John Simkin
-
Posts
15,705 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by John Simkin
-
-
If CIA had a Boogieman, David Sanchez Morales was it.
Thank you for that. I have created a temporary page (with a photograph) but will obviously need to read Gaeton Fonzi’s ‘The Last Investigation’ (1993).
Would you suggest any other books on the subject?
-
William Pawley was another who died before he could appear before the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
During the Second World War Pawley founded the Flying Tigers (American Volunteer Group) unit in China.
After the war Pawley held several diplomatic posts in Latin America, including being the United States Ambassador in Brazil. Pawley developed right-wing political views and was active in the Republican Party. A close friend of CIA director Allen Dulles, he took part in a policy that later become known as Executive Action (a plan to remove unfriendly foreign leaders from power). Pawley played a role in the a coup d'état that overthrew the Guatemalan government of Jacobo Arbenz in 1954 after he introduced land reforms and nationalized the United Fruit Company.
In the 1950s Pawley owned an airline and a bus company in Cuba. He helped keep Fulgencio Batista in power after he lost the support of the people. After Batista was overthrown by Fidel Castro, Pawley pressurized President Dwight Eisenhower to provide military and financial help to anti-Castro Cubans based in the United States. He also closely worked with two other anti-Castro agents, Johnny Roselli and John Martino.
William Pawley died of gunshot wounds in January, 1977. Officially it was suicide but some researchers believe it was connected to the investigations being carried out by the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
-
You can also add David Morales to that list of people who passed away in that 1970's period. He didn't die violently but from a heart attack which was quite convenient for those who may have been implicated in JFK's assassination.
I am afraid I do not know about David Morales. Could you give me some more information.
-
The Fischer Family Trust have been carrying out a three year study into the use of technology in the classroom. Surveys conducted between 2000 and 2003 generated responses from over 3,500 departments in secondary schools. The report summarises details of the ICT resources used in each subject and indicates how teachers rated the IMPACT of their use upon pupils' learning.
-
The Fischer Family Trust have been carrying out a three year study into the use of ICT in the history classroom. Between 2000 and 2003, of 857 resource ratings were provided by 150 History departments. The following table shows resources listed by 10 or more schools.
-
Every method of mass communication has been dominated by males. This began with the writing of books (religious faith as well as gender was important in the beginning). Women eventually took up the challenge and made great progress and in some areas, such as the novel, they even dominate the sector. The same thing happened in radio and television. However, men still dominate these forms of communication.
Despite this history, women have been slow to grasp the importance of the web as a battleground of ideas. The one exception to this is Dale Spender and I highly recommend her book on this subject: “Nattering on the Net: Women, Power and Cyberspace.”
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1...6341991-5164664
More and more people obtain their information from the web. A recent study suggested that in the near future it will be the main source of people’s political information. Who will be supplying this information? What is interesting about this is that the power structure of the web is different from other forms of mass communications. Books, newspapers, radio and television programmes, need large amounts of money to produce. So much so that these forms of communications are dominated by governments and multinational companies. They of course also play a major role in communication on the web. However, this is not a dominant role. In fact, it is an area they are having great difficulty getting control of. Women need to organize themselves in order to take part in the battle for ideas. Otherwise, our societies will become even more a reflection of the ideology of masculinity. In my opinion, a very unhealthy development.
-
PS Can anyone on the forum put me in contact with someone who has a handle on what the global edcational trends are at the moment?
Dr. Joanna Le Metais at the National Foundation of Research has recently published an international report on national methods of assessment. It appears that only four countries have compulsory standardised assessment tests (England, Australia, Canada, Singapore). Only the UK employs league tables to present this information to the public.
Countries such as New Zealand, Japan, Korea, USA, Spain and France use a sampling system in which a representative group of youngsters – usually around 3% are externally assessed. However, the vast majority rely on teacher assessment.
http://www.nfer.ac.uk/research/project_sum...p.asp?theID=EIR
Like the recent OCED survey of educational performance the NFR points out that there is no link at all between national testing and educational performance. Dr. Joanna Le Metais, as the OCED report, likes what is happening in Finland. She points out that “Finnish schools are expected to evaluate the needs of their children and evaluate themselves. Teachers in Finland are also highly qualified – they have to have masters degrees – which is a key factor in favour of success.”
-
There are currently 0.54 million children in private schools in the Great Britain. I believe that is about 8 per cent of the school population. Most of the fees are paid for by the parents. However, there are some scholarships available for children whose parents cannot afford the fees. Private schools have charitable status and so are in fact subsidized by the taxpayer.
It is argued that the existence of private education undermines the idea of equal opportunities for all students. Private schools have smaller classes and spend far more per head on educational resources. As a result their exam results are better than in the state sector. A recent survey showed that one in five 2002 graduates went to private school and that they are twice as likely to have had a job offer than those attending state school.
However, the most important advantage of going to a public school is not the exam grade you end up with. It allows you to join what is known as the “old school tie network”. This is a sophisticated and subtle system that will help you become successful in your chosen career. I remember attending my first ever interview for a teaching post. One of the other candidates was a fellow PGCE student at Sussex University. She was a late entrant to the profession and was in her early 30s. She had been educated at a private school and had had enjoyed a successful career in public relations (she was also a lousy teacher who had been expected to fail her PGCE course). However, she told me confidently she would get the job on offer (we had been told that 600 student teachers had applied for the post). As she said, she had never failed to get a job she had been interviewed for. I was amazed by her self-confidence. Surely it was misplaced? After all this was a job in a state comprehensive school and she was a failing student with terrible reports from her PGCE tutors. However, she was right, she got the job. A few weeks later she decided to marry a rich Frenchman and resigned before she started the job (it was then offered to me). Twenty years later I met her again. By this time she was head of a private school in France. She proudly told me that she had maintained her record of getting every job she had ever applied for.
