a million monkeys or Jim Menning typed in news.admin.net-abuse.email:

snip

Virus on the Italian computer, or someone being a troublemaker, I'm
not sure.

Open port/unsecured box.

It's either a ****** called Dippy or Hipcrime or a dipclone thereof.
Basically the luser wants to disrupt nan-as by posting off-topic " sporgeries"
to other groups with a followup back here. Currently dippy has his knickers in
a twist since most folk here have advanced filtering or use services such as
supernews that quickly filter most of the crap.

I've found Hamster works well, you wind up running your own local news spool
though. And it's not the least trivial thing to get set up.

This is a good site to start reading about hamster and nfilter
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/davidgb/x_setup11.html

Have a happy,

--
rbg
Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else.
sig by KookieJar 6.3, got Kookie?

Uncle Peter wrote:
Where the hell did this crap come from?? I never posted it, do I
have a virus?

Pete

Nope. It's just someone forging junk across all of Usenet in order to get
people to crosspost replies into news.admin.net-abuse.email.

--
73, Ron Sharp.

Uncle Peter wrote:
Where the hell did this crap come from?? I never posted it, do I
have a virus?

Pete

Nope. It's just someone forging junk across all of Usenet in order to get
people to crosspost replies into news.admin.net-abuse.email.

--
73, Ron Sharp.

of modern history. With people like Davis
translating for them, RFK does not pursue Giancana, they are
actually pals in MONGOOSE. The Kennedys agree with the Joint
Chiefs: we should invade Cuba. And then escalate in Vietnam.
Disinformation feeds on disinformation, and whatever the record
shows is shunted aside as the tabloid version becomes "accepted
history," to use Davis' phrase (p. 290). The point of this
blurring of sources is that the Kennedys, in these hands, become
no different than the Dulles brothers, or Nixon, or Eisenhower.
In fact, Davis says this explicitly in his book( pp. 298-99). As
I noted in the last issue, with Demaris and Exner, the Kennedys
are no different than Giancana. And once this is pounded home,
then anything is possible. Maybe Oswald did work for Giancana.
And if RFK was working with Sam, then maybe Bobby unwittingly had
his brother killed. Tragic, but hey, if you play with fire you
get burned. Tsk. Tsk.

But beyond this, there is an even larger gestalt. If the Kennedys
were just Sorenson-wrapped mobsters or CIA officers, then what
difference does it make in history if they were assassinated? The
only people who should care are sentimental Camelot sops like
O'Donnell and Powers who were in it for a buck anyway. Why waste
the time and effort of a new investigation on that. For the CIA,
this is as good as a rerun of the Warren Commission, since the
net results are quite similar. So its no surprise to me that the
focus of Hersh's book has shifted between Oswald did it for the
Mob, and an all out trashing of the Kennedys.

The standard defense by these purveyors is th

of modern history. With people like Davis
translating for them, RFK does not pursue Giancana, they are
actually pals in MONGOOSE. The Kennedys agree with the Joint
Chiefs: we should invade Cuba. And then escalate in Vietnam.
Disinformation feeds on disinformation, and whatever the record
shows is shunted aside as the tabloid version becomes "accepted
history," to use Davis' phrase (p. 290). The point of this
blurring of sources is that the Kennedys, in these hands, become
no different than the Dulles brothers, or Nixon, or Eisenhower.
In fact, Davis says this explicitly in his book( pp. 298-99). As
I noted in the last issue, with Demaris and Exner, the Kennedys
are no different than Giancana. And once this is pounded home,
then anything is possible. Maybe Oswald did work for Giancana.
And if RFK was working with Sam, then maybe Bobby unwittingly had
his brother killed. Tragic, but hey, if you play with fire you
get burned. Tsk. Tsk.

But beyond this, there is an even larger gestalt. If the Kennedys
were just Sorenson-wrapped mobsters or CIA officers, then what
difference does it make in history if they were assassinated? The
only people who should care are sentimental Camelot sops like
O'Donnell and Powers who were in it for a buck anyway. Why waste
the time and effort of a new investigation on that. For the CIA,
this is as good as a rerun of the Warren Commission, since the
net results are quite similar. So its no surprise to me that the
focus of Hersh's book has shifted between Oswald did it for the
Mob, and an all out trashing of the Kennedys.

The standard defense by these purveyors is th

Texas Monthly which in turn
got him a guest spot on Nightline.) This is also when Leary began
hooking up with Gordon Liddy, doing carnival-type debates across
college campuses, an act which managed to rehabilitate both of
them and put them both back in the public eye.

There is another problem with Leary's book: the Phil Graham
anecdote. In his book, Leary has Mary tell him that the cat was
out the bag as far as her and JFK were concerned. The reason was
that a well-known friend of hers had blabbed about them in
public. This is an apparent reference to Post owner Phil Graham's
outburst at a convention in Phoenix, Arizona in 1963. This famous
incident (which preceded his later alleged mental breakdown)
included - according to Leary - a reference to Kennedy and Mary
Meyer. The story of Graham's attendance at this convention and
what he did and said has been described in different ways in
different books. Unfortunately for Leary, his dating of the
convention does not jibe with any that I have seen. In 1986, Tony
Chaitkin tracked down the correct date, time, and place of the
meeting. No one had done it correctly up to that time. But
Chaitkin and his associates went one step further. They
interviewed people who were there. None of the attendees recalled
anything said about Mary Meyer.

