Greg Burnham

Global Warming: A Stratospheric Surprise Reference Solomon, S., Rosenlof, K., Portmann, R., Daniel, J., Davis, S., Sanford, T. and Plattner, G.-K. 2010. Contributions of stratospheric water vapor to decadal changes in the rate of global warming. Sciencexpress: 10.1126/science.1182488. Background The authors write that "the trend in global surface temperatures has been nearly flat since the late 1990s despite continuing increases in the forcing due to the sum of the well-mixed greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, halocarbons, and N2O), raising questions regarding the understanding of forced climate change, its drivers, the parameters that define natural internal variability, and how fully these terms are represented in climate models." What was done Solomon et al. used observations of stratospheric water vapor concentration obtained over the period 1980-2008, together with detailed radiative transfer and modeling information, in order to calculate the global climatic impact of this important greenhouse gas and compare it with trends in mean global near-surface air temperature that were observed over the same time period. What was learned The seven scientists report that stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000; and their analysis indicates that this decrease should have slowed the rate of increase in global near-surface air temperature between 2000 and 2009 by about 25% compared to what would have been expected (on the basis of climate model calculations) due to measured increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases over the same time period. In addition, they found that "more limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% [above what it would have been without the stratospheric water vapor increase]." What it means In their concluding paragraph, Solomon et al. write that it is "not clear whether the stratospheric water vapor changes represent a feedback to global average climate change or a source of decadal variability." In either case, their findings elucidate a hugely important phenomenon that was not previously included in any prior analyses of global climate change. They also write that current climate models do not "completely represent the Quasi Biennial Oscillation [which has a significant impact on stratospheric water vapor content], deep convective transport [of water vapor] and its linkages to sea surface temperatures, or the impact of aerosol heating on water input to the stratosphere." Consequently, in light of (1) Solomon et al.'s specific findings, (2) their listing of what current climate models do not do (which they should do), and (3) the questions they say are raised by the flat-lining of mean global near-surface air temperature since the late 1990s, it is premature in the extreme to think that we know enough about the intricate workings of earth's climate regulatory system to drastically reduce our CO2 emissions, especially in ways that would radically alter -- and in a negative manner -- the way we obtain the energy that sustains our modern societies. Reviewed 7 April 2010