For many years it was the policy of the Labour Party to abolish private schools in the UK. Then the policy changed to one of making it more difficult for them (ending private schools charitable status). Under Tony Blair the policy has changed once again. The government now has a policy of encouraging parents to send their children to private schools (Blair of course went to one of the UK’s most expensive private schools).
Blair is in favour of a particular type of private/state school. These are called voluntary aided faith schools. In the UK we currently have 6,900 faith schools. However, the religious organizations only pay 15% of the capital costs. The taxpayers pay the rest. They also pay the teachers wages. Blair defends this policy by arguing they improve educational standards. When a Labour MP pointed out in the House of Commons recently that one fundamentalist school was teaching against the theory of evolution, Blair replied that was alright because they had good GCSE results.
Research suggests that 80% of the UK population are against the idea of faith schools. Others object because it undermines our comprehensive system (faith schools have the power to select its pupils – the real reason why they get better exam results). Others are concerned about the increasing numbers of students that are being taught in Muslim schools. However, Blair refuses to change his policy on this issue.
-
As the NUT gathers in Harrogate this weekend, delegates can be ambassadors for the truth - that schools are getting better, that teachers deserve credit, and that if we carry on for the next seven years as we have for the last, then the Blair generation will be the best educated in our nation's history.
If you rely on the evidence of Ofsted reports and Sats results it might appear that the education system has improved. However, it is also possible to argue that all that has happened is that schools have got better at satisfying Ofsted inspectors and at getting good Sats results.
It is true that there has been a significant increase in educational spending. But are our children better educated and more socially skilled than they were before Tony Blair came to power? Difficult to say, but I doubt it.
The government boasts about the improvements in school buildings. This has been mainly achieved by PFI (Private Finance Initiative). However, this is a financial time bomb and will absorb an increasingly large proportion of LEA resources in years to come. Privatisation has nothing to do with improving educational standards. It is just a way for your government to hand out taxpayers money to companies that donate large sums of money to the Labour Party.
-
As a result of the threat of terrorism people in Britain have begun to debate the merits of multi-culturalism. For many years this has been a taboo subject. This is especially true of the left who often describe people who raise this issue as racists. This has stifled debate and has kept people left of centre quiet on the issue. However, I think it is time liberals and socialists began to think deeply about this topic.
In a largely ignored speech, Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, proclaimed that “multi-culturalism” has had its day. For those outside of the UK, Phillips is a black man with a long history of left-wing activism. Phillips has questioned the “unthinking platitudes about the richness of all diversity in a multicultural society, as if any difference was a self-evident asset.” Phillips has argued that it is the philosophy of multiculturalism that has allowed “alien communities to stay in their silos”.
One of the main reasons this has happened is the willingness of the state to pay for the provision of Muslim schools. How can dividing children along faith lines help to bring people of different faiths together? Why is it that people on the left have rightly criticised the role the state plays in promoting religion (including the funding of church schools) yet are willing accept the right of Muslims to demand government funds to set-up their own schools?
A recent poll showed that 13% of British Muslims said they wanted to see further terrorists attacks on America. They probably approved the bombings in Madrid. They probably would not mind terrorist attacks in Britain as long as they took place outside the area they were living in. These people are obviously anti-American? But are they also Islamo-fascists? Those on the left should not be afraid to describe them as reactionary zealots simply because they are non-white.
Trevor Phillips is concerned about what long-term impact this cultural isolationism will have on racial minorities in the UK. He is especially worried what will happen to race-relations when the UK experiences the expected Muslim fundamentalist terrorist attack.
What has happened in Spain since the Madrid bombing? What impact has it had on race-relations? Has it caused a debate on multiculturalism. Is this being discussed in other European countries?
-
I think it is extremely naive to believe that the United States foreign policy is based on an attempt to bring democracy to the world. This is of course what they said during their occupation of Japan, Germany, Austria, South Korea, Vietnam, etc. This was of course at a time when the Americans were denying large numbers of their own population the vote. As Martin Luther King said on 4th April, 1967:
“Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the (Vietnam) war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them 8,000 miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in Southwest Georgia and East Harlem.”
United States fights wars not for democracy but to protect the rights of its friends to invest in these countries. They are wars to promote and preserve capitalism. As in the case of Iraq this usually means the privatisation of its valuable natural resources (therefore allowing them to be controlled by multinational companies). It is true that this usually means the imposition of some sort of formal elections.
In some countries like Japan and West Germany elections were free because they knew pro-American governments would be elected. However, we now know that the CIA (Black Operations Unit) were active in undermining the democratic process in those countries in Europe where the communists were in danger of being elected to power (Italy and Greece).
In the underdeveloped countries they have attempted to control they have rarely held free elections. For example, Eisenhower later explained why he never allowed free elections to take place in Vietnam "I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held at the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the communist Ho Chi Minh."
The same is true of Iraq. Any free elections held in Iraq will result in an anti-American Islamic fundamentalist government. Its first action will be to nationalize its natural resources and to order the American troops to leave Iraq. Do you really think that Bush wants that to happen?
-
One of the most important figures in the events surrounding the assassination of JFK is Adele Edisen.
In April, 1963, Edisen met Jose Rivera at a biomedical scientific conference in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The conference had been organized by the Federation of American Societies of Experimental Biology. Rivera told Edisen that he been on the faculty of the biochemistry department at Loyola University in New Orleans, and that he was now living in Washington. Edisen was planning to visit Washington and so Rivera suggested she she telephone him when she arrived in the city.
