Greg Burnham

The Variable Energy Output of the Sun Appears to Be the Major Determinant of Decadal- to Millennial-Scale Global Climate Change Volume 4, Number 48: 28 November 2001

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is responsible for the approximate 1500-year cycle of global climate change that has been intensely studied in the region of the North Atlantic Ocean and demonstrated to prevail throughout glacial and interglacial periods alike? This is the question Bond et al. (2001) set out to answer in a study of ice-rafted debris found in three North Atlantic deep-sea sediment cores and cosmogenic nuclides (10Be and 14C) sequestered in the Greenland ice cap (10Be) and Northern Hemispheric tree rings (14C).

Based on arduous analyses of the deep-sea sediment cores that yielded the variable-with-depth amounts of three proven proxies for the prior presence of overlying drift-ice, the scientists were able to discern and, with the help of an accelerator mass spectrometer, date a number of recurring alternate periods of relative cold and warmth that wended their way through the entire 12,000-year expanse of the Holocene. The mean duration of the several complete climatic cycles thus delineated was 1340 years, the cold and warm nodes of the latter of which oscillations, in the words of Bond et al., were "broadly correlative with the so called 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period'."

The signal accomplishment of the scientists' study was the linking of these millennial-scale climate oscillations - and their imbedded centennial-scale oscillations - with similar-scale oscillations in cosmogenic nuclide production, which are known to be driven by contemporaneous oscillations in the energy output of the sun. In fact, Bond et al. were able to report that "over the last 12,000 years virtually every centennial time-scale increase in drift ice documented in our North Atlantic records was tied to a solar minimum." In light of this observation they concluded that "a solar influence on climate of the magnitude and consistency implied by our evidence could not have been confined to the North Atlantic," suggesting that the cyclical climatic effects of the variable solar inferno are experienced throughout the world.

At this point of their paper, the international team of scientists had pretty much verified a number of things we have regularly reported on our website over the past several years, i.e., that in spite of the contrary claims of a host of climate alarmists, the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period were (1) real, (2) global, (3) solar-induced, and (4) but the latest examples of uninterrupted alternating intervals of relative cold and warmth that stretch back in time through glacial and interglacial periods alike. [For more information on topics 1-3, see Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in our Subject Index; for additional material on topic 3, see Solar Effects (Climate); for information on topic 4, see Climate Oscillations.]

Because these several subjects are of such great significance, particularly to the global warming debate that currently rages over the climate model-predicted consequences of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, Bond and his band of researchers went on to cite additional evidence in support of the implications of their work. With respect to the global extent of the climatic impact of the solar radiation variations they detected (topics 2 and 3 above, with 1 implied), they made explicit reference to confirmatory studies conducted in Scandinavia, Greenland, the Netherlands, the Faroe Islands, Oman, the Sargasso Sea, coastal West Africa, the Cariaco Basin, equatorial East Africa, and the Yucatan Peninsula, demonstrating thereby that "the footprint of the solar impact on climate we have documented extend from polar to tropical latitudes." Also in support of topic 3, they noted that "the solar-climate links implied by our record are so dominant over the last 12,000 years ... it seems almost certain that the well-documented connection between the Maunder solar minimum and the coldest decades of the LIA could not have been a coincidence," further noting that their findings support previous suggestions that both the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period "may have been partly or entirely linked to changes in solar irradiance."

Another point reiterated by Bond et al. is that the oscillations in drift-ice they studied "persist across the glacial termination and well into the last glaciation, suggesting that the cycle is a pervasive feature of the climate system." At two of their coring sites, in fact, they identified a series of such cyclical variations that extended throughout all of the previous interglacial and were "strikingly similar to those of the Holocene." Here they could also well have cited the work of Oppo et al. (1998), who observed similar climatic oscillations in a sediment core that covered the span of time from 340,000 to 500,000 years before present, and that of Raymo et al. (1998), who pushed back the time of the cycles' earliest known occurrence to well over one million years ago.

So how do the small changes in solar radiation inferred from the cosmogenic nuclide variations bring about such significant and pervasive shifts in earth's global climate? In answer to this question, which has long plagued proponents of a solar-climate link, Bond et al. describe a scenario whereby solar-induced changes high in the stratosphere are propagated downward through the atmosphere to the earth's surface, where they likely provoke changes in North Atlantic Deep Water formation that alter the global Thermohaline Circulation. In light of the plausibility of this scenario, they suggest that "the solar signals thus may have been transmitted through the deep ocean as well as through the atmosphere, further contributing to their amplification and global imprint."

