David G. Healy

How are your Zapruder Film Studies coming along? Been awhile since I've seen anything here... David Healy

'Charles Black' wrote: Forum Moderators I would like to know why the thread on the Virginaia Tech Spree Killer which had received a couple of thousand reads was removed. [...] I responded in the thread a few minutes before you posted the above, Charlie.....

Steve, Take a look at the title how many views this thread has! So, let it die? Looks like its just warming up!

'Charles Drago' wrote: Once again I ask you to join me in calling upon Rex Bradford -- a good man and world-class researcher/historian -- to disclose fully the origins and funding of the Mary Ferrell Foundation and to provide a detailed report on the whereabouts and condition of Mary's archives. Toward these ends, I ask Mr. Bradford to consider taking part in a panel discussion -- if possible, at the next JFK/Lancer conference in Dallas -- at which he, Oliver Curme, and other principals of the MFF would answer questions relative to the issues raised in the preceding paragraph. dgh: Why wait, and why the yearly Lancer conference? Put together a simple ad hoc press conference and stream the it 'LIVE'? This isn't rocket science... Record AND post same to YouTube? As I previously have written, Mary's holdings amount to a counter-National Archives (as do those of Harold Weisberg, I might add), and include unique, immensely important documents. The importance of their preservation -- to our work, to history, to the truth -- cannot be overstated. One good electromagnetic pulse will do to cyberspace what the flames did to the great library at Alexandria. That which we can hold in our hands can be preserved. Who will join me in this call? Charles

Peter, Did you mean this one???? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5Yf_H5v47Y Although I do not post much, I read a great deal of these threads, both old and new. Gary seems to be always there with answers, and is a great resource for documents and photos. He invites those, who wish to view them, to make an appointment and come and see them. Sometimes, he raises objections to arguments, but this is necessary for anyone who is doing serious research. I can honestly tell you that I think the world of him and have nothing but the utmost respect for him and what he does. THANK YOU,GARY!!!! ah, the good ole day's.... much has changed young lady! So, shall we annoit him this day or wait a few hundred years?

tell it like it is, Charlie....

