Len Colby

I have spent a considerable amount of time inviting lone gunman theorists such as Posner to join the Forum. Posner has told me several times that he will defend "Case Closed" on the Forum "as soon as I finish my latest book/article". This never happens. He knows he will not be unable to deal with the combined knowledge of our members. The only lone gunman theorist who has been willing to join and defend his views his views is Mel Ayton. However, he did not stay for long. I think Mark is right about it all depends on whether you want the case to be solved. Tim Gratz clearly doesn't. His role is to distract from the topic at hand. He is also interested in evidence that appears to show that Castro was behind the assassination. I suspect you are playing a similar role. However, you are brighter than Tim and therefore you are reluctant to take us on. Maybe you should concentrate on the threads on moon landings. John, I hope you forgive me if I don't thank you for your (backhanded) compliment. I should also point out you are in violation of you own rules. "iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned."* Do you have any evidence to support what you are insinuating? By saying Tim and I are playing rules indicates you think we are acting on someone else's behalf and are not sincere, I can't speak for Tim but in my case it is most certainly not the truth In my last post I did not say that Piper should not be allowed to participate in this forum, what I would like from you is an admission of the obvious that Piper is almost certainly despite his protestations to the contrary an anti-Semite. When have I tried to stifle the truth? Is asking Fetzer, Healy and White to produce evidence in support of their claims "distracting"? It is not my intention to 'take you or anybody else on', I don't take any position on who killed JFK. Now that accusations of ulterior motive have come up I would suggest that Piper is more interested in perusing his anti-Semitic agenda than getting to the truth about the assassination**. I now actually believe it would be a good if Piper comes to this forum to defend his 'thesis'. I suspect he will have a hard time convincing the knowledgeable members of this forum and that many of his claims will not withstand scrutiny. While it's true it wouldn't be fair to accuse someone of being a Communist just because they attended one meeting organized by the party, it would be reasonable to assume that some who: worked as a writer for a party newspaper, wrote several books published by the party and was a featured speaker at meeting organized the party, was indeed a party member. I also find it odd that you would equate being a Communist in the 50's with being an anti-Semite in the 21st century. I also hope that if Piper does indeed join the forum that you don't make a point of saying what a honor it is to have him here. When my mother was an undergraduate student at Wake Forrest University (in North Carolina) she objected when a local Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan was invited to speak as an "honored guest". Since she, having fled Nazi occupied Europe, fully appreciated the importance of free speech did not object to him being allowed to speak at the school she objected to him being treated as a VIP. * http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243 ** Since Piper is not (yet) a member of this forum let alone a 'poster' he is not covered by rule iv.

Chris, Let's be fair to Greer first of all. When was the last time prior to Dallas '63 when their was a realistic attempt on a President? Was the DPD or the USSS prepared for a sniper assault on the President given the conditions of the motorcade that day? Can you understand how Greer would have hesitated when shots rang out from multiple origins and how he could have feared driving into an ambush? Can you appreciate how Greer would have slowed the limo subconsiously when he looked over his shoulder to see what was going on in the passenger compartment? The limo did not stop. Where many reported that it did was those farther back in the motorcade. With the limo slowing, the cars behind would have to react to the reduction in speed and the farther back the slower the reaction and those would have come to a stop as they reacted to the slowing and stopping in front of them. Al In answer to Al's question the last assassination attempt was against Truman when some Puerto Rican nationalists stormed the grounds of Blair House (where he was staying IIRC the White House was being renovated) shooting but were quickly subdued. The last attempt prior to that had some eire similarities to what happenend in DP. President-elect FDR was traveling in convertable in a motorcade in a Southern city (in this case Miami). Joining him in the car were his wife the mayor of Chicago) and his wife. But in this case the local politician* died and the president survivied. The shooter was a marginally employeed anti-Capitalist LN (just like LHO supposedly was). I don't know if the limo driver speed up, slowed down or stopped. To Chris I would sat the any Army PFC jeep driver who had been shot at before would have been better prepared than Greer. Training is one thing but the real thing is something else. I don't think that anyone who has not been in a similar situation has much right criticizing Greer. Len

