Doug Weldon

The distance from D.C. to Dearborn is 520 miles but hey, if someone wants to make up facts, what difference does a figure make? Let's just pull one out of the air and later state it as a fact because it makes it easier to say later that it was on the internet that the distance was 850 miles.

Jack. here are the contradictory statements you don't recall making: From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present for many of his interviews given [of Stripling witnesses]. From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"? From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty. From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her. Which if either of these statements is true: That Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s or At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years Which if either of these statements is true: he was a college classmate. or I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her. I'd also like to see you explain how you can vouch for the "impeccable honesty" of what you now call a casual acquaintance you hadn't seen in about 50 years? THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS ABOVE. ALL ARE TRUE. I STAND BY THEM. A false inference is being drawn that I was present when Kudlaty was interviewed by John and Robert Groden, who videotaped the interview. Kudlaty was interviewed in Waco Texas which is 90 miles south of me. I was even unaware of the taping, and had no knowledge of the interview till John showed me the tape. It is silly to infer that any of my statements are inconsistent. To quibble over "three" and "many" is dumb. I was present for several interviews and saw his videotapes of quite a few others. What is your definition of "many"? One definition is AN INDETERMINATE NUMBER MORE THAN ONE. Do you disagree? I was present when he interviewed three Stripling LHO classmates, all of whom verified many facts about LHO and Marguerite at Stripling. I viewed many (quite a few more than one) of John's interviews WHICH YOU ARE UNAWARE OF, but you of course would deny that looking at the video interview is not the same as "being there". The most impressive besides the Kudlaty interview is Myra LaRouche (spelled without looking it up)...but of course you know all about her, don't you? I never met nor influenced Myra. I was present for the interview of Georgia Bell...but I don't have to tell you about her, do I. You know she was wrong without knowing what she said. I am abandoning this nonsensical thread. You clearly have no knowledge of the book so cannot discuss it intelligently. I still say READ THE BOOK. You obviously have not. Jack I was part of a telephone conversation that Armstrong had with Kudlaty. Kudlaty is a very impressive witness who is clearly honest and has nothing to gain personally. I agree, people need to READ the book and examine the evidence. Doug Weldon

So that I am clear I have known Armstrong very well since 1998 and spent many hours on the phone with him in conversation as he was gathering his evidence and writing his book. I spoke with a couple of his witnesses. I knew there was a conflict between him and Lifton about Oswald though I have no idea what, if any, conflict still exists. (Yes, I know it is unusual for JFK researches to disagree with one another) I do know David had an extensive interview with Robert Oswald where Armstrong did not. I have also spent hours talking with Marina myself, even as recent as last year. I do not know what Lifton's conclusions about Oswald are as I have not seen any portion of Lifton's book though I have exchanged a few e-mails with him. I highly respect the work he has done and the observations made by Doug Horne. As I noted before I do not agree with everything Armstrong has presented and there were some things he thought very important that I found to be very innocuous. However, there is other evidence he presents which has virtually floored me. John ran many things by me. He would mail me things for comment. This is not a soft shoe. I have trenendous respect for Armstrong and Lifton and if there is something I disagree with from either of them I am not hesitant to express it. I stand by my comments. I am concerned that you seem to perceive that I have shared my private concerns about Judyth, which I have raised in private e-mails to you, with Jack and David, thus stirring up Jack. Nothing is further from the truth. I have not raised those concerns in this forum at all or to Jack or David and yet I am now included in the personal attacks on my integrity. You even edited the post and removed the endorsement of my work by your psych-ops. I can only infer that it is because of my lack of endorsement for Judyth. I have read every single post on this thread and have followed her in the past. I even have a couple of personal e-mails from her. My opinion about her has not changed but I have not attempted to influence anyone else's opinion. The whole tenor of this thread has become as surreal as Judyth. Doug Weldon

