Greg Burnham

I just spoke with Jim. He said he thinks the idea has merit and he will run it by Judyth.

Judyth?

Doug,

At this juncture, I don't think that the proper venue would be Jim Fetzer's show. (No offense, Jim). In order for a public interview to be conducted properly I would think that a much more "neutral venue" is preferred.

I just spoke with Len Osanic. He agreed to have both Doug and Judyth on Black Op Radio. The purpose of the show will be to have a non-confrontational "question and answer" session.

Neither he nor I want a "knock down drag out" show! So, it needs to be cordial, but NOT restrained. Respectful adversity is acceptable.

Also, due to the "time difference" it might be preferable to pre-record the show so that Judyth is not forced to participate at 4:00am (her time) for a "live" show that will be on the air at 6:00 pst.

Well, any takers?

Monk:

I hope Judyth does not point to Life Magazine which detailed many of LBJ's legal problems the week befeore the assassination. This is research, not memory.

Well, in any event, the Life Magazine article's headline (or content) didn't say:

"Vice President Wants JFK Dead Within a Week or So Due to Involvement with Billie Sol Estes and Other Sordid Scandals"

So, that dog don't hunt, anyway.

Is Judyth suggesting that Oswald was specially briefed about these problems? If so, by whom and for what reason? If you catch up with the thread you will see that virtually every good question is left unanswered.

I'm very much "caught up" Doug! Thanks. The mere implication that Oswald was somehow "privy" to this information is inescapably absurd. If he said this to Judyth, it was nothing more than a fluke. But, in light of the aftermath, to believe that such a statistically implausible fluke actually occured, is beyond the pale.

Judyth will not or has not produced the tape that allegedly contradicts the account of the Mary Ferrell incident and will not subject the alleged writing of Oswald for expert analysis. I just recently found out that Judyth is a member of this forum and sees everything. Why do all of her responses have to get filtered through a third party? I will gladly interview and tape Anna Lewis myself. I hope you get a chance to review the threads.

Doug Weldon

Perhaps Judyth will agree to be questioned by you "on the air" so that there are no "problems with tape recordings" and such? She held up quite well to my "in person" interview, so it's not like she's too fragile, IMO. Of course, that was over 10 years ago.

[snip...]

Even if her various claims were true, which seems unlikely since she appears in not a single document regarding Oswald,

==SINCE SHE POSED AS MARINA OSWALD==

her tales are so peripheral to the assassination as to be meaningless.

========

Jim, I am probably way behind here, but is there anything besides Judyth's own statements that would tend to substantiate her claims about "posing as Marina"? For instance, was Marina documented as having been seen with Lee (or Harvey--whatever!) in New Orleans at a time when she [Marina] was supposedly still in Dallas? Such conflicting documentation would be very relevant in light of Judyth's claim. On the other side of the coin, if there is nothing indicating Marina was "in two places at the same time" (one location being New Orleans) there is no way for researchers to know if Judyth is telling the truth about impersonating Marina. She "might be" telling the truth, but you can't go to the bank with that...

2) HE TELLS ME THAT LYNDON JOHNSON'S SCANDALS ARE ONE REASON FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT WANTING THE ASSASSINATION TO YAKE(sic) PLACE--IS THIS ALSO MEANINGLESS?

Jim & Judyth,

How would Oswald know this? C'mon? How? Did he get it from Madeleine Brown? How, why, and for what reason would Oswald know anything about LBJ's legal problems? Ok, Ok, --let's ASSUME he did... But, even if he did know it and said it to Judyth... still: "that he said it to Judyth" is meaningless TODAY. It wouldn't be meaningless if Judyth had reported this to authorities before the fact, then her heroism would be well appreciated. As it is, JFK is dead.

3) HE IDENTIFIED HIMSELF TO ME AS AN AGENT BORROWED BY THE CIA AND ALSO USED BY THE FBI--IS THIS MEANINGLESS, TOO?

This is old news, Judyth! We already knew this information before you came along. That he worked for both agencies is meaningful, historically. However, it is personally meaningless to me that he told you this. If you had revealed this BEFORE we already knew it, perhaps I'd feel differently. If you had reported this to researchers BEFORE the documents proving same had emerged, then it would have a lot more meaning. And, I might add, it still would have been vigorously challenged by skeptics, unless and until documentation was forthcoming in support of the claim. In this case it would have panned out. Problem is, it "panned out" before the fact--before you even mentioned it. "That dog don't hunt."

