Greg Burnham

You should have a "money pool" ready just in case there's ever another attack. Then whoever figures out the perp's identity first gets the prize. (No admins allowed to play, though).

I agree in principle, if re-phrased without the absoluteness: "The fact that she may not be a fraud still is no guarantee that she is not perpetrating a fraud..."

She did NOT refuse. She agreed with stipulations. I am quite qualified, as you conceded, to conduct such an examination. Although you are probably more qualified, she does not "trust" you. She does not trust that you will be fair. She is concerned that she will be unfairly "ambushed" by you, if I am understanding her concerns correctly. I am not convinced that her concerns are well founded, but--I am also not convinced that her stipulations are motivated to deceive. I do not believe that she has provided adequate proof for many of her claims. However, I also do not understand how those who choose to disbelieve her, can claim that her lack of providing proof is tantamount to proof that she is lying, disingenuous, delusional, or psycho! That is NOT rational. Let me be clear...it is not rational for Judyth's supporters to REQUIRE that anyone accept her story else be labeled poor researchers, cognitively impaired, disingenuous, less than honest, or of nefarious intentions, etc, as that is tantamount to an ad hominem attack and is, therefore, fallacious, by definition. It is similarly irrational for her detractors to claim that they have PROVEN a negative, in this case--namely, proven that she is a fraud. They clearly have not. The most that can be claimed is that she has not provided definitive PROOF supporting her claims. Additionally, it could be argued that she has (or her supporters have) claimed "proof exists" where, upon careful scrutiny, no such "proof" has been demonstrated. However, the lack of "proof" being offered in support of an assertion does not PROVE the assertion is false--it merely is an unsupported assertion. While the offering of multiple unsupported assertions does not enhance one's credibility, it does NOT prove prevarication. Claiming otherwise is likewise "less than credible" -- Ad Hominem Tu Quoque is a fallacy that we have seen repeatedly employed in an attempt to impugn Judyth's bona fides. There are several issues in question. The first, usually includes the assumption that a previous claim she has made has been proven to be false. I am unaware of any of her claims having been definitively disproved, but even IF they were it is fallacious to conclude that same is proof that any subsequent claims have been disproved. In court, a judge may advise a jury to feel free to reject testimony from a witness that has committed perjury, but that does NOT mean that the testimony is necessarily false! Judyth has not been proved to have committed perjury, so that does not apply.

On the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, George Gobel once asked: "Did you ever feel life was a tuxedo and you were a pair of brown shoes?" Indeed...

That's what I originally thought. It's good to know.

Oh boy, here we go again! First off, Doug--to what are you referring? Like I said, I think it is "possible" that the designated "patsy" was misled by his "handlers" --don't you? And, if so, it is possible that this was his impression. I have NO PROBLEM WITH THAT--and neither should you. However, I'm not saying that--if true--it corroberates Judyth's claims! It does nothing of the sort! It is POSSIBLE--and, in a sense, it is consistent with a patsy's role and (mis)understanding of their own misguided role. This story could have been easily invented by Judyth--no doubt--because it is entirely consistent with events that would be expected to have occured, IMO. I did not say "I am sold" or that it confirms anything about her story though! I said, "It is possible, but not necessarily probable." I think that is close enough, since I don't claim to have "super human" powers of prescience, I suppose. ) I agree, she is again making claims that cannot be (or at least have not yet been) substantiated. I am not claiming these are true, Doug. I am claiming that I DO NOT KNOW--one way or the other. I am similar to you, in my thinking, though. Normally, given just the hard evidence (or lack thereof), and without any direct interaction with the individual, I almost certainly would respond as you have to her. I no longer have that option...but I do respect your position--more than you may know. Objection. Does counsel wish to testify as to the intentions of the witness? You don't need to speculate, Doug. Look, Doug--it isn't my personal business to care when you denigrate Judyth's character--have at it, although that is beneath you. But, do not attempt to paint me as one who would be easily duped and used as "Captain Dunsel" as that role is beneath me --and I don't like the implication. This would be a fallacious argument if it had a point or conclusion, but it has no point. If you were to complete your book, appear on Coast to Coast, and subsequently enjoyed increased book sales as a result, which led to a movie deal--would those things have any bearing on the veracity of the content of your book/story? Obviously not. I get your frustration, Doug, but resorting to .... isn't worth it. Whatever.

Cliff, I love reading your posts! Not only do they contain valuable data, but very interesting "angles" worthy of consideration, IMHO. And, very entertaining, as well! But, I don't always agree with everything... JFK may have decided that the US would withold support from the Diem Administration if it (they) continued to refuse to enact reforms in their dealings with religious dissidents and their oppression of all non-Catholics, particularly, the Buddhists. I think it is grossly inaccurate to frame the demise of Diem and his brother in terms suggesting that JFK "went along" with the overthrow (a euphamism for assassination) of the Diem brothers. There is adequate historical records debunking such a notion. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge would be a better candidate to credit with the immediate "go" order. Upon the recall of Ambassador Frederick Nolting, who was probably too pro-Diem--given their shabby human rights record--Lodge was installed. I have no cite for this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Harriman was extremely influential in the appointment of Lodge as South Vietnam's Ambassador.