As a side note I have the 26 volumes. I have not seen Sylvia's index but have used Walt Brown's index quite extensively. Doug Weldon I understand perfectly that Lifton may not agree with Armstrong. It does not affect my opinion of the importance of the work of either of them. Best, Doug Weldon

As a side note I have the 26 volumes. I have not seen Sylvia's index but have used Walt Brown's index quite extensively. Doug Weldon

Dean: Whatever one thinks about Harvey and Lee, it is a very unique book in that many of its premises could be proved with witnesses who are still living and evidence that continues to be very impressive. I did not agree with Armstrong on the impact of every piece of the evidence but some of the evidence is jaw-dropping. Watch the interviews and read the book. John Armstrong conducted one of the most impressive investigations of the JFK case ever done. John is unique in that he lets the evidence speak for itself. I believe you or I (or any attorney) could go into court and easily prove that the government was engaged in a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald. Jack White is not making outrageous comments about the evidence. Whether you agree with him or not on other issues the evidence here is very solid. I am not commenting on Judyth and whether this makes a difference for her argument. I am simply agreeing with Jack that John Armstrong has compiled a mountain of evidence and the fact that individual pieces of the evidence might be questioned in no way detracts from the volumess of evidence John acquired. John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men. Best, Doug Weldn

Lee, With my legal background, I focus on how much evidence is needed to prove a certain point. Proving HARVEY and LEE requires a great deal of evidence because it is so specific. Dean Respectfully, this does not make any sense at all. Doug Weldon

Greg thank you so much for your kind offer but I would like to own the book If that means paying $70.00 from The Last Hurrah then I will do that because I know how important this book is and I should have bought it when it came out but I kept slacking while the price kept rising Im glad I didnt do that with all the other books I own that are now sell for top dollar I guess I will have to sleep on the couch for a night Its worth it The book was $50 when it came out. It is on e-bay for $135 plus postage. I have seen it as high as $250. It is a huge book with a cd and comes with a sleeve. Both Shelby and Andy are good to get it through. I believe only 2000 copies were printed so its value will only increase. Best, Doug Weldon

As you've probably noticed, new members are still being accepted. (Greg Burnham, Doug Weldon, and Martin Hay are all new members.) If you send Armstrong's email address to John Simkin, I suspect there'll be no problem. I was about to post the same response, then suspected that I wouldn't be telling Jack White anything he didn't already know. It seems clear he opted for his approach for a reason. I've always respected John Armstrong for his efforts. I've loaned and given away numerous copies of Harvey & Lee to my friends. Michael I wish I was your friend that you would give away a copy of Harvey & Lee too, because my wife would kill me if I drop another $100.00 on a book It is about $70 including priority postage from Andy at Last Hurrah. It is a very important book Best, Doug Weldon

Thanks, Mike. I find it interesting that we sometimes forget (or neglect to remember) the obvious significance of this man's age: He was ONLY 24 years old! Imagine that...it was one of us? Hard to imagine--reliving my 24th year in his shoes or even in my own shoes for that matter! Yet, he--of such limited life experience--we presume went to the grave with extraordinary secrets about the crime of the century! Or, at least that's what we're being asked to believe... Let me clarify my meaning: I think he went to the grave with a lot of information, but--he may not have been aware of the significance of the majority of it himself. This is in no way "proof" of my assertion-- but, he was ONLY 24 -- I don't think that he or Judyth knew at that tender age (as HEMMING would say): "xxxx from shinola" -- And, who among us would have? Yet, Judyth paints an unrealistic picture of his abilities, IMO. His exceptional level of "wisdom" (as reported by her) is inconsistent with his years of life experience and with his poor judgment. --I'm just thinking out loud, now-- GO_SECURE monk Simply as a point of information and not taking any side, Oswald and JFK's IQ were within one point of each other. Whatever conclusions one reaches It is obvious that Oswald was bright. Doug Weldon Doug...what is your source for an LHO IQ? I have never seen that. Jack Jack: I had posted this years ago on Rich's forum. I will have to look for where I got Oswald's info. I got Kennedy's info from the book "A Question of Character" by Richard Reeves. Kennedy's IQ was 119 and Oswald's was 118. It is easy for me to remember because I simply take Sarah Palin's IQ and double it. Best, Doug Jack: I used my "almost double digit IQ" and found it in the Warren Report: Lee scored an IQ of 118 on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. According to Sokolow, this indicated a "present intellectual functioning in the upper range of bright normal intelligence." Sokolow said that although Lee was "presumably disinterested in school subjects he operates on a much higher than average level." On the Monroe Silent Reading Test, Lee's score indicated no retardation in reading speed and comprehension; he had better than average ability in arithmetical reasoning for his age group. Best, Doug