To me, this apocryphal anecdote and Leary's book seem ways to
bolster a tale that needed to be recycled and souped up before
its chinks began to show. Leary's reason for being a

Texas Monthly which in turn
got him a guest spot on Nightline.) This is also when Leary began
hooking up with Gordon Liddy, doing carnival-type debates across
college campuses, an act which managed to rehabilitate both of
them and put them both back in the public eye.

There is another problem with Leary's book: the Phil Graham
anecdote. In his book, Leary has Mary tell him that the cat was
out the bag as far as her and JFK were concerned. The reason was
that a well-known friend of hers had blabbed about them in
public. This is an apparent reference to Post owner Phil Graham's
outburst at a convention in Phoenix, Arizona in 1963. This famous
incident (which preceded his later alleged mental breakdown)
included - according to Leary - a reference to Kennedy and Mary
Meyer. The story of Graham's attendance at this convention and
what he did and said has been described in different ways in
different books. Unfortunately for Leary, his dating of the
convention does not jibe with any that I have seen. In 1986, Tony
Chaitkin tracked down the correct date, time, and place of the
meeting. No one had done it correctly up to that time. But
Chaitkin and his associates went one step further. They
interviewed people who were there. None of the attendees recalled
anything said about Mary Meyer.

To me, this apocryphal anecdote and Leary's book seem ways to
bolster a tale that needed to be recycled and souped up before
its chinks began to show. Leary's reason for being a

she had been with no one
else during the whole time, "not ever" she assures us. Trying to
remain a gentleman, I will only refer the reader to approximately
the second half of the book, which details a rather active social
life on her part.

Finally, what raises this latest revelation to a jocular level is
Exner's description of Kennedy's reaction to her pregnancy when
she informs him of the news. Again, let us use Exner's own words
as quoted by Smith:
So Jack said, "Do you think Sam would help us? Would you ask
Sam? Would you mind asking?" I was surprised, but said I'd
ask. So I called Sam and we had dinner. I told him what I
needed. He blew sky-high. "Damn him! Damn that Kennedy." He
loved to be theatrical, and he always enjoyed picking on
Jack.

Smith/Herodotus was so carried away by that cute, cuddly Italian
mobster that she never bothered to ponder the fact that
zillionaires in America have always had quiet, discreet ways to
solve such personal problems. How about a private jet to a
secretive Swiss clinic? They don't need Mafia chieftains to help
them. Especially one with six FBI agents following him around
ready to squeal on Kennedy the minute Hoover wants them to.

Say That Again Please

There is one revelation in the article that does not come off
tongue-in-cheek.

After talking to Smith's pal Hersh, Exner calls Smith back. She
states that the Kennedy-Giancana talks could be released under
the JFK Act. She then adds: "I hope they will. The government
wants me to talk again." [Emphasis add

she had been with no one
else during the whole time, "not ever" she assures us. Trying to
remain a gentleman, I will only refer the reader to approximately
the second half of the book, which details a rather active social
life on her part.

Finally, what raises this latest revelation to a jocular level is
Exner's description of Kennedy's reaction to her pregnancy when
she informs him of the news. Again, let us use Exner's own words
as quoted by Smith:
So Jack said, "Do you think Sam would help us? Would you ask
Sam? Would you mind asking?" I was surprised, but said I'd
ask. So I called Sam and we had dinner. I told him what I
needed. He blew sky-high. "Damn him! Damn that Kennedy." He
loved to be theatrical, and he always enjoyed picking on
Jack.

Smith/Herodotus was so carried away by that cute, cuddly Italian
mobster that she never bothered to ponder the fact that
zillionaires in America have always had quiet, discreet ways to
solve such personal problems. How about a private jet to a
secretive Swiss clinic? They don't need Mafia chieftains to help
them. Especially one with six FBI agents following him around
ready to squeal on Kennedy the minute Hoover wants them to.

Say That Again Please

There is one revelation in the article that does not come off
tongue-in-cheek.

After talking to Smith's pal Hersh, Exner calls Smith back. She
states that the Kennedy-Giancana talks could be released under
the JFK Act. She then adds: "I hope they will. The government
wants me to talk again." [Emphasis add

And the things Summers
leaves out are as important as what he puts in. For instance, he
omits the facts that her psychiatrist did not know the drugs that
her internist was prescribing; the weird nature and background of
her house servant Eunice Murray; and her pending reconciliation
with Joe DiMaggio which, of course, makes her "torrid romance"
with Bobby even more incredible. The reconciliation makes less
credible Summers' portrait of an extremely neurotic Monroe, which
he needs in order to float the possibility that she was going to
"broadcast" her relationship with the Kennedys.

Summers' book attracted the attention of Geraldo Rivera at ABC's
20/20. Rivera and his cohort Sylvia Chase bought into Goddess
about as willingly as Summers bought Slatzer. They began filing a
segment for the news magazine. But as the segment began to go
through the editors, objections and reservations were expressed.
Finally, Roone Arledge, head of the division at the time, vetoed
it by saying it was, "A sleazy piece of journalism" and "gossip-
column stuff" (Summers p. 422). Liz Smith, queen of those gossip-
columnists, pilloried ABC for censoring the "truth about 1962."
Rivera either quit or was shoved out by ABC over the controversy.
Arledge was accused by Chase of "protecting the Kennedys" (he was
a distant relative through marriage). Rivera showed his true
colors by going on to produce syndicated specials on Satanism and
Al Capone's vaults (which were empty). He is now famous for
bringing tabloidism to television. Arledge won the battle. Rivera
and Liz Smith won the war. Until 1993.

