Bernice Moore

Mr.Peters: Quote.... > " They are also the same PhD's who think rain sensors are listening > devices " > If you are going to post part, post all the pertaining information. > How do any of us know for positive, they were not. > > Forgive me, but that doesn't deserve a reply. Mr.Peters: Excuse me, but on the other hand when you ask questions, of some and some do not reply, or give the answer you see fit, you demand they do..??? .......but "that doesn't deserve a reply" now from your attitude, and twisted sense of fair play, neither do yours..you make that very clear..make up your mind.... > > > > I agree with you here - the window is not positioned right, but you > failed to see that it was not I that positioned it ... it was Jack > White. > Please show me your studies of the Moorman....do not use Mr. White's, nor Bill Miller's nor anyone elses.....yours...and ,let's see your comparisons then to theirs.....if this cannot be done here on this site then may I suggest you obtain a free web site, for such....many would be very interested in your recent work I am sure ......there is an old saying if you can't put up then s... up...... that could apply here.....and please show your studies of the light coming through said windows which should been seen but is not, and why not.???.that's an oldie....BTW....it is you that is judging, no one else..... > > > > > This reminds me of the story as to which came first - the chicken or the > egg? If you go back and start from the beginning - you will see that had > the answers have been forthcoming and to the point, then things would > have went a lot smoother. Constant stonewalling can be very frustrating > to some of us. Your attitude is what is frustrating, there are no rules on this Forum, that when a question is asked, that anyone HAS to reply, and once answered that they must again and again, to your's or anyones satisfaction, that is until you finally get the reply you are after....this is not an inquisition, this is a Forum.....Forum etiquette need apply........A discussion between members is one thing, an unacceptance of their replies, and the demanding of others is not..IMO > > > > Bernice, some people like to brag about their qualifications - I do not. > Some folks try and claim a higher degree of education as if that should > mean something, but it doesn't. Some folks might say it just took them > longer to learn something it took others less time to do. A person can > be smart enough to transplant a heart from one person to another, but if > he or she doesn't know the facts surrounding the JFK assassination, then > his or her intelligence is of little value here. Go to the "Loony Toons > loose" thread and watch the discussion going on between Mr. White and I, > just maybe my qualifications and knowledge of the case will come shining > through. I am not asking for your life story, no need to hide, nor have I seen anything shining through as yet..after reading all.....I am asking, your qualifications, that perhaps, may give you the right to judge, the researchers findings...not giving your opinions, to that you are as entitled as the next, but you are and have been judging ,without those qualifications, stated nor your studies being shown..Have you any ???...If you think a plumber has the right to judge say, an electricians work, or be qualified to do such work, just because he read and studied an electricans text book..for a few months...or the other way around say.......then you are way off base here..That is in effect what you are trying to say.???. (Besides that ,your lights would be all out, and your basement flooded, or is that what you are trying to do here, flood the Forum and turn it's light out..???) Turn people off, chase them away, discourage them in posting, simply take over the Forum.hmmm..???) > > > I have also presented some of my own research as I have tested Miller's > work and given detailed explanations as to my conslusions, so it should > be obvious that I have spent considerable time looking at these issues. > I might also add that I presented some of Jack White's research as well. > Please try and pay more attention to this topic concerning photo and > film alteration for it can be quite interesting if stay focused on the > issues being discussed. Now it is your turn to pay attention, please....I have spent years paying such to the topic concerning photo and film alteration....many, many have ,they sit back, read ,study and pay attention, but they do not blow their own horns at the end of a few months, with a know it all, attitude, and a demanding way...and they may ask a question now and again, but...You make it sound as though this is all a novel idea, a new found discovery, the photographic studies..??...These studies have been going on for many, many years......you sound like you are a young puppy, who has just gotten out of what school.??..and can't wait to tell the world, how wrong it is...you have much to learn, and a long way to go, I believe, perhaps given time, your attitude will mellow, if you are serious, in what you are saying..??....and your studies may result in something of value, but I do think you shall need some education first...such greats as Elizabeth Stoneborough and Harold Weisberg and others...were way ahead of you and many others..... years ago....you need to read more..... But I believe you have made it all very clear, you are not here, on an educational Forum, to present your own studies, but to present others, and to use their work to discredit yet again other peoples studies...??? Now what does that prove?, absolutely nothing...That's all been done before....that's, been there done that areas, that's old....those people involved have moved on, you must now do and compare your own....but do not expect them to rehash what has already been done........and besides..All are entitled to their opinions....What I am getting here now, loud and clear, is that you are not here, to present nor discuss, the differences of said studies, and perhaps, learn or contribute something that may be of value, but are here to use one against another, and ridicule and use any method that you may think of, to put others work down..that does not agree with your truth, or is it someone elses truth....??..What gives you that right, seeing that there is a question of your identity, that you have not cleared up, it is very easy for anyone, to send an email to anyone in the world for them to then post on a web site, under another's name, also there are ways of creating a URL, that is being sent from the US to appear to be sent from another country.....????.nothing new...there is a question of your qualifications, that you also have not cleared up, that you refuse to state...you wish us to accept, that because you have studied other's work, I take it ,for 18 months, I believe you stated, or there abouts, that this qualifies you, to judge, qualified men's studies that has taken many ,many years.....something wrong there...???..I am not relating to your opinion, but your judging and discrediting of these men and others ....and I must wonder why??? and also a question of your ways in reaching your objective, what tactics I have seen so far, leave a lot to be desired...and which you have not made clear either...?? If you were here to study, or to show your analysis, and receive critiques from those knowledgeable, and or for input, this you would have done, long before now....which you have not, this is an education Forum, not a forum for use, to discredit others, by any bullying tactics...it is for studying and the trading of information,..the I'm right your wrong attitude will not work here, and shouldn't.... So how about you present your work, in a fair manner, so that all others may judge your work, as you have been judging others, or shut the heck up, IMO..If you cannot give, you cannot expect to take, in otherwards... > > > > I expect that what you say is true, but if those people cannot tell > whose overlay is which like you failed to do with the pedestal example > that I posted showing the alleged missing windows, then maybe some of > that email you speak of as to my being in error has been wrongfully > misplaced. > Again you misunderstand...you do not pay attention well, you are so busy making waves..and putting a twist on to such, and insinuations, now please read..no one, as far as I know, has any objection to anyone posting any information, that is what they are here for, whether they agree or not, is their perogative, not yours, and not yours either to say they are right or wrong, nor what their failures nor success are..you can express your opinion, nothing more.....can you understand that fact.???..What is wrongfully placed here is your, attitude,your demands for answers,your insinuations, and your total lack, of Web Etiquette.....in otherwards, get over yourself, and start acting human, or people will believe you are a whatchamacallit......a disinfo or a provocateur....your choice....you either are or you are not, we all will know soon enough.....Now please show me..?????.. You after all, are the one who is acting as a know all and giving that hard to believe opinion of yourself....or do you..??...

Mr.Peters: Quote.... " They are also the same PhD's who think rain sensors are listening devices " If you are going to post part, post all the pertaining information. How do any of us know for positive, they were not.???..I do not ,do you.?? I have really no opinion, on such, but if some differs with yours, well excuse me that is allowed..Do you really think that Weisberg, Maegher, Jones, and all the rest always agreed.....I don't think so.....all are entitled..whether you agree or not. As far as spell checks, I think you should refrain from making such remarks, look to your own spelling mistooks....before you throw stones..there have been several.....so what.. In the Moorman overlay you have presented, your out a hair on the window alignment.....IMO...too far to the right, in what you have presented, in the area, of the top of Zapruders thigh, it should be showing some window, it is not....that is my opinion, I have no education in photography, and therefore I do not pretend to have, nor quote anyone elses work to back up my opinions, which I take it yours are also, just opinions....but I know what I see, and to me this is what is shown.. You protest too much.....and are rude and and almost abusive at times in your attitude, we have been here before..... Why would Mr. White, or anyone want to reply to you, when you present such an awful high and mighty attitude and have been presenting this here for some time, and why you are allowed to proceed with such is beyond me, and people wonder why broo haws start.....or tempers get out of control, this is usually one of the main reasons.... you have been showing this in spades. IMO......This is a Forum not an inquisition... And it is Dr.Mantick, Dr.Costello,and Dr.Fetzer, with a capital Dr. as with any who have earned that right.....as they have, and should be given that respect....to not, in public is an insult..IMO.... I hope the name is Larry Peters, if not, you shall pay a heavy price....in the research world...as they always find out...as in the past.. What are your qualifications.??...you have not presented any so far, that I have seen..... So far you have only shown and presented Bill Millers, and others research...I believe myself and others would appreciate seeing yours and reading what your qualifications are that apparently gives you the right to judge,their work..and you are judging, not giving your opinions, you are at times almost attacking....not attractive...at any given time... You, mentioned somewhere along the way, emails you have received , and I took it to mean something like, some, are backing what you are posting... Well let me inform you Mr.Peters, there are other emails flying that are not backing you and do not like your heavy handed approach.......try a less know it all attitude and a more personable approach it may go a long way....to getting any of your questions asked....IMO.....

Hi Jack: Your right....His aim is to help the researchers......as always.. and Maynard, we have Mike's permission, as long as he is accredited and nothing is altered in anyway...

"How did it benefit the Military Industrial Complex to have Johnson as President for 5 years?" By Billions of dollars..

Here's a bit on James Parrot........

Hi Tony: You may be interested in this document......re Bush..close to a small pro Cuban group in Miami...........dated Nov. 29/63....... Mr Bush of the C.I.A..... ..............B

Hi Greg: Nice to see you here......Been awhile....Have a look at the photo below,please.. Now this fella to me, looks very healthy, full head of hair etc...on beginning their journey to the U.S from Russia...... Must have been a terrible voyage as....his appearance here is far different than was described by his family at the Thksg visit...??? Regards.B

That's correct, he John Pic ,had not seen his brother Lee, from 1953... Until Thanksgiving.1962...He was relating how he appeared to him at that time. B

Number 2, the Volkand.. I had to crop it some, so you cannot see very well. the automatic in the Queen Mary, just a stick standing up on the right...B

Hi All, Antti here are a couple of photos for you.... In the first, a McIntyre..coming out from under the Overpass.... The second in the Volkand,as you will see there were cars, etc and people waiting to see them.You shall notice in the 2nd photo, in the SS Queen Mary limo..the large automatic weapon being held up....too late, but they were armed, with heavy weapons.. Larry some good thoughts there... Regards........B

Here's a good photo of the Rifle with Day. For some info on the rifles...and other research go to..... http://www.jfkresearch.freehomepage.com/

Lee: Here is a photo of the three rifles.......

