David G. Healy

Good point. And as John Simkin and others have pointed out, the only sure outcome from this genocide is a new generation of Palestinians committed to the destruction of Israel. Israel and its apologists claim that launching rockets into their territory is unacceptable. Cigdem posted that 20 Israeli deaths have resulted in the last ten years. I have read it is 17 deaths in the past seven. Either way, it's about 2.5 deaths per year. This is a miniscule price to pay for the misery heaped on these people (Israel's neighbours) over the last 100 years. Fairminded observers can see this because they are not blinded by the religious hatreds evident in the posts of Bill K and David H. As this piece from Diane Mason outlines, the Jewish population in Palestine at the time of the first settlements in the late 19th century was about 3.3%, according to the census of the Ottoman Empire. http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2008/12/what-if.html The Palestinians have witnessed the colonial powers bestow their land to a people whose brutality and bellicosity have become a unique trademark. They have become not only strangers in their own land, but prisoners in a modern day concentration camp. Of course, Israel has yet to abide by UNSC Res. 242 and 338. They never will, imo. Israel always claims their security is at stake but they are the regional superpower, with nuclear weapons to boot. One must ask, how much security does Israel require? How dare Israel demand that the Palestinians renounce terror (i.e. resistance) and pay homage to their brutal overlords. Any who refuse to pay homage, like the democratically elected Hamas, are immediately denounced as terrorists by Israel and its mainstream media partners. By this definition, I would be classified as a terrorist, too. Moreover, for the last two or three years Israel has been pushing the US to attack Iran, brainwashing the world into believing that Iran is a threat to global security. What is evident however, is that it is Israel who is the greatest threat to global peace. An attack on Iran would enflame the entire region instantly and almost certainly gain the attention of Russia and China. Thus it is Israel who are willing to risk a global conflagration in order to suit their own selfish ends, once again. A mature and peace loving Israel would recognise that they were fortunate indeed to be granted a new home in the land of their biblical ancestors. They would behave like responsible residents in the region and respect the rights of their less powerful neighbours. They are the newest kid on the block, after all. Instead, they use cluster bombs and phosphorous. They slaughter the children of their neighbours. Israel, in their present form, have forfeited their right to exist, imo. "Israel, in their present form, have forfeited their right to exist, imo." --Mark Stapelton and you're suggesting WHAT, praytell?

Hi Bill.... Good article -- I think Cynthia McKinney can do nothing less than she's doing. I respect her decision to do what she thinks is right. At this particular time, I believe she's wrong. David

Right. Those who call it a "mess" as long as they are someone else's dead and wounded children do not care. Others certainly do. indignation, righteous or otherwise will not stem the flow of violence. Nor will the IRC... Neither will apathy, crying "there is no solution," or shouting "GO ISRAEL! GO!!" (sis-boom-bah!) The reason what the Red Cross has to say on the subject is important is BECAUSE they're not "a political organization" -- they have no stake in the SIDES you mentioned earlier...... If they're being blocked from providing humanitarian relief, and criticize the party doing the blocking, their voice carries much authority.......at least to ordinary human beings.......since it's a humanitarian and moral issue rather than a political or military or ideological or religious one. No solution? Another handwringer comment! IRCs' authority extends to the 'closet' port of entry to the conflict, from then on their admittance to the theater is up to the belligerents.... If the IRC wants to work in GAZA, that's Hamas responsibility, it's their territory. Don't expect Israelii operations to halt because of casualties (of any sort).... What do you think this is, soft ball?

Right. Those who call it a "mess" as long as they are someone else's dead and wounded children do not care. Others certainly do. indignation, righteous or otherwise will not stem the flow of violence. Nor will the IRC...

Eureka! the answer was right there in the article posted above (#46) Like I said who cares what the Red Cross (international or not) has to say? They're not funding or supporting either the belligerents.... so, make ready their funds, equipment and personnel. Most, I suspect, comes from the good old USofA...

'John Simkin' wrote: ... and Hamas and Hezbollah try to destroy the Jews AND Israel (as history [near and ancient] show, have been on the receiving end more than a few times).... and further, I DOUBT there will (ever) be permanent peace in the area.... wishful thinking by do-gooders... Proportionality? In a war for survival? You have to be kidding me... and who cares what the Red Cross has to say, they're not a political organization, they help clean up the mess.... dgh: hardly, the UK was not around when the old testament was written. An official source in Israel commented today: Hamas is responsible for the current situation (including Palestinian civilian deaths)! Evidently, when the citizens of GAZA rid themselves of Hamas, then expect peace. Which of course means, NO peace!

nah.... you're not too old for this....you're doing just fine. Tell me though, HOW do you get all those women OFF to work and school, and on-time I presume? David

you looking for a donation, Daniel? Or simply retiring, West Bank perhaps?

