Terry Mauro
-
Posts
1,791 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Terry Mauro
-
-
I received this email from COPA about this event taking place next week. I thought this might interest some of you who live nearer to Washington than I do!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 10, 1963, just a few months before his assassination in Dallas, President John F. Kennedy gave what his aide Arthur Schleisinger, Jr. called the most important speech of his term in office. He addressed the Cold War, the nuclear arms race and the chance for world peace through detente and disarmament and a ban on testing nuclear weapons. The text is attached with commentary. This was consistent with his decision in April, 1963 to withdraw all US troops from Vietnam and his decision to explore normalizing relations with Cuba following the Cuban Missile Crisis that brought the world so close to nuclear war. All of these were reasons, in my view, for the assassination and coup d`etat that followed on November 22, and reversed those plans completely. The Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA) holds an annual commemorative event at the plaque that marks the location of the speech, and you are welcome to attend. We will gather for a meal and discussion of our November regional meeting afterwards. Please respond if you are planning to come - John Judge
"And We Are All Mortal..."
Commemoration to JFK's Call for World Peace
Sunday, June 10, 12:00 - 1:00 pm
Commemorative Plaque
Reeves Athletic Field (west end) (entrance off New Mexico from Nebraska)
American University
4200 Nebraska Ave, NW (at Massachusetts Ave.-Ward Circle)
Washington, DC
Here are general directions to the campus:
Here is a map of the campus:
http://www.american.edu/maps/maincampus.html
Note the athletic field at the top left. The plaque sits at the west or left end of the field, beyond the Broadcast Center and Beeghley Hall on the access road.
For Ted Sorenson's speech at AU in 2003 commemorating the event, see:
Hi Francesca,
The June 10th event at the JFK Memorial at American Univeristy began about seven years ago when it was suggested that JFK is remembered on November 22nd because of his death, and not on his birthday, like Washington, Lincoln and other presidents.
JFK's Peace Speech was an extremely significant change in policy that many believe led to his death.
The first time we did it was the largest group by far, and afterwards we adjurned to a large seminar room nearby and discussed JFK's administration and policies, a discussion led by Professor John Newman.
Sometimes there are a few dozen people, sometimes just a few, but we always do the same thing. We take turns talking about JFK and reading excerpts of his speeches and try to see how what he was saying is as meaningful today as it was then.
JFK specifically chose a group of students to be the recipient of this major speech, but afterwards he wasn't sure they understood or his message got across.
One of the more consistant participants has flown to DC from London on four occassions, while most of those do indeed live in the DC area.
John Judge has been defending this event from those who say we are cannonizing JFK, mainly liberals and even a few conspiracy advocates, some of who contend that since RFK knew of and approved of the plots to kill Castro JFK deserved to die.
I say that JFK died for a reason, political reasons, and the June 10th speech is one of those reasons and is something we should reflect on, if only for one day.
Afterwards, we are holding a COPA luncheon meeting to review efforts to get JFK Act oversight hearings in Congress, November in Dallas conference and the state of the grand jury petitions.
I hope anyone interested who can make it will be there.
Bill Kelly
***********************************************************
"I say that JFK died for a reason, political reasons, and the June 10th speech is one of those reasons and is something we should reflect on, if only for one day."
Especially, in light of the fact that Kruschev made JFK's American University Speech required reading for Russian [soviet Bloc] University students' curriculum. Another "extended olive branch" which most assuredly served to put a nail in his coffin.
-
Has anyone read "The Wise Men: Six Friends and the World They Made," by Walter Isaacson (of Time magazine) & Evan Thomas? It's reviewed here by the Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19861201fabo...they-made.html|
I want to read about these individuals, for obvious reasons. But I'm wondering if it's a waste of time, for obvious reasons.
*********************************************************
"Where and how is the government to find and attract men and women of experience and judgment to fill its top policymaking positions? It has always been something of an earnings sacrifice to accept a governmental appointment; today it is also likely to be a capital sacrifice. When added to the other costs and the loss of privacy, the impediments become quite serious. Perhaps this is why policy positions in foreign affairs are filled more and more with people from academic life and the military services. Recent history suggests the results are not always good."
Among the more affluent and those with the deepest pockets.
This seems to be written from the prospectus of a Wall Street investment portfolio.
It might be of value if nothing more than to be able to crawl inside the mind of one of the top ten percentile, for the specific purpose of learning how that sector views the rest of the plebes, if at all.
What I gleaned from this review, only serves to reinforce my original thoughts as to what little distinction can be made between the elite classes, with regard to which party line serves their better interests. It seems to be at this apex of the economic scale where things begin to blur into what has become known as "one party - two branches."
The playing field narrows to include only those chosen few, or their progeny, considered as part and parcel of the more "well-heeled," or with long-established lines of patronage which harken back to the fur trade of pre-revolutionary times. But, will still leave room for the self-made, noveau riche "captains of industry," or the present century's entrepeneurial class of "wildcatters," so long as the vested interests stand to make their bottom line.
Apparently, these are the pedigreed determinants deemed requisite for the establishment and formulation of policy, both domestic and foreign. And, consider the source. Remember the old adage, "Know thine enemy..." Therefore, if reading this book might shed a little more light on how they've managed to maintain the stranglehold they've had for the last forty-four, or even the last two hundred and forty-four years, then by all means educate yourself. How could that be a waste of your time?
-
I have little to add of any true significance to this excellent thread. Just a couple of off the wall personal observations and beliefs, which have so deeply imbedded themselves within me that they have become my bed partner.
I must mention an area that grates my senses almost to the extent of someone running their finger nails across a chalk board.
I don't know whether to finger this as a natural result of capitalism, or the human desire to win.
I won't enter any detail, as I have previously done so on several ocassions. To even further confuse myself, I am an avid proponent of both however!
Any reasonable insight into our captitalistic system; along with all of the wonderful and admirable rewards which it brings to us....we must realize that it, by its very ultra competitive nature, insists that for one to succeed and advance, one must WIN! Thus my problem ! The attitude of "MUST WIN" actually wreaks havoc with , at least "my theory", of Justice. I am not posting this as another attack on the legal profession, in which many very high minded and honorable people may be found throughout. But there is an area within this system that in my opinion is extremely suspect. That area is that aspect of this system which deals with the prosecution of a defendant.
In all areas of our society, as well as in societies that are not considered as "free": success is measured by accomplishment. The will to succeed in our respective fields is what motivates one to forge ahead, and it is only thru success in our endeavors, are we able to truly achieve both personal as well as social and usually monetary satisfaction.
In order to advance in their field, particularly the prosecutory field, ONE MUST "WIN" at any cost.
It is possible for some attorneys, tho not prosecutors, to win only one case in a hundred and yet earn enough money to retire. A government prosecutor, like an athlete, in order to achieve any degree of success, must win.....not necessarily "serve justice"....but only WIN. Many quite honest defendants have paid the "ultimate price"!
Vince Bugliosi, as a result of his excellent winning record, "earned" a berth in the legal "Super Bowl".....and he WON. As a perceived "World Champ", he became financially rewarded by a great many different sources, to the extent that he could retire from the active legal profession while only in his early forties. This "retirement" did not result from his salary as a government prosecutor.
His advancement had little to do with the seeking of justice; BUT much to do with winning...particularly the "BIG ONE".
I truly mean this only as an observation and not a criticism...but Mr. B., throughout his career, sought to be and was in fact, a "winner". He chose to pursue "winning", as perhaps might my competitive nature demand of me, rather than "justice"!
I see nothing more in keeping with that original decision than his latest, and perhaps final, major undertaking. Why should anyone find this strange or uncharacteristic? Please believe me that I am not averse to agressively pursuing wealth. But I feel that we "are all" responsible to at least recognize it in its uncamouflaged form.
Some probably question the "Price in Honor" of such a pursuit, in which one strives to prove that which he truly cannot believe. To a great many however, the ends most always justify the means.
Probably some deeper thinkers may question or dispute the definition of "success", generally accepted by our and many societies.
I myself am unable to define it, and am therefore not in a position to criticise. Societal hierarchies impose some demanding criteria for the judgement of "success".
Mr. Bugliosi's book, in my opinion, should not be considered as anything but a continuation of his much earlier decision!
I did hope however,before reading this monstrosity,
that he would have been able to do "A Much Better Job"! But then when thinking more seriously, he was limited by the HORRIBLE TRUTH from which there is no escape ! There will never be "The Proper Job" as we are limited by the truth and fact of CONSPIRACY!
Charles Black
****************************************************
"In order to advance in their field, particularly the prosecutory field, ONE MUST "WIN" at any cost."
I think that's true in just about every walk of life as it pertains to a capitalistic mindset, Charlie.
Not to say it's necessarily bad, idealistically speaking. But, in many cases it has surfaced to reveal its wrongheadedness or bullheadedness when taken to the extremes or misapplied to areas in life where fair-mindedness, or plain old-fashioned sportsmanship is concerned.
As far as pertaining to the legal system, P.D.'s or Public Defenders, are the last bastion of what I consider to be what REAL attorneys, or those who've decided to dedicate their lives to the letter of the law in helping those less affluent, or less fortunate, and who haven't lost sight of what made them choose to become lawyers, in the first place. Defending those, who's lives had they been better off, may have avoided ending up facing incarceration, or worse.
I've always been skeptical of high profilers such as Bugliosi, or those who've made their mark prosecuting or defending celebrities. The spotlight has a tendency to make them appear larger than life, much in the same way as their clients appear in the eyes of the public. The fact that they are able to demand such exorbitantly high fees for services rendered gives the rest of their profession a decidedly bad name.
Speaking from my own personal experience, I've had nothing but good service, and courtesy extended above and beyond what I've been charged. Maybe, I've been lucky, but I've never had recourse to look upon any legal help I've received in the past, as being anything less than above board and honest.
Bugliosi, on the other hand, seems to be using his past reputation as some sort of a springboard from which to generate enough funds to supplement his retirement, as you've so aptly pointed out. It would be reassuring to think that in writing this tome, he may have inadvertently uncovered some new fact, or piece of evidence to advance the case. Or, maybe if he had been able to have approached it from a less biased P.O.V., allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions, it could have possibly become an excellent textbook or reference guide for research study. But, his vision seems to have been clouded by his desire to win at all costs, as you've also concluded, and to some extent, it's as if he's making a last ditch effort to prosecute this case all over again. This has a tendency to cripple his cause, or weaken it, in my viewpoint.
My only hope is that the general public, buying this book will not be swayed by what appears to me, to be a re-hashed overview of the WCR, a weighted defense of Blakely and the HSCA, without mention of the blundering choice of slipping Johannides [and his JMWave, DRE affilitations] on board the HSCA hearings, and the decided effects it had on the outcome of that committee's findings. Little things like that being overlooked or brushed aside, leave me cold.
-
Yes, Terry.
But ...
Some years ago at a Lancer conference, I brought forward, in the company of George Michael Evica, the notion of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission for our shared inquiry, modeled after that which had been formed in South Africa.
My thinking: Justice, at this late date, has nothing to do with throwing anyone in jail, but everything to do with revealing the truth and using it, to the best of our abiities, to make certain that the system will be cleansed.
(Apologies to the Manicheans in the crowd, but I cannot, in good conscience, join you.)
I'm willing to give a pass to everyone, from the prime movers to the mechanics, who will come forward and tell the truth.
It is more important to disempower the killers of John Kennedy than to disembowel them.
And hate begets hate.
Charles
**********************************************************
"My thinking: Justice, at this late date, has nothing to do with throwing anyone in jail, but everything to do with revealing the truth and using it, to the best of our abiities, to make certain that the system will be cleansed."
How can that possibly work in our favor, when the assassination itself, was to ensure a free ride on the backs of American taxpayers for the likes of such criminals as the Bush family, elitist wannabes such as the Reagans, the neocons who've managed to outsource our whole economy to The Third World, leaving our industrial base all but vacated and decaying in Detroit, Ohio, Upstate New York, Pennsylvania, and the Midwest. Corporate down-sizing of our healthcare system with the loss of jobs and no reasonable facsimile set in place to catch the rest of us who've been all but disenfranchized and left to fall through the cracks. This was all part and parcel of the royal scam in the form of a coup d'etat on 11-22-63 from which we've now been left to reap the grapes of wrath just so those of the fortunate 15 percentile may revel in the spoils of the war that's been allowed to be waged against the American Middle Class for the last 40 years. How can a system be expected to be cleansed when it continues to be run, and to a certain degree, guided by, the progeny of the very perps who called for the assassination, or sat idly by while watching it happen?
