and questions.
On the AFTERNOON of 11/22/63, eyewitnesses to the shooting in Dealey Plaza made statements regarding what they observed during the shooting sequence. On the AFTERNOON of 11/22/63, members of the Parkland Hospital trauma team which attended JFK, gave statements regarding the wounds which they observed at close range for approximately 30 minutes. I personally feel that the Parkland testimony would probably be accepted as "expert" as any that could have been given. The bullet strikes which the Dealey Plaza eye witnesses reported on that afternoon, are considered by most who have studied this event, to generally coincide with the wounds to the President, as described by the Parkland Team.
In contrast to the statements given by these two separate sets of witnesses to the shooting of and the wounds incurred by JFK, there was an 8mm Kodacolor II home movie said to have been taken by a Dallas business man named Abraham Zapruder. Immediately after this film was taken, it came into the temporary posession and complete control of U.S. Govenment agencies.
This film became exposed to the world public appx. thirteen years later. The compound question which I ask is "Why Does This Zapruder Film Depict Something Which Does Not Correspond With The Testimonies Given On The Afternoon Of 11/22/63, By Both The Dealey Plaza Witnesses, And What Must Be Considered Expert Testimony, By The Parkland Trauma Staff?"
I have suggested by both inferrence and direct statement, that I consider those immediate testimonies of both of these sets of witnesses, to be much more reliable than the film which had been in the control of U.S. Govt. agencies for 13 years and which has a "very questionable" chain of posession.
My "compound question" therefore is which depiction of these events do the forum members consider more reliable.....and WHY? Do forum members believe this Zapruder film, and the timing of events and the reactions of JFK which it represents, to be more believable than the witness testimony given on the afternoon of 11/22/63?
Not to further compound or confound the question, but to further "infer" something nefarious....why do some of the photographs, purported to have been taken "during" the Bethesda autopsy, differ from the wounds described by the two previously mentioned sets of witnesses ?
I hope this clarifies to Tim and others who may not have understood the complications of my original post, what my unanswerable compound question was !
I would also like to ask Tim, if he feels that his prior post aided in any way the research and analysis of this assassination?
Charlie Black
********************************************************
"I have suggested by both inferrence and direct statement, that I consider those immediate testimonies of both of these sets of witnesses, to be much more reliable than the film which had been in the control of U.S. Govt. agencies for 13 years and which has a "very questionable" chain of posession."
I thought this topic had been concluded to a fair degree, that immediate, on-site, first-hand, eye-witnessed testimony was far more reliable and henceforth, more credible than later testimony which may be subjectively influenced and susceptible to embellishment. Therefore, rendering it inconsistent as well as, inconclusive, as far as admissible evidence is concerned.
I was also under the impression that the Zapruder cartoon was nothing more than a convenient monkey-wrench, thrown into the mix, as a means of derailing any plausible investigation into the case, due to the myriad of possible conjectures it could give rise to.
This would also serve the purpose of further stalling any viable, let alone credible conclusions as to what actually happened by conveniently being used as a ploy to try and discredit any eye witness testimony. Everyone has heard the statement that, "The camera never lies." Or, the one claiming how, "Every picture tells a story." Zapruder was no innocent by-stander, either. IMHO.
But, I thought this was already common knowledge, and for some time, now?
-
"I still don't know why the govt let the Zapruder film out of their hands. It's a murder of a president. It doesn't show what they are telling us: that he was shot only from the back by Lee Harvey Oswald."[/color]
Kathy, the gov. or what you think of as "the gov." had nothing to do with the murder. The real perps are the Rockefellers, Morgans, Pawley's, Sarnoff's, McCloys, Werbell's, Harrimans, Brown Root., etc. and et.al. People like the Dulles' could be considered as their corporate attorneys, to try and simplify this as best I can. The government of the United States is nothing more than a facade for the elites to work behind. All decisions that concern not only this country, but the world. are not made in D.C., per se. That's just for show, or to con the citizens into believing that they have a government that is actually working for them, when in reality the decisions and deals are made on Wall Street, and London, and even Rome. The really big decisions, Kath. Not what you think, or have been led to believe in. All roads lead to New York and London, that is where the REAL capitol is. The capitols of the world, that actually rule and run, the world, or The Global Capitol, in some circles. The P.O.T.U.S. is a puppet, much like the dictators put into power in those Third World countries, the global corporations annex resources from. But, here's the catch, they do it in the name of democracy. They plunder, steal, and pillage other nation states' natural resources, all in the name of democracy, and in the name of the United States, and it's mother ship, the United Kingdom, with absolutely no regard for international law, or The Geneva Accords. Why? Because they answer to no one, pledge allegiance to no one. Why? Because they've set it in stone for themselves since the 1500's, and regardless of whomever may come down the pike, be it Abraham Lincoln, FDR, or JFK. They will never relinquish their hold on the world's resources because they believe they are the only chosen few families allowed to possess that kind of divine right of entitlement. Anyone else coming along with ideas of freedom and democracy for the common man, is eventually liquidated, and the old guard reclaims the treasury. Just like that, in a heartbeat, via a gunshot, or a poisoned dart.
So, you can chase your gov. down til the cows come home and all your doing is wasting your time chasing a myth, or a paper tiger. This country's Declaration and Constitution were structured upon fraudulent beliefs. Why? Because they failed to include EVERYMAN, white, black, brown, red, and yellow, when they laid down the basic principles in their tenet of good intentions. And, as the saying goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
I hope you understand this, and will read the books I've mentioned quite a few times over the last few years. That is where the answers are found. Not in a film that's been through multiple generations of reproduction, until it's come out looking like a cartoon. You know, that was the original intention, after all. To create the perfect crime, and get away with it. They can, and do it all the time. They have the unlimited resources to do just that. And, there's really nothing you can do about it now, short of revolution, and all that's needed are a handful of strategically placed neutron devices, or whatever state-of-the-art weapon of mass destruction designed for that specific purpose, to quash any fool-hardy attempts at an up-rising.
Thanks for explaining that, Terri. It makes me wonder why I should vote next year.
Kathy
*********************************************************
"Thanks for explaining that, Terri. It makes me wonder why I should vote next year."
It's imperative that you continue to vote in your community, city, county, and state elections, if nothing else. Just bear in mind that the state and national elections are the ones that are most susceptible to manipulation by the Electoral Colleges. It's the least we can do, and most definitely should be made aware of. Remember, your voice has a better chance of being heard, closer to home. That's where many grass-roots efforts take form.
Another thing to keep in mind, and which I came to realize, only too late in the game, is that Third party candidates, like a Ralph Nader, or a Ross Perot, have a way of taking votes away from one candidate, for example, a Democrat, making it easier for the opposition [Republicans] to maintain a foothold in winning the election. It's called "splitting the vote." And, unless a Third party candidate is considered to be a sure shot at garnering the full support of votes from say, the Democratic contingency, and/or a respectable number of votes from a disgruntled enough margin of moderate Republicans, to guarantee a landslide victory over the Republican opposition, then you might as well be shooting yourself in the foot, by voting for a Third party candidate. I was fooled into voting for Ross Perot, twice.
And again, remember that the Electoral College is allowed to be called upon to vote, as many times as needed, until the candidate of the most influential party [monetarily speaking] is eventually seated. This was how the Senate elections for the state of Indiana were allowed to be manipulated in 1982. If I remember correctly, the popular vote was 83 to the opposition's 72, so it was sent back to the Electoral College multiple times until the popular vote was overruled, and the opposition was allowed to take the seat.
I had saved that newspaper article from The Redlands Daily Facts Newpaper, where I had read it sometime in April or May of 1983. The editor was from New York, and had been assigned to the paper for eight years. I believe his name was Green or Greenberg. I used to call him up and thank him for some of the informative articles he would have the brazen nerve to interject in his column, from time to time. Especially since the little town of Redlands, at the time pop. 77,000, was basically a bastion of conservatives, flanked by the S.A.C. March Air Force Base directly south on its border with Riverside, and the M.A.C. Norton Air Force Base, smack dab in the middle of the town, itself. Unfortunately, the Reynold's Newspaper Syndicate ended up reassigning him to Alaska, or some wilderness place similar to it, later in 1983. Shades of Operation Mockingbird, at work, perhaps?
It's unfortunate, but as the saying in the business world goes, "Money talks, bullxxxx walks." They need to erect a plaque engraved with those words and hang it on the New York Stock Exchange.
-
Ron, Mark & Charles
I would have thought that if the Zapruder film did not exit there would be:
(i) No need for a single bullet theory.
(ii) No need to explain to interested people on both sides of the Atlantic, using obscure physical theory that ' A Back and to the left head movement' actually proves a head shot from the rear.
(iii) We may not be discussing this right now because this web page might not exist.
Chris Brown
Chris, I agree with you 100%. Why the govt released the Zapruder film, obviously doctored (limo stop removed, turn at Elm gone, sign concealing Kennedy when he received the throat wound), amazes me in its stupidity. The govt would have you believe he was shot from behind. But when I watch the film, it's so obvious to me he was shot from his right front. So they're telling you he was shot from behind, but you're seeing a side/frontal shot. Don't people believe their eyes anymore? That's why I can't understand why they ever released that film!
And btw, this subject matter got me thrown off jfkresearch.com.
Kathy
***********************************************************
"Why the govt released the Zapruder film, obviously doctored (limo stop removed, turn at Elm gone, sign concealing Kennedy when he received the throat wound), amazes me in its stupidity."
In 1975 Time-Life sold it to the Z family for $1.00. No one actually ever released it to the public. Groden stole the film from Moe Weitzman and showed it on Goodnight America in 1975.
"And btw, this subject matter got me thrown off jfkresearch.com."
Always playing the eternal victim, aren't you. You got thrown off for making ad hominem attacks, some of which were targeted at the Admin, BTW.
I still don't know why the govt let the Zapruder film out of their hands. It's a murder of a president. It doesn't show what they are telling us: that he was shot only from the back by Lee Harvey Oswald.
I got thrown off of jfkresearch.com -- no hard feelings -- because Admin took a dislike to me and cursed at me. I cursed back. Besides that, I reacted harshly, when I should have ignored it, but I only had problems with you and "Monk." You both individually attaked me and were surprised by my verbal retaliation. I thought someone was my best friend over there and I don't know what happened. I felt he was "picking" on me. But it was fun while it lasted, Terri. Where's my crucifix?
