David G. Healy
-
Posts
3,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David G. Healy
-
-
"The real scandal of the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination is that no reconstruction of the event makes sense. We know the event happened in one way rather than another. But the evidence is discordant and irreconcilable at a primitive level. The meaning of this discordance is unclear, but the simplest explanation is that not all the "evidence" is really evidence.
What is crystal clear, however, is that more than 43 years after the event we don't know what happened."
So writes Josiah Thompson in his succinct style in a review of Vince Bugliosi's new book that appeared in the June 3rd edition of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07154/790575-148.stm
Apologies if this was posted elsewhere.
Thanks for posting Thompson's impressive review. I thought this passage was very good:
From the very beginning, the event has been left to advocates of one view or another. The Warren Commission put together a case for the prosecution against Oswald. It failed when critics showed its conclusions were not justified by the evidence it considered.
The same could be said for the House Select Committee, which reached a conclusion diametrically opposed to that of the Warren Commission.
What this case doesn't need is more advocacy on the part of lawyers like Posner and Bugliosi. They squeeze the evidence into one mold or another, offering opinions on this or that, buttressed by whatever they choose to tell us, ignoring the rest.
What this case does need is some old-fashioned, historical scholarship. It's a shame and a waste of great time and effort that Bugliosi decided to contribute to the problem and not to its solution.
Both Bugliosi in his title "Reclaiming History" and Tink Thompson in his conclusion that "What this case does need is some old-fashioned, historical scholarship" are wrong, in that this case is still legally classified as an unsolved homicide, and not totally in the historic realm, yet.
BK
the time for scholarship (historical or otherwise) has long passed...
Yep!
Since virtually every other approach has resulted in failure, perhaps one should try the old:
Forensic; ballistic; pathological; & physical fact approach at problem resolution.
The resulting answer will no doubt NOT be what many here wish to here.
Frankly Tom -- whether or not LHO was a *wittingly or unwittingly* participant means not much to me. It's the OTHERS I'm curious about
-
"The real scandal of the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination is that no reconstruction of the event makes sense. We know the event happened in one way rather than another. But the evidence is discordant and irreconcilable at a primitive level. The meaning of this discordance is unclear, but the simplest explanation is that not all the "evidence" is really evidence.
What is crystal clear, however, is that more than 43 years after the event we don't know what happened."
So writes Josiah Thompson in his succinct style in a review of Vince Bugliosi's new book that appeared in the June 3rd edition of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07154/790575-148.stm
Apologies if this was posted elsewhere.
Thanks for posting Thompson's impressive review. I thought this passage was very good:
From the very beginning, the event has been left to advocates of one view or another. The Warren Commission put together a case for the prosecution against Oswald. It failed when critics showed its conclusions were not justified by the evidence it considered.
The same could be said for the House Select Committee, which reached a conclusion diametrically opposed to that of the Warren Commission.
What this case doesn't need is more advocacy on the part of lawyers like Posner and Bugliosi. They squeeze the evidence into one mold or another, offering opinions on this or that, buttressed by whatever they choose to tell us, ignoring the rest.
What this case does need is some old-fashioned, historical scholarship. It's a shame and a waste of great time and effort that Bugliosi decided to contribute to the problem and not to its solution.
Both Bugliosi in his title "Reclaiming History" and Tink Thompson in his conclusion that "What this case does need is some old-fashioned, historical scholarship" are wrong, in that this case is still legally classified as an unsolved homicide, and not totally in the historic realm, yet.
BK
the time for scholarship (historical or otherwise) has long passed...
-
Evan Marshall' wrote
As some one who has always been faithful to his wife of almost 40yrs I have no respect for JFK as a father or hasband. However, that does not diminish the enormity of the crime or who did it. Who knows how much was lost that might have shed light on the Why because of over protection of his image.you jest..... covering up his infidelity (which wasn't covered up for long) obstructed in the investigation of conspiracy, LHO as a Lone Nut? Nonsense!
Who you respect regarding fatherhood and husband rating is your business, when it comes to JFK conspiracy possibility, immaterial...
-
Forgive me for jumping around in my replies -- I'm exhausted and about to collapse into bed before resuming my book tour. Myra -- the source on Bobby's last words was Goodwin's memoir "Remembering America." But he makes clear that this was told to him by a third party -- he was upstairs in a hotel room at the time.
Re: Bugliosi, even though I'm fuming now about a dismissive and nasty joint review of our books in the Boston Globe, I actually think the coincidental publication dates helps reopen the JFK debate. So it's good for everybody. (And, Brian, Wrone's review of my book was wonderful consolation, since I have great respect for his work.)
Charles -- if you're saying that B's rhetoric tends to be inflated and tendentious and bombastic, I completely agree.
And yes, I was entering speculative territory when I suggested that Bobby might have worried about provoking a civil war by aggressively confronting his brother's killers immediately after Dallas. This theory was, as I say in the book, floated by MS Arnoni in Minority of One in Jan. 1964, and I found it intriguing enough to entertain as a possible motive for Bobby's silence (but not the main one).
Dawn, thanks for your comments on the book. And no I don't believe Bobby intended to sabotage Garrison in the beginning -- he was genuinely curious about what G was digging up. And no I don't believe RFK was pushing the assassination efforts against Castro (and neither did Castro believe this, as I explain in the book).
More later!
excellent work, Mr. Talbot!
-
I just read Mr. Bugliosi’s rather severe criticism of my work on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board, where I served initially as a Senior Analyst on the Military Records team, and was eventually promoted to the position of Chief Analyst for Military Records. Specifically, he took issue with my conclusion in a 1998 research memo that 2 different brains were examined following President Kennedy’s death:
-President Kennedy’s brain, on Monday, November 25, 1963; and
-A second (fraudulent) brain---not that of President Kennedy---during the period between November 29-December 2, 1963.
Based upon testimony and interviews conducted by the Warren Commission staff, the HSCA staff, and the ARRB staff, I concluded that President Kennedy’s severely damaged brain, which provided unassailable evidence of President Kennedy being shot from the front, was examined by Navy pathologists Humes and Boswell less than 3 days after the conclusion of the autopsy on the body, and was photographed by Navy civilian photographer John Stringer on that day, November 25, 1963.
I concluded that Stringer’s photographs of JFK’s brain, which would have provided proof that JFK was shot from the front and that a bullet exited the back of his skull, were suppressed by the Federal government and are not the brain photographs found in the autopsy collection in the National Archives today.
I also concluded that a second brain---not President Kennedy’s---was examined by Humes and Boswell between November 29 and December 2, 1963, that Army pathologist Pierre Finck (the “outside man” involved in the autopsy, in more ways than one) was invited to this second examination, and that an unknown Navy photographer (not John Stringer) photographed the specimen being examined. It is the photographs of this fraudulent specimen, I concluded, which showed a completely different pattern of damage than JFK’s brain (namely, rear to front), that are in the autopsy collection in the National Archives today. It is my firm belief that Dr. Finck, who arrived late at the autopsy on the body Friday night after the brain had been removed, and who was excluded from the review of the first draft of the autopsy report on Saturday, November 23, was used as a “dupe” for purposes of “authenticating” the photographs of the second brain specimen introduced into the official record, in the event that was ever required.