David, I'm deeply disappointed by your comment (if you ever care). At the end of my life, if I will have the chance to find the time to look back, there will be one thing I will mostly be proud of, that is; not having sided with tyranny regardless of its reason or source. an excellent position Cigdem, unless of course you and/or yours become victim of tyranny or terrorism. Siding seems to be a spectator sport these day's. Seems a bit one-sided here these days.... Care? You have no idea...

Gee, I wonder who? LMFAO!

Israel should carry on doing EXACTLY what it needs to do, PERIOD!

Leon Panetta is from Silicon Valley (San Jose, Ca.) He's probably more hep concerning technology (defense and commercial) of the day than anyone in Washington DC. A great choice in my estimation. A nice guy too boot!

He doesn't know much about the book publishing biz either..... Not that you need my second, but I thought I throw it in for good measure. Mr. Von Pein, for those unaware, was the internet PR expert recruited by the Vince Bugliosi crew (you remember him right?) promoting via the internet the following: Reclaiming History by Vince Bugliosi (and evidently DMyers. 2 incarnations) net result: the book publishing debacle of the century. The book was such an utter publishing failure, one wonders why Tom Hanks (and HBO) beat a path to Vin Bugliosis' door buying the author issue television/film rights. Keep up the good work Mr. Von Pein (amongst your OTHER aliases).

Imagine that a black politico out of Illinois dealing with a Chicago slum-lord.... I think I'll write a book! LMFAO! Say didn't the Chicago newspaper declare bankruptcy? One last print fling before the bytes take over, eh?

sorry to hear about your Dad, Tom. Not to mention the 'other' losses. Bunches, they only come in bunches! As far as the burgundy goes, anything other than Ernest and Julio GALLO will do! Take care, DHealy

Costella, Fetzer, Tink, Craig and I are members of a Yahoo group where I normally just lurk (and even then skim most posts) but since Costella started posting there I brought up this error. Though he replied his reposes didn’t answer Sherry's debunking of his erroneous claim. Though he gave me permission to repost his reply here it’s easier just to provide a link. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/6055 Ms. Sherry Gutierrez has a long way to go extracting 3D blood evidence from 2D source namely, Zapruder Film/Nix Films. What with the "rolling crime scene" (the Presidential limo) leaving the Elm Street crime scene (DP). BEST GUESS looms, not BEST EVIDENCE -- nice try, but no cigar! Even Dale *LIGHTWAVE* Myers can't help here....

many here have, they're available on the net.... if Jack White spots this thread perhaps he can send along a link (if that's what you need)