As for the missing emails. Approximately 15 to 20 emails have now been forwarded to me from Jim Fetzer and/or Dean Hartwell. I have examined the original headers and can report with certainty that I was indeed on the "cc" list of recipients and my email address was correctly entered there. I cannot explain why I didn't receive them originally. I have not experienced such a problem before, at least, not to my knowledge. I checked my "Spam" folder, just in case, and it was empty. It appears, however, that Judyth was clearly telling the truth when she claimed that she sent me correspondence to which I had not replied.

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? What are the odds that the Secret Service would choose to consult with the very guy who would be accused of killing the president whose security was at stake? Could that have been covered up for more than 45 years without a hint? Stephen, Just for clarity, I don't buy that at all either. Not for a second. The Secret Service was NOT actually employing his assistance. The part that I don't find far fetched is the possibility that "he was under the impression" that he was being somehow helpful. Again, as the patsey, he was likely told many things that were untrue by those who were setting him up to take the fall. This might be a detail that could be true. It makes no difference to my personal research work whether true or false. But, if he was told this falsehood and he told it to Judyth, she appears to erroneously believe it was true, and is now reporting from memory. I see that as possible, but not necessarily probable.

Cliff, Mostly all good stuff, IMO! Thanks--

Well, Dean, I received your email earlier tonight, which stated that you sent me a another PM on the Ed Forum tonight. Hi Monk, I misfired on my PM to you. So that explains why you did not receive it. Thanks! Dean No problem...

Greg did you debate McAdams on Black-Op? If so how in the world did I miss that? Im going to check the Black-Op archives, if I cant find it can you post a link please Greg I would really like to listen to the debate Thanks Dean, I debated McAdams on The Paul Garson Show in 1999 (I think that's the right year). This was before the internet was "user friendly" and meticulous archives were kept. Unfortunately, there is no known record of the debate, except in the minds and memories of those who "ear" witnessed it. Len Osanic did record it on CD and sent me the ONLY copy. It was a "streaming" broadcast rife with long "blank spots" in it. I was unable to recover it in its entirety, and only a very small portion remains. I regret that I cannot provide it...

I once asked Colonel Prouty about his reference to the "Power Elite" -- I said, "Will you name one?" He replied, "Averell Harriman"

That is correct because I mentioned your PM to me. Agreed. Me either. Well, Dean, I received your email earlier tonight, which stated that you sent me a another PM on the Ed Forum tonight. So, I decided to take a "screen shot" of my screen before replying (actually "during" my reply) because when a member has a "PM" they are "alerted" -- I have been alerted to PM's many times on this forum when I log on. Note that there is NO such "alert message" -- Also note it says "0" [ZERO] New Messages. I did not receive any new messages on the forum today. I don't claim to know what this means, but...

You raise EXCELLENT points, IMHO, Jack! Perhaps I was not very clear about something...However, I thought I kept emphasizing this same word/concept. IMO: the CIA was not OPERATIONALLY in command or engaged in Dallas. I did not say that I thought they were un-involved, out of the loop, or otherwise innocent or disengaged from it. My main thrust is that they were not OPERATIONALLY involved (especially not as an ORGANIZATION) at ground zero. This is very much in line with Fletcher's beliefs. I also should emphasize that the evidence is overwhelming that the CIA, FBI, DIA, Secret Service, et al--were all deeply involved in obstruction of justice (the cover-up) after the fact. There is considerable evidence that both the Secret Service and the FBI failed to take action to prevent the assassination. That failure is primarily one that the Secret Service must bear, but technically, it was also owned by the FBI who failed to alert the Secret Service of potential threats, not just in Dallas, but elsewhere. As for the other entities you mention, I agree. Dulles more than likely acted as the "broker of record" (so to speak) in bringing all interested parties together to reach an agreement. Many of these "peripheral business interests" directly benefitted from the removal of JFK--without doubt.

Thanks Jack. [emphasis added]Indeed.

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?

