Terry Mauro

Thought that Ian Fleming needed a thread of his own. I have put it in this section because of the link with novels written by CIA agents.

Here's my thesis that Ian Fleming's spy novels were part of a psych war operation against the Russians as a direct result of the betrayals of the Cambridge Spy ring. BK

CAMBRIDGE SPY RING & 007 -

More secrets have been revealed since the death of James Bond in 1989.

New information came out in The Private Life of James Bond, a profile of James Bond the ornithologist, by history professor David R. Contosta (Sutter House, 1993), and another biography of Fleming, The Man Behind James Bond (Turner Books, 1995) by Andrew Lycett.

With the official approval and cooperation of Fleming's estate, family and friends, Andrew Lycett continued to promote the false myth that Fleming began his spy novels on a lark, to take his mind of marriage, and despairingly refers to the real James Bond as an "unknown academic."

Yet Lycett teases with the truth by brining the Cambridge spy ring to the table.

During World War II Fleming had said he wanted to write "the spy story to end all spy stories," and when he sat down to is desk at his Jamaican beach house in January, 1952, the biggest spy story of the century was slowly unfolding in back alleys, capitol offices and headlines around the world.

It was unthinkable that the best and brightest of England's native sons could betray their nation's most precious secrets to the Soviet Union, yet that was what was just beginning to be understood. One year earlier, on May 28, 1951, Donald Maclean and Guy Burgess disappeared shortly before McLean was to be arrested for espionage, setting off a search for a "Third Man," suspected of tipping them off as to MacLean's impending doom.

Since both Burgess and Mclean attended Cambridge University, suspicion immediately fell on their former schoolmate and friend Kim Philby, the MI6 British Secret Service liaison to the United State's CIA, former head of the MI6 bureau responsible for Soviet counter-intelligence, and one of the few primary candidates to head the British Secret Service. While the suspicions put a strain in U.S. – British relations, it also strongly affected Ian Fleming, a Philby colleague whose generation of friends and associates were caught exposed and vulnerable by the betrayal their own friends, associates and countrymen.

Four months after Burgess and Maclean escaped to Russia, Ian and his wife Ann visited their friends Prime Minister Anthony Eden and his wife Clarissa. According to Lycett, "The Prime Minister was unwell, largely as a result of the anguish he was experiencing about the enduring subject of the 'Missing Diplomats'. A White Paper on Burgess and Maclean's defection to Moscow had just been published and the government was being forced to lie about the case, falsely denying that the two traitors' colleague Kim Philby was the 'Third Man'. Clarissa Eden begged her guests not to mention any of these names in front of her husband. When they were alone, Ian and Ann asked her for more details."

The subject was also taboo when Fleming sat down with his old friend and mentor, Sir William Stephenson [The man called INTREPID], reports Lycett, as "Curiously, Ian did not mention…the intelligence-related matter which obsessed the chattering classes of the time – the disappearance in May of two senior Foreign Office officials, Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean, who were suspected of being communist spys. When Ian and Ann had entertained Cyril Connolly and Noel Coward in September, they had spoken of little else. How could such pillars of the Establishment nurtured an ideological commitment for Marxism?"

Connolly was actually with Maclean on the day before he fled, and [in Douglas Southerland's The Fourth Man – The Story of Blunt, Philby, Burgess and MacLean, Arrow Books, 1980], Connolly is quoted as saying, "…I knew them both and actually

Lunched with Maclean the day before he disappeared. The point I wanted to mention to you was that on that day I am sure he had no intention of leaving the way he did. He spoke to me so normally as to his private affairs…this makes me feel that, subsequent to meeting me on May 24^th, he received some warning that he was under suspicion, and immediately left the country with Burgess. It may be, therefore, that someone in the Foreign Office told him…." Now we know that person was Kim Philby.

The Sunday Times had commissioned Cyril Connolly to write a story on the missing diplomats, and Fleming wanted to expand the article into a book for his publishing house, Queen Ann Press, whose offices share the same Queen Anne's Gate underground stop with those who work at the offices of the British Secret Service.