In summary, my findings that Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell participated in an officially sanctioned coverup of the medical evidence are based upon several foundations:
-A rigorous timeline analysis of when various persons recalled meeting to conduct “a brain exam” and when they examined brain tissue revealed that there were two separate events.
-Navy photographer John Stringer, under oath before the ARRB, disowned the brain photographs in the Archives, because (1) they were taken on a type of film he did not use; (2) they depict “inferior”” views of the underside of the brain which he was certain he did not shoot; and (3) the photographs of several individual sections of brain tissue that he did photograph were not present.
-Retired FBI Agent Frank O’Neill, who was present at the autopsy on the body on November 22, testified to the ARRB that the brain photos in the National Archives could not possibly be of President Kennedy’s brain, because there was too much tissue present; O’Neill testified that more than half of President Kennedy’s brain was missing when he saw it at the autopsy following its removal from the cranium, and his objections to the brain photographs in the Archives were that they depict what he called “almost a complete brain.” Furthermore, both O’Neill and Gawler’s Funeral Home mortician Tom Robinson told the ARRB staff that a large portion of the rear of President Kennedy’s brain was missing, and each man unequivocally demonstrated the location of the missing brain tissue in my presence by dramatically placing his right hand on the back of the right side of his own head, behind the right ear. In contrast, in the brain depicted in the Archives photographs, the right cerebellum is completely intact, and the occipital lobe of the right cerebrum is largely intact.
This concludes a brief---and accurate---summary of the research memo that Mr. Bugliosi takes such objection to.
Now, I will address Mr. Bugliosi’s criticisms.
He called my research memo of June 1998 “obscenely irresponsible,” and yet admits that he did not even try to contact me to discuss his objections to it. I will let the reader decide who was “obscenely irresponsible.”
The tone of Mr. Bugliosi’s attack on my work is unbalanced---it is pejorative and sarcastic, in the extreme. In attempting (unsuccessfully) to rebut my work, he used a combination of ridicule, distortion, omission, and circular reasoning. There is nothing scholarly about his attack on my work, in contrast to the tone of my research memo, which attempted to interpret all of the relevant evidence in a balanced fashion.
When one strips away the ridicule and ad hominem attacks, Bugliosi is essentially saying that because he knows that there was only one brain exam following JFK’s autopsy, that any time I find evidence that indicates otherwise, that I am wrong and engaging in fantasy.
Anyone who reads this section of Bugliosi’s book (pages 434-447), and nothing else, will be unaware that virtually all of the objections he raises to the logic of my hypothesis are already addressed in my research memo of 1998.
Bugliosi attempts to smear me with the use of the word “insane” three different times, as well as with the use of the words “crazy” and “aberration.” This is nothing more than a cheap prosecutor’s trick, employed in court every day by prosecuting attorneys presenting a one-sided version of the evidence in an adversarial proceeding, in an attempt to impugn any evidence that contradicts their own argument. Anyone who reads the relevant pages in his book will recognize Bugliosi’s sophistry for what it is: a desperate attempt to discredit the opposition’s evidence.
I learned long ago that when an opponent cannot successfully counter his opposition’s arguments with logic, he will often employ ridicule and personal attacks. In doing so, Bugliosi has engaged in “the last refuge of a scoundrel,” has revealed the depth of his desperation, and has done nothing to advance the scholarly debate of the JFK assassination in this country.
I can only conclude that Mr. Bugliosi must have felt that his personal belief system (supporting the Warren Commission’s basic conclusions) was severely imperiled by my work, for him to use such scurrilous tactics to try to discredit my hypothesis.
I therefore implore and encourage anyone who is intrigued by the subject of the post-autopsy examination and photography of President Kennedy’s brain to first read my 32-page research memo (it is not 15 pages long, as Bugliosi claims) entitled “Questions Regarding Supplementary Brain Examination(s) Following the Autopsy on President John F. Kennedy,” dated June 2, 1998, before you reach your own independent conclusion about what happened in 1963. Mr. Bugliosi’s invective cannot be properly evaluated without reading, for yourself, that with which it takes issue. My research memo can be obtained at minimal cost from the JFK Records Collection at Archives II in College Park, Maryland.
Doug,
can I repost the above to alt.conspiracy.jfk/alt.assassination.jfk?
David Healy
Great Zapruder Film Hoax
-
Kathy, the KKK is a multi flavoured multi layered cake ever shifting, splintering and regrouping. 'The Inner Sanctum' or the true invisible empire is a domain not on display on moon lit nights by the lake. It is a dedicated, educated, elite. They have an agenda that historically can be traced back over a hundred years. Some (perhaps mythologically, 'romantically') date it to the Germanic-Roman wars.
The original Klan in question here, dates to the Civil War. It's multi layered structure allows for 'non-membership' as a strategy. Visibility is a strategy.
What it does do is provide a repository of what Marx's terminology would call an aspect of the 'Lumpen proletariat'. This is a grouping that is dependent on ignorace of self, and the world as it is, and motivated by base human reaction. This is the malleable Einsatzgruppen member, the torchlight marcher, the foot soldier, the worshipper at the foot of the Leader. For a sense of existance they congreagate visibly. Behind the scene are Funders, Think Tanks, Alliances ad infinitum which one is not readily, if at all, privy to.
Exactly how many "General Grade" Officer's is it that have died in Iraq?
How About Afghanistan?
There are definitive reasons as to why it was often referred to as the "Invisible Empire".
Not unlike military service, there are many "dumb-XXXXX" out there who are willing to "die for the cause".
Merely because someone else told them what the cause was and they do not have adequate sense to figure our for themselves exactly who's "cause" it is that they are getting killed for.
Edited language.
wouldn't want to offend late high-school and college/university age students who are certainly old enough to die in uniform, with a few choice swear words that rise to the occasion, eh?
-
I propose that Mr. Burton be removed as a "moderator".
He has accused me of frivolity, insincerity, and dishonesty in reply
to a serious posting I made.
He is clearly using his position to threaten me in favor of his known
bias against me.
Jack
Mr. Simkin,
Sorry, but I felt that I could no longer remain silent RE: Jack White's request to sanction Mr. Burton.
Since registering at the Education Forum, I was quite enamoured of the site's (fairly) free and open dialogue, which included a variety of personalities and usually intelligent discourse. It is not often that the mix of personalities posting here could be found continuing in polite discourse, over any length of time, without descending into something less than polite conversation, given the topics discussed and the emotional attachment many seem to have.
Mr. Burton has, IMO, done very well, as he has been both moderator and an involved discussant in many of these postings. It would be a shame to remove him.
Mr. White has on more than one occasion baited threads with seemingly innocent 'questions' about images he posted, only to provoke and on occasion, insult anyone responding. The Political Conspiracy Forum has become dominated with Apollo hoax threads, which do little but descend into open warfare. Many have replied in steamed reposts, but I do sense the hand of Mr. White in provoking at least some of this.
Mr. Burton has been amoung the several (including me) who have found the pro-Apollo hoax posts to be specious and provocational, adding little more than a spiral into base arguments without any real merit.