"I'm willing to give a pass to everyone, from the prime movers to the mechanics, who will come forward and tell the truth."
By the time they decide to come forward, they'll be on their deathbeds, and barely lucid enough to make any sense. Did you think Hunt was going to come clean at the eleventh hour? I didn't. The only thing he had in mind was to muddy the waters even further, advancing no one's cause but his own, and that of his collaborating cohorts.
"It is more important to disempower the killers of John Kennedy than to disembowel them."
I don't realistically see anything like disempowerment ever being realized by anyone who is even remotely cognizant of the deliberate mechanizations set in place both politically and socially as a result of the assassination. Nor, do I expect anyone born during, or after the event to be able to relate the present economical conditions facing this nation as being a direct result or culmination of the events of 11-22-63.
"And hate begets hate."
As does ignorance beget the same.
I suggest we make tracks for Cuba before the Sugar-Honey-Iced-Tea hits the fan.
-
Viva Fidel!
Seriously.
No one -- I mean NO ONE -- includes in criticism of Castro mention of the US-backed horror he overthrew.
Viva Fidel!
Charles
******************************************************
"No one -- I mean NO ONE -- includes in criticism of Castro mention of the US-backed horror he overthrew.
Viva Fidel!"
I want to expatriate to Cuba! At least, I'll get medical benefits down there. I'm just waiting until I'm 70 or 75, when I can retire, have my brother cash my Social Security checks, and send me the money. I'll donate what's left of my ridiculous and worthless 401K Plan to the Cuban government.
VIVA CHE!
Terry,
We'll walk the beach at Giron ... watch the sun set ... scare the gulls.
C
*******************************************************
"We'll walk the beach at Giron ... watch the sun set ... scare the gulls."
I love the way the waves break on the wall along the beach at Giron.
Yesssss! And, we'll dance to the music of The Buena Vista Social Club, after working on the banana or sugar plantation doing our collective farming chores, and I'll have my side job on Saturdays rolling Havana Cremes for the rich Yanquis en Los Estados Unidos, so we can have some extra pin money to party in the streets with. I love it! Plantains, ropa viejo, black bean soup, rice, mojitos. Yippee, let's go!!!
-
While most conspiracy theorists or conspiracy realists (or whatever term one chooses) agree that the government investigation was a massive failure, or even a hoax, they remain quite divided in their opinions about what really happened. In a microcosm, the Education Forum is an example of that fragmented reality. There does not and will never exist a unified conspiracy theory about President Kennedy's murder.
In a sense it has always been a problem that opponents of the official story have remained so divided on the major issues as well as the minor ones. People have a vastly different concept of which evidence is the most important when it comes to proving a conspiracy existed. This may be one of the main obstacles to justice in this case and why it has never been served.
But there IS concensus.
At least on the "how" question.
CONSPIRACY!
Yet again I submit that we would be well advised when dealing with the media and the public at large to focus on the presentation of proof of conspiracy -- scientific, quantifiable, falsifiable, unassailable proof, deflect all efforts to conflate "how" with "who and why," and end with the ancient question: What, then, are you prepared to do?
Charles
*****************************************************
"But there IS concensus.
At least on the "how" question.
CONSPIRACY!"
Absolutely, Charles!
"...when dealing with the media and the public at large to focus on the presentation of proof of conspiracy -- scientific, quantifiable, falsifiable, unassailable proof,..."
Because, without that documentation in hand, our credibility is nil.
"...and end with the ancient question: What, then, are you prepared to do?"
Take back our republic, by force if need be. And, where's Charlie Black? What are we going to do with the perps, Charlie? STRING THEM UP BY THE YOU-KNOW-WHATS!!! That's what. If there are any of them still alive, that is.
But, all joking aside, if there was some way to hold the perps responsible, we'd probably have a better chance of indicting them for war crimes via egregious disregard for, and for continually and deliberately being in direct violation of The Accords set forth at The Geneva Convention following World War II. Aimed at and including, those Black-Ops committed by U.S.A. hired and employed mercenary S.O.F.'s, covert operators, assassins, and assorted government contracted corporations looking to make a windfall off the expected troop deployment, the general crap-stirrers and agitators, purposely and strategically stationed in SEA, including Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia, as well as in Central and South America, including Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, and Chile, the former Eastern European bloc consisting of and including Kosovo, Albania, Serbia, and what was left of the Czech Republic following the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Middle East, including Egypt, Iraq and Iran, including Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, for the sole purpose of keeping a state of war continually festering in these foreign backwaters specifically in order to make billions of dollars to line the pockets of the corporate structure aligned and in collusion with their Anglo-American empirical business partners.
That's what, and that's why.
-
Well let's follow fellow historian Peter Dale Scott's example instead.
Scott is not a historian in the professional sense. He is an English professor, described on his own website as "a poet, writer, and researcher." That said, Scott certainly stands head and shoulders over the "historian" Dallek.
John Simkin is an example of a historian worthy of the name. Though "historians" like Dallek may not be expected to be experts on human anatomy, it shouldn't be asking too much of them to know the difference between the human neck and back (and what a difference it makes in the JFK case).
You've forced me to the dictionary Ron:
"Main Entry: his·to·ri·an
Pronunciation: hi-'stor-E-&n, -'stär-
Function: noun
1 : a student or writer of history; especially : one who produces a scholarly synthesis
2 : a writer or compiler of a chronicle"
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sour...mp;va=historian
I know what you're saying though; Scott is an English prof. Valid point and I appreciate the info.
But I have no problem calling anyone on this forum ('cept the CIA propagandists) a "historian."
We're as devoted to real history as any group of people I've ever known.
And I refuse to use the frame that propagandists have wielded as a weapon so effectively for decades to discredit us.
*************************************************************
And, I'll up you one more with the words, "Theory," "Theorem," "Axiom," and "Aphorism."
From my Funk and Wagnalls Standard Encyclopedic Dictionary Copyright 1966:
theory (the'er-e, thir'e) n. pl, -ries
1. A plan or scheme existing in the mind only. n speculative or conjectural view of something. 2. An integrated group of the fundamental principles underlying a science or its practical applications: the atomic theory. 3. Abstract knowledge of any art as opposed to the practice of it. 4. A closely reasoned set of propositions, derived from and supported by established evidence and intended to serve as an explanation for a group of phenomena: the quantum theory. -Syn. See DOCTRINE, HYPOTHESIS. [ < LL < Gk. theoria view, speculation]
AND, how about, theorem?
theorem (the'or-rem, thir'em) n.
1. A proposition demonstrably true or acknowledged as such. 2. Math. a. A proposition setting forth something to be proved. b. A proposition that has been proved or assumed to be true. c. A rule or statement of relations formulated in symbols. [LL < Gk. thorema sight, theory < theoreein to look at ] - the-o-re-mat-ic (the'er-e-mat'ik), the'o-rem'ic (the'er-rem'ik) adj.
axiom (ak'se-am) n.
1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth. 2. An established principle or rule. 3. Logic & Math. A self-evident proposition accepted as true without proof. [ < Gk. < axioein to think worthy ]
axiomatic (ak'se-e-mat-ik) adj.
1. Of, pertaining to, or resembling an axiom; self-evident. 2. Aphoristic. Also ax'i-o-mat'i-cal. - ax'i-o-mat'i-al-ly adv.
As in, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
aphorism (af'e-riz'em) n.
1. A brief statement of a truth or principle. 2. A proverb; maxim. [ < MF < Med.L < Gk. < apo- from + horizein to divide ] - aph'o-rist n. - aph-o-ris-tic (af'e-ris'tik) or - aph-o-ris'ti-cal adj. - aph'o-ris'ti-cal-ly adv.
AND, from The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia Copyright 1983:
theorem, in MATHEMATICS and LOGIC, statement in words or symbols that can be established by means of deductive logic; it differs from an AXIOM in that a proof is required for its acceptance. A lemma is a theorem that is demonstrated as an intermediate step in the proof of another, more basic theorem. A corollary is a theorem that follows as a direct consequence of another theorem or an axiom.
axiom, in MATHEMATICS and LOGIC, general statement accepted without proof as the basis for logically deducing other statements (THEOREMS). Examples of axioms used widely in mathematics are those related to equality (e.g., "If equals are added to equals, the sums are equal") and those related to operations (e.g., the ASSOCIATIVE LAW). A postulate, like an axiom, is a statement that is accepted without proof; it deals, however, with specific subject matter (e.g., properties of geometrical figures), not general statements.
So, maybe we should be called "theorem-ists, axiom-ists, or aphor-ists?"
It's up for grabs, but anything is better than "theorists."
-
While most conspiracy theorists or conspiracy realists (or whatever term one chooses) agree that the government investigation was a massive failure, or even a hoax, they remain quite divided in their opinions about what really happened. In a microcosm, the Education Forum is an example of that fragmented reality. There does not and will never exist a unified conspiracy theory about President Kennedy's murder.
In a sense it has always been a problem that opponents of the official story have remained so divided on the major issues as well as the minor ones. People have a vastly different concept of which evidence is the most important when it comes to proving a conspiracy existed. This may be one of the main obstacles to justice in this case and why it has never been served.
Nowhere is the divergence and disparity of approaches more evident than in all the books that have been published on the likelihood of conspiracy and the true nature of the evidence. I suppose it could be argued that there is a sort of consensus or convergence on one thing; most notably there WAS a conspiracy. Beyond that, everyone has their own ideas about exactly what happened.
It does seem that many conspiracy believers are still looking for the smoking gun or the incontrovertible proof. Others believe that proof has long existed.
Many conspiracy researchers seem to be independent mavericks and free thinkers. Some of them might resist being labeled in such a manner that their beliefs were lumped in with those of others.
********************************************************
"In a sense it has always been a problem that opponents of the official story have remained so divided on the major issues as well as the minor ones. People have a vastly different concept of which evidence is the most important when it comes to proving a conspiracy existed. This may be one of the main obstacles to justice in this case and why it has never been served."
Wow, Michael. That is SO on the money!
-
" ... Gary Mack informs me that he can't understand why 'conspiracy supporters' - I guess he just can't say 'conspiracy theorists' ..."
-- William Kelly
How shall we know ourselves?
Conspiracy Realists
Agreed?
Charles
HISTORIANS.
... Except that historians, like journalists, consider themselves to be a breed apart and not just a little better than most other people, especially when viewing something that happened longer than, say, a moment ago. They would take umbrage at unwashed masses as ourselves laying claim to such a high calling!
(Journalists, incidentally, are qualified to cover everything equally in depth, with or without expertise, using simple words the rest of us can understand. A journalist's writing can most easily be recognized by their ability to keep people informed throughout their work, such as noting in an article about the Department of Homeland Security that "the agency was formed in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, when two airliners flew into the World Trade Center buildings." Otherwise, how would we know when or why DHS came into existance, or what happened on September 11?)
Duke, why would I care if some elite snob doesn't want me in their elite club? I, and many others here, spend hours every day studying history, real history not the lies in text books. I won't be intimidated out of accurately describing myself as a historian. And I won't accept the snide framing of "conspiracy theorist" or even worse "buff" that conspirators strategically use to discredit us.
****************************************************
"And I won't accept the snide framing of "conspiracy theorist" or even worse "buff" that conspirators strategically use to discredit us."
YESSSSSS, Girlfriend!!!
Now, I've always looked at it from the view of say, a forensic investigative analysis.
How about Conspiracy Forensics Investigators, or Students of Conspiracy Forensics Investigations, or CFI's?
-
"Professional Jealousy... can bring down a nation"
(Van Morrison) http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Pro...8256A34000EF9DF
David W. Mantik, MD, PhDHow Can the Truth Be Known?
As I see it, the fundamental difference between scientists and lawyers lies in epistemology—i.e., how does one define, or even find, truth? For lawyers, steeped in the adversarial system, the answer is clear-cut: use expert witnesses, then let a jury vote.
For a scientist, the very notion of a debate, and then a vote on truth, would be absurd, simply laughed out of court in a nanosecond. Instead, the scientist would set up a controlled experiment, perform multiple measurements, and then publish his results in a peer reviewed journal. But for his work to be accepted as part of the scientific corpus, it would likely be repeated several times over by independent groups. So, how can these two approaches be reconciled? In fact, they can’t.
In summary, we remain stuck today with these two widely different approaches to truth.