Love,
Kathy
**********************************************************
"I still don't know why the govt let the Zapruder film out of their hands. It's a murder of a president. It doesn't show what they are telling us: that he was shot only from the back by Lee Harvey Oswald."
Kathy, the gov. or what you think of as "the gov." had nothing to do with the murder. The real perps are the Rockefellers, Morgans, Pawley's, Sarnoff's, McCloys, Werbell's, Harrimans, Brown Root., etc. and et.al. People like the Dulles' could be considered as their corporate attorneys, to try and simplify this as best I can. The government of the United States is nothing more than a facade for the elites to work behind. All decisions that concern not only this country, but the world. are not made in D.C., per se. That's just for show, or to con the citizens into believing that they have a government that is actually working for them, when in reality the decisions and deals are made on Wall Street, and London, and even Rome. The really big decisions, Kath. Not what you think, or have been led to believe in. All roads lead to New York and London, that is where the REAL capitol is. The capitols of the world, that actually rule and run, the world, or The Global Capitol, in some circles. The P.O.T.U.S. is a puppet, much like the dictators put into power in those Third World countries, the global corporations annex resources from. But, here's the catch, they do it in the name of democracy. They plunder, steal, and pillage other nation states' natural resources, all in the name of democracy, and in the name of the United States, and it's mother ship, the United Kingdom, with absolutely no regard for international law, or The Geneva Accords. Why? Because they answer to no one, pledge allegiance to no one. Why? Because they've set it in stone for themselves since the 1500's, and regardless of whomever may come down the pike, be it Abraham Lincoln, FDR, or JFK. They will never relinquish their hold on the world's resources because they believe they are the only chosen few families allowed to possess that kind of divine right of entitlement. Anyone else coming along with ideas of freedom and democracy for the common man, is eventually liquidated, and the old guard reclaims the treasury. Just like that, in a heartbeat, via a gunshot, or a poisoned dart.
So, you can chase your gov. down til the cows come home and all your doing is wasting your time chasing a myth, or a paper tiger. This country's Declaration and Constitution were structured upon fraudulent beliefs. Why? Because they failed to include EVERYMAN, white, black, brown, red, and yellow, when they laid down the basic principles in their tenet of good intentions. And, as the saying goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
I hope you understand this, and will read the books I've mentioned quite a few times over the last few years. That is where the answers are found. Not in a film that's been through multiple generations of reproduction, until it's come out looking like a cartoon. You know, that was the original intention, after all. To create the perfect crime, and get away with it. They can, and do it all the time. They have the unlimited resources to do just that. And, there's really nothing you can do about it now, short of revolution, and all that's needed are a handful of strategically placed neutron devices, or whatever state-of-the-art weapon of mass destruction designed for that specific purpose, to quash any fool-hardy attempts at an up-rising.
-
Ron, Mark & Charles
I would have thought that if the Zapruder film did not exit there would be:
(i) No need for a single bullet theory.
(ii) No need to explain to interested people on both sides of the Atlantic, using obscure physical theory that ' A Back and to the left head movement' actually proves a head shot from the rear.
(iii) We may not be discussing this right now because this web page might not exist.
Chris Brown
Chris, I agree with you 100%. Why the govt released the Zapruder film, obviously doctored (limo stop removed, turn at Elm gone, sign concealing Kennedy when he received the throat wound), amazes me in its stupidity. The govt would have you believe he was shot from behind. But when I watch the film, it's so obvious to me he was shot from his right front. So they're telling you he was shot from behind, but you're seeing a side/frontal shot. Don't people believe their eyes anymore? That's why I can't understand why they ever released that film!
And btw, this subject matter got me thrown off jfkresearch.com.
Kathy
***********************************************************
"Why the govt released the Zapruder film, obviously doctored (limo stop removed, turn at Elm gone, sign concealing Kennedy when he received the throat wound), amazes me in its stupidity."
In 1975 Time-Life sold it to the Z family for $1.00. No one actually ever released it to the public. Groden stole the film from Moe Weitzman and showed it on Goodnight America in 1975.
"And btw, this subject matter got me thrown off jfkresearch.com."
Always playing the eternal victim, aren't you. You got thrown off for making ad hominem attacks, some of which were targeted at the Admin, BTW.
-
Dear Mr. Seagrave,
I consider Col. L. Fletcher Prouty to be a mentor of mine since I first came upon his works being distributed by a company based in Costa Mesa, CA, known as The Noontide Press, in 1990.
Have you ever been contacted by Len Osanic to appear on Black Op Radio to speak about your books and your contribution to the cause? Len is the archivist for all of Prouty's works and has kept his site known as www.prouty.org going since before I remember finding it on the web in 1997, when I first went on-line. As I write this to you, there is an 8 X 10 framed photo of Prouty looking down on me from the wall to the right of my computer. A birthday gift to me from Len a few years back.
I don't get a chance to go to the site as much as I used to, but I catch the archived shows of BOR, especially when Len sends me a link to something he feels I need to know. I have met with Len a couple of times on his trips down to L.A., and he always has a home at my house, and use of my truck, if he needs it. I really want to purchase your full set of works, as soon as possible. My e-mail address is tmauro@pacbell.net. Do you take B of A VISA? Because, the more I read of your posts, the more imperative the need for me to get my hands on your books.
I just got off the phone with Len Osanic, informing him that I'm in the middle of posting this to you on The Education Forum. He would love to hear from you, and extends the invitation to appear on his Black Op Radio Show, airing from Vancouver, B.C. every Thursday evening from 17:30 to 18:30 PST. His e-mail address is osanic@prouty.org. Please get back to me regarding the purchase of your books, ASAP, if at all possible. I am known for purchasing books for gift-giving, as a way of getting the message across, and your message has been my message for 40 or more years, and most definitely for the last seventeen.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Theresa C. Mauro aka Ter
Culver City, CA
Hi Ter ~
We've been in touch with Len Osanic, who kindly provided us with a CDROM of some of Fletcher Prouty's archives. We haven't done any live interviews in a long time, except by email where we can reflect on things before we reply. We're allergic to the media because we've been burned by both a British TV producer and a Japanese TV producer. The Brit turned out to be working for some folks at the US Embassy who wanted to smear us, and the Japanese were sent to find out exactly where we lived -- which resulted in threatening midnight phonecalls from US Treasury agents to my wife's elderly parents in North Carolina, and an attempt to trick us into going to the US Consulate in Marseille for "an IRS audit" where we would have been "disappeared". We managed to block the harrassment by reporting all this to the French DEST, whose HQ is just down the road. /// The only book we sell at our website is the first edition of GOLD WARRIORS, and three CDs of documentation (BofA cards accepted, especially yours). The rest are either available at Amazon.com or at Abebooks.com (a global net of used book dealers). Probably the best edition of Gold Warriors is the paperback, which has two new chapters added. But for those with the hardback, John Simkin has now posted PDF versions somewhere here. (I'm still a novice finding my way around here.)
Sterling
********************************************************
Dear Mr. Seagrave,
Thank you, so much, for your reply. I went to your web site, which directed me to amazon.com. I have purchased Gold Warriors, The Soong Dynasty, and The Last Empress. They were out of Ferdinand Marcos. I have since purchased another copy of Gold Warriors for a dear friend of mine in Northern California, who just underwent surgery for Pulmonary Fibrosis, and was so thrilled to have a copy in hand to read during his recovery. And, I was informed just last week by my partner, Jeff, that I am not at liberty to give away my copy, since he has decided to make it his copy. He remarked that he finds the content of information of such important documentation, that it is to be kept in his possession. This is coming from a Viet Nam vet, and I'm not about to argue with him. Besides, he never forgave me for giving away all my Prouty books and CD's. But, it's extremely important to get the word out to the most diversified population I can think of. A lot of people would never have heard about Prouty, such as my Sociology of Law professor, an attorney in her own right, had I not passed his works on to her. So, I've just ordered up another 2 copies of Gold Warriors, and I really need to get my hands on the CD's because they're not being offered on Amazon. And yes, the copies I've been purchasing are in paperback, and at a very good price, I might add. I will go back to Bowstring, straight away, and order the CD's', as soon as I finish this post.
I'm very dismayed to hear of the way your family has been harassed and subjected to such egregious indignities by U.S. gov. emissaries. I don't blame you for taking leave of the States. It's been a sorry excuse for something masquerading as a democracy. Then again, the very principles upon which it was based were one-sided to begin with, pertaining strictly to those of the white male, and landed gentry. A troubling legacy, akin to a festering sore, was all that could be expected to develop in the hearts and minds of those who swallowed the doctrine of Manifest Destiny. And, without so much as a blink of an eye, or a xxxxx of the conscience, to the atrocities being committed against the native inhabitants, and the African slaves being imported.
From what I've just read of your personal accounts, nothing seems to have changed all that much. Anyone, so bold as to attempt to go up against Mockingbird, will be subjectively reminded of just how much contempt is going to be held for them. Therefore, I completely understand your need for treasuring your privacy, and for wishing to maintain as low a profile as possible. I'm grateful to you and Peggy for having had the courage to document this part of history, making it accessible to a whole new generation, who'll hopefully become inspired to ask the pointed questions, in spite of being accused of asking them, have the courage to recognize the need for, and demand their government be held accountable. I can't think of any greater homage owed to those pioneers such as yourself, Prouty, Garrison, et.al. who've risked everything, that the truth may be heard.
Thank you, again.
Warmest regards,
Ter
-
Fake professor in Wikipedia storm
BBC News
3/6/2007
Internet site Wikipedia has been hit by controversy after the disclosure that a prominent editor had assumed a false identity complete with fake PhD.
The editor, known as Essjay, had described himself as a professor of religion at a private university.
But he was in fact Ryan Jordan, 24, a college student from Kentucky who used texts such as Catholicism for Dummies to help him work.
He has retired from the site and his authority to edit has been cancelled.
Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia open to all, written by volunteers from around the world.
'Trust and tolerance'
Under the name Essjay, Mr Jordan edited articles and also had the authority to arbitrate disputes between authors and remove site vandalism.
In his user profile, he said he taught both undergraduate and graduate theology, and in an interview with the New Yorker in July 2006, was described as a "tenured professor of religion".
His real identity came to light last week when the magazine added an editorial note to the piece highlighting the deception.
"At the time of publication, neither we nor Wikipedia knew Essjay's real name," the note said.
