Greg Burnham

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?

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.

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.

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

Jack, IMHO--there was a charade on Rich's forum about this, but I still maintain that you and Rich were being unreasonable at that time. I miss Rich very much, too--but the arguments the two of you advanced at that time did not convince me and seemed to revolve around defending Harvey & Lee more than anything else. But, they did convince many others. I was, in fact, her lone champion on the forum back then about a decade ago! That said, I have not kept up with a lot of the intervening developments--so I can't disagree or agree with you one way or another about that part.

[emphasis added]Not to belabor the point, Jack, but I'm sure Jim would sincerely argue, rightly or wrongly, that it is you who has changed! Perhaps Jim felt an obligation to defend the "underdog" (Judyth) and when she was being attacked--he took it personally. If that is correct, it's not that big a deal. I'm surprised this "feud" went this far, but I understand how it did. It's the result of one party honestly being absolutely convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the "witness" is lying--and the other party honestly being absolutely convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the witness is the "real deal" who is being unfairly treated. The error, IMHO, is the absoluteness of both of your individual, diametrically opposed, positions.

He was a (CIA--sheep dipped) Colonel in the Air Force and later became LBJ's Military Attache. The crowd he hung out with is frequently suspected of complicity in the assassination. If "guilt by association" was a rational argument...he'd be found guilty.

It's a cropped version of his right bicep (upper arm), I think. Actually, I have no idea. It's your picture--why post something if you don't know what it is?

It is unfortunate that two of my closest friends in the JFK assassination research community, Jack White and James Fetzer, have both contributed--and continue to contribute--to turning this topic from what it is about into "their story". In fact, if any media persons had been following this as a "Judyth story" at the beginning-- that story's significance would have long ago been lost in the quagmire of the Jim & Jack feud. Originally, Jim was presenting Judyth's material and Jack was discrediting Judyth's material. Shortly thereafter, Jack (and others) began discrediting Judyth--not just her material. Then Jim (and others) began defending Judyth--not just her material. Then an incredibly stupid misdirection of hostility occured: they both began discrediting each other! This is, no doubt, the most absurd behavior that I've ever witnessed among otherwise intelligent persons who are on the same side of the BIG PICTURE! My advice: Attack ideas--not each other. This isn't about either of you! It's not about your respective competence as researchers--so don't make it about that. You disagree. Leave it there. It will only mean more than that if you force it to mean more. Allow each other a graceful way out. None of us is ever 100% right about anything. Who knows, fellas--one or both of you might not be this time?

Very compelling post, Michael...IMHO.

Well, for starters, JFK fired General Charles Cabell from the CIA along with Allen Dulles because of their incompetence (real or contrived) during the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Charles Cabell's brother, Earl, was the mayor of Dallas on November 22, 1963--and was therefore, ostensibly "in charge" of the Dallas Police Department.

Actually, Jim's friends have more than one defining characteristic--they are also social psychologists, among other accomplishments. But, of course, you are correct, Lee: Any and all "definitions" that might lessen the negative impact perceived by those prejudice against homeless persons is minimized, if not, totally ignored. That's how hatred works...it's better done from a position of ignorance, not a position of strength.

I'm glad you did. And yes, a WHOLE LOT of self restraint was employed. You made some other very cogent observations. Well done.

John, I'm confused. Are you questioning why Charles Cabell is on the list? Or are you questioning the photo? The photo, BTW is of General Cabell. And Cabell was a Deputy Director of the CIA. So what are you questioning? Like I said, I'm confused.

DJ, I appreciate your well reasoned, IMO, post.

Doesn't fit me. I did my own little bit to expose Prouty's crap. Didn't even take that much intelligence (since I clearly don't have a lot), just a little time and work. I can assure you that if you didn't know the man personally, your research is wanting. But, you are entitled to your opinion. I respect your right to an opinion even if I take exception to it.

If the shoe fits...

The new FRUS Volume is definitely worth a read.

