Tom Neal

*sigh*

I was defending the fact that you were right to declare an "OT."

But you're right, it's time to let that go, and move on with the thread...

Bob,

What do you think of the conflict between Parkland and Bethesda regarding the insertion of chest tubes? Parkland says they inserted chest tubes and set up sealed drainage, Bethesda says the two incisions only penetrated flesh and did not violate the pleura.

Due to Bethesda's many exposed lies regarding JFK's body, I would expect Parkland to be telling the truth. More or less speculation, but IMO Humes was ordered to declare the pleura as unviolated. I believe that the right lung was peppered with the bits of a bullet that was designed to fragment. Only low resolution x-rays were taken of the lung and they were looking for a bullet or large bullet fragments, but the 'dust-like' constellation of fragments present in the skull x-rays would have told them to look for tiny fragments as well. They DID remove the right lung which could have been carried upstairs to a high-resolution x-ray but chose not to do so. Additionally, IIRC a notation about the lung x-ray states that many artifacts that 'look like metal' are 'actually dirt.' Kind of a stretch for me to believe a military hospital allowed that much dirt into a film cassette, and that they didn't redo these xrays until they found some 'clean' film. I mean this was an x-ray of their Commander-in-Chief who had been murdered.

Why don't YOU read the part where BOB states what HE wants on HIS thread?

I read it. He stated what he wanted in his thread after I posted about a dart possibly causing the wound. He said he only wanted to talk about bullets in this thread, which is fine with me.

But here you are, always eager to point out the flaw in something I did NOT say.

Ha ha ha ha. Do you have some delusion that I'm "always eager" to read your posts and point out flaws in them?

I have no desire to play ping pong with you. Ciao.

So you say, yet ONCE AGAIN you started the game... Considering the fact that you always lose, "Ciao" is the best idea you've ever had.

...if some people don't like some views that were posted about the wound, that's too bad.

There's logic for all of us. What does the thread starter know about the intent of his own thread? This guy says HE knows better...

Why don't you read the title of the thread? Where does it say "No darts allowed, this is just about bullets"?

Why don't YOU read the part where BOB states what HE wants on HIS thread? Which I clearly was referring to, rather than the title which I did NOT mention. But here you are, always eager to point out the flaw in something I did NOT say.

BTW, the same goes for you and your own opinion. Something that historically never occurs to you.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

You NEVER did before, why should today be different?

...if some people don't like some views that were posted about the wound, that's too bad.

There's logic for all of us. What does the thread starter know about the intent of his own thread? This guy says HE knows better...

BTW, the same goes for you and your own opinion. Something that historically never occurs to you.

...if some people don't like some views that were posted about the wound, that's too bad.

Here's a lesson in logic for all of us. What does the thread starter know about the intent of his own thread? This guy knows better...

BTW, the same goes for you and your own opinion. Something that historically never occurs to you.

...if some people don't like some views that were posted about the wound, that's too bad.

The same goes for you and your opinion. Something that obviously never occurs to you.

Yes, gentlemen, I'm sure it could have been a rocket propelled flechette, or even a laser fired from a passing UFO.

Whatever the case, on this particular thread, I am assuming the entrance wound in JFK's back was caused by a bullet, and I really don't feel like getting into another long drawn out flechette vs. bullet debate; at least not on this thread anyways.

If you wish to discuss the poisoned flechettes, please show me the courtesy of doing so on another thread, and perhaps I will drop in and offer my opinion on the matter. The medical information I will be conveying on this thread is so complex, it will be difficult for anyone to comprehend if they have to sort through distracting off-topic posts to get at it.

Bob,

Glad to see that you, along with one or two others, myself included, feel that OT/Hijacking is AGAIN a problem on this site. Not everyone does it, but I recently did. However, after several posts I realized that pages of posts were totally OT and the thread had been successfully hijacked. I posted on that thread that I would delete any of my posts that were OT. I did so, and in my next post asked others to do the same. In response, one of these OT-posters "noticed" that after making "outrageous claims" I had deleted my posts. He went so far as to post a link to my deleted posts, indicating he did this so I could not deny them. Due to the facts that I had specifically stated WHY I had deleted my posts and that on another thread frequented by this same poster, I continued to support these ALLEGED 'outrageous claims,' this 'person' did all but say the words "You are a L*I*A*R." Putting all of these together I conclude that this would qualify as 'libel.' Yet despite a complaint to the mods, after several days he hasn't even received a warning.