Thanks, Mike. I find it interesting that we sometimes forget (or neglect to remember) the obvious significance of this man's age: He was ONLY 24 years old! Imagine that...it was one of us? Hard to imagine--reliving my 24th year in his shoes or even in my own shoes for that matter! Yet, he--of such limited life experience--we presume went to the grave with extraordinary secrets about the crime of the century! Or, at least that's what we're being asked to believe... Let me clarify my meaning: I think he went to the grave with a lot of information, but--he may not have been aware of the significance of the majority of it himself. This is in no way "proof" of my assertion-- but, he was ONLY 24 -- I don't think that he or Judyth knew at that tender age (as HEMMING would say): "xxxx from shinola" -- And, who among us would have? Yet, Judyth paints an unrealistic picture of his abilities, IMO. His exceptional level of "wisdom" (as reported by her) is inconsistent with his years of life experience and with his poor judgment. --I'm just thinking out loud, now-- GO_SECURE monk Simply as a point of information and not taking any side, Oswald and JFK's IQ were within one point of each other. Whatever conclusions one reaches It is obvious that Oswald was bright. Doug Weldon Doug...what is your source for an LHO IQ? I have never seen that. Jack Jack: I had posted this years ago on Rich's forum. I will have to look for where I got Oswald's info. I got Kennedy's info from the book "A Question of Character" by Richard Reeves. Kennedy's IQ was 119 and Oswald's was 118. It is easy for me to remember because I simply take Sarah Palin's IQ and double it. Best, Doug

Thanks, Mike. I find it interesting that we sometimes forget (or neglect to remember) the obvious significance of this man's age: He was ONLY 24 years old! Imagine that...it was one of us? Hard to imagine--reliving my 24th year in his shoes or even in my own shoes for that matter! Yet, he--of such limited life experience--we presume went to the grave with extraordinary secrets about the crime of the century! Or, at least that's what we're being asked to believe... Let me clarify my meaning: I think he went to the grave with a lot of information, but--he may not have been aware of the significance of the majority of it himself. This is in no way "proof" of my assertion-- but, he was ONLY 24 -- I don't think that he or Judyth knew at that tender age (as HEMMING would say): "xxxx from shinola" -- And, who among us would have? Yet, Judyth paints an unrealistic picture of his abilities, IMO. His exceptional level of "wisdom" (as reported by her) is inconsistent with his years of life experience and with his poor judgment. --I'm just thinking out loud, now-- GO_SECURE monk Simply as a point of information and not taking any side, Oswald and JFK's IQ were within one point of each other. Whatever conclusions one reaches It is obvious that Oswald was bright. Doug Weldon