Concluding their landmark paper, the authors say the results of their study "demonstrate that the earth's climate system is highly sensitive to extremely weak perturbations in the sun's energy output," noting that their work "supports the presumption that solar variability will continue to influence climate in the future." It is readily evident, therefore, that the study of Bond et al. provides ample ammunition for defending the premise that the global warming of the past century or so may well have been nothing more than the solar-mediated recovery of the earth from the chilly conditions of the most recent Little Ice Age, and that any further warming of the planet that might occur would likely be nothing more than a continuation of the same solar-mediated cycle that is destined to usher the globe into the next Medieval-like or Modern Warm Period. Consequently, since there's plenty of precedence for this scenario - it's happened over and over for more than a million years - and none for a warming of the planet as a consequence of atmospheric CO2 enrichment (see CO2-Temperature Correlations in our Subject Index), it would seem the height of folly to implement any energy policy that would restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions for the avowed purpose of attempting to prevent future global warming. It's not CO2 that's been causing the earth to warm. It's the sun!

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V4/N48/EDIT.php

Dr. Sherwood B. Idso

President Dr. Keith E. Idso

Vice President

References

Bond, G., Kromer, B., Beer, J., Muscheler, R., Evans, M.N., Showers, W., Hoffmann, S., Lotti-Bond, R., Hajdas, I. and Bonani, G. 2001. Persistent solar influence on North Atlantic climate during the Holocene. Science 294: 2130-2136.

Oppo, D.W., McManus, J.F. and Cullen, J.L. 1998. Abrupt climate events 500,000 to 340,000 years ago: Evidence from subpolar North Atlantic sediments. Science 279: 1335-1338.

Raymo, M.E., Ganley, K., Carter, S., Oppo, D.W. and McManus, J. 1998. Millennial-scale climate instability during the early Pleistocene epoch. Nature 392: 699-702.

Well said, Jack.

This is likely my last post to any forum. I grow weary of the counter-productive, juvenile bickering between otherwise intelligent, mature adults, some of whom I call friends.

The search for the truth is not served by expecting everyone to agree with each other, but it is served even less when those engaged in debate allow their respective differences to be amplified beyond their ORIGINAL significance.

That is idiotic.

My intent in this thread was not to disagree with HORNE nor was it to agree with Costella. And that's not what I did. Unfortunately, Bill Kelly placed words in my mouth. My intent was to defend John from undue harsh criticism by Jim. Yes, it was unduly harsh. You can disagree without calling his review "dumb" or accusing him of "blunders" and a few other choice put downs. You can push too hard against the people you treasure in this world the most--under the cover of "seeking the truth" -- only to alienate them or to cause them to disengage from the good fight because it has turned into the bad fight. Nobody wins in such scenarios--least of all the truth.

IMO: John wrote a review with which some (if not most) people here didn't agree. So what? Does that excuse the exchange of rude remarks? How about this: What if we all at times over-react in our zeal to express our opinions? Obviously, that happens... What I find hard to imagine is that when it happens--when someone over-reacts-- "friends" don't attempt to work it out by exploring why the person over-reacted, but instead "take sides" and villify the other--irrespective of the person's dedication and valuable contributions.

Well, I know that I'm new to this particular venue and have no "standing" here, but those who know me well understand what I consider to be reasonable rules of engagement. IMO: it is common courtesy to show self restraint and if members were to behave like adults there would be no need for moderators at all.

Anyway, so long. Good luck in your pursuit of the truth. I hope your paths converge on it no matter what route you take.

GO_SECURE

monk

====

Everyone tends to see EVERYTHING in terms of black vs white...ALL OR NOTHING. Not so.

Horne made valuable contributions.

Costella made valuable contributions.

Both fail to credit the contributions made by the other.

Neither is as bad as the other says.

Lighten up, guys.

Horne shows that there was monkey business with the "original" film.

Costella shows that in addition to that monkey business, at a later time, the film underwent a

complete overhaul.

Both have made significant contributions.

Jack

Perhaps I need to re-read John's review. -- Ok, I just did and I didn't detect anything in his review that was "anchored" on your claim. He seems to report facts about Doug's employment--and although I agree that his reference to a reluctance to admit a "Jewish" connection to the assassination is ill founded, it is certainly not central to his position.