Chris :very good thought provoking post...and all thread contributors.......Thankyou..... As there are many different opinions within this subject, and all are entitled to such. This article from Christopher Sharrett....Seton Hall University. Perhaps, explains and creates a somewhat different objective outlook on, some of the whys?? The Assassination of John F. Kennedy as Coup D'Etat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It occurs to me that two lines of discourse currently affect public understanding of the John Kennedy assassination. Both narratives obscure the reality of the assassination as a state crime carried out by the official enforcement apparatus, a coup d'etat. One narrative that informs numerous conspiracy books details a plot to kill Kennedy consisting of some small, marginal grouping, usually including the Mafia and anti-Castro Cubans (although at times including pro-Castro Cubans), occasionally with support of one or two "renegade" CIA agents. This narrative, which has been in circulation at least since the 1970s, seems to me to have a particular function in shaping our perception of the assassination and events surrounding it. The second narrative, which is becoming steadily more dominant, acknowledges that there was indeed an official cover-up of the assassination, but that this cover-up was "benign," in the interests of the American people, and spontaneously constructed in order to avoid a confrontation with the Soviet Union or Cuba, who were suspected by some in state power of being the real assassins. One recent variation of this narrative argues that this cover-up was put in place largely to protect the public from the consequences of the Kennedy brothers' depraved foreign policy. This narrative also argues that while Oswald was the lone assassin, Castro perhaps influenced him. But the whole affair comes down to the ruthless prosecution of the Cold War by the Kennedys, often against the sober counsel of others within state power. The small-scale conspiracy model indeed dates to the post-Vietnam, post-Watergate period, when state power suffered one of many profound legitimation crises. The cover-ups of the assassinations of the 1960s had already unraveled; an issue for many who wished to relegitimate the state was the most efficient way to acknowledge the public's skepticism, and in so doing reconstruct the state's authority and credibility. The small-scale cabal is most efficient at the task, even as it defies reason. It offers a conspiracy that addresses many concerns, at least for those people who do not wish to look at the particulars of the assassination, its historical moment, and its context within similar acts known to history. The exposure of a conspiracy of the Mafia and some Cubans would have only further legitimated the state, since it offered a conspiracy that is an unfortunate, arcane aberration unrepresentative of true state interests. The CIA agents involved are described as "renegade" and "rogue elephants" for the same reasons. These agents are portrayed not as functionaries of the state, not as representatives of policy interests held by others in authority, but as loners working out of personal, pathological impulse or overzealous ideology. This is often suggested to be the case in the matter of David Atlee Phillips --- whose involvement in the assassination has been incontrovertibly demonstrated by Gaeton Fonzi --- even when we know that Phillips, the renegade, was given a major promotion within the executive ranks of the CIA. Another function of this form of narrative is the erasure of the historical moment and the presentation of the Kennedy period as ideologically seamless. The historical record tells us that the period leading up to the assassination was filled with conflict within the halls of state. This conflict was actually reflected in contemporary press accounts of the period. One account is Harry S.Truman's Washington Post article, published exactly one month after the assassination (and not mentioned by anyone since) in which Truman expressed profound concern about the CIA's violation of its initial mandate. Another piece is Arthur Krock's Oct. 3, 1963 New York Times article, published just over a month before the assassination, detailing an "intra-administration war" directed at Kennedy from the CIA. These articles articulate real, material conditions of the Kennedy Administration that any reasonable person must examine if interested in motivations within the state to remove Kennedy from office. Kennedy himself spoke to the importance of these matters. After reading the novel Seven Days in May in the wake of the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy confided to his friend Red Fay that after one or two more such episodes (and we know about the Missile Crisis --- about which more in a moment --- the Test Ban Treaty, and the American University speech), he could be perceived as weak and "soft on Communism" by others in state authority, and a coup d'etat was conceivable.1 Kennedy encouraged director John Frankenheimer to film the novel in order to further sensitize the public to the political dynamics of the period. Many critics argue that the leading and intimidation of witnesses during the investigation by governmental authorities may merely reflect the typical bullying by Hoover's FBI. But much of the investigation, and certainly its presentation to the public, was accomplished not by crude bullies but by sophisticated, erudite men learned and respectful of the law. Many critics also suggest that emotionalism and the panic of the moment could have motivated the prompt removal of Kennedy's body from the jurisdiction of the murder. Did emotionalism also motivate the removal and reconstruction of the presidential limousine, and subsequent destruction of forensic evidence? Did the panic of that afternoon motivate continued obfuscation about the smallest details of the assassination even thirty years after the crime? The other prevalent narrative of the assassination, which argues that the lone nut scenario is valid and the cover-up benign, contains at its center the notion that the cover-up teaches us nothing except the essential benevolence of the state. Certainly the cover-up tells us nothing sinister about state policy assumptions. Some critics suggest that the full motivation of the cover-up is obscure, and is a topic for rumination. I would argue to the contrary that we could today, as we could the day of the crime, know precisely what motivated the cover-up, although there is an on-going effort to complicate the important political utility of this aspect of the crime. Because the cover-up today stands exposed, there has been an effort to present it as benign (so described by James Hosty in the documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy), constructed --- in the best interests of the American people --- to prevent a nuclear war and to protect certain agencies and individuals (including the Kennedy family) from embarrassment. One phase of this narrative is represented in Gus Russo's Live by the Sword. The moralistic biblical admonition of this book's title offers its thesis: Kennedy got what he deserved. Russo's conception of the Kennedy brothers portrays them as the ultimate Cold Warriors, with RFK the instigator of plots against Fidel Castro that LBJ wanted to hide in the aftermath of the assassination in order to prevent a war with the Soviet Union. According to this narrative, LBJ believed that "Castro killed Kennedy in retaliation," an idea that has long had currency in the mass media. But this discourse ignores a large part of the historical record. Marvin Watson, a Johnson staffer, told the Washington Post in 1977 that Johnson "thought there was a plot in connection with the assassination," and that "the CIA had had something to do with the plot."2 On the matter of RFK being the guilt-ridden instigator of the Castro plots, anguished that he had caused his brother's death due to his anti-Castro obsessions, we should note that Robert Kennedy exploded in front of assistants Peter Edelman and Adam Walinsky after he read the Jack Anderson column that put into play the idea of RFK as craftsman of the Castro assassination plots. RFK complained "I didn't start itÖI stopped it. I found out that some people were going to try an attempt on Castro's life and turned it off."3 A recent Canadian Broadcasting Company documentary on the Kennedy assassination includes taped remarks by RFK speaking very derisively of CIA covert operations specialist William Harvey. RFK termed Harvey's ideas "half-assed" and potentially very damaging to the United States 4. Recently declassified CIA documents about its use of hoodlums to penetrate the Cuban Revolution and assassinate its leaders demonstrate that the Agency didn't brief RFK. 5 Gus Russo perpetuates the claim that RFK was convinced that Castro killed his brother, ignoring evidence that RFK contacted Jim Garrison (since RFK took seriously the notion of a domestic plot), and that he was concerned with the possibility that the CIA may have had involvement in the assassination 6. Throughout Russo's book and similar contemporary narratives, the impression is conveyed that the Castro assassination plots and Operation Mongoose were strictly Kennedy inventions (this overlooks the origins of anti-Castro projects before Kennedy was elected), and at all times under their control. In 1961 John Kennedy had a conversation with New York Times journalist Tad Szulc, during which Kennedy asked Szulc's counsel about the moral and political implications of attempting to assassinate Fidel Castro. Szulc said he thought such a plan would be disastrous. Kennedy agreed, but said that he was "under extreme pressure" (Szulc felt the pressure was coming from intelligence officials) to okay such a plan. Szulc left the meeting with the impression that the Kennedy brothers were firmly opposed to assassination politics. As Arthur Schlesinger has noted, if Kennedy was in the process of creating a covert operation against Castro, he would hardly have discussed this issue with a New York Times columnist.7 On the matter of Operation Mongoose, the "boom and bang" that the Kennedys created in the wake of the Bag of Pigs seems largely to have been a means of protecting their credibility with the right. Gen. Edward Lansdale, who commanded Mongoose, "complained not long afterward that there had actually been no high-level decision for follow-on military intervention."8 It strikes me that the function of many current renderings of the Kennedy years is to remove from our view the ideological conflicts and contradictions of the Kennedy period. We are shown everyone from the Joint Chiefs to Allen Dulles to William Harvey to David Ferrie in lockstep behind the Kennedy brothers. This thinking has been touted by a few sectors of the left, who suggest that since the Kennedy brothers were members of the ruling class, no one in their number would want to kill them. This thinking does a huge public disservice, since it prevents a nuanced understanding of an important phase of the Cold War, and of the internal strife within the state that overtook people such as John Kennedy. My own research into the Kennedy assassination has never been motivated by a desire to lionize John Kennedy. Kennedy was clearly a player in the Cold War, but a large part of the historical record shows that his was one of the very few centrist, essentially cooptative positions toward the socialist bloc at a time when virtually all sectors of state power were calling for massive incursions into the colonial domain picked up by the U.S. from its enemies and allies after World War II. A surprising amount of the historical record, much of which tends to ignore the assassination, shows that at the time of the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis, "Kennedy demonstrated that he would stand up to the belligerent advice from his closest aides."9 While Kennedy suggested a policy of restraint, Gen. Thomas Powers, commander of the Strategic Air Command, had other ideas: "Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win."10 During the Missile Crisis, Powers raised the readiness of SAC to DEFCON-2, one step away from war, without JFK's authorization.11 After one meeting with the Joint Chiefs during the Berlin crisis, Kennedy left the room fuming, stating "These people are crazy."12 Throughout Kennedy's term in office his relationship with the military was extraordinarily strained, and "the generals and admirals did not think much of Kennedy's ideas, either."13 About Gen. Curtis LeMay, Chief of the Air Force, Kennedy remarked after one of his many walkouts on LeMay: "I don't want that man near me again."14 After feeling misled at the time of the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy stated "...Those sons of bitches with all the fruit salad just sat there nodding, saying it would work."15 And while Russo and other current narratives have it that Allen Dulles and the CIA entranced Kennedy, the full record shows something much more complex. While Kennedy was indeed enamored of James Bond novels and the world of espionage and counterinsurgency, after the Bay of Pigs betrayal Kennedy said: "I've got to do something about those CIA bastards."16 An important book on the internecine battles that confronted Kennedy contains the following illuminating passage: Pacing his office later, alone with his friend Red Fay, the President said: "I sat there all day and all these fellas all saying 'This is gonna work, and this won't go,' saying 'Sure, this whole thing will work out.' Now, in retrospect, I know damn well that they didn't have any intention of giving me the straight word on this thing. They just thought that if we got involved in this thing, that I would have to say 'Go ahead, you can throw all your forces in the thing, and just move into Cuba' ... Well, from now on it's John Kennedy that makes the decisions as to whether or not we are going to do these things."17 New scholarship is also useful in countering the revisionism that has Kennedy the architect of the Vietnam invasion. In a book on Vietnam, Francis X. Winters notes that while Kennedy approved of the coup against Diem, he was taken aback by his assassination. Kennedy's ultimate intent was to install a new, reformist government that would gain legitimacy with the public, co-opt the socialist agenda, and allow the government of Vietnam to do its own policing. In contrast, the Johnson Administration regarded the reformist strategy as "do-gooder" and opted instead for direct military intervention.18 Recently released tape recordings (presented on CBS News) show Kennedy disturbed by the murder of Diem, perhaps less for moral reasons than out of concern that the strategy behind the coup was already producing results opposite of what was intended. On the matter of the assassination cover-up being put in place not out of official guilt but out of a desire to prevent a nuclear confrontation with the Soviets, I would have thought by now that this risible notion was long since put to rest. One recent book shows that not only were the Soviets appalled by the events of Dallas (this was known to U.S. state authority rather quickly), they were informed by an emissary of the Kennedy family that the Kennedys felt JFK to have been the victim of a rightist coup.19 Gaeton Fonzi's account of the Phillips affair and the HSCA non-investigation of the CIA contains much instructive material. As he recounts in his book The Last Investigation, the Congress knew that Phillips perjured himself on a number of important points in his testimony before the HSCA, yet chose not to recommend prosecution of Phillips. A recent book on the HSCA by one of its staff lawyers does not deal with this moment, although it offers yet another muddled, small-scale conspiracy narrative not associated with the political economy of the postwar American power structure. At the time the Congress became interested in reopening the assassination inquiry, Clare Boothe Luce, widow of Time-Life magnate Henry Luce and former lover of Allen Dulles, gave out a good deal of malarkey (about Cubans no less) to investigators designed to send them on a wild goose chase. The Luce nonsense --- Clare was an official in an organization of retired CIA officers --- is especially instructive as we see it within the context of the overall cover-up's service to the national security state. In 1977, Carl Bernstein wrote an article for Rolling Stone in which he described virtually all of the major media as essentially handmaidens of the CIA and the rest of the state apparatus.20 A three-part article in the New York Times this same year did Bernstein one better by noting the ways by which the CIA used the media to discredit critics of the Warren Report.21 This activity continued long after fears of Soviet missiles flying at the U.S. had been abetted, long after the deaths of Johnson and RFK, long after a concern for Kennedy privacy had faded from the governmental agenda, as JFK was steadily portrayed as a profligate degenerate --- unworthy of serious study --- by these same media. Let me make it country simple. The evidence in the assassination of John Kennedy was taken control of and represented to the public by those sectors of state and private power that despised Kennedy and his policies, and who saw them as representative of a long-term trend within the state to avoid the direct military interventionism that would be a great boon to many components of American capital. It is true that Mafia types and various exile groupings appear within the assassination scenario. These same groups appear within Watergate and Iran/Contra. Does appreciating the presence of these groups go very far in aiding our understanding of these events as state crimes, in fact as crimes against the Constitution and the people of the U.S. carried out by state authority? Does the presence of these groups make these crimes other than state crimes? More important, would the American media and much of officialdom continue to attempt to bolster the various official narratives as a favor to the Mafia and some Cuban exiles? Would they do this to prevent a member of the Kennedy clan, or Allen Dulles or J. Edgar Hoover, from being "embarrassed"? Would they do this to prevent hostile relations with other lands, even years after the collapse of the Soviet Union? Many critics suggest that data long in the hands of researchers, such as the Joseph Milteer tapes, point to the source of the plot within crazed rightist groupings. Did not the federal authorities have access to these tapes many years ago? Were they attempting to assist a southern racist group by hiding Milteer's connections to the assassination? I suggest that these provocative tapes, which have been ensconced in the public imagination as symbols of the plot, were another small attempt to divert public attention from the state's implication in the assassination. I would hope that eventually we would have no more talk of Shadow Governments and Cabals. The invisible government discussed by various researchers is no more invisible than our political-economic system. This system is synonymous with the postwar national security state. Kennedy was killed when he became a flashpoint for a debate that began immediately with the creation of this state. The Great Depression brought U.S. capitalism to its knees; this terrible economic collapse was halted only by the wartime military build-up. The collapse threatened an immediate return after the war, and was prevented by the government's hooking the economy to military production. The public was forced to subsidize the biggest military expansion in history as corporations began to depend on public revenue for their survival. Many within state power saw the potential problems of the new "Pentagon system." Senator Arthur Vandenberg told President Harry Truman: "You are going to have to scare the hell out of the public" in order for them to accept a huge increase in taxes, and an economic system that would give extraordinary authority to the military and the intelligence agencies, who soon became essentially lobbyists for sectors of capital involved in military production. Indeed, fear became the currency of the national security state. Although the Soviet Union suffered twenty-seven million dead in World War II, with most of its major cities and industrial plants destroyed, the American public coughed up billions of dollars to support the U.S. "free enterprise" system and its expansionist aims, as public programs soon went begging. Cold War propaganda gave legitimacy to the national security state, although debate raged on within state and private power against the backdrop of the sleepy fifties.22 Many felt that the creation of the "garrison state" would bring about an enormous deficit and weaken us in relation to our Western capitalist rivals. Kennedy was not the first victim of the fierce internecine battles that began almost immediately with the creation of the national security state. Secretary of Defense James V. Forrestal became a victim in 1949 of what was referred to as "the revolt of the admirals." As each sector of the military fought over their share of public revenues, with the Joint Chiefs "at each other's throat" in a climate of unbridled avarice, Forrestal attempted at least to inject a note of civility as the military sensed its unprecedented authority. Forrestal was eventually "ground down by the bickering and backstabbing in the Pentagon." He was "under constant attack from the admirals and generals he supposedly commanded." The national security state's lapdogs in the press, including Walter Winchell and Drew Pearson, ridiculed Forrestal, terming him a "xxxx and a coward."23 Forrestal suffered a nervous breakdown and eventually committed suicide. Like many in the previous administration, Eisenhower faced problems in reigning in the national security state. Long before he spoke of the "military-industrial complex," Eisenhower warned America and the world "humanity was hanging from a cross of iron." He stated that every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired," represented "a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."24 Into this arena entered John Kennedy, at first arguing that the U.S. faced a bogus "missile gap" in its competition with the Soviets, but soon arguing against the plans of the Joint Chiefs and the CIA for massive military incursions into Southeast Asia and the Caribbean. The body of John Kennedy, and all evidence related to his murder, was commandeered and represented to the public by the military and the intelligence agencies. After the assassination, Cuba was placed on the back burner (under a terrible economic blackmail), as the state undertook a massive incursion into Southeast Asia that was a major boondoggle for corporate America. This incursion proved ultimately disastrous both to America's economy and its credibility with its own people and those of the world. In the administrations of the 1970s, the temptation toward such severe military adventure was avoided. During the Reagan years, the state began testing the waters of public opinion as it propagandized this public with new Cold War rhetoric. The Reagan crowd undertook murderous counterinsurgency against socialist movements in Central America --- but with a huge military strikeforce waiting in the wings. Again, the other side of the imperialist table --- the side that demanded an immediate financial payoff from overwhelming military contracts --- began to show its clout. The Reagan/Bush years saw the shift within the state toward massive military intervention, first on the small scale blitzkrieg level (Libya, Grenada, Panama), then larger adventures (the Gulf War) with the advance of the new Rambo mindset within the American public. Over these many years, intelligence satraps in the heavily corporatized "liberal" (can there be a bigger red herring than public acquiescence to this notion?) mass media, have lauded these adventures as they continue to present the official stories of the assassination. They are the same people and organizations who advocate for the new supranational corporate state that guarantees the immiseration of millions. There is nothing arcane about the murder of John F. Kennedy. It is no more cabalistic than the political-economic system we have come to accept. Calling the assassination a coup d'etat does not necessitate the notion that the plot was overwhelmingly massive, or that everyone within the state agreed that Kennedy should be dismissed. On the contrary, there is rarely uniform consensus within state or private power about any policy issue. But this does not mean that the crime is any less a function of ruling authority. We should not view the assassination as a coup in the traditional sense --- obviously there was no imposition of martial law, no prolonged period of bloodletting (discounting murdered witnesses and such). Such a blow against the public would have been intolerable in a major Western democracy after European fascism, and the issue in any event was not about suppressing a popular movement (here we can refer to the effect of the Martin Luther King and Black Panther assassinations on the civil rights movements), but about resolving a disagreement within the state at a time when financial stakes were extremely high. Only if we choose to shed our denial about the assassination's historical context --- and refuse to immerse ourselves in further endless ruminations about oddball plotters and Dealey Plaza minutiae --- can we come to terms with the assassination's meaning to our present circumstances, its relationship to the murderous path of the state as it continues to enforce the greed of the few. NOTES 1. Richard Reeves, President Kennedy: Profile of Power (New York: Simon &Schuster, 1993), pp.303-305. I am grateful to Vincent Salandria and Ray Marcus for continuing to insist on the importance of this book. 2. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. Robert Kennedy and His Times (New York: Ballantine books, 1978), p. 665. 3. Ibid., 532. 4. "The Murder of John F. Kennedy: A Revisionist History," The Passionate Eye, CBC Newsworld, Nov. 22 and 29, 1998. I am grateful to Joe Martines for bringing this film to my attention. 5. One of these documents is published in Steve Jones and Barbara LaMonica, "New Evidence in the Assassination of JFK," privately printed, Philadelphia, PA, 1998. 6. Schlesinger, pp. 664-665. 7. Ibid., p. 529. 8. Ernest R. May and Philip D. Zelikow, eds., The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), p. 34. 9. Jeremy Isaacs and Taylor Downing, Cold War: An Illustrated History, 1945-1991 (New York: Little, Brown &Co. 1998), p. 212. 10. Ibid. p. 232. 11. Reeves, pp. 401-402. 12. Ibid., p. 222. 13. Ibid. p. 306 14. Ibid. p. 182. 15. Ibid. p. 103. 16. Ibid. 17. Ibid. p. 104. 18. Francis X. Winters, The Year of the Hare: America in Vietnam, January 25, 1963-February 15, 1964 (Atlanta: University of Georgia Press, 1997), pp. 115-116. Winters firmly subscribes to the notion that Kennedy planned to withdraw all American forces from Vietnam after the 1964 elections. 18. Aleksandr Fursenko and Timothy Naftali, "One Hell of a Gamble": Khrushchev, Castro, and Kennedy 1958-1964 (New York: Norton, 1997), pp. 344-346. 20. Carl Bernstein, "The CIA and the Media," Rolling Stone, October 20, 1977, pp. 55-67. 21. John M. Crewsdon, "CIA: Secret Shaper of Public Opinion," New York Times, Dec. 27, 1977, p. 1. 22. See Michael J. Hogan, A Cross of Iron: Harry S. Truman and the Origins of the National Security State 1945-1954 (Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998). 23. Ibid. pp. 184-186. 24. Ibid. p. 417. Christopher Sharrett Dept. of Communication Seton Hall University South Orange, NJ 07079