The Truth About Marilyn

In 1993, Donald Spoto wrote his bio of Monroe. After reading the
likes of Haspiel, Slatzer and Summers, picking up Spoto is

And the things Summers
leaves out are as important as what he puts in. For instance, he
omits the facts that her psychiatrist did not know the drugs that
her internist was prescribing; the weird nature and background of
her house servant Eunice Murray; and her pending reconciliation
with Joe DiMaggio which, of course, makes her "torrid romance"
with Bobby even more incredible. The reconciliation makes less
credible Summers' portrait of an extremely neurotic Monroe, which
he needs in order to float the possibility that she was going to
"broadcast" her relationship with the Kennedys.

Summers' book attracted the attention of Geraldo Rivera at ABC's
20/20. Rivera and his cohort Sylvia Chase bought into Goddess
about as willingly as Summers bought Slatzer. They began filing a
segment for the news magazine. But as the segment began to go
through the editors, objections and reservations were expressed.
Finally, Roone Arledge, head of the division at the time, vetoed
it by saying it was, "A sleazy piece of journalism" and "gossip-
column stuff" (Summers p. 422). Liz Smith, queen of those gossip-
columnists, pilloried ABC for censoring the "truth about 1962."
Rivera either quit or was shoved out by ABC over the controversy.
Arledge was accused by Chase of "protecting the Kennedys" (he was
a distant relative through marriage). Rivera showed his true
colors by going on to produce syndicated specials on Satanism and
Al Capone's vaults (which were empty). He is now famous for
bringing tabloidism to television. Arledge won the battle. Rivera
and Liz Smith won the war. Until 1993.

The Truth About Marilyn

In 1993, Donald Spoto wrote his bio of Monroe. After reading the
likes of Haspiel, Slatzer and Summers, picking up Spoto is

picked it up. There
had been an apparent falling out between Truitt and Bradlee and
Truitt said that he wanted to show that Bradlee was not the
crusader for truth that Watergate or his book on Kennedy had made
him out to be. In the National Enquirer, Truitt stated that Mary
had revealed her affair with Kennedy while she was alive to he
and his wife. He then went further. In one of their romps in the
White House, Mary had offered Kennedy a couple of marijuana
joints, but coke-sniffer Kennedy said, "This isn't like cocaine.
I'll get you some of that."

The chemical addition to the story was later picked up by drug
guru Tim Leary in his book Flashbacks. Exner-like, the angle grew
appendages. Leary went beyond grass and cocaine. According to
Leary, Mary Meyer was consulting with him about how to conduct
acid sessions and how to get psychedelic drugs in 1962. Leary met
her on several occasions and she said that she and a small circle
of friends had turned on several times. She also had one other
friend who was "a very important man" who she also wanted to turn
on. After Kennedy's assassination, Mary called Leary and met with
him. She was cryptic but she did say, "They couldn't control him
any more. He was changing too fast

picked it up. There
had been an apparent falling out between Truitt and Bradlee and
Truitt said that he wanted to show that Bradlee was not the
crusader for truth that Watergate or his book on Kennedy had made
him out to be. In the National Enquirer, Truitt stated that Mary
had revealed her affair with Kennedy while she was alive to he
and his wife. He then went further. In one of their romps in the
White House, Mary had offered Kennedy a couple of marijuana
joints, but coke-sniffer Kennedy said, "This isn't like cocaine.
I'll get you some of that."

The chemical addition to the story was later picked up by drug
guru Tim Leary in his book Flashbacks. Exner-like, the angle grew
appendages. Leary went beyond grass and cocaine. According to
Leary, Mary Meyer was consulting with him about how to conduct
acid sessions and how to get psychedelic drugs in 1962. Leary met
her on several occasions and she said that she and a small circle
of friends had turned on several times. She also had one other
friend who was "a very important man" who she also wanted to turn
on. After Kennedy's assassination, Mary called Leary and met with
him. She was cryptic but she did say, "They couldn't control him
any more. He was changing too fast

published in the New York Times (11/16/63), so Davis could have
easily found it had he been looking.

In light of this selective presentation of the record on Vietnam,
plus the acrobatic contortions performed on the Church Committee
report, one has to wonder about Davis' intent in doing the book.

I question his assertion that when he began the book he "did not
have a clear idea where it would lead." (p. 694) So I was not
surprised that in addition to expanding Exner's story, he
uncritically accepted the allegations about Mary Meyer and
Marilyn Monroe (pp. 610-612). As the reader can see, in the three
areas outlined at the beginning of this essay, Davis hit a
triple. In all the threads, he has either held steady or advanced
the frontier. It is interesting in this regard to note that Davis
devotes many pages to JFK's assassination (pp. 436-498). He
writes that Kennedy died at the "hands of Lee Harvey Oswald and
possible co-conspirators" (p. 436). Later, he will write that
Sirhan killed Bobby Kennedy (p. 552). Going even further, he can
state that:
It would be a misstatement, then, to assert that Deputy
Attorney General Katzenbach and the members of the Warren
Commission...consciously sought to cover up evidence
pertaining to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. (P. 461)

As the declassified record now shows (Probe Vol. 4 #6 "Gerald
Ford: Accessory after the Fact") this is just plain wrong. Davis
then tries to insinuate any cover-up was brought on by either a
backfiring of the Castro plots (Davis p. 454) or JFK's dalliance
with Exner (p. 498). As wrongheaded and against the declassified
record as this seems, this argum

published in the New York Times (11/16/63), so Davis could have
easily found it had he been looking.