I would argue that these approaches are not as widely different as Dr. Mantik suggests. According to a great philosopher of science -- Charles Sanders Peirce -- law is a branch of scientific inquiry no less than chemistry or geology.
Francis Bacon is considered the father of inductive science, and he formulated the theory of induction after a brilliant legal career in which he successfully applied the inductive method to extract the underlying principles in legal precedents. He realized that the inductive method could be applied to reveal the secrets of nature itself, and induction became the cornerstone of every branch of scientific inquiry.
For reasons not clear to me, though Van The Man might have the right idea, many "scientists" see their method of pursuing truth as being different and somehow superior to the Judicial method, as though the judicial method is "unscientific." All methods are as fallible as the people using them, of course. In most scientific inquiries it is possible to "set up a controlled experiment, perform multiple measurements, and then publish [the] results in a peer reviewed journal." If the experiment is repeated by others with the same results, the theory behind it may then be accepted as proven by the community of inquirers in that particular field, and ultimately by the world at large. If not, the theory must be modified or discarded.
Medical Doctors, unlike judges and lawyers, are usually thought of as belonging to the "scientific community." but what does a doctor do when a patient presents with a set of life-threatening symptoms? Every patient has only one life to be experimented upon. The patient is in a position not unlike a man accused of a serious crime. He hopes the doctor gets the diagnosis right the first time, but if he is unhappy he can seek a second, or maybe a third opinion, or he can demand further tests to confirm or refute the diagnosis. The defendant unhappy with his conviction can appeal to a higher court, and the appeal process can take years. Sometimes the conviction is overturned, sometimes appellate judges disagree, sometimes a brand new trial is ordered.
Sometimes everyone (police, lawyers, scientific experts, juries, appellate judges) screws up and an innocent man goes to the death chamber. Sometimes doctors differ, and the patient dies when an accurate diagnosis might have enabled him to enjoy many more years of healthy living.
With the greatest respect to Dr. Mantik, I submit that there is much more to the law than simply "Use expert witnesses, then let a jury vote." For starters, experts are not the only kinds of witnesses, and even in cases where expert testimony is important on specific issues, the testimony of lay witnesses is usually more important in determining the ultimate outcome of the case.
"For a scientist, the very notion of a debate, and then a vote on truth, would be absurd, simply laughed out of court in a nanosecond."
Here I submit that this is exactly what happens in every branch of scientific inquiry. Depending on the subject, the debate can last for decades, even centuries, until finally a consensus is reached. It took a long time, but everyone now agrees that the earth is not nearly as flat as our ancestors believed it to be.
David W. Mantik, MD, PhDA Few Kind Words
In its own way, it [b's book] is a masterpiece—a truly brilliant prosecutorial brief.
I'd say the jury is still out on that one, and a FINAL VERDICT (Bugliosi's original title) may take a little while longer.
David W. Mantik, MD, PhDAs Max Holland insightfully stated, “He is absolutely certain even when he is not necessarily right.” I found that bit a little scary—as most scientific types would.
Every sensible person, whether academically lettered or not, should find Bugliosi's prosecutor's certitude as scary as Dr. Mantik does.
David W. Mantik, MD, PhDAs for me, coming from a scientific background, and being thoroughly familiar with virtually all of this JFK (medical and scientific) evidence, I found B’s myopic and closed-minded view of this critical data acutely disappointing. Somehow, from such a brilliant mind, I had hoped for more. It was, of course, unreasonable of me. He simply does not have the training.
Again I would respectfully disagree. If Bugliosi takes a myopic and close-minded view of this critical data, it is not because his legal training requires or encourages it. The late Dr. Lattimer was reputed to have a brilliant mind, yet he was just as myopic as Bugliosi when it came to the JFK assassination. Somehow I doubt that Dr. Mantik would attribute Lattimer's myopia to his medical training.
Shakespeare on Lawyers
Shakespeare lived in the time of Francis Bacon, a time of great importance in legal history. "Kill all the lawyers" is a famous line from Shakespeare, spoken by Dick the Butcher, follower of a would-be tyrant. Shakespeare knew that all would-be tyrants aim to eliminate individual freedoms and the people and institutions whose job it is to protect those freedoms.
David W. Mantik, MD, PhDOne commodity was in generous supply for the WC and for the HSCA—lawyers. Lawyers organized the agenda—just look at the Table of Contents for the Warren Report.
Yes, they were all lawyers, but you can search the Warren Report and the HSCA report and you will find little evidence that they used any of the hallowed legal procedures developed over centuries of trial and error. I have barely glanced at Bugliosi's book, but I note that he is not too impressed by the role played by Walter Craig and the American Bar Association.
The introduction to Bugliosi's book cites the hearsay of Ruth Paine as one of the lynchpins of the case he presented at the famous mock trial in London. This is not something lawyers normally do. Bugliosi would never get hearsay before a jury in a real courtroom, and if he did a mistrial would almost certainly be declared.
David W. Mantik, MD, PhDB persistently lumps all critics into grassy knoll trumpeters. I am not one—the medical evidence does not go that way.
I will be looking for more on Dr Mantik's views on the grassy knoll.
David W. Mantik, MD, PhDB’s favorite phrase ["Conspiracy Theorist"] is used in a totally one-sided fashion: a computer search through the entire book yielded not a single use of the corresponding phrase “lone gunman theorist.”
Does Dr. Mantik have a copy of Bugliosi's book in electronic form? If so, how many lawyers do I have to kill in order to get one?
************************************************************
"This is not something lawyers normally do. Bugliosi would never get hearsay before a jury in a real courtroom, and if he did a mistrial would almost certainly be declared."
Good points, JRC. But, couldn't it, or might it not be allowed under another name, such as "circumstantial evidence?"
"Does Dr. Mantik have a copy of Bugliosi's book in electronic form? If so, how many lawyers do I have to kill in order to get one?"
Now, cut that out. He's probably got the CD that goes with the book, and was able to make a search from it.
-
I was very impressed with the showing Pat Speer made over there, as well as Lisa Pease's input and Len Osanic's. Dave Healy made me laugh quite a few times, and a guy named Ric Lan has been pretty sharp with his comments, as well.
Hi Terry,
While this may be worthy of a separate thread, and really has nothing to do with the reviews, I note your "Lisa Pease's input", and what she said at Amazon:
"The hard evidence that only two casings (not three) and one live round were found in the TSBD has not changed."
Could someone please show me hard evidence that 2 empty casings were found on the 6th floor? Yes, there is dated documentation that evidence turned over to the FBI included 2 shell casings. There is also dated documentation the third was turned over to FBI SA Vince Drain a week later by Will Fritz, having resided in the possession of the DPD. IMO, this is inadequate research that gets us into trouble with conspiracy doubters. You'll notice that people like DVP cannot address the unquestionable evidence of conspiracy(especially the medical evidence), but will jump all over speculative or incomplete research(and they would be right). Stick to the facts, and we can win. Keep speculating, and those like Bugliosi will rub your nose in it.
RJS
**********************************************************
Thanks for making that observation, RJS. This was one of the reasons I originally stated to DVP that Pat Speer was the one whom I considered to be the most qualified to counter-point his overly idolatrous ravings of Bugliosi's tome. I couldn't help but notice how utterly juvenile DVP's, along with his cheering squad's rebuttals, sounded. I would only hope that those prospective purchasers of Bugliosi's book, were more objectively aware of his lame attempts at rhetoric, as well as his completely unoriginal responses to, what appeared to be logically sound inquiry.
Thanks for reminding me.
Ter
-
Hi Don,
I'll pick up a copy when I go over to the U.S.
Congratulations,
John
*****************************************************
Don't forget to call, John.
tmauro@pacbell.net
-
Myra,
Yes, it's the first one I wrote. I've finished another novel, but will probably revise the last half significantly before submitting it for publication. I've also written a couple of childrens' books, but that field is even more difficult to get published in. I've had a hard time even getting someone to read them.
Kathy,
Keep plugging away. I wrote the first version of "The Unreals" over 20 years ago. Despite being rejected by many, many publishers (and agents), I didn't give up on my dream completely. Believe in what you're writing, and you never know...
John,
My book isn't on the bookshelves of any store that I know of (although that may happen down the road), but you can order it, they tell me, from virtually any major book store. The easiest way is through the internet, imho (Amazon, Barnes and Noble and others).
Thanks to all of you!
****************************************************
Congratulations, Don! We've been down many miles on the forums, and I've always loved your contributions and words of wisdom. I'm heading back over to Amazon, as we speak.
Good job, my friend.
Ter
-
Available as PDF or Word doc at...
http:www.jfkresearch.com/Mantik_Bug_Review.pdf
http:www.jfkresearch.com/Mantik_Bug_Review.doc
Jack
If those links don't work, try...
http://jfkresearch.com/forum3/index.php?to...picseen#msg6237
Thank you for that interesting review by Mantik.
Here is a link to David Lifton's comments on Black Ops Radio
*****************************************************
When DL contacted me back in late April, about how Bugliosi was going to be quoting his [DL's] work in "the tonnage" [Myra's apropo description of Bugliosi's book], I immediately told him to sue him for abuse of literary license. When David asked why, I told him because I didn't trust Bugliosi, whom I thought was merely seeking David out, and would proceed to try and make him look like an idiot.
And, I was right. Look what he tried to do to Doug Horne.
Bugliosi's got a case of Bologna Braggadocio, or Bologna Bloviata.
-
Hi Jack :
This is Dr.Mantik's updated , corrected version, that he would like posted...
Best B...
Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi
A Not-Entirely-Positive Review by David W. Mantik, MD, PhD
Memorial Day, 2007
It is surely interesting how intelligent people can differ
in looking at the same evidence…
“Doggedness and the Talpiot Tomb,” James Tabor, May 22, 2007
Biographical Details
Vincent Boo-liosi (no “g” sound) was born on August 18, 1934. According to one web site, he is the third most famous person from Hibbing, Minnesota. After moving to California, he graduated from Hollywood High School.
Bugliosi (simply designated as B hereafter) graduated from of the University of Miami in Coral Cables, Florida (BA, 1956). Eight years later he received his law degree from UCLA (1964), where he was president of his graduating class. As a Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney, he successfully prosecuted Charles Manson and several other members of Manson’s "family" for the 1969 murders of Sharon Tate and six others. He lost only one of the 106 felony cases he tried as a prosecutor, which included winning 21 out of 21 murder cases. He later wrote a book about the Manson trial called Helter Skelter. B has been outspoken in the media about the incompetence and/or malfeasance of lawyers and judges in major trials. He wrote a bestselling book, Outrage, on the acquittal of O.J. Simpson, in which he detailed the work of the district attorney, prosecutors, the defense lawyers, and presiding judge and illustrated what he saw as broader problems in American criminal justice, the media, and the political appointment of judges. He also condemned the Supreme Court’s decisions in Jones vs. Clinton and in the 2000 presidential election. He wrote a lengthy criticism of the decision in an article for The Nation titled "None Dare Call It Treason," which was later expanded into a book titled The Betrayal of America. Some of his criticisms are portrayed in the 2004 documentary Orwell Rolls in his Grave.
B is also an expert on the JFK and RFK assassinations. His book, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F Kennedy, was released in May 2007. That book is the subject of this review. It contains 1612 numbered pages, an introduction (xlvii pages), plus a CD of Endnotes (958 pages) and Source Notes (170 pages); it is literally bursting with second-hand information. Its total page count would appear to be about 2786, almost exactly three times as long as the 888-page Warren Report.
B is of Italian ancestry, married, and has two children, Wendy and Vince Jr. Like many characters in JFK assassination research today, he is an agnostic (in matters of religion, but not regarding the assassination) although he is open to the ideas of deism (but not to those of conspiracy).
Though I have not read Helter Skelter (the subject bored me) my wife loved it, while I thoroughly enjoyed And the Sea Will Tell (also a 1991 TV movie with Richard Crenna), which B kindly autographed for my nurse. I have also been a great fan of Outrage and his critique of the Supreme Court for putting us in the Bush leagues. (Everyone knows that our current Bush is a former major league baseball owner.)
