Terry Mauro

********************************************************** They've converted Fleming's 18 acre estate, Goldeneye, into a resort. If you're rich, money can buy you anything. Even your own fantasy vacation, or a piece of the pie. Fleming's Jamaica - Goldeneye Any trip to Fleming's Jamaica centers on his North Coast home, Goldeneye. ... But going to Goldeneye is best accomplished by starting next door to it . ... www.commanders.com/flemings_jamaica/pages/goldeneye_01.html - 3k - Cached - Similar pages Goldeneye, Golden Eye Jamaica, Golden Eye Resort Jamaica, Jamaica ... Golden Eye Jamaica: Extremely secluded, 18 acre, Jamaica vacation villa resort.. Goldeneye waterfront villas. James Bond author, Ian Fleming’s house in ... www.definitivecaribbean.com/accommodation/Goldeneye.aspx - 46k - Cached - Similar pages Island Outpost - Goldeneye in Oracabessa, Jamaica Island Outpost - Goldeneye is a magical place; a 18-acre retreat nestled among tropical forests and lush gardens on a seaside bluff overlooking the ... www.islandoutpost.com/goldeneye/ - 29k - Cached - Similar pages Jamaica's Goldeneye to target residential tourists - USATODAY.com Goldeneye, the scenic rural retreat in eastern Jamaica where British author Ian Fleming created the James Bond character that spawned dozens of novels and ... www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2007-02-06-jamaica-james-bond-goldeneye_x.htm - 44k - Cached - Similar pages Goldeneye, Jamaica - VirtualTourist.com Goldeneye reviews and photos posted by real travelers. Read unbiased reviews, view photos, compare rates and book reservations for Goldeneye, Jamaica. www.virtualtourist.com/.../Jamaica/Hotels_and_Accommodations-Jamaica-Goldeneye-BR-1.html - 33k - Cached - Similar pages

2. Director: Central Republic Bank and Trust Co. 3. Director: City National Bank 4. Director: Atlas Corporations United Fruit Company *********************************************************** "This activity is one that occurred all over America and in Canada. Some of the more well-known baby-mills or places where black market adoptions occurred are listed below and where found more information. 2. Director: Central Republic Bank and Trust Co. 3. Director: City National Bank 4. Director: Atlas Corporations United Fruit Company" O.K. Now I get what you were driving at. The less than stellar intentions and motivations behind some of these icons of industry. Pardon my paranoia, Purv.

****************************************************** "BTW, as I've said before, Mary Moorman was a babe." She definitely was one of the prettier girls Dallas is noted for. But, I don't remember any mention of the head wound as having transpired at that point, in the transcript. I can understand Moorman's overall view of the scene having been compromised through the narrow F.O.V. from which she was focussing her camera. But, Jean Hill didn't make mention of it, either. At least, in that transcript. Maybe, it was erased? Although, they do make mention of the first one or two shots, the slowing of the vehicle, and the race to get out of there. Apparently, they were too shell-shocked [no pun intended] to comprehend the following fusillade, as it was occurring, accompanied by the head shot and spray of brain matter. Maybe, it was too traumatic, or too graphic, and they simply blocked it out.

2. Director: Central Republic Bank and Trust Co. 3. Director: City National Bank 4. Director: Atlas Corporations United Fruit Company ************************************************************ "n Chicago several wealthy businessmen donated the money that permitted Mrs Florence Dahl Walruth to purchase the residence that became The Cradle Society. A 1917 study, commissioned by Chicago's Juvenile Protective Association, investigated adoptions and confirmed the worst fears of Progressive reformers. It was found that there was "a regular commercialized business of child placing being carried on in the city of Chicago; that there were many maternity hospital's which made regular charges. . . for disposing of unwelcome children; and that there were also doctors and other individual's who took advantage of the unmarried mother willing to pay any amount of money to dispose of the child. No name, address, or reference was required to secure the custody of a child from these people." Notorious adoption mills like The Cradle Society of Illinois, The Willows of Kansas, and the Veil maternity Home of West Virginia accepted payment from the adoptive parents upon receipt of a child, ignored commonly accepted social work practices and provided inadequate safeguards for everyone directly involved in the adoption. The Cradle Society, for example, shunned the primary tool of professional social workers, individualized casework. It accepted without queston the decision of the unwed mother to relinquish and made no effort to ascertain the decision was appropriate for the circumstances. It did not investigate prospective adoptive parents or make a study of the child's development, refused to inform the adoptive parents of the child's family history and made no provision for a probationary period after placement to supervise the child. This activity is one that occurred all over America and in Canada. Some of the more well-known baby-mills or places where black market adoptions occurred are listed below and where found more information. So Purv, when you bring up the adoption mill aspect, do you think there may be some kind of a "eugenics" connection at work, here? Possibly a low-level MKUltra group?

I've known Jack since the early 1960s, and of course I had worked with Les Whitten at The WashPost (Whitten for a while writing many of Jack's columns as a sort of co-investigator and co-columnist). I later got to know Dale VanAtta, who also was a co-investigator and co-columnist with Jack -- all of them working out of Jack's offices in a red brick townhouse next to the Carnegie Institution. In fact, Peggy and I hired (and richly paid) Jack's investigative team to help us with legwork and archival searches in Washington DC while we were living in Holland, working on THE MARCOS DYNASTY. To some extent the arrangement paid off, but most of Jack's people let us down badly. Jack himself was helpful in giving us access to his filing cabinets going back umpteen years, and Dale was helpful in other very useful ways. But in retrospect we were hugely disappointed by just about everybody we paid to help us with research on that book, not only Jack's people but people in Manila and Hong Kong. The book was a struggle, because of all the famous journalists who'd been based in Manila or worked for a while in Manila, or passed through Manila, not one had ever seriously researched all of the claims made by Ferdinand Marcos. The one exception being Al McCoy who researched Marcos's claims to being a war her, and discovered they were fraudulent. It went much farther than that, of course, because Marcos had actually been working for the Japanese, as was his putative father (who was drawn and quartered by guerrillas for what he did). Jack and his organization are essentially part of the Morman Church intelligence network, which is one of the really powerful and effective private intelligence networks in America, whose computer data base on genealogy provides cover for a vast archive of intelligence files on a great many people. ********************************************************* I read back through the thread and found: "For those who read the 1st edition, we put these new chapters on a third CD, the set of three CDs of documentation now available at our website: www.bowstring.net" I will go there, straight away. Again, thank you for coming to The Education Forum. Your information is like a breath of fresh air, and I look forward to purchasing your body of work. Best regards, Ter

**************************************************** Look at it this way, and take some other factors into consideration, such as where the witnesses were standing at the time, from what height, and even more important, from what angle their vision was viewing it. For instance, what might appear to someone across the street from where Moorman and Hill were standing, observing the limo coming towards them, at a certain angle on a sight-line, might appear as falling to the side, back to the left. Whereas, on Moorman and Hill's side of the street and from their angle of sight, what might have appeared to be a falling forward, may actually have been due to the limo slowing down as it was advancing past them, causing a seemingly forward pitch, due to the the brakes being applied, at that moment following the first round of shots. As far as the "jump up" statement, if you remember from the film, when the limo starts to emerge from behind the freeway sign, JFK appears to have both hands clutched in front of him, in what appears to be at throat level, with arms and elbows extended laterally [out to the sides]. Could this have possibly been the reaction of what Moorman and Hill describe as "jump up" and might have accounted for the lateral extension of the arms?