Essjay told them he hid his identity because "he feared personal retribution from those he had ruled against online", the newspaper's note said.
Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, writing on the site on 3 March, said that Mr Jordan was apologetic, but that Wikipedia was "based on twin pillars of trust and tolerance".
"Despite my personal forgiveness, I hope that he will accept my resignation request, because forgiveness or not, these positions are not appropriate for him now," he wrote.
And in a post the next day, Mr Jordan announced his retirement from the site.
"I hope others will refocus the energy they have spent the past few days in defending and denouncing me to make something here at Wikipedia better," he said.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm
Published: 2007/03/06 14:39:15 GMT
------------
Wikipedia founder takes on Google
By Matt Wells
BBC News, New York
3/7/2006
Online encyclopaedia Wikipedia has helped transform the way people use the net to seek out information and now the founder Jimmy Wales is hoping to do the same in the search field.
The bearded and softly-spoken founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, describes himself as "pathologically optimistic".
Bearing in mind that he recently revealed the development of a new "open source" search engine to compete for eyeballs with the mighty Google, he is going to need every ounce of optimism he can get.
"
Search has become a fundamental part of the infrastructure of society," said the 40-year-old, talking to a group of mainly media professionals at a recent event in downtown Manhattan, organised by The Glasshouse, a trans-Atlantic entrepreneurs' support group.
"The way that things are sorted and ranked and presented to us, really does shape our view of the world.
"I think it is important that we say, there really should be an alternative that is completely open and transparent," he added, before going on to criticise the culture of secrecy surrounding the cloistered algorithms of the leading search empires.
There is a paradox surrounding Wales's position in the first-rank of internet movers and shakers, which he freely acknowledges.
The Wiki boss has often said that his free, not-for-profit online encyclopaedia - that now gets seven billion page views each month with in-excess of five million multiple-language entries - was either the "smartest thing, or the dumbest thing that I ever did".
Extraordinary statistic
The total number of Wikipedia employees is five; an extraordinary statistic when you consider that it is the 10th most visited site in the world.
He told a wry anecdote about being offered a recent ride in the Google jet as the online superstars converged on the World Economic Forum in Davos - since at this point, there is no Wiki-jet.
But his cultural-hero status as the man who aims to bundle all the world's knowledge together and give it away free, is formidable.
The new "transparent" search venture is in its early infancy, and also a project that is being shepherded by the very much for-profit sister company of Wikipedia, Wikia.
His idea is to Wiki-fy the process of internet search, so that human beings decide openly how to rank and organise information, not the huge private servers of Google and Yahoo.
In an online message at the end of the year, Wales labelled the project "Search Wikia" and referred to it as an attempt to create "the search engine that changes everything".
'People powered'
He went on to ask for volunteers to step forward in the name of "people-powered" search, to help move the project forward. There was no mention of any possible profit-sharing.
Far from seeking to confront Google in conventional business terms, Wales - ever the optimist - believes that there may be ways of working with what he calls the "second tier search players" on the web.
"(Google) have hired all the geniuses... they're saying, 'gee, if this alternative could succeed, and make good quality search results a commodity, then we can compete on other things... on vertical search, on brand, on user-interface'."
His philosophical approach to challenging Google, has drawn some criticism inside the blogosphere.
The web veteran Dave Taylor, who writes The Intuitive Life Business Blog, wrote a sceptical post, questioning Wales's ability to influence the search market on any level.
"My belief - based on talking to thousands of internet users - is that the only time someone switches search engines is when their current system begins to fail them," he wrote.
"Far from being able to steal market-share from Google, the reality will be that it will be only if Google fails to produce good search results that another firm will even have a ghost of a chance of succeeding."
Wales describes his politics as "libertarian with a small l" and having become used to travelling the world to meet Wikipedia's amateur army of administrators and contributors, he says he no longer cares who wins the next presidential election in the US.
'Open societies'
"Within the broad framework of open societies, of liberal democracies, things aren't so horrible, right?"
He added: "There are horrible places in the world - these are much more important - corruption in Africa, and things like that."
Wikipedia's idealism, that some would argue is essentially flawed in that verifiability and not "objective" truthfulness is the standard by which entries are judged, has been heavily lampooned on American television in the last few months, by the satirist Stephen Colbert.
In his persona as a polemical and bombastic news anchorman, Colbert lampooned the idea of allowing enthusiasts to form a consensus amongst themselves on what is fact, or not, coining the word "Wikiality".
It has become a running joke, and the site's administrators have intervened to stop some of the show's fans from altering entries.
Unphased
Wales himself is unfazed by how easy it is for unregistered readers to make instant changes on Wikipedia - sometimes for the good, but often out of mischief.
Constant upheaval and occasional "vandalism" of the site, is a price worth paying, he believes.
"If you have a web environment where the software assumes everyone's going to do something bad, and where the community isn't given the tools to make corrections... you actually encourage hostile behaviours."
He is convinced that Wikipedia's success is down to simple software and mutual respect, combined with the minimum amount of censorship and policing possible.
Ultimately however, some wonder whether the collectivist world of Wiki, might not become more and more untrustworthy and cultish as the web expands. It is a danger that Wales himself seems to be aware of.
Speaking at the University of Pennsylvania in June last year, he reportedly said that Wikipedia should not be used by college students to conduct serious research, and if students continue to believe in the objectivity of Wikipedia, they only have themselves to blame.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/6335793.stm
Published: 2007/02/07 02:38:42 GMT
**********************************************************
And, that's just another reason why I refer to it as, "Fakepedia."
From Len Osanic:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070307...enation/1172344
But what was even more interesting, after clicking on the link and scrolling down to the bottom of the page to the MOST VIEWED section, was the Wikipedia article quoted from The Christian Science Monitor:
Opinion
Wikipedia's sticky wicket
The Monitor's View Fri Mar 9, 3:00 AM ET
Students in history classes at Middlebury College this spring may have to change the way they do research for papers or tests. Although they can consult the online encyclopedia Wikipedia for background, they are not allowed to cite it as a source.
Professors who drafted the new policy at the Vermont college praise the free website as a "wonderful innovation." They note the more than 1.6 million entries, the up-to-date bibliographies, and the links to relevant, often more reliable sites. But they caution that its open-editing system, which allows anyone to write or edit entries anonymously, carries a risk of error.
Just this month a dark cloud fell over Wikipedia's credibility after it was revealed that a trusted contributor who claimed to be a tenured professor of religion was actually a 24-year-old college dropout. He was also one of the appointed "arbiters" who settled disputes between contributors.
For the many "wiki"-type sites – ones that compile knowledge with volunteers – such an ethical misstep would be a test of their ability for internal correction. But it also reinforces educators' warnings to students to be "informationally literate" in how to use the six-year-old Wikipedia and to rely more on the thousands of more-scholarly databases online.
Wikipedia not only challenges the concept of what an encyclopedia is; it also raises an intriguing question: What qualifies as intellectual authority in an age of information overload, when society relies increasingly on the Internet?
Some critics are troubled by what they regard as a tendency on the Web to value anonymous, collective thought over individual intellect. Some claim Wikipedia devalues traditional scholarship. Supporters counter that the online encyclopedia's constant and easy revision of articles only strengthens their credibility. Fans also praise Wikipedia for "democratizing" knowledge, pitting pedigreed academics against amateur scholars.
Globalization and technology are creating other sociocultural changes that challenge old notions of expertise. When people can now more easily, say, sell a house, write a will, or file a complex tax return, they defer less to authorities, among them lawyers, clergy, teachers, and other professionals.
The Internet's ability to empower individuals with an illusion of infinite knowledge challenges even notions of reality. Like Pontius Pilate's question – What is truth? – supporters of Wikipedia are asking "Whose truth?"
Is information on the site absolute fact or simply a matter of group consensus? Is any information accurate only by agreement of those with extensive credentials using peer review, or do the masses have a voice?
If other schools follow Middlebury's lead, the collective effect could encourage Wikipedia to raise its standards. Scholars, too, might benefit from using "wiki" practices, such as open access and wider input.
Middlebury's policy serves as a reminder about the need to carefully sift any information on the Internet. Over time, users will force sites like Wikipedia to build up the same trust and reputations now granted to established institutions such as universities or old-style encyclopedias. Truth, like truthfulness, must be demonstrated.
And, as far as I can surmise, Operation Mockingbird is still alive and well, and as influential and manipulative as ever.
-
Further trouble brews over the Wikiwookies and their propensity for getting things wrong.
The following are recent pieces from Canada's newspaper of record, The Globe & Mail:
Zoeller sues over Wikipedia entry
Associated Press
Miami -- Pro golfer Fuzzy Zoeller is suing to track down the author who posted what he considers a defamatory paragraph about him on the Internet reference site Wikipedia. The suit alleges someone used a computer at Josef Silny & Associates, a Miami education consulting firm, to add the information to Zoeller's Wikipedia profile. The paragraph in question has been removed, but the information has been picked up by other websites. The lawsuit said it alleged Zoeller abused drugs, alcohol and his family with no evidence to back up the statements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wikipedia to seek proof of credentials
Associated Press
New York — Following revelations that a high-ranking member of Wikipedia's bureaucracy used his cloak of anonymity to lie about being a professor of religion, the free Internet encyclopedia plans to ask contributors who claim such credentials to identify themselves.
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said in interviews by phone and instant message Wednesday from Japan that contributors still would be able to remain anonymous. But he said they should only be allowed to cite some professional expertise in a subject if those credentials have been verified.
"We always prefer to give a positive incentive rather than absolute prohibition, so that people can contribute without a lot of hassle," Wales wrote.
Wales suggested such a plan two years ago, but the idea suddenly gained currency after the recent discovery that a prolific Wikipedia contributor who wrote under the pen name "Essjay" and claimed to be a professor of theology turned out to be a 24-year-old college dropout, Ryan Jordan.
Jordan's fraud came to light last week when The New Yorker published an editor's note stating that a 2006 Wikipedia profile in the magazine had erroneously described Essjay's purported academic resume. The New Yorker said a Wikipedia higher-up had vouched for Essjay to the author of the piece, Stacy Schiff, but that neither knew Essjay's real identity.
In addition to contributing thousands of articles to the sprawling Web encyclopedia, Jordan had recently been promoted to arbitrator, a position for trusted members of the community. Arbitrators can overrule an edit made by another volunteer or block people who abuse the site.
