JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters
Raymond
Why does it matter? The death of JFK remains a critical turning point
in our history. Those who caused his death were targeting not just a
man but a vision -- a vision of peace.....It is also the story of the
designated patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Oliver Stone: Military-Intelligence Complex Killed JFK
Oliver Stone | Huffington Post
JFK and the Unspeakable
Two reviews of James W. Douglass’ book, JFK and the Unspeakable, one
by Oliver Stone, published Friday, July 24, on HuffPo, the other by
Nick Anez on Amazon:
JFK and the Unspeakable
The murder of President Kennedy was a seminal event for me and for
millions of Americans. It changed the course of history. It was a
crushing blow to our country and to millions of people around the
world. It put an abrupt end to a period of a misunderstood idealism,
akin to the spirit of 1989 when the Soviet bloc to began to thaw and
2008, when our new American President was fairly elected.
Today, more than 45 years later, profound doubts persist about how
President Kennedy was killed and why. My film JFK was a metaphor for
all those doubts, suspicions and unanswered questions. Now an
extraordinary new book offers the best account I have read of this
tragedy and its significance. That book is James Douglass’s JFK and
the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. It is a book that
deserves the attention of all Americans; it is one of those rare books
that, by helping us understand our history, has the power to change
it.
The subtitle sums up Douglass’s purpose: Why He Died and Why it
Matters. In his beautifully written and exhaustively researched
treatment, Douglass lays out the “motive” for Kennedy’s assassination.
Simply, he traces a process of steady conversion by Kennedy from his
origins as a traditional Cold Warrior to his determination to pull the
world back from the edge of destruction.
Cont'd
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/oliver-stone/jfk-and-the-unspeakable_b_243924.htm
And We Are All Mortal
Nick Anez | Amazon.com | June 8, 2008
In James W. Douglass’ outstanding new book, “JFK and the Unspeakable,”
the author explains the title in his introduction. Coined by spiritual
writer Thomas Merton, The Unspeakable refers to “an evil whose depth
and deceit seemed to go beyond the capacity of words to describe.”
Regarding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the
Unspeakable succeeded due to deniability by the nation’s citizens of
the horrifying truth of the event and to plausible deniability by the
government agencies responsible for the murder. (Vincent Bugliosi’s
recent fictional paperweight is a perfect example of the plausible
deniability that allows the Unspeakable to thrive.)
Many excellent books have proven that the assassination of JFK was the
result of a conspiracy. Douglass verifies the certainty of the
conspiracy and, as the subtitle of the book states, explains “Why He
Died and Why It Matters.” He scrutinizes the historical facts
surrounding the assassination, from the creation of the CIA to the
gradual obliteration of the freedoms upon which this nation was
founded.
This book is primarily the story of John F. Kennedy who changes from a
Cold Warrior to an altruistic leader willing to risk his life to
ensure that the world’s children will not become victims of a nuclear
catastrophe. Equal time is spent on JFK’s presidency as on the
assassination but one of the many rewards of this book is the author’s
capacity to show the relationship between his policies and his death.
And the book is a tragedy because it gradually becomes obvious that
each step he makes toward peace steadily increases the hatred of his
enemies who will eventually betray him.
It is also the story of the designated patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald. Moved
around the country like a pawn by government agencies (as was the
second “Oswald”), he was being set up as the scapegoat. Enter some
despicable characters, including David Atlee Philips, James Hosty and,
of course, Michael and Ruth Paine. Simultaneously, the Soviet Union
was being set up as the evil empire behind the assassination, along
with its satellite Cuba.
Douglass credibly illustrates the origin of the Crime of the Century.
During President Truman’s administration, the CIA was empowered to be
a paramilitary organization with unlimited powers. Truman’s successor,
President Eisenhower, fell out of favor with the CIA when he planned a
summit meeting with Soviet Premier Khrushchev. This was cancelled
after a U.S. spy plane crashed in Russia. Eisenhower had reportedly
ordered such flights cancelled and had his suspicions about who had
ruined his peace plan. He subsequently issued his warning about the
“military industrial complex” in his farewell address. But he didn’t
defy “this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a
large arms industry.” He left that task to his successor, JFK.
The Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba was planned by the CIA to regain
control of the island and to re-open the casinos for organized crime.
President Kennedy refused to provide air support for the Cuban brigade
because he knew that he had been lied to by the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and by the CIA; the invasion had been designed to fail without U.S.
support but they hadn’t told this to JFK who refused to fall into
their trap. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK once again enraged
the CIA and the Joint Chiefs by resisting their tremendous pressure on
him to take military action which would have led to nuclear war.
Following that crisis, JFK became intent on ending the Cold War by
establishing a peaceful relationship with the Soviet Union. However,
many CIA and Pentagon personnel believed that it was better to be
“dead than red” and that it was preferable to destroy civilization
rather than let the Communists rule. They also knew that war generated
billions of dollars into the arms industry. As a result, they would
repeatedly subvert the President’s policies and isolate him within his
own government. Enter some more despicable characters: Richard
Bissell, Charles Cabell, Henry Cabot Lodge, Lyman Lemnitzer, Curtis
LeMay and perhaps the most contemptible of all, Allen Dulles.
Ironically, JFK learned to trust Khrushchev more than people within
his own government.
At American University on June 10, 1963, JFK spoke about his desire
for world peace. He communicated his resolve to form a new
relationship with Khrushchev. He spoke about the necessity of a
pursuit toward disarmament. He related his intentions to establish a
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. He acknowledged his country’s past faults and
recognized the Russian people as wanting peace as much as the American
people. “And we are all mortal,” he stated. Though this extremely
important speech was ignored in the United States, it was disseminated
throughout the Soviet Union, per order of Khrushchev, who was prepared
to respond favorably to JFK’s peace initiative. The speech also
certified JFK’s death warrant. With so many powerful enemies opposing
his policies and hating him, JFK didn’t have a chance as he was being
maneuvered into the crossfire in Dallas.
President Kennedy was aware of the power of his enemies and he knew
the dangers facing him. But he persevered and mandated that all U.S.
personnel would be withdrawn from Vietnam; he was determined to never
send in combat troops even if this meant defeat. He also refused to
intervene militarily in Laos. He exchanged private letters with
Khrushchev, which infuriated the CIA, and secretly initiated plans to
attain rapproachement with Cuba, which further incensed the Agency.
Cuba’s Fidel Castro, whom the CIA hated as intensely as it hated
Kennedy, was equally eager to begin an American-Cuba dialogue. In
fact, Castro was meeting with a JFK representative when the President
was murdered. JFK died a martyr and the forces of evil that killed him
also killed his vision of peace.
Lyndon Johnson, the CIA’s ally, assumed the presidency. He cancelled
talks with Khrushchev and refused Castro’s pleas to continue the
dialogue. He reversed JFK’s withdrawal plan from Vietnam as well as
his plan to neutralize Laos. The military industrial complex took
control of the country. The policy of plausible deniability led the
way to assassinations of foreign leaders, the overthrowing of foreign
governments and horrors committed all over the globe. If JFK had not
been murdered, we would not have had the prolongation of the Cold War,
the Vietnam War, Watergate, the purported War on Terror and the steady
moral deterioration of America. Interestingly, one month after JFK’s
assassination, President Truman wrote an article for The Washington
Post cautioning about the threat of the CIA taking over America.
The author meticulously examines the evidence and draws conclusions
which ring with unassailable truth: (1) The CIA coordinated and
implemented he assassination of President Kennedy, an act of treason
which destroyed democracy in the U.S. (2) The Warren Commission was
created to propagate lies to conceal the truth from the American
people. (3)There has been a continued cover-up by successive
administrations and their stooges in the mass media. (4)The murder of
JFK is directly related to the current domination of the American
people by powerful oppressors within a shadow government that will
continue to insist that only sustained war can keep the country safe
from its enemies, never admitting that they themselves are the supreme
evil.
This is an exceptional book that will be used by future historians to
determine the truth about the assassination and how it changed
America. And it will also be used to honor John F. Kennedy as a
courageous president who believed in doing God’s work on earth. In
doing so, he came into conflict with the Unspeakable and his life was
extinguished.
JFK – 1/2 – Rare Seen Pictures Of The Shooter
JFK – 2/2 – Eyewitnesses Running After The Shooter
RFK to JFK: “You’re going to be assassinated”
LBJ’s phone call to Parkland Hospital
Immediately after Oswald was shot by Ruby, LBJ called Parkland
Hospital and demanded that a “deathbed confession” be taken from
Oswald.
The account was originally revealed by Dr. Charles Crenshaw, who was
subjected to ridicule, but who was later vindicated by Parkland’s
Chief Switchboard Operator, Phyllis Bartlett.
Did LBJ “let” JFK die ?
Did Johnson’s desire for the Presidency and his foreknowledge of the
assassination result in his “allowing” JFK to die ?
JFK TREASON – LBJ’s MISTRESS BLOWS WHISTLE ON LBJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possibly related posts: (automatically
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1570757550?tag=software0c8-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1570757550&adid=1WVP4P4XRDCEVG9YTJCC&
bigdog
>
> Possibly related posts: (automaticallyhttp://www.amazon.com/dp/1570757550?tag=software0c8-20&camp=14573&cre...
Just one question. If the plan was to set up the Soviet Union as the
"evil empire behind the assassination, along with its satellite
Cuba.", why is it a lone gunman ended up taking the blame?
John Blubaugh
> > The account was originally revealed by Dr. Charles Crenshaw, who was
> > subjected to ridicule, but who was later vindicated by Parkland’s
> > Chief Switchboard Operator, Phyllis Bartlett.
>
> > Did LBJ “let” JFK die ?
>
> > Did Johnson’s desire for the Presidency and his foreknowledge of the
> > assassination result in his “allowing” JFK to die ?
>
> > JFK TREASON – LBJ’s MISTRESS BLOWS WHISTLE ON LBJ
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Possibly related posts: (automaticallyhttp://www.amazon.com/dp/1570757550?tag=software0c8-20&camp=14573&cre...
>
> Just one question. If the plan was to set up the Soviet Union as the
> "evil empire behind the assassination, along with its satellite
> Cuba.", why is it a lone gunman ended up taking the blame?
Because a few rightwing fanatics bought the cover-up hook, line and
sinker?
JB
Coondog
Total crap.
Bill Clarke
> Cont'dhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/oliver-stone/jfk-and-the-unspeakable_b_...
> personnel would be withdrawn fromVietnam; he was determined to never
> send in combat troops even if this meant defeat. He also refused to
> intervene militarily in Laos. He exchanged private letters with
> Khrushchev, which infuriated the CIA, and secretly initiated plans to
> attain rapproachement with Cuba, which further incensed the Agency.
> Cuba’s Fidel Castro, whom the CIA hated as intensely as it hated
> Kennedy, was equally eager to begin an American-Cuba dialogue. In
> fact, Castro was meeting with a JFK representative when the President
> was murdered. JFK died a martyr and the forces of evil that killed him
> also killed his vision of peace.
>
> Lyndon Johnson, the CIA’s ally, assumed the presidency. He cancelled
> talks with Khrushchev and refused Castro’s pleas to continue the
> dialogue. He reversed JFK’s withdrawal plan fromVietnamas well as
> his plan to neutralize Laos. The military industrial complex took
> control of the country. The policy of plausible deniability led the
> way to assassinations of foreign leaders, the overthrowing of foreign
> governments and horrors committed all over the globe. If JFK had not
> been murdered, we would not have had the prolongation of the Cold War,
> theVietnamWar, Watergate, the purported War on Terror and the steady
> moral deterioration of America. Interestingly, one month after JFK’s
> assassination, President Truman wrote an article for The Washington
> Post cautioning about the threat of the CIA taking over America.
>
> The author meticulously examines the evidence and draws conclusions
> which ring with unassailable truth: (1) The CIA coordinated and
> implemented he assassination of President Kennedy, an act of treason
> which destroyed democracy in the U.S. (2) The Warren Commission was
> created to propagate lies to conceal the truth from the American
> people. (3)There has been a continued cover-up by successive
> administrations and their stooges in the mass media. (4)The murder of
> JFK is directly related to the current domination of the American
> people by powerful oppressors within a shadow government that will
> continue to insist that only sustained war can keep the country safe
> from its enemies, never admitting that they themselves are the supreme
> evil.
>
> This is an exceptional book that will be used by future historians to
> determine the truth about the assassination and how it changed
> America. And it will also be used to honor John F. Kennedy as a
> courageous president who believed in doing God’s work on earth. In
> doing so, he came into conflict with the Unspeakable and his life was
> extinguished.
>
> JFK – 1/2 – Rare Seen Pictures Of The Shooter
>
> JFK – 2/2 – ...
>
> read more »
Bill Kelly
The Plan - cover story was to blame Cuba so LBJ would have an excuse to
invade. But instead, LBJ recognized that the Cuban connection was behind
the assassination, and used the conspiracy, if uncovered, to convince Earl
Warren to take the Commission and determine the assassination was the
result of a Lone Nut in order to avoid WWIII.
That's LBJ's excuse, as recited in his conversations with Warren and other
Commissioners.
Read Douglas' book, its all in there.
Of course if JFK was killed by a Lone Nut Texas Yahoo for no reason, there
was no reason for him dying and none of it matters.
Get It?
BK
Grizzlie Antagonist
innocent acts of mischief-making really amounted to a calculated design of
sabotage conceived of and organized by The Man in the Yellow Hat (and how
and why George was set up as the designated patsy).
Grizzlie Antagonist
> > > The account was originally revealed by Dr. Charles Crenshaw, who was
> > > subjected to ridicule, but who was later vindicated by Parkland’s
> > > Chief Switchboard Operator, Phyllis Bartlett.
>
> > > Did LBJ “let” JFK die ?
>
> > > Did Johnson’s desire for the Presidency and his foreknowledge of the
> > > assassination result in his “allowing” JFK to die ?
>
> > > JFK TREASON – LBJ’s MISTRESS BLOWS WHISTLE ON LBJ
>
>
> > Just one question. If the plan was to set up the Soviet Union as the
> > "evil empire behind the assassination, along with its satellite
> > Cuba.", why is it a lone gunman ended up taking the blame?
>
> Because a few rightwing fanatics bought the cover-up hook, line and
> sinker?
>
> JB
Public opinion polls taken at the time showed that most Americans accepted
the conclusions of the WCR.
The WCR -- or even the WC when it was first formed -- didn't please "right
wing fanatics" at all.
