Eleven Easy Questions for the Conspiracy Community

[Pat Speer]

Folsom: 1. If you think that the identification of Oswald as the gunman ONLY rests on Brennan you clearly haven't read much on this case. What is wrong with Brennan's identification by the way? He identified Oswald after the line up and stated why he refused to finger him that night. And the man he said did it is the man who owned the weapon matched to the bullets that came fro the body of one of the victims and the rifle that had Oswald and ONLY Oswald's palm print on it, and Oswald was the ONLY one carrying a suspicious package into work that day and Oswald was the ONLY employee that fled the scene never to return to the TSBD ever again. Your "only Brennan" comment was pretty lame. Read more.

You really don't know half as much as you think you do. Brennan REFUSED to ID Oswald when it mattered. His latter statements would never have been accepted in a court of law. He said the shooter was wearing a light shirt. Baker saw Oswald less than a minute and a half later wearing what he thought was a brown jacket. Day said the palm print was an old print. Stombaugh said the rifle was dirty. So where are the prints? Did Oswald wear gloves? Did he wipe down the rifle? If he wiped down the rifle, why were fresh fibers found wrapped around the butt plate? The "bag" is incredibly problematic. There was nothing in the bag that could tie it to the dirty rifle. The folds on the bag were crisp and the bag was not crinkled as one would expect if it had held a rifle. Both Frazier and his sister testified that the bag was longer than the package they'd seen Oswald carry. Read and UNDERSTAND more.

2. Already been done and the bullet wounds ONLY line up with the SE corner window of the TSBD. To claim otherwise is to simply deny the research that has already been done. Both the WC and the HSCA experts determined that ALL shots struck Kennedy from above and behind to the right rear and the ONLY place evidence was found from behind and to the right rear was where Robert Jackson and Howard Brennan saw a gunman firing from and where Oswald and ONLY Oswald's prints were found.

This is totally incorrect. The trajectories lined up with the Dal-Tex Building as well as the TSBD, as per the HSCA's trajectory analyst. Not that we should trust him, as he also testified that Kennedy was leaning forward before he was shot only to straighten up in his seat before the head shot, the opposite of what is shown in the Zapruder film. If you have any reports on a room to room search of the Dal-Tex please put them online. You also forget that there were other prints found in the sniper's nest, besides Oswald's, one of which is unidentified to this day. This print was identified in a blind test by a fingerprint analyst as a match to a print of one of LBJ's cronies. Read and UNDERSTAND more.

3. Where did LHO get his ammo is moot. If that ammo is proven to have been fired from a particular rifle, (which it was) and if that ammo was matched to fragments in the victim (which it was) and if there is ONLY evidence linking to the rifle (which there is) and if we can explain how Oswald took the weapon to work with him and didn't leave with it (which we can) than the red herring of WHERE he bought his ammunition is as moot as demanding to know where a drunk driver who was arrested at the scene bought his car. This point you tried to make leads nowhere.

Guinn's matching of the wrist fragment to CE 399 was based on questionable science and was an incorrect conclusion to boot. Scientists have finally opened their mouths and have agreed that his findings were bogus and carry no weight. The rifle-bag story is so full of holes it's ridiculous. Not only is there nothing to connect the rifle to the bag, the only eyewitnesses to Oswald with a bag said that the package was not long enough to carry a rifle. How can you possibly give Brennan's words so much weight but completely ignore Frazier and his sister?

4. Are you seriously questioning why it is significant that after 40 years the conspiracy camp has been unable to produce a single bullet fragment to support their alleged gunman? If that point confuses you, you clearly are in way over your head in this debate.

The wrist fragment is not a match to CE 399 and never will be.

5. Same point as I made in number 4.

6. You are simply dodging your position's total lack of evidence to support any other gunman firing at Kennedy. Your comment perfectly supports my point. You have no witnesses.

Wrong again. A large number of witnesses heard a shot from west of the TSBD, including the MAJORITY of those standing in front of the building. A number of witnesses, including James Worrell and Roger Craig, saw suspicious men running from the building after the shots.

7. What in the world are you talking about? Do you really think that Oswald (or anyone else) was seen carrying a bag out of the building? Please provide the name of this person--it is news to me. Again your ignorance in the facts of this case hamper your ability to debate my points.