Hi Miles: " No see above"?? gee that appears to me that your mind is made up, in cement ?? Then the question why are we discussing this, comes to mind..?? Hi Bernice. Many thanks for your continuing analysis & interest in the Ed Hoffman story. Especially, thanks for your great photos! Oh no, I'm open to any info which will add credence to Ed's story. Originally, I took Ed's story at face value. But recently I've been looking into his story & have found many inconsistencies which cannot be resolved. If Ed's story is true, then, of course, certain implications follow. For example, Ed's story adds to the evidence of a shooter at the fence & thus undermines the Warren Report. However, Ed's story, if not true, is not needed to establish a shooter from the fence; hence, there is no problem in that sense. I was in error and you were correct on the tossing of said rifle to the RR ? man over the pipe..brain drain.?? I watched Sam Holland again this afternoon, in his interview with Mark Lane "Rush to Judgement, I believe it was originally made in 67...he states words to the effect they were milling about, where the footprints and all were, he speaks of looking in the area of the fence and around for empty shells and such with the DPD and others, so there had to be room in front of said cars for them to do so.. And if not there would not have been any footprints of any kind, to be found in the first place, and they were many, as told by several.....witnesses.... He does say to get to that area they did vault and climb over cars...but if it your belief that the cars were all parked right up against the fence and therefore there could not be any footprints either, fine with me, that is your opinion.. The video is also available here on Johns list.. I've viewed Lane's interview with Sam Holland several times. The trampled area as seen in Roberdeau's map is correct, but the cars further west along the fence from the trampled area most probably impeded Sam from running along the fence to reach the trampled area. That is the implication of his commentary that he & others had to vault & climb over cars to reach the trampled area at the snipers fire point. The implication is that Sam probably proceeded in a zig-zag course along the rear of the cars parked nosed in along the fence. The aerial photo taken on 11-23-63 shows this arrangement & also the foliage hanging over the fence from its south flank which also would have presented impediment to quick & easy transit. If you want to suspect Ed's information, that is up tp you..... And up to you too, if you begin to notice problems, big problems, with Ed's story. I have never heard nor seen one witness that ever stated, you have to believe me....I give them all the benefit of the doubt, as they were there, and I was not..though I realise with time information from ...some now has changed to some degree.. When Jim Marrs first spoke to Ed I think around 87 ish...?..he did find the FBI information that backed up what he had related to him,about him contacting them..... Ed said that the Dallas Police tried to give him money if he would desist from telling them his story to them. Do you believe this? Ed also at the Thanksgiving celebration with his family,... snip ......But it is up to the individual as to what you believe or choose not to... Indeed! I did go looking in the files ...I thought perhaps you might have been interested in what I did find, but now I get the impression that you will not be, as you state " Ed's story is highly suspect"....and it appears to me, imo your mind is made up, but that is up to you and is your opinion and I respect such..........but will post for whomever may be.. Many thanks, B. I certainly do appreciate your help & valuable resources, especially the photos. Great! Here are a few quotes which I hope you will find of interest: 1.) For an exhaustive critique & dismantling of Hoffman see, for example: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hoffman.htm 2.) The yardman was actually reporting to Weitzman that he, while atop the overpass & from the overpass, had seen through a bush (read "a bush" to mean "a screen of foliage," which reading is clearly a tortured stretch, of course)..., that he the yardman had seen something THROWN by someone. This line of conjecture contains a flaw. The verb ''THROWN" is the operative action verb. How did the yardman know something had been THROWN? From the view point of the overpass, judging from the Nix film, it would have been possible to see, through the foliage, a person walking west along the fence & to see such a person throw (or toss as Hoffman might say) a rifle, or something (!), to another man. If the viewer told Weitzman that he had seen something thrown by someone, then Hoffman's characterization of a two handed toss forward at a height below shoulder height becomes dubious as the fence is 5 feet. Would the assassin want to advertise his presence by tossing a rifle higher than the fence height, so it could be seen sailing through the air? Ah, the flying rifle theory! This would be foolhardy, as the overpass spectators had a view from elevation. Was there a toss? Richard C. Dodd, who had been standing with Holland atop the overpass at the time of Z-313, ran to the steamline pipe & electrical boxes & there met a RR special agent who had been in that area & not on the overpass at Z-313. This means that this agent could have been the yardman who reported to Weitzman he had seen something thrown. Since the agent was in the yard area at Z-313, then it is logical to suppose that other yardmen were in that area, working, at Z-313. Any of these could have reported to Weitzman seeing some thing thrown; their view would have been from the north side of the fence. Something else to consider is the timing. If the sniper tossed his rifle to an assistant, then where exactly did the toss occur? If it was east of the steamline pipe, then did the assistant jump over the steam line to get to the electrical box; or did he duck under the steamline with the rifle in hand. Did the toss occur at the steamline, the rifle being tossed over the line? A lot of time is being consumed. Why then would not the RR agent Dodd met have seen the assistant carrying a rifle, breaking down a rifle & walking away with a bag? Indeed, why would not the running Holland have seen the assistant or any yardman working in the yard not have seen the assistant? Why would a professional sniper team run such a risk of exposure, even if the assistant was dressed yardman cloths? Wasn't Lee Bowers staring at the fence? Was it because there never was an assistant? One thing I find puzzling & incredible in Hoffman's testimony. He says that shortly after the assassination he approached FBI & DP to tell them what he had seen. He says he had great difficulty communicating to them his knowledge in his excited state. Hoffman says these men didn't seen to want to understand him & that they offered him money to go away. Offered him money to