Speculations Beyond the Pale of Reality Volume 13, Number 18: 5 May 2010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the introductory material to their paper on potential effects of predicted near-future increases in CO2-driven ocean acidification on shell-producing calcification in a certain species of oyster, Watson et al. (2009) report that over the past two centuries, CO2 emissions from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels have increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 280 to 380 ppm, citing NOAA/ESRL records produced and maintained by Pieter Tans. They additionally say that the portion of this extra CO2 that has been taken up by the planet's oceans has caused a 0.1 unit drop in the pH of their surface waters, which would appear to be correct. However, they predict there will be a further reduction in ocean pH of 0.3 to 0.5 units by 2100, citing the work of Haugan and Drange (1996), Orr et al. (2005) and Caldeira and Wickett (2005), while noting that these predicted changes in ocean pH "are not only greater but far more rapid than any experienced in the last 24 million years," citing Blackford and Gilbert (2007), or "possibly the last 300 million years," citing Caldeira and Wickett (2003), which all sounds pretty scary. But does it seem just a bit too scary? ... as in too scary to be true? Consider the findings of Tans himself, who Watson et al. approvingly cite in regard to the CO2 history they mention. In a paper published in Oceanography, which we have briefly discussed in a prior Editorial, Tans (2009) concluded that the future trajectory of oceanic pH will likely be significantly different from that suggested by the scientists cited by Watson et al., while at the same time bravely criticizing the IPCC reports that have also accepted the highly inflated acidification predictions of those scientists. Indeed, whereas Watson et al. and the IPCC accept the claims of those who project a decline in pH somewhere in the range of 0.3 to 0.5 between now and the end of the century, Tans' projections yield a pH decline somewhere in the range of 0.09 to 0.17, which is much smaller, and which would be expected to have significantly reduced biological impacts compared to those suggested by the experimental work of Watson et al. for that future point in time. Based on the results of their experiments and the maximum decline in ocean-water pH that they accept, for example, Watson et al. predict a significant decline of 72% in Sydney rock oyster (Saccostrea glomerata) larval survival by the year 2100. However, utilizing Watson et al.'s data, but with the maximum ocean-water pH decline calculated by Tans, we obtain a non-significant larval survival decline of only 14%, based on our interpolation of the graphical results portrayed in Watson et al.'s paper. In like manner, similar assessments of changes in antero-posterior measurement yield a significant decline of 8.7% using Watson et al.'s assumptions about ocean pH, but a non-significant decline of only 1.8% according to Tans' pH calculations. Corresponding results for dorso-ventral measurement were a significant decline of 7.5% with Watson et al.'s pH values, but a non-significant decline of only 1.5% with Tans' values; while for larval dry mass there was a decline of 50% in Watson et al.'s analysis, but an actual increase (albeit non-significant) of 6% using Tans' pH analysis. Last of all, for empty shells remaining there was a significant decline of 90% in the Watson et al. study, but a non-significant decline of only 6% when Tans' pH projections were used. In summation, based on their experimental data and the ocean pH projections for the end of the century that are promoted by them and the IPCC, Watson et al. find what they characterize as "a dramatic negative effect on the survival, growth, and shell formation of the early larval stages of the Sydney rock oyster." On the other hand, employing the pH values projected by Tans, there are no statistically significant reductions in any of the five biological parameters measured and evaluated by Watson et al., which is an amazingly benign response to an environmental threat that is being suggested by some to be more serious or extreme than it was at any other time that it may have reared its ugly head over the past 300 million years! Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso References Blackford, J.C. and Gilbert, F.J. 2007. pH variability and CO2 induced acidification in the North Sea. Journal of Marine Systems 64: 229-241. Caldeira, K. and Wickett, M.E. 2003. Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH. Nature 425: 365. Caldeira, K. and Wickett, M.E. 2005. Ocean model predictions of chemistry changes from carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research 110: 10.1029/2004JC002671. Haugan, P.M. and Drange, H. 1996. Effects of CO2 on the ocean environment. Energy Conversion and Management 37: 1019-1022. Orr, J.C., Fabry, V.J., Aumont, O., Bopp, L., Doney, S.C., Feely, R.A., Gnanadesikan, A., Gruber, N., Ishida, A., Joos, F., Key, R.M., Lindsay, K., Maier-Reimer, E., Matear, R., Monfray, P., Mouchet, A., Najjar, R.G., Plattner, G.-K., Rodgers, K.B., Sabine, C.L., Sarmiento, J.L., Schlitzer, R., Slater, R.D., Totterdell, I.J., Weirig, M.-F., Yamanaka, Y. and Yool, A. 2005. Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms. Nature 437: 681-686. Tans, P. 2009. An accounting of the observed increase in oceanic and atmospheric CO2 and an outlook for the future. Oceanography 22: 26-35. Watson, S.-A., Southgate, P.C., Tyler, P.A. and Peck, L.S. 2009. Early larval development of the Sydney rock oyster Saccostrea glomerata under near-future predictions of CO2-driven ocean acidification. Journal of Shellfish Research 28: 431-437.

Fletch simply had enough faith in an individual's intelligence to allow them to draw their own conclusions from the evidence. It's not his fault that some individuals are too stupid.

Thanks Dean. I figured as much. You strike me as an honest guy. In such a circumstance you would disqualify yourself as a matter of self respect--so that justice would have the best chance to prevail. I've often heard it said, "The best thing about being a cop is never having to make up a bogus excuse to get out of reporting for jury duty."

Doug, Since you insist on using examples from the justice system to make your point, I will too. The fact that prejudices are part of the human experience is the reason that jury selection is an art form. As you know, if a potential juror were to reveal such prejudice, as understandable as it might be under his or her unique circumstances, such a potential juror will be dismissed or released from duty. They will be deemed unfit for jury service due to that prejudice. Are you inadvertantly making a judgment call as to the fitness of Dean as a "dispassionate" juror? I'd like to move on as well. Monk: It is not that simplistic. There are challenges for cause, which are not so broad, and preemptory challenges. What do you call a person with an I.Q. of 60, barely got into law school, finished at the bottom of their class, failed the bar exam 4 times before barely passing it? Answer: Your Honor. Doug Weldon Absurd. Oh, I get it: Lawyer jokes.

Doug, Since you insist on using examples from the justice system to make your point, I will too. The fact that prejudices are part of the human experience is the reason that jury selection is an art form. As you know, if a potential juror were to reveal such prejudice, as understandable as it might be under his or her unique circumstances, such a potential juror will be dismissed or released from duty. They will be deemed unfit for jury service due to that prejudice. Are you inadvertantly making a judgment call as to the fitness of Dean as a "dispassionate" juror? I'd like to move on as well.

I did not and have not criticized Dean. I called a spade a spade. [my emphasis]Doug -- "probably" ? You know better than that. It is not a "probably" situation--! It is absolutely wrong. If you are appealing to an argument of "human frailty or the human condition" that is all fine and good as a mitigating circumstance by which to justify Dean's perspective--but it fails to justify the lack of logic in the argument.

Yes, I see why you have a strong opinion [about bums]. However, Jim's friends are NOT "bums" -- Jim never identified them as "bums" -- So, let's continue this thread about Judyth and her credibility and admit ALL evidence--even that which comes from formerly homeless persons (not bums), or from Mormons (not polygamists), or from Catholic priests (not pedophiles), or from Germans (not Nazis), etc, etc. Thank you Lets move it along Jim im sorry I called your friends Bums, I was feeling defensive torwards your insults and should not have said that about them Please dont insult me and I will not speak to you in a harsh way That sounds fair enough, Dean.