Greg Burnham

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.

Did I miss something Greg? I have not nor would I ever call you a name Well then, you still might consider me "cool" as opposed to "uncool"-- I guess? Let me elaborate on what I said in order to make my position clearer. Dean, I don't claim to know what your 3 year long experience with homeless people was like. But, I have no reason to doubt that you are telling the truth about your personal perception of them. If you thought I was saying that your reportage of your Seattle Homeless experience was untrue--I apologize. That is NOT what I was saying.

Dean, If you will re-read my post you'll note that I acknowledged your right to your own opinion. But, we're not talking about your SPECIAL 3 YEAR LONG circumstances! We are talking about individual human beings (Jim's friends) whom you know nothing about aside from what Jim has told you. Therefore, what you claimed to be necessarily true about Jim's friends is demonstrably a false statement. Your judgment of them is not necessarily accurate. This is logically inescapable, and--as such--it is therefore a false statement. I will not call you names nor will I defend myself from you calling me names. We are adults.

Well, I sorta agree with you about the above. However, Jim offered witnesses whose statements speak to Judyth's credibility. That IS on topic. The witness' testimonies were summarily rejected as worthless due to a prejudice against them that is logically ill founded and therefore irrelevant, not only to the topic, but in general. That's why we are discussing it. If it is indeed inappropriate to dismiss these witnesses on the grounds stated, then what they have to offer to promote the discovery of the truth should be considered...without prejudice.

I tried to stay out of this, but I can't! Kathy, are you serious? What Dean said was demonstrably UNTRUE. He is entitled to his opinion and to any biases or prejudices that suit him. However, his right to an opinion, based on his own personal biases/prejudices, does not render fallacious conclusions "truthful" in any event. Could his judgment of Jim's friends be true? No--at least not as stated. As stated his assertions are totally unsupported. By his own admission, the experience he had in one special circumstance is now tainting his judgment of this totally new and separate circumstance. He is judging the two as if they are one in the same, but they are not. Adding insult to injury, it is less than credible for him to attempt to portray his position as a strategic move to demonstrate to Jim "how it feels" -- sorry, but "that dog don't hunt" -- To quote Dean from an earlier post: WEAK.

