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

the Rockefellers (Thy
Will be Done pp. 538-542). For those sins, and encouraging others
to follow them, they must suffer the fate of the Undead. And
Marilyn Monroe must be thrown into that half-world with them. At
the hands of Bob Loomis' pal, that "liberal" crusader Sy Hersh.

As Anson says, he must just want the money.


Current events, most notably a past issue of Vanity Fair, and the
upcoming release of Sy Hersh's new book, extend an issue that I
have dealt with in a talk I have done several times around the
country in the last two years. It is entitled "The Two
Assassinations of John Kennedy." I call it that because there has
been an ongoing campaign of character assassination ever since
Kennedy was killed.

In the talk to date, I've dealt primarily with the attacks on
Kennedy from the left by Noam Chomsky and his henchman Alexander
Cockburn which occurred at the time of the release of Oliver
Stone's JFK. But historically speaking, the attacks on the
Kennedys, both Jack and Robert, have not come predominantly from
the left. The attacks from the right have been much more
numerous. And the attacks from that direction were always harsher
and more personal in tone. As we shall see, that personal tone
knows no limits. Through papers like the New York Times and
Washington Post, the attacks extend into the Kennedys' sex lives,
a barrier that had not been crossed in post-war mainstream media
to that time. To understand their longevity and vituperativeness,
it is necessary to

the Rockefellers (Thy
Will be Done pp. 538-542). For those sins, and encouraging others
to follow them, they must suffer the fate of the Undead. And
Marilyn Monroe must be thrown into that half-world with them. At
the hands of Bob Loomis' pal, that "liberal" crusader Sy Hersh.

As Anson says, he must just want the money.


Current events, most notably a past issue of Vanity Fair, and the
upcoming release of Sy Hersh's new book, extend an issue that I
have dealt with in a talk I have done several times around the
country in the last two years. It is entitled "The Two
Assassinations of John Kennedy." I call it that because there has
been an ongoing campaign of character assassination ever since
Kennedy was killed.

In the talk to date, I've dealt primarily with the attacks on
Kennedy from the left by Noam Chomsky and his henchman Alexander
Cockburn which occurred at the time of the release of Oliver
Stone's JFK. But historically speaking, the attacks on the
Kennedys, both Jack and Robert, have not come predominantly from
the left. The attacks from the right have been much more
numerous. And the attacks from that direction were always harsher
and more personal in tone. As we shall see, that personal tone
knows no limits. Through papers like the New York Times and
Washington Post, the attacks extend into the Kennedys' sex lives,
a barrier that had not been crossed in post-war mainstream media
to that time. To understand their longevity and vituperativeness,
it is necessary to

been cut by a third without losing anything
of quality or substance. The book is heavily reliant on
interviews which are presented in the main text. Some of them at
such length-two and three pages-that they give the volume the air
of an oral history. To make it worse, after someone has stopped
talking, the authors tell us the superfluous fact that his wife
walked into the room, making for more excess verbiage (p.60). And
on top of this, the Blairs have no gift for syntax or language,
let alone glimmering prose. As a result, even for an interested
reader, the book is quite tedious.

The Blairs spend much of their time delving into two areas of
Kennedy's personal life: his health problems and his
relationships with the opposite sex. Concerning the first, they
chronicle many, if not all, of the myriad and unfortunate medical
problems afflicting young Kennedy. They hone in on two in order
to straighten out the official record. Previous to this book, the
public did not know that Kennedy's back problem was congenital.
The word had been that it came about due to a football injury.

Second, the book certifies that Kennedy was a victim of Addison's
disease, which attacks the adrenal glands and makes them faulty
in hormone secretion. The condition can be critical in fights
against certain infections and times of phys

been cut by a third without losing anything
of quality or substance. The book is heavily reliant on
interviews which are presented in the main text. Some of them at
such length-two and three pages-that they give the volume the air
of an oral history. To make it worse, after someone has stopped
talking, the authors tell us the superfluous fact that his wife
walked into the room, making for more excess verbiage (p.60). And
on top of this, the Blairs have no gift for syntax or language,
let alone glimmering prose. As a result, even for an interested
reader, the book is quite tedious.

The Blairs spend much of their time delving into two areas of
Kennedy's personal life: his health problems and his
relationships with the opposite sex. Concerning the first, they
chronicle many, if not all, of the myriad and unfortunate medical
problems afflicting young Kennedy. They hone in on two in order
to straighten out the official record. Previous to this book, the
public did not know that Kennedy's back problem was congenital.
The word had been that it came about due to a football injury.