4) I REPORTED THAT HE TOLD ME HOW HE TRIED TO SAVE KENNEDY--AND HE REPORTED THAT HE WAS SUCCESSFUL ONCE (WE NOW HAVE ABRAHAM BOLDEN TO VERIFY THAT) -- HIS REPORTED ATTEMPTS TO SAVE KENNEDY ARE MEANINGLESS?

It is a claim. Nothing more. You've provided no proof, Judyth! If you're "the real deal" then to you it is proved because you remember it! But that doesn't constitute proof for anyone else. Understand, I'm not challenging your story, I'm attempting to help you comprehend why others don't find it compelling. You need to understand that there are reasons for skepticism beyond "my skeptics all have nefarious motives and intentions". -- Did Abraham Bolden say that Oswald successfully "saved Kennedy's life" once? Or did he report a generic event without mentioning Oswald's name? See what I mean?

5) LEE TOLD ME HE PENETRATED THE ASSASSINATION RING AT RISK OF HIS LIFE--THAT IS MEANINGLESS, TOO?

Well, if true, he penetrated it, and screwed up!!! I assume he was supposed to prevent it from succeeding? If so, he no doubt worked for the CIA, who taught him to be INCOMPETENT, which is their trademark.

Well, that's pretty competent incompetency. So how incompetent are they really?

Indeed. They are extremely competent at lies, deception, cover stories, propaganda, red herrings, and the like. IOW: They're very good at "the manipulation of information" since they are, first and foremost, "of academia" for that is from where they recruit their agents. As you imply, they can manipulate information so competently as to appear incompetent in any area necessary to persuade, divert attention, or otherwise protect "interests" judged to be of paramount importance.

Bill Cosby once said [paraphrased]:

"The father in a family is brilliant because he is the only one who can get out of doing chores believably. All he has to do is perform them so poorly that his wife sends him back to his room because he didn't do them right, which is exactly where he wanted to be in the first place! Watching a father operate is beautiful...he's a genius."

Dulles expressed his misgivings to McNamara, who responded with assurances that the DIA would be only a coordinating body and that it would not supplant the intelligence branches of the Army, Navy and Air Force.

It's an interesting response from McNamara. The responsibilities that he is claiming the DIA would be limited to performing are technically the ONLY "regular" functions for which the CIA is mandated as per NSC Directive. They [CIA] are tasked primarily with the coordination of the intelligence that has been gathered by OTHER agencies. They were never intended to be "operational" or to conceive of programs, or gather intelligence, etc...except "from time to time" if and when instructed to do so by the NSC. When JFK signed NSAM 55 instructing the Joint Chiefs to serve him in cold war matters similarly to how they serve him in conventional war and for their intelligence to be delivered to him DIRECTLY and "unfiltered" --effectively circumventing the role of the CIA-- it sent shock waves everywhere.

Allen Dulles in his book on spook work (I forget the title) made a point of the fact that something always goes wrong in a covert operation. Cover is blown. But people don't notice or don't think anything of it.

So it's not that the CIA is incompetent. Blown cover is the nature of the business. With the exception of the Bay of Pigs, all of the CIA's best known operations, in which cover has been blown, have been successful. (And it can be argued that the Bay of Pigs operation was designed to fail, which it succeeded in doing).

Cover has been blown, the American people have noticed, but the fact is they don't give a damn. They don't give a damn time and again.

IMO, if an operation that is designed and intended to be covert becomes overt, it is a major blunder and a sign of incompetence. If the CIA had been operationally in command in Dallas, not only would their role have been fully revealed, but JFK would have ended up dying of old age!

Nobody said they were competent. Most murderers are NOT.

Jack

Well, if a murder plan does succeed and the perps are not discovered, then they were competent, no?

Likewise, in this EXCEPTIONAL case [the murder of the POTUS] the perps' plan and execution succeeded. So, whoever was behind it and involved in it, operationally, was very competent, indeed.

However, competency is not the hallmark of the CIA.