CO2 and Temperature: The Great Geophysical Waltz Volume 2, Number 7: 1 April 1999 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a recent news release, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies declared 1998 to be "a record temperature year," the warmest ever recorded during the period of instrumental temperature assessment. Likewise, in a new analysis of proxy temperature data, Mann et al. (1999) suggest that the past decade may well have been the warmest of the past millennium. And once again (see our Vol. 1, No. 1 editorial: Much Ado About Tiny Temperature Trends), we have the Goddard Institute for Space Studies' James Hansen being quoted as stating that "there should no longer be an issue about whether global warming is occurring, but what is the rate of warming, what is its practical significance, and what should be done about it." In truth, there is no issue about whether the globe has warmed over the past century or so. Everyone accepts that it has warmed significantly, as the planet has recovered from the global chill of the Little Ice Age. There is also beginning to be a consensus about the practical significance of the warming. Growing seasons have lengthened and plant biomass formation has increased, as a result of both the warming and the concomitant increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. So what should be done about it? We suspect that very few people would want to turn back the climatic clock to the conditions that spelled the doom of the Viking colonists on Greenland and created extreme hardship in Northern Europe and elsewhere. Likewise, not many people have a problem with longer growing seasons and increased biomass production. So what's all the fuss about? It's pretty much a tempest in a computerized teapot. For many years climate modelers have predicted that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content will intensify earth's natural greenhouse effect and boost surface air temperatures to levels that will create all sorts of planetary havoc, melting polar ice caps, raising sea levels, flooding some parts of the globe while turning others to deserts, reducing agricultural productivity, and on and on ad infinitum. And now the likes of James Hanson would have us believe that because atmospheric CO2 and global temperature have both been rising over the past century or so, the rise in atmospheric CO2 must be driving the warming that is asserted to be sure to bring on the worst of the apocalyptic predictions. In assessing such claims, it is important to remember that correlation does not prove causation, and that causation, if it does exist, may well operate in reverse fashion from what one may have originally thought. Hence, it is important to have as much data as possible when attempting to evaluate claims of causal relationships between different parameters; and the last few weeks have given us a wealth of new data of just the type needed to determine if there is indeed any relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and surface air temperature. Perhaps the most exciting new data come from Fischer et al. (1999), who examined records of atmospheric CO2 and air temperature derived from Antarctic ice cores that extended back in time across a quarter of a million years. Over this immense time span, the three most dramatic warming events experienced on earth were those associated with the terminations of the last three ice ages; and for each and every one of these tremendous global warmings, earth's air temperature rose well before there was any increase in atmospheric CO2. In fact, the air's CO2 content did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm. Clearly, increases in atmospheric CO2 did not trigger these massive climate changes. In addition, there was a 15,000-year period following the second of the glacial terminations when the air's CO2 content was essentially constant but air temperatures dropped all the way down to values characteristic of glacial times. Hence, just as increases in atmospheric CO2 did not trigger any of the major global warmings that lead to the demise of the last three ice ages, neither was the induction of the most recent ice age driven by a decrease in CO2. And when the air's CO2 content finally did begin to drop after the last ice age was fully established, air temperatures either remained fairly constant or actually rose, doing just the opposite of what the climate models suggest should have happened if changes in atmospheric CO2 drive climate change. In much the same vein, Indermuhle et al. (1999) determined that after the termination of the last great ice age, the CO2 content of the air gradually rose by approximately 25 ppm in almost linear fashion between 8,200 and 1,200 years ago, over a period of time that saw a slow but steady decline in global air temperature, which is once again just the opposite of what would be expected if changes in atmospheric CO2 affect climate in the way affirmed by the popular CO2-greenhouse effect theory. So who leads who? In the geophysical dance of carbon dioxide and temperature, which repeats itself every hundred thousand or so years, it is definitely not CO2. Sometimes the two parameters are totally out of sync with each other, as when one rises and the other falls. Sometimes one is in transit to a higher or lower level, while the other is in stasis. And even when they do move in harmony, temperature seems to take the lead. Clearly, there is no way that these real-world observations can be construed to even hint at the possibility that a significant increase in atmospheric CO2 will necessarily lead to any global warming, much less the catastrophic type that is predicted to produce the apocalyptic consequences that are driving fear-ridden governments to abandon all sense of rationality in the current hysteria over "what should be done about" the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content. We need to get real about this issue. We need to look at real phenomena that have actually occurred in the real world. And in spite of all the computer simulations to the contrary, we have got to realize what these real data are really telling us. When this is done, the answer comes very simply, as simply as mastering the old-time waltz that the planet has been playing for a quarter million years or more. The key is in the interaction of the participants; when you know who leads, you can avoid a lot of missteps. Dr. Craig D. Idso President Dr. Keith E. Idso Vice President References Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck, B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714. Indermuhle, A., Stocker, T.F., Joos, F., Fischer, H., Smith, H.J., Wahlen, M., Deck, B., Mastroianni, D., Tschumi, J., Blunier, T., Meyer, R. and Stauffer, B. 1999. Holocene carbon-cycle dynamics based on CO2 trapped in ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica. Nature 398: 121-126. Mann, M. 1999. Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations. Geophysical Research Letters 26: 1759-1762 http://www.co2science.org/articles/V2/N7/EDIT.php

