Christopher T. George

Hi all

There have been a number of editorials which have rightly pointed out that the incident well shows the arrogance of Bush-Cheney and of Cheney in particular, and the overall perception that they believe themselves above the law.

However, I would like to say that the episode is immensely revealing about the man. Often it is in such cases where something happens for which the person is unprepared, that we begin to see the true character of a person. So there are a number of facets to this, the shooting incident itself and the aftermath, which speak volumes about Dick Cheney.

Chris

the magic happens or doesn't happen in post production... a example; who created the little ditty Hitler performed when he stepped from that Paris railcar while celebrating? How was that done and who did it? Wasn't on the German version.

Hi David

My understanding is that the little dance that you see Hitler do on the fall of Paris was created by the Allies, as this blogger notes--

"I'm reminded of a bit of footage I saw in a media class in college of Adolf Hitler, dancing a jig after accepting the surrender of France in June of 1940. This footage was played all over the Allied countries, showing Hitler stepping back and stepping forward as if he were childishly dancing at his victory. This enraged people in the Allied countries and showed Hitler to be a monstrous tyrant, but in actuality it was doctored footage of Hitler simply stepping backwards and forwards, looped over and over again and sped up to appear as if he were dancing. It was a masterful stroke of propaganda for the Allies, ridiculing and demonizing Hitler, but it was a fake."

And as Gregory J. E. Rawlins wrote about the use of propaganda --

"'Seeing is believing,' we used to say; but that's never really been true. During the Second World War, newsreels showed Hitler dancing a jig after the fall of France in 1940. Hitler was many things, but a jig fancier he wasn't. He never did dance that jig---he just lifted his leg. It was Allied newsmakers who optically looped that leg movement into a jig."

I see a few places on the net, for example on Wikipedia, where it states American journalists were responsible. That might be so although of course the U.S. was not yet in the war. It's also said that they used still photographs to create the loop but that doesn't sound quite right either. ("American journalists, being neutrals at the time, . . . took a famous sequence of photographs of Hitler dancing a jig for his officers the day of the surrender ceremony.) My inclination, though I might be wrong, would be to think that the British created the film from actual newsreel footage.

Chris

The shooting took place on a ranch in south Texas.

No news was leaked out about it for 18 hours and then only to a local newspaper. . .

Is it possible that Cheney hoped the whole thing could have been hushed up so it wasn't known he was responsible? That is, rather than being merely slow in reporting he was responsible, was he aiming to not 'fess up at all? If the local media had not been contacted, is it possible that we would not know about the incident?

And as for breaking the law, he was hunting with a license that did not exhibit the needed upland game bird stamp, which in itself is negligence. One of the first things he did, rather than make a statement, was to rush off the payment for the necessary stamp. That shows guilt. According to the Smoking Gun website (appropriate name!), wildlife officials reported that while Cheney had purchased a valid non-resident hunting license, he had not obtained the required stamp to hunt upland birds before he went off shooting with Whittington and party. See "CNN: Cheney's License in Violation, Gets Warning" and "See Dick. Run!"

Chris

How do we know they weren't hearing something that just sounded like an explosion?

Because we have to consider what they heard (and saw) in conjunction with all the other evidence for government complicity in 9/11. And for the conspirators and their agenda, hitting those towers with planes wasn't enough. Those towers had to come down, spectacularly. (It's called "shock and awe.") And the people who put together such a well-planned military/intelligence operation were not going to leave catastrophic collapse of the towers to (very slim if non-existent) chance.

I guess then that the conspirators missed their opportunity with the first attack on the WTC in 1993, is that right? The flaw in the idea that the government colluded in bringing down the towers is that how could they have coordinated the bring-down with the impact of the planes. Would they have set the charges at some time in the hopes that terrorists would one day try to demolish the towers using planes? There are too many loopholes in the idea. Far more probably, the planes themselves, with their exploding fuel tanks instigated the bring-down of the towers.

Chris

Al:

I find that if I just don't read Purvis- or any LNer- I enjoy this forum far more.

You can't employ logic with a person so brainwashed, (imho).