Jordan also was hired in January by Wikia Inc., a for-profit venture run by Wales. He has since been dismissed.
Jordan has not returned an e-mail seeking comment from The Associated Press. But in a note on his Wikipedia "user page" before it was officially "retired," he apologized for any harm he caused Wikipedia.
"It was, quite honestly, my impression that it was well known that I was not who I claimed to be, and that in the absence of any confirmation, no respectible (sic) publication would print it," he wrote.
Wikipedia is full of anonymous contributors like Essjay, whose user page also once proclaimed: "My Wikipedia motto is `Lux et Veritas' (Light and Truth) and I believe more individuals should contribute with an intention to bring light to the community and truth to the encyclopedia."
The anonymity of the site is a frequent cause of mischief — from juvenile vandalism of entries to the infamous case involving journalist John Seigenthaler Sr., who was incorrectly described as a suspect in the Kennedy assassinations. And that has raised concerns about the credibility of the site.
But anonymity is also considered one of the main forces behind Wikipedia's astonishing growth, to nearly 1.7-million articles in English and-millions more in dozens of other languages. Wales has said he is an "anti-credentialist" — because anonymity puts a reader's attention on the substance of what people have written rather than who they are.
Wales said Wednesday that belief is unchanged. But, he said, if people want to claim expertise on Wikipedia, they ought to be prompted to prove it. If they don't want to give their real names, they shouldn't be allowed to tout credentials. Had that policy been in place, Wales said, Jordan probably would not have gotten away with claiming a Ph.D. in religion.
"It's always inappropriate to try to win an argument by flashing your credentials," Wales said, "and even more so if those credentials are inaccurate."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wikipedia deletes bogus editor
Jack Kapica
Wikipedia, the free on-line encyclopedia written and edited by anyone who wants to contribute, has fallen victim to its own myth.
One of their most prolific contributors, a volunteer editor and fact-checker who listed his credentials as a tenured professor with doctorates in theology and canon law, turned out to be a fraud. He is in reality a 24-year-old Kentucky college dropout called Ryan Jordan.
Identified online as Essjay, he was smart enough to fool The New Yorker, which published a long feature on him last July, hailing his crack fact-checking skills on a level with the magazine’s own renowned editors.
But someone who knows him outed Essjay, and the current issue of The New Yorker published an editor’s note at the end of the article saying that “At the time of publication, neither we nor Wikipedia knew Essjay’s real name. Essjay’s entire Wikipedia life was conducted with only a user name; anonymity is common for Wikipedia administrators and contributors, and he says that he feared personal retribution from those he had ruled against online.”
Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales then asked for Jordan’s resignation, and got it. And he asked members of Wikipedia to treat Jordan with a “calm loving approach,” insisting that “Wikipedia is built on … twin pillars of trust and tolerance. The harmony of our work depends on human understanding and forgiveness of errors.”
Wales sounded regretful in letting Jordan go. “It is not good, obviously, but the interesting thing is that Mr. Jordan was an excellent editor, credentials or no. His work was extremely positive for Wikipedia.”
Wikipedia, which has 1.6 million articles in it, making it far larger than the Encyclopedia Britannica, worked on the assumption that taken globally, the combined knowledge of contributors would somehow arrive at the truth. In many ways it did — Wikipedia entries have been referred to in criminal trials. Sometimes Wikipedia would get things wrong, but eventually someone would correct the information, and the idea of a single global body of knowledge having a good heart continued.
But what the Jordan case underlines is not the rightness of the information provided by Wikipedia, but the one thing the Wikipedia took for granted: credibility. The Wikipedia philosophy assumed that accuracy alone would give it that credibility.
But Wikipedia did not count on two things. First was the dubious concept that it could publish something dreadfully wrong (such as the statement that the prime minister of Norway was a pedophile) and leave it up until someone corrected it. If The New York Times or The Globe and Mail adopted that practice, we’d be out of business the next day. Why should an online publication be any different?
Next was the magnitude of Jordan’s deception, which has been called “a fraud.” He was bluntly asking people to believe his credentials as a full professor. If he didn’t have those awesome credentials, then he was creating a fraud, one that undermines everything he did that was good.
A parallel example is that of plagiarism. Many writers have been summarily dispatched for stealing other people’s work, without accuracy even entering the argument. What plagiarists do is undermine the readers’ faith in their work.
I’ve been waiting for this issue to arise online for a number of years. And it has, many times, but not on such a scale as large as this.
Wikipedia must now face a decision it never imagined it had to make: How to protect its credibility, the way other news and information outlets protect theirs.
It’s a costly process, and one that might outstrip the budget of a “free” site.
But if Wikipedia wants to continue, it must do more than simply point to its accuracy as its main product.
**********************************************************
From Len Osanic:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070307...enation/1172344
But what was even more interesting, after clicking on the link and scrolling down to the bottom of the page to the MOST VIEWED section, was the Wikipedia article quoted from The Christian Science Monitor:
Opinion
Wikipedia's sticky wicket
The Monitor's View Fri Mar 9, 3:00 AM ET
Students in history classes at Middlebury College this spring may have to change the way they do research for papers or tests. Although they can consult the online encyclopedia Wikipedia for background, they are not allowed to cite it as a source.
Professors who drafted the new policy at the Vermont college praise the free website as a "wonderful innovation." They note the more than 1.6 million entries, the up-to-date bibliographies, and the links to relevant, often more reliable sites. But they caution that its open-editing system, which allows anyone to write or edit entries anonymously, carries a risk of error.
Just this month a dark cloud fell over Wikipedia's credibility after it was revealed that a trusted contributor who claimed to be a tenured professor of religion was actually a 24-year-old college dropout. He was also one of the appointed "arbiters" who settled disputes between contributors.
For the many "wiki"-type sites – ones that compile knowledge with volunteers – such an ethical misstep would be a test of their ability for internal correction. But it also reinforces educators' warnings to students to be "informationally literate" in how to use the six-year-old Wikipedia and to rely more on the thousands of more-scholarly databases online.
Wikipedia not only challenges the concept of what an encyclopedia is; it also raises an intriguing question: What qualifies as intellectual authority in an age of information overload, when society relies increasingly on the Internet?
Some critics are troubled by what they regard as a tendency on the Web to value anonymous, collective thought over individual intellect. Some claim Wikipedia devalues traditional scholarship. Supporters counter that the online encyclopedia's constant and easy revision of articles only strengthens their credibility. Fans also praise Wikipedia for "democratizing" knowledge, pitting pedigreed academics against amateur scholars.
Globalization and technology are creating other sociocultural changes that challenge old notions of expertise. When people can now more easily, say, sell a house, write a will, or file a complex tax return, they defer less to authorities, among them lawyers, clergy, teachers, and other professionals.
The Internet's ability to empower individuals with an illusion of infinite knowledge challenges even notions of reality. Like Pontius Pilate's question – What is truth? – supporters of Wikipedia are asking "Whose truth?"
Is information on the site absolute fact or simply a matter of group consensus? Is any information accurate only by agreement of those with extensive credentials using peer review, or do the masses have a voice?
If other schools follow Middlebury's lead, the collective effect could encourage Wikipedia to raise its standards. Scholars, too, might benefit from using "wiki" practices, such as open access and wider input.
Middlebury's policy serves as a reminder about the need to carefully sift any information on the Internet. Over time, users will force sites like Wikipedia to build up the same trust and reputations now granted to established institutions such as universities or old-style encyclopedias. Truth, like truthfulness, must be demonstrated.
-
Isn't this just a big waste of time?
Why not just start a real page on LHO, or Ruby and make it the authorative site on the internet?
Doesn't this web site have an bio encyclopedia of important people?
Why not update that to the max instead of jerking around with the Winacrapers?
There's a need to retype to digial the thousands of pages of WC/HSCA docs, for anyone who has a lot of spare time and nothing to research.
Not to disuade anyone from keeping those guys honest, apparently a daily exercise, I think there's a lot of better things to do.
BK
Well yeah, Spartacus is the authoritative site on JFK and more.
But the existence of a few good sites doesn't mean that we needn't fight internet propaganda.
Just like the existence of a few good books like "Someone Would Have Talked" and "Plausible Denial" doesn't mean we needn't fight propaganda (hi Bugliosi!) in the publishing world.
Wiki has a lot of traffic and is wrongly considered "authoritative" by the deluded demographic.
If they're gonna continue their right-wing ways we can at least try to change it and/or document it in this public forum if they refuse to be objective.
****************************************************
"Wiki has a lot of traffic and is wrongly considered "authoritative" by the deluded demographic. If they're gonna continue their right-wing ways we can at least try to change it and/or document it in this public forum if they refuse to be objective."
This is true, Myra. But, as B.K. explained, and as I concur, "not to dissuade anyone." You'd need a cast of editors to monitor Fakepedia 24/7 in order to stay on top of them. If there are a few good men/women with that kind of capacity for vigilance then, by all means, go for it. But, the fact remains, Fakepedia is a right-wing, conservative front, set up specifically for the spreading of disinfo/misinfo throughout the general populace, aka the sheeple, and the road to hell is known to have been paved with good intentions.
But, if any of you guys happen to have the time for this form of blanketed surveillance, then be my guest. Just remember to copy and paste every edit and correction, as J.S. suggested, as a means of documentation. Then, it can be held up to their faces, or the faces of any newcomers to their farcical excuse of an encyclopedia, just how many falsehoods are being plastered over the actual truth of the matter, by their supposedly intelligent group of high-school, home-schooled, cult- schooled, and religious fundamentalist-indoctrinated zealots working on their phony, inaccurate site.
You're probably right Terry.
And given that I've experienced first-hand the apparent fact that attempts to get some balance in a Wiki page go nowhere, I suppose it'd be a big ol' time sink.
****************************************************
"Doesn't this web site have an bio encyclopedia of important people?
Why not update that to the max instead of jerking around with the Winacrappers?
There's a need to re-type to digital the thousands of pages of WC/HSCA docs, for anyone who has a lot of spare time and nothing to research."
I think B.K. makes some valid points for focusing on beefing up this web site's bio encyclopedia, and digitizing the WC/HSCA docs. If I had that kind of free time I'd jump on it. As it stands now, running between 3 places of employment leaves me next to nothing in the way of free time, and the housework ends up suffering from it in the interim, as a result. And, I'm off to vacuum now, so good luck.