While mocking Fleming's actual intentions and motives, Lycett acknowledged that Fleming's first novel was inspired by the betrayals of the Cambridge syps when he wrote, "What raised Casino Royale out of the usual run of thrillers was Ian's attempt to reflect the disturbing moral ambiguity of a post-war world that could produce traitors like Burgess and Maclean. Although Bond is presented like Bulldog Drummond with all the trappings of a traditional fictional secret agent (such as his Bentley), in fact he needs 'Marshall Aid' from Leiter to enable him to continue his baccarat game with Le Chiffre. Bond is rescued from his kidnappers not by the British or the Americans but by the Russians, who complete the job he should of done of eliminating Le Chiffre. Bond does not even get the girl: [ Vesper ] she has been duplicitous throughout, betraying not only him personally but all Western Intelligence's anti-Soviet operations. No wonder, feeling let down and abandoned, he fails to conceal his bitterness at the end and spits out, 'The bitch is dead now.'"

Casino Royale was Ian Fleming's response to the betrayal of the Cambridge spy ring, portraying the women who loved James Bond as the sexy snake who actually worked for the opposition, much like the sexual ambiguity and background of the Cambridge spies. After writing Casino Royale in Jamaica in January, Fleming and his wife returned to England for the birth of their son Casper.

After dropping her off a the hospital, Fleming visited an old friend from school days, the American born Whitney Straight, chairman of the BOAC airlines. Both Whitney Straight, described as a playboy race driver, and his younger brother were personal friends of Guy Burgess and according to Lycett the case of the Missing Diplomats is what they discussed.

Ian Fleming's father had established the family banking interests in America with J. P. Morgan, a firm that included Whitney and Michael Straight's father, and with whom Fleming himself was affiliated with for a while. Both Whitney and Michael Straight attended Cambridge, where they knew Guy Burgess from the hunting and drinking social set at the Pitt Club. Straight considered Burgess an "alcoholic adventurer, a name dropper and a gypsy." At Cambridge Michael Straight, was recruited into the Cambridge spy cell by art historian Anthony Blunt, the Fourth Man.

Although a reluctant Soviet spy, Michael Straight retained his friendship with Blunt, Philby, Burgess and Maclean. As editor and publisher of the New Republic Michael Striaght published some of Philby's commentaries from Lebanon, where he was exiled to in 1956.

Ian Fleming even went so far as to reach out to Burgess and Maclean, after they defected, asking his friend and associate Dick Hughes, the Far East correspondent, to try to contact them. Hughes, also a character in Fleming's novels, introduced both Fleming and Somerset Maugham to the intricacies and lifestyle of Tokyo, as reflected in their novels. Hughes, one of Fleming's Mercury team, obtained the first ever interview with Burgess and Maclean in exile, by urging the Russians to produce the two defectors before a planned summit conference. In February, 1956, Burgess and Maclean met Hughes in the lobby of a Moscow hotel and handed him a statement, the first acknowledgement that Burgess and Maclean were spys, had defected and were living comfortably behind the Iron Curtain.

The summit itself was interrupted in true Flemingesque fashion, when a frogman, "Buster" Crabb, was sent into the Thames to inspect the hull and propellers of the Russian cruiser that brought diplomats to London. When Crabb failed to surface, and his headless body later washed ashore, exposing supposedly secret operations, heads rolled at St. James Gate. The subsequent public scandal became almost as significant as the U2 incident that later cancelled the Eisenhower-Kruschev summit. Nicholas Elliot was second in the chain of command on the operation, and had personally selected Crabb as the frogman. So that stain on Elliot's career, and his steadfast faith in Philby, would set him up to put an end to the Philby problem. It was Elliot, Fleming's primary contact with MI6, who was selected to confront Philby when evidence of his duplicity would be undeniable.

Although you wouldn't know it from reading his official biographies, which promote the real James Bond as an "unknown academic" and the 007 novels as being written, in ornithological terms, "on a lark," Ian Fleming was actually in the thick of the double-agent duplicity.

In November, 1956, Sir Roger Hollis of MI5 visited Washington D.C. to brief the Americans about the missing diplomats and Third Man affair. Driving Hollis around Washington, Richard Helms of the CIA asked Hollis, "Who's this writer Ian Fleming?" Helms mentioned the recently published book Live and Let Die, but Hollis simply replied, "Don't know."

A few days later it was revealed that Prime Minister Anthony Eton had flown to Jamaica to spend some time at Fleming's Goldeneye beach house, sparking Helms to assume "The man lied. Hollis must have cleared the prime minister to stay with Fleming," writes Tom Bower [in The Perfect English Spy – The Unknown Man In Charge During The Most Tumultuous, Scandal-Ridden Era In Espionage History], a biography of Sir Dick White.