So thanks for addressing this IMPORTANT issue!

Tom

You know you're onto something when your opponent has to resort to personal attacks.

Thanks, Sandy!

What is your opinion regarding the subject of this thread? Obviously "Math Rules" is not clear to TWO posters, one of whom states that ANYTHING that relates to z-film credibility is not OT. By this CONVENIENT definition, anyone could, for example, post about ANY aspect of the assassination that indicates LHO was a LN, and claim this PROVES that the z-film is pristine, so Chris's stuff is BS. Despite the thread owner's EARLY request and my later post that they are OT-ing, they continue to do so, while the mods deliberate.

IMO, these two posters simply don't understand the MATH involved in this thread, so to them it is "nonsense." And I COMPLETELY agree with you that when posters can only respond with personal attacks (which are ALSO against rules, are they not???) and name-calling even they KNOW they have nothing.

One of these two posters stated that he *KNOWS* not a single frame was removed or touched. Considering ALL the legerdemain involved in this case, e.g. the chain of custody of CE399, IYO, what are the requirements to actually KNOW that the z-film is untouched?

*IMO*:

1. You had to be present when Zap was filming

2. Closely observe him remove the film

3. keep the film in sight until it was developed

4. accompany the film from the developer to NPIC

5. witness the making of the FIRST storyboards

6. witness the making of the SECOND *SECRET* (secret to all but the #1 guy at NPIC) storyboards

7. have expertise EQUIVALENT to the NPIC people assuring that their actions did not affect their 'product'

8. continue to follow the film to its ultimate destination under lock and key at the archives

9. at the very least determine that the SS, CIA, FBI et al who have tampered with evidence did not have access to this film

As far as the opinion of '3rd party experts' with 'no bias,' I cite Nobel Prize winner Alvarez whose experiments were conducted until he found that a soft melon produced the results he required. He then released this data only while suppressing the CONTRADICTORY data acquired using objects vastly closer to a human head. Multiple examples of Alvarez providing "proof" reagarding 'gov't statements that a number of major events happened or did not happen were later proven to be untrue. IMO "Gov't Disinfo Agent" should appear on his resume, and the Nobel Committee should have revoked his prize, or at the very least provided public censure. Is intervention by the US gov't a factor in their continued silence?

To accept the opinion of an "expert" regarding the assassination requires evidence FAR BEYOND that of a 'normal' case.

Tom

Hey Chris,

I tried to PM you, is your mailbox full, or do you no longer accept PMs?

Tom

The same goes for the blood. There's just no way a consumer camera circa 1963 is going to capture every single piece of brain matter and blood flying around after 313. It's just not possible.

Just can't tell it straight can you? Your explanation that there's NO BLOOD at all is that the camera isn't going to capture every single piece of brain matter and blood. Your standard FALSE equivalence.

If that's what you'll then say, then YOU - not me - have to then prove three things:

1. What was so terrible in this "other" film that the Bad Guys went through all of the trouble of altering it?

2. Where is this other film?

3. How do YOU (and Chris, Dave, Dave, Jim Fetzer and others) know what was in it if the film has NEVER been seen before?

If you can't answer these three questions conclusively, then I'm sorry to say but the whole Z film alteration theory collapses like a deck of cards. Then if you can't answer them but want to keep playing Whack A Mole here, jumping around from topic to topic, then it'd probably be a good idea to just wrap this up.

There's that standard DEMAND again. You have to PROVE nothing, just make a lame remark, and we're all supposed to bow to you. But we have to prove to you, someone who's mind is already made up and doesn't listen. There is nothing that will satisfy you on this subject, because you reject ALL evidence as inadequate that contradicts your belief. Period.

However, to you this is Solid Evidence:

1. The blood is there, but you can't see it because I say the film can't see it. Except that there's visible blood in frame 313, but it isn't behind his head. There's visible blood the entire time the blob is visible - but no blood behind his head. So the camera and film CAN see blood, just not behind his head.

2. The hole in his head is there but it's in shadow and you can't see it, because I say you can't see it.

3. The blob is... you ignored this one. Well your answer would have been as lame as the other two "answers" anyway, but maybe this one can be even 'lamer.'