It is a very interesting subterfuge. The USGOV involves itself in various "operations" on a daily basis, literally. PROFESSIONALS are employed to execute these operations. These are people who DO NOTHING ELSE IN LIFE except "operations" on behalf of the USGOV (or sometimes, on behalf of other "friendly" governments, too).

The "real" operators--and the agencies to which they have allegiance--are NEVER exposed--NEVER. That's the way it is.

The CIA deals with "plausible deniability" -- But, that's child's play, by comparison to the REAL DEAL.

The real intelligence apparatus does NOT deal with "plausible deniability" -- they couldn't care less because they're invisible. Untouchable. If discovery gets too close...they throw the CIA "under the bus" everytime. It's easy. The CIA volunteers for that role because they already appear to be incompetent. It's the opposite of the 1960's "plausible deniability" mantra... Today, it's all about: "believable incompetence" --

When you think about it, it's quite brilliant...in a scary way.

There are a few reasons that I don't believe the "Agency" nor "the agency" was involved "operationally" in the assassination. The first reason may come as a surprise. They are incompetent when it comes to operations. Why? Because they do not employ "operators" -- nor are they well equipped to "train" operators, as it is not their governmental function.

The CIA gets way too much credit for things that they simply SUCK at doing!

Cases in point (listed in no particular order):

the Bay of Pigs Fiasco;

the Iran/Contra Scandal;

the Watergate Hotel Break In;

being discovered as having orchestrated the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, Allende, Trujillo, & Arbenz.

The fact that the agency's involvement in these "operations" was discovered, in the first place, is all important here! As a covert unit, they should NEVER be discovered. But they were. They always are. They are considered the "red headed step children" of the intelligence community who deserve to be beaten down. Hell, they volunteer for it!

The CIA is a front operation for the REAL Intelligence Agencies of the US Government. Make no mistake--JFK was assassinated by the MILITARY's Intelligence apparatus. He was treasonously removed by them because he was erroneously viewed as an incompetent "Commander-in Chief" who might cause WWIII by accident.

In the year 2010 this should not even be in question any longer.

I agree with Bill. I don't believe the Agency ordered, planned or executed the operation. However, I do believe they've been entirely up to their necks--and sometimes "over their heads"--covering up the facts of the assassination.

JUDYTH RESPONDS:

[snip]

Baker: I don't know what you were able to see in the car.

McGehee: Just saw the back of your head. That was all I saw.

Baker: OK. Well, was it a dark-haired lady?

McGehee: Right. That's all I know.

Baker: Well, now, it wasn't a blonde? She was dark-haired?

McGehee: Yes, dark-haired.

==An attempt was made here by JVB NOT to have it a leading question.==

I disagree, Jim. Those were leading questions. By contrast, "non-leading questions" would have been: "Did you see the color of the hair-- and if so, what was that color?"

(Technically, even my example is leading! But, its ridiculous to assume the person in the car might not have had hair at all!)

Jim and all,

In my interview with Judyth I did not detect even a shred of hostility from her, nor did she come across as having a capacity to become hostile. That is not to say she is incapable, I have no way of knowing that, but, although I was not easy on her--even aggresive in my skepticism--she was unflappable. In subsequent correspondence, both telephonically and in writing, that same demeanor was consistently demonstrated.

So, even though I agree that the content of the posted email was disturbing, as I replied to Doug, there is another issue. In fairness to Judyth, I also must note that the email's content, tone, and apparent intent--was inconsistent with my experience with Judyth, both in person and in subsequent correspondence.

I find this two e-mails to be intimidating, coercive, and disturbing.

Doug Weldon

I couldn't agree with you more, Doug. IMO, the vast majority of her detractors have asked for reasonable corroboration of her claims, which to date has not been forthcoming. If the claim (that there exists abundant proof) that Judyth made in these emails was true, I fail to understand why it was so important to her to acquire Mary's endorsement. However, if such evidence or proof was non-existent it would be very important to recruit someone of Mary's caliber to lend credibility to her story in the absence of corroborative evidence.

Thanks, Monk. I have told you this already- but it's really great to have your voice on the forum.

You're welcome, Don. It's great to be here since I got kicked off of the history channel! But, I'm in good company...