Here is an example of what they were writing at the time:
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/Marxmanship1.html
But conspiracy theory is mostly a byproduct of popular culture (right-
wing groups such as the Birch Society and the Minutemen were always going
up against its grain, not with it) and popular culture is left- wing, not
right-wing, and as a result, mainstream liberals have moved far far to the
left since 1964.
Oliver's assertion that JFK was a member of the Communist Conspiracy and
that he was assassinated by "the young Bolshevik" because of some rift
within that conspiracy must have raised quite a few hackles in 1964.
Today, a mainstream liberal can accuse a Republican president of mass
murder and advocate having him drawn and quartered -- and popular culture
and the opinion that it controls won't even blink.
Bill Kelly
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
BK: Oliver isn't an example of what they were writing at the time, he
testified extensively before the WC and was a subject of their
investigation. How's he an example of what people were thinking and
writing at the time?
He was a nutcase then and is considered one today.
Who gives a shit what mainstream liberals think except idiots who are
afraid of them?
BK
bigdog
So the short answer is the conspirators fucked it up. They wanted to blame
the Soviets and Cuba to trigger a confrontation but they didn't figure on
LBJ covering up their conspiracy with his own conspiracy. I hate when that
happens. Why didn't they just knock off LBJ too and blame that on the
Soviets. Then they would have got John McCormack and he was such a senile
old geezer they could have got him to go along with just about anything
they wanted.
Grizzlie Antagonist
wrote:
Define "they".
> he
>testified extensively before the WC and was a subject of their
>investigation. How's he an example of what people were thinking and
>writing at the time?
He is an example of what "right wing fanatics" were thinking and
writing at the time.
>He was a nutcase then and is considered one today.
Somehow, I think that my point went whistling over your head.
>Who gives a shit what mainstream liberals think except idiots who are
>afraid of them?
Why did you become a JFK conspiracy theorist? Who are you afraid of?
Bill Kelly
I thought Al Hague was in charge.
BK
Anthony Marsh
Because he had lived in the Soviet Union and some people in intelligence
believed he had been sent back to kill Kennedy.
FYI a lone gunman can be part of a conspiracy.
Only one man shot a Lincoln and that was a proven conspiracy.
John McAdams
>JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters
>Why does it matter? The death of JFK remains a critical turning point
>in our history. Those who caused his death were targeting not just a
>man but a vision -- a vision of peace.....It is also the story of the
>designated patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
>Oliver Stone: Military-Intelligence Complex Killed JFK
>Oliver Stone | Huffington Post
>
>JFK and the Unspeakable
>
>Two reviews of James W. Douglass’ book, JFK and the Unspeakable, one
>by Oliver Stone, published Friday, July 24, on HuffPo, the other by
>Nick Anez on Amazon:
>
My review of this mish-mash of nonsense.
http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2009/12/unspeakably-awful.html
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Coondog
aeffects
.john mcadams review credible? ROTFLMFAO! ! ! ! ! Is this a feeble
attempt at becoming a comedian, Bill? ROTFLMAO! ! ! ! !
> Bill Clarke
Coondog
John was nicer than I was (most people are). I called it “total
crap”.
Bill Clarke
Gerry Simone
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4c421076$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Gerry Simone
Someone got me this book as a gift but I haven't read it yet so forgive me
for asking.
The theory behind this book is plausible but I'm going to be the devil's
advocate and ask what evidence is cited to make it as valid as the
prosecution's case?
"Bill Kelly" <billk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:33d089cb-c80a-46d6...@e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 16, 11:49 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 10:51 am, Raymond <Bluerhy...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters
> > Why does it matter? The death of JFK remains a critical turning point
> > in our history. Those who caused his death were targeting not just a
> > man but a vision -- a vision of peace.....It is also the story of the
> > designated patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
> > Oliver Stone: Military-Intelligence Complex Killed JFK
> > Oliver Stone | Huffington Post
>
> > JFK and the Unspeakable
>
> > Two reviews of James W. Douglass? book, JFK and the Unspeakable, one
> > by Oliver Stone, published Friday, July 24, on HuffPo, the other by
> > Nick Anez on Amazon:
>
> > JFK and the Unspeakable
>
> > The murder of President Kennedy was a seminal event for me and for
> > millions of Americans. It changed the course of history. It was a
> > crushing blow to our country and to millions of people around the
> > world. It put an abrupt end to a period of a misunderstood idealism,
> > akin to the spirit of 1989 when the Soviet bloc to began to thaw and
> > 2008, when our new American President was fairly elected.
>
> > Today, more than 45 years later, profound doubts persist about how
> > President Kennedy was killed and why. My film JFK was a metaphor for
> > all those doubts, suspicions and unanswered questions. Now an
> > extraordinary new book offers the best account I have read of this
> > tragedy and its significance. That book is James Douglass?s JFK and
> > the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. It is a book that
> > deserves the attention of all Americans; it is one of those rare books
> > that, by helping us understand our history, has the power to change
> > it.
>
> > The subtitle sums up Douglass?s purpose: Why He Died and Why it
> > Matters. In his beautifully written and exhaustively researched
> > treatment, Douglass lays out the ?motive? for Kennedy?s assassination.
> > Simply, he traces a process of steady conversion by Kennedy from his
> > origins as a traditional Cold Warrior to his determination to pull the
> > world back from the edge of destruction.
> > Cont'dhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/oliver-stone/jfk-and-the-unspeakable_b_...
>
> > And We Are All Mortal
> > Nick Anez | Amazon.com | June 8, 2008
>
> > In James W. Douglass? outstanding new book, ?JFK and the Unspeakable,?
> > the author explains the title in his introduction. Coined by spiritual
> > writer Thomas Merton, The Unspeakable refers to ?an evil whose depth
> > and deceit seemed to go beyond the capacity of words to describe.?
> > Regarding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the
> > Unspeakable succeeded due to deniability by the nation?s citizens of
> > the horrifying truth of the event and to plausible deniability by the
> > government agencies responsible for the murder. (Vincent Bugliosi?s
> > recent fictional paperweight is a perfect example of the plausible
> > deniability that allows the Unspeakable to thrive.)
>
> > Many excellent books have proven that the assassination of JFK was the
> > result of a conspiracy. Douglass verifies the certainty of the
> > conspiracy and, as the subtitle of the book states, explains ?Why He
> > Died and Why It Matters.? He scrutinizes the historical facts
> > surrounding the assassination, from the creation of the CIA to the
> > gradual obliteration of the freedoms upon which this nation was
> > founded.
>
> > This book is primarily the story of John F. Kennedy who changes from a
> > Cold Warrior to an altruistic leader willing to risk his life to
> > ensure that the world?s children will not become victims of a nuclear
> > catastrophe. Equal time is spent on JFK?s presidency as on the
> > assassination but one of the many rewards of this book is the author?s
> > capacity to show the relationship between his policies and his death.
> > And the book is a tragedy because it gradually becomes obvious that
> > each step he makes toward peace steadily increases the hatred of his
> > enemies who will eventually betray him.
>
> > It is also the story of the designated patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald. Moved
> > around the country like a pawn by government agencies (as was the
> > second ?Oswald?), he was being set up as the scapegoat. Enter some
> > despicable characters, including David Atlee Philips, James Hosty and,
> > of course, Michael and Ruth Paine. Simultaneously, the Soviet Union
> > was being set up as the evil empire behind the assassination, along
> > with its satellite Cuba.
>
> > Douglass credibly illustrates the origin of the Crime of the Century.
> > During President Truman?s administration, the CIA was empowered to be
> > a paramilitary organization with unlimited powers. Truman?s successor,
> > President Eisenhower, fell out of favor with the CIA when he planned a
> > summit meeting with Soviet Premier Khrushchev. This was cancelled
> > after a U.S. spy plane crashed in Russia. Eisenhower had reportedly
> > ordered such flights cancelled and had his suspicions about who had
> > ruined his peace plan. He subsequently issued his warning about the
> > ?military industrial complex? in his farewell address. But he didn?t
> > defy ?this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a
> > large arms industry.? He left that task to his successor, JFK.
>
> > The Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba was planned by the CIA to regain
> > control of the island and to re-open the casinos for organized crime.
> > President Kennedy refused to provide air support for the Cuban brigade
> > because he knew that he had been lied to by the Joint Chiefs of Staff
> > and by the CIA; the invasion had been designed to fail without U.S.
> > support but they hadn?t told this to JFK who refused to fall into
> > their trap. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK once again enraged
> > the CIA and the Joint Chiefs by resisting their tremendous pressure on
> > him to take military action which would have led to nuclear war.
>
> > Following that crisis, JFK became intent on ending the Cold War by
> > establishing a peaceful relationship with the Soviet Union. However,
> > many CIA and Pentagon personnel believed that it was better to be
> > ?dead than red? and that it was preferable to destroy civilization
> > rather than let the Communists rule. They also knew that war generated
> > billions of dollars into the arms industry. As a result, they would
> > repeatedly subvert the President?s policies and isolate him within his
> > own government. Enter some more despicable characters: Richard
> > Bissell, Charles Cabell, Henry Cabot Lodge, Lyman Lemnitzer, Curtis
> > LeMay and perhaps the most contemptible of all, Allen Dulles.
> > Ironically, JFK learned to trust Khrushchev more than people within
> > his own government.
>
> > At American University on June 10, 1963, JFK spoke about his desire
> > for world peace. He communicated his resolve to form a new
> > relationship with Khrushchev. He spoke about the necessity of a
> > pursuit toward disarmament. He related his intentions to establish a
> > Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. He acknowledged his country?s past faults and
> > recognized the Russian people as wanting peace as much as the American
> > people. ?And we are all mortal,? he stated. Though this extremely
> > important speech was ignored in the United States, it was disseminated
> > throughout the Soviet Union, per order of Khrushchev, who was prepared
> > to respond favorably to JFK?s peace initiative. The speech also
> > certified JFK?s death warrant. With so many powerful enemies opposing
> > his policies and hating him, JFK didn?t have a chance as he was being
> > maneuvered into the crossfire in Dallas.
>
> > President Kennedy was aware of the power of his enemies and he knew
> > the dangers facing him. But he persevered and mandated that all U.S.
> > personnel would be withdrawn from Vietnam; he was determined to never
> > send in combat troops even if this meant defeat. He also refused to
> > intervene militarily in Laos. He exchanged private letters with
> > Khrushchev, which infuriated the CIA, and secretly initiated plans to
> > attain rapproachement with Cuba, which further incensed the Agency.
> > Cuba?s Fidel Castro, whom the CIA hated as intensely as it hated
> > Kennedy, was equally eager to begin an American-Cuba dialogue. In
> > fact, Castro was meeting with a JFK representative when the President
> > was murdered. JFK died a martyr and the forces of evil that killed him
> > also killed his vision of peace.
>
> > Lyndon Johnson, the CIA?s ally, assumed the presidency. He cancelled
> > talks with Khrushchev and refused Castro?s pleas to continue the
> > dialogue. He reversed JFK?s withdrawal plan from Vietnam as well as
> > his plan to neutralize Laos. The military industrial complex took
> > control of the country. The policy of plausible deniability led the
> > way to assassinations of foreign leaders, the overthrowing of foreign
> > governments and horrors committed all over the globe. If JFK had not
> > been murdered, we would not have had the prolongation of the Cold War,
> > the Vietnam War, Watergate, the purported War on Terror and the steady
> > moral deterioration of America. Interestingly, one month after JFK?s
> > assassination, President Truman wrote an article for The Washington
> > Post cautioning about the threat of the CIA taking over America.
>
> > The author meticulously examines the evidence and draws conclusions
> > which ring with unassailable truth: (1) The CIA coordinated and
> > implemented he assassination of President Kennedy, an act of treason
> > which destroyed democracy in the U.S. (2) The Warren Commission was
> > created to propagate lies to conceal the truth from the American
> > people. (3)There has been a continued cover-up by successive
> > administrations and their stooges in the mass media. (4)The murder of
> > JFK is directly related to the current domination of the American
> > people by powerful oppressors within a shadow government that will
> > continue to insist that only sustained war can keep the country safe
> > from its enemies, never admitting that they themselves are the supreme
> > evil.
>
> > This is an exceptional book that will be used by future historians to
> > determine the truth about the assassination and how it changed
> > America. And it will also be used to honor John F. Kennedy as a
> > courageous president who believed in doing God?s work on earth. In
> > doing so, he came into conflict with the Unspeakable and his life was
> > extinguished.
>
> > JFK ? 1/2 ? Rare Seen Pictures Of The Shooter
>
> > JFK ? 2/2 ? Eyewitnesses Running After The Shooter
>
> > RFK to JFK: ?You?re going to be assassinated?
>
> > LBJ?s phone call to Parkland Hospital
>
> > Immediately after Oswald was shot by Ruby, LBJ called Parkland
> > Hospital and demanded that a ?deathbed confession? be taken from
> > Oswald.
>
> > The account was originally revealed by Dr. Charles Crenshaw, who was
> > subjected to ridicule, but who was later vindicated by Parkland?s
> > Chief Switchboard Operator, Phyllis Bartlett.
>
> > Did LBJ ?let? JFK die ?
>
> > Did Johnson?s desire for the Presidency and his foreknowledge of the
> > assassination result in his ?allowing? JFK to die ?
>
> > JFK TREASON ? LBJ?s MISTRESS BLOWS WHISTLE ON LBJ
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------??-----
Bill Kelly
> Someone got me this book as a gift but I haven't read it yet so forgive me
> for asking.
>
> The theory behind this book is plausible but I'm going to be the devil's
> advocate and ask what evidence is cited to make it as valid as the
> prosecution's case?
Gerry,
If James Douglas is correct, and that JFK wasn't killed by a lone nut
psycho, but it was a coup and those who killed him took over the
government and changed policies, then we know who they are and the
evidence should be there to prosecute them today.
I think the evidence is still there and since there's no statute of
limitations on murder, those responsible for the assassination, the murder
of Tippit and the cover up should be brought to justice by the method
described in the Constitution - by a Grand Jury investigation and
indictments.
BK
>
> "Bill Kelly" <billkel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
bigdog
> On Jul 19, 5:02 pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Someone got me this book as a gift but I haven't read it yet so forgive me
> > for asking.
>
> > The theory behind this book is plausible but I'm going to be the devil's
> > advocate and ask what evidence is cited to make it as valid as the
> > prosecution's case?
>
> Gerry,
>
> If James Douglas is correct, and that JFK wasn't killed by a lone nut
> psycho, but it was a coup and those who killed him took over the
> government and changed policies, then we know who they are and the
> evidence should be there to prosecute them today.