But why don't you tell me?

This entire concept of yours that this thread is nonsense is easily explainable. It's too complex for you to understand, so all you perceive is nonsense. To you it's like reading a foreign language that you don't understand. Rather than admit you don't understand you reject it as nonsense.

Let me take a page from your book. There is nothing mathematically wrong or even questionable with any of the MATH Chris has posted. Present Solid Evidence that is acceptable by MY standards (which is exactly what you demand from us) that his math is either right or wrong. Until you do this...well you know the rest. It's in every one of your posts. Until you do this then it is a given that it is simply TOO complicated for you to understand.

Because you're going to continue to believe what you want, and I'm going to continue to know what really happened.

We're going to "believe" and you're going to "know."

There it is in one line. God speaks. ARROGANCE beyond belief. Everything you have said has been countered with actual evidence yet you still KNOW that you are right, and we only have faith.

Who am I to argue with God?

This is my last response to this &&^^%$$.

(Psssst! He'll now accuse me of running away because he has overwhelmed me with his unquestionable wisdom...)

Michael Walton - IGNORE button SET. Ahhhhh...relief at last.

Sorry Tom but this claim of blobs painted in, extra frames filmed and then taken out, and other nonsense is, to put it politely, way, way out there. I just find it hard to believe that rational people can make such irrational claims.

Your response to every item in my entire post is YOUR unsubstantiated personal opinion that I'm "way, way, out there." Yet you just demanded "solid evidence" from me and everyone else as to what was on the z-film that had to be hidden. Everyone has to follow your rules except you. If they don't you call them names.

"Nonsense" such as blood and brain matter seen by eyewitnesses at close range would appear on film but don't? This is nonsense and "way, way out there" is Solid evidence like you demand from others.

Sandy answered your question. You ignored his response, and once again reverted to 'I'm still waiting...'

Even for your usual non-answers this one is the worst yet.

Tom

On the chance that someone complains that this was wasn't done until 1964:

Gene Kelly in "Anchors Aweigh" 1944: Mouse dancing!

Great catch, Tom. And they say alteration couldn't have been done 20 years later!

Thanks!

They? Only Walton says they couldn't do it.

BTW, could you proof-read my earlier post re JFK's invisible head wound due to shadow, the ridiculous-looking blob on the side of his head that is supposed to be an exit wound, and that all the eyewitness reports such as a 'bucket-of-blood' from the back of his head is not visible on the z-film?

Tom

On the chance that someone complains that this was wasn't done until 1964:

Gene Kelly in "Anchors Aweigh" 1944: Mouse dancing!

Great catch, Tom. And they say alteration couldn't have been done 20 years later!

Thanks!

They? Only Walton says they couldn't do it.

BTW, could you proof-read my earlier post re JFK's invisible head wound due to shadow, the ridiculous-looking blob on the side of his head that is supposed to be an exit wound, and that all the eyewitness reports such as a 'bucket-of-blood' from the back of his head is not visible on the z-film?

Should we wager on what his response will be?

Everyone knows that eyewitness testimony is unreliable?

The debris was traveling so fast that the back-spatter exited between frames?

Forward-spatter caused the blob and there was no more blood or brain tissue to exit from the rear?

The blob is the 'flap' of skull that opened when the bullet struck and only appears fake, much to large, etc.?

My choice is "Someone tell me what was on the film that had to be removed. I'm still waiting..."

Tom

Tom, this pretty much proves what I've known all along - you don't want to listen to anyone who disagrees with you.

Oddly enough you stated that you used to think I was a reasonable person when I defended you. Now that I disagree with you I'm a jerk. OR you've known along that I don't want to listen to anyone who disagrees. Yet ANOTHER sterling example of altering what you said in the past to fit your current mood. And once again Pot calls kettle black. Why don't you just admit that you're pissed off at me, because I called you on posting OT?

I just explained previously WHY there is no hole there. The catch is yes, I DO agree with you that there IS a hole there...

Kennedy's right side of his head was in shadow, Tom. The sunlight was over on the left side. That's why it looks so dark there, so "blobbish."

So then anything that isn't in direct sunlight is completely devoid of any detail like the back and right side of his head in the z-film. Even when he turns his head in a different direction, falls over or the limo turns relative to the sun. You of course have calculated the altitude and azimuth of the sun at that time and date and computed where the shadows would fall. There are autopsy photos that show the back of his head intact despite the hole that you agree existed. So these were faked, but no one tried to do the same thing with the z-film?