8. You totally missed the point I am making. There are NO prints that your conspiracy lovers have ever produced. ALL prints gathered thus far point to one and only one person--LHO. There are no other prints taken from any other site that I am aware of that would lend credence to your invisible gunman. Once you find these prints we will see if the location they were found agrees with the trajectory of the bullet wounds. You better home they find them a few inches from LHO's because that is the only place the bullet trajectories will line up with. Good luck.

Once, again, why weren't there any fresh prints on the rifle? Was Oswald smart enough to wipe down the rifle with an imaginary cloth while simultaneously being so dumb that he'd use a rifle sent to his P.O. box, and ordered with his handwriting?

9. The notion of a hired gunman who was a part of a conspiracy running from the scene of the crime with his rifle in hand (because remember there was no other rifles found in the TSBD and only Oswald's prints were found on the rifle found--therefore they must have taken the rifle with them--which by the way was NEVER mentioned by the witnesses who saw the alleged gunman fleeing to the awaiting Rambler) is such a silly notiong that it doesn't merit serious consideration. You expect the world to believe that these high level gunmen, secreted themselves into the TSBD without being seen by anyone, carried out the assassination from the SE corner window of the TSBD, got down the stairs without being seen by Officer Baker or Roy Truly or ANY other TSBD employee and then just made a mad dash to a waiting Rambler in full view of police, spectators, and the rest of the motorcade? You've got to be kidding.

After the sniper's nest was discovered, the cops stopped searching the other buildings. They never searched the cars in the Parking lot. A rifle could easily have been hidden in the Dal-Tex or the trunk of a car in the Parking lot without being found.

10. We don't need a film of Oswald there is mountain of evidence linking him to the crime. Sadly YOUR gunman has neither any photgraphic evidence NOR any other evidence to link him/her/it to the crime.

Even if Oswald fired shots, it still doesn't explain why the last two shots were heard within a second or two. Your boy Brennan says the sniper took deliberate aim for his last shot, and then pulled the rifle back in the window. Where did the second shot in this period come from? And don't give me the three shells were found argument... There were five shells related to the Tippit killing, yet only four hit Tippit. Who's to say that Oswald wasn't in the habit of keeping empty shells in the chamber? The shell for his solo shot on Walker, after all, was never found.

As I said in my original post. I have ALL of the evidence on my side of the table--all the conspiracy nuts have is suspicions and dreams of massive conspiracies.

You have little beyond an over-inflated sense of your understanding of the case.

Edited June 30, 2007 by Pat Speer

[Greg Parker]

I was hoping you would add something; sadly you didn't.

You would like to be convinced, Mr Folsom, I am sure. Shame on me for causing you this sadness.

1. If you think that the identification of Oswald as the gunman ONLY rests on Brennan you clearly haven't read much on this case. What is wrong with Brennan's identification by the way?

If you're not already familiar with the problems with it, I suggest a little googling will set you straight.

He identified Oswald after the line up and stated why he refused to finger him that night. And the man he said did it is the man who owned the weapon

The link from the rifle to Oswald is "Hidell". The burden of proof belongs to the accuser. Prove Oswald was "Hidell".

matched to the bullets that came fro the body of one of the victims and the rifle that had Oswald and ONLY Oswald's palm print on it, and Oswald was the ONLY one carrying a suspicious package

Sorry. I was unaware that the Frazier siblings had testified to believing the package was "suspicious." Could you kindly point me to that testimony?

into work that day and Oswald was the ONLY employee that fled the scene never to return to the TSBD ever again. Your "only Brennan" comment was pretty lame. Read more.

Dyslogistic language doesn't make a weak case strong. Without Brennan, all you have putting LHO on the 6th floor is a circumstantial case which falls apart under scrutiny, and which would mostly be thrown out of court because of the broken chains of possession, among other issues rendering it useless.

2. Already been done and the bullet wounds ONLY line up with the SE corner window of the TSBD. To claim otherwise is to simply deny the research that has already been done. Both the WC and the HSCA experts determined that ALL shots struck Kennedy from above and behind to the right rear and the ONLY place evidence was found from behind and to the right rear was where Robert Jackson and Howard Brennan saw a gunman firing from

Wow! Jackson and Howard actually saw a gunman firing! We both know that's not true. Bloating your case with misinformation about what witnesses saw shows you have no respect for the strength of the official case - otherwise there'd be no need to stoop to putting words in witnesses mouths.

and where Oswald and ONLY Oswald's prints were found.

There is an unidentified print on it - which now could be identified using modern technology. I want the FBI to use this technology to identify it. Let the chips fall where they may.

