Terry Mauro

There is no minimum qualification. Quite a large number of contributors are in high school. *********************************************************************** "There is no minimum qualification. Quite a large number of contributors are in high school." What kind of credentialed academicians do you have overseeing the contributions being made by these high school students, or other non-qualified contributors? What Quality Assurance measures or controls do you have in place to ensure that the data being distributed by Wikipedia is of sound or quantifiably researched information, and not merely something shot off from the whim or opinion of a supermarket tabloid reader?

************************************************************** Thanks for bringing me up to date on this, Bern. I'm only trying to clarify what my position was in the whole matter, and I also sought to update Shackleford on where I stood, as far as what my contribution had actually been, no matter how skewed it may have come across in the book. That's why I was also dismayed that he continued to bring up an already settled situation between Barb and I, that no longer needed to be made reference to, since he was obviously unaware of what had transpired over the last 5 months. I'm also pissed off at the fact that he brought my name up over at a place that I abhor, and do not care to have to be forced to go to and place a reply at. I don't have the time to frequent the alts. If anyone should know that, it's you and Dix. But, I'll stand corrected, again. And, I'll concede to my errors, again. Having said such, I really need to get to the office. I keep in touch with those who keep in touch with me. Barb and I have been sharing information on other subjects that have nothing whatsoever to do with the assassination. I prefer not to continually kick a dead horse, which is what Shackleford seemed to be doing, especially by drawing my name back into it, at this late date.

Certainly should be some fat gremlins, considering the numbers of attachments which they keep eating. *********************************************************** Purv, what are you saying, here? Did he or did he not "alter survey data evidence?" I personally, wouldn't put anything past that dickhead, should the truth be known. The altered survey data is the work of the WC. This information was first made public by Chuck Marler (whom I provided the information to) in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. Afterwards, I allowed JFK Lancer to publish the original article of information, and although my release to Lancer was a specific "one-time" release, the information has now found it's way into the Mary Ferrell site. It also happens to be one of those items which has yet to be "de-bunked". ************************************************************* O.K. I see what you mean, now. Thanks.

Has anyone seen this? I'll try to capture a better link if this one doesn't fly. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...ntary&hl=en

The latter is an interesting phenomenon. I've recently been "obliquely" accused of being a "disinformation magpie," "agenda hornet," a perpetually prevaricating pet-creature of "THEY" -- all very recently on this Forum. The two views I've argued that engendered these smears are as follows: 1) CIA coup masters murdered JFK to establish the pretext for an invasion of Cuba. In a broader context, there's a direct line of false-flag/ginned-intel operations from Dealey Plaza to the Green Zone thru the Gulf of Tonkin and Ground Zero. 2) The the nature of JFK's non-fatal back and throat wounds clearly point to high tech weaponry known to have been available to the CIA in 1963. If I didn't have a sense of humor about myself -- if I took my research so seriously that I actually thought anybody in the CIA actually gave a xxxx -- then I'd suspect my attacker was himself a CIA disinformation agent. No way. I don't buy it for a second, even though he has been so accused by others. We're both go-for-the-glory ego heads. As far street cred goes, I got him beat by a mile... http://youtube.com/results?search_query=Th...p;search=Search ********************************************************** "I've recently been "obliquely" accused of being a "disinformation magpie," "agenda hornet," a perpetually prevaricating pet-creature of "THEY" -- all very recently on this Forum." So, don't accuse me of being a "neo-con," either. "The two views I've argued that engendered these smears are as follows: 1) CIA coup masters murdered JFK to establish the pretext for an invasion of Cuba. In a broader context, there's a direct line of false-flag/ginned-intel operations from Dealey Plaza to the Green Zone thru the Gulf of Tonkin and Ground Zero. "thru the Gulf of Tonkin" Agreed, by way of the China White connection. 2) The the nature of JFK's non-fatal back and throat wounds clearly point to high tech weaponry known to have been available to the CIA in 1963." "point to high tech weaponry known to have been available to the CIA in 1963." Agreed, via small caliber handgun, and possible dissolvable fleshette, vs other form of soluable-upon-impact trajectory.

Certainly should be some fat gremlins, considering the numbers of attachments which they keep eating. *********************************************************** Purv, what are you saying, here? Did he or did he not "alter survey data evidence?" I personally, wouldn't put anything past that dickhead, should the truth be known.

********************************************************** David, I attempted to navigate the site, but wasn't sure how to place the post. I did try, though. Ter