Do you believe NO blood or brain exited the large hole you admit was in the back of his head? When this matter exited the black shadow that erased ALL detail including the large hole it remained invisible? Post a z-frame that shows the blood and brain matter exiting the back of his head that struck a motor cop in the face and landed on Sam Kinney's arm.

Also, I did NOT say there was 'blob' on the back of his head. I was referring to the red blob on the side/front of his head. Which to you is unquestionably a perfect representation of how it should appear because as you insist no frame of the z-frame was touched. All this matter CLEARLY appears from a part of his head with a comparatively tiny or non-existent hole, yet the same stuff does not appear from the GAPING hole - even in direct sunlight...

Funny when you ridiculed the animations you stated that it was because NPIC didn't have the technology to put something on the z-film, now you know the cartoon was laughable because of shadows. Changed your mind again about your past statements? It's real easy to nitpick someone's statements as you do, isn't it?

Provide the quote where I state that I *know* what was in the original film, or retract your statement that I made such a claim. There's a world of difference between stating what you *know* and what you think is likely. As an example, you state that NPIC could NOT have put anything on the film because they didn't have the technology. To *know* this would require access to highly classified technology. Just because you can't do it doesn't PROVE it can't be done by the BEST. Even IF some technology is NOT available to the general public it is not absolute proof that it doesn't exist.

Try to get through your response without labeling everyone who disagrees with you a "wacko" or whatever insult-of-the-day you MUST include.

Tom, this pretty much proves what I've known all along - you don't want to listen to anyone who disagrees with you.

Oddly enough you stated that you used to think I was a reasonable person when I defended you. Now that I disagree with you I'm a jerk. OR you've known along that I don't want to listen to anyone who disagrees. Yet ANOTHER sterling example of altering what you said in the past to fit your current mood. And once again Pot calls kettle black. Why don't you just admit that you're pissed off at me, because I called you on posting OT?

I just explained previously WHY there is no hole there. The catch is yes, I DO agree with you that there IS a hole there...

Kennedy's right side of his head was in shadow, Tom. The sunlight was over on the left side. That's why it looks so dark there, so "blobbish."

So then anything that isn't in direct sunlight is completely devoid of any detail like the back and right side of his head in the z-film. Even when he turns his head in a different direction, falls over or the limo turns relative to the sun. You of course have calculated the altitude and azimuth of the sun at that time and date and computed where the shadows would fall. There are autopsy photos that show the back of his head intact despite the hole that you agree existed. So these were faked, but no one tried to do the same thing with the z-film?

Do you believe NO blood or brain exited the large hole you admit was in the back of his head? When this matter exited the black shadow that erased ALL detail including the large hole it remained invisible? Post a z-frame that shows the blood and brain matter exiting the back of his head that struck a motor cop in the face and landed on Sam Kinney's arm.

Also, I did NOT say there was 'blob' on the back of his head. I was referring to the red blob on the side/front of his head. Which to you is unquestionably a perfect representation of how it should appear because as you insist no frame of the z-frame was touched.

Funny when you ridiculed the animations you stated that it was because NPIC didn't have the technology to put something on the z-film, now you know the cartoon was laughable because of shadows. Changed your mind again about your past statements? It's real easy to nitpick someone's statements as you do, isn't it?

Provide the quote where I state that I *know* what was in the original film, or retract your statement that I made such a claim.

Try to get through your response without labeling everyone who disagrees with you a "wacko" or whatever insult-of-the-day you MUST include.

Tom writes:

IMO a moderator should remove all OT posts as this thread has definitely been hijacked. Chris and David should be allowed to present their work without interruption.

This thread is about the alleged forgery of the Zapruder film. The first words in the first post are: "Zfilm alteration equation coming up." It is perfectly relevant to show why the assumption behind the thread is unjustified, and that there is no good reason to suppose that the Zapruder film has been faked.

If someone starts a thread in an attempt to illustrate the mechanism by which the moon landings footage was faked, would it not be reasonable to point out the faults in the assumption behind that thread, no matter how strongly the moon landings enthusiasts might want their beliefs to be protected from criticism?

