Greg Burnham

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!

What DRIVER'S LICENSE? LHO could not drive and did not have a driver's license.

If JVB has a copy of one...THAT IS BIG NEWS.

Lee knew how to drive. Harvey didn't. Maybe in those days, many Russians didn't have cars.

Kathy C

While it's true that "many Russians didn't [indeed the majority did not] have cars" -- and therefore Harvey didn't know how to drive (? I don't know why that would be assumed since Harvery was not Russian, but whatever) --still, if we are to accept Armstrong's account, the Oswald that Judyth knew was HARVEY not LEE. And the one Judyth claims to have known was (according to Armstrong) HARVEY (who could not drive) -- but who was known to Judyth (according to Judyth) as Lee (who could drive). Mind boggling--

Personally, I have a very difficult time accepting that any Soviet double-agent, or false defector, or infiltrator, or--in other words--SPY-- would not have been taught to drive for purposes of "cover story" if nothing else.

Maybe you missed my point. I was suggesting that, the more implausible

her claims on their face, when they turn out to be true, after all, that has

the effect of enhancing her credibility. I think you have missed a premise.

I think you are correct, Jim. My mistake. That they "turn out to be true" --if that is indeed the case--is problematic for those who would dismiss her claims only because they appear to be implausible prima facia.

Have any of her detractors admitted that some of her most implausible claims did, in fact, turn out to be true? Are they still denying, avoiding, or ducking the issue? Or are they awaiting more proof beyond that which you have provided? Is such expectation (of evidence) warranted or not?

Jack, Barb, David:

What about Kan Kun for starters? Or Kankun -- or Cancun-- WHATEVER! What about her explanation of this apparent miscommuniction? David? Is it that hard to accept or even imagine such an innocuous explanation could actually be adequate to the evidence? Is it POSSIBLE that her explanation is true--even if hard to swallow?