David Lifton

One of the definitions of "inchohate" is "lacking structure, order, or organization." As currently laid out, this thread is inchohate. In early June (2010), Jim Fetzer posted a memo I had written, expressing my own surprise (and, yes, amazement) at his involvement in Websites that I believed were promulgating an anti-Semitic message--specifically, that Israel, and certain specific American Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks. The thread grew and grew (and sometimes wandered all over the place, including such matters as whether or not I owed Fetzer money, etc etc) but at least the beginning was there. And there was some logical connection between one point and the next. And, I might add, the thread had thousands and thousands of views, as people saw for themselves how Fetzer responded to criticism, and just what his beliefs really were. I had written a critique, Fetzer replied, and matters proceeded from there. But now, everything has changed, and there is no logical connection between the title of this thread, and its content. Apparently, the editors have come along and--attempting to remove what they deemed to be irrelevant material--have shifted many of the posts and sub-arguments to other threads. But in doing so, they have lost the internal logic of the entire thread. What this thread was really all about was whether or not a person who held the bizarre beliefs of Professor Fetzer (in the area of 9/11, and whether or not we went to the moon, etc.) could be a credible spokesman for the JFK research movement. That was the connection, the nexus, but now all that is gone. What has happened, because of editing, is that the baby has been thrown out with the bath water. Somehow, the original posting of mine --addressing Fetzer's credibility-- and Fetzer's original objections (defending his credibility, and opposing my arguments) have been completely lopped off. So now what do we have? A real mess. The beginning of what was a serious matter has vanished, so there is no logical antecedent to what the fuss was all about, yet the title remains! Just consider how this thread now starts--and with a post (from John Dolva) that is repeated at the top of every page, a post in which Dolva was responding to what I had written: "Jim [Fetzer] shows his true colours. I'm not surprised at all except for the fact that he has finally done so. I wont be surprised by what's to come." Anyone reading this thread has to ask: what the heck is Mr. Dolva talking about? And the reason for the puzzlement is that my entire original critique (of Fetzer) is gone. Let me repeat what I have just said: What remains is a title bearing my name ("Lifton Attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli complicity") but completely gone is my original post (i.e., my so-called "attack"). The result is so muddled that its not even clear what the (original) fuss was all about. I think the moderators and editors should reexamine this matter, rethink their edits, and--at least to some extent--press the "reset" button (as they say). Either restore my original critique of Fetzer's antics, or (if that is not going to be done) then please remove my name from this thread. If this thread is to bear the title "Lifton attacks fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli complicity", then at least leave my original critique. If, for any reason, the original critique is not deemed relevant, then please remove my name entirely from the title of this thread. And what about Josiah Thompson's posts, defending my position, and the impropriety of Fetzer posting records of cancelled checks. His posts--which surely took time to compose and write--are now left out there hanging in cyberspace, with no logical connection to what (once) preceded it. Please editors: As currently edited, the content of this thread bears little, if any, relationship to the the title. So the result is a mish-mash which is completely illogical--and, as I said in my opening sentence, this thread, as currently structured, is "inchohate." I do request that, if my original critique is to be deleted, then the title be changed. If those reading this thread want to debate matters concerning the Six Day War, the attack on the Liberty, the legitimacy of Israel, the Palestinians, etc etc--by all means do so, those are all issues worthy of discussion; but then take my name off the title. I think that is a reasonable request. And by the way: as currently structured, this thread has little to do with the Kennedy assassination--and isn't that what this discussion group is all about? (or was supposed to be all about?) Thank you. DSL

Methinks that someone writing that understands that the official version of the shooting is untrue; further, is even using language suggesting that both JFK AND Gov JC were struck from the front. (None of which would surprise me based on some private conversations that a supporter of my work had with some people at the JFK library many years ago). DSL

All very well, Greg. . "Jim Fetzer is my friend," you write and you also state that "Insincerity is simply beyond his ability." (So maybe we should rename him "Guileless.") But let me ask you this: Do you, too, believe we did not go to the moon? Are you one of those who believe (as Fetzer just wrote in post #18 on this thread) that the numerous round trips to the moon are "events that many may believe occurred but which actually did not?" Its nice to know that Fetzer "sincerely" holds these bizarre beliefs, but where do YOU stand on the matter? DSL

Fetzer keeps repeating statements that are false, and I do not feel obligated to continually repeat the refutations. He is also trying to turn this thread into some kind of Alice-in-Wonderland Smalls Claims Court. Nonetheless, here is a good example of why I do not trust Fetzer's "accounting." Consider what Fetzer posts as a description of one of the checks he supposedly sent me: QUOTING FETZER: My checkbook notation: #1313 David S. Lifton (DVDs/Pittsburgh Conference) $200.00 Duplicate check notation: #1313 4 March 2005 David S. Lifton (DVDs/Pittsburgh Conference) $200.00 UNQUOTE Now the problem with that notation is that I never sold to anyone --Fetzer or anyone else--any DVD's of Dr. Wecht's "Pittsburgh Conference." And I say that because I didn't have any such videos. I couldn't have sold what I never owned. Yet Fetzer's "checkbook notation" claims exactly the opposite--it states that I sold him such an item on 4 March 2005, and that he wrote me a check for that sale. That's just one example: I'm not going to waste time posting others. But here's still another, and this is from memory: in one case Fetzer has a thousand dollar item listed two different ways--once as a royalty payment, another time as a loan. As I noted in a previous post: Fetzer kept two different bank accounts, at two separate institutions. Now that thousand dollar item can't be both. Of course, Fetzer counts it twice. Furthermore, either in that case, or another, items had the same check number (!); when I queried Fetzer, he claimed that to be a "coincidence." What nonsense. As to his statement that I said he was an anti-Semite, that is also false. To the contrary, I repeatedly said that, on a personal level, I did NOT think he was an anti-Semite. HOWEVER, I pointed out that those who were his co-developers on the Rediscover911 website were virulent anti-Semites and holocaust deniers. That's just a plain fact. I'm not going to go through all their nasty quotes again. For whatever reason, Fetzer was associating with trailer trash. To drive this point home, I wrote a satire and have posted it now twice--about Fetzer swimming what I called the "dirty duck pond". How he was tryihg to have it both ways: he associated with them, but he really wasn't one of them. In the satire, I said that He walked like a duck, quacked like a duck, but insisted he was not a duck. Now, if that's the way he wants to conduct his life--that's his business. I was just pointing out the obvious. If he was enough of a fool to think he could swim in that dirty duck pond and come out clean as a whistle, then he lives in some kind of a dream world. As to why Fetzer's "receiver" is tuned to certain frequencies, and not others, I have no idea. I can't force Fetzer to read the English language correctly. As I have noted, he apparently has a congenital problem in accurately perceiving reality. How else, I would like to know, does a person arrive at the conclusion that no planes struck the World Trade Center on 9/11, that the video evidence was faked, that the hijackers are still alive, that a missile, not a plane, hit the Pentagon, and that we didn't go to the moon. By the normal standards of society, these would be evaluated as the views of a crank or a crackpot. But returning to the more narrow issue at hand: There is, finally, Fetzer's demonstrably false and absurd charge that I accused him of anti-Semitism AFTER he tried to collect money from me. What nonsense. What self-pitying crybaby nonsense. The reality is that Jim Fetzer instituted his attempt to collect money from me--money which, to repeat, I do not believe I owe him---in the immediate aftermath of my writing some strongly worded posts, on the Judyth thread, stating that I did not believe Judyth's story about being Oswald's girlfriend. If Fetzer wants to believe her story, that is his right. But make no mistake about it: that's when all this started (and not a minute before). Somehow, in Fetzer's mind, that sequence has been reversed. It has been transmuted in Fetzer's imagination into something entirely different, which he repeatedly posts in his typical "oh woe is me!" fashion: the self-pitying notion that I accused him of anti-Semitism AFTER he wanted me to pay him money which I did not (and do not) feel he is owed. Fetzer may not be an anti-Semite but, based on my experiences with him, his arguments are weak and illogical, oftentimes false, and much of this can be traced back to the fact that this man who sports a Ph.D in philosophy and taught critical thinking for 35 years has a tenuous relationship with what most normal people would call "reality." DSL