Larry: Excuse me, but what is this, he said ,she said again..?? The Looney Forum..??? if you can't refer to a Forum with it's proper name, then IMO do not refer to such...and why bring another Forum or your thoughts on all, onto this one.?? I for one am not interested in put downs of any kind..whatever your harsh thoughts, do not belong here. Check them at the door. Threads posted on Lancer ??? who cares.?? Searching for posts ,on another Forum??? bothering administrations.. that have recently crashed, and have much work to do in resetting all, sending emails, about what.? why??...something that has absolutely nothing to do with here.?? Telling past tales..?? if they occured, if so, why?? Many have emailed the administration on this Forum, about the posting of photos.. They will decide what and what is not to be judged as acceptable.. I did not see them object.. All eohagen asked after posting, the photos, was that we study them...? Get back to your research and stop clogging up this Forum, with any old hard feelings about, anyone, or any Forum, or such...I do not think anyone wants to read about any past differences here,I know I don't...I personally don't care what anyone did anywhere else..it does not relate here...only research does..IMO This is a new Forum let's give it a chance without dragging any old differences along, or we may not have it for long.?? IMO it does not belong here, in too many posts tonight I have read these kind of inferences being made.. I apologise for wasting the resources to make this post..but sorry this has no place..IMO. and that's my last wasted word....

Hi Lee: The sidewalk shot was on the North side of Elm..it appears to be a long gouge in the sidewalk...Not the Tague shot...that is the South side..next to Main..Not the manhole cover on the South side.. This is the North curb of Elm...on the sidewalk..if it was a hit then it would have aligned to the West end side of the building windows on the TSBD. See, a photo in.."The Killing of a President"..Robert Groden...page 40 You have covered what information there is on the shot to the windshield , the through and through with what I have read of such...I hope you have access to TMWKK the Smoking Guns.. Doug Weldon speaks of and has given many years of study to the Limo.. and is presented on the Video...also Dr.Evalea relates her information pertaining to such, she BTW, had a life long experience with guns...and bullets.. Charles Taylor JR...in his Secret Service Report in seeing the Limo in the White House Garage...says he saw a small hole in the windshield..Vince Prunspey (sp?) a U.S. Police Park Officer, also saw such in the WH garage and noted a small hole.. In the White House Garage Reports it is noted that from late in the evening of Nov.24th 63..the entire day of the 25th...not till Nov.26th...was one person logged into the WH Garage....during that time, as there are many airports in the area it could have been flown out easily, taken by transport truck, to the Ford Dearborn,plant... The late George Whittaker Sr. a manager at the Rouge (sp) plant....and a lifetime employee, explained that on Nov. 25th, he arrived for work, at the B Building and was astonished to see the Limo in which the President had been killed. The interior had been stripped and the glass windshield removed...He then proceeded to the Glass Lab...and the door was locked.Upon the opening of such, two subordinates were there and had been ordered to take the wind shield and make a template for a new windshield to be made...there he saw a clean round hole through the front of the windshield with fragmentation through the back...recall he had 30 years experience with glass, and had seen many windshields with firearms damage....The hole he saw corresponds exactly with the area in the Report given by SS Charles Taylor...the orders were for the pdamaged windshield to be scraped, and he stated it was..The interview by George with Doug was in Augusr of 93.......when he died 8 years later, there was found a letter,his statement, corresponding exactly with what he had stated in 93.....to Doug Weldon...this reaffirmed his information...in writing. All I think I know, is that there were many shots that day in Dealey, where from I do not know..there were many spots to create a Cross Fire from..a Triangle.. I am a long time student, and learning every day, as we all are. I have read many theory's...whether they are correct is up to the individual ,we must all do our own critical thinking.....Bob Goodman."Triangle of Fire" once sold a newspaper in the Plaza, that had 60 different theory's in such as to how President Kennedy was killed.....their opinion is as good as mine.. all are..Some have spent years on studying different theory's on where the bullets originated from..and different aspects of the case.. ...and to me their work is to be respected..seeing I have not created my own theory.. I cannot say who is right and who is wrong. ...and as far as that goes, as I did say, I don't think now we shall ever know positivley,I hope so, but the What I want is the Whom gave the orders, that is a great possibility as more and more is discovered and the research is released. Apparantly, no one was to be admitted to the open, triangle-shaped area.. of Dealey that day....?...Jean Hill...... "To achieve her goals, she and Mary had charmed a young policeman into letting them into the open, triangle shaped area bounded by Main, Elm and Houston Streets where they now stood. The triangle, which was directly across Elm Street from the spot where the main crowd had gathered in front of the school despository , was normally off-limits to civilians, and Jean and Mary were virtually the only ones occupying it at the moment. It provided an unrestricted vantage point for snapping pictures of the motorcade, and the two women had established themselves in an ideal spot, squarely on the curb of Elm Street, where Jean calculated they would be no more than ten feet from the president's car and J.B's motorcycle when they passed."..from "JFK :The Last Dissenting Witness" Jean Hill, Bill Sloan... Good question who would put themselves into that type of a predicament, in a sewer ?..If they were, I sure would like to know.....killers.??? desperate men,for whatever reason.. whomever pulled the triggers were.. I would like to know, from whom they received their orders... But I understand, all I do know is that men, serious men,spent years, like Penn Jones, Jack Brazil, Thomas Wilson studying and found it was possible...and Thomas Wilson and Greg Burnham, did studies....on the trajectory of the angle of a frontal shot....and the angle the bullet or a bullet entered the President's skull..as far as "Look Mommy! There's a man with a gun down there?"....good one.. but also, "Look there are men up there in the windows with a rifle "... that was heard also several times that day.....and no one reacted..... the old that's security, I am afraid may have been her reply..also... So, I do not know if there was anypne in the sewers, no one does, or exactly where they were, many have their own opinions, but there are many questions, about all.... There were three apparently contradictory copies of the Police Radio Logs...there were 362 typewritten pages of the three versions. of the same radio logs...all represented as recording the communications relating to the crimes, that day..Both police channels were recorded that day..so even allowing for well used equipment there cannot be any explanation for the WC to be presented with such, as it was incomplete info.and the fact also remains that they did not comment on such nor explain, There was no way that a investigation could be conducted without this basic record...let alone a fair one.....this and much is in Harold Weisberg's .. "Whitwash..the Report on the Warren Report"...There is a March version, ( All Radio Logs including the Sherriff's and the State Police's are Exhibit 705.in Vol 17.on pages 361-494........The Police section begins on page 390, and takes up 104 pages..)......On April 8/64 a dispatcher Gerald Dalton Henslee, appeared and testified, (6H325-7)..one of the briefest appearances. Exhibits A and B were introduced into evidence (21H388-400). In a dozen pages he prepared a version of what was incomplete in the 104 pages, and it was accepted without question .His version was also prepared without names, but then at some point the names were added by longhand..It misidentified some and failed to identify others..Finally, on the date of Aug.11/64 in response to a Commission request, the FBI supplied the final version, Exhibit 1974 (17H361-495) ..to this report there are 216 sheets. Yet it also was incomplete.. It was not received until the WC was almost finished..."A book could be written about the logs alone." H.W.......All of Harold Wesiberg's books are available from Hood's College..and very reasonably priced....they teach this course there I believe,and they are still available and the teachings continue, I hope so... He donated some 300,000 files upon his death in 2001.. As far as the audio of the tapes, now there are also many different thoughts on what is heard on them also.??one report I believe says four shots, yet later another states four...A little something, I have been trying to find out more about but there is very little.so far...Hearing witnesses some distance away, state,they heard many shots.??...as the echo and the lay of the land, in that perfect killing spot, distorted sounds...people who were at the corner of Houston and Elm, and others who were some distance in the Plaza.. did not hear the same...amount of shots in many cases....the people who were a block or two away or further from the sight, did not in otherwards, hear echos, or a jumble of noise, their hearing would be more distinct to the number of shots heard, possibley?. As to a shot hitting Connally's thigh, his Doctor stated they were fragments not a whole bullet...but right now, I cannot recall where I have read this.. Thanks, Larry for Mr & Mrs. Hartman's id...and the photo, now how did you do that.?.....and as you quote Mark Oates,their being furious that their statement had been altered, not surprised... Too many people were misstated in the FBI reports, could you please tell me where I might find this? I would appreciate the information.... Thanks for your time.....B

Hi Lee: I certainly agree it would have been a great idea, not to destroy any evidence such as pertaining to the Limo...nor anything pertinent.....but.. There are also four other possibilitys of shots...?? I know what you are thinking, so many....sheesh... On the North curb of Elm...there was an alleged bullet mark on the sidewalk now if it was from an assassin's gun....it lined up exactly with the window at the western end of the TSBD..It was not examined the afternoon of the assassination because a police car was parked over it during the search in Dealey...by the time it was removed and tested, some 15 years later...if there had been any traces of metal, they were not found...by then.. Also, the shot that hit and slammed into the the windshield frame of the President's limo...that missed both the President and the Governor...above the rear view mirror..the SS even took a photo of such for us......it was fired from behind ...The WC ignored this evidence also... ....their response was that it had probably occured before Dallas.??? Also, and I cannot think of their names right now, of course, a couple in the area of the manhole cover in Dealey ,where Deputy Harry Weatherford was stationed to guard ..somewhere pertaining to such.....saw two, what appeared to be little mole hills running along side by side in the grass, and remarked about such, to a policeman,and were told no Mam they are bullets under the soil.???... Aw now Lee, never leave out any possibility's..... Thanks B...