Jim and Doug,

If I might make a few comments. Please, either or both of you, correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding of your respective positions, which I personally find to both have merit and flaws. (Or just tell me to shut up--that's OK too). I think that both of you will at times use verbiage in a way that the other takes too literally or at least applies a literal interpretation to an inappropriate portion of the response. So that "what it means" to the speaker, is misconstrued because of "what it sounds like" to the listener-- IMHO.

First, Doug, if I'm correctly interpreting your meaning, you're stating that the BEST corroboration of JVB's taped statements, is the contents of the actual tape itself. If, when it's produced, we can assume or establish that it is not altered, I would tend to agree with that--all other things be equal. I think Jim would agree with that, but I'm not sure. It sounds resonable to me though. It's not like you said, "if there was a tape, then I'd believe..." -- She opened the door to the tape issue by claiming she had it. I doubt this first sectoin is the part that caused the miscommunication.

[emphasis added below]

...I am sure you understand how important the actual tape is in weighing JVB's credibility and veracity. She stated that she has the tape. She simply has to provide you with a copy otherwise she is again the only corroboration for her statements...

However, you ended the sentence this way:

... which is worthless.

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.

And one has to assume that she is not telling the truth.

Again, if taken literally, one could interpret you to mean: "If she doesn't produce that which she claims she has, then she IS definitely lying." -- Except, that's not what you meant--I think. What you said, sounds like that, but that would also be fallacious. Your meaning, in my interpretation, is that: "If she doesn't produce the evidence she claims is in her possession to corroborte her story, then we must proceed as if that evidence does not exist. IOW: We cannot admit "invisible" evidence.

Again, she is the one who has claimed that she has the tape.

This one is hard for me to help rationalize for the same reason Jim stated. It seems like a double standard is being employed here in the most bias manner. There is one notable difference, however. Lifton is a known quantity among researchers. This doesn't make him infallible, but his integrity has been well established and is not in question. Judyth's has not been well established yet. This does not mean she lacks it, just that many people have yet to be persuaded.

“I respect a researcher's right to focus on and retire bogus claims, be they CT or LN, as there exist plenty that are clearly out of whack. This just doesn't happen to be one of them.”

“This just doesn't happen to be one of them.”

Are you saying the Twyman/Fetzer claim that 2 empty shells and a live round were found in the sniper nest is not a “bogus claim” and is not “clearly out of whack”?

That is correct, Todd. I think the photo is inconclusive and somewhat up for interpretation at this point. I certainly wouldn't claim I can tell for sure either way because I can't. So, it isn't "clearly out of whack"... and merely claiming that it is--for the purpose of denigrating Jim Fetzer and Noel Twyman--doesn't make it so.

Pat/Bill,

Thanks for your comments- I appreciate them. Of course, you're both right on many counts- we shouldn't accept any and all conspiracy theories and the critical community has always been fractured and prone to personality conflicts. I also should have specified Dallas law enforcement in general, not just the police. Pat's points about the early critics are all good ones. While many did speculate that Oswald himself was a shooter, and that the mafia was behind it all, I think that virtually all the major ones (the ones whose works we still read today) questioned almost everything and agreed Oswald was a patsy. I'm all too aware of Weisberg's antipathy towards Lane; when I was a member of Lane's Citizens Committe of Inquiry, we all joked about the "feud" between them. Weisberg was a cranky individual who was not the most pleasant man in person (during a long evening I spent with him in the early 1980s, he spent most of the time dismissing all other critics), but he was one of the most important researchers of all, and he also made an excellent case, imho, for Oswald being the figure in the doorway. That being said....

Maybe I didn't explain myself well. I don't necessarily believe that two shells were found on the sixth floor. You may very well be right, and there were three shells found and no mystery here. I also don't necessarily believe a Mauser, and not the Carcano, was found by Boone and Weitzman on the sixth floor. I don't necessarily think there was a hole in the windshield of the limo, either. My point was- there are legitimate doubts about all these issues, imo, but there appears to be an increasing percentage of my fellow researchers who believe they've been definitely settled.

I usually agree with Bill Kelly, and I strongly concur with his view that there is plenty of strong evidence for conspiracy, without all these tangential issues. I also like the idea of Doug Horne's line in the sand, and I'm firmly on the coup side with him there. However, at this point, I don't know how many researchers would agree with us. That's what concerns me- if we keep giving ground on so many questions that are minor in and of themselves, for no apparent reason, then before we know it, there will be precious little left to build any case for conspiracy on.