Jim Fetzer says, QUOTE: The publisher has fallen on hard times and is years behind in their royalty statements and payments. I wish it were not the case, but when I have had statements from them, I have paid Lifton his due. UNQUOTE DSL Suggestion: Why don't you just change the name of the publisher to the "My Dog Ate It" (MDAI) Publishing Company? And perhaps with the motto: "We'll pay you when we get around to it. . . " This will afford maximum flexibility, with a minimum of responsibility. The company logo might be a smiling dog, licking its chops, sitting atop a pile of shredded royalty statements--with someone with the likeness of Professor Fetzer petting the dog approvingly, while it wags its tail. DSL

Prof. Fetzer, Your dense paragraph--which has the quality of a run-on sentence--is filled with misrepresentations and self-pitying sophistry. And that’s what you really are: a sophist. No wonder these threads run on endlessly. When it comes to matters of fact and logic, your mental processes don't converge to any truth. 1. In August, 2003, I made a contract with you to write for your anthology. Under that contract, I wrote the essay titled "PIG ON A LEASH". You made an initial payment—what is called an advance—at that time. That was for $1,000. That’s all I ever got. (Yes, I’m ignoring a subsequent check for a few hundred dollars on which YOU have marked “royalties”. I have no idea what that was for, since it is not connected to any royalty statement; further, I have no idea when that word was written on that check. Certainly, if there was any "reality" to that check being connected with a valid royalty, I would have known it at the time.) But here is a basic unavoidable fact: Since 2003, neither you nor your publisher has ever sent me a royalty statement. That’s seven years without a royalty statement. But that's what publishers normally do--they keep track of such things. They keep track of book sales just as Apple keeps track of the number of ipods solds. (In a previous email, you yourself explained this bizarre situation by saying the publisher was “in dire straits.”) So stop telling falsehoods about this situation. HOAX is in its third printing. How many copies were sold: 10,000? 20,000? 50,000? I have no idea. But what I do know is that the statements you repeatedly have made on this thread are completely false. For example, this statement: “I made an agreement and I have not only sent him royalties but even ADVANCES ON ROYALTIES, which I was not obligated to send.” Baloney. Utter nonsense. In seven years no royalty statements were sent—not a single one—and no subsequent royalties (other than that initial advance) was made; and yes, contrary to your false statement, you were in fact “obligated” to make such payments. How dare you say: “I have not only sent him royalties but even ADVANCES ON ROYALTIES, which I was not obligated to send.” ". . . which you were not obligated to send...?" Try selling that proposition to any law school class on Contracts. Oh pleez. . .On what planet are you living? If you can ignore these basic realities, no wonder you believe we did not go to the moon, or can look at the evidence of 9/11 and believe no planes hit the World Trade Center in New York, or that the TV broadcasts of the plane hitting was all faked, or that the hijackers are still alive, or that a missile hit the Pentagon. (And you expect people to take you seriously?) The World Trade Center had a beautiful restaurant on the 102nd floor called “Windows on the World” where I and my family used to eat on special occasions. Apparently you are someone who’s elevator, unlike the one in the World Trade Center, “doesn’t run to the top.” I have no other satisfactory explanation for what appears to be a congenital inability on your part to face certain obvious realities. DSL

John: I'm so glad you posted this. I just read Boyd's article, and it brought back old memories. I saw The Spy Who Came in from the Cold in the fall of 1966. I remember exiting the movie theater really stunned, and asking a friend who saw the movie with me, "Now, the question is: who's running Oswald?" Its a great movie, and opened my own eyes to the issue of the relationship between an agent and his handler. (And the matter of serious manipulation and betrayal, in such a relationship). DSL

FWIW: I had a two hour filmed interview with Doyle Williams around July, 1990, about this incident. He was definitely jumped and then thrown to the ground. While lying on the floor, Kellerman came over, leaned over, and said to him "Perhaps you'd better leave." (!) There is much else. DSL

For what its worth. . . : I called Hurt back around 1970, and spoke with him for between 30 minutes and an hour. I believe he told me the same "I was drunk" story--and, again "FWIW", he sounded credible (i.e., that he was indeed drunk). I have a BASF tape of the entire conversation. Somewhere in my collection. With regard to anything I write here, I would defer to the tape as the better evidence. What I do remember is coming away from the call believing I had done what I could do, pursuing this lead, and there wasn't much to it. The Hurt tape should be somewhere in my tape storage boxes, and should I locate it, I will review it and double check what I have written here. DSL 6/18/10, 3 AM PDT Los Angeles,CA

I'm "surprised" too (to put it mildly). I have no idea when Lawson made the statement. If he knows anything about guns, he knows the oft quoted statement that (usually) a bullet "goes in small" and "comes out big." So I don't understand why, at this late date, he is claiming (on the one hand) that he saw a large hole at the back of JFK's head, and yet insists there were no shots from the front. On the other hand, any statement made decades later--when he never included such information in his original report--is really not of very much use, from the standpoint of evidence. DSL 6/17/10 1:50 AM PDT Los Angeles, CA

