Greg Burnham

Thanks, Mike. I find it interesting that we sometimes forget (or neglect to remember) the obvious significance of this man's age: He was ONLY 24 years old! Imagine that...it was one of us? Hard to imagine--reliving my 24th year in his shoes or even in my own shoes for that matter! Yet, he--of such limited life experience--we presume went to the grave with extraordinary secrets about the crime of the century! Or, at least that's what we're being asked to believe... Let me clarify my meaning: I think he went to the grave with a lot of information, but--he may not have been aware of the significance of the majority of it himself. This is in no way "proof" of my assertion-- but, he was ONLY 24 -- I don't think that he or Judyth knew at that tender age (as HEMMING would say): "xxxx from shinola" -- And, who among us would have? Yet, Judyth paints an unrealistic picture of his abilities, IMO. His exceptional level of "wisdom" (as reported by her) is inconsistent with his years of life experience and with his poor judgment. --I'm just thinking out loud, now-- GO_SECURE monk

Dixie, I'm not saying Judyth joined in 2001. I don't remember the year for a certainty, but I know that I met with her BEFORE she joined--for sure. I think we met in 2001--but I don't recall exactly how long it took for her to join after we met. It's probably not a critical point, though. I really appreciate your admission that you "bashed her (claims)" -- although, IMHO, it was more like: You guys BASHED HER personally, too... And it was not fair. It was against "flame free zone" policy, even if she was wrong. That said, it is irrelevant to the veracity of her account. "Bashing" (or the lack thereof) doesn't resolve the issue one way or the other, but it does serve to delay (and in some cases halt) the process. GO_SECURE monk

We have disagreed on many things, Kathy, but--IMO--you make a good point, but only to a degree. For one, he wasn't stupid enough to "get killed by the secret service" for interfering with the motorcade. On the other hand, if he'd really been "in the know" about a plot in Dealey Plaza and had wanted to save Kennedy, why did he not do anything to stop it? Then again, what could he have done? Perhaps he was stupid for showing up at work that day AT ALL--if he really knew that there was a plot...and was talking to his "lover" on the phone about it? For me, some of this story is incredulous--on its face--and some seems counterintuitive to common sense. It's saving grace is its enormity--and its possibilities--just too much to get my head sufficiently around to be comfortable making a judgment call. What did Oswald do to save Kennedy's life? How stupid was Oswald? The Presidential motorcade was going to pass where he worked -- didn't he find that suspicious? Handing out leaflets, doing 2 radio shows about communism, etc. Didn't he realize covert agencies were painting him red? He was practically the only one in the TSBD who didn't go out and watch the President go by. Didn't he hear the shots? Now, what did he do to save Kennedy? Stand there drinking a coke? If he really wanted to be a hero, why didn't he run in front of the limo, yelling, "They're going to kill you," and cover Kennedy's head? Of course the Secret Service would have killed him. But he did nothing to stop the shooting. Kathy C

Good stuff, Jim. Even the MJ-12 (MAJESTIC) documents have the appearance of both authenticity and forgery--yet the content is discredited in its entirety due to the subterfuge. Result: "Toss the baby with the bathwater" -- It's an effective propaganda technique [read:truth killer formula]. GO_SECURE monk If the above bogus document is part of the JVB story, then she is most definately part of a very complicated psychological warfare operation that is being conducted by one Gregory Douglas, one which we are very familiar with and one that is meant to decieve and confuse. BK

Rich did have moderators. I was one of them. One night I screwed up by losing my temper -- in the category I was supposed to be moderating. My second expulsion from there. People thought I was an "agent provocateur." He called me the Manchurian Candidate. I'll always miss Rich. Kathy C Rich only had moderators for a very brief time. He decided to start that on a "trial" basis...and later decided against it. It wasn't just you, Kathy--he discontinued a moderated forum in general, as he thought it had been running fine (even better) before he had moderators. I was never technically a "moderator" --and didn't want to be. But, without citing details, you were banned for an accumulation of reasons. Actually, that's an over-statement. There was "Judyth bashing" reasons (to which Rich uncharacteristically turned a blind eye at first) and losing your temper as you stated on a different topic that you were moderating. Hey, it's ancient history now. I'm glad you're here. Thanks for identifying yourself--I really wasn't talking about Barb. ) I miss Rich, too. GO_SECURE monk

FWIW: I was NOT referring to you. Not even a little bit. You were long gone before Judyth appeared on the forum. I won't even respond to the rest, as it is off topic, too.