-
In 1993, the GAO found USPS relations to be acrimonious and confrontational, the product of “an autocratic management style, that included an adversarial union and employees.2 This confrontational style may have resulted in one of every twelve postal union members filing a grievance or complaint.3 Resolving those disputes cost the agency over $200 million a year.4
The Postal Service was also unable to handle equal employment opportunity complaints in a timely fashion, leading to a charge that “justice delayed was justice denied”.5 While the time-consuming, lengthy, adversarial process of exercising the grievance process continued, the prompt delivery of mail remained the inviolable priority of the Postal Service. The inflexibility of this requirement seemed incompatible with providing time for communication about “people problems" in employment disputes."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=23254
"Remember how the term "going postal" got started? For a while there, a few years back, it seemed like every disgruntled (which became the catchall adjective to describe any out-of-sorts employee) postal worker was walking into the office with a nervous twitch, firearm and a whopping score to settle.
These people are now deciding what's suspicious? Pardon me if I stay outside the place and drop my packages in the mail slot outdoors. While waiting in lines that challenge the DMV and communist grocery stores, I'm sure I've said a number of anti-post office stuff over the years within earshot of some Maxwell Smart behind the counter with the striped blue shirt and suspicion meter running on tilt. Considering that, for a number of those years, I had a shaved head, Wyatt Earp moustache and an armful of gun magazines, I was probably a prime candidate for a write-up.
Worse, nowadays I look respectable, mostly clean-shaven and walk in with a baby carriage. Must be a front for a drug kingpin.
The absurdity of all of this is mind-boggling.
Buying a money order – even a really big one – is perfectly legal. But if the numbers puncher thinks you might be laundering drug money with them, you're in big trouble. Never mind that you might be using the order to purchase a used car from a guy who is less than eager to take your personal check. Never mind the fact that maybe you forgot to order new checks from the bank and need a money order to pay your rent.
Even though the act itself is perfectly legal, by purchasing any postal money products, customers invite postal workers to stop playing clerk and start playing narc. Why a guy might look like an illicit druggist to a clerk is the scary part. How in the name of the Pony Express are these cash register regents supposed to finger a drug suspect?
No problem, right? They've seen "Cops." They know what a drug dealer looks like. Heck, "Law and Order" is probably their favorite TV show. Great.
It's bad enough when trained law enforcement officers get involved in profiling criminals. Now we've got keypad jockeys getting in on all the fun. Want to lay odds on how many completely innocent customers are going to have their names scribbled on a "suspicious activity report"?
The Postal Service doesn't seem worried by the prospect. According to a training video for the program, "It's better to report 10 legal transactions than to let one illegal transaction get by." Hear that gang? In the name of law and order, we get to take one for the team – or nine to be more accurate.
"Everybody must admit that the Post Office, as a branch of Government, is an institution obviously and inevitably liable to the most prodigious abuses," wrote New York Plaindealer columnist William Leggett in 1837."[/color]
_________________________________________
In 1963 the USPS (United States Postal Service) was not yet in existence. The relevant government department was the USPO (United States Post Office).
Some of the changes in the new Post Service were significant not least of all the relationship that the Post Master General had to the President.
******************************************************
May I add my two cents to this dissertation? In 1982, when I had been relocated to what is known out here on the "left" coast, as The Inland Empire, I found it hard to find a job doing Nuclear Medicine in any of the hospitals and medical centers, in and around the San Bernardino area. I saw an ad in the classifieds for a position at the United States Post Office of Riverside County, which is adjacent to San Bernardino County, and answered it.
I was required to sit for a test which would determine my classification and eligibility for employment with the Riverside County U.S. Postal Service. I passed with flying colors and was classified as ineligible. Why? Because I was considered to be over-qualified to do the job.
Does that kind of give you an idea of what type of mindset the Post Office was considering to hire as employees? I look at it this way. What you see, is what you get. Narrow your playing field down to the lowest possible achievers in society and that's what you'll eventually end up reaping the grapes of wrath for, in the form of some kind of psycho-pathological behavior. If seemingly any D-grade student can go in an barely pass the test, yet be hired over someone who makes a perfect grade, then what does that tell you? The lowest achievers are thought to be easier to manipulate, to be more agreeable to being treated as beasts of burden, or maybe some supervisor might be afraid for his own job, and that a smart-ass newcomer might somehow be perceived as a threat to his job security? Maybe? If you're going to hire the dregs of society to do a job, without further investigation into their backgrounds, then don't be surprised when Joe Blow from Kokomo, opens up with an automatic rifle or pistol on your crew one morning, and think it's because he didn't have his morning cup of coffee.
I'm sure security has been tightened up considerably since the early 1990's when this phenomena first reared its ugly head. And, I'm almost certain that there are more extensive examinations, as well as medical profiling taking place these days, as a counter measure in preventing the occurrence of any future re-enactments. But, the fact remains that in selecting from the bottom of the barrel you run the risk of unforeseen backlash, which may have absolutely nothing to do with the way the place of employment is run, and all to do with the mental stability of an individual chosen for, what was misconstrued as, a "Keep it simple, stupid." personality aspect, that ended up turning into a fatal personality "flaw."
-
Isn't this just a big waste of time?
Why not just start a real page on LHO, or Ruby and make it the authorative site on the internet?
Doesn't this web site have an bio encyclopedia of important people?
Why not update that to the max instead of jerking around with the Winacrapers?
There's a need to retype to digial the thousands of pages of WC/HSCA docs, for anyone who has a lot of spare time and nothing to research.
Not to disuade anyone from keeping those guys honest, apparently a daily exercise, I think there's a lot of better things to do.
BK
Well yeah, Spartacus is the authoritative site on JFK and more.
But the existence of a few good sites doesn't mean that we needn't fight internet propaganda.
Just like the existence of a few good books like "Someone Would Have Talked" and "Plausible Denial" doesn't mean we needn't fight propaganda (hi Bugliosi!) in the publishing world.
Wiki has a lot of traffic and is wrongly considered "authoritative" by the deluded demographic.
If they're gonna continue their right-wing ways we can at least try to change it and/or document it in this public forum if they refuse to be objective.
****************************************************8
"Wiki has a lot of traffic and is wrongly considered "authoritative" by the deluded demographic. If they're gonna continue their right-wing ways we can at least try to change it and/or document it in this public forum if they refuse to be objective."
This is true, Myra. But, as B.K. explained, and as I concur, "not to dissuade anyone." You'd need a cast of editors to monitor Fakepedia 24/7 in order to stay on top of them. If there are a few good men/women with that kind of capacity for vigilance then, by all means, go for it. But, the fact remains, Fakepedia is a right-wing, conservative front, set up specifically for the spreading of disinfo/misinfo throughout the general populace, aka the sheeple, and the road to hell is known to have been paved with good intentions.
But, if any of you guys happen to have the time for this form of blanketed surveillance, then be my guest. Just remember to copy and paste every edit and correction, as J.S. suggested, as a means of documentation. Then, it can be held up to their faces, or the faces of any newcomers to their farcical excuse of an encyclopedia, just how many falsehoods are being plastered over the actual truth of the matter, by their supposedly intelligent group of high-school, home-schooled, cult- schooled, and religious fundamentalist-indoctrinated zealots working on their phony, inaccurate site.
-
Arthur Schlesinger once commented on the American's people tendacy to resort to violent action (a subject recently discussed on the forum). He traced this back to a society that embraced slavery and the resulting impact on ideas about equality. He added that the American people also had to "face up to the schism between our national instincts for aggression and our national capacity for civility and idealism".
Oh yeah. In the US we're constantly programmed to believe this country was built on democratic ideals. In fact it was built on twin pillars of:
-Slavery. In spite of the Declaration of Independence claim that "All men are created equal." What a whopper of a lie. Guys in powdered wigs ranting about the horrors of taxation without representation and dumping tea into a harbor. Later generations owning slaves.
-Denying the riff-raff the right to pick their president by concocting the Electoral College. I can't describe this any better than Gore Vidal (I can't describe anything better than Gore Vidal):
"I happen to be something of a student of the American constitution --it was set up in order to avoid majority rule. The two things the founding fathers hated were majoritarian rule and monarchy. So they devised a republic in which only a very few white men of property could vote. Then, to make sure that we never had any democracy at work at the highest levels of governance, they created something called the electoral college, which can break any change that might upset them. We saw what happened in November 2000, when Albert Gore won the popular vote by 600,000, he actually won the electoral vote of Florida, but a lot of dismal things happened and denied him the election. So that's what happened there. So for us to talk about a democracy that we are going to translate into other lands is the height of hypocrisy and is simply foolish."
http://www.counterpunch.org/vidal03142003.html
-And as Gore says, the refusal to let anyone but white men vote. (Ok, I said "twin pillars" then listed three; so sue me.)
Was any country ever built on a bigger foundation of hypocrisy?
********************************************************
"-Slavery. In spite of the Declaration of Independence claim that "All men are created equal." What a whopper of a lie. Guys in powdered wigs ranting about the horrors of taxation without representation and dumping tea into a harbor. Later generations owning slaves."
Guys in powdered wigs owning something near 200 slaves between them, if I remember correctly.
"Then, to make sure that we never had any democracy at work at the highest levels of governance, they created something called the electoral college, which can break any change that might upset them. We saw what happened in November 2000, when Albert Gore won the popular vote by 600,000, he actually won the electoral vote of Florida, but a lot of dismal things happened and denied him the election. So that's what happened there. So for us to talk about a democracy that we are going to translate into other lands is the height of hypocrisy and is simply foolish."
And, did you ever notice how they teach U.S. Government in your high schools? Trying to get a bead on, let alone, comprehend what the "Electoral College" was all about, was like attempting to decipher the Rosetta Stone, or The Dead Sea Scrolls. Totally disproportionate to what you'd expect to find in university. I never fully understood its meaning until I was in my twenties and allowed to voice my opinion at what I perceived to be the absurdity and unilateral unfairness of the concept, without risking a low C, or a D, for my efforts.
"...is the height of hypocrisy and is simply foolish."
"So for us to talk about a democracy that we are going to translate into other lands...is the height of hypocrisy and completely sophomoric, on our part." [is how I would've phrased it. Although, I'd much rather preferred, "imbecilic" to sophomoric.] Then again, I'll never be able to shine Gore Vidal's shoes, for that matter. It's what separates the wheat from the chaff, if you will.