>
> I think the evidence is still there and since there's no statute of
> limitations on murder, those responsible for the assassination, the murder
> of Tippit and the cover up should be brought to justice by the method
> described in the Constitution - by a Grand Jury investigation and
> indictments.
>
Didn't Jim Garrison try that. How did that work out?
Coondog
> On Jul 19, 5:02 pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Someone got me this book as a gift but I haven't read it yet so forgive me
> > for asking.
>
> > The theory behind this book is plausible but I'm going to be the devil's
> > advocate and ask what evidence is cited to make it as valid as the
> > prosecution's case?
>
> Gerry,
>
> If James Douglas is correct, and that JFK wasn't killed by a lone nut
> psycho, but it was a coup and those who killed him took over the
> government and changed policies, then we know who they are and the
> evidence should be there to prosecute them today.
What policies were “changed”? None, which shoots this theory all to
hell.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
Vietnam.
Reform of the CIA.
John Blubaugh
How about replacing Hoover at the FBI?
JB
tomnln
>
> Splinter of the CIA.
Oil Depletion allowance
Federal Reserve Bank
bigdog
With all the shit Hoover had on JFK's escapades with the ladies, there is
zero chance JFK planned to replace him as head of the FBI. Hoover remained
in power until his death primarily because just about every politician was
afraid of what he knew about them. Nixon went so far as to ask former FBI
agent G. Gordon Liddy to prepare a report outlining the political
consequences of firing Hoover. Liddy's report actual said if was doable
from a political standpoint, but Nixon never did pull the trigger. He had
too many problems of his own.
Anthony Marsh
They couldn't. Hoover was blackmailing everyone, including the Kennedys
and the CIA.
Coondog
What changed? Johnson continued the escalation by increasing the
number of advisors just as Kennedy had done all three years he was in
office. The 1,000 man “withdrawal” had come home, although under
normal rotation. What was new? The mess resulting from Diem’s
removal was new and you can’t blame that on Johnson.
> Reform of the CIA.
Weak at best.
Bill Clarke
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree with you that the CIA is weak at best. Nearly the first act
Johnson did as President was to assure that Hoover had a lifetime
appointment. You seem to ignore that one but you ignore lots of
things.
JB
Anthony Marsh
We've been over this before. The change was NSAM 273 and Johnson sending
in ground combat troops and approve bombing North Vietnam, both things
that Kennedy refused to do. JFK said "over my dead body" and the JCS
replied, "Your offer is accepted."
Coondog
My god, even the ever JFK apologist Anthony Marsh told you why Kennedy
couldn’t have fired Hoover if he had wanted to. Johnson and Nixon
also couldn’t afford the wrath of Hoover and his “files” so the gay
Hoover kept his job until he finally died. Good riddance.
I realize I should ignore your unsupported crap but I find it amusing
to see what kind of non-referenced crap you will come out with next.
Bill Clarke
Coondog
Yeah, seems you’ll never get it.
>The change was NSAM 273
Dr. Moise calls the change in NSAM 273 and the draft prepared for JFK
small and insignificant. You’ll excuse me if I believe the historian
and not you.
> and Johnson sending
> in ground combat troops and approve bombing NorthVietnam, both things
> that Kennedy refused to do.
Kennedy never said “hell no, we aren’t going to do that”. He always
tabled these actions for future study. Why didn’t he say “Hell No”?
> JFK said "over my dead body" and the JCS
> replied, "Your offer is accepted."
I thought you blamed the CIA for the assassination? Which is it?
Bill Clarke
Bill Kelly
Hi Bill,
Sorry I missed this before.
LBJ would have been removed from the ticket for the next election over the
Billy Sol Estes and Bobby Baker scandals, even though he had blackmailed
JFK by dragging him into it with the girls.
So instead of getting kicked off the ticket, he kicked JFK off the ticket,
so that was one change, and the policy changes followed immediately,
beginning with the end of the Congressional investigaitons into the
scandals.
The major policies that LBJ changed were in regards to the military in
Cuba and Vietnam, and ignoring JFK's National Security Action Memo
ordering NASA to cooperate with the Soviets in going to the moon. He also
ended the detante and the negotiations on the reductions of nukes that
Obama only just now got back on track.
Since most of the top advisors - Bundy, MacNamara, Dillon, et al. were
either hawks or Republicans, LBJ didn't have to change their views, he
just had to stop the JFK initiatives.
The biggest policy change LBJ brought about was the administrative ability
to shut down Congressional and Judicial investigations into civil rights
murders and political assassinations, so there would be no repercussions
for the persons actually responsible for the murders of JFK, RFK, MLK, and
dozens of civil rights murders and political killings (ie Henry Marshal)
for which the killers still roam free.
All the best,
Bill Kelly
Gerry Simone
"Bill Kelly" <billk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ee0ba41-7a01-41af...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone
"Coondog" <billc...@live.com> wrote in message
news:8b3f1be7-f011-47cd...@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone
"John Blubaugh" <jblu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:758e8edc-8afe-42e5...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone
by a Mr. George Bush of the CIA in that letter to the Deputy Director (or
other high-ranking CIA official) that attempted to quell any concerns of
Cubans living in the U.S. as assassination suspects?
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4c4a414a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> On 7/23/2010 8:23 PM, John Blubaugh wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 2:20 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On 7/23/2010 12:43 PM, Coondog wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jul 22, 1:46 pm, Bill Kelly<billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 19, 5:02 pm, "Gerry Simone"<newdecent...@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Someone got me this book as a gift but I haven't read it yet so
>>>>>> forgive me for asking.
>>>
>>>>>> The theory behind this book is plausible but I'm going to be the
>>>>>> devil's advocate and ask what evidence is cited to make it as
>>>>>> valid as the prosecution's case?
>>>
>>>>> Gerry,
>>>
>>>>> If James Douglas is correct, and that JFK wasn't killed by a lone
>>>>> nut psycho, but it was a coup and those who killed him took over
>>>>> the government and changed policies, then we know who they are and
>>>>> the evidence should be there to prosecute them today.
>>>
>>>> What policies were ?changed?? None, which shoots this theory all to
Gerry Simone
"Coondog" <billc...@live.com> wrote in message
news:e19d14cd-f406-4421...@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> Hmmm. I wonder who Hoover was referring to when referring to a phone call
> by a Mr. George Bush of the CIA in that letter to the Deputy Director (or
> other high-ranking CIA official) that attempted to quell any concerns of
> Cubans living in the U.S. as assassination suspects?
>
Bush Senior not Bush Light.
Jeff
> On Jul 19, 5:02 pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Gerry,
>
> If James Douglas is correct, and that JFK wasn't killed by a lone nut
> psycho, but it was a coup and those who killed him took over the
> government and changed policies, then we know who they are and the
> evidence should be there to prosecute them today.
>
> I think the evidence is still there and since there's no statute of
> limitations on murder, those responsible for the assassination, the murder
> of Tippit and the cover up should be brought to justice by the method
> described in the Constitution - by a Grand Jury investigation and
> indictments.
>
> BK
>
When Ruby shot Oswald right at police headquarters I think the public
began to realize even then that something was horribly wrong with the
Kennedy assassination. Or at least the public should have realized it.
Ruby shooting Oswald makes no sense whatsoever. There is only on
explanation for this event which is it was done to hide the real truth.
But what could anyone do ? I guess the kids at Kent State tried to do
something.
All those things you said about reviewing the evidence and questioning
people in court was tried in the 1970s I think. Those proceedings hit a
brick wall of lies and secrecy. That was relatively soon after the
assassination. Today this would be an even more hopeless endeavor unless
the security agencies in the government are willing to come out and admit
what really happened.
Whatever hard physical evidence existed was destroyed almost immediately I
think except for the video that miraculously survived and made it into the
public domain. My understanding is JFK's brain disappeared soon after the
assassination and nobody knows where it is but I could be wrong. It
should also be very easy with today's technology to tell for example that
the photograph of Oswald holding the rifle in the back yard was modified
somehow.
I like following along in these discussions but how can anyone rely on
evidence that is controlled by the government ? Documents, reports, etc..
All of those things can be forged and manipulated. Bugliosi comes out
with a book that is based on evidence provided by the very people who
committed the crime.
But even if this assassination can be proven in various ways do you think
the government could ever come out and admit it was a conspiracy ? I
don't think they could ever admit that.
For one thing to admit that would invalidate the entire Viet Nam war.
Can you imagine the law suits that would result from the wrongful deaths
of 60,000 people and the injuring of countless more ? In this litigation
crazy country this would create a legal quagmire that would last for 100
years and bankrupt the entire United States government. It might even lead
to riots in the streets and people attempting to violently overthrow the
government who knows. The implications of an admission like that would be
far reaching and unpredictable.
Many countries today are run by criminals and killers. Russia. Mexico.
China. They don't even bother to try to hide their crimes too well.
Those who are in power rule with an iron fist.
In America we have laws that people think are upheld. So they had to kill
Kennedy in a more secretive way to get back into Viet Nam and line their
pockets.
I suspect the only place where the truth about this will ever be told is
Hollywood.
There's a lot of secrets out there with the government besides the Kennedy
assassination even today.
The flying saucer issue is one. That seems to involve things which would
shock the world if we ever found out.
People think the HAARP device up in Alaska could super heat the
atmosphere, create giant earthquakes, and destroy the world.
Who knows what else is out there.
Jeff Marzano
Rambo Trilogy (Ultimate Edition DVD Collection) (3-Disc Collector Set)
- (First Blood/Rambo: First Blood Part II/Rambo III) Starring
Sylvester Stallone, Brian Dennehy, Richard Crenna, et al. (DVD -
2004)
Haarp: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy (The Mind-Control
Conspiracy Series) by Jerry E. Smith (Paperback - Aug 1998)
The Philadelphia Experiment: Invisibility Time Travel and Mind Control
- The Shocking Truth Starring Al Bielek, Preston Nichols, and Duncan
Cameron (DVD - 2010)
Ramon F Herrera
The percentage allowed to big oil.
See Murchison et al.
-Ramon
bigdog
> On Jul 22, 4:46 pm, Bill Kelly <billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 19, 5:02 pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Gerry,
>
> > If James Douglas is correct, and that JFK wasn't killed by a lone nut
> > psycho, but it was a coup and those who killed him took over the
> > government and changed policies, then we know who they are and the
> > evidence should be there to prosecute them today.
>
> > I think the evidence is still there and since there's no statute of
> > limitations on murder, those responsible for the assassination, the murder
> > of Tippit and the cover up should be brought to justice by the method
> > described in the Constitution - by a Grand Jury investigation and
> > indictments.
>
> > BK
>
> When Ruby shot Oswald right at police headquarters I think the public
> began to realize even then that something was horribly wrong with the
> Kennedy assassination. Or at least the public should have realized it.
> Ruby shooting Oswald makes no sense whatsoever. There is only on
> explanation for this event which is it was done to hide the real truth.
>
or part of a conspiracy. It was a senseless act by an angry man. It
would make no sense for any alleged conspirators to have Ruby shoot
Oswald to silence him because then somebody would need to silence Ruby
and then that person would have to be silenced, and then that
person...etc. etc. etc. It also makes no sense that somebody would try
to silence Oswald with a single shot to the gut with a .38. More often
than not, a person would survive such a wound. Oswald died only
because Ruby happened to hit a major artery. One inch either way and
Oswald would likely have survived such a wound and would be royally
pissed off. The shooting of Oswald has all the earmarks of an
impulsive act, not a carefully planned hit.
> But what could anyone do ? I guess the kids at Kent State tried to do
> something.
>
Relevance???
> All those things you said about reviewing the evidence and questioning
> people in court was tried in the 1970s I think. Those proceedings hit a
> brick wall of lies and secrecy. That was relatively soon after the
> assassination. Today this would be an even more hopeless endeavor unless
> the security agencies in the government are willing to come out and admit
> what really happened.
>
If you are talking about Jim Garrison's persecution of Clay Shaw, that
was a gross abuse of prosecutorial power.
> Whatever hard physical evidence existed was destroyed almost immediately I
> think except for the video that miraculously survived and made it into the
> public domain. My understanding is JFK's brain disappeared soon after the
> assassination and nobody knows where it is but I could be wrong. It
> should also be very easy with today's technology to tell for example that
> the photograph of Oswald holding the rifle in the back yard was modified
> somehow.
>
The old the-dog-ate-my-evidence excuse for why there is not evidence
of a conspiracy. There was nothing miraculous about the survival of
the Z-film. A number of copies were made. Some were kept in the
archives. Time-Life held the commercial rights to the film and were
free to release it to the public at any time they chose. They made the
decision not to make it public which was their right.
> I like following along in these discussions but how can anyone rely on
> evidence that is controlled by the government ? Documents, reports, etc..
> All of those things can be forged and manipulated. Bugliosi comes out
> with a book that is based on evidence provided by the very people who
> committed the crime.
>
Why do you assume the government tampered with the evidence? What
reason do you have to believe they did so?
> But even if this assassination can be proven in various ways do you think
> the government could ever come out and admit it was a conspiracy ? I
> don't think they could ever admit that.
>
Why? Do you think anyone currently in the government was involved in
the original cover up? Do you think everyone in government has the
same agenda? Do you think they all work from the same playbook?
> For one thing to admit that would invalidate the entire Viet Nam war.
>
> Can you imagine the law suits that would result from the wrongful deaths
> of 60,000 people and the injuring of countless more ? In this litigation
> crazy country this would create a legal quagmire that would last for 100
> years and bankrupt the entire United States government. It might even lead
> to riots in the streets and people attempting to violently overthrow the
> government who knows. The implications of an admission like that would be
> far reaching and unpredictable.
>
We're up to 60,000 "mysterious deaths"?
> Many countries today are run by criminals and killers. Russia. Mexico.
> China. They don't even bother to try to hide their crimes too well.
> Those who are in power rule with an iron fist.
>
> In America we have laws that people think are upheld. So they had to kill
> Kennedy in a more secretive way to get back into Viet Nam and line their
> pockets.
>
JFK had escalated our role in Vietnam. Are you claiming it was the
peaceniks who whacked him?
> I suspect the only place where the truth about this will ever be told is
> Hollywood.
>
<snicker, snicker, snicker>
Sorry, I can't hold it in any more.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
STOP IT!!! YOU'RE KILLING ME!!!
> There's a lot of secrets out there with the government besides the Kennedy
> assassination even today.