Edisen arrived in Washington on 22nd April, 1963. She telephoned Rivera and had dinner with him at Blackie's House of Beef restaurant. During the meal Rivera asked Edisen if she knew Lee Harvey Oswald. He also talked about the Carousel Club (owned by Jack Ruby) in Dallas.
The following evening Rivera gave Edisen a tour of Washington. When they passed the White House he asked Edisen, "I wonder what Jackie will do when her husband dies?" After Edisen replied "What!", Rivera said, "Oh, oh, I meant the baby. She might lose the baby."
During the tour Rivera made several comments about John F. Kennedy. Edisen later reported: "He asked me if I saw Caroline on her pony Macaroni, and all kinds of crazy nonsense, and I was beginning to think I was with an absolute madman.... Rivera's part of the conversation at times was difficult to follow, but many of his statements, such as the reference to 'Jackie,' seemed deliberately placed. When he spoke of President Kennedy, Rivera was extremely critical of Kennedy's position on civil rights. Rivera made many disparaging remarks about black people and the civil rights movement."
Later that evening Rivera asked Edisen to carry out a couple of tasks when she arrived home in New Orleans. This included contacting Winston DeMonsabert, a member of the faculty at Loyola University. He then asked her to call Lee Harvey Oswald at 899-4244. "Write down this name: Lee Harvey Oswald. Tell him to kill the chief." Rivera then said, "No, no, don't write that down. You will remember it when you get to New Orleans. We're just playing a little joke on him."
Edisen phoned this number in early May and was told by the man who answered that there was no one there by the name of Oswald. Later, when she called again, the same man answered, saying that Oswald had just arrived but was not there at the time. Instead she spoke to Marina Oswald and asked her if she might call again in a few days to speak with her husband when he was at home. Marina only spoke Russian to Edisen but seemed to understand her request because she replied, "Da". The next time she phoned she got Oswald, but he denied knowing Jose Rivera. Edisen asked Oswald for the address where the telephone he was speaking on was located. Oswald gave her an address on Magazine Street. She did not give Oswald Rivera's message.
Edisen was concerned that Rivera might be involved in a plot against President John F. Kennedy. She decided to contact the Secret Service in New Orleans and spoke to Special Agent Rice. According to Edisen, "After giving my name, address and telephone number to him, I told him I had met a man in Washington in April who said some strange things about the President which I thought they should know. It was my intention to go there and tell them about Rivera and his statements, but I began to think they might not believe me, so I called back and cancelled. Agent Rice told me they would be there any time I would care to come in."
Two days after the assassination Edisen arranged a meeting with Secret Service Agent John Rice. Also at the meeting was Orrin Bartlett, Liaison Special Agent of the FBI: "Mr. Rice was seated at his desk, and I was seated to his right, and the FBI agent remained standing most of the time. I believe he may have taped it because every time Mr. Rice got up from his desk, there was a partition over there, for example, and there was a phone there which they used even though there was a phone on the desk, which I didn't understand, but apparently there was some reason for that. So every time Mr. Rice got up to answer the phone or to use the phone, I noticed his hand would do this, and I would either hear a whirring, a mechanical sound like a tape recorder or something. It may have been audiotaped."
Edisen told them the story of how she met Rivera in Atlantic City and Washington in April. She also supplied the agents with Rivera's office and home telephone numbers. Edisen later claimed that: "Agent Rice asked me to call them if I remembered anything else, and requested that I not tell anyone I had been there to speak with them. I understood this to be for my own protection as well as for their investigation. Both agents thanked me for speaking with them."
Edisen contacted Rice a few days later and he told her, "Don't worry. That man can't hurt you." Edisen assumed that Rivera had been arrested and that she would be called as a witness before the Warren Commission. "When the Warren Report was published, I was mystified and dismayed by the conclusion that Oswald acted alone, and that Jack Ruby acted alone, for my experiences told me otherwise."
-
Several witnesses linked to Billie Sol Estes have been murdered. In 1984 they were linked to the assassination of JFK.
After marrying in 1946 Estes moved to the small town of Pecos. As a result of high irrigation costs, local farmers found it difficult to make profits from their cotton crops. Estes started up a company providing irrigation pumps that used cheap natural gas. Farmers had previously used irrigation pumps powered by electricity. Estes also sold anhydrous ammonia as a fertilizer. This was a great success and Estes soon became a wealthy businessman.
Estes's business encountered problems when the Department of Agriculture began to control the production of cotton. Allotments were issued telling the cotton farmers how much they could and could not plant. In 1958 Estes made contact with Lyndon B. Johnson. Over the next couple of years Estes ran a vast scam getting federal agricultural subsidies. According to Estes he obtained $21 million a year for "growing" and "storing" non-existent crops of cotton.
Henry Marshall, a Department of Agriculture official in Bryan, Texas, was found dead on 3rd June 1961. Marshall was the official who originally approved Billie Sol Estes' cotton allotments. Officially he had committed suicide but rumours began to circulate that Marshall had been killed because he had become aware of Estes' scam.
On 4th April, 1962, George Krutilek, Estes chief accountant, was found dead. Despite a severe bruise on Krutilek's head, the coroner decided that he had also committed suicide. The next day, Estes, and three business associates, were indicted by a federal grand jury on 57 counts of fraud. Two of these men, Harold Orr and Coleman Wade, died before the case came to court. At the time it was said they committed suicide but later Estes was to claim that both men were murdered by Mac Wallace in order to protect the political career of Lyndon B. Johnson.