John: From some draft notes I made (but unfortunately, without a citation), I find the following: QUOTE When the Warren Report was published, journalist Walter Lippman accepted its conclusions, but noted that Oswald's easy comings and goings (from the Soviet Union) raised the question of whether he had some connection with "the apparatus of espionage." UNQUOTE I would assume Lippman's comment was made in a column he wrote shortly after the release of the Warren Report, in late September, 1964. Given his connections, I would assume that Lippman would have been given the "insider cover story"--that Castro was responsible for JFK's death, that LHO worked for Castro, etc. (But I cannot prove that.) Hope this helps. DSL 6/9/10 1 AM, PDT Los Angeles, CA

Yes, the jewish "bank conspiracy" is probably Fetzer's next project. Who would be surprised to see him dive into another area he does not understand? I would not. And, I would just love to discuss that issue with him, but as usual when the going gets tough, he'll probably bail out. Agreed. Completely. And BTW, I read the book--every page. Except for the opening parts, which lauds philosophy and the importance of seeking the truth, it then veers off and is extremist nonsense, written for the looney tune set.Its as if someone with credentials in astronomy gave a lecture on astrology, and expected us to take it seriously as "science." No matter--as long as Fetzer gets his daily quota of "attention," he doesn't care. DSL

It is very hard for me to know exactly what to say about one of my closest friends, when I have just gotten off the phone ordering flowers for his funeral service—the service for someone I spoke to twice in the last 10 days. I met Robert in January, 1981, when I was in Dallas on my book tour for Best Evidence. He offered to drive me around to my various media appearances, and so that’s how we met. Coincidentally, it was also the very first time that both I (and Robert) met Marina Oswald Porter, because he was present when Marina called in to some radio show on which I was appearing For almost 30 years, the two of us --Robert and I--have palled around, for the most part on the telephone, although we would occasionally meet at a JFK Lancer event, and Robert made one trip to California, in connection with the Mary Ferrell Foundation. Robert loves--and was quite knowledgeable about--art, and we spent the day at the Getty. Until Robert suffered a terrible stroke about five years ago, we would talk several times a week. Not only was he a super valuable asset when it came to JFK research, he was also a wonderful friend. I have dozens, if not hundreds of documents, on my computer, with his name attached—because often when we would talk, the conversation would switch from the personal to the research, and I’d make notes. Sometimes he had an idea or observation; other times he would look something up on Mary Ferrell’s special computerized data base. (I never did need to learn how to use it, because I’d just call Robert whenever I wanted to look up a fact). Indeed, I just checked my computerized files, and they show over 1400 documents with Robert’s name tagged in the title—that’s how heavy was our day to day and week to week liaison. To maintain my own health, I take long walks on the Santa Monica beach bikepath, at night, and Robert is someone I would often call. Although I am now happily coupled, there were many years when I was not, and Robert was someone I would often call for personal advice. A single person has many quandaries, and Robert would offer cogent, and sometimes very funny, advice. So I got to calling him Father Chapman. “Father Chapman,” I would say at the beginning of a phone call (signaling this would not be just about JFK research) “I’ve met someone, and I want to talk to you about her,” and he would then dispense his advice (with the equivalent of a wink). “Yes, my child, have no fear. . .” he would say. On a more serious note: I had hundreds of conversations with Robert about the character of Oswald and how to interpret this or that item of evidence. Or how many years--or decades--it would take before this case would really unravel, and the full truth emerge. I also was a first person witness to the major effort he played in setting up the Mary Ferrell Foundation. Robert took time off from his business in Memphis, rolled up his sleeves, traveled to Dallas, and spent countless hours boxing up Mary’s records and shipping them off to Oliver Curme (who founded the Ferrell Foundation) in Massachusetts, where Rex Bradford subsequently utilized them in connection with creating the data base that now exists. After Robert’s stroke, we continued to communicate, and he had perfect comprehension, but he was in a wheelchair, and blind. He understood everything I said, but when he spoke, he was not easy to understand. Nonetheless, we talked regularly, and he was –as always—sharp as a tack. I feel very bad about this. We never know how long we have, and when the sign that reads “the end” will flash before us. I shall miss him. DSL Los Angeles, California 6/2/10; 2:30 AM PDT