I respect both of you very much and hope I've made myself a little clearer.

Hey Don,

I thought you were quite clear the first time and I agree with you. I didn't interpret your first post as a definitive claim about the items for which you were criticized and then chose to clarify in your second. But, that's just me, I guess. The important point in your overview, IMHO, is that it is counter-productive for researchers to conveniently declare "case closed" selectively, if and when a piece of the puzzle that doesn't fit their pet theory interferes with that theory prior to that piece being properly retired.

Without a doubt it's true that not every single theory ever advanced about this case is 100% true, but our task isn't to definitively prove which CT's are false. Our task is to demonstrate that one theory is false, namely, the official theory. It is the lone nuts' job to pick apart each and every CT -- it is our job to pick apart 2, the WCR and the HSCA, primarily. We would also be remiss if we didn't pick apart the many psycho side show productions that attempt to rationalize the incomprehensible LN pseudo-science.

I respect a researcher's right to focus on and retire bogus claims, be they CT or LN, as there exist plenty that are clearly out of whack. This just doesn't happen to be one of them.

Heartland Conference Gave Global-Warming Skeptics Great Ammunitionby Ross Kaminsky

05/24/2010

Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley pulled an enormous calculator out of the inside pocket of his finely tailored English suit, pointed to a formula in the paper he was holding, punched some buttons, and explained, showing me the calculator results, that if we shut down the entire world’s economy for 25 years, the maximum possible impact on global temperatures would be 1 degree centigrade.

That’s what passed for light banter at the Heartland Institute’s 4th Annual Conference on Climate Change, which I had the good fortune to attend for three days last week, meeting a pantheon of climate “skeptic” heroes including Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Steve McIntyre and Roy Spencer, just to name a few of the dozens of speakers hailing from two dozen nations.

Heartland’s president, Joe Bast, set the tone the first night while addressing the meeting’s roughly 800 attendees. Bast quoted a scientist—and I use that term very loosely—from the University of East Anglia, home of the Climategate scandal, who actually wrote in a recently published book: “We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but what climate change can do for us.” Rarely has there been a more public statement of the mindset of global warmists.

The three-day meeting was composed of meals in a large room for all attendees with four simultaneous interspersed break-out sessions, usually with three or four speakers each, on topics of science, economics or public policy. Because there were four sessions at once, I necessarily missed three quarters of the presentations, but Heartland has already begun posting video coverage and PowerPoint presentations on their web site so people can see what they missed. Pajamas Media (PJTV) also streamed and archived many of the presentations and speeches.

Following are some of the highlights of the various presentations and speeches I attended. My focus tended toward the science-oriented break-out sessions.

From Sweden’s Nils-Axel Mörner, one of the world’s leading experts on sea levels: Sea levels are simply not rising around the Maldives, Tuvalu, Bangladesh, even Venice, despite the fact these low-lying places are the poster children for the supposed coming catastrophe caused by “global warming. Referring to some of his older work, Mörner made a point I had never heard before: If the sea level were rising, then the Law of Angular Momentum says that the speed of Earth’s rotation must slow. However, the earth’s rotation is not slowing, thus confirming his data that sea levels are not rising.

From New Zealand scientist Bob Carter: Sea levels around Australia have fallen more than a meter over the past 6,000 years. Still, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) continues to trumpet sea-level rise as a cause of major concern and a reason to curb worldwide carbon emissions. According to Dr. Carter, “In using IPCC advice to set their policies, national governments are negligent and fail utterly to do their duty to their people.”

From Western Washington University’s Don Easterbrook: “We have begun global cooling which I predicted in 1998.” He also noted that natural global warming much more intense than modern warming has occurred many times in the geologic past without substantial changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Easterbrook also pointed out that twice as many people are killed by extreme cold as by extreme heat and that global cooling poses far greater other risks as well, including risks to food production and increased demand for energy.

Perhaps the most important non-warmist scientist, MIT’s Richard Lindzen said that doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would contribute only 1 degree (Celsius) to warming. All IPCC models predict more because they assume “positive feedbacks” which exist only in models; real measurements show slight negative feedback. (Positive feedback means that climatic reaction to warmer temperatures would be changes that would lead to even warmer temperatures, which is not what is happening.)