Bower also notes, "Michael Straight, an accomplished American whose family boasted East Coast wealth and influence, had known Anthony Blunt in 1934 while studying at Trinity [College, Cambridge]. Already inclined towards socialism, Straight had become immersed in Cambridge's communist movement. Before returning to America in 1937, he had been invited to join Blunt and Burgess' conspiracy but had refused. Even thirteen years later when he met Burgess again in Washington, he volunteered that he had never betrayed his friends. But in 1963 Straight was offered a government post and, apparently fearful of exposure, he had spent June closeted with FBI officers….By any measure, the confession was a major breakthrough. Not surprisingly, the MI5 officer returned to Britain excited about the disclosure. The molehunt had been legitimized."

Michael Straight kept his secret knowledge of the Cambridge spy ring until John F. Kennedy, President of the United States, wanted to appoint Michael Straight director of the National Endowment for the Arts, which he first accepted and then turned down when confronted with an FBI background check.

According to John Costello (Mask of Trechery – Spys, Lies and Betrayal, Warner Books, 1988), Straight confessed to the FBI and told them about his attempted recruitment while a student at Cambridge. Costello, who died suspiciously while writing about these things, Straight "…was given a list of eighty-five Americans who attended Cambridge University between the years 1930 and 1934, from which he picked out one American, who he knew casually at the Department of State. He then named two more Americans with whom he had studied at Cambridge between 1936 and 1937 and whom he knew to have been Trinity cell members or Communist sympathizers…The FBI representatives in the U.S. embassy in London recommended a full review of all Americans who studied at either Oxford or Cambridge before the war."

As head of the FBI, responsible for counter-intelligence in the United States, J. Edgar Hover inexplicitly, according to Costello, balked at "the political repercussions of an investigation of over 500 American citizens with no basis for such an inquiry in fact…".

The CIA however, had no such qualms, and says Costello, "as a result, the records of nearly six hundred American who had attended either Oxford or Cambridge before World War II were carefully compiled, examined and scrutinized," among them James Bond, who not only attended Cambridge, but was a member of the exclusive Pitt Club.

Born in Philadelphia on January 4, 1900, Bond attended the exclusive St. Paul's School in New Hampshire, but because Bond's father had business in England and eventually married an Englishwomen, James Bond attended Harrow and Cambridge, before returning to America and embarking on his ornithological pursuit and survey of birds that led to the publication of his book Birds of the West Indies.

It was not the first time the American intelligence agencies had taken an interest in James Bond. During World War II Bond went to Haiti on an ornithological expedition to a remote area of the island country, where he encountered a German on Morne La Selle mountain, a recluse who maintained an airstrip. Bond told his friend Brandon Barringer about the German, and Bond was subsequently interviewed by Army and Navy Intelligence investigators at his office at the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences. According to Mrs. Bond, "The intelligence people asked a lot of foolish questions and seemed far more suspicious about Jim's reason for climbing Morne La Selle than about the German's activities."

As one of the American students at Cambridge before World War II, James Bond was one of the over 500 such students who fit the profile of those being investigated, although Bond was there a decade before the Cambridge spy cell was first organized. If recruited by a professor however, others students could have been to Cambridge, been recruited and left without being uncovered, and remain as sleeper agents in high government offices.

With Michael Straight's confession to the FBI and then to the British MI5, Philby could no longer bluff his way out of being exposed at the Third Man after all. Chosen to go to Beruit to confront Philby and get his confession, Nicholas Elliot was Ian Fleming's contact at MI6, where Fleming's older brother Peter also worked as a special agent.

Nicholas Elliot's father, Charles Elliot, was the headmaster at Eton, where the old school ties began with the original "C," Sir Stewart Menzies, and continued with other Etonians, including Ian Fleming and Guy Burgess. As Maclean lunched with Cryil Connolly on the day before he fled, Burgess returned to his old school and visited with a former history professor, ostensibly to discuss the biography Burgess was writing about the Earl of Sandwich.

Their defection would spark Philby's relocation to Lebanon, where Philby would remain in Beruit until confronted by Elliot, and finally acknowledge his betrayal. But before Philby was allowed to flee on the heels of Burgess and Maclean, Fleming himself visited Beruit.