The Variable Energy Output of the Sun Appears to Be the Major Determinant of Decadal- to Millennial-Scale Global Climate Change Volume 4, Number 48: 28 November 2001 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is responsible for the approximate 1500-year cycle of global climate change that has been intensely studied in the region of the North Atlantic Ocean and demonstrated to prevail throughout glacial and interglacial periods alike? This is the question Bond et al. (2001) set out to answer in a study of ice-rafted debris found in three North Atlantic deep-sea sediment cores and cosmogenic nuclides (10Be and 14C) sequestered in the Greenland ice cap (10Be) and Northern Hemispheric tree rings (14C). Based on arduous analyses of the deep-sea sediment cores that yielded the variable-with-depth amounts of three proven proxies for the prior presence of overlying drift-ice, the scientists were able to discern and, with the help of an accelerator mass spectrometer, date a number of recurring alternate periods of relative cold and warmth that wended their way through the entire 12,000-year expanse of the Holocene. The mean duration of the several complete climatic cycles thus delineated was 1340 years, the cold and warm nodes of the latter of which oscillations, in the words of Bond et al., were "broadly correlative with the so called 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period'." The signal accomplishment of the scientists' study was the linking of these millennial-scale climate oscillations - and their imbedded centennial-scale oscillations - with similar-scale oscillations in cosmogenic nuclide production, which are known to be driven by contemporaneous oscillations in the energy output of the sun. In fact, Bond et al. were able to report that "over the last 12,000 years virtually every centennial time-scale increase in drift ice documented in our North Atlantic records was tied to a solar minimum." In light of this observation they concluded that "a solar influence on climate of the magnitude and consistency implied by our evidence could not have been confined to the North Atlantic," suggesting that the cyclical climatic effects of the variable solar inferno are experienced throughout the world. At this point of their paper, the international team of scientists had pretty much verified a number of things we have regularly reported on our website over the past several years, i.e., that in spite of the contrary claims of a host of climate alarmists, the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period were (1) real, (2) global, (3) solar-induced, and (4) but the latest examples of uninterrupted alternating intervals of relative cold and warmth that stretch back in time through glacial and interglacial periods alike. [For more information on topics 1-3, see Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in our Subject Index; for additional material on topic 3, see Solar Effects (Climate); for information on topic 4, see Climate Oscillations.] Because these several subjects are of such great significance, particularly to the global warming debate that currently rages over the climate model-predicted consequences of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, Bond and his band of researchers went on to cite additional evidence in support of the implications of their work. With respect to the global extent of the climatic impact of the solar radiation variations they detected (topics 2 and 3 above, with 1 implied), they made explicit reference to confirmatory studies conducted in Scandinavia, Greenland, the Netherlands, the Faroe Islands, Oman, the Sargasso Sea, coastal West Africa, the Cariaco Basin, equatorial East Africa, and the Yucatan Peninsula, demonstrating thereby that "the footprint of the solar impact on climate we have documented extend from polar to tropical latitudes." Also in support of topic 3, they noted that "the solar-climate links implied by our record are so dominant over the last 12,000 years ... it seems almost certain that the well-documented connection between the Maunder solar minimum and the coldest decades of the LIA could not have been a coincidence," further noting that their findings support previous suggestions that both the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period "may have been partly or entirely linked to changes in solar irradiance." Another point reiterated by Bond et al. is that the oscillations in drift-ice they studied "persist across the glacial termination and well into the last glaciation, suggesting that the cycle is a pervasive feature of the climate system." At two of their coring sites, in fact, they identified a series of such cyclical variations that extended throughout all of the previous interglacial and were "strikingly similar to those of the Holocene." Here they could also well have cited the work of Oppo et al. (1998), who observed similar climatic oscillations in a sediment core that covered the span of time from 340,000 to 500,000 years before present, and that of Raymo et al. (1998), who pushed back the time of the cycles' earliest known occurrence to well over one million years ago. So how do the small changes in solar radiation inferred from the cosmogenic nuclide variations bring about such significant and pervasive shifts in earth's global climate? In answer to this question, which has long plagued proponents of a solar-climate link, Bond et al. describe a scenario whereby solar-induced changes high in the stratosphere are propagated downward through the atmosphere to the earth's surface, where they likely provoke changes in North Atlantic Deep Water formation that alter the global Thermohaline Circulation. In light of the plausibility of this scenario, they suggest that "the solar signals thus may have been transmitted through the deep ocean as well as through the atmosphere, further contributing to their amplification and global imprint." Concluding their landmark paper, the authors say the results of their study "demonstrate that the earth's climate system is highly sensitive to extremely weak perturbations in the sun's energy output," noting that their work "supports the presumption that solar variability will continue to influence climate in the future." It is readily evident, therefore, that the study of Bond et al. provides ample ammunition for defending the premise that the global warming of the past century or so may well have been nothing more than the solar-mediated recovery of the earth from the chilly conditions of the most recent Little Ice Age, and that any further warming of the planet that might occur would likely be nothing more than a continuation of the same solar-mediated cycle that is destined to usher the globe into the next Medieval-like or Modern Warm Period. Consequently, since there's plenty of precedence for this scenario - it's happened over and over for more than a million years - and none for a warming of the planet as a consequence of atmospheric CO2 enrichment (see CO2-Temperature Correlations in our Subject Index), it would seem the height of folly to implement any energy policy that would restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions for the avowed purpose of attempting to prevent future global warming. It's not CO2 that's been causing the earth to warm. It's the sun! http://www.co2science.org/articles/V4/N48/EDIT.php Dr. Sherwood B. Idso President Dr. Keith E. Idso Vice President References Bond, G., Kromer, B., Beer, J., Muscheler, R., Evans, M.N., Showers, W., Hoffmann, S., Lotti-Bond, R., Hajdas, I. and Bonani, G. 2001. Persistent solar influence on North Atlantic climate during the Holocene. Science 294: 2130-2136. Oppo, D.W., McManus, J.F. and Cullen, J.L. 1998. Abrupt climate events 500,000 to 340,000 years ago: Evidence from subpolar North Atlantic sediments. Science 279: 1335-1338. Raymo, M.E., Ganley, K., Carter, S., Oppo, D.W. and McManus, J. 1998. Millennial-scale climate instability during the early Pleistocene epoch. Nature 392: 699-702.