It's called "Math Rules." The posts that do not relate directly to the MATH are OT. Whether or not a blob is artificial, or whether the hole in the back of his skull can be hidden is NOT math. Thus it is OT and should be removed. You could of course post a thread called "The Extant Z-film is identical to the Original" as has been suggested, but instead you would rather pollute an existing thread that is not all inclusive.

BTW, when someone suggests a POSSIBLE explanation they are not saying it is an unquestionable fact, no matter how many times you take the statement out of context and present it as such. Nor when you label it an exaggerated claim.

You could just ask a polite question. For example, do you believe that the z-film was untouched but the moon landings films were faked?

By your logic any statement that involved assassination is ok in this thread.

Tom - Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Twenty years later, NPIC still didn't have the skills so they..

And you of course know exactly what skills NPIC had because of your top-level security clearance and inside access.

Just like your buddy, any question you can't answer is ignored by you.

For the umpteenth time post a Z-film frame showing the hole in the back of JFK's head.

Tom writes:

Except that I NEVER stated his memory was perfect.

And I never claimed that you did. You seem prone to making exaggerated claims. Here's an example from the crazy mathematics thread, which you wisely deleted:

The techs were told to hide the shot from the front. ... The technicians who did the actual alterations did NOT make the call to hide the film away. This decision was made by higher-ups after viewing the results and finding them unacceptable.

Would you care to provide a documentary source for this?

Tom also writes:

You should be interested, but I doubt you are, that Homer McMahon ... recalled (30 years after the fact) that his interpretation of the film he saw indicated 6-8 shots were fired, from at least 3 different directions. ... I suppose you will dismiss him also.

How are we to judge Mr McMahon's reliability? In his interview with the ARRB, he himself gives us some clues:

Ah, I have senile dementia; I, I can't remember, really - anything. Most of, of my reflections are, are, are what I have recalled and remembered after the fact. In other words, I did it once, and then I recalled it, and remembered it. I don't know how the mind works, but I do know that I - that I'm not - OK, I'm a recovering drug addict and alcoholic. Do you know what a 'wet brain' is? You're looking at one. I damn near died, and I'm not a competent witness, because I don't have good recall - absolutely not - absolute recall. ...

I don't, I don't have a full deck. Ah [chuckling], I don't know how, how accurate I am, I am presenting anything here. So, this is not - at the time I did it, I was not - I was not impaired, but I later became impaired. So, whether you're talking to a reliable witness or not is up to you to decide [chuckling].

(http://www.manuscriptservice.com/NPIC-DougHorne/HomerMcMahonTranscript.pdf [332 KB], pp.29-30)

In your opinion, Tom, how reliable a witness is Mr McMahon?

That's right continue ignoring my questions that you can't answer, while asking me questions.

Answer the questions I've posed to you first.

...you're simply passing on nonsense or disinfo. Which most of us have come to accept that of you...

David,

Do you think the best he can come up with is nonsense, or is he actually the worlds WORST disinfo agent?

If he's a disinfo agent, he has failed miserably because no one except his 'partner' believes any of his BS.

On the other hand based on the "quality" of his posts I truly believe that nonsense *IS* the BEST he can produce...

Tom - On the chance that someone complains that this was wasn't done until 1964: Gene Kelly in "Anchors Aweigh" 1944: Mouse dancing!

So now the Bad Guys brought in Hanna Barbera to paint in the blob, Tom?! I thought it was Ub Iwerks they brought in. Holy ####!

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Twenty years later, NPIC still didn't have the skills so they brought in a cartoonist. Even by your standards that is a totally lame response. When you are dead wrong and EVERYONE knows it, including you, you are STILL to childish to admit that once again you're wrong.

I was actually going to type something similar to your reply to Tom Neal and others, who think that you can magically just paint things onto an 8mm frame of film, which is the size of a pinky nail and doing so 53 years ago. As Jeremy clearly explained elsewhere, people who think of these crazy alterations of the Z film were not omnipotent. They couldn't just snap their fingers and say, "Hey, John. Paint out the head. Hey, Rick, take out 67% of the frames." It's ridiculous.

Common sense -- which seems to have escaped Michael -- tells most people that if alterations were made, they would have been done on large prints. Which later would be photographed back onto 8 mm film. Or something along those lines.