Excellent, Doug. Yes, I was told it was not right, but someone with sloppy Russian, and a non-Russian, might say it. Maybe I went too far in "trying to be 'fair'" ...haha! My main thing was that in one account she says she said, in Russian, "good, comrade" ( and provides the Russian words).... in the other account she doesn't give the Russian words but says she said, "Thanks, comrade." But her Russian word from the other account does not translate as thank you. What do you think about this - I was also told by someone who has had some connection with learning about things military and intel, that anyone connected to intel types, working and funded and reporting to such types essentially secretly ... that the last thing they would do is speak Russian casually, to a complete stranger, in a public place. That makes sense to me. What does your girlfriend thing of her using the word "comrade" ...?? Thanks for posting this, Doug. Barb :-) Barb: She said the word "comrade" is extremely antiquated but possibly could have been used in 1963. However, again, anyone fluent in Russian, would have no idea of what the person was trying to say to them. She said that it would be as if someone asked "How are you?" and you responded "Door." She said that the use of a Russian word might show that you were open to communication but the person would think you were an idiot. Doug Doug, That's what I was told about "comrade" too ... and that it would have been an odd choice for saying something to an unknown American stranger. The Russian teacher says no Russian would ever say that, and someone would have to have a very poor understanding of Russian to use that word in any situation other than a very formal business situation or in talking to a party member. Sounds like the use of "good" was worse than what I understood my person to say ... do have a further comment from the Russian teacher on that as well. I laughed at your "idiot" comment because I had just gotten these additional comments moments before I saw your post.... saying "that while the word 'good' might be used by someone with no real Russian knowledge, it would not fit the situation and would make no sense to anyone who is or really knows Russian. You would sound like an idiot." Bests, Barb :-) Barb: Idiot would have the emphasis on the "O" in Russian. Yet Judyth states " I had worked too hard to allow all my Russian to slip away." It makes no sense at all. My girlfriend is a professor, grew up in the USSR in the Ukraine, has two PHD's, speaks five languages and has taught Russian. Her grandfather was executed by Stalin in 1939 and her late stepfather was an officer in KGB. She has no idea why I am asking her these questions but is finding it very amusing. Doug

Excellent, Doug. Yes, I was told it was not right, but someone with sloppy Russian, and a non-Russian, might say it. Maybe I went too far in "trying to be 'fair'" ...haha! My main thing was that in one account she says she said, in Russian, "good, comrade" ( and provides the Russian words).... in the other account she doesn't give the Russian words but says she said, "Thanks, comrade." But her Russian word from the other account does not translate as thank you. What do you think about this - I was also told by someone who has had some connection with learning about things military and intel, that anyone connected to intel types, working and funded and reporting to such types essentially secretly ... that the last thing they would do is speak Russian casually, to a complete stranger, in a public place. That makes sense to me. What does your girlfriend thing of her using the word "comrade" ...?? Thanks for posting this, Doug. Barb :-) Barb: She said the word "comrade" is extremely antiquated but possibly could have been used in 1963. However, again, anyone fluent in Russian, would have no idea of what the person was trying to say to them. She said that it would be as if someone asked "How are you?" and you responded "Door." She said that the use of a Russian word might show that you were open to communication but the person would think you were an idiot. Doug

The two statements above are at odds with one another. Which is it? And listening to this radio broadcast sounds like a good idea. Where can we find it? Barb :-) Barb: My girfriend is Russian and speaks fluent Russian. You noted "Saying, "Good, comrade" could be used loosely as "thank you, comrade" but is not the direct translation/meaning of the word she used." It is actually worse than that. "Karashaw, Tovarietsch" would be totally out of context. The person who speaks Russian would have no idea what you would be talking about. It would be like if someone asked you what year your television was made and you responded "Good." The Russian would think you were foolish and might politely smile. A person using this phrase might only know a few words of Russian but it is nonsensical. Doug Weldon