With all due respect Raymond I think Al knows more about this that you (or I for that matter) about this. If the shots were coming from the front he might have put the car's occupants in greater danger. It is easy to find fault with his actions with hindsight but (unless he was aconspirator) he acted poorly for a few seconds while under extreme pressure, caught by surprise and woried about his own saftey. He could have been a 30 year veteran of the service but no amout of training could have really prepared him for this. We can also imagine it took him a couple of seconds to figure out what was going on. Can you be sure if you were in his place that you would have done any better? Al - If you were Greer and you thought the shots were coming from the front what would you have done?

With out taking a position on who is right on this matter, I don't think Craig was saying computers were used but rather that if you examine a multiple generation copy of a low resolution image and then blow up a small portion of it several times it's original size analyzing a small blob is of dubious value. BTW where is the original? Why can't a high quality scan be made of it? Craig when you say "manipulation" do you mean that you think "badgeman" was intentionally introduced into the image?

Tim, I've seen you throw childish tantrums before, but you're really in orbit on this one. I'm beginning to think you might be a paid asset of the Israeli Government. It's a common tactic of those who wish to silence others to label them as racist, communist, sexist, anti-semite etc, but you're labelling this guy before you know what he's about. He's written a book outlining his theory on the assassination. You've admitted you haven't read it, just skimmed it on the net, like myself. In case you don't know, John Simkin convenes this debate, not you. One of the great features of this Forum, unlike others, is that everyone gets the opportunity to express his or her opinion, regardless of whether John agrees with them. IMO, he's shown remarkable tolerance in putting up with your regular tantrums and insults. If you covet the role of determining who is entitled to express an opinion why don't you start up your own Forum and invite people to participate? What a nasty little nest of right wing ratbags that would be. p.s. I did finish high school and I also have a degree. Unlike you, I try not to bore everyone xxxxless by disdainfully and arrogantly parading this as proof of some kind of intellectual superiority. Mark Although I agree with you that Tim often spouts nonsense - IIRC he hinted that you might be anti-Semitic and there were the examples cited by John -I think he's right on this one and that you are either misinformed or in denial. Did you read the articles posted by Owen? Piper can be judged by more than Final Judgment, he has spent his either career as I can tell working for Willis Carto America's most important anti-Semite/Holocaust denier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Carto http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=48229 (see posts 36 - 39) You could take the position that a neo-Nazi like Piper is welcome here to discuss his book whose thesis is basically that "the Jews killed Kennedy" (Mossad, Lansky, Bonfman) as long as he is not overtly anti-Semitic, but to say he isn't anti-Semitic is denying the obvious. He can swear on a stack of Bibles or copies of Mein Kampf that he isn't but that will only show how intellectually dishonest he is. If this forum is truly open to all, even the likes of Piper, why not invite Max Holland, Gerald Posner, Larry Sturdivan etc. Heck why not invite Piper's boss Willis Carto himself to defend his theses that the Holocaust was a hoax, the Jews eeer Zionists want to take over the World etc..

Ron - I think you were joking but some people didn't get it. Len

Ron I think you are wrong on this one, though I have looked into the Pentagon matter as much as the towers. Did you click on the link to orginal article and see the photo Green was refering to? He said nothing about the collapse. He just said that the hole Fetzer was referring to was not the entery point of the jet but rather of one of the engines. I didn't post the article nor do I believe Dr. Green wrote it to mislead. Fetzer and White are members of this forum and if they believe that Green was wrong I would expect them to defend their work here. Do think Jim Hoffman is a "disinfo agent"? If not why would he put this article on his site unless he thought there was substance to it. I never said that his proposition that Bush wanted to get rid of Wellstone and would be willing to resort to murder was far fetched. How ever he very much distorted the facts about the case. For example there was a lot of information showing that the pilots were incompotent that he did not include in his book. he also insisted that there are operational high energy weapons that could down a plane, even though he could not cite a single report (not from tin-foil hat - UFO sites) saying they did. He in fact was guilty of what he accused the NTSB of manipulating the facts to fit his theory.

