Dean Hartwell
-
Posts
132 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Dean Hartwell
-
-
Len, we went to war based on the assumptions that you discuss. We assumed that bin Laden was behind it and that 19 al-Qaeda operatives hijacked four planes and crashed them into buildings and the area in Shanksville.
These assumptions fall short because there are no relevant facts to support any of it – not about bin Laden, not about the “hijackers,” not about the planes and not about the passengers. I have never received satisfactory about the following questions:
Where is the proof of the murders of passengers?
Who was murdered?
How were the victims identified?
Did an independent source confirm the identities of victims? (Yes, an independent source since we sent troops to die based upon the official theory. Our leaders have deceived us into war before. The Gulf of Tonkin incident is one example).
Even if I stipulated to the authenticity of your manifests, how do you know the true identities of all of the people listed? (Operation Northwoods, circa 1962, discussed tactics such as the use of false names in staging an incident that could be blamed on Cuba).
How do you account for several of the “hijackers” reported as being alive after September 11, 2001? (ex: David Bamford’s BBC report of a hijacker, Waleed al-Shehri, in Morocco dated September 22, 2001)?
If there were four hijacked planes, why are only two of the planes listed as having taken off?
I like John Judge, but do you mean to suggest he (or his friend) could not be mistaken or have been given incorrect information about how something was found?
If there was a crime (hijacking and mass murder), why wouldn’t the FBI confirm the remains of the plane found matched a given plane said to have taken off? (This would constitute a major part of who was killed and how it happened).
The links for the Cleveland airport all give support for two separate planes landing at that time period. One was Delta 1989. The other was not. How would people watching confuse 69 passengers with 200?
What difference does it make when these planes were ordered to land? The Cleveland airport believed there was a bomb on one or both of them.
How were all four planes “tracked”?
If the statement attributed to Jane Garvey, which I included in a previous post, is correct, the FAA became confused and thought as many as 11 planes had been hijacked. How could the FAA or other agencies have accurately tracked planes under these conditions? (Note: This comment originally came from Richard Clarke’s Against All Enemies, p.4-5).
Have any videos of any of the hijackers at any of the airports ever been authenticated?
The failure of a satisfactory response to these and other questions suggests (1) an incomplete investigation of 9/11 and (2) the legitimacy of at least some theories you do not happen to like.
-
You are a no planer because you believe no planes were involved in the crashes but since are willing to admit the United flights actually existed if you prefer I’ll refer to you as a 2 planer.
Len, before we go on, I want to discuss this statement that you made (above).
When did I say that no planes were involved in the crashes?
If you mean that I say that none of the named planes - Flights 11, 175, 77 and 93 - were involved in the crashes - that is true.
If you say otherwise, I recommend you go to my essay and re-read page 20.
Dean
-
My Response to Len Colby post of 11/4/10 at 9:59 PM. My comments in bold.
Can you supply a link I did not see one in your essay?
From the Essay “Misdirection” page 10:
Fact: Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) shows that United Airlines Flight 11 and American Airlines Flight 77 were not logged as having taken off that day from Boston or Dulles, respectively, as the official theory states they do.
My linkhttp://www.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatistics/src/dstat/OntimeSummaryDepatures.xml
Fact: These two planes were said to have hit the North Tower at WTC and the Pentagon, respectively, in the official story.
Conclusion: There were no flights 11 and 77 on 9/11 and thus no passengers on them (note in the link below that the late Gerard Holmgren, a researcher, discovered records which indicated no 11 or 77 flights before apparent subsequent tampering of the records indicated that all four flights were listed as not having been on record because of hijackings.)
http://911truth.wetpaint.com/page/An+Interview+with+Gerard+Holmgren
The whole idea that the flights were unscheduled is absurd and it is for promoting nonsense like this that even with in the ““truth” movement” “no planers” are considered crackpots. The amount of people who would have to be “in on it” or otherwise silenced prohibitively large and would included all the UA and AA ticket agents at Logan and for feeder flights at other airports (and probably for the entire US since they systems are linked), dozens or more flight controllers, baggage and security crews at Logan, the people claiming to be next of kin of those on the flights as well as personnel from the NYC Medical Examiner’s offices as well as any travel agents or users of sites like Orbitz who happened to look up flights from Logan to LAX that morning etc etc. The idea that the PTB/CIA/ONI/PNAC/MIBH etc would put together this elaborate plot to murder thousands, involving hundreds of people etc, etc would be unwilling or able to fake a BTS list is mind boggling.