Hi Larry: I sent the photos to John, and he attached, now we send them to James he is compiling the photographs for the photographic archives..and he will do a mighty fine job that fella..... james1410@bigpond.com Thanks for the replies, as I stated, I do not know where all the shots came from, neither from all I have searched does anyone else..positively, there are many theory's on many sites.....It is the old guess and guess again, many studies, and when you think you just might have a handle on it, a new one comes along....and perhaps raises questions . I have found it is best, for me, not to come to any conclusions about the evidence and studies yet...maybe one day...but not today.. There has been a study done by Greg Burnham, I do not know if it is available on the net.?....it showed that there was a lift up of J.F.K's head with the frontal shot...and that would suggest perhaps a shot from a low level..? Also have spoken to an attendee at one of the symposiums where Tom Wilson presented his research, they were very impressed with the photoanalysis that showed tampering with the Photographic evidence. ...that also is a very important part of Tom's work, even if you do not go along with the possibility of his theory of a shot from the sewer, his research on the tampering which also was brought about, along the way, is of great importance....and relates to the studies done and corelates with Dr.Mantik's.....So much so that, according to his wife, I believe,not positive... after he had presented his research to the Review board, he was in touch with a Senator, through whom he received personal access to the photographs from the autopsy....at the Archives ,only to look at, and after seeing them, his research did comply, they also showed the tampering......why they were still in the files??....this access was given after the Senator had received a copy of his work and studied such...which Senator?, your guess is as good as mine....He made known before he died, he had three copies of all, but where ever they are they are not available.... Hi Lee, you say, to the effect there was ample protection on Dealey that day......words to that effect, I do have a different opinion on that one, the DPD protection ended, at the corner of Houston and Elm.......there was no protection extended beyond the from the locals.......and what protection he had, well the only one that seemed to be on duty was, Clint Hill.....they simply acted as though, they couldn't believe what was going down, or had received no training in such, a dillema..perhaps one too many the night before.??.....much extensive work done in that area on the S.S. by Vince Palamera, for anyone, wanting the info, search and his web site is readily available.... As far as there not being a sewer on the South side of the Overpass, Larry where would I find this info...if you know...I would be interested to read if you can recall..and ..I will check it out..Thanks......You say 54 feet East on Elm, and that the President could not have been seen, and your opinion is a "NO"...well you are entitled to that...I have sent photos to James, of the sight from the sewer showing someone standing on the x , in the street, and the view from the sewer......and yes it is possible to see....also, we must keep in mind that as Moorman and others stated the limo verred over into the left lane ..at the time of the head shot.....making the view even more so.......I am not differing here Larry, whether it was done, or not, from the sewer, again I say, I do not know where the shots came from, none of us do positively...I hope some day we will..but it was a possibility, as basically Bill's and other peoples theorys are possibilitys ....of which there are many....another researchers theory, which I greatly appreciate, as we shall never know without them.....but still in the long run, their opinion, which we are all entitled to... As I have said, where the shots originated ?? the important issue now I believe is ,the men who pulled the triggers, IMO could have been hired guns.....or some such......but minions in either case..to me it is the ,who was responsible for the planning, who had the power to install the coverup...who benefited, they were and are responsible for all....and to that end, is what I would like to see ...much new research has come to light on that end, in the past few years.....we do have some answers....but still not the proof, it is still out there perhaps, buried and waiting to be uncovered, I do hope so... Thanks for the conversation, good thread guys.... ......B

Hello All: Jim, in mighty fine form there... ...McAdams can be very harsh in his discord...makes me wonder why?.. . You have to read the other side of the coin as well..to be aware of the truth....as we have learned the hard way I might add... I have no set opinion, on where all the shots came from, there were many, but after searching, and watching the TMWKK tape, and reading what is available, it was possible..a shot from the sewer.. The photo of the sewer posted above is what they present today to convince anyone new to the research that it was not so....The opening in 1963 was twice as high as it is to day......and a grown man, could stand in such easily, then proceed to run out the sewer , beyond the Underpass to the Trinity River area....and walk out the huge sewer entrance....Penn Jones and Jack Brazil, and his military crew did this several times...it worked.. Also there were sewer openings, both on the north and south sides of the Overpass, just into where the wooden fence begins, beyond the corner,hidden from sight from those on the Overpass, these were also connected to the sewer system than ran to the Trinity, high enough for men to run in and out of somewhat stooped, but, also able to stand up in for a shot.....one book on this subject is " Triangle of Fire"...by Bob Goodman... There are photos. The sewer systems ran, all under that area and further....one ran, another bit from Penn Jones, to the back of the DPD, to a sewer entrance, that you would climb in and out of, like the others....I shall send John some photos for all to see, and perhaps they will be self explanatory.....also keep in mind there are several more inches of asphalt that has been added to Elm St..since that time...... It has always been said, that Tom's work has disappeared, and it has, but I have found on the web, that he did give a copy of all to the Review Board Staff in 1998.....Yes, I can just imagine it being available to anyone...?? he also appears in TMWKK tapes...with quite the presentation.....See below....I do not know if some one shot from this position that day, but Tom does present a strong case for the direction of a shot to the head from this angle......The Dealey area was the perfect "Crossfire"...they couldn't go wrong, and they knew it.... ................................................................................ .................................. from "The Truth Shall Make You Free" episode TMWKK..a review ""The first was Tom Wilson - with 30 years experience using imaging and photonics techniques in the stell industry. He has now applied this techniques - along with computer enhancement - to examine again the Zapruder film. What was revealed - using high resolution pixel imaging and Fourier analysis - was nothing short of amazing. In the head shot frame - for example - one could actually see, with Wilson's techniques- the image of the bullet, inside JFK's skull and its *track* moving from the FRONT to the REAR of the skull. Undeniable high level, high quality evidence that the shot did indeed come from the front - as we have been maintaining all along. Showing the detailed iamgery, Wilson himself found his eyes welling with tears. One could sense his painful awareness of the lies and distortions we've been fed all these years, co-mingling with his frustration that up to now none of 'officialdom' has taken his work seriously or at least tried to replicate it. He also indicated that on going to Dealey Plaza and attempting to reconstruct the placement of all key people, etc. he could not get things to fit - with the motion of the bullet seen in his imagery. However, on further inspection - and on locating a storm sewer cover at the side of Elm St. - he found that the problem was solved and indeed the shot could only have been made from that location (the fatal head shot). This was confirmed by Jack Brazil and a military team he put together in 1992, who found: a) a man could easily fit inside the storm sewer drain and have an open view onto Elm St. and a good shot at the motorcade. the man could easily make his escape (in something like 20-23 minutes) by following out the storm sewer to the Trinity River - making his way clear and free. The scenes tracing the sewer escape route were sobering indeed - and show that indeed, the killing could be carried out as a perfect crime, with the perpetrators getting away scott free. After the Brazil demo, Tom Wilson was seen again - now examining the autopsy photos with his techniques and comparing them with the photonic/pixel densities in the head of JFK as disclosed in the pristine Mary Moorman photo (aimed toward the GK, JFK's head visible from the rear). His imaging analysis showed where genuine human tissue was located in the autopsy film- by comparing it with pixel densities in the pre-autopsy condition (as exposed from the Moorman film). What was revealed was nothing less than startling: massive sections of 'fake' material covering nearly the entire rear of JFK's head (Wilson referred to it was Mortician's plaster). This same material was also used in the front of the head, to cover the entrance wound there. Wilson's fine work, and detailed analysis, showed also what many of us have been saying all along - that the autopsy photos are indeed fakes."" ................................................................................ .................... . Thomas W. Wilson......Review Board 1998..... On September 11, 1998, Mr. Thomas W. Wilson of Pennsylvania made a presentation to Review Board staff summarizing his eight years of research into the authenticity and significance of the JFK autopsy images and the Zapruder film, and additional study of the Mary Moorman Polaroid photograph, using "photonics" as a technological tool. Mr. Wilson donated the following materials to the JFK Collection: (1) a 20-page "executive summary" of his work; (2) a graphic presentation of Mr. Wilson's research conclusions about President Kennedy's head wounds, using "A.D.A.M." software to display his conclusions; (3) a 20-minute audiotape of a discussion between Mr. Wilson and former Navy x-ray technician Jerrol Custer, dated 3/28/98; and (4) a commercially sold videotape summarizing his work. Mr. Wilson believes he possesses a considerable amount of scientific and physical evidence, accumulated over eight years (from 1988-1996), proving his contention that President Kennedy was shot from the front, not from behind. He is willing to donate all of this material to the JFK Collection if FBI or Department of Justice officials will first allow him to make his full two-day presentation on the evidence he has collected regarding the Moorman photograph, the Zapruder film, and the autopsy photographs of President Kennedy. ................................................................................ .... Tom died a few years ago.... This I know is review for you Jim, but I thought all of us can use such ,I know I do, often.. Thanks for your time...Regards.....B

Re the visit date of Sat. night ..April 13th,63.... On that date however the rifle was still buried in the ground..?? wherever...in a field near a railroad track..CE 1403, p.777. and thus this incident could not have occurred.. How would L.H.O. bury a rifle in the ground without using a spade or similar? How did he protect such a rifle from damage to be expected it to be buried in the soil from 4 or moredays ?? If he used no protection then why wouldn't the microscopic examination by the FBI expert Stombaugh on Nov.23.63..4H 81...reveal no traces of soil? Since he buried such in the dead of night how did he locate such 4 days later? and how did he dig it up without a shovel or such an implement? How also is it that upon searching of all LHO's possessions by local officers and federal agents no one discovered any rifle cleaning equipment..? According to the Commission he made frequent use of said rifle, even burying it in the ground..That he did so, but failed to clean the rifle, with no equipment ( which was well oiled) when discovered in the TSBD is simply not believable. Yet the list of his belongings even make mention of a label from "King Oscar Kipper Recipes "CE 3042..and "One Texas flag ...small.." CE 2713...but no mention of rifle cleaning equipment...... Anyway Marina stated that Oswald had retrieved the buried rifle on Sunday.. April 14/63.....But Mrs. De M testifys in April of 64...that she saw it in the closet on Sat. night April 13/63..when they visited ? It becomes impossible to believe there ever was a rifle.... Which he never bought...the Mannlicher Carcano in the first place...the Money Order to Klines, was never cashed......and the dates are not in sync..... See "Harvey & Lee"..by John Armstrong.... Antti....I do not know if you have ever read DeMohrenschildt's manuscript "I Am A Patsy"..... Great fictional read....more made up stories..IMO..But interesting....see below... Regards B.... http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/...2/hscapatsy.htm

Thanks Jim for the reply.Why not send George's sons.. and those of the Washington Belt..... Couldn't help that remark...too choice.. Much in Sylvia Meagher that does not comply,with what all had to say... Most interesting....Pick a subject a name,any it seems...... Again soon...regards.B

Lee, You may be interested in more information about Thomas Wilson... and his theorys..on the tape.TMWKK.... It has been mentioned that his work, and has not been discovered since his death.... Regards..B http://www.jfk-assassination.net/tom_wilson.htm Here are two attached photos of the sewer, on Elm St. taken in 1967.