I would not deny anyone the opportunity to express their freedom of speech. But the whole baiting, specious claims, lack of cogent defense of claims made, provocations made to anger reposters, descending into childish arguments, and then, when the fruits of such behavior results in such a request as Mr. White has made, it would seem, to me at least, that the whole 'Apollo Hoax' theme must go the way of the slide rule, for a while at least. It is a waste of good dicussion space. I read these threads (for entertainment purposes in a kind of of sensational glee, to see the repostes spiral out of control in some sort of tabloid like caricature) and have realized that the domination of this forum by this topic will certainly condemn the forum to obscurity and marginalization sooner or later.
I hope that you keep Mr. Burton as moderator and can figure out something to do concerning the Apollo Hoax threads, before the site becomes terminally infected.
Thanks.
some how we'll muddle through, either way.....
-
It's a pleasure reading your material, Tim.
I'll be in Silicon Valley in 10 days, on to Oroville-Chico-Paradise
area in 3 weeks, back to Quincy July 25 for 7 days -- need anything, drop a note.
...you're not walking alone -- peace friend
David Healy
-
"Bugliosi calls the dean of conspiracy buffs, Mark Lane, “unprincipled” and “a fraud.” "
Mark Lane was allied through connections with CORE. As early as june '61 (at the time when the Southern Intelligence Network was put in place and the FPCC came to their attention, prompting the infiltration and disruption that followed) Lane was identified as a de-segregationist, being arrested along with CORE lawyer P. E. Sutton in New Orleans as part of the beginning of the freedom rides.
http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...06|1|1|1|16188|
IOW Mark Lane, long before the assassination was targeted by the right wing.
Naming Mark Lane as a primary CT'er ignores the (more) primary sources like Revilo Oliver, Dan Smoot, Walker, Ned Touchstone et al.
I'd like to see how Bugliosi handles the right wing in his book.
Not in depth, if that at all. Some say, he's one!
-
-
Rather than taking Bugliosi on and start a debate over each item of evidence and issues he brings up, why not just take David Talbot's perspective, that whatever happened in Dallas, even if one lone assassin killed JFK, it was still a conspiracy.
The evidence is overwhelming, if the lone-assassin is Lee Harvey Oswald, then it wasn't just a conspiracy but a more specific covert operation, and coup.
If all the evidence Bugliosi gathers points to Oswald, then that points to conspiracy too.
In addition, whenever there is a real head - on debate over the assassination, instead of allowing them to frame the debate between LN vs. CT, we must refocus the primary issue to the withholding of crucial JFK assassination records by the government, despite the JFK Act. If Oswald did it alone because he was psycho, then why are the JMWAVE records still being withheld?
All of the media attention given the debates Bugliosi is fueling should be funnelled into the overall theme that the Kennedy assassination remains unresolved, and it should be wrapped up while it still can be.
The resulting publicity of all this media attention will help generate Congressional Hearings on the JFK Act as well as opening other legal avenues that can generate new evidence and witnesses in the case.
Arguing over the details of Dallas will help increase the generation of noise and media buzz, and maybe set some people straight about the facts, but we should not lose sight of the overall and attainable short range goals of obtaining new evidence and new witness testimony.
We don't want to win an argument with Bugliosi, like brownie points in a school forensic debate, we want to solve the crime in our lifetime.
BK
excellent, Bill Kelly....
-
I believe in a free flow of information, for better or worse, and have tried, however imperfectly, to practice what I preach. The question is, does Mack believe in open, informed debate?
Paul, It doesn't matter how many copies Zapruder had made of his film ... how many copies any Federal branch made ... or how many bootlegs Garrison and others made - they all show the same event. And while I too, believe in a free flow of information ... it seems that some folks do not see it as free flowing information when it doesn't support their position. Then what seemingly soon follows with them is a free flow of disinformation.
Bill Miller
Sounds like your working a apprenticeship at the 6th floor museum
-
Editing correction to subtitle to topic -- should read: Chosen by Kennedys to examine autopsy evidence.
John K. Lattimer, Urologist of Varied Expertise, Dies at 92
By DENNIS HEVESI
The New York Times
May 13, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/nyregion...amp;oref=slogin
John K. Lattimer, a prominent urologist, ballistics expert and collector of historical relics who treated top-ranking Nazis during the Nuremberg war crimes trials and was the first nongovernmental medical specialist allowed to examine the evidence in President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, died Thursday at a hospice near his home in Englewood, N.J. He was 92.
His death was announced by his daughter Evan Lattimer.
For 25 years, Dr. Lattimer was a professor and chairman of the urology department at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University.
Dr. Lattimer was credited with helping to establish pediatric urology as a discipline, developing a cure for renal tuberculosis, writing 375 scientific papers and representing the United States at the World Health Organization.
His interests, however, spanned an array of fields. His 30-room, 1895 Federal-style home in Englewood was a virtual military museum until his collection went into storage last year. Its third floor was lined with medieval armor, Revolutionary and Civil War rifles and swords, a pile of cannonballs, World War II machine guns and German Lugers, and drawings by Adolf Hitler.
Dr. Lattimer had been fascinated by weapons since his childhood visits to his grandparents’ farm in Hubbardston, Mich., where he spent summer days hunting. That interest took a more serious turn during World War II, when he treated hundreds of casualties as an Army doctor during the Normandy invasion.
He became a ballistics expert and, after the killing of President Kennedy, a student of assassinations. In his collection was a blood-stained collar that President Lincoln wore to Ford’s Theater the night he was shot.
Dr. Lattimer wrote several articles in medical journals describing experiments he had conducted with rifles, scopes and ammunition similar to those used by President Kennedy’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. Then, in 1972, the Kennedy family chose Dr. Lattimer to be the first nongovernmental expert to examine 65 X-rays, color photos and black-and-white negatives taken during the autopsy.
A front-page New York Times article, with a photograph of Dr. Lattimer, quoted him saying that the images “eliminate any doubt completely” about the validity of the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Oswald fired all the shots that struck the president.
Dr. Lattimer’s wartime experiences also prompted him to write a somewhat controversial book based, in large part, on his assignment to the medical team at the Nuremberg trials. The book, “Hitler’s Fatal Sickness and Other Secrets of the Nazi Leaders” (Hippocrene Books, 1999), records his professional impressions of the men and their conditions.
It includes a long chapter concluding that Hitler suffered from advanced Parkinson’s disease — probably the “faster moving post-encephalitic” type, Dr. Lattimer wrote — based on reports of Hitler’s tremors, first in the left hand, then spreading to other limbs, and his well-documented attacks of rage.
Dr. Lattimer theorized that the disease prompted him to make bizarre judgments that eventually cost Germany the war. Among the more macabre relics that Dr. Lattimer collected, in this case from his service at Nuremberg, is a glass ampoule that contained the dose of cyanide taken by Hermann Göring, the Luftwaffe commander, to commit suicide rather than go to the gallows.
And although there is some dispute about its authenticity, Dr. Lattimer also had in his collection what is said to be Napoleon’s penis, which a long tradition holds was removed by the priest who administered the last rites. Dr. Lattimer bought it at an auction in 1969. Asked about its authenticity, his daughter said: “Of course, the French don’t want it here. But there’s ironclad provenance.”
John Kingsley Lattimer was born in Mount Clemens, Mich., on Oct. 14, 1914, the only child of Irvie and Gladys Lenfesty Lattimer. His family moved to New York when he was 2.
