Steve Duffy

Thanks for the write up, Bill. The way your country's going truly scares me.

James, Sorry, I owe you an apology. Just went through "Murder" again, and the uncertainties I had were with Jack Whites section on The Z film. I'm sorry for the confusion, entirely my own. I'll be more careful in my posts in future. I have another of your books on the way, I'll look forward to reading it. All the best, Steve Duffy.

Jim, Bernice, your work does not go unappreciated. Thanks.

I seem to have started something, which wasn't my intent. I read a few comments about James before I created my own, and in fact, it was the first post I created on ANY forum, so forgive me if it came across brash and crude. James' work was one of the reasons I wanted to start posting, and it seemed he was a "controversial" figure, if I can use that term, on the boards. I wanted to get a majority feel about a particular researcher/author whom I was having trouble understanding, on the basis of one book and some articles I had read. It wasn't, in hindsight, how I should have gone about it. Forgive a newbie. As for questions that I may have, well I've ordered James' other works, and will read them in turn. If I have any further questions or inquiries, I'll pm James directly, I think. (If that's agreeable). So, I've nothing else to add, sorry again if anyone was offended. I do try to be respectful to all, as I expect to be treated in turn. Thanks Steve.

Great post, and I'm happy I get the Rooty Hill reference. Greg were can i find your Bogota ripples essay? is it at Reopen?

Robert, last word from me, but you DO have to physically murder people to be called a serial killer. It's almost always has to have a sexual component. http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Documents/Docs/Doc5.html Someone who orders hits isn't classified a serial killer, in as much as someone who commands armies should be considered one. It's not semantics. And, after reading Nelson's LBJ, what does he really add that Zirbel and McClellan hadn't already, along with Johnson's biographers? Don't get me wrong, he was an immensely cold and ruthless man, probably a narcissistic personality type, but serial killer he wasn't.

I'd also like to hear Terry's thoughts, if she's willing to share.

I think you'll find that a serial killer is regarded as someone whom actually performs the crime. That's the difference with Johnson. Even Charles Manson cannot legally be classified as a serial killer. We'll have to disagree.

Robert, I pointed out to you on another message site, that serial killer does not apply to Lyndon Johnson. The definition is easy to find. He may have had psychiatric problems, or be regarded medically as a sociopath personality type, but not a "Serial Killer". You once said you were willing to learn from others, so do so here.

Watched this video yesterday: http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=5591&updaterx=2010-09-13+23%3A49%3A22 Incredible, and very sobering.

François, Because you quoted me, I believe it's polite to give you an response. I asked you what official version are you defending? I never pretended, stated or claimed "As if there were several" Adding a statement like that, about me, doesn't show critical thinking. It shows someone being dismissive toward a genuine question. It was obvious I was asking about the 2 investigations. If this was unclear, It's your fault. The official version, as I stated, was the HSCA. It ruled, "The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, That President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy." You have stated that this was because of the last minute inclusion of the acoustic evidence, and that that evidence is flawed and the content of the official version remains. That's fine. It doesn't sway the fact that it is an "open Investigation" as I claimed. How that is a play on words is beyond me. I have a lot of questions about the methodology of your critical thinking, however. How does your belief in God side beyond your belief in "science and scientific inquiry, critical thinking, science education, and the use of reason in examining important issues". To me one excludes the other. Mr Dawkins would agree. You have great trust in Politics and people, it seems. I Don't. I watched an interview yesterday with Colin Powell's chief of staff. He described the Warren Report as a "Whitewash", a statement that I find fascinating from a man in his position. He also laughed about the idea of American democracy, stating that is no longer so. He said it was a Corporatocracy. So it isn't just Mr Morrow claiming these awful things. It's the people in positions whom know. Mr Bush, by the way, had his chance at being President a lot sooner than his eight years. I understand your thinking better now, I thank you. But I will say, man you are really, naive.

Thanks Lee, I admit, esp in your case, It's hard to be civil. Just trying one last time... BTW, I enjoy your posts very much. I think Rob Morrow is setting himself up for trouble, giving out his home address. I'll wait for a reply, in the meantime, I can watch Von Pien sweat, so learning can be fun!

But as I asked you in another thread, in a reasonable way, what official version are you defending? The HSCA is the final, "Official version", that ruled conspiracy and deferred to the Justice department to follow up on that. Which they Never did. So, in all reality, it's still an open investigation, and one where files are still being withheld, in direct opposition to the Law. Nearly 50 years after the event. See why I, I'm not speaking for others, see a problem?

My God, he's a published author?

You'd be sadly wasting your time Robert. You see, François has it all sorted. He is as laughable as his friend Von Pien. Neither of them are taken seriously. I honestly, honestly wonder, why someone who is so satisfied with the governments conclusions on the JFK case, would even bother to come to a forum which is discussing the matter primarily as a conspiracy. If your satisfied with the Warren report, then Kudos to you. Why hang out here? It's seems time wasting for yourself and others. You meet people like that in your life, its sad, and their replies are always predictable. I really wished I lived in their world. But I see events, such as the FBI worried over an Oswald Impersonator in Mexico city, and I think that's troubling. I see Oswald as having no good motive. I see Ruby knowing of Oswald's FPCC activities...strange. HIS motive false, as he later claimed. So, so much more. I read the works of Armstrong, Fonzi, Garrison, Douglass, Horne,and realize, they know more than Mr Carlier. They worked on the boards. They did the investigating. They have the knowledge and came to those conclusions. Debate is healthy. Being Smug and all knowing isn't, on any side. I don't bother much with them anymore. And I feel so good with that, personally.

I agree with everything you said, Greg. Great article, too.

I'm seriously hoping that this is a head shot (no pun intended) of the two mains, so the other actors/characters aren't needed for the closeup. They couldn't be that ignorant...surely??

Jim, only posted the link because I thought it was what William might be after. Like I said I haven't read it. If you have, post your thoughts.

William, there's this: http://www.amazon.com/Oswalds-Politics-Gary-W-OBrien/dp/1426920504/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282383637&sr=1-5 I have it but haven't read it so I can't say it's what your looking for exactly...

Brilliant, Jim. That's the Armstrong theory that works for me, and the Collins Radio link makes this more than just a cop killing. All these strange threads, and Von Pien is treating it as a straightforward cop homicide. what about the Abundant Life Temple, near where the Discarded jacket was found?

My god, he actually called a lunch room a break room, on air! He may be feeble minded and incorrect at 80, but David, what's your excuse?

Still Waiting....

Still would like an answer to my question, as I asked Francois. Oswald did it advocates believe the findings of the HSCA except the part were they mention a 95% certainty of conspiracy. Why?

Trivial?

Also, and I ask this in all sincerity, do you accept the findings of the HSCA, that there was a "probable" conspiracy in the Death of John Kennedy? And, speaking of thinking critically, does that not sound like lawyer speak to cover for any further information that may turn up in the future. And if you do accept their findings, how, then, do you explain the failure of the Justice Department to follow up on such an important matter?