On 24th June, 1962, Senator John McClellan of Arkansas announced that his Permanent Investigations Committee would be looking into the activities of Estes. On 27th July one witness testified that Lyndon B. Johnson was getting a rake-off from the federal agricultural subsidies that Estes had been obtaining.
Estes trial began in October 1962. John Cofer, who was also Lyndon Johnson's lawyer, refused to put Estes on the witness stand. Estes was found guilty of fraud and sentenced to eight years in prison. Federal proceedings against Estes began in March 1963. He was eventually charged with fraud regarding mortgages of more that $24 million. Estes was found guilty and sentenced to fifteen years in prison.
The Permanent Investigations Committee continued to look into the case of Estes. President John F. Kennedy now began considering dropping Lyndon B. Johnson as his running-mate in the next presidential election. According to Barr McClellan it was now decided by Edward Clark that this investigation had to be brought to an end. McClellan claims that Clark recruited Mac Wallace to organize the assassination of Kennedy. When Johnson became president he managed to bring the Senate investigations into Estes and Bobby Baker to an end.
In 1964 J. Evetts Haley published A Texan Looks at Lyndon. In the book Haley attempted to expose Johnson's corrupt political activities. This included a detailed look at the relationship between Estes and Johnson. Haley pointed out that three men who could have provided evidence in court against Estes, George Krutilek, Harold Orr and Howard Pratt, all died of carbon monoxide poisoning from car engines.
The case was taken up by the journalist Joachim Joesten. In his books, The Dark Side of Lyndon Baines Johnson (1968) and How Kennedy was Killed: The Full Appalling Story (1968), Joesten argues that Lyndon B. Johnson was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy and was as a direct result of the scandals involving Estes and Bobby Baker.
Clint Peoples, a Texas Ranger based in Austin, began to investigate the case of Estes. Peoples convinced Estes to give evidence before the Robertson County Grand Jury. Estes testified that Lyndon B. Johnson, Mac Wallace, Cliff Carter and himself met several time to discuss the investigation being carried out by Henry Marshall. According to Estes, Johnson eventually said: "Get rid of him," and Wallace was given the assignment. In 1984 the Grand Jury changed the verdict on the death of Henry Marshall from suicide to death by gunshot.
On 9th August, 1984, Estes' lawyer, Douglas Caddy, wrote to Stephen S. Trott at the U.S. Department of Justice. In the letter Caddy claimed that Estes, Lyndon B. Johnson, Mac Wallace and Cliff Carter had been involved in the murders of Henry Marshall, George Krutilek, Harold Orr, Ike Rogers, Coleman Wade, Josefa Johnson, John Kinser and John F. Kennedy. Caddy added: "Mr. Estes is willing to testify that LBJ ordered these killings, and that he transmitted his orders through Cliff Carter to Mac Wallace, who executed the murders."
In 2003 Estes published JFK, the Last Standing Man (co-written with William Reymond) in France (Le Dernier Temoin). In the book Estes claims that Lyndon B. Johnson was involved in assassination of President John F. Kennedy. When interviewed by the American journalist, Pete Kendall, Estes said: “He (Johnson) told me if I wouldn’t talk, I would not go to jail.” Estes has had no contact with LBJ’s other long-ago associates, he said, since the book’s publication. “About all of them are dead, really. I think I’m about the last one standing.” That’s partly why, he said, he wasn’t interested in doing a book sooner. “I’ve been accused of being dumb,” he said, “but I’m not stupid.”
-
Eladio del Valle was active in the Free Cuba Committee. He also worked for Santos Trafficante and with his friend, David Ferrie he was involved in fire-bombing sugar fields in Cuba.
During his investigation of the Kennedy case, Jim Garrison wanted to interview Eladio del Valle to obtain information against Clay Shaw. However, he was unable to find him.
Eladio del Valle was murdered on 22nd February, 1967. He had been shot in the heart. He died only hours after his friend, David Ferrie. Diego Gonzales Gonzales Tendera, a close friend, later claimed de Valle was murdered because of his involvement in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
In 1975 Harry Dean claimed he had been an undercover agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In 1962 he infiltrated the John Birch Society. He later reported that General Edwin Walker and John Rousselot had hired two gunman, Eladio del Valle and Loran Hall, to kill President John F. Kennedy. However, Dean was unable to provide any evidence to back up his claim.
-
Another example includes the death of William Pitzer.
Pitzer was Chief of the Educational Television Division of the Naval Medical School. Promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Commander, he was given a senior position at Bethesda Naval Hospital, Maryland.
On 22nd November, 1963, an autopsy was carried out by Dr Joseph Humes on the body of John F. Kennedy. A few days after the assassination, a colleague, Dennis D. David, found Pitzer working on a 16-mm film, slides and black and white photos of the Kennedy autopsy. David noted that those materials showed what appeared to be an entry wound in the right frontal area with a corresponding exit wound in the lower rear of the skull.
Jerrol F. Custer, an X-ray technician at the hospital, later stated that Pitzer had photographed the proceedings, including the military men who attended the Kennedy autopsy. It was also rumoured that Pitzer had copies of Kennedy's autopsy photographs.
According to Dr. Joseph Humes, Pitzer was not present at the autopsy. However, he admitted that the Bethesda Naval Hospital was equipped with closed-circuit television. This was the responsibility of Pitzer and over the years had used these facilities to make instructional movies. It is therefore possible that Pitzer had secretly made a 16-mm movie film of the autopsy on President Kennedy’s body, without being present in the autopsy room when it was carried out.