Jack: Great post! Just to confuse things further, I am very religious but evolution does not threaten my faith. I also followed the O.J. trial intensely and have read a number of books and much on the case but I strongly believe that O.J. got away with murder. Otherwise, we are all in complete agreement. I believe friendships can survive also. Best, Doug Doug...thanks! Have you read THE ESSENTIAL OJ book by Bill Dear, OJ IS GUILTY, BUT NOT OF MURDER? Google it to read all about it, such as http://www.atlasbooks.com/marktplc/00554.htm It presents the solution to the case, just as I had already figured it out from watching every minute of the OJ trial on Court TV. You cannot know the case without reading Dear's book...just like you cannot understand Lee Harvey Oswald without reading Armstrong's book. Now, let me ask you to be a lawyer cross examining Judyth Baker. Show her these NINE PHOTOS OF MEN which official government documents say are all LEE HARVEY OSWALD. Pose the question to her: "Ms. Baker, which of these photos most closely depicts the man you say was your lover?" Fair question for a lawyer? If she DECLINES to answer, what would your next line of questioning be? Jack PS. I do not consider THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION to be a religious matter. Introducing religion into evolution discussion is like introducing JVB into JFK discussion. Jack: I have not read that book but I will. Your question of Judyth would be very fair. She would not be able to decline to answer that question in a court.(she could say none of them) If she refused I would ask the judge to order her to answer the question. If she again refused the court could hold her in contempt and depending on the nature of the proceedings everything could be dismissed or she could even be subjected to jail. I do find it interesting that people who believe Judyth become very passionate about her. When Judyth e-mailed me years ago she just asked me to be fair and open in considering her story. I thought it was a very decent approach. I have tried to be open but if she is accurate about their dialog I would find it hard to believe that even the worst of soap operas would try to convince anyone that people would talk that way. I do also tend to agree that even if it could be proved that they had an affair it would not add much to studying the assassination. John's work is very complicated but, as you noted, does not simply rely on photographs but even WC documents. I believe even the most skeptical of John, after examining his evidence, would have to conclude that something is very amiss. I did not find Ventura's on the Tru TV site but did find it on youtube. The Denver airport on the 2012 show is very disturbing to me. I wish someone could explain it. I tend to agree with your P.S. Best, Doug

What a waste. He could devote a whole season just to JFK. But I guess they figure the viewing public doesn't have that kind of attention span. Or interest, for that matter. Gotta be something new and exciting every week. That's show biz. In the pre-publicity for the show it appeared that Ventura was not going to be allowed to do a segment on JFK, a subject he has very strong feelings about. I have not seen any reruns lately of his show. The show most disturbing to me was about 2012 and the artwork at the airport in Denver. I did not see any reruns of that show. Doug Weldon

Jack: Great post! Just to confuse things further, I am very religious but evolution does not threaten my faith. I also followed the O.J. trial intensely and have read a number of books and much on the case but I strongly believe that O.J. got away with murder. Otherwise, we are all in complete agreement. I believe friendships can survive also. Best, Doug

I am having extensive dealings with her and if she is not "the real deal", I will eat my hat (figuratively speaking, since I don't wear one). Jim: None of us are ever going to totally agree with each other on everything. I don't judge Madeline because she may not have liked me. She would have joined the company of too many others if I used that as a criteria. I am familiar with Judyth. She e-mailed me years ago and I followed her story. I hope you are right but if I was in your shoes I would be more comfortable wearing a hat made out of chocolate cake. I was one of the people Armstrong bounced things off of when he gathered the material for his book. Some things he thought were significant did not impress me but there were other aspects I found startling. Everyone should read his book. Judyth is a very interesting and extremely bright woman. It would be nice if her story is true but I remain a skeptic. I will watch how this develops. Best, Doug

