Terry Mauro

Thanks James: This is a good uncroped picture and shows the overpass about ten seconds or so after the shots. Perhaps the people on the bridge all went to the northwest side of the underpass as the Limo went to Parkland. None the less, I was told that "...nobody was on the bridge. (north or south) That era had been cleared by the Secret Service..." Ref; Denver FBI. Scott Warner SAC; Denver County Jail, Feb 1964 and again Colorado State Reformatory, Buena Vista Colo. March 1964. inmate# Plumlee #17581 March- Dec 1964. Denver Probation report investigation dated November, 1964 recordered in whitnessed by Wayne Patterson Warden Colorado State Reformatory, November 13, 1964 "... If you do not stop talking about what you think you know about the assassination, you will never get out of here..." sorry, I ramble... I'm old and tired... I want to die like my grand dad.., in my sleep..,not like his screaming passenger in the back seat... Tosh <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks, Tosh. I think I read where you related that they told you, "You saw no one on the bridge.", or something to that effect. Anyway, I'm getting the feeling that you may be endangering yourself more than we realize, asking these pointed questions of you. It's in the "red" circle in the photo James put up. The "right" side of the red circle to be more exact. Thanks for making that all the more clearer for me, James. Thanks guys, Terry

Tosh, I also went back to the black and white picture taken on the day of the shooting, where you were describing the exact areas where you and Sergio were standing to the left of the forked tree shadow and the pick-up truck. I could make out a figure wearing, what I perceived to be light-colored trousers, but had difficulty seeing the other person as clearly due to the grain of the picture and most likely due to the shadow that person was standing in at the time the picture was being shot. Therefore, when Tim posted this colored picture of a bird's eye-view of the plaza, I noticed how much thicker the trees themselves appeared to be, as if they'd had time to fill out, compared to the the black and white photo (that I believe Wim had posted) of the day of the shooting. I'm most appreciative of you pointing this out, as I was always under the impression that you were closer to the street and possibly in front of the structure of the overpass, instead of where, in reality, you actually were. I'd also like to thank Tim for putting up the color photo, and James and yourself for clarifying the year. Terry <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A picture is worth a thousand words. Here is the photo of the South Knoll. It would be helpful if Tosh could circle the precise location he's describing. I understand his estimation of the South Knoll shooter's location to be about 5 yards east of the underpass at the fence line. If that is not sufficiently precise, I hope Tosh will correct me, perhaps even with a circled location in the provided photo. Maybe when I'm there in a few weeks and taking a photo of the proposed South Knoll shooter's angle onto Elm St., I'll try out Tosh's audio experiment by yelling out "Bang bang bang" and have my wife tell me where the sound seemed to come from. For Dealey Plaza that probably wouldn't constitute strange behavior. . . . Tim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Terry and Tim: If you look at the peak of the roof in the background and a little left of the pickup truck.., and IF there was a south knoll shooter.., he would be perhaps on the railroad tracks on in the parking lot, (in line with the peak of the roof or a little bit to the right of it left of the pickup) or mabe back into the lot near a parked car. If you look at the left side of the picture above the man and the car roof in the shadows, that is where Sergio and I were standing. As you can see the Limo had already gone under the bridge and in the Bell picture there is a man standing about center of the overpass. I think he went to the otherside (west) to see the limo heading for Parklland Hospital. I have said I think I was waring tan pants and a light , but I really do'n't remember for sure... we did have a clip board but I can't remember who was holding it..... I do not know how to draw a circle and get it posted.... well I should correct that.., I do know how to draw a circle, almost. I know more than most operatives. Tosh <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, Tosh. The figure I'm seeing looks as if they're wearing light trousers and a lighter-toned shirt or jacket. I tried experimenting with the "Paintbrush" accessory program in my computer, and managed somehow to transfer the enlarged photo into this window that allowed me to draw a yellow line around the area I see you in. I copied and pasted it into an e-mail to James Richards to see if he could post it here for you, because I tried and it doesn't transfer over. James said I needed to put it into a jpeg form, and send it, but I'm not even sure I remember how I did what I just did. I've never used that function on my computer before. I'm waiting for James to send me instructions on how to perform the jpeg transfer. What I will try to do, in the meantime, is send it to you via the members e-mail section and see if it goes through intact. Sorry to be so computer illiterate. It's probably "age-specific". LOL Terry

How are you, Harry! It's been a long time since you and I have been on the same forum. It's so nice to have you join up over here. Welcome! Warmest regards, Terry