After 28 years in the US Navy Pitzer decided to retire. He told friends he had been offered a good job working for a network television station. It is believed that he intended to make a programme about the Kennedy assassination.
On 29th October 1966, Lieutenant Commander William B. Pitzer was found dead at the Naval Medical School, Bethesda. Investigations by the Naval Investigative Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation later concluded that a gunshot wound to the head had been self-inflicted.
During the weekend on which Pitzer died, the Kennedy family transferred formal possession of the materials relating to the late president’s autopsy to the National Archives. An investigation carried out by Dr. Cyril H. Wecht in 1993 revealed that some items were missing. This included Kennedy's brain that had been stored in a stainless-steel container.
FBI files on the investigation, released in 1997 under the Freedom of Information Act, revealed that there was a strong possibility that Pitzer had been murdered. The paraffin tests of Pitzer’s right palm and back of hand were negative, indicating the absence of nitrate, therefore no exposure to gunpowder. FBI tests indicated "that the revolver must have been held at a distance of more than 3 ft when discharged".
Although there were links between Pitzer and the revolver found near the body, the FBI could find no record of Pitzer acquiring live ammunition. The autopsy showed both an entry and exit wound to the head. It also revealed a third wound that was not related to the gunshot to the head.
Pitzer had been busy writing notes to people in the time just before he was killed. However, he did not leave a suicide note. One of these notes was found on the floor near Pitzer's body. It bore a partial heel print that was not from the shoes Pitzer was wearing.
In May 1995, ex-Special Forces Colonel Daniel Marvin claimed to have been solicited by an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency to "terminate" William Pitzer. An interview with Mavin later appeared in the sixth episode of the television series The Men Who Killed Kennedy (November, 1995).
-
On 22nd November, 1963, Bowers was working in a high tower overlooking the Dealey Plaza in Dallas. He had a good view of the presidential motorcade and was able to tell the Warren Commission about the three cars that entered the forbidden area just before the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Bowers also reported seeing two men standing near the picket fence on the Grassy Knoll. He added: "These men were the only two strangers in the area. The others were workers whom I knew." Bowers said the two men were there while the shots were fired.
Mark Lane interviewed Bowers for his book Rush to Judgment (1966): "At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I have described were, there was a flash of light or, as far as I am concerned, something I could not identify, but there was something which occurred which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment. Now, what this was, I could not state at that time and at this time I could not identify it, other than there was some unusual occurrence - a flash of light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there."
According to Penn Jones, the editor of the Texas Midlothian Mirror, Bowers received death threats after giving evidence to the Warren Commission and Mark Lane.
On 9th August, 1966, Lee Bowers was killed when his car left the road and crashed into a concrete abutment in Midlothian, Texas. Robert J. Groden later reported "Lee Bowers was heading west here on highway sixty-seven heading from Midlothian down to Cleburne and according to an eyewitness he was driven off the road by a black car. Drove him into this bridge abutment. He didn't die immediately, he held on for four hours and during that time he was talking to the ambulance people and told them that he felt he had been drugged when he stopped for coffee back there a few miles in Midlothian."
-
The Question I would like to ask the panel is:
1. Is it possible that the CIA have deliberately circulated conspiracy theories in order to muddy the waters surrounding the death of JFK?
Several CIA agents appear to have been involved in providing information that suggested that Oswald was part of a KGB/Castro plot to kill JFK.
The most important figure in this was John Martino? He was an electronics expert employed by Santos Trafficante. He also worked as a CIA agent and took part in its Black Operations. This involved a policy that was later to become known as Executive Action (a plan to remove unfriendly foreign leaders from power). Martino played a role in the a coup d'état that overthrew the Guatemalan government of Jacobo Arbenz in 1954 after he introduced land reforms and nationalized the United Fruit Company.
In the 1950s Martino was sent to Cuba to work for Havana casino owned by Santos Trafficante. In 1959 Martino was arrested by the new revolutionary government and was imprisoned for three years. On his release he published a book called “I Was Castro's Prisoner”.
Martino returned to the United States where he worked for Johnny Roselli and became a close associate of former United States Ambassador, William Pawley. He later claimed that during this period he became aware of various plots against Fidel Castro and his communist government in Cuba. In an article published in January, 1964, Martino argued that in 1963 Castro discovered an American plot to overthrow his government. He retaliated by employing Lee Harvey Oswald to kill President John F. Kennedy.
Shortly before his death in 1975 Martino confessed to a Newsday reporter, John Cummings, that he had been guilty of spreading false stories implicating Oswald in the assassination. Cummings added: "He told me he'd been part of the assassination of Kennedy. He wasn't in Dallas pulling a trigger, but he was involved. He implied that his role was delivering money, facilitating things.... He asked me not to write it while he was alive."
-
Good piece! Even some new bits for me. Maybe you could edit it to include Rose Cheramie. Very significant mysterious death.
Rose Cheramie was found unconsciousness by the side of the road at Eunice, Louisiana, on 20th November, 1963. Lieutenant Francis Frudge of the Louisiana State Police took her to the state hospital. On the journey Cheramie said that she had been thrown out of a car by two gangsters who worked for Jack Ruby. She claimed that the men were involved in a plot to kill John F. Kennedy. Cheramie added that Kennedy would be killed in Dallas within a few days. Later she told the same story to doctors and nurses who treated her. As she appeared to be under the influence of drugs her story was ignored.
Following the assassination, Cheramie was interviewed by the police. She claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald had visited Ruby's night club. In fact, she believed the two men were having a homosexual relationship.