Sure. Allen Dulles was a servant of the people who set up the Fed, and Edward Lansdale also. Lansdale was extremely close to HL Hunt and the Murchisons, and to Bill Pawley, Meyer Lansky, Nixon, Santo Trafficante, Shackley and Clines. Col. Fletcher Prouty, who firstmet Lansdale in Manila in 1945 and later became the primary liaison between DIA and CIA, while also being a VIP pilot of Air Force One, was a crucial source for our research. He personally identified Lansdale in the crowd at Dealey Plaza. You may not know this, but if they had failed at Dealey Plaza, JFK was supposed to go hunting with the Texas Robber Barons the following day. I could go on and on and on. **************************************************************** 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

We have got some very handsome male members (no pun intended) from Australia. I met them last summer. Maybe you should pay them a visit. ***************************************************** "We have got some very handsome male members (no pun intended) from Australia. I met them last summer. Maybe you should pay them a visit." In a heartbeat, John. I just need to pay down my VISA cards, after having to use them since losing my medical benefits when they decommissioned my department last July. And, speaking of the rotten state of affairs regarding America's piss-poor excuse for offering universal healthcare to its citzens. Take a look at what truthout.org revealed this morning. Another reason for expatriating this hellhole of a place. My wife has been seriously ill for the last six months. The treatment she has received from our National Health Service has been fantastic. When you deal with NHS doctors, you never feel that your treatment is being influenced by how much it costs. Studies show that private hospitals are guilty of a great deal of over-treatment. This is very important when you are seriously ill. NHS staff have very little difficulty showing they really care about your welfare. The fact that so many of the staff are immigrants does a great deal for race-relations in the UK. All this comes free at the point of treatment. This includes a day spent at the local hospice - the place where she will eventually end her days. All though most NHS staff are full-time employees, many are volunteers. This helps to provide a sense of community responsibility. For example, 80% of the staff at the hospice provide their expertise free of charge. Each cancer patient is assigned a specialist nurse. Judith’s nurse is in her 70s. However, as she told me, she feels that she has a moral responsibility to continue working while her skills are needed. Judith not only gets free treatment. She is paid a generous allowance to pay for things she no longer can do for herself. As the man, Aneurin Bevan, who introduced the NHS in 1948, pointed out, this is socialism in action. The United States government was right when it described the NHS as “socialized medicine”. Not only that, they put the post-war Labour government under economic pressure to withdraw its proposals. The CIA actually funnelled money to senior members of the party in order to persuade them to change their policies. The CIA also told MI5 that people like Bevan were in the pay of the Soviet Union. The Conservative Party, the British Medical Association and the private insurance companies, opposed the introduction of the NHS in the same way that they had undermined attempts by David Lloyd George to introduce a primitive welfare state after the First World War. Lloyd George told them he was going to build a “land fit for heroes”. Of course he didn’t and those who survived the war were worse off than they had been before the war. In 1945 the British people decided they would not be fooled again. Even though he was considered the main figure in the UK for winning the war, Winston Churchill led the Conservative Party to its largest defeat in history. Churchill was not helped by claiming that Labour plans for higher taxes on the rich, the welfare state, the nationalization of key industries, the break-up of the British Empire, were examples of “Soviet style communism”. He even went as far to suggest that the Labour Party would form some-sort of “Gestapo” organization to ensure these reforms were successful. The UK is not the only country with socialized medicine. In fact, virtually every advanced country has a similar system. Any country that introduces such a system will never be able to take it away. It is one subject that will get the British masses onto the streets in order to defend what they have gained. At the moment there are massive demonstrations because the government is threatening to close our local hospital. The events of the early 20th century convinced the British people that the ruling-classes looked after their own. They did not need a National Health Service because they could afford to pay the necessary insurance premiums in order to get the best treatment possible. This is a lesson that every county in the advanced world has learnt. It is only a matter of time before the Americans wake up and start demanding “socialized medicine”. ********************************************************** And, my heart goes out to you, John. I have held many a hand at bedside, and comforted many a loved one during this final journey, right through and including, the eulogy. My thirty year career has been spent in the diagnostic imaging departments of medical centers. This is where the staging of these, and other diseases take place in conjunction with the Oncology Department. What I found heart-warming was the fact that Judith's nurse was allowed to carry on doing the work she loves, into her seventies. Here in the States, experience and expertise, no matter how many accolades you may have received for a job well done, nor however high esteem you've may have been held during your career, when you've passed the age of sixty, you're considered to be a medical liability to whatever insurance company may be supplying your employers with coverage. They would much rather hire inexperienced younger rookies, regardless of how limited or however inadequately trained or prepared they've come into the field, simply because they'll be able to cover their benefits much more cheaply than they would for an older employee. They would rather overlook the expense of having to train, and in most cases, re-train these new hirees, at a higher salary, I might add, than their older, loyal employee was making. Or, they would prefer to shut down one of their departments and contract their patients out to an off-site facility, where they're forced to pay even more for a procedure to be done, because in all actuality, they're renting out the machine and the tech to perform that study, at the off-site facility's rate. Just to avoid having to pay medical benefits to an older employee, who is then relegated to a per diem status. Then, try to find a facility that'll give you a thirty-two hour work week, which might put you at part-time status, and eligible for benefits. Virtually impossible. I've offered to work for less pay per hour just to be able to procure a thirty-two work week with benefits. No dice. This was something unheard of even twenty-five years ago, but since the neo-con revolution of 1994, the "right to work" policy has been firmly entrenched in every medical center's employee manual I've come across. And, California used to be a state that was known for its "Fair Labor Laws." I plan to work until I'm eighty, but it would sure be nice to work in a country where your worth is based upon your ability to continue to grow within your sphere of experience. Where your skills and task adeptness are still measured to give you the chance to prove you still have the viability and the capability to continue doing what you do best. If you hear of any Nuclear Medicine Technology jobs available over there, I do hold all major licenses and certifications required by American law. I'd be willing to sit for any boards the UK required, as well. I wish you and Judith, all the very best, John. With warmest regards, Ter