Tim, Tosh, or James Richards, Does anyone have a date stating as to when this picture was taken? Thanks, Terry <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Terry: Not sure this will help. I think it will show it was taken a few years after the assassination and before the Hertz sign was removed form the Trexas School Dep... Compare the south knoll picture taken seconds after the assassination and look at the "tree shadows" of the small trees that lined the south parking lot. notice where the shadows of the lager trees fall on the knoll and at the egge of the street. The small trees are much larger and the larger trees are much taller in the ovetrhead. The south knoll picture was taken at the time of the shooting. The overhead was also taken around noon, but not that day; because the shadows are poniting the same direction as the south photo of 63. The shadows are much larger in the overhead.. I would harzard to guess the overhead was taken about four or fives years later than 1963. (1968) However, this is only a guess. Tosh <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks, Tosh. I also went back to the black and white picture taken on the day of the shooting, where you were describing the exact areas where you and Sergio were standing to the left of the forked tree shadow and the pick-up truck. I could make out a figure wearing, what I perceived to be light-colored trousers, but had difficulty seeing the other person as clearly due to the grain of the picture and most likely due to the shadow that person was standing in at the time the picture was being shot. Therefore, when Tim posted this colored picture of a bird's eye-view of the plaza, I noticed how much thicker the trees themselves appeared to be, as if they'd had time to fill out, compared to the the black and white photo (that I believe Wim had posted) of the day of the shooting. I'm most appreciative of you pointing this out, as I was always under the impression that you were more closer to the street and possibly in front of the structure of the over-pass, instead of where, in reality, you actually were. I'd also like to thank Tim for putting up the color photo, and James and yourself for clarifying the year. Terry

We also would like people to post their photographs as avatars. We believe this will reduce the hostile comments people make and receive. John, the only recent photo I have is on my Brotman I.D. badge. I don't have a scanner with which to try and scan it through in an e-mail to you, either. Any suggestions? Also, I will follow that link and attempt to paste my bio url. Sincerely, Terry

Tim, Tosh, or James Richards, Does anyone have a date stating as to when this picture was taken? Thanks, Terry

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Posner a Wall Street lawyer, by trade? I agree, it would be interesting to have him aboard.

