Todd W. Vaughan

"The question that I ask is in the light of Ozzie's satement that he did not own a rifle, a statement which I think was was subjected to a voice stress analization test," No, it was not.

You see someone behidn the wall Dean?

Thanks Chris. That's going to be the Chism's, who were standing near the Stemmons sign and ran up the knoll a bit to take cover. They then picked up their son and ran down the knoll onto the sidewalk and towards the underpass, as seen in Bothun, Rickerby, Grant, etc.

I have made countless post stating that the BDM is the same figure in Moorman's Polaroid ... I think I even stated this several times in this thread. I do not think there was a shot after Z315.6. I think the head shot was fired between Z312 and Z313 with the last shot Between Z315 and Z316. I believe this caused what Kellerman described as a sonic-boom sound. Bill Bill, I know you've said that BDM is the same figure in Moorman's Polaroid , I just can't believe it, given that no human is visible behind the wall in Mooreman. Todd

If you are referring to a black couple fleeing ... my recollection was that the couple in the reports were on the Underpass and not the knoll. I seem to recall seeing a post shooting photo of the underpass which showed a black man on the north side of it. Hargis also seems to be talking about those people..Mr. HARGIS - Yes; when President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of bloody water, It wasn't really blood. And at that time the Presidential car slowed down. I heard somebody say, "Get going," or "get going," Mr. STERN - Someone inside-- Mr. HARGIS - I don't know whether it was the Secret Service car, and I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine shot off, and I stopped and got off my motorcycle and ran to the right-hand side of the street, behind the light pole. Mr. STERN - Just a minute. Do you recall your impression at the time regarding the source of the shots? Mr. HARGIS - Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn't any way in the world I could tell where they were coming from, but at the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered, with blood--I was Just a little back and left of--Just a little bit back and left of Mrs. Kennedy, but I didn't know. I had a feeling that it might have been from the Texas Book Depository, and these two places was the primary place that could have been shot from. Mr. STERN - You were clear that the sounds were sounds of shots? Mr. HARGIS - Yes. sir: I knew they were shots. Mr. STERN - All right, what did you do then? You say you parked your motorcycle? Mr. HARGIS - Yes, uh-huh---- Mr. STERN - Where? Mr. HARGIS - It was to the left-hand side of the street from---south side of Elm Street. Mr. STERN - And then what did you--- Mr. HARGIS - I ran across the street looking over towards the railroad overpass and I remembered seeing people scattering and running and then I looked. Mr. STERN - People on the overpass? Mr. HARGIS - Yes ; people that were there to see the President I guess- They were taking pictures and things. It was kind of a confused crowd. I don't know whether they were trying to hide or see what was happening or what-and then I looked over to the Texas School Book Depository Building, and no one that was standing at the base of the building was--seemed to be looking up at the building or anything like they knew where the shots were coming from so--- Mr. STERN - How about the people on the incline on the north side of Elm Street? Do you recall their behavior? Mr. HARGIS - Yes; I remember a man holding a child. Fell to the gound and covered his child with his body, and people running everywhere, trying to get out of there, I guess, and they were about as confused as to where the shots were coming from as everyone else was. Mr. STERN - And did you run up the incline on your side of Elm Street? Mr. HARGIS - Yes, sir; I ran to the light post, and I ran up to this kind of a little wall, brick wall up there to see if I could get a better look on the bridge, and, of course. I was looking all around that place by that time. I knew it couldn't have come from the county courthouse because that place was swarming with deputy sheriffs over there. Mr. STERN - Did you get behind the picket fence that runs from the overpass to the concrete wall? Mr. HARGIS - No. Mr. STERN - On the north side of Elm Street? Mr. HARGIS - No, no; I don't remember any picket fence. . It was certain to those of us looking at Groden's 35MM film in the lab. The figure was moving to his left and down. Maybe you have not seen it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen on the print we saw in the lab. I am only able to share with you what I witnessed. I am aware that there are people who believe a lot of things for what ever reason ... I can only go by cross referencing the witnesses to one another. Betzner said he snapped his photo and then the first shot sounded. Willis said he heard the first shot and snapped his picture. Mary Woodward said the President was looking at her who he was passing and smiling when the first shot sounded. She went on to say how the President then stopped his wave and brought his hand in towards him. This can be seen on the Zapruder film between Z186 and Z202. Of course this doesn't preclude someone from ignoring this evidence and going with something else ... its just my view. I was thinking of the Flynn photo taken at the bench, but fair enough. The Darnell film shows only a puddle on the sidewalk. I would ask that you break a few bottles on the sidewalk and see if the liquid inside splatters in all directions or stays in a contained puddle as pouring something onto the ground does. The Darnell puddle on the sidewalk is well known, but the last time I remembered it being debated, the general observation was that it was a puddle and not a splattered substance. As much as I liked Jean ... I also remember a few other things she had said that wasn't accurate. But if we are talking a smashed bottle with pieces that could make someone think they were looking like crushed ice, then I must lean to thinking that the puddle seen in the Darnell film must be another magic bullet. Bill Bill, Yes, the Cancellare or Cabluck (I can’t recall which right now) photo shows what appears to be a black man on the overpass, partially visible. But a black man does not equate with a black couple. But regardless, my believe in the black couple is in no way dependent on Hargis. I’ve seen the Groden Nix work in his videos. You can’t make out any real human features. There is motion of something moving in an arc like fashion from right to left and from high to low. As I said before, it could easily be an arm moving. But like I said, to definitely say as you do that it's a "lone individual…going to the ground" is nowhere near certain, and is nothing but speculation. “The figure was moving to his left and down.” …Ah, so now Gorden’s Nix work is definitive enough that you’ve determined gender. Exactly how did you do that? Let’s save the timing of the first shot for another day. The Flynn photo doesn’t even show the sidewalk. And what, you think that the Darnell film proves that there was absolutley 100% no spatter in addition to the obvious puddle? You must have that super-duper version of the Darnell film, shot in color HD with Darnell zooming in on the puddle. C’mon Bill. Why couldn’t a very hurried look at a broken bottle of red pop on the ground cause Jean Hill to think it was a dropped sno cone - she thought there was a dog in the car with JFK, for God’s sake. Todd

