Greg Burnham

Greg,

Yes, I have a copy of my article. And I've looked in vain for a reference in it (or anywhere else except Kill Zone) to congressmen and senators being on the flight. I didn't really think I (or you) would find one.

Ron

I apologize, Ron. I thought you were questioning the flight of the Cabinet members themselves. My mistake.

Greg,

Please be more specific. I need the specific reference(s) on my own website to congressmen and senators being aboard the Tokyo flight.

Ron

Ron,

I assumed it was your own website, perhaps it wasn't. I should have said it was from an "article" or a "paper" you wrote. You can find it reproduced here:

By Ron Ecker

I've also never heard of "U.S. congressmen and senators" being aboard the Cabinet flight to Japan on 11/22/63, nor of more than one code book missing from the plane ("all code books" were missing, "a very serious matter") (Kill Zone, p. 65).

What do you mean "I've also never heard of U.S. congressmen and senators being aboard the Cabinet flight to Japan on 11/22/63" ?? Huh?

This is from your OWN website, and I quote RON ECKER:

==============

THE REASON FOR THE TOKYO TRIP

[...] In June 1961 JFK met in Washington with Japanese Prime Minister Hayato Ikeda, and in a joint statement they announced an agreement "to establish a joint United States-Japan committee on trade and economic affairs at the cabinet level." 14 In a November 8, 1961 press conference, JFK commented on "the success and significance of the first meeting of the Joint United States-Japan Committee on Trade and Economic Affairs," which was held the week before in Japan, and which he described as a "joint Cabinet group." 15 (The acronym for this committee in State Department documents is the Joint ECONCOM.) The second annual meeting was held in Washington on December 3-5, 1962, and the third was to have taken place in Tokyo on November 25-27, 1963. 16

A videotaped greeting from JFK was scheduled to be sent to Japan in the first ever U.S.-Japan satellite telecast on the afternoon of November 22. Instead the Japanese people were introduced to the satellite telecommunications era with news of the assassination. 17 Prime Minister Ikeda went to Washington for JFK's funeral, and President Johnson personally expressed regret that the tragedy had forced postponement of the third annual Joint ECONCOM meeting. Rescheduled, the meeting was held in Tokyo on January 27-28, 1964. 18"

================

You obviously have heard about it. I don't agree with your analysis...

I have not read it cover to cover, but I have read enough pieces to know there are issues. There are also some other things in the book I do agree with. Such as his position that the South Knoll would have been an excellent spot, I would agree with that, Ive seen the area and have to say that would have been my pick.

I do not need to be intimately familiar with the inner workings of a clock to be able to tell what time it is.

I too would prefer either a stationary target or, if not available (or unpredictable), one that was approaching me (getting larger) and descending below my horizontal LOS--particularly if target was in an open car.

Absolutely! The worst shot, and one to avoid, would be the knoll, where an issue would be a passing right to left shot. Although the Snipers nest location was not bad either, I just dont think it was the best choice. However one has to take what one can get lol.

The "key" to the knoll shot would have to be a stationary target. Without a guaranteed FULL stop it is--without a lot of luck--way too uncertain. But, I don't like the TSBD shot for several reasons. First, (assuming that is where I was staged) I wouldn't have passed up my BEST approach shot when target was on Houston Street immediately after straightening up after the turn from Main. The driver has NO escape route and very limited ability to acquire lateral motion! Granted, the angle is not optimal due to the relatively short distance and the fact that it is a moving target, which forces continuous adjustment, reducing the margin of error. However, if one were already positioned there, it seems to be the best opportunity, IMO.

However, waiting for the target to pass and acquire lateral motion down field is not smart--indeed, the target has an open escape route dead (no pun intended) ahead, as well.

Anyway, this is the wrong thread to discuss this subject, my bad.

I have not read it cover to cover, but I have read enough pieces to know there are issues. There are also some other things in the book I do agree with. Such as his position that the South Knoll would have been an excellent spot, I would agree with that, Ive seen the area and have to say that would have been my pick.

I do not need to be intimately familiar with the inner workings of a clock to be able to tell what time it is.

I too would prefer either a stationary target or, if not available (or unpredictable), one that was approaching me (getting larger) and descending below my horizontal LOS--particularly if target was in an open car.