A Personal Encounter
On a lovely Sunday morning, I knocked on the front door of B’s corner house, a modest, but charming affair, located very near the Arroyo Seco, home to the Rose Bowl. Because he had written to me about my work, I was curious to meet him in the flesh. While en route to see my son at Occidental College, I decided that the time had come to pay him a personal, albeit unannounced, visit. The door was quickly answered by B. After an initial puzzled expression, he immediately waved me in, with all the old country charm one would expect from a fellow Midwesterner. He was warm, courtly, and gracious, quite unlike his writing. After this encounter I understood why he had been president of his law school class. Following introductions to his wife, we sat together with drinks at the kitchen table, a la Nixon and Khrushchev (July 24, 1959). The conversation was congenial though not substantive. I was able to ascertain that he had indeed received the requested information from me. Most especially he had “Twenty Conclusions after Nine Visits,” a summary of my work at the National Archives.
An Immediate Disaster for B
According to Max Holland, B’s stamina for setting the record straight (on the assassination) is unequalled and will probably never be surpassed. After all, who else would be heroic enough—some would say foolhardy enough—to give birth to a book that weighs nearly as much as a newborn? It is likely that this book will stand forever as the magnum opus of this case—though not without serious flaws. Holland implies that its length makes it especially vulnerable to factual errors. I would liken the book to a house built on stilts, with many supporting pillars. The more pillars required, the more likely it is that one of them will fail. Unfortunately for B, that has already happened. I refer, of course, to the neutron activation analysis work, which was strongly supported by B in his book. See Dr. Gary Aguilar’s transparent and extremely well-written summary of this subject. Aguilar cites the very latest on this subject, including a statistical paper just published in the Annals of Applied Statistics by former FBI lab metallurgist William A. Tobin and Texas A & M University researchers Cliff Spiegelman, William D. James and colleagues. The first major salvo across the deck had been fired not long before by Patrick M. Grant, Ph.D. and Erich Randich, Ph.D. in the Journal of Forensic Science. I had the great pleasure of hearing Grant and Randich present their findings to a small group in San Francisco last summer at a Saturday seminar arranged by Dr. Aguilar. Their findings left no doubt that Robert Blakey’s so-called scientific “linch pin” of the assassination had totally exploded in his face. If any doubt remained after Grant and Randich, this latest paper has inexorably vaporized that scintilla. Sturdivan and Rahn (B’s favorites) can massage and squeeze Guinn’s original data all they want, using one statistical test after anther, but nothing can save them. It’s a simple matter of garbage in, garbage out. Guinn’s data are the problem—they are simply inadequate to the task, as has now been demonstrated twice over, by well respected, even-handed scientists. The problem now for B, of course, is that when one supporting pillar has been so thoroughly—and immediately—demolished, one can only wonder what other pillars are already infested with termites. Another not-so-minor point is this: After all is said and done,
everyone now knows, totally contrary to B’s repeated expostulations,
that he is sometimes wrong—even when he won’t admit it!
The problem, as we shall amply soon see, is that he wears permanent blinders, particularly when it comes to experts, and especially so for those from science.
How Can the Truth Be Known?
In 1959, C. P. Snow, a physicist and a literary man, gave his brilliant Rede Lecture, which was then published as The Two Cultures (a Second Look was added in 1963). His message was straightforward: a huge, unbridgeable chasm had grown between the scientists and the literati, so much so that neither understood the most basic knowledge of the other. The scientists did not know their Shakespeare and the literati could not even define mass or acceleration, let alone the second law of thermodynamics. Occupying both of these worlds at once, days in physics and evenings in literature (with famous individuals), Snow was acutely aware of this chasm. Lawyers would not usually be classified with the literati, but Snow did raise the possibility of a third culture (or even
more). The point remains—the gap between different specialties in the modern world is still wide, perhaps wider than ever, as Alan Sokal has proven.
As I see it, the fundamental difference between scientists and lawyers lies in epistemology—i.e., how does one define, or even find, truth? For lawyers, steeped in the adversarial system, the answer is clear-cut: use expert witnesses, then let a jury vote. For a scientist, the very notion of a debate, and then a vote on truth, would be absurd, simply laughed out of court in a nanosecond. Instead, the scientist would set up a controlled experiment, perform multiple measurements, and then publish his results in a peer reviewed journal. But for his work to be accepted as part of the scientific corpus, it would likely be repeated several times over by independent groups. So, how can these two approaches be reconciled? In fact, they can’t. It is surely encouraging, though, that the legal profession has taken seriously the question of who can qualify as an expert. This has been a useful improvement in the adversarial process, though we are not likely at the end of that road. In summary, we remain stuck today with these two widely different approaches to truth. Insofar as B goes, it is surely germane to note here his own confession: he avoided high school physics. In the context of his discussion with his namesake, Dr. Vincent Guinn (about JFK’s head snap), it would appear that B never took any physics anywhere. If he had, this would have been the time and place to say so. On the contrary, silence is all we hear.
A Few Kind Words
B’s book represents a massive, even prodigious, outpouring of work. One must be either mad or a genius to wallow for 20 years in such an interminable project. B appears to be a wonderful admixture of both. His writing style is generally lucid. Although I often found his logic jolting, the book was fairly easy to read. I often grumble about authors’ ambiguities, but B, for the most part, avoids these. Also, to his credit, I was able quickly to learn more about several details of the case that I had not previously had time to pursue. A long time ago, I tried Conspiracy of One; I don’t think I ever finished it because it seemed so ludicrous. Posner was another matter. His book is the only one, about any subject, that I have ever stopped reading because honesty did not seem his strong suit. B’s book is totally unlike either. In its own way, it is a masterpiece—a truly brilliant prosecutorial brief. In the end, though, the question is whether that is what we want—or need—at this stage of the case.
And Some That Aren’t So Kind
B’s style is relentless, inexorable, invincible (a pale pun), and ultimately brutal. Scarcely anyone—friend or foe—comes off well. Nearly all, possibly except for the Warren Commission (WC), emerge smelling like sewer rats. Although he defends his right to attack wrong-headed ideas (who would argue?) he never quite explains why it is necessary to fire off one ad hominem salvo after another. Regarding such attacks, Snow himself was blindsided by his share. His response was as follows:
It seems to me that engaging in immediate debate on each specific point closes
one’s own mind for good and all. Debating gives most of us much more
psychological satisfaction than thinking does: but it deprives us of whatever
chance there is of getting closer to the truth. It seems preferable to me to sit back
and let what has been said sink in…
B’s approach reminded me of a bulldozer in a garbage pile. Never mind anything, just plow straight ahead, crunching whatever lies below and ahead, and clear a path to the other side. At this, he is unsurpassed. After he is done, the road is indeed clear, but who would want to follow such a path? As Max Holland insightfully stated, “He is absolutely certain even when he is not necessarily right.” I found that bit a little scary—as most scientific types would. In addition, on a personal level, I found his unrelenting attacks (on just about everyone) quite vexing and distracting, even uncivil, a quality that B in person clearly does not display. I had considered compiling an astonishing list of pejoratives simply for effect, but the reader will find them easily enough. No scientific treatise would permit a single one of these.
Chief among these is the phrase “conspiracy theorist,” which seems to assault one’s eyes from almost every page. (Someone should count them all.) B tries to defend his incessant use of this phrase, though this discussion comes astonishingly late in the book and only as a footnote. He specifically indicates that he uses “WC critic” and conspiracy theorist” somewhat interchangeably, not because they are linguistically so, he says, but because they essentially are (interchangeable). Given his maniacal devotion to this phrase, an explication within the first few pages of his book would have been wise. B admits that it is possible to be a WC critic without being a conspiracy theorist, but he insists that because most critics (almost inevitably, in my view) have some non-WC notion of historical events in this case he is therefore permitted to paint them as theorists. One wonders, in particular, how kindly Harold Weisberg would have taken to such logic and to such a pejorative, particularly in view of B’s direct quote from Weisberg about what his (Weisberg’s) position was. Furthermore, B’s favorite phrase is used in a totally one-sided fashion: a computer search through the entire book yielded not a single use of the corresponding phrase “lone gunman theorist.” In no other way does B so clearly display his hostile—even scornful—attitude toward the critics. (Though the word ultimately does not fit, “screed” often popped into my head as I read.) Those on B’s side are dignified by “assassinologist” or “researcher” or “student of the assassination,” but never as theorists. Only those opposed to him can qualify as theorists. To a physicist, this is a particularly anomalous—even bizarre—use of the word. In general, physicists are divided between theorists and experimentalists. As C. P. Snow notes, the former generally talk only to themselves and to God. I don’t think that such sublime conversation is what B had in mind though. Doubtless, this is news to him.
Some Misgivings about B’s Thinking
B dispenses a few rare, kind words about our three books (edited by James Fetzer) as “the only exclusively scientific books (three) on the assassination.” However, nowhere in these three books, or elsewhere in my writing, have I personally indicated who did it. This matters not a whit to B. I, too, have been now been spray painted with his favorite phrase. On the contrary, in these three books my chief goal had been to collect data, including hundreds of measured points on the JFK autopsy X-rays. If B absolutely must describe me with his C-word, perhaps he might creatively have called me a “conspiracy experimentalist.” I don’t think that occurred to him though. Instead, we are all indiscriminately simply lumped together as “theorists.” Unlike Old Abe, he is a lumper, not a splitter. I truly doubt that he explored each person’s history to determine whether they truly had an overall theory of the assassination—or even to what degree; he clearly did not do that for Weisberg. It was obviously more important for him to paint one and all with the same broad strokes of his prosecutor’s brush. This, too, reeks more of the courtroom than of the laboratory.
In short, if one is looking for a scientific treatise on the JFK assassination, Reclaiming History is not the place to look. To cite the NAA work again as an example par excellence, B disposes of Grant and Randich’s work chiefly by the simple expedient of quoting a long letter from Sturdivan. To a T, this exemplifies the lawyer’s reflexive approach to evidence: introduce your expert witness, then let the matter rest. B truly has neither the time nor space to address these issues in the detail that they require, though it is unfortunate that Aguilar’s short piece came too late to publish side by side with Sturdivan’s. That would have balanced the ledger a good bit.
Is This Book Scientific?
So where does that leave B vis-à-vis the science in his book? For a layman he has struggled heroically first to understand and then to explain matters for his readers. And he has done this as well as could be expected of any layman. Though B will feel quite nauseous at reading this, he has already been preceded by two who have shown how well the medical evidence in particular can be mastered by laymen—Douglas Horne and Jeremy Gunn, of the Assassination Records Review Board (AARB). No one before them in any governmental situation had shown such a command of this evidence. Though he would never deign to shake their hands, B has also now been promoted to this group of well-informed laymen. As would be expected, he sometimes misuses medical terms (and even misunderstands what I know), but overall he communicates these issues well, though we often disagree profoundly on interpretation. Whenever possible, though, he prefers simply to quote the experts who side with him, especially those from the WC and House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). Of course, that’s precisely what we should expect: lawyers are paid for presenting the experts, not for presenting the evidence. B rarely shows much originality or personal ability to analyze the medical or scientific data. In essence, he operates with a crutch virtually all of the time—without these experts at his side he is a near cripple. As for me, coming from a scientific background, and being thoroughly familiar with virtually all of this JFK (medical and scientific) evidence, I found B’s myopic and closed-minded view of this critical data acutely disappointing. Somehow, from such a brilliant mind, I had hoped for more. It was, of course, unreasonable of me. He simply does not have the training.
He also seems not to understand the nature of scientific argument or proof. A good example of this is the so-called upward bullet trail through JFK’s neck (which cannot be true as he describes it). To his credit, he honestly implies that it took about an hour for him to grasp this concept, but finally, by use of his hand and finger, he got it. In physics, as a first step to a new concept, physicists often resort to what they call “hand-waving” arguments. Quite ironically in this case, B, in every sense of the word, has resorted to just such a finger-waving process—but as a proof, not just as a first step! And that is where he leaves it. Of course, no scientist would do that. On the contrary, a scientist would describe this first step as a heuristic approach, only useful to start in the right direction. Instead, he would estimate the upward angle through JFK’s neck, then estimate the thickness of JFK’s neck, locate the entry and exit levels (in the vertical direction), add a range of error for each of these and then finally calculate whether the numbers made any quantitative sense. Until then our model scientist would proclaim gross ignorance about his conclusion. Not so for B—a qualitative answer is the end of his science. Again, really though, what more should we have expected? This is, after all, the courtroom.