go away? 3.) Yeah, I too have a soft spot in my heart for good ol' Ed, but, unfortunately, the bumper to bumper parked cars parked adjacent to & along the north side of the picket fence, the fact that the switch boxes were so close to the north side of the overpass, the presence of the Katy RR agent already standing by the switch boxes at Z-313, even the intervening trains blocking Ed's view, and all the other contradictions in Ed's story indicate what Ed's father knew about his son: that he could make up stories & often did, as in this case. 4.) The most embarrassing aspect of Ed's story is the gross & stark implausibility of the "rifle toss" canard. Ed's story is that the assassin fires a shot from behind the picket fence from a spot near hatman; that the assassin then walks west down along the fence toward the elevated (3') steamline pipe at the north end of the triple underpass; that the assassin tosses his rifle to an assistant, possibly tossing it over the steamline pipe; that the assistant then proceeds to the northern most of two switch boxes to disassemble the rifle to put it in a bag; and, finally, both assassin & assistant then casually walk away unseen. Sound good? Unfortunately there's a massive problem here. In the Bell film two men can be seen at the north wall of the triple underpass, the wall that runs from the underpass to connect with the western end of the picket fence. These two men are seen at this wall as the limo goes through the underpass on the way to Parkland. These two men are, therefore, standing, at the critical time, about 15 feet (!!) away from the switch box where Ed's "assistant" breaks down the rifle. Since there are zero bushes or tress in this area, this means that the two men could have & would have SEEN the assassin toss the rifle to the assistant & would have SEEN the assistant carrying the rifle to the switch box, breaking it down & carrying it away in a bag. It is possible that Ed's "rifle toss" occurred before the assassin reached the steamline pipe; if so, then, the assistant would have had to have jumped over the 3' steamline pipe or to have ducked under it, while carrying the rifle. What makes this whole scenario laughably implausible is the consideration that the assassin is executing a plan of escape that is, in its conception, the exact oppose of a plan designed to succeed. The assassin & his assistant walk to where there is an extremely high likelihood that they will be seen, and seen by any number of witnesses who are in the area of the switch boxes to view the motorcade. In other words, the assassin & his advisers, realizing the dangers, would have first of all have ruled out Ed's scenario as being the worst possible exit strategy, the one plan most likely to fail, the one plan most likely to expose the assassin. Conclusion: Ed's dog don't hunt. 5.) Thx, Bernice, if you can blow up this .jpg you will see that on 11-22(or 23-date of photo)-63 a man standing at column 2 of the balustrade (column man) could easily have seen Ed's apocryphal rifle toss. Remember, Column Man would have heard clearly the crack or report of the kill shot to his immediate left &, consequently, would have had a reflex reaction to look to his left to see, amazingly, the assassin pitch his rifle. Of course, no pitch ever occurred. If Ed's toss occurred in the blind area, then, of course, Column Man would have seen the assassin's assistant leap over or duck under the steam pipe with the rifle!. It's noteworthy that Ed changed his story from the assassin throwing the rifle with his palms up to throwing it with his palms down.... just one of the numerous contradicting inconsistancies.... [bTW, note the cars parked along, against the long arm of the picket fence. How could the shooter have walked west down along the fence between these cars & the fence? Maybe he shuffled side stepping, crab-wise?] 6.) Ed Hoffman- Hoffman is a deaf mute man who claims to have been in the Dealey Plaza area at the time of the assassination. He claims to have seen a man behind the grassy knoll shoot the president, then move towards the triple underpass, and toss the gun to a man knelt down behind a track switchbox. This man then supposedly took the gun apart, put it in a small carrying box, and both men strolled away in opposite directions. Now, I've been to Dealey Plaza, walked behind the stockade fence, and walked over to the triple underpass where S.M. Holland and several other watched the motorcade and witnessed the assassination. The distance between the bridge and the area of the stockade fence where a would be assassin would be located, is not the far, and the fact that an assassin would move towards the direction of the underpass, and toss a gun to an accomplice, who in turn took the gun apart right in that area, suspends my belief. Hoffman said he tried to communicate with a police officer immediately after the shooting but being a deaf mute, he was unsuccessful, and then decided not to come forward until 20-25 years later. I have to fall into the category of not believing his story. -- http://www.geocities.com/metsman_2001/misinfo.html 7.) QUOTE(Bill Miller @ Mar 25 2007, 10:02 AM) But Hoffman DID want to be given a test from the beginning, but he was told that it was not possible to test a deaf mute. To look closely, however: Polygraphing techniques for the deaf have been around since the 60s & have been refined over the years (Dr. Matte: "A Technique for Polygraphing the Deaf." Polygraph, Vol. 2, Nr.3, 1980. Journal of the American Polygraph Association.) Thus, Ed could have seen to it that he WAS polygraphed had he really wanted to be polygrahed. Perhaps there was a reason to avoid a polygraph? What could that reason be? Ed, in The Men Who Killed Kennedy(1988), looked intelligent, prosperous & well educated, driving a not inexpensive car. Deaf mutes use sign language which enables them to communicate very effectively with non-signing hearing & speaking people. Why? Just to give only one reason, deaf mutes are introduced to non-signing hearing & speaking people from their earliest years & learn ways & means to communicate with same. It becomes a life study. For example, Ed, on approaching an FBI or DPD officer would have showed a posture of someone shooting a rifle & then he would have pointed to the RR yard & then perhaps he would have pointed to his eye suggesting that he had seen a marksman. The officer, having the recent gunfire on his mind, would not think this pantomime was a request for alms, would he? The officer might have been in a hurry. But would he have said: Here, take $5.00 & good day to you? Of course not. On balance, unfortunately, Ed Hoffman's story is not reasonably to be belived. that's a bit presumptive, eh? And... "... on BALANCE, UNFORTUNATELY, Ed Hoffman's story is NOT REASONABLY to be BELIEVED." [emphasis mine] What does THAT mean? Can't SBT-Lone Nutter's simply say, they believe a EYEwitness lied? Now the SBTheorist's are *sign* literate.... oh-wee...