Dawn

Hi Dawn

I can understand your attitude although I find I must commend Mr. Purvis for the best posts that I have seen from him in this forum. While I am not a person who uses guns or rifles, his point that a marksman aiming from behind, as the Presidential motorcade proceeded away from the TSBD, would have the best shot, makes eminent sense, the target being relatively more stationary than shooting from the side at a moving motorcade, where you would have to aim ahead of the targets in a moving limousine where the shot(s) would be many fold more difficult. I am also greatly intrigued by Tom Purvis's claim about the yellow marks on the curb along the procession route which is the first I had heard of them and which would seem to mark off a killing zone as he legitimately, in my view, claims. To me, this is startling and potentially significant information. Does anybody else have any views about the yellow marks on the curb as viewable in the Zapruder film? As posted by Lee Forman, in his post of Feb 10 2006, 06:50 PM (thanks, Lee!), I show below the URL for one of the Zapruder frames (z357) showing one of the yellow stripes.

Chris

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z357.jpg

Hi Mark

Dr. Findlay might still come up with something useful to further knowledge of the case, depending what he is sent as a result of his appeal to receive artifacts from the case. However, the results to date, I understand, have been disappointing. The following is the way we reported the first results of his investigation in the January issue of Ripperologist (no. 63):

Findlay DNA Results Are Inconclusive

As we reported in December in Ripperologist 62, Prof Ian Findlay at Queensland’s Griffith University has developed a new DNA analysis which he hopes will help to increase knowledge of the Ripper case. On 24 January on the ‘Casebook: Jack the Ripper’ message boards, Prof Findlay reported that unfortunately his analysis of samples obtained from ‘Ripper letters’ and from a braid of hair alleged to be from victim Catherine Eddowes have up to this point been inconclusive.

Findlay stated, ‘We performed two types of forensic DNA analysis: nuclear and mitochondrial. As previously stated, nuclear is more powerful with specificity around the billion to 1 mark. Whereas mitochondrial can be approximately be 20 to 100 to 1. . . .’

‘We tested the hair braid and hairs from known descendants of Eddowes using mitochondrial sequencing. The descendants’ hairs were consistent with both descendant having a common maternal ancestor, in this case likely to be Eddowes. However, the hair braid consistently failed to provide a profile. This could be due to: 1. technique failing. Possible but unlikely as the technique worked well with other hair. 2. As the test looks for human DNA sequences, this could indicate that hair is not human. Nuclear testing on the hair provided several partial DNA profiles, including male, which may simply be from cellular contamination on the hair rather than from the hair. Conclusion: We cannot determine that the hair braid is from Eddowes or not. In fact, it is possible that the hair braid is not human and therefore not from Eddowes.’

Regarding the ‘Ripper letters,’ Findlay said, ‘The good news is that we obtained nuclear DNA forensic profiles from the Openshaw [letter] envelope seal samples (and hence possibly from the sender) and blood stains from two [other ‘Ripper’] letters. This demonstrates that nuclear DNA exists and that our techniques can detect it. I understand (though may be wrong) that [Patricia] Cornwell’s team failed to obtain nuclear DNA profiles but did obtain a mitochondrial profile from the envelope seal.’

He continued: ‘[The] bad news is that unfortunately all the profiles are partial and inconclusive and may originate from multiple persons. This isn’t very surprising considering that the letters etc would have been handled dozens to hundreds of times over the last 120 years – often without gloves etc. In conclusion – although DNA profiles from letters were obtained, they are inconclusive.’ Prof Findlay concluded: ‘Although our DNA techniques have worked, it appears that the notoriety of the Ripper case may have worked against us as the letters and hair braid have been handled multiple times thus contaminating the samples.’

For more on the DNA technique used by Prof Findlay see http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20051...ripper_tec.html

I agree we were outplayed on Saturday but a 2-0 score hardly indicates a thrashing.

The reports I read suggested Liverpool could have had 5 or 6!

The West Ham manager is clearly a more impartial observer and assessor of other teams than the average West Ham supporter

Hello Andy

Is that the same Liverpool I have been watching???? We are, quite frankly, having a great deal of trouble putting it in the net. Morientes, Crouch, and Cisse are proving a bust at present and Fowler is only just working his way into the team, may be past his best, and is, he and Benitez acknowledge not fully match fit. Believe me, it is excrutiating to watch Liverpool presently. We might have total dominance in terms of our midfield taking control but we are having the greatest difficulty putting the ball in the back of the net. We will see what happens versus Arsenal tonight and Manchester United in the Cup at the weekend but I cannot say I am hopeful despite Arsenal's recent loss of form and Manchester's similar inconsistency: both teams appear able to score with facility and we do not.