Hi Jim: Nice to hear from you. Alls well I see...good. This web is so tangled, and as you think you just may have finally gotten a hand on SOME... it's gone, as you read through the WC,and the testimonies, you come to realize that the witnesses are cut off it seems continually, abruptly, and also I have found in an older book..that I have been just skimming through, George O'Toole's "Assassination Tapes"...1975...perhaps you have read such.? He was a former computer specialist, C.I.A..as chief of Problem Analysis Branch...He became a specialist in the "lie detector".."The Psychological Stress Evaluator"...He took what he called his PSE, and off to Dallas he ventured giving the impression he was there working on an article....in 1973.. He interviewed many witnesses, police and all, and used a taped machine to record their interviews...Then he would analyse such with the PSE....It is quite an adventure....as many were very difficult to approach, the first person he was able to make an appointment with was Dallas police chief Jesse Curry, who opened many doors for him, by giving him the permission to tell whomever that he had spoken with him, and received I believe a list of names... George also received access to some tapes taken at the time of those tragic days, played such and recorded them and then processed..as he did so, he found many errors within the testimonies and statements given and also errors, when compared to what was printed in the WC.....He went on to receive permission to access some tapes at the Archives.... tapes taken of the WC hearings... Now ,we must rely on the stenotypists account of what was said before the Commission..and though we have known we cannot rely on anything to do with such now....I will go on to quote from the book, page 89...this was also eye opener...to what actually went on.. " In July 1973 Robert Smith of the Com. to Inv.Assns. discovered the existance of some sound recordings among the material turned over to the N.A.bt the com. and obtained permission to listen to them.Smith and I ( O'Toole) went to the archives and were presented with a set of plastic disks from an office dictating machine. We found that they contained some of Marina Oswald's testimony in Russian before the com. The dictating machine, which was not designed for this use, seems to have been placed near the com. members examining Mrs. Oswald,because their questions are fairly audible, as is the voice of the interpreter who translated the questions and answers. Marina Oswald's voice, however is very faint.Background sounds, which seems to be a commercial radio broadcast, are also audible behind the testimony and may have been picked up by the recording machine through the electrical wiring in the building in which the examination was conducted .These technical problems resulting from the careless and amateurish way the recordings were made discouraged me from attempting a PSE analysis of them.However, our trip to the archives yielded at least one discovery: there are significant discrepancies between the recorded testimony and the corresponding transcript published by the government.." We always knew it was not to be trusted but.... As we know the people that seemed to believe the Report were relatively few, but those such as Meagher, Weisberg, Penn, Lane, Epstein and a few others,who were after only the hard truth, and would accept no other, were regarded as "scavengers" and were more or less called eccentric and much harsher names....But they persevered..The reporters at first seemingly in the Dallas area, we know now to have at least set about to find the truth and investigate on their won, perhaps this created the beginning of the "Investigative Reporters " of today?...they were within a short time transferred, given their ticket, moved and disappeared, to other parts of the country, some were murdered....until they were no longer in the Dallas area...some when contacted in later years, still refused to discuss anything, their research seems to have been over before it was really begun...Even Curry had trouble with the W.C.s version of the truth....As the weeks went by O'Toole did find some whose stress factor, was unusual and pointed to untruthfulness...and some were DPD....and a lot of nervous people.. The executive order that created the WC as we know, charged them with the responsibility " to ascertain,evaluate and report upon the facts relating to the assassinations"... they did not, and it was a white wash as we know to-day it fell apart....If they, and we know they did ,altered Marina's, and as I related earlier they did cut off, and seemed to halt the witnesses in their words, and changing the subject and such of the questioning,and the examing of the Photographers and photos was almost a pathetic joke..see Weisberg.. They did bombard many with their questions..hardly pausing long enough to give them the chance to reply..Within the Assn books, we do find many, especially that came out of the Garrison inv..and eventually when shown...did relate how their testimonies and statements were altered..a mixed bag... In Harvey & Lee as you mention, there is such differences in the two men, that it is almost difficult to fathom, it is a great reference book, and if you are able to obtain such in the future, please do so..as in all books, there are some editing mistakes,and such.. but nothing you cannot overcome, if you are searching for the discovery of all......and the search goes on, but this John Armstrong's work is magnificent IMO...and very heavy.lol...the years spent, the time, money, the travel, to many foreign countries, the thousands of people interviewed, thousands of hours spent within the Archives and Librarys, that is dedication......overwhelming when thought of to the extent this man went to....this was over a 12 year search for the men..... You mention John Pic, and that he would have known his brother, as you say you and yours have never made that mistake. My Dad and his brother,even when they had not seen each other in 22years..Joe being out West...one had grown short and heavy, the other very thin and grey,and baldish, he stepped off the train, and Jim called out,"here Joe"...instant recognition...after all those years, we thought it amazing, they didn't...so as you say it has never left you..If you also,study the photos as I know you have ,the man, who was killed by Jack Ruby, is not ,IMO, appear to be the L.H.O. that we see in the earlier photos, nor his complexion, his palor, his hair, his attitude,and personality apparently, nor his weight, his build, nor his bull neck, which I do not think you can loose.?...as you say....and other traits..all and enigma..c Thanks Jim for the come back, always a pleasure, keep up the good research.... B..

Hey All.. Now this is more like it, been way too long....Ter Girl, nice to see you Dix and Jim always, and Larry and Ian, what ?old home week.. Nice. All do you recall, in what Harold Weisberg's book, he has the information and documentation re the Three different copies of the D.P.D. Radio tapes....If I recall correctly, the first was given to the F.B.I or should I say...seized by them....changes were made, and more changes which produced three different sets.. It relates in part I believe to the last call to and from Tippitt, and the mysterious Police Car number, that of course did not exist.??..that I have been interested in but have not had any luck so far, and also other alterations......so many good books listed here..... I must get into them again, his work after all these years, still stands as the best for verification..along with Meagher's, of course and her report on the errors and omissions in the W.C...... I read the other day, that had she stated every mistake she found, she would have issued 20, that's right, books.....But she left the itty bittys out... and concentrated on the obvious....Now I would like to know the ittys and all... Nice to see all, hey where's Adele?....... and I know I must be missing some of the crowd, nice as I said, and about time ...... Best regards all......B