Question: Do you use the phrase “no planer” to refer to me? I have stated that two of the planes identified by the official theory flew that day. And as to the rest of your argument, how would we ever know if a large group of people is keeping a secret? It is a non-falsifiable argument because I cannot prove the theory that a secret is kept is correct and you cannot disprove it.
None of the crash sites - the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or Shanksville PA - had debris that matched with any of the aircraft that supposedly crashed there.
Another fallacy propogated by people who do not know what they are talking about. Planes normally crash at low speeds and shallow angles all four flight collided at high speeds at acute angles.
From Misdirection (page 8):
http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson
Colonel George Nelson points out that there was plenty of time to check any pieces of aircraft for their registry at the Pentagon and cannot recall any crash “where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft.”
Eyewitnesses and newspaper accounts mentioned a sighting of approximately 200 passengers at the Cleveland airport after all of the supposedly hijacked planes "crashed."
All flights in the US were ordered to land as quickly as possible that morning I’m sure there were a lot more than 200 PAX at Hopkins and every other airport that morning. None of the hijacked planes went near Cleveland.
From Misdirection (page 10):
To determine where these planes actually went, we could look to an airport which had unusual activity that day: Cleveland. There, two planes made emergency landings - Delta 1989 (scheduled for Los Angeles) and an unidentified plane within about a half hour of one another - 10:10 AM and 10:45 AM. (The emergency landings were ordered by authorities based on what turned out to be a false report of a bomb on board one of the planes). A passenger from 1989 said there were "sixty or so" passengers on her plane. Although early press reports said the second plane had 200 passengers, there appears to be no corroboration for this exact number and it may well have been an estimate.
http://911review.org/brad.com/Woodybox/cleveland-plane-emergency-land.html
The researcher Woody Box concludes, based on press and eyewitness reports, that the 1989
passengers went to an FAA building at the south end of the airport and that the second plane
passengers went to a NASA facility on the west end of the airport.
http://911review.org/inn.globalfreepress/Cleveland_Airport_Mystery.html
http://911review.org/brad.com/Woodybox/CLEVELAND-PLAIN_NASA_9-12.html
There is no evidence of any passengers being seen or videotaped in any of the airports they supposedly flew out of.
Either that or it was not released; show one photo or video clip of passangers boarding any flight that [crashed].
My thoughts: to prove its case before the public, the government should have gotten photos and tapes to demonstrate the presence of the passengers at the places they would have been had they taken the flights. I would say the same about the boarding passes, ticket sales and receipts.
There are passenger lists for the airplanes supposedly hijacked, but none can be authenticated and the lists frequently conflict with one another.
Provide one example of passenger manifests with conflicting data, CNN, Reuters and other media outlets put unofficial lists together based on media reports and there were minor discrepancies between them.
Link in Misdirection (page 8)
My thoughts: there still may be problems authenticating passenger manifests. It appears that the FBI and the airlines, the best sources, were not consulted about any list made public (see video).
My theory: United 175 and United 93 flew out of Boston and Newark, respectively. United 175 did NOT go to the WTC and United 93 did NOT go to Shanksville. Instead, United 175 took the passengers assigned to American 11 and went to Cleveland Hopkins Airport. United 93 flew to a Pennsylvania location. Neither crashed nor was shot down. American 77 never flew.
This is an incredibly silly theory based on just about zero evidence.