In light of this selective presentation of the record on Vietnam,
plus the acrobatic contortions performed on the Church Committee
report, one has to wonder about Davis' intent in doing the book.

I question his assertion that when he began the book he "did not
have a clear idea where it would lead." (p. 694) So I was not
surprised that in addition to expanding Exner's story, he
uncritically accepted the allegations about Mary Meyer and
Marilyn Monroe (pp. 610-612). As the reader can see, in the three
areas outlined at the beginning of this essay, Davis hit a
triple. In all the threads, he has either held steady or advanced
the frontier. It is interesting in this regard to note that Davis
devotes many pages to JFK's assassination (pp. 436-498). He
writes that Kennedy died at the "hands of Lee Harvey Oswald and
possible co-conspirators" (p. 436). Later, he will write that
Sirhan killed Bobby Kennedy (p. 552). Going even further, he can
state that:
It would be a misstatement, then, to assert that Deputy
Attorney General Katzenbach and the members of the Warren
Commission...consciously sought to cover up evidence
pertaining to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. (P. 461)

As the declassified record now shows (Probe Vol. 4 #6 "Gerald
Ford: Accessory after the Fact") this is just plain wrong. Davis
then tries to insinuate any cover-up was brought on by either a
backfiring of the Castro plots (Davis p. 454) or JFK's dalliance
with Exner (p. 498). As wrongheaded and against the declassified
record as this seems, this argum

category forever
by reducing it to tabloid standards. Significantly, the article
was entitled "The Dark Side of Camelot," a phrase used by Ron
Rosenbaum (who will be discussed later) and the title of the
upcoming book by Sy Hersh, of whom Kelley is a great admirer. In
this new version, Exner now said that she was seeing Sam Giancana
at Kennedy's bidding. She even helped arrange meetings between
JFK and Giancana and JFK and Roselli. Some of the meetings took
place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Why would Kennedy need
personal consultation with gangsters like Sam and John? To cinch
elections on his ruthless way to the White House and later to
arrange the liquidation of Castro. Kelley adds that the latter
meetings were done for operation MONGOOSE. But Exner's time
sequence does not jibe with the lifespan of that operation and,
as the record shows, Castro's assassination was not on the
MONGOOSE agenda. In spite of that explicit record, Kelley adds
that historians have never been able to pinpoint Kennedy's role
in those plots, thereby ignoring the abundant evidence unearthed
by the Church Committee which says he had none. Nevertheless,
Kelley and Exner will now exhume the hidden history of those
times for People. Let's examine their excavation.

Exner says that Kennedy needed help in West Virg

category forever
by reducing it to tabloid standards. Significantly, the article
was entitled "The Dark Side of Camelot," a phrase used by Ron
Rosenbaum (who will be discussed later) and the title of the
upcoming book by Sy Hersh, of whom Kelley is a great admirer. In
this new version, Exner now said that she was seeing Sam Giancana
at Kennedy's bidding. She even helped arrange meetings between
JFK and Giancana and JFK and Roselli. Some of the meetings took
place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Why would Kennedy need
personal consultation with gangsters like Sam and John? To cinch
elections on his ruthless way to the White House and later to
arrange the liquidation of Castro. Kelley adds that the latter
meetings were done for operation MONGOOSE. But Exner's time
sequence does not jibe with the lifespan of that operation and,
as the record shows, Castro's assassination was not on the
MONGOOSE agenda. In spite of that explicit record, Kelley adds
that historians have never been able to pinpoint Kennedy's role
in those plots, thereby ignoring the abundant evidence unearthed
by the Church Committee which says he had none. Nevertheless,
Kelley and Exner will now exhume the hidden history of those
times for People. Let's examine their excavation.

Exner says that Kennedy needed help in West Virg

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 10:03:15 -0600, "Jim Menning"
wrote:


" Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news:WtEud.12133$Ae.5187@fed1read05...
Where the hell did this crap come from?? I never posted it, do I
have a
virus?


Looks like the same computer that forged Randy & Sherry's ID at about
the same time.

Both seem to track back to Italy.

X-Trace: fata.cs.interbusiness.it 1102668495 4555 217.141.239.221 (10
Dec 2004 08:48:15 GMT)

X-Trace: fata.cs.interbusiness.it 1102668509 4555 217.141.239.221 (10
Dec 2004 08:48:29 GMT)

Virus on the Italian computer, or someone being a troublemaker, I'm
not sure.

jim menning



You have been trolled, and duped into polluting
news.admin.net-abuse.email.
Take care when you're posting to make certain that you post is going
to where you think it is.
To learn more about how to avoid the troll in future, look up
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...9-1&q=hipcrime
Here's a good site to start at:
http://www.ganesha.org/ptb/hipcrime.html

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 10:03:15 -0600, "Jim Menning"
wrote:


" Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news:WtEud.12133$Ae.5187@fed1read05...
Where the hell did this crap come from?? I never posted it, do I
have a
virus?