Me being the chaff, and all.
-
Here's how I think the assassination may have happened:
Kennedy had an array of enemies. A president always does. Each faction of enemies was used in some way in the plot to kill him. That way, the dog continually chases its tail. Research never gets very far. Or, at least, moves very, very slowly.
The Mafia
Texas
Anti-Castro Cubans
The Military
The CIA
Researchers see someone involved from one of these groups (or others) and wrongly conclude that is who ordered the murder.
But, I think those that gave the order to kill JFK were insulated and removed themselves from the actual process of carrying outhis assassination. It's the old magician's trick of having the audience watch the right hand while the left performs the "magic".
Now, what was the most powerful element in the US in 1963? Who was the most powerful man of that element? Was it/he at odds with Kennedy? Over what? Would this powerful man/element have had the use and ties to Texas, The Mafia, Cubans, the Military? Intell?
...
John McCloy and Allen Dulles, I think, were central to the plot. But there was a higher power at work.
Who did these two work for?
Good overview. I'll add that there were higher powerS at work, spanning the "military industrial" complex that President Eisenhower warned about after waking up from his eight-year Rip Van-Winkle nap to hand the leash of a rabid dog to President Kennedy (yeah, I know Ike was sick a lot), after the heir apparent, Nixon, blew it in spite of Prescott's string-pulling.
Industrial--First and foremost. At one level nascent war-profiteers/Johnson puppeteers Brown & Root/Halliburton and Bell Helicoptor. Also oil moguls HL Hunt & Sons and Clint Murchison and Sid Richardson (all from Texas). At a higher level bankers like Brown Bros Harriman (and JP Morgan--now JP Morgan Chase--still smarting over their failure to overthrow FDR?). At an even higher level the Rockefellers.
Legal--The first level of defense for the Industrial faction. McCloy, who I knew nothing about before this thread, was a Harvard (Ivy League CIA) lawyer for the ruling class, head of the World Bank (ahem, a predecessor to Wolfowitz...). He does seem to have a helluva pedigree--purebred fascist. Ah prairie-xxxx, I'll just say it; he was a Nazi.
Banking--And money laundering. Especially laundering. McCloy was president of the Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank.
http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%...K%20Assass.html
" McCloy had long been involved in the murky world of espionage, intrigue and Nazis. He spent the decade of the 1930s working out of Paris. Much of his time was spent on a law case stemming from German sabotage in World War I. His investigation took him to Berlin, where he shared a box with Hitler at the 1936 Olympics. He was in contact with Rudolph Hess before the Nazi leader made a mysterious flight to England in 1941....When JFK moved to lower the oil depletion allowance, he incurred the displeasure of John McCloy, whose clients' profits would be trimmed. Hoover, Dulles and McCloy did not belong to the Kennedy fan club. When the president was shot, Hoover controlled the field investigation, and Dulles and McCloy helped mold the final verdict of the Warren Commission."
Then there's Prescott Bush and his laundering activities for the Nazis via Union Bank.
Intelligence--The covert enforcement/assassination branch of the Industrial faction, including friends of Prescott like the treasonous Dulles Bros, and comprised of the NSA/CIA/individual military branches. The co-second level of defense, along with the Military.
Propaganda--CIA Mockingbirds in the media. Were there actual PR firms involved?
Military--The overt enforcement branch of the Industrial faction via Joint Chiefs (?) who were still fuming over the President's rejection of Operation Northwoods and dumping of Chairman Lemnitzer. The co-second level of defense, along with the CIA/Mafia.
Others in this thread are discussing the specific individuals possibly involved (like John "the Constitution is just a scrap of paper to me" McCloy). http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccloyJ.htm
"As John D. Rockefeller Jr. told his personal lawyer, Thomas M. Debevoise, "McCloy knows so many people in government
circles... that he might be in the way to get information in various quarters about the matter without seeking it, or
revealing his hand."
Contractors--Hired or duped hit-men/muscle including mobsters and (as Stan noted, and Larry Hancock wrote about in "Someone Would Have Talked") misguided gullible (my terms, not Larry's) anti-Castro Cubans.
Congressional--The front-men for the Industrial fascists. Among them Lyndon Johnson who never would have given up his
Majority Leader position if he didn't know he would quickly advance beyond VP, and good ol' boy "Winkin'" Albert Thomas (both
from Texas).
Organizational 1/National-International--Council on Foreign Relations. "From 1954 to 1970, [McCloy] was chairman of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations in New York, to be succeeded by David Rockefeller, who had worked closely with him at the Chase Bank. McCloy had a long association with the Rockefeller family, going back to his early Harvard days when he taught the young Rockefeller brothers how to sail. He was also a member of the Draper Committee, formed in 1958 by Eisenhower."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._McCloy
"The earliest origin of the Council stemmed from a working fellowship of distinguished scholars, tasked to brief President
Woodrow Wilson [who was supposedly the first president to extensively use propaganda, and was supposedly admired by Harry (Pendergast puppet/bomb-dropper/CIA creator/World Bank inventor/original Cold Warrier) Truman (the buck really does stop there)] about options for the postwar world when Germany was defeated. Through 1917-18, this academic band, a prominent member of whom was Wilson's closest adviser
Edward M. House, as well as Walter Lippmann, gathered discreetly at 155th Street and Broadway in New York City, to assemble the strategy for the postwar world. This band of scholars then travelled to the Paris Peace Conference, 1919...The Americans who subsequently returned from the conference became drawn to a discreet club of New York financiers and international lawyers who had organized previously in June 1918 and was headed by Elihu Root; this select group called itself the Council on Foreign Relations. They joined this group and the Council was formally established in New York on July 29, 1921, with 108 founding members, including Elihu Root as a leading member and John W. Davis, the personal attorney for J. P. Morgan, as its founding president. Other luminaries included John Foster Dulles, Herbert Lehman, Henry Stimson, Averell Harriman and the Rockefeller family's public relations expert, Ivy Lee.
The Council initially had strong connections to the Morgan interests, such as the lawyer, Paul Cravath, whose pre-eminent New York law firm (later named Cravath, Swaine & Moore) represented Morgan businesses; and a Morgan partner, Russell Leffingwell, later becoming its first chairman. Over time, however, the locus of power shifted inexorably to the Rockefeller family."
Organizational 2/Texas epicenter--Texas & the 8F klan. Texas was of course the nation-state that served as the ideal incubator for evil. "As the historian, Robert A. Caro has pointed out in Lyndon Johnson: The Path to Power: "Texans were elected on December 7, 1931, not only to the Speakership of the House but to the chairmanship of five of its most influential committees, Lyndon Johnson's first day in the Capitol was the day Texas came to power in it - a power that the state was to hold, with only the
briefest interruptions, for more than thirty years."
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKgroup8F.htm
"The assassination of John F. Kennedy brought an end to this proposal to bring an end to the oil depletion allowance. The
Suite 8F Group also did very well out of the escalation of the Vietnam War. They formed a new company called RMK-BRJ to
obtain these contracts. This included Halliburton who took over Brown & Root in 1962. These contracts included building jet
runways, dredging channels for ships, hospitals, prisons, communications facilities, and building American bases from Da Nang
to Saigon. RMK-BRJ did 97% of the construction work in Vietnam. The other 3% went to local Vietnamese contractors. Between
1965 and 1972 Brown & Root (Halliburton) alone obtained revenues of $380 million from its work in Vietnam.
...
Another company associated with the Suite 8F Group also did well out of the Vietnam War. Bell Helicopter Corporation began
producing the UH-1. It could climb 2,000 feet per minute and could fly at 125 miles per hour for about three hours. It could
carry nine fully equipped soldiers and a crew of four. By 1969 Bell Helicopter Corporation was selling nearly $600 million
worth of helicopters to the United States Military. According to Robert Bryce: "Vietnam made Bell Helicopters". "
Alright, just a first stab at a first draft. Many more drafts needed.
*******************************************************
"According to Robert Bryce: "Vietnam made Bell Helicopters". ""
And, Hughies, too. Compliments of Hughes Aircraft Industries, Inc.
Damn, Myra! I couldn't have said it better than you did. Bravo, girl!
-
Here's how I think the assassination may have happened:
Kennedy had an array of enemies. A president always does. Each faction of enemies was used in some way in the plot to kill him. That way, the dog continually chases its tail. Research never gets very far. Or, at least, moves very, very slowly.
The Mafia
Texas
Anti-Castro Cubans
The Military
The CIA
Researchers see someone involved from one of these groups (or others) and wrongly conclude that is who ordered the murder.
But, I think those that gave the order to kill JFK were insulated and removed themselves from the actual process of carrying out his assassination. It's the old magician's trick of having the audience watch the right hand while the left performs the "magic".
Now, what was the most powerful element in the US in 1963? Who was the most powerful man of that element? Was it/he at odds with Kennedy? Over what? Would this powerful man/element have had the use and ties to Texas, The Mafia, Cubans, the Military? Intell?
The research, intelligence, and passion I see on this forum amazes me. I am a lout compared. My view of this crime continues to evolve and change. Like Cliff and Tony Soprano, I've lost a lot of pets over the years.
John McCloy and Allen Dulles, I think, were central to the plot. But there was a higher power at work.
Who did these two work for?
******************************************************
"Who did these two work for?"
Rockefeller/Morgan. Why is everybody so afraid to mention, or make the connection to Wall Street? And, I ask for the umpteenth time, "Who had the resources, the collateral, if you will, to contract the deed, cover the tracks, and control all pertinent data, as well as the whole U.S. gov. into doing their bidding? It takes M-O-N-E-Y. Lots of it. The kind that Washington, D.C. couldn't lay claim to in a million years. Why? Because, excuse me but, D.C. is nothing more than a big facade from which to present whatever bills, rules, or regs needed to fool the populace into believing they have a say in what happens in their lives. But, mostly to make it look like the paid lackeys in the congress and the senate have a job to do. When in reality they're the ones deciding, which "sweet" deal will garner them the most money to line their pockets with, by allowing global corporations to ride roughshod over what's left of the planet and all that inhabit it.
And, we pay them with our taxed dollars to do this. To pull the proverbial wool over our eyes.