My thoughts: I have yet to see proof that United 175 crashed at the World Trade Center. If that cannot be proven, and the Cleveland plane and passengers I refer to above and in my essay were not identified, can you really say it is silly to believe that United 175 went to Cleveland? Same can be said of the other planes and sites (see above).
"False blips" were placed on FAA screens to distract those watching and other planes may have been used as decoys.
Do you have any evidence “"False blips" were placed on FAA screens” anywhere in the US let alone in the northeast? The only injects I’ve read about were introduced on to NORAD screens and IIRC only over Alaska and western Canada. They were cancelled once they got wind of the hijackings.
My thoughts: My source is Michael Ruppert (in Crossing the Rubicon, p. 339), which cites a Toronto Sun December 9, 2001 article. He also quotes FAA chair Jane Garvey as saying that as many as 11 aircraft were out of radio contact or off course that day
The passengers landed safely and the lists show mostly false names for the passengers.
More nonsense based on zero evidence and incredibly offensive.
My thoughts: Before anyone can possibly be rightfully offended, we would have to know the truth about what happened to the passengers. Your statement is either premature or wrong.
-
William,
May I trouble you to explain what facts you think are wrong?
Conspiracy theorists who make broad statements without backing them up are of no help, either.
Dean
Well for starters, you will have a hard time convincing the families of those who died on the two planes that you claim didn't take off.
Tony Summers is writing a book on the events of 9/11 that I believe will deal with the real issues.
BK
As I mentioned, I believe the Flight 11 passengers went to Flight 175.
As for Flight 77, has anyone come forward and said they saw a relative/friend take off on 77 from Dulles that day?
David Ray Griffin has written about the alleged calls from the planes that day and points out that the FBI report contradicts Ted Olson's claim that he received calls from Barbara Olson from Flight 77: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16924
Where is the evidence that either Flight 11 or Flight 77 took off?
What is the name of Tony Summers' upcoming book? I will look for it.
-
Yours is a very likely scenario shared by many researchers. Well done!
Jack
Thank you, Jack!
-
William,
May I trouble you to explain what facts you think are wrong?
Conspiracy theorists who make broad statements without backing them up are of no help, either.
Dean
-
I wrote the essay above about what I believe happened to the planes and passengers on 9/11. Here is a short summary of my findings:
Bureau of Transportation Statistics records show that only two of the supposedly hijacked flights actually took off: United 175 and United 93.
The other two flights, American 11 and American 77, not only did not take off but WERE NOT EVEN SCHEDULED TO FLY ON 9/11.
None of the crash sites - the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or Shanksville PA - had debris that matched with any of the aircraft that supposedly crashed there.
Eyewitnesses and newspaper accounts mentioned a sighting of approximately 200 passengers at the Cleveland airport after all of the supposedly hijacked planes "crashed."
There is no evidence of any passengers being seen or videotaped in any of the airports they supposedly flew out of.
There is no evidence of any boarding passes for any of the passengers.
Only an FBI report mentions the sale of tickets to passengers, but I have seen no evidence of the authenticity of any tickets or credit card receipts.
There are passenger lists for the airplanes supposedly hijacked, but none can be authenticated and the lists frequently conflict with one another.
My theory: United 175 and United 93 flew out of Boston and Newark, respectively. United 175 did NOT go to the WTC and United 93 did NOT go to Shanksville. Instead, United 175 took the passengers assigned to American 11 and went to Cleveland Hopkins Airport. United 93 flew to a Pennsylvania location. Neither crashed nor was shot down. American 77 never flew. "False blips" were placed on FAA screens to distract those watching and other planes may have been used as decoys. The passengers landed safely and the lists show mostly false names for the passengers.
Do I have the facts right?
What is your theory about the planes and passengers?
-
I searched this Forum and could not find anything on this topic. The returns could provide information on intelligence jobs held by Oswald. If he had no such jobs, it is hard to understand why the appropriate authority hasn't simply released them. What does anyone else know on this topic?
