Steve Duffy

David, you neglect or are unaware that Peter Dale Scott offered a very reasonable suggestion as to why the plotters fell back on the Lone Patsy scenario. As Tom stated above, Scott suggests there were back up plans in case one scenario fell through. Lee could of been used in an and/or situation. You could read Deep Politics, and see this yourself, or contact Mr Scott (He's on Facebook) and ask this very question that has you so perplexed. But you won't, will you. Your minds made up, and it matters not one wit that Scott, Melanson, and Newman have written very good books about Lee's intelligence links. So it isn't Tom's overactive imagination. It's most of us here. That could be terrifying, but I really feel I'm in good company. Again...why are you here?

Tom, I just read your post after offering a similar comment on the Frazier thread. Mine had a bit more vitriol than I would normally give, but I'm very unwell (no excuse, but meh...) and angry. I try desperatley not to sink to that level... You now what's missing here? The observations of Adams at it's most important point. Good research: Who What When Were and How. Milteer was secretly taped, buy an informant, talking about a potential organized hit on Kennedy the week before it happened. When the killing occurred, utilizing some of the same methods Milteer had discussed, the investigation into it by agent Adams was hampered by the higher ups, and, subsequently, way less than adequate. Why? All the rest, the David concentrates on, is a distraction, and unimportant to his original investigation. I find these allegations against the FBI in a murder case involving the President troubling.

We get it Dave, he doesn't know his facts. How do you feel about Posner?

Wonderful, Don, such a great resource, and so kind of you to share...Steve.

Didn't Armstrong comment on the "I Led Three Lives" story?. Isn't Robert the only source for this fixation?

Thanks Stephen. It is available on Kindle...I think with a new afterword. But nothing beats the feel of a real book, despite the price...

Thanks everyone. I ask because, as Dean pointed out, of the hundreds of books I have, it was at the top. But someone called me out on the Z film and his handling of that part. Obviously, as I've seen here, the Z film is a contentious issue, and, to be honest, not my main area of interest. I agree, Jim, on the Hemming aspect. That was clear when I read it. So, back to the early authors for a time. I've neglected them for to long. Cheers!

For Bill: I read on another thread where you mentioned that certain parts of Armstrong's work should be looked at in light of evidence that has since come to light. I was going to post then, but I'd like to know, now that this thread has started, which of Armstrong's work can be considered...outdated, if I can use that word. And for everyone in general, which areas need further examination? Robert, John Pic and Marguerite Oswald all have a general aura of mystery around them. I know it's been suggested that Robert may have impersonated Lee, and, thanks to Greg's work, we have the contents of John Pic's notebook. I have read Harvey and Lee, and Armstrong's online essay's, so I'm up to speed with that. Just looking for any further comments. It's an incredible work.

Appreciate all your work and the links, Vince.

Barb, thanks for all of the above, it's exactly what I'm needing people to post. And a special "Ho Ray!" for the link to the Baron's book. It's much appreciated, Steve.

Wow, so quick. Can't thank you enough, Thomas.

I have read it, but still would like some thoughtful debate, without the flaming. Or is that going to be impossible? Passions do run high here. Lets pretend there are some relative newcomers to this story,(I've stayed away from the previous debate)who are asking genuine questions. Like myself.

Would someone be kind enough to repost the pics?

Is there any firm proof that the Lee in Mexico city was anything but an impostor? No one at the consulates recognized him afterward, if I'm not mistaken. Certainly not Duran, whom he is supposed to have bedded, according to the book.

Wonderful post, Robert.

Can I get as much feedback as possible on Noel Twyman's work? Review links, thoughts, major plus, faults? Any feedback would be appreciated. Steve.

And...? It did do some fairly substantial damage. Are you saying it should have been non fatal?

By comparison with Mr. Di Eugenio's hatred of Lee Oswald, the Warren Commission looks almost civilized. I've stayed out of this, but the above is way out of line, I think. At no point has Jim claimed his hatred for Lee, by claiming he worked for Intelligence. What a low thing to claim on another's behalf...

Those ears are hard to miss... Duncan's post shows that a lot can be made from unclear images.

Very good, god Kennedy was intelligent, so quick witted. Glad we finally had a chance to see it. Also glad I'm alive to see it.

So, were onto middling statistics. When 10% of people in a poll have no opinion, my first though it, "do they also vote". Jim, can you let us know a bit more about the update to Davis's book? I'm close to ordering the original, but if an expanded version comes along, all the better! Thanks.

Actually, all 10 points are more than reasonable and are what most researchers have come to the same conclusions about. I started from scratch, with the same info available to anyone who cares to read. I have no serious doubts about the implications of what Jim claims above. Dave, you're only convincing yourself. A very, very lone voice in this chamber, and your echoes bounce back only to you. It seem like a kind of sad attention thing. To waste your time on answers you have. You said you had no life to me. Please, for us all, get one.

Thanks Jack. I'll pm you with any questions I might have in the future. I'll order the Z hoax book before to long. Steve.

But Ford was cleared on David's xxxx scale. He got a 0.

David, do you have a scale for particular liars, like say Roger Craig at 3 out of 10, and someone like Gerald Ford, at what? 9? 10? What about Hoover during his career, for e.g? Would you give a sum per lie, or just a rounded up figure for lies all told?