Rose Cheramie was found dead on 4th September, 1965. At first it appeared she had been involved in a road accident. Later it was argued that she had been shot in the head before being run over by by a car in order to disguise the original wound. However, the Louisiana State Police Memo reported: "Cheramie died of injuries received from an automobile accident on a strip of highway near Big Sandy, Texas, in the early morning of September 4, 1965. The driver stated Cheramie had been lying in the roadway and although he attempted to avoid hitting her, he ran over the top of her skull, causing fatal injuries. An investigation into the accident and the possibility of a relationship between the victim and the driver produced no evidence of foul play. The case was closed"
-
Most men use language to communicate factual information (hence the interminable talk about football and John's dreadful "lists"
), whereas most women use language, (especially talk), to network and relate. Compare the different ways a man and a woman might use a phone and you will get my drift.You are right to suggest that women tend to use the phone differently to men (although friends on the forum will know that there is nothing I like better than a long chat on the phone). However, I think you are wrong to suggest that the difference is based on the idea that men are more concerned with communicating factual information. Listening to women on the phone soon reveals that a lot of factual information is being expressed. The difference mainly concerns the subject matter of this expression of factual material (cynics might argue that most of the content is speculation rather than factual). Maybe the difference is that women have a stronger desire to talk about people they know rather than people they don’t. As a result, a phone call rather than a online forum is a better place to communicate this information.
Perhaps it also has to do with who is posting and what is being posted! 
I am not quite sure of the point you are making (maybe you would be good enough to expand on this idea).
I assume you mean that women do not like the topics that men start. If that is the case, why don’t they start topics that they do like?
You also say that “perhaps it also has to do with who is posting”. Are you talking about the individual rather than the gender? Are you suggesting that certain types of men will stop women from replying?
There are of course some women on the forum who are willing to engage in debate with men. Ulrike, Rowena, Pauline and Christine all fall into this category. Maybe we should ask them if they find it difficult to discuss controversial issues on the forum.
-
This debate is part of a much wider debate going on about the merits of multi-culturalism in European society. For many years this has been a taboo subject. This is especially true of the left who like Derek have been quick to resort to the claim of racism when the issue is raised. This has stifled debate and has kept people left of centre quiet on the issue. However, I think it is time liberals and socialists began to think deeply about this topic.
In a largely ignored speech, Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, recently proclaimed that “multi-culturalism” has had its day. For those outside of the UK, Phillips is a black man with a long history of left-wing activism. Phillips has questioned the “unthinking platitudes about the richness of all diversity in a multicultural society, as if any difference was a self-evident asset.” Phillips has argued that it is the philosophy of multiculturalism that has allowed “alien communities to stay in their silos”.
One of the main reasons this has happened is the willingness of the state to pay for the provision of Muslim schools. How can dividing children along faith lines help to bring people of different faiths together? Why is it that people on the left who have rightly criticised the role the state plays in promoting religion in the UK (including the funding of church schools) yet are willing accept the right of Muslims to demand government funds to set-up their own schools?
A recent poll showed that 13% of British Muslims said they wanted to see further terrorists attacks on America. They probably approved the bombings in Madrid. It is a possibility they would not mind terrorist attacks in Britain as long as they took place outside the area they were living in. These people are obviously anti-American? But are they also Islamo-fascists? Those on the left should not be afraid to describe them as reactionary zealots simply because they are non-white.
Trevor Phillips is concerned about what long-term impact this cultural isolationism will have on racial minorities in the UK. He is especially worried what will happen to race-relations when the UK experiences the expected Muslim fundamentalist terrorist attack.
Polly Toynbee (another figure on the left) agrees with Phillips and in a recent article argues: “Muslim teaching on women staying one step behind will not do: respect for religion cannot take precedence over respect for British law. No, it doesn’t mean tearing off schoolgirls’ headscarves, but it does mean ensuring equality for them.”
-
Of 43 American Presidents to date, 34 can trace their ancestory back to the Sax-Coburg bloodline. The British Monarchs, known to their neighbours as the
Would be interested in knowing the names of the nine who do not share this blood line.
-
At a quick count it seems there are about twice as many men registered on this site as women. And in real terms, far more regular male posters. Is this because men are more IT-centric or because the discussions do not interest women? The Kennedy pages are interesting but almost entirely male posters. What do women want to discuss? I'd be interested to know.
This is a very good question. The International Education Forum was originally set up by members of the Association of Teacher Websites. The vast majority of our members were men. The reason for this is that the majority of teachers who own their own websites are men. To understand why that is we need to understand the impact that gender has on the use of technology (maybe this would be better debated on another thread).
The above information is only relevant to the first few weeks of the forum. We now have nearly 600 members. I do not know the gender breakdown of membership. However, you are probably right to suggest that the majority of posters are men. This is fairly surprising when one considers that the majority of the world’s educators are women. It has also been said that women like to talk (and posting is a kind of online talk) and have a stronger need than men to express themselves in words.
The best way to find out why more male members (no pun intended) post more than women is to ask them. I will start the ball rolling by saying why I post messages on the forum. I do it for two main reasons: (1) I have a strong desire to educate. Therefore a large percentage of my postings involve an attempt to communicate what I believe is important information. (2) I have a strong desire to be educated. Therefore some of my postings are an attempt to create a dialogue with people who have different experiences and beliefs than I have (I think it is particularly educational to enter into a debate with people living in other countries).