Second, the book certifies that Kennedy was a victim of Addison's
disease, which attacks the adrenal glands and makes them faulty
in hormone secretion. The condition can be critical in fights
against certain infections and times of phys

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:22:44 GMT, [Jim Menning] said :-


"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


You are a moron Jim.

Get a clue

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:22:44 GMT, [Jim Menning] said :-


"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


You are a moron Jim.

Get a clue

part of the effort to
quadruple gasoline prices through their oil companies; David
Rockefeller took part in the effort to get the American
government to intervene in Chile in 1973; the Trilateral
Commission, which the Rockefellers sponsored, funneled many of
its members into the Carter administration; in 1979, Henry
Kissinger and David Rockefeller convinced Carter to let the Shah
of Iran into the country for medical treatment. The reaction in
Iran helped give us Reagan-Bush. The rest, as they say, is
history.

In comparing the two books, one is immediately struck by a
difference in approach. Whatever the shortcomings of the
Rockefeller book, there is a minimal reliance on questionable
sources. And the concentration on individual lives very seldom
extends into a pervasive search for sex and scandal. This
difference extends to even the photos chosen for the two books.
The Rockefeller book is fairly conventional with wide or half
page group shots or portraits. In the Kennedy book, even the one
page of group shots are tiny prints. The rest are wallet-sized
head shots that when leafed through, give the impression of mug
shots.

The accompanying text is suitable to the photo layout. There

part of the effort to
quadruple gasoline prices through their oil companies; David
Rockefeller took part in the effort to get the American
government to intervene in Chile in 1973; the Trilateral
Commission, which the Rockefellers sponsored, funneled many of
its members into the Carter administration; in 1979, Henry
Kissinger and David Rockefeller convinced Carter to let the Shah
of Iran into the country for medical treatment. The reaction in
Iran helped give us Reagan-Bush. The rest, as they say, is
history.

In comparing the two books, one is immediately struck by a
difference in approach. Whatever the shortcomings of the
Rockefeller book, there is a minimal reliance on questionable
sources. And the concentration on individual lives very seldom
extends into a pervasive search for sex and scandal. This
difference extends to even the photos chosen for the two books.
The Rockefeller book is fairly conventional with wide or half
page group shots or portraits. In the Kennedy book, even the one
page of group shots are tiny prints. The rest are wallet-sized
head shots that when leafed through, give the impression of mug
shots.

The accompanying text is suitable to the photo layout. There

I replied the same places you have.

jim menning


You are a moron Jim.

Get a clue

Back OT, I always liked the look of the Allen Bradly carbon comps, really
lit up the underside of an audio amp. The only drawback, other than
resistance shift, I remember hearing that they were quite noisy as plate
resistors. Maybe so, but there is a heap of carbon comps out there!

And that comment to Jim Menning was uncalled for. Jim will forget more
accidently than you will _ever_ know.
Tom

I replied the same places you have.

jim menning


You are a moron Jim.

Get a clue

Back OT, I always liked the look of the Allen Bradly carbon comps, really
lit up the underside of an audio amp. The only drawback, other than
resistance shift, I remember hearing that they were quite noisy as plate
resistors. Maybe so, but there is a heap of carbon comps out there!

And that comment to Jim Menning was uncalled for. Jim will forget more
accidently than you will _ever_ know.
Tom

is apparently off limits for Ron. If
he drew attention to his lack of curiosity on this matter, it
would hint that something is being papered over in order to
conceal a point.

If that were so, then a previous occurrence in Jim Truitt's
career would bear mentioning, since it quite closely resembles
what he did later in 1976. In August of 1961, Truitt had called
Bradlee and said he had evidence that Kennedy had been previously
married before his wedding to Jackie, and that this fact had been
covered up. Both Bradlee and Truitt pursued the story. But before
they printed it they asked Kennedy about it. He referred them to
Pierre Salinger, his press secretary. Salinger had already heard
the charge from rightwing commentator Fulton Lewis. He had all
his points lined up and proved the story false. Bradlee's account
in Conversations With Kennedy (pp. 43-49) seems to suggest that
Truitt and Bradlee still worked on the story after they were
shown it was wrong.

Also intriguing is a flourish added in Rosenbaum's version, which
appears heavily reliant on the Truitts and Angletons as sources.
Rosenbaum writes that Mary's diary, although usually laid upon
her bedroom bookcase, was found in a locked steel box in her
studio. Rosenbaum doesn't probe as to why it was not found in its
usary&resting place. The locked steel box is not a part of any
other version of the story I know, including Tony Bradlee's, and,
in all versions, she supposedly found the diary. Of course, a
locked box suggests intrigue, but it strains reality. Are we to
believe that every time Mary wanted to make

is apparently off limits for Ron. If
he drew attention to his lack of curiosity on this matter, it
would hint that something is being papered over in order to
conceal a point.