We have got some very handsome male members (no pun intended) from Australia. I met them last summer. Maybe you should pay them a visit. ***************************************************** "We have got some very handsome male members (no pun intended) from Australia. I met them last summer. Maybe you should pay them a visit." In a heartbeat, John. I just need to pay down my VISA cards, after having to use them since losing my medical benefits when they decommissioned my department last July. And, speaking of the rotten state of affairs regarding America's piss-poor excuse for offering universal healthcare to its citzens. Take a look at what truthout.org revealed this morning. Another reason for expatriating this hellhole of a place. From: "t r u t h o u t" <messenger@truthout.org> Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book Add Mobile Alert To: tmauro@pacbell.net Subject: William Fisher | Jim Crow Remembered Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 06:36:40 -0800 William Fisher remembers Jim Crow in the 1950's and examines racial bias today; Dean Baker on John Edwards' health care plan; Greg Mitchell on the NYT reporter who got Iraqi WMDs wrong, Michael R. Gordon who is now highlighting Iran; House Republicans expected to join with Democrats in Iraq debate; Libby's testimony reveals Cheney's role in selling a gone-wrong war in Iraq; the New York Times on Bush's warped priorities sacrificing health care programs; Iraq war veterans are dying while waiting for care; and more ... Browse our continually updating front page at http://www.truthout.org t r u t h o u t | 02.12 William Fisher | Jim Crow Remembered http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021207J.shtml William Fisher writes: "...I was a cub reporter for a newspaper in Central Florida - then known as the state's Bible Belt. One of my beats was what my managing editor called 'C&C' - cops and courts. They gave me the grand title of Bureau Chief and sent me twenty miles away to the county seat. There, covering the local police, the county sheriff and the county court offered an eye-opening - and terrifying - glimpse into the abyss of the Jim Crow South. For a young Yankee reporter from New York, it was a never-to-be-forgotten education." Dean Baker | Edwards Steps out Front on Health Care http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021207K.shtml Dean Baker writes: "For the people who will vote in the Democratic primaries next year, the Iraq War will rightly be the central issue. On this topic, it is worth noting that we already have a president who can't admit that he made a mistake. But, after Iraq, health care will almost certainly stand out as the most important issue. John Edwards moved the health-care debate forward last week when he outlined a plan that could provide universal coverage at an affordable price." Greg Mitchell | "NYT" Reporter Who Got Iraqi WMDs Wrong Highlights Iran Claims http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021207L.shtml "Saturday's New York Times features an article, posted at the top of its Web site late Friday, that suggests very strongly that Iran is supplying the 'deadliest weapon aimed at American troops' in Iraq.... What is the source of this volatile information? Nothing less than 'civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies.' Sound pretty convincing? It may be worth noting that the author is Michael R. Gordon, the same Times reporter who, on his own, or with Judith Miller, wrote some of the key, and badly misleading or downright inaccurate, articles about Iraqi WMDs in the run-up to the 2003 invasion," writes Greg Mitchell. GOP Expects Defections as House Debates Iraq Resolution http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021207M.shtml Three days of intense debate over the Iraq war begins in the House today, with Democrats planning to propose a narrowly worded rebuke of President Bush's troop buildup and Republicans girding for broad defections on their side. Libby Trial Sheds Light on White House http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021207N.shtml Sworn testimony in the perjury trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has shone a spotlight on White House attempts to sell a gone-wrong war in Iraq to the nation and Vice President Dick Cheney's aggressive role in the effort. The New York Times | Passing the Buck on Health Care http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021207O.shtml The New York Times writes: "President Bush's new budget would extend the administration's warped priorities deep into the realm of federally supported health care programs. The administration long ago sacrificed any meaningful domestic agenda to finance tax cuts for the wealthy and its reckless war in Iraq. The White House's reckless determination to make the tax cuts permanent is now driving it to slash domestic spending in health and other vital programs." Told to Wait, a Marine Dies THIS IS A STORY THAT REALLY BREAKS YOUR HEART [my emphasis, T.M.] http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021207P.shtml Jonathan, an Iraq war veteran with two Purple Hearts, neatly packed his US Marine Corps duffel bag with his sharply creased clothes, a framed photo of his new baby girl, and a leather-bound Bible and headed out from the family farm for a 75-mile drive to the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in St. Cloud, Minnesota. Family and friends had convinced him at last that the devastating mental wounds he brought home from war, wounds that triggered severe depression, violent outbursts, and eventually an uncontrollable desire to kill himself, could not be drowned in alcohol or treated with the array of anti-anxiety drugs he'd been prescribed. He wanted to be admitted to a psychiatric ward. But, he was told that the clinician who prescreened cases like his was unavailable. VIDEO | Mistrial Could Be End of Watada Case By Geoffrey Millard, Scott Galindez and Lance Page http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020807J.shtml The opposition of Watada and his defense team to the mistrial, declared by the military judge and eventually endorsed by prosecutors after their case fell apart, opens the door for a double-jeopardy defense. Double jeopardy, which forbids a person from being tried twice for the same crime, does not apply only after a verdict is rendered, but can apply after a jury is empaneled and witnesses have been called.

Hi Terry Brisbane's innocence? That rich. When visiting Brisbane, ask a local why 'Boundary St' and 'Vulture St' - two of the oldest major streets in the city - were given their names. Unless I have been grossly misinformed, this was not a city conceived in innocence, even by Anglo-American standards. ****************************************************** "Unless I have been grossly misinformed, this was not a city conceived in innocence, even by Anglo-American standards." Well, of course it wasn't, Sid. Neither was the 13th Colony that eventually became the State of Georgia. Yet, the article I excerpted happen to have started out its opening paragraph to read: "IN 1942, BRISBANE WAS THE THIRD LARGEST CITY IN AUSTRALIA AND THE state capital of Queensland. To many, however, it was more like a big country town than a city, its 340,000 inhabitants living in a quiet, conservative, and isolated atmosphere. Not many people came to visit, and even fewer stayed. Then the Americans arrived. The geographical situation and the presence of General Douglas MacArthur's headquarters drew American servicemen to the city center by the thousands. Australian soldiers [Diggers] were there, too, their numbers increasing as the war effort grew and Brisbane swelled with the influx. By November 1942, it had become a garrison city. It was not even Brisbane anymore. American High Command was calling it Base Section 3." Therefore, you can see how one may have gotten the impression that Brisbane's innocence had somehow been compromised by the influx of troops, regardless of whether they were Americans, or whether they were Aussies from other parts of the Australian continent. BTW, I always dug those Australian hats with the left side tacked up, coupled with those oiled leather "long coats" with the caped shoulders. A rugged, yet durable coat apparently adopted by the American cowboys of the "Old West" and which they could be seen sporting in "Hollywood's" interpretation of how the West was won.