>
> The flying saucer issue is one. That seems to involve things which would
> shock the world if we ever found out.
>
> People think the HAARP device up in Alaska could super heat the
> atmosphere, create giant earthquakes, and destroy the world.
>
> Who knows what else is out there.
>
> Jeff Marzano
>
Are you really trying to be taken seriously???
> Rambo Trilogy (Ultimate Edition DVD Collection) (3-Disc Collector Set)
> - (First Blood/Rambo: First Blood Part II/Rambo III) Starring
> Sylvester Stallone, Brian Dennehy, Richard Crenna, et al. (DVD -
> 2004)
>
> Haarp: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy (The Mind-Control
> Conspiracy Series) by Jerry E. Smith (Paperback - Aug 1998)
>
> The Philadelphia Experiment: Invisibility Time Travel and Mind Control
> - The Shocking Truth Starring Al Bielek, Preston Nichols, and Duncan
> Cameron (DVD - 2010)- Hide quoted text -
Raymond
And the Federal Reserve was saved.
Don't dare fool with the Federal Reserve , or else.....
I have a rendezvous with Death
On some scarred slope of battered hill,
When Spring comes round again this year
And the first meadow-flowers appear
"I Have a Rendezvous with Death"
by Alan Seeger.
President John F.Kennedy,
The Federal Reserve
And Executive Order 11110
From The Final Call, Vol. 15, No.6, On January 17, 1996
http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm
On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal
Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest.
On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110
that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency,
without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave
the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any
silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury."
This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's
vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In
all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into
circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.
With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these
silver certificats were to come into circulation they would have
eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. This is because the
silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes
are not backed by anything. Executive Order 11110 could have prevented
the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would
have given the gevernment the ability to repay its debt without going
to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create
the new money. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to
create its own money backed by silver.
After Mr. Kennedy was assassinated just five months later, no more
silver certificates were issued......A number
of "Kennedy bills" were indeed issued - the author has a five dollar
bill in his possession with the heading "United States Note" - but
were quickly withdrawn after Kennedy's death. According to information
from the Library of the Comptroller of the Currency, Executive Order
11,110 remains in effect today, although successive administrations
beginning with that of President Lyndon Johnson apparently have simply
ignored it and instead returned to the practice of paying interest on
Federal Reserve notes. Today we continue to use Federal Reserve Notes,
and the deficit is at an all-time high
tomnln
"Ramon F Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in message
news:796baaea-886f-4ab8...@m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
See Murchison et al.
-Ramon
jfk WAS ONNA eliminate "THE OIL DEPLETION ALLOWANCE"
(27 1/2 % OF VERY $$$ GOE INTO THEIR POCKETS "TAX FREE".
Grizzlie Antagonist
> On Jul 22, 4:46 pm, Bill Kelly <billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 19, 5:02 pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Gerry,
>
> > If James Douglas is correct, and that JFK wasn't killed by a lone nut
> > psycho, but it was a coup and those who killed him took over the
> > government and changed policies, then we know who they are and the
> > evidence should be there to prosecute them today.
>
> > I think the evidence is still there and since there's no statute of
> > limitations on murder, those responsible for the assassination, the murder
> > of Tippit and the cover up should be brought to justice by the method
> > described in the Constitution - by a Grand Jury investigation and
> > indictments.
>
> > BK
>
> When Ruby shot Oswald right at police headquarters I think the public
> began to realize even then that something was horribly wrong with the
> Kennedy assassination.
You mean that up until then, the public felt that everything was going
right with the Kennedy assassination?
> Or at least the public should have realized it.
> Ruby shooting Oswald makes no sense whatsoever.
It made plenty of sense to Ruby and to people who felt as he did.
> There is only on
> explanation for this event which is it was done to hide the real truth.
Ruby shot Oswald -- among other things -- to prove that he was a Jew
with guts. You think maybe that the real truth was that Ruby was a
cowardly Zoroastrian?
> But what could anyone do ? I guess the kids at Kent State tried to do
> something.
About Kennedy's assassination? What are you talking about? I think
that the National Guard showed remarkable restraint in leaving the
scene with only four dead hippies.
> All those things you said about reviewing the evidence and questioning
> people in court was tried in the 1970s I think. Those proceedings hit a
> brick wall of lies and secrecy. That was relatively soon after the
> assassination. Today this would be an even more hopeless endeavor unless
> the security agencies in the government are willing to come out and admit
> what really happened.
>
> Whatever hard physical evidence existed was destroyed almost immediately I
> think except for the video that miraculously survived and made it into the
> public domain. My understanding is JFK's brain disappeared soon after the
> assassination and nobody knows where it is
JFK's brain disappeared shortly before the Bay of Pigs. However, his
assassination has indeed caused a lot of people to lose their heads
and nobody knows where they are.
> but I could be wrong. It
> should also be very easy with today's technology to tell for example that
> the photograph of Oswald holding the rifle in the back yard was modified
> somehow.
Don't agonize over it. It wasn't modified.
> I like following along in these discussions but how can anyone rely on
> evidence that is controlled by the government ? Documents, reports, etc..
> All of those things can be forged and manipulated. Bugliosi comes out
> with a book that is based on evidence provided by the very people who
> committed the crime.
Like what? Like whom?
> But even if this assassination can be proven in various ways do you think
> the government could ever come out and admit it was a conspiracy ? I
> don't think they could ever admit that.
Then I guess you're stuck.
> For one thing to admit that would invalidate the entire Viet Nam war.
You're making a lot of statements that don't have any foundation to
them at all.
Hippies at Kent State responding to JFK's assassination. An
explanation of JFK's death that would "invalidate the Vietnam War".
Are you sure that there isn't also a connection between JFK's death
and the prevalence of unlicensed dogs roaming the street, due to a
lack of responsible spaying and neutering?
> Can you imagine the law suits that would result from the wrongful deaths
> of 60,000 people and the injuring of countless more ?
There must have been thousands of lawsuits initiated over the Vietnam
War and over other wars. I fail to see what JFK's death has to do
with them or why a conspiratorial explanation of his death would need
to be a necessary element of them.
> In this litigation
> crazy country this would create a legal quagmire that would last for 100
> years and bankrupt the entire United States government.
Holy shit! Don't you read the papers? The entire United States
government IS bankrupt! So are state and local governments. It's due to
policies advocated by those who think that we can print and spend our way
into prosperity. And those tend to be people who are sympathetic to JFK
conspiracy theory.
> It might even lead
> to riots in the streets and people attempting to violently overthrow the
> government who knows. The implications of an admission like that would be
> far reaching and unpredictable
There ARE riots in the streets and lunatics already HAVE overthrown
the government. The lunatics have won. How are they doing? They
seem to be showing less restraint than the National Guard did at Kent
State.
> Many countries today are run by criminals and killers. Russia. Mexico.
> China. They don't even bother to try to hide their crimes too well.
> Those who are in power rule with an iron fist.
> In America we have laws that people think are upheld. So they had to kill
> Kennedy in a more secretive way to get back into Viet Nam and line their
> pockets.
But "they" were in Vietnam already.
> I suspect the only place where the truth about this will ever be told is
> Hollywood.
Oh no! OH NO! The history of the world, as told by Shrek!
> There's a lot of secrets out there with the government besides the Kennedy
> assassination even today.
Really?
> The flying saucer issue is one. That seems to involve things which would
> shock the world if we ever found out.
Don't forget the formula for an elixir that turns water into oil.
> People think the HAARP device up in Alaska could super heat the
> atmosphere, create giant earthquakes, and destroy the world.
The more I interact with people, the more I suspect that this would be
a tremendous improvement. Ants would inherit the earth and would
probably behave more sensibly.
> Who knows what else is out there.
>
Paranoia. Lots of paranoia.
Raymond
RE: For one thing to admit that would invalidate the entire Viet Nam
war.
The war was a lie from before the Gulf of Tonkin until its end. It
was about oil just as Iraq and Afghanistan are about oil for American
oil owners.(and Iraq oil for Irrael.)
The Observer
By Steven Scheer
LONDON (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he
expected an oil pipeline from Iraq to Israel to be reopened in the
near future after being closed when Israel became a state in 1948.
"It won't be long when you will see Iraqi oil flowing to Haifa," the
port city in northern Israel, Netanyahu told a group of British
investors, declining to give a timetable.
"It is just a matter of time until the pipeline is reconstituted and
Iraqi oil will flow to the Mediterranean."
Netanyahu later told Reuters the government was in the early stages of
looking into the possibility of reopening the pipeline, which during
the British Mandate sent oil from Mosul to Haifa via Jordan.
Shalom:
"It's not a pipe-dream," Netanyahu said.
When Jews started to invade Palestine in 1945, Syria shut down its
branch to Tripoli. Iraq shut down all oil from from Kirkuk to Haifa.
At that point, most of northern Iraq's oil went to the Turkish port
city of Gihan, which was OK with the US, since Turkey was a US ally
against the USSR. Turkey collected transit fees for this oil. However,
today, Israel calls the shots for America in the Middle east and oil
will now flow to Haifa.
Under a 1975 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) the US guaranteed all
Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis. This MoU is quietly
renewed every five years. It commits US taxpayers to maintain a
strategic US reserve for Israel, equivalent to $3 billion in 2002
dollars. Special legislation was enacted to exempt Israel from
restrictions on oil exports from the US. Moreover, the US government
agreed to divert oil from the US, even in case of oil shortages in the
US. The US government also guaranteed delivery of oil in US tankers if
commercial shippers become unable or unwilling to carry oil from the
US to Israel.
SEE
Israel-United States Memorandum of Understanding
(September 1, 1975)
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/mou1975.html
Afghanistan? Why?
U.S. assistance in developing these new oil economies will be crucial
to business' success. We encourage strong technical assistance
programs throughout the region
The Afghanistan War was Planned Months Before the 9/11 Attacks
It's all about OIL as was the invasion of Iraq.
Unocal envisions the creation of a Central Asian Oil Pipeline
Consortium
Oil Routes for oil pipeline:
One obvious potential route south would be across Iran. However, this
option is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions
legislation. The only other possible route option is across
Afghanistan, which has its own unique challenges. U.S. assistance in
developing these new economies will be crucial to business' success.
Developing cost-effective, profitable and efficient export routes for
Central Asia resources is a formidable, but not impossible, task.
The 1,040-mile-long oil pipeline would begin near the town of
Chardzhou, in northern Turkmenistan, and extend southeasterly through
Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the
Pakistan coast on the Arabian Sea. Only about 440 miles of the
pipeline would be in Afghanistan
The evidence presented below may be sufficient to raise serious
questions about the motivations behind U.S. President Bush's decision
to invade Afghanistan, ... on October 7, 2001, the U.S. government
launched military operations in Afghanistan.
TESTIMONY
BY JOHN J. MARESCA
VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
UNOCAL CORPORATION
TO
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
Three issues concerning this region, its resources and U.S. policy
FEBRUARY 12, 1998
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Chairman, I am John Maresca, Vice President, International
Relations, of Unocal Corporation.
Unocal is one of the world's leading energy resource and project
development companies. Our activities are focused on three major
regions -- Asia, Latin America and the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. In Asia
and the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, we are a major oil and gas producer. I
appreciate your invitation to speak here today. I believe these
hearings are important and timely, and Icongratulate you for focusing
on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and the role they play in shaping
U.S. policy.
Today we would like to focus on three issues concerning this region,
its resources and U.S. policy:
The need for multiple pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas.
The need for U.S. support for international and regional efforts to
achieve balanced and lasting political settlements within Russia,
other newly independent states and in AFGHANISTAN..
The need for structured assistance to encourage economic reforms and
the development of appropriate investment climates in the region. In
this regard, we specifically support repeal or removal of Section 907
of the Freedom Support Act.
For more than 2,000 years, Central Asia has been a meeting ground
between Europe and Asia, the site of ancient east-west trade routes
collectively called the Silk Road and, at various points in history, a
cradle of scholarship, culture and power. It is also a region of truly
enormous natural resources, which are revitalizing cross-border
trade,creating positive political interaction and stimulating regional
cooperation. These resources have the potential to recharge the
economies of neighboring countries and put entire regions on the road
to prosperity.
About 100 years ago, the international oil industry was born in the
Caspian/Central Asian region with the discovery of oil. In the
intervening years, under Soviet rule, the existence of the region's
oil and gas resources was generally known, but only partially or
poorly developed.
As we near the end of the 20 th century, history brings us full
circle. With political barriers falling, Central Asia and the Caspian
are once again attracting people from around the globe who are
seeking ways to develop and deliver its bountiful energy resources to
the markets of the world.
The Caspian region contains tremendous untapped hydrocarbon reserves,
much of them located in the Caspian Sea basin itself. Proven natural
gas reserves within Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and
Kazakhstan equal more than 236 trillion cubic feet. The region's total
oil reserves may reach more than 60 billion barrels of oil -- enough
to service Europe's oil needs for 11 years. Some estimates are as high
as 200 billion barrels. In 1995, the region was producing only
870,000
barrels per day (44 million tons per year [Mt/y]).
By 2010, Western companies could increase production to about 4.5
million barrels a day (Mb/d) -- an increase of more than 500 percent
in only 15 years. If this occurs, the region would represent about
five percent of the world's total oil production, and almost 20
percent of oil produced among non-OPEC countries.
One major problem has yet to be resolved: how to get the region's vast
energy resources to the markets where they are needed. There are few, if
any, other areas of the world where there can be such a dramatic increase
in the supply of oil and gas to the world market. The solution seems
simple: build a "new" Silk Road. Implementing this solution, however, is
far from simple. The risks are high, but so are the rewards.
Finding and Building Routes to World Markets
One of the main problems is that Central Asia is isolated. The region
is bounded on the north by the Arctic Circle, on the east and west by
vast land distances, and on the south by a series of natural obstacles
-- mountains and seas -- as well as political obstacles, such as
conflict zones or sanctioned countries.
This means that the area's natural resources are landlocked, both
geographically and politically. Each of the countries in the Caucasus and
Central Asia faces difficult political challenges. Some have unsettled
wars or latent conflicts. Others have evolving systems where the laws --
and even the courts -- are dynamic and changing. Business commitments can
be rescinded without warning, or they can be displaced by new geopolitical
realities.
In addition, a chief technical obstacle we face in transporting oil is the
region's existing pipeline infrastructure. Because the region's pipelines
were constructed during the Moscow-centered Soviet period, they tend to
head north and west toward Russia. There are no connections to the south
and east.