Chris

Greer did not see Jackie. He did not see JFK. He did not see anything except Connally start to fall. Greer heard what he thought were two backfires, glanced back at Connally and took off simultaneously with the third shot. Read his statement and testimony. Then watch the Zapruder film. If you think he was lying, then why try to defend him? My personal view is, to hell with him.

Hi Ron

If this comment was directed at me, I am not trying to defend Greer. I am merely trying to get at the truth of what happened... as most of us here are.

Chris

Hi everyone

I agree that Greer's best option was to accelerate out of the area, and that slowing or stopping would endanger the President more. However, I don't know exactly when the slowing took place, but could it have been when Jackie climbed on the trunk of the Lincoln? If that was the case, couldn't that explain why Greer hesitated? That is, if Greer suddenly accelerated at that point, it could have thrown Jackie off the back of the limo and made it harder for the Secret Service man to climb on board.

Chris

I'll play too, Len--though I have little knowledge of the technology.

#2. It probably was altered but the case for alteration is not conclusive.

Hi all

I go along with Mark Stapleton's assessment. There does seem to be evidence of alteration. However, to me, the film appears to be have been shot in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination and I don't buy the contention of Jack White and others that the whole film has been faked. It shows too much of the murder scene that could not have been "mocked up" to make it look like the real thing. The contention that Hollywood could fake such a film using special effects as in "Mary Poppins" is faintly ridiculous. Moreover, as has been pointed out by many people, the film appears to show that the headshot that blew apart JFK's head came from the Pergola side or the front (maybe from the bridge ahead), which does not at all support the lone assassin theory, i.e., that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the fatal shots from the TSBD, behind the presidential procession.

Chris

Hi all

Getting back to the original topic (yes, I know it's hard), the Kennedys' supposed antipathy to "Assassination Research," I should think the reason is not hard to fathom. They have lost one of their own, or two of their own, if you could RFK along with JFK. I should think that sense of loss would outweigh any impetus to know the details of any conspiracy involved. They possibly either don't care, or maybe they know more than they have said, and don't want to know more.

Best regards

Chris george

Hi Mr Weston

You expound upon a very intriguing theory that I will read with interest. Before I do so, I did though want to comment that my initial reaction is that it seems a bit unlikely and a bit too convenient that Kennedy would be assassinated from the very same building where the supposed illegal operations that would lead to his death, as you would have us believe, were taking place. Just my initial hunch that the conspiracy that killed Kennedy, if such a conspiracy existed, was likely far more far ranging than might be encompassed in the activities of the TSBD.

All my best

Chris

Hi all

Dr. Findlay himself admitted on "Casebook: Jack the Ripper" message boards that the hopes for what he would find through his investigation were overblown in the press. He hopes to advance knowledge in the field and has a chance to do so if he can extract DNA. However the chances are remote that Jack the Ripper will beidentified. The chances are slim of finding usable DNA on any crime scene artifacts, of which there virtually are none, or of being able to match a suspect's DNA to a Ripper letter, which most authorities think are hoaxes any way, despite what Patricia Cornwell claims in her investigation.

In any case, following is what I wrote up about Dr. Findlay's investigation for the latest (December) issue of Ripperologist.

Chris

****************

Australian DNA Investigation

Australian Pathologist Ian Findlay of Griffith University in Queensland, Australia (and formerly of Leeds University in northern England) is hoping to use DNA to further knowledge of the Jack the Ripper case. While admitting that such techniques might not identify the murderer, Findlay says that testing such artifacts as a rope of hair allegedly from victim Catherine Eddowes now in the possession of Stephen Ryder, owner of the ‘Casebook: Jack the Ripper’ website.

Findlay is reported to have developed 'a method, called Cell Track-ID, [that] is able to extract and compile a DNA fingerprint from a single cell or strand of hair up to 160 years old.'