Besides his daughter, of Kansas City, Mo., Dr. Lattimer is survived by his wife of 59 years, the former Jamie Hill; two sons, Jon, of Kona, Hawaii, and D. Gary Lattimer, of Honolulu; and one grandson.
A lanky 6-foot-4, Dr. Lattimer was a track star at Columbia University, from which he graduated in 1935. He won eight metropolitan area Amateur Athletic Union hurdling championships. He graduated from the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia in 1938.
Among Dr. Lattimer’s most prized possessions was a sword that belonged to Ethan Allen, who in the predawn hours of May 10, 1775, led a band of Green Mountain Boys in capturing strategic Fort Ticonderoga, on Lake Champlain in upstate New York — a turning point in the Revolution. Two hundred years later to the hour, Dr. Lattimer — Ethan Allen’s sword in hand — led a re-enactment of that battle.
For several years in the 1980s, Dr. Lattimer was chairman of the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Medieval Festival, held outside the Cloisters in Fort Tryon Park in Manhattan. At the 1983 festival, clad in armor and bearing a shield, he told a reporter about his fascination with medieval armaments.
“In my front hall, I have a suit of armor from a Knight of Malta, with the Maltese Cross,” he said. “I also have a beheading ax.”
How did he finance his military collection
-
First off! I for one would make an attempt to read and consider the potential validity of some of this "first/second" day statements which repeatedly state that it was the SECOND shot which struck JFK in the head.
Since I personally was not in Dealy Plaza on 11/22/63, I find it best to accept as fact what the evidence as well as a large number of eyewitnesses have stated, is what actually happened.
With that tidbit of information, then I do not have to waste a lot of time lost down some rabbit hole looking for some shot which was supposedly fired in between the first shot and the Z312/313 shot, and which in fact never existed to begin with.
Also, since the time delay was in fact approximately 5.9 seconds between the first and second shot, then I really do not have to waste a great amount of cerebral effort as to whether or not the shooter/aka LHO, had sufficient time to operate the weapon, secure the target, and thus blow the top of JFK's head off.
Tom
P.S. Of course, Time/Life as well as the U.S. Secret Service and the FBI, also had little difficulty in placement of the position of JFK at the time of the first shot.
It was ONLY the WC who decided that this was difficult and could not be done.
And thankfully, I was never gullible enought to accept as fact anything which they claimed, without first checking it out for myself.
The other day I was looking at a few pictures of the Dealey Plaza 'model' made up for the WCR, I believe the model was entered/shown as evidence, evidence of where the shots occurred/limo location on Elm Street. The 2nd shot as shown on the model appears much closer the Zapruder pedestal than what I see on the Zapruder film. The model indicator, third shot as shown, location appears near direct across from the steps ascending the knoll. Which definitley does NOT appear on the Zapruder film.
The model shows strings (one for each of the three shots) are attached to the TSBD 6th floor east window, the other end where the limo was located on Elm Street when the rounds were fired.... (History Matters I think, there were 5-6 photos of the model....)
David
-
I have moved my JFK Web Page to a server called fsphost.com. The new URL is:
http://four.fsphost.com/crevmore/jfk.htm
I have also moved my JFK articles there. The old URLs will soon expire.
Fsphost.com (www.fsphost.com) is a free hosting service like none other I have seen. I recommend it to anyone looking for free web space. It’s located in Germany. All you have to do to use it is create a username. They don’t even care who you are, as long as you upload nothing that is illegal or pornographic.
There are no ads that will clutter your page. No banners, no pop-ups. I don’t know what they make their money from and I don’t care.
You can upload your page to their server with one simple click. No FSP software or other procedure needed, just a mouse. It literally takes one second.
One disadvantage is that you can’t use your own domain name. If that’s not a problem, you are literally home free. Also you can’t use cgi script. I don’t even know what that is, but I apparently had some. I use some ads by Google on some of my web pages. The coding provided by Google for these ads apparently includes cgi script, because I could not upload those pages. When I deleted the ad coding, the pages uploaded with no problem.
Fsphost.com is a good place for forum members to post photos or documents or whatever for others to see, if you’ve reached your forum limit or whatever.
If you want some free web space and plenty of it, plus ridiculously easy uploading, IMO it’s the place to go.
And now that I’ve made this glowing recommendation, the server will probably crash or I’ll get kicked off or something.
Thanks Ron..... timely information
-
At a JFK/Lancer conference some years ago, Doug Horne illustrated his presentation of problems with the medical evidence with a set of adult human skulls on which conflicting descriptions of the head wound(s) had been drawn.
It occurred to me then -- and I said so at the podium -- that anatomically correct sculptures of JFK's head and torso, replete with graphic depictions of those same wounds -- likely would provide poweful visual arguments for alteration, the non-viability of the SBT, the disparities (or not) between Parkland and Bethesda observations, etc.
Robert Groden made an extremely modest attempt to do just this in his first large-format book.
I submit that the recently posted special EFX materials, disturbing though they may be, underscore my earlier point.
Charles
Charles,
What 'recent' Special Effects (EFX) materials?
Thanks,
DHealy
-
Think of the impact that Leno and Letterman could have if they tried. Every night they have some actor or actress on to promote a new movie. In fact, that's all those shows are anymore, programs to promote Hollywood movies. So they have these stars on to conduct boring conversations about their dogs and cats before showing the movie clips that they're there for. Why not get these people to express what they think about unanwered questions of 9/11, or E. Howard Hunt's confession, or anything to get people to THINK about such issues? Viewers would be all ears, whether agreeing or not. But I guess Leno and Letterman would soon be brought back in line or be out of jobs.
probably a contract requirement NOT to broach the subject matter. "We after-all, sell advertising, NOT theories-conspiracies or documentary's..." says the Madison Avenue Ad man!
-
'John Geraghty' wrote:
Bruce is right, what he says doesn't mean jack ****. The 911 'Truthers' think Charlie Sheen is the bees knees because he advocates their position, big wow. It isn't celebrities that we need on our side, but rather intellectuals and historians.
John
-------
MORE status quo? -- bulls**t
-
Another interesting point that McKnight points out is that Oswald’s rifle was very carefully hidden in the 6th-floor room where the assassination purportedly took place. It was lodged between two boxes with another box on top, which made it difficult for searchers to find it.
This depends on whether you characterize the rifle as being "very carefully hidden" or simply hidden. The former implies taking extra time, thought and effort. The latter suggests a random act. McKnight wasn't there so he doesn't actually know. It could have been either.
Searchers had a hard time finding the rifle because they didn't know where to look.
If I fired a rifle from that window, the last thing I would want to do is leave the building holding that very rifle. I would place it in a location that was not obvious, and hiding it between boxes is a good choice.
Why would Oswald hide the gun? If he fired a shot or shots, he hid the gun because he couldn't escape otherwise. I don't see anything mysterious about it.
you weren't there either, nor was I.... what we DO know for sure is, they found the rifle not long before they found Oswald. That being the case, any masterful preparation by Oswald in sniper/killer deception tactics, failed miserably.
-
Bill wrote: "Then there's what Mallon appropriately calls "The Limbo Hour," between the time of the assassination and the apprehension of Oswald, shortly after which Michael Paine is overheard talking on the telephone with either his father or his wife, and someone says that they know Oswald didn't do it and know who is REALLY responsible, but we are left in the dark as to who that responsible party is."