I must protest John's renaming of this thread which I originally titled "A fellow CT and philosophy professor is highly critical of Fetzer, and come to the same conclusion as his critics" Isn't free speech supposed to reign on this forum? Don't he (rightfully) complain about how Bush is using 9/11 as an excuse to limit such rights in America? Was the original title really too provocative by the standards of this forum where members regularly insult each other? Shouldn't he at most have deleted the subtitle? Len ====================================================== Got anything of substance to add? Despite you repeated insinuation to the contrary most of Fetzer's critics don't support the LNT or supporters of the status quo. Dr. Green certainly doesn't support the offical explaination for 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination. The problem is that he has a problem thinking clearly and getting his facts straight and that goes for most of his associates as well.

If I made that "Q. Do you believe the Zapruder film was intentionally altered using optical printing to support the LHO as LN hypothesis as alleged in TGZFH and other books? I thought the question was already clear because it precluded the edits and an enhancements made by Life. Margaret, I don't think it's of interest to ask people why they think it's altered or what if any alterations they think were made because as Steve indicated the subject has pretty much been discussed to death. IMHO not much it to be gained until the "alterationists" start answering the questions they've been evading. Also formulating these points into mutiple choice questions would be rather akward/complicated. Len

People don't need to go "great lengths" to discredit Fetzer.He largely does it himself with his sloppy reseach and swollen ego.

1- This really not the thread for presenting evidence as to whether the film was or wasn't altered, there sre several of those already on this forum. You should read through them and pay close attention to the points being made by both sides and especially the questions that the alterationists don't want to answer. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ghlite=zapruder 2 - I just don't see any of the disrepancies that you claim to. But rather than debate them here I suggest you post your analysis on one of the applicable threads such as.this one. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...owtopic=5708&hl 3- If you have any suggestions on how to improve the poll let me know.

I apologise for Tim's behaviour. I am afraid he often resorts to this tactic when he cannot argue against the logic of your case. He usually accused people of being anti-American or a communist sympathizer. Don't be too hard of him, his limited education has made him a victim of the lies told by the mass media. He is suffering from "false consciousness". He is welcome to join. Do you have his contact details? Gee, John while you’re at it you might want to invite David Duke here to comment on his books too. I don’t know his contact details but you could ask Piper they travel in the same circles. Piper has spent (as far as I can tell) his entire career as a writer working for publications associated with Willis Carto America’s ‘preeminent’ anti-Semite/Holocaust denier, all his books put Jews in a bad light and he frequently speaks at events run by neo-Nazi/Klu Klux Klan types. Jeff – Do have any evidence to support your claim that the “Israel lobby” is making the book “hard to buy”. Tim found it Googling in a few seconds and John didn’t seem to have much difficulty finding it nor did Gary on eBay. I guess you didn’t even take a look at Amazon which doesn’t sell it directly but offers it through 3rd party sellers, or perhaps you did since the World’s largest bookseller was conspicuously absent from your list and contrary to your contention Barnes and Noble does offer it (though only used through 3rd parties). There are several reasons besides pressure from Jewish groups that could explain why many booksellers don’t offer it. 1) They normally don’t sell any books by it’s publisher. 2) They avoid selling books that are racist, sexist, anti-Semitic etc. they have the right to decide what book they wish to sell. They can decide this for ethical reasons if they find the book objectionable or financial ones if they believe the sale of such books will loose them more sales (from customer who find such books objectionable) then they would earn from selling the books. 3) They didn’t expect Final Judgment to sell well enough to be worth stocking. They might only buy books they expect to sell over a certain number of copies. 4) They avoid selling books that are poorly researched or contain factual errors. Papillon was out of print for many years because it was shown that much of the story was made up. 5) A combination of all of the above. Let’s not also forget that just as Piper and the American Free Press have first amendment rights to write and publish what they please people who don’t like what they have to say have the right to protest protected by the same amendment. The first amendment only precludes Government action. Your assertion that Jewish groups have prevented the book from being sold is undermined by the fact that many anti-Semitic books are widely sold. David Duke’s and Edgar Steele’s works are sold directly by Amazon and Barnes and Noble. You have also yet to explain your ‘seemingly’ anti-Semetic remark that the US government is controlled by Zionists. All - I believe much of the book is absurd or weak. 1) It’s seems to be consensus on this thread that it is unfathomable that Israel would take lead on the assassination of an American president in the US. 2) It thesis seems to be based on the premise that Clay Shaw any Guy Banister were controlled by the Mossad and that Shaw and Banister were LHO’s handlers. My impression is that most JFK researchers now believe Shaw and Banister didn’t have roles in the assassination or small ones at most. 3) Piper asserts that Kennedy was planning to attack China’a nuclear weapons facilities that had been built with help from Israel and that LBJ called off the attacks. 4) Meyer Lansky was the real boss of the Chicago mob and was the ‘godfather’ of Israel. 5) The Israeli government was “dominated by the Mossad”. More can be read about the book at these links: Len