Below please find a post of Martin Shackleford's that Barb Junkkarinen alerted me to at the beginning of the week. I tried on two occasions to reply, but had my computer freeze up on me after copying the reply I submitted to McAdams' site. Now, don't get me wrong, here. I'm not foolish enough, or even paranoid to believe, for one second, that my computer malfunctioning had anything inadvertently to do with what I was attempting to reply and document concerning McAdams' forum. Therefore, I will once again attempt to reply, belatedly so, to this dead horse Martin Shackleford insists on kicking, only over here at The Education Forum, where I know I'll at least be given the opportunity to explain myself, and especially to Barb, whom I now consider a colleague in the branch of Allied Health, under which our respective careers: Radiology and Clinical Laboratory Technology, are umbrella'ed in the field of medicine. Below, please note the post of Martin Shackleford, of which I replied the very next day, and which does not appear, yet some Australian butt-insky's reply is allowed to be represented, but mine is censored. I will reply to this post at the bottom of this McAdams thread and submit it here for all to see. Then, I will copy and paste it, ONCE MORE, over at MacMadman's and see if it sticks this time. Thank you, John Simkin, for giving me a home from which to have a voice. [Click the star to watch this topic] Judyth? (originally sent 10-26) « Start of topic « Older Messages 1 - 2 of 2 Newer » End of topic » Fixed font - Proportional font 1 From: Martin Shackelford - view profile Date: Tues, Jan 9 2007 4:05 pm Email: "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> Groups: alt.assassination.jfk Rating: (2 users) show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author What Terry "admitted" or didn't admit is a bit difficult to determine, as her posts have been mangled a bit by McAdams, by her report. She said that he has been posting her "in chopped up bits" which make her arguments very difficult to follow. She only conceded one small issue, and recently wrote to a colleague about the situation. The colleague summarized (personal material removed): "Terry is incredibly frustrated -- and angry. She said Barb's work could be done by a janitor. She supports Judyth's medical testimony entirely, describing it as an early precursor to her own later work...But she knows her stuff, and she knows that Judyth knows her stuff." Apparently, she has warned David Lifton not to take Judyth or her claims lightly. Martin Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space 2 From: timst...@gmail.com - view profile Date: Thurs, Jan 11 2007 4:22 am Email: timst...@gmail.com Groups: alt.assassination.jfk Rating: (1 user) show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author TOP POST Hi Martin, Who exactly is this Terry character, pray tell? Still, it matters not a whit. Baker's credibility got shot down for all time on her published account of the Trade Mart leafletting incident by Chad Zimmerman, Johann Rush and a host of other posters in August 2006. Judyth Baker has nothing of value to add to the matter of the assassination of JFK. You're simply flogging a dead horse there, mate. Still, welcome back to posting at aajfk Martin. Your recent berating of tomnln over at "The Nuthouse" was quite entertaining! :-) Regards, Tim Brennan Sydney, Australia "Newsgroup Commentator" *************************************************************** "What Terry "admitted" or didn't admit is a bit difficult to determine, as her posts have been mangled a bit by McAdams, by her report. She said that he has been posting her "in chopped up bits" which make her arguments very difficult to follow. She only conceded one small issue, and recently wrote to a colleague about the situation. The colleague summarized (personal material removed): "Terry is incredibly frustrated -- and angry. She said Barb's work could be done by a janitor. She supports Judyth's medical testimony entirely, describing it as an early precursor to her own later work...But she knows her stuff, and she knows that Judyth knows her stuff." Apparently, she has warned David Lifton not to take Judyth or her claims lightly. Martin" Martin, why do you insist on kicking this dead horse, for all it's worth, when this topic was settled nearly 5 months ago? You take my words out of context, without the full benefit of the actual words as I submitted them. And, if anyone should've been able to piece together the full body of the text as I wrote it, you should have. Pamela had it all. So why, at this late date, are you trying to resurrect something that had been amicably settled upon? And, why are you making it appear that I'm continuing to attack Barb? This is deceitful! If you had had the common decency to take the time to put my posts into a timeline, this would've given everyone an honest account of what had transpired at that time. Instead, you dredge up this bullxxxx, without so much as a reference to the "monoclonal antibody link" aspect of mine and Judyth's original conversation that took place 3 or more years ago. Barb was correct in pointing out the inadequacies and outright errors I posted with regard to CBC protocol, because if she hadn't it wouldn't have jogged my memory as to what Judyth and I had originally discussed with respect to the Nuclear Medicine laboratory procedures I was referring to at the time, which involved centrifuge of blood products, in order that the separation of the red blood cells from the plasma could precede what we were doing in the performance of Plasma Volume studies and the tagging of rbc's with Chromium51 in Red Cell Survival studies. I hadn't done a CBC, or urinalysis since before starting my radiology program in college, so I was a little rusty in that respect, yet made a blatant error of procedure and protocol by stating that CBC's are performed after centrifuging whole blood specimens. This was in error, and I posted the correct procedure and protocol there on McAdams' forum, The Education Forum, and on Prouty's forum with an apology to Barb for disseminating wrong information. But, if she hadn't called me on that count, I wouldn't have remembered what truly sealed my confidence in what Judyth had related to me of the experiments she had been doing with mice in the early 1960's. You see, what Judyth was working on was strikingly similar to what Nuclear Medicine was working on in the late 1970's and early 1980's, in the field of what is known, or was known as, "Monoclonal Antibody" therapy in the treatment of cancer patients. It sounded like Judyth was working on the forerunner of what is known as the "mouse" or "murine" genome of antibody therapy back in the early 1960's, and even though it was to be used as a way murdering Castro, it most likely was the way Jack Ruby was taken out. In the field of science, most of the time what's created for destruction, can be redeveloped into a curative or palliative treatment, as well. Now, I don't expect everyone to understand "murine genome antibody therapy," nor do I wish to take up space here in attempting to explain the rudimentary details of it, but the concept of using a part of the genetic strand of mouse DNA and tagging it to a therapeutic dose designed to interact with the DNA of the cancer cells in a human, was what this had evolved to by the early 1980's. It was an attempt to target the most destructive of the malignant cells by actively transporting the antibodies directly into the DNA of the cancerous cells, without involving healthy cells in the process. Thus, attempting to avoid the damaging effects other therapies, such as chemotherapy and cobalt irradiated treatments, had on all cells surrounding the metastatic ones. Therefore, how far-fetched could it have really been for Judyth to have been working on a similar concept to be used in the delivery of creating cancer in the healthy human cell via the "murine genome" active transport model? When you stated that I said, "Barb's work could be done by a janitor." I perceive that as a direct instigation on your part to take an archaic post of mine, out of context, and use my name as a way of attacking Barb, and for what? The "janitor" comment was in reference to the fact that since the early 1990's, there has been a push on behalf of those "for profit" corporations, such as Humana, HCA, Tenet, and Columbia, that go in and buy up the smaller, rural, community hospitals, close them down, in an effort to force people to drive further for care, burden an already overwhelmed healthcare system into competing for services that are constantly being cut, or no longer reimbursed at a level where hospitals, clinics, and physicians are able to sustain their viability to service the communities, causing massive lay-offs of personnel, no longer eligible to reap the benefits promised for years of service, let alone the loss of medical benefits for themselves and their families. Yet, the "for profits" will hire what those of us trained in college based and hospital degree'd based programs refer to as "6-week wonders." "6-week wonders" are those who've attended trade schools, such as Bryman, Nova, or Meric. They advertize themselves as a "college", but they're actually trade schools teaching a little bit of everything, such as lab technology, limited radiology, front/back office scheduling and accounting. And, offer a CNA, or a CMA certification. These schools usually put out new grads in less than a year, who will get minimum wage, or $8.00 an hour to start. It's not a bad idea, if you're going to use the limited skills you've acquired to work a job that'll pay your tuition through a college or university program because the review would be beneficial in the skills department just for starters, but the downside of these mills is their initial cost which in some cases rivals one year of a college based program. Another anomaly to emerge from the corporatization of healthcare facilities during the 1980's was how it morphed into the concept of what The Pew [of the Pew Charitable Trust fame] Commission delivered by way of their "white paper" on the future of the state of healthcare delivery in the United States 1994. There was something known as a "paradigm shift" that was going to take place in the way healthcare was to be distributed and performed by way of utilizing existing resources to multi-task, and this "concept" would be known as "Patient Focussed Care." Why not have the "housekeepers and janitors" [aka Environmental Services] personnel double as the gatekeepers when the patients arrive. They can admit them at bedside, take their vitals, draw blood, do the ekgs, then go back to washing the toilet and mopping the floors. This euphemistic term was just another way of semantically twisting an idea to suit the underlying motives of the "profiteers" infiltrating the medical field. Patients were no longer going to be referred to as patients, they would be referred to as "customers." This was supposed to give them a sense of entitlement and responsibility for their own healthcare. I guess if you're going to be referred to as a customer then you wouldn't feel as sick as you really thought you felt, especially since being a "customer" meant that you would never forget about having a bill to pay, right? Also, if you're a "customer" you're not going to be wanting to spend more time getting well, especially with the cost of healthcare to the "customer" being as it is nowadays. Therefore, this would eliminate the need for longer recovery time, and the possiblity of ambulatory surgery becoming a reality [cut 'em open, cut 'em out, stitch 'em up, and throw 'em out]. No need to worry about infection, septicemia, etc., just dose 'em up with humongous amounts of antibiotics and "call us for an appointment next week." So, let's put "janitor" in the proper context when I say that anybody's job can be done by the janitor. It's the "bottom line" that dictates whom they choose to employ and for what price. I know Barb's credentials, she's more qualified than I am, but we're more or less on the same page, when it comes to professionalism. She was simply correcting me on a lapse of memory. For you to dredge up this reference to something that transpired months ago without bothering to find out anything more on how it was resolved is negligent on your part, Martin. I spoke to Judyth before the holidays, in October I believe. I think you may be a little "out of time" on this call. I will always be in awe of Judyth's life, of her giftedness as a child, her artistry, her attempts to get her story told. But, as a medical professional, I stood to be corrected, and I have no qualms about reiterating that fact. I set the record straight back then. And, I respect both Barb and Judyth for their knowledge and application in the fields of their specific endeavors. For you to post what you did over at McAdams', where you know I have difficulty stating my case, is egregious on your part. I don't appreciate having my name bandied about like an old dishrag, especially at that place. If you have anything to address about me, why not address it here at Simkins', or over at Len Osanic's where at least I have some leeway in expressing myself in a prompt and timely manner. I abhor being referred to, or having my name trashed at, a forum whose founder I have no respect for, nor bother to frequent due to their obvious deviation from what I consider to be the truth. Please cease and desist from ever using my name again at that place, especially when you no longer understand the dynamics of my relationship with someone I have since come to know and respect. At the very least, we acknowledge each other's right "to agree to disagree" on certain aspects of the assassination. The same goes for David Lifton, who is a personal friend of mine. I don't "set him straight" on anything. He listened to my thoughts and respected them for what they were, my thoughts. So, please stop throwing peoples's names around indiscriminantly. It makes you look bad. And, it doesn't help further Judyth's cause to haphazardly refer to a dead issue such as this, out of hand like you did, and on McAdams' of all places! ************************************************************* Terry, You ought to post this to alt.conspiracy.jfk (the un-moderated forum) it will be read far and wide, and Martin perusues regularlly! Just put his name in the thread title line.... David Hi charming Lady Please, what is the latest on Judyth and her book? I find your explaination above very important and interesting. I thank you. H.J.Dean ************************************************************** Oh well, I guess I'll just have to do it myself. ************************************************************** Hi Har, Nice to hear from you. From what I gathered, Judyth's computer had been stolen back in The Netherlands, and parts of her book were being trashed about on different forums. Plus, there was some mishap when Livingstone got ahold of it and had it published without her knowing about it, I believe. I don't know what part Shackleford might have had in that mishap, if any. All I know is that it wasn't in the form in which Judyth had wanted her book to come out, and at the time that it did. When Barb alerted me to Shackleford's latest escapade over at McMadman's, I totally lost it. Shackleford should butt out and let Howard Platzman and Judyth do the best with the damage that's already been caused, and let things get straightened out without everybody sticking their fingers into the pie, like a bunch of vultures. That's all I know about it so far. And, I still support Judyth on the monoclonal antibody aspect, it sounded like she was working on back in the early 60's. I've also gotten to know Barb fairly well, via phone conversations. I'd love for her to post over here because she's also a member, but she said she'd forgotten her password. I'm in the process of sending John's e-mail address to her so she can contact him, personally. That's where it all stands today. I've taken the time to delete those parts of the original post I made, and re-inserted the edited post, high-lighting and bolding in blue, the part of it I think you may be referring to, or may be interested in with regard to the monoclonal antibodies. See above. Warmest regards, Ter