************************************************************ Well, look at it this way, Sid. After The American Revolution, when that damned Penal Colony ended up becoming the 13th State, and given the name of "Georgia," the Brits had no where to ship their prisoners anymore. That's when they opened up New Zealand and Australia to catch the overflow. BTW, are you guys still called "subjects," down there? It's funny, but I was just reading an article in WWII History magazine, and one of the stories I came upon was about The Brisbane Riot. Apparently, the American High Command had set up MacArthur's headquarters there and ended up calling it, Base Section 3. Thousands of American troops began passing through, sometimes swelling the population by 100,000 or more people. The Australian soldiers came home to find their city had been turned into an American outpost, and their women keeping time with the Yanks. From: Military Heritage Presents WWII HISTORY www.wwiihistorymagazine.com INSIGHT Cultures clashed as large numbers of American troops came to Brisbane, Australia during WWII By Ken Wright An excerpt "Maj. Gen. J.M.A. Durrant, commander of the Australian troops in Queensland, interpreted the ill feeling as resentment toward the U.S. servicemen at what seemed to be their first claim on the accommodations, foodstuffs, and luxuries which, rightly or wrongly, "they believe was accorded to U.S. personnel because their spending power is so much greater than the Australians." There was further reference to the perennial problem of U.S. troops and local women. Durrant made mention of "the conduct of a large section of women folk who permit themselves to be literally 'mauled about' in public, irrespective of the time or place." Resentment toward Americans in England by British servicemen was aggravated by the same sentiment. The situation was not made any easier with the American sttitude of being a law unto themselves in the host countries. In Brisbane alone, divorce figures for 1942-1943 rose from 100 to almost 400. It was estimated that approximately 200 of these involved adultery, with a third attributed to the Americans. The cessation of engagements, falling outs with sweethearts, and broken vows and hearts must have been enormous in number. There is no doubt that Brisbane was the Allied love nest during the war. Of the 15,000 marriages involving American servicemen and nationals, 5,000 were at Base Section 3. Both the Australians and the Americans had resentment, indeed hatred, for most levels of authority. To many of them, the nemesis of authority was the military police, sometimes called provosts. With almost 100,000 servicemen in the city, the maintenance of law and order was hopelessly out of the reach of the civil authorities and military control was necessary. In Brisbane in late 1942, the American Provost had over 800 active personnel; the Australian Provost staff in the area numbered 110. In November, U.S. military law and order was the responsibility of the 814th and 738th MP Battalions based at Whinstanes, a few minutes from the city center, which was the favorite social haunt for all servicemen as the Australian and American canteens were located there. The typical provost was armed and aggressive, and one historian of the early war years has suggested, "It is probably a fair generalization to say that in the United States, the display of batons and firearms in the hands of police is an effective way of quelling a riot in the States, whereas in Australia it is an effective way of starting one." The numerically inferior Australian provosts carried only a baton, while the Americans, like lawmen from the old Wild West, carried a holstered .45-caliber automatic, a weapon of devastating effectiveness. On many occasions, the weapons created more problems than they solved. It was also a clash of cultures where one country had, to a degree, been established by the use of firearms, while the other was fortunate enough geographically not to have needed to rely on the gun. Increasing tensions with provosts, servicemen, and civilians in the depressing environment of a gloomy, dark, and crowded Brisbane suggested that a day of reckoning was at hand. The confrontation between Australian and American servicemen that came to be known as the Battle of Brisbane shocked many but surprised few. Scarcely reported at the time and only sporadically since, the incident has largely faded into history. Most cannot remember. A few cannot forget. In hindsight, the significance of the battle is apparent. Not only was it the largest and most violent disturbance between Allies during the war, but it was a significant factor in destroying Brisbane's innocence and an influential factor in the ever-changing relationship between the two Allies. The Australian soldiers came home to find their city had been turned into an American outpost, and their women keeping time with the Yanks. And, For those who fail to learn from it, History has a way of repeating itself. Therefore, Australia was at the "TOP" of the listing for the R&R locations for those of us who, for whatever reason, chose to serve in Vietnam. We will not, for censorship sake, discuss the women, but the Kangaroo Tail Soup and the high alcohol content "Foster's Lager" Beer will certainly destroy or permanently inhibit brain cell growth and reproduction. The Australians appear to be "New Orleans"/French Quarter residents at heart! And, they can easily make those of the French Quarter/Bourbon St. appear as novice's in the enjoyment of life. ********************************************************* "The Australians appear to be "New Orleans"/French Quarter residents at heart! And, they can easily make those of the French Quarter/Bourbon St. appear as novice's in the enjoyment of life." And, I for one, can attest to having had the good fortune of knowing and loving some of the most extraordinary, and ruggedly handsome men I have ever had the pleasure to meet, in my life. And, they all hailed from Australia and New Zealand. Yes, they do know how to have a good time!

************************************************************ Well, look at it this way, Sid. After The American Revolution, when that damned Penal Colony ended up becoming the 13th State, and given the name of "Georgia," the Brits had no where to ship their prisoners anymore. That's when they opened up New Zealand and Australia to catch the overflow. BTW, are you guys still called "subjects," down there? It's funny, but I was just reading an article in WWII History magazine, and one of the stories I came upon was about The Brisbane Riot. Apparently, the American High Command had set up MacArthur's headquarters there and ended up calling it, Base Section 3. Thousands of American troops began passing through, sometimes swelling the population by 100,000 or more people. The Australian soldiers came home to find their city had been turned into an American outpost, and their women keeping time with the Yanks. From: Military Heritage Presents WWII HISTORY www.wwiihistorymagazine.com INSIGHT Cultures clashed as large numbers of American troops came to Brisbane, Australia during WWII By Ken Wright An excerpt "Maj. Gen. J.M.A. Durrant, commander of the Australian troops in Queensland, interpreted the ill feeling as resentment toward the U.S. servicemen at what seemed to be their first claim on the accommodations, foodstuffs, and luxuries which, rightly or wrongly, "they believe was accorded to U.S. personnel because their spending power is so much greater than the Australians." There was further reference to the perennial problem of U.S. troops and local women. Durrant made mention of "the conduct of a large section of women folk who permit themselves to be literally 'mauled about' in public, irrespective of the time or place." Resentment toward Americans in England by British servicemen was aggravated by the same sentiment. The situation was not made any easier with the American sttitude of being a law unto themselves in the host countries. In Brisbane alone, divorce figures for 1942-1943 rose from 100 to almost 400. It was estimated that approximately 200 of these involved adultery, with a third attributed to the Americans. The cessation of engagements, falling outs with sweethearts, and broken vows and hearts must have been enormous in number. There is no doubt that Brisbane was the Allied love nest during the war. Of the 15,000 marriages involving American servicemen and nationals, 5,000 were at Base Section 3. Both the Australians and the Americans had resentment, indeed hatred, for most levels of authority. To many of them, the nemesis of authority was the military police, sometimes called provosts. With almost 100,000 servicemen in the city, the maintenance of law and order was hopelessly out of the reach of the civil authorities and military control was necessary. In Brisbane in late 1942, the American Provost had over 800 active personnel; the Australian Provost staff in the area numbered 110. In November, U.S. military law and order was the responsibility of the 814th and 738th MP Battalions based at Whinstanes, a few minutes from the city center, which was the favorite social haunt for all servicemen as the Australian and American canteens were located there. The typical provost was armed and aggressive, and one historian of the early war years has suggested, "It is probably a fair generalization to say that in the United States, the display of batons and firearms in the hands of police is an effective way of quelling a riot in the States, whereas in Australia it is an effective way of starting one." The numerically inferior Australian provosts carried only a baton, while the Americans, like lawmen from the old Wild West, carried a holstered .45-caliber automatic, a weapon of devastating effectiveness. On many occasions, the weapons created more problems than they solved. It was also a clash of cultures where one country had, to a degree, been established by the use of firearms, while the other was fortunate enough geographically not to have needed to rely on the gun. Increasing tensions with provosts, servicemen, and civilians in the depressing environment of a gloomy, dark, and crowded Brisbane suggested that a day of reckoning was at hand. The confrontation between Australian and American servicemen that came to be known as the Battle of Brisbane shocked many but surprised few. Scarcely reported at the time and only sporadically since, the incident has largely faded into history. Most cannot remember. A few cannot forget. In hindsight, the significance of the battle is apparent. Not only was it the largest and most violent disturbance between Allies during the war, but it was a significant factor in destroying Brisbane's innocence and an influential factor in the ever-changing relationship between the two Allies.

