Greg Burnham

CIA DOCUMENTS SHOW U.S.A NEVER BELIEVED GARY POWERS SHOT DOWN.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle7113512.ece

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!

Gordon Arnold told Earl Golz that he was standing on a mound of dirt to get a higher viewpoint.

Other unknowns may also enter into this. It is being to presumptuous to expect the images to

match, since that was not the point of the photo. There are too many unknown variables to expect

a match.

Jack

Dean -

Why? because the authenticity of the moorman images is extremely important and Jack is recognized as one of a few experts on this subject. One of the places to start is to position people just behind the fence where they would need to be so a shot could be possible (surely GMack has a good idea where that might be) and place the camera in the same location (maybe a bit tougher given the "in the street" argument but close enough) and take a photo. and then judge for oneself if the moorman images are the correct sizes within reason and a margin of error.

From what I posted and from manipulating the 1989 image over the Moorman crop in Photoshop, the 1989 images are NOT the correct sizes at all, not even close. If Nigel really used this as his proof that Moorman had caught assassins on film, there's something wrong going on.

because Jack writes that it is indeed NOT an attempt to replicate the exact image "but to determine whether the people images were the correct sizes as seen from the location of Mary Moorman across the street."

What I got thru my head the first time I looked at it is that this photo does NOT represent the correct sizes and approx location in Moorman - that if they are in the approx location then it proves the images in Moorman are either much farther away and much higher up in the air based on line of sight... or they simply are not real images of people and only tricks of light and shadow.

Jack hopes "these photos will answer all of your questions" and they do... they prove that the people sizes/approx locations do NOT match Moorman.

So if we're going to have a civilized discussion about the thread's topic, "Badgeman people sizes and locations" then we need to address the fact that the 1989 photo does not forward the cause but in fact refutes it.

Dean - I'm not trying to disuade you from your praise of Jack or Gary, or from your belief in Badgeman. I only ask that you do more than just take the images at face value especially when referred to as PROOF. If you would simply post an overlay gif like the one below showing an accurate representation of the "people sizes" so they match Moorman it would go a long way to prove the point. I realize we do not know the size of the people - except Arnold who we do know the size of and can be used as a baseline - but unless badgeman was Andre the Giant he should be relatively close to a normal sized person.

We see the Zapruder on the pedestal analysis http://www.jfkresearch.com/Moorman yet has no one in the past 47 years done an exact replication of Badgeman within Moorman? And if indeed she was in the street, the images behind the fence would have to be even higher up in the air since we'd be lowering the originating line of sight.

Ease up a bit Dean - I hadn't seen the 1989 photo before yet had seen and read much about the badgeman images, even watched all 9 episodes of TMHKK and was very convinced by Arnold's reaction to the photo enhancement. But I'd like a bit more proof thank you.

DJ

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.

Is any description of the two men available?

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"

A very select list of history's smartest pesons:

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 would take their studies to the bank. JVB? Account overdrawn.

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.

Oh yes. Jack might remember Whitaker better as the unnamed and unvetted witness he and Weldon tried to foist on the research community in 1998. Back then his name was known only to a 'trusted few'. Guess Jack was not one of them.

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!

JW said:There are other obvious civil records which can be consulted. Why not cease the arguing and

do some primary research?

Why does Jack White hold Judyth to a different standard that he does Whittaker? Jack White bought Whittaker's story hook-line-and-sinker and didn't bother to do a single bit of vetting of any of the incongruous things he said. Yet Jack wants what amounts to a government investigation of Judyth's statements. What gives?

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

Jim:

I am not prosecuting anyone. James Files' story has many of the same holes that I see inJudyth's story. Files is blatantly admitting to murder. The question is whether it is a false confession thus anyones statements have to be qualified by, "if true." I didn't "track Judyth" but when you raised the legal, political, and moral questions if Judyth engaged in murder I watched her segment again from TMWKK. I gave my opinion and my offer remains to any attorney who may disagree with me.