Depending wholly on this infrastructure to export Central Asia oil is
not practical. Russia currently is unlikely to absorb large new
quantities of "foreign" oil, is unlikely to be a significant market
for energy in the next decade, and lacks the capacity to deliver it to
other markets.
Certainly there is no easy way out of Central Asia. If there are to be
other routes, in other directions, they must be built.
Two major energy infrastructure projects are seeking to meet this
challenge. One, under the aegis of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, or
CPC, plans to build a pipeline west from the Northern Caspian to the
Russian Black Sea port of Novorossisk. From Novorossisk, oil from this
line would be transported by tanker through the Bosphorus to the
Mediterranean and world markets.
The other project is sponsored by the Azerbaijan International
Operating Company (AIOC), a consortium of 11 foreign oil companies
including four American companies -- Unocal, Amoco, Exxon and
Pennzoil. It will follow one or both of two routes west from Baku. One
line will angle north and cross the North Caucasus to Novorossisk. The
other route would cross Georgia and extend to a shipping terminal on
the Black Sea port of Supsa. This second route may be extended west
and south across Turkey to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan.
But even if both pipelines were built, they would not have enough
total capacity to transport all the oil expected to flow from the
region in the future; nor would they have the capability to move it to
the right markets. Other export pipelines must be built.
Unocal believes that the central factor in planning these pipelines
should be the location of the future energy markets that are most
likely to need these new supplies. Just as Central Asia was the
meeting ground between Europe and Asia in centuries past, it is again
in a unique position to potentially service markets in both of these
regions -- if export routes to these markets can be built. Let's take
a look at some of the potential markets.
Western Europe
Western Europe is a tough market. It is characterized by high prices
for oil products, an aging population, and increasing competition from
natural gas. Between 1995 and 2010, we estimate that demand for oil
will increase from 14.1 Mb/d (705 Mt/y) to 15.0 Mb/d (750 Mt/y), an
average growth rate of only 0.5 percent annually. Furthermore, the
region is already amply supplied from fields in the Middle East, North
Sea, Scandinavia and Russia. Although there is perhaps room for some
of Central Asia's oil, the Western European market is unlikely to be
able to absorb all of the production from the Caspian region.
Central and Eastern Europe
Central and Eastern Europe markets do not look any better. Although
there is increased demand for oil in the region's transport sector,
natural gas is gaining strength as a competitor. Between 1995 and
2010, demand for oil is expected to increase by only half a million
barrels per day, from 1.3 Mb/d (67 Mt/y) to 1.8 Mb/d (91.5 Mt/y). Like
Western Europe, this market is also very competitive. In addition to
supplies of oil from the North Sea, Africa and the Middle East, Russia
supplies the majority of the oil to this region.
The Domestic NIS Market
The growth in demand for oil also will be weak in the Newly
Independent States (NIS). We expect Russian and other NIS markets to
increase demand by only 1.2 percent annually between 1997 and 2010.
Asia/Pacific
In stark contrast to the other three markets, the Asia/Pacific region
has a rapidly increasing demand for oil and an expected significant
increase in population. Prior to the recent turbulence in the various
Asian/Pacific economies, we anticipated that this region's demand for
oil would almost double by 2010. Although the short-term increase in
demand will probably not meet these expectations, Unocal stands
behind its long-term estimates.
Energy demand growth will remain strong for one key reason: the
region's population is expected to grow by 700 million people by
2010.
It is in everyone's interests that there be adequate supplies for
Asia's increasing energy requirements. If Asia's energy needs are not
satisfied, they will simply put pressure on all world markets,
driving prices upwards everywhere.
The key question is how the energy resources of Central Asia can be
made available to satisfy the energy needs of nearby Asian markets.
There are two possible solutions -- with several variations.
Export Routes
East to China: Prohibitively Long?
One option is to go east across China. But this would mean
constructing a pipeline of more than 3,000 kilometers to central China
-- as well as a 2,000-kilometer connection to reach the main
population centers along the coast. Even with these formidable
challenges, China National Petroleum Corporation is considering
building a pipeline east from Kazakhstan to Chinese markets.
Unocal had a team in Beijing just last week for consultations with the
Chinese. Given China's long-range outlook and its ability to
concentrate resources to meet its own needs, China is almost certain
to build such a line. The question is what will the costs of
transporting oil through this pipeline be and what net back will the
producers receive.
South to the Indian Ocean: A Shorter Distance to Growing Markets
A second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the
Indian Ocean.
One obvious potential route south would be across Iran. However, this
option is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions
legislation. The only other possible route option is across
Afghanistan, which has its own unique challenges.
The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two
decades. The territory across which the pipeline would extend is
controlled by the Taliban, an Islamic movement that is not recognized
as a government by most other nations. From the outset, we have made
it clear that construction of our proposed pipeline cannot begin
until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of
governments, lenders and our company.
In spite of this, a route through Afghanistan appears to be the best
option with the fewest technical obstacles. It is the shortest route
to the sea and has relatively favorable terrain for a pipeline. The
route through Afghanistan is the one that would bring Central Asian
oil closest to Asian markets and thus would be the cheapest in terms
of transporting the oil.
Unocal envisions the creation of a Central Asian Oil Pipeline
Consortium. The pipeline would become an integral part of a regional
oil pipeline system that will utilize and gather oil from existing
pipeline infrastructure in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and
Russia.
The 1,040-mile-long oil pipeline would begin near the town of
Chardzhou, in northern Turkmenistan, and extend southeasterly through
Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the
Pakistan coast on the Arabian Sea. Only about 440 miles of the
pipeline would be in Afghanistan.
This 42-inch-diameter pipeline will have a shipping capacity of one
million barrels of oil per day. Estimated cost of the project -- which
is similar in scope to the Trans Alaska Pipeline -- is about US $2.5
billion.
There is considerable international and regional political interest in
this pipeline. Asian crude oil importers, particularly from Japan, are
looking to Central Asia and the Caspian as a new strategic source of
supply to satisfy their desire for resource diversity. The pipeline
benefits Central Asian countries because it would allow them to sell
their oil in expanding and highly prospective hard currency markets.
The pipeline would benefit Afghanistan, which would receive revenues
from transport tariffs, and would promote stability and encourage
trade and economic development. Although Unocal has not negotiated
with any one group, and does not favor any group, we have had contacts
with and briefings for all of them. We know that the different
factions in Afghanistan understand the importance of the pipeline
project for their country, and have expressed their support of it.
A recent study for the World Bank states that the proposed pipeline
from Central Asia across Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea
would provide more favorable net backs to oil producers through
access to higher value markets than those currently being accessed
through
the traditional Baltic and Black Sea export routes.
This is evidenced by the netback values producers will receive as
determined by the World Bank study. For West Siberian crude, the
netback value will increase by nearly $2.00 per barrel by going south
to Asia. For a producer in western Kazakhstan, the netback value will
increase by more than $1 per barrel by going south to Asia as
compared to west to the Mediterranean via the Black Sea.
Natural Gas Export
Given the plentiful natural gas supplies of Central Asia, our aim is
to link a specific natural resource with the nearest viable market.
This is basic for the commercial viability of any gas project. As
with all projects being considered in this region, the following
projects
face geo-political challenges, as well as market issues.
Unocal and the Turkish company, Koc Holding A.S., are interested in
bringing competitive gas supplies to the Turkey market. The proposed
Eurasia Natural Gas Pipeline would transport gas from Turkmenistan
directly across the Caspian Sea through Azerbaijan and Georgia to
Turkey. Sixty percent of this proposed gas pipeline would follow the
same route as the oil pipeline proposed to run from Baku to Ceyhan.
Of course, the demarcation of the Caspian remains an issue.
Last October, the Central Asia Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) consortium,
in which Unocal holds an interest, was formed to develop a gas
pipeline
that will link Turkmenistan's vast natural gas reserves in the
Dauletabad Field with markets in Pakistan and possibly India. An
independent evaluation shows that the field's resources are adequate
for the project's needs, assuming production rates rising over time
to 2 billion cubic feet of gas per day for 30 years or more.
In production since 1983, the Dauletabad Field's natural gas has been
delivered north via Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia to markets in
the Caspian and Black Sea areas. The proposed 790-mile pipeline will
open up new markets for this gas, traveling from Turkmenistan through
Afghanistan to Multan, Pakistan. A proposed extension would link with
the existing Sui pipeline system, moving gas to near New Delhi, where
it would connect with the existing HBJ pipeline. By serving these
additional volumes, the extension would enhance the economics of the
project, leading to overall reductions in delivered natural gas costs
for all users and better margins. As currently planned, the CentGas
pipeline would cost approximately $2 billion. A 400-mile extension
into India could add $600 million to the overall project cost.
As with the proposed Central Asia Oil Pipeline, CentGas cannot begin
construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan
government is in place. For the project to advance, it must have
international financing, government-to-government agreements and
government-to-consortium agreements.
Conclusion
The Central Asia and Caspian region is blessed with abundant oil and
gas that can enhance the lives of the region's residents and provide
energy for growth for Europe and Asia.
The impact of these resources on U.S. commercial interests and U.S.
foreign policy is also significant and intertwined. Without peaceful
settlement of conflicts within the region, cross-border oil and gas
pipelines are not likely to be built. We urge the Administration and
the Congress to give strong support to the United Nations-led peace
process in Afghanistan.
U.S. assistance in developing these new economies will be crucial to
business' success. We encourage strong technical assistance programs
throughout the region. We also urge repeal or removal of Section 907
of the Freedom Support Act. This section unfairly restricts U.S.
government assistance to the government of Azerbaijan and limits U.S.
influence in the region.
Developing cost-effective, profitable and efficient export routes for
Central Asia resources is a formidable, but not impossible, task. It
has been accomplished before. A commercial corridor, a "new" Silk
Road, can link the Central Asia supply with the demand -- once again
making Central Asia the crossroads between Europe and Asia.
Thank you.
The Caspian Sea shelf is considered one of the largest sources of
petroleum outside the Persian Gulf and Russia.
Afghan pipeline given go-ahead:
U .S. assistance in developing these new economies will be crucial to
business' success. 30 May, 2002-The leaders of Afghanistan, Pakistan
and Turkmenistan have agreed to construct a $2 bn pipeline to bring
gas from Central Asia to the sub-continent
A Timeline of Oil and Violence - Afghanistan
See map of area ... Unocal and Delta Oil Co. of Saudi Arabia signed a
memorandum
http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm
Upon taking office, the Bush administration immediately engaged in
active negotiations with Taliban representatives with meetings in
Washington, DC, Berlin, and Islamabad. During this time the Taliban
government hired Laila Helms, niece of former CIA director Richard
Helms, as their go-between in negotiations with the US government.
Bush (oil) administration ( includes:
Dick Cheney, VP: Until 2000 - President of Halliburton (in position to
build the Afghan pipeline).
Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor: 1991-2000 - Manager of
Chevron Oil, and Kazakhstan go-between.
Donald Evans, Sec. Commerce: former CEO, Tom Brown, Inc. (a $1.2
billion oil company).
Gale Norton, Sec. Interior: former national chairwoman of the
Coalition of Republican Environmental Advocates - funded by, among
others, BP Amoco.
Spencer Abraham, Sec. Energy: Up through his failed bid for senatorial
reelection in the 2000, he received more oil and gas industry money
than all but three other senators (January 1997 through July 2000)
(30).
Thomas White, Secretary of the Army: former Vice Chairman of Enron and
a large shareholder of that company's stock.
http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm
War on Terrorism or Oil War? See the Map of the Pipeline!
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/oil_war.htm
Let us prey.
--- Raymond
Take the Tour Of Nam
.http://pzzzz.tripod.com/nampictour.html
Defend the Flag
The wall is full with names of sons
That lost their lives to foreign guns.
Who's to blame? "We're not the ones."
And with these words each leader runs.
Who are these men we pick to lead
That waste our youth and make them bleed?
These must be men of awful need
That can commit this dreadful deed.
These wretched men who live to lie
Are not the ones that fight and die.
They cause this woe and merely sigh
While mother's hearts are made to cry.
"Defend the flag - this is the way."
We never question what they say.
But pain and death will end the day
And in the earth our children lay.
We ask our youth their lives to lend
While our leaders strut and spend.
It's off to Hell these leaders send
Then this madness just might end.
By Raymond
WHY VIETNAM ?
"The Real Story"
The Vietnam Standard Oil War!!
The Rockefeller controlled Pentagon used the excuse of the war to drop
bombs in the water and listen to the echo in order to locate the
underwater oilfields......Herbert Hoover, later to become President of
the United States did a study that showed that one of the world's
largest oil fields ran along the coast of the South China Sea right
off French Indo-China, now known as Vietnam. This was before offshore
drilling had been invented and before a man named George Herbert
Walker Bush was to become the CEO of a world-wide offshore drilling
company.
In 1945, Vietnam was still a colony of the French. Laurence
Rockefeller, it appears, had given the extensive store of weapons to
Ho Chi Minh with the hope that Vietnam would drive out the French so
that Standard Oil would be able to take over the as yet undeveloped
offshore fields. But in 1954, Vietnamese General Giap finally defeated
and drove out the French at Dien Bien Phu with weaponry provided by
the U.S. Ho Chi Minh reneged on the deal since he could read too, and
he was well aware of the Hoover resource report and knew there was a
vast supply of oil off the Vietnamese coast.
In the 1950's a method of undersea oil exploration was perfected which
used small explosions deep in the water and then recorded the sound
echoes bouncing off the various layers of rock below. The surveyor
could then determine the exact location of the arched salt domes which
hold the accumulated oil beneath them. But if this method were used
off the Vietnam coast on property Standard didn't own or have the
rights to, the Vietnamese, the Chinese, the Japanese and probably even
the French would quickly run to the United Nations and complain that
America was stealing the oil, and that would shut down the operation.
In 1964, after Vietnam was divided into North and South, and the
contrived Gulf of Tonkin incident, several U.S. aircraft carriers were
stationed offshore of Vietnam and the 'war' was started. Every day jet
planes would take off from the carriers, bomb locations in North and
South Vietnam, and then using normal military procedure when returning
would dump their unsafe or unused bombs in the ocean before landing
back on the carriers. Safe ordnance drop zones were designated for
this purpose away from the carriers.
Even close-up observers would only notice many small explosions
occurring daily in the waters of the South China Sea and thought it
was only part of the 'war.' The U.S. Navy carriers had begun Operation
Linebacker One, and Standard Oil had begun its ten year oil survey of
the seabed off of Vietnam. And the Vietnamese, Chinese and everybody
else around, including the Americans, were none the wiser. The oil
survey hardly cost Standard Oil a nickel, the U.S. taxpayers paid for
it.