I specifically avoided mentioning names in order not to stir the pot any further. It was my hope that a mild general rebuke from me - someone who is neither an administrator nor a moderator here, and [hopefully] not known for raising my voice - would cause the guilty parties to reflect on their own behaviour and thus scale back on the unwarranted vitriol directed at the gentlemen who run this establishment. When I invite people into my home, any topic is fair game for open - but respectful and polite - debate. But, if after having eaten the food and quaffed the beverages, one or more of my guests become abusive toward others, there is a good chance they will ruin the occasion. As a host, it becomes my responsibility to see to it that they mind their manners. If they cannot, then it becomes my awkward responsibility to usher them toward the door. This is precisely what has transpired here. John S. simply noted in his initiating post that the majority of troubles seem to originate with members from one country, and asked them - and all of us - politely to police ourselves. Unable to abide by the host's wishes, we now have appointed moderators to do the policing. It is a sad reflection upon those who couldn't simply take John's hint, and depicts us all poorly to the "guests" who happen by to glean details about the Kennedy assassination. Since every single member among us has, at one time or another, encountered derisive comments from the general population about "tinfoil hats" and "moonbats" and what-have-you because we are somehow mentally challenged "conspiracy buffs," I would have thought our membership would seek to go the extra distance to explicitly put such characterizations to rest. Petty squabbling over relative trifles only cements in the public's mind that those who research this topic are in some way imbalanced. I only wish that we could eschew posting things that encourage such erroneous conclusions. There are very few posters here who have not made a contribution of some kind in their various posts, and I need not agree with their personal philosophies or the contents of their posts to applaud their efforts. [When Tim Gratz was criticized for being a Republican, of all things, I rose to his defense, despite being his polar opposite in all things JFK-related.] Consequently, I have great respect for the vast majority of Forum members who freely give of their time and generously support each other in our mutual endeavour. These truly are people who ask not what their country can do for them, but instead seek to do what they can for their country, and its history. They seek to redress a most fundamental wrong, at a great personal cost of time, energy and money. When that noble pursuit becomes tainted by needlessly snide invective directed toward the very men who make this Forum possible, it goes beyond the pale and must be challenged. That has nothing to do with the quality of their contributions, and everything to do with the manner in which they comport themselves in public, which is a reflection upon us all. Now, if we could only quit wasting our precious energies on such diversionary issues as this and refocus instead upon the assassination, would be not all be better served? ************************************************************ Thank you, R.C.D. May I just add one more small comment on the word, meaning, and worth of the word, "pride?" I believe the only place the word "pride" has in the realm of life, or where its meaning reflects any worth, is when it is placed in the context of a job, or a task, having been assigned, performed, and accomplished, to the very best of one's ability. If, and when, that accomplishment is acknowledged and rewarded in accordance to the quality with which is was performed, and to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. Only in that instance, can the word "pride" be said to have reached the pinnacle of its meaning. As in the adage, "Pride in a job, well done." Or, "Taking pride in one's work." Such as, the work of an artisan, or a virtuoso. Things accomplished with one's hands, however creative, that of a tailor, or a shoemaker, or in a labor intensive menial aspect, as in the preparation of food, or the caretaker of a property or a garden. Otherwise, use of the word "pride" can easily become associated, at best, or bastardized, at worse, with less than virtuous connotations. As mentioned in the thread above, false pride, blind pride, or pride of an avarice nature. I believe national pride falls under the sector of blind pride, when it is promoted, or propagandized as a way of eliciting a "knee-jerk" response from the masses, or as a way of manipulating its citizenry. There are certain instances where "pride in one's race" can be beneficial, as in organizing and bringing people together, as a whole. This is especially true in the case of the oppression of people of color: black, brown, yellow, and red. But, I also believe this to be one case where "white" has no basis from which to lay claim, since they have been the "known" oppressors of those of color, for centuries. Thank you, Ter