I will start a poll to determine if members of this forum believe the Zapruder film was altered. I'd like to get feedback before I set it up. I though of offering the following options: Q. Do you believe the Zapruder film was intentionally altered to support the LHO as LN hypothesis? 1 – Yes, the film definitely was altered. 2 – Probably yes, the case for alteration is strong but not conclusive. 3 – It's hard to say either way - it might have been altered, but then again it might not. 4 – Probably no, I don't think it was altered but I can't be sure. 5 – No, there's no way it was altered. If any of you have any suggestions regarding the question or answers or adding addition questions they would be appreciated. I will probably start the poll Monday night.(Tuesday morning for you Aussies). Len

Bill I guess I misinterpreted this sentence "Also, how many men with pop bottles can be seen in the Willis and Betzner photos?" I know the question was retorical but assumed there were more than one pop drinkers in those pix. Len

The short answer...NO! Craig took the words out of my mouth or off my keyboard in this case. Of course not and esp. not Jones his area of expertise is high energy and atomic physics. It's like a biologist who specializes in plant genetics claiming that a person, who all the doctors determined died of natural causes, must have been poisoned. Even if Jones were some how qualified he is only one of 2 or 3 physicists who support the controlled demo theory. If the collapse theory so violates the laws of physics more physicist should have come forward by now. I imagine at least 70 % of physics profs. (in the US) are anti-Bush and they can't be fired for speaking their minds. http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/bergeso...ic/jones_cv.htm Also one must ask if Jones is so sure he's got his science straight why he didn't submit his "paper" to peer review.

Duncan, By my count 15 people have responded to this thread. Of them only two say they can see a bottle of Coke, two see a camera and the rest either aren't sure or don't say. That comes out to about 13%. Bill (Miller) wasn't very diplomatic about it but he has a point that more than one person might have been drinking Coke (or Pepsi or RC etc) in DP around the time of the assassination. If I misstated any ones views it was unintentional, let me know. Sees a Coke bottle (2): You, Bill Kelly Sees a camera or doesn't see "soda drinker" (3): Me, Ed, Bill Miller, John, Tim C. Unsure or doesn't say (9): Mark, James, Tim G., Adam, Thomas, Jack, Bernice, Healy. PS - Duncan and Bill, I know I' not really the person to say this but please try to keep your personal feud out of this forum EDIT I changed the tally above due to Tim C.'s post and a more carful reading of what John had to say.