The world belongs to the Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Rothschildts and the Cecil family. It's their world, after all, to do what they want with it. Their daddies and their forefathers stole, pillaged, and annexed it for them, and for their progeny, ONLY. They're not about to allow some common tripe in on the deal. Follow the cobblestone road, across the Atlantic, and all the way to London, and Venice.
-
Arthur Schlesinger once commented on the American's people tendacy to resort to violent action (a subject recently discussed on the forum). He traced this back to a society that embraced slavery and the resulting impact on ideas about equality. He added that the American people also had to "face up to the schism between our national instincts for aggression and our national capacity for civility and idealism".
**********************************************************************
"He traced this back to a society that embraced slavery and the resulting impact on ideas about equality. He added that the American people also had to "face up to the schism between our national instincts for aggression and our national capacity for civility and idealism"."
The thought of which is a paradoxicality, in and of itself. But, a wise one, none the less.
-
Rich has announced that past images posted on JFKresearch over the years
will now be accessible through a new and ongoing feature open to all researchers.
Click on:
http://www.jfkresearch.com/page9.htm
You will find this a valuable research tool. It feature images that go back to
the beginning of Rich's forum.
John...this would be a good addition to your links page.
Jack
Thank you Jack. And thank you to Rich, who I don't actually know.
They now have a msg that the forum is active again. Does anyone know for sure if it's true? I never received a reply in the past when I tried to register.
Myra...are you were using the new forum address and not the old one? Click on:
http://www.jfkresearch.com/forum3/index.php
You should be able to read all posted topics. You will not be able to respond
to CERTAIN TOPICS unless you are a paid member. Rich's site is party supported
by an annual "donation" from researchers who desire full membership. Exemptions
are available for students and retirees upon valid request. If you have a problem
joining, let me know and I will inform Rich. Because of medical problems, Rich is
largely confined to a wheel chair nowadays, and running his website is his main
therapy.
Jack
Thank you so much for your help Jack....
I think you probably helped a lot.
I now have full member access. Brag.
*********************************************************
"I now have full member access. Brag."
Good girl, Myra! I think I might've mentioned you, in passing conversations I've had with Rich, recently, as to the newer folks who've come on board the assassination research community, and show real promise with the work they've been doing. You'll find a lot of great people at Rich's who are also here on Simkins' forum, as well. Dixie Dea, and Bernice Moore, for instance have been old compadres of mine since I first started on the Prouty forum eight years ago, and who also encouraged me to join up at Rich's and start working with them.
I hold Rich DellaRosa and Len Osanic in the highest esteem, as they've both been good, personal friends of mine, who've been a great help to me over the years.
Ter
-
The idea that Kennedy was too radical for the military-industrial complex is the thesis behind the two motion pictures about the case: the dull 1973 version. Executive Action, which starred Burt Lancaster, and Oliver Stone's JFK. Stone emphasised Vietnam: Kennedy was shot to stop withdrawal from Vietnam. This is the thesis of the late L. Fletcher Prouty, former US Air Force Colonel, who had a remarkable book. The Secret Team, published in America in 1973. Prouty was a really important insider, not only the US Air Force's liaison officer with the ClA's covert operations in the 1950s, but someone who had also been in charge of presidential security. As former liaison with the CIA, Prouty had watched the growth of the agency covert operations. As a security officer, Prouty looked at the events that day in Dallas and saw the absence of presidential security. As Prouty pointed out, the absence of security is all you need to arrange. Prouty implied, but never quite stated, that the US Secret Service had to be part of the plot. Unfortunately for Prouty his book got buried under the Watergate scandal.
Extract from Who Shot JFK (2002)
I think that somewhere along the line someone might bring up the idea that Prouty was a CIA asset. He certainly was not persona non grata within the Intelligence community.
According to info found just googling around, Prouty received an MBA in, of all things, Banking, when he "retired" from the military, and was the banker for the retired CIA types.
If his books are viewed from the perspective that he was a CIA asset, one can begin to wonder how much spin is attached to all the information he does present in his books and articles.
At the very least, he continues the long-established trend that the Kennedy assassination was a very unfortunate, but isolated, incident in the drama of the Cold War.
There are articulate people these days who view Kennedy's death as part of a greater conspiracy, the NWO conspiracy. Kennedy and his brother were obstructing the time-table laid down by the master-planners of the coming-to-fruition conspiracy of this larger conspiracy.
********************************************************
"At the very least, he continues the long-established trend that the Kennedy assassination was a very unfortunate, but isolated, incident in the drama of the Cold War. There are articulate people these days who view Kennedy's death as part of a greater conspiracy, the NWO conspiracy. Kennedy and his brother were obstructing the time-table laid down by the master-planners of the coming-to-fruition conspiracy of this larger conspiracy."
And, anyone who thinks otherwise, is clearly bogged down in the non-essentials of the case, and will forever be chasing their own tails into perpetuity. Which, is exactly what the power structure was counting on when they laid the groundwork, so very intricately and thoroughly as to prolong the case from ever being brought to fruition.
You may question Prouty, and even choose to discredit him as Ron does. But, the fact remains that Prouty, along with the much maligned Garrison, opened the door to many unanswered questions, if not unheard of and inconceivable, to the general populace, at the time. Which, was the distinct possibility that your ever so hallowed government might not be operating with your best interests at heart, if in fact they ever were, in the first place.
How else then, should one have had access to the houses of the holy, if not been priviledged to have walked through them, and observed them in action. For instance, if compartmentalization is the nature of the game of the operatives, and in the case of information and data accredited to one which, later may appear to be skewed or at odds with more recently released information, so as to appear to discredit the former, may it not be viewed from the perspective of how the mechanics of compartmentalization serve the purpose of its intention, and not kill the messenger who chose to reveal it?
-
[originally posted on the JFK Research Forum (www.jfkresearch.com), 8/24/2002]
The Dulleses, the Bundys, and John J. McCloy: Where the Secret Team Met the Power Elite
In past posts... I have often mentioned the afterword essay in William Davy’s book Let Justice Be Done, written by Robert Spiegelman. The essay is entitled:
"Garrison’s Invitation To The Millennium Ball: Where Dallas ’63 Meets The Age Of Globalization (For the Re-Searchers Among Us)"
This is a most important piece of work that I was hoping to see discussed... This essay goes a long way toward defining a post proving-it-was-a-conspiracy research agenda in the JFK assassination case.
On page 215 we find:
It is high time to revisit the JFK assassination in a revised framework that accepts Garrison’s invitation to begin the road toward a “better explanation.” Noting that most JFK-researchers no longer ask or analyze the “whys”, it seems long overdue to kick start that enterprise by revisiting Garrison’s analyses, deconstructing some if his expressions and parlaying the result in a research agenda that returns once more to the trail of the assassins.
One of the specific recommended research agenda items is:
"Re-examine the actual, elite composition of the so-called Kennedy Administration."
From page 215
Evidence and analysis by Colby and Dennett demonstrates that the Kennedy Administration was staffed primarily by Wall Street banker and former Defense Secretary Robert Lovett and thereby composed of first-tier architects of the Cold War and Establishment icons, such as: John J. McCloy, C. Douglas Dillon, W. Averill Harriman and Paul Nitze, as well as Dean Rusk, Walt and Eugene Rostow, McGeorge and William Bundy, Allen Dulles (whose hawkish brother John Foster was Ike’s Secretary of State) and waiting in the wings, Dean Acheson.
...The Kennedy Administration was not so much staffed by “Cold Warriors” as by transnational bankers and lawyers with a long-view. They were progenitors, architects and proconsuls for the New World Order.
A further sustained study of the lives and careers of “Establishment icons” like the Dulles Brothers, the Bundy Brothers, and John J. McCloy will, I believe, take us a long way in understanding how power functions in the world, how it functioned in 1963 and functions right up to the present time.
Here is another part of the essay from page 207 that is especially relevant:
Until the end of his life, Jim Garrison had a relentless conscience and hungry consciousness that continued to plummet the “why” of Kennedy’s murder. ...(Zachary) Sklar remembers Garrison (late in life) ...charting a set of converging lines of corporate interest and political alliance which finally would intersect at Harvard Brahmin, McGeorge Bundy, JFK’s national security advisor. Garrison, notes Sklar, was becoming especially interested in the Bundy Brothers, McGeorge and his elder brother William, a former CIA official who was Dean Acheson’s son-in-law and held a significant Defense Department post on international security in the Kennedy Administration. (Researchers, of course, have long noted that in the immediate aftermath of the murder, the returning Air Force One was radioed by the White House Situation Room under Bundy’s control to fix the lone nut as the sole perpetrator--this before Oswald was even indicted.) Sklar points out that Garrison had not concluded that Bundy himself ordered or coordinated JFK’s killing; but rather that, to Garrison, Bundy represented the type of high-level player who could well have been materially involved.
Any advance in this research agenda should, of course, make use of the indispensable work of L. Fletcher Prouty. Colonel Prouty was right on the scene and saw with his own eyes how these “Establishments icons” operated and he understood that they were operatives and functionaries of great power, a power he could clearly sense, but which he did not completely understand. The Secret Team was his first attempt to define and come to terms with what he witnessed in his dealings with these icons. We are very fortunate indeed that he left us with this record, but we should recognize that this book is only a beginning. We should also recognize that this book has, in my opinion, been misused and misinterpreted by some to imply that “The Secret Team” was the real power in the world and that this power grouping somehow grew up after the passage of the National Security Act in 1947 and was centered around the CIA and the “Military Industrial Complex.” With a reading of Prouty’s second book, JFK. The CIA, Vietnam And The Plot To Assassinate John F. Kennedy, in which he begins to make use of the term “power elite,” we can start making real progress in understanding what his term the "Secret Team" means and what it does not mean.
I believe it is now clear that Prouty meant something very different when he spoke of the "Secret Team" and when he spoke of the “power elite.” In 1973, when The Secret Team was published, Prouty had a much more limited world view that he did by the time of JFK. As is very clear in JFK, he was very much influenced by Buckminster Fuller, and especially his book Critical Path. Even though JFK is a great advance in our understanding, we should recognize, here too, that this is only a beginning and that our research agenda should move on to the works of Carroll Quigley, Lloyd Miller, Lyndon LaRouche (and associates), Eustace Mullins, Antony Sutton, Donald Gibson, and others.
Because we know that Colonel Prouty was very much influenced by Buckminster Fuller and because we know that he had some knowledge of and contact with the LaRouche organization, an item in Lloyd Miller’s A-Albionic book catalog is of some interest.