Well said, Jack. This is likely my last post to any forum. I grow weary of the counter-productive, juvenile bickering between otherwise intelligent, mature adults, some of whom I call friends. The search for the truth is not served by expecting everyone to agree with each other, but it is served even less when those engaged in debate allow their respective differences to be amplified beyond their ORIGINAL significance. That is idiotic. My intent in this thread was not to disagree with HORNE nor was it to agree with Costella. And that's not what I did. Unfortunately, Bill Kelly placed words in my mouth. My intent was to defend John from undue harsh criticism by Jim. Yes, it was unduly harsh. You can disagree without calling his review "dumb" or accusing him of "blunders" and a few other choice put downs. You can push too hard against the people you treasure in this world the most--under the cover of "seeking the truth" -- only to alienate them or to cause them to disengage from the good fight because it has turned into the bad fight. Nobody wins in such scenarios--least of all the truth. IMO: John wrote a review with which some (if not most) people here didn't agree. So what? Does that excuse the exchange of rude remarks? How about this: What if we all at times over-react in our zeal to express our opinions? Obviously, that happens... What I find hard to imagine is that when it happens--when someone over-reacts-- "friends" don't attempt to work it out by exploring why the person over-reacted, but instead "take sides" and villify the other--irrespective of the person's dedication and valuable contributions. Well, I know that I'm new to this particular venue and have no "standing" here, but those who know me well understand what I consider to be reasonable rules of engagement. IMO: it is common courtesy to show self restraint and if members were to behave like adults there would be no need for moderators at all. Anyway, so long. Good luck in your pursuit of the truth. I hope your paths converge on it no matter what route you take. GO_SECURE monk ====

Perhaps I need to re-read John's review. -- Ok, I just did and I didn't detect anything in his review that was "anchored" on your claim. He seems to report facts about Doug's employment--and although I agree that his reference to a reluctance to admit a "Jewish" connection to the assassination is ill founded, it is certainly not central to his position.

Ok, Bill. Fair enough. I consider Fetzer to be a close friend. And I consider you to be a very good man and a formidable researcher, although I don't know you nearly as well, that is still my opinion. I consider Mantik to be "top-shelf" as I do Noel Twyman. Jack White is way up there too--great friend. Scott Myers, close friend--extremely intelligent...and John Costella, a good friend--extremely bright--my wife and I are going to visit him this summer in Australia... Now, my point is this: These are known entities--with proven track records! Why do we continue to "vet" them as though they are suspect? And, a better question: Why do we all continue to "VET" each other! Perhaps those with a proven track record with whom we may occasionally disagree on a given point need not be treated with such contempt or doubt or suspicion every time they take an opposing position. (And I said as much to Jim on the phone in not so many words). Just my 2 cents.