Yes Sir, it in fact is. I have never ever in all my years heard of a recreation at Quantico for example. Among other things.

How would you know? You said you've never even read it except for bits and pieces! What, you just happened to stumble upon the errors?

Greg,

Not at all so please do not misunderstand. I was and am in effect saying the same thing you are. Roberts has certainly made his place in this field, and I do not mean to imply that he has not. Further, if we are to look at this, Carlos Hathcock was not a trained sniper, by official terms, and yet he was the man who laid the foundation for all such schooling in the Marine Corp! If you think about it it is quite amazing.

I would also add that there are many civilians with the knowledge and experience to render such opinions, that have never served in the military. Hence we need to give weight based on the substance of what one says, and not just their official accolades.

I think when evaluating an opinion we need to take all things into consideration.

So, then--it's illogical for you to say that the conclusions/opinions regarding ballistics that are contrary to your conclusions, are not well founded because those disagreeing with you don't have as much experience as you do. We know this is fallacious because Lt Colonel Roberts disagrees with you on every count of which I am aware. I wish you would refrain from claiming it in the future.

If you could just show me where he had official Marine Scout Sniper training it would be of interest to me.

If you're implying that Craig isn't qualified to render a well informed opinion, I beg to differ. I sense that you are calling his qualifications into question. There are many people who have not been official Marine Scout Snipers but that have other experience which affords them sufficient knowledge to have well informed opinions. Moreover, not everyone who has held a particular position necessarily makes correct judgment calls. It is hard for me to imagine that you are actually placing yourself in a position to judge Lt Colonel Roberts' qualifications. Not only did he rise to the rank of Lt Colonel, sargeant, but he served in Vietnam--in combat, with a Unit referred to as, The Walking Dead, and received the Purple Heart among 10 other combat decorations. He was on the Tulsa Police Department for 27 years and became a training officer for the Tulsa SWAT team's snipers, as well. Are you not willing to concede that he is an expert on the subject?

Greg,

I have read parts of it. Snips here and there. More importantly I have read his resume. Its revealing to say the least.

A couple things of note, is that he never held the official Mos of sniper, and in fact never qualified higher than Sharpshooter (Oswalds Rate) in the USMC.

I found it interesting as well that his MOS was an 0311, basic rifleman.

Craig Roberts retired from the armed forces in 1999 with 30 years total service. He was awarded ten decorations for his Marine Corps service in Vietnam, where he served as a Marine sniper. He was also a career police officer with the Tulsa, Oklahoma, police department. An internationally published writer, he is the author of Combat Medic-Vietnam and Police Sniper, as well as the co-author of One Shot-One Kill, and The Walking Dead.

As a Master Police Officer:

By 1971, a new unit was formed called the "TAC Squad," which was Tulsa's first "SWAT" type special operations team. Roberts was selected for his Vietnam combat experience and his training as a sniper and with explosives. By this time he had attended Bomb Disposal School in Dade County, Florida and was one of three department bomb technicians.

Above: Gunnery Sergeant (Ret.) Carlos Hathcock, one of the Marine Corps best known snipers, and Craig Roberts during training of Tulsa Police Department's Special Operations Team's snipers (1989)

Mike, do you know Lt. Col.Craig Roberts, USA, Ret.? He's the author of: "Kill Zone: A Sniper looks at Dealey Plaza"? Have you read the book?

Hey Mike,

[snip] I might also add that someone who knows ballistics can spot a "wannabe" a mile away. Those who do not understand the subject matter maybe more confused.

I would also tell you that there are several in the research community that I have known for years, and know me personally.[snip]

I almost laughed when I read that. I think I would have chosen an "authority" that did not use the term "perhaps" in defining the velocities. So your example is giving us his "guess" as to what the velocity range is. I prefer to accept the example from an educational resource.

Even more intriguing is how you know Mike Nelson to be one who "knows his stuff". Do you know him personally? Do you know Chuck Hawks?

So what possible basis could you define your opinion of the man, other than the fact that he agrees with Jim Fetzer, who has proven time and again to be a complete imbecile when dealing with ballistics? Normally I would take a man's word for recommending another persons opinion. In this case, and with your gross and obvious lack of honor, and ability, I have so ask.