You must have a far more advanced analytical mind than my own. If one believes that Arnold or a black couple was the BDM image ... are you thinking there are people who think Arnold or the black couple shot JFK in the throat? I do not think the BDM figure had anything to do with the shooting other than being a witness to it. BDM is seen before the first shot was fired (Z186). Other than a slight camera angle difference thus shifting the background slightly with the foreground ... the Willis photo shows no change. (Z202) The figure still standing above the wall in Moorman (Z315.6) still hasn't been effected by the shooting. Still standing in plain view ... not ducking down or running ... but when the last shot was fired, this individual moved left and down as if heading to the ground. My point being is that there is no evidence that BDM's activity was related to the throat shot to JFK in my view. Bill Bill, You think BDM can be seen in Moorman? And you think there was ashot after Z-315.6? Todd

Just how long after the alleged fleeing black couple was said to run off before Hargis gave chase? Bill Hargis parked and got off his motorcycle right after the headshot. In the Weigman film as the limousine is at about the Z450 position, Hargis is off and parking his cycle, 7.5 seconds after the headshot.

Todd, I am sure you do not believe the photos were altered and would probably also agree that newspaper reports in situations like this during moments of mayhem are often unreliable. There is no doubt that the black couple left the walkway area, however the photo record doesn't show them doing so anytime between Betzner's photo being taken before the first shot rang out right through to the Nix film showing the one lone individual up there going to the ground. I can see someone who is an alteration supporter considering the black couple being at the bench, but those who do not cannot have it both ways. I think in the Betzner photo the pyracantha bush blocks the corner of Elm and Houston, which could cause someone sitting on the bench to get up and move to a better vantage point. Also, (not related to this response), I know Sitzman mentioning a bottle breaking, but none of the assassination films and photos show broken glass along the walkway. The only liquid seen looks to be confined to one puddle as if poured out ... and certainly not from a bottle smashing against the concrete. I hear this continually coming up and I just wanted to mention it. Thanks, Bill Bill, Yes, I do not believe the photos (or films) were altered and yes, I agree that newspaper reports in situations like this during moments of mayhem are often unreliable. However there are several reports of this, from different reporters, and not just newspaper reports but also radio reports. I have a file of these reports that I am trying to find (things are still in a disarray due to a move).. As for “the Nix film showing the one lone individual up there going to the ground”, I’m not convinced the Nix film shows any such thing. It shows movement, I agree, movement can be seen, and that it appears to be downward movement of something, but perhaps that’s just an arm coming down. To definitely say as you do that it’s a “lone individual…going to the ground” is nowhere near certain. I don’t believe that the 1st shot occurred between Betzner 3 (Z-186) and Willis 5 (Z202). As for “none of the assassination films and photos show broken glass along the walkway”,, I’m not sure that any should. The only film that really shows ANYTHING on the walkway (there are no “photos” as you imply) is the Darnell film, and the resolution on available copies and stills coupled with the view point of the camera, is nowhere near what is needed to be able to distinguish whether or not there was glass present. Regarding the broken bottle, remember Jean Hills sno-cone from her WC testimony? Her diagram made during her testimony, Hill (Jean) Exhibit No. 5 at 20H158 places this on the walkway (look carefully at the exhibit, the stairway is drawn in and that is where she places the “blood”). I speculate that what she took to be a dropped sno-cone (ice and red liquid in her mind) was actually broken glass fragments and red pop (looking like ice and red liquid). Todd

Let us examine the alternatives ... 1) Arnold being there would certainly explain how he knew what to say so to not ever have the photo record prove him a xxxx. I am not sure what you meant by stepping back into shadow because the same shaped sunspot seen on the BDM in Betzner is at the same location on the individual in Willis and Moorman. Unless we believe that at least two different people stood on the same location (one leaving and one coming), then its tough to explain the same sunspot hitting both individuals for the sunspot is light passing down through the trees above. A big step in any direction removes the sunspot. Arnold was said to be concerned about the wrong people ever finding out he was up there ... Golz had to coax Gordon to talk at all. It would have been better for Gordon to have mentioned the black kids if that had been the case. I consider #2 to be weak and not be supported by the record. What story could Gordon have adopted ... Groden's Nix work came in the 90's and Mack and White's work was in the 80's. It's not enough to have said JFK was shot from the knoll, but Arnold knew that the shot came over his left shoulder and at the precise time it needed to so to be supported by two film sources ... two sources by the way that were not known about for at least two decades. Then there is the best image showing this individual wearing the color clothing needed to match Gordon's uniform. This was even more supported by the color Nix film. Bill FWI, Grodens Nix work first appeared in the early 1980's in his first video, one he produced for Western New England College. I have a copy.

Ken, What am I missing here? There is no "they" according to the Nix film ... only one person is seen in the Nix film print I was able to view and that one person dropped from view after the shot from the fence. Had it not been for Moorman's photo and the Nix print Groden had ... I could accept the possibility that you offer, but they cannot be dismissed. There isd no testimony of anyone seeing the black couple in that area after Sitzman last saw them well before the shooting took place ... if there is, then can someone show it to me? Bill FWIW, there are news reports, both radio and newspaper as I recall, of a black couple being seen "scrambling" (I think is how one reads) along a walkway after the shooting. Todd, Thanks for joining in. Appreciate your input. The original report came from AP's Jack Bell, mentioning a man and woman but with no reference to color. On CBS, Walter Cronkite said: ". . . this man and woman we reported earlier were on a hilltop, were seen scrambling to the upper level of a walkway overlooking an underpass which the car was approaching." In this case, he was referring to the Hesters scrambling around at the top of the knoll. However. . . Way back in 1964, author Thomas Buchanan referred to radio reports about a fleeing couple who could not have been the Hesters. Buchanan said: "The first radio reports which followed the assassination said the fleeing couple had been chased by a policeman on a motorcycle, who had raced up an embankment after them, but his pursuit presumably was thwarted by a wire fence which protects a parking lot behind which they were heading." These reports must have been referring to the young black couple. There's no one else it could be. Not in this context. Meanwhile, the policeman on a motorcyle who was racing in their direction -- giving the appearance that he was chasing them as they fled to the parking lot -- was apparently none other than Bobby Hargis. His "pursuit" up the knoll not only gives us an early confirmation of Sitzman's story but also provides us with an approximate time at which point this couple ran off. Ken Ken, Thanks for your reply - . I find them, and your posts in general, to always be very insightful. We should talk sometime. Yes, I’m familiar with the Jack Bell report – I listened to it just last night. I'm not so sure that the Bell report is referring to the Hesters, though I certainly have and do continue to consider that. However there are reports that specifically mention a “negro” man/woman/couple. I think this is in a newspaper report, a radio report, and perhaps a TV report. I have a file on this that I’m trying to locate that has the newspaper reports, and I’m trying to locate the radio and TV report. The Buchannan passage is interesting, and I was unaware of it, however I have a lot of the radio coverage for that day and have so far never heard anything like that. As far as Hargis running up the knoll, he did not, despite his seeming claim to have in his somewhat confusing WC testimony. It was Haygood who ran up the knoll. Films and photos show that Hargis parked his motorcycle on the south side of Elm Street (Weigman, Bond 4, Bothun 4). We next see him (Bell) standing hear the lamppost nearest the fallen Newmans on the north side of Elm Street. We then see him run from there (Couch) back to his cycle (Bond 4), remount (Bothun 4), and continue down Elm through the underpass (Atkins, just barely). Haygood then parks his cycle at the north Elm curb near the manhole opening (Couch, Bell, etc,) and runs up the knoll (Bond, Cabluck, Skaggs, Cancellare, etc.) Nonetheless, certainly Hargis’s actions could have given the appearance that he was chasing them as they fled to the parking lot, as you suggest. Haygood arrives too late for that. The “cycle up the knoll” witnesses are perplexing. There are several of them, but the films and photos show no such thing occurred. I do have one report that indicates that it may have occurred on the West side of the underpass. Todd

Ken, What am I missing here? There is no "they" according to the Nix film ... only one person is seen in the Nix film print I was able to view and that one person dropped from view after the shot from the fence. Had it not been for Moorman's photo and the Nix print Groden had ... I could accept the possibility that you offer, but they cannot be dismissed. There isd no testimony of anyone seeing the black couple in that area after Sitzman last saw them well before the shooting took place ... if there is, then can someone show it to me? Bill FWIW, there are news reports, both radio and newspaper as I recall, of a black couple being seen "scrambling" (I think is how one reads) along a walkway after the shooting.

Jim, What exactly do you mean by “Why not throw in Todd Vaughn (sic)”? Do you doubt me when I say that I’ve obtained several dented cartridge cases when firing my Carcano? Todd

Maybe if you were paid you'd repsond to your PMs and emails.

Before I reply to your latest post, let me ask you a question, Jim. Do you really think I’m an “infiltrator”? Do you really think I’m a “:spook”, sent to infiltrate the JFK research community, that I have a handler I report to, get instructions from? Do you REALLY believe that?

JIM: “Wow Todd.” Wow is right. Wow, I see you’re still making things up. JIM: “I brought the rifle to Dearborn, or my colleague did? Neither of us ever had one to bring. The guy who brought us there did not have one either. And it has never been a part of any presentation I ever did. Whew.” I never said or implied that YOU brought the rifle. You made that up. I suggested, with a question mark, that perhaps your “colleague” Dennis did, but I didn’t say he did. What I said was that “it was someone else’s who was there”. Did you not read that? Did you read it but just not comprehend it? Why would you imply that I said it was YOU that brought the rifle? Oh, wait – SPIN, DiEugenio-style. I get it. JIM: “After my talk, which you and Myers interrupted throughout--especially during my discussion of Oswald's life-- you both approached me. We didn’t interrupt your talk “throughout. People in the audience were raising their hands with questions from time to time and you were accommodating them. I don’t recall asking any specific questions myself, but I would only have done so after raising my hand and being acknowledged by YOU. At one point Dale asked you a question about something you had said about Walter Cronkite being involved in the conspiracy and/or cover-up. . So no, we didn’t interrupt your talk “throughout”. You made that up. JIM” Myers pulled out a small electrical device which contained his early version of his BS simulation. You said words to the effect, "This is really something." Since I did not know what I was watching, I could not have made any evaluative comments. I may have been impressed by the technology for that time” Your claim that you “did not know what (you were) watching” is absurd – it was explained to you by Dale, and anyone with an interest in case and half of a brain would know what they were watching. Your claim that “I could not have made any evaluative comments” is equally absurd. Your words, after viewing Dales early reconstruction video were, “Wow! That’s impressive. Have you showed this to Dr. Mantik yet?” JIM: “Now, the above is a perfect example of you and Myers doing the kind of thing that Mack and Perry did at Jim Marrs' class at UT. You knew what the approach would be, you knew you disagreed. You came anyway. You disrupted the presentation and then you went ahead and did your MC and video stuff supporting the WC.” I came to your little Dearborn meeting because a friend of my father’s found a flyer for the meeting on her car that had been parked in a Dearborn Michigan shopping mall and, knowing my interest in the case, passed it on to my father, who in turn let me know about it. Dale lived close by at the time and I asked him if he wanted to go. We’ve both been interested in this case since 1975 – why wouldn’t we go to a local speech on the assassination? The video “stuff” was shown only to you– it wasn’t like we got up and spoke before the whole room. Similar thing with the MC “stuff” – that was part of a discussion with a few people about firing the rifle. You act like it was a huge “black op” intelligence operation. JIM: “Now you also say that the purpose of this demonstration was to show you could fire the rifle without taking it off the shoulder. Well, I guess so, that is without ammunition and no explosion in the chamber. What that proves is your secret. But you were eager to show me” Your whole demonstration of this MC thing is to surmount what the FBI did with the rifle and what the early critics did with those results. You can dress that up anyway you want: put rouge on it, mascara, curl its hair, draw eyeliner, whatever. But that is what the purpose of it was. And this has been the purpose of the Gang of Three for about as long as I have known you. That is, to somehow show that the early WC critics were wrong iin their deductions, and Oswald somehow could have done what they say he could not have.” First off, it was an off the cuff, on the spot, “demonstration”, Jim, I essentially asked the owner of the rifle if I could see the rifle for a moment to show him something, because in HIS demonstration he was taking the rifle of his shoulder after every shot and every time he worked the bolt. Even you should be able to see that added time to recycle and fire the rifle – unnecessary time. I simple showed him that someone familiar with bolt action firearms could operate the bolt without taking the rifle off of their shoulder each time. And ammunition or no ammunition makes no difference – that you think it would reveals your ignorance about firearms and shooting. In fact if we had been firing live rounds the recoil would only have served to drive the rifle deeper into the shoulder of the shooter. JIM: “When I emailed Harry about you and his group, I asked him why he would allow people like you in it. He said words to the effect that he was open to all at this time. And that was it. This coincides with your behavior in the past--at Dearborn and at conferences. If you did not do anything as part of it, its probably because the group never went anywhere. Which, considering Livingstone's personality, was predictable.” What I said was the truth: Harry put my name on that list without consulting me first, and I never had anything to do with the group nor would I have had it come to fruition. And I called Harry out for doing it. What YOU said, that I joined that group as an “infiltrator”, was/is not the truth. You made that up. As for your emailing Harry, what did you expect him to email you back - “I put Todd’s name on the list without his permission and he called me and was upset about that.” Come on, Jim. JIM:”When I said you upheld the WC at conferences, I did not mean in whatever private conversations we had. I meant in public. I only spoke “in public” one time, Jim – at ASK 93. Before that I had not, so I could not have been upholding the WC “at every conference”. JIM: “And this perfectly illustrates my point about having it both ways. If you really did believe in Nagells' story or that Gordon was TUM, how could you uphold the WC? Which is something you do.” You’re apparently ignorant of the fact that, according to Nagell, Oswald was “up to his ears” in the conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Further, Nagell has intimated at least once or twice that Oswald was a gunman in Dealey Plaza. JIM:”This relates to my other question which you never answered: Oh, you mean the part you added to the original post after I had already read it and began formulate a response to offline. Kind of disingenuous tactic, don’t you think, Jim? Post something, let enough time pass for me to read what you posted and start replying, then edit your post to add something and, when my reply doesn’t address what you added, claim I ignored it. JIM: “Have you ever denounced the complete fraud that Secrets of a Homicide is? You say that you felt obligated to go after Thomas and McKnight's critiques of Reclaiming History. You say they were error filled. Yet, are you really going to say that--the site from which you did this, Secrets of a Homicide, is not error filled? No, Jim, I have never “denounced the complete fraud that Secrets of a Homicide is”. I’ve seen the critiques of Myers work by Cranor and Mantik, etc. and frankly I think they fall far short of the mark and are themselves error filled and certainly biased. Now, YOU want to talk about “complete fraud” as it relates to the trajectory analysis of the SBT? Good, Then let’s start with the diagram on page 101 of YOUR book, Destiny Betrayed. What the hell is that? It looks like it was done by a 4th grader. Among other things, it’s not even close to being anatomically correct, it’s not to scale, it doesn’t relate to any Zapruder film frame, and it has Governor Connally sitting higher than President Kennedy. Now, compare your fraudulent diagram with my trajectory analysis of the SBT on page 146 of Pictures of the Pain. Mine is anatomically correct, it’s to scale, it relates to Zapruder film frame 223, and it has Governor Connally sitting in a correct relationship to President Kennedy. Who’s being deceitful now? Answer? Jim DiEugenio, who wants his readers to think that the SBT diagram on page 101 of his book is an accurate representation of how president Kennedy and Governor Connally were seated and of the path the SBT had to have taken. Talk about complete fraud. JIM:”I await your answer. Should be interesting.” You bet, and you’ll spin it any way in which you see fit.

JIM: “I made up nothing Todd.” Sure you did, Jim, you made up a lot about me, as we will see. JIM: “Russo uses you in his book to demonstrate that Oswald could get off three shots in six seconds. SImple as that.” No it’s not as simple as that. What you originally claimed was that “There you were taking part in Russo's pitiful book and saying that it was no real problem for Oswald to fire three rounds in six seconds, or so.” Russo’s write up of my Carcano test is on page 476 and 477 of Live By The Sword. No where there (or anywhere else in the book) do I say anything like “it was no real problem for Oswald to fire three rounds in six seconds, or so. You made that up. JIM: “Livingstone listed you as a member of his group. Simple as that. You just admitted to working with the guy. I even asked him about this via e mail.” Again no, it’s not as simple as that. As I’ve already told you, Livingston put my name on that flyer without consulting me. I was never part of his group. Ever – in any way shape or form. And my helping him on his acoustics chapter had nothing to do with his group. You claimed that I joined his group to infiltrate it. I did not. You made that up. JIM: “You did attend many conferences in the nineties. Every time I saw you you were upholding the WC. And you did so with relish. Did I miss something?” Yes, you did miss something –the truth as you should know it. The only JFK conferences I’ve attended were the ASK conferences in 91, 92 and 93, and the Chicago conferences in 92 and 93. At either the 91 or 92 ASK conference, or perhaps the 92 Chicago conference, I had a discussion with you on Nagell and his story, in which I told you that I found (and still do find) highly intriguing and wanted more information on it . You had none. And at one of these conferences we also discussed Gordon Novel and I told you I thought there was a good chance that he was TUM. We discussed the PSE test Novel took for Cutler. I even sent you a complete copy of the PSE test a week or so later. I also asked you about the claim in Tom Miller’s book, The Assassination Please Almanac, that Garrison found a firearms book in Ferrie’s apartment after his death that had notations in it of distances and angles of cartridge shell ejections patterns. You knew nothing about it (though I see it mentioned in Davy’s Let Justice Be Done). And of course I pursued numerous conspiracy related matters with others at the conferences. It was only at the 93 ASK conference that I spoke of anything even remotely upholding the WC, where I spoke in favor of the SBT trajectory regarding its trajectory component. So your claim that “Every time I saw you you were upholding the WC.” is simply not true. You made that up. JIM: “Are you also going to say you forgot meeting me in Dearborn and doing your MC demonstration for me--the gun was not loaded Todd-- and telling me how great Myers simulation was? Which he also showed me at the time.” That was not my gun, Jim, it was someone else’s who was there (was it Dennis’s?). And the only demonstration I did there with it was to show whoever had it and was dry firing it there that they didn’t need to completely take the weapon off of their shoulder to cycle the bolt each time they fired it like they were doing. I demonstrated that by not doing that, one could get shots off a lot quicker. Was the gun loaded? Of course it wasn’t – we were in a public place. So this wasn’t my “MC demonstration”, in the sense that it wasn’t the live fire test firing that I had done a few month earlier in a remote location in northern Michigan. As for Myers simulation, Myers showed a rather early version to you and it was YOU who got all excited, exclaiming “Wow! That’s impressive. Have you showed this to Dr. Mantik yet” I never said “how great Myers simulation was”. You made that up. JIM: “You did not go after any of the critics of VB's book at Myers site?” I went after Don Thomas’s and Gerald McKnight’s reviews of Reclaiming History, each of which were loaded with errors and outright distortions and misrepresentations of the factual record in the case. I notice that in your haste to cast me an evil infiltrator you conveniently ignore the two scathing articles at Dale’s site that I wrote (with Dale) about an article by WC supporters Max Holland and Johan Rush. http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2007-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&updated-max=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=40 and.. http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/12/cherry-picking-evidence-of-first-shot.html So yeah, Jim, you did make stuff up, quite a lot actually. But it only takes one instance to have YOUR credibility and your honesty called into question.

Jim, From your article at http://www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_myers.html QUTOE ON In that article I wrote about a man who approached me during the Dallas ASK conference back in 1993. During my closing night speech, I talked about the PBS special Russo worked on and I also mentioned a weird letter attorney Mark Zaid had sent me. The man had listened to my address and he told me that, from his past SDS experience, Russo and Zaid fit the profiles of infiltrators. I included it in my essay, but I did not agree with him at the time. Today, after many years more experience with Russo, Myers, Vaughn, and even Zaid, plus the net worth of both the 1993 PBS special and the 2003 ABC special that both Myers and Russo worked on, I think he was right. Its the only way to explain why the Gang of Three kept on going to conferences way past the time they had flip-flopped on the issue of Oswald's guilt. A great example of this would be Vaughn's relationship with Harrison Livingstone. After the organization Coalition on Political Assassinations was formed, Livingstone tried to create a rival group. On the flyer Livingstone sent out for his group, Vaughn was listed as a member. Why? To tell the members during meetings that they were all wrong? Oswald did it. They should disband. It makes no sense. On the surface. But if your agenda was different than the members, it does make sense. By staying inside the group you could makes speeches attacking their research and goals, thereby creating dissension and disturbances. (I detail specific instances where Russo did this in my article.) Secondly, you could monitor the newest developments and then try to think up ways to counter them in your journeys to the other side. QUOTE OFF The fact is that Livingston listed me on his silly little “Coalition on Political Assassinations” flyer without my permission. He never asked me nor did he inform me that he was going to do so. And I was never a member of his “Coalition on Political Assassinations”, which I don’t think ever got off the ground anyways. Nor did I ever attend any meetings if it did. Why did Livingston do that? Probably because around that time I had helped or been helping him with the chapter of his book “Killing the Truth” on the acoustics, and I suppose he thought it would be ok with me. Well it was not, as I let him know shortly after I found out about it. Needless to say we had a falling out thereafter - of course MOST people had a falling out with Livingston at one point or another. As to why I went to JFK conferences in 1991, 1992, and 1993, as if I have to explain myself to you, I did so because I was interested in the assassination – is that so hard for you to believe? And exactly what conferences did I “keep on going to” after 1993 as you claim? The answer is none! Let me ask you Jim, instead of making this crap up about me, why didn’t you just contact me and ask me about it? Todd

Jim In your article at… http://www.ctka.net/...iosi_myers.html You write… “If Russo needs someone to get off three shots in six seconds for his book, Vaughn can do that. (It doesn't matter if he isn't firing at moving targets or if the gun isn't loaded.)” Could you please tell me exactly what you mean by “It doesn't matter if…the gun isn't loaded”. Thanks. Todd

"You know Todd, this is what I have learned to dislike about you." What's that Jim, me asking you to support a claim you made about me? You've got to be kidding me. The Gang of Three. Thats some hilarious stuff Jim. Since in your article you mention Russo, Myers, Zaid, and myself, who exactly is in the Gang of Three? I never did shooting experiments with McAdams. I did however, let him and others fire my Carcano at a informal gathering of researcher in Grand Rapids, Michigan put on by Steve Barber. If you had been there I would have let you shoot as well. I display(ed) things like the Croft photo? Oh no, Jim, NOT THAT!!! What will be next, me displaying things like the Altgens photo or the Bond photos? NOT THAT TOO! Taking part in Russos book? He wrote a page or two in his book (a bit incorrectly I might add) about a shooting experiment I had done with my Carcano and had told him about. How does that equate with taking part in his book? As for Myers, I suggested that if you or anyone else has questions about his Secrets of a Homicide video, you or they should ask him, not me. Just as Id suggest to that anyone that has questions about your work that they ask you and not, say, Lisa Pease. The articles that I wrote on Dales website were not replies to those who did not like the book Myers co-wrote, Reclaiming History, rather they were articles regarding the the factual record in the case. Perhaps you should go back and actually read what I wrote. And I NEVER pushed Dales video, whatever that means. So, back to your claim that I wrote or said something about LHO hanging out of the window to shoot at Kennedy on Houston street in order to counter Stones movie. I see you still cant support your claim with the type of proper academic sourcing you asked of someone else here to support what they said. Rather, you now revert to trying to support your ever-changing bogus claim by saying I was in the middle of people who were planning on doing just that. What a hoot, Jim. Makes you out as quite the hypocrite, dont you think? I see that once again, despite a reminder, youve failed to deal with my question to you about your claim about me and my Carcano being loaded. I posted that question earlier in the thread, remember? . Ill repost it for you.

LOL! So now it's not an article from one of the “JFK journals back in the early nineties” but rather it "might" have been a “clipping” of a quote from me. In another thread somewhere in this forum you wrote, asking another poster, "About these quotes for these witnesses: please supply the proper academic sourcing for them." I as you now, can YOU provide the “proper academic sourcing” for YOUR claim about what I supposedly wrote (or what I supposedly said, depending on which version you choose to tell)? And again, could you please address the other issue I raised regarding your claims about me in your article? Bump, for Jim.

LOL! So now it's not an article from one of the “JFK journals back in the early nineties” but rather it "might" have been a “clipping” of a quote from me. In another thread somewhere in this forum you wrote, asking another poster, "About these quotes for these witnesses: please supply the proper academic sourcing for them." I as you now, can YOU provide the “proper academic sourcing” for YOUR claim about what I supposedly wrote (or what I supposedly said, depending on which version you choose to tell)? And again, could you please address the other issue I raised regarding your claims about me in your article?

Jim, You’re wrong on all counts. I’ve never written anything published in a journal/newsletter to “counter Stone’s film”. And I’ve only written for 2 journals/newsletters - The Continuing Inquiry in the early 1980’s and The Grassy Knoll Gazette in the mid 1980s, And I’ve never written anything for Deannie RIchards publication. So, I’d appreciate you correcting your article to remove the bogus claim that ““To counter the film JFK, Vaughn can write that for Oswald to have fired his rifle with Kennedy's limo below him, rather than further down on Elm Street, he would have been hanging out the Texas School Book Depository window. ( I was there in 1991, he wouldn't have been.)” Also, could you please address the other issue I raised regarding your claims about me in your article? Todd

Jim, He said he listed Trask or Myers books "For their scholarship, thoroughness and excellent documentation". Given that context that you would even begin to suggest that Grodens books should be ranked ahead of them is, frankly, ridiculous. Todd

Jim, While my memory could be off, I don't recall writing anything for any of the JFK journals in the early 90's, and I’d appreciate a citation for your claim. I don't think I've ever claimed that "if someone was going to shoot at the limo on Houston,...he would be hanging out the window exposing himself.". While I do think that if someone were to shoot at the limo while it was on Houston he would be quite possibly exposing himself in the window to the spectators, police, and Secret Service agents below, I certainly don’t think he would have to be “hanging out the window” to do so. Lastly, your “…that for Oswald to have fired his rifle with Kennedy's limo below him, rather than further down on Elm Street, he would have been hanging out the Texas School Book Depository window.”, says nothing about Houston Street, and the “rather than further” portion of “rather than further down on Elm Street” implies that when you wrote “with Kennedy's limo below him” you were talking about below him on Elm Street, not Houston Street. Todd

Among others, I'd also suggest Shaw and Harris Cover-Ups.