A lot DELTA flights originating in NY for points south and west were routed through Atlanta, Atlanta being DELTA's headquarters. 1 and 2 stop flights are cheaper than non-stop flights... Best of my knowledge Robert Oswald was not a wealthy person...

Korean student (senior class in fact) and what does "postal" mean?

old story.... completed just in time for the JFK 40th anniversary (assassination-imagine that). The notorious Dale Myers quote: "...its NOT the Single Bullet THEORY, it's the Single Bullet FACT!" Dale did in fact convince Peter Jennings though...

All registered members of the forum got this email. The character of the first post is Tom Lowry, who has never been a member of this forum, as far as I can remember. He posts incredibly nasty anti-CT invectives all day long on alt.conspiracy.jfk and alt.assassination.jfk. After viewing my first video, with Baden testifying with his video upside down, he sent me an amazingly insulting email in which he claimed I was somehow lying for financial gain. The other character, Salvador Astucia, is a fake name used by Dave Sharp. He writes on alt.assassination.jfk as dsharpness, I believe. He was booted off this forum for anti-semitism and lying about his name. Someone once created a webpage about him, in which they detailed his long career as an internet xxxxx and anti-semite haunting and taunting Beatle and JFK forums. The fact that Lowry got John's email makes me suspicious that he too has been using a fake name. Lowry is a confirmed Mel Ayton[ite], a radical 'Lone Nutter '-- regular contributor (invective only) to alt.conspiracy.jfk USNET board, participates with and in support of, David Von Pein, Todd Vaughan, Fast Eddie Cage and low and behold, Dr. Ken Rahn plus others... Lowry aka, Charles 'Chuck' Schuler -- there's a few other aliases

Perp: Asian, student age (whatever that means), maroon hat, leather jacket, most likely armed with [2] 9mm automatics 15 round clip- 1 round chamber for a total of 16 rounds per weapon... alleged gunman DEAD at scene total confirmed dead at Noon PST -- 31 mostly students, some faculty

closest shot to the head shot coming 5 seconds BEFORE the head shot. Actually! The first shot was fired some 5.7 to 5.9 seconds prior to the Z313/aka second shot. Lastly, just to "up" the credibility, one just may (or may not) want to expend the time and effort to research the Dallas Police Dept. testimonies. There were many witnesses who gave statements and yet were never called to testify before the Warren Commission. The: "Bang"----------------delay----------------------"Bang,----Bang," statements are quite prevelant there as well. Guess that this limb which I have been out on, all by my lonesome, is perhaps considerably more solid and sturdy than most have given it credit to be. you got company....