Executive Order 11110 AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289 AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows: SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended -- (a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j): "(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph b of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 b ), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption," and b. By revoking subparagraphs b and c of paragraph 2 thereof. SEC. 2. The amendment made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made. JOHN F. KENNEDY THE WHITE HOUSE, June 4, 1963. Jim Marrs put it this way in "Crossfire": "Crossfire: Bankers" Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy's attempt to reform American society involves money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the Constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then lend it to the Government at interest. He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11,110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of $1 and $2 bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency. Kennedy's comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominate Federal Reserve banks. A number of "Kennedy bills" were indeed issued - the author has a $5 bill in his possession with the heading "United States Note" - but were quickly withdrawn after Kennedy's death. According to information from the Library of the Comptroller of the Currency, Executive Order 11,110 remains in effect today although successive administrations beginning with that of President Lyndon Johnson apparently have simply ignored it and instead returned to the practice of paying interest on Federal Reserve notes. Today we continue to use Federal Reserve Notes and the deficit is at an all time high. Considering that the battle over U.S. monetary control by a monolithic central bank is an issue which dates back to the founding of the Republic, some assassination researchers believe Kennedy's little-noted efforts to reform the money supply and curtail the Federal Reserve System may have cost him much more than just the enmity of the all-powerful international bankers. President Kennedy inched farther out on a limb with big business on January 17, 1963, when he presented both his administration's budget and proposals for tax reform which included a tax cut. Kennedy's tax proposals included relieving the tax burden of low-income and elderly persons, revising tax treatment of capital gains for a better flow of capital funds, broadening the base of individual and corporate income taxes to remove special privileges and loopholes and even to do away with the oil depletion allowance. This action brought the beleaguered President into direct confrontation with one of the most powerful and single-minded groups in America - wealthy oilmen." From Don Gibson’s Battling Wall Street: pp. 84 - 87 "CHANGE IN DOMESTIC POLICY" President Kennedy’s promise to get the country moving again was a reaction to real problems in the 1953 to 1960 period. Actions taken to prepare for and to fight World War II had brought the economy out of the Great Depression, and the war was followed by an eight-year period in which the overall investment and growth performance was very good. The next eight years, leading up to Kennedy’s presidency, however had featured stagnation and three recessions. During the years affected immediately by Kennedy’s policies, 1962 to 1964 or 1965, the US economy returned to and even exceeded the rapid growth displayed in the pre-stagnation period of 1948 to 1953. What Kennedy attempted to effect, with some success, in the three years he was in office, was a moderate peacetime version of federal policy during World War II. That war was paid for primarily through borrowing and deficit spending on an unheard of scale. Government borrowing, lending, and spending generated a virtual industrial revolution, force feeding the development of new productive capacity in many industries. This growth provided the basis for the postwar prosperity that Kennedy thought was threatened by the recessions and stagnation after 1953. The huge expansion of debt and the growth in money supply during World War II did not lead to significant problems after the war, because these were accompanied by rapid growth in real production. President Kennedy did not seek anything close to the level of deficits incurred during World War II, and by almost any standard were modest. The deficits were combined with stable interest rates, an adequate expansion of money and credit, the investment tax credit, rapid expansion of some government programs, and, in terms of the general economic climate, Kennedy’s focus on the things that would generate future economic progress (e.g. various tax reforms, support for education, science and research). Although many of the reforms he sought in order to reduce speculation and to channel investment into productive purposes did not get through Congress, he could rightly claim some credit for the prosperity and progress evident in the 1961 to 1966 period. In an economy far more rooted in real production then today’s, there was a 5 percent growth rate by 1964. Wages and profits were rising, unemployment fell in 1964 to 4 percent, and there was a high level of optimism. It is also clear that when President Kennedy was killed in 1963, he viewed the progress already underway as something to be deepened and continued. This was not to be, and although it would be some years before the economy really began to unravel, there were some negative developments that appeared soon after Kennedy’s death. During the 1953 to 1960 period the Federal Reserve System had contributed to two recessions by reducing the availability of money, and this "tight money" policy played a role in the third recession of that period. Kennedy was determined either to prevent these downturns altogether or at least to reduce their severity. Also, during the 1950s interest rates had risen during most years and had more than doubled during the decade. The prime rate, charged by large banks to corporate clients, had been 1.5 percent from 1939 until 1947, even though the government was incurring some of the largest deficits in history. It rose during the 1950s and was 4.82 percent in 1960. Under Kennedy it declined slightly to 4.5 percent, where it remained until 1965. It then began rising, and by 1969 was at 7.96 percent, then thought of as an extremely high level. In his detailed analysis of economic trends from 1948 to 1969, John Kendrick concluded that the strong economic improvement which began in 1961 ended in 1966 and was followed by a three-year period of marked slowdown. The 1960s began with Kennedy’s aggressive program "to get America moving again." That program was accompanied by his emphasis on progress in science and technology, in production and the standard of living, and in the areas of social justice and international peace. With Johnson in the office the policy toward underdeveloped nations returned to the neo-colonialist direction that existed throughout most of the century. The purposes of the Alliance for Progress were abandoned in favor of those private interests that sought both dominance over and suppression of the economies of the undeveloped world. Kennedy’s sympathy with independent Third World leaders was replaced by renewed aggression. His efforts to shift some of the decision-making power away from organized private groups to the federal government came to an end. Johnson’s willingness to go to war was accompanied by timidity when it came to government’s role in promoting progress both within the United States and internationally. Economic progress was a central goal in Kennedy’s policies, something he viewed a good in itself and as a basis for social justice. During the 1960s, after Kennedy was killed, the atmosphere began changing. Writing in the early 1970s John W. Kendrick observed that in the 1960s: "The intellectual climate changed appreciably. No longer is economic growth accepted uncritically as a national goal. Increasing emphasis is being placed on the costs of growth, in the forms of pollution and other environmental deterioration and the social disorganization attributed by some in part to technological advance and other dynamic economic changes." The growing criticism of growth and technological progress that Kendrick refers to was in many ways more extreme than these comments suggest and went beyond a reasonable concern for air and water quality and specific problems such as chemical dumping. The criticisms often amounted to a rejection of the modern world and its peoples and cultures. It contrasted sharply with Kennedy’s outlook and goals. Much of this change in intellectual climate did not well up from the general population, but came from the same circles of power that appeared so often in the conflicts over Kennedy’s policies." [end of Battling Wall Street excerpt] Clearly then it develops that the enemies of John Kennedy were much more than a ragtag band of anti-castro CIA sponsored Cubans, or the Mob. Those are the false sponsors used to divert attention from the monied international power centers that were at the root of what culminated on 22 November 1963. This group includes the Morgan Banks and the Rockefeller Empire, in company with international bankers, and other like minded members from the Federal Reserve System. But, that's just MHO, FWIW.

Mr. Clark - Welcome to The Education Forum It's great to have an expert in American History aboard! Members: May, 2004... Press of Kansas). David Shanet Clark (Georgia State Univ.) has won the EI Woodruff Fellowship in Southern History. He will present ... www.historians.org/Perspectives/ Issues/2004/0405/0405memb1.cfm - 35k - Cached - Similar pages [PDF] 2004 Regional Conference Atlanta, Georgia 1File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML ... University Seceding From Secession, the Partition of Virginia and West Virginia, June 1863: Strategic Geographic Factors David Shanet Clark, Georgia State ... www.oah.org/meetings/2004regional/ 2004regionalprogram.pdf - Similar pages [PDF] 2004 Regional Conference Atlanta, Georgia 1File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML ... John Lewis at Ebenezer Baptist Church, Georgia Secretary of State Cathy Cox at the historic gold-domed Georgia State Capitol, and historian David Goldfield on ... www.oah.org/meetings/2004regional/2004regionalfinal.pdf - Similar pages

I still believe we should include the banking sector and Wall Street's financial houses [national and international], including the Federal Reserve Board and its members, as well as Allen Dulles' association via his Wall Street law firm. Kennedy was planning on dismantling the Federal Reserve during his next term of office, had he been allowed to run and become re-elected. Where would that have stood Dulles, and the special interest groups? Who's doing business with whom, anyway? Rockefeller is Standard Oil, Chase Manhattan is Rockefeller's bank. You mention the Texas Oilmen. Are they not doing business in the same way as the rest of these people? You need banks to finance your projects, handle your assets. They all come under the umbrella of the Federal Reserve, which isn't even a government entity, it's the bankers' entity. If anything, they should be included due to the Dulles/Wall Street connection.