Have you read Covering the Body? In it, the author, Barbie Zelizer, as her doctoral thesis in journalism, argued that, in essence, the press has put itself forward as "the" authority in the Kennedy assassination since, after all, they were "there" and you and I weren't. She went on to cite the various instances where press attacked the Garrison investigation as well as Stone's JFK film because it didn't jibe with their own perceptions of the events that they were "participants" in, even if only as observers ... as if, if you will, someone riding in the press bus could actually tell that it was Oswald who fired the shots and that, by "knowing" this, they can also know that nobody else participated in the killing with him. It's a rather compelling argument, no pun intended (but effective nevertheless!).I think you would be arguing against the historical record to suggest that the WC was intended to salve rather than to solve. You do not read or hear about any of the former Commissioners or their counsel arguing that "we told you what you wanted to hear;" they - and those that argue their point of view - state unequivocably that not only did they "answer all the questions," but also provided all the answers. No stone was left unturned; no question left unresolved; it was the most intensive, thorough, complete and comprehensive investigation ever undertaken by the United States Government in any form or fashion up to that time. The only equivocation the WC itself offered that its investigation fell short of a solution to the crime is that it "found no evidence" of conspiracy, which of course morphed into the fanciful claim that since it "found" none, effectively then there was none. And so the press "sold" it, in many cases repackaged under its own umbra. While for a period following Watergate, many of those whose notions of government wholesomeness was eroded by the antics of those - I almost hesitate to use the word - conspirators in those activities actually supported the HSCA's formation, exactly unlike it supported (and actually undermined) Garrison's actions that ran counter to their own. HSCA's failure to perform publicly until its own Final Report; to pursue all leads until closure; or to reach a final conclusion - opining that the assassination "most likely was the result of a conspiracy," but failing to define or pursue it on its own (which, of course, it could not) left as big or bigger a void as the WC may have in the first place: the WC was at least certain in its faulty findings; the HSCA equivocated and left if for someone else to fill that void. For the purposes of the US press, the HSCA might as well never have been formed; Zelizer argued that it "opened more questions than it started out to answer," was thus "ineffective," and thereby marginalized by the press: whatever it may have added to the discussion, for the purposes of mainstream journalism, it never existed. What keeps the murders from being resolved is thus, in part, the fault of the media which does not want its authority undermined or repudiated: if they say that Oswald did it and did it alone - and can you name a single "mainstream" production that suggests otherwise? - then he must have, and to suggest otherwise is anathema to the authority and legitimacy of the media. The media has jurisdiction everywhere: when Dan Rather hauls Walter Conkite out of his coffin to once again reassure the nation that "the Warren Commission got it right," there are millions of people watching; when a Posner or Myers or Bugliosi upholds the mainstream's point of view, their book is hailed as a "monument" upholding the truth. When you or I or Mark Lane or Harold Weisberg or E. Howard Hunt on his supposed deathbed tells us something different, it barely - if it even does at all - deserves below-the-fold mention on page 52 of a 50-page newspaper. What is "jurisdiction," whether or not the legally prescribed entity to pursue a legal recourse believes there to be such recourse, if the non-jurisdictional media decides to try the case in print? When Garrison named Shaw, et al., as conspirators, he was taken down in the press; when the trial showed "a conspiracy," though not necessarily involving Shaw, et al., it somehow "proved" that there was "no conspiracy" involving anyone. When the HSCA could not define it, and the Justice Department failed to take up the gauntlet of further investigation thrown down by the HSCA - and indeed provided additional argument against any such conspiracy - it underscored the non-existence of conspiracy, named or unnamed. The "mainstream" considers Garrison a fraud, the HSCA a non-entity. And the beat goes on. There are at least six likely conspirators in the crime against Officer Tippit who are still alive today. That none was in any way identified in, for example, a "show-up" is only because none were brought into one; the opportunity never arose to so identify them by eyewitnesses. Would they have? It's a guess, but it's also a possibility. Their further lack of identification may simply be because, to date, the conspiracy was successful in what it intended to do, namely to not only do the deed, but also to shield the names of the participants from investigation. I wish I could think of the journalist who, at the end of a no-conspiracy show, that the lack of evidence attests to "the fact that there was no conspiracy ... or that it was a very good one," which I submit is ultimately the intent of any conspiracy and any murder: to not be discovered. It's even easier not to be discovered when nobody wants to look for you and in some cases, hopes nobody ever finds one. What credibility would CBS or the New York Times have if - after 45 years of hawking the "lone gunman" theory, calling critics "crackpots" and "frauds" and "parasites" ("liars," according to Bugliosi), and arguing against any "conspiracy" that didn't begin and end with Lee Harvey Oswald - it was suddenly faced with a different reality? Would it call for those conspirators' meeting swift justice or call for any such investigation's meeting a swift end? You don't think that the lack of any other "named conspirators" proves that Oswald "must have done it," do you? Wasn't that Henry Wade's modus operandi: if you don't have anyone I think is a better suspect, then the one that I favor must've been the one who did it?" Twenty men so far have been released after being sent away for a crime DNA now tells us that they didn't commit, despite Wade's gaining a conviction. Does this perhaps tell us that some people only collect the evidence that they want and feel they need to the total disregard of anything else? Should we then have faith in the Oswald "conviction" that was already decided when the manhunt for the President's killer ended upon Oswald's capture? Is a bird in the hand always worth two in the bush? First-rate work, Duke Lane.... EXCELLENT!

I think it's a safe assumption, that if this case ended up in a court of law today, Oswald would walk. (Unless the 6th Museum was well represented in the jury box, of course). Tell ya what Bill, what makes the same amount of sense as a get-a-way bus, is this: Oswald was given a ride to his rooming house in a DPD squad car. Why not? There's testimony of one outside his rooming house beeping (for him?) within minutes of Oswald arriving there... So, why not, it (possibly) dropped him off?