This is not a cult. It is certain that all of us disagree on different aspects of the assassination but I have never questioned the desire of Jack, David, Armstrong, Barb, Monk, myself, or you or anyone in wanting to determine the truth. As a friend I did look at this more carefully than I would have if it was someone I did not know. As a friend I would stand up with you and for you through most anything. It is about the character of life. However, I would cheapen a friendship if I responded less than honestly. As Jack, Dixie, and others have said, this is not new to us. We have walked this walk before. Judyth's account, if true, would be powerful. However, many of us have seen the stories change, questions go unanswered, and simply some things that make no sense.

Judyth is not above being questioned. All of the questions and points, Viklund, Hogan, Hagerman, Barb, and others should not be dismissed with slurs but should be responded to with responsible answers. I have not been offended. I have no personal vendetta nor am I on a mission to destroy Judyth. I cannot set aside judgment or reason as she makes her claims. She has made the assertions, not any of us. It is supposedly her experience. It is her that needs to convince. For many of us, that has yet to happen.

Doug Weldon

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.

I guess there really aren't any consequences.

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...

Stephen specifically asked "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?

The CIA wasn't founded until 1947.

Is Stephen still "killing you? Are you still "laughing out loud"?

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

MY PSY OPS EXPERT REPLIES TO DEAN HAGERMAN AND GREG BURNHAM

Have you ever wondered why David Ferrie was selected by the company as an adolescent and later treated to lose all his hair, sort of pushed over the edge into absurdity (i.e. "dirtied up" to create his deviation amplification)? Things were likely done to him to make him angry, sexually confused and dysfunctional and easily discreditable. This smacks of mindkontrol. Can you say intel's "special little child" mind kontrol program?

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?

Monk:

Jim may not need that confirmation to believe anything about her but others do to have some substantial evidence she knew Oswald. It is not dispositive of all her claims but it is important. Judyth is the one who proffers that it is Oswald's writing. Why not get it examined? She has had the ability to do this for years. What's the big deal? Her failure to do so only raises suspicion.

Doug Weldon

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?

Well, what I am trying to determine is what value such evidence would really have for a skeptic? Jim asked you if you would concede that she was "the real deal" if the analysis panned out. And you, rightly IMO, replied that such confirmation would not make a believer out of you.

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.

So, my question is not directed at why Judyth (and/or Jim) should agree to this study, but why you have found it so important to suggest? It really seems, by your own admission, to have little value beyond supporting the least important of her claims!

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"?

It is her other claims that are potentially 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.

However, you have already stated that the confirmation would not satisfy your burden of proof of those items. So, I don't think there is a point to it...at least not for your purposes. Unless you're trying to help Jim prove Judyth's case, I don't see your point--especially since, according to you, even a confirmation would prove very little, if anything.

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.

Now, maybe you believe it would help prove her "wrong" or a xxxx if it did not pan out. Is that the point?

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.

MY PSY OPS EXPERT REPLIES TO DEAN HAGERMAN AND GREG BURNHAM

Have you ever wondered why David Ferrie was selected by the company as an adolescent and later treated to lose all his hair, sort of pushed over the edge into absurdity (i.e. "dirtied up" to create his deviation amplification)? Things were likely done to him to make him angry, sexually confused and dysfunctional and easily discreditable. This smacks of mindkontrol. Can you say intel's "special little child" mind kontrol program?

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.

btw for any interested here is today's from the n/a

National Security Archive Update, April 29, 2010

BREAKING DOWN SOVIET MILITARY SECRECY

Archive publishes documents from "The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and Its Dangerous Legacy," the new book by David E. Hoffman, winner of the 2010 Pulitzer Prize for general non-fiction.

For more information, contact:

David E. Hoffman

hoffmand@washpost.com

http://www.nsarchive.org

b

Good stuff, thanks!

Greg,

What Jack stated most certainly was nonsense and his “scenario” “explains” nothing.

Jack stated that “Jean Hill is shown in the Zfilm NOT LOOKING AT JFK, but to the northeast, and standing still like

a frozen turkey.”

