Greg Burnham

Thanks Barb, You employed a double negative. So for clarity sake then, you think it IS likely that their paths crossed. Since that is the most you would concede even if the handwriting analysis panned out, its hardly worth the effort.

Thanks, b

Hi Kevin, Well, for me, the proverbial "jury" is still out. As an example, it would be fallacious for me to conclude that ALL of her claims regarding research with Ferrie are false--if based only on my rejection of this single claim. Moreover, refusing to accept ANY of her claims (even those beyond Ferrie) if such refusal is based solely on rejection of this one claim, would also be fallacious. I don't reject all of her claims. I simply don't know yet. I haven't checked them all out. I don't fault Jim for not having had the opportunity to provide irrefutable evidence of each and every one of her claims either. Let's face it, due to quantity alone, such a task could take hundreds of years, millions of dollars, and thousands of lives! Just kidding, but there certainly is a lot of ground to cover. I will say this: She did NOT strike me as one who was a fabricator AT ALL when I met and "grilled" her myself 10 years ago.

Thanks Jim. However, all bio-weapons, AIDS related or not (including cancer), are based on COMPLEX (non-linear) systems. This is not easily accomplished--indeed it is not easily ATTEMPTED credibly--even at a MAJOR facility sponsored by the US Government and administered by the US Intelligence/National Security Apparatus! Let alone at a "home laboratory" -- This claim seems, to me, to be over the top. Now, I will grant this as a possibility: David Ferrie was stone cold NUTS! One crazy a** lunatic! Just look at him! And Judyth was about 19--as HEMMING commented to me about her: "Monk, did you know sh*t from shinola at 19? Well, she's a broad--that thought she was in love on top of that! ..." So, maybe Ferrie was convinced in his own mind that he was working on this cancer weapon stuff--and maybe he convinced others to help him. But--the evidence is REALLY, REALLY thin--if not ridiculous, IMHO.

Jack, Colonel Prouty was beyond being "absolutely convinced" that HIV/AIDS was the product of Fort Detrick. He treated that subject (as he treated every subject with which he was in a position to know) with the "quiet demeanor" afforded those who are certain. Why would he be so certain? He was there. At one point, Fletch was given a desk within the Pentagon, specifically in the Unconventional Warfare Division of the USAF Directorate of Plans. This was in the same immediate section as the CIA's Lt. Colonel James Monroe. Prouty said: "His [Monroe's] activities covered this area of bio-warfare and the support of CIA activities in that area. During this time I became well aware of those activities and Fort Detrick was mentioned frequently. During my own work with the CIA, I attended many meetings in which such activity was the subject, and the function of Fort Detrick was a common discussion." The year was 1955--which pre-dates NOLA 1963. Judyth was what, 11 years old at the time? Rather than me transcribe everything here, suffice to say, Fletch made similar comments many times to me privately, but also is on record with them. The above comment was referring specifically to the 1969 Hearing Records of the testimony of Doctor Donald MacArthur at the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Department of Defense Appropriations. MacArthur was mking a case for $10 million dollars to be funded to create a "new infective micro-organism". Prouty said that within those hearing records we "find what most certainly may be considered as the locus of the origin of AIDS." I encourage anyone further interested in the origin of HIV/AIDS and/or other bio-weapon development at Fort Detrick to obtain a copy of the House of Representatives Congressional Record of July 1st 1969 Page 18077, where Doctor Martin Dworkin, PhD--a Professor of Microbiology at the Medical School of the University of Minnesota testifies. Very compelling, indeed. I would sooner believe that the Zapruder film was altered, not at the Hawkeye Plant in Rochester, but by Judyth, Ferrie, Oschner and Sherman in a "home film studio" than I would believe that the development of HIV/AIDS was even being attempted in a home made laboratory! Film alteration is at least a somewhat "linear system" with which to contend. By comparison, micro-biology is non-linear, extremely complex [read:chaotic], and therefore unpredictable. It would really take some doing...even at Fort Detrick!

Thanks Bill & Dixie, It's been a long time since I was studying this stuff and I'm not as sharp about it anymore. I think you're correct about it being the son, Bill. It got to be too late last night while I was posting this--and I literally started dozing off at the keyboard! I just kinda stopped writing...and went to bed.