Are you kidding me right now? Bill, that is so beneath you! I am appalled. You might disagree, but wow--it's amazing to me how often otherwise intelligent, cordial, descent, people (even JFK assassination researchers), become so desperate to advance their position that they will choose to impugn the character, intelligence, integrity, ability, or challenge the motives of those with whom they disagree. Sorry, it's not just you--and it's not just here. I'm just naive to expect anything different. A pity. Horne another Blakey, or Joannides? Come on. KK Yea, Jack, You can compare Doug Horne's five volumes to the entire work of the Congressonal Committee. Horne is extremely critical of Blakey, something Costello wouldn't know since he didn't bother to read the book, and appears disenchanted not to have been give the Z-film credit he expected in the one chapter he did read (twice), and still misunderstood. Just by asking the Secret Agent Man question Costella poisons the well, as it has been said. But I like the nick name G-Man Costella has bestowed on Horne, since Doug's been in need of a good nickname. Costella admits he worked for the DOD, so now that's my nickname for him. DODC the Hatchet Man Costella. Like all good propagandists know - repeatedly branding someone something works - in the same vein as Holland and Russo, and DOD Hatchet Man Costella repeatedly calls Horne "the Government Man" - apparently because Horne is a State department bureaucrat and has a Navy background (certainly G-Man is also an ONI shill). But The Hatchet Man's bias comes out when he mentions the fact that G-Man worked for the Holocaust museum after his service on the ARRB - and therefore must have different tendencies when it comes to Jews. Of course in America people know that everybody named Costella is in the Mafia. I thought that The Hatchet Man, being an academic and with some knowledge of the case, would actually write a thoughtful, useful, yet critical review of Horne's work, but that hasn't been done yet. Maybe Jimmy D can pull it off. BK

(emphasis added)Although I concede that Doug did reveal important--very important--new clarifying information...still: IMO, it is not John's responsibility to "explain" what Doug accomplished in his work! If it needs to be "explained" by a critic [a reviewer] it was not well explained by the author of the work to begin with! As a point of logic, John contends that his own [John's] work proves that the Z-film is either authentic or it is not [read:it is completely fabricated]. It was altered far beyond a mere "paint over" of individual frames. Moreover, his work proves that there is no such thing as "a slightly altered" Z-film. It was completely altered. However, it could be argued that Doug almost undermines the significance of those findings by his lack of recognition of them in his book! If the situation was reversed and Doug's book was a "review" of Costella's work, then I think your criticism of HIS (Doug's) "review" might be well founded. Not the other way around, though. I find a lot of merit in defining that distinction. I don't think that John had any "eagerness to impail Horne" nor do I think it is settled science that John committed a "blunder"--major or otherwise. Suggesting it is so, in the fashion offered, resembles a "Poisoning of the Well" -- IMHO. Moreover, the John I know "reads things carefully" prior to comment. Suggesting otherwise further poisons the well. I am unsure as to what relevance the above has to John's review? Well, it seems to me to make perfect sense. That if Doug is (and I'm not claiming he is), but if he is a gov agent, (and IF you are that convinced he isn't), then since you don't want to be a lunatic--the implication could cause a near hysterical reaction! Not that far-fetched, IMO. But, I wasn't there--so I don't know. Am I offering a dumb review of your review of his review? Sheesh. Labels mean very little to me.

I don't know if this is the correct topic to place here, but I do know it's unrelated to JFK and so doesn't belong over there. My wife and I live in a highrise condominium in downtown San Diego overlooking San Diego Bay, Coronado Island and San Diego Harbor. An earthquake measuring 6.9 on the R-scale just hit a few minutes ago. I actually think it was closer to 7.2 -- Sometimes they revise their original estimate after collecting more data. Now, let's wait for the aftershocks!

I fail to understand why this has to get personal. Tink, are you seriously claiming that Jim is not a real researcher? C'mon, now--isn't that over the top? You are a grown man. You need not resort to playground tactics. You may disagree with him, you might think you have discovered all of the correct answers--indeed, you may even hate Jim--but it is insulting to our intelligence, and frankly, such a claim is beneath you (or so one would presume). I received an email from David Lifton this morning telling me of some of the significant research he is doing rather than rolling around in the gutter with you and this unfortunate woman. Your continued posts make all the more important what I wrote back to him: "David, you must understand that you do real research; Glell Viklund does real reserch; Duncan Macrae does real research; Barb Junkkarinen does real research. But James Fetzer doesn't do real research and never has. I don't think it is a personal attack on him to point this out. I think it is just something that can be read off the sum total of his enthusiasms. Instead of actually looking into things and finding out what makes sense and what doesn't, Fetzer prefers another role. He likes being a flack or press agent or cheerleader. His congenial tools are press releases, news conferences, mysterious "intel" authorities, blogs, obscure radio talk shows, and now, "channeling" a woman whose story was holed at the water-line years ago. Since he never gets his hands dirty in real research, he loses perspective and ends up backing ideas that most folks are willing to let sink into obscurity. None of this is very important. It's just some of the noise that accompanies genuine discussion and inquiry. You are wise to stay away from it." Josiah Thompson