What this is: Email I have just sent to JFK researcher Allan Eaglesham responding to his article, just published on the Internet, “Deep Throat Dave”. The link: http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DeepThroat/ * * * Dear Allan, Today someone sent me a link to "Deep-Throat Dave" and I gave it a quick read. As you know, I thoroughly disagree with the notion that Bruce Pitzer's death was a murder; and I certainly do not believe that there was any motion picture films taken of the JFK autopsy. But, in a way, that is besides the point, and certainly not the central point of this email. Because, as we all know, its a free country, and people are entitled to their opinions, and certainly there is a diversity of opinion when it comes to the Kennedy assassination. Sometimes it depends on one’s interpretation of physical evidence; and sometimes it all comes down to the credibility of a story someone tells. In this particular instance, it would appear—and based on what you have reported—that something most unfortunate is going on. And I am referring here to the recent goings-on with regard to the person you have dubbed “Deep Throat Dave,” and the meetings he recently had in Chicago with Dennis David, Robert Groden, and one Christopher Andersen, the sales agent of Sundown Entertainment, and one of the writers of the video documentary “Frame 313: The JFK Assassination Theories.” But let me back up a bit—and I write some of what follows for the benefit of others, who might be reading copies of this communication. SOME HISTORY—Doug Horne and “Deep-Throat Dave” To begin with, there is the manner in which an attempt was apparently made to discredit Doug Horne, prior to the publication of his magnum opus INSIDE THE ARRB. Specifically, someone (you call him “Deep Throat Dave,” and so I will too) presented himself to Doug Horne as ex-Naval Intelligence, as someone with special insider knowledge, and who Doug investigated, and proved--to his satisfaction--was a complete fraud. Now, that same person has somehow (a) connected himself with Robert Groden and (b ) is now approaching a witness who appeared in BEST EVIDENCE (See Chapter 25), and offering important “corroboration” for a most unlikely story that Dennis David now tells (and apparently quite sincerely believes)—that he (Dennis David) has seen a motion picture film of the autopsy, taken by Pitzer, who committed suicide some three years later. (To make this clear: Dennis David, who knew Pitzer, does not believe Pitzer committed suicide, and has made a variety of claims about having seen autopsy photographs –and/or films—of the autopsy,because of his friendship with Pitzer. I should also add that Dennis David told me none of this when I interviewed him in July, 1979, via phone, and in Ocotber, 1980, on camera; nor in 1989, again, on camera). But let’s put Dennis David aside, and return to “Deep Throat Dave,” and his claims. In that regard, “Deep Throat Dave” is offering “corroboration” for the Pitzer story and further, because of the presence of Christopher Anderson (of Sundown Entertainment) at these meetings, “Deep Throat Dave” is apparently willing to promote “his” story in a documentary film product that may well be marketed as the country approaches the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. Now let’s shift the focus to Sundown Entertainment, and Christopher Andersen, and his partner, Daniel Parrilli, who was producer of FRAME 313. Let’s focus on the implications of these two becoming involved in promoting dubious theories and hypotheses concerning the assassination—and especially the possibility of their now becoming affiliated with “Deep Throat Dave,” the same person who was unsuccessful in his apparent attempt to con and bamboozle Doug Horne, in 2009—an effort which, had it been successful, could have seriously damaged Horne’s credibility. Specifically, let’s focus on what public records reveal about the past of these two gentlemen. Parrilli and Andersen—a look at the past I am well aware that they are the producer and writer of the video “Frame 313,” which you characterize as being “well produced,” but there are other facts about these gentlemen that are not particularly savory. These facts bear on their credibility, are apparently are not particularly well known, and should be disseminated so that anyone in the research community who is approached should understand the nature of the persons they are dealing with and be in a position to make a more informed decision as to whether or not to get involved with them in any documentary film project. To begin with, both are convicted felons –convicted fraudsters--who previously served time in Federal prison in Wisconsin, where they reportedly met. Here is some background of which you may not be aware—background available from papers filed by the Securities Department of the State of Illinois—and still additional information which lay behind their arrest for criminal fraud by the FBI just this past January 10, 2010 (yes, just in the months following Doug Horne’s experience with “Deep Throat Dave” and just months before the appearance of “Deep Throat Dave” with Robert Groden, and Dennis David, in Chicago, with Christopher Anderson present.) You speculate that Sundown Entertainment (which means Parrilli and Anderson) are very likely planning a documentary in which “Deep Throat Dave” now appears—his face obscured, and his voice altered—in support of various JFK hypotheses, and in particular, with regard to the Pitzer matter. I believe you may well be correct. So here is information this producer-writer team which I think is relevant to the assessment of their credibility, when it comes to matters pertaining to bringing out the truth about the Kennedy assassination. Let’s move back on the time line a bit, and start with the year 2001 and 2002—and the following information comes from documents on file with the Illinois Secretary of State’s office—with the Internet “link” provided on January 25, 2010, blog titled “Fraud Talk,” a blog devoted to exposing financial fraud schemes. (For the link to Fraud Talk, see the end of this post). FLASHBACK TO 2001 and 2002 1) In December, 2001, Anderson pleased guilt to one criminal count of Mail Fraud, and he was sentenced to thirty-six months in Federal prison; and he, too served his sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution in Oxford, Wisconsin. 2) In May, 2002, Parrilli pleaded guilty to credit card fraud, mail fraud, and bank fraud. As a result, he was sentenced to twenty-five months in the Federal Prison—a term he served at the Federal Correctional Institution in Oxford, Wisconsin. Apparently—according to Fraud Talk that’s how these two met. And now, before getting to the Spring of 2010, and the meeting that “Deep Throat Dave” had with Anderson and Groden, let’s first “flash forward” to the fall of 2009. 3) In November 2009, the State of Illinois (Security Department) filed a public notice concerning these two gentlemen and their company, Sundown Entertainment. A hearing was schedule to determine whether an Order should be entered to prevent them from “selling or offering for sale securities in the State of Illinois”. The grounds were: •“Count 1” –“Fraud in the offer and sale of securities,” with the complaint alleging that “Sundown was a Front for an Illegal Ponzi Scheme” •”Count 2” –“Offer and Sale of Unregistered Securities” • “Count 3” – “Fraud in the Offer and Sale of Securities” Specifically: “Failure to Disclose Prior Fraud Convictions to Investors.” Specifically, in selling “securities” –in the form of promissory notes—to investors, Anderson “never disclosed to investors that . . . Parrilli” (previously convicted of fraud) “was the President of Sundown.” In addition, both Parrilli and Andersen “failed to disclose” their own “criminal convictions” to investors. The complaint notes that “The information regarding Respondent Parrilli’s role in Sundown, as well as Respondents Parrilli and Anderson’s criminal history involving fraud is material to an investor’s decision to invest money in Sundown.” And I would add, purely as a personal aside—and if nothing else where known (but just wait because there is more): I would think the above facts are material to whether any researcher on the Kennedy assassination (much less any witness) would wish to become involved with either of these two gentlemen, or their company, in view of this background. Is this what research and the creation of “product” on the Kennedy assassination is coming down to? That witnesses with highly controversial (and, in my opinion, dubious and implausible) stories become affiliated with a folks like this? I do not know (just yet) what happened at the scheduled hearing but the public record is very clear on what happened in January, 2010. On January 22, 2010, both Andersen and Parrilli were arrested by FBI agents, and this story was reported in detail by both the Chicago Tribune and Chicago’s Fox News. (See URL links at the end of this write-up, after my typed signature)(. The headline at the Chicago Fox News website (on 1/25/2010) was: “Great Comic Investment Actually a $4M Ponzi Scheme” The headline at the Chicago Tribune /WGN “BreakingNews” website was: “Two ex-cons charged in $4M Ponzi scheme” So now, we are dealing with still another scheme. Let’s take a closer look. WHAT THE CHICAGO FOX NEWS AND CHICAGO TRIBUNE TELL US ABOUT PARRILLI AND ANDERSEN “Investors in a comic book and movie retail operation were actually victims of a $4 million Ponzi scheme run by two west suburban men, according to the FBI. . . They allegedly operated a Ponzi scheme which defrauded more than 100 investors out of more than $4 million, according to a release from the FBI. Both are charged in a criminal complaint filed last week in U.S. District Court in Chicago with one count of wire fraud.” The lead on the Chicago Tribune Story reads: "Two DuPage Country men who met while serving time in federal prison for separate fraud convictions together ran a Ponzi scheme that bilked about 100 investors out of $4 million, according to federal charges unsealed today." The Fox story then goes on to name the company—and again (you guessed it!) its Sundown Entertainment: “According to the complaint, the pair operated Sundown Entertainment Inc., a Westmont-based business which purported to be involved in the buying, selling and producing of films, comics and other intellectual property, the [FBI] release said. The Chicago Tribune story put it this way: "Daniel Parrilli, 50, of Carol Stream (Ill) and Christopher Anderson, 59, of Westmont, were charged with wire fraud in a scheme to sell promissory notes." "Beginning in 2006, the two allegedly ran a company called Sundown Entertainment and promised investors a return of 25 to 100 percent in as little (as) seven days, according to an affidavit filed in the case." "The pair allegedly told investors they made money through the sale of films and comic books, according to court records." Echoing the “too good to be true” theme prominent with so many financial fraudsters, the FBI complaint—according to the Fox News report—said that the two were “sold promissory notes to investors based on the revenues the intellectual property was expected to generate. . . The notes carried a return of 25 percent to 100 percent over periods as short as seven days.” DOING THE MATH Let’s do the math. Following the “KISS” principle, 25% in seven days, would amount to an annual return in excess of 1250% per year. (And 100% in 7 days would be over 5,000% a year.) Consider the gall of anyone selling such an “investment”—and again, returning to the JFK case—does any researcher or witness want to be associated with anyone peddling such nonsensical “investment” schemes? The news report then modestly states the obvious—that the FBI complaint “also alleges Anderson and Parrilli made false statements to potential investors, including the expected return on the investment”. . etc. “Expected return”?! Even Madoff was only “offering” 12%. According to the Chircago Tribune report: "One victim gave the pair $75,000, including $30,000 from a credit card, after she was promised a 35 percent return in 19 days. Andersen allegedly gave the woman a bogus document showing films that Andersen claimed he had purchased." "After the woman confronted Andersen when he failed to pay up, he gave her three checks, but each bounced, authorities said." "Another investor turned over $192,000, and Andersen delayed repayment by telling him “his funds were tied up in Canada by the Terrorist Act,” the charges alleged." The Chicago Tribune reports the following history of the two men: "Andersen pleaded guilty in 2001 to a similar crime and was sentenced to 36 months in prison, records show. He served time at the federal prison in Oxford, Wis., where he met Parrilli, who had pleaded guilty in his own fraud case in 2001." The Fox report ends: “If convicted, the men face up to 20 years in prison and $250,000 in fines each.” So now let’s return to “the reality of where we are.” “DEEP THROAT DAVE” and his Spring 2010 Activities According to your information, Allan (referring here to Allan Eaglesham, and his co-author, James Rinnovatore), Dennis David—who’s a “believer” in the Pitzer story—was approached by “Deep Throat Dave” (who had already been exposed as a fraud by Doug Horne, who spent time and money investigating him and his claims) sometime in January, 2010. Its not clear how the “first contact” was made, but Deep Throat Dave approached Dennis David on a matter that was most important to him. He apparently gave Dennis David the whole “I was with ONI” pitch, told him he knew that Pitzer was murdered; and, perhaps most important, told Dennis David he has seen the motion picture film that Dennis David believes Pitzer took of the autopsy. Somehow, Robert Groden got involved in all this. (Presumably, Deep Throat Dave also approached Groden, but again, exactly how that happened is not clear). However, one apparent nexus is that Groden knew Christopher Andersen because Andersen (and Parrilli) were the writer and producer of “Frame 313,” the video documentary (released in June, 2008) and which commented on various JFK assassination theories. Anyway, Dennis David was approached in January, 2010, and was invited to Chicago, and was there in a meeting in Chicago, between Dennis David, Robert Groden, and Christopher Anderson, someone who –you can be sure—did not tell those present: “Here, take a look at my rap sheet! And oh yes, the Illinois Authorities have just filed a four count sheet of charges against me; and, by the way, I was just arrested in January by the FBI and, if convicted, could be spending up to 20 years in prison!” Not at all. So what we have here—in embryonic form—is the creation of a product that is going to hawk some very non-credible ideas on the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy’s death. A “sequel” of sorts to “Frame 313.” And I fully agree with you, Allan, as to how these dots should be connected. Here’s what you said: QUOTE: "We [Eaglesham and Rinnovatore] speculate that, as part of the commercial enterprise—a new documentary movie produced under the aegis of Christopher Andersen’s company, Sundown Entertainment—some way will be found to circumvent Horne’s destruction of Deep Throat’s credentials; an “important” new witness will be featured prominently, in deep shadow, his voice distorted so as to be unrecognizable, giving the “inside scoop” on the murder of William Pitzer. . . " UNQUOTE Of course, your speculation does not stop there, because you added the following, and I think what you say next is also entirely possible: ". . .on the murder of William Pitzer and on the claims of Jimmy Files, Judy Baker, Eddie Haslam, and Uncle Tom Cobley and all, interspersed with wise commentary from the usual luminaries." And, of course, let’s not forget what could be the “cherry on the sundae”--there is the “film” of the JFK autopsy. Will there be some hoked up “film footage” of that (as in “alien autopsy”??) As I said at the outset—It’s a free country, and anyone can believe anything they wish. But, when it comes to distribution and film making, if I were a JFK researcher—and certainly if I were a witness—I wouldn’t go near these people with a 10 foot pole. DSL 5/7/10; 4:20 A.M. PDT Los Angeles, California For those wishing to explore this matter further, here are the key links: •The Fraud Talk Website—the January 25, 2010 entry “Two Illinois Ex-Cons Charged in $4 Million Ponzi Scheme” http://fraudtalk.blogspot.com/2010/01/two-...arged-in-4.html •Fox News—Chicago—Website (“MyFoxChicago.com”) –January 25, 2010, reporting the arrest of Andersen and Parrilli; “Great Comic Investment Actually a $4M Ponzi Scheme” http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/crime...ic-ponzi-scheme •Chicago BreakingNews Center (Chicago Tribune/WGN website) –January 25, 2010; “Two ex-cons charged in $4M Ponzi scheme” http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01...nzi-scheme.html •State of Illinois Complaint against Anderson, Pirrilli, and Sundown Entertainment: (See “Fraudtalk.blogspot”, as listed above. The link for that is at the very end of the Fraudtalk article). •Eaglesham-Rinnovatore article on “Deep-Throat Dave”, dated 5/6/10 http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DeepThroat/