Before the civil war, Beruit was the jewel of the Mediterranean, with hotels, casinos and a bustling nightlife. When Fleming arrived he immediately checked in with Elliot. According to Lycett, "Their conversation ranged over a variety of intelligence-related topics, including Kim Philby, a key participant in the Missing Diplomats affair, who had been working in Beirut as a newspaperman since 1956. Ian told Elliot that he had his own minor freelance intelligence assignment to perform: the then NID chief Vice Admiral Sir Norman Denniung had asked him for information about the Iraqi port of Basra…Ian did not delay…. he asked to leave, saying he had a rendezvous with an Armenian in the Place de Canons in the center of town."

"Perhaps," speculates Lycett, "Ian was meeting Philby," But again belittling the situation, he writes that, "Elliot had the distinct impression his dinner guest had arranged to see a pornographic film in full color and sound." Shortly thereafter, Philby, like Burgess and Maclean before him, disappeared, only to surface a few months later in Moscow, sending back postcards, from Russia, with love.

Whether Fleming went to Beruit to see a porno film or meet with Philby, the betrayal of the Cambridge spy cell weighted heavy on Fleming, and undisputedly affected his work, both professionally and his literature, and by extension, the mass market movies based on his stories. Yet this whole subterranean world is ignored by the mainstream, official biographers, and only hinted at as a truthful tease.

In Die Another Day, the last James Bond film starring Pierce Brosnan, 007 stops at a cabana beach bar in Cuba where he orders a drink while perusing a book, which if you look closely, is clearly Birds of the West Indies by James Bond.

"I'm here for the birds," 007 announces, as Halle Berry walks out of the water in a scene from the first James Bond movie, Dr. No, in which 007 masquerades as an ornithologist, and Ursula Andress emerged from the surf as the first "Bond Girl."

In the new movie, a throwback to the original Casino Royale, Daniel Craig portrays the new 007 in the 21^st Bond film, which returns somewhat to Fleming's original portrayal of James Bond, without all the "guns, girls and gadgets" that came to dominate the later movies.

In a fictional "biography of James Bond," Fleming's original, official biographer, John Pierson, claims that in the course of his researching the life of Fleming, he discovered the existence of the real James Bond, who he met in the lobby of an island hotel. Pierson wrote that Fleming's real purpose in writing the James Bond stories was to make James Bond such a comic book super hero that the Russians would fail to take the real James Bond seriously, allowing him to continue his secret work anonymously.

Such a secret, literary psychological warfare operation was not unique, as Jim Hougan demonstrates [in Secret Agenda – Watergate, Deep Throat and the CIA (Random House, 1984)], where he mentions that Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt is also, "The author of more than four dozen pulp thrillers and novels of the occult."

According to Hougan, "Hunt left the agency in furtherance of a counterintelligence scheme that revolved around his literary efforts. The purpose of the scheme, according to government sources familiar with Hunt's curriculum vitae at the agency, was to draw the KGB's attention to books that Hunt was writing under the pseudonym David St. John. These spy novels alluded to actual CIA operations in Southeast Asia and elsewhere, and contained barely disguised portraits of political figures as diverse as Prince Norodom Sihanouk and the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy. It was the CIA's intention that the KGB be led to believe that the books contained security breeches, and towards that end the agency created a phony 'flap' that was capped by Hunt's supposedly 'forced retirement.'…"

Hunt's literary scheme that "contained barely disguised portraits of political figures" was unoriginally based on Fleming's success with James Bond. Fleming had created a network of fictional characters based on real people whose stories wove a web of intrigue that is even more incredible than the novelized or Hollywood accounts.

In retrospect, unlike other mythical super heroes like Sherlock Holmes and Superman, its kind of reassuring to know that there was a real James Bond. A James Bond who really was an anonymous hero, who did go far into the field and discover something new, reported what he learned, and as a proficient naturalist, made the world a better place to live.

William Kelly

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

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

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

Although certainly not completed with the direct "personal" associations of this individual, perhaps now would be a good time to begin his "Professionial" associations:

1. Member of the Board of the "Cradle Society".

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/347.html

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adoption/arch...roottoERltr.htm

The Cradle places adoption on a commercial basis and accepts payment from foster parents who have received a child for adoption from The Cradle. The payments are substantial in amount. Only last week I talked with a professional person in another State who said that he and his wife desired to adopt a child but could not afford the price charged by The Cradle. I was also told last week that a New Jersey family had paid $1000 for a child.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Oaks/3847/blackmar.html

In 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.

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.