HOW DO YOU KNOW MIKE NELSON "KNOWS HIS STUFF"?

By the way Jim, the Nelson article was not about velocity at all, it was about trajectory and the arch as it pertains to long distance shooting.

You really should run your mouth only about things you actually know about.....but then....

It would get might quiet around here.....

Hey Mike,

Just out of curiosity, what's your day job? How do we know you are an expert in ballistics? I'm not doubting it, I just would like to know your qualifications to render judgments on these matters. Is there anyone who can vouch for your expertise?

Thanks--

This is absolute nonsense. You need to go back and do some reading in this thread.

Jim Fetzer has ATTACKED several people even with regards to who they are, just for starters. This has been his instant reaction to their first posting in this thread. Myself, Dolva, Williams, to name a few. Paranoia, Greg, ever heard of that?

No need to be condescending, I'm not an idiot.

I've seen a lot of stupid things in this thread, but I am still surprised to see anyone actually defending his outrageously indefensible manors and the way he has conducted himself. He has broken every rule in the book over and over again, here. Hundreds of times, no doubt. AND, the mud has been directed towards every single one who has opposed his ridiculous, clownish way of argue about this matter.

Well, that is demonstrably false. First of all, characterizing his style of arguing as "ridiculous and clownish" is a subjective judgment. Second, to claim he has directed "mud" at every single one who has opposed his assertions is obviously false since he has not directed mud at me!

On the other hand, Fetzers desperation to find support for his standings, has been just as clear. No matter how silly, how wrong, how insignificant or outright irrelevant the argument, anyone who has supported him has been embraced as "brave and forthcoming".

Have you ever heard of "begging the question"? Well, you are.

Those are the people that are "very clever", "very intelligent", "very observant" and, indeed, the only ones who have actually read the "facts and evidence".

Indeed. And they are few and far between.

Nonsensical has gotten a whole new meaning through the course of this thread. Open your eyes, Greg.

You condescending little [expletive deleted by author]! I have my eyes wide open. I do not take sides on this one for a reason. I have not done adequate research on all of her claims to render a well informed opinion. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE, really, besides read forum posts? Not one thing by comparison!

It is extremely telling that many of those who consider themselves "researchers" have not actually researched anything beyond what is written on "internet forums" --and act as though they know what they are talking about!

Sorry, I lost my temper admins. Censor me if you must...but golly gee--this is ridiculous!

During the Cuban Missile Crisis both Kennedy and Khruschev allowed each other to "save face" while maintaining their position. IOW, they gave each other a "graceful way out" without caving in.

If they had employed the same strategy displayed by some of those participating in this thread, we would have all been fried to a crisp!

Jack and all,

As a point of fact:

I have not always agreed with Jim in this thread and I have opposed the relevance of JVB's story to the JFK assassination. Yet, contrary to the allegations of her detractors, Jim has not attacked me as a result of my disagreeing with him or my lack of committing to fully support JVB. Therefore, he has not, in fact, "attacked" anyone or everyone who fails to embrace JVB's story.

He has said that he was "taken aback" by some of my positions; he has said he was "grieved" by them, as well. But, he has never attacked me.

I suggest that if one does not draw first blood (or had not in the past drawn first blood) against JVB, Jim would respond in kind. It's a fine line sometimes...

GO_SECURE

monk

IMO censorship is not appropriate, and I so posted when it happened.

Again, I HAVE NOT ATTACKED YOU regarding anything. I have questioned

many statements by JVB and being neither logical nor factual. I keep your

support for her story SEPARATE from what she says. You cannot refrain

from attacking anyone who opposes her story and/or your support. You

need to get back your OBJECTIVITY like you had before you became

obsessed with Judyth.

I have no problem with you posting the photos I furnished here, on DPF,

your blog or ANYWHERE. I believe you should allow reasoned opposition,

however, instead of declaring that everyone must believe as you do.

The above DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ATTACK. As you say, you seem

to be losing your grip! Get a handle!