Hello Dean, What you wrote is (of course) subjective, but nonetheless, you're now getting a sense of exactly how I felt after speaking with Judyth on March 4, 2000. You've just had the "Judyth experience" on video. I had it "on audio." It was very unsettling, because it appeared so ridiculous, yet there were those who actually believed her. (And still do.) As anyone knows who deals with witnesses, demeanor counts. Completely aside from the factual problems, I found her demeanor to be "non-credible," to put it politely. DSL 5/3/10; 4:45 AM PDT Los Angeles, CA

Chris, The work you do is really quite beautiful--the graphics, the layouts, etc., I simply do not have the craft to do any of that. Anyway, I'm studying your post(s) carefully. A question: What is your source for the Betzner photo (scan) that you are using? If you wish, simply reply to dlifton2003@yahoo.com Thanks. DSL 5/2/10

Hello Glen Viklund: Everyone who pursues this case seeks some kind of closure. The sad aspect of Jim Fetzer’s quest—and he has been involved in pursuing the matter of the JFK assassination for many years—is that after all these years of work, “closure” for him, it would appear, comes down to believing the fictional tale(s) of a sad deluded woman. Rest assured that nothing is ever going to change his mind. No argument about inherent implausibility, nor any argument based on data, is going to matter. He has bought into this 100% and so he’s going to go down with the ship—which more and more is “his” ship—all the while genuinely believing he is leading the way towards enlightenment. Moreover, matters have now progressed to the point where he genuinely believes those who oppose him are a “cult,” and he is leading the way to “the truth.” As an auto bumper sticker I recently saw says, “GOD protect me from your followers!” DSL 5/2/10; 2:30 AM PDT Los Angeles, CA

Dixie, Thanks for your post, and especially this part: QUOTE: In addition, there has been a whole lot of past discussion regarding the CanCun story, as David Lifton has mentioned.... . . after she learned there was no CanCun Resort at that time, she denied ever saying that. Then later she claimed it was her past agent that added it and she had only meant the CanCun area, since she didn't feel anyone would know where nearby Chichen Itza was. (It is not all that nearby though). So, then a woman on the discussion group posted some info that the Village of KanKun had been there for many, many years and she even had a link to an old map, showing it. In addition, that same woman mentioned there had been a nice hotel in Chichen Itza for years....the Mayaland Hotel. Up until that point, Judyth was still denying she ever said it was a fine hotel in CanCun. But suddenly with that new info and after mentioning various places they intended to visit, she ran with it....and later appeared in her book, as her own claim. Now she insists that she had always known about the old Village of KanKun. If so, it never came up until that woman appeared with that info....then sudenly she had always known it and what she meant when speaking to David L. I just do not buy that, at that point in time, when she spoke to him. UNQUOTE If you can ever come up with the actual Internet posts --including the date(s)--of the woman who volunteered this information (i.e., who discovered "Kankun", and posted that data) I would appreciate having these details. They mark an important "inflection point" in the evolution of her story. Because they demonstrate exactly how Judyth operates, and how she bobs and weaves around the existing record. In this instance, first she tap danced around the major gaffe she had committed; and then, when she learned of "Kankun," she immediateley adjusted/changed her story to incorporate the new-found information. That's precisely how she handles inconsistencies, "making it up" as the goes along. She evinces the psychology (and even the methodology) of a combination of producer and screenwriter of her own fictions, who, when a gaffe has occurred in a film shoot, respondings by saying, "Oh well, we'll fix that in the editing room." In this case, the "editing room" is the fertile imagination of Judyth's mind. This would all be very amusing if it were not the case that this lady if hawking a completely fictional history of a major aspect of the Kennedy assassination, duping many who should know better, and, in addition, besmirching the true character of someone she claims to have loved. I'm not surprised that someone who claims to have seen the Zapruder film at a New York City theater, in the fall of 1964 (when it was clearly under lock and key, and obviously not being screened at any New York City theater) should rush to her defense, but I would think most people, without an agenda, and with a modicum of good judgment, would know better, and behave accordingly. What total nonsense. DSL 5/1/10 2:25 AM Los Angeles, CA