Costella in his so called review shouldn't have mentioned Horns Holocaust Museum job. A la : Horne went working for the Holocaust Museum, therefore one can't trust his JFK research. That was a strange idea...maybe he can explain that claim further???

Horne with his IARRB carved in stone the body-alteration done by Humes at Bethesda prior to the official "autopsy". For that deed alone he is worth the Pulitzers prize...

KK

Ok, Bill. Fair enough. I consider Fetzer to be a close friend. And I consider you to be a very good man and a formidable researcher, although I don't know you nearly as well, that is still my opinion. I consider Mantik to be "top-shelf" as I do Noel Twyman. Jack White is way up there too--great friend. Scott Myers, close friend--extremely intelligent...and John Costella, a good friend--extremely bright--my wife and I are going to visit him this summer in Australia...

Now, my point is this: These are known entities--with proven track records!

Why do we continue to "vet" them as though they are suspect? And, a better question: Why do we all continue to "VET" each other! Perhaps those with a proven track record with whom we may occasionally disagree on a given point need not be treated with such contempt or doubt or suspicion every time they take an opposing position. (And I said as much to Jim on the phone in not so many words).

Just my 2 cents.

Are you kidding me right now? Bill, that is so beneath you! I am appalled. You might disagree, but wow--it's amazing to me how often otherwise intelligent, cordial, descent, people (even JFK assassination researchers), become so desperate to advance their position that they will choose to impugn the character, intelligence, integrity, ability, or challenge the motives of those with whom they disagree.

Sorry, it's not just you--and it's not just here. I'm just naive to expect anything different. A pity.

Great review, John!

After reading it, I would compare Horne to the HSCA.

Jack

Horne another Blakey, or Joannides? Come on.

KK

Yea, Jack,

You can compare Doug Horne's five volumes to the entire work of the Congressonal Committee.

Horne is extremely critical of Blakey, something Costello wouldn't know since he didn't bother to read the book, and appears disenchanted not to have been give the Z-film credit he expected in the one chapter he did read (twice), and still misunderstood.

Just by asking the Secret Agent Man question Costella poisons the well, as it has been said.

But I like the nick name G-Man Costella has bestowed on Horne, since Doug's been in need of a good nickname.

Costella admits he worked for the DOD, so now that's my nickname for him. DODC the Hatchet Man Costella.

Like all good propagandists know - repeatedly branding someone something works - in the same vein as Holland and Russo, and DOD Hatchet Man Costella repeatedly calls Horne "the Government Man" - apparently because Horne is a State department bureaucrat and has a Navy background (certainly G-Man is also an ONI shill). But The Hatchet Man's bias comes out when he mentions the fact that G-Man worked for the Holocaust museum after his service on the ARRB - and therefore must have different tendencies when it comes to Jews.

Of course in America people know that everybody named Costella is in the Mafia.

I thought that The Hatchet Man, being an academic and with some knowledge of the case, would actually write a thoughtful, useful, yet critical review of Horne's work, but that hasn't been done yet.

Maybe Jimmy D can pull it off.

BK

All,

Now that I have read the review, I think that Bill Kelly made a good

effort to be even-handed, where John has different fish to fry. What

he has not done--and it is a grievous shortcoming--is to explain what

Doug DID ACCOMPLISH by way of establishing five physical differences

between the original celluloid and the current, establishing that the

chain of custody was broken by two different films having been brought

to the NPIC on consecutive evenings, and by demonstrating that at least

some internal content alteration has been established by the Hollywood

experts. This is not as powerful and scientific as Costella's proofs

of film fakery and of the necessity to reshoot each frame in order to

avoid exposure via the "ghost panels", but it is still not bad stuff.

Although I concede that Doug did reveal important--very important--new clarifying information...still:

IMO, it is not John's responsibility to "explain" what Doug accomplished in his work! If it needs to be "explained" by a critic [a reviewer] it was not well explained by the author of the work to begin with!

As a point of logic, John contends that his own [John's] work proves that the Z-film is either authentic or it is not [read:it is completely fabricated]. It was altered far beyond a mere "paint over" of individual frames. Moreover, his work proves that there is no such thing as "a slightly altered" Z-film. It was completely altered. However, it could be argued that Doug almost undermines the significance of those findings by his lack of recognition of them in his book!

If the situation was reversed and Doug's book was a "review" of Costella's work, then I think your criticism of HIS (Doug's) "review" might be well founded. Not the other way around, though.