-
I would suggest that, while it may be helpful to ask yourself all the questions posed by Michael Hogan, it would be much more helpful just to read the book first. What are the attackers so afraid of? It's as though people can't make an objective decision on their own. Read, compare and think for yourselves.
3) Jim Fetzer and Dean Hartwell, two of Judyth Baker's most ardent and constant supporters, were the first respondents on this new thread. They voiced
some of the reasons they support Judyth's story. By and large, they seem to be the same reasons given previously. I would like to hear them explain
in more detail how they believe Judyth's new book is a game changer (or mind changer for that matter) as it pertains to her alleged love affair with
Lee Oswald. I have read their Amazon reviews of Me & Lee.
Hi Michael,
The book confirmed my belief in Judyth's story so I can't say it changed my mind. I am impressed with it's internal consistency. Judyth recounts her life in a manner I would expect one who is recalling their past. She remembers people who made an impression on her, she talks of how she felt when events took place and she discusses places she went.
I especially felt confirmation of her story when I connected her recollections to other facets of the JFK tragedy. She quotes Oswald as speaking favorably of the President and as being ardently anti-Castro. She explains his route to Mexico and confirms his trip there in a way rarely described before and yet not contradictory to facts. She also explains that Oswald could drive and had a TX driver's license, which is also well supported.
Michael, like all of us, you have read or will read this book through your own prism of how you perceive Judyth's credibility. Not a problem. I am interested in your thoughts on the book.
-
Hi Steve,
Most of the people posting so far were participants in the previous debate. Since you are a "relative" newcomer, you may be able to present a perspective that would make this debate more productive than the other one.
You asked about Oswald in Mexico. Me and Lee upholds the belief that Oswald really went. The Warren Report says he went, but showed photographs that do not look like Oswald. Mark Lane, in Plausible Denial, contends that Oswald did not go to Mexico by train. I do not know if there is a consensus, but I have not seen evidence of Oswald's whereabouts outside of Mexico during the time in question, either.
What is another specific question you have about the book Me and Lee?
Dean
I have read it, but still would like some thoughtful debate, without the flaming. Or is that going to be impossible?
Passions do run high here. Lets pretend there are some relative newcomers to this story,(I've stayed away from the previous debate)who are asking genuine questions. Like myself.
-
Kathy,
The answers to your questions are in the book.
Dean
She introduces [Oswald] as a "good man" and a "patriot." He helped her get a job, he revealed his secret life as a government agent concerned about protecting President Kennedy and consoled her over the turmoil in her life - a bad marriage, a new city to live in and an unknown future.
How could Oswald protect the President when according to Jim Fetzer he was on the second floor? He didn't know the motorcade was passing by? Why would you stay indoors instead of looking at the President and Jackie? Was he waiting for a phone call?
Kathy C
-
Me and Lee tells us a story of a man we have all heard about. But we finally get to meet him.
Judyth Vary Baker recalls her relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald from the time they met in New Orleans in the spring of 1963 until their last phone conversation just two days before events in Dallas identified him to the public.
She introduces him as a "good man" and a "patriot." He helped her get a job, he revealed his secret life as a government agent concerned about protecting President Kennedy and consoled her over the turmoil in her life - a bad marriage, a new city to live in and an unknown future.
This refreshing, new look at Oswald will challenge preconceptions many people have had about him. Many will be willing to at least give her story a chance. And that is all that Baker asks for, as she states in the books final line, "I leave my testimony in your hands."
Those who wish to dismiss what she says will have to contend with several factors, among them: Baker's candor, her depth of detail and verification of much of the story.
Judyth Baker never claims to be a saint. She admits to having an affair with Oswald during a time in which both were married to other people. And she acknowledges she spent time with questionable company, including New Orleans mafia boss Carlos Marcello, on a questionable top-secret project designed to develop cancer cells to be used to poison Fidel Castro.