But as anyone can see the film actually shows that Jean Hill is first looking to the north-northwest towards JFK and that she then turns her head from left to right as her boyfriend B.J. Martin approaches her.

Those are the facts, no matter how you try and tell us what Jean Hill was thinking.

Todd

I've really missed arguing with you for the past few years, Todd! Remember the good ol' days on the JFK Forum? Alright, I lied, I haven't missed it at all. Anyway, IMO, Jack was being a little facetious about part of his analysis--the part that you took literally. I still say, either scenario is possible...and one isn't more non-sensical than the other using the same standard that you used.

Monk,

No one is about to go after Lifton for recording a conversation, even though it was illegal. That is not my intention nor Judyth's nor anyone elses. So this business about protecting himself from legal repercussions is a subterfuge, a deceit, and an excuse to immunize himself from the potential of having (what I take to have been) exaggerated claims refuted by his own evidence.

As for the point about "whistleblowing", you can define it narrowly or broadly, but do you personally have any doubt that what Judyth is talking about (the contaminated polio vaccine, the bioweapon research, relationships between Alton Ochsner, Ferrie, Mary, Vary, and Lee and links to the assassination) is a VERY BIG STORY that exposes corruption at the core of US covert ops?

Have you read the latest take by my psy ops expert on Judyth's story? I think he makes a very compelling case for why her account fits into the profile of cover ops in this country, why she was an appropriate choice for this assignment, and why she has been subjected to such a systematic and sustained effort to discredit her and assassinate her character. Did you read it?

There is a lot of trifling and splitting hairs going on here. This is a form of WHISTLEBLOWING in the highest traditions of our country, more or less roughly on a part with Daniel Ellsberg's release of THE PENTAGON PAPERS. As Ed Haslam explains in DR. MARY'S MONKEY, the contaminated vaccine story alone may be the greatest scandal in the history of the United States.

Jim

Jim,

As to your first point regarding the illegality of the tape: it's good to know that prosecution isn't the point, but I still suggest not emphasizing or reiterating it if that's the case. Otherwise, what's the point? As to the definition of whistleblowing, I don't think that a court would allow a broader interpretation than that which is already spelled out. Since the context in which we were talking about whistleblowing was as a possible defense, i.e., mitigating circumstances, I think that the most prudent expectation would be the narrowest definition. If one was fortunte enough to draw an extremely liberal judge maybe he or she would loosen the definition. However, yes I definitely agree that her story is HUGE.

I did read your psy ops latest. The problem with Judyth's story, even assuming it is 100% accurate, is that it is peppered with credibility problems by the design of her former "handlers" or by those running the op. For those who are uninitiated about such matters, those credibility gaps equal deciept. For those who are familiar with these things the possibility exists that she's the "real deal" but it isn't necessarily so. For those, such as yourself, who have really dug into the evidence you have an advantage in perspective. For not only does it become troublesome to explain the mounting quantity of evidence as the product of deceipt, it becomes absurd to explain the existence of the many holes in the story similarly because they could not exist without being a part of a much larger body of evidence. Why would one have chosen to save many of these items from 1963 to begin with and not save others? It's my feeling that much of her information was compartmentalized within her psyche as a defense mechanism. I'm not a mental health professional and I am not intending to cast aspersions on her by that statement. But there is basis for my claim. The ability to dissociate is a gift that allows survival, and is therefore, not necessarily dysfunctional in such a case. Ask your expert about this point, please.

I also have an advantage...I met her. Her claims were stated matter of factly--no hesitation, with confidence. I couldn't "trap her" -- not even close -- and I tried. If I judge solely from my "gut" ... "She's the real deal". But since I haven't done enough homework to verify or debunk enough of her claims, I can not, in good conscience, have a rational opinion about it. (Yes, I said "rational"). If I were to commit at this stage, either way, it would be irrational, and therefore I haven't. Even for me, this has caused a degree of cognitive dissonance.

Nonsense.