David, I almost forgot that several pages back you were asked if you have ever done any film composits on Kodachrome II 8MM or 16MM film??? Enlighten me if you will. Thanks, Bill Miller You wait with baited breath for everything I post, soooooooooo -- I'm kinda waiting for you to dazzle me with your brilliance, son..... No sense going into film composing issues unless you display a modicum of knowledge concerning the subject matter. 35+ years of experience and I've published concerning the matter, have you? Now feel free in having Gary give you a hand, mount some sort worthy response, eh. For that matter any of those other trolls you hang with. I've been pushing wannabes the likes of you aside for years, you bore me and won't waste my time, eh!

KK, At first glance you are correct, but if you were to actually learn about what would need to be done in 1963/64 to alter films of this size and type, then you'd find yourself hard pressed to continue on with the alteration talk. For instance, have you ever really considered that every film frame of Zapruder's has varying degrees of motion blur in them from either the limo moving, Zapruder moving his camera, or both. You simply cannot draw in motion blur to the degree the film captured it. You simply cannot cut and paste from another frame because no two are the same. These things an expert could spot in a New York minute. Also, Kodachrome II film is made for outdoor light. It would call for artificial light to try and recreate these illusions you speak of and then color shifts between sunlight exposure and artifical light would also be detectable by experts. Bill Miller more nonsense from those with a Lone Nut/SBT/LHO did-it-all-by-his-lonesome agenda, not to mention: the uninitiated in optical film composing and composition..... what-a-motion-film klutz you are! New York minute? ROFLMAO, next we'll hear you were Robert Groden (the Amateur Optical Film Lab Assistant) assistant! Carry on!

We were headed in the direction that would better explain where Arnold's feet were, but you stopped cooperating in separating what we could agree on from what we still needed to discuss. Jumping from point A to point Z without dealing with what's in between is a very poor research practice that the photo and film alteration supporters like to use. Some of us take the subject serious enough not to make the same mistakes that we have seen others make. How is my asking that we separate the understood and agreed on points from those that are not understood and agreed upon? You claim to be winning when it is not a competition and yet you don't seem to show an interest in walking through the evidence to see if anything is missing by either side. Here is those awful demands that you claim were made to you ... "Duncan, would you mind giving the forum at least a couple of general references that make you believe that Arnold was proven to be a ghost. Thanks!" "So lets try it again and you explain what it is exactly about you and Jerry's gifs that support one another???" "So before we go on and deal with Arnold's floating in mid-air as you see it to be, can we agree that what was said above was a fair assessment of the situation so far??? If not, then let us be specific in explaining what you do not agree with." "Are there any principles that you do not understand or agree with yet before we move on and if so, please detail them so we can discuss them." "Now back to the previous post I made .... Is there anything I said so far in that post that you do not understand and/or disagree with? If so, then please detail what you don't understand or agree with ... and why?? Thanks, Bill Miller" Yes Duncan ... these were such ridiculous demands to someone who wishes to see them as that. This response of yours is a clever one to make sometimes, but not very bright to use here when I said, "Is there anything I said so far in that post that you do not understand and/or disagree with? If so, then please detail what you don't understand or agree with ... and why??" So unless there can be some twisted way for you to re-write the English language ... I didn't ask for a yes man with you. What I did ask for was your cooperation in us separating what we understood and agreed on from what we didn't understand and disagreed on. Your attempt to try and make that approach into my seeking out a 'yes man' doesn't seem to fit. Would you like to rethink your comment and try it again? Bill Miller PS: Seeing how data has been posted to show that the Intermembral Index of a primate doesn't match that of a human being and this about a figure seen in a UPI print concerning the JFK assassination, then tell me the purpose of you posting an alleged Sasquatch film in as thread that you don't appear to want to discuss the evidence pertaining to a JFK assassination matter??? Perhaps I misunderstood. In Duncan's post (stabilized .gif animation) above, is that YOU Bill, in the monkey suit?

rumor has it, Mr. Vernon has left Antioch, Ca. (putting it nicely), moved back to the New Orleans area (his stomping ground for ages). A little Louisiana due diligence reveals the breadth of Mr. Vernon and his Louisiana business/corporate dealings.

I think the "mod's" should remove Denis Pointing from this board for 30 days, the term "xxxx" is used in above link.... I believe KBecket posted to this very "xxxx" subject, in this thread even... Evidently, Denis can't control himself....

In my view, until someone is able to distinguish the difference between a speculative opinion and history ... they will never know the truth. Bill Miller "speculative opinion" duh, ALL opinion even informed opinion is speculation; history? Whose history praytell, the victors or those wanting answers? They way I see it, you can't determine what to distinguish. Like most, when in doubt, fallback on the WCR, you're not unique. Quite common in fact.