Lindzen savaged IPCC models, saying that their higher sensitivity to CO2 changes is made consistent with observed warming by invoking arbitrary negative forcings and other adjustments. He also noted that “even if it were true that models are our only tool, it would be true only if models were objective and not arbitrarily adjusted.”

He argued that we should be suspicious of climate alarmism for five primary reasons: The alarmists claims of incontrovertibility, their arguing from authority instead of scientific reasoning or even elementary logic, their use of the term “global warming” without either definition or quantification, their identification of complex phenomena that have multiple causes as being based on a single cause, and their conflation of natural climate variability with man-made global warming.

And in the most fundamentally significant words spoken about those who disagree with the cult of Al Gore, Lindzen suggested that the word “skeptic” should not be used:

“Skepticism” implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global-warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary. The failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from Climategate and other instances of overt cheating.

I asked Dr. Lindzen whether, much as government seems inherently corrupting to many politicians, something in the structure of science has become inherently corrupting to many scientists. His response was that “science has changed to being ‘programmatic,’ meaning that when you get the answer, you end the program. So we have a structure in science that tends to cause scientists to want to avoid getting answers.”

Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick spent some time signing small hockey sticks that said “Mann-made global warming” on them, in reference to the infamous IPCC “hockey stick” graph created by Michael Mann and utterly destroyed by McIntyre and McKitrick. It is a wonder that Mann still has a job anywhere. Indeed, several conference speakers noted how every investigation into the corruption of the climate alarmists, including Climategate, has been an utter whitewash.

One of the other fascinating scientific topics was how global temperatures are measured. Joe D’Aleo of Icecap noted that 75% of the world’s weather stations dropped out around 1990, with missing data increasing ten-fold after 1990. There are either no adjustments or totally inadequate adjustments for “urban heat island effect”, a point made by several speakers who suggested that most of the warming the IPCC has measured is simply the warming created in big cities. The point was driven home by a picture of the Rome airport weather station: It’s in a fenced area right behind the jet wash of airplanes taking off.

IPCC data is changed frequently with no explanation: 20% of NASA’s data changed 16 times in 2.5 years from 2004 to 2007. Data modifications for Darwin, Australia changed a cooling trend of .7 degrees into a warming trend of 1.2 degrees, and other such shenanigans. It’s the ultimate example of “garbage in, garbage out.”

Perhaps one of the most remarkable presentations was by Andrei Illarionov of Moscow’s Institute for Economic Analysis. He showed that the methodology of Phil Jones and the “keepers of the surface temperature data” at the University of East Anglia was such that no matter how many of Russia’s weather stations were used, the resulting data sets were nearly identical, matching the data from Russia’s four oldest stations, all of which are in major urban areas and thus substantially overstate actual changes in climate. The same fraudulent methodology is almost certainly used for data for everywhere else on earth. I spoke with Illarionov for more than half an hour trying to understand how it was possible. I still don’t understand except that it’s clear the warmists’ data prove Mark Twain’s maxim that “there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

The conference concluded with one of the best speeches I’ve ever heard, by the aforementioned Lord Christopher Monckton, one of the most important and effective opponents of Al Gore in the world. Describing Monckton’s speech can’t do it justice. Instead, I urge you to watch it yourself at this link, clicking on the third video in the first row. It will be one of the most enjoyable and informative hours you’ve heard. His infectious enthusiasm and drive for the truth is a large part of the reason that the 4th International Conference on Climate Change had just a hint of celebration, of the sense that maybe we’re finally winning—or at least no longer losing.

There have been various derailments, various insults thrown back and forward by various members throughout this thread (and now subsequently in other threads). I apologise for missing many of them, and they should have been removed before now. That's my fault for not paying closer attention.

Since that is the case, everyone shall start off with a clean slate. Just remember the rules:

- Don't question people's motives.

- Don't comment on people's research abilities.

- Don't call people liars, etc.

- Try to stay on topic.

Thank you.

Well done! Hey, better late than never.

Monk,

The "also ignored" you mention refers back to a prior paragraph in which William "Mac" McCullough is described as "consistently ignored." This is simply JVB's opinion that others have ignored witnesses she cites as evidence. It appears to state that these witnesses have been ignored by others, but it leaves open the question as to whether they provide evidence of relevance. I don't think it begs the question to which you refer.