About That 60-Second Proof
And what about B’s self-described and marvelous one-minute proof before the crowd of 600 trial lawyers? Did he really make his case that the attorneys were being irrational to have an opinion on the JFK case—merely because they had not read the entire Warren Report? Suppose instead that he had asked how many believed in the atomic theory of matter? Would he likewise have demanded the reading of Einstein’s seminal 1905 paper on Brownian motion? Or what if he had asked whether they believed that FDR had deliberately permitted the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? If anyone believed either side of this question, would he still have insisted that they must have read all nine official investigations of this controversy before coming to a decision? And if one is required to read the Warren Report before having an opinion, why stop there? Why not also insist on reading at least the initial volume of the HSCA? Where does this end? If he weren’t so unbalanced, B might also have suggested that the trial lawyers read the report of the Church Committee. In fact, both the HSCA and the Church Committee found the WC in serious error on significant points. In his pioneering work on this question of second-hand information, Patrick Wilson of Berkeley emphasized a universal truth: anyone’s own knowledge of the world, beyond his immediate life, is only what others have told him—either personally or via the varieties of the media. In fact, the vast majority of our strongly held beliefs are of that nature. No one has the time or interest to check all of this out. In fact, only the tiniest percentage of our second-hand knowledge is ever cross checked. I wonder why no one among all of those 600 trial lawyers—surely not a bashful group—had the courage to challenge B on this fundamental issue. But I think I know—B was the authority figure, and if trial lawyers have learned one thing it is to recognize such figures, and then genuflect as needed.
Shakespeare on Lawyers
One commodity was in generous supply for the WC and for the HSCA—lawyers. Lawyers organized the agenda—just look at the Table of Contents for the Warren Report. Lawyers guided the research and they wrote the conclusions. Science, when present at all, played only a consultative role (just like the adversarial system with its expert witnesses). But there is an alternate model. For a later official, presidential investigation (the Challenger disaster), Nobel Laureate and physicist Richard Feynman escaped from the lawyer’s zoo. Almost single-handedly, and with single-minded zeal—a contemporary Sherlock Holmes—he pursued the evidence until that magical denouement on television. With the world watching, he showed how the O-ring would not deform normally after simply being dunked into a glass of ice water. Even after all of this, though, his personal written report was not welcome in the final publication—the lawyers still had their own agenda. Feynman even had to send a telegram to the lawyers in which he threatened to remove his signature from their final report unless his personal report appeared “…without modification from version #23.” In view of C. P. Snow’s literary interests, perhaps Shakespeare deserves his only brief, candle-lit appearance on my stage:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in our lawyers, that we are underlings.
At Last, to the Evidence (we hope)
At my suggestion, Jim Fetzer wrote to B (January 23, 2001): “What would it take to convince you of a conspiracy and cover-up in the death of JFK?” And also, “Are none of our major discoveries—our ‘16 smoking guns,’ for example—convincing? And, if not, why? And, if not, what would it take?” B’s answer was simple: “Only evidence, Drs. Fetzer and Mantik. Only evidence.”
Given those booming, opening sentences to this entire section of his book, I naturally had anticipated that B would, at last, address all of our issues in great detail. Was I wrong! Despite these cheery, introductory accolades, it was mostly empty talk—authentic discussion of our paradoxes was, by and large, quite off limits. There was a lot of palaver about many other things but little at all about the central 16—or my 20 Conclusions. In one footnote there was more discussion about JFK’s clothing (which I had already seen at the Archives), and who had supplied it, than nearly any single one of our challenges to him. There are even 16 pages of half-demented discussion of Oswald’s motive, which I can only suggest for entertainment value.
B’s chief claim for his book appears to be this quote:
… although there have been hundreds of books on the assassination, no book has even attempted to be a comprehensive and fair evaluation of the entire [sic] case, including all of the major conspiracy theories.
Although he does not explicitly say that his book meets this description, it is very hard to avoid the implication that that is exactly what he means. And, if not in fact, that is surely the book he wanted to write. This is an overweening claim. In fact, his fellow WC true believer, Max Holland, states: “Some might regard this as a foolish errand because there is no end to it, a fact that B readily acknowledges.” I would have been much more sympathetic had he tried to cover even most of the medical and scientific evidence—while leaving aside most of the conspiracy theories. In the process of sifting and winnowing his subject matter, rather large mountains in the medical and scientific arena were left unvisited. Surprisingly, among these lie most of the “Twenty Conclusions in Nine Visits,” cited above. As I recall, this was one particular item that B had requested of me and which had been supplied to him. He does cite it in the book. But we don’t get much further than that.
I next turn to those issues largely left as terra incognita by B. In view of his personal lack of scientific expertise, it probably was wise for him not to venture into these foreign lands. I am surprised though that he did not at least acknowledge, in any manner, that these paradoxes remained off his map—after all, he did promise from the beginning that he would be honest and thorough.
Central Paradoxes Studiously (and Wisely) Evaded by B
(Note: Many pertinent images for the discussion below are at the website for my
Pittsburgh lecture. Just Google: Twenty Conclusions after Nine Visits.)
“…the Commission’s fiercest critics have not been able to produce any new credible evidence that would in any way justify a different conclusion.”
“One advantage of being a conspiracy theorist is that you don’t need any evidence to
support your charge.”
“…with the allegation of planted evidence, the other main conspiracy argument…is that much of the evidence against Oswald was forged or tampered with by authorities. But not once have theorists ever proved this allegation.”
“I will not knowingly omit or distort anything.”
1. The huge clash between the lateral X-rays and the brain photographs persists. Although I should not expect B to deal with optical densities, this matter can be addressed at a layman’s level, via the obvious blackness at the front of the lateral X-rays. A fist-sized area shows virtually no brain at all. Although the OD measurements confirm this, simple visual inspection clearly supports the same conclusion. Besides the empty bilateral frontal area, though, a great deal of brain tissue is obviously missing on the superior right side as well. The brain photographs, on the other hand, show a nearly intact brain on both sides. Therefore: either the X-rays are wrong or the photographs are of some other brain. To date, as far as I know, no one has yet had the courage to address this central conundrum. B’s usual response at such a juncture is simply to invoke common sense, one of his unwavering allies throughout the book: i.e., such and such is simply impossible because common sense tells us so. (We could efficiently employ minds such as this in science; it would bypass a great deal of expensive research.) This paradox, especially via the OD data, is what prompted me to think that we were dealing with two different brains, a point that apparently made joke of the day for B. (For me, though, the likely fact that someone had substituted a brain in this case did not seem humorous at all.) I would furthermore emphasize, most strongly and contrary to B’s claim, that it was not Horne’s two-brain hypothesis that sent me down this path, but rather the evidence in the autopsy record, evidence that I had measured long before Horne’s proposal (which I do accept). And B tells us to pay attention to the evidence!
2. The constraints of cross sectional anatomy on a CT scan still seem insurmountable for the trajectory of the magic bullet through JFK. This paradox is included in Fetzer’s 16 points and has been extensively discussed elsewhere.
3. The pathologists’ bizarre misplacement of the trajectory trail (they claimed it extended from the occipital protuberance to the supra-ortibal area, but it’s actually about 10 cm more superior) in their autopsy protocol cannot be explained by B, no matter where he points his finger or what emotional or psychological arguments he uses. The pathologists had their moment with the ARRB to resolve this—and they could not. At the autopsy, in order to avoid two separate head shots, they had no choice but to ignore the obvious, much higher trail on the skull X-rays—in the face of a lower, occipital entry that their fingers and eyes confirmed (and which I accept). I am convinced that my son, even at age 10, would not have made such a mistake. But, of course, it was not really a mistake. It was intentional. They had been thoroughly boxed in.
4. The WC bullet that traversed the skull is another impossible conundrum. According to the WC (and to -B-) this same bullet left part of itself on the skull surface near the cowlick area. According to the 6.5 mm object on the frontal X-ray, this had to be a nearly complete cross section from inside the bullet (not from the tip or base—which were both found inside the limo). Even the HSCA ballistics expert, Sturdivan, insists that, based on his tens of thousands of cases, this cannot be a piece of authentic metal from a bullet. To make matters worse, one large fragment had its metal jacket bent way back. Without striking an object like concrete (e.g., the street) or other metal this is almost unimaginable.
5. No matter how many words, paragraphs, or excuses he employs, B cannot erase the radical disagreement between the eyewitnesses and the photographs of the back of the head. This issue has been extensively reviewed elsewhere, including photographs. To a physician these are overwhelmingly powerful.
6. CE-843. These are two small lead fragments still located at the National Archives. I have personally observed them. They purportedly came from the right supraorbital area, where the pathologists removed some metal fragments. The larger of these two is easy to see on any print of the lateral or AP X-rays. Unfortunately, this larger fragment is nowhere near the shape (and probably not the size either) of the supposedly identical fragment now in the Archives. No interval testing should so have morphed its appearance. No WC supporter has ever tried to explain this anomaly.
7. At the Archives, multiple bullet fragments are clearly visible on the left side of the skull X-rays. One of these is large enough to be seen easily on extant prints of the X-rays. No WC supporter has ever explained these troublesome deviants.
8. The 6.5 mm fragment. By eight separate and consistent lines of evidence, the optical density data show that this object was later added to the AP skull X-ray, a simple feat in that era that was performed in the secrecy of the darkroom. B’s only real response to this is to ask why a real piece of metal was not used instead. Either he still does not understand how the darkroom work was done, or he is here imagining some confederate in the autopsy room, at a moment’s notice, running out to find a thin cross section of a 6.5 mm bullet, then running back and sticking it on the back of the skull—at precisely the right spot, all the while no one in the autopsy room notices. Who is mad here—is it me or B? His only other response is to quote (only in footnotes) letters from two other individuals, neither of whom have ever explained the uncanny spatial correlation between the object seen near the cowlick (on the lateral) and the 6.5 mm object (on the AP). So, in the end, B is left almost empty-handed, with only some baseless speculations and some semantic confusion between “artifact” and artificial.” Here again, of course, is your lawyer at work: quote some “expert,” but don’t have an original thought of your own.
9. A pair of large format (4 x 5 inch) color transparencies (from the autopsy) of the back are inconsistent. Just superior to the fourth knuckle one of them shows a dark area (probably a blood spot), just where the other member of the pair shows a white spot! Although these observations individually mean nothing, the mere fact that they are different from one another means everything! At least one of them cannot be an original—despite what B claims, or what the National Archives claims or what the HSCA concluded. Given a chance, anyone could see this with their own eyes. In fact, no one has even noticed this before! Furthermore, one of the color prints (supposedly descended from the originals) has no parent in the color transparency set! It is an orphan—so how did it get into the set? Despite B’s persistent claims that everything is kosher with these autopsy photographs and X-rays, that cannot be true. Something is indeed wrong, very wrong, with the autopsy photographs. Let me spell this out: if B had really wanted to address these autopsy issues he should have gone to the Archives himself. What good is second-hand information when first hand-information is accessible? But we forgot—he is a trial attorney; he doesn’t do data.
10. Stereoscopic viewing of the back of the head is definitely not all kosher either, despite B’s second-hand claims. There is something very wrong with the back of the head photographs—and it’s precisely where the disagreement between the witnesses and the photographs is at its worst. The shiny part of the hair that looks so freshly washed (it wasn’t according to the autopsy witnesses) is exactly where the image is two dimensional with stereo viewing. Of course, that’s exactly what one should expect if a soft matte insert had been used here to cover the posterior hole that virtually everyone saw, both at Parkland and at Bethesda. I tried looking at this area every which way—switching photos left to right, rotating them, and even looking at pairs of color prints and then pairs of color transparencies. It was always the same—a flat, two-dimensional image inevitably appeared, just where one would expect image alteration. Although B claims that the HSCA observers established with “…absolute and irrefutable certainty that the autopsy photographs have not been altered…” via stereo viewing, it’s just no good relying on others for such things. That is not the way of science. B should have looked at this himself, but, of course, we already know that he does not do data.
11. Since he is so highly credentialed and famous (think O. J. Simpson and forensic shows on TV), B likes to cite Dr. Michael Baden, who is indeed a wonderful specialist (and I liked his TV shows). Unfortunately, however, he was quite wrong about the missing bone at the skull vertex, especially anterior to the frontal suture. That missing frontal bone is quite obvious on the X-rays (and even on Boswell’s sketches); even Dr. J. Lawrence Angel, the physical anthropologist, disagreed with Baden’s reconstruction. My point here though goes well beyond that. With John Hunt’s recent, remarkable discovery of the X-ray image of the Harper fragment (in the National Archives) we now know that there was metal at one edge of this bone. The photographs show that this was not on the inside, but rather on the outside. If only one headshot is accepted, then that metal debris on the Harper fragment (remember—it’s on the outside) must necessarily derive from the entry that the pathologists identified. Once that is granted, then the Harper fragment itself becomes the missing bone at the rear (or more likely a part of it), just where the HSCA denied that there was a hole. You can see all of this in my reconstructed skull.