Thank you Robert for your support. The most hurtful factor about this thread is that other members have been unwilling to state that they believe the administrators about the background to this dispute. It is like you are receiving a vote of no confidence. Maybe members fear that if they post they will be the next target for Charles and Myra. However, cowardice is no real defence. Even more distressing is the number of page impressions this thread has received. For example, the excellent interview with Sterling Seagrave, started before this thread, has been looked at by only 274 people whereas this thread has received 4740 visitors. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9196 I once received a very disturbing email a little while ago. They told me that they were not members and had no interest in posting on the forum. Nor were they interested in education or political conspiracies. They only visited in order to see people having a go at each other. To them it was like watching “Big Brother” (a UK television reality show). As for our American friends, you are welcome to say what you like about the British. I will not spend anytime at all defending us as a race, although I will intervene to defend individuals who are being unfairly criticised. Nationalism repulses me. Only religion has caused more wars than nationalism. I consider myself a citizen of the world. My only concern is to fight injustice, lies, oppression and inequality, from wherever it comes. ***************************************************************** Thank you, John. For giving people a voice. I felt compelled to bring up a couple of reasons why I believe Americans are inherently aggressive and confrontational. It has nothing to do with nationalism, and pretty much reflects some of the opinions I've made on the subject, here on this very forum, albeit in other threads. This is copied and pasted from an e-mail between Dawn and myself. Best regards, Ter __________________________________________________________________ Whether my opinion amounts to a hill of beans or not, is neither here, nor there. But, I felt especially moved to say a few words after an e-mail message I had shared with Dawn, and those of whom I counted as kindred spirits of heart and mind, which BTW, came back from a mutual acquaintance in the form of a scathing retribution, with regard to the content of the e-mail, which they perceived to be a direct attack on the conservative mindset, and the present administration in D.C., itself. This unexpected response, having taken us both by surprise, led us to a discussion of what had been transpiring in the, "Behavior Of The Members" thread, currently being discussed on The Education Forum. We've come to the conclusion that much of the ambiguity, and animosity being stated by the American faction, against the owners, who are British, might be in direct response to the "cross" most anglo-american descendants are unwittingly forced to bear. By this, we mean to address the blatantly subjective manner with which their very ideals, in the form of The Declaration of Independence, as well as their laws, set forth in The United States Constitution, were written, and by whom. Let us therefore acknowledge the paradox, the double standard, if you will, in which the statement, "...these "truths," we hold to be self-evident that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL...," was most certainly written in the hand of the founding fathers, the white landed gentry, with 200 known slaves, and indentured servants held amongst them. Therefore, is it any wonder as to the reason there exists a seemingly eternal struggle and aggression inherent in the "descendants" of those who perceived themselves as, "the religiously persecuted, the down-trodden, the oppressed, or the debt-ridden convicts [according to British Common Law]?" BTW, a lot of whom ended up sequestered in what was known as "The Penal Colony," which comprised the territory in the original 13 colonies that eventually became known as the State of Georgia, following The American Revolutionary War. As a matter of fact, a Scottish ancestor of my own arrived in "The Penal Colony," and according to the records in the Prison Ship's log, his offense was listed as, "For stealing a loaf of bread." How come they don't teach that in the elementary school history classes anymore, like they did in 1950 when I started the first grade? But, to get back to the point at issue, here. Can anyone see, let alone understand, the subjective hypocrisy upon which The Declaration of Independence, and The United States Constitution, has been erected? And, I'm not in any mood to listen to someone's treatise on the concept of "noblesse oblige" here, nor the piss-poor excuse that this was the way these people were conditioned to believe back then, either. Because, pure common sense and simple compassion most certainly had to have humanly existed in the minds of some of these people, lest they all risk being relegated to the status of ignoramus. But, think about this. If America had been, and in all probability was, populated by the dregs of Europe, then what else could be expected, or be said for their mindset? Especially, having been fed this bald-faced falsehood of white superiority, and then been expected to swallow the lie fostered upon them by their very own "white" aristocratic oppressors, that people of color are nothing more than beasts of burden, to be slave-driven like mules, and oxen. When in reality, these "supposed" beasts of burden, walked upright, expressed emotions, and had the same, if not better, physical acuity, adeptness, and articulation for performing intricate tasks, as the white folks had. They not only learned to speak "English," including "French" patois, but were also capable of mastering the various indigenous Native American "tongues" and languages, as well. The only theories I've personally been able to formulate which may account for the behavior of Americans are twofold. (1) The possible existence of a chemical anomaly in the basic structure of the brain involving personality and character formation. There may well be a physio-psychological connection at work here, resulting in the intrinsic misfiring of neurotransmitters within the axon-neuron-dendrite system, that may have been permanently etched into the chemical responses of the brain, due to, and/or (2) the possibility of it being based upon a vestigial survival instinct acquired as a means of adaptation to an unknown, yet perceived to be, "hostile" environment, following a Trans-Atlantic migration. A similar analogy to theory number two, may be drawn with reference to the incidences of high blood pressure that began to occur in American blacks, yet essentially was non-existent in those who managed to escape being captured, like wild game, and sent to America. There's also much to be said for the virtual non-existence of diseases such as small pox, syphilis, or ETOH abuse, having presented itself in the bones of the remains of those indigenous populations of North and South America, before the French, Spaniards, and Anglos hit the shores of "The New World," as well. Therefore, are "Americans" merely exhibiting barbaric traits, which genetically evolved, due to the socio-environmental pressures which came to bear upon them through the lives they were forced to adjust to in the colonies, or were these traits somehow inadvertently passed along to them from their European ancestors? ___________________________________________________________ On another note... Below, I've copied and pasted an article from this week's L.A. Weekly, which I've found to be enlightening with regard to the present attitude so pervasive in and around The District of Columbia. Cheers, Ter Dissonance THERE'S SHRINKAGE Majority Democrats can’t find the balls to face down Republican brinkmanship By MARC COOPER Wednesday, February 7, 2007 - 6:00 pm Let me make sure I got this right. We’re spending a couple of hundred billion dollars and investing — so far — more than 3,000 American lives to bring democracy to Iraq, but we don’t really want any of that exotic, messy stuff in Washington. Especially not if it embarrasses the president. As we go to press, Senate Republicans have at least temporarily blocked the debate, and therefore the vote, on a packet of non-binding resolutions that criticize George W. Bush’s escalation of the war for democracy in Iraq. Perhaps that’s just one of the moves listed in the standard American congressional play-book: When you can no longer win the political debate, the next best thing to do is to simply cancel it. All fun aside, it was simply a putrid experience to watch, as I did, even a small portion of Monday’s verbal-flatulence contest on the Senate floor. Don’t want to be maudlin about all this, but as car bombs continued to blast Baghdad and IEDs continued to rip the limbs and lungs from our troops, the distinguished members of the U.S. Senate bickered over just how many votes — 50 or 60 — each proposed resolution would need to pass. What heroes! The Senate was supposed to be debating the bipartisan resolution cooked up by Republican Senator John Warner and supported by most Democrats, which, politely, states that it “disagrees” with Bush’s plan to send 21,500 more troops into the Iraqi hellhole. Struggling to avoid a humiliating public-relations defeat for their president, the Republican leadership blocked the vote by generating a dispute over which competing measures would be considered and how many votes would be needed to pass them. Negotiations are under way, we’re told, to still reach some sort of agreement that will allow the debate to go forward. Democrats may do an end run by ginning it up in the House, where their larger majority gives them firmer control over procedure. But let me be frank. The Republican blocking maneuver didn’t perturb me in the least, because the Republican filibuster offers the most clarity when it comes to seeing through the fog of all the versions and permutations of the anti-surge resolution that have any realistic chance of passing. After all, the Senate motions are all non-binding. They have no legal effect. And the language worked out between the Democratic leadership and some of the Republican dissenters to agree on the Warner resolution is so compromised, so squishy, that it has lost much, if not all, of its meaning. Better, for the moment, to allow the Republican abettors of the hideous war policy in Iraq to amply demonstrate to the American people their utter and unfathomable moral and political bankruptcy. At least, why upstage or interrupt that show with a counter-demonstration of the Democrats’ own fecklessness? The resolution the Dems are rushing to rubber-stamp is but a limp, rhetorical statement that won’t save a single life or bring the war a day closer to conclusion. Indeed, the only reason that the Republicans were able to successfully pull off their blocking maneuver is that they boldly called the Democratic bluff. The GOP demanded that a competing resolution by New Hampshire Republican Judd Gregg be given equal treatment to the Warner resolution. Gregg’s measure vows that Congress will not cut any funding for troop levels in Iraq and was fashioned solely to put Democrats on the spot. And, unfortunately, it has worked. The Republicans might not want to go on the record criticizing Bush. And the Democrats are terrified to go on the record saying they might cut funding for a failing war they otherwise oppose. Taken together, it makes you want to cancel your C-SPAN subscription if not set your voter-registration card on fire. Let’s hope the Republicans remain insanely intransigent and don’t cut a deal allowing a vote on the watered-down Warner resolution. Maybe this will force the Democrats to do what they ought to be doing: putting an end to their empty foot stomping about the war and getting down to the business of exercising the only real power to alter the policy — cutting off the cash. That’s the next move put forward by hopping-mad Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who did a conference call with bloggers right after the Iraq debate was blocked on the Senate floor. Feingold’s fury was directed primarily at his fellow Democrats who continue to dance around the edge of the core issue. “The problem is a whole lot of middle-of-the-road Democrats who refuse to pull the trigger, who refuse to do what needs to be done,” Feingold said. “It requires courage. It requires brinkmanship.” Amen. The primary political victims of the war in Iraq have been the motley crew in and around the White House. They’ve outsmarted themselves and — and at great human cost — have succeeded in destroying their political legacy and, most probably, the future viability of many of their Republican allies. Let Congress — including the Democratic majority — take good note of such self-immolation. Unless Congress can immediately step forward to provide a clear way out, it too will become one more statistic in this hellacious war. ************************************************************* ONE PARTY - TWO BRANCHES Ter