Dean

Hmmm. It doesn't? Perhaps it begs a different question.

Ok, then, who the hell are these people? Does anyone even know besides Judyth? How do/can we substantiate their claims? Or, an even better question: Have their claims been substantiated yet? At this late date, it is reasonable to expect that Judyth wouldn't be surprised to find that SUBSTANTIATION is a prerequisite to acceptance. It's not like she just released her story. She's been public for more than a decade, yet there remains very little corroberation for her claims. I know, I know, she still could be telling the truth...but, THAT does not persuade.

Trust me, I believe her. Ok? I really do and always have. But, I could never go to the bank with that! And neither can she or you guys. It just will not fly as it stands.

I have remained neutral in this discussion for the most part. But now, as an advocate FOR her, I must say, this is not convincing or persuasive--even for me--and I believe her!

Well, I think that's an improvement. But, still--the implication "begs the question" again! Read your own post below and tell me what you really think, please. I'll even give you a clue... the key phrase is "Also ignored..." -- Point: "If there is nothing there of relevance" to begin with, then there is "nothing there of relevance to ignore" either! So, again the presentation begs the question by assuming there was something there to ignore in the first place--but that is exactly what's in question....

Also ignored is the Charles Thomas family that has asserted that their father/grandfather/uncle worked in clandestine matters and was engaged in activities that Baker described to them, evidence that she had been with Oswald and Thomas in New Orleans. Baker presented the family with evidence of having known Charles Thomas. The family lives in a private, hard-to-find location in Louisiana. Charles Thomas' granddaughter assisted Dr. John DeLane Williams in obtaining data on New Orleans for his statistical analysis of Baker and Oswald's activities.

[snip] Evidence is not the same thing as proof. The proof is for everyone to decide for themselves. Thanks!

Agreed. Evidence is not the same thing as proof. And sometimes evidence is counter-indicative to the claim or claims being made, in terms of support.

However, if you believe that "evidence is not proof" then please refrain from "begging the question" in your presentation. As an example, you said [in bold my emphasis]:

"Also ignored is the Charles Thomas family that has verified that their father/grandfather/uncle worked in clandestine matters and was engaged in activities that Baker described to them, proving she had been with Oswald and Thomas in New Orleans. Baker presented the family with irrefutable proof of having known Charles Thomas."

I thought this was evidence only...not proof? It would be preferable that you not frame testimony/evidence as though they were "already facts in evidence" for the jury when they are not.

[snip]

He misinterprets anything that comes close to him.

Josiah Thompson

Ok, Tink--now "we're into it" -- you and me...again. It's been a long time. "Tally ho, here we go--I'm in!"

To whom exactly are you referring in your post? Jim or Noel? Don't you think that the term "anything" is fallacious by definition in this context?

One of the most maddening features of trying to discuss anything with Professor Fetzer is his unvarying posture of never admitting he is wrong about anything. Over the course of the last few years he has been proved wrong again and again but refuses to admit it. Years ago, he began saying that two not three cartridge cases were found on the 6th Floor near the sniper’s nest. This claim was contradicted by numerous statements from law enforcement and non-law enforcement personnel. It was also contradicted by crime scene photos and the sworn testimony of numerous DPD personnel. Fetzer based his claim on several pages of a book published by a friend of his named Noel Twyman. The book was called Bloody Treason and, if memory serves, was self-published. Years ago, when the book first came out, Twyman’s argument was examined and found to be vacuous; he simply misinterpreted the documents and photos he presented as backing his claim. Fetzer knew of all this because he was part of the discussion.

Tink,

Noel Twyman is also my friend. For the record, I confronted him with this dispute years ago and advanced (as devil's advocate) the theories that you and others expressed. Noel stood by his original conclusions and was unwavering in his conviction. His position is unequivocal and firmly based not just on the photographic interpretation, but on witness interviews that he conducted. I haven't communicated with him in a while, but I would be very surprised if he changed his position. Noel is known for his attention to detail--and has voluntarily corrected errors and omissions without being requested to do so. It is the nature of his personality. He has nothing to prove and no image of himself to which he must cling.

But alas, we post erroneously to a thread about Judyth Vary Baker.