From L Fletcher Prouty: Gary Powers Flight Was Sabotaged To Fail! The Lockheed U-2 aerial reconnaissance aircraft was ordered after meetings that took place in the Pentagon between Kelly Johnson of Lockheed, Gen. Ken Bergquist of the Air Force and Gen. Charles Cabel, Deputy Director of the CIA in late 1954, and into 1955. An Air Force officer in the Pentagon, in the same office as I, worked with them on this special project. Therefore for all practical purposes the U-2 was an Air Force aircraft, and was covered for clandestine reconnaissance purposes by the CIA. As a result of National Security Council Directive #5412 the U.S. Military Services were prohibited from operating clandestine activities. I was responsible for providing the military support for other military aircraft in a similar, for the clandestine activities of the CIA and under CIA cover. By 1960 President Eisenhower's biggest wish was to end his presidential service with a massive world around "Crusade for Peace". For example, more than one million people had gathered in New Delhi to honor his visit to India. A significant step along this crusade was to be a High-Power Summit Conference in Paris on May 1, 1960 between Eisenhower, Macmillan, DeGaulle and Khrushchev; to be followed by the most massive of all meetings with Eisenhower as a guest of Khrushchev in Moscow in mid summer 1960. This was to be the goal of his "Crusade for Peace." Among the "Powers that be" there were those who did not favor that close collaboration between those leaders at that time. They took action to interfere with this plan for a "Summit Conference" and for its Moscow follow-up... in the following manner. Sometime earlier, a CIA scheduled U-2 had made a "belly" landing near the CIA U-2 base, Atsugi, Japan. Quite "incidentally" this was the U-2 base where a young U.S. Marine, Lee Oswald, had been assigned. Because the U-2 had not been seriously damaged it was shipped back to Lockheed for repair in California. Later it was returned to service and it "just happened" to be one of the available U-2's on the flight-line of the Peshawar air base in Pakistan that morning of May 1, 1960 when Captain Gary Powers was selected to fly it across the Soviet Union. We know now that during its preparation for this flight this U-2 had been stripped of its "TOP SECRET" Lundahl aerial reconnaissance camera. (That camera was too valuable to lose on a flight over the Soviet Union.) Furthermore, we have learned that when Captain Powers was given his pre-flight briefing and his medical exam, and other orders he then dressed in the special flight suit for U-2 pilots that had no pockets and no identifying labels of any kind. And, we now know that after his landing, yes... landing, not crash, near Sverdlovsk, the Soviets discovered, packed in his parachute, between the seat and the folded chute, all of his identification papers and such. He even had valuables ostensibly to trade for assistance if captured. (The list is too long; but he had a whole bag full of identification and other gear that is prohibited to "spy" pilots. This list with photos is available.) He was uninjured, and his plane had been only slightly damaged by a "belly" landing. On May 30, 1960 Mr. Allen Dulles, Director, Central Intelligence appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and, under oath, stated that the U-2 had not been shot dawn. It is well known that if the U-2 had been hit by a missile or gunfire at its service altitude it would have exploded in that thin air. Powers himself has said that he felt a rumble toward the rear of the aircraft, and that his engine quit. Even U-2 pilots in those days had not been told that their extremely high altitude operation required a special pure hydrogen additive to their more ordinary fuel. If the U-2 ran out of this hydrogen additive, at altitude, the engine would flare out and it could not be re-started until it had descended to a much lower altitude. Powers knew that and began to let down, and then found that he was surrounded, at the lower altitude, by Soviet interceptors. He had but one choice...LAND. He did, and survived to tell his story. This is an interesting story because so much of what we have heard and read has been contrived to cover actual events. For example: once the Paris Summit Conference of May 1, 1960 had been scheduled the CIA was ordered to ground all "Over" flights of Communist territory - worldwide". The U-2's were grounded. I was responsible for supporting a large number of "over" flights" primarily in Asia to support the Tibetans who were being invaded by the Chinese, and to support major lower-level reconnaissance programs operating out of Taiwan, Thailand, and a few other places. Despite the fact that many of our flights were solely humanitarian, especially for the Khambas in Eastern Tibet, my special request, to the National Security Council, for permission to continue those flights was denied until after the Paris meetings. This was a strict and blanket order to us all. With that in mind, who was it then with the authority to "order the Powers U-2 flight"? It had to have been ordered from a very high echelon of the true power structure above the customary military or civilian elements of the government. Think back: a) Who (used here in the plural: WHO?) ordered that crashed U-2 in Japan to be repaired and to be refitted? Who knew so much about the U-2 that they knew that the U-2 was equipped with the finest, and most valuable high-altitude camera, the "Lundahl"? c) Who had the authority to order that precious camera to be saved in favor of a standard U.S.Air Force model that was used on May 1, 1960? d) Who knew enough about the CIA-operated U-2s to know that they functioned at extreme altitude on a mix of regular jet fuel and pure hydrogen? e) Who ordered the hydrogen bottle (like a fire extinguisher) to be half-filled, or half-empty? f) Who was familiar enough with U-2 operations to know that all U-2 pilots before take-off had been stripped to the bone, and dressed in a specially made flight suit with no pockets, etc.? g) Who was able to have someone else assemble Powers personal "pocket" belongings and other selected items such as gold rings, identification, etc. and pack them between the seat of Powers' chute and its folded fabric below? h) who had the authority to set this whole train of events that involved so many other skilled people, in motion early that morning from Peshawar, Pakistan? [scenario by L. Fletcher Prouty and based upon considerable "Over Flight" operations and support experience, 1955-1963.]

Statement of Allen Dulles:

I just realized something Dean! Nobody has ever considered the possibility that Jack IS Badgeman! Are you just trying to protect him? Lol --jk of course, but I couldn't resist...I've long suspected Jack was involved!

Thanks, Monk, for the animation overlay showing the images do not match. BUT...the figures ARE in the Moorman photo. I CANNOT EXPLAIN WHY THEY DO NOT MATCH. Among the possibilities are that the images are not genuine. Hey...I did not put the images in Mary's photo; they ARE THERE; I have pointed them out. That is as far as I can go. People can argue all they want about what the images indicate. I have done all I can do. Jack Hi Jack, All I did was post the image from Page 5 of a different topic. It was suggested earlier in this thread. I thought folks wouldn't have to try to find it there if I posted it here. It's not my work. Sorry for the confusion.

The wanted persons in this are both slender white males about 30, 5-feet-10, 165, carrying what looks to be a thirty-thirty or some type of Winchester. They look eerily alike. One left in a light colored rambler station wagon being driven by a Mexican or a Cuban. The other boarded a bus. "The prints lifted from the thirty-thirty match those of Malcolm Wallace" said securtiy guard, Gary Mack. Curator Mack has been moonlighting as a security guard since interest in the "Oswald done it all by his lonesome" shrine has diminished during the recent recession. According to sources, lack of interest is more due to disappointment in those seeking the truth than it is due to the recession.