Barb has devoted years of time and effort trying to find any sort of tidbit which can then be distorted and then 'used' against Judyth. Your objective presentation of Judyth's information is just raining on her parade. You can anticipate that the level of rhetoric of her responses will be proportionate to the damage being inflicted. Looks like you re on the ropes, Barb. Your beaten. Get over it... This thread is the final punch for the Judyth-bashing-trolls all over the internet! Congrats to Starsky and Hutch aka Jim and Judyth. KK This nonsense shows a total lack of understanding. On the SAME DATE it is documented that ONE MARGUERITE OSWALD worked at Paul's Shoe Store in Fort Worth while Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling Junior High School. On that SAME DATE it is documented that ANOTHER MARGUERITE OSWALD worked at a hosiery store on Canal Street in New Orleans while another Lee Harvey Oswald attended Beauregard Junior High School. This information has NOTHING to do with photo analysis nor forensic analysis nor medical analysis as NONSENSICALLY stated above. Two LHOs, two Marguerites, same date, different cities. That is as simple an explanation as can be made. Any other interpretation is NONSENSE! Read the book. Jack I am not convinced yet by either Judyth or Madeline Brown. I can specify reasons but it boils down to a lack of corroboration. In regards to Judyth her account of Oswald appears to make him so sophisticated, suave, and living such a life that it makes the fictional James Bond look like a street urchin in comparison. I respect other opinions and hopefully this is not seen as bashing anyone but I am very far from being persuaded. I have to agree with Jack's observations above. Best, Doug Weldon Jim: We can agree to disagree. If I could see one copy of a newspaper where Madeline said an account of the Murchison party was posted I could accept her account. Until then I cannot. I would like to accept her account because it supports all of the evidence I have including the overwhelming culpability of LBJ. Madeline was a witness who enjoyed her celebrity. It is not a criticism, but an observation. In 1998 you went to a lot of trouble to arrange a meeting between Madeline and myself. She knew I was an attorney. I did have some tough questions for her. She did not show up for that meeting. Then I saw her at dinner at Lancer and with your assistance we arranged another meeting. Again she did not show. I later phoned her. Again, she made an excuse not to talk. I made one more attempt months later and again I was thwarted. I saw her on a television show years before about President's mistresses and no mention was made of the LBJ incident. I do not question that she was LBJ's mistress but beyond that I cannot use her account. The other thing that bothers me is that if she loved LBJ so much why would she do so much to destroy his reputation? The jury is still out for me on her. It's like James Files demanding a trial so he could prove he shot Kennedy. What would be the result if he was successful? He could get the death penalty. Judyth creates a lot of concern for me. The dialog that supposedly transpired between her and Lee would be laughable if it was written for the worst "B" movie ever made. I am not dismissing either of them. Either account would support many of the things I believed happened. I know you had a close relationship with Madeline. I will agree she was a very interesting woman. I hope I can find the proofs to agree with you. Best, Doug Weldon

Barb has devoted years of time and effort trying to find any sort of tidbit which can then be distorted and then 'used' against Judyth. Your objective presentation of Judyth's information is just raining on her parade. You can anticipate that the level of rhetoric of her responses will be proportionate to the damage being inflicted. Looks like you re on the ropes, Barb. Your beaten. Get over it... This thread is the final punch for the Judyth-bashing-trolls all over the internet! Congrats to Starsky and Hutch aka Jim and Judyth. KK This nonsense shows a total lack of understanding. On the SAME DATE it is documented that ONE MARGUERITE OSWALD worked at Paul's Shoe Store in Fort Worth while Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling Junior High School. On that SAME DATE it is documented that ANOTHER MARGUERITE OSWALD worked at a hosiery store on Canal Street in New Orleans while another Lee Harvey Oswald attended Beauregard Junior High School. This information has NOTHING to do with photo analysis nor forensic analysis nor medical analysis as NONSENSICALLY stated above. Two LHOs, two Marguerites, same date, different cities. That is as simple an explanation as can be made. Any other interpretation is NONSENSE! Read the book. Jack I am not convinced yet by either Judyth or Madeline Brown. I can specify reasons but it boils down to a lack of corroboration. In regards to Judyth her account of Oswald appears to make him so sophisticated, suave, and living such a life that it makes the fictional James Bond look like a street urchin in comparison. I respect other opinions and hopefully this is not seen as bashing anyone but I am very far from being persuaded. I have to agree with Jack's observations above. Best, Doug Weldon

I am deeply saddened by the death of Rich Dellarosa. My prayers go out to his wife Shelby and his family. At such a time the forum seems somewhat irrelevent. He was a good and decent man. He cared about many things and many people. Ultimately, that is the greatest legacy one can leave. Doug Weldon