When Jean Hill first appears in the Zapruder film she is seen looking to the North-Northwest at JFK. She then turns her head to the Northeast to look at her boyfriend, DPD motorcycle officer B.J. Martin as he approaches her.

Jen Hill's thoughts:

"Let's see, here comes the President of the United States whom I have only this one chance to see up close--and now here comes my boyfriend who I have seen and will continue to see everday for some time to come...the President...the boyfriend...the President...the boyfriend. Hmmm, let me think. I wonder, who shall I look at right now?"

See Todd, it's easy to make just about anything sound like nonsense. It's something else to prove it. Your scenario explains it, but so does Jack's. Neither is nonsense.

This is just one interpretation of what we may be seeing take place here:

1) Lifton may not want to provide physical evidence (proof) that he broke the law, if that is, in fact what he did. Sorry, if that is incorrect, David, but I'm just trying to make sense of this. So, on the one hand, by providing the tape it would allow the alleged evidence of her being less than truthful speak for itself; on the other hand, it would prove the commission of an illegal act.

Jim, I also think (if the above is true) the more you bring up the legality of its status the more elusive its disposition will become.

2) I don't think that "whistleblower" applies, in this case or at this juncture. Here's why: If I'm not mistaken, an individual is protected from retaliation under the law for whistleblowing about illegal activity on the part of their employer. The law makes retaliation illegal separtely from the original charge, if there is one or not. In other words, if the employee is reporting what they believe in good faith to be illegal activity, whether or not that ends up to be true, the employee is protected from retaliation by the employer.

I don't see how that applies to this situation. It's like trying to stretch a condom over a watermelon, it just won't fit!

monk

Pamela,

Nice point! I am really having a difficult time with Doug Weldon. He not only appears to be intimidating a witness who is a whistleblower to one of the great crimes of our time (and you can take your pick between the assassination and the contaminated polio virus), when he should be advocating for her right to step forth and expose this corruption, but he seems to have no hesitation in supporting Davd Lifton's refusal to share the cassette he has been touting all these years.

Do I detect the least whiff of inconsistency from our prosecutor?

Egad! Shouldn't the relentless crime-fighter be cracking down on illegal recordings of conversations? Shouldn't he be making the case for prosecuting David Lifton? Why do I think he should be protective of Judyth for blowing the whistle and critical of Lifton for withholding evidence? I just don't get his attitude about prosecuting a crucial witness or suborning the withholding of evidence. I guess he will tell me that I am making this "personal" again. I must be missing something.

Jim

JF said to DL:I have asked several times that you send me a copy of the cassette of your conversation with Judyth that I might have the opportunity to evaluate your "evidence" for myself.

Until Lifton provides you with a copy of the illegally-taped interview with Judyth so that it can be evaluated by someone who does not have an agenda against her, nothing that he says about it should be given much weight. As Lifton is not being forthcoming, it follows that there is a reason for it. That he keeps repeating his interpretation of it is telling. How can we not ask 'what is he hiding'?

Bill,

I agree with everything you wrote...almost. Like you, I find it much more implausible to believe that all of Doug's conclusions are false than to believe that at least one of them is true--and one is all it takes.

However, and I actually like this, you seem to have a somewhat--I dunno--old west "shoot 'em up" mentality about parts of the case. That's not a criticism--not at all!

Only problem is...you seem to still be looking to hold someone accountable for the crime....or to otherwise prevent the perpetrators from "getting away with it" -- Well, guess what: THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT! Yeah, they did and it sucks--but they did.

Please forgive my being so bold, but perhaps the best lesson here doesn't reside in our figuring out how to obtain justice for JFK, but rather understanding "what it means" (that we cannot) about us, about our nation, about preventing it in the future.

I know that sounds somewhat fatalistic, even resigned, but it is what it is.

I simply believe I, and others that raise questions, should not be libeled for doing so. Thanks.

Doug Weldon

Doug,

I don't recall having ever libeled you or anyone else for raising questions or anything else, do you?