Jack

As many times as I have explained why Judyth's story is so important, it

grieves me that Monk and Jack are unable to acknowledge the elements:

(1) it humanizes the man the Warren Commission demonized as a "lone,

demented assassin", when he was actually a highly sociable, intelligent,

and responsible agent of the US government who appears to have been

working in several capacities (for the FBI, the ONI, and the CIA); (2) it

leads back to the rapid-cancer bio-weapon project, which seems to have

been #1 among the CIA's "family jewels", the only one that it redacted,

even after publicizing the others in its collection, apparently because it is

still TOO HOT to handle; and (3) it would inevitably reveal and reinforce

interest in the polio vaccine that was mandated for some 100,000,000

your people but was contaminated with a cancer-causing monkey virus,

which may be responsible for the epidemic of soft-tissue cancers which

is ravaging the United States and which Haslam's DR. MARY'S MONKEY

so ably explains. I don't understand why Jack and Monk are unable to

appreciate that there is a great deal at stake here far beyond details of

the personal relationship between Lee H. Oswald and Judyth Vary Baker.

Research on this specific thread is amply justified on multiple grounds.

Jim,

I don't personally need Judyth's story to help me appreciate the humanity of Oswald. I have studied him for decades. I have no interest in the cancer bio-weapon subject as it is not related to the assassination. Let me qualify that: I have an interest in the subject, but not in forcing a combining of it with this subject. I feel the same about the Polio vaccine allegations. I do not think they are related to JFK.

I don't see the connection, at least not yet. Perhaps I will in the future. My mind is open--However, it is not "wide" open or too accepting without more proof. I will read her new book. I expect that it will answer a lot of questions, one way or another. If it fails to adequately address concerns that have been legitimately raised here (and many have been legitimate) that, in itself, will be an answer.

It is my prerogative to disagree after evaluating the evidence for myself. But, until then, I must refrain from finalizing my opinion. In any event, I will be as intellectually honest with myself as possible--as a matter of self respect. You have my word.

I object to reserchers taking the study of a presumably innocent man's genitals this far because it does nothing to enhance or detract from the case made against him. However, I believe it is still within the purview of legitimate research. I would think that researchers can self moderate this matter without the help of the admin's power to censor. I apologize if my posts encouraged such encroachment on freedom of speech. That was not my intent. It was an appeal to the researchers NOT to the admins!

Jim,

If Judyth's story, as it relates to JFK's assassination, offers me nothing further, save for the confirmation of a fact (LHO'S innocence) of which I am already fully convinced--for me, it is irrelevant. I don't need or want more information about the guy who didn't do it.

She had an affair with a partially spliced married man who was innocent of murder, but guilty of adultry. So what? However, that's just my take on it. This is the reason that I didn't expend the considerable time, energy, and funds required to confirm her story from the beginning. In my view, I would learn nothing of importance that I didn't already know--and at best, I'd discover details of an affair I didn't care to know. Information about his genitals is one such detail.

GO_SECURE

monk

Monk,

I am a bit taken aback that you and Michael Hogan should confound

(1) evaluating the truth of Judyth's story with (2) the humanizing of

Oswald that her story represents. This is not a subtle distinction and

I am really surprised you are failing to acknowledge it. Some of her

critics, especially Barb Junkkarinen, have been going after Judyth on

the ground that she has purportedly been inconsistent about whether

or not the man she knew was circumcised. No less an eminence than

Doug Weldon has declared that this was the coup de grace for taking

her story seriously. This has been brewing for some time, but I only

find you raising these protests after attempts are made to resolve it.

What is most interesting here is that the evidence suggests that Lee

was partially rather than completely circumcised. Even Jack has said

that he appeared to be uncircumcised when viewing one of the black-

and-whites, with which I agree. If he was only partially circumcised,

however, then the question, "Was he circumcised?", has no definite

answer. I am going to presume that you are reading the posts in which

I have addressed this question, which I have now done several times.

What this means is that it is ambiguous and has more than one truthful

answer, where Judyth's integrity is not at stake even if she answered it

differently on different occasions. Jack or I might both answer similarly.

No one here, to the best of my knowledge, believes that the man she

knew was even a shooter, much less "the lone, demented assassin".

We know the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon and

cannot have fired the shots that killed JFK. We also know multiple co-

workers reported seeing him in or around the 2nd floor lunchroom at

11:50, Noon, 12:15, and as late as 12:25, where he was confronted by

Officer Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination, which took place

at 12:30. So his guilt is not in question. What we are attempting to do

is evaluate Judyth's credibility, since what she has to tell us makes an

important difference to understanding the man accused of the crime.