From Page 5 of the old "Gordon Arnold Competition Thread"

So, I take it the numbers following the names are IQ scores? Is that right? And geez, is it just me, but I thought that testing for intelligence began in France in 1904. The first guy on your list, Abraham Lincoln was ummm DEAD (by assassination) long before that--not to mention MOZART!!! Egads...

I agree with Jack I respect DiEugenio's work I respect some of his work, too. It's him that I do NOT respect. When I was preparing to leave for Pentagon City to attend Colonel L Fletcher Prouty's funeral and burial at Arlington National Cemetary in 2001, it was Jim DisIngenuous who engaged me in a lengthy debate regarding the book, Farewell America--a book that he "trashed" for reasons yet unknown. Problem was...he cited Fletch --INCORRECTLY--and inappropriately to bolster his argument against "Farewell America" -- and was very insensitive to the recent passing of my dear friend who was no longer alive to "correct" his errors. I literally posted a response to his nonsense as a last act before boarding the plane for Fletch's funeral. No clearer are "true colors" shown than in "crunch" time. His were a faded shade of black...at best.

Or maybe these are two separate issues and he simply didn't make the connection yet. It took me a few minutes to realize what you were talking about too!

Who is Whittaker? I am unaware of a Whittaker. Jack Jack, George Whittaker, Sr., was a manager at the Ford Plant in Rouge, Michigan. I think she's referencing the debate about the limo windshield's through-and-through hole.

Doug, I tend to agree with everything you wrote here. After reading what Jim and Jack wrote on the previous page, it sounds like both sides are finally beginning to converge to a degree. IMO: both sides have been "guilty" of prejudice and/or bias--and both have been such with undertandable cause. On the one hand, those who have already dealt with this subject for numerous years and have concluded that the claims were without merit have, naturally and properly, entered the current debate somewhat "jaded" but not necessarily for all the wrong (or right) reasons. On the other hand, Jim, who is brand new to this subject, naturally and properly entered (initiated) the debate without this prerequisite cynicism that is characteristic of Judyth's detractors. From his perspective, rightly, his was the proper approach. Truth is, it's the proper approach, but only if that pre-existing "jaded" condition is NOT present, which clearly is not the case for her detractors. Jim's error, if there is one, was in expecting those with whom he is engaged to approach the subject fresh, as newbies--but since they have already "been there and done that" long ago it was an impossible expectation. Now, that said, it doesn't mean they're right about Judyth being a fraud either. All it means is that they want substantiation--and the burden of proof is on the one making the initial positive assertion, Judyth. Will Judyth's story ultimately bear scrutiny? I don't know. But, it does appear that there might be avenues for her or her supporters to pursue which could serve to corroberate her claims if they are true. GO_SECURE monk

Doug, You quoted me before I had revised my post. Wow--you're really quick. Sorry Barb, I edited that post to remove the venom before anyone read it and make it clearer--but Doug grabbed it first. It was within a few minutes. Wow--vigilant you are counselor. You guys are attempting to prove a negative. I get it now. That's OK. Like I said from the beginning, I have no objection to the analysis--NONE. I just found the approach interesting, that's all. I will refrain from addressing this subject in the future. I see your point Doug. Apprently you can't see mine. A pity I haven't been clearer.

Barb, If, in order for conclusion "A" (they did all that) to be true premise "B" (they knew each other) must necessarily be true and if evidence "C" (handwriting analysis) supports premise "B" (which is now accepted as true as a result of "C") ...logically, it still MEANS NOTHING ABOUT CONCLUSION "A" beyond "a maybe" -- You have said the same from the beginning and I agree. So why not drop it already? Sheesh. It doesn't mean anything! Unless you are pretty darn sure that the analysis would be negative thus disproving THAT claim and damaging her credibility? Why not just admit that's why you're pushing so hard? It's obvious anyway--and it's OK to say so. Maybe I'm out of line. Perhaps you really make a good point that I'm just missing. Let's just disagree.

Bill, I think there are consequences, but the consequences are for us to face, not the perpetrators. I think that we as individuals and we "as a community of Americans" owe it to ourselves (and to those who come after us) to be aware of what is true--and to not stop talking about it...not for a minute. I remember during the past 6 months or so before Rich DellaRosa died, I commented to him on more than one occasion that he seemed to be growing more cynical--many of us have over the years--but this seemd to go deeper than usual. He seemed to be feeling that "all was lost" in terms of real change occuring. That didn't stop him though it was uncharacteristic. I think we've all felt that at times. IMO: "change" will occur because we will leave our children a legacy of AWARENESS rather than the one we inherited of blind trust. I hope...

Yes, in fact, I am! I laugh at myself sometimes--especially when I stick my foot in it.