Kathleen Collins has every right to post on whatever thread she wants. It is not helpful to call other members "Schiz". *********************************************************** Fine, John. I apologize, to you. Hopefully, you can get her to stay on her meds. But, I call it for what it is. If you've brought her on board as a way of getting me to leave, fine, because you've succeeded. As I've stated once before, I've been thrown out of better places than this one. Good luck, to you. Terry, no one wants you to leave. I have always tried to bury the hatchet with you. I told you I was against you leaving Rich's forum. I thought it had gone too far. Rich told me you were calling him up everynight around 10:30 pm and screeching at him and he had had it. Neither one of us is perfect. I do not want to argue with you or anyone. I posted this because you objected to me sending you a Personal Message. Kathy ************************************************************ "Terry, no one wants you to leave. I have always tried to bury the hatchet with you. I told you I was against you leaving Rich's forum. I thought it had gone too far. Rich told me you were calling him up everynight around 10:30 pm and screeching at him and he had had it." I have nothing more to say to you, or this forum. Those whom I consider to be part of my circle of friends, colleagues, extended family, and those researchers I've always looked to as my mentors, know where to find me. Lisa Pease gave me some good of advice two years ago at a seminar we attended together, and that was to avoid getting involved with the forums. And, your presence here, seems to drive that point home more accurately than ever. Rich encouraged me to post the e-mails he sent to me, on this. I've x'd out his e-mail address for privacy purposes. Richard DellaRosa <xxxxxxxx.xxx@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: Ter. Shelby forwarded this to me: "Does Rich DellaRosa know you're so close to Judyth now?" Tell her (if you wish) that I am aware of most things on the net and that I have always supported your research efforts and always will! Love you, Rich And, Richard DellaRosa <xxxxxxxx.xxx@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: Ter. Go ahead and do it. The thing that irritates me the most is that she doesn't care how stupid she acts or sounds. She is obstinate and argumentative and insists she is correct about everything--not even close. Love, Rich

Kathleen Collins has every right to post on whatever thread she wants. It is not helpful to call other members "Schiz". *********************************************************** Fine, John. I apologize, to you. Hopefully, you can get her to stay on her meds. But, I call it for what it is. If you've brought her on board as a way of getting me to leave, fine, because you've succeeded. As I've stated once before, I've been thrown out of better places than this one. Good luck, to you.

I believe some people work for the CIA without ever realizing they work for the CIA. This is stranger: they have thought that they were working for the CIA, but were actually under KBG handling. ********************************************************* "I believe some people work for the CIA without ever realizing they work for the CIA." "This is stranger: they have thought that they were working for the CIA, but were actually under KBG handling." I think they're known as "conduits" and "assets."

I will post whenever and wherever I please. You will not control me. I would just like to know: Does Rich DellaRosa know you're so close to Judyth now? I thought she was debunked. A word to the wise, forego your harrassment. It'll never get you anywhere. This thread was on Ted Kennedy, not about you and your petty hatreds. I have a higher power too, you know. ************************************************************ "I will post whenever and wherever I please. You will not control me. I would just like to know: Does Rich DellaRosa know you're so close to Judyth now? I thought she was debunked. A word to the wise, forego your harrassment. It'll never get you anywhere. This thread was on Ted Kennedy, not about you and your petty hatreds. I have a higher power too, you know." It's none of your damned business what DellaRosa knows or thinks, seeing as how he's always respected my independence of thought and mind. Something you definitely lack. But, ya know, you go right on with your opinions and skewed line of reasoning and we'll see just how long it takes the membership to catch on to you. This is the last word I have to say to you. Any other retorts from you will go ignored so I wouldn't bother wasting my breath if I were you.

********************************************************* Well, you do make a case for it, Purv. But, I just can't see as how that bullet looked so clean after nicking the trachea, bruising the apex of the right lung, and bouncing off the first right (?) rib? But, then to have made a veer to the right, in mid-air, and continued on down, into and out of Connally's armpit, to land in his thigh, unscathed? Thanks for the first part, though. Ter CE339, as well as the small 0.9 grain protrustion which sheared from the base of this bullet, exiting the anterior throat of JFK, while creating minor damage to the right lateral side of the trachea of JFK, have never had the pleasure of encounterment with JBC. Thanks for the first part, though. Well! I just assumed that you would like to know exactly who it was that removed the 0.9 grain flat-based, cone-shaped bullet fragment from the FBI firearms/ballistics Lab prior to the other two fragments being turned over to the National Archives. Whether you did, or did not, one can chalk up another first as that happens to be the FIRST time that it too has ever been revealed as to exactly WHO? was involved in this. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsullivan.htm ********************************************************** http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsullivan.htm Seems like that little booger sure got around and made himself awfully helpful, didn't he? How convenient for everyone! So, in the picture, it's the lead from the bottom of the bullet that became dislodged when the bullet nicked the trach, and impacted the right first rib, causing it to become extruded from the opening in the neck, that the Parkland physicians thought was the entrance wound? O.K., but I still think that bullet had to have been fired from a lower elevation than the 6th floor. Do any autopsy photos show the wound of entry as depicted in that drawing? I thought I saw a photo here recently, but it seemed like the hole was further up on the back of the neck, more like immediately below the right posterior occiput. Now I'm really confused and my eyes are itching from being glued to this computer screen, and I have to go feed Dr. Grossman's cats. I've got to run, but maybe I'll be back later. I've got to think about this. Thanks again, Purv. Ter

************************************************************** UPDATE FROM truthout.org 400,000 Converge on Capitol Hill January 27, 2007 FOCUS | Hundreds of Thousands of Protesters Converge on Capitol Hill http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012807Z.shtml Hundreds of thousands of protesters converged on the National Mall on Saturday to oppose President Bush's plan for a troop increase in Iraq in what organizers hoped would be one of the largest shows of antiwar sentiment in the nation's capital since the war began. VIDEO | Peace Movement to March on Washington By Scott Galindez and Geoffrey Millard http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012507R.shtml Organizers of the January 27th March on Washington expect hundreds of thousands of people to converge on our nation's capital. On Wednesday, January 24th, a press conference was held to announce plans for the mobilization. VIDEO | Active-Duty Military Petition Congress to End War By Geoffrey Millard, Arin Williams, Troy Page and Scott Galindez http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012307B.shtml Military members opposed to the US involvement in Iraq gathered on January 15th to demand the withdrawal of American troops and prepared to present their appeal to Congress. More than 20 active-duty service members and about 100 supporters appeared at an event for Appeal for Redress, which calls for Congress to end the war. More than 1,000 military members have added their names to the appeal's list. VIDEO | Bill Moyers: Life on the Plantation http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011807B.shtml Bill Moyers, speaking to the National Conference for Media Reform, states: "Our democracy is now put to a vital test, for the conflict is between human rights on the one side and on the other, special privilege asserted as a property right. The parting of the ways has come." Video Interview | Ehren Watada's Parents Speak Out http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011707A.shtml Truthout's Geoffrey Millard interviews Lieutenant Ehren Watada's parents on the eve of his court-martial. They spoke about their son and his courage as he faces the fight of his life. _____________________________________________________ FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH Music and lyrics by The Buffalo Springfield Copyright 1966 There's something happening here What it is ain't exactly clear There's a man with a gun over there Telling me I got to beware [chorus] I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound Everybody look what's going down There's battle lines being drawn Nobody's right if everybody's wrong Young people speaking their minds Getting so much resistance from behind [chorus] I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound Everybody look what's going down What a field-day for the heat A thousand people in the street Singing songs and carrying signs Mostly say, hooray for our side [chorus] It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound Everybody look what's going down Paranoia strikes deep Into your life it will creep It starts when you're always afraid You step out of line, the man come and take you away [chorus] We better stop, hey, what's that sound Everybody look what's going down Stop, hey, what's that sound Everybody look what's going down Stop, now, what's that sound Everybody look what's going down Stop, children, what's that sound Everybody look what's going down