Jim

I observe another irony has developed in this thread, namely, that even though the majority of those engaged in this topic are unconvinced of Oswald's guilt, still even the most private details about this "innocent man" are bared for public scrutiny. This isn't how an innocent man is usually treated by his defenders. He (through his memory) is being treated as a "thing" with little or no respect. I understand that "the dead" have no rights, legal or otherwise, but that's not my point. We are witnessing both sides (not just the prosecution) "cross examine" the physical attributes of the suspect's genitals.

I find this highly disturbing. Don't misunderstand, I am not a prude by any means. But this display is nearly animalistic in its disregard of common decency.

If "humanizing the accused assassin" is one big reason that Judyth's story is important, how did a thread dedicated to supporting Judyth's story degenerate to a point that now treats him as a laboratory specimen?

Greg Burnham is 100% correct.

Jack, there is an add-on to IP Board (the message board software used here) that provides a photo gallery - exactly what you want.

A full description is at http://www.invisionpower.com/products/gallery/

cost is ~ $65; it could be a central place for many photos galleries.

Having it an integral part of the board software would, in my humble opinion, make it easier to moderate.

I am wondering if we need to pass the hat.

Joel D. Gruhn

That's what we have at the JFKresearch Assassination Forum and it works very well.

JFKresearch Assassination Forum Photo Gallery

In theory you agree? In theory? Wow. That takes the cake. Let's move this from the theoretical to the more concrete then. This is not a trial. You and Jim are not on the jury nor are you prosecutors or defense counsel. Neither of you are private investigators nor are you detectives in law enforcement.

That said, remember, LHO IS innocent. Why? Because in this country, last I checked, a suspect IS (considered/treated) innocent until proven otherwise IN A COURT OF LAW! There was no trial for Lee Oswald--and there never will be a trial for him. He is therefore INNOCENT by our standards of jurisprudence--and is NOT deserving of being condemned, even in memory [READ:HISTORICALLY].

If he is to be considered innocent, his memory should not be sentenced to a punishment that reduces him to the status of a lone, worthless, deranged, no-count, good for nothing, murderer...who can be easily disregrded as "not worthy of respect" -- Hasn't the official record already done that to him through its distortion of his character? Why would we contribute to such an image here?

I find it EQUALLY appalling that Jack, Jim, and Judyth don't realize this! Each of you claim that he is NOT GUILTY, yet you treat him as if he is guilty (in the sense of treating his memory as "not being worthy of respect") in order to prove a point about Judyth's credibility. However, both you and Jim agree that irrespective of whether or not her story is true or false--Oswald is still innocent!

The ONLY potential relevance her story has to JFK (this forum's focus) is her corroberation of LHO's innocence. So why would you guys throw LHO under the bus by treating him in a less than respectful manner? Why would two well respected researchers who are: 1) on the same side of the big picture, and 2) who believe LHO is innocent--somehow forget that they already agree on this subject? (BTW: Judyth is NOT the subject...JFK is!)

Is it really worth it for either of you to participate in an exercise that denigrates OSWALD (who you claim does not deserve it) in order to prevail in an argument about the credibility of another who also agrees that Oswald was innocent and therefore also agrees that Oswald doesn't deserve such treatment? And why would Judyth, of all people, participate in such folly at the expense of the memory of her beloved? Why?

What gives here?

GO_SECURE

monk

Greg...in theory I agree. However, in historical and murder investigations, it is common to deal

with human remains. Some are very gruesome. Some are never seen by the public, only juries.

But they exist. I have read about, but have NOT seen, the bodies of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman,

and even the descriptions are horrid...but the jurors were shown the photos, if I recall right.

LHO has been dead 45 years...long enough to make him a historical figure and "lab specimen."

Jack

I observe another irony has developed in this thread, namely, that even though the majority of those engaged in this topic are unconvinced of Oswald's guilt, still even the most private details about this "innocent man" are bared for public scrutiny. This isn't how an innocent man is usually treated by his defenders. He (through his memory) is being treated as a "thing" with little or no respect. I understand that "the dead" have no rights, legal or otherwise, but that's not my point. We are witnessing both sides (not just the prosecution) "cross examine" the physical attributes of the suspect's genitals.