Gotcha. This is complete and utter horsecrap. It NEVER HAPPENED. Selected by WHAT company as an adolescent? Between 1918, when he was born, and 1938, when he turned 20? Which company existed during those years? Treated to lose all his hair? So that Alopecia Areata he was diagnosed with by the Cleveland Clinic in the 1930s was ALL JUST A RUSE? And the reports of the people at the seminary who said his hair was falling out are ALL JUST A RUSE? And those early pictures of him with little bald spots are ALL JUST A RUSE? Keep going. Tell us more about David Ferrie, from a "psyops perspective." Stephen, You're killing me! LOL -- "The Company" is a euphemism for the CIA. Jeez, Monk- Give me more credit than that! I didn't just fall off the turnip truck! The "psyops expert" claimed Ferrie was recruited by CIA as an adolescent, which would have been between 1918 and 1938. "The Company" didn't exist then, nor did its predecessor, the OSS. In fact, Ferrie's first contact with the CIA occurred much later. And he also goofed in claiming that CIA somhow "treated" Ferrie to make him lose his hair. I have medical records, seminary records, letters between Ferrie and his dad and pictures which establish that Ferrie developed Alopecia Areata in the early 1930s, long before "the Company" was formed. This is really getting silly now, huh?

Doug, I'm not against getting it examined at all. But, let's be clear: Her "failure" to get it examined does not disprove any of her claims any more than confirmation of the writing would prove any of her claims beyond their having known each other. However, if the writing is shown to be inconsistent, that would seriously damage Judyth's credibility. I asked Barb if that was her aim--which is her prerogative, but she denied it. Given the above, could it possibly be anything else?

Greg, What I said was that confirmation of LHO's writing in her book would establish that she knew him ... but it would not confirm any of her claims beyond that. And you have agreed. The "least important" of her claims?? Helloooo? That she knew Oswald is the **base** ... the springboard ... for all of her claims about her adventures in New Orleans that summer and beyond! According to Judyth, Oswald introduced her to Ferrie and Ochsner and Mary Sherman .... lets not forget "Sparky" and Marcello and Thornley and most any other alleged assassination player you care to name. Oswald worked with her in Ferrie's kitchen, she trained him to handle the "bioweapon" for transport. He took her to the mental hospital in Jackson to make sure the "patient" there who had been injected with their little cocktail would die. She supposedly learned all about the assassination that was coming down from Oswald .... then throw in the love affair, plans to disappear together after the assassination, etc .... and you think her claim of LHO's handwriting in her book, which would establish that she even knew him, is the "least important"? Her other claims regarding New Orleans and the assassination *all* rely on her having known Oswald. Thus far, there has been no verifiable evidence that she even knew him. Having this handwriting confirmed could do that for her. I didn't say it would prove very little. :-) It potentially can prove she at least knew him. Given she has no verifiable proof of that to date, yeah, I think that is important. And it is impossible to see why anyone who supports Judyth, who believes in her, wouldn't want to run right out and get this evidence verified. That is not my point. I believe I have made my point clear several times now. She has made a claim. This claim is the bedrock of her claims about her life and involvement in New Orleans and the assassination. There is a way to get this claim confirmed or denied (though it is possible that an examiner would not be able to confirm or deny, the results could be inconclusive). This is research. There is a claim. It is a claim that can be confirmed or denied by a professional. One wouldn't expect that concept to be like pulling teeth. :-) Barb :-) Barb, It is the least important of her claims if it does NOT establish anything beyond itself! Them having known each other, in and of itself, means nothing. It is unbelievable to me that you are acting this "clever". Let's assume for the sake of conversation that the handwriting expert confirmed it was Oswald's writing. At this point you would concede what exactly? Anything? Perhaps you'd concede "the least important" claim? I can hear you now: "Based on this analysis, yes, they probably knew each other, but so what? That still doesn't prove anything else!" IMO: Since Jim doesn't need that confirmation in order to believe her, he isn't compelled to pursue it. And, since her detractors still wouldn't be convinced even with the confirmation, he's again not compelled to pursue it.

Gotcha. This is complete and utter horsecrap. It NEVER HAPPENED. Selected by WHAT company as an adolescent? Between 1918, when he was born, and 1938, when he turned 20? Which company existed during those years? Treated to lose all his hair? So that Alopecia Areata he was diagnosed with by the Cleveland Clinic in the 1930s was ALL JUST A RUSE? And the reports of the people at the seminary who said his hair was falling out are ALL JUST A RUSE? And those early pictures of him with little bald spots are ALL JUST A RUSE? Keep going. Tell us more about David Ferrie, from a "psyops perspective." Stephen, You're killing me! LOL -- "The Company" is a euphemism for the CIA.

Good stuff, thanks!