I started a new thread on the topic the lack of any expert backing for WTC controlled demolition theories and why all the rationalisations for this are not valid.It's not that they "put truth before career" but rather that none has put fantasy before science. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6094 A 9/11 conspiracy theorist was very critical of several members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" esp. Fetzer. Note that this article is from Hoffman's site.http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/company.html Len

I have done a lot of research concerning the collapse of the WTC towers on 9/11 and one thing that I have pointed out much to the chagrin of conspiracy theorists is that no civil engineers, architects, construction contractors or demolition experts, another words no one with relevant expertise has publicly backed their claims. To the contrary the collapses were the subjects of two major studies and various papers prepared by structural engineers. These reports and papers were studied and in some cases peer reviewed by civil engineers the World over and none of them have found fault with their basic conclusions. The CT’s have responded with various rationalizations: they are blinded by group think, they are afraid of loosing their jobs or more severe retaliation, one even brought up the case of Copernicus. “He wrote this treatise a few hundred years ago, suggesting that the earth revolves around the Sun. Up till that time none of the "experts" in any relevent fields had been prepared to publish a similar statement, although I suspect many were secretly in agreement with him. The reason all the experts kept quiet about their views was possibly due to the fear of being charged with heresy and losing their jobs, or worse. To be guilty of heresy was, in medieval times, a very serious matter. Copernicus himself was forced to retract his views on threat of ex-communication. Later Galileo decided to stick his neck out and advocate the Copernican theory. Galileo was arrested and tried for heresy. These days the heretics are called whistle blowers and they don't get burned at the stake, but they do get burned in other ways, and they often lose their jobs, their marriages and their health. It is a big price to pay. So, is the fact that civil engineers, architects and demolitions experts are not publicly advocating the controlled demolition theory proof that they all agree with the official theory? I suspect not.” Below is my response to him but it applies to other rationalizations for why no competent experts back controlled demolition theories. Your analogy/analysis doesn’t really apply here because it does take into account members of these professions outside the US, esp. those in countries hostile to the US and/or Islamic counties (where explanations taking Muslims ‘off the hook’ would be welcome) or even countries friendly to the US but where emotions about 9/11 don’t run so high. I doubt even in Canada this would be an issue. Nor does it take into account the dozens of Americans with a wide variety of professions who publicly embrace (“unofficial”) 9/11 CTs. There must be at least a million civil engineers worldwide*. Brazil’s Oscar Niemeyer is a national hero and an ardent-Communist, he hates the US and continues to be a “think outside the box” architect well into his 90s, but he didn’t say anything, why not? What about architects and engineers from Muslim countries where IIRC about 80 % of the population believes 9/11 was an “inside job” or other countries hostile to the US? What about Cuban, Chinese and French experts. Surprisingly not one of them said anything. Saying the towers were demolished would not lead to them being ostracized, I would imagine quite the opposite. Even in the US the supposed threat of ostracism or job loss has not stopped scientists and academics from publicly stating their controversial views publicly in groups like “SPINE” and “Academics for 9/11 Truth” etc. What about the various webmasters and authors of books alleging conspiracy, have any of them been ‘burned’? What ill effects have Griffith and Rupert suffered other than making small fortunes peddling conspiracies? I am sure some one will want to mention the case of that guy from UL who got fired, but IIRC he got bounced for using UL letterhead and if he had expressed his views as a private individual he