Hi Kathy, Thanks for posting this. Very interesting, in a way. The funny thing is...I don't know exctly how or why Geb was ever suspected of being an Oswald impersonator? At the time of the assassination in 1963 he was 44 years old! Oswald was 20 years younger. It seems hard to believe that anyone would think that he could pass for the same guy or that anyone would have mistaken him for Oswald. Geb's Social Security Number is 457-26-0371 He was born in Wisconsin in 1919. He died in 1989 at age 70. He retired as a Colonel in the US Air Force in 1965 after duty as a Strategic Air Command Pilot. He also was a WWII veteran. The only points of interest that I found are these and they are "thin at best" regarding Dallas: Both Ralph and his brother, Fred Geb, who was also a Colonel in the USAF, attended Woodrow Wilson High School in Dallas, as did Represntative Collins. (I'm uncertain as to which Collins this is--but I believe it is James M Collins). Also in attendance at Woodrow Wilson High School (I think) were two individuals who would later become FBI Special Agents: FBI Special Agent Davey O'Brien and Special Agent I. B. Hale. They definitely attended TCU together. These two were partners for 11 years. Special Agent O'Brien later became the Security Chief for H. L. Hunt and Special Agent I. B. Hale became the Security Director for General Dynamics of Fort Worth Texas. I. B. Hale's father, Bobby, eloped with and married Governor John Connally's daughter, Kathleen. She later committed suicide (or she was "suicided") by a shotgun blast behind her right ear. Anyway there's more. Seymour Hersh wrote about more stuff that allegedly took place involving Exener. However, I could never really find where this Ralph Geb supposedly fit in...

Although this might not be exactly what's going on here, Jack--are you saying this is what it resembles? Example of Begging the Question Bill: "God exists." [Jim: Judyth is the real deal] Jill: "How do you know." [Jack: How do you know?] Bill: "Because the Bible says so." [Jim: Because Doctor Mary's Monkey says so.] Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?" [Jack: Why should I believe DMM?] Bill: "Because the Bible was written by those who believe in God." [Jim: Because DMM was written by someone who believes in Judyth] ==============================

Try not to speak, my friend--it's not ridiculous--not yet. I'm still questioning this "witness" -- I would prefer to hear the witness answer the question. Barb seems to reject any evidence that you or Judyth provide. So that won't work by itself. But, perhaps she has an answer consistent with the evidence that she herself has discovered? But, now that Jim has "opened the door" to this subject... Barb, do you reject the authenticity of the documents Jim referenced above? If so, why?

My mistake. I was under the impression that you believed they had, at least, met each other. Do you believe that? Or do you think it's unlikely? During your research did you find out how many people were employed at Reily's in 1963 during that period of time? If it's 800 employees, then perhaps they missed each other. But, if it's only 8 or so--that's a lot harder to miss. IMO, the probability is extremely high that they knew each other. Sorry for putting words in your mouth, I didn't mean to.

In my opinion, it's a dumb bet. (No offense intended, Dean). It is counter-productive for sincere researchers to disqualify themselves on a "bet" over any single issue.

Jack, As you know, I'm not an attorney, but I think there are serious impediments to pursuing such a charge. For instance, if you are correct (in doubting much of what JVB reports) then there is no patient to identify and no crime. However, if she is telling the truth about this "murder" and since she presumably stands to lose the most if the identity of the patient is discovered, etc., and since she would be the sole source of detailed information leading to her own arrest and conviction... well, I hardly think any "suspect" would be forthcoming even if there was a reward offered! We call this a "dead end" case. But, are you sure that her story really means she was involved in a "murder" to begin with?

Barb, While I agree with you that even if the above item is shown to be Oswald's writing it does not prove all of her other claims are true. However, why are you asking for this handwriting verification if its only purpose is to substantiate that which you have already conceded based on other evidence? If you have already conceded the high probability that they knew each other based on their concurrent employment at Reily's, why ask for this exercise in futility since, as you say, it won't prove anything beyond that which you already concede anyway?

More than your word. That is not meant disrespectfully toward you, but I require more than your word. Well, Glenn, do you know what a "Strawman" is? In the vernacular, a strawman argument is one in which an opponent "places words in your mouth" or otherwise misrepresents your argument, giving it a much weaker position than it originally possessed. Then the opponent proceeds to demolish this new, but weaker "strawman" argument, while all the time claiming that they have defeated your position! You've done nothing of the sort. Let's not argue. It's becoming tedious.

Yes, Glenn--opinions. But, some of us have actually conducted research about the broader subject drawing conclusions and forming opinions based upon that research. I didn't write my opinion about the asylum issue because I have no "standing" to speak intelligently about it. I also have no evidence that you or Dolva have any reliable evidence pertaining to it either--although you might. Therefore, I have refrained from commenting on an issue about which I don't know enough. I refrain from proving I am a fool by not offering ill conceived, inappropriate, best left unsaid, "opinions" -- of which I am ill informed. By comparison, what have you done with regard to speaking about items with which you have NO KNOWLEDGE (by your own admission)? You don't need to answer, we already know. Now to be fair to you, perhaps you felt that Jim accused you inappropriately. Perhaps he did. However, inserting yourself into discussions that you are ill informed about (by your own admission) does nothing to add to the pursuit of truth. Beyond a simple denial an innocent man need not defend himself if there is no basis for the accusations. And certainly there was no need to continue the attack. Hey Greg, So far, I've found you reasonable, even funny at times. I would have thought that you by now could take my word for the authenticity of my statements related to the asylum thing. In fact, I would have expected you to, by now. But if you don't, I'll provide the translation, just give me your notice. And yes, of course you are ill informed about this particular issue. She lied, she was caught and now Jimmy et al are trying to hide. Be my guest to join them, no problem. You thought I could "take your word" -- Are you kidding me right now? Seriously? I don't even know you. Isn't this one of the main criticisms you and others have for Jim? You all claim that he just "takes Judyth's word for it" and that is NOT acceptable to you! Yet, I have known Jim very, very well for a decade or so--and I interviewed Judyth about 10 years ago, so I have a basis for my judgment. You have nothing, by comparison--except for "gut" feeling. But now you want me to "take your word for it" even though I have no basis upon which to accept your claims? How hypocritical! Jim has a foundation upon which to base his belief in Judyth! You have provided me nothing. In fact, your presentation has been dispositive.