Bill, I don't remember if it was in Mallon's book or elsewhere, but somewhere I've seen that comment explained. They didn't mean that Oswald didn't do it, but that Marina had driven him to it. De Mohrenschildt's book takes a similar approach. IF Lee did it...it's because his bitchy wife drove him to it. This is unfair to Marina, no doubt, but it's interesting that the men closest to the situation immediately blamed her. She was apparently a bit of a shrew.
Pat,
That can't be so easily explained by any debunker since the source is reportedly a security tap on the Bell Hell company phone (where former Nazi Gen. Dornberger was in 'Security') and any attempt to explain the actions of LHO or the actual assassin's psych is lame. It doesn't matter how the Paines or anyone tried to explain it, especially if they haven't been questioned under oath.
And David, you can cross post the review if you want to.
This review was originally posted by Kenn Thomas at his Steamshovel Press "All Conspiracy - NO Theory" web site when the book was first releasd in 2001.
BK
Thanks Bill, the content is up, I'll bump the USNET posting and add this threads URL....
-
THE ANNOTATED GARAGE - Bill Kelly's Review of Thomas Mallon's "Mrs. Paine's Garage."
There's Ghosts in the Attic, Skeletons in the Closet and Here's the Best of What's Left Out of Thomas Mallon's Mrs. Paine's Garage and the Assassination of President Kennedy.(Pantheon Books – Random House, 2001)
The answers to the most outstanding questions concerning the crime of the last century aren't in Thomas Mallon's book, Mrs. Paine's Garage and the Assassination of President Kennedy, though they say that at one time the primary evidence and the main suspect were once lodged in her house, where there's still ghosts in the attic and skeletons in the closet.
The first question that comes to mind is why Ruth and Michael Paine - the patrons and sponsors of the family of the man accused of killing President Kennedy, - how come they weren't primary witnesses before the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) or the Assassinations Records Review Board (ARRB)?
Certainly their testimony under oath should be on the public record, and history shouldn't be left with their lame Warren Commission testimony and now this book by a would-be novelist on a foundation scholarship who got his facts right but the story wrong.
Mallon wanted to write this book as a fictional novel, and while some literature often comes closer to the truth than the most factually detailed history, this isn't one of them. It is to Mrs. Paine's credit that in order to obtain her cooperation she insisted he write non-fiction, but somebody should have explained to Mallon that in writing such a thing he should use footnotes, document his sources and include an index.
While Mallon is more comfortable writing fiction, this case is not myth or legend, nor even history yet, as in the lifetime of living contemporaries it remains an unsolved murder, and the contents of the Paine's garage are not historical artifacts but are legally considered to be evidence in a homicide.
What became of the evidence and the contents of the garage is interesting and that the major questions still go unasked, let alone unanswered, is typical of the perverted view exhibited by Mallon, who divides the world into two camps – the Conspiracy Theorists (CTs) and the Lone Nuts (LNs). Mallon is a LN, along with Ruth and Michael Paine, so he has sympathy with their plight, a situation mitigated by the general belief that there was a conspiracy and they were involved.
That the ratio of those who realize there was a conspiracy to those who believe in the Lone Nut thesis is 80% - 20% in favor of conspiracy doesn't make this truth a democratic decision. Mallon's book may be comforting to the LNs who want to believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy on a "spur of the moment decision," as Mrs. Paine puts it, but the evidence is supportive not only of the understanding of most rational people that there was a conspiracy, but that the assassination was a more specifically defined, well planned and successfully executed coup d'etat.
Alas, the world is not so simple as to be divided into just two camps, as there is also a third group that includes those who keep an open mind about such things as who is responsible for shooting the President of the United States in the head, and they try to approach the case as a homicide detective would. As with the assassination of civil rights activist Medger Evers, whose killer was convicted over thirty years after the crime, and the Birmingham bombings, the Mississippi Freedom Rider murders, the York, Pennsylvania race riot killings and other political crimes of the 1960s, the murder of President Kennedy will eventually receive belated but necessary justice.
When the authorities came to her house with a search warrant, Mrs. Paine did what every red blooded American housewife would have done, she went shopping while the cops rooted through her garage and bedroom.
If Mrs. Paine was subjected to the same justice that the Military Tribunal dished out to those who assisted John W. Booth in his flight from Ford's Theater after shooting President Lincoln, she would have been hanged whether she was part of the conspiracy or not. Indeed, as Philadelphia attorney Vincent Salandria has said, if there was true justice in this case, Ruth and Michael Paine would be indicted rather than treated as victims, and truth, if not justice, will be better served.
In the pursuit of justice, Mallon's book adds little other than what it doesn't tell us, which if examined closely, leads us closer to the truth for those that want to go there. Hopefully, justice will eventually follow. While most of the facts in "Mrs. Paine's Garage" are correct, the best parts are left out, and the Big Lie is the Big Picture that portrays the alleged assassin's family being taken care of by the generosity of Ruth Paine the Quaker, whose role as a Good Samaritan to the mad killer's family was a coincidental accident of history.
The lie is laid out clearly in the dusk jacket notes: "Nearly forty years have passed since Mrs. Ruth Hyde Paine, a Quaker housewife in suburban Dallas, offered shelter and assistance to a young man named Lee Harvey Oswald and his Russian wife Marina….Mrs. Paine's Garage is the tragic story of a well-intentioned women who found Oswald the job that put him six floors above Dealey Plaza – into which, on November 22, he fired a rifle he kept inside Mrs. Paine's house. But this is also a tale of survival and resiliency: the story of a devote, open-hearted women who weathered a whirlwind of investigation, suspicion, and betrayal, and who refused to allow her enmeshment in the calamity of that November to crush her own life. Thomas Mallon gives us a disturbing account of generosity and secrets, of suppressed memories and tragic might-have-beens, of coincidences more errie than conspiracy theory…"
The entire premise of this book rests on the assumption that Lee Harvey Oswald is the assassin of the President. But what if it can be convincingly demonstrated that Oswald didn't shoot anybody that day, and the alleged murder weapon was purposely left at the scene to implicate him in the crime? It doesn't make any sense for him, as many LNs contend, that he killed the President to make a name for himself in history, but then deny the deed. When the evidence is looked at more closely than Mallon sees it, it is more than likely that Oswald was framed for the crime and was exactly what he claimed to be – "a patsy."
But rather than take away the importance of Mrs. Paine's role in the affair, "The Patsy's Garage" makes its contents even more significant, as only your friends can set you up and frame you for a crime you didn't commit. Which brings us back to Michael and Ruth Paine, at whose home the accused assassin spent the night before the murder, and where the rifle said have been used in the crime was kept in the garage, even though no one has yet admitted to ever actually seeing it there.
Although George Lardner of the Washington Post said in his review of Mallon's book that the Paines weren't questioned by the HSCA and ARRB because everyone was "satisfied with their Warren Commission testimony," literally dozens of major issues remain unresolved, and the most frequent question the public asks Judge John Tunheim, the former chairman of the defunct Assassination Records Review Board is why the Paines weren't deposed and questioned under oath. Both Tunheim and Mallon try to answer this question, Tunheim's being that the ARRB, like the HSCA, just didn't have the time, while the real answer is that the government doesn't have the institutional willingness to ask the questions that it doesn't want answered.