Best Regards in Research, Don Don Roberdeau U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, "Big John," Plank Walker Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges Clearly ROSEMARY WILLIS 2nd Headsnap; Westward, Ultrafast, & Towards the "Grassy Knoll" Dealey Plaza Professionally-surveyed Map Detailing Victims locations, Witnesses, Photographers, Suspected trajectories, Evidentiary artifacts, etc 4 Principles T ogether E veryone A chieves M ore For the United States "According to Mr Zapruder the position of the assassin was behind Mr Zapruder." - earliest public statement by ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER of from where he sensed that, at least, one shot was fired from, as documented in Warren Commission Document CD87, a 22NOV63, 9:55 pm note from PRS agent MAXWELL PHILLIPS that accompanied 3 copies of the ZAPRUDER film ("behind" ZAPRUDER's facing direction up to Zf-321 was the north picket fenceline easternmost corner on the north "grassy knoll") Don, Can you clarify this from your above: "note from PRS agent MAXWELL PHILLIPS that accompanied 3 copies of the ZAPRUDER film", who said 3 copies of the Z-film accompanied anything and to where? thanks David Healy

'Charles Drago' wrote: To be clear: I do not argue that the Z-film and the controversy it was produced (again, according to my hypothesis) to engender are greater detriments to our efforts than, say, the forged/not forged autopsy photographs, multiple Oswalds, the backyard photos and the subsequently discovered cut-out version, etc. dgh: not very clear... The altered Z-film is of zero significance to the "howdunit" question, but of critical significance to the "whodunit" investigation. Further, and as I have asked from numerous podiums before audiences comprised of many of the best and brightest among us, what will constitute closure for us? dgh: closure is illusion, you can't rewrite the assassination Seriously, I can think of no more important question. I have suggested and published my own answers, and I am keenly interested in how members of this forum would respond. When will we be done? dgh: perhaps the answer lies with another question, when will I be done? There is no "WE-THEM"! For me the 'done' time is, soon -- very soon, I'm satisfied When justice is meted out? dgh: mete out to whom/them/that person? There will be no collective justice, that illusion (hate to wear that term out) exists in the individual, and fleeting at best. What constitutes justice in this case? dgh: when a high-level US Justice department government official *admits* cover-up in the JFK assassination investigation, for whatever reason, anything short of that is bullxxxx! Charles

Charles, I agree with your line of thinking and I believe you've brought an important approach into play. For me, the Zfilm alteration topic has always been a distraction. A long time ago, I came to believe that it simply couldn't be done, given the variables on site. So every time it's brought up, it feels more like an unproductive tangent. imo, Could there have been a shot from the front? Yes. Could there be conspirators? Yes. But could the Zfilm have been altered (along with dozens of other still and motion films? No way. Again, it's just my opinion and I'm well aware that many people have brought tremendous experience and effort to bear in investigating that film. But if the effort that went into the Zfilm had been directed toward other areas, who knows what we may know by now? Mark, Permit me to suggest an alternative phrasing for your question: "Could the Z-film have been altered without subsequent detection of the alteration?" The answer: NO! And the alterationists (sounds like the title of a Caleb Carr novel) knew it, altered it anyway, and facilitated our detection of their fraud. Their goal, at least in terms of my hypothesis, was to conceal the truth by allowing us to discern their efforts to do so, and as a consequence mire ourselves in decades of argument over a long-settled issue: conspiracy as historical truth. Charles Not necessary -- consider who/what a alleged 'altered' Zapruder film need fool -- the Warren Commission, staff, and certain controlled media, that's it! Unless of course the Zapruder film was to have a mass airing during the commissions life? If the Zapruder film (as we see it today) was circulated to DP eye and ear witnesses during the life of the Warren Commission, what could we expect their response to the SBT be? The Zapruder film as we see it TODAY? Any form, bastardized or otherwise of the Zapruder film would passed muster with the WC. The need to keep LHO in the 6th floor window is obvious, especially if one simply relies on Hoover statements and certain presidential staff personnel concerning *a* Lone Assassin....