Critical Path by R. Buckminster Fuller & Adjuvant Kiyoshi Kuromiya, 1981
The creator of the Geodesic Dome and coiner of the term "Spaceship Earth" in setting forth his vision for the future of mankind adumbrates his insightful theory of the covert world-rule "Great Pirates." Many suspect that Fuller was the unacknowledged source of Lyndon LaRouche's theories, including much of his opposition to the no-growth ecology extremism of the "Great Pirate's" "Court Intellectuals"! Fuller does not condemn "environmentalism" with the same extremism as LaRouche, but does argue against no-progress extremism.
Page 58-59: "It seems strange that we were not taught about the historical, philosophical, and economic significance of the foregoing transition to a closed-sphere world system (from infinite plane world view). Because the churches were strong and the "Great Pirates" wished to obscure both their monopoly of the riches of the now limited system and their grand world ocean strategy for its control, the significance of the concept of a closed world system was popularly unrealized. The power structure and its patronized educational systems 'let well enough alone'." (!!)
Ron Williams
*******************************************************************
"I believe it is now clear that Prouty meant something very different when he spoke of the "Secret Team" and when he spoke of the “power elite.” In 1973, when The Secret Team was published, Prouty had a much more limited world view that he did by the time of JFK. As is very clear in JFK, he was very much influenced by Buckminster Fuller, and especially his book Critical Path. Even though JFK is a great advance in our understanding, we should recognize, here too, that this is only a beginning and that our research agenda should move on to the works of Carroll Quigley, Lloyd Miller, Lyndon LaRouche (and associates), Eustace Mullins, Antony Sutton, Donald Gibson, and others."
Ron, thank you for bringing the totality of these players and their part in the puzzle to the forefront. And, most importantly for mentioning the works of Quigley, Miller, LaRouche, Mullins, Sutton, Gibson, et.al. in the same breath with Prouty, and Garrison. These researchers are the ones I consider to be the pinnacle of importance to understanding what was going on behind the scenes, and WHY the assassination(s) were allowed to take place. These authors go right to the heart of the matter. Once you've read their works, you then realize the futileness and insignificance of allowing yourself to become any further bogged down with the mechanics of the shooting, or with trying to analyze the footage of piece of film. These authors give you the correct answer, along with the explanation as to, as you succinctly put it, "why" this was allowed to go down, and allowed to "stand" for the last forty years.
-
Bob Dylan's Like a Rolling Stone has lyrics which read, "You say you never compromised/ with the mystery tramp..."
Someone told me he believed "mystery tramp" came from the pictures of the mystery tramps in Dealey Plaza.
BTW, the song is about Edie Sedgwick, Andy Warhol star, heiress and drug addict.
Kathy
********************************************************
"Someone told me he believed "mystery tramp" came from the pictures of the mystery tramps in Dealey Plaza."
Who, told you. And, was he conjecturing, or speculating? And, what does Edie Sedgwick have to do with JFK? Another chick he supposedly shtupped? I seriously doubt it. Why muck up the thread with unsubstantiated generalities?
Where's A.J. Weberman when I need him?
Besides, since you seem to have a wild hair up your butt about Dylan, at the moment. One of my all time favorites of his is, "Positively 4th Street" where I happened to have been living in 1966 after returning to New York, having spent the last three or four years living in New Orleans and San Francisco. The best lines are the very last:
POSITIVELY 4TH STREET
You got a lotta nerve
To say you are my friend
When I was down
You just stood there grinning
You got a lotta nerve
To say you got a helping hand to lend
You just want to be on
The side that's winning
You say I let you down
You know it's not like that
If you're so hurt
Why then don't you show it
You say you lost your faith
But that's not where it's at
You had no faith to lose
And you know it
I know the reason
That you talk behind my back
I used to be among the crowd
You're in with
Do you take me for such a fool
To think I'd make contact
With the one who tries to hide
What he don't know to begin with
You see me on the street
You always act surprised
You say, "How are you?" "Good luck"
But you don't mean it
When you know as well as me
You'd rather see me paralyzed
Why don't you just come out once
And scream it
No, I do not feel that good
When I see the heartbreaks you embrace
If I was a master thief
Perhaps I'd rob them
And now I know you're dissatisfied
With your position and your place
Don't you understand
It's not my problem
I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment
I could be you
Yes, I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
You'd know what a drag it is
To see you
The radically political songs of Dylan's were on those albums made before 1965, and before he went electric. I can't remember anything Dylan wrote after '65 that even remotely made reference to JFK's assassination. I could be wrong, but I was an avid listener and buyer back then, so that would've been something I'd have remembered.
Copyright © 1965; renewed 1993 Special Rider Music
-
I can google my name and find anything I've chosen to put out there because I'M THE ONE WHO'S WRITTEN IT DOWN AND CHOSE TO PUT IT OUT THERE. Relatives and old boyfriends have found me. Why? Because I made myself known and I have nothing to hide. On the other hand, someone such as the people you're trying to track may not want that information thrown around, or a trail etched to their doorway.
"I don't believe Donald Norton was a red herring. Stuff is still going on with him. He owns 2 residences in Avon Park, FL. Both houses are numbered 1006 on different streets. A doctor's office also came up. The address? 1006 W. Pleasant St. So I wanted to see his house like I was riding in his neighborhood. And I posted one or two pictures. I thought someone would find it interesting. Why are we protecting these people as time is running out fast?"
Who cares what he owns in Florida? Especially if he's a paid asset or agent. So, the numbers come up the same on different streets. Well, you can find that on alot of streets, and in alot of towns. Especially if the houses were built in the early part of the twentieth century, and were part and parcel of a block of lots owned by someone who's surname will also appear on a map of the area as the "edition" of so and so's, or "Located in the So and So edition," who originally bought it in say, 1902, and had it subdivided.
If someone was cruising my street and taking pictures of my house, I might just report it to the local authorities. I'd sure be interested to find out if that person was in the real estate business, or not, and perhaps was trying to market my house? Otherwise, why would they be taking the time to shoot photographs of where I lived?
And who's protecting whom from whom? You need incriminating evidence to build a case. Do you actually believe there'll ever be a case brought against Norton, or the Oswald's will somehow be forced to submit blood samples, for what?
Read Prouty, Donald Gibson, Harold Weisberg, Jim Garrison, Lisa Pease and Jim DiEugenio, Lyndon LaRouche and Carroll Quigley. Sterling Seagrave has a real good handle on what's really going down. You need to delve into the "deeper politics" of this case before you go off half-cocked chasing waterfalls. You might just end up getting yourself arrested one of these days.
David Lifton gave me a good tip on researchers when he mentioned that it's one thing to think you know what you're looking for. You can pull the damned archives of NARA apart, but if you don't know how to interpret what you're looking at, you're wasting yours and everybody else's time. And, if you don't know how to interview someone once you've made contact with them, you'll end up blowing your wad for nothing, and risk contaminating the waters for someone else who's more experienced at doing that sort of thing.
Besides, the perps are right under your nose, but so well insulated and so goddamned rich they'll never be hauled in for questioning. They could never make it stick to one of the masterminds, who just recently passed away peacefully, in his old age. If you're going to track down anybody with the real answers, go after G. Gordon Liddy, or Felix Rodriguez. Donald Norton and Robert Oswald are small fish, most likely closer to compartmentalized patsies, and already psy-op'd to answer on que.
"On the same site, I came across a photo of a man who looked like the "yearbook" picture. As his photo was scrolling down, a name appeared under it: Ralph Geb. I wrote it down and didn't think very much of it. I decided to look him up later. When I did, I discovered Ralph Geb was one of the LHO impersonators in Mexico. He, too, had a brother -- in Army Intelligence. Tell me, what are the odds that something like that will happen? I never heard of Ralph Geb."
So what? There were at least 8 LHO impersonators and some of them were running around in Dealey Plaza on 11-22-63, as well. They're called "cut-outs," the scenarios they perform, in the tasks they're assigned, are called "cut-outs." They're diversionary tactics.
BTW, why do you use such gothic, vampiric pseudonyms for your web/blogsite, and e-mail address? Sardonicus? Isn't that the smile of a corpse after the body has reached a stage in the decay process where the lips become pulled back to the ears, exposing the teeth in a hideous smile? In forensic terminology, known as The Sardonicus Smile? Didn't they make a horror movie of the same name, back in the 1950's?
-
Kathleen,
Can you answer my question, what purpose does it serve to show the roof of a house? You have made clear that this info is easily accessible and that contact details are public. I'm not disputing that these things are available.
I will say it again, what purpose does it serve to the roof of a house?
John
**********************************************************
Hi John and Dix,
I've always considered the Norton-Oswald-Lee aspect as, more than likely, another "red Herring," thrown into the mix, if you will. Even if there were a connection, in all probability, it would have been that of a cut-out, or possibly another "rabbit hole" to be chased down, as a diversionary tactic. And, as you well pointed out, Dix. If, by blatantly making these parties' information available on the World Wide Web, in an attempt to somehow coerce them into being more accessible, or amenable to the suggestion that they submit DNA evidence to an amateur, no less, is laughable, not to mention preposterous. I'm sure all the legal aspects of this suggestion have been mulled over by the professionals in the field, in the last twelve to fifteen years since the submission of DNA as evidence has been used in the court of law. But, the thought of relegating the acquisition of such, into the hands of the unqualified, or the inexperienced, might nullify the results, making it suspect, on the grounds of either contamination, or by the unauthorized manner in which it was retrieved.
On the point of broadcasting someone's name, address, or phone number on the internet, without their permission, regardless of whether it's listed or not. Wouldn't that constitute more than just an invasion of privacy? It would seem as though a person who would take the liberty of making another person's information accessible in that manner, would be intentionally setting that person up as a target for harassment, as well. The listing of a person's phone number, and access to their address is a far cry from assuming they're advertising their accessibility to all "comers." There's a charge for having your phone number "unlisted." If I'm not mistaken, I believe it's somewhere in the neighborhood of $11.00 a month, out here in California. Therefore, a person living on a fixed or limited income, might not find that financially feasible, nowadays.
CIA stooge Max Holland in town...
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Terry Mauro
**********************************************************
""Gary Dunkle"? Does Mack have an alias Tim?"
Dunkle is his actual surname, Myra. German, if I'm not mistaken.
Mack is his alias, or his professional "stage" name.