Something else that escapes Michael is the fact the sophisticated special effects were being done even in the private sector around the time of the assassination. Like the animated penguins dancing with Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins. Does he think those those dancing penguins were painted directly onto the projector film?

Dancing Penguins

Sandy,

On the chance that someone complains that this was wasn't done until 1964:

Gene Kelly in "Anchors Aweigh" 1944: Mouse dancing!

This animated segment was done in 1943. But according to Mr. Walton and undoubtedly to Mr. Bojczuk who are the McCain and Graham of this forum, *I* am "ridiculous" to suggest that NPIC could have blacked out the back of JFK's head and put a blob on the screen 20 years later. The combination of ignorance and arrogance once again produces the wrong answer. Of course they have BOTH repeatedly ignored this question: Why is a large hole in the back of JFK's head that is bleeding profusely TOTALLY INVISIBLE in the Z-film?

Since MY name was mentioned specifically by Mr. Walton, I'll point out that with his usual inaccurate reports of other people's statements, which for same reason always make the statement appear foolish, at no time did I state that the blob was painted 'directly onto a frame of film.' Despite his stated experience with 8mm film and his 100% confidence that he KNOWS that not a single frame in the z-film was touched - yes that's what he says - the best he can come up with is they couldn't do this on a pinky-nail sized film frame.

Tom

Tom, you know it's very bad form for you to get on this forum, express your "facts" about the Z film, and then just delete them all. To be honest, you should be ashamed of yourself for doing that.

Mr. Walton you know EXACTLY WHY I deleted those posts. You ego simply won't allow you to admit it.

At the very least you are implying that I lied about WHY I removed them. Why don't you just call me a xxxx? Then we can get together in person and discuss my dishonesty. I have free airline passes for life, and I would LOVE to meet you face to face. Bring Jeremy along with you...

Tom

Sorry to hear that your sense of humour has gone missing, Tom.

My sense of humor is alive and well. Instead of using this as an excuse for your statement, say something funny, and I'll laugh...

The fact remains that people's memories are fallible. Brugioni was interviewed several decades after the events he claimed to recall. If you find him reliable, that's fine by me, but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that he may have been mistaken about one or two things.

Except that I NEVER stated his memory was perfect. I said that monumental events remained in people's minds. I also stated that minor details are not necessary to state that the film is different. You should be interested, but I doubt you are, that Homer McMahon, a top-notch highly experienced photo analyst at NPIC cleared recalled (30 years after the fact) that his interpretation of the film he saw indicated 6-8 shots were fired, from at least 3 different directions. He is also a lifetime expert marksman, and does not see in the extant Z-film what he saw in the film he analyzed in November of 1963. I suppose you will dismiss him also... I have listened to DB quote facts, figures, dates times, etc. with impeccable precision regarding for example U-2 photography during the missile crisis. I made my judgement of his memory based on his performance while you have dismissed his statements with a vague generality and ignored the individual.

I notice that after I challenged a couple of equally exaggerated claims that you made ... you went back and deleted your posts.

Yes, that's right I MUST have deleted them because you thoroughly defeated me with your flawless logic, as you have with this post. As you STATE, I MUST have lied, saying that I removed them because they are OT.

I hope you don't mind my quoting the whole of the post you made here, just in case.

"Just in case" I LIE about what I said. That is quite a totally unwarranted insult to my integrity. BTW, your FALSE politeness fools only Michael Walton.

I have ALREADY stated that I DO MIND you quoting my posts, as you well know. I stated WHY I deleted my posts, something you obviously have read, yet you choose to insult my integrity and call me a l.i.a.r as to why I deleted my posts. Seems to me that's a timeout offense on this site...

QUESTION FOR THE MODERATORS: HAS JB GONE TOO FAR AND BROKEN YET ANOTHER RULE OR NOT???

Tom

Tom,

Thank you for putting this topic back onto the straight and narrow.

Much appreciated,

chris

Thanks, Chris.

Sadly, at least one of the duo continues to post here OT...

I REQUEST THAT A MODERATOR REMOVE MY QUOTED RESPONSES FROM MICHAEL AND JEREMY'S POSTS [357, 364, 365, 373 & 376] AS NEITHER ONE HAS COMPLIED WITH MY REQUEST TO DO SO, OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED MY POLITE REQUEST.

Tom