I find a lot of merit in defining that distinction.

In fact, in his eagerness to impail Horne, Costella commits a major

blunder. If he had read Horne carefully, he would have known that a

split 8mm version that had been developed in Dallas was brought to the

NPIC on Saturday with one crew at work and another unsplit 16mm version

was brought from Rochester the next evening. The NPIC even had to go

out to purchase an 8mm projector to show the 8mm film, because it did

not have one. The problem for John is that Homer McMahon was working

on Sunday, not on Satuday, which means that the version he worked with

was the already altered version brought from "Hawkeye Works" or what-

ever. Doug's original report about Homer's statements is in MURDER

and have given what he had to say on that occasion a lot of thought.

I don't think that John had any "eagerness to impail Horne" nor do I think it is settled science that John committed a "blunder"--major or otherwise. Suggesting it is so, in the fashion offered, resembles a "Poisoning of the Well" -- IMHO. Moreover, the John I know "reads things carefully" prior to comment. Suggesting otherwise further poisons the well.

I was so captivated by Homer's having viewed the film ten or more times

and having observed "6 to 8 impacts" that I inferred he was not talking

about JFK alone but had to be talking about impacts on occupants of the

limousine. That made great sense, since JFK was hit at least four times

and Connally as many as three, where 4 + 3 = 7, a number in between six

and eight. I have explained this on radio and to Noel in revising his

book for publication. It was only in discussing the matter explicitly

with Doug that I came to realize that, since Homer was watching a film

that had already undergone (at least preliminary) revision, it was most

unlikely that he could have been observing impacts from the event itself.

I am unsure as to what relevance the above has to John's review?

I am a bit taken aback that John suggests my reaction to the suggestion

that Doug Horne might be a government agent was "hysterical". I know a

lot more about Doug than does John, having interviewed him three times

now at two-hours apiece on "The Real Deal" and having prepared two or

three blogs about his work for my blog, jamesfetzer.blogspot.com. In

my opinion, if Doug Horne is a government agent, then I am a lunatic.

Well, it seems to me to make perfect sense. That if Doug is (and I'm not claiming he is), but if he is a gov agent, (and IF you are that convinced he isn't), then since you don't want to be a lunatic--the implication could cause a near hysterical reaction! Not that far-fetched, IMO. But, I wasn't there--so I don't know.

This is about as bizarre and unjustifiable an insinuation as I have

ever encountered in JFK research. I know them both and regard them

with the greatest esteem. Sometimes, alas, many of us tend to go off

the deep end, which I am afraid goes with kind of research we are doing.

This is a nice example of an extremely smart man offering a dumb review.

Jim

Am I offering a dumb review of your review of his review? Sheesh. Labels mean very little to me.

I don't know if this is the correct topic to place here, but I do know it's unrelated to JFK and so doesn't belong over there. My wife and I live in a highrise condominium in downtown San Diego overlooking San Diego Bay, Coronado Island and San Diego Harbor. An earthquake measuring 6.9 on the R-scale just hit a few minutes ago. I actually think it was closer to 7.2 -- Sometimes they revise their original estimate after collecting more data.

Now, let's wait for the aftershocks!

I fail to understand why this has to get personal. Tink, are you seriously claiming that Jim is not a real researcher? C'mon, now--isn't that over the top? You are a grown man. You need not resort to playground tactics. You may disagree with him, you might think you have discovered all of the correct answers--indeed, you may even hate Jim--but it is insulting to our intelligence, and frankly, such a claim is beneath you (or so one would presume).

I received an email from David Lifton this morning telling me of some of the significant research he is doing rather than rolling around in the gutter with you and this unfortunate woman. Your continued posts make all the more important what I wrote back to him:

"David, you must understand that you do real research; Glell Viklund does real reserch; Duncan Macrae does real research; Barb Junkkarinen does real research. But James Fetzer doesn't do real research and never has. I don't think it is a personal attack on him to point this out. I think it is just something that can be read off the sum total of his enthusiasms. Instead of actually looking into things and finding out what makes sense and what doesn't, Fetzer prefers another role. He likes being a flack or press agent or cheerleader. His congenial tools are press releases, news conferences, mysterious "intel" authorities, blogs, obscure radio talk shows, and now, "channeling" a woman whose story was holed at the water-line years ago. Since he never gets his hands dirty in real research, he loses perspective and ends up backing ideas that most folks are willing to let sink into obscurity. None of this is very important. It's just some of the noise that accompanies genuine discussion and inquiry. You are wise to stay away from it."