3. Where did LHO get his ammo is moot. If that ammo is proven to have been fired from a particular rifle, (which it was) and if that ammo was matched to fragments in the victim (which it was) and if there is ONLY evidence linking to the rifle (which there is) and if we can explain how Oswald took the weapon to work with him and didn't leave with it (which we can) than the red herring of WHERE he bought his ammunition is as moot as demanding to know where a drunk driver who was arrested at the scene bought his car. This point you tried to make leads nowhere.

You may want the issue to be moot, but it was of concern to the WC and the FBI - and it would have been at any Oswald trial - especially after all your other points were consigned to the dust-bin.

4. Are you seriously questioning why it is significant that after 40 years the conspiracy camp has been unable to produce a single bullet fragment to support their alleged gunman? If that point confuses you, you clearly are in way over your head in this debate.

Are you seriously suggesting all researchers are in the same camp? I don't personally give a rats arse where the bullets came from, how many gunmen there were, or where he/she/it/they/were/located. I'm happy for a GJ or an unfettered congressional investigation to sort that out.

5. Same point as I made in number 4.

Indeed!

6. You are simply dodging your position's total lack of evidence to support any other gunman firing at Kennedy. Your comment perfectly supports my point. You have no witnesses.

I'm not "dodging" my position. My position is stated above.

7. What in the world are you talking about? Do you really think that Oswald (or anyone else) was seen carrying a bag out of the building? Please provide the name of this person--it is news to me. Again your ignorance in the facts of this case hamper your ability to debate my points.

Sorry. I thought you had as firm a grip on the evidence as this cop does on whatever it is that's holding up the bag.

8. You totally missed the point I am making. There are NO prints that your conspiracy lovers have ever produced. ALL prints gathered thus far point to one and only one person--LHO. There are no other prints taken from any other site that I am aware of that would lend credence to your invisible gunman. Once you find these prints we will see if the location they were found agrees with the trajectory of the bullet wounds. You better home they find them a few inches from LHO's because that is the only place the bullet trajectories will line up with. Good luck.

See comment under point 2 above.

9. The notion of a hired gunman who was a part of a conspiracy running from the scene of the crime with his rifle in hand (because remember there was no other rifles found in the TSBD and only Oswald's prints were found on the rifle found--therefore they must have taken the rifle with them--which by the way was NEVER mentioned by the witnesses who saw the alleged gunman fleeing to the awaiting Rambler) is such a silly notiong that it doesn't merit serious consideration.

Again, see comment under point 2. Oswald's rifle may well have been used by another and left there. As for no one seen running from the scene with a rifle. There was in fact, such a report made over the police radio.

You expect the world to believe that these high level gunmen, secreted themselves into the TSBD without being seen by anyone,

Who said anything about multiple gunmen ANYWHERE - let alone in the TSBD? In considering your problem with not being able to draw CTs into answering your questions, you may want to ponder why they consider it a waste of time. Let's recap" so far, to try and carry your points, draw people into a xxxx fight, and whatever else you had in mind, you have used dyslogistic language in describing Oswald and his movements; put words into the mouths of witnesses, and are now attempting to do the same with me. The TSBD was not Fort Knox. It was a building containing many businesses where people came and went all day.

carried out the assassination from the SE corner window of the TSBD, got down the stairs without being seen by Officer Baker

On 11.22.63, Baker reported stopping someone on the third or fourth floor. The description he gave matched the description given by Rowland and others. It was not a good description of Oswald. Explain please, how Baker could be sitting in the same small office as Oswald as his affidavit was being taken, and not give an accurate description - instead describing someone seen by other witnesses?

or Roy Truly or ANY other TSBD employee and then just made a mad dash to a waiting Rambler in full view of police, spectators, and the rest of the motorcade? You've got to be kidding.

He WAS seen. That's how we know about it now...

10. We don't need a film of Oswald there is mountain of evidence linking him to the crime. Sadly YOUR gunman has neither any photgraphic evidence NOR any other evidence to link him/her/it to the crime.

I don't need to prove who did it. Not my job. The evidence shows clearly however, who did not do it. You need a clue?

As I said in my original post. I have ALL of the evidence on my side of the table--all the conspiracy nuts have is suspicions and dreams of massive conspiracies.

Okay great. Whatever. I'm done. Knock yourself out.

[William Kelly]

If T. Folsom is indeed an alias, and his true identity is not yet known, I would suggest that security get a make on him, and his background, as he appears to fit the profile of someone who would attempt to hack the forum.