probably would still be employed. As for job security how many of these professionals are public servants (who can’t be fired for expressing their views) or tenured college professors or retired? This rationalization sells civil engineers and architects short. Various physicists, electrical engineers and other scientists, economists, computer scientists, MDs are members of the “9/11 truth” movement. No to mention that the history of science is full brave souls who weren’t afraid of scorn and put forth theories that were greatly at odds with accepted beliefs. Many it turn out were wrong and are now “footnotes” but others like Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, Einstein, Freud etc “rewrote the science books”. There are many less famous examples: the winners of this year’s Nobel Prize for Medicine disagreed with prevailing opinion about the causes of ulcers, there are medical researchers who don’t believe that HIV causes AIDS, they are pariahs in the research community but they persist. Recently astronomers, physical anthropologists an undoubtedly scientist in other fields have gone against prevailing opinion. Why should civil engineers and architects be any different? Frank Lloyd Wright, I.M. Pei, van der Rohe, Le Corbusier, Niemeyer, those responsible for the WTC, Ingall's Building, Home Insurance Building etc. etc. were not afraid to break norms.There was a civil engineer who publicly backed “Creationism” and Arthur Butz a professor of Electrical Engineering at Northwestern is a leading Holocaust denier. Although these positions have nothing to do with engineering I'm sure this doesn’t make them very popular with their colleagues. Butz will never be invited to address the IEEE [institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers]. The ASCE (Am. Soc. Of Civil Engineers) has “over 137,500 members”* the AIA (Am. Inst. of Arch.) has “more than 75,000”** members that gives a total of over 212,000. Are all of them so “blind“ that none of them perceive what CTs claim are violations of basic laws of physics obvious to anyone or don’t have the courage to come forward? Hard to believe. If there was some thing wrong with the “collapse theory” a it least a few at the very least should have said something. If they based their contrary views there is no reason to believe they would ostracized at all let alone to the extent CTs think. The Copernicus analogy does not hold. In his day as you freely admit the consequences of heresy were extremely severe, as I have shown above the consequences of speaking out should not be a factor. In his day there were not any layman said or believed the Sun was the center of the “solar” system, today there are thousands if not millions of people who believed the towers were brought down with explosives. In his day ’science’ and ‘religion’ were inexorably tied and the “scientific method” was not used, indeed many date the beginning of the Scientific Revolution to the publication of Copernicus’ works ****, that the Earth was at the center of the Universe was taken as a matter of faith. To be fair to the geoscientists in Copernicus’ day we had far less info about our Universe than we did a few decades later compare this to the collapses of the WTC towers one of the most studied structural failures of all time. If the excepted explanation of the collapses of the Towers so violates scientific principles as many 9/11 conspiracists believe there is no logical explanation why no relevant experts from anywhere in the World would not come forward publicly. The fact that more than four years later none have this leads to only one inevitable conclusion, the Towers collapsed due to the impact damage caused by large jets crashing into them at high speed and the resultant fires. Did Bush plan 9/11? I wouldn’t put it past the SOB but think it highly unlikely. Did he know about it but do nothing or did he intentionally “provoke” Muslim extremists? Possibly but the evidence in support of such theories is not very convincing. Was he negligently disinterested in the threat of terrorism before 9/11? I would say definitely so, but these questions are outside the scope of this thread * If there are over 212,000 just in the US, the Worldwide total is easily over 1 million. ** http://www.asce.org/inside/profile.cfm ***http://aia.org/join_categories **** http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/timel.htm