Looks like the same computer that forged Randy & Sherry's ID at about
the same time.

Both seem to track back to Italy.

X-Trace: fata.cs.interbusiness.it 1102668495 4555 217.141.239.221 (10
Dec 2004 08:48:15 GMT)

X-Trace: fata.cs.interbusiness.it 1102668509 4555 217.141.239.221 (10
Dec 2004 08:48:29 GMT)

Virus on the Italian computer, or someone being a troublemaker, I'm
not sure.

jim menning



You have been trolled, and duped into polluting
news.admin.net-abuse.email.
Take care when you're posting to make certain that you post is going
to where you think it is.
To learn more about how to avoid the troll in future, look up
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...9-1&q=hipcrime
Here's a good site to start at:
http://www.ganesha.org/ptb/hipcrime.html

and sympathies are contra
to those of America. The problem with this is dual. First, it is
the typical "like father, like son" blanket which reeks of guilt,
not just by association, but by birth. Second, the blatant ploy
does not stand scrutiny because what makes John and Robert
Kennedy so fascinating is how different their politics and
economics were from Joe Kennedy's and how fast the difference was
exhibited. To use just two examples from JFK's first term in the
House, Kennedy rejected his father's isolationist Republican type
of foreign policy and opted for a more internationalist approach
when he voted for the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan. Second,
Kennedy voted to sustain Truman's veto of Taft-Hartley which
would weaken unions and strengthen American big
businessmen-people like his father. From there on in, the splits
got wider and wider. It is this father-son dichotomy that none of
these books cares to acknowledge let alone explore-which reveals
their intent. (An exception is the Blairs' book, which does
acknowledge the split on pp. 608-623.)

In their approach to JFK, Collier and Horowitz take up where the
Blairs left off. In fact, they play up the playboy angle even
more strongly than the Blairs. When Kennedy gets to Washington in
1947, this note is immediately struck with "women's underthings
stuffed into the crevices of the sofa" (p

and sympathies are contra
to those of America. The problem with this is dual. First, it is
the typical "like father, like son" blanket which reeks of guilt,
not just by association, but by birth. Second, the blatant ploy
does not stand scrutiny because what makes John and Robert
Kennedy so fascinating is how different their politics and
economics were from Joe Kennedy's and how fast the difference was
exhibited. To use just two examples from JFK's first term in the
House, Kennedy rejected his father's isolationist Republican type
of foreign policy and opted for a more internationalist approach
when he voted for the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan. Second,
Kennedy voted to sustain Truman's veto of Taft-Hartley which
would weaken unions and strengthen American big
businessmen-people like his father. From there on in, the splits
got wider and wider. It is this father-son dichotomy that none of
these books cares to acknowledge let alone explore-which reveals
their intent. (An exception is the Blairs' book, which does
acknowledge the split on pp. 608-623.)

In their approach to JFK, Collier and Horowitz take up where the
Blairs left off. In fact, they play up the playboy angle even
more strongly than the Blairs. When Kennedy gets to Washington in
1947, this note is immediately struck with "women's underthings
stuffed into the crevices of the sofa" (p

over primary sources. Finally, he respects himself and
his subject, which allows him to question sources before arriving
at a judgment on someone's credibility. This last quality allowed
him to arrive at what is the most satisfactory conclusion about
the death of Monroe (Spoto pp. 566-593). The Kennedys had nothing
to do with it. I have no great interest or admiration for Monroe
as an actress or a personality. But I do appreciate good
research, fine writing, and a clear dedication to truth. If any
reader is interested in the real facts of her life, this is the
book to read.

Sy Hersh's "Truth"

Seymour Hersh apparently never read it. And in fact, as Robert
Sam Anson relates in the November 1997 Vanity Fair, Hersh never
thought there was a conspiracy in the JFK case (p. 108). But in
1993, a friend at ABC proposed an investigative segment for the
network on the 30th anniversary of the murder. Apparently, the
idea fell through. But by that time, Hersh had hooked up with an
old pal, Michael Ewing. Hersh then decided that a book on the
Kennedys-not necessarily the assassination- would bring him the
big money that he craved. Thro

over primary sources. Finally, he respects himself and
his subject, which allows him to question sources before arriving
at a judgment on someone's credibility. This last quality allowed
him to arrive at what is the most satisfactory conclusion about
the death of Monroe (Spoto pp. 566-593). The Kennedys had nothing
to do with it. I have no great interest or admiration for Monroe
as an actress or a personality. But I do appreciate good
research, fine writing, and a clear dedication to truth. If any
reader is interested in the real facts of her life, this is the
book to read.

Sy Hersh's "Truth"

Seymour Hersh apparently never read it. And in fact, as Robert
Sam Anson relates in the November 1997 Vanity Fair, Hersh never
thought there was a conspiracy in the JFK case (p. 108). But in
1993, a friend at ABC proposed an investigative segment for the
network on the 30th anniversary of the murder. Apparently, the
idea fell through. But by that time, Hersh had hooked up with an
old pal, Michael Ewing. Hersh then decided that a book on the
Kennedys-not necessarily the assassination- would bring him the
big money that he craved. Thro

"Jeff C" wrote in message
...

You have been trolled, and duped into polluting
news.admin.net-abuse.email.

And you have continued the chain.

If you guys know the server being used, why haven't you got them to
shut down this perp yet?

Take care when you're posting to make certain that you post is going
to where you think it is.