************************************************************ "It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes up short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat." ************************************************************ Those are very stirring words to live by, John, and could also be attributed to the ones of dead, albeit, brave heroes. But, virtuous and honorable, none the less. A more simply phased declaration that I have adopted in recent years could be found equally applicable, in this case: "You can stand me up at the gates of Hell, but I won't back down!"

Hello John, I came across this article written by Charles Whelan for USA Today, September 1996. It pretty much summarizes what I've been complaining about since 1996, when my position at Brotman was eliminated, and I was offered the option of working per diem, sans benefits. That fall, in October, Cedars-Sinai also laid off 2500 of their work force. This was only the beginning of the largest down-sizing to hit the medical field since the mid to late 1980's. Supply-side economics, indeed! There were other changes I began noticing in 2000, such as the out-sourcing of help to India, by General Electric, one of our Gamma Camera manufacturers. If I needed to contact G.E. for service and repair, I would call the 800 number and be greeted by a distinctly English-accented person, who would ferry my request for service back to the U.S., and to the engineer servicing my area. Upon inquiring as to where my call was being received, I came to find out that it was somewhere in India. I wondered to myself, how many American positions G.E. had eliminated in order to maintain their "bottom line" by paying cheaper wages to their new employees in India. I also wondered how this impacted the American families of those laid off, and how many positions those laid-off U.S. individuals would have to maintain in order to make a living wage, or one equivalent to what they were making with G.E. at the time their jobs were terminated. This, of course, did not include the loss of medical benefits to themselves and their families. How many American families were being forced into marginalization due to this, not so new, concept of laissez faire being perpetrated upon us under this new euphemistic expression known as the "global economy"? Laissez faire, from what I'd gathered from my social studies classes, was something that existed for a period of time in U.S. history, but had never really taken hold as a permanent fixture of U.S. economic policy. My father also abhorred the concept as being un-American. Therefore, when these murmurings of global "this", and global "that", started entering the American lexicon, I began to question the intentions of these so-called Wall Street economists, and exactly whose general well-being they actually had in mind. It certainly wasn't the American employee, as they were being urged to become "entrepeneurs", and to "re-invent' themselves in this new "free market" atmosphere. I've often wondered how a production-line worker, or steel-worker, or one of the labor force was going to accomplish this feat when their employers were offering little to none, in the way of re-training skills or transitional employment opportunities for their displaced workers. All one has to do is look at Detroit and Pittsburgh, or any one of those factory towns in the East and Midwest to see what resulted from the "new global economic" system. This is what I believe contributed, in a large measure, to the erosion of the American family, with it's necessity for both parents having to hold down two to three jobs in order to live marginally, and/or just above, or at the poverty level, not to mention lack of affordable healthcare. When a family is forced to leave kids to fend for themselves while they go off to work, sometimes in swing shifts, but most likely from dawn to midnight, it leaves little room for tending to the basic nurturing needs of their children, let alone any quality time for teaching or helping them with their schoolwork. Kids become accustomed to being on their own and making up their own rules, as they go along. This doesn't always make for a productive environment in which to raise responsible and law-abiding citizens, with the parents' only role model being that of a working stiff, with little or no time for quality interaction due to their hectic work schedules. This along with school funding cuts, and the loss of after-school services as well as the Out Reach programs, have left little in the area of guidance for these "latch-key" kids, leading to the risk of them forming "gang" associations, and/or other negative dependencies. What is needed to correct this erosion of American families and the accompanying alienation of their children is as complex as the dynamics that have set the existing condition in motion. I have little to offer in the way of ideas because in the present political atmosphere I'd be derided as un-American, and socialistic as far as my values are concerned. All I can offer are these questions that I feel are pertinent to the problem, and regret that my knowledge base of economics, or any creative suggestions is limited to what I merely equate with as a New Deal, or a new Bretton Woods economic policy, of which I'd more than likely be castigated, by conservatives and neocons, for having antiquated, idealistic, and unrealistic yearnings of a better time and place. But I ask, how do you convince corporate America of the long term, detrimental effects their out-sourcing of jobs to third world nations has on the very fabric of life in America as we had come to know it during more prosperous times? How do you convince future parents of the problems they will face if their aspirations to the American Dream of the nuclear family can no longer be realized except at the expense of proper benefits or healthcare for their potential progeny, and of their own obligation to provide for them at an exhorbitant cost should they choose to pursue a dream that is becoming increasingly non-existent, and cost prohibitive? This is unfortunate because the Americans I'm referring to happen to make up the majority in this country, and are the ones most at risk in not realizing their true expectations for themselves or their children. Remember, this article was written in 1996, and the situation has exacerbated since that time, directly in proportion to the lack of articles addressing this subject matter, today. I hope this helps somewhat, John. The Age of Anxiety: Erosion of the American Dream - Cover Story USA Today (Magazine), Sept, 1996 by Charles J. Whalen IN HIS 1996 State of the Union address, Pres. Clinton remarked that we live in an Age of Possibility. For most Americans, however, today is the Age of Anxiety American Dream is in crisis. The 25-year Age of Prosperity that followed World War II has been replaced by an equally long period of rising economic insecurity for middle-class Americans. Conventional measures indicate the U.S. economy is strong. Unemployment and inflation are low, while profits and output have been growing steadily for the past three years. Nevertheless, the middle class is not optimistic. According to a survey conducted in the winter of 1994-95 for U.S. News and World Report, 57% of those asked said the American Dream is out of reach for most families, and more than two-thirds were worried that their children will not live as well as they do. The middle class has good reason to feel uneasy. In today's economy, most working families can not distinguish recession from recovery. Beneath the misleading surface prosperity are numerous alarming trends: Relentless downsizing. Since 1978, America's largest 100 companies have reduced employment by 