If that were so, then a previous occurrence in Jim Truitt's
career would bear mentioning, since it quite closely resembles
what he did later in 1976. In August of 1961, Truitt had called
Bradlee and said he had evidence that Kennedy had been previously
married before his wedding to Jackie, and that this fact had been
covered up. Both Bradlee and Truitt pursued the story. But before
they printed it they asked Kennedy about it. He referred them to
Pierre Salinger, his press secretary. Salinger had already heard
the charge from rightwing commentator Fulton Lewis. He had all
his points lined up and proved the story false. Bradlee's account
in Conversations With Kennedy (pp. 43-49) seems to suggest that
Truitt and Bradlee still worked on the story after they were
shown it was wrong.

Also intriguing is a flourish added in Rosenbaum's version, which
appears heavily reliant on the Truitts and Angletons as sources.
Rosenbaum writes that Mary's diary, although usually laid upon
her bedroom bookcase, was found in a locked steel box in her
studio. Rosenbaum doesn't probe as to why it was not found in its
usary&resting place. The locked steel box is not a part of any
other version of the story I know, including Tony Bradlee's, and,
in all versions, she supposedly found the diary. Of course, a
locked box suggests intrigue, but it strains reality. Are we to
believe that every time Mary wanted to make

builds another scaffolding: he now postulates that Exner
was Kennedy's conduit to the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro (Ibid
p. 324). What is breathtaking about this is that this is
something that not even Exner had uttered yet, at least not for
dissemination. And she won't until her get-together with Kitty
Kelley in the February 1988 cover story for People. This curious
passage leads one to think that Davis may have planted the seed
from which the Kelley story sprouted.

To go through the entire Davis book and correct all the errors of
fact, logic, and commentary would literally take another book.
But, in line with my original argument about anti-Kennedy
biography, I must point out just two parts of Davis' discussion
of JFK's Vietnam policy. The author devotes a small chapter to
this subject. In his hands, Kennedy turns into a hawk on Vietnam.

Davis writes that on July 17, 1963, Kennedy made "his last public
utterance" on Vietnam, saying that the U.S. was going to stay
there and win (p.374). But on September 2, 1963, in his interview
with Walter Cronkite, Kennedy states that the war is the
responsibility of "the people of Vietnam, against the
Communists." In other words, they have to win the war, not
Americans. Davis makes no mention of this. Davis similarly
ignores NSAM 111 in which Kennedy refused to admit combat troops
into the war, integral to any escalation plan, and NSAM 263,
which ordered a withdrawal to be completed in 1965. This last was
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 recor

builds another scaffolding: he now postulates that Exner
was Kennedy's conduit to the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro (Ibid
p. 324). What is breathtaking about this is that this is
something that not even Exner had uttered yet, at least not for
dissemination. And she won't until her get-together with Kitty
Kelley in the February 1988 cover story for People. This curious
passage leads one to think that Davis may have planted the seed
from which the Kelley story sprouted.

To go through the entire Davis book and correct all the errors of
fact, logic, and commentary would literally take another book.
But, in line with my original argument about anti-Kennedy
biography, I must point out just two parts of Davis' discussion
of JFK's Vietnam policy. The author devotes a small chapter to
this subject. In his hands, Kennedy turns into a hawk on Vietnam.

Davis writes that on July 17, 1963, Kennedy made "his last public
utterance" on Vietnam, saying that the U.S. was going to stay
there and win (p.374). But on September 2, 1963, in his interview
with Walter Cronkite, Kennedy states that the war is the
responsibility of "the people of Vietnam, against the
Communists." In other words, they have to win the war, not
Americans. Davis makes no mention of this. Davis similarly
ignores NSAM 111 in which Kennedy refused to admit combat troops
into the war, integral to any escalation plan, and NSAM 263,
which ordered a withdrawal to be completed in 1965. This last was
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 recor

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:22:44 GMT, "Jim Menning"
wrote:


"Jeff C" wrote in message
.. .

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

And you have continued the chain.

No, I have educated you about what's happening and endeavoured to keep
my home froup clear of clooless "WTF" postings.

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

You need to read about dippy first before you ask questions that
betray your ignorance.

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.

Which means that you have done dippy's dirty work for it. No thanks to
you.

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:22:44 GMT, "Jim Menning"
wrote:


"Jeff C" wrote in message
.. .

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

And you have continued the chain.

No, I have educated you about what's happening and endeavoured to keep
my home froup clear of clooless "WTF" postings.

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

You need to read about dippy first before you ask questions that
betray your ignorance.

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.