Even though she was only twenty years old during this time, she makes no excuses and allows herself to be seen in a less-than-sympathetic light at times. Her writing thus shows sincerity about herself.
Baker also gives details of her relationship with Oswald. She recounts phone conversations, places the two went and people they met. Her questioning of Oswald about his actions during this time provide a strong picture of what many have suspected all along: he served as an agent during the Cold War, pretending to be a Communist at times so as to provide cover for other activities.
And she provides in her Appendix many details that confirm her story, such as a portion of a tourist visa for Oswald to visit Mexico, her recounting of an interview with Anna Lewis as a person who knew her and Oswald and her conversations with people such as David Ferrie to provide a conclusion for such questions as why Ruby, a friend of Oswald's, would kill him.
The story of Me and Lee is for anyone who wants to learn more about one of the most misunderstood people in our nation's history. It is a story of a flawed man written by a flawed woman who has dealt with the passage of time in recounting it. Their imperfections do not harm the reading of the story: they make it all the more likely to be true.
-
Jim Fetzer has brought his ideas about 9/11 to the public and people can decide for themselves if they agree or not.
David Lifton has said nothing of significance about the topic.
Before he puts down Fetzer, Lifton should join the debate.
-
Hi Jack,
I enjoyed reading your interview with Morgan Reynolds!
Dean
-
JVB EVIDENCE AND CROSS-EXAMINATION
Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread. I have nothing further to add to it except to post an explanation of what it was designed to accomplish.
This thread spun off the main thread on JVB. I wanted to accomplish two things the other thread could not:
1) An uninterrupted showing of JVB's main points.
2) A cross-examination of those points.
I have placed evidence on this thread, both with independent corroboration and without. People can decide for themselves how to weigh the evidence.
I disallowed some evidence on the grounds I did not find it relevant. Perhaps my bias in favor of JVB influenced me, perhaps it did not.
Like other threads, people can read previous posts and review how I have done at organizing evidence here. Constructive criticism does not bother me.
Whatever the reader's thoughts are on this subject, I hope that we can agree that all stories should be subject to cross-examination.
-
This debate about Judyth is similar to a union dispute I had at work last year. After months of people expressing their opinions about the subject, nothing really changed.
I work for a city as a public employee and served as an alternate representative for the existing union. A faction of the union wanted to bring in an outside union to replace the existing one and made motions at an official meeting to that effect.
Displeased with the manner in which the existing union management attempted to stop the motions by declaring them illegal, I voted with the faction (and on behalf of my regular representative, who bolted from the meeting with several others to try to stop the quorum).
Early on, I felt as though the battle lines were clearly drawn. Even though I contended from the beginning that I simply wanted a vote to be held among all employees in my class to allow choice between the two unions, I was “typecast” by those siding with the existing union as one of “those people.”
How did we communicate? It was mostly on email messages, similar to the postings we do on this thread.
I wrote out and sent messages to all voting members of the union explaining my point of view, discussing ways the two sides could compromise and responding to various bits of what I believed to be misinformation by the other side. (Not that anyone was an angel in this mess).
What did the other side typically say? They would correct me and insult me if I forgot to identify myself as an alternate. Neither side trusted one another and no one gave an inch.
Also, if I directed my responses only to those who asked me questions, I would be prompted as to why I did not hit “Reply All” to tell everyone what I had to say. People seemed to want to put their perceptions of others’ errors out in the open.
Throughout this time, each side sent assertions of fact back and forth on the emails and also posted messages on bulletin boards in break rooms. It was not a whole lot different than the exchanges here on our thread. But what was it all for?
Once the lines are drawn and “shots” are fired, is anyone really going to be persuaded that the other side is right? Does anyone really change sides? Who is the greater villain in United States history – Jefferson Davis or Benedict Arnold?
I could have pounded away at those who opposed a vote with sound arguments on many grounds. In fact, I did. I sent messages of my arguments to the union president, vice president and counsel. In the end, the union management got its way, I left the union and I hear things are back to normal.