Terry, You ought to post this to alt.conspiracy.jfk (the un-moderated forum) it will be read far and wide, and Martin perusues regularlly! Just put his name in the thread title line.... David ************************************************************** Oh well, I guess I'll just have to do it myself.

That was answering something quite else, wasn't it? This is not all one thread. The following are not John Simkin's words, but ones he cited on 28 December: "The idea that the CIA was using it for something bigger, to then create an information database, a Wikipedia, makes a bit more sense. That CIA made Google so as to prepare the internet to be taken over by Wikipedia. We know that the CIA uses Wikipedia, that much is obvious (they use Google too). We know that they are in there trying to manipulate articles. But how effective are they? Is Wikipedia complying with this? Or are they just unable to stop it? What would be stopping the US government from calling Jimbo and demanding for him to cooperate with the CIA, or else he'd be framed as a terrorist? They could easily do it, and he'd have no choice in the matter. " My answers. This is pretty much absurd. Even if Jimmy Wales had to 'co-operate' with the CIA, he can only exhort people to do things. I was not 'waffling' when I said 'entryism' is easy on WP. Anyone can come and edit: so the CIA can come and edit. I was not waffling in saying that the edit logs are transparent, and editors who are trying subtle manipulation can be exposed. ********************************************************** Could you tell me what credentials your contributors are required to hold, and if they are, in fact, college or university degreed academicians?

Terry, You ought to post this to alt.conspiracy.jfk (the un-moderated forum) it will be read far and wide, and Martin perusues regularlly! Just put his name in the thread title line.... David *********************************************************** But, isn't that the place they call, "The Jungle"? Couldn't you post it for me, pleeease, David? You could say that I asked you to put it up for me. If you will put it up for me, please use the recently edited version I just put up, explaining the monoclonal antibody process. You could copy the recent edited post and paste it over there, if you would be so kind? I'm scared to go there. Please?