Josiah Thompson

I notice there does not seem much ineterst in Judyth Baker. I am curious if people here do not believe her? Or just waiting for more evidence?

Bill Byas

You're obviously not serious. Notice the high number of both reads [38,000+] and replies [870+] in the existing thread below.

...As far as I know, there is no way of retrieving a post, and replacing it with a corrected post. So I cleaned up my text, and simply reposted it...

DSL

David,

Just FYI: You have the ability to "edit" a post. When you look at your posted message you'll notice that in the lower right hand corner just below your message there are 3 buttons. EDIT / REPLY / QUOTE. If you're not the author of the post only the REPLY and QUOTE buttons are available, but if you are the author you press EDIT and it will allow you to make changes to the original. Moreover, it automatically posts the date and time of your edit at the bottom. I'm going to edit this post as an example of what you'd see.

I'm disappointed with the hijacking of this thread. Why try to stop the conversation? If you don't like it, why not move on to a different thread? Or are you guys attempting to protect everyone here from the "Judyth coodies" or the "Fetzer fantasies" -- or some such crap?

You're right, Bill--we ARE all adults. So, people should ignore the thread if they don't like it. I'm rather taken aback that there are those who are attempting to "save Jim" from Judyth! Again, "YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!" And, when that fails to work, Jim is attacked, ostensibly to save him...ummm--from himself, I guess?

It is quite telling when an individual AND their posts are attacked by multiple parties. Why the ferocity? Why the ugliness? Why does Tink resort to such juvenile mutterings?

If Jim is on the wrong track, the truth will out anyway. Truth has a way of doing that. Let him go down on the weakness of his own arguments--or prevail from their strength. But, I have a feeling that this information is threatening to some here--and I don't know why.

Don't misunderstand. I am not claiming to know or to believe that Judyth is or is not the real deal. But why the overly hostile reaction to her story? Some here take these posts as though they were full of personal attacks against them--and they did from the beginning. Granted, the tone has gotten more heated on both sides recently, but there was an extremely negative and defensive reaction from the very first post in this thread.

Why?

Please don't say it's because "we know this is all BS" or we're sure that "Judyth has nothing new" to bring to this case. Gimme a break. You can't have it both ways. First Judyth is criticized for her information having "not added anything new to what we already know about the case" -- yet, whenever she does "add something new" it is dismissed rather violently as something she just now fabricated before it is even investigated. How do I know it hasn't been investigated by her critics? Because the speed of their response precludes it. Either she "fabricated" this heretofore unknown item opportunistically or she did not. All things being equal, if her critics fail to investigate the claim, (as I have failed to do with many of her claims for lack of time, interest, resources), they really have no standing to reject it--for reasons other than their own personal bias or prejudice.

We are adults. We can do better than this.

I am not taking sides in this debate, as I don't claim to know one way or the other. -- However...

Look, let's not all get our panties up in a bunch, boys. Granted, Jim has a tendency--by his own admission--to be overly combative. I share that same trait, unfortunately. It's not always the easiest beast to tame. However, that trait (or fault, as the case may be) should not influence the outcome of the argument. We're all human, and as such, we might be sensitive to the combativeness of another particularly when we and they are on opposite sides of an argument.

But that's not the point.

If we assume that Jim has committed an error of etiquette--so be it. His social skills my have offended some here. (Although, I fail to see how or why. Perhaps if aimed at me, I too would feel differently? I don't know). However, the problem--in my view, is that those who are claiming "foul" fail to provide sound arguments in rebuttal. Sure, they might be offended, but "who cares" in the bigger picture. Why? Because it isn't Jim's intent to offend. His intent is to "scrap it out" even if it means getting his hands dirty in pursuit of the truth.

There are multiple errors in argumentation from those attempting to discredit Judyth. And they are obvious. The fact that some great researchers on this forum do not believe her story, in and of itself, means little or nothing by way of proof since the arguments offered to debunk her are not well constructed once scrutinized beyond surface appeal.

It is my sincere hope that the tone of this discussion is dialed back at least a few notches. People don't need to feel that they're "giving in" simply because they choose to avoid aggravating their opponent with vitriolic proclamations.