-
Dean:
BTW, there is nothing so humiliating and humbling as going through law school. In enduring that journey, for that reason alone, I have deep respect for you. You actually seemed to have survived it and maintained being a decent person. Don't lose that.
Doug Weldon
Thank you, Doug! Law school was rough. I appreciate your comments.
Dean
-
I have since sent another PM to Monk and will try to figure out what happened.
Dean
Well, Dean, I received your email earlier tonight, which stated that you sent me a another PM on the Ed Forum tonight.
Hi Monk,
I misfired on my PM to you. So that explains why you did not receive it. Thanks!
Dean
-
Monk:
Moreover, Dean Hartwell sent me a "PM" last week stating that you did not even have my email address at all and you wished to correspond with me.
Judyth's credibility seems to be even in question about the most simple of matters. She states she has been sending e-mails to you. You reply "Moreover, Dean Hartwell sent me a "PM" last week stating that you did not even have my email address at all and you wished to correspond with me."Does Dean Hartwell dispute this?
Doug Weldon
I am not clear who is bringing me up in this post. I will assume that Doug is quoting Monk because that makes the most sense based on a prior post.
I sent Monk a PM on May 22 telling him that JVB did not have his email address and that she wanted to correspond with him. Monk sent me his email address via PM shortly thereafter and I then sent it on to JVB.
I have personally received messages from JVB that showed Monk's email as a "CC" since that time. Why these emails did not get to Monk is a question I do not have the answer to. I have since sent another PM to Monk and will try to figure out what happened.
Dean
-
Dean Hartwell said to Doug Weldon:
DOUG, SHE HAS SPOKEN ON MANY OF THESE SUBJECTS. BUT IF YOU BELIEVE SOMEONE IS PROTECTING HER FROM WHAT YOU CALL FALSEHOODS, THERE IS NOTHING I CAN SAY TO YOU.
---
Dean:
I guess your failure to address most of the points I raised must be construed as acquiescence. (The point about the handwriting were people determining two examples of handwriting were not the same person, not to determine if they were, in fact, the same person. if there is suspicion that Judyth forged the writing do you not agree that she should not be the person to authenticate it?) Since you are a law school graduate, i have a very simple question. If someone is not protecting Judyth from herself, then why does Judyth not reply to questions herself, rather than have her responses screened and filtered through a third party? I believe Jim has stated that he is trying to protect her. What does she need to be protected from? it is interesting that when people agree with Judyth they are perceptive and "rational" but if they disagree they are arrogant and close-minded. Dean, I read that you like to analyze evidence from a "legal" perspective. How can you objectively do so in the case of Judyth. I believe if Monk spoke to Judyth again he would have much more penetrating questions to ask her. You have the benefit of seeing the issues raised through this thread. Why is it that you are not more critical? Are you willing to place your reputation in history on this evidence? On the basis of the evidence to this point of time, I am.
Doug Weldon
Doug,
I do not acquiesce to your points. Your last message gave me the impression that you had nothing to say to me if I did not agree with points that you made.
I have tried to reason with you by asking you why you bother to ask questions of someone with whom you appear to hold in contempt. Obviously, I have not succeeded. Considering your derisive tone toward Judyth, Jim and now (with your last message especially) me, I do not wish to make any further statements to you.
Dean
-
Dean Hartwell said to Doug Weldon:
Doug,
I am not an attorney.
Dean
...
Doug replied:
Dean:
I want to address this very succinctly. My apologies, I thought you had a legal background.
Doug Weldon
Doug...I also thought that Dean had introduced himself as an attorney. Why did we both get that impression?
Jack
Jack,
I never identified myself as an attorney. I explained to Doug in a recent post to him that I have a law degree but that I am not licensed. Maybe that was the source of your confusion.