Below please find a post of Martin Shackleford's that Barb Junkkarinen alerted me to at the beginning of the week. I tried on two occasions to reply, but had my computer freeze up on me after copying the reply I submitted to McAdams' site. Now, don't get me wrong, here. I'm not foolish enough, or even paranoid to believe, for one second, that my computer malfunctioning had anything inadvertently to do with what I was attempting to reply and document concerning McAdams' forum. Therefore, I will once again attempt to reply, belatedly so, to this dead horse Martin Shackleford insists on kicking, only over here at The Education Forum, where I know I'll at least be given the opportunity to explain myself, and especially to Barb, whom I now consider a colleague in the branch of Allied Health, under which our respective careers: Radiology and Clinical Laboratory Technology, are umbrella'ed in the field of medicine. Below, please note the post of Martin Shackleford, of which I replied the very next day, and which does not appear, yet some Australian butt-insky's reply is allowed to be represented, but mine is censored. I will reply to this post at the bottom of this McAdams thread and submit it here for all to see. Then, I will copy and paste it, ONCE MORE, over at MacMadman's and see if it sticks this time. Thank you, John Simkin, for giving me a home from which to have a voice. [Click the star to watch this topic] Judyth? (originally sent 10-26) « Start of topic « Older Messages 1 - 2 of 2 Newer » End of topic » Fixed font - Proportional font 1 From: Martin Shackelford - view profile Date: Tues, Jan 9 2007 4:05 pm Email: "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> Groups: alt.assassination.jfk Rating: (2 users) show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author What Terry "admitted" or didn't admit is a bit difficult to determine, as her posts have been mangled a bit by McAdams, by her report. She said that he has been posting her "in chopped up bits" which make her arguments very difficult to follow. She only conceded one small issue, and recently wrote to a colleague about the situation. The colleague summarized (personal material removed): "Terry is incredibly frustrated -- and angry. She said Barb's work could be done by a janitor. She supports Judyth's medical testimony entirely, describing it as an early precursor to her own later work...But she knows her stuff, and she knows that Judyth knows her stuff." Apparently, she has warned David Lifton not to take Judyth or her claims lightly. Martin Reply » Rate this post: Text for clearing space 2 From: timst...@gmail.com - view profile Date: Thurs, Jan 11 2007 4:22 am Email: timst...@gmail.com Groups: alt.assassination.jfk Rating: (1 user) show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author TOP POST Hi Martin, Who exactly is this Terry character, pray tell? Still, it matters not a whit. Baker's credibility got shot down for all time on her published account of the Trade Mart leafletting incident by Chad Zimmerman, Johann Rush and a host of other posters in August 2006. Judyth Baker has nothing of value to add to the matter of the assassination of JFK. You're simply flogging a dead horse there, mate. Still, welcome back to posting at aajfk Martin. Your recent berating of tomnln over at "The Nuthouse" was quite entertaining! :-) Regards, Tim Brennan Sydney, Australia "Newsgroup Commentator" *************************************************************** "What Terry "admitted" or didn't admit is a bit difficult to determine, as her posts have been mangled a bit by McAdams, by her report. She said that he has been posting her "in chopped up bits" which make her arguments very difficult to follow. She only conceded one small issue, and recently wrote to a colleague about the situation. The colleague summarized (personal material removed): "Terry is incredibly frustrated -- and angry. She said Barb's work could be done by a janitor. She supports Judyth's medical testimony entirely, describing it as an early precursor to her own later work...But she knows her stuff, and she knows that Judyth knows her stuff." Apparently, she has warned David Lifton not to take Judyth or her claims lightly. Martin" Martin, why do you insist on kicking this dead horse, for all it's worth, when this topic was settled nearly 5 months ago? You take my words out of context, without the full benefit of the actual words as I submitted them. And, if anyone should've been able to piece together the full body of the text as I wrote it, you should have. Pamela had it all. So why, at this late date, are you trying to resurrect something that had been amicably settled upon? And, why are you making it appear that I'm continuing to attack Barb? This is deceitful! If you had had the common decency to take the time to put my posts into a timeline, this would've given everyone an honest account of what had transpired at that time. Instead, you dredge up this bullxxxx, without so much as a reference to the "monoclonal antibody link" aspect of mine and Judyth's original conversation that took place 3 or more years ago. Barb was correct in pointing out the inadequacies and outright errors I posted with regard to CBC protocol, because if she hadn't it wouldn't have jogged my memory as to what Judyth and I had originally discussed with respect to the Nuclear Medicine laboratory procedures I was referring to at the time, which involved centrifuge of blood products, in order that the separation of the red blood cells from the plasma could precede what we were doing in the performance of Plasma Volume studies and the tagging of rbc's with Chromium51 in Red Cell Survival studies. I hadn't done a CBC, or urinalysis since before starting my radiology program in college, so I was a little rusty in that respect, yet made a blatant error of procedure and protocol by stating that CBC's are performed after centrifuging whole blood specimens. This was in error, and I posted the correct procedure and protocol there on McAdams' forum, The Education Forum, and on Prouty's forum with an apology to Barb for disseminating wrong information. But, if she hadn't called me on that count, I wouldn't have remembered what truly sealed my confidence in what Judyth had related to me of the experiments she had been doing with mice in the early 1960's. You see, what Judyth was working on was strikingly similar to what Nuclear Medicine was working on in the late 1970's and early 1980's, in the field of what is known, or was known as, "Monoclonal Antibody" therapy in the treatment of cancer patients. It sounded like Judyth was working on the forerunner of what is known as the "mouse" or "murine" genome of antibody therapy back in the early 1960's, and even though it was to be used as a way murdering Castro, it most likely was the way Jack Ruby was taken out. In the field of science, most of the time what's created for destruction, can be redeveloped into a curative or palliative treatment, as well. Now, I don't expect everyone to understand "murine genome antibody therapy," nor do I wish to take up space here in attempting to explain the rudimentary details of it, but the concept of using a part of the genetic strand of mouse DNA and tagging it to a therapeutic dose designed to interact with the DNA of the cancer cells in a human, was what this had evolved to by the early 1980's. It was an attempt to target the most destructive of the malignant cells by actively transporting the antibodies directly into the DNA of the cancerous cells, without involving healthy cells in the process. Thus, attempting to avoid the damaging effects other therapies, such as chemotherapy and cobalt irradiated treatments, had on all cells surrounding the metastatic ones. Therefore, how far-fetched could it have really been for Judyth to have been working on a similar concept to be used in the delivery of creating cancer in the healthy human cell via the "murine genome" active transport model? When you stated that I said, "Barb's work could be done by a janitor." I perceive that as a direct instigation on your part to take an archaic post of mine, out of context, and use my name as a way of attacking Barb, and for what? The "janitor" comment was in reference to the fact that since the early 1990's, there has been a push on behalf of those "for profit" corporations, such as Humana, HCA, Tenet, and Columbia, that go in and buy up the smaller, rural, community hospitals, close them down, in an effort to force people to drive further for care, burden an already overwhelmed healthcare system into competing for services that are constantly being cut, or no longer reimbursed at a level where hospitals, clinics, and physicians are able to sustain their viability to service the communities, causing massive lay-offs of personnel, no longer eligible to reap the benefits promised for years of service, let alone the loss of medical benefits for themselves and their families. Yet, the "for profits" will hire what those of us trained in college based and hospital degree'd based programs refer to as "6-week wonders." "6-week wonders" are those who've attended trade schools, such as Bryman, Nova, or Meric. They advertize themselves as a "college", but they're actually trade schools teaching a little bit of everything, such as lab technology, limited radiology, front/back office scheduling and accounting. And, offer a CNA, or a CMA certification. These schools usually put out new grads in less than a year, who will get minimum wage, or $8.00 an hour to start. It's not a bad idea, if you're going to use the limited skills you've acquired to work a job that'll pay your tuition through a college or university program because the review would be beneficial in the skills department just for starters, but the downside of these mills is their initial cost which in some cases rivals one year of a college based program. Another anomaly to emerge from the corporatization of healthcare facilities during the 1980's was how it morphed into the concept of what The Pew [of the Pew Charitable Trust fame] Commission delivered by way of their "white paper" on the future of the state of healthcare delivery in the United States 1994. There was something known as a "paradigm shift" that was going to take place in the way healthcare was to be distributed and performed by way of utilizing existing resources to multi-task, and this "concept" would be known as "Patient Focussed Care." Why not have the "housekeepers and janitors" [aka Environmental Services] personnel double as the gatekeepers when the patients arrive. They can admit them at bedside, take their vitals, draw blood, do the ekgs, then go back to washing the toilet and mopping the floors. This euphemistic term was just another way of semantically twisting an idea to suit the underlying motives of the "profiteers" infiltrating the medical field. Patients were no longer going to be referred to as patients, they would be referred to as "customers." This was supposed to give them a sense of entitlement and responsibility for their own healthcare. I guess if you're going to be referred to as a customer then you wouldn't feel as sick as you really thought you felt, especially since being a "customer" meant that you would never forget about having a bill to pay, right? Also, if you're a "customer" you're not going to be wanting to spend more time getting well, especially with the cost of healthcare to the "customer" being as it is nowadays. Therefore, this would eliminate the need for longer recovery time, and the possiblity of ambulatory surgery becoming a reality [cut 'em open, cut 'em out, stitch 'em up, and throw 'em out]. No need to worry about infection, septicemia, etc., just dose 'em up with humongous amounts of antibiotics and "call us for an appointment next week." So, let's put "janitor" in the proper context when I say that anybody's job can be done by the janitor. It's the "bottom line" that dictates whom they choose to employ and for what price. I know Barb's credentials, she's more qualified than I am, but we're more or less on the same page, when it comes to professionalism. She was simply correcting me on a lapse of memory. For you to dredge up this reference to something that transpired months ago without bothering to find out anything more on how it was resolved is negligent on your part, Martin. I spoke to Judyth before the holidays, in October I believe. I think you may be a little "out of time" on this call. I will always be in awe of Judyth's life, of her giftedness as a child, her artistry, her attempts to get her story told. But, as a medical professional, I stood to be corrected, and I have no qualms about reiterating that fact. I set the record straight back then. And, I respect both Barb and Judyth for their knowledge and application in the fields of their specific endeavors. For you to post what you did over at McAdams', where you know I have difficulty stating my case, is egregious on your part. I don't appreciate having my name bandied about like an old dishrag, especially at that place. If you have anything to address about me, why not address it here at Simkins', or over at Len Osanic's where at least I have some leeway in expressing myself in a prompt and timely manner. I abhor being referred to, or having my name trashed at, a forum whose founder I have no respect for, nor bother to frequent due to their obvious deviation from what I consider to be the truth. Please cease and desist from ever using my name again at that place, especially when you no longer understand the dynamics of my relationship with someone I have since come to know and respect. At the very least, we acknowledge each other's right "to agree to disagree" on certain aspects of the assassination. The same goes for David Lifton, who is a personal friend of mine. I don't "set him straight" on anything. He listened to my thoughts and respected them for what they were, my thoughts. So, please stop throwing peoples's names around indiscriminantly. It makes you look bad. And, it doesn't help further Judyth's cause to haphazardly refer to a dead issue such as this, out of hand like you did, and on McAdams' of all places!