References
Collier, Peter & Horowith, David, The Rockefellers, An American
Dynasty, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1976.
Denny, Ludwell, We Fight of Oil, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1928.
Kemmer, Edwin Walter, The ABC of the Federal Reserve System, Greenwood
Press Publishers, Westport, Conn., 1950.
Lundberg, Ferdinand, America's 60 Richest Families, The Vanguard
Press, New York, 1937.
Langer, Walter, C., The Mind of Adolf Hitler, New American Library,
New York, 1972.
Rockefeller, David, Memoirs, Random House, New York, 2002.
Springmeier, Fritz, Bloodlines of the Illuminati, Ambassador House,
Austin, Texas, 2002.
BLACK GOLD HOT GOLD
The Rise of Fascism in the American Energy Business
(Pre-publication online preview excerpt)
(CHAPTER THREE)
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/black_gold_3.htm
Vietnam is increasingly an important supplier of oil to regional
markets and may emerge as a significant natural gas exporter in the
future.
The making of Vietnam's oil giant
By Andrew Symon
HO CHI MINH CITY - PetroVietnam, Vietnam's dominant state oil-and-gas
group, is bidding to emerge as a new force in international energy
markets. Following the proven model of China's successful state-owned
petroleum companies, CNOOC, CNPC-PetroChina and Sinopec, and with an eye
on Malaysia's highly profitable state-owned Petronas, PetroVietnam is
leveraging off its strong domestic position to develop a growing
international portfolio of energy interests and operations. Crude-oil
exports have powered Vietnam's recent rapid economic growth, representing
the country's largest single export item
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/II25Ae02.html
> Jeff Marzano
>
> Rambo Trilogy (Ultimate Edition DVD Collection) (3-Disc Collector Set)
> - (First Blood/Rambo: First Blood Part II/Rambo III) Starring
> Sylvester Stallone, Brian Dennehy, Richard Crenna, et al. (DVD -
> 2004)
>
> Haarp: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy (The Mind-Control
> Conspiracy Series) by Jerry E. Smith (Paperback - Aug 1998)
>
> The Philadelphia Experiment: Invisibility Time Travel and Mind Control
> - The Shocking Truth Starring Al Bielek, Preston Nichols, and Duncan
Coondog
> On Jul 23, 9:43 am, Coondog <billcla...@live.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 22, 1:46 pm, Bill Kelly <billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 19, 5:02 pm, "Gerry Simone" <newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Someone got me this book as a gift but I haven't read it yet so forgive me
> > > > for asking.
>
> > > > The theory behind this book is plausible but I'm going to be the devil's
> > > > advocate and ask what evidence is cited to make it as valid as the
> > > > prosecution's case?
>
> > > Gerry,
>
> > > If James Douglas is correct, and that JFK wasn't killed by a lone nut
> > > psycho, but it was a coup and those who killed him took over the
> > > government and changed policies, then we know who they are and the
> > > evidence should be there to prosecute them today.
>
> > What policies were “changed”? None, which shoots this theory all to
> > hell.
> > Bill Clarke
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Sorry I missed this before.
>
> LBJ would have been removed from the ticket for the next election over the
> Billy Sol Estes and Bobby Baker scandals, even though he had blackmailed
> JFK by dragging him into it with the girls.
Maybe and maybe not. I don’t think we can be sure about this one.
> So instead of getting kicked off the ticket, he kicked JFK off the ticket,
> so that was one change, and the policy changes followed immediately,
> beginning with the end of the Congressional investigaitons into the
> scandals.
>
> The major policies that LBJ changed were in regards to the military in
> Cuba andVietnam,
And what were these changes? Be specific now.
and ignoring JFK's National Security Action Memo
> ordering NASA to cooperate with the Soviets in going to the moon. He also
> ended the detante and the negotiations on the reductions of nukes that
> Obama only just now got back on track.
>
> Since most of the top advisors - Bundy, MacNamara, Dillon, et al. were
> either hawks or Republicans, LBJ didn't have to change their views, he
> just had to stop the JFK initiatives.
>
> The biggest policy change LBJ brought about was the administrative ability
> to shut down Congressional and Judicial investigations into civil rights
> murders and political assassinations, so there would be no repercussions
> for the persons actually responsible for the murders of JFK, RFK, MLK, and
> dozens of civil rights murders and political killings (ie Henry Marshal)
> for which the killers still roam free.
Funny, the Johnson tapes shows LBJ burning Hoover’s butt to solve the
murder of the three civil rights workers buried in a levee. I think he
did his best to bring these murderers to justice. All the best.
Bill Clarke
Coondog
> Ah that's debatable.
Well Gerry, that is what we do here, debate the issue. Perhaps I was
a bit strong in saying “none” were changed but I certainly don’t think
any were changed that was important enough to assassinate the
president. Had JFK said we were pulling out of Vietnam tomorrow that
might have put him in danger. But he didn’t say that.
Bill Clarke
> "Coondog" <billcla...@live.com> wrote in message
> Bill Clarke- Hide quoted text -
Coondog
I don’t understand the logic here. Please explain.
> Can you imagine the law suits that would result from the wrongful deaths
> of 60,000 people and the injuring of countless more ? In this litigation
> crazy country this would create a legal quagmire that would last for 100
> years and bankrupt the entire United States government. It might even lead
> to riots in the streets and people attempting to violently overthrow the
> government who knows. The implications of an admission like that would be
> far reaching and unpredictable.
>
> Many countries today are run by criminals and killers. Russia. Mexico.
> China. They don't even bother to try to hide their crimes too well.
> Those who are in power rule with an iron fist.
>
> In America we have laws that people think are upheld. So they had to kill
> Kennedy in a more secretive way to get back into Viet Nam and line their
> pockets.
I didn’t know we had ever left Vietnam.
Bill Clarke
Coondog
True but do you think that was big enough to kill a president? I
don’t.
Bill Clarke
Coondog
Oh hells bells Raymond, if South Vietnam had oil we would still be
there. We might have even invaded North Vietnam for oil!
Bill Clarke
robcap...@netscape.com
> "Ramon F Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in messagenews:796baaea-886f-4ab8...@m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Great point Tom and this is why the conspirators got away with this as
JFK made so many enemies it is easy to say so many people wanted him
dead. This is why LNers mock the fact that many have said the oilmen
were involved, the CIA was involved, the FBI was involved, the SS was
involved, the bankers were involved, the military was involved, U.S.
Steel interests were involved, etc...because realistically many groups
could have been involved. That is why it is NOT easy to say x,y and z
did it!
slats
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 8, 9:39 pm, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "Ramon F Herrera"<ra...@conexus.net> wrote in messagenews:796baaea-886f-4ab8...@m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 23, 11:43 am, Coondog<billcla...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 22, 1:46 pm, Bill Kelly<billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jul 19, 5:02 pm, "Gerry Simone"<newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Someone got me this book as a gift but I haven't read it yet so
>>>>> forgive me
>>>>> for asking.
>>
>>>>> The theory behind this book is plausible but I'm going to be the
>>>>> devil's
>>>>> advocate and ask what evidence is cited to make it as valid as the
>>>>> prosecution's case?
>>
>>>> Gerry,
>>
>>>> If James Douglas is correct, and that JFK wasn't killed by a lone nut
>>>> psycho, but it was a coup and those who killed him took over the
>>>> government and changed policies, then we know who they are and the
>>>> evidence should be there to prosecute them today.
>>
>>
>> The percentage allowed to big oil.
>>
>> See Murchison et al.
>>
>> -Ramon
>> jfk WAS ONNA eliminate "THE OIL DEPLETION ALLOWANCE"
>>
>> (27 1/2 % OF VERY $$$ GOE INTO THEIR POCKETS "TAX FREE".- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Great point Tom and this is why the conspirators got away with this as
> JFK made so many enemies it is easy to say so many people wanted him
> dead. This is why LNers mock the fact that many have said the oilmen
> were involved, the CIA was involved, the FBI was involved, the SS was
> involved, the bankers were involved, the military was involved, U.S.
> Steel interests were involved, etc...because realistically many groups
> could have been involved. That is why it is NOT easy to say x,y and z
> did it!
>
Also many groups could join forces because they all had a common
interest. Such as the Castro plots where you had the CIA, Mafia, Cuban
Exiles, big business, etc.
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 8, 12:31 pm, Ramon F Herrera<ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 11:43 am, Coondog<billcla...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 22, 1:46 pm, Bill Kelly<billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jul 19, 5:02 pm, "Gerry Simone"<newdecent...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Someone got me this book as a gift but I haven't read it yet so forgive me
>>>>> for asking.
>>
>>>>> The theory behind this book is plausible but I'm going to be the devil's
>>>>> advocate and ask what evidence is cited to make it as valid as the
>>>>> prosecution's case?
>>
>>>> Gerry,
>>
>>>> If James Douglas is correct, and that JFK wasn't killed by a lone nut
>>>> psycho, but it was a coup and those who killed him took over the
>>>> government and changed policies, then we know who they are and the
>>>> evidence should be there to prosecute them today.
>>
>>
>> The percentage allowed to big oil.
>>
>> See Murchison et al.
>>
>
>
> True but do you think that was big enough to kill a president? I
> Bill Clarke
>
How much money need be at stake to cause someone to kill a President?
Isn't 44 Billion enough motive? I get a kick out of the WC defenders who
seriously think that Oswald was paid $6,500 to kill the President.
Anthony Marsh
Mafia expert Ralph Salerno makes that same stupid argument. But then he
never explains how all those Mafia guys get bumped off by their rivals. He
never explains how a professional contract killer can have hundreds of
victims and never get killed himself.
> to silence Oswald with a single shot to the gut with a .38. More often
> than not, a person would survive such a wound. Oswald died only
> because Ruby happened to hit a major artery. One inch either way and
> Oswald would likely have survived such a wound and would be royally
> pissed off. The shooting of Oswald has all the earmarks of an
> impulsive act, not a carefully planned hit.
>
Impulsive? Ruby was stalking Oswald since Friday and planned to kill him
at the Friday night press conference.
>> But what could anyone do ? I guess the kids at Kent State tried to do
>> something.
>>
> Relevance???
>
People who try to do something about injustice are themselves killed.
The original cover-up was ordered by LBJ.
> same agenda? Do you think they all work from the same playbook?
>
Most simply followed orders. For the good of the country.
>> For one thing to admit that would invalidate the entire Viet Nam war.
>>
>> Can you imagine the law suits that would result from the wrongful deaths
>> of 60,000 people and the injuring of countless more ? In this litigation
>> crazy country this would create a legal quagmire that would last for 100
>> years and bankrupt the entire United States government. It might even lead
>> to riots in the streets and people attempting to violently overthrow the
>> government who knows. The implications of an admission like that would be
>> far reaching and unpredictable.
>>
> We're up to 60,000 "mysterious deaths"?
>
He's rounded up the Vietnam War deaths.
claviger
> Read Douglas' book, its all in there.
>
> Of course if JFK was killed by a Lone Nut Texas Yahoo for no reason, there
> was no reason for him dying and none of it matters.
To be factually correct a New Orleans, Ft. Worth, New York City Yahoo. All
three had an influence on him. His worst experience was New York City
where he became a juvenile delinquent.
Coondog
Does this mean you no longer want to discuss JFK’s plans for troop
withdrawal from Vietnam since I proved in print that what you claimed was
incorrect? And by saying incorrect I’m being kind here. Bill Clarke
Jeff
>
> The shooting of Oswald makes no sense whether he was a lone assassin
> or part of a conspiracy. It was a senseless act by an angry man. It
> would make no sense for any alleged conspirators to have Ruby shoot
> Oswald to silence him because then somebody would need to silence Ruby
> and then that person would have to be silenced, and then that
> person...etc. etc. etc. It also makes no sense that somebody would try
> to silence Oswald with a single shot to the gut with a .38. More often
> than not, a person would survive such a wound. Oswald died only
> because Ruby happened to hit a major artery. One inch either way and
> Oswald would likely have survived such a wound and would be royally
> pissed off. The shooting of Oswald has all the earmarks of an
> impulsive act, not a carefully planned hit.
>
Oswald wasn't getting out of that hospital alive in any case. He was
a dead man walking as soon as he was taken into custody. If he was
alive when he got to the hospital they would have ensured he did not
survive. There are many ways to kill someone in a hospital
I assume most people agree with me that the plan was to have the
Oswald look alike shoot officer Tippit and then the police were
supposed to shoot Oswald on site at the movie theater. That would
have closed a lot of loose ends.
It was a brilliant plan I must admit.
But something went wrong.
Oswald was not supposed to be taken into custody alive ! That was not
part of the plan !!!!!
Jeff Marzano
Jeff
> On Aug 8, 12:06 am, Jeff <rjmarz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> RE: For one thing to admit that would invalidate the entire Viet Nam
> war.
>
> The war was a lie from before the Gulf of Tonkin until its end. It
> was about oil just as Iraq and Afghanistan are about oil for American
> oil owners.(and Iraq oil for Irrael.)
>
Right. That Gulf Of Tonkin thing was supposedly the justification for
getting into Viet Nam.
I'm wondering if what we're seeing right now with North Korea is the same
thing.
Who knows what the truth really is.
Maybe that ship that was supposedly torpedoed by North Korea will be the
next Gulf Of Tonkin incident.
Jeff Marzano
Jeff
I meant the conspiracy believers think Kennedy wanted to end America's
involvement in Viet Nam and pull the troops out. This was one of the
reasons for the assassination. If Kennedy wasn't assassinated there
never would have been a Viet Nam war. They wanted to get the war
machine rolling again.
That's why for example they would tell the pilots to just keep bombing
the same empty areas over and over again until they looked like the
moon even though there weren't any enemy soldiers within hundreds of
miles of those places.
If it could be proven that this is true and if Kennedy wasn't
assassinated this war would have never happened, this would create the
legal holocaust I mentioned. There is a direct cause and effect link
between the assassination and Viet Nam.