You're obviously not serious. Notice the high number of both reads [38,000+] and replies [870+] in the existing thread below.

David, Just FYI: You have the ability to "edit" a post. When you look at your posted message you'll notice that in the lower right hand corner just below your message there are 3 buttons. EDIT / REPLY / QUOTE. If you're not the author of the post only the REPLY and QUOTE buttons are available, but if you are the author you press EDIT and it will allow you to make changes to the original. Moreover, it automatically posts the date and time of your edit at the bottom. I'm going to edit this post as an example of what you'd see.

I'm disappointed with the hijacking of this thread. Why try to stop the conversation? If you don't like it, why not move on to a different thread? Or are you guys attempting to protect everyone here from the "Judyth coodies" or the "Fetzer fantasies" -- or some such crap? You're right, Bill--we ARE all adults. So, people should ignore the thread if they don't like it. I'm rather taken aback that there are those who are attempting to "save Jim" from Judyth! Again, "YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!" And, when that fails to work, Jim is attacked, ostensibly to save him...ummm--from himself, I guess? It is quite telling when an individual AND their posts are attacked by multiple parties. Why the ferocity? Why the ugliness? Why does Tink resort to such juvenile mutterings? If Jim is on the wrong track, the truth will out anyway. Truth has a way of doing that. Let him go down on the weakness of his own arguments--or prevail from their strength. But, I have a feeling that this information is threatening to some here--and I don't know why. Don't misunderstand. I am not claiming to know or to believe that Judyth is or is not the real deal. But why the overly hostile reaction to her story? Some here take these posts as though they were full of personal attacks against them--and they did from the beginning. Granted, the tone has gotten more heated on both sides recently, but there was an extremely negative and defensive reaction from the very first post in this thread. Why? Please don't say it's because "we know this is all BS" or we're sure that "Judyth has nothing new" to bring to this case. Gimme a break. You can't have it both ways. First Judyth is criticized for her information having "not added anything new to what we already know about the case" -- yet, whenever she does "add something new" it is dismissed rather violently as something she just now fabricated before it is even investigated. How do I know it hasn't been investigated by her critics? Because the speed of their response precludes it. Either she "fabricated" this heretofore unknown item opportunistically or she did not. All things being equal, if her critics fail to investigate the claim, (as I have failed to do with many of her claims for lack of time, interest, resources), they really have no standing to reject it--for reasons other than their own personal bias or prejudice. We are adults. We can do better than this.

I am not taking sides in this debate, as I don't claim to know one way or the other. -- However... Look, let's not all get our panties up in a bunch, boys. Granted, Jim has a tendency--by his own admission--to be overly combative. I share that same trait, unfortunately. It's not always the easiest beast to tame. However, that trait (or fault, as the case may be) should not influence the outcome of the argument. We're all human, and as such, we might be sensitive to the combativeness of another particularly when we and they are on opposite sides of an argument. But that's not the point. If we assume that Jim has committed an error of etiquette--so be it. His social skills my have offended some here. (Although, I fail to see how or why. Perhaps if aimed at me, I too would feel differently? I don't know). However, the problem--in my view, is that those who are claiming "foul" fail to provide sound arguments in rebuttal. Sure, they might be offended, but "who cares" in the bigger picture. Why? Because it isn't Jim's intent to offend. His intent is to "scrap it out" even if it means getting his hands dirty in pursuit of the truth. There are multiple errors in argumentation from those attempting to discredit Judyth. And they are obvious. The fact that some great researchers on this forum do not believe her story, in and of itself, means little or nothing by way of proof since the arguments offered to debunk her are not well constructed once scrutinized beyond surface appeal. It is my sincere hope that the tone of this discussion is dialed back at least a few notches. People don't need to feel that they're "giving in" simply because they choose to avoid aggravating their opponent with vitriolic proclamations.