I replied the same places you have.

jim menning

"Jeff C" wrote in message
...

You have been trolled, and duped into polluting
news.admin.net-abuse.email.

And you have continued the chain.

If you guys know the server being used, why haven't you got them to
shut down this perp yet?

Take care when you're posting to make certain that you post is going
to where you think it is.

I replied the same places you have.

jim menning

in the Senate was headed by Idaho's Frank Church.
Other leading lights on that committee were Minnesota's Walter
Mondale, Colorado's Gary Hart, Tennessee's Howard Baker, and
Pennsylvania's Richard Schweiker.

As writers Kate Olmsted and Loch Johnson have shown, the Church
Committee was obstructed by two of the CIA's most potent allies:
the major media and friendly public figures. In the latter
category, Olmsted especially highlights the deadly role of Henry
Kissinger. But as Victor Marchetti revealed to me, there was also
something else at work behind the scenes. In an interview in his
son's office in 1993, Marchetti told me that he never really
thought the Agency was in danger at that time. He stated that
first, the CIA had infiltrated the staff of Church's committee
and, second, the Agency was intent on giving up documents only in
certain areas. In Watergate terminology, it was a "limited-
hangout" solution to the problem of controlling the damage.

The Escape Route

The issue that had ignited so

in the Senate was headed by Idaho's Frank Church.
Other leading lights on that committee were Minnesota's Walter
Mondale, Colorado's Gary Hart, Tennessee's Howard Baker, and
Pennsylvania's Richard Schweiker.

As writers Kate Olmsted and Loch Johnson have shown, the Church
Committee was obstructed by two of the CIA's most potent allies:
the major media and friendly public figures. In the latter
category, Olmsted especially highlights the deadly role of Henry
Kissinger. But as Victor Marchetti revealed to me, there was also
something else at work behind the scenes. In an interview in his
son's office in 1993, Marchetti told me that he never really
thought the Agency was in danger at that time. He stated that
first, the CIA had infiltrated the staff of Church's committee
and, second, the Agency was intent on giving up documents only in
certain areas. In Watergate terminology, it was a "limited-
hangout" solution to the problem of controlling the damage.

The Escape Route

The issue that had ignited so

" (Anson p.
122) This from a man who intimidated witnesses with his phony
papers and waved them aloft while damning the Kennedys with them.
I believe his tears as much as I do the seance that Ben Bradlee
and Jim Angleton attended to speak with the spirit of Mary Meyer
(see Part One). At the end, Hersh joins in the con job: "I would
have been absolutely devoted to Jack Kennedy if I had worked for
him. I would have been knocked out by him. I would have liked him
a lot." (Ibid) With what Anson shows of Hersh, I actually believe
him on this score. He would have loved his version of Kennedy.

Anson's article begs the next question: who is Hersh? As is
common knowledge, the story that made Hersh's career was his
series of articles on the massacre of civilians at the village of
My Lai in Vietnam. Hersh then wrote two books on this atrocity:
My Lai 4 and Cover Up. There have always been questions about
both the orders given on that mission and the unsatisfactory
investigation after the fact. These questions began to boil in
the aftermath of the exposure of the Bill Colby/Ted Shackley
directed Phoenix Program: the deliberate assassination of any
Vietnamese suspected of being Viet Cong. The death count for that
operation has ranged between twenty and forty thousand. These
questions were even more intriguing in light of the fact that the
man chosen to run the military review of the massacre, General
Peers, had a long term relationship with the CIA. In fact, former
Special Forces Captain John McCarthy told me that-in terms of
closeness to the Agency-Peers was another Ed Lansdale.

By the time Hersh's s

" (Anson p.
122) This from a man who intimidated witnesses with his phony
papers and waved them aloft while damning the Kennedys with them.
I believe his tears as much as I do the seance that Ben Bradlee
and Jim Angleton attended to speak with the spirit of Mary Meyer
(see Part One). At the end, Hersh joins in the con job: "I would
have been absolutely devoted to Jack Kennedy if I had worked for
him. I would have been knocked out by him. I would have liked him
a lot." (Ibid) With what Anson shows of Hersh, I actually believe
him on this score. He would have loved his version of Kennedy.

Anson's article begs the next question: who is Hersh? As is
common knowledge, the story that made Hersh's career was his
series of articles on the massacre of civilians at the village of
My Lai in Vietnam. Hersh then wrote two books on this atrocity:
My Lai 4 and Cover Up. There have always been questions about
both the orders given on that mission and the unsatisfactory
investigation after the fact. These questions began to boil in
the aftermath of the exposure of the Bill Colby/Ted Shackley
directed Phoenix Program: the deliberate assassination of any
Vietnamese suspected of being Viet Cong. The death count for that
operation has ranged between twenty and forty thousand. These
questions were even more intriguing in light of the fact that the
man chosen to run the military review of the massacre, General
Peers, had a long term relationship with the CIA. In fact, former
Special Forces Captain John McCarthy told me that-in terms of
closeness to the Agency-Peers was another Ed Lansdale.