On 6 November, Ryder on the ‘Casebook’ message boards stated: ‘About two weeks ago I happened to catch an Australian press piece which had an interview with Prof. Findlay. The article discussed his new method of extracting usable DNA samples from old strands of hair (160+ years old). Prof. Findlay happened to mention in the article that he would love to apply this new type of testing to historical cases such as that of Jack the Ripper. 'This was of interest to me, because I've recently acquired a plait of hair which was alleged to have been taken from the body of Catherine Eddowes. The hair and other artifacts which accompanied it are discussed in depth in the current Ripperologist, so I won't go into too much detail here, except to say that they all appear to me to have been modern (1960s/1970s) hoaxes. Regardless, I shared this information with Prof. Findlay, and he said he would be interested in testing the hair to conclusively state once and for all whether or not it was taken from the body of Catherine Eddowes. The hair will be tested against samples we hope to acquire from living Eddowes descendants.’

At this point, Prof. Findlay is trying to acquire other Ripper artifacts for possible DNA testing. Findlay stated on the ‘Casebook’ message boards on 6 November, ‘The Cell-Track DNA system is a significant advance over mitochondrial [DNA testing] (used by [Patricia] Cornwell) which as others have noted has significant limitations. STR profiling is the standard DNA fingerprinting used worldwide and has much increased specificity to genetically identify the source of small and/or old samples.’

Findlay continued, ‘If samples (such as stamps, letters) exist, they could be tested for DNA fingerprint. Of course the presence of the DNA fingerprint does not confirm the Ripper - just adds additional supportive info to the puzzle. The DNA fingerprint could be compared to living (or dead) relatives (just need some direct relatives certainly don't need ALL the relatives) of possible suspects to establish links. As the specificity of this DNA fingerprint system is so high (billions to one), then a close link could strengthen the case aganst that suspect.’ Anyone with possible Ripper artifacts that they are willing to have tested is encouraged to contact Prof. Findlay through Ryder’s ‘Casebook: Jack the Ripper’ website http://casebook.org/ or through his own website

http://www.gribblesmolecular.com/

Hi John, Mark, and Stephen

You might all want to look at the new sample article on the Ripperologist website, which is "The Enigmas of Miller's Court" by Simon Wood, a more extended exploration of Wood's ideas about the Mary Jane Kelly murder room than he published on "Casebook: Jack the Ripper." This article appeared in the December 2005 electronic edition of Ripperologist. We are now putting out the magazine as a monthly electronic publication rather than the paper magazine which came out every two months. I hope you find the article illuminating. It is certainly thought provoking and controversial side in terms of some of Mr. Wood's ideas and hypotheses.

Chris

Hi John

I respect your inclination to not be influenced by others writings and to reach your own conclusions which of course is an acceptable and meritorious approach.

I believe the furniture in the room would probably have been cheap pine or a similar wood. While I do not think the Expressionist painter Walter Sickert was the killer, as has recently been alleged by Patricia Cornwell on weak evidence, some of Sickert's work and other artists' paintings show working class rooms of the period. Here is a working class room as painted by Sickert as well as a photo of the artist himself sitting on a chair--

Sickert, "Ennuie" painted circa 1914

Walter Sickert

You mention that you are in Australia so may find it difficult to see working class type furniture of the day. But how about reconstructed Australian colonial era settlements? I am sure there must be a few around that you could visit or even find on line.

John, there were no sounds reported of the furniture being moved around on the murder night. We have reports of Mary going in and out of the court observed with various men. Also one witness reported hearing the cry "Oh, murder!" during the night.

It is probable that the bed was moved to take the photographs, at least certainly the smaller photograph looking toward the door. You could be right that the killer was a smaller man, or at least not a big man. One of the best regarded suspect sightings, that of Joseph Lawende who saw a man with Catherine Eddowes prior to her murder, was a man of a man aged about 30, fair complexion, brown mustache, height five foot seven with a gray peaked cloth cap, red neckerchief, salt and pepper coat, sailor-like appearance. Such a stature, five foot six or seven or so, of course, would have been average for the day.

When you talk of a bedside table, there was a bedside table with various organs on it, next to the door, left side of the bed, and the washstand that I mentioned in my last post to the right of the bed. I am glad you agree with my view that there was likely a gap between the bed and the back wall. Have a look at the dissertation by the Viper "The Whitechapel Dossier: Dorset Street and Miller's Court" which discusses the dimensions of the room and shows the plan of the room that I mentioned earlier. A new dissertation by Simon Wood "http://casebook.org/dissertations/room-13-millers-court.html" contains some interesting ideas about the placement of the furniture and the bed in the room.

That back wall, incidentally, was just a thin partition separating the murder room, 13 Miller's Court, from the front of the house that faced onto Dorset Street. John, your theory that Mary, a prostitute, would have wanted her furniture away from the walls, to lessen knocking against the walls during the "act" is a very good one.