The long and short of it, IMO, is that this thread does do not support Z film alteration theory. Moorman saw something happen with JFK's body or she wouldn't say the next day, to FBI agents, that "he sort of jumped" at the time of the head shot (not previously when his elbows went up). What I'm sure she saw, imperfectly through a camera viewfinder, is what we see unobstructed from a different angle in the Z film.

Perhaps someone could get Moorman's own opinion of what she said or saw, in light of the tape Lifton found, since I believe she still lives in Dallas.

BTW, as I've said before, Mary Moorman was a babe.

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

"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.

Although certainly not completed with the direct "personal" associations of this individual, perhaps now would be a good time to begin his "Professionial" associations:

1. Member of the Board of the "Cradle Society".

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/347.html

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adoption/arch...roottoERltr.htm

The Cradle places adoption on a commercial basis and accepts payment from foster parents who have received a child for adoption from The Cradle. The payments are substantial in amount. Only last week I talked with a professional person in another State who said that he and his wife desired to adopt a child but could not afford the price charged by The Cradle. I was also told last week that a New Jersey family had paid $1000 for a child.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Oaks/3847/blackmar.html

In 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.

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?

Do you have any thoughts on Jack Anderson as an investigative journalist?

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

I agree that immediate testimony is the best, and here we are talking about fairly "immediate" testimony of three of the closest witnesses. And I simply don't see why they would say that JFK fell back or sort of jumped if that's not what they saw. What did anyone say prior to these statements that would have influenced them? Who else said JFK fell back or jumped? I see no reason to question what they say. If they said I saw a bright halo of blood, and one streak of debris shoot straight up and slightly foward, and a big flap open on the side of JFK's head, then I would say they had definitely been influenced by something. But I see no grounds for suspecting influence in "he fell back" or "sort of jumped."

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

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?

(3) Several of the people involved in setting up and administrating the Black Eagle Trust: John Foster Dulles, John J. McCloy, Edward Lansdale, Robert B. Anderson, Paul Helliwell, Ray Cline, etc., were later involved in some very dubious activities. Is there any connection between what these men did in Japan and their relationship with the far-right and the arms and oil industries?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccloyJ.htm

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

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!

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

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!

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.

...it was a significant factor in destroying Brisbane's innocence and an influential factor in the ever-changing relationship between the two Allies.

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.

I was involuntarily absent from the forum while this thread developed. Consequently I read through it all in one go, yesterday afternoon my time.

As the rest of my comments shall be flippant, I'll start by saying that my appreciation for John and this forum only grow with time.

IMO, it is primarily John's commitment to free and fair speech about important topics that make this forum a special place. I'm sure he has the overwhelming appreciation of forum participants at a difficult time.

Now for the rest...

The forum reminds me of my schooldays. Teacher comes into class and tells class it has been behaving very badly and there have been complaints. We are all invited to discuss our behaviour, while teacher marks homework and occasionally interjects.

The ensuing squabbles, of course, proves that teacher is correct. Some of the cheekiest members of class delight in helping him make his point, again and again and again.

Meanwhile there are several subplots, some off-topic bickering, occasional flirting and further interjections by an apparently exasperated teacher. Many kids just stare out of the window. Paper aeroplanes are exchanged. There are a few rude noises and a couple of smelly farts.

Yet in the end, an outside observer can perceive the underlying rationality in the strategy employed by John Simkin – an avowed anti-nationalist and anti-imperialist - who subverts the dominant paradigm in plain sight while the rest of us aren't even noticing.

This thread has succeeded where successive generations of peace movements on both sides of the puddle have failed.

It has split the 'Atlantic Alliance' - causing resumption of the mutual distrust and acrimony between Britain and America that was the natural state of affairs before the loathsome Winston Churchill wheedled his way into Downing Street.

Brits accuse Americans of being crass, boorish yobbos. Americans accuse Brits of being slimy, lying hypocrites. Both are essentially correct.

As a self-hating English-speaking Australian with strong anti-American tendencies, I find this very encouraging.

There may yet be a way we can rid ourselves of the American bases and spy facilities that make a mockery of our own 'independence'.

I shall ask Her Majesty the Queen, through His Excellency the Governor General in Canberra, to order the arrest of our quisling Prime Minister and directly instruct occupying Yanks to b+++++ off and return Pine Gap to its original inhabitants.

It would be fun to watch Brits and Americans duke it out, assaulting each other with their vile armaments on their own home turf while giving the Iraqis, Afghanis and Germans a well-deserved rest from their evil doing.