To Pat Speer, and others: Agreed: the tape of my March 4, 2000 conversation with Judyth is completely unnecessary to evaluate Judyth’s credibility, and grasp the essential absurdity of most of her claims. All of this was debated ad nausea 10 years ago. Prof. Fetzer, perhaps unaware of the extent of this, is recycling the same old/same old. For example, does Jim Fetzer fully understand the extent to which Judyth is already on record—and in writing—with most of this stuff?? Again, I advise: Just visit Dave Reitzes website—and his section of Judyth. The link: http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-story.html For convenience, below my typed signature is the section in which he narrates the goofy back and forth of the “Cancun” part of the debate, which surfaced after Robert Chapman pointed out that Cancun did not exist as a resort back then, and Judyth was confronted with this major gaffe. As he narrates the back and forth of her “defense” (and the ebb and flow of this “debate”) each of his sentences carries a footnote, and the footnotes themselves refer back to voluminous documentation he culled –and organized—from the Internet news groups (and then printed below his narrative). So each refer back to specific posts of Judyth herself, Platzman, and Shackelford. Again and again, Judyth offers explanations and excuses for her Cancun gaffe that are the linguistic and syntactical equivalent of “My dog ate it [i.e., my dog ate the homework]”. Example 1: Judyth Vary Baker, Internet forum post, October 9, 2004: QUOTE: "The Cancun matter was an insertion by my literary agent that was missed by Dr.Platzman [sic]. He took the blame for allowing it to remain in the manuscript. But it was my fault, too.. . . Lee indeed said we would meet in a fine hotel, but his tone of voice was so full of irony I didn't know if he was joking. He never said we would meet in Cancun. Typos and errors will happen. That we would meet in an area NEAR present-day Cancun is what was always meant, and if I typed Cancun instead, God forgive me. . . END QUOTE DSL note: This is after numerous other posts in which she claimed she never said any such thing (and I was accused of malice, simply because I accurately reported what she told me on the phone, on March 4, 2000). Example 2 (from Shackelford, on September 27, 2004): QUOTE : "It has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with the resort being there in 1963--they weren't planning on going to a resort. They were planning to go to the Yucatan and look at the ruins. '' wasn't supposed to refer specifically to the ruins either--just the area." END QUOTE Example 3—Judyth, newsgroup post, July 5, 2004: QUOTE: "The actual location was not where Lee and I expected to go to a hotel, only to meet . . . we were going to then go explore Chichen Itza, which was supposed to be relatively close, and ruins, all of which we believed from a book [sic] we read together was in Quintana Roo . . . we were going to go to a fine hotel...maybe that was a joke of Lee's...and we were going to get a Catholic priest to marry us." UNQUOTE ((DSL comment: Attention All Readers Please Note: Lee, an atheist, and married to Marina, loving his daughter June, and happily expecting the birth of his second child. . . was planning to go off with this lady “to get a Catholic priest to marry us” ?! - - -Oh pleeez.)) Example 4: --Judyth herself, Internet post, October 9, 2004: QUOTE "Lee never mentioned the name of this city as a meeting place. He spoke of Merida in other contexts. I decided this must have been the 'city' in the Yucatan where we hoped to marry - on my own, as he mentioned we would be flying from the city where we would marry on the Cayman islands. When, later, I learned that flights from Merida to the Cayman Islands were known to occur, I then assumed the city was Merida." UNQUOTE And Jim Fetzer thinks a tape made in March, 2000, is necessary to see whether Cancun could perhaps have been confused (by me) with Kankun, and that “that” offers an explanation for this farce? DSL 4/30/10 2:30 AM PDT Los Angeles, CA Copied below from the Reitzes website, the section on Judyth, and specifically, the part of the narrative about her meeting Lee at Cancun. Each of the numbered notes refer to his documentation, which appears beneath the essay, at his website. NOW QUOTING. . . : Had Oswald escaped Dallas alive, he and Judyth planned to meet at a fine hotel in Cancun, Mexico, and get married. (It was subsequently pointed out by David Lifton and Robert Chapman that Cancun was an uninhabited jungle in 1963; the resort city was conceived years later.) (96) Judyth never said that she and Oswald planned to meet in a fine hotel in Cancun! This is a malicious fabrication by David Lifton.(97) Judyth never said that she and Oswald planned to meet in a fine hotel in Cancun! This is a malicious fabrication by David Lifton and John McAdams. (98) Judyth never said that she and Oswald planned to meet in a fine hotel in Cancun! This is a malicious fabrication by Dave Reitzes. (99) Judyth never said that she and Oswald planned to meet in a fine hotel in Cancun! This was erroneously inserted into her manuscript by co-author Howard Platzman. (100) No, it wasn't.(101) Judyth never said that she and Oswald planned to meet in a fine hotel in Cancun! This was erroneously inserted into her manuscript by her former agent, Peter Cox.(102) No, it wasn't.(103) Well, maybe it was.(104) Hypothetically speaking. (105) Okay, Judyth said it after all. (106) But she didn't mean it. She only meant Cancun as a rough geographical indicator of where the planned meeting-place actually had been. (107) What she meant was that she and Oswald planned to meet in a fine hotel in the rustic village of Kankun, Mexico.(108) Actually, Cancun and the fine hotel had nothing to do with each other; some of the words were accidentally reversed in that particular draft of her manuscript. (109) Perhaps "fine hotel" was merely a joke on Oswald's part. (110) Of course "fine hotel" was merely a joke on Oswald's part, and Judyth knew that at the time. (111) Nevertheless, she and Oswald might have ended up staying in a fine hotel just the same. (112) Judyth and Oswald actually planned to meet in Chichen Itza, Mexico -- 125 miles from present-day Cancun. (113) Judyth and Oswald actually planned to meet in Merida, Mexico -- 200 miles from present-day Cancun. (114) Judyth and Oswald actually planned to meet in Belize, Mexico -- 350 miles from present-day Cancun. (Note: There was no Belize in 1963; it was called British Honduras until years later.) (115) Judyth and Oswald actually planned to meet in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico -- well over a thousand miles from present-day Cancun. (116) Judyth and Oswald actually planned to marry in the Cayman Islands of the Caribbean; Cancun was just a stopover. (117) Judyth and Oswald actually planned to marry in Mexico. Exploration of ancient Mayan ruins and a visit to a large city in the Yucatan were additional possible plans. After marriage, their final destination was probably going to be the Cayman Islands. (118) END QUOTE Again, for a detailed exposition of all the footnotes (and much other information on the Judyth story), just go Reitzes website (and again, to this link, for the footnotes): http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-story.html

David- that must have been quite a phone call. even many of judyth's critics claim that she is an intelligent woman but if she was really that bright why on earth would she have tried to peddle her ridiculous stories to someone who knows this material as well as you do? Kevin, The short answer to your question is: I don’t know. But the longer answer goes something like this: I called Judyth on March 4, 2000 because my good friend Robert Chapman (who was also a close friend of Mary Ferrell) telephoned with what he thought was a very special opportunity: to speak with someone whom the official investigation had (somehow) “missed” and who had had an intimate relationship with Oswald. Although somewhat skeptical that Lee Oswald had any affair (because I believed I knew Oswald’s character reasonably well, and especially his feelings towards his wife, and the enthusiasm he had about being a father again), I nevertheless decided to make the call. Assuming this woman was who she said she was (and Robert and Mary both believed her to be genuine), I thought this conversation might be important, and so I made provision to record it. Not in my wildest dreams did I believe I might be speaking to someone I would soon conclude was telling a completely false story, someone who had studied the records and had “interjected herself” into a narrative that (as you point out) I knew all too well from my own study of the record. I should also add that without a tape I would not have been able to make the analysis I subsequently did, and as rapidly as I did, all based on simply one phone call. But Judyth can “gush,” and that’s exactly what she did, when we spoke. So in many respects, the tape functioned like a butterfly net, not only to capture the nuances of the call but also to record the many implausible assertions she breathlessly made, one after another. So that’s about the best answer I can provide to your very reasonable question. She said what she did, and then I analyzed what she had said. If you want to see what I believe to be a first rate analysis of Judyth’s claims, just go to the website of Dave Reitzes. He has gone to considerable lengths to lay out, discuss, and analyze many of her claims. As to why people like Platzman and Shackelford believe her story, I have no idea. Platzman has a Ph.D in philosophy; Shackelford, I would think, would know better. I really do not understand why my “radar” picked up on what she was doing, rather quickly, yet they appear to have been taken in. In 1996, paying too much attention to some beautiful weather in upstate New York, I drove right into a small town speed trap, and paid the price. For some reason certain people who I think should know better, are (in this instance) paying too much attention to “the scenery,” and so they have become ensnared in the historical equivalent of a small-town speed trap. All I can say is “Go Figure.” DSL Links to Reitzes website, which has links to his criticism of Judyth’s story. First, see: “Judyth Vary Baker: Self –Proclaimed Mistress of Lee Harvey Oswald”, at http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-menu.html for an overview. In particular, his essay—“Judyth Baker—The Story So Far (According to Judyth Vary Baker, Martin Shackelford, and Howard Platzman, Ph.D.)” is, to my mind, a definitive accounting of all the twists and turns in Judyth’s evolving story. Here is the link for that: http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-story.html Also please note: Starting at Retizes’ “note 96” and extending all the way to “note 125,” the interested reader will find a veritable load of data about the issue of “Cancun”—and all the different statements, excuses, explanations, etc., for this monumental gaffe (and/or “defect’) in her story, depending on how one views it.