Now this I like! I knew you would... Here's a key point that I don't think Tarpley fully connected. From the Unauthorized Bush:(quote on, emphasis added) The raison d'être of the massive capability commanded by Theodore Shackley was now Operation Mongoose, a program for sabotage raids and assassinations to be conducted on Cuban territory, with a special effort to eliminate Fidel Castro personally. In order to run these operations from US territory, flagrant and extensive violation of federal and state laws was the order of the day. Documents regarding the incorporation of businesses were falsified. Income tax returns were faked. FAA regulations were violated by planes taking off for Cuba or for forward bases in the Bahamas and elsewhere. Explosives moved across highways that were full of civilian traffic. The Munitions Act, the Neutrality Act, the customs and immigrations laws were routinely flaunted. Above all, the drug laws were massively violated as the gallant anti-communist fighters filled their planes and boats with illegal narcotics to be smuggled back into the US when they returned from their missions. By 1963, the drug-running activities of the covert operatives were beginning to attract attention. JM/WAVE, in sum, accelerated the slide of south Florida towards the status of drug and murder capital of the United States it achieved during the 1980's, when it became as notorious as Chicago during Prohibition. (quote off) This is the most likely answer to the question: Why was Kennedy shot? Harriman/Bush et al wanted to take advantage of the smuggling operations from Havana, then to the drilling platforms, then to the mainland -- all nice and clean and unobserved. H.L. Hunt and the other Texan oil men were up to the same thing, I'd speculate. Harriman wanted to woo Castro into the fold; Hunt wanted him assassinated or overthrown. If Oswald had been gunned down Friday afternoon, Harriman would have gone along with the Castro-did-it scenario. After Oswald was captured, Harriman/Bundy pulled a plug on the Castro-did-it scenario to preserve relations with the Russians, and Cuba was "lost." ******************************************************* "Harriman/Bush et al wanted to take advantage of the smuggling operations from Havana, then to the drilling platforms, then to the mainland -- all nice and clean and unobserved." Now, you're on to something. A conduit for cocaine and weed from S.A., and for China White coming in from S.E.A. via the conduit created by the Viet Nam War. "H.L. Hunt and the other Texan oil men were up to the same thing, I'd speculate." So, utilize Senator John Hull's plantation runway in Costa Rica, instead. Operation Watchtower is born.

********************************************************* Compare a blown up picture of the Sloppy Cop's face, to Badgeman's.

Since he goes on immediately to say "It was parietal bone," it seemed clear in context to me that he was saying that the bone that was there, the bone they saw, was parietal, but not occipital. Please interpret it any way you like. I've made a distinct and concerted effort to familiarize myself with the terminology at issue. I don't just throw it around to impress people and thereby confuse hell out of them, though. I always strive for greater clarity and understanding, not greater confusion. Well, Dr. Carrico's statements about occipital (posterior, back of skull) bone were the ones made to the Warren Commission. The later statements about right-side parietal were made in the 1990s. I'm not sure whose point you're trying to make—yours or mine. Are you? Ashton Irony of ironies. I agree with Ashton. The comment "I don't believe we saw any occipital bone" is obviously a short-handed "I don't believe we saw any (wound in the) occipital bone." Without "any occiptal bone" the entire lower back of the skull, both left and right sides, all the way down to the spine, would be missing. No one described anywhere near that amount of damage. Therefore, there undoubtedly was occipital bone present. ***************************************************** "The comment "I don't believe we saw any occipital bone" is obviously a short-handed "I don't believe we saw any (wound in the) occipital bone." Without "any occiptal bone" the entire lower back of the skull, both left and right sides, all the way down to the spine, would be missing." First of all, doctors, no let me be emphatic about this, physicians aka M.D.'s, are not likely to skirt around the issue, as you [a layperson] are assuming to do, here. They would have specifically stated that the area was, or appeared to be, still "intact," NOT that "it wasn't there.", if indeed, it was still intact. Or, else they would have "specifically" stated that they hadn't examined the occiput because it appeared to have been still intact and devoid of massive laceration, as opposed to the findings in the temporo/parietal region, as having been presented at the time. That's how they report their findings on examination. If they stated, "it wasn't there." that's what they meant, "it wasn't there," in the most direct way of answering upon deposition, interrogation, or cross-examination. The "deposer," "interrogator," or "cross-examiner" should have taken it upon himself to have asked, "Could you please clarify what you meant when you stated, "It wasn't there."?" "Without "any occipital bone" the entire lower back of the skull, both left and right sides, all the way down to the spine would be missing" If they stated, "the right occiput," they meant the "right posterior" portion of the occiputal bone situated at the back part, and the base of the cranium that encases the occiputal lobes of the cerebrum, right and left. For all intents and purposes, the occiputal lobes of the cerebrum are considered to be posteriorly located, anatomically speaking.

************************************************************ "I guess I've been under the mistaken impression all these years that the back of JFK's head in the Z film is in shadow, the sun being where it was. It seems reasonable to me that a dark hole might not be discernible in such dark shadow on a moving head in a film taken with a 1963 home movie camera." I accept this as well, because I believe the Zap was spliced. But, there are going to be those who whole-heartedly believe that the Zap was not altered [frames spliced or deleted] and will continually challenge with, "Unless a stream of blood and brains can be shown on [ANYBODY'S (Zap's, Nix's, et.al.)] film to be emitting or exploding, or avulsing, from the area of JFK's skull, known as the right posterior [redundant] occiput [because the occiput is located in the lower posterior (back) of the skull, anatomically, speaking] then, there was NO large, gaping hole, as witnessed by the Parkland emergency room personnel. And, this is because some of those Parkland E.R. personnel present at the time Kennedy was brought in, either answered an ad in a newspaper, or medical journal in Great Britain, advertising for an Emergency Room position in Dallas, or else they returned to resume their position at Parkland after working at another facility in San Francisco, for less than a year. [Anybody ever heard of taking a sabbatical, or going to sit for a specialty certification?] And, since these personnel showed up in Dallas during that same time frame, 6 or 8 months prior to the assassination, any testimony entered into the record should be considered as "suspect," since they most likely were in cahoots with the perpetrators, and paid to "lie" about what they "claimed" to have witnessed on the 22nd of November 1963." And, since the Zap is ONLY depicting the right lateral temporo/parietal hemispheric flap of skull being separated from its cranial suture [located at the top of the skull], consequently there is no hole in the back of JFK's head. Accordingly, the "lie."

************************************************************ "I have no problem with well-framed and polite LN arguments; as I said, it helps us all put a finer point on our arguments." And, I'm in total agreement with you on that point, Stephen. Plus, I would never attempt to beat up anyone as polite and articulate as you have always been. But, when it comes to someone exhibiting downright rudeness and idiocy, such as Von Pain, I have no qualms about levelling him to the status I personally feel he deserves. I believe in "our right to agree to disagree." But, in the case of the overly-agressive, deprecating quality some have chosen to adopt, as you've pointed out, my reaction is to "fight fire with fire." Same thing with regard to those "five supposed experts," at Wikipedia, which is what I believe this thread started out as. For them to have the unmitigated gall, and audacity to proclaim that sparatcus.com should be relegated to the status of being considered "unreliable" and therefore censored, just because they were "devastated" since their senses were somehow being "assaulted" by the truth as it was being presented on The Education Forum. What kind of display of cognizant reasoning is that, for a site purportedly established for the availability of public access and dissemination of "accurate" information on the caliber of what one might expect to find in the volumes of The Encyclopedia Brittanica, or even in The Wonder Book of Knowledge, for that matter? Well, I've got to get to the office. See you all later this evening.