By the time Hersh's s

public interest in the
hearings had been that of assassination. CIA Director Bill Colby
very clearly drew the line that the CIA had never plotted such
things domestically. Colby's admission was a brilliant tactical
stroke that was not appreciated until much later. First, it put
the focus on the plots against foreign leaders that could be
explained as excesses of anti-communist zealotry (which is
precisely what the drafters of Church's report did). Second, all
probes into the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK would be off-
limits. The Church Committee would now concentrate on the
performance of the intelligence community in investigating the
death of JFK; not complicity in the assassination itself. This
distinction was crucial. As Colby must have understood, the
Agency and its allies could ride out exposure of plots against
Marxists and villains like Castro, Patrice Lumumba of the Congo
and Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic. The exposure of
domestic plots against political leaders would have been lethal.

Colby's gambit, plus the strictures put on the investigation as
outlined by Marchetti above, enabled the intelligence community
to ride out the storm. The path chosen for limited exposure was
quite clever. The most documentation given up by the CIA was on
the Castro assassination plots. Further, the Agency decided to
give up many documents on both the employment of the Mafia to
kill Fidel, and the AM/LASH plots, that is, the enlistment of a
Cuban national close to Castro to try and kill him. Again, not
enough credit has been given to the wisdom of these choices. In
intelligence parlance, there is a familiar phrase: muddying the
waters. This

public interest in the
hearings had been that of assassination. CIA Director Bill Colby
very clearly drew the line that the CIA had never plotted such
things domestically. Colby's admission was a brilliant tactical
stroke that was not appreciated until much later. First, it put
the focus on the plots against foreign leaders that could be
explained as excesses of anti-communist zealotry (which is
precisely what the drafters of Church's report did). Second, all
probes into the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK would be off-
limits. The Church Committee would now concentrate on the
performance of the intelligence community in investigating the
death of JFK; not complicity in the assassination itself. This
distinction was crucial. As Colby must have understood, the
Agency and its allies could ride out exposure of plots against
Marxists and villains like Castro, Patrice Lumumba of the Congo
and Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic. The exposure of
domestic plots against political leaders would have been lethal.

Colby's gambit, plus the strictures put on the investigation as
outlined by Marchetti above, enabled the intelligence community
to ride out the storm. The path chosen for limited exposure was
quite clever. The most documentation given up by the CIA was on
the Castro assassination plots. Further, the Agency decided to
give up many documents on both the employment of the Mafia to
kill Fidel, and the AM/LASH plots, that is, the enlistment of a
Cuban national close to Castro to try and kill him. Again, not
enough credit has been given to the wisdom of these choices. In
intelligence parlance, there is a familiar phrase: muddying the
waters. This

to
be such a friend to the Post. Related to that, in his 1991
reflections on the 1976 article, and in the article itself, he
tries to insinuate that these people - Bradlee, the Truitts, the
Angletons - are actually friends of Kennedy. In addition,
Rosenbaum and others never seemed to ask why those involved all
seemed so eager to violate Mary's privacy by reading the diary.

In no version I have read was that ever part of Mary's
instructions. And Angleton, the man who the Truitts seem to side
with against Bradlee, supposedly went through them like an
archivist.

The Truitts' trust for and seeming loyalty to the Angletons is
particularly interesting. In Rosenbaum's 1976 piece, the
following passage appears:
The Truitts were still in Tokyo when they received word of
the towpath murder, and the responsibility for the diary was
communicated to their mutual friend James Angleton through
still uncertain channels.

With the quiet skill of a cardsharp, Rosenbaum avoids an
important detail. Namely, how the Truitts found out about Mary's
death in the middle of the night halfway around the world.

Someone must have either called or wired them. Why is this matter
never addressed in any version? The logical choice as contacts
wo

to
be such a friend to the Post. Related to that, in his 1991
reflections on the 1976 article, and in the article itself, he
tries to insinuate that these people - Bradlee, the Truitts, the
Angletons - are actually friends of Kennedy. In addition,
Rosenbaum and others never seemed to ask why those involved all
seemed so eager to violate Mary's privacy by reading the diary.

In no version I have read was that ever part of Mary's
instructions. And Angleton, the man who the Truitts seem to side
with against Bradlee, supposedly went through them like an
archivist.

The Truitts' trust for and seeming loyalty to the Angletons is
particularly interesting. In Rosenbaum's 1976 piece, the
following passage appears:
The Truitts were still in Tokyo when they received word of
the towpath murder, and the responsibility for the diary was
communicated to their mutual friend James Angleton through
still uncertain channels.

With the quiet skill of a cardsharp, Rosenbaum avoids an
important detail. Namely, how the Truitts found out about Mary's
death in the middle of the night halfway around the world.

Someone must have either called or wired them. Why is this matter
never addressed in any version? The logical choice as contacts
wo

than fiction will sell
better in a market already jaded by exotic overexposure."

Demaris' book on Hoover can only be called sympathetic. This is
immediately indicated by his choice of interviewees. They include
high level FBI administrators like Robert E. Wick, John P. Mohr,
and Mark Felt; former Attorney General Richard Kleindienst;
Hoover publicity flack Louis Nichols who named one of his sons
after his boss; and actor Efrem Zimbalist who starred in ABC's
glamorized series on the Bureau. In the entire book, there are
eight pages on Hoover's infamous COINTELPRO operations, i.e. the
infiltration, disruption, and occasional destruction of domestic
political movements.

In Hoover's disputes with the Kennedys, there can be no doubt
where Demaris stands. Speaking of Hoover's reputed blackmailing
of presidents, he writes: "It is possible that one or two were
intimidated by their own guilty conscience...." He sums up Hoover
by saying, "He was, whatever his failings, an extraordinary man,
truly one of a kind." The above gives

than fiction will sell
better in a market already jaded by exotic overexposure."