Jeff Marzano
bigdog
> On Aug 8, 8:36 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The shooting of Oswald makes no sense whether he was a lone assassin
> > or part of a conspiracy. It was a senseless act by an angry man. It
> > would make no sense for any alleged conspirators to have Ruby shoot
> > Oswald to silence him because then somebody would need to silence Ruby
> > and then that person would have to be silenced, and then that
> > person...etc. etc. etc. It also makes no sense that somebody would try
> > to silence Oswald with a single shot to the gut with a .38. More often
> > than not, a person would survive such a wound. Oswald died only
> > because Ruby happened to hit a major artery. One inch either way and
> > Oswald would likely have survived such a wound and would be royally
> > pissed off. The shooting of Oswald has all the earmarks of an
> > impulsive act, not a carefully planned hit.
>
> Oswald wasn't getting out of that hospital alive in any case. He was
> a dead man walking as soon as he was taken into custody. If he was
> alive when he got to the hospital they would have ensured he did not
> survive. There are many ways to kill someone in a hospital
>
> I assume...
Of course you do. You are a CT.
> ...most people agree with me that the plan was to have the
> Oswald look alike shoot officer Tippit and then the police were
> supposed to shoot Oswald on site at the movie theater.
<snicker>
Most people would consider that to be a wacky theory. Most people
would be right.
> That would
> have closed a lot of loose ends.
>
> It was a brilliant plan I must admit.
>
> But something went wrong.
>
> Oswald was not supposed to be taken into custody alive ! That was not
> part of the plan !!!!!
>
So why didn't they shoot him, Sherlock?
bigdog
> That's why for example they would tell the pilots to just keep bombing
> the same empty areas over and over again until they looked like the
> moon even though there weren't any enemy soldiers within hundreds of
> miles of those places.
>
> If it could be proven that this is true and if Kennedy wasn't
> assassinated this war would have never happened, this would create the
> legal holocaust I mentioned. There is a direct cause and effect link
> between the assassination and Viet Nam.
>
Since the Vietnam War came first, are you saying it caused JFK's
assassination?
Coondog
As bigdog points out, we had a hot war going in Vietnam long before
JFK was assassinated. JFK had increased our troops in Vietnam from a
thousand or so to over fifteen thousand. In 1962 he sent bombers, jet
fighters, helicopters, M113s and Special Force troops to Vietnam.
Kennedy’s plans for Vietnam are spelled out in NSAM 263. There is no
indication that he was prepared to abandon SVN. He also increased
military spending to correct some of Ike’s mistakes. So why kill the
man? The reason wasn’t SVN since the “war machine” was already
rolling there.
> That's why for example they would tell the pilots to just keep bombing
> the same empty areas over and over again until they looked like the
> moon even though there weren't any enemy soldiers within hundreds of
> miles of those places.
>
> If it could be proven that this is true and if Kennedy wasn't
> assassinated this war would have never happened, this would create the
> legal holocaust I mentioned. There is a direct cause and effect link
> between the assassination and Viet Nam.
>
> Jeff Marzano- Hide quoted text -
The only link might be that JFK wasn’t around to clean up the mess
after Diem’s removal. Do you know who removed Diem?
Bill Clarke
Jeff
> On Aug 11, 9:58 pm, Jeff <rjmarz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So why didn't they shoot him, Sherlock?
I wish I knew the answer to that question.
They wanted it to look like the police shot Oswald because they thought he
was a cop killer. And Oswald did everything in his power to get himself
killed in the movie theater. Oswald actually pulled a gun out I think.
He was following the orders that he was given, not realizing that the
people who gave him those orders wanted him to get killed.
I was thinking about this and it's ironic because the guy who shot
president Lincoln was also in a movie theater.
Anyway why didn't the police shoot Oswald ? If I were to guess I would
say that some if not all of them were not part of the conspiracy and they
were able to subdue and apprehend Oswald without killing him. They may
have realized how important it would be to capture him alive.
This is where fate intervened for us and helped the true believers figure
out the truth. If Oswald had been killed it would have made things more
difficult.
Because they then had to have Ruby shoot Oswald in police headquarters.
This was very, very sloppy. This is the one sloppy piece of an otherwise
perfectly executed plan.
I would like to know what they told Oswald to get him to behave like that.
According to his mistress they had told him that there was a team of
assassins that were planning to shoot Kennedy and Oswald was one of the
good guys.
Well at least part of that was true. There was a team of assassins. But
they were the ones who were giving Lee his orders !
It all makes perfect sense.
Jeff Marzano
Jeff
No I'm saying Kennedy wanted to end America's involvement in Viet Nam
and pull whatever U.S. troops were there out.
Jeff
Jeff
OK well not everyone agrees with what you said.
What I heard is Kennedy wanted to pull out of Nam. Within a few days
of the assassination those plans mysteriously changed.
The justification for Viet Nam is murky in many peoples' minds. They
had the fake Gulf Of Tonkin incident.
But you have a point it's something to look into more carefully.
Jeff
Coondog
> On Aug 12, 2:46 pm, Coondog <billcla...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 11, 6:59 pm, Jeff <rjmarz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The only link might be that JFK wasn’t around to clean up the mess
> > after Diem’s removal. Do you know who removed Diem?
>
> > Bill Clarke
>
> OK well not everyone agrees with what you said.
Why not. You have no credible evidence that Kennedy was killed due to
his policy in Vietnam. You have no credible evidence that he was
going to abandon South Vietnam. What you’ve “heard” doesn’t count as
evidence.
> What I heard is Kennedy wanted to pull out of Nam. Within a few days
> of the assassination those plans mysteriously changed.
Yeah, you can hear a lot of crap even here. Here is what JFK planned
to do in Vietnam in October before his assassination. Section I B
(1-3) from NSAM 263 proper which was approved by JFK.
2. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that
essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be
carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to
[withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time”. Emphasis mine so
Marsh can find this]
3. In accordance with the program to train progressively
Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department
should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to
withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action
should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term
program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without
impairment of the war effort.
As for NSAM 273 completely reversing JFK’s plan it is so many horse
apples. It isn’t true.
> The justification for Viet Nam is murky in many peoples' minds. They
> had the fake Gulf Of Tonkin incident.
Not mine. The policy at the time was to contain the spread of
communism and that is exactly why we were in Vietnam. We were knee
deep in Vietnam before the Tonkin Gulf.
Bill Clarke
WBurg...@aol.com
> That was averted it seems.
>
> "John Blubaugh" <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:758e8edc-8afe-42e5...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 23, 2:20 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/23/2010 12:43 PM, Coondog wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 22, 1:46 pm, Bill Kelly<billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jul 19, 5:02 pm, "Gerry Simone"<newdecent...@hotmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >>> forgive me for asking.
>
> > >>> The theory behind this book is plausible but I'm going to be the
> > >>> devil's advocate and ask what evidence is cited to make it as
> > >>> valid as the prosecution's case?
>
>
> > >> If James Douglas is correct, and that JFK wasn't killed by a lone
> > >> nut psycho, but it was a coup and those who killed him took over
> > >> the government and changed policies, then we know who they are and
> > >> the evidence should be there to prosecute them today.
>
> > > hell. Bill Clarke
>
>
> > Reform of the CIA.
>
> How about replacing Hoover at the FBI?
>
> JB
In "All the President's Men" Ben Bradlee says he had it "firm" that LBJ
was going to replace Hoover and ran an item on it. The next day LBJ
appointed Hoover for life, turned to the Washington Post reporter and
supposedly said, "Tell Ben Bradlee fuck you." It's even in the film with
Jason Robards.
WBurg...@aol.com
According to Walter Cronkite's biography, he was granted an exclusive
with JFK for the first one-half hour news broadcast and Pierre
Salinger leaked to the AP that there would be a major Vietnam
announcement. Cronkite got pissed that he lost an exclusive and
threatened to cancel Kennedy or not ask him anything about Vietnam.
Eventually he did the inter view and Vietnam came up. From Cronkite's
bio, page 243:
QUOTE ON
"The evidence is clear, and is frequently forgotten today, that early
on Kennedy was becoming disillusioned with the prospects of political
reform in Saigon and disenchanted therefore with his own policy of
support. And I have always believed that if he had lived, he would
have withdrawn those advisers from Vietnam, although his Secretary of
State Dean Rusk later wrote that he never heard the President mention
this possibility.
"Barely twelve weeks before he died I interviewed him at his Hyannis,
Massachusetts home. In that interview he said: 'I don't think unless a
greater effort is made by the [Vietnam] government to win a popular
support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis it is
their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can
help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there
as advisers, but they have to win it, the people of Vietnam against
the Communists.
[Kennedy continues] : 'We are prepared to assist them, but I don't
think the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and in
my opinion, in the last two months, the government has gotten out of
touch with the people.'
[Cronkite] "That scarcely sounds like the statement of a President
about to commit more troops to the battle. It was clearly intended
instead to send a powerful warning to Diem and his eminence grise, his
brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, and Madame Nhu, possesors of a private army in
the find old Oriental tradition. ....
[Cronkite continues a bit further] "Kennedy's Vietnam brain trust had
sent a message to our ambassador to Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge, that
was about as unequivocal as such diplomatic instructions: 'U.S.
government cannot tolerate situation in which power lies in Nhu's
hands. Diem must be given chance to rid himself of Nhu and his coterie
and replace them with the best military personalities available.'
QUOTE OFF
Rusk approved sending it thinking Kennedy already had. Bottom line he
hadn't seen it. He meant is as a threat to Nhu but not the coup that
followed. Lodge, who hated Kennedy anyway, ran with that cable and
orchestrated the assassination of the Vietnam Leaders.
Cronkie concludes QUOTE ON
Whatever Kennedy had in miund about the future of the Vietnam war,
however, became moot in those terrible seconds in Dallas. His
successor, LBJ, was a superb politician and an effective administrator
and therefore he would become a powerful Presidnt, but his weakness
was foreign policy....he was at the mercy of the his advisers in the
Srate and Defense departments, and the military buildup for Vietnam
accelerated.The US manipulated, to the exten we could the makeup of
the Vietnam government and the war became ours. A reluctant Congress
was brought along with Johnson's vast exaggeration of the Tonkin Gulf
incident, the alleged but never substantiated attack by North
Vietnamese vessels on two American destroyers."
You know the rest. Cronkite, BTW, was a Oswald acted alone proponent.
tomnln
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/NSAMs.htm
ORRRRRRRRRRRRRR TAKE Someone's WORD FOR IT ! ! !
"Coondog" <billc...@live.com> wrote in message
news:5f3794f5-2c93-458e...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 12, 3:58 pm, Jeff<rjmarz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 12, 2:46 pm, Coondog<billcla...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 11, 6:59 pm, Jeff<rjmarz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> after Diem?s removal. Do you know who removed Diem?
>>
>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> OK well not everyone agrees with what you said.
>
> Why not. You have no credible evidence that Kennedy was killed due to
> his policy in Vietnam. You have no credible evidence that he was
> evidence.
>
>
No one said that JFK was going to abandon South Vietnam. Did George Bush
abandon Iraq by setting a date certain for handing back control? How come
when Republicans and Democrats do exactly the same thing you only
criticize the Democrats?
>
>> What I heard is Kennedy wanted to pull out of Nam. Within a few days
>> of the assassination those plans mysteriously changed.
>
> Yeah, you can hear a lot of crap even here. Here is what JFK planned
> to do in Vietnam in October before his assassination. Section I B
> (1-3) from NSAM 263 proper which was approved by JFK.
>
> 2. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that
> essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be
> carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to
> [withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time?. Emphasis mine so
> Marsh can find this]
>
Love the way you mangle historical documents just to attack me.
> 3. In accordance with the program to train progressively
> Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department
> should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to
> withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action
> should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term
> program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without
> impairment of the war effort.
>
> As for NSAM 273 completely reversing JFK?s plan it is so many horse
> apples. It isn?t true.
Coondog
> > incorrect? And by saying incorrect I’m being kind here. Bill Clarke
>
> According to Walter Cronkite's biography, he was granted an exclusive
> with JFK for the first one-half hour news broadcast and Pierre
> Salinger leaked to the AP that there would be a majorVietnam
> announcement. Cronkite got pissed that he lost an exclusive and
> threatened to cancel Kennedy or not ask him anything aboutVietnam.
> bio, page 243:
>
> QUOTE ON
>
> "The evidence is clear, and is frequently forgotten today, that early
> on Kennedy was becoming disillusioned with the prospects of political
> reform in Saigon and disenchanted therefore with his own policy of
> support. And I have always believed that if he had lived, he would
> State Dean Rusk later wrote that he never heard the President mention
> this possibility.
>
> "Barely twelve weeks before he died I interviewed him at his Hyannis,
> Massachusetts home. In that interview he said: 'I don't think unless a
> greater effort is made by the [Vietnam] government to win a popular
> support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis it is
> their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can
> help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there
> as advisers, but they have to win it, the people ofVietnamagainst
> the Communists.
>
> [Kennedy continues] : 'We are prepared to assist them, but I don't
> think the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and in
> my opinion, in the last two months, the government has gotten out of
> touch with the people.'
>
> [Cronkite] "That scarcely sounds like the statement of a President
> about to commit more troops to the battle. It was clearly intended
> instead to send a powerful warning to Diem and his eminence grise, his
> brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, and Madame Nhu, possesors of a private army in
> the find old Oriental tradition. ....
>
> sent a message to our ambassador toVietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge, that
> was about as unequivocal as such diplomatic instructions: 'U.S.
> government cannot tolerate situation in which power lies in Nhu's
> hands. Diem must be given chance to rid himself of Nhu and his coterie
> and replace them with the best military personalities available.'
>
> QUOTE OFF
>
> Rusk approved sending it thinking Kennedy already had. Bottom line he
> hadn't seen it. He meant is as a threat to Nhu but not the coup that
> followed. Lodge, who hated Kennedy anyway, ran with that cable and
> orchestrated the assassination of theVietnamLeaders.
>
> Cronkie concludes QUOTE ON
>
> Whatever Kennedy had in miund about the future of theVietnamwar,
> however, became moot in those terrible seconds in Dallas. His
> successor, LBJ, was a superb politician and an effective administrator
> and therefore he would become a powerful Presidnt, but his weakness
> was foreign policy....he was at the mercy of the his advisers in the
> Srate and Defense departments, and the military buildup forVietnam
> accelerated.The US manipulated, to the exten we could the makeup of
> was brought along with Johnson's vast exaggeration of the Tonkin Gulf
> incident, the alleged but never substantiated attack by North
> Vietnamese vessels on two American destroyers."
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ah yes, Uncle Walter, the military genius that declared TET-68 a
disaster for the U.S.
Well, I’m not as impressed with Uncle Walter as you seem to be but
don’t forget this part:
Quote on;
"I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw [from Vietnam].