12. B claims that the ARRB found no smoking guns. That is surely open to debate, much of which I leave to other critics. For my part, Humes and Boswell were caught with smoking guns in their holsters. On a related matter, though, my independent discovery that the extant left lateral skull X-ray is a copy, rather than an original, was not a result of the ARRB. I found it so revolutionary that I described it, somewhat tongue-in-cheek for my Jewish friends, as a burning bush rather than a smoking gun. This X-ray also has two other odd features: a) there are no Kodak identification numbers anywhere on it and -B-) it is not available to the public. So the question that all of those true believers should pose to me this is: Can Mantik distinguish a duplicate X-ray from an original, in particular when a large area of emulsion (that T-shaped area) has obviously been scraped off the original (but not the copy)? If I can’t, then they should cross this item off my list. However, I am very certain that I can—and no one has suggested that I am so inept that I cannot distinguish an original (with missing emulsion) from a copy (with no missing emulsion). This is the worst possible news for WC supporters. It means that the original has gone missing. More importantly, though, it means that the extant X-ray (the one now in the Archives) could have been altered in any number of ways in the darkroom. I have amply demonstrated this possibility with my birdbrain X-rays, skulls with bullet debris added, and one even showing a scissors left behind. But, for this simple observation (of intact emulsion), my skills are not even required. Anyone with proper vision could see for themselves that the emulsion (over the T-shaped inscription) is not missing (as it must be for an original) from the left lateral skull X-ray in the Archives—even B could see that!
Now B’s response to all of this might well be that these issues were addressed and resolved by prior experts, which is, of course, nowhere near the truth. Or, perhaps more likely, he would say: I already know from the Oswald evidence that he was as guilty as sin, so I don’t really need to address all of these issues. In fact, he employs that very argument in various guises quite often. I was a bit stunned by this logic; I really don’t think I had ever seen it before. Are only trial lawyers capable of such magical feats? What if Henri Becquerel had reacted similarly to the first hint of radioactivity in his photographic film wrapped around uranium salts? What if he had said that a lifetime of experience had proven to him that such things were impossible? Numerous, similar stories of unexpected observations have routinely been recounted in the history of science. It is the exceptional fact, the misfit, that ultimately brings the fresh insight, not the routine, humdrum one. That was one reason why I was at some pains to quote Butterfield about the Scotland Yard detective who noted all the obvious clues, but still drew the wrong conclusions. In a very deep sense, B really does not want to look at all the pertinent data—after all, he already knows the answer, so why bother? It’s really just too much trouble. This again characterizes the legal mind, but not the scientific mind. And, more troublesome for him, it totally violates his own best description of his own book—a book that attempts “…to be a comprehensive and fair evaluation of the entire [sic] case…”
So, Where Are We?
So where, in the end, are we after this massive tome? First, I think it is very good to have it as a resource. But it absolutely must be counterbalanced by at least a few open minds. Sometimes common sense does not carry the day. Sometimes even bizarre data are real. Sometimes even government employees under unique pressures do things they never would otherwise do (e.g., missing original X-rays and altered X-rays). Not all cases follow the textbook. As a cancer specialist with many decades of experience, that is the main thing that still keeps me interested. So let’s keep this discussion wide open. Let’s not just talk about looking at the evidence. And let’s not rule out evidence simply because it violates past experience. In the future, unlike B, let’s actually examine all of the evidence, but especially those items that are central—and even the evidence we weren’t quite expecting.
After B describes his amusement at the outright silliness (in his opinion) of the two-brain proposal, he tells us how he really feels:
How, then, can Mantik and thousands like him in the conspiracy community—
many of lesser intellect—end up uttering absurdities like this, as well as countless
others throughout the years?
But the number of well-known persons who have conceded a conspiracy, directly or indirectly, is quite remarkable. Does B truly believe that all of the following individuals have simply “…utter[ed] absurdities…throughout the years”?
MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA: Addendum 5.
Believers in a JFK Assassination Conspiracy
Lyndon Baines Johnson, President of the United States69
Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States70
John B. Connally, Governor of Texas71
J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI
Clyde Tolson, Associate Director of the FBI72
Cartha DeLoach, Assistant Director of the FBI
William Sullivan, FBI Domestic Intelligence Chief
John McCone, Director of the CIA
David Atlee Phillips, CIA disinformation specialist
(Chief of Covert Actions, Mexico City, 1963)
Stanley Watson, CIA, Chief of Station
The Kennedy family73
Admiral (Dr.) George Burkley, White House physician
James J. Rowley, Chief of the Secret Service74
Robert Knudsen, White House photographer (who saw autopsy photos)
Jesse Curry, Chief of Police,75 Dallas Police Department
Roy Kellerman (heard JFK speak after supposed magic bullet)
William Greer (the driver of the Lincoln limousine)
Abraham Bolden, Secret Service, White House detail & Chicago office
John Norris, Secret Service (worked for LBJ; researched case for decades)
Evelyn Lincoln, JFK’s secretary
Abraham Zapruder, most famous home movie photographer in history
James Tague, struck by a bullet fragment in Dealey Plaza
Hugh Huggins, CIA operative, conducted private investigation for RFK
Sen. Richard Russell, member of the Warren Commission
John J. McCloy, member of the Warren Commission
Bertrand Russell, British mathematician and philosopher
Hugh Trevor-Roper, Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford University
Michael Foot, British MP
Senator Richard Schweiker, assassinations subcommittee (Church Committee)
Tip O’Neill, Speaker of the House (he assumed JFK’s congressional seat)
Rep. Henry Gonzalez (introduced bill to establish HSCA)
Rep. Don Edwards, chaired HSCA hearings (former FBI agent)
Frank Ragano, attorney for Trafficante, Marcello, Hoffa
Marty Underwood, advance man for Dallas trip
Riders in follow-up car: JFK aides Kenny O’Donnell and Dave Powers
Sam Kinney, Secret Service driver of follow-up car
Paul Landis, passenger in Secret Service follow-up car
John Marshall, Secret Service
John Norris, Secret Service
H. L. Hunt, right-wing oil baron
John Curington, H.L. Hunt’s top aide
Bill Alexander, Assistant Dallas District Attorney
Robert Blakey, Chief Counsel for the HSCA
Robert Tanenbaum, Chief Counsel for the HSCA
Richard A. Sprague, Chief Counsel for the HSCA
Gary Cornwell, Deputy Chief Counsel for the HSCA
Parkland doctors: McClelland, Crenshaw, Stewart, Seldin, Goldstrich, Zedlitz, Jones, Akin, et al.
Bethesda witnesses: virtually all of the paramedical personnel
All of the jurors in Garrison’s trial of Clay Shaw76
Bobby Hargis, Dealey Plaza motorcycle man
Mary Woodward, Dallas Morning News (and eyewitness in Dealey Plaza)
Maurice G. Marineau, Secret Service, Chicago office
Most of the American public
Most of the world’s Citizens
In Closing
B clearly wants to destroy every last scintilla of anti-WC evidence. But even he admits that virtually no murder case is ever that clean cut. It is therefore more than a little bewildering that he does not give ground a little here and there—but he simply won’t. That makes him all the less credible. And it certainly does not give him the air of a scientist. But he does not seem to care. He would prefer to appear omniscient.
There is not even a pretense of open-mindedness. His scorn, perhaps even hatred, for the critics comes through page after page. Again, the reader must decide if he can accept such a relentless bias.
Although he describes our books (edited by Fetzer) as the only exclusively scientific books on the case, he mostly avoids the issues raised therein. The 6.5 mm object does get some, rather strange, discussion, but that’s about all. It’s quite fantastic that he would throw such an encomium at us and then leave us largely alone. On the contrary, he should have focused on many of our paradoxes, to the exclusion of JFK’s tailors or Oswald’s motives, for example.
He admits that his book is mainly reinterpretation and reanalysis, as opposed to new evidence. In other words, this is a book absolutely packed with second-hand information! The reader must judge for himself whether that is good enough. That surely befits his role as a trial attorney, but a scientist would not be at all happy with that. For my part, I think it is a great loss for all of us that he did not at least visit the National Archives. He need not even have gone alone. In recent years, at least two individuals, whom he cites favorably, have been there. Why didn’t he tag along?
Despite its occasional references to science, this book is rarely a scientific discussion of the evidence—not even the medical evidence. In fact, this case is so wide and so deep, as B acknowledges, that he really cannot do justice to his opponents on a myriad of issues. The honest researcher absolutely must not take his word on most of these controversies—such an individual has no choice but to read the works of B’s opponents. What is valuable about the book, though, is that these references are usually indicated. For that reason alone it will be with us for a very long time.
Appendix A:
A Small Potpourri of Other Comments and Criticisms
1. B persistently lumps all critics into grassy knoll trumpeters. I am not one—the medical evidence does not go that way. But B is a lumper, not a splitter, so there I sit in his classification scheme.
2. B claims that nearly all critics believe the pathologists were incompetent. I do not. I have previously written that Humes was in charge of the weekly brain cutting conferences at Bethesda. There are many other reasons for believing that he was not merely competent, but probably above average.
3. B claims that critics are stuck with the position that the back bullet (if it did not traverse JFK) vanished into thin air. Nowhere does he acknowledge my proposal that the back wound could merely have been caused by a piece of shrapnel. There is, in fact, an enormous amount of evidence that lots of shrapnel was around, even visible on the X-rays themselves.
4. He also claims that the throat bullet had to disappear miraculously if the critics are right. Unfortunately again, perhaps by deliberate choice, he does not mention my alternate proposal that a bullet traversed the windshield, but missed everyone. A fair number of witnesses (in the WC volumes) describe such an event. So the throat wound might well have been caused by a small splinter of glass, which would actually fit with the wound seen at the top of the right lung.
5. B claims that critics routinely place Connally directly in front of JFK in order to destroy the single bullet theory. That is not the case for me. I have performed very detailed reconstructions (via Z-frames and corollary data) with Connally properly placed, but still cannot prove the single bullet theory. As usual, B likes to simplify things.
6. B notes that all the evidence points toward debris flying forward after the head shot(s). But he ignores the contrary reports of the motorcycle men to the rear and the members of the Secret Service in the follow-up car. Is he truly unaware of this?
7. He places great emphasis on the invisible hole at the back of JFK’s head—in those Z frames immediately after the headshot. By doing so, he totally ignores my discussion of a bone fragment like a trap door at the posterior. This is based on the actual X-rays, but also on the comments of Dr. Robert McClelland. Furthermore, Z-374 does suggest the large hole at the rear.
8. The large white patches on both lateral X-rays should at least be mentioned in passing. So far as I know these alterations have not been challenged and even Humes was confused by them in his deposition. These areas, posterior to the ear, show bone virtually as dense as JFK’s petrous bone, the densest in the body. His pre-mortem lateral does not look anything like this.
9. B (more than once) implies that critics believe that the CIA hired Oswald to kill JFK. Surely B’s thinking has become wildly muddled here. Oswald himself stated that he was a patsy. I strongly suspect that most critics would leave it at that—and not, in any way, support B’s depiction of the CIA-Oswald connection.
10. B incessantly beats the drum for the WC’s honesty and open-mindedness. Although B cites Warren’s autobiography, he carefully avoids his eulogy for JFK, while the body lay in the capitol rotunda. On that Sunday afternoon, Warren made it transparently clear (at this incredibly early date) that he knew that Oswald did the deed alone! That he recounts it in his autobiography shows that he had not the least embarrassment about having said this, even in retrospect.
11. B wonders what the purpose of substituting and removing autopsy photographs from the collection could possibly be? One can only think he is being disingenuous here. What reason could there be other than to remove evidence of conspiracy, e.g., a large hole at the back of the head?
12. B ventures into bizarre territory in his Introduction. Regarding the life of Jesus, he off-handedly says, “Indeed, no one has come up with anything new for two thousand years.” Many, perhaps most, New Testament scholars would leap off their chairs at this off-the-wall comment. For those interested in something more substantial than B’s fresh insight, see the blog for my opening quote. B seems off-handedly to dismiss all manner of fascinating items: the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gnostic discoveries, the ossuaries of James (still debated) and Peter (not debated) and Caiafas (not debated), Peter’s house (widely accepted), the Galilean boat, the inscription for Pontius Pilate, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the tomb of Herod the Great, the recent resurgence of scholarly literature on Mary Magdalene, and the very recent, hotly-debated Talpiot Tomb.