********************************************************* Well, you do make a case for it, Purv. But, I just can't see as how that bullet looked so clean after nicking the trachea, bruising the apex of the right lung, and bouncing off the first right (?) rib? But, then to have made a veer to the right, in mid-air, and continued on down, into and out of Connally's armpit, to land in his thigh, unscathed? Thanks for the first part, though. Ter

*********************************************************** "How many believe that Hunt was "ex-CIA" when he went to work for the Mullen front company and then the White House? (And isn't the White House another front too?)" Look at it this way, Ron. Working for the CIA is like having a disease like Hepatitis C, that you can never get rid of. You can never state that you "...had Hepatitis C." No, you have Hepatitis C. At least until they come up with a permanent cure for it. Likewise, the analogy, "...I worked for the CIA." No, you work for the CIA. And, always will be under the auspices of the CIA, even after you die, whether you like it, or not. It's on par with selling your soul to the devil, at the proverbial crossroads.

I read recently, either on this site or another, that Bobby couldn't chase after his brother's killers because the info would come out that they planned to assassinate Castro on Dec. 1, 1963. He didn't want that potential deed known about his brother (and himself too). Also, Bobby Kennedy was told the name of Castro's assassinator: Lee Harvey Oswald. Ted has a worse problem, in my opinion. If he goes after the killers, not only will it expose "The Bay of Pigs," as Nixon referred to the Kennedy Assassination, but they will kill a member of his family one after the other. I think that's what happened to John Jr. (tomflocco.com) A curious thing I read recently was that Senator Ted Kennedy couldn't arouse government divers until the next day. He said, "I'm a United States Senator!" But they wouldn't come out and look for John Jr. Also, when John Jr died, George W. Bush was nowhere to be found that whole weekend -- 3 or 4 days. That I heard on blackopradio.com with Len Osanic. The author might have named his book, "Like Father Like Son." He felt GHW Bush killed Kennedy and his son killed Kennedy's son. Kathy ************************************************************ "Ted has a worse problem, in my opinion." Nobody gives a rat's ass about your supermarket tabloid form of research, or opinion, Schiz. After you had the audacity to PM me on this forum, I warned you about posting on any thread where my name appears, didn't I? And, being that there are only a handful of them, compared to the amount you're liablel to run roughshod over, and which BTW, I purposely will avoid, like the plague. I suggest you pay attention to the content in each and every one the threads you intend to run off at the mouth in. A word to the wise should be sufficient.

************************************************************ "This is a complete copy of the Wikipedia page. The only difference is that this page contains adverts. Is this an example of Jimmy Wales making money from the many people who created the original Wikipedia article?" Not only that, but it's a prime example of what a truly capitalistic pig this Jimmy Wales really is!

For those who may be following along, please note that the .51 grains of missing weight is in fact a mute issue as to the initial examination of CE399* *It is not a mute point as regards later examination as it is responsible for some of the confusion regarding the weight of the bullet when the HSCA went to examine the bullet for their NAA work. (Hope you caught that------Stu.) The posted pages of the long ago written manuscript were done long prior to the release by the National Archives of that photograph which clearly demonstrates that FBI Agent Frazier informed me correctly as to the condition of the bullet when he examined and weighed the bullet. Therefore, the entire copper jacket which normally covers a portion of the base of the bullet was, as demonstrated in the National Archives photo, clearly present when Frazier weighed the bullet; Gallagher did the NAA on the bullet; and the bullet was turned over to the National Archives. So, other than future aid in resolving some of the conflicting weight issues as regards CE399 when they (the HSCA) examined the bullet, the approximate .51 grain weight of the bullet which has been removed, has no bearing on the accountability for the weight of the bullet at the time that it was received by the FBI. Therefore, the ultimate accountability for weight to CE399 remains at: Recovered weight:-------------------------------------------------------------------------158.6 grains Approximate weight loss as a result of having been fired:---------------------------+ 0.67 grains ______________ Total:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 159.27 grains To this, we can add the 0.9 grain weight of the small fragment of lead which was extruded out the base of CE399 and which was sheared from the base of the bullet as a result of the base-first impact with the right transverse process of the C7 vertebrae. This fragment being what continued forward and exited the throat of JFK and creating the small anterior throat wound. ************************************************************************ But Purv, if you go by the weight that Frazier gave of 160.9 grains and subtract .67, you get 160.23 grains. Even if you rounded 160.9 to 161.0 and then subtracted .67, you'd get 160.33. Then we have the .7 + .7 + .9 frags that added up to 2.3, and subtracted from 160.9 or 161.0 yielded 158.6 or 158.7, respectively. Now, we're adding .67 to either of those numbers and coming out with 159.27 or 159.37. If you take the initial 2.3 sum of the .7, .7, and .9 frags, and subtract .67 from it, you're going to get 1.63 So, what you're saying here is that one of the .7 frags has gone missing, because 2 (.7) frags will add up to 1.4, whereas the .9 and one of the .7 frags will add up to 1.63. Where do you think that other .7 frag went? Or, maybe I'm more confused than I thought. And, I'm still having problems with a trajectory traveling however many fps on a downward slope, entering 3 inches or so below the posterior collar line, or at what appears to be posteriorly and laterally right of the 4th cervical vertebra, or C4, and not exit from the right anterior chest wall closer to the area near where the sternum and clavicle come together. Where are you saying a posterior entrance wound on the back was with respect to where you believe the anterior exit wound was located? Also, how could the trajectory have made an upward path having entered so much lower and to the right of the spine, even if it had nicked one of the cervical vertebral bodies, wouldn't it have shattered the smaller cervical vertebra, and wouldn't that have been documented in the WCR? Plus the fact, if you're trying to make a case for a smaller wound below the right posterior occiput as being the entrance wound, I would've thought that the shooter might have been closer to ground level in order for an entrance wound, immediately below the right posterior occiput, be able to fly as far as it being able to line up with an anterior exit wound located below the cricoid cartilage. That would seem more feasible than coming from 6 stories above. That's just MHO. I'm no expert, here. Just another Stu, if you will. But I sure wish John Ritchson was still around. I'm sorry Purv, but I've never been able to reconcile myself with that poor excuse of a trajectory diagram peddled back in 1964, and unless the feat can be duplicated to the nth degree, I'm not going to be able to buy it. I'm just not seeing it as being able to fly like that.