Vanessa Loney

Sorry Tommy.

Dear James I'm a newby on here so I'm probably not understanding the rules and protocols correctly. Apologies if I'm talking out of turn. It's not that clear to me why a thread should be closed on the basis of one member's lack of genuine engagement. If that is the basis for locking a thread then what is to stop any member deciding to block a thread by constantly disrupting it? I think if the EF adopt that policy then the integrity of discussions will be weakened to the point where they are all under threat from these sorts of tactics. I don't understand why a member cannot simply be asked not to contribute to a thread if they are being viewed as disruptive. If the member continues to be disruptive then can't they be dealt with in some way that: 1. does not reward them for their behaviour; and 2. does not block discussion on a thread. I would have thought that stopping discussion due to disruptive tactics would seriously impact on the integrity of all forum threads in a way that should be unacceptable to everyone on here. Thanks for your views. regards Vanessa

Very, very good points Lee.

Hi Bob Yes, it's definitely bizarre - that's for sure. My own 2 cents is that the mystery explaining the deafening silence around these witnesses is that they saw Baker speak to Oswald - maybe even on the steps themselves - and that's when Truly vouched for him.

Hi Bob Firstly, can I thank you for raising the importance of Bill Kelly's PM thread and giving it some prominence on here. I think it's vital we finally get some resolution on who PM is. My question in regards to PM being Joe Molina (or anyone other than Oswald) is, why didn't any of his co-workers identify him? Not one. This complete blank on the part of the employees heading back into the building, who can clearly see PM, is telling. If it was Joe Molina why not say so? The thing that sticks out to me like a sore thumb about PM is that no-one saw him at all that day. And no-one saw a TSBD employee standing there either. These two facts together indicate to me that we are not even meant to think about going there. And there must be a very good reason for that. If even one TSBD employee had said "Yeah there was some guy in the corner but he wasn't from the TSBD" then I would say that we would have a more normal set of witnesses to deal with. But no-one.....? Anyway, I think at this point that the only way to know for certain is to get the films examined. I'd appreciate your views Bob.

Hi Carmine, I agree completely with your statement. Nice we can agree on something. You are using the words 'evidence' and 'evidentiary' in the same way they might be used in a trial by a lawyer. We are not there yet but maybe we could be once we get PM identified.

Beautiful analogy there Terry, I agree completely. And welcome to the EF btw.

Thanks James! I hope we an all agree that some sort of effort should be made to get the relevant films clarified so that this issue can finally be settled one way or another. With a little co-operation within the research community hopefully we'll actually get an answer. I just don't want to let this important issue drift any longer.

Hi Bob - I think any further clarification of who was where on the steps can only be a good thing so I would be interested to know how you go. Having said that, I agree with Lee that the important step now is to seek clarification of the relevant films so we can get a definitive answer one way or the other. I would support anything that can be done to make that happen.

Okay, Carmine, let's discuss the photo. Personally I think that is the icing on the cake of SM's argument. But the photo needs better resolution so we can finally settle this question once and for all. Would you be willing to join in an effort to see that this film/photo is properly developed?

Oh Carmine - I do not want to shut you up if you have something purposeful to say. All I am asking is that you put us all out of our misery and say it. Do as Greg has politely requested, examine the thread and pick an item for discussion.

Exactly. Thank you Greg.

Carmine, the evidence is contained within every page of the thread. Just pick one piece and show us that it is not substantiated.

Carmine, the thread stands as a fully supported and documented argument. No-one has found any chinks in it's armour since it was published almost 2 years ago. Of course, we all accept your right to express your opinion on this issue. But you have expressed your opinion innumerable times, we all know what it is. Now it is time for you to support your opinion with an example of where the thread is unsupported. I believe it's time to put up or shut up, my friend.

Oh my dear sweet goodness. Carmine, will you make your case? The onus is on you to show SM has not documented his findings. By refusing to offer any justification at all for your statement that the thread isn't verified you are simply demonstrating either 1) you haven't read the thread; 2) you don't understand the thread; 3) you can't demonstrate that the thread isn't verified or 4) all of the above.

Hi Terry - nice to meet you.

I agree Thomas. That is unquestionably Lovelady.

I agree Bob. Carmine, you won't make your case, you seem to want to stop others talking about this thread, and to boot, you don't seem to support getting the PM images clarified. I'm sorry, but I have to ask, just exactly what is your purpose here? PS Apologies to all - my browser is still stuffed - I'll stop commenting until I get it sorted otherwise I'm just disrupting the thread.

Great idea Mr Sorenson. EF can have a disclaimer that they don't endorse the findings but just the methods.

Very good point Lee. And even at the time of the HSCA investigations someone in authority knew - 30 plus years ago!

Amen to all that, Lee. Totally agree that this is a game changing issue that can be resolved one way or the other with a bit of technology (while many others can't).

Hi Bill - nice to meet you. Again apologies to all about my responses not including the quote. I've got browser problems apparently.

Unfortunately I see a demotion.

Thanks Thomas - I'm with you and I followed your reasoning there too. I think Bob is on the normal side with you and me. Sorry if that's not right, Bob.

Hi Carmine Just so long as we are agreeing that we agree that Sean Murphy has substantiated his argument. Otherwise I'm prepared to flog this dead horse until it gets up and walks again (sorry about the imagery there folks - I love animals really).