In regard to the idea that the Ripper had sex with his victims either in life or necrophiliac sex, the jury seems to be very much out since the doctors' reports fail to mention evidence of any connection. It could be therefore that the killer was impotent, which is one of the things that might have fed his rage.

Last, we have no evidence that the bed rested on the tin bath evident under the bed -- the tin bath was simply sitting under the bed, I believe.

John, I hope these further thoughts prove helpful to you.

All my best

Chris

Hello John and Steven

I am sorry I have been away from this forum for so long. My explanations are that I have had recent computer problems and commitments elsewhere. Needless to say, John, your investigation into Mary's room is important and follows along those of others who are trying to use computer simulations of the murder room at 13 Miller's Court. John, in that respect, I very much encourage you to post your studies on the "Casebook: Jack the Ripper" message boards on Mary Jane Kelly, where, if you will follow the link, you will find discussion of the room and other aspects of the Kelly murder.

Our knowledge of the room mainly comes from the two existing interior photographs of the room, one exterior shot, and some sketches of the interior and exterior that appeared in the press, plus a plan that appeared in the Daily Telegraph. This plan, reproduced in Bruce Paley's book, would presumably give you the best measurements. The furniture from the room, needless to say, was not preserved, so we can only guess at its makeup and dimensions from the existing illustrations.

I have an ongoing controversy with a number of Ripperologists in that one of the sketches appears to show a washstand between Mary's bed and the back wall. I believe this washstand, described as a disused washstand, was there at the time of the murder. Everyone except me seems to insist that the bed was flush against the wall, and yet it can't have been because there is something at the back of the bed in the larger photograph, apparently a bolster, and it is sitting on something, which I believe to be the washstand. There is also a sketch, whether accurate or not, showing a photographer with camera on a tripod, on the side of the bed where I believe the washstand to have been at the time of the murder, and to take that picture it is likely that the washstand was moved out to take the smaller of the two MJK photographs, from the right side of the bed, i.e., if one were oriented looking toward the foot of the bed it would be the right side of the bed.

In fact, it is my belief if you look at the big photograph carefully, the room does not make a rectangle but breaks then there is a gap or setback to the back wall, allowing a foot or two space between the right side of the bed and the wall.

Incidentally, I believe Stewart Evans could probably supply higher resolution copies of the MJK photographs, although I believe there are high res copies on "Casebook" that SPE provided and those actually might not be bettered. Stewart's dissertation, "The Kelly Crime Scene Photographs" contains good information on the existing photographs. Robert McLaughlin's recent book The Jack the Ripper Victim Photographs, also contains valuable information and debate about the photographs. One of the questions is how copies of the Kelly and Eddowes photographs came to be published in some French true crime texts of the 1890's and it is evident that a number of the top officials of the case kept copies of the photographs. In fact in an interview with Sir Robert Anderson published in 1892, three years after the murders, it is stated,

"I sometimes think myself an unfortunate man," observes the C.I.D. chief, "for between twelve and one on the morning of the day I took up my position here the first Whitechapel murder occurred." [note: August 31, 1888 -- the first canonical victim, Polly Nichols, was killed in Bucks Row. The same day, as he notes, Anderson was appointed Assistant Commissioner for Crime; he selected Detective Superintendent Donald Swanson to head the case.]

The mention of this appalling sequence of still undiscovered crimes leads to the production of certain ghastly photographs. [emphasis mine]

"There," says the Assistant Commissioner, "there is my answer to people who come with fads and theories about these murders. It is impossible to believe they were acts of a sane man ­they were those of a maniac revelling in blood."

All my best

Chris

Lee Forman wrote in part:

Let me keep adding to the list until I get the percentage to look more like it has something to do with an underground movement - which was in some way employed by the CIA because of their orientation and connections.  QK/ENCHANT is still something we know very little about - perhaps that is the key.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Lee

Well I really don't know about the validity of your approach because, as John points out, some ten percent of the population of males is going to be homosexual anyway. It is possible too that back then a number of open homosexuals, taking part in what would have been viewed as definitely deviant behavior, in contrast to today's more tolerant climate, may have gravitated toward underworld or shadow worlds in which operatives of the FBI or CIA functioned, so that may be another reason why there may not be much in your hypothesis.