That doesn't prevent us from asking them however, and the list of questionable issues regarding the Paines is long, but one day they may be answered.
For beginners, to believe the Lone Nut thesis, you must assume that Oswald killed the President by himself for his own perverted psychological reasons, that Oswald and his Russian wife met the Paines quite coincidently at a social party, that the Paines agreed to let Oswald's family move into the Paine home and obtain room and board and driving lessons in exchange for Russian language lessons, that Ruth and Michael Paine never knew anything about a rifle even though Ruth transported the gun in her car from Texas to New Orleans and back again and Michael packed and unpacked the car on both occasions, and that Oswald got the job at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) quite innocently through Mrs. Paine's morning neighborhood coffee klatch.
Of course the entire Lone Nut scenario falls apart if any one of these "coincidences" can be shown not to be so coincidental, and in fact all of them can be proven to be contrived. In order to address the most important issues I've set them up as Serials and placed them in the chronological order in which they occurred so we can better understand what is at stake, which is the bare bones, basic nature of democracy, truth and justice in America.
You would think that the first question would be how the Oswalds met the Paines [serial #1], which was at a February, 1962 party first suggested by George DeMohrnschildts to Volkmar Schmidt [Neither of whom appear in "Mrs. Paine's Garage"]. They thought that it would be interesting for Lee Harvey Oswald to meet Michael Paine, both of whom were interested in discussing "ideology."
DeMohrnschildt, Oswald's friend, and Schmidt, were both oil geologists with an interest in politics and psychology. Schmidt worked for Magnolia Oil Co., as did most of those who attended the party at Schmidt's house, which he shared with Everett Glover and two other men - son of a director of Radio Free Europe Norman Fredricksen and Richard Pierce, both of whom worked for Magnolia Oil and are also missing from Mallon's "Garage." [Nor would Mallon be expected to know the interesting tidbit that the widow of the founder of Magnolia Oil married Jim Braden's best friend and Braden would be taken into custody as a suspicious person at Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination].
The odd thing about the party is that the host, Schmidt, and one of the guests of honor, Michael Paine, were no-shows, but Ruth Paine met Marina Oswald and they enjoyed talking together in Russian, setting up their relationship.
But there are two instances on record suggesting that there was a connection between Ruth Hyde Paine and Oswald before they met at this party, the first being Ohio police reports of Oswald attempting to enroll at Ruth Paine's alma mater Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio [serial #2- Antioch], before he had a high school diploma and before he joined the Marines. Yellow Springs is where Ruth Paine's brother, a doctor, still lives, yet unquestioned about these things. The second instance is the Russian pen pal program that Ruth participated in [serial #3 – Pen Pal], a program that was monitored by the intelligence agencies and is said to have included others participants that knew of Oswald's defection to Russia after he was discharged from the Marines.
But it really isn't Mrs. Paine we should be interested in, it's her husband Michael, who owned the house and garage and is the principle character worth writing a book about.
Since Michael Paine didn't meet Oswald at the previously arranged party, Ruth set up a dinner engagement for them to get acquainted, and since Oswald didn't have a car, Michael drove from Irving to the Oswald's apartment in Oak Cliff, Dallas, to pick them up. Although he didn't mention it to the Warren Commission, a major bone of contention, Michael Paine did admit on a CBS TV special and to Mallon that he knew about the rifle from the first day he met Oswald because Oswald showed him the famous photo [serial #4 Back Yard Photo] – later found in the Paine garage, of Oswald with the rifle, pistol and two communist publications, one The Worker, the official publication of the Trotskite Socialist Workers Party.
Leon Trotsky, one of the leaders of the Bolshevick revolution and the Communist Party in Russia, was exiled to Mexico City and executed there by Soviet trained assassin Ramon Mercader.
When Oswald and Michael Paine discussed this "Trotskite" publication, Paine quoted Oswald as saying, "You have to read between the lines to understand what they want you do." Well you have to read between the lines of Mallon's book too, if you want to learn the truth, as I will try to fill in the blanks he leaves out.
That Michael Paine and Lee Oswald would talk about communist ideology is a given, yet, it is inconceivable to me, that while talking about such "ideology," as George DeMohrenschildt and Volkmar Schmidt expected them to do, [serial #5 – Lyman Paine] Paine didn't bother to tell Oswald, the self-proclaimed "Trotskite," that his father – Lyman Paine was the founder of the Trotskite political party in the United States.
Both DeMohrenschiltd and Volkmar Schmidt, who met Oswald at another Magnolia Oil party, and Michael Paine, talked to Oswald [serial #6 – Walker Shooting] about shooting General Walker, Schmidt before and DeMohrenschildt and Paine shortly after someone – ostensibly Oswald, took a pot shot and barely missed killing Walker.
After that incident Oswald decided to relocate back to his hometown New Orleans. When Mrs. Paine drove the family to the Dallas bus station, Mrs. Paine suddenly suggested that Marina and the baby stay with her until Oswald got settled with an apartment and a job and then she would drive them there, which was quickly agreed upon. [serial #6 – Rifle Movement] Because Oswald didn't take the rifle on the bus with him, Mrs. Paine must have drove the rifle to New Orleans, and then back again the following October, when she drove Marina, the baby and the belongings, including the rifle to Texas, while Oswald went to Mexico City.
Michael Paine packed the car for the trip to New Orleans and unpacked it when they returned, yet testified he didn't know there was a rifle among the effects, saying that he suspected the gun wrapped in a blanket was "camping equipment," which was kept stored in the garage.
Mallon's book has one photo – on the dust cover jacket – of Mrs. Paine, Marina Oswald and her two children and Oswald's mother Margarete in the Paine kitchen, while a non-published photo of the Paine garage shows how cluttered it was. One of the Paine's three cars, a 1956 Chevy station wagon with a luggage rack on the roof, was kept parked in the driveway in front of the garage. [serial #7- Oswald's Driving]. Although it is often claimed Oswald didn't drive, Mrs. Paine's Warren Commission testimony is quite clear on this – she gave him lessons, he knew how to drive, he knew where she kept the keys to the car and he did drive, much to Mrs. Paine horror, sans insurance.
Among the other evidence found in the garage was [serial #8 Blanket] the blanket that that rifle was supposedly kept wrapped in, another photo of Oswald with the guns and magazines, and [serial #9 – Minox Cameras] a Minox camera, which Michael Paine later claimed as his own. In the house were other items of evidence, including a [serial #10] typewriter that Oswald used to write a letter to the Soviet Embassy, a book that contained [serial #11 – Letter] a letter Oswald wrote to Marina with instructions on what to do if he was caught after the Walker shooting incident, and one of three of [serial #12 – Wallets] Oswald's wallets.
Then there's what Mallon appropriately calls "The Limbo Hour," between the time of the assassination and the apprehension of Oswald, shortly after which Michael Paine is overheard talking on the telephone with either his father or his wife, and someone says that they know Oswald didn't do it and know who is REALLY responsible, but we are left in the dark as to who that responsible party is.
In a review of the evidence against Oswald, it's apparent that it comes down to the rifle.