It will of course be argued that women have just as strong a desire to educate and to be educated as men. That is of course true, but maybe women find this way of doing it more stressful than other methods. For example, I am aware that most (all) people find forum debates a painful experience. It is fairly easy for an intelligent person to find flaws in your arguments. This is particularly painful on a forum where you have the means to directly quote what other people have said. Maybe men are less sensitive than women and are more willing to have their opinions analysed in this way. I think this view is supported by an analysis of the kind of postings women are much more likely to make. I suspect there is a tendency for women to make non-controversial postings. It is noticeable that women rarely get involved in the political debates. This also explains why so far few women have joined the debates on the Kennedy Assassination. For this is a subject where people hold very strong opinions and are likely to get very aggressive in their arguments.
-
This is just another case of the Bush administration’s incompetence. Bush and Blair have now got themselves into a situation they cannot get out of. Bush’s only concern is to negate the impact of the war on the presidential elections in November. This means talking tough and ordering the troops to take offensive action against those resisting the occupation. Blair would obviously prefer a different approach to the problem but he is not making the decisions.
Some commentators are saying this is Bush’s Vietnam. In fact, the situation is far more serious than that. Using different tactics the Americans could have defeated the communists in South Vietnam (by providing economic aid rather than on spending large sums of money on trying to bomb them into submission – see for example American policy in South Korea).
Economic power will not save the Americans in Iraq. All the economic aid in the world will not be able to get the Iraqi people to elect a pro-American government. The only way such a government can be established and maintained is through the barrel of a gun. Once American troops leave Iraq the puppet government will be overthrown and all raw materials will be nationalized. Therefore, Bush has to keep his troops in Iraq. Nor can he hand over the problem to the UN. If that happens the UN will allow free elections and the new Iraqi government will nationalize their oil reserves. What is more, it will be a anti-Western Shia fundamentalist government that will persecute the Sunnies and the Kurds.
I would be very interested in hearing what those forum members who supported the invasion of Iraq think Bush and Blair should do next?
-
Some writers who have investigated the assassination of John F. Kennedy have claimed that a large number of witnesses to the event have died in mysterious circumstances. The Sunday Times reported that "the odds against these witnesses being dead by February, 1967, were one hundred thousand trillion to one." When the Select Committee on Assassinations questioned the newspaper reporter who wrote the article, he admitted he had made a "careless journalistic mistake".
In his book Crossfire, the author Jim Marrs, provided a list of 103 people who he claims died in mysterious circumstances between 1963 and 1976. In reality, most of these people died of natural causes. Some of these people did die in accidents. Others were murdered or committed suicide. However, these people rarely had information that would have been important in helping investigators discover if there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy.
After the assassination of President Kennedy, Gary Underhill told his friend, Charlene Fitsimmons, that he was convinced that he had been killed by members of the CIA. He also said: "Oswald is a patsy. They set him up. It's too much. The bastards have done something outrageous. They've killed the President! I've been listening and hearing things. I couldn't believe they'd get away with it, but they did!"
Underhill believed there was a connection between Executive Action, Fidel Castro and the death of John F. Kennedy: "They tried it in Cuba and they couldn't get away with it. Right after the Bay of Pigs. But Kennedy wouldn't let them do it. And now he'd gotten wind of this and he was really going to blow the whistle on them. And they killed him!"
Gary Underhill told friends that he feared for his life: "I know who they are. That's the problem. They know I know. That's why I'm here. I can't stay in New York." Underhill was found dead on 8th May 1964. He had been shot in the head and it was officially ruled that he had committed suicide. However, in his book, Destiny Betrayed, James DiEugenio claimed that the bullet entered the right-handed Underhill's head behind the left ear.
There has been a significant number of people who have died who did appear to have important information about the case. This includes several journalists investigating the murder. On 24th November, 1963, Bill Hunter of the Long Beach Press Telegram and Jim Koethe of the Dallas Times Herald interviewed George Senator. Also there was the attorney Tom Howard. Earlier that day Senator and Howard had both visited Jack Ruby in jail.
It is not known what was said at this meeting but on 23rd April 1964, Hunter was shot dead by Creighton Wiggins, a policeman in the pressroom of a Long Beach police station. Wiggins initially claimed that his gun fired when he dropped it and tried to pick it up. In court this was discovered that this was impossible and it was decided that Hunter had been murdered. Wiggins finally admitted he was playing a game of quick draw with his fellow officer. The other officer, Errol F. Greenleaf, testified he had his back turned when the shooting took place. In January 1965, both were convicted and sentenced to three years probation.
Jim Koethe decided to write a book about the assassination of Kennedy. However, he died on 21st September, 1964. It seems that a man broke into his Dallas apartment and killed him by a karate chop to the throat. Tom Howard died of a heart-attack, aged 48, in March, 1965.
On 21st July, 1964, Dr. Mary Sherman was murdered in New Orleans. She had been stabbed in the heart, arm, leg and stomach. Her laboratory was also set on fire. The crime has never been sold. Later Edward T. Haslam published Mary, Ferrie & the Monkey Virus : The Story of an Underground Medical Laboratory. In the book he argued that Sherman was working with David Ferrie. Haslam believed that this Central Intelligence Agency backed research involved disease intelligence gathering and cancer research using laboratory-made biological weapons. Haslam claimed this biological weapon was to be used against Cuba’s Fidel Castro.
Judyth Baker later began giving interviews aboout involvement in an anti-Castro conspiracy. She claims that in 1963 she was recruited by Dr. Canute Michaelson to work with Dr. Alton Ochsner and Dr. Mary Sherman in a CIA secret project. This involved creating the means to insure Fidel Castro developed cancer.
In 1963 Judyth moved to New Orleans where she worked closely with others involved in this plot. This included Lee Harvey Oswald, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw and Guy Bannister. Later she claimed she began an affair with Oswald. The research into this biological weapon was carried out in the homes of Ferrie and Sherman. Oswald role in this conspiracy was to work as a courier. However, the project was abandoned in September, 1963, and Oswald was ordered to Dallas.