Hello Jack, Re your statement, "I even bought 3 month subscriptions to the New Orleans Item and the New Orleans Times-Picayune to get fuller coverage." You are not/were not alone. In 1967, I am one of the small number of persons who lived thousands of miles from New Orleans but who--like you--paid for a subscription to the New Orleans States-Item (and, as I recall, the Times-Picayune as well, or maybe a friend ordered that one, and we exchanged). I have old manila file folders filled with articles. These subscriptions stayed in force for months, if not years, and when the case went to trial (Spring, 1969) that was the way to get line by line transcripts of a lot of the testimony. So . . yes, I'm a member of that small club of "out of towners" who (like you) subscribed to the local New Orleans newspapers to keep up with what --back then--seemed to be the big break in the Kennedy case. And yes, your point is (of course) well taken, and so now we come back to Judyth, that call I had with her in March, 2000, and her credibility. Its hard to believe anyone who had any of the connections Judyth claimed to have had could possibly have been unaware of these events unfolding in New Orleans (starting in February, 1967, as I recall) since they were the focus of major media attention. When Judyth made that statement, I was amazed, but then, it was one of a number of amazing statements made during that very unusual phone call. Had the call not been taped, and then carefully reviewed afterwards, it is one of those things that probably would have just slid by. When one is dealing with a dozen amazing statements, one after another after another, what does one do? What does one believe? One tries to be polite and behave reasonably--not realizing that any of this is to be taken seriously. That was my impression, as the call went on and on, and then finally ended. DSL 4/26/10; 7:30 PM PDT Los Angeles, CA

Kevin Greelee: I just read your post (#1450, dated 4/21/10) which quotes two of my posts (on the Alt.conspiracy discussion group, now available via Google) --some ten years ago (specifically, one on 10/26/2000, and the other on 12/31/2001). These posts were written at a time not only when my recollections of my March 4 2000, conversation with Judyth were fresh in my mind, but also at a time when I probably had a thick pile of notes and transcript material at hand. As you correctly quote, Judyth made the following assertions in that March, 2000 phone call: ITEM: That she co-wrote a science fiction story with Lee Oswald ITEM: That, to beef up security for Kennedy, Lee fomented the Adlai Stevenson incident in Dallas ITEM: That she, Judyth, had been offered $1 million by some tabloid for her story ITEM: That despite her connection with all these events back in 1963, she never heard of the Garrison investigation at the time it was occurring (starting around Feb 1967) ITEM: That at the "cancer lab" at Dave Ferrie¹s apartment, they "processed" 4,000 mice per month. ITEM: That she arranged to check Lee out of work (and so that's why the time clock records, to be found in the 26 volumes) appear as they do. (To anyone interested: There are certain clusters of times,which--IMHO-- Judyth explains by inserting herself into a "story" built around that data). ITEM: That in connection with her alleged knowledge of Lee's visit to lecture at the Jesuit college at Spring Hill, Alabama, that Robert Kennedy made a phone call there. (Yes, dear reader, blink twice if you must, but no, you're not imagining what I just wrote: in the March, 2000 phone call, Judyth alleged that Robert Kennedy, the Attorney General of the United States, called the Jesuit College at which Oswald spoke, and for some undefined reason, in connection with LHO's visit there). ITEM: That she (and her co-workers in Florida) "knew" the assassination was going to happen, and so prepared to watch it on TV. As you noted, the links to the full text of my two posts were: for October 26,2000: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...ca7348809?hl=en and for Dec 31 2001 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...c1cb707a4?hl=en When I clicked on the links you provided, they came right up on my screen. * * * Again, thanks for your post, and for the URL links that bring these two posts--from 10 years ago--right onto the computer screen. I had completely forgotten about these details, or that I had analyzed the conversation I had had with Judyth in such detail, and, finally, that I had written these posts. Its hard to believe that ten years have passed! And of course you are right: with regard to my own skepticism about Judyth and her various claims, it is incorrect for anyone to focus just on the "Cancun" matter as "the reason" I rejected her entire story (as if that was the only problem!). As these posts amply demonstrate, it was much more than her claim that Lee Oswald said that they (she and Judyth) would/should meet in Cancun (the resort which did not then exist, aside from whether some primitive village by that name did exist) that lay behind my own conclusions about Judyth--i.e., that she lacked credibility, could not/should not be taken seriously, and my own conclusions that she was a fantasist. One other point: I am not saying any of these things to hurt anyone individually. Its just that I have spent too much time on the Kennedy case connecting the dots, and attempting to do real research--and believe me, that is hard enough--and so when some intruder enters the picture, claiming that they were “on the grassy knoll,” or “in the autopsy room” or—in this instance—in the life of Lee Oswald, (who was, obviously, a major player in this affair, even if he was framed for a crime he did not commit) I must raise my hand and say “I object.” It is easy to argue about the evidence with someone with whose theories I disagree. But I simply cannot and will not stand idly by and watch someone mess up the historical record by bearing false witness. DSL 4/26/10; 2 AM Los Angeles, CA

Jack, Your research about the marmoset monkeys seems to be right on the money. But. . what does it matter if the small "marmoset" monkeys didn't exist back then? If you're writing fiction, you just draw on reality, as needed, and ignore such facts--which, to that kind of mentality, are not real, but just "facts". Some Hollywood producers, I am told, have an intense dislike for facts--because they get in the way of "making the movie." One has a sign on his desk (I was told) that said "reality sucks." And what are Tom Hanks and Bugliosi going to do with some of this nonsense? (I can only imagine). Anyway, the more I hear about this--between the physics experiments and the thousands of monkeys, Ferrie's apartment seems not particulary habitable but more and more seems to resemble some combination of the Stanford Linear Accelerator, and the Bronx Zoo. I have to wonder: when is Saturday Night Live going to start drawing on this thread, for some of their material? But truly, I have taken a glance at the statistics of this thread, with some bemusement. But also alarm. Its like watching the stock market, when prices go up and up and the stocks get more and more "overvalued" (as they say). One wonders: Will the number of posts really "break" 1600? (Yes, it did). What about the number of views--will it break 72,000? Maybe these statistics ought to be quoted, if only for a minute, on SQUAWK BOX or NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT. ("And tonight, the number of views, on the Judyth thread, has hit 72,000! This is one of the most interesting phenomenon since the Tulip Craze!") Although I appreciate the many serious posts, there also seems to be here a bull market for silliness. Well, I have had my teaspoon full of Judyth for the evening. Good night, all. DSL 4/24/10; 9:50 PM PDT Los Angeles, CA