Judyth: YOU SAID.... "AND I DO NOT HAVE TIME OR STRENGTH TO GO ON WITH THIS. I HOPE MY RESPINSE HAS BEEN ADEQUATE AND UNBIASED! BEST REGARDS, JUDYTH VARY BAKER" ............... BUT JUDYTH YOU CAME BACK AGAIN ALREADY......lol...Must have been the Java.. One More Dig In Before You Receive Your Reply.... It's was over and done with according to your words, you change the rules, in mid stream... My Goodness...Girlie, do make up your mind.......I am according to your words, over and gone..I stand by mine... DEAR BERNICE: PLEASE FORGIVE THE CAPS. IT IS ONLY TO MAKE MY REPLY EASIER TO FIN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. I WILL TRY TO REPLY TO THEM BELOW ==============LIKE THIS==========JUDYTH To my knowledge, according to the law..if such a statement is to be proven against Robert & Marina.. then signed affidavits must be obtained, if not then it remains hearsay.. If at some future date,these statements are challenged legally this is what would be required.. ========DEAR BERNICE: WE HAVE STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO THE RECORD BY THE FBI AND OTHERS THAT WERE NEVER SIGNED AFFIDAVITS. SOMETIMES COMMENTS ARE MADE "A RELIABLE SOURCE REPORTED(SUCH AND SUCH)"-- AND SUCH ARE USED ALL THE TIME IN CITING THIS OR THAT FACT. INTERVIEWS SUCH AS MADE BY ANTHONY SUMMERS, TAPE RECORDINGS OF STATEMENTS MADE BY WITNESSES, ALL THESE ARE OTHER MEANS BESIDES SIGNED AFFIDAVITS. A SIGNED AFFIDAVIT THAT THESE DEEDS WERE REVEALED TO ME COULD BE OBTAINED. . ............ JUDYTH:.. ..................................... R..1......BUT THE ASSASSINATION HAS NOT BEEN TO COURT AS YET?? ..................................... IT IS NOT MY INTENTION TO HARM ANYONE. IT IS MY IONTENTION TO REVEAL WHAT I WAS TOLD BY A PERSON WHO INTIMATELY KNEW MARINA OSWALD FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING HER VULNERABILITY AND HELPLESSNESS AFTER LEE'S DEATH. ================= .............................................. R:.2.....BUT YOU DID..AND DO...BY REPEATING SUCH.. PROMOTE YOURSELF BUT DO NOT DEMOTE ANOTHER.. SOME INTIMATE WHO KNEW HER...SOME FRIEND.. NOW SHE IS VULNERABLE AND HELPLESS THAT'S NOT THE IMPRESSION I GOT... .................................................. Marina was under close scrutiny by the FBI & SS till Feb 64 after her WC testimony was completed..much on the web, pertaining to such.... =================LOOK INTO JANUARY AND FEBRAURY 1964 MORE CLOSELY. LOOK THEN INTO HER HISTORY WITH HER BUSINESS MANAGER. THERE IS NEW INFORMATION. TELL ME WHERE SHE WAS IN MID-JANUARY, 1964. WHY DID MARINA FIRE HER BUSINESS MANAGER?=================== ....................................... R:.3...IF YOU HAVE SUCH, PRESENT AND CONTRIBUTE THE INFORMATION FOR ALL........I'M SURE ALL ARE VERY INTERESTED....THANKYOU..... ...................................... Thomas Mallon's previous works, nor his stats qualify him on a book about the Assassination. He has not done his homework as they say.. He presents no evidence in such,yet he convicts LHO of the murder of the President. ==============WERE WE TALKING ABOUT HIS ABILITY TO WRITE AN ASSASSINATION BOOK? NO. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT HIS BEING TOLD SOMETHING ABOUT MARINA OSWALD BY AN UN-NAMED SOURCE, WHICH INFORMATION WAS VERIFIED BY PATRICIA MCMILLAN, WHO WAS A CONFIDANTE OF MARINA OSWALD FOR YEARS. I SAID NOTHING ABOUT HIS QUALIFICATIONS FOR WRITING AN ASASSINATION BOOK. I DID IMPLY HE WAS QUALIFIED AS A RESPECTED AUTHOR OF NON-FICTION TO ACCURATELY REPEAT WHAT HE WAS TOLD. ================ R..4..YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS...YOU SPOKE OF HIS PREVIOUS WORKS ,AND STATS..YOU PRESENTED ALL...AND INFORMATION THAT WAS PRESENTED IN SUCH BOOK...YOU CANNOT NOW TWIST WHAT YOU SAID, INTO WHAT YOU WANT IT TO BE.??. THIS IS NO RESEARCH ASSASSINATION BOOK..IMO..TO BE REFERRING TO..NEWBIES..WILL READ SUCH, AND PERHAPS BELIEVE WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT L.H.O.AND BEING GUILTY OF THE ASSASSINATION.... AND YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT GOSSIP.....IMO..SO FAR.. ................................ It is anyone's right to critique any book,as I stated in my opinion, it is "garbage"..in and out.IMO. ======OF COURSE IT IS YOUR RIGHT TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINION ABOUT HIS BOOK. I DO NOT LIKE THE BOOK, EITHER. BUT THE MAN WOULD NOT RISK A LAWSUIT AND MAKE UP SUCH A STORY. IT'S FAR TOO IMPORTANT. THERE HAS BEEN NO OUTCRY FROM MARINA. NO THREATS OF LAWSUITS. WHY? YES, SHE HAS SHOWN REMARKABLE GOOD SENSE AND RESTRAINT. THESE THINGS HAPPENED MANY YEARS AGO. I RESPECT MARINA OSWALD AND NO, THIS INCIDENT IS NOT A HIGHLIGHT OF MY BOOK.============= .................................. R::5.. MANY OTHERS HAVE RISKED LAWSUITS....STILL ARE.. PERHAPS MARINA SHALL, ONE DAY.... I WOULD HOPE IT'S NOT IN YOUR BOOK....UNLESS IT IS SWORN TO.. .................................. I find your statements in regard to his book, I shall admit frustrating,on one hand you believe that LHO is innocent,as I do...and have been posting such for the past five years or so..on the web ,on the other hand you seem to rely on Mallon's information in a book in which he condemns Lee as the lone assassin..?. =======NO, THESE STATEMENTS ARE NOT IN REGARD TO THE BOOK. THEY ARE IN REGARD TO A PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT HAPPENS TO BE INSERTED IN THE BOOK THAT I BELIEVE IS TRUE BECAUSE I ALSO LEARNED OF IT FROM A TRUSTED RESEARCHER WHO WAS A PERSONAL FRIEND OF MARINA OSWALD FOR TWENTY YEARS. MARY FERRELL DESTROYED A LETTER FROM MARINA OSWALD IN MY VERY PRESENCE, SAYING THE LETTER WOULD EMBARRASS MARINA IF IT GOT INTO THE WRONG HANDS (I OBSERVED FERRELL DESTROY HUNDREDS OF FILES, AS SHE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF SELLING HER COLLECTION FOR 1.3 MILLION DOLLARS TO A BOSTON-BASED PURCHASER). I POINTED OUT TO YOU A PIECE OF INFORMATION IN THE BOOK ABOUT MARINA OSWALD THAT HAS THE CAST OF TRUTH BECAUSE IT WAS CORROBORATED BY MARINA OSWALD'S OWN OFFICIAL BIOGRAPHER, AND BECAUSE YOU ASKED ME TO SUPPLY ANOTHER SOURCE TO BACK UP MY OWN PERSONAL INFORMATION. I ALSO SAID M. WAS A RESPECTED AUTHOR. I DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE BOOK ITSELF. THAT WAS NEVER THE POINT.================================== R::6... YOU MENTIONED THE BOOK....FRUSTRATING..YOU USED IT FOR YOUR OWN PURPOSE.. GOOD FOR MARY..DESTROYING THE PERSONAL LETTER.. BRAVO...AS TO THE REST, SOME FRIENDS.. ................... Do not Presume: Quote "Hostility,anger,scorn"..?? =======I FELT YOUR REMARKS WERE SUBJECTIVE FROM YOUR CHOICE OF WORDS.========================= ............................... R:..7...YOUR WORDS, NOT MINE...... ...................... "I know you wish I had never said a word." Why not..?? "From sad experience, I do realize that my reply will not impress you one bit.".. Oh,but it does.. "It seems you are a friend of Marina Oswald, and certainly you have a right to speak out in her behalf." I have the right to speak out in anyones behalf. Whether related, or known or not, when I believe they are being unfairly spoken about and not present to defend themselves... =======DO YOU BELIEVE MARINA OSWALD DOES NOT HAVE A COMPUTER? THAT SHE KNOWS NOTHING OF THESE THINGS? WE HAVE TRIED MANY TIMES TO CONTACT HER. SHE REFUSED TO SPEAK TO ME. I CAN'T HELP IT. ONE OF HER DAUGHTERS CONTACTED ME. THEY ALL KNOW I DESIRE VERY MUCH TO HELP PROVE LEE'S INNOCENCE, AND IF WE COULD WORK TOGETHER, IT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER. BUT YES, I AM THE OTHER WOMAN. LEE TOLD ME THINGS. SHE KNOWS HOW SHE BEHAVED TOWARD LEE. OF COURSE I HEARD HIS SIDE ONLY. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE OTHER SIDE. IT IS NOT MY FAULT THAT SHE HAS REFUSED TO SPEAK TO ME OR TO ANY OF THE SEVERAL PERSONS REPRESENTING ME WHO HAVE CALLED HER, WRITTEN, ETC. INCLUDING DEBBEE REYNOLDS, MARTIN SHACKELFORD, WIM DANKBAAR, AND OTHERS. EVEN JIMMY FERRELL TRIED TO BRING UP THE SUBJECT TO MEET ME. SHE DECLINED. OR AT LEAST, THAT IS WHAT JIMMY TOLD ME. ===================== R::.8...DOES SHE?? IT IS HER CHOICE, TO SPEAK TO WHOMEVER SHE FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH... YERY FEW BELIEVE IN L.H.Os...GUILT......THOSE FEW ARE MORE THAN LIKELY BEING PAID TO...IN SOME WAY...WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE WHO, AND WHY ..THE COVERUP... SHE STATED IN NOV.03..WHEN APPROACHED..ABOUT THE 40th..SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT..THERE WAS NOTHING MORE TO SAY.....THOSE IN EFFECT WERE HER THOUGHTS THAT DAY.. IT IS HER PEROGATIVE..NO ONE ELSES...STILL IS..WONDER HOW MANY PEOPLE THERE HAVE BEEN OVER THE YEARS...THINK ABOUT IT.?? SEVERAL PEOPLE TIMES...A ZILLION... ............................... I asked a question.." What was your documentation for the hearsay of an affair between Robert & Marina Oswald?". And whatever has being a scientist to do with such.?..I cannot fathom. ======EXCUSE ME, BERNICE, BUT WHEN ONE HAS BEEN TRAINED AS A SCIENTIST, AND THEY HAVE WRITTEN AND REVIEWED AND READ MANY PAPERS, GENERALLY THEY ARE AWARE THAT IF THEY MAKE A STATEMENT, THERE HAD BETTER BE BACK-UP. SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MAY NOT REALIZE THIS RESPONSIBILITY. I TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR BACK-UP FOR MY STATEMENTS SERIOUSLY. MY HAVING BEEN TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MEANS THAT I AM PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO THE ISSUE OF PROOF AND DOCUMENTATION. I DO CONSIDER MY CITATION OF m'S STATEMENTS, AND HIS STATEMENT THAT MCMILLAN CORROBORATES IT, AS AN ADEQUATE CITATION BACKING UP MY OWN STATEMENT. HOWEVER, IF YOU WISH, I WILL ASK DEBBEE REYNOLDS TO MAKE OUT A SIGNED AFFIDAVIT AS TO THE MATTER.============================================== R::9....SCIENTISTS....THAT'S RIGHT EVIDENCE ....BACK UP.... GO RIGHT AHEAD...ASK....PLEASE DO.. ................................. What was related on your part in a reply, was a she said, he said statement.. =========NO, I BACKED IT UP WITH A STATEMENT FROM THOMAS MALLON, WHO OFFERED A CORROBORATING SOURCE. IT HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED. IF I HAVE THIS STRAIGHT, YOU ARE SAYING THAT EVERYTHING PEOPLE SAY AS WITNESSES IS NOT TO BE BELIEVED. FOR EXAMPLE, MARY FERRELL TELLING ME IN THE PRESENCE OF ANOTHER PERSON WHAT SHE WAS TOLD BY MARINA OSWALD, WAS WORTHLESS? OR MCMILLAN'S BEING TOLD THE SAME THING, DOES NOT COUNT?HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE TO HEAR THE SAME THING FROM MARINA'S LIPS BEFORE YOU WILL ACCEPT THAT EITHER SHE TOLD THE TRUTH OR LIED TO ALL THESE PEOPLE, OR THAT BY SOME INCREDIBLE CHANCE OF FATE, WE ALL MADE UP THE SAME STORY INDEPENDENTLY, AND WE ARE ALL LYING?=============================== R::10...LORD HELP US IF WE HAVE RO RELY ON MALLON FOR CORROBORATION IN THE ASSASSINATION..IMO THERES THAT BOOK AGAIN..WONDER HOW MANY COPIES HAVE WE HAVE SOLD IN THE PAST FEW DAYS...INSTEAD OF A GOOD BOOK.? THERE YOU GO AGAIN LYING ?? YOUR WORD NOT MINE... SO FAR..JUST PASSING ON .ALL HAVE PASSED ON...SHE SAID HE SAID.. .................................. You have made many statements on the Forum. Do you not expect questions pertaining to such?. ======WHY DO YOU WRITE THIS STATEMENT? I TRY TO ANSWER COURTEOUSLY AND FULLY. HOWEVER, MY TIME IS VERY LIMITED, AND I WON'T BE RESPONDING TO THIS THREAD AGAIN. I HAVE ABOUT 60 EMAILS A DAY TO ALSO ANSWER. I HAVE SOMETIMES RECEIVED 150 EMAILS IN ONE DAY.============== ...................... R:.11...YOU MAY REPLY, YOU DO NOT ANSWER..IMO YES, WE ARE ALL BUSY....AS WELL.. THANKYOU, FOR NOT RESPONDING AGAIN.. ...................... Nor other peoples opinions about what you relate.? =======DO YOU NOT NOTE A BIT OF HOSTILITY IN THIS STATEMENT? THIS IS WHAT I WAS PICKING UP BEFORE. I WOULD NOT BE HERE IF I DID NOT CARE. I RESPECT EVERYONE'S OPINIONS. IT IS GOOD WHEN THEY HAVE THE FACTS. THE TRUTH.============================ R:12..: HOSTILITY...THERE'S THAT WORD AGAIN..? HARD QUESTIONS, SOMETIMES ARE CALLED THAT..PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ASK THEM, OF THE PERSON MAKING SUCH..WITHOUT BEING ACCUSED OF ANY SUCH WORD...OR OTHERS THAT YOU HAVE USED... NO YOU DO NOT RESPECT OTHERS OPINIONS...IMO..IF THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAY..SO FAR.. FRUSTRATION...MUCH... I AM PERHAPS PICKING UP A STEREOTYPE..THE TRUTH AS TO YOUR INSSERTION...INTO AN EVENT..THE TRUTH ??? I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY PROOF OF YOUR TRUTH AFTER ALL THESE YEARS, AND I DO NOT SPEAK OF A PAY RECEIPT OR SOME SUCH.. YES, I AWAIT THE BOOK...AS MANY OTHERS... ................................... People in the JFK arena, are hard task masters..No one is out to get you as you seem to think on this Forum... ========THERE YOU GO, AGAIN. NO, I DO NOT SEEM TO THINK THAT ANYBODY IS OUT TO 'GET' ME. WHY WOULD I THINK THAT? BUT PEOPLE DO GET UPSET IF I SAY THINGS THAT UPSET THEIR APPLE CART. I CAN'T HELP THAT. I HAVE, HOWEVER, NO DESIRE TO BATTLE PEOPLE ON FORUMS AND NEWSGROUPS. I AM NOT STRONG ENOUGH. MY EYES ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH. I DO WHAT I CAN AND HOPE IT IS ENOUGH.=============== R::13... THERE YOU GO AGAIN..DENY, DENY.....READ THE ALTS AND YOUR THOUSANDS OF POSTS ON ALL..AND READ BELOW..IN YOUR REPLY TO NO.17.. OOPS, I SEEM TO HAVE UPSET YOUR APPLE CART..... LIKE...NO ONE DESIRES TO DO A BROO HAW.. NO ONE IS STRONG ENOUGH...AND ALL HAVE MANY PROBLEMS, NOT JUST YOU.. WE, ALL TRY TO DO WHAT WE CAN, IN THIS RESEARCH WORLD IT IS ALLOWED NOT TO AGREE............ but you must expect those differences of opinions, and questions.. ==== QUESTIONS AND OPINIONS ARE FINE. ========= R:14.. THAT'S WHAT I ASKED, ONE QUESTION..THIS IS THE RESULT... ........................ you must be prepared to reply and provide some reference to evidence of such.. =====BUT I WAS PREPARED. I HAVE PROVIDED YOU 'SOME REFERENCE.' HAVE I NOT? I HAVE CITED MY REYNOLDS AS MY OWN WITNESS. I THEN ADDED MALLON , WHO CITES AN UN-NAMED SOURCE, AS WELL AS PATRICIA JOHNSON MCMILLAN AS A DIRECT WITNESS. SO YES, I WAS PREPARED TO REPLY AND TO PROVIDE 'SOME REFERENCE TO EVIDENCE OF SUCH.' YOUR STATEMENT, REPEATED ABOVE, SEEMS TO IMPLY THAT I DID NOT DO SO. BUT I DID. AND SIMILARLY, I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO SUPPLY CORROBORATION FOR ALL SUCH IMPORTANT STATEMENTS IN MY BOOK. HOWEVER, AS A DIRECT WITNESS MYSELF TO LEÉ'S ACTIVITIES, FOR SOME MATTERS I HAD TO MAKE STATEMENTS THAT NO ONE ELSE WITNESSED, SUCH AS THAT WE HAD A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. EVEN THEN, I HAVE BEEN CAREFUL TO PROVIDE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN ABUNDANCE.======================================= R: 15.. REFERENCE...THOMAS MALLON'S GARBAGE BOOK..IMO... ABOUT GOSSIP..AND HE SAID SHE SAID EVIDENCE?? I AWAIT YOUR BACKED UP EVIDENCE IN YOUR BOOK... ............ No one in this world complies to anything with a blindness..i ======I HAVE NO IDEA, I'M SORRY, WHAT THIS MEANS================ R::16.. NO ONE BELIEVES ANYTHING COMPLETELY IN THE ASSASSINATION WORLD, ANY LONGER WITHOUT PROOF, EVIDENCE....YOUR THE SCIENTIST.. ........................... if what you say stands up to the scrutiny it will receive, then it will be accepted..if not .....it will not.. =====MY DEAR, THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF SCRUTINY, WITH QUALIFIERS: INADEQUATE, ADEQUATE, BIASED, UNBIASED. THOSE WHO RECEIVE THE INFORMATION AND GIVE IT UNBIASED, ADEQUATE SCRUTINY CONSTITUTE ONLY ONE OF FOUR POSSIBLE CHOICES: ADEQUATE SCRUTINY, UNBIASED OPINION....ADEQUATE SCRUTINY, BIASED OPINION...INADEQUATE SCRUTINY,UNBIASED OPINION...INADEQUATE SCRUTINY, BIASED OPINION. MY CHANCE OF ACCEPTANCE DEPEND ON THE HONESTY, INTELLIGENCE AND LACK OF BIAS OF THOSE WHO SCRUTINIZE. TRADITIONALLY, I HAVE LITTLE CHANCE OF ESCAPING INADEQUATE SCRUTINY-BIASED OPINION, AS MY EXPERIENCES ON THE INTERNET HAVE SADLY PROVEN. TWO CAMPS HAVE EMERGED: MY SUPPORTERS, MOST OF WHOM HAVE VISITED ME, AND SEEN ALL THE EVIDENCE. MY DETRACTORS, ALMOST ALL OF WHOM HAVE NEVER MET ME AND HAVE SEEN LITTLE OR NO ORIGINAL EVIDENCE -- ESPECIALLY IN CONTEXT. ONE GROUP, FINALLY HAVING TO ADMIT I WAS HIRED THE SAME DAY AS LEE AT REILY, THAT I WAS A CANCER RESEARCHER, AND OTHER BASIC POINTS, HAS DESCENDED TO NAME-CALLING, LIES, AND CHARACTER ASSASSINATION. THEY MAKE FUN OF WHAT STOOD THE TEST OF SCRUTINY.. OR ADD A LITTLE WORD THAT CHANGES THE MEANING OF EVERYTHING. I HAVE COUNTED OVER A HUNDRED CHANGES IN A HUGE ÉSSAY'WRITTEN ABOUT ME. WHEN I SENT CORRECTIONS, THEY WERE IGNORED. IN FACT, THE AUTHOR OF THE 'ESSAY' HAS DECIDED TO ADD A SILLY FACTOID THAT I BELIEVE THE MOON LANDING WAS FAKED! EVEN WHEN I HAVE PROTESTED THAT IT WAS ONE OF MANY POSSIBLE TOPICS GIVEN AS AN ENGLISH WRITING ASSIGNMENT. STUDENTS ASKED ME MY OPINION, I REFUSED TO GIVE IT SO THEY WOULD NOT HAVE A BIASED OPINION. THIS IS REPORTED AS I 'BELIEVE'THE MOON LANDING WAS FAKED. WHY IS THIS BROUGHT UP? TO TRY TO 'PROVE'I'M A NUT. GEESH! AND WHAT A SHAME! PEOPLE READING THAT ESSAY WILL BELIEVE I'M AS FLAKY AS THEY COME. NO MANNER OF PROTESTS MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE TO THE AUTHOR OF THAT 'ESSAY,' THOUGH. I HAVE PEOPLE ATTACKING ME ALL THE TIME, CITING THAT MASSIVE 'ESSAY.' IT'S SHAMELESS OF THE FELLOW, WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN ACADEMICIAN. ========================= R:.17..I WISH TO SEE THINGS DIFFERENTLY...AS THEY ARE..AS THEY WERE...NOTHING I THINK IS IN STONE....I SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH WITHIN THE ASSASSINATION.. NOT JUST IN PEOPLES OPINIONS, BUT IN THEIR FACTUAL PROOF AND EVIDENCE WITHIN SUCH..HOPEFULLY TO SEE THE SOLUTION TO SUCH A TRAGIC EVENT..THAT CHANGED ALL OUR HISTORYS... I CHANGE NOR ADD ANYTHING... ............................. No one can find out the truth, unless they continue to question... =======AND THERE COMES A TIME TO DECIDE TO ACCEPT OR REJECT, WHEN THE EVIDENCE REACHES A CERTAIN CRITICAL MASS. I HAVE EVIDENCE. IT WILL N-E-V-E-R BE 'ENOUGH' FOR THOSE WHO ARE BIASED. FURTHER, I HAVE FILLED IN --AND HAVE MUCH MORE TO SHOW IN THAT MATTER---MANY BLANKS IN LEE;S HISTORY. THE TRUTH IS MUCH SIMPLER THAN THE MESS OUT THERE. IT WILL BE SO CLEAR IN THE BOOK. AS ONE KNOWS, THE TRUTH IS RATHER ELEGANT, COMPARED TO LIES. OCCAM'S RAZOR...