****************************************************** Jean Davison's debating techniques can stand alone on their own merits. To have someone of such low caliber as Von Pain [or his name], associated with a review of Davison's work is an insult, and injurious to anything beneficial Ms. Davison may be putting forth on behalf of the LN'ers. This is soley my attack on Von Pain. Please note, I have not referenced anything against Davison, or her words. I've merely referenced the absurdity of Von Pain's own syntax in bold lettering with regard to his ability to put forth a cohesive review of Davison, let alone anything, or anyone else. I, for one, would not relish the association Von Pein seems to be attempting in his questionably "glowing" review of Davison's work, especially in his feeble, thinly veiled, and contemptuous remarks regarding Oswald's arrest. Von Pein, obviously has no conception of the term "Due Process." Those who lack the basic understanding of the letter of the law, will be relegated to the level of vigilante, or kangaroo court status, which is exactly how Von Pein comes across in his review of Davison's work. If I were her, and trying to make a rational, logical case for my views, I certainly would not appreciate Von Pein's blithering opinion of my work, no matter how salutory he was trying to word it.

See above the Robert Charles-Dunne explanation of why Ford’s actions are so important to the “magic bullet” theory. It is the rule of the forum that members post a biography and use a photograph as an avatar. Could you please add yours (or post it to me and I will do it for you). I assume you are the author of Oswald's Game (1983)? A book loved by people like John McAdams and David R. Von Pein. This is what Pein says about Oswald’s Game in his Amazon review. Anything I've ever seen written by Jean Davison merits high marks on the "Common Sense" scale when it comes to evaluating the various aspects of the John F. Kennedy assassination and Lee Harvey Oswald's obvious involvement in that 1963 crime. Davison is an expert on Presidential assassin Lee H. Oswald, and over the many years since her 1983 book "Oswald's Game" was published, she has defended her "Lone Assassin" position (at a variety of public JFK forums) with grace, dignity, and (above all) a wealth of facts to support the idea that Oswald was anything BUT an innocent "Patsy" on 11/22/63 (as many, many conspiracy promoters believe). I've spoken to lots of "CTers" over the years who seem to merely be taking the accused double-murderer (Oswald) at his word when he said "I'm just a patsy" to the Live TV cameras shortly after his arrest. That's curious logic, in my opinion....to blindly accept, at face value, those four words being uttered by the guy who's in handcuffs. Surely Lee Oswald had no reason to tell any falsehoods, right? ~smirk~ It is oh so obvious to anyone who has even casually examined the evidence in the JFK case that Lee Harvey Oswald started lying to the police almost immediately after his arrest, and he never stopped lying when it came to anything that had to do with the JFK and J.D. Tippit murders he was officially charged with. Offhand, I cannot think of a single hunk of "truth" he uttered (either to the police or to the television cameras in the hallways) during his 46-hour detention when it came to pertinent info about the murders themselves. Every single thing Oswald said was a lie in this regard....everything..... "I didn't shoot anybody; no sir!" -- Provable Lie. "Those pictures are fakes; my head; somebody else's body." -- Provable Lie.* "I never owned a rifle." -- Provable Lie.* "I didn't bring any bulky package to work on 11/22." -- Provable Lie.* * = Paraphrased, not verbatim, quotes...due to the idiotic fact that the DPD/FBI/USSS decided to not record a word Oswald said. Was that stupid? Sure it was. Was it conspiratorial? In a CTer's eyes...of course it was. In reality? There's not a shred of proof to show that the DPD had conspiratorial motives by not recording Oswald's comments. And probably Lee Harvey's biggest lie of them all: "They've taken me in because of the fact I lived in the Soviet Union; I'm just a patsy!" That last Oswald quote is actually a double lie -- both the first part of the quote and the infamous "Patsy" portion too. And Oswald's "Patsy" remark actually takes on a whole new meaning when we judge the WHOLE comment Oswald made there, including the obvious lie about being taken in (by the Dallas Police) only due to the fact he had once defected to Russia....because his "Patsy" whitewash comes right on the heels of a PROVABLE LIE re. the "Soviet Union". One lie, therefore, is almost certainly feeding the next. Also: Oswald didn't say anything about some outside entity (e.g., Clay Shaw, Jim Garrison, David Ferrie, Guy Bannister, the Boogie Man, et al) setting him up as the patsy during his famous "I'm Just A Patsy" statement. He, in essence, since the remark tailgates the lie re. the "Soviet Union", is pointing the finger of "Patsy blame" at the Dallas Police, and not at anyone else who might have "set him up" beforehand. And, in my view, that's an important distinction to remember when assessing the famous and wildly-misinterpreted "Patsy" remark made by Oswald. Why on Earth so many conspiracy fans want to treat the words of the accused double-murderer as Gospel is a mystery indeed. It's similar to blindly accepting the protestations of Charles Manson or O.J. Simpson, when they insisted "I'm innocent". Every single scrap of physical evidence in both the John F. Kennedy murder case and the case involving the killing of Dallas Patrolman J.D. Tippit points toward Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone killer of both men in November of '63. Always has; and always will. Thank you, Jean Davison, for your excellent book "Oswald's Game"....and for the "high road" that you have taken since writing it when dealing with critics of your work re. Oswald. I've yet to read an article or a newsgroup posting by Jean that didn't brim over with common sense and reasoned thinking with respect to the JFK assassination. ******************************************************************* "Anything I've ever seen written by Jean Davison merits high marks on the "Common Sense" scale when it comes to evaluating the various aspects of the John F. Kennedy assassination and Lee Harvey Oswald's obvious involvement in that 1963 crime. Davison is an expert on Presidential assassin Lee H. Oswald, and over the many years since her 1983 book "Oswald's Game" was published, she has defended her "Lone Assassin" position (at a variety of public JFK forums) with grace, dignity, and (above all) a wealth of facts to support the idea that Oswald was anything BUT an innocent "Patsy" on 11/22/63 (as many, many conspiracy promoters believe). I've spoken to lots of "CTers" over the years who seem to merely be taking the accused double-murderer (Oswald) at his word when he said "I'm just a patsy" to the Live TV cameras shortly after his arrest. That's curious logic, in my opinion....to blindly accept, at face value, those four words being uttered by the guy who's in handcuffs. Surely Lee Oswald had no reason to tell any falsehoods, right? ~smirk~ It is oh so obvious to anyone who has even casually examined the evidence in the JFK case that Lee Harvey Oswald started lying to the police almost immediately after his arrest, and he never stopped lying when it came to anything that had to do with the JFK and J.D. Tippit murders he was officially charged with. Offhand, I cannot think of a single hunk of "truth" he uttered (either to the police or to the television cameras in the hallways) during his 46-hour detention when it came to pertinent info about the murders themselves. Every single thing Oswald said was a lie in this regard....everything....." Von Pain would be the first one leading a lynch mob, after directing a kangaroo court proceeding. He's totally reminiscent of those red-neck peckerwood Ku Klux Klanners who terrorized the south and got away with it for all those years. Von Pain has the brain of a peahen, and the logic and reasoning skills of an imbecile. He should be waving the Confederate flag for all it's worth.