22%. More than 1,000,000 workers have been laid off each year during the 1990s--about half from large private-sector firms. In January, 1996, alone, nearly 100,000 job cuts were announced. Today, one in three American families fears job loss in the near future. Permanent job separation. Unemployment in earlier decades often was cyclical and temporary. Jobs lost to downsizing and restructuring, though, are permanent and frequently come despite strong corporate earning, as is the case at both AT&T and Mobil. Moreover, professional and managerial workers no longer are immune--these categories accounted for about one-quarter of all layoffs in the 1991-93 period, approximately doubel their share from the early 1980s. Of the 2,000 AT&T employees dismissed in January, 1996, 60% were managers. Longer jobs searches and sluggish job creation. The average duration for a job search in 1995 was 2.5 months. A decade agol, it took 1.5 months; in 1967, 2.5 weeks. Pres. Clinton often talks about the 8,000,000 new jobs created since he entered the White House, but the pace of job creation has been approximately 40% below the level of America's two previous expansions. Declining fortunes. According to a report by the U.S. Census Bureau, workers losing jobs recently have seen their wages drop an average of more than 20% upon regaining full-time work. A 1994 Department of Labor study found that less than one of three displaced workers returns to full-time employment with equal or higher pay. Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, meanwhile, indicates that many affected workers never will see a return to their previous income levels. Explosive growth in contingent work. Part-time and temporary employment--"contingent" work--have been increasing much faster than the over-all rate of job growth since 1970. In the period 1970-90, total U.S. employment grew by less than 54%, but the number of persons working part time, yet preferring a full-time job, rose 121%, and the number of temporary workers increased 210%. Jobs provided through temporary employment agencies such as Manpower, Inc.--now the nation's second-largest employer--account for about 15% of all employment today. In contrast, during the period 1982-90, temporary agencies accounted for less than five percent of all jobs created. Wage stagnation. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the economic scene is the trend in the average. American's purchasing power. After adjusting for inflation, today's hourly wages give the average American less purchasing power than the average U.S. worker had in 1965. Although families have responded by sending more members to work and having them work longer hours, real median family income has fallen more than five percent since 1989. In 1995, total worker compensation--wages plus benefits--grew at its lower rate since this information was first collected in 1982, just barely keeping pace with inflation. Rising inequality. In the early post-World War II era, real annual income for most American families rose at about 2.5% a year; since 1973, though, income has been distributed more and more unequally. When U.S. families are ranked according to their incomes, the bottom 40% have seen their incomes fall since the mid 1970s; the middle 40% have seen their income stagnate; and the richest 20% have seen a substantial increase--with the most spectacular gains accruing to the weathiest families. The average corporate chief executive received 41 times the salary of the average U.S. worker in the mid 1970s; CEOs today receive incomes 225 times greater than the average worker. Increased moonlighting. In 1985, 5,700,000 Americans held two or more jobs; today, the number is over 7,700,000. Research by Richard Freeman of Harvard University indicates that no other industrial nation approaches the U.S. when it comes to multiple job holdings. Pres. Clinton learned about this firsthand when a worker responded to his boast about job creation by stating: "Don't tell me about the millions of new jobs created--I've got three of them and I'm not all that impressed." One easily can find scapegoats for today's middle-class anxiety. Ultimately, however, we all are responsible. At the root of the problem of economic insecurity is America's failure to adjust its public institutions and policies adequately to the emergence of a competitive, global economy. In the wake of World War II, U.S. prosperity was generated by a set of economic structures, strategies, and practices that were both complementary and mutually reinforcing. The economy was dominated by large and powerful enterprises that used mass-production techniques to manufacture American goods primarily for domestic consumption. As these companies experienced productivity gains, workers were rewarded with rising incomes and steady employment. Strong consumer demand, combined with timely jolts of fiscal and monetary assistance from the Federal government, kept firms profitable. The early postwar economic system was organized for stability, not adaptation. Like generals fighting the last war, economists and policy makers avoided another Great Depression, but missed the fact that the economy was transforming all around them due to increased international competition and rapid technological change. An early sign of the emergence of a new economy was that foreign firms made significant inroads into the markets of U.S. manufacturers during the 1970s--especially in steel, automobiles, consumer electronics, and apparel. Today, fierce international competition exists not just in well-established manufacturing industries, but in microelectronics and other high-tech fields, as well as services such as banking. Another aspect of the new economy is the globalization of production. For instance, software manufacturer Novell, Inc., is just one of the many firms flocking to Bangalore, India, where a skilled engineer or computer scientist costs 10% of what an American worker does. Other destinations now attractive to multinational enterprises seeking new production facilities include China and South America. Thanks to innovations in communications, production, and transportation, worldwide operations never have been easier to maintain. An added source of competitive pressure in the current economic environment can be traced to the evolution of a financial system dominated by money managers--those who oversee the assets of trusts, insurance companies, pensions, and mutual funds. The sole criterion by which these managers are judged is the maximization of the value of the investments entrusted into their care. Money managers have caused business leaders to become increasingly sensitive to the stock market valuation of their firms in recent years. The early postwar period was an era in which there was much truth to the expression "a rising tide lifts all boats." Policymakers interested in the well-being of the middle class needed only to focus on three over-all measures of economic performance: national output, employment, and inflation. The American Dream seemed secure as long as the Gross National Product was growing and unemployment and inflation were low. Much more is required though, in an era of international competition, worldwide production, swift technological change, and mutual fund managers. Today, no single statistic of overall national performance adequately can reflect economic reality--and no individual policy initiative can restore middle-class faith in the American Dream. Continued from page 1. The U.S. is capable of establishing an institutional framework that provides hard working citizens with economic opportunity, a rising standard of living, and the prospect of an even better life for their children. Moving society toward