Jump to content
The Education Forum

Doug Weldon

Members
  • Content Count

    326
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Doug Weldon

  1. 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.
  2. Jim: I would request something very simple that would not involve the cost of having the LHO handwriting analyzed. You have requested a tape from Lifton. I would ask that you have Judyth provide you a copy of the tape of her encounter with Mary Ferrell in which her account posted in this thread differs significantly from other accounts of the encounter. Review the tape and post whether or not it is consistent with her posted account. There should be no ambiquity. There should be no excuse (stolen, can't find, has been edited by others.) This would be an easy first step. I am sure that thi
  3. Jim: I would request something very simple that would not involve the cost of having the LHO handwriting analyzed. You have requested a tape from Lifton. I would ask that you have Judyth provide you a copy of the tape of her encounter with Mary Ferrell in which her account posted in this thread differs significantly from other accounts of the encounter. Review the tape and post whether or not it is consistent with her posted account. There should be no ambiquity. There should be no excuse (stolen, can't find, has been edited by others.) This would be an easy first step. I am sure that thi
  4. Josiah: I spent a number of hours with John Carl Day at his home with a police officer friend of mine (I believe in 1996). I recall asking him why he held back the one cartridge. I also asked him about what I thought was the most odd circumstance, why did the rifle not contain a full clip of ammunition? I remember getting strange responses but I will have to one day review my tapes with him. I still find the latter point of there not being a full clip to be the most disconcerting of all. I was saddened to hear of Day's passing. Though he became very flustered in trying to answer some of my
  5. Some excerpts from Marina Oswald's testimony: Q: Did you have occasion to have a conversation with Jesuit priest at that time who also spoke Russian? A: Yes, sir. Q: And was this done while the speech was going on, were you having a conversation while Lee was making the speech? A: I don't remember right now, sir, whether it was afterwards or before. Q: Do you recall telling the priest that you didn't know who Lee's friends (were) or what he did down in New Orleans at all? A: I don't remember right now, sir. Q: Do you know as a matter of your own knowledge what Lee was doing when he
  6. Kathy: Jim agrees that Judyth is a "damaged" witness." " I agree that makes her a "damaged witness". It does not make her story false. " Doug Weldon "
  7. A very simple response to your last point is that Judyth may have viewed the autopsy photos where it appears that Oswald may have been circumsized and used that as a basis for her response. She is admitting here that she had read the autopsy report but she may just be remembering the photo(s). Judyth is essentially admitting that she has read everything about Oswald. Who is more likely to create an elaborate story inserting themselves in the story, an intelligent and educated woman who has read everything about the subject or an average person who has read nothing? To me, Judyth's response is
  8. Monk: It does appear very "clinical." i do not even know where this originated but I went back through the thread and found this: Jack, I want to come back to this question when I have more evidence available to me. In the meanwhile, how do you know that "Lee" was uncircumcised? Something very strange is going on here and some form of photographic fakery appears to have taken place. I consider this to be a significant issue and am going to pursue it. I will discuss this with Judyth and conduct more research on the photographs. Jim In describing his eye color, tooth being replaced,
  9. John: I have been to several autopsies. I have never seen such a phenomena as the back turning purple or the foreskin changing but I suppose it could occur. Doug Weldon
  10. A very simple response to your last point is that Judyth may have viewed the autopsy photos where it appears that Oswald may have been circumsized and used that as a basis for her response. She is admitting here that she had read the autopsy report but she may just be remembering the photo(s). Judyth is essentially admitting that she has read everything about Oswald. Who is more likely to create an elaborate story inserting themselves in the story, an intelligent and educated woman who has read everything about the subject or an average person who has read nothing? To me, Judyth's response is
  11. A very simple response to your last point is that Judyth may have viewed the autopsy photos where it appears that Oswald may have been circumsized and used that as a basis for her response. She is admitting here that she had read the autopsy report but she may just be remembering the photo(s). Judyth is essentially admitting that she has read everything about Oswald. Who is more likely to create an elaborate story inserting themselves in the story, an intelligent and educated woman who has read everything about the subject or an average person who has read nothing? To me, Judyth's response is
  12. How come we can't say the same thing about Harvey and Lee? I have transferred this from another thread. It is nmore appropriate here. Jim: There is no way to prove or disprove what Judyth told Debra Conway. What is clear is Judyth's e-mail to Reitzes in 2000 in which Judyth notes that 0swald is uncircumcised. Unless you are contending that this e-mail has been altered it is very damning evidence against Judyth. have found these two posts by the late Rich DellaRossa to be very telling: > Rich, > Where did you get the idea that Nigel Turner expressed regret at > making "The L