That would be a great mistake...a great mistake." --
President Kennedy; Via CBS Interview; September 1963
Quote off.
Walter finally hits the nail on the head here; “The US manipulated, to
the exten we could the makeup of the Vietnam government and the war
became ours”. Of course the problem here is that no one manipulated
the SVG more than JFK when he approved the removal of Diem and surely
at that point anyone with a sense of responsibility has to admit that
the war indeed become ours.
Now you can try to shift the blame to Rusk or anyone else but it won’t
wash with the recorded evidence.
Bill Clarke
Coondog
> ALL of JFK's NSAM's are found HERE>>>http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Des...
> ORRRRRRRRRRRRRR TAKE Someone's WORD FOR IT ! ! !
Well that is just peachy great tomnin. Why all the caps? Are you
insinuating that I have misquoted NSAM 263?
If so put it on the board.
Bill Clarke
> "Coondog" <billcla...@live.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5f3794f5-2c93-458e...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 12, 3:58 pm, Jeff <rjmarz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 12, 2:46 pm, Coondog <billcla...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 11, 6:59 pm, Jeff <rjmarz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The only link might be that JFK wasn’t around to clean up the mess
> > > after Diem’s removal. Do you know who removed Diem?
>
> > > Bill Clarke
>
> > OK well not everyone agrees with what you said.
>
> Why not. You have no credible evidence that Kennedy was killed due to
> his policy inVietnam. You have no credible evidence that he was
> going to abandon SouthVietnam. What you’ve “heard” doesn’t count as
> evidence.
>
> > What I heard is Kennedy wanted to pull out of Nam. Within a few days
> > of the assassination those plans mysteriously changed.
>
> Yeah, you can hear a lot of crap even here. Here is what JFK planned
> to do inVietnamin October before his assassination. Section I B
> (1-3) from NSAM 263 proper which was approved by JFK.
>
> 2. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that
> essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be
> carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to
> [withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time”. Emphasis mine so
> Marsh can find this]
>
> 3. In accordance with the program to train progressively
> Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department
> should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to
> withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action
> should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term
> program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without
> impairment of the war effort.
>
> As for NSAM 273 completely reversing JFK’s plan it is so many horse
> apples. It isn’t true.
>
> > The justification for Viet Nam is murky in many peoples' minds. They
> > had the fake Gulf Of Tonkin incident.
>
> Not mine. The policy at the time was to contain the spread of
> communism and that is exactly why we were inVietnam. We were knee
> deep inVietnambefore the Tonkin Gulf.
>
> Bill Clarke
>
>
>
> > But you have a point it's something to look into more carefully.
>
> > Jeff- Hide quoted text -
Coondog
> On 8/13/2010 8:17 AM, Coondog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 12, 3:58 pm, Jeff<rjmarz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 12, 2:46 pm, Coondog<billcla...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Aug 11, 6:59 pm, Jeff<rjmarz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> The only link might be that JFK wasn?t around to clean up the mess
> >>> after Diem?s removal. Do you know who removed Diem?
>
> >>> Bill Clarke
>
> >> OK well not everyone agrees with what you said.
>
> > Why not. You have no credible evidence that Kennedy was killed due to
> > going to abandon SouthVietnam. What you?ve ?heard? doesn?t count as
> > evidence.
>
> No one said that JFK was going to abandon SouthVietnam. Did George Bush
> abandon Iraq by setting a date certain for handing back control? How come
> when Republicans and Democrats do exactly the same thing you only
> criticize the Democrats?
>
>
>
> >> What I heard is Kennedy wanted to pull out of Nam. Within a few days
> >> of the assassination those plans mysteriously changed.
>
> > Yeah, you can hear a lot of crap even here. Here is what JFK planned
> > (1-3) from NSAM 263 proper which was approved by JFK.
>
> > 2. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that
> > essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be
> > carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to
> > [withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time?. Emphasis mine so
> > Marsh can find this]
>
> Love the way you mangle historical documents just to attack me.
The portions of NSAM 263 are copied and pasted from the written
report. Please explain just how I mangled them. Bout time for you to
drift on off like you didn’t notice this isn’t it?
I don’t attack you Marsh, I simply insist that you don’t distort
history to fit your political agenda of shinning Camelot. You always
say “all” or “the troops” indicating all of them instead of “the bulk
of” as NSAM 263 does. This is a difference much more significant than
mere number of boots on the ground since it indicates that JFK didn’t
plan on a communist government in SV. Or do you think JFK was going
to leave a platoon of Marines fighting for their lives in SVN?
You like to omit just when JFK had planned on withdrawing the bulk of
troops so that it sounds like this was going to be an immediate
thing. It was not.
Since I know you are aware of what NSAM 263 says I ask why you don’t
quote it correctly. Really I know why.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
You seem to be selective in your quoting in order to leave a false
impression. Why don't you quote the later interview where JFK said that
in the final analysis it is up to the Vietnamese to defend themselves?
Or his last press conference where he said the goal was to bring
Americans home. You would call that abandoning Vietnam. So did George
Bush ABANDON Iraq when he set a date certain for withdrawing all the troops?
> Walter finally hits the nail on the head here; “The US manipulated, to
> the exten we could the makeup of the Vietnam government and the war
> became ours”. Of course the problem here is that no one manipulated
> the SVG more than JFK when he approved the removal of Diem and surely
> at that point anyone with a sense of responsibility has to admit that
> the war indeed become ours.
>
Diem was removed because we were afraid he would cut a deal with the
Communists.
Coondog
> > That would be a great mistake...a great mistake." --
> > President Kennedy; Via CBS Interview; September 1963
> > Quote off.
>
> You seem to be selective in your quoting in order to leave a false
> impression.
Nice try General. I quoted the entire sentences so where is this
selecting you claim? You are the one that edits the order to fit your
wish.
> Why don't you quote the later interview where JFK said that
> in the final analysis it is up to the Vietnamese to defend themselves?
> Or his last press conference where he said the goal was to bring
> Americans home.
Because they aren’t ORDERs Marsh. I would expect even you to know the
importance of the difference. I guess I expect too much.
You would call that abandoningVietnam. So did George
> Bush ABANDON Iraq when he set a date certain for withdrawing all the troops?
>
> > Walter finally hits the nail on the head here; “The US manipulated, to
> > the exten we could the makeup of theVietnamgovernment and the war
> > became ours”. Of course the problem here is that no one manipulated
> > the SVG more than JFK when he approved the removal of Diem and surely
> > at that point anyone with a sense of responsibility has to admit that
> > the war indeed become ours.
>
> Diem was removed because we were afraid he would cut a deal with the
> Communists.
That was part of the reason. Not the main reason.
Bill Clarke
tomnln
On Aug 13, 1:51 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> ALL of JFK's NSAM's are found
> HERE>>>http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Des...
> ORRRRRRRRRRRRRR TAKE Someone's WORD FOR IT ! ! !
Well that is just peachy great tomnin. Why all the caps? Are you
insinuating that I have misquoted NSAM 263?
If so put it on the board.
Bill Clarke
IT' BEEN here ... http://whokilledjfk.net/VEITNAM.htm for years.
Anthony Marsh
And who generated that text file from the original document?
Me. And then you add your editorial comment in the wrong place.
> I don’t attack you Marsh, I simply insist that you don’t distort
> history to fit your political agenda of shinning Camelot. You always
> say “all” or “the troops” indicating all of them instead of “the bulk
> of” as NSAM 263 does. This is a difference much more significant than
> mere number of boots on the ground since it indicates that JFK didn’t
> plan on a communist government in SV. Or do you think JFK was going
> to leave a platoon of Marines fighting for their lives in SVN?
>
Removing ALL US troops does not indicate a Communist government in SV.
> You like to omit just when JFK had planned on withdrawing the bulk of
> troops so that it sounds like this was going to be an immediate
> thing. It was not.
>
Then end of 1965 is not an immediate thing.
Neither is August 2011.
> Since I know you are aware of what NSAM 263 says I ask why you don’t
> quote it correctly. Really I know why.
>
Quote it? I wrote the damn text file and uploaded it.
> Bill Clarke
>
Coondog
> "Coondog" <billcla...@live.com> wrote in message
>
> news:80a2e3c3-e5c1-47a2...@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 13, 1:51 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > ALL of JFK's NSAM's are found
> > HERE>>>http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Des...
> > ORRRRRRRRRRRRRR TAKE Someone's WORD FOR IT ! ! !
>
> Well that is just peachy great tomnin. Why all the caps? Are you
> insinuating that I have misquoted NSAM 263?
> If so put it on the board.
> Bill Clarke
>
> IT' BEEN here ... http://whokilledjfk.net/VEITNAM.htm for years.
That is what I’ve been telling Marsh for 10 years. He still doesn’t
get it.
Bill Clarke
Coondog
Well General, we removed our combat troops and two and a half years
later we had a communist government in South Vietnam. Had we not
removed those troops we would not have had a communist government in
SV. Works for me.
> > You like to omit just when JFK had planned on withdrawing the bulk of
> > troops so that it sounds like this was going to be an immediate
> > thing. It was not.
>
> Then end of 1965 is not an immediate thing.
> Neither is August 2011.
Yeah, that is what I’m talking about. You never mention the date all
this withdrawal is supposed to happen
> Since I know you are aware of what NSAM 263 says I ask why you don’t
> > quote it correctly. Really I know why.
>
> Quote it? I wrote the damn text file and uploaded it.
You also did a fine job putting the Colonel’s page on the advantages
of a flat trajectory over a more curved one but you don’t understand
it. You have to understand it before it helps.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
>>
>> And who generated that text file from the original document?
>> Me. And then you add your editorial comment in the wrong place.
>>
>>> history to fit your political agenda of shinning Camelot. You always
>>> of? as NSAM 263 does. This is a difference much more significant than
>>> mere number of boots on the ground since it indicates that JFK didn?t
>>> plan on a communist government in SV. Or do you think JFK was going
>>> to leave a platoon of Marines fighting for their lives in SVN?
>>
>> Removing ALL US troops does not indicate a Communist government in SV.
>
> Well General, we removed our combat troops and two and a half years
> later we had a communist government in South Vietnam. Had we not
> removed those troops we would not have had a communist government in
> SV. Works for me.
>
Well, Private, there were still plenty of our combat troops in Saigon
when the Viet Cong and NVA rolled in. Maybe you weren't around then to
see it happen, but in the US we saw it on TV as the US troops fled Vietnam.
So, you think that we have to keep troops in these countries forever?
>
>>> You like to omit just when JFK had planned on withdrawing the bulk of
>>> troops so that it sounds like this was going to be an immediate
>>> thing. It was not.
>>
>> Then end of 1965 is not an immediate thing.
>> Neither is August 2011.
>
> Yeah, that is what I?m talking about. You never mention the date all
> this withdrawal is supposed to happen
>
I just did.
>
>> Since I know you are aware of what NSAM 263 says I ask why you don?t
>>> quote it correctly. Really I know why.
>>
>> Quote it? I wrote the damn text file and uploaded it.
>
>
> You also did a fine job putting the Colonel?s page on the advantages
> of a flat trajectory over a more curved one but you don?t understand
Anthony Marsh
>>>>> withdrawal fromVietnamsince I proved in print that what you claimed was
>>> don?t forget this part:
>>
>>> Quote on;
>>> "I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw [fromVietnam].
>>> That would be a great mistake...a great mistake." --
>>> President Kennedy; Via CBS Interview; September 1963
>>> Quote off.
>>
>> You seem to be selective in your quoting in order to leave a false
>> impression.
>
> Nice try General. I quoted the entire sentences so where is this
> selecting you claim? You are the one that edits the order to fit your
> wish.
>
You were selective to only quote the earlier interview in order to leave a
false impression. That's not called lying. That's called propaganda, your
job here.
>
>
>> Why don't you quote the later interview where JFK said that
>> in the final analysis it is up to the Vietnamese to defend themselves?
>> Or his last press conference where he said the goal was to bring
>> Americans home.
>
> Because they aren?t ORDERs Marsh. I would expect even you to know the
> importance of the difference. I guess I expect too much.
>
>
> You would call that abandoningVietnam. So did George
>> Bush ABANDON Iraq when he set a date certain for withdrawing all the troops?
>>
>>> Walter finally hits the nail on the head here; ?The US manipulated, to
>>> the exten we could the makeup of theVietnamgovernment and the war
>>> became ours?. Of course the problem here is that no one manipulated
Coondog
> > removed those troops we would not have had a communist government in
> > SV. Works for me.
>
> Well, Private, there were still plenty of our combat troops in Saigon
> when the Viet Cong and NVA rolled in. Maybe you weren't around then to
> see it happen, but in the US we saw it on TV as the US troops fledVietnam.
Still don’t know the difference between a soldier and a combat soldier
and his combat unit I see. I’ve done all I can for you on this but I
ask; do you think every soldier wears the Combat Infantryman’s Badge?
What you saw “fleeing” Vietnam were what we referred to as REMFs, Rear
Echelon Mothers if you will. All U.S. combat units were out of
country by the end of 1972. In reality most were gone before the end
of 1972. No U.S. Army ground unit participated in the Easter
Offensive of 1972 and the 196th LIB, Americal Division was the last
combat unit left and it sat in Da Nang. There was a ship load of
Marines off shore at Da Nang to come to their aid if necessary. It
wasn’t necessary because ARVN with U.S. advisors and air power kicked
the communist asses. BTW, there was not many VC left in 1975. By the
end of 1969 90% of the communist in I Corps were NVA, 70% in the
Delta.
> So, you think that we have to keep troops in these countries forever?
I don’t know if we HAVE to but it is probably wise. We still have
them in Germany and Korea and that has been a long time ago.
Bill Clarke
> >>> You like to omit just when JFK had planned on withdrawing the bulk of
> >>> troops so that it sounds like this was going to be an immediate
> >>> thing. It was not.
>
> >> Then end of 1965 is not an immediate thing.
> >> Neither is August 2011.
>
> > Yeah, that is what I?m talking about. You never mention the date all
> > this withdrawal is supposed to happen
>
> I just did.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Since I know you are aware of what NSAM 263 says I ask why you don?t
> >>> quote it correctly. Really I know why.
>
> >> Quote it? I wrote the damn text file and uploaded it.
>
> > You also did a fine job putting the Colonel?s page on the advantages
> > of a flat trajectory over a more curved one but you don?t understand
> > it. You have to understand it before it helps.
> > Bill Clarke- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Coondog
I bow to the master propagandist. This is one thing you are very good
at. As far as I know the only thing.
Bill Clarke