Oswald kept in touch with Baker and in November, 1963, he had been forced to join a plot to kill John F. Kennedy. Oswald believed that the conspiracy was being organized by Mafia leader, Carlos Marcello and a CIA agent, David Atlee Phillips. Oswald told her he would do what he could to ensure that Kennedy was not killed. After the assassination of Kennedy and the arrest of Oswald, Baker received a phone-call from David Ferrie warning her that she would be killed if she told anyone about her knowledge of these events.
Dorothy Kilgallen, a crime reporter of the New York Journal, obtained a private interview with Jack Ruby. She told friends that she had information that would "break the case wide open". Aware of what had happened to Bill Hunter and Jim Koethe, she handed her interview notes to her friend Margaret Smith. On 8th November, 1965, Kilgallen, was found dead. It was reported she had committed suicide. Her friend, Margaret Smith, died two days later.
Two of the men that Jim Garrison believed were involved in the conspiracy to kill Kennedy, Guy Bannister (June, 1964) and David Ferrie ( February, 1967) died before they could be brought to court.
Roger D. Craig was on duty in Dallas on 22nd November, 1963. After hearing the firing at President John F. Kennedy he ran towards the Grassy Knoll where he interviewed witnesses to the shooting. About 15 minutes later he saw a man running from the back door of the Texas Book Depository down the slope to Elm Street. He then got into a Nash station wagon.
Craig saw the man again in the office of Captain Will Fitz. It was the recently arrested Lee Harvey Oswald. When Craig told his story about the man being picked up by the station wagon, Oswald replied: "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine... Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."
Craig was also with Seymour Weitzman when the rifle was found on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository. He insisted that the rifle was a 7.65 Mauser and not a Mannlicher-Carcano.
Craig became unpopular with senior police officers in Dallas when he testified before the Warren Commission. He insisted he had seen Lee Harvey Oswald get into the station wagon 15 minutes after the shooting. This was ignored by Earl Warren and his team because it showed that at least two people were involved in the assassination. Craig, unlike Seymour Weitzman, refused to change his mind about finding a Mauser rather than a Mannlicher-Carcano in the Texas Book Depository. Craig was fired from the police department in 1967 after he was found to have discussed his evidence with a journalist.
In 1967 Roger D. Craig went to New Orleans and was a prosecution witness at the trial of Clay Shaw. Later that year he was shot at while walking to a car park. The bullet only grazed his head. In 1973 a car forced Craig's car off a mountain road. He was badly injured but he survived the accident. In 1974 he surviving another shooting in Waxahachie, Texas. The following year he was seriously wounded when his car engine exploded. Craig told friends that the Mafia had decided to kill him. Craig was found dead from on 15th May, 1975. It was later decided he had died as a result of self-inflicted gunshot wounds.
When the Select Committee on Intelligence Activities and Select Committee on Assassinations began investigating Kennedy's death in the 1970s the deaths of potential witnesses increased dramatically. This included several criminals with links to the secret Executive Action plan to kill foreign political leaders. Those who died violent deaths during this period included Lucien Sarti (1972), Thomas Davis (1973), Dave Yarras (1974), Sam Giancana (1975), Jimmy Hoffa (1975), Johnny Roselli (1976), George De Mohrenschildt (1977), Charlie Nicoletti (1977) and Carlos Prio (1977).
William Sullivan was the main figure in the FBI involved in the Executive Action project. He was shot dead near his home in Sugar Hill, New Hampshire, on 9th November, 1977. Sullivan had been scheduled to testify before the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
Sullivan was one of six top FBI officials who died in a six month period in 1977. Others who were due to appear before the committee who died included Louis Nicholas, special assistant to J. Edgar Hoover and his liaison with the Warren Commission; Alan H. Belmont, special assistant to Hoover; James Cadigan, document expert with access to documents that related to death of John F. Kennedy; J. M. English, former head of FBI Forensic Sciences Laboratory where Oswald's rifle and pistol were tested and Donald Kaylor, FBI fingerprint chemist who examined prints found at the assassination scene.
), whereas most women use language, (especially talk), to network and relate. Compare the different ways a man and a woman might use a phone and you will get my drift.
Where are the women?
in Debates in Education
Posted
I am not sure what you are disagreeing with me about. As I pointed out this forum was “originally set up by members of the Association of Teacher Websites. The vast majority of our members are men.”
For those who doubt this statement the figures are as follows: The ATW has 101 members. Of these, only 18 are women. All ATW members have been notified of the existence of this Forum. Yet only 4 of the women have posted and none of these have become active members.
People apply to join the ATW in two main ways. I invite them when I come across them when reviewing their website in my weekly email newsletters Education on the Internet and Teaching History Online. I can assure I have invited every woman who runs a good educational website to join. The fact is that the vast majority of educational websites (at least 80%) are run by men.
The second way people join is by applying via the ATW website. Once again the vast majority who do this are males. I oversee the vetting process of accepting new members and I can assure you that members are not showing any sexual prejudice in their rejection of potential members.
The original question posed by Jay Walker concerned the lack of postings by women members of the forum. I am not sure how this question is answered by talking about if our daughters use the internet (my daughter does as well but that is not surprising given my own views on education). Nor is it particularly illuminating to list websites that women use. Recent research shows that women are more likely to use the internet then men. The important issue is the way they are using it. Overwhelmingly women are consumers of information on the web. On the whole, they are leaving the provision of content to men. That is something we should worry about.