Ron - What makes you think that I think you are stupid. I never said anything along those lines nor do I think such an interpritation can be construed. I think you're smart but predisposed to believe in most conspiracy theories you hear about. Considered the matter dropped. Len

The way you twist things, you must be a pretzel maker down in Brazil. (Send some to Dubya*.) I did not insinuate that the article "should not be trusted" (as you put it) because of who wrote it. Regardless of whoever wrote it, I stated that the article was weak and even laughable. I called the author a Max Holland because Holland is an apologist for the Warren Commission like the author of this article is obviously an apologist for the Shamgar Commission. I did not say that Holland does not report facts (which would be a pretty stupid claim to make about any published author), contrary to your word twisting. Perhaps I misunderstood you Ron, but since you obviously don't find Max Holland credible I imagine you would not take anything he said seriously. Imagine Holland or Posner wrote a book about the assassination of Rabin, wouldn't you "take it with a grain of salt" you evaluation of Chamish seems "salt free" to me. How could I know? That's why I asked for your opinion on Chamish's articles on the Rabin assassination, since you seemed to be an expert on Chamish. Your opinion has been worthless, as you state yourself that you "haven't looked into" the conspiracy theory. Again maybe I 'misread you'. I didn't interpret your question as asking my opinion, it seem more rhetorical. I haven't looked into the assassination much because Chamish seems to be one of the few people to take the CT seriously. By your own logic how valuable is your opinion? Besides reading Chamish (who doesn't offer any documentation in favor of his claims) how much have you looked into the case? You don't know what you're talking about. I got the impression you've already made up your mind on this case. You critiqued the 'debunking' article for being weak because it didn't offer any proof but did not apply the same standard to Chamish. You called the author an apologist which only makes sense if you think he was wrong and there was a conspiracy. Prove me wrong tell me one case of an assassination, attempted assassination or "suspicious" death of a political figure in the last 40+ years where you reject the conspiracy theories (other than of course where the accusations are made by Republicans like Vince Foster's suicide) as not being credible. Maybe I'm wrong but I think we see the World differently, when I hear a conspiracy theory I have one of three reactions, I think "this doesn't make any sense" or "that could be true" or "makes sense to me". If it interests me enough I look into it before I accept it. In any case since I'm a skeptic I want to see evidence before I will believe something is true. My impression is that when you meet a conspiracy that you like you will believe it unless it's undeniably proven false. Can we agree to disagree on this one? Len *Careful with comments like that Ron, I've heard of people and forums getting visits from the Secret Service for less don't forget you're living in Brave New America now Jeff - Care to elaborate on this comment? “the Zionist/Neoconservatives controlling our current government” that myth is right out of the pages of neo-fascist/neo-Nazi publications like Piper’s employer the American Free Press. Willis Carto, that paper’s publisher, has long made his hatred of Jews and Blacks and admiration for Hitler clear. Piper is not secretly getting money from an anti-Israel group as Tim suggested he is openly employed by one. Although I agree Tim over reacted on this issue with regards to Mark, I don’t discount that he might have been on to something. You said the book was well researched, how did you reach that conclusion before you read the book? Len

Fetzer of course has gotten into some very bitter disputes with people like me who disagree with him about issues like the Wellstone crash and the supposed alteration of the Zapruder film. To us he 1) reaches farfetched conclusions based on very tenuous, unreliable and false evidence 2) often goes off on long irrelevant tangents about philosophical proofs that seem to more about proving how smart he is that the question being discussed 3) He has an "overgrown ego". I found it very interesting that a fellow 9/11 conspiracist who mostly agrees with him reached similar conclusions and is highly critical of Fetzer's reasoning and conclusions not only relating to 9/11 but to the Z-film as well. He also 'debunks' some of Jack White's 9/11 "photoanalysis" which Fetzer cited. The author is "Michael B. Green, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist, Qualified Medical Examiner, Former Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas, Austin." For the complete article and photos go to the following page: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/company.html

That does make it clearer but to me it looks like he is holding a camera probably a metallic (or other light color) 35mm rangefinder. What ever it is it appers (to me atleast) to be wider than it's tall, rectangular, and light colored and thus NOT a bottle of Coke. What does everyone esle see? Len

I don't see anything either. Like so much of the JFK photographic evidence it's like a '"Rorschach test " and people see in it what they want.

"Some guy" That was me!! I was joking though. You should get a deep sea diver's helmet too, for protection.

I guess I was wrong about that article!! But I can see why Chamish never quoted it, said who wrote it or provided a link to it. I didn't see anything in it that would be motive for the Israelis to want to bump off JFK Jr. so he was better off just insinuating this with out letting his reader know the contents of the article. An essay written by an assassin's mom proclaiming her son's innocence, with out providing any evidence, is not really something to kill over. Numerous similar articles were published in Israel. If they were to bump anybody off it would have been Chamish himself. He gave the impression that the article in George was highly damming. It's because of this type of intellectual dishonesty that I don't trust Chamish. Ron you insinuate that the article should not be trusted just because "it was written by some Max Holland" which I think is curious due to you position that, "facts are facts I don't care who reports them, "neo-Nazis" or men from Mars". So we should trust a nut job like Chamish but not Holland or someone like him. How do you explain this contradiction? To be honest I haven't looked into the Rabin assassination CTs because I never took them seriously. You said the debunking article was weak, but what about Chamish's article which doesn't cite a single source? How do we know these people really said what he claims they said? Ron you seem to operate by a double standard when you hear about a CT that fit's your World view you accept it uncritically. You only ask the 'debunkers' for proof.