Demaris' book on Hoover can only be called sympathetic. This is
immediately indicated by his choice of interviewees. They include
high level FBI administrators like Robert E. Wick, John P. Mohr,
and Mark Felt; former Attorney General Richard Kleindienst;
Hoover publicity flack Louis Nichols who named one of his sons
after his boss; and actor Efrem Zimbalist who starred in ABC's
glamorized series on the Bureau. In the entire book, there are
eight pages on Hoover's infamous COINTELPRO operations, i.e. the
infiltration, disruption, and occasional destruction of domestic
political movements.

In Hoover's disputes with the Kennedys, there can be no doubt
where Demaris stands. Speaking of Hoover's reputed blackmailing
of presidents, he writes: "It is possible that one or two were
intimidated by their own guilty conscience...." He sums up Hoover
by saying, "He was, whatever his failings, an extraordinary man,
truly one of a kind." The above gives

note toward the end that they had access to the
Rockefeller family archives (p. 636). In another book of theirs,
Destructive Generation, they write that the Rockefeller book
began when the pair were soliciting funds to keep Ramparts afloat
(p. 275). This is how they got in contact with the younger
generation of that clan. So when the magazine fell, they went to
work on the family biography with access to people and papers
that no outside, nonofficial authors had before. It is
interesting that, in 1989, the authors wrote that when they
started the Rockefeller book, they were expecting to excavate an
"executive committee of the ruling class" and thereby unlock the
key to the American power elite. But they found that they only
ended up writing about American lives (Ibid). They ended up with
that result because that seems to have been the plan all along.

Towards the end of the book, the authors strike a rather wistful
note, a sort of elegy for a once powerful family that is now
fading into the background (The Rockefellers, p. 626). This is
extraordinary. Consider some of the things the Rockefellers
accomplished in the seventies: they were part of the effort to
quadruple gasoline prices through th

note toward the end that they had access to the
Rockefeller family archives (p. 636). In another book of theirs,
Destructive Generation, they write that the Rockefeller book
began when the pair were soliciting funds to keep Ramparts afloat
(p. 275). This is how they got in contact with the younger
generation of that clan. So when the magazine fell, they went to
work on the family biography with access to people and papers
that no outside, nonofficial authors had before. It is
interesting that, in 1989, the authors wrote that when they
started the Rockefeller book, they were expecting to excavate an
"executive committee of the ruling class" and thereby unlock the
key to the American power elite. But they found that they only
ended up writing about American lives (Ibid). They ended up with
that result because that seems to have been the plan all along.

Towards the end of the book, the authors strike a rather wistful
note, a sort of elegy for a once powerful family that is now
fading into the background (The Rockefellers, p. 626). This is
extraordinary. Consider some of the things the Rockefellers
accomplished in the seventies: they were part of the effort to
quadruple gasoline prices through th

Bill Turner wrote:
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:12:35 -0500, " Uncle Peter"
wrote:

I wish I could find carbon comps (decent values) for two cents
each! Those days are long gone around these parts.

__________________________________________________ _______

The days of carbon composition resistors are gone for good reason.

Unless you are an antique collector and like to restore equipment
using
original parts, use metal film resistors instead. Their stability
and
reliability are far superior.

--
Bill W6WRT

I see a lot of circuit boards each week thru work and many of them
still use carbon comp resistors. I dont think they are near extinction
but the demand for them has slowed down quite a bit.

I always heard carbon comps were better in radio and audio circuits
because of their lack of or very low inductance as opposed to carbon
composition which use a spiral of conductive material around a ceramic
core which acts as a small inductor.........

Bill Turner wrote:
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:12:35 -0500, " Uncle Peter"
wrote:

I wish I could find carbon comps (decent values) for two cents
each! Those days are long gone around these parts.

__________________________________________________ _______

The days of carbon composition resistors are gone for good reason.

Unless you are an antique collector and like to restore equipment
using
original parts, use metal film resistors instead. Their stability
and
reliability are far superior.

--
Bill W6WRT

I see a lot of circuit boards each week thru work and many of them
still use carbon comp resistors. I dont think they are near extinction
but the demand for them has slowed down quite a bit.

I always heard carbon comps were better in radio and audio circuits
because of their lack of or very low inductance as opposed to carbon
composition which use a spiral of conductive material around a ceramic
core which acts as a small inductor.........

administration wanted to portray
the incident as an example of Soviet barbarity (shades of
Basulto's Brothers to the Rescue). They, and specifically Jeanne
Kirkpatrick, treated the downing as a great propaganda victory.
In his book, The Target Is Destroyed, Hersh ended up siding with
the administration.

Which brings us to the nineties. Everyone knows that the broad
release of Oliver Stone's JFK in 1992 put the Kennedy
assassination back into play. The pre-release attack against the
film was unprecedented in movie history. That's because it was
more than just a movie. It was a message, with powerful political
overtones that dug deeply into the public psyche: a grand
political conspiracy had killed the last progressive president.

That Vietnam would have never happened if Kennedy had lived. That
JFK was working for accommodation with Castro at the time of his
death. That the country has not really been the same since.
The preemptive strike was successful in slowing up the film's
momentum out of the starting block. But the movie did increase
the number of people who believe the case was a conspiracy into
th