Hi Dixie, I'm relatively certain that I met with Judyth in early 2001. This was BEFORE she came on the forum for the first time. I could be wrong about the year without checking my notes, but I am certain that I met with her prior to her joining the forum. I agree that she was not banned, but rather chose to disengage from the xxxx storm. You are correct about Martin, as well as Vernon. I agree with your assessment that "she wasn't abusive" but was abused. I found it quite uncharacteristic of the JFKresearch Forum, but it happened. I don't think that the three of us (you, me and Jack) are referring to the same person who was banned. I refer to someone who is not as well known, and hasn't been suspected of disinfo. This person crossed WAY over the line regarding Judyth, but was actually banned regarding something else, although it was a cumulative effect... GO_SECURE monk

Hi Jack, I have a slightly different recollection. As I recall, there were multilple posts made by an individual (who is also a member here) who shall remain nameless, unless she chooses to identify herself, that were EXTREMELY hostile--to put it mildly. That individual was also banned from the forum. Now, who drew first blood and who drew it deepest? IMO, it wasn't Judyth. As for the alleged phone call, I found it--ummmm-- "a WHO GIVES A DAMN" issue...I don't care about it at all. He wept? So what! So she says...yada yada yada-- I have no interest in sentimental bullxxxx. Sorry, but that's just how I feel about it. This is no longer a "love story" Judyth (if it ever was) to anyone but YOU! -- But, if it's HISTORY -- then I'm interested. That is its only value to researchers. When it becomes a soap opera instead...--WHO CARES? In my above post, I didn't claim that the phone call was something I believed--I merely pointed out that her current account of that event is consistent with what she originally told me in 2001. On the other hand, people talk on the phone--and even in '63, sometimes at great expense because it was the only way. If we assume they did talk (which I have no problem accepting) still: WHO CARES? Not me. Not even a little bit. "He wept" -- So what! However, I think that my personal revulsion to the details of her (love) story (be it a real or contrived story) should not prejudice me or anyone else to a point that dismisses the remainder of her EVIDENCE out of hand. IMO, her story has a lot of relevance to things OTHER THAN the JFK assassination. If there is JFK related relevance, I am still having a lot of difficulty finding it. GO_SECURE monk Addendum: Jack, I don't remember the part about LHO telling JVB that JFK was going to be killed on the phone. Perhaps Jim can verify what she NOW says, in light of that. I will go back to archives and see if I have it there, you might be right.

Thanks Jim, Just as a point of interest to those who claim Judyth's story constantly changes, in this case, they're wrong. That's the exact timeframe [for the telephone call] that she told me nearly a decade ago. She told me that the call started before midnight (about 11:00 - 11:30pm) on Wednesday (the night of the 20th) and ended at about 1:00am on Thursday (the morning of the 21st). GO_SECURE monk Jim, I think there's a typo in the above (in BOLD) -- Thanks for posting all of this material, Jim. I do think it is relevant enough to be studied. Very complex, but fascinating too. I look forward to reading the book. GO_SECURE monk

Jim, I think there's a typo in the above (in BOLD) -- Thanks for posting all of this material, Jim. I do think it is relevant enough to be studied. Very complex, but fascinating too. I look forward to reading the book. GO_SECURE monk

Sorry Jack. I didn't intend to characterize your position that way, but was attempting to demonstrate an example only. For clarity, let me re-phrase: "I will argue (with anyone, for example) that the evidence should not be dismissed out of hand." I have thought that the arguments invoked to dismiss this evidence in the past have been less than fair. If acted on, they would have "short circuited" the process, IMO. But, my point to Pamela is unchanged... GO_SECURE monk