Appendix B:
Modern Physics and James Joyce
(This is purely for readers who want to close the gap between the two cultures.)
1. Overstreet, David. 1980. Oxymoronic language and logic in quantum mechanics and James Joyce. Substance (University of Wisconsin Press) 28: 37-59.
2. Porter, Jeffrey. 1990. “Three quarks for Muster Mark”: Quantum wordplay and nuclear discourse in Russell Hogan’s Riddley Walker. Contemporary Literature 21: 448-469.
3. Booker, M. Keith. 1990. Joyce, Planck, Einstein, and Heisenberg: A relativistic quantum mechanical discussion of Ulysses. James Joyce Quarterly 27: 577-586.
*****************************************************
Thanks for e-mailing that to me, Bean. It really kept me riveted this morning.
Excellent review from Mantik!
-
In an interesting blog, Mr. Gleeson speculates whether Castro is dead. This was about a year ago. He uncovers and shows fake pictures of Castro. I believe Castro is dead. The newspaper he is holding is not a published copy -- it's a fake. The "newspaper" is stapled together. And is it the real Castro? (There were 2 Oswalds.)
http://sean.gleeson.us/2006/08/13/not-dead...ing-says-castro
When are they going to tell us he's dead? The CIA probably knows. It's the "trickle down" theory. I'd like to see happy people in Little Havana in Florida really have cause to celebrate and then I'd like to see the USA take over Cuba. Can the USA do this? I have been having quite a discussion with a Cuban young man. He says we will not be able to take them over. He says Cuba is 90 miles away from us, and there is nothing we can do except see a news film occasionally of the Cubans driving around in 1950's cars today. How can they be technologically superior to us?
Kathy
Great, just what we need, another war to oppress another country.
Don't you think the CIA is going to get in there?
What makes you think we have the right to murder people and steal their country from them?
Castro took over and then informed his people that they were now living under communism. Why do you think Elian Gonzalez's mother lost her life to give him freedom?
Do we need their sugar cane? Their bananas? Their vacation climate?
It was once a great resort -- before my time. Why should we co-exist with an enemy 90 miles off our shore? What about all the Cuban exiles who went in there in the Bay of Pigs to take back their country? These people have rights and would love a free country. That's why they're here. That's why Kennedy was killed. The Cuban Exiles hoped America would believe Castro did it and want to invade Cuba.
Why don't YOU grab a gun and go right now to take over Cuba?
I was in the Gulf of Mexico 2 days ago. Had an incident, nearly drowned. And the water is still quite chilly. I'll bide my time.
I'll read your obituary in the news.
Make sure they spell my name right. That's important to a person when they're dead.
What is it about us Americans that makes us think we own the world, or, that we ought to own the world?
Castro's regime is our enemy. They're close by. Today we're having trouble with Islamic Extremists from Guyana. Too many enemies nearby.
Oh, and Castro being a bastard? No more than George Washington was considered one by the English.
You can't compare America with Cuba.
He cleaned up a corrupt gov't. and ran OUR American Mafia out of HIS country. Not such a bad thing for the Cuban people.
Not a bad thing? Then why do so many Cubans want to live here? You can't compare Cuba with Iraq.
These are my opinions. Subject to change. It's what I learned in a Jesuit college: We have a mission in this world -- kill Commies for Christ.
Kathy
***********************************************************
"These people have rights and would love a free country. That's why they're here. That's why Kennedy was killed. The Cuban Exiles hoped America would believe Castro did it and want to invade Cuba."
"These people," the majority of whom were those Cuban aristocrats who co-owned the sugar and banana plantations with American elitists, such as William Pauley, and United Fruit, who treated the guajiros, the REAL Cubanos de nativos, as esclavos trabajados in their cane fields and banana orchards. They had a choice to stay or go, and since they had their Palm Beach, Coco Beach, and Miami Beach residences already established, I really don't see how bad off they actually could be considered living "in exile," here in the U.S. The people you may be referring to were more likely middle class, small business owners who would leave because they were basically capitalistic, and feared losing money in a leveled playing field, or economy. Castro wasn't keeping them there, if they didn't want to stay. That Gonzales kid was from guajiro bloodlines, and his family living in Miami were more than likely boat people, or those considered to be "wet backs," by U.S. Immigration officials. All the "white" Cubans left, with their jewelry and riches back in the late 50's and early 60's. Their homes in Havana were converted into living quarters for foreign ambassadors to Cuba.
"That's why Kennedy was killed."
Because he was trying to hold up his end of the bargain by abiding by The Geneva Accords? Kennedy walked into a snake-pit created by Dulles' and his band of merry mercenaries, who were all breaking the law, international law.
-
Viva Fidel!
Seriously.
No one -- I mean NO ONE -- includes in criticism of Castro mention of the US-backed horror he overthrew.
Viva Fidel!
Charles
******************************************************
"No one -- I mean NO ONE -- includes in criticism of Castro mention of the US-backed horror he overthrew.
Viva Fidel!"
I want to expatriate to Cuba! At least, I'll get medical benefits down there. I'm just waiting until I'm 70 or 75, when I can retire, have my brother cash my Social Security checks, and send me the money. I'll donate what's left of my ridiculous and worthless 401K Plan to the Cuban government.
VIVA CHE!
-
Tim, It is heart breaking to read this. I just do not understand Stanford in not getting back to you. Perhaps
Chris should call them and see what the hold up is. While I am glad you got Hospice and that you will be comfortable and cared for, I am holding out for a miracle. The fight re JFK will continue. There are just no words Tim. love, Dawn
I heard from the head of the transplant team at Stanford a couple of days ago and haven't been able to make sense of what he was saying. He informed me that I have a coronary lesion over the left ventricle which would lessen the chances of a successful outcome from a single lung transplant. Since my family history has had me convinced that there was a coronary element to all of this, and because a lung transplant is one of the most dangerous and extensive surgeries being performed, I countered with the whole shebang: how about a heart/lung transplant? His response was that I am now too ill to withstand that surgery. I have read too many case studies of lung transplant patients who died due to the damage to the heart caused by the lungs to be able to elect a surgery with such poor odds and with new problems being found in my heart.
Tim, I'm sorry to hear what you're going through. Of course I'll come visit when I get back to northern California from my tour. You clearly have a lot of people in this forum sending you their best thoughts -- and you can count me as one of them. Please email me at talbotd@salon.com and tell me where you live. We conspiracy freaks have to stick together.David, I will definitely send you my e-mail address and would welcome a visit. My daughter and granddaughter live just minutes from SF, in Alameda, and I hate to think that I've seen SF for the last time, so perhaps we could get together for lunch without you having to drive the three hours to Chico. I enjoyed our exchange at the Adolphus Hotel at the '04 seminar, when I cited Allard Lowenstein as a counterpoint to Jeff Morley's assertion about RFK's relationship with the NY liberals, and discussed with you the seldom considered notion that Bobby and Jack weren't necessarily working off the same page.
By the way, I enjoyed your article in Salon about Chris Matthews. He was obviously livid and treated you very badly on his own program which had you debating Bugliosi. Between Matthews' animosity and Bugliosi's prosecutor-on-meth behavior, you were hardly allowed to speak.
T.C., just to let you know, I'm working on making the Eugene trip. Don't worry, I've got a sleeping bag, and love "roughing it." I'll keep you posted. Since I'll have a full week of employment waiting for me at "The Hill," [July 17, 18, 19, 20, 21] that should help to cover it. I'll keep you posted as to the details. Love always, TerTer: mi casa es su casa. If I'm actually able to make the Oregon trip during the first week of July, I will certainly be home for those dates. I have to work on my caregivers to prescribe a bit of an upper for such special occasions so that I can be at my best for an hour or two (which is pretty much the limit).
Thank you all for your kind wishes and expressions of sympathy.
******************************************************
"I countered with the whole shebang: how about a heart/lung transplant? His response was that I am now too ill to withstand that surgery."
It is that rare occasion, or shock occurrence, to leave me as speechless, as I am at this moment. I feel as if I've been punched right between the eyes.
"Ter: mi casa es su casa. If I'm actually able to make the Oregon trip during the first week of July, I will certainly be home for those dates. I have to work on my caregivers to prescribe a bit of an upper for such special occasions so that I can be at my best for an hour or two (which is pretty much the limit)."
I haven't been on-line since Wednesday, and that was mainly to check my mail at yahoo. I haven't been on the forum here, since Memorial Day weekend. I'll make a point of touching base more often during this month to check on your status [God, does that sound like I'm still on the job, or what?]. Working at The Hill is turning me into an automaton, but you'd be proud of me, T.C. My skills are operating at full tilt boogie and I'm making my departing boss so proud, as well.
Oh, and BTW, Talbot's book arrived on Thursday and I'm just cracking it open this weekend, once the bills have been paid, and the mundane utilitarian functions required in keeping up appearances [laundry, cleaning] are out of the way, so I can relax without the usual distractions coming at me from all sides.
I'll be in touch with you and Cris, soon.
Love always,
Ter
-
Thanks for starting this thread Dawn,
JFK would be 90 years old today, the same age as my mother, born in 1917.
Because November 22nd is noted for JFK's murder, seven or eight years ago COPA members began a tradition of meeting at the JFK Monument at American University at 12 noon on June 10th, holding a memorial service to commemorate President Kennedy's policies and achievements.
Sometimes there are a few dozen people, sometimes just a few, but we always take turns talking about JFK's presidency and why it is still significant today and read excerpts from his speeches, particularly the one read there. One Londoner flys in from England every year for the event, but most of those who participate live in the area or make it a day trip.
When Gorbachev visited Dealey Plaza he stoped at the TSBD museum and signed the guest register with a note that called attention to the June 10th speech and how significant it was received in the Soviet Union and how it may have led to his death.
Here's John Judge's recent letter to COPA members.
This year we will be having a luncheon afterwards to discuss the latest developments in the assassination, review idea for instigating Congressional Oversight Hearings on the JFK Act, update the JFK Grand Jury propsals and make plans for the Dallas COPA conference in November.
I hope some of you will join us.
Bill Kelly
Friends,
On June 10, 1963, just a few months before his assassination in Dallas,
President John F. Kennedy gave what his aide Arthur Schleisinger, Jr.
called the most important speech of his term in office. He addressed
the Cold War, the nuclear arms race and the chance for world peace through
detente and disarmament and a ban on testing nuclear weapons. The text
is attached with commentary. This was consistent with his decision in
April, 1963 to withdraw all US troops from Vietnam and his decision to
explore normalizing relations with Cuba following the Cuban Missile
Crisis that brought the world so close to nuclear war. All of these
were reasons, in my view, for the assassination and coup d`etat that
followed on November 22, and reversed those plans completely.
The Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA) holds an annual commemorative event at the plaque that marks the location of the speech, and you are welcome
to attend. We will gather for a meal and discussion of our November
regional meeting afterwards. Please respond if you are planning to come
- John Judge
"And We Are All Mortal..."
Commemoration to JFK's Call for World Peace
Sunday, June 10, 12:00 - 1:00 pm
Commemorative Plaque
Reeves Athletic Field (west end) (entrance off New Mexico from Nebraska)
American University
4200 Nebraska Ave, NW (at Massachusetts Ave.-Ward Circle)
Washington, DC
Here are general directions to the campus:
Here is a map of the campus:
http://www.american.edu/maps/maincampus.html
Note the athletic field at the top left. The plaque sits at the west or
left end of the field, beyond the Broadcast Center and Beeghley Hall on
the access road.
For Ted Sorenson's speech at AU in 2003 commemorating the event, see:
http://www.american.edu/media/speeches/Sorensen.htm
Our annual regional conference in Dallas is scheduled from November
22-25th at the Hotel Lawrence. More details will follow. I am
negotiating with a number of authors and scientists who have made new
contributions to the research.
--
John Judge
Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA)
PO Box 772
Washington, DC 20044
Annual conferences in Dallas on Nov 22 weekends
Speakers, films, books, resources, email for details
2008 - Memphis, LA and Dallas conferences
National organization of medical and ballistic experts, academics and
authors, researchers and interested individuals investigating major
political assassinations in America and abroad.