'Mark Valenti' wrote: David, The Zfilm alteration theory is, to me, an unproductive tangent, plain and simple. I would bet money it will never lead to any kind of solution or even kinda sorta helpful data. dgh: I say productive, especially from a LHO-SBT single shooter instance -- keep attention on DP film-photos controversy why go elsewhere to many scenarios out there pointing towards conspiracy...? Keep it simple... I agree that a second shooter from the rear is plausible and could fit within the known details. And despite there being no good place for a shooter to hide from the front, imo, a shot from the front remains viable as long as certain issues remain unresolved. dgh: shot from the front --"...as long as certain issues remain unsolved." therein lays, SBT longevity I don't personally think there was a shot from the front but considering the mountain of theories that places one there, I believe that logic and fairness requires it to remain on the table - if off to the side a little. dgh: but course a shot from the knoll is NOT needed. However, a shot from the knoll - even straight up in the air, would serve purpose... IF, there was conspiracy, a coup would not employ a questionable (at best& verifiable) shooter in taking down the most powerful man (in American eyes) on earth. Way, way, WAY too much left to chance... The SBT has lasted a few score years, it had a good run. There is much pointing towards conspiracy, that includes the entire DP photo record, which at its very best-worst is questionable, to me that makes for a wash, if you eliminate the photorecord, what does that leave?

Charles, I agree with your line of thinking and I believe you've brought an important approach into play. For me, the Zfilm alteration topic has always been a distraction. A long time ago, I came to believe that it simply couldn't be done, given the variables on site. So every time it's brought up, it feels more like an unproductive tangent. imo, Could there have been a shot from the front? Yes. Could there be conspirators? Yes. But could the Zfilm have been altered (along with dozens of other still and motion films? No way. Again, it's just my opinion and I'm well aware that many people have brought tremendous experience and effort to bear in investigating that film. But if the effort that went into the Zfilm had been directed toward other areas, who knows what we may know by now? Well that's cute, blame lack of knowledge in the case on the film alteration crowd? Weak, sounds like more preservation of Dealey Plaza historical film-photo record "status quo" to me..... or ducking the issue at very least, so what else is new! Consider this, a 2nd shooter from the rear! Knowledge of THAT, would of left little or NO doubt re conspiracy in the assassination of JFK - NONE! Two shooters, proof of conspiracy. All without necessary support/aid of a single Nov 22nd 1963 Dealey Plaza film OR photo. EVERY single DP film-photo utilized as JFK assassination related evidence from Nov 23rd on, was used to support a single assassin from the rear scenario, eh? Could the WCR make a case for the single, unstable, mediocore shooter, lone nut assassin without the DP film-photo's? Impossible! The conspiracy side of the question CAN make a case for Conspiracy without any DP film-photo evidence... When you eliminate (what many knowledgable think) the CT impossible (3 shot-1 shooter from the rear) you're left with the CT probable (3 shot-2 shooter from the rear), no film/photo record necessary. Simplicity! Let's confuse this scenario a bit; 1 shooter from the rear (TSBD) - 1 shooter from the front (Knoll), that calls in every DP film/photo, hence every piece of DP assassination related evidence (including clothing, x-rays) called to question, verification and authenticity LHO could not see arraignment, let alone, trial. EVERY knowledgable CTer I've EVER spoken with knows that -- Makes little or no difference whether the anti/alteration film-photo crowds EVER find agreement... Best case scenario for the altered film-photo crowd = coverup, cover up for WHAT? Far from proving conspiracy. Of course the above is speculation on my part - better than blaming one side or other... right Bill?