I’ve aleady picked my side in World War Five.

I stand 100% behind the Aboriginals and shall be happy slinging spears at both these uncivilized self-styled 'races'.

The sooner they both 'race' off to Mars, the better for the rest of us.

It will take a few million years for the pre-1788 biodiversity of the Australian continent to recover. The priceless cultural heritage of hundreds of language groups and many millennia of practical experience has been eradicated for ever.

Nevertheless, taking a very long-term view, Australia may eventually recover from Anglo-Saxon invaders and their so-called ‘civilization’.

Looking on the bright side, as far as I'm aware, these paragons of virtue have yet to spray depleted uranium around this land.

One of the benefits of staying inside the protection racket?

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

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!

I was involuntarily absent from the forum while this thread developed. Consequently I read through it all in one go, yesterday afternoon my time.

As the rest of my comments shall be flippant, I'll start by saying that my appreciation for John and this forum only grow with time.

IMO, it is primarily John's commitment to free and fair speech about important topics that make this forum a special place. I'm sure he has the overwhelming appreciation of forum participants at a difficult time.

Now for the rest...

The forum reminds me of my schooldays. Teacher comes into class and tells class it has been behaving very badly and there have been complaints. We are all invited to discuss our behaviour, while teacher marks homework and occasionally interjects.

The ensuing squabbles, of course, proves that teacher is correct. Some of the cheekiest members of class delight in helping him make his point, again and again and again.

Meanwhile there are several subplots, some off-topic bickering, occasional flirting and further interjections by an apparently exasperated teacher. Many kids just stare out of the window. Paper aeroplanes are exchanged. There are a few rude noises and a couple of smelly farts.

Yet in the end, an outside observer can perceive the underlying rationality in the strategy employed by John Simkin – an avowed anti-nationalist and anti-imperialist - who subverts the dominant paradigm in plain sight while the rest of us aren't even noticing.

This thread has succeeded where successive generations of peace movements on both sides of the puddle have failed.

It has split the 'Atlantic Alliance' - causing resumption of the mutual distrust and acrimony between Britain and America that was the natural state of affairs before the loathsome Winston Churchill wheedled his way into Downing Street.

Brits accuse Americans of being crass, boorish yobbos. Americans accuse Brits of being slimy, lying hypocrites. Both are essentially correct.

As a self-hating English-speaking Australian with strong anti-American tendencies, I find this very encouraging.

There may yet be a way we can rid ourselves of the American bases and spy facilities that make a mockery of our own 'independence'.

I shall ask Her Majesty the Queen, through His Excellency the Governor General in Canberra, to order the arrest of our quisling Prime Minister and directly instruct occupying Yanks to b+++++ off and return Pine Gap to its original inhabitants.

It would be fun to watch Brits and Americans duke it out, assaulting each other with their vile armaments on their own home turf while giving the Iraqis, Afghanis and Germans a well-deserved rest from their evil doing.

I’ve aleady picked my side in World War Five.

I stand 100% behind the Aboriginals and shall be happy slinging spears at both these uncivilized self-styled 'races'.

The sooner they both 'race' off to Mars, the better for the rest of us.

It will take a few million years for the pre-1788 biodiversity of the Australian continent to recover. The priceless cultural heritage of hundreds of language groups and many millennia of practical experience has been eradicated for ever.

Nevertheless, taking a very long-term view, Australia may eventually recover from Anglo-Saxon invaders and their so-called ‘civilization’.

Looking on the bright side, as far as I'm aware, these paragons of virtue have yet to spray depleted uranium around this land.

One of the benefits of staying inside the protection racket?

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

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 certainly agree with Robert's comments listed above. I just want to make it clear that, in my mind at least, Myra did not exhibit the traits that Robert referred to. I'm hoping that he was not referring to her at all.

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

In the decade that I've been posting to various JFK forums, I've witnessed much uncouth behaviour, flame wars over trifles, namecalling and puffy-chested posturing. There has been some of that in this forum as well, but it has usually been brief and over matters of some substance.

However, this thread has become a pathetic display of thin-skinned vituperation and ill-considered nationalistic arrogance.