this objective requires a new look at a broad policy landscape. Among the issues that must receive fresh attention are jobs, welfare, and public investment. Jobs. Economists talk of two routes to industrial competitiveness: a "high-performance" path and a "low-wage" one. The former involves competition on the basis of innovation, product quality, and the development of new markets; the latter emphasizes a search for the least expensive inputs. Public policies used widely in Europe and the Pacific Rim encourage firms to follow the first of these approaches. In the U.S., though, a policy vacuum has caused most firms to follow the low-wage path. The middle class can not survive--and social harmony is threatened--unless America changes its competitiveness course. In Germany and Japan, taxes and subsidies encourage corporations to compete in ways that involve worker retention, retraining, and the upgrading of skills. A fresh approach to jobs in the U.S. requires similar initiatives, along with an end to subsidies for plant closings and relocations abroad. Washington also should make tax breaks and certain types of regulatory relief available to firms that foster employee participation in business decisions and allow workers to share in productivity and profitability gains. Public policy must address the fact that the U.S. has one of the worst labor-market adjustment systems in the industrialized world. Free markets alone are highly inefficient when it comes to managing a nation's transition from school to work, and can be even worse at managing worker adjustment to economic change. Moreover, many state and Federal programs in this area have been of very limited value. The apprenticeship and skill-certification programs used in Germany represent one set of worthwhile initiatives consistent with a high-performance path. Another successful approach to training can be found in Australia and France, where worker-education centers provide services funded by an employer training tax. There are effective job search and relocation-assistance programs in nations such as Sweden and Japan. America's approach to jobs in the late 1990s and early 21st century requires government, school, and industry collaboration that builds on creative efforts such as these. Also needed are complementary reforms that make pensions portable and ensure the accessibility of health care. Welfare. A new approach to welfare requires a basic minimum income for those unable to work, a consolidation of programs that provide assistance to those who can, and an acknowledgment that the public sector must serve as employer of last resort for those seeking, but unable to find, jobs. A single system of synchronized welfare and earned income tax-credit benefits--instead of the current "alphabet soup" of programs such as AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) and SSI (Supplemental Security Income)--would provide society with comprehensive public assistance and a safety net that does not penalize people who find work. A public commitment to serve as employer of last resort, meanwhile, reflects the fact that there are too many unmet social needs for the nation to accept long-term joblessness. Right or responsibility? The notion of treating employment as a "right" has been favored by many Democrats throughout the 20th century. More recently, Republicans have talked about work as a "responsibility" of the able-bodied. A middle-class perspective would look at it as both. Using the Depression era's Works Progress Administration as a model, Federal, state, and local officials easily could design programs that would enable unemployed citizens to support themselves by making a useful contribution to their communities. Elements of this approach to welfare are emerging within individual states. Programs that tie income assistance to community service work have been established or currently are under consideration in states including Massachusetts, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Virginia. In addition, Michigan and other states recognize that job-search, transportation, and child-care issues must be addressed as part of welfare reform. Public investment. No nation can prosper without making investments in its future. Public investments are vital not merely for their own sake, but as complements to private investment. Yet, Federal non-defense investments, when measured as a share of budget outlays or as a fraction of national output, have been in decline since the mid 1960s. A role for the public sector always has existed in the realm of science and technology. This role is more important now than ever due to the rise of what Lester Thurow of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology calls "brain-power" industries--such as microelectronics and biotechnology--that can be located wherever the necessary talents are coordinated. As in Europe, America's consortiums for advanced-technology projects should be established not by government alone, but through public-private alliances that require matching funds from participating firms. Numerous industrial nations combine clearly defined technology policies with national business-assistance networks. Although these networks often are modeled after America's agricultural extension service, U.S. budget pressures are causing many state and Federal legislators to call for cuts in what already are meager domestic investment activities. AMTRAK's recent purchase of high-speed trains from a French-British-Canadian consortium at a price of $611,000,000 should be recognized as evidence that the long-term cost of such belt-tightening can be substantial; AMTRAK received no bids from American manufacturers, and the other bidders were publicly supported European partnerships. Another crucial investment area is public infrastructure--not only public buildings, but communications, water, power, and transportation systems. According to Wallace Peterson of the University of Nebraska, decades of neglecting America's infrastructure have left us with more than a trillion dollars in necessary construction, repairs, and renovations. A 1996 study by the Manhattan-based Regional Plan Association indicates that the New York metropolitan region alone requires $75,000,000,000 in transportation and other improvements over 25 years to save it from outright decline. Perhaps the most significant Federal obstacle to greater public investment is an approach to budgeting that can not distinguish investment from consumption, one that treats biotechnology research no differently than a White House dinner party. To enable U.S. policymakers and the public to make sound judgments on budget matters, Washington needs more useful accounting techniques. A full balance-sheet approach--listing, as do private organizations, both assets and liabilities--is worth exploring. At the very least, Federal officials should follow the lead of our global competitors and establish a separate capital budget for tangible public investments. Revitalizing the American Dream will not be easy. The policy changes needed are many, and require public officials committed to addressing the problems faced by the nation's working families. Nevertheless, there is no other choice. The current economic situation is unstable, and anxiety can not be the defining characteristic of any society for very long. Middle-class insecurity is real and pervasive. The American Dream is indeed in crisis. Only sensible public action can put the U.S. on a new course. Dr. Whalen is resident scholar, The Jerome Levy Economics Institute, Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, N. Y. COPYRIGHT 1996 Society for the Advancement of Education COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group