I understand, Chris. Good approach, IMO. BTW: when I watched your NIX film and identified the frame number where Toni appears to react, it seems to be at 322. It is in that frame that she literally changes direction from where she was originally running. Her left foot is planted, then bends at the knee, while she pushes off of it to move to her right--away from what she appears to percieve as the line of fire. I thought that Newman reacted slightly in the same frame or the next one (323) and "began" his move away (in the same direction as Toni back up Elm St.) before hitting the ground.

Jim,

Thanks for that detailed lesson in logic. I appreciate it and I "get it" too. I stand corrected.

The alteration of the Zapruder film is probably the single most effective element of the ongoing cover up [obstruction of justice] in the assassination of John F Kennedy. It sends even sincere researchers down the wrong path...

Greg, I certainly enjoy reading your contributions to the Education Forum. The above seems true.

It might be that the falsification and destruction of so much of the medical evidence runs a close second.

Thank you Michael--and I agree with you about the medical record. Of course, if we split hairs, the Secret Service screw ups were possibly the most egregious of those that directly effected the immediate outcome of the event itself. Given that fact, perhaps the cover up of their negligence (if not complicity) is perhaps monumental. Secret---indeed.

We're not all that far off. Yes, I believe Bush was CIA in '63. Yes, I believe Zapata offshore was a front for the CIA. Yes, I believe he lied about it later, and that Felix Rodriguez's role in Iran-Contra was no coincidence.

So GHWB was in deep, then? It would seem so...on several levels. That he became DCI under FORD speaks volumes.

But it makes no sense he would be involved in the planning of Kennedy's assassination. He was a business man. A front man. Not a planner. Nor a killer.

A lot of assumptions. Perhaps he was just a voyeur?

Great idea, Greg. But I would suggest some "partial" documentation also. For instance, she says her

streetcar line passed LHO's house and they rode to and from work together. How about naming

the streetcar line and its route. Otherwise it is just an assertion.

Jack

Well, I don't know if that item is one that Jim feels she has already adequately explained. My suggestion is that he list ONLY the items he feels she has adequately explained, including especially those items that have been challenged. I would think it more constructive for Jim to refrain from justification and/or qualification for this exercise. Let's just see if there are ANY points that have been (even partially) resolved.

Jim,

I have a suggestion. I think it would be helpful if you listed the claims (in list format, without qualification or justification) that you believe Judyth has already adequately explained in her response to detractors. For instance, the whole Cancun issue, the clothing issue, the ability to drive issue... I guess what I'm suggesting is that you put forth the items you feel are explained and allow her critics to "check off" the items that they also agree her explanations COULD ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN. IOW: even if they tend to disbelieve these explanations, surely there are at least a few (or even just one) explanation that they can "allow" as a possibility.

If there are NONE -- there is a serious problem, no? Even her most staunch detractors shouldn't be so closed minded as to reject ALL claims irrespective of merit. If they do, there is a problem. If they do--and it is truly HONEST--the problem may lie elsewhere.

I had a long conversation with Mr. Mullins at a health EXPO in Pasadena CA . Mullins was a strong advocate of

Michael Collins Piper - Final Judgment. But Mr. Mullins might be some sort of asset.......

http://www.henrymakow.com/ezra_pound.html thanks sg

Hey Steve,

Colonel Prouty spoke highly of Mullins. He considered him an "old friend" -- Fletch never indicated to me what Mullins' affiliations did or did not include. Below is a letter and reply between us in which Mullins' name briefly comes up.

http://www.prouty.org/letter11.html

I received an email from Shelby DellaRosa (Rich's wife) of the JFKresearch Forum last night. She informed me that she no longer has any copies of the book, HARVEY & LEE for sale.

However, revenue will still be generated for preserving the forum by purchasing books from that site through the link to Amazon.com located there.

www.jfkresearch.com

It may take a few days to do all of these. The thing that is

clear that in Russia, many photos were taken of "LHO". Some

are fake, some may be genuing...but few look like the man

killed by Jack Ruby.

Jack

Jack,

I wish that I had asked Hemming about the photographic record of LHO. I wish I had sent him images and asked questions. I have a lot of obscure information about LHO from both Hemming and Prouty, but unfortnately, I have no information about the photographic record. Sheesh--and I call myself a researcher...pathetic.

Monk...

Many JVB claims appear "plausible" and some cannot be "refuted", simply because all are

her OPINIONS, things she SAYS she witnessed, without proof offered. I do not care whether

her tales are true or not.