All my best

Chris

Hi all

Here are a couple of more recent photographs of William F. Buckley Jr.--

Buckley is characterized the following way on the NNBD site, which gives a good rundown on Buckley's career and views.

"William F. Buckley Jr. is a fading but still prominent right-wing American political commentator." He remains an eccentric and outspoken spokesman for the American right.

I would also think it is very unlikely that Buckley had a hand in the Kennedy assassination, despite his detestation of the Kennedys.

Best regards

Chris George

I AM PLAYING DEVILS ADVOCATE

In the spring of 1992 former Liverpool scrap-metal dealer, Micheal Barrett came to London, with a diary that made the astonishing claim that it was written by none other than Jack the ripper.

On first sight the diary was pretty unprepossing, written in a black, leather bound album with the first 64 pages removed. The other 144 pages were covered in writting that changed from almost "copperplate" neatness, to a wild uncontrolled style, with vicious slashes and ink blots. The contents were gruesome and contained an obsession with cannibalism, the writer had signed of as "Yours truely Jack the ripper. The writer catalogues the five murders in great detail, and is strewn with little details about the killers family, friends,and his reasons for commiting the murders. He writes "Tonight I shall return to Battlecrease" He refers to "Bobo" and "Gladys" and "My darling Bunny"and finally to his Brother Micheal, the song writer. The diary is clearly meant to indicate that James Maybrick was Jack the ripper.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Steve

I have just returned from a three-day business meeting and will be setting off again a week tomorrow (Thurs Oct 6) for the Jack the Ripper conference in Brighton, UK, where we will hopefully be able to chat.

Needless to say I believe as you do, and I believe as do the majority of people in the Ripperworld, that the Maybrick diary is a hoax, and not even a very good hoax.

The person who created the Diary has cunningly chosen a semi-famous Victorian gentleman and cotton merchant who was himself murdered, or at least died in suspicious circumstances, in May 1889, almost exactly six months after the last canonical victim, Mary Jane Kelly, was butchered in 13 Miller's Court, Spitalfields.

The point though is that the Diary is not even in Maybrick's known handwriting, a huge hurdle to Maybrick's candidacy, that the Diary apologists' try to excuse by saying that Maybrick's drug habit gave him multiple personalities --though they don't explain how the signature on his will and business correspondence are exactly the same and not anything like the writing in the Diary. There is no doubt that Maybrick was a drug-taker but that does not necessarily make him a homicidal maniac or a man with multiple personalities. He was addicted to arsenic and strychnine as a daily pick-me-up; he had begun taking the drug as an anti-malarial dose while on business trip to Virginia in the earlier 1880's.

The Diary also has no provenance, and cannot authentically be traced back further than it being in the hands of Michael Barrett, the man who took it to literary agent Doreen Montgomery in 1992, and his former wife, who has now reverted to her maiden name of Anne Graham. Anne tells a story of the Diary having been in the possession of her late father, Billy Graham, although that story appears to be a reaction "research" by the late Paul Feldman, author of Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter, to link the Barretts or at least Anne, to the Maybricks which he finally did with an odd connection that appeared to contend, with no real proof, that Billy Graham may have been an illegitimate son of Florence Maybrick's.

The whole scenario depicted in the Diary that James Maybrick went down to London to murder prostitutes to gain revenge on his unfaithful wife is contrived. The dates when Florence knew Alfred Brierley, the supposed lover that James knew about and that drove him to his murder spree, don't match the time of the Ripper murders: she only met Brierley in December 1888, after the canonical murders were over.

The late Diary critic Melvin Harris's article on the Maybrick Diary, THE MAYBRICK HOAX; A GUIDE THROUGH THE LABYRINTH remains a good discussion of the problems with the Diary, while the recent book by Keith Skinner, Seth Linder, and Caroline Morris, Ripper Diary (Sutton 1993) provides a good, objective analysis of the Diary controversy even if it falls short of getting to the root of the hoax.

All my best

Chris

Chris,

think your pretty warm, looks a little bit like famous "Juanita" from Peru, as you mentioned, a girl who was sacrificed about 500 years ago.

George

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi George

Thanks for your backup on my assumption that we are looking at an Incan mummy. It looks as if, from the views of Juanita on a number of book covers on a mummy site that she was more skeletonized than the girl (?) in the picture John showed. A PBS site on "The High Mummies" shows an Incan mummy of a male found in Chile a bit more like the one in John's photograph, even if the face is more disfigured.