John, this is wonderful news! I'm really happy for you, and wish you much well-deserved happiness with this long, over-due reunion. Family is so important. I wish you God-speed. Warmest regards, Terry

Thanks, James. I'm happy to say that I always find you to be a treasure trove of photographic history. You never let me down, that's for sure! All I can say is, lucky for Lisa that she was able to get up close enough to some of my heroes to know them personally. Yet in the end, she too was killed, simply because she was searching for the truth and finding it. May the memory of these brave individuals always remain in the minds and hearts of those of us who recognize the difference between what is the truth and what is deceit, and how this fascist regime, presently in power in the U.S., prefers to perpetrate the latter on its citizens, as well as, the rest of the "so-called" free world.

Hello All, I thought I had already introduced myself awhile back, but I seem to keep getting messages from John, reminding me to put up my bio. Anyhow, here it is, and I hope I did it right, this time. My name is Theresa C. Mauro, aka Terry Mauro. I graduated from Los Angeles City College with a A.A. in Radiologic and Nuclear Medicine Technology in 1976. I attended California State University Dominguez Hills in 1994 in an attempt to attain my B.S. in Nuclear Medicine, and left a year and a half later, due to the scheduling conflicts in my work and study loads. I also needed extra monetary income due to my newly acquired "single" status following my divorce in 1995. So much for upgrading my credentials for now, I suppose. But, there's always retirement to look forward to. I've been an ARRT [N]/CNMT/CTNM in Nuclear Medicine Technology since 1976-77. I reside in Culver City, CA USA, where I'm employed at Brotman Medical Center, and Western Imaging Center in Culver City, as a Nuclear Medicine Technologist. I have been a student of the assassination of John F. Kennedy from the day it occurred on November 22, 1963, when I was 18 years old. I became an avid student following the Warren Commission findings in June 1964, based on their absurd explanation of ballistic accuracy regarding Lee Harvey Oswald's alleged "guilt, by association", to a weapon of questionable identification (Mauser vs Carcano). I remember the early reports shortly following the shooting. And, although, at the time I hadn't totally equated the term "due process" with a citizen's right to representation in a court of law, I was still cognizant of the fact that this alleged "killer", was being repeatedly denied access to a lawyer by the obvious way in which the law enforcement officers were ignoring his requests, right on national television. This reminded me of what I'd learn to associate with the terms: vigilante tactics, mob rule, and a "kangaroo court". Then came the primitive sketches rendered during the questionable [iMHO] autopsy that had taken place at Bethesda, and distributed to the press, later in June 1964, following the release of the Warren Commission Report. From what I observed there appeared to have been a total disregard for what is known as forensic accountability, vital to investigations such as homicides. Due to the slipshod manner with which crucial evidence was carelessly handled, and in my estimation, damaged and contaminated beyond a reasonable doubt, there appeared to be absolutely no protocol concerning the chain of possession required when handling evidence, especially in a case of this magnitude, an assassination of the President of the United States. This has led me to doubt those government officials who are assigned to protect and secure the interests of their citizens, and their constituency. Especially when the very principles upon which the U.S. Constitution had been erected are so blatantly and publicly ignored. I am thankful to those earlier researchers for putting themselves on the line by questioning the results they found to be contradictory, and apparently false, in the Warren Report. It really drove home the point to the American people, who were just beginning to have doubts in their minds, as to whose vested interests were really being catered to from that moment in history to the present one, today. My other interests include my dear friend Donna's Lippitt Morgan horse farm in Florida, and the study of the Lippitt Morgan horse lineage from the original Justin Morgan horse to his present day heirs. This is an interest I hope to pursue into my retirement, 10 years from now, when I plan to relocate to Georgia, and my own 10 acre piece of farmland. Well, I hope this is a sufficient enough bio for you, John. Warmest regards, Terry