Yes, Jack--but, Jim's argument is the opposite, in a sense... He is saying that many of her claims are extremely IMPLAUSIBLE (an opinion with which I think we all agree). He is further observing, correctly IMHO, that every time one of her "improbable claims" turns out to be TRUE--that serves to bolster perception of her overall credibility. I will not defend the logic of that perception, but I will acknowledge his accuracy as to human tendencies--logical or not.

Some of her tales are irrelevant. What is the relevance to JFK studies if she claims an illicit

affair with a man she just met? What does it matter that she thinks she resembles Marina?

What does it matter that she thinks she and LHO pledged to meet somewhere in Mexico and

explore ancient ruins? What does it matter that she claims to have personally met Shaw,

Banister, Ferrie, Ochsner, Sherman, etc. etc.? Her knowing these well documented figures

adds NOTHING to the information already known.

It does strain the mind...indeed.

Her information changes frequently as it suits her purpose. I will even grant that if everything she says

is true it does not amount to a bigratsass in the overall study of the investigation. Cancun or Kan Kun...

who cares?

Thanks, Monk.

Jack

Well, Jack, my friend--I have known you a very long time (or so it seems) and have never "read you" using profanity. And you still escaped it tonight...albeit by inventing a new word! New word: "bigratsass" -- and it conveyed your meaning (and mine) very well, indeed!

GO_SECURE

monk

Greg,

There is no postulation. I am a professional shooter.

No that is not correct. You are postulating irrespective of your profession.

Had this been the work of a professional shooter it would have been one shot.

That's almost clever. Your argument then follows this path: "Since it took more than one shot, it was not the work of a professional shooter (or shooters), and therefore was not a conspiracy" -- (afterall, who would conspire to hire amateurs to kill the POTUS?)

Sorry, not good enough. I play chess, too.

Hey Mike,

Do you believe all the shots were fired by a single assassin?

Martin

Martin,

Absolutely unequivocally YES.

Those shots and their trajectory lead to a point of origin within a 20" circle of the 6th floor window in the TSBD.

Mr. Mike,

A statement and a few more questions.

Since Oswald can't be placed within that 20" circle in the 6th floor window in the TSBD at the time of the assassination 12:30 PMCST, as he has an alibi - being on the second floor at the time, do you think the Sixth Floor Sniper, whoever he was, do you think he was a local Texan hillbilly loser hick who got lucky, or do you think he was a highly paid, well trained and competent clandestine covert operative who killed on assignment before and has done so since? Was the sniper a hillbilly or jackal?

And if you insist on Oswald being the Sixth floor sniper, do you think he suddenly decided to kill the President because he was given the opportunity and was mad at Marina or did he plan it out in advance and get the job at the TSBD and set up the Sniper's Nest and carry out a plan he thought of in advance. If Oswald was the sniper, was he a hillbilly or a jackal?

And as part of official US military sniper's training, are you trained on how to protect yourself in the Sniper's Nest and how to get out of there after the job's done?

Thanks for your knowing and honest response,

Bill Kelly

Mr. Kelly,

I have my issues with LHO being our man quite frankly. The evidence against him is circumstantial at best, and inadmissible at worst.

My very honest opinion is this is NOT a professional shooter. If it had been there would have been a single round fired. Game. Set. match.

I would not even presume to surmise what Oswald would do. The boy had issues that is sure enough, but to what I am not qualified to give any better guess than anyone else.

In normal operations we have a spotter, he is our security, and is generally armed with an m4 or some variant. We also have a pistol. Basically the snipers best security is a damn good "hide", his own ability to enter and leave an area undetected, and his insistence that one shot be fired.

Think if you will about a bird in your back yard chirping. If he chirps just once we often cant locate him, however if he continues to chirp he is soon located, and so it is with a sniper. One shot, then relocate.

One of the main things in considering location is escape. This is and should always be preplanned.

Best to you SIR,

Mike

This is the first post you have made that I agree with almost 100%-- But, it does bring us back to the sniper's nest. Even if we agree that LHO as the sniper was an unlikely scenario, what about that location? This is not a point of probable extraction, by any stretch of the imagination, for anyone under the circumstances. Moreover, if the TSBD sniper (if there was one) was an amateur as you postulate, HOW DID HE GET OUT UN-MOLESTED in the aftermath?

Points very well taken, Cliff. Well done!