Although no one has said that they actually saw the rifle in the garage, the blanket the gun was supposedly wrapped in was mentioned by Michael Paine, Ruth Paine and Marina, but for some reason that should catch the attention of homicide investigators, the well oiled and greased gun that was wrapped in the blanket not only didn't have any clear fingerprints, but it didn't have any microscopic fibers from the blanket, a practical impossibility.
If you read the Warren Report on the fiber evidence, they found ONE single fiber on the stock of the rifle that DID NOT match the blanket, even in color, but the FBI forensic lab specialist testified COULD HAVE come from the shirt Oswald had on at the time of his arrest. It's just a shame he changed his shirt after the shooting so that wasn't the shirt that he had on when JFK was shot. To me, that's a plant, as the FBI didn't know
Oswald changed his shirt at the time.
While the photo of Oswald, the rifle, blanket, photos and Oswald letters to Marina and the Soviet Embassy are discussed in Mallon's book, the Minox cameras, multiple wallets and other questionable points are ignored completely.
Nor does Mallon bring out the full character in the slew of interesting characters that populate this story, beginning with Ruth and Michael Paine, Michael Paine's father Lyman Paine and mother – Ruth Forbes Paine Young, her friend and traveling companion Mary Bancroft, Michael's main mentor, step-father and Bell Helicopter inventor Arthur Young, Marina's biographer Priscilla Johnson McMillan, and their joint association with the World Federalists, whose founder Cord Meyer, Jr., was head of the CIA's domestic contacts division and later International Organizations Division chief under Alan Dulles.
The bottom line is that if JFK was killed by a lone, deranged nut case, then the President's death would be an accidental, unconnected anomaly and unrelated to the policies, politics and character of the man or the office of the Presidency. We have such killers in our history – such as Howard Unruh, who snapped and killed 13 neighbors in a killing spree, but Oswald isn't one of those type of killers, as Ruth and Michael Paine and practically everyone who knew him has acknowledged.
If the accused assassin is Lee Harvey Oswald – the former Civil Air Patrol cadet, USMC radar operator, trained in electronics, interrogation techniques and the Russian language, owned a Minox camera, the guy who defected to Soviet Russia, lived there for two years and returned with a Russian wife, went to Mexico City and knew exposed covert operators like David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, George DeMohrenschildt, Volkmar Schmidt, Ruth and Michael Paine and took a pot shot at General Walker, all before he was 24 years old, then the assassination MO – modus operandi was that of a clear and clean cut covert operation conducted by an state controlled intelligence network. If Oswald had anything at all to do with the assassination, he fits the Operational Profile and could not and did not commit the assassination on his own, as all intelligence analysists knew from the moment they knew his background.
As Ruth Paine herself briefly suspected, as she testified to the Warren Commission that Oswald didn't "live" on Neeley Street, but that, like an agent, he was "operating from a base at 214 Neeley Street," and posed the question herself: "I may say, also, I wondered, as I had already indicated to the Commission, I had wondered, from time to time, whether this (Lee Harvey Oswald) was a man who was working as a spy or in any way (was) a threat to the nation, and this thought,…I am interested to know if this is a real thing or something unreal. And I waited to see if I would learn anymore about it. But this thought crossed my mind."
I too am interested to know if this is a real thing or something unreal, and would like to learn more about it, as this same thought has crossed my mind, and I look forward to having Michael and Ruth Paine help answer the important outstanding questions when properly questioned under oath. But since the answers aren't in Mallon's book, we'll have to look for the truth somewhere else.
Bill Kelly
thanks Bill.... btw can I post this to acj USNET board?
-
'William Kelly' wrote:
'J. Raymond Carroll': quote What we've all been waiting for: Thomas Mallon's review of of Bugliosi's new book:
[...]
It seems Bugliosi has made one big breakthrough: He demolishes Lee Oswald's explanation for his presence on the second floor when Baker encountered him.
=============
Have I posted my review of Mallon's Garage?
dgh: not that I know of, when I found out who reviewed daBug's current work, I intended to ask you if you've read Mallon's: Mrs. Paines Garage. If its handy I'd like to see it here, thanks Bill.
DHealy
BK
-
John Dolva' wrote:
How are your Zapruder Film Studies coming along? Been awhile since I've seen anything here...David Healy
David, thank you for asking. Particularly as you are one person who I've had some exchanges with ever since I first got interested in the Kennedy assassination research community, and from whom I have learnt a lot over the two years. So, I'll try to answer seriously.
The Zapruder film, as available to me, is not the Zapruder film I want to study. I have no way of changing that, except to, when the opportunity arises, agitate for a full public release of lossless, unenhanced, full resolution, digital copies(of high quality, ie minimal artefact introduction) of all the transparencies made, and a (same conditions) copy of the SS copies made before the film was taken by LIFE magazine.
dgh: thanks John, appreciate your response. High resolution frames would indeed be helpful... we know they exist, exist, in fact at the 6th floor museum (AFTER the film went to LIFE and of possibly some frames BEFORE or nearly at the same time the alleged in-camera original went to LIFE), probably a set or two at NARA and whoknows copies elsewhere.
I believe that even if I only had (as specified) frames (to my mind incorrectly numbered by at least 1) at least from 310 to 317 I could make some significant contribution. The rest, particularly four or so frames before stemmons sign to four or so after, would be a bonus.
dgh: makes sense...
Further, while Tom makes a comprehensive argument for the last shot as being after (IMO wrongly numbered 313) I see no evidence in the film to support it. Muchmore however may, and again the absence of quality material is the problem.
dgh: that's the point of a very good composition, take the discerning eye elsewhere, divert attention... Not to forget; the SS/FBI recreations utilized measurements and data supporting 'further down Elm Street'.
When discussion occurs, it is often circular, (or non existent) or ends at some point due to various reasons. Breaking the deadlocks are beyond me.
___________
My interest therefore has shifted to a broad study of the period of time roughly from the formation of the FBI in the early twentieth century till the 70's. This can be looked at piecemeal or wholistically. I prefer the wholistic approach, and in there am beginning to see a pattern, with large gray areas, (particlarly the war years + 5 when alot of people were 'disappearing' and/or changing stripes) that lead me to believe that Kennedy's 'New Frontier' was really a revolution that threatened to interrupt a process of Corporatising (in the Fascist sense) and consolidating, a global 'Empire' that threatens the freedom and livelihood of all Americans and all peoples, for the interests of a very tiny, extremely powerful, minority. Unfortunately the crumbs off their table is sufficient to keep a larger minority class in a number of 'developed' nations apathetic.
This is a thinking that is probably 'far out there'.
dgh: NOTHING is too 'far out there'
Nevertheless, the wealth and means exists to dramatically change the lives of the majority on Earth away from starvation and strife to well being. I'm very simplistic. No, is good enough an answer to me to war, nuclear weapons, Fascism, and environmental degradation. At the moment I'm trying to identify just who to say No to.
While my interest in graphics (and art) is stll primary it's eclipsed by these more fundamental issues.
In standing back and equanimously observing, and commenting when I feel I have something worthwhile to say, I think this Forum and the repository of postings, and the people involved, on the whole, but dotted amongst much smoke, already have the answer. Getting hold of it in a comprehensive, wholistic way is the problem.
dgh: the Zapruder film and the man himself have escaped scrutiny for years and years. I don't expect anything to change -- I'm certain there are folks breathing comfortably...