My name is Theresa C. Mauro. I've been a Nuclear Medicine Technologist for almost 30 years. Before that, I was studying medical technology, but became temporarily side-tracked by the Kennedy assassination, and the anti-war movement. I worked in show business as a Playboy Bunny for three years, followed by employment in the music publishing business, and eventually did back up vocals until 1973, when I decided to go back to school and finish my education. I started my internship in Nuclear Medicine Technology in 1976. I have been a student of the JFK Assassination since 11-22-63, and have been an avid student of the ballistics aspect, after viewing and questioning the sketches of the bullet trajectory released by the Warren Commission in June of 1964. The authors I hold in high esteem are Prouty, Weisberg, Lifton, Russell, P.D. Scott, Fetzer, Meagher, Garrison, and Lane. I don't consider myself a researcher, but merely a student. I try to maintain an open mind to any new information that may be revealed. I'm also aware of certain factions of disinformation, and the effects it inevitably attempts to wreak upon any civilized discourse taking place with-in and with-out the research community. My wish is that Mr. Simkins' forum will be strong enough to weather any adverse provocation and attack. This new venue holds great promise for those of us who seek the knowledge, the facts, or the closure, so necessary to the American psyche. Thank you for your time and consideration in creating this section for the Education Forum. Terry

Why do the American people put up with this? Because they're brain-washed and psy-op'd by their wide-screened, HDTV's and couldn't give a rat's patooty about anything else but their own immediate needs and comfort. Sorry Chris, but I believe the media moguls play a huge role in keeping the "dumbing down of America" a top priority in the overall agenda aimed at controlling the masses. Remember the fuzzy-cozy term, "couch potatoe"? Well I actually understood that to be an advertizing ploy to unify the majority of numb-nuts crowded around their TV's, by calling them vegetables, vegetating and getting fat, in front of their Big Brother tubes. In medical terms, a vegetative state is also a diagnosis of advanced organic brain syndrome. The spin doctors actually had the American people laughing while they were labelling them as, brainless! How sad to be known for being "slow on the draw", or slow learners, as you so aptly put it. I, for one, think it's frightening that the mentality of the majority of Americans are on par with the retarded sector of the population. What possible inventiveness or creative genius can emerge from the minions of hapless underachievers this country is hoping to offer up as future leaders in the world theater? The majority of them are so wrapped up in their commercialized lives, that any thought of what may be subliminally happening to their thought processes draws a total blank, if one were to attempt to draw their attention to it. No, all they want is their cable, their cellphones [another noise pollution gadget], and their gas guzzling SUV's [keeping us held captive, forever to the Middle Eastern politicos, and their territorial tribal disputes]. And, if you try to inform them of the connection of it all, and how they're being used, all you'll get are nervous giggles and blank denial from their meager excuse of what they perceive to be a knowledge base. Totally skewed, and at risk of becoming totally skewered.

The Military Industrial Complex would have been much better off with Barry Goldwater as President. That may have been so, but alot of people perceived Goldwater as being too radical at the time, too much of a right-wing patriot. He wasn't even considered to be an insider. LBJ, however, by passing the Civil Rights Act, produced the seeds for the destruction of the Democratic Party. He even conceded as much to Tom Wicker of the NYTimes that passing the Civil Rights Act would be the downfall of the party. This helped pave the way for the Republicans to regain the presidency with Nixon, by turning the original Dixiecrat Democrats of the South to vote Republican in opposition to the passing of the Civil Rights Act.

Steve Gaal couldn't access the forum yesterday, either.