My experience is limited as I frequent mostly JFK assassination related sites. It's my experience people who would LIKE to share/aprticipate/opine are more put-off by their lack of proper writing/spelling skills rather than "abusvie behaviour of others". UNLESS of course you own/run/moderate a blog or forum... Free speech on worldwide web USNET borards, private-public forums is illusion! Someone is paying server costs, ALL pay ISP fees, is that free speech?. Advertising is everywhere, that certainly is not *free* speech.... What's free, is your right *choosing* to participate!

(Dealey Plaza and other locals) on vacation or reading circulated [advance] copies of Bugliosi's upcoming tome? If a late May release date is accurate, the book has to be sitting on cablenews talk-show producers and/or booking agents desks now... Any news, or is it, "more of the same...."? DHealy

'Charles Drago' wrote: Today (Saturday, April 7), at approximately 11:05 AM Eastern time, on C-SPAN's "In Depth," Alexander Cockburn responded to an E-mail question about his thoughts on "Case Closed" by stating that he accepts the Warren Commission's conclusions, but doesn't really agree with Gerald Posner. Once again we must ask ourselves two important quesations: What sort of impact we are having on the quest for justice in the case of the unsolved, conspiratorial murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy when we cannot persuade the boldest, most progressive, liberal of intellectual lions to accept the truth? dgh: only one question needs to be asked in my mind: what the hell happened to THE historians AND the "intellectual lions of any stripe, were they ALL asleep (as it appears) or scared when it comes to the JFK assassination.... Is it appropriate to use a given scholar's "take" on the assassination as a litmus test for his or her work in other areas? dgh: absolutely call it credibility... Manchester included I eagerly await your thoughts. Charles

seeing that this is April 3rd, can we assume the answer is: NO?

"Changes", the album, BDylan material right?

'Charles Black' wrote: Hello Evan I will agree with you that RFK was quite ruthless. However, I feel that it is often misunderstood, that as a result of the better use of tact, the fact that JFK was both quite ruthless and reckless is sometimes overlooked. They both were very much the proteges of "old Joe" and that both reacted when challenged quite agressively; tho JFK had the luxury of having RFK "front" his very strong reactions for the sake of diplomacy. Yes I was a very young and quite "innocent" military officer on 11/22/63. In those days, it was pretty much forbidden that Military Officers voiced political opinions publicly...remember MacArthur ! I was at an overseas base when this occurred and I would like to clear up a couple of misconceptions that I personally KNOW are wrong. It was never considered by any of the "Brass" that this was a Soviet involved incident on the base where I was stationed. Contrary to popular belief, that even in our strategic location, we were placed on ALERT for no longer than three hours. I spent the night at home with my wife. There was no military concern of an impending war or attack. I am able to quite specifically judge this because I had recently been thru the chaos and high military readiness which had resulted from the Cuban Missile Crisis....we then were TRULY close to conflict. Apart from the grief that most felt, the following days were "business as usual"! We were not on any elevated alert status. dgh:In Vietnam (Saigon specific) it was a different matter, we were on *heightened* alert during the month of November 1963, what with the Deim overthrow earlier in the month. When Kennedy was assassinated it was FULL in-country alert for a few days... From US Army MAAG personnel perspective not much changed, the wise remained on full alert, ALL the time. As a matter of fact, in those first few days and months, the reports of the FBI were more or less considered Gospel....few comments to the contrary! dgh: we saw nothing but Stars and Stripes till Christmas time that year, I don't recall anything concerning the FBI... Evan, I managed to wander a little off topic. It is my personal belief (which I cannot substantiate), that there was little thought in the mind of RFK that there was any great mystery regarding what happened to his Brother. As a matter of fact, I feel that he thought that his personal actions and recommendations to the President contributed to the Coup. I feel that the both, "then and now" position, which has been taken by the Kennedy family, would not and possbly could not, be changed regardless of whether Robert reached the White House. This decision, I personally think, had a dual purpose....one was of course protecting Kennedy interests....the other however was the more overpowering reason....It was the very valid question and the imperceivable reaction of what would befall the U.S. government, were it known that a Coup d' Etat had been conducted by the highest elements of power within the U.S. Government, in accord with those who controlled the nations industry, oil, and banking. Despite my constant "demands for truth", my deep belief is that the U.S. could not have taken it then, nor could it now. It would be similar to saying there is no Santa Claus, no God, no hope, .....your father is a child predator and murderer, and your mother, sisters and grandmother are all whores, and that even tho there is no God, there is certainly a Satan who does and will always prevail. I feel that this is but a "slight" exaggeration ! I feel that "A PORTION" of this cover up was truly conducted by Patriots, attempting to save "the remnants" of our nation from caving in upon itself. I didn't intend to "sermonize" ! Charlie Black