I understand, Chris. Good approach, IMO. BTW: when I watched your NIX film and identified the frame number where Toni appears to react, it seems to be at 322. It is in that frame that she literally changes direction from where she was originally running. Her left foot is planted, then bends at the knee, while she pushes off of it to move to her right--away from what she appears to percieve as the line of fire. I thought that Newman reacted slightly in the same frame or the next one (323) and "began" his move away (in the same direction as Toni back up Elm St.) before hitting the ground.

Jim, Thanks for that detailed lesson in logic. I appreciate it and I "get it" too. I stand corrected.

Greg, I certainly enjoy reading your contributions to the Education Forum. The above seems true. It might be that the falsification and destruction of so much of the medical evidence runs a close second. Thank you Michael--and I agree with you about the medical record. Of course, if we split hairs, the Secret Service screw ups were possibly the most egregious of those that directly effected the immediate outcome of the event itself. Given that fact, perhaps the cover up of their negligence (if not complicity) is perhaps monumental. Secret---indeed.

So GHWB was in deep, then? It would seem so...on several levels. That he became DCI under FORD speaks volumes. A lot of assumptions. Perhaps he was just a voyeur?

Well, I don't know if that item is one that Jim feels she has already adequately explained. My suggestion is that he list ONLY the items he feels she has adequately explained, including especially those items that have been challenged. I would think it more constructive for Jim to refrain from justification and/or qualification for this exercise. Let's just see if there are ANY points that have been (even partially) resolved.

Jim, I have a suggestion. I think it would be helpful if you listed the claims (in list format, without qualification or justification) that you believe Judyth has already adequately explained in her response to detractors. For instance, the whole Cancun issue, the clothing issue, the ability to drive issue... I guess what I'm suggesting is that you put forth the items you feel are explained and allow her critics to "check off" the items that they also agree her explanations COULD ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN. IOW: even if they tend to disbelieve these explanations, surely there are at least a few (or even just one) explanation that they can "allow" as a possibility. If there are NONE -- there is a serious problem, no? Even her most staunch detractors shouldn't be so closed minded as to reject ALL claims irrespective of merit. If they do, there is a problem. If they do--and it is truly HONEST--the problem may lie elsewhere.

Hey Steve, Colonel Prouty spoke highly of Mullins. He considered him an "old friend" -- Fletch never indicated to me what Mullins' affiliations did or did not include. Below is a letter and reply between us in which Mullins' name briefly comes up. http://www.prouty.org/letter11.html

I received an email from Shelby DellaRosa (Rich's wife) of the JFKresearch Forum last night. She informed me that she no longer has any copies of the book, HARVEY & LEE for sale. However, revenue will still be generated for preserving the forum by purchasing books from that site through the link to Amazon.com located there. www.jfkresearch.com

Jack, I wish that I had asked Hemming about the photographic record of LHO. I wish I had sent him images and asked questions. I have a lot of obscure information about LHO from both Hemming and Prouty, but unfortnately, I have no information about the photographic record. Sheesh--and I call myself a researcher...pathetic.

Yes, Jack--but, Jim's argument is the opposite, in a sense... He is saying that many of her claims are extremely IMPLAUSIBLE (an opinion with which I think we all agree). He is further observing, correctly IMHO, that every time one of her "improbable claims" turns out to be TRUE--that serves to bolster perception of her overall credibility. I will not defend the logic of that perception, but I will acknowledge his accuracy as to human tendencies--logical or not. It does strain the mind...indeed. Well, Jack, my friend--I have known you a very long time (or so it seems) and have never "read you" using profanity. And you still escaped it tonight...albeit by inventing a new word! New word: "bigratsass" -- and it conveyed your meaning (and mine) very well, indeed! GO_SECURE monk

No that is not correct. You are postulating irrespective of your profession. That's almost clever. Your argument then follows this path: "Since it took more than one shot, it was not the work of a professional shooter (or shooters), and therefore was not a conspiracy" -- (afterall, who would conspire to hire amateurs to kill the POTUS?) Sorry, not good enough. I play chess, too.