___________
David, you probably got 'more than asked for', but within the answer given is the reason for not doing anything more with the Zapruder film for the present period of time.
dgh: hardly, its what I expect from you -- Thanks for your efforts, John!
-
Hello John Simkin
It absolutely astonished me, but you stated in your immediately prior post that "...the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Clearly this reflects a time when people were concerned with the possible tyranny of the federal government. Is that still true today."
I cannot imagine you being in your position on this forum and stating ".....Is that still true today"
What do you think that we are referring to when we speak of an 11/22/63 Coup d' Etat? Or our often reference that the current Bush Administration is bleeding away our rights ? That the CIA is unmanaageable ? That the last election results were contested because of reported and proven improprieties?
Yes John ! We still fear tyranny of any sort.
If a majority of our 1776 revolutionaries, were not armed, we would still be a part of the "British Empire".
It was not only because of the threat of red indians or wild animals that these 1776ers bore arms. It was also against a repeated threat of tyranny.
Actually the meaning of to "keep and BEAR arms", means that citizens may be "accompanied by a gun" whenever they so choose.
I knew John, that you and a few others, would attempt to turn this thread into a gun control debate, as I stated in my post #35.
I would like to state that the great portion of my life was lived within the United States. I have been to all of the "big crime ridden cities" and never once have I or any of my family been physically threatened by ANYONE ! That is why I find it not only amazing, but preposterous that so many UK visitors are singled out and attacked.
Our southern neighbor, Mexico, banned handguns !
Would you like to walk down some dark, suburban Mexican Streets alone ?
The Mexican gun prohibition has prohibited only the citizenry from protecting themselves. There are still Banditos throughout Central America. There are certainly some areas of some American cities that one would not want to enter with a dozen guns. But this is mostly the result of gang and ethnic wars. Since you, I and everyone knows that guns cannot be kept out of the hands of criminals, why should I be stupid enough, or not care enough about the safety of my family, to give up my guns,
while knowing that the criminal element has not and never will ? I was long ago taught, "do not go to a gunfight armed only with a knife". I think that is sound reasoning !
Although there is a much greater chance that one of us is killed in an auto accident, by drowning, or some other means, than there is that we will be killed by a "bad guy", I can take steps to protect myself and my family against the bad guy, so why should I be denied this?
Charlie Black
I still can't figure out what this has to do with who killed JFK. I carry mutliple handguns daily based on 20yrs in Detroit AND my perfect knowledge that evil abounds
*********************************************************
I guess I must have missed this thread. In fact, I guess I must have missed the whole Virginia Tech Massacre. But, you know what? I didn't, nor could I seem to find it in me, to utter any cry of dismay, nor shed a tear for the losses inflicted on the victims' families. Why? Not because I'm someone you could consider to be cold-hearted. No. The reason I couldn't seem to get caught up behind the whole scene was because of living through 55 years of: watching Mafia lieutenants getting their throats cut in broad daylight on the streets of the Bronx in the early 1950's, watching the film clips of The Holocaust and World War II every year on all the requisite holidays that take place celebrating V-E Day, V-J Day, D-Day, etc., not to mention and along with, the ever-present nuclear testing mushroom clouds of Yucca Flats, NV and White Sands, NM, The Clocktower Incident in Austin, TX [1957 or 59, I believe.], the Freedom Riders and the Freedom Marchers getting the xxxx kicked out of themselves on their way to all points in the Deep South while armed gunman and county law officers trained their sites and their German Shepards and Doberman Pinchers on them in '61 and '62, the South East Asian Monks calmly dousing themselves with gasoline and setting themselves ablaze in '62 - '63, Civil Rights workers being fire-hosed and tear-gas bombed, beaten, and blown up, JFK gunned down at high noon in Dallas, LHO gunned down on national TV less than two days later, the VietNam War [brought to you in living color on the 6:00 Evening News right in time for dinner], Mississippi Burning, the Warren Commission LIE in '64, the Chicago Democratic National Convention and the resultant mob brutality that ensued, MLK gunned down in cold blood on the balcony of a Memphis hotel, RFK gunned in the prime of his life in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles in '68, body bags, body counts, body bags, and more body counts, Kent State "FOUR DEAD IN O-HIO," Nixon, the fall of Saigon, the return of G.I.'s with little or no re-hab afforded them, dumped back into the ranks of a society they no longer recognized, Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Ruby Ridge, Clinton, Waco, Kosovo/Slovenia, White Watergate, Monicagate, Bush, 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Columbine, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Katrina, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. And, you expect me to bat an eyelash at Virginia Tech, located in what is also known as, "The Old Dominion?"
You know, back during the anti-war demonstrations we used to march in, during the late 60's and early 70's, when we'd get heckled by the redneck-peckerwoods yelling, "America. Love it or leave it." Or, "My Country. Right or wrong." I used to yell back, "Hell No! We won't go!" "Hell No! You can go!" Well, the thought just occurred to me to create my own slogan with regard to The Second Amendment. "My guns and the right to bear them. Right or wrong!" Because you can bet your sweet ass that as long as guns can be easily obtained illegally, through the penal system's black market, and behind prison walls, by the criminals serving time there, you'd better believe I will NEVER agree to any gun control laws, especially since the state of California has enough of them on the books already, to choke a horse. It would be just like during "Prohibition," with as many cheap, badly made guns as there was cheap, badly distilled liquor. It'll never fly, here in the states. Now, it may be doable in a small area like the British Isles, or the continent of Europe, which is smaller than the Louisiana Purchase, but not on this continent, and not in your lifetime. Not unless you expect to see a potentially bloodier war take place than The Civil War ever was, that is. We will not go quietly into the night. Not as long as Barrett's is open for business in Murfreesboro, TN.
YOU go girl! Including; holding onto your weapons!
Btw, it was 1963 the first Saigon Buddhist Self-Immolation
Oswald with an M-16?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
part of the time-line....
[...]
# 1958. Armalite delivers first new rifles, called the AR-15, to the Army for testing. Initial tests display some reliability and accuracy problems with the rifle.
# 1959. Late that year Fairchild Co, being disappointed with the development of the AR-15, sold all rights for this design to the Colt's Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company.
# 1960. Eugene Stoner leaves the Armalite and joins the Colt. The same year Colt demonstrated the AR-15 to the US Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, Gen. LeMay. Gen. LeMay wanted to procure some 8 000 AR-15 rifles for US AF Strategic Air Command security forces to replace ageing M1 and M2 carbines.
# 1962. US DoD Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) purchases 1000 AR-15 rifles from Colt and sends those rifles to the South Vietnam, for field trials. Same year brings glowing reports about the effectiveness of the new "black rifle", used by South Vietnamese forces.
# 1963. Colt receives contracts for 85 000 rifles for US Army (designated as XM16E1) and for further 19 000 rifles for US Air Forces (M16). The US AF M16 was no more than an AR-15 rifle with appropriate markings. The XM16E1 differed from AR-15/M16 by having an additional device, the so called "forward assist", which was used to manually push the bolt group in place in the case of jams.
# 1964. US Air Forces officially adopted new rifle as M16. Same year US Army adopted the XM16E1 as a limited standard rifle, to fill the niche between discontinued 7.62mm
[...]
or go here... http://world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm