Jump to content
The Education Forum

Doug Weldon

Members
  • Content Count

    326
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Doug Weldon

  1. I understand what Karl, Greg and David are saying, but I don't buy it. Why would the Secret Service need to consult with a "trusted local native" at all? They had an office in the D/FW area staffed with professionals, and they also used advance agents on this trip. (Vince Palamara, does this make sense??) Why would the Secret Service pick a guy who, despite living in the area at various times in the past, had only been in the area for about a month, and thus was not up to date on any current threats? Why would they pick a guy with no known expertise in security or presidential protection? W
  2. Excellent, Greg. And you are as spot on about a "neutral venue" as Doug is in his response that this needs to be Judyth, on her own, speaking spontaneously, for herself. Many of us have questions we have asked ... and would like to ask ... Judyth. Doug could certainly handle that. Pre-recording because of time differences is a fine idea ... as long as the recording is not edited in any way. Kudos to you for thinking of this. Barb :-) I can assure you that there will be no editing at all. Pipedream. The last thing JVB wants is impartial intelligent questions by an unbiased emcee. Sh
  3. Just to be clear, I'm no friend. Indeed, I am now more skeptical than I have ever been! But, you are probably correct. They probably won't agree to such an arrangement. I hope that suggestion wasn't just designed for her to "get out" of it? That's another reason why I prefer Black OP Radio. I prefer Black Op Radio with Doug asking the questions, not me. However, I really am not "an easy mark" -- or a push over, either... Hell, I debated McAdams, didn't I? Monk: Coast to Coast would not allow a third party interviewer and the questions would likely be "soft ball" questions with Ed Has
  4. Well, in any event, the Life Magazine article's headline (or content) didn't say: "Vice President Wants JFK Dead Within a Week or So Due to Involvement with Billie Sol Estes and Other Sordid Scandals" So, that dog don't hunt, anyway. I'm very much "caught up" Doug! Thanks. The mere implication that Oswald was somehow "privy" to this information is inescapably absurd. If he said this to Judyth, it was nothing more than a fluke. But, in light of the aftermath, to believe that such a statistically implausible fluke actually occured, is beyond the pale. Perhaps Judyth will agree to be qu
  5. Just to be clear, I'm no friend. Indeed, I am now more skeptical than I have ever been! But, you are probably correct. They probably won't agree to such an arrangement. I hope that suggestion wasn't just designed for her to "get out" of it? That's another reason why I prefer Black OP Radio. I prefer Black Op Radio with Doug asking the questions, not me. However, I really am not "an easy mark" -- or a push over, either... Hell, I debated McAdams, didn't I? Monk: Coast to Coast would not allow a third party interviewer and the questions would likely be "soft ball" questions with Ed Has
  6. Monk: I am absolutely game. In the words of Gary Gilmore "Let's do it." (So, it needs to be cordial, but NOT restrained. Respectful adversity is acceptable.) My best, Doug Weldon
  7. Well, in any event, the Life Magazine article's headline (or content) didn't say: "Vice President Wants JFK Dead Within a Week or So Due to Involvement with Billie Sol Estes and Other Sordid Scandals" So, that dog don't hunt, anyway. I'm very much "caught up" Doug! Thanks. The mere implication that Oswald was somehow "privy" to this information is inescapably absurd. If he said this to Judyth, it was nothing more than a fluke. But, in light of the aftermath, to believe that such a statistically implausible fluke actually occured, is beyond the pale. Perhaps Judyth will agree to be qu
  8. [snip]======== Jim, I am probably way behind here, but is there anything besides Judyth's own statements that would tend to substantiate her claims about "posing as Marina"? For instance, was Marina documented as having been seen with Lee (or Harvey--whatever!) in New Orleans at a time when she [Marina] was supposedly still in Dallas? Such conflicting documentation would be very relevant in light of Judyth's claim. On the other side of the coin, if there is nothing indicating Marina was "in two places at the same time" (one location being New Orleans) there is no way for researchers to know
  9. [snip]======== Jim, I am probably way behind here, but is there anything besides Judyth's own statements that would tend to substantiate her claims about "posing as Marina"? For instance, was Marina documented as having been seen with Lee (or Harvey--whatever!) in New Orleans at a time when she [Marina] was supposedly still in Dallas? Such conflicting documentation would be very relevant in light of Judyth's claim. On the other side of the coin, if there is nothing indicating Marina was "in two places at the same time" (one location being New Orleans) there is no way for researchers to know
  10. Actually, what this is a nice example of is you popping off a shot at me prematurely and managing only to shoot yourself in the bee-hind. For the second time today, no less. The first time you leaped to the keyboard before you read everything I had said in my post. This time you go in for the kill without knowing whether or not Judyth's sayso was accurate, but go full throttle ahead and pile accusations of playing fast and loose with evidence upon my character anyway. If you are going to *ever* accuse me of altering evidence or being an unreliable source, I suggest you engage a little of tha
  11. I did not mean to imply that there is SHAME involved in not passing the bar. Many law school grads go on to be very successful businessmen. BUT I bet almost every law school grad at some point takes or studies to take the bar exam. Jack Jack: I agree with you. Doug Weldon
  12. DOUG, SHE HAS SPOKEN ON MANY OF THESE SUBJECTS. BUT IF YOU BELIEVE SOMEONE IS PROTECTING HER FROM WHAT YOU CALL FALSEHOODS, THERE IS NOTHING I CAN SAY TO YOU. So you went to all the trouble to become a Doctor of Jurisprudence, and then did not take the bar exam? Or did you take it and not pass? Jack Jack: Many people go to law school and never practice law. I don't know Dean's situation but many people who would have been great attorneys never pass the bar exam and there are idiots (some people might point to me) who do. There really is no rhyme or reason. In Michigan people who
  13. Doug, I do not acquiesce to your points. Your last message gave me the impression that you had nothing to say to me if I did not agree with points that you made. I have tried to reason with you by asking you why you bother to ask questions of someone with whom you appear to hold in contempt. Obviously, I have not succeeded. Considering your derisive tone toward Judyth, Jim and now (with your last message especially) me, I do not wish to make any further statements to you. Dean Dean: It is unfortunate that you believe that I have a derisive tone or ill will towards you (or Judyth
  14. Doug, I do not acquiesce to your points. Your last message gave me the impression that you had nothing to say to me if I did not agree with points that you made. I have tried to reason with you by asking you why you bother to ask questions of someone with whom you appear to hold in contempt. Obviously, I have not succeeded. Considering your derisive tone toward Judyth, Jim and now (with your last message especially) me, I do not wish to make any further statements to you. Dean Dean: It is unfortunate that you believe that I have a derisive tone or ill will towards you (or Judyth
  15. DOUG, SHE HAS SPOKEN ON MANY OF THESE SUBJECTS. BUT IF YOU BELIEVE SOMEONE IS PROTECTING HER FROM WHAT YOU CALL FALSEHOODS, THERE IS NOTHING I CAN SAY TO YOU. Dean: I guess your failure to address most of the points I raised must be construed as acquiescence. (The point about the handwriting were people determining two examples of handwriting were not the same person, not to determine if they were, in fact, the same person. if there is suspicion that Judyth forged the writing do you not agree that she should not be the person to authenticate it?) Since you are a law school graduate, i
  16. This is absolutely worthless! Judyth is taking her own testimony and is repeatedly tainting the witness, It sounds like she had prepped him also, otherwise why would he say: Baker: I don't know what you were able to see in the car. McGehee: Just saw the back of your head. That was all I saw. "your head?" She's even telling him it was a two toned car! If this is an example of how she prepped and approached Lewis and other witnesses it is far worse than I thought. Her paper on cancer could have been taken from an encyclopedia at the time. I look for evidence and there is nothing. Again, I w
  17. Doug, Your question [that I put in bold] suggests strongly that you do not trust what Jim or Judyth says. Why do you bother asking them questions? Dean Dean: I did not know that Judyth was a member and thus cannot understand now why any of this had to go through Jim. In fact, Judyth has answered NONE of my questions or other legitimate questions raised by others here, has refused to present the concrete proofs she claims she has, i.e., the handwriting ananlysis of oswald and the tape she claims she took at Mary Ferrels which she claims contradict what has been stated here. I cannot
  18. I hadn't heard this before. Professor, could you please ask Judyth to explain what message she sees? She is a member in good standing here, and should be able to view the Forum. I did not know this. If Judyth is a member why do her replies have to be filtered through Jim? Is it to protect her from stating something inappropriate? Doug Weldon Doug, Your question [that I put in bold] suggests strongly that you do not trust what Jim or Judyth says. Why do you bother asking them questions? Dean Dean: I did not know that Judyth was a member and thus cannot understand now why any
  19. This is absolutely worthless! Judyth is taking her own testimony and is repeatedly tainting the witness, It sounds like she had prepped him also, otherwise why would he say: Baker: I don't know what you were able to see in the car. McGehee: Just saw the back of your head. That was all I saw. "your head?" She's even telling him it was a two toned car! If this is an example of how she prepped and approached Lewis and other witnesses it is far worse than I thought. Her paper on cancer could have been taken from an encyclopedia at the time. I look for evidence and there is nothing. Again, I w
  20. I hadn't heard this before. Professor, could you please ask Judyth to explain what message she sees? She is a member in good standing here, and should be able to view the Forum. I did not know this. If Judyth is a member why do her replies have to be filtered through Jim? Is it to protect her from stating something inappropriate? Doug Weldon
  21. However, you ended the sentence this way: Jim interprets that as meaning "Since it has been established that JVB's word counts for nothing, then...." which he objects to as fallacious and an unfair characterization. He would be correct, IF that was your intended meaning, but it was not. Your meaning is that NOBODY can ALONE corroborate their OWN statements, including JVB! The circularity of allowing anyone to do so is absurd on its face. So, in that sense, any such self corroboration--offered by anyone about their own claims, is worthless, in that it has no substantiation value by itself.
  22. 3: March 11, 2002: Judyth wrote Mary a very strong email telling Mary it wasn't too late for her to take it all back, etc, saying in one part: "It is not too late to post a retraction of your statement, Mary, ** at least on the points that I'm lying, delusional, and/or 'dangerous.' ** For the sake of your own reputation, consider it. ** I will be presenting solid evidence to defend myself against your negative statements concerning my sanity, my veracity, my witness, and my character. ** I will have to describe the actions and words of those who have aupported me-- and those who
  23. However, you ended the sentence this way: Jim interprets that as meaning "Since it has been established that JVB's word counts for nothing, then...." which he objects to as fallacious and an unfair characterization. He would be correct, IF that was your intended meaning, but it was not. Your meaning is that NOBODY can ALONE corroborate their OWN statements, including JVB! The circularity of allowing anyone to do so is absurd on its face. So, in that sense, any such self corroboration--offered by anyone about their own claims, is worthless, in that it has no substantiation value by itself.
  24. However, you ended the sentence this way: Jim interprets that as meaning "Since it has been established that JVB's word counts for nothing, then...." which he objects to as fallacious and an unfair characterization. He would be correct, IF that was your intended meaning, but it was not. Your meaning is that NOBODY can ALONE corroborate their OWN statements, including JVB! The circularity of allowing anyone to do so is absurd on its face. So, in that sense, any such self corroboration--offered by anyone about their own claims, is worthless, in that it has no substantiation value by itself.
  25. Anyone writing historical fiction writes of the people as real persons. Doug Weldon
×
×
  • Create New...