Very interesting reply. Judyth, I am unaware of the many emails of which you speak that I have been recently "cc'd" -- I have not seen ANY -- to my knowledge. I didn't know I was being cc'd by you at all! To confirm your point, however, even if I had been aware, there is a high probablility that I wouldn't have replied. Moreover, Dean Hartwell sent me a "PM" last week stating that you did not even have my email address at all and you wished to correspond with me. I provided it to him, but I reiterated to him that [paraphrased]: 1) I wish you well; 2) Your story, as presented, is NOT compelling--even IF true! 3) and, even if 100% true, it does not appear to add anything relevant to what we already know about the JFK assassination, IMO. -- I am truly sorry if that is painful because I am not intending to be hurtful at all. But, as a researcher and student of this history, I must draw boundaries for myself based on my best judgment of what is worth me pursuing. After I sent that reply to Dean, I still have not received a single email from you. So, I really don't know what you are talking about. Now, having said all of that: my answer is yes. However, please understand, I will not "pull punches" and I will want a list of questions from your detractors to put to you or this will serve NO PURPOSE at all. If you are "vulnerable" due to being less than credible, I will "go there" with considerable vigor. Lastly, I take exception to your comments about Len. He is a very close friend. He is quite willing to express his opinions to me about those for whom he has little or no respect, or doesn't trust. He has never uttered a single derrogatory word to me about you. In fact, in order to be fair to you, he is the one who suggested a pre-recorded show so that you wouldn't have to be subjected to the time difference like you had to the first time. I prefer Black Op Radio. If I am the one posing the questions you won't need to be concerned about Len's opinion. If, however, Coast to Coast will help book sales...so be it.

Thanks David.

I personally don't find it too implausible that Oswald "might have thought" he was actually involved in such a thing and, if he knew JVB, could have told her about it. I don't find that to be particularly far fetched. As the "patsy" it is quite possible he was being "worked" from several directions by several handlers.

Cliff, I think you make some valid points. For instance, I agree that placing the blame on any one group (or individual) is inaccurate. However, my assertion is that the CIA was NOT "operationally" in control or engaged in Dallas. It's not what they do. And, time and time again, when they attempt it, they screw up...and usually they're caught RED handed to boot! So, from an "operational" view point, it was a Military Operation--all the way. I also agree with you that there was a consensus of several "groups" that executive action was necessary. The loudest voice, the strongest proponent, the most "operationally" capable, and the "biggest kid on the block" with the most to lose (funding) if JFK remained in office--however, WAS the military. Not only had they been reigned in by JFK (through both McNamara and Taylor) as evidenced by the rather restrained approach employed to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis, but JFK's speech at the American University and the signing of NSAM 263 calling for withdrawal from Vietnam threatened to disrupt, if not destroy, the very paradigm under which the cold warriors functioned. Without that paradigm their existence (as they conceived it to be) was no longer necessary. As to your points about "Was it the military who..." did various things in the aftermath -- I think the answer to many of those questions is, "Yes, indirectly." It would serve no purpose for a coup to be undone by the people within hours of it having been "operationally" successful. Had the military directly revealed its hand there very well could have been an all out revolution--a "Civil War" if you will -- The People vs The Millitary Police State, in short order. It would have been a mess and by no stretch of the imagination would it have been considered a victory. So, the perps use surrogates. They were already lined up to go. McGeorge Bundy had just signed the draft of NSAM 273 on the day before the assassination, which began the reversal of the NSAM [263] that JFK had signed only 6 weeks previously! I think it naive for anyone in 2010 to believe that the military (among others) had no stake in the escalation of the war in Vietnam. It's still a difficult thing each Memorial Day to reflect on the names of 58,000+ Americans who gave their lives to fight an ill conceived war, the longest in our history, and the only one we ever lost...so far--and all because the man that was the duly elected Commander-in Chief by the people was murdered before he could stop it.

Good work, Chris! FWIW: Horned concludes that Deloach's "32 year old memory" in 1995 is off by one day and that he actually didn't view the film until 3:00am on the morning of SUNDAY the 24th.

I can't find anything either, Bill. Good questions...

Good stuff, Bill. Thanks again. Yes, Greg. Same name. But he was well known at NPIC as Bill Smith, not William Smith. I'm quite confident it is him and he can tell us who the briefing boards McMahon and Hunter helped make were for. But of course, ARRB missed him because they were chasing the Secret Service. The young man who McMahon said made the briefing boards is probably still alive too since McMahon said he was young at the time. My point being that there are identifiable witnesses who can still answer the unanswered questions but those Congressmen responsible for the oversight of the JFK Act and the work of the ARRB have never had an oversight hearing in the ten years since the ARRB went out of existence. Like McMahon, the oversight committee is the only responsible party capable of giving the former CIA employees the proper dispensation to discuss the Z-film at NPIC and require their testimony under oath. These questions that we are posing are not, as Rollie Zavata suggested, unanswerable. BK

Thanks Bill. Upon what are you basing your opinion that Bill Smith--who Homer McMahon said was a Secret Service agent--was the same "Bill Smith" who worked for NPIC? Is it just the "same name" --and the fact that the Secret Service denied anyone by that name having been in their employ--or is there more?