**************************************************** Early statements: "This was a 5cm by 17cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium, or skull, in this area. ...a fairly large wound on the right side of the head in the parietal/occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound." Later statements: "We did say there was a parietal-occipital wound. We did say we saw shattered brain, cerebellum, in the cortex area, and I think we were mistaken. ...We saw a large hole on the right side of his head. 'I don't believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there.' It was parietal bone. And if we said otherwise, we were mistaken." Well, if he stated "I don't believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there.", then where the hell was it, if it hadn't been blown out? Wouldn't it have been a helluvalot more accurate for him to state, "I don't believe we saw any occipital bone. We weren't looking in that area in which the occiput is located." But no, he didn't state it as such. He stated, "I don't believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there." Are you familiar with human anatomy and the medical terminology used to describe it, at all? And, if you think for one moment that those doctors were NOT subjected to any undue duress to change or alter their initial statements, in order that they might somehow concur with what the WCR was attempting to conclude, then you're just pissing in the wind, Mister!

******************************************************** "Some editors at Wikipedia were devastated by this information since it refutes the Warren Commission’s theory which a small group editors at Wikipedia tightly embrace. These other editors wouldn’t allow the information be placed in the article even though it is the basic policy of Wikipedia that all significant viewpoints be included in an article and let the reader choose which viewpoint is more persuasive." Devastated? Where are these people living? In Disneyland? "Despite this policy of including conflicting evidence and viewpoints on issues, the editors who insisted on deleting the information a[r]gued [sic] the following points on what the editors personally believed happened, which is impermissible under Wikipedia policy: • One editor speculates that Hoover was “blowing smoke.” • Another said that the material from Spartacus concerning Hoover’s information was “factual, but irrelevant" because the editor came to the belief that “there is no showing that Hoover did the same kind of research the Commission did to come to his conclusion.” No supporting evidence was offered for this belief, and if there was such evidence it should have also been placed in the article. "factual, but irrelevant" because Hoover hadn't done the same kind of research the Commission did to come to his conclusion? And, nobody stopped to think, for one instant of a second that the "Commission" might be the one "blowing smoke?" Tell me something. Had any of your supposed "experts" viewed the crude sketches rendered in the New York Times newspaper in June 1964 that depicted the single-bullet trajectory, and asked themselves, or their father, as I did, "Hey Dad, how can this bullet go down like this and up again at this angle, like they're drawing it, here?" I was 19 years old! I knew I was being lied to, by some people I was supposed to be trusting with my life. • Another comment was “Hoover's viewpoint that the bullet came out of Kennedy is equal in significance and popularity to the viewpoint that Sun revolves around the Earth.” No proof was offered to support this claim on the alleged popularity of the viewpoint. The comment wouldn't have been made had we not the documentation to back it up. • Then an editor speculated that Hoover’s statement that the bullet came from Kennedy’s body “was probably a mistaken assumption made early in an investigation, as is known to happen frequently, and should not be given undue weight by having it as a counterbalance to the WC finding.” Not only is this editor speculating on the matter but even assumes the role as an expert authority on what “frequently” happens in murder investigations. Please feel free to cite your forensic experts' opinions. From what I've gathered, there appears to be a distinct lack of bonafide "experts" working the stalls of Wikipedia. • Since none of the above reasons form any basis for censoring the information from the article, the five member panel from Wikipedia, which includes Mr. Matthews, decided the information should be censored and the editor who added the information should be banned because the information came from Spartacus which is allegedly “unreliable,” and that the editor was “aggressive” by including it. Unreliable, according to whom? Those timid yahoos Wikipedia's trying to pass off as "knowledgeable?" Your five member panel appear to be as five ostriches with their heads in the sand. I'm sorry if their senses seemed to have been assaulted by the unpleasant REALITIES of life, as depicted by the folks at Spartacus, et.al. I suppose Spartacus might need to pepper their dialogue with more euphemistically acceptable descriptions in which to clothe their facts, lest they prove unpalatable to the five experts running the show at Wikipedia. NOT! ___________________________________________ I'm sorry, John. You may delete this if you think I'm out of line, here. But, this narrow-minded, myopic form of mindset really ticked me off. Theresa C. Mauro Culver City, CA USA

Well said, Terry. And any careful study of what can be known about CIA traces its lineage invariably back to international oil, banking, and armaments interests. It also demonstrates CIA's consistent loyalty, always, to international oil, banking, and armaments interests, regardless of the cost in American lives and American interests. The argument over whether CIA is "monolithic" or not is entirely specious. It is as specious as arguing whether the United States Army is "monolithic" or not. The CIA is militaristic. The CIA is autocratic. Whatever "uniform" its soldiers wear, whether from Brooks Brothers or the CIA costume department, it is no less regimented in its objectives, strategies, and tactics. The notion of "rogue elements" of CIA wandering off to set agendas of their own is laughable. It is as laughable as the grossly distorted "Cowboy and Yankee" dichotomy that Varnell obliquely embraces consistently, even when soft-pedaling it. The alliances between, e.g., Texas oil interests and international oil interest, and the alliances between all oil interests and international banking interests so far outweigh the postulated Helgian-Marxist toy models of "conflicts" (class, geography, politics, Stetson-vs.-fedora, WTF-ever), that it's like dropping an anvil into one balance and a gnat in the other. It goes far beyond mere "alliances," though. It takes only the most cursory glance by an eighth grade economics student to comprehend that there is an inseverable interdependency between and amongst all oil interests, and all international banking interests, and all armament interests—South, East, North, and West. Whatever internecine squabbles, whatever jockeying for position in the pyramid and pecking order, whatever submerged "rivalries" might make a minor ripple on the surface, you're either in that game, playing inside the boundaries, and playing by the rules (which they wrote for themselves), or don't even bother stopping for a shower on your way out. You won't need it. When and as these overarching, governing canons are ignored in favor of jejune "analyses" postulating "rogue factions" of CIA off on their own little junkets and mutinies based on petty political ideologies, research and discussion are reduced to the level of Mother Goose. Ashton ************************************************** "When and as these overarching, governing canons are ignored in favor of jejune "analyses" postulating "rogue factions" of CIA off on their own little junkets and mutinies based on petty political ideologies, research and discussion are reduced to the level of Mother Goose." Or, more like Operation Mutha' Mongoose. Cuba was nothing more than a blip on the radar screen, especially after the deal for Turkey was cooked, cooled, and delivered. What was there left to lose? A tax write-off for United Fruit, perhaps? And, speaking of taxes, since The Mob never bothered to pay any, and Nevada was right in their own back yard, Vegas could pick up the slack where Habana left off. Relocation to West Palm Beach, FL for the more disgruntled affluent of the Cuban aristocrats? Cuba was a wash-out that was ripe for hanging out to dry. SEA was the big money-maker for the Wall Street Big Five Cartels: Oil, Real Estate, Industrial Steel, Venture Capital, and Drugs. Have I left anybody out of my sweeping generalities, here?