Dean
-
Dean:
I want to address this very succinctly. My apologies, I thought you had a legal background. Experts can be mistaken and of course, a jury, or in this case, the public or this forum, is the ultimate trier of fact. However, as I assume anyone knows, the triers of fact do not do the examination of the actual handwriting and make their own determination. The examination is made by experts describing how they performed their examination and the jury decides if those experts are reliable. We do not each make individual judments absent the foundation of expert analysis. Doesn't it bother you that Judyth will not allow the writing to be examined with truly the weight of history weighing on her contentions? Judyth wants to examine the handwriting, Oswald's eyes, his autopsy, and asks us to believe that SHE is the expert on everything. Doesn't it bother you that she has such a total recall of everything but yet is wrong on so much, including an unbelieveable penchant for getting things wrong that she had a 50/50 chance of getting right by guessing?
I HAVE A LAW DEGREE BUT AM NOT LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW. MAYBE THAT WAS THE POINT OF CONFUSION.
AS FOR JURORS DECIDING ON HANDWRITING, I CHECKED FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE, WHICH I FOUND ON THIS WEBSITE WITH COMMENTS:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidencep...ca8-mo2010.html
HERE IS THE GIST OF WHAT IT STATES. I TAKE IT TO MEAN THAT A PARTY CAN (USUALLY AS A LAST RESORT) ASK THE TRIER OF FACT, THE JURY IN MANY TRIALS, TO COMPARE A WRITING TO AN EXEMPLAR:
Federal Rules of Evidence
ARTICLE IX. AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION
Rule 901. Requirement of Authentication or Identification
(a) General provision.
The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.
(
Illustrations.By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule:
(1) Testimony of witness with knowledge. Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be.
(2) Nonexpert opinion on handwriting. Nonexpert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting, based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation.
(3) Comparison by trier or expert witness. Comparison by the trier of fact or by expert witnesses with specimens which have been authenticated.
...
(WAS THERE SOME QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THERE IS AN AUTHENTICATED LEE OSWALD WRITING AVAILABLE?)
She digs a deeper and deeper hole when she explains her interview with McGeehee. How useful is it when a witness describes a woman and she shouts out that it was her, that she describes the car for him, etc. etc? Do you not believe that the Platzman and JVB e-mails to Mary Ferrell were an obvious attempt to coerce her? If not, there is nothing I can say to you. Doesn't that lead one to believe that such was not an isolated incident? What is surprising me is not that so little stands up to scrutiny but, in fact, virtually nothing does. What do we have besides her sieve filled story? I would be glad to interview her witnesses. Nothing would be hidden and all would be recorded. How can I state that I would not agree with her answers when there are NO answers? How do you know what we would hear if she dodges so many legiitimate questions.
You mention that experts can be mistaken about handwriting samples. Of course, but if I wrote out a book in my handwriting and tell everyone it's JFK's handwriting and all the experts laugh and I tell you they could be mistaken would you buy that book from me? Dean, I do have a couple of Picasso sketches you might be interested in buying.
A LITTLE COMMON SENSE WOULD SETTLE YOUR HYPOTHETICAL BETTER THAN AN EXPERT.
Jim keeps saying repeat the questions. I have over and over. Let's just take one for the upteenth time. Produce the Mary Ferrell tape which she claims she has that supports her position. One issue! Is it clear what I am asking for? This, the alleged LHO writing, and if there is a picture the two of them have are all concrete pieces of evidence. PRODUCE them. Let JVB respond for herself. It always seems like there is a "Team Judyth" that has been there to protect her from her own falsehoods. I don't know why? If there is a money interest, I don't think anyone got rich, yet convinced many others, from her first book. I will bet anyone that Meryl Streep is not waiting anxiously to play Judyth, in the movie role of her life.
I sincerely was open and did not see Judyth as a total fraud. For many personal reasons I was very interested in cancer and the monkey virus. One person has ultimately been able to convince me that Judyth is a fraud. That person has been able to provide overwhelming evidence from each carefully detailed point to detailed point. I simply cannot argue with that person. That person is Judyth.