We are not allergic to donations, donations NOT tax deductible
****************************************************************
Thanks for posting this, Bill. I know my "dues" are long overdue. Does John take VISA? If he does,
could you ask him to e-mail me a form to enter my info if you get the chance, please? I know, as a member of COPA that he has my e-mail address on file, but if John has a form for VISA payment that he could personally e-mail me to fill out, I might be able to facilitate a quicker transfer of funds for my dues. I don't have PayPal, that's why I'm asking.
Thanks, Billy.
Ter
tmauro@pacbell.net
-
"My only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others….."
Except $$$$ of course.
*******************************************************
"Except $$$$ of course."
Oink! Oink!
PIGGIES
by George Harrison
Have you seen the little piggies
Crawling in the dirt
And for all the little piggies
Life is getting worse
Always having dirt to play around in.
Have you seen the bigger piggies
In their starched white shirts
You will find the bigger piggies
Stirring up the dirt
Always have clean shirts to play around in.
In their styes with all their backing
They don't care what goes on around
In their eyes there's something lacking
What they need's a damn good whacking.
Everywhere there's lots of piggies
Living piggy lives
You can see them out for dinner
With their piggy wives
Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon.
-
Bugliosi's piece of trash "Reclaiming History" is getting lots of positive reviews on Amazon, and it's overalll rating is 3 stars out of 5. I just posted a bad review. I suppose I am am a bit disingenuous, as I have not read the book, and have no intention of wasting my money on it, but I am familiar enough with the evidence, and the tired tactics used by defenders of the official story, to bet that this is just more of the same claptrap as we have seen over and over and over again throughout the years. I honestly don't know what Bugliosi could come up with that all the assassination researchers could have missed all these years. It's just another skewed prosecutorial brief. I'll bet my money on it.
Many would have you believe that super lawyer Vincent Bugliosi has closed the JFK case once and for all. Not so. Not even by a long shot. This is just another prosecutorial presentation. Bugliosi only presents what he wants you to see, within the carefully constrained context in which he wants you to see it. Forget about the fact that the single bullet theory is prima facie absurd, as no 6.5 mm copper jacketed bullet has ever been demonstrated to have caused the injuries ascribed to the so-called magic bullet (broken rib, shattered radius bone, seven wounds in two men) and come out looking nearly pristine; Forget the fact that the Warren Commission had bullets of the exact same caliber and make as the so-called "magic bullet" test fired at Edgewood Arsenal, and the only bullets that came out looking like CE 399 (magic bullet) were the ones fired into cotton wadding; forget the fact that the Zapruder film clearly and unambiguously shows Connally turning all the way around to look over his right shoulder long after Kennedy raises his hands to his throat in reaction to being hit, just as John and Nellie Connally both described; Forget the fact that almost every single witness to the head wound[s?] described a large exit wound in the rear of the head; Forget the fact that the nurse at Parkland Hospital (Diana Bowren) who cleaned Kennedy's body said that the wound at the rear of the head was so large that they placed gauze in it before the head was wrapped in a towel; Forget the fact that Gawlers Funeral Home assistant (Tom Robinson), who prepared the body for the casket, said the rear exit hole was so large that he had to place a rubber piece over it to cover it up; Forget the fact that the "magic bullet" could not possibly have gone through Kennedy's back and out his throat, as it is alleged to have done, without striking the transverse processes of the vertabrae as Dr. David Mantik has demonstrated; Forget the fact that the woman (Saundra Spencer) who developed the autopsy X-rays at the Naval Photographic Center in Anacostia, Maryland told the ARRB that the autopsy photos now in the National Archives are not the ones she developed in 1963, and that one of the photos she developed showed the large exit wound in the rear of the head; Forget the fact that the man who took the autopsy X-rays (John Stringer) also had trouble verifying the official autopsy photos, shown to him by the ARRB, as the ones he took in 1963, and that he also said that several of the photos he took are not present in the official record; Forget the fact that another examination of a different brain was performed on Dec. 2nd and 3rd 1963; Forget about E. Howard Hunt's recent taped "confession". Yes forget about all of this and much, much more, because the brilliant Vincent Bugliosi has "proven" once and for all that there was no conspiracy to murder John Kennedy. Didn't we hear that same claim trumpeted by defenders of the official faith when another much ballyhooed tome was purported to have closed the case back in the nineties? And don't we all now what a crock of ommissions, distortions, and out right lies that overrated piece of junk turned out to be? As the old saying goes - " History repeats itself." This book will be relegated to the scrapheap of history, just like Posner's much lauded (by the mainstream news media) boondoggle. And so it goes.
[/quote
********************************************************
Excellent review, Brian! I'm sure David Von "Pain" will rush in to try and discredit your every point with his penchant for lacing his rhetorical responses with cheap ad hominem shots designed to make you look bad, but in reality only serve to cause him to appear as the half-wit he really is.
Go to the David Von "Pain" thread, the very first on the list. He's been the Bugliosi Baloney promoter over there, but his delivery is pathetically weak, and his rebuttals can be easily be poked full of holes. I've spent the last two days calling his bluff, and eliciting responses from him that border on the verge of him sounding like some hysterical drag queen. What a putz!
I was very impressed with the showing Pat Speer made over there, as well as Lisa Pease's input and Len Osanic's. Dave Healy made me laugh quite a few times, and a guy named Ric Lan has been pretty sharp with his comments, as well.
Von "Pain" and his antics accomplish one thing only, and that is to make Bugliosi look worse. Give some people enough rope, and they'll end up swinging from it.
Good job, Brian.
-
Your time could have been much better spent elsewhere.
There are some here who would say that the time Doug spent opposing LBJ was time well spent indeed.
You were ahead of your time then, Mr. Caddy, and maybe the same is true again today.
*********************************************************
"There are some here who would say that the time Doug spent opposing LBJ was time well spent indeed."
I can't argue with that. But, from what I gathered, Mr. Caddy held almost the same views about LBJ that I did, at the time.
"You were ahead of your time then, Mr. Caddy, and maybe the same is true again today."
Total agreement. That's why I made the statement about how nice it would have been to have had him on our side of the fence, gifted as I believe he truly is, and has demonstrated as much, from a quite notable career. And, I'm not trying to be a smart aleck by stating what I have to say, here. I'm acknowledging what I perceive as an honest explanation being made by Mr. Caddy.
I am fully aware, speaking from my own experience, how at different points in our lives, we've all made choices we had believed in, based upon what we thought was the best decision possible for all concerned at the time we're making them. Sometimes we may discover we've quite possibly been misled. Or that a misrepresentation may have occurred due to an unexpected transition within an organization, committee, or other affiliation in which we had invested an enormous amount of time, energy, and faith. We wake up one morning only to find we no longer recognize the vision it once held for us. That is what I consider to be one of the "hard" lessons life can have in store for us.
This is the gist of what I believe Mr. Caddy was relating to us. And why I appreciated his coming forth to share with us the history of his relationship and involvement in the political community. By no means did I not recognize a unique opportunity, nor was I seeking to alienate Mr. Caddy from answering the forum members' questions. I merely sought to express my regrets for not having had his expertise available during some of the most troublesome times this country was forced to go through, with the assassination deaths of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy, the Kent State Massacre, as well as the overall pall cast by the Vietnam War, itself.
-
Al Jazeera held an interesting discussion on political assassinations,. They list several state sponsored assassinations as precedent to the current Israeli policy, citing the murders of Trotsky and Julius Caesar. They also mention the possibility of state involvement in the assassination of JFK. I find this quite a bold statement, this confirms my sentiments that Al Jazeera is the thinking mans news media, which conducts itself in a scholarly methodology of political interpretation.
I suggest that memebers take a look at this clip, it is the first of two.
John
Interesting viseo. Maybe Al Jazeera would be interested in interviewing David Talbot. Two of the experts claimed that political assassinations are rarely successful in achieving their objectives. However, that was not the case in the assassination of JFK, RFK and MLK.
Hello!!!!
I hope most of you are reading the last post first here because.........
I want the forum members to know that in many of the past threads that I have read , links placed by Ms Foster in her posts were said to contain viruses. This may or may not be true, but don't risk it!!!!
Please be very careful with opening any of them!!!!!!!!!!
Kathy Beckett
******************************************************
"I want the forum members to know that in many of the past threads that I have read, links placed by Ms Foster in her posts were said to contain viruses. This may or may not be true, but don't risk it!!!!
Please be very careful with opening any of them!!!!!!!!!!
Kathy Beckett"
Yes, sweet child. We all became infected with it at the time. Even Gerry Hemming cried foul over that one! I'm just surprised John or Andy hadn't eliminated her tripe from the forum, or at least checked to see if her links still carried those active viruses. All the more reason to wipe her from the face of the database server, wouldn't you think? A totally toxic individual, in more ways than one.
Ter
-
I have always been of the opinion that the Kennedy family knows exactly what happened to JFK and RFK, but are in no position to do anything. As pointed out by David, look what happened to the King family- (and Judge Joe Brown)- when they tried to obtain justice. Reno became ....a disgrace to say the least.
At a COPA conference in Dallas on the 34th anniversary I met a Kennedy cousin and got to ask the question I have always wanted to ask: "Does the family read conspiracy books?" , and was told "Absolutely. Especially John. " (And look what happened to him).
I daresay the family is hesitant to discuss this matter not only out of fear of ridicule, but out fear for safety. And who could blame them? Poor Ted, this must weigh on him horribly.
Right after Clinton told aids to look into JFK strange things began to happen. This stuff is bigger than the president. These forces more powerful and still in control of the history that was not. We need more brave souls in the press like David Talbot and Jeff Morely...but what are THOSE chances?
Dawn
Oops, just now saw that you asked the same thing. Sorry Terry.
Dawn, Could you elaborate on "strange things began to happen.
Terry
*****************************************************
"Right after Clinton told aids to look into JFK strange things began to happen. This stuff is bigger than the president. These forces more powerful and still in control of the history that was not. We need more brave souls in the press like David Talbot and Jeff Morely...but what are THOSE chances?"
I'm just guessing here, since I haven't spoken with Dawnie yet today, what with the holiday and all. But, possibly it could be the events surrounding what happened to Vince Foster, the ensuing Whitewater scandal, culminating with the Lewinsky affair, and the resulting character assassination of Bill, and to a lesser degree, Hillary during the Kenneth Starr Grand Jury fiasco?
JFK Assassination: Websites
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
***************************************************
Hey, Myra! Add this to the timeline. I'll never forget it because it scared the hell out of me when I was 12 years old!
"Sputnik and The Dawn of the Space Age
History changed on October 4, 1957, when the Soviet Union successfully launched Sputnik I. The world's first artificial satellite was about the size of a basketball, weighed only 183 pounds, and took about 98 minutes to orbit the Earth on its elliptical path. That launch ushered in new political, military, technological, and scientific developments. While the Sputnik launch was a single event, it marked the start of the space age and the U.S.-U.S.S.R space race.
The story begins in 1952, when the International Council of Scientific Unions decided to establish July 1, 1957, to December 31, 1958, as the International Geophysical Year (IGY) because the scientists knew that the cycles of solar activity would be at a high point then. In October 1954, the council adopted a resolution calling for artificial satellites to be launched during the IGY to map the Earth's surface.
In July 1955, the White House announced plans to launch an Earth-orbiting satellite for the IGY and solicited proposals from various Government research agencies to undertake development. In September 1955, the Naval Research Laboratory's Vanguard proposal was chosen to represent the U.S. during the IGY.
The Sputnik launch changed everything. As a technical achievement, Sputnik caught the world's attention and the American public off-guard. Its size was more impressive than Vanguard's intended 3.5-pound payload. In addition, the public feared that the Soviets' ability to launch satellites also translated into the capability to launch ballistic missiles that could carry nuclear weapons from Europe to the U.S. Then the Soviets struck again; on November 3, Sputnik II was launched, carrying a much heavier payload, including a dog named Laika.
Immediately after the Sputnik I launch in October, the U.S. Defense Department responded to the political furor by approving funding for another U.S. satellite project. As a simultaneous alternative to Vanguard, Wernher von Braun and his Army Redstone Arsenal team began work on the Explorer project.
On January 31, 1958, the tide changed, when the United States successfully launched Explorer I. This satellite carried a small scientific payload that eventually discovered the magnetic radiation belts around the Earth, named after principal investigator James Van Allen. The Explorer program continued as a successful ongoing series of lightweight, scientifically useful spacecraft.
The Sputnik launch also led directly to the creation of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). In July 1958, Congress passed the National Aeronautics and Space Act (commonly called the "Space Act"), which created NASA as of October 1, 1958 from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) and other government agencies."