Pamela, I am a Judyth supporter, in case you were unaware. I stood literally alone on JFKresearch Forum in defense of her being allowed to present her testimony without harassment. I caught a lot of flak from two of my best researcher friends, Jack White and Rich DellaRosa, among others, for my efforts. Understand, I stood by her even under considerable fire--and I would do so again. However, there is a difference between my: 1) standing up for a "fair an unbiased" evaluation of her evidence no matter where that evidence leads -- and my 2) unequivocal conclusion that everything she says is 100% accurate and relevant for the reasons that she believes it is so I will continue to argue (with Jack, for example) that the evidence is worthy of fair evaluation and need not be dismissed out of hand. But, I will also argue that my evaluation of the evidence will not be unduly influenced by those who buy her story "hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, boat, trailer, and trailer hitch..." thank you very much, but I have my own mind and thoughts. You are entitled to yours and I to mine. PS: What do you mean: (I) might be "comfortable blaming the victim"? -- Where did you get that fantasy? Totally off topic. Moreover, your conclusion that the attacks were/are due to an OSWALD related matter is subjective, and GOOD FOR YOU! At least you have an opinion. But, I don't agree--I don't know the truth, but I don't agree with that evaluation. I believe the likelihood is that the harassment is due to non-LHO related activity. Indeed...Moreover, don't throw the "bathwater [evidence] out with the baby" simply becuse the "baby" may have made human errors! Evidence is evidence irresective of the "baby" responsible for supplying it. Judyth has been subjected to threats and libel, even though she is a documented witness to LHO in NOLA in the summer of 1963. Yes, her situation is complex; the 'research community' that did everything to discredit and destroy her while then blaming her for the fact that she had no choice but to leave the US to survive, and was hounded even while in asylum definitely plays a part in this. It seems that you too may be comfortable blaming the victim of the attacks rather than acknowledging the reason for them in the first place, which was most likely protection at all costs of Marina's testimony to the WCR and, thus, the WCR itself, not to mention keeping the doors shut to the underbelly of the assassination in NOLA that summer. You could, if you wished, take Judyth's statements and compare them with those of Adele Edison who was allowed to come forward and give her testimony. If you are objective, you may see eery coincidences and other eye-opening leads that may help underline the significance of what each of them has to say.

Indeed...Moreover, don't throw the "bathwater [evidence] out with the baby" simply becuse the "baby" may have made human errors! Evidence is evidence irresective of the "baby" responsible for supplying it.

Jim's expert said: [emphasis mine]Previously I asked you to put questions to him that were related to this subject. This post answers one of my questions, albeit indirectly. Thanks for the confirmation. [emphasis mine]FWIW, that's the way I see it, too. GO_SECURE monk

Indeed, Cliff. Unfortunately for Tink, he invested the proverbial "whole ball of wax" into some of his theories that, while I believe were sincere in the 60's, have lost credibility in the 21st century. This is not his fault. He did the best he could with what he had to work with almost a half century ago. (At least that's what I want to believe--even though his attitude strains that belief). Refusing to acknowledge the best evidence provided by the latest technology and the best experts currently available is not necessarily indicative of a nefarious agenda. Rather, it is understandable that as some age they fear to be "less than memorable" if they admit profound error in their earliest hypotheses. They believe they lack the time to rectify the record sufficiently to render their life long work "worth it" --as if that was the point! True research seeks truth--not ego justification. GO_SECURE monk Question: how much energy and time do we need to debunk something that apparently grew still-born from Tink Thompson's imagination: that JFK's throat wound was caused by an exiting fragment from the head wound(s)? Answer: hardly any time and energy at all...

It's not shutting down, Jack. His legacy will be preserved by his eldest daughter, Angela, and by his wife, Shelby. I would think that any of us "charter/founding members" would be compelled to offer assistance, as beginnings can be challenging. I, for one, intend to do just that and I hope others will too.

Hey Bernice, Thanks for the clips above. GO_SECURE monk

Jim, I'm really not trying to be argumentative. I've already replied to the points in your above post. However, the specific part what your psyops friend said above [emphasis added to pertinent parts]: Would you put the following questions to him? If you are saying that it is your belief that the "initial or key decision maker or group" possibly has something to "personally lose" if that certain (yet to be identified) part of Judyth's story comes out that could jeopardize current investments (for example), then is it important to identify which part of her story (since there is really so much) could pose such a threat? Do you believe it possible that Judyth's claims regarding LHO and the JFK assassination may actually play into their hands as it serves as a distraction from the actual, current threatening information? Does her threat level (on the real issues of which they are possibly concerned, ie AIDS, cancer, etc) decrease as a function of her losing credibility through the LHO aspect? In other words, why don't they target her "other claims"? Could it be because she herself is providing a much easier target for them to hit (LHO relationship) in turn diverting attention from that which they fear will be revealed if scrutinized? Thanks, Jim.