====================== R..18..THERE SHALL BE A TIME TO ACCEPT, WHEN ALL THE TRUTH HAS BEEN FOUND...ALL THE SECRETS REVEALED.. IF ANYONE ADDS TO THE TRUTH, THEN THEY SUBTRACT FROM IT.. ................. That's correct, the truth should be known about the Assassination, not yours,not mine, not what we think..nor what we would like it to be, =======IT IS NOT 'MY' TRUTH. IT IS NOT 'YOUR' TRUTH. IT IS T-H-E TRUTH. I WILL NOT DEVIATE FROM THAT.================================ R::19..YOUR BOOK IS YOUR TRUTH...AND THEREFORE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY..ALONE.. YOU HAVE WRITTEN IT, NO ONE ELSE.... ............................... but the evidential,documentation of the murder, the positive proof in otherwards...because IMO until such time the Goverment will not,relent and all shall not be obtained, or rather, whatever is left. If anything..... ======YES, MUCH HAS BEEN DESTROYED. WHY, IF THE CASE IS A SIMPLE ONE, AN OPEN-AND-CLOSED CASE, ON POOR LEE OSWALD? BUT I SAVED MUCH FROM 1963. IT WILL BE ENOUGH FOR ANYONE WHO PERFORMS AN ADEQUATE AND UNBIASED SCRUTINY OF THE PRESENTED FACTS AND CONSIDERATIONS.============= R:: 19...THEY PROTECT THEIR BUTTS. I AWAIT THE BOOK.. ............... Keep in mind there is much gossip and hearsay about you in regards to your own statements on the Web. ========WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY HERE? KEEP IT IN MIND FOR WHAT PURPOSE? TO MAKE ME FEEL BAD? SHOULD CHANGE MY STORY TO AVOID GOSSIP ABOUT ME? I WILL NOT. THANK GOD, THEY ARE TALKING. THAT MEANS THAT INTELLIGENT, THOUGHTFUL PEOPLE MIGHT ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE AGAIN AND, MAYBE THIS TIME, WITHOUT BIAS. I STAY OUT OF IT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. I HAVE TURNED DOWN MANY INTERVIEWS, ETC. I HATE, HATE, HAVING TO TALK AT ALL. THIS IS A LABOR OF LOVE. AND BECAUSE IT IS LEE'S TURN. I HAVE LIVED MY LIFE. WHILE THERE IS STILL TIME, THE TRUTH HAD TO COME OUT. THINK OF HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE LAIN DOWN ON THEIR DEATHBEDS AND DECIDED TO TAKE THEIR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ALL OF THIS WITH THEM. I CONSIDERED DOING IT, TOO. IT HAS COST ME MY JOB, TYHE RESPECT OF MANY, TROUBLE AND EMBARRASSMENT TO MY FAMILY. I HAVE LOST MY RETIREMENT, LOST ALL MY SAVINGS, AND CONSTANTLY HAVE TO DEFEND MYSELF. IMAGINE, IF ONLY I HAD SAID--BECAUSE I HAVE ADEQUATE EVIDENCE WE HAD AN AFFAIR--JUST THINK, ALL I HAD TO DO WAS SAY 'LEE WAS THE KILLER'-- AND I WOULD HAVE BEEN WINED, AND DINED, AND THE DARLING OF THE MEDIA. BUT INSTEAD, I HAVE TOLD THE TRUTH, AND SUFFER FOR IT. MY ONLY HOPE IS THAT ENOUGH PEOPLE WILL READ THIS AND REALIZE THE SACRIFICES I AND MY FAMILY HAVE MADE ABOVE AND BEYOND THE CALL OF DUTY. IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I LIVED A LIFE WHERE WAS NEVER ARRESTED, DO NOT SMOKE, DRINK, AND RAISED FIVE WONDERFUL CHILDREN. I'VE WORKED HARD IN MY LIFE. I WAS A COUNSELOR FIVE YEARS. I WAS A TEACHER SEVENTEEN YEARS. NOW I CAN'T GET A JOB. HOW ABOUT YOU? WHAT HAVE YOU GIVEN UP FOR THE SAKE OF THE TRUTH? THERE ARE MANY, MANY PEOPLE I HAVE HAD TO RESPOND TO. AGAIN, I LOVED LEE. AND I CAN'T GO TO MY GRAVE LEAVING THESE LIES OUT THERE ABOUT HIM IN HISTORY. I MADE A COMMITMENT. ORIGINALLY, I WAS GOING TO TAKE THIS TO THE GRAVE AND HAVE THE BOOK COME OUT POSTHUMOUSLY. IN FACT, THE FIRST BOOK I WROTE WAS FILLED WITH JUNK. I WAS AFRAID OF GETTING SUED. I WAS AFRAID THE MANUSCRIPT WOULD BE STOLEN AND PUT FALSEHOODS IN IT THAT I WAS GOING TO CLEAN UP WHEN IT WENT TO GALLEYS. BUT LATER, I BECAME ANGRY WHEN IN FACT THE MANUSCRIPT WAS STOLEN. THEN I LOST MY FEAR: THE REWRITTEN BOOK HAS EVERYTHING, NO HOLDS BARRED, AND I NO LONGER CARE IF ANYBODY SUES ME. I HAVE DONE WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHEN I LIE DOWN AT NIGHT, MY CONSCIENCE IS CLEAR. LEE WAS AN INNOCENT MAN. PEOPLE WILL REMEMBER IT LONG AFTER THE WARREN COMMISSION REPORT FALLS TO DUST. MY LOVE FOR HIM WAS STRONGER THAN ALL THEIR HATE. ================================== R::20...BUT IT IS CORRECT TO PERHAPS MAKE OTHERS FEEL BAD.. BY REPEATING THIS GOSSIP..IMO.THAT HAS AS YET NOT BEEN PROVEN......AND BRINGING SUCH ONTO A PUBLIC FORUM...??...YOU OF ALL PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW A BETTER WAY... I HAVE READ MANY TIMES WHAT YOU HAVE HAD TO SAY... 80% LAST POLL..DO NOT BELIEVE L.H.O.WAS GUILTY... WHO BELIEVES THE GOVERNMENT OWNED. IN SOME CASES CONTROLLED IN ALL.....RUN MEDIA..?? IT IS THE "WHO WAS BEHIND IT" WE HAVE MOVED ONTO.. ...................................... Many years of such..I disregard it as I disregard this reference to Robert & Marina, until proven.. ====== HOW MANY WITNESSES WOULD BE NECESSARY BEFORE YOU WOULD ACCEPT THIS AS POSSIBLY TRUE? WOULD ALL OF US BE LYING? =========================================== R::21:: SO FAR GOSSIP, AGAIN IN MY OPINION........AND WHAT HAS THIS STATEMENT, ABOUT ROBERT & MARINA... POSSIBLEY TO DO WITH PROVING L.H.O. INNOCENT.?.. WE KNOW HE WAS INNOCENT.....NO ONE HERE HAS SAID ANTHING TO THE CONTRARE ?? HE WAS DEAD WHEN SOME PEOPLE SAY IT HAPPENED...IF THIS DID OCCUR,.IF IT CAN BE VERIFIED..THEN PERHAPS.. IT SHALL BE ONE MORE PIECE...NOT IN PROVING HIM INNOCENT..AS HE IS.. .BUT IN PROVING THE COVERUP...THAT IS WHERE WE ARE AT.. .............................. If such does not pertain to the Assassination of the President, but to the personal lives of any of those involved, then IMO,it should be,whatever it is,taken as it is,a gossipy opinion. ======IMMEDIATELY AFTER IT WAS MADE KNOWN TO CERTAIN PERSONS THAT ROBERT OSWALD AND MARINA WERE COMPROMISED, NEW EVIDENCE WAS 'FOUND' BY ROBERT OSWALD, CONVENIENTLY IN MRS. PAINE'S GARAGE-- THE CAMERA THAT MADE THE BACKYARD PHOTOS. THAT WAS A LOUSY CAMERA. LEE WAS A GOOD PHOTOGRAPHER AND WOULD NEVER HAVE OWNED SUCH A PIECE OF JUNK IN 1963. IT IS WHERE THE BACKYARD PHOTOS CAME FROM. WHY DIDN'T LEE USE ONE OF HIS NICE CAMERAS FOR THOSE DAMNING PHOTOS? IS IT POSSIBLE THE POLICE MISSED THIS CAMERA? THEY SAY THEY PURPOSELY LEFT IT BEHIND -- NOT IN NOVEMBER, 1963, BUT AT THE TIME ROBERT 'FOUND'THE CAMERA. A POLICE OFFICER WROTE HE DECIDED NOT TO TAKE IT ALONG WITH THE OTHER CAMERAS--AFTER THE CAMERA WAS SO CONVENIENTLY FOUND. MY, MY, HOW THOUGHTFUL TO PROVIDE THE FACT THAT THE POLICEMAN DECIDED NOT TO TAKE THIS CAMERA ALONG WITH THE OTHERS TO THE POLCIE STATION, DECIDING UNILATERALLY THAT HE NEED NOT DO SO, WHEN EVEN LEE'S SOCKS AND FLIP=FLOPS WERE SENT TO THE FBI. SO THE PROVENANCE OF THE BACKYARD PHOTOS BEING TAKEN BY A CAMERA BELONGING TO LEE IS BASED ON ROBERT OSWALD'S FINDING IT DURING THIS SAME TIME PERIOD. WHAT IS ROBERT OSWALD DOING IN RUTH PAINE'S GARAGE, BY THE WAY? HMMMM.....THERE'S MUCH MORE. ================================================ R:: 22..WHO MADE IT KNOWN IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT ROBERT AND MARINA WERE COMPROMISED..??..I KNOW IN THE BOOK..sheesh. MUCH EVIDENCE WAS ADDED AFTER THE FACT.. I ALWAYS HAD HOPED ROBERT WAS THERE IN THE GARAGE TO CLEAN IT UP....I WILL READ THE BOOK...TO FIND OUT WHAT NO ONE ELSE HAS BROUGHT FORWARD, YOU BETCHA... ........................ And last but not least, none of this as I have stated in anyway in these posts relates to the solving of this crime..we are here for research not relaying of personal stories....t =======I AM SORRY, YOU NEED TO LEARN MORE ABOUT ROBERT OSWALD'S ACTIONS AND BEHAVIOR AFTER THIS EVENT. SEE ABOVE. THERE IS MUCH MORE. IT IS RELEVANT. YOU HAVE STATED IT IS NOT BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW THE OTHER INFORMATION INVOLVED. IT IS THIS KIND OF JUDGMENTAL ATTITTUDE THAT CUTS OFF THE TRUTH. I'M SORRY, I AM NOT TRYING TO ATTACK YOU PERSONALLY. I'M SIMPLY STATING THAT YOU DECIDED THIS INFORMATION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ASSASSINATION, WHILE I SEE THE EVENT AS A WAY TO BLACKMAIL ROBERT OSWALD INTO SAYING FOREVER AFTER THAT LEE DID IT. BEFORE THIS, ROBERT SAID HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE. AND THERE IS, AS I SAID, MUCH MORE. I DEPLORE THE FACT THAT YOU BELIEVE I AM MERELY SPREADING GOSSIP. I WOULD NEVER DO SUCH A THING. THE MATTER CONCERNS CONSIDERATIONS OF ROBERT OSWALD AS A RELIABLE WITNESS, OR ONE WHO HAS BEEN COMPROMISED. HE SAID LEE GAVE HIM THE CAMERA BEFORE LEE WENT TO RUSSIA, AND THEN ASKED FOR IT BACK AT THANKSGIVING, 1962. LO AND BEHOLD, HE 'FINDS' IT IN THE PAINE GARAGE IN JANUARY JUST AFTER THE SHORT AFFAIR THAT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT BY SEVERAL PERSONS, WHICH YOU CONSIDER MERE GOSSIP. YET ROBERT'S SUDDENLY FAR MORE COOPERATIVE. AND HE IS ROOTING AROUND IN THE PAINE'S GARAGE. JUST WHEN PEOPLE ARE GETTING ALL UPSET ABOUT WHERE WAS THE CAMERA. HOW COOPERATIVE OF HIM.=============================== R::23..WHY DO YOU THINK I ASKED THE QUESTION IN THE FIRST PLACE..? AS IT RELATES TO ROBERT..I ASKED FOR DOCUMENTATION AND OR EVIDENCE OF YOUR STATEMENT..?..PEOPLE ARE VERY AWARE IT IS IN MALLON'S BOOK...THIS IS NOT NEW INFORMATION...BUT IF JUST GOSSIP IMO THEN FORGET IT......IF IT CAN BE PRESENTED AS PROOF..BUT IT MUST BE PROVEN...THEN IT COULD RELATE TO THE UNCOVERING OF ONE MORE STONE IN THE COVERUP...NOT HIS INNOCENCE. HE'S NOT GUILTY.....80% ALSO THINK SO.... BUT THE COVERUP.... MUCH RESEARCH IS BEING CONDUCTED ON ROBERT.. ...YOU NEED TO LEARN MORE, ABOUT WHAT IS NEW... .................... hat have nothing to do with such...IMO..to which do not forget I am entitled to.. =====AND I AM ENTITLED, I THINK, TO YOUR NOT ASSUMING I AM SIMPLY REPEATING A PIECE OF GOSSIP. I AM NOT A MALICIOUS PERSON. IT GIVES ME NO PLEASURE TO SPEAK OF THESE THINGS. THERE ARE MANY OTHER THINGS THAT I COULD SAY, FROM WHICH I REFRAIN.======================= R:: 24..SO FAR IT IS EXACTLY THAT GOSSIP..IMO... WHERE IS THE PROOF....WE CANNOT GO ON WHAT PEOPLE SAY. IT SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK..IT HAS BEEN TRIED BEFORE MANY TIMES, IT DOESN'T WORK, FOR THE SERIOUS RESEARCHERS OUT THERE..TANGIBLE...UNLESS IT IS ,THEN IT SIMPLY BECOMES A CASE WHERE IT SHALL BE DENIED......THEN IT IS SIMPLY ONES PERSONS WORD AGAINST ANOTHER..AND DISGARDED.. .................. Whether I believe you or not, is not important.. =====GOODNESS GRACIOUS! OF COURSE IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE PEOPLE BELIEVE ME. EVERY SINGLE PERSON MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE. ON NOVEMBER 22, EVERYBODY THOUGHT LEE DID IT, OR NEARLY EVERYBODY. TODAY, ONE BY ONE, PEOPLE HAVE LEARNED MORE AND MORE OF THE TRUTH. DO YOU THINK I THINK YOU ARE NOT IMPORTANT? WHY IN THE WORLD AM I TAKING TIME TO WRITE THIS? I AM IN CHRONIC PAIN, BERNICE, AND HAVE EYE PROBLEMS. ALL FROM TWO SO-CALLED 'ACCIDENTS' IN DALLAS. YOU AND EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING ARE IMPORTANT. I HAVE CHOSEN TO WRITE, IF NECESSARY, ONE BY ONE, BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE IN BEING PERSONAL. I BELIEVE THIS WILL PROVE I AM SINCERE. THIS IS FREE. I DO NOT ASK MONEY, I TURN DOWN INTERVIEWS WHERE MONEY HAS BEEN OFFERED. I DID THE DOCUMENTARY FOR FREE. I DO NOT ASK ANYTHING EXCEPT TO BE GIVEN SOME RESPECT AND TO LOOK AT WHAT IS OFFERED IN AN UNBIASED MANNER. 'GOSSIP' WAS NEVER THE INTENTION. TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT ROBERT OSWALD COULD BE BLACKMAILED IS MY PURPOSE. THIS HAS DIRECT BEARING ON THE ASSASSINATION EVIDENCE VIA THE IMPERIAL REFLEX CAMERA. LEE LOVED PHOTOGRAPHY AND HAD SOPHISTICATED EQUIPMENT. I SAW ALL HIS EQUIPMENT. HE SUPPOSEDLY HAD MARINA TAKE THE BACKYARD PHOTOS, BUT OH, LOOK CAREFULLY AT HER TESTIMONY REGARDING THAT. AND WHY WOULD HE CHOOSE A LOUSY CAMERA FOR THIS WHEN HE'D TAKEN FINE PHOTOS, AS GEORGE DEMOHRENSCHILDT REPORTED, PHOTOS GOOD ENOUGH TO LOOK PROFESSIONAL, WHICH HE FRAMED AND HAD ON HIS LIVINGROOM WALLS? AND LEE ALSO HAD AN ALBUM OF HIS BEST PHOTOS. SO WHY WOULD HE ASK FOR THE CRUDDY IMPERIAL REFLECT CAMERA TO BE GIVEN BACK TO HIM --- SO HE COULD HAVE BAD PHOTOS MADE OF HIM WITH LIGHT SEEPING IN AROUND THE EDGES WITH IT, WHEN HE HAD SEVERAL OTHER VERY NICE CAMERAS? AND SPECIAL LENSES, A TIMER, STEREOSCOPIC EQUIPMENT, ETC? AS I SAID, THERE IS MUCH MORE.=============================== R:25...WE ARE ALL IN PAIN.. IMPORTANT ME SAYS , I NEED A FRESH CUPPA. IF IT IS JUST TALK, IT IS GOSSIP..IMO...sheesh. WE NEED PROOF SOMETHING TO WORK WITH... WE KNOW ABOUT THE CAMERA THE PHOTOS AND ALL..WE KNOW THE STORY... THE BOOKS..WE KNOW WHAT IS OUT THERE NOW...NONE OF THAT IS NEW..WE HAVE READ IT ALL BEFORE..AS IT NOW STANDS... ........................ I have no animosity towards you... right now,after these posts I do not know what to think of you.... =====WELL, WE HAVEN'T MET. PEOPLE WHO MEET ME USUALLY LIKE ME. I HAVE A NUMBER OF LONGTIME FRIENDS. I LIKE PEOPLE A LOT AND HAVE NO ANGER AT THOSE WHO ASK QUESTIONS. MY ANGER IS DIRECTED AT ONLY THOSE WHO LIE ABOUT ME AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE FACTS, AND THEN DISTORT THOSE FACTS OR REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEM. ONE PERSON SAID I WAS BORN IN BRADENTON, FLORIDA. DID HE EVEN ASK ME? HE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT ACCURACY. THE REST OF THE 36 INTERNET PAGES HE WROTE ABOUT ME WERE JUST AS 'INACCURATE.' OVER A HUNDRED ERRORS! AND HE WOULDN'T FIX ANY OF THEM BUT ONE-- THAT I WENT TO SCHOOL IN BRADENTON. HE HAD I WENT TO SCHOOL IN CLEARWATER. HECK, THAT WAS ALMOST THE FIRST SENTENCE, AND IT WAS WRONG. IT GOT WORSE FROM THERE. THIS SITE COMES UP AS NUMBER ONE. MANY PEOPLE WRITE AND FIGHT WITH ME TO 'PROVE' THAT WHAT THE SITE IS, IS NOT TRUE. ================== R::26..NO WE HAVEN'T MET...WHEN I MEET PEOPLE I SCARE THEM..lol.. SOME PEOPLE WHEN THEY ARE LYING, FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER DO NOT EVEN REALISE THEY ARE....SOME DO... ................... as I said, I await your book,and the evidence presented in such..I am hoping it does contain, much more valuable information than I have seen presented before now.. =====EXCUSE ME, BUT WE HAVE SPOKEN ONLY ABOUT ONE THING--MARINA AND ROBERT OSWALD. NOTHING ELSE. BUT OF COURSE, IF YOU FIND STATEMENTS IN MY BOOK THAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE, ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU WOULD NOT ACCEPT THE STATEMENTS OF OTHER WITNESSES? THERE WILL BE MANY, MANY INCIDENTS IN THE BOOK. I WILL REPEAT THEM AS A LIVING WITNESS. MANY WILL HAVE SUBSTANTIAL CORROBORATION. MANY WILL NOT, BECAUSE SOME IS NEW MATERIAL. YOU APPARENTLY DO NOT ACCEPT THE WITNESS OF MYSELF, MY STATEMENT OF A CORROBORATING WITNESS, PLUS THE WITNESS OF THOMAS MALLON WHO ALSO HAD CORROBORATION FROM TWO PEOPLE FOR HIS STATEMENTS. YOU WANT MORE. THAT'S MORE THAN A COURT OF LAW WOULD REQUIRE. YOU SEEK AFFIDAVITS. THIS IS MORE THAN THE FBI REQUIRED WHEN THEY INTERVIEWED WITNESSES AND INFORMANTS AND TOOK THEM FOR FACT. SO I HAVE NOT PRESENTED ENOUGH INFORMATION TO SUBSTANTIATE MY OWN STATEMENT OF WHAT I HEARD FROM MARY FERRELL'S LIPS? I WILL LET THE READER DECIDE IF I HAVE PRESENTED ENOUGH CORROBORATION. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MALLON, A SOURCE HE DOES NOT NAME, MCMILLAN, PLUS MY OWN PERSONAL WITNESS --THAT'S FIVE OF US-- SHOULD BE ENOUGH. ARE WE, I REPEAT, ALL LYING?====================================== R::27..WELL EXCUSE ME... I HAVE BEEN READING YOUR POSTS YEARS NOW...AS I HAVE SAID............ I DO NOT BUY THE STORY......TOO MANY CHANGES OVER TIME........... AS I SAID I AWAIT..YOUR BOOK AND THE EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTION ..I AM INTERESTED IN THE VALUE OF SAID INFORMATION I WILL DECIDE AFTER I READ ALL....THAT'S MY PEROGATIVE AND ANYONE ELSES WHO DOES SUCH...AND CHECK IT OUT..AS FAR AS AS POSSIBLE, I SHALL GIVE IT AS GOOD A CHANCE AS ANY OTHER I READ...THERE IS NOT A PERFECT BOOK IN THIS FIELD...IMO..WE GET SOMETHING OUT OF EVERY BOOK WE STUDY.. DO NOT TRY TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH...AS TO WHAT I AM SAYING....DON'T GO THERE.. YOU THINK ALL THE WITNESSES TOLD THE TRUTH...??..TO THE F.B.I...HA....IT WAS THEIR TRUTH..THEY CHANGED STATEMENTS, THE W.C CHANGED TESTIMONIES....AND SOME WITNESSES WHO KNEW MUCH MORE NEVER TOLD THE TRUTH, IN THE FIRST PLACE.. LYING...THERE YOU GO AGAIN...I ASK A QUESTION, AND YOU KEEP REFERRING TO THAT WORD...hmmmm Thanks for your time.. ====AND I DO NOT HAVE TIME OR STRENGTH TO GO ON WITH THIS. I HOPE MY RESPINSE HAS BEEN ADEQUATE AND UNBIASED! BEST REGARDS, JUDYTH VARY BAKER PLEASE FORGIVE TYPOS....EYE PROBLEMS. JVB R:: 28..THANK GOD...THE END..I EVEN LOST THE NUMBERING TO MY REPLIES A WAYS BACK....lol.. AND HAVE HAD FIVE CUPPAS...".I DO NOT HAVE TIME OR STRENGTH TO GO ON WITH THIS".. I AGREE..SO BE IT..FRUSTRATION WILL DO THAT TO YOU..I AM ALSO VERY BUSY, BUT RESPECT YOUR REPLIES AND OPINIONS.. I DO THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSES..AS YOU DID ME...AND REGARDS ALSO... SORRY JOHN, FOR ALL THE SPACE TAKEN UP.. I DO APPRECIATE, YOUR PATIENCE...AND KINDNESS...THANKYOU.. BYE JUDYTH....BEEN INTERESTING..... THANKS, TO ALL FOR YOUR TIME...B..