Chris

I know that several JFK experts are also good at analyzing photographs. How old is the girl in the photograph? I will give the answer tomorrow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi John

I think our intrepid leader is having a little joke, yes?

My first inclination was to say that she is a girl of some thirteen years old but I think John Dolva provides the key when he sees, I think correctly, that the girl looks as if she is "Mayan or Indian." I think John is probably right when he states, "I wouldn't be surprised if she is a remarkably well preserved few hundred?"

Knowing that in ancient times in South America, mummies were often in the seated or fetal position, I think we are probably looking at a deceptively alive-looking Incan mummy. If my presumption is correct, then perhaps the girl is a thousand years old, or at least more than 500 years old. Am I warm, John?

Chris

Hi John

The following article written by veteran Liverpool FC player Tommy Smith, the original Ironman of the famous Liverpool sides of the 1960's and 1970's, is apt for our discussion--

Time to move the goalposts

By Tommy Smith, Liverpool Echo, Sep 21 2005

I CAN'T ever remember going out to play and not trying to win a match.

But it increasingly seems that is what is happening with teams as fear takes over and the first tactic is to make sure you simply do not lose a game.

Right now it is making for stalemates likes the one between Liverpool and Manchester United on Saturday.

And it doesn't do much to endear supporters to football.

At Anfield on Sunday you could sense early on that it was going to be a lifeless, goalless draw.

There are so many good defenders and defensive midfielders around at the moment, yet too few quality strikers or marauding wingers, so that is also partly responsible for the situation.

I honestly think it's time to experiment in making the goals bigger. I'm deadly serious. If we raised the crossbar a foot and made the posts just that bit wider I think it would make a hell of a difference.

How many shots and headers do we see hitting the crossbar nowadays? If it was a bit higher more goals would be scored and more players would be prepared to shoot from distance, particularly with a very light ball.

Modern footballers are more athletic than they were when the dimensions were first put in place, so why not rethink?

I'm not saying we should leap into it in the Premiership or in Europe, but an experiment in the Carling Cup, for instance, would be very interesting to see.

Football is about winning games and scoring goals. And right now it is losing its way.

Hi Chris, good insights as usual, I dont know about you, but I wish I could have written with as much aplomb when I was eighteen as Adam does..Steve.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Steve

Yes Adam's writing is impressive, and I do know that it took many years for me to become as practiced in writing as I am now. Possibly the computer age has made it possible for younger authors to progress faster than we did.

Chris

Hi John

I do agree the high price of attending a football match, with the consequent drop in attendance figures, presents a real problem for the future of the game.

However, the employment of defensive tactics is a long-standing phenomenon not new to this era. It has been a bane for the game going back to the Sixties when I first attended football matches on a regular basis. With the two-legged European ties came the defensive tactics or bunker defense whereby a team would play a tight away formation to force a 0-0 draw or to snatch a 1-0 or 2-1 win, and that type of play came to be employed in league matches as well.

So what José Mourinho is doing now with Chelsea is nothing new.

John, of course, I do agree that defensive tactics kill entertainment value so that is a concern along with the dropping attendances. How much better to see a lively, incident-full 4-4 draw than a drab and boring 0-0 tie!

All my best

Chris

Hi Adam and Steve

I agree with Steve that this is a good thread, so thanks for starting it, Adam!

Bundy presents a very interesting case but perhaps a misleading one as far as serial killers generally go. He was a good looking, well educated man, just the type that you would not suspect would turn out to be such a killer. It seems to me that most serial killers turn out to be more innocuous and less glamorous types such as a working man like Gary Ridgway, the Green River Killer, who worked as a painter, or middle class men who seem like pillars of the community like John Wayne Gacy (a boy scout troop leader) and Dennis Rader, the BTK killer, sentenced only last month and who was also a boy scout leader and a leader of his local church.

What I do think is applicable about Bundy to the Ripper case is that I am convinced that the Ripper either was a charming type or had something about him that he could persuade women to go with him even at the height of the Ripper murder scare. The other possibility is that if it was not sheer charm, he could have seemed a responsible man such as a Rader or a Gacy, a recognized responsible man who would not hurt you -- until the inner demon came out. In any case, there had to be something about the Ripper also that set the victims at ease.

All my best

Chris