Thanks Duncan: To me that looks more like people than Badgeman or a DPD person behind a fence. That area, which you have taken the time to work on, must just be some kind of, "rosarch test", illusion and trick of the mind-shadow and sunlight-- no reason to go there; there is nothing to see, so lets move over to the north knoll. (... the Badgeman has been established as Fact; RIGHT?...) of course that is my speculations. Did you know they found a lake on the moon and a ship tied to a dock and two astronauts fishing? I have a picture I must show you. Its a Fact. P.S. Hey Duncan: You and others keep on keeping on. This will be my last postings on any forms. I have other cans of worms that need my attention right now. And too, these post go nowhere and nothing is ever resolved. I believe that most are never read and for me to spend anymore time on the Kennedy assassination is an exercise in futility. Over the years I have said about all I can say on that Kennedy subject. Now its time for the experts to interrupt what I've said and establish their own facts gathered from their own illusions and slight of hand and play the Wizard of God. __________________________________________ WTF? Now I'm totally confused. I know that the Cancellare photo shows the South Knoll in the background, and I thought Tosh wanted someone to try and find two men (himself and Sergio) standing in the partial shade of trees on the South Knoll, and it seems to me that that's what Duncan has done... --Thomas Sorry Thomas and all; I did not mean to confuse anyone in my last post; nor was I trying to be sarcastic. "... To me that looks more like people than Badgeman or a DPD person behind a fence. That area, which you have taken the time to work on, must just be some kind of, "rosarch test", illusion and trick of the mind-shadow and sunlight-- no reason to go there; there is nothing to see, so lets move over to the north knoll. (... the Badgeman has been established as Fact; RIGHT?...) of course that is my speculations. Did you know they found a lake on the moon and a ship tied to a dock and two astronauts fishing? I have a picture I must show you. Its a Fact...." I should have qualified the above statement with... "I am sure some will say and argue with your speculations and findings with statements like:...". After I got up this A.M and read Thomas's post I could understand why the "WTF" statement. At first I laughed, and then went back to by notes. I had cut of the qualifying statement when I transfered the body of the post from my word processor. Thanks the price of getting old. At any rate I am not leaving the forums (plural) for no other reasons than I am extremely busy with other matters. I do not have the free time to sit all day and debate the issues and answer the questions that in my opinion (IN MOST CASES BUT NO ALL) do not lead to anything worthwhile. Most of the time, I see no concrete focus on any one topic, mostly opinions and personal speculations with no factual information to substantiate those speculations. My friend Peter Lemkin summed it up rather nicely in an email to me. However, he is no longer allowed to post on this forum. As most of you know I do not and have not entirely agreed with Peter and his thinking on some matters; and I have often referenced him as "my radical friend", however, that in its self does not rule out some of the good information he does have and has tried to honestly present to a wide audience. At any rate I am sorry to leave. And I do not leave hostile or upset with anyone. Tosh Plumlee (William Plumlee) Tosh: I hope you will reconsider and will continue to post. I am trying to fully understand your account and I am certain that there are a number of people like me who are new to this forum. I received such a filtered account from Bob Vernon years ago and it is only you who can deliver a true account. Is there anywhere I can read your entire account. I believe, without any doubt, that at least one shot, if not more, were fired from the south knoll. The Cancellaire photo is extremely important and the infamous spot where there appears to be a man standing is not conclusive, but I believe it is certainly not a tree or tree trunk. If we can help each other in any way please send me a message through the forum and I would like to give you my email. May we come to know the truth My best, Doug Weldon

Jerry: You get so much with the book, including a cd. It is in a box. The cost to buy it through Andy is MUCH less than I have ever seen it on e-bay. Though I don't agree with everything (I am one of the people the book is dedicated to) I agree with Jack that it is a must-have book. Some of the information is jaw-dropping. Best, Doug Weldon