Judyth: To my knowledge, according to the law..if such a statement is to be proven against Robert & Marina.. then signed affidavits must be obtained, if not then it remains hearsay.. If at some future date,these statements are challenged legally this is what would be required.. Marina was under close scrutiny by the FBI & SS till Feb 64 after her WC testimony was completed..much on the web, pertaining to such.... Thomas Mallon's previous works, nor his stats qualify him on a book about the Assassination. He has not done his homework as they say.. He presents no evidence in such,yet he convicts LHO of the murder of the President. It is anyone's right to critique any book,as I stated in my opinion, it is "garbage"..in and out.IMO. I find your statements in regard to his book, I shall admit frustrating,on one hand you believe that LHO is innocent,as I do...and have been posting such for the past five years or so..on the web ,on the other hand you seem to rely on Mallon's information in a book in which he condemns Lee as the lone assassin..?. Do not Presume: Quote "Hostility,anger,scorn"..?? "I know you wish I had never said a word." Why not..?? "From sad experience, I do realize that my reply will not impress you one bit.".. Oh,but it does.. "It seems you are a friend of Marina Oswald, and certainly you have a right to speak out in her behalf." I have the right to speak out in anyones behalf. Whether related, or known or not, when I believe they are being unfairly spoken about and not present to defend themselves... I asked a question.." What was your documentation for the hearsay of an affair between Robert & Marina Oswald?". And whatever has being a scientist to do with such.?..I cannot fathom. What was related on your part in a reply, was a she said, he said statement.. You have made many statements on the Forum. Do you not expect questions pertaining to such?. Nor other peoples opinions about what you relate.? People in the JFK arena, are hard task masters..No one is out to get you as you seem to think on this Forum...but you must expect those differences of opinions, and questions..you must be prepared to reply and provide some reference to evidence of such..No one in this world complies to anything with a blindness..if what you say stands up to the scrutiny it will receive, then it will be accepted..if not .....it will not.. No one can find out the truth, unless they continue to question... That's correct, the truth should be known about the Assassination, not yours,not mine, not what we think..nor what we would like it to be,but the evidential,documentation of the murder, the positive proof in otherwards...because IMO until such time the Goverment will not,relent and all shall not be obtained, or rather, whatever is left. If anything..... Keep in mind there is much gossip and hearsay about you in regards to your own statements on the Web. Many years of such..I disregard it as I disregard this reference to Robert & Marina, until proven.. If such does not pertain to the Assassination of the President, but to the personal lives of any of those involved, then IMO,it should be,whatever it is,taken as it is,a gossipy opinion. And last but not least, none of this as I have stated in anyway in these posts relates to the solving of this crime..we are here for research not relaying of personal stories....that have nothing to do with such...IMO..to which do not forget I am entitled to.. Whether I believe you or not, is not important..I have no animosity towards you... right now,after these posts I do not know what to think of you.... as I said, I await your book,and the evidence presented in such..I am hoping it does contain, much more valuable information than I have seen presented before now.. Thanks for your time..