If John Simkin maintains that virtually all complaints are about US Forum members, and are likewise nearly always initiated by other US Forum members, I have enough respect for his honesty to take that as a fact. Those who do not share that faith in John's honesty should perhaps relocate to other forums where their own excesses are more likely to be tolerated. If they choose to stay, perhaps they'd be courteous enough to keep their self-righteous comments to themselves. Speaking only for myself, I am sick to the eye teeth with complaints about our hosts who, in my view, have been nothing but courteous in their attempts to keep the level of bile to a minimum.

Moreover, those who appear to have taken the greatest ill-considered umbrage over our hosts' comments have nonetheless used this thread as an opportunity to display precisely the kind of arrogant sanctimony that first led to John Simkin's comments, in his bid to have Forum members police themselves. Given that this appeal from our host has demonstrably been ignored, we now have moderators to conduct that policing. That this has become necessary is a poor reflection on those who cannot resist a cheap shot at every turn.

Fifteen forum pages devoted to this topic is fourteen pages too many.

If we are all finished with our petty pissing and moaning over perceived slights against our respective nationalities, can we instead now resume devoting that vital energy to the topic that led us all here, the assassination of the 35th President of the United States?

If, instead, you insist upon continuing with your self-important bickering over comments which you have misconstrued as a slight against your nation, please go elsewhere. Your are contributing nothing but unpleasantness and, worse by far, you are an intolerably tedious bore.

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

"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.

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

"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.

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.

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 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."

"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.

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.

For my most favorite "Ex-Bunny"!

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsullivan.htm

When John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Sullivan was put in charge of the bureau's in-house investigation.

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

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

Do you get most images of your images of Tehran via the LMM*?

Here's a pleasant, thoughtful audio-visual corrective

_____________________

* Lying Mainstream Media

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

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

For my most favorite "Ex-Bunny"!

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsullivan.htm

When John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Sullivan was put in charge of the bureau's in-house investigation.

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

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?)

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

"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 just came across these quotes from Senator Ted Kennedy and had to share them. I'm so proud that he had the courage--when it mattered--to oppose the Iraq invasion, and now considers it the best vote of his long Senate career. That's leadership IMO.

"My vote against this misbegotten war is the best vote I have cast in the United States Senate since I was elected in 1962," Kennedy said. "And my call more than a year ago - more than a year ago - to bring our troops home is one of my proudest moments."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/3/121646.shtml

"Well, first of all, I was opposed to the war. It was the best vote that I ever had in the United States Senate. And in January of 2005, I laid out a pathway toward what I think would have been reconciliation and success in Iraq, two years ago, that called for the reduction of troops, the redeployment of troops, talked about the Iraqis moving ahead in terms of the reconciliation and talked about the regional kinds of diplomacy. That was two years ago.

Now, one thing about the Democrats is we will support our troops, but we also can support our troops so they are not in harm's way. And I think that's a very important..."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237021,00.html

"KING: You called Iraq the overriding issue. You voted to go there or not?

KENNEDY: No. The best vote I cast in the United States Senate was..

KING: The best?

KENNEDY: The best vote, best vote I cast in the United States Senate (INAUDIBLE).

KING: In your life?

KENNEDY: Absolutely.

KING: Was not to go to Iraq?

KENNEDY: Yes, not to go to Iraq.

KING: Why did you vote against?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html

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.

The Guardian reported yesterday that Jimmy Wales has “declared that every outgoing link from Wikipedia should have a ‘no follow’ tag.” It is claimed that the reason for this is that spammers have tried to exploit Wikipedia by placing links in order to increase search-engine rankings. This is clearly not true. Editors can deal with spammers. If links provide useful information, they should be allowed to remain. Links should also be used to substantiate information in the narrative as references.

The real reason that Wikipedia does not want to use these links is that it shows the way the encyclopedia steals information from other websites. When I have tried to expose this activity by placing links to my pages, they have been removed and I have been accused of being a spammer. As we have seen on this thread, when others have attempted to do this, they have been banned from editing Wikipedia.

Wikipedia have now got their position at the top of all search-engines for virtually any search. For example, take the case of former CIA operative “Theodore Shackley”. If you do a search at Google, Wikipedia, comes first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Shackley

Compare the detail of the Wikipedia with my page that appears in 7th place.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKshackley.htm

Note the number of links that I give in the page, including several links to Wikipedia. What page would a student find most useful?

More importantly, look at the page that appears in 4th place.

http://www.answers.com/topic/theodore-shackley

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?

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

"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!

A continuation for those who have interest in how factual research should be approached and conducted.

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.