There's a difference between a moderator asking someone to correct his/her post and a member asking someone to correct a post. . As I asked you before, would you object if John Simkin or one of the moderators who believes JFK's assassination was a conspiracy asked an LNT to correct a false claim? Did Evan and the other moderators give up the right to ask other members certain questions when they took on this thankless task? . That's a bit absurd Mark you're asking me to prove a negative. Do the administrators and moderators have to make this clear every time they post? Evan has been asking Jack to correct his spurious claims since long before he became a moderator, there is not reason for him to refrain from doing so now. Also as already pointed out a few times there is no rule about correcting erroneous claims or even a rule against making them (though members are asked to try to be accurate). Thus Evan would have no basis to ask him as a moderator to admit error. I'm sure you've made lots of errors too, [dozens seems a bit low to me LOL]. As to whether or not anyone has ever asked you to admit error I can't be sure though I think I asked you to do so and you have asked me to do so. In any case you're not Jack, who on more than one occasion said he would admit error and make corrections when shown to be wrong. Thus a member (and that includes moderators) who believes Jack was in error has even more of a "right" to ask him for correction than if another member of the forum had made an error. I suspect part of the confusion is based on a misconception on your part, you keep repeating the phrase "correct the/his/their post" as if you thought Evan was asking Jack to edit the erroneous claim from his post rather than asking him to admit error in a later one. Evan pretty clearly was asking for the latter and not the former . If it were as easy to determine what's rubbish there would be little reason for the extended debates on forums such as these, many issues are thorny and hard for the uninitiated to understand. Even you seem unclear as to whether the "anomalous object" was a boot print or not. As another example I wonder how many people believed I was "full of it" and Jack was correct before he admitted error regarding the Pentagon's point of impact.. Projection Mark? You'll have accept that I and others have the right to disagree with you much as it might piss you off. Do I blindly demand allegiance to the majority view, as you insinuate? I don't know if you're referring to a majority of: forum members, Americans, Brazilians or inhabitants of the planet but in any case the charge is risible. Edit to fix spelling errors ahh.... excuse me, spelling errors over fact, alleged fact? For the sake of student's, EVERYWHERE? I think most would agree, the Warren Commission Report and attendant volumes have few misspelled words. It's also full of erroneous facts, alleged facts, outright distortions and, most of all OMISSIONS of pertinent interviews/evidence.... Other than that, the report IS written well. Certainly well enough for, US based Universities to use as a ciriculum material, not to mention 60-80's era "professional" historians (whom many feel were ASLEEP at the wheel) to rubber stamp the WCR and its THEORY'S into consumer consumption! So pardon me if I laugh out LOUD regarding feeble attempts in shrouding "for the sake of the students" an untidy mess called, the JFK Assassination... or any other questionable event in world history (or sophistry - that spelled right?) In today's market the reality (on this board or others) is this: readers AND writers (teachers, professors, students) of prose are on the way OUT -- you'd be better off learning the latest video editing software -- YouTube is IN