Which means that you have done dippy's dirty work for it. No thanks to
you.

"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:19:17 -0800, "Ed Price" wrote:

I don't know what you mean by the "life" of a carbon comp resistor. My
experience is that they last forever, until you kill them somehow. Drift,
under low power, hasn't been a problem for me. I have never seen 40%
drifts,
except for very abused parts, and if you are using the 2-watt carbon
comps,
you can hear or smell when you are abusing them.

__________________________________________________ _______

Then you just haven't been around long enough. I worked in the TV
repair industry for just under 20 years and I have replaced hundreds of
carbon comp resistors which were NOT abused in any way, but failed none
the less. It's an ancient design which time has passed by.

Yup. I just rebuilt an old Heathkit resistor substitution box, 1966 vintage,
and the resistors were absolutely wild. Some were better than double the
rated value. I don't think I saw any decrease in value. None had any obvious
sign of overheating.

Having said that, different manufacturers' resistors held up better than
others, but today, they are all doubtful. The ABs were good when they were
new, the Ohmites were OK, and the IRCs were questionable from the minute
they left the factory.

"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:19:17 -0800, "Ed Price" wrote:

I don't know what you mean by the "life" of a carbon comp resistor. My
experience is that they last forever, until you kill them somehow. Drift,
under low power, hasn't been a problem for me. I have never seen 40%
drifts,
except for very abused parts, and if you are using the 2-watt carbon
comps,
you can hear or smell when you are abusing them.

__________________________________________________ _______

Then you just haven't been around long enough. I worked in the TV
repair industry for just under 20 years and I have replaced hundreds of
carbon comp resistors which were NOT abused in any way, but failed none
the less. It's an ancient design which time has passed by.

Yup. I just rebuilt an old Heathkit resistor substitution box, 1966 vintage,
and the resistors were absolutely wild. Some were better than double the
rated value. I don't think I saw any decrease in value. None had any obvious
sign of overheating.

Having said that, different manufacturers' resistors held up better than
others, but today, they are all doubtful. The ABs were good when they were
new, the Ohmites were OK, and the IRCs were questionable from the minute
they left the factory.

"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:19:17 -0800, "Ed Price" wrote:

I don't know what you mean by the "life" of a carbon comp resistor. My
experience is that they last forever, until you kill them somehow. Drift,
under low power, hasn't been a problem for me. I have never seen 40%
drifts,
except for very abused parts, and if you are using the 2-watt carbon
comps,
you can hear or smell when you are abusing them.

__________________________________________________ _______

Then you just haven't been around long enough. I worked in the TV
repair industry for just under 20 years and I have replaced hundreds of
carbon comp resistors which were NOT abused in any way, but failed none
the less. It's an ancient design which time has passed by.

--
Bill W6WRT


I didn't know anybody repairs TV's anymore! g

If you had read my entire post, you would have noticed that I wasn't
endorsing carbon comps for every resistor design. Consumer electronics is
better served by metal film discretes or SMT bricks.

I was addressing the sweeping condemnation of carbon comps (I suppose from
consumer techs with limited exposure). I suppose you might have noticed when
I was talking about my using 2-watt carbon comps in pulse generators and
dummy loads; you don't see much of that inside a TV.

Just as IC's haven't replaced tubes in EVERY application, carbon comp
resistors still are the best solution in a few instances, and I hope the
technology isn't completely abandoned.

Ed
wb6wsn

"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:19:17 -0800, "Ed Price" wrote:

I don't know what you mean by the "life" of a carbon comp resistor. My
experience is that they last forever, until you kill them somehow. Drift,
under low power, hasn't been a problem for me. I have never seen 40%
drifts,
except for very abused parts, and if you are using the 2-watt carbon
comps,
you can hear or smell when you are abusing them.

__________________________________________________ _______

Then you just haven't been around long enough. I worked in the TV
repair industry for just under 20 years and I have replaced hundreds of
carbon comp resistors which were NOT abused in any way, but failed none
the less. It's an ancient design which time has passed by.

--
Bill W6WRT


I didn't know anybody repairs TV's anymore! g

If you had read my entire post, you would have noticed that I wasn't
endorsing carbon comps for every resistor design. Consumer electronics is
better served by metal film discretes or SMT bricks.

I was addressing the sweeping condemnation of carbon comps (I suppose from
consumer techs with limited exposure). I suppose you might have noticed when
I was talking about my using 2-watt carbon comps in pulse generators and
dummy loads; you don't see much of that inside a TV.

Just as IC's haven't replaced tubes in EVERY application, carbon comp
resistors still are the best solution in a few instances, and I hope the
technology isn't completely abandoned.

Ed
wb6wsn