Does it look like she's looking at the right front of his head? Looks to me like she's looking directly at the avulsion on the back of the head. The gif doesn't go far enough. Here's Z337. BTW, several of the doctors mentioned "cerebellum". Any clue where the cerebellum is located? *************************************************** Hi R.J., I've always viewed the Zap as a hodge-podge of splices, so to speak. Therefore, on one hand, I can understand someone being insistent upon being able to discern the presence of the exit wound presenting itself as emanating from the right posterior occiput, immediately following the impact to the right antero/parietal aspect as depicted here. On the other hand, it also appears from the impact of the trajectory, that the amount of energy dispersed along the lateral aspect of the skull, causing the separation of the right hemispheric bone plate to occur, would in fact preclude the actual exit of the bullet from the right posterior occiput, had not the Zapruder been tampered with in the interim, or say the frames depicting the exit from the right posterior occiput been removed or deleted. Instead, it appears to the naked or inexperienced eye to have remained intact. Why I suggest deletion or splicing of frames is from observing the erratic body movements [cartoon] being exhibited by Jackie's hands with respect to her response to her husband being fatally wounded. Even in slo-mo there seems to be a lack of flow to the body responses, that should be distinguishable, regardless of the kind of equipment being used to film this, as well as any shock to the senses, or distractions Zapruder might have been experiencing during the filming. The flow of the information as it is being depicted on the film strongly suggests removal or deletion of specific frames, IMHO.

But they didn't have a problem losing the Cuban market? Apples and oranges. The "reach" of the American ruling elite and the "CIA-Pentagon"are one and the same thing. That's how the American ruling elite manifests its "reach" -- with the military and intel services. The unilateral bombing of Moscow and Peking was the mad dream of rabid anti-Communists. In 1962-3 their focus was on Cuba, as I believe the Northwoods documents reveal. The Mormon CIA officers don't work for the same interests as the WASP blue-blood CIAofficers. They don't go to the same schools. They didn't go to the same churches. And during the Rockefeller v. Hughes battle over TWA these two wings of the CIA didn't go to the same holiday parties. Cliff Varnell: I do not buy the view that "the CIA" was, or is, a monolithic entity wherein all the players are on the same page. The only people who knew about it were the people involved.The first two people to jump off the Commies-did-it bandwagon were McGeorge Bundy and Averell Harriman. Vincent Salandria: Paul, when Oswald was captured, everything changed. The plotters lost control of thecover-up -- the blame-it-on-Castro scenario fell apart -- and Bundy and Harriman took over quarterbacking the "lone-nut" scenario. LBJ wasn't in the White House more than a few minutes before Harriman came over to nix all talk of Soviet complicity (Holland, THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION TAPES, pg 57.) Paul Rigby: And no, I don't think the analysts are synonymous with the cover-ops brigade. Real power lies with the latter: the former is more often than not little more than a retrospective fig-leaf. Cliff Varnell: Wasn't it the cover-ops brigade that pushed hardest for a Cuban invasion? I don't see how you can deny the historical fact of this. CV: Paul, have you read the following? THE LAST INVESTIGATION, by Gaeton Fonzi BREACH OF TRUST, by Gerald McKnight SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED, by Larry Hancock Read those and come back and tell me how much scorn you have for the false-flag scenario. SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED is a must-must read.Cliff Varnell: In 1963, I'll argue, there were factions in CIA loyal to different masters. The plotters were loyal to a POLICY, not an organization. Those people in CIA most devoted to this POLICY change conspired to kill Kennedy in a manner that would propel them toward their goal: invade Cuba. Why would we question the loyalty of any American NOT involved in the plot? Cliff Varnell: What united them was a desire to invade Cuba. To deny that such sentiment existed is fallacious, to put it politely. Paul Rigby: No, it isn't. To the contrary: it is logical and sustained by the evidence. After all, they didn't invade Cuba! Cliff Varnell: So Operation Mongoose, Operation Northwoods, and that huge JM/WAVE station were all figments of the imagination? It is inconvenient to your pet theory that this anti-Castro effort existed, therefore it did not exist? Because a plot fails, that precludes any possibility of such a plot? Plots only exist when they succeed, is that what you and Ashton are pushing? ************************************************** "In 1963 guys like H. L. Hunt and J. Edgar Hoover thought the "Eastern Establishment" was Communist." Since when did the "Eastern Establishment," or The Rockefeller/Morgan Trusts, or any Wall Street financial house/brokerage firm need a political label, to begin with? The only party they belong to is the one they've created to ensure their investment portfolios, and to secure their holdings, and their bank accounts, into perpetuity. They don't give a rat's ass what you call them because they don't require any partisan participation, nor allegiance, from the left or the right. If anything, they are the ''right," as in "fascism," regardless of any name you might want to hang on them. Their economic philosophy is steeped in the European tradition of the baronial/colonial oligarchal system. How anyone can buy into the idea of a democrat/republican, right-wing/left-wing, liberal/conservative political faction at work here, with these families, is ludicrous. They'll put their money wherever, and with whomever's "cause celebre," or noble ideal they think might turn them a profit. Operation Mockingbird at work here, ready to placate the masses into believing that, "We're on your side, no matter which side you happen to be on. You name it, we'll claim it." They'll play both sides of the fence for maximum return on the dividend. "Cliff Varnell: What united them was a desire to invade Cuba. To deny that such sentiment existed is fallacious, to put it politely." Wow! Now, that's a real "collegial" exchange, Cliff. "Paul Rigby: No, it isn't. To the contrary: it is logical and sustained by the evidence. After all, they didn't invade Cuba!" Exactly! They already had their eyes on the next, more lucrative prize, in the form of SEA aka Laos/VietNam/Cambodia where the REAL money could be made for their Brown and Root [future Halliburton], Bechtel, Mandeville accounts, etc. et.al. Plus, the contracts for Bell Helicopter, and Hughes, not to mention Northrup/Grummond. Oh, and don't forget the steel mills. Boy, were they going to clean up on Wall Street, or what? And hey, what the hell! The taxpayers were going to be footing the major part of the bill, as well as sustaining the losses, so who cares? Just as long as we make our profit margin, we can take the money and run. Mr. Rigby, my suggestions are: Prouty's "Secret Team," and the CD's of Prouty's files available from Len Osanic: osanic@prouty.org, Donald Gibson's "Battling Wall Street," Harold Weisberg's "Whitewash" series, Mark Lane's "Rush to Judgement" and "Plausible Denial," Aaron Russo's movie, "America to Fascism," and Lyndon LaRouche's explanation of intropy/entrophy, as to how it relates to our economic policy and philosophy. He has been a great source of information and helped me to understand the history of the economic process as it's been implemented [as well as manipulated] by various factions from the 1500's to the present century. I've read excerpts of Bamford's book. I haven't as yet, read McKnight, nor Hancock, but eventually will get around to it. "You can produce all the generalities you want, Paul, but looking at the forces in play in 1963 defies your "set-in-stone" monolithic elite model." Oh yeah? Well, regardless of needing the existence of any pretext to invade Cuba, there was a much larger agenda already simmering on the back-burner, in the money-making scam about to take place in SEA. That [venture] was the "Big Kahuna" that ended up lining the coffers of the few "above mentioned" corporations, making them rich off the blood shed by the sons and daughters in the U.S. Armed Forces [not to mention the blood of the South Vietnamese peasants]. The bill of which, being footed at the taxpayers's expense, couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again, nor stave off the major recession [depression] in the 1970's that we've yet to recover from, no matter what kind of single-digit unemployment rate they try to foster on you at this late date. Incidently, if Afghanistan was the nail that sealed the U.S.S.R.'s coffin, then Iraq is going to be the one to seal the U.S.A.'s. War for the fun and profit of the ruling class, only ends up biting the 'po folks in the ass, in the end [no pun or rhyme intended]. Wake up, America! Even though we all know you're comatose, at this stage of the game.

*************************************************** Good idea, Dawnie. And, as far as my "Badgeman/Cop-taking-up-the-rear-in-the-tramps-photo-resemblance" goes, either nobody wants to touch it, or I'm possibly in the need of a "seeing-eye" dog, real soon. It's almost 2007, Honey!