Doug Weldon
DOUG, SHE HAS SPOKEN ON MANY OF THESE SUBJECTS. BUT IF YOU BELIEVE SOMEONE IS PROTECTING HER FROM WHAT YOU CALL FALSEHOODS, THERE IS NOTHING I CAN SAY TO YOU.
-
I did not know this. If Judyth is a member why do her replies have to be filtered through Jim? Is it to protect her from stating something inappropriate?
Doug Weldon
Doug,
Your question [that I put in bold] suggests strongly that you do not trust what Jim or Judyth says. Why do you bother asking them questions?
Dean
Dean:
I did not know that Judyth was a member and thus cannot understand now why any of this had to go through Jim. In fact, Judyth has answered NONE of my questions or other legitimate questions raised by others here, has refused to present the concrete proofs she claims she has, i.e., the handwriting ananlysis of oswald and the tape she claims she took at Mary Ferrels which she claims contradict what has been stated here. I cannot believe that anyone, especially you as an attorney, can accept such weak, and probably non-existent, proofs. It is you who should be demanding the handwriting analysis and tapes she claims she has. Doesn't her refusals and to see suchthings as her "interview" with McGeehee bother you? If Judyth was accused of beng LHO's lover and working on research as a high school student that the most reputable PHD's and MD's in the country still cannot do, do you truly believe that there would be enough evidence to convict her? If Judyth is a fraud, and if she cannot answer questions or proofs that SHE claims to have, or tries to taint or intimidate witnesse, then I detest what she is doing. If she has the proofs I am open and let her present them. Otherwise she dishonors the memory of JFK and is an affront to those who care. Let her answer the questions (herself) or present her evidence otherwise let's all hope we can enjoy her historical fiction.
Doug Weldon
Doug,
I am not an attorney. And as to your questions, I do not have much of an interest in handwriting samples. I believe there is a good chance that the experts for the Warren Commission falsely stated that Lee Oswald filled out the order form for the rifle. It seems to me that experts can be mistaken. Also, is it not true that jurors are frequently asked to determine if a writing sample belongs to a certain person? The sample of the handwriting you refer to was, of course, shown on this thread some time back and all of us can make our judgment on that.
As for McGeehee, I do not agree with putting the word interview in quotes. It was an interview and reasonable minds can differ as to its quality. I was not bothered by it.
Doug, I think we can have a fair dialogue about this topic. But I am confused. You sound like you want questions answered on the one hand but you also sound like you have decided you will not agree with what you would hear. Am I reasonable to be confused?
Dean
-
JUDYTH REPLIES TO DOUG WELDON ABOUT HIS PLACE IN HISTORY
<snip>
I AM UNABLE TO SEE THE EDUCATON FORUM--IT IS BLOCKED TO MY VIEW.
<snip>
I hadn't heard this before. Professor, could you please ask Judyth to explain what message she sees? She is a member in good standing here, and should be able to view the Forum.
I did not know this. If Judyth is a member why do her replies have to be filtered through Jim? Is it to protect her from stating something inappropriate?
Doug Weldon
Doug,
Your question [that I put in bold] suggests strongly that you do not trust what Jim or Judyth says. Why do you bother asking them questions?
Dean
Illustrations.
Planes and Passengers of 9/11
in 11 September 2001 attacks
Posted
Evan,
You use the statement that "passengers were identified mainly through DNA" as evidence. Len said the following: "...the DNA of all and personal effects of many their passengers and crew were recovered"
But without any indication of who did the identifying, who was identified and how they were identified, I do not see evidence at all. It may well be widely believed that passengers were identified, but that does not make it so.
My evidence of about 200 of the passengers are newspaper accounts of eyewitnesses seeing a group approximately this large in Cleveland later in the day may not be to your liking. However, it is evidence that can be evaluated. Likewise, I have given a source for my argument regarding one of the "hijackers" that may also be evaluated.
Is this a failure of my presentation or is it a failure to observe evidence on your part?
Dean