Jim, What he calls "fingerprints" I call "a signature of sorts" (see my earlier misinterpreted post) -- both are, of course, euphemisms for the same thing. For Judyth's sake, I am somewhat reluctant to post this publicly, but then again, sometimes there is "safety in sunshine" so to speak. IMO, this "initial decision maker" (or his/her successor) is at once both well known/close to Judyth and also beyond her suspicion, for whatever reasons. However, I am mystified that your friend said that this initial decision maker was probably central to the JFK assassination coverup. Upon what evidence does he base that assertion? I am "with him" all the way--save for that part. It might be true, but I wonder how and why he reached that conclusion. There seems to be no "investment value" for the initial decision maker nor for any group or team or corporation, at least as far as I can tell, in the continued JFK assassination coverup. That part "lost me" -- I just don't get the connection. I get the pharmaceutical, FDA, HIV/AIDS, cancer, etc. possibilities--just not the JVB/OSWALD/JFK/Wall Street part. GO_SECURE monk PS: I did get the part about me being a "very intelligent man" though.

[above edit of original post mine] That's what I thought.

I agree, Jack. That is exactly the main reason I couldn't thoroughly investigate everything Judyth claims. Here is a major part of my conflict, in a nutshell: Unlike most of her detractors, I cross-examined her in person, and as a result, I believe she is telling the truth as she knows it to be, and therefore, I am not a detractor. Given that I am not inclined to be duped by her either, I find it both difficult to accept her story at face value or reject it without good cause. Because it is too large for me to get my head around completely, as it would take hundreds of hours, cost millions of dollars and take thousands of lives (just being a little facetious)--I am uncomfortably stuck in a position of limbo. I have not been this torn about a "witness" in this case--ever. That is why I will not commit one way or the other--I simply can't tell from where I sit. I hope Jim fares better than I did. GO_SECURE monk

It is no mystery how anyone would know that information. It is in Oswald's autopsy report. Midline, upper lip, terminating at the vermillion margin is a 1/4 inch pale scar. NOTE: The vermillion is where the pink lip tissue and the skin meet. Barb :-) Barb, Not so fast. The scar might be in the report, but does the report state HOW the scar got there?

Pat, I just doubled checked my facts and I probably stand corrected! I might be confused because I may have inadvertantly combined the "audio" of his interview about his changing the WR wording with the images they were showing simultaneously of the artist's rendering. Thanks.

In my opinion, the more we stay at it--the more we learn. And I think that what we learn--although it might not be what we were seeking to learn--is very important information. Unfortunately, many people will give up because they conclude that we will never know the "names" of those responsible so that "they don't get way with it" -- Even though I agree we probably won't know many, if not most, of those names, I have news: THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT already! But, what we learn about the tactics employed by those who obstructed (and continue to obstruct) justice by the ongoing cover up is perhaps more important than "catching" the original bad guys. It is ironic that Gerald Ford admitted in a TV interview that he was responsible for (incorrect: directing the artist to change the actual location of the wound) changing the WR's wording to move JFK's back wound from the 3rd thoracic vertebrae to the base of the neck. It is perhaps even more ironic that he did so with impunity. His reasoning for doing this [paraphrased]: "...wasn't to alter history, but to make the evidence more understandable (precise to the Americn people)". Where I come from that is called: obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct (AT THE VERY LEAST) in a capital crime, which, if I'm not mistaken, has no statute of limitations. (Doug, am I right?) In any event, not only did Ford "get away with it" -- he got away with it after confessing to it on National TV and it never even made the front page of the New York Times. So, I agree with John that we will not know everything--probably ever. But, what we will discover from our undaunted tenacity is well worth the pursuit...even if it leads us back to ourselves. (Thanks to Pat, I edited some errors from my earlier post) --

Jim, I enjoy "going at it" with you more than I can express. In my opinion, in an honest debate the only real victor is the truth. I always feel that I'm closer to the truth after having my positions critically challenged by you. Even when we don't end up seeing 100% eye-to-eye on some issues, I become clearer about my own thought process from the exchange. It is something that I cherish. An observation: I have no wish to become engaged in a pissing match with skunks here or anywhere else. I've been there and done that. That's why I will refrain, to the best of my ability, from arguing with those whose past behavior indicated that their intentions were less than honorable and their current tactics still appear to be disingenuous to me. GO_SECURE monk