Yes, Glenn--opinions. But, some of us have actually conducted research about the broader subject drawing conclusions and forming opinions based upon that research. I didn't write my opinion about the asylum issue because I have no "standing" to speak intelligently about it. I also have no evidence that you or Dolva have any reliable evidence pertaining to it either--although you might. Therefore, I have refrained from commenting on an issue about which I don't know enough. I refrain from proving I am a fool by not offering ill conceived, inappropriate, best left unsaid, "opinions" -- of which I am ill informed. By comparison, what have you done with regard to speaking about items with which you have NO KNOWLEDGE (by your own admission)? You don't need to answer, we already know. Now to be fair to you, perhaps you felt that Jim accused you inappropriately. Perhaps he did. However, inserting yourself into discussions that you are ill informed about (by your own admission) does nothing to add to the pursuit of truth. Beyond a simple denial an innocent man need not defend himself if there is no basis for the accusations. And certainly there was no need to continue the attack.

[emphasis added] I like your analysis of what transpired, Mike. Also, many thanks for the kind words. And your last observation [in bold] is possibly more astute than you even know!

Hmmm. Then what business do you have posting comments beyond that scope? Any comments beyond that scope are, by definition, ill conceived, inappropriate, out of place, best left unsaid, and could be the words of a mad man with an over blown image of himself; or otherwise absurd.

Kevin, I displayed a "general garment" without naming names in my post. Are you claiming a custom fit? On the other hand, perhaps my observation doesn't apply to you? That's not for me to determine and I didn't point any fingers. It was just meant as food for thought...

Glenn, My post has nothing to do with my personal likes or dislikes. I am not taking sides with Jim, if you haven't noticed, due to our relationship. Moreover, I am resisting vilifying you for reasons that you may or may not well deserve--because such behavior on my part would serve no purpose. There is no reason to egg me on either. That doesn't work with me.

Hi Kathy, It's interesting that you bring up Ralph Geb. One of my friends (now deceased) --Jay Harrison--formerly with the Dallas Police Dept. among other things, was very interested in Ralph Geb, as well. J asked me to research him many years ago. It might be worth its own thread because I'd like to know what you found. I had a lot of trouble gathering any info about him that was pertinent to the subject.

It appears to me that Jim's passion causes him to express his profound frustration in ways that are less than effective at times. However, his considerable contribution to this thread's substance far outweighs those outbursts. In fact, some (but not all) of those outbursts are quite understandable, IMO. On the other hand, there are those who have contributed virtually nothing--or next to nothing--to the substance of the thread that are posting nearly 100% ad hominem attacks against him--the attacks aren't even against Judyth! I would think that one's legacy in any thread should reside in their contribution of substance to the resolution of the debate, rather than their penchant for targeting any individual.

I think that's a great idea, Barb! [edited for excessive sarcasm by me]

JFK movie quote: Man X [PROUTY]: Well that's the real question, isn't it? Why? The how and the who is just scenery for the public. Oswald, Ruby, Cuba, the Mafia. Keeps 'em guessing like some kind of parlor game, prevents 'em from asking the most important question, why? Why was Kennedy killed? Who benefited? Who has the power to cover it up? Who?

Pat, You may have had an unfortunate experience with Gerry. I can't judge it because I didn't witness it. He was adamant that one needed to do their homework before confronting him, and if he judged--rightly or wrongly--that a researcher hadn't done that, he would treat them less than respectfully. You don't know me, but I'm not easily duped. We communicated for over a decade and spent about 50 hours on the phone. At first, our relationship was quite adversarial--and he was quite confrontational. Of course, who wouldn't be if they were being seriously grilled about their involvement in the murder of JFK? But, as time went by I grew to believe that he was not involved in Dallas. There is an argument to be made that he and/or members of his team were set up as alternate patsies had the hit taken place elsewhere, such as, Miami--for instance. But, that's a different topic. Suffice to say, every claim that he made TO ME that I originally doubted ended up checking out (if it was possible to check out). There were claims that I simply could not verify for many reasons, but my inability to confirm them does not prove prevarication on his part. I will concede that he did have a tendency that, once pissed off enough, allowed him to lead a newbie on a wild goose chase. It was a bit sadistic, IMO. He would usually end it with a justification, by saying, "Well, they didn't know sh*t from shinola anyway..."