  13. Jim: This is bizarre. These posts seem to be a typical argumentative ploy that when you are on the defense and do not have a good response than you either create a diversion or go on the offense. As I mentioned before there would have to be a corpus for Judyth to be charged with murder and nobody knows who the victim was or if there was a victim. If one was identified she could easily be extradicted. My point was to note that if she was truthful she was morally and technically guilty of murder. At this point, after her refusal to have evidence (Oswald's writing) analyzed, to address ques
  14. Jack, I found these posts by Rich concerning Judyth on acj and aaj : Judyth and Rich on her resignation, and the deletion of her posts : http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...9651e2455bfbf0a About Judyth and JFK Research forum: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...0f9a8955df0685a Judyth and Ed Haslam from the same area, Brandenton Fl: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...c0c366e47bde6c1 Judyth skeptical of H&L: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...740449f9766edf9 Kathy Kathy: Thanks. It is very interesting. Best, Doug Weldon
  15. I don't know why whomever suggested to Jack the possibility that they had already gotten married in Florida. It is easy enough to check if anyone cares to do that. But when it comes to why Judyth would "dissemble about something so basic as her marriage to Baker" ... she did tell two distinctly different versions of her wedding day. Both told in great specific detail. On thread page 151, post #2262, I replied to a question of Jack's saying this: Judyth's timeline in her book is that Robert was to arrive on the morning of May 1 and they would go straight to the courthouse to buy their licen
  16. It's difficult to read LHO's autopsy. It's not too clear. But I noticed one thing: Did it actually say "the pubic hair has been shaved"? The only reason I think a man would shave his pubic hair is if he had crabs. And he was circumsized. How could Judyth say he wasn't? It's something a girl notices... Kathy C Kathy: At that time it was very common for those in the homosexual community to shave their pubic hair. I would not place much stock in it as it could have been shaved in treating his wound to the abdomen. Doug Weldon
  17. Here ya go, Steve. This was an epistle written to Rich DellaRosa who posted it on his forum. Dave Reitzes posted it on the mod group a month later. It was just a year ago. The circumcision issue is in paragraphs 15 and 16. :-) It is full of so many tangled things ... including some claims about having provisional asylum in Sweden. And on the circumcision, she's putting a spin on it blaming Debra, making it sound like she had never told Debra LHO was not circumcised and trying to make it sound like Debra was saying she had a photo that showed he was *not* ... which makes no sense because if t
  18. Jack: In the podcasts Judyth refers to 65 pound monkeys. The circumcision issue is very telling. How does Judyth get around her 2000 e-mail? Doug Weldon What about the marmosets? That was the big issue last week. A 65 pound monkey is huge (chimp or baboon) and much more expensive than smaller species. Harvey (killed by Jack Ruby) WAS circumcised, according to his autopsy. Lee, born a Lutheran and not a Jew in New Orleans in 1939, very likely was NOT circumcised, as in those days it was not a routine operation, but a religious ceremony, done by a rabbi. I think the JVB amazon rev
  19. Jack: In the podcasts Judyth refers to 65 pound monkeys. The circumcision issue is very telling. How does Judyth get around her 2000 e-mail? Doug Weldon
  20. Jim: A hysterical response does not change reality. The simple facts are Judyth, if she is truthful, participated in creating a substance to kill Castro. Judyth became awre that the substance was going to be used on person(s) who lacked the capacity to know what was going to happen to them. She objected, knew that tests were being done, but did nothing. She visited one of the subjects who was dying in agony and again did nothing. Tell me why this is not muurder. There are a number of attorneys on this forum. Dean Hartwell has stated that he is a law school graduate and he is a supporter of yo
  21. I did not and have not criticized Dean. I called a spade a spade. [my emphasis]Doug -- "probably" ? You know better than that. It is not a "probably" situation--! It is absolutely wrong. If you are appealing to an argument of "human frailty or the human condition" that is all fine and good as a mitigating circumstance by which to justify Dean's perspective--but it fails to justify the lack of logic in the argument. Unfortunately, prejudices are part of the human experience. We are all "victims" of our experiences. No argument. I would like to move on. Let's put it this way. If Dea
  22. Jim: A hysterical response does not change reality. The simple facts are Judyth, if she is truthful, participated in creating a substance to kill Castro. Judyth became awre that the substance was going to be used on person(s) who lacked the capacity to know what was going to happen to them. She objected, knew that tests were being done, but did nothing. She visited one of the subjects who was dying in agony and again did nothing. Tell me why this is not muurder. There are a number of attorneys on this forum. Dean Hartwell has stated that he is a law school graduate and he is a supporter of y
×
×
  • Create New...