I find this highly disturbing. Don't misunderstand, I am not a prude by any means. But this display is nearly animalistic in its disregard of common decency.

If "humanizing the accused assassin" is one big reason that Judyth's story is important, how did a thread dedicated to supporting Judyth's story degenerate to a point that now treats him as a laboratory specimen?

Jim,

For me, NONE of this is about MY credibility! NOT ONE OUNCE... Nor for me is it about Jack's, or Michael's, or Doug's, or Tink's, or Junk's, or even Judyth's...it is about discovering the truth for me--as it is for you [presumptive]. However, Judyth's credibility does come into play at this juncture because she claims to be a witness. Her pending status as a witness is therefore dependent upon her credibility.

That is the difference.

Her credibility is on the line.

NOT YOUR'S -- NOT JACK'S -- NOT ANYONE ELSE'S

Let's try to keep it that way otherwise it will no longer be about the truth...

GO_SECURE

monk

Monk,

I am not surprised it has come this far. I was aware there was a question

about circumcision long ago. I am only surprised that, if her critics were

disposed to think it was the crucial question, they didn't bring it up long

ago. Now Michael Hogan is saying that it is MY CREDIBILITY that is on

the line. Well, I think that is true for everyone here, including him. And

in my opinion his (Hogan's) credibility has take some hits. Misquoting me

does not tarnish my credibility but that of the one who misquotes, in case

he hasn't figured it out. This is but one more test of whether she knew LHO.

Jim

Jim,

Run ALL of the recent posts (on the "Study of the Guilty's Genitals" --a euphemism for de-humanization & de-personalization) by your PSYOPS EXPERT. It all stinks of mind kontrol. I do not say this lightly. It has a signature of deliberately induced cognitive dissonance.

Or perhaps...its just madness (a euphemism for insanity).

This was very clever. I don't like it. How and when did Oswald become "worthy" of being treated as though he really DID murder JFK? I could understand it, marginally, in 1963/1964 due to Group Trauma Response -- But I don't "get it" when it happens in this thread!

GO_SECURE

monk

Monk,

Obviously, because Judyth's credibility has been challenged on the ground that,

if she had the relationship she maintains, then she should know the answers to

these questions. Interestingly, the situation is actually more complex than one

would have supposed. I knew her description of Oswald as having "impressive

equipment" was true, because I have an autopsy photo in my possession (and I

suppose now I have to start searching for it) that confirms it. The circumcision

question, moreover, appears to have no answer as it is usually meant, because

he appears to have been partially rather than completely circumcised. Judyth

has received no respect on this thread from most of her critics. It comes as no

surprise to me! Her story humanizes Oswald. Her treatment is another matter.

Jim

I observe another irony has developed in this thread, namely, that even though the majority of those engaged in this topic are unconvinced of Oswald's guilt, still even the most private details about this "innocent man" are bared for public scrutiny. This isn't how an innocent man is usually treated by his defenders. He (through his memory) is being treated as a "thing" with little or no respect. I understand that "the dead" have no rights, legal or otherwise, but that's not my point. We are witnessing both sides (not just the prosecution) "cross examine" the physical attributes of the suspect's genitals.

I find this highly disturbing. Don't misunderstand, I am not a prude by any means. But this display is nearly animalistic in its disregard of common decency.

If "humanizing the accused assassin" is one big reason that Judyth's story is important, how did a thread dedicated to supporting Judyth's story degenerate to a point that now treats him as a laboratory specimen?

Jim,

Run ALL of the recent posts (on the "Study of the Guilty's Genitals" --a euphemism for de-humanization & de-personalization) by your PSYOPS EXPERT. It all stinks of mind kontrol. I do not say this lightly. It has a signature of deliberately induced cognitive dissonance.

Or perhaps...its just madness (a euphemism for insanity).

This was very clever. I don't like it. How and when did Oswald become "worthy" of being treated as though he really DID murder JFK? I could understand it, marginally, in 1963/1964 due to Group Trauma Response -- But I don't "get it" when it happens in this thread!

GO_SECURE

monk

Monk,

Obviously, because Judyth's credibility has been challenged on the ground that,

if she had the relationship she maintains, then she should know the answers to

these questions. Interestingly, the situation is actually more complex than one

would have supposed. I knew her description of Oswald as having "impressive

equipment" was true, because I have an autopsy photo in my possession (and I

suppose now I have to start searching for it) that confirms it. The circumcision

question, moreover, appears to have no answer as it is usually meant, because

he appears to have been partially rather than completely circumcised. Judyth

has received no respect on this thread from most of her critics. It comes as no

surprise to me! Her story humanizes Oswald. Her treatment is another matter.

Jim

I observe another irony has developed in this thread, namely, that even though the majority of those engaged in this topic are unconvinced of Oswald's guilt, still even the most private details about this "innocent man" are bared for public scrutiny. This isn't how an innocent man is usually treated by his defenders. He (through his memory) is being treated as a "thing" with little or no respect. I understand that "the dead" have no rights, legal or otherwise, but that's not my point. We are witnessing both sides (not just the prosecution) "cross examine" the physical attributes of the suspect's genitals.

I find this highly disturbing. Don't misunderstand, I am not a prude by any means. But this display is nearly animalistic in its disregard of common decency.

If "humanizing the accused assassin" is one big reason that Judyth's story is important, how did a thread dedicated to supporting Judyth's story degenerate to a point that now treats him as a laboratory specimen?

I observe another irony has developed in this thread, namely, that even though the majority of those engaged in this topic are unconvinced of Oswald's guilt, still even the most private details about this "innocent man" are bared for public scrutiny. This isn't how an innocent man is usually treated by his defenders. He (through his memory) is being treated as a "thing" with little or no respect. I understand that "the dead" have no rights, legal or otherwise, but that's not my point. We are witnessing both sides (not just the prosecution) "cross examine" the physical attributes of the suspect's genitals.

I find this highly disturbing. Don't misunderstand, I am not a prude by any means. But this display is nearly animalistic in its disregard of common decency.

If "humanizing the accused assassin" is one big reason that Judyth's story is important, how did a thread dedicated to supporting Judyth's story degenerate to a point that now treats him as a laboratory specimen?

Whoa, Monk...I do not remember Harvey and Lee being involved in any JVB discussions. Are you sure?

And I do not remember it being Rich and me against everyone else. There were many others of the

same opinion. I remember you being sort of neutral, and Rich banishing some Judythites for reasons I have

forgotten.

Jack

Jack,

I am positive that a main "disqualification" used to debunk JVB was the work of John Armstrong. This was quite awhile, as I recall, before the book was even released! Of course, that put me at a great disadvantage when attempting to refute the claims against her. Now, I admire and appreciate Armstrong's work, so it's not about that. But I am positive that the inconsistencies between JVB's account and Armstrong's account was an argued issue.

I did not say you and Rich were against everyone else! In fact, it was me who was against you and Rich (and just about everyone else)! I was almost alone on this side of the topic there. The majority were very skeptical, to put it kindly.

At that time, I was unable to confirm her story for reasons already stated--that had nothing to do with her. But, my personal impression was that she was telling the truth. I could not offer hard evidence to support that perception, however. So, in that sense, I was neutral--and still am.

Thanks, Greg. I appreciate the understanding and fairness of your suggestions in this and recent posts. I've been there: Knock-down, drag-out disagreements that escalate to fights and beyond, into personal stuff. Nobody wins, nobody is convinced either way. I hate seeing what this mammoth thread has done to some of our friends and associates. I wish some of the combatants could just chill and stop serial-posting long enough to see that the whole world does not hinge on believing or disbelieving. We're losing the ability to accept that smart people sometimes disagree.

Indeed, Stephen. I find it uncomfortable to be in between these two "friends" right now. However, it's more important to remain, not only well reasoned, but reasonable...a subtle, albeit powerful, distinction.

Does it bother you when I try to inject a little humor into this long proceding? I got this off the Internet and the person who displayed it wasn't sure him/or herself what it was. I'm glad you identified it for me. I couldn't tell but now I can.

Also, John Simkin said I can ask questions.

Kathy C

Remember the last time this happened? I'm a little slow. Without the smiley faces, I get confused. My bad.