BK

[Brian Smith]

This is from a post by "Clint Bradford" from 2004 -

"....I have completely disclosed my identity. Can I ask for the names of these alleged photographic experts without being personally attacked?"

Clint Bradford

This is from the very next post in that thread, written by "T. Folsom" -

"As I stated in an earlier post...my private life is...well...my private life. I have never met such a paranoid group of individuals. What difference could my first name make to this forum? I will continue to go by my first initial and my last name(T. Folsom) until the same individuals behind the assassination of Kennedy also shoot me with invisible bullets, alter my x-rays, change by autopsy photographs, digitally enhance my family photographs, and surgically alter my mortal remains. Until then, everyone please relax, uncircle the wagons, climb out from under the bed, and let's move onward. T. Folsom is me and I am T. Folsom. Geeeez. Now, as I said, who are these "experts" that have agreed with that nut Jack White? THAT is the issue at hand.

It is quite obvious that these two identities are actually one and the same person. One of the most obnoxious and relentless lone nutters (trolls) I have ever seen just made the same faux pas on the IMDb forum for the Oliver Stone film JFK a few weeks ago. This could maybe even be the same guy. I really do believe that these guys are paid disinformation agents. Either that, or they are certifiable goofballs for spending so much time on every JFK assassination forum defending the indefensible lone gunman position. You will find these characters on literally every internet forum where conspiracies are being discussed.

[Jack White]

This is from a post by "Clint Bradford" from 2004 -

"....I have completely disclosed my identity. Can I ask for the names of these alleged photographic experts without being personally attacked?"

Clint Bradford

This is from the very next post in that thread, written by "T. Folsom" -

"As I stated in an earlier post...my private life is...well...my private life. I have never met such a paranoid group of individuals. What difference could my first name make to this forum? I will continue to go by my first initial and my last name(T. Folsom) until the same individuals behind the assassination of Kennedy also shoot me with invisible bullets, alter my x-rays, change by autopsy photographs, digitally enhance my family photographs, and surgically alter my mortal remains. Until then, everyone please relax, uncircle the wagons, climb out from under the bed, and let's move onward. T. Folsom is me and I am T. Folsom. Geeeez. Now, as I said, who are these "experts" that have agreed with that nut Jack White? THAT is the issue at hand.

It is quite obvious that these two identities are actually one and the same person. One of the most obnoxious and relentless lone nutters (trolls) I have ever seen just made the same faux pas on the IMDb forum for the Oliver Stone film JFK a few weeks ago. This could maybe even be the same guy. I really do believe that these guys are paid disinformation agents. Either that, or they are certifiable goofballs for spending so much time on every JFK assassination forum defending the indefensible lone gunman position. You will find these characters on literally every internet forum where conspiracies are being discussed.

Bradford was one of the first exiles from the DellaRosa forum because

every posting referred to Jack White in a derogatory manner as above.

He was ordered numerous times to cease the personal attacks and did not.

He was booted off the forum. I guess that is why T. Folsom called me his

NEMESIS...because if Folsom IS Bradford, he blames me for his exile.

Jack

[Brian Smith]

This is from a post by "Clint Bradford" from 2004 -

"....I have completely disclosed my identity. Can I ask for the names of these alleged photographic experts without being personally attacked?"

Clint Bradford

This is from the very next post in that thread, written by "T. Folsom" -

"As I stated in an earlier post...my private life is...well...my private life. I have never met such a paranoid group of individuals. What difference could my first name make to this forum? I will continue to go by my first initial and my last name(T. Folsom) until the same individuals behind the assassination of Kennedy also shoot me with invisible bullets, alter my x-rays, change by autopsy photographs, digitally enhance my family photographs, and surgically alter my mortal remains. Until then, everyone please relax, uncircle the wagons, climb out from under the bed, and let's move onward. T. Folsom is me and I am T. Folsom. Geeeez. Now, as I said, who are these "experts" that have agreed with that nut Jack White? THAT is the issue at hand.

It is quite obvious that these two identities are actually one and the same person. One of the most obnoxious and relentless lone nutters (trolls) I have ever seen just made the same faux pas on the IMDb forum for the Oliver Stone film JFK a few weeks ago. This could maybe even be the same guy. I really do believe that these guys are paid disinformation agents. Either that, or they are certifiable goofballs for spending so much time on every JFK assassination forum defending the indefensible lone gunman position. You will find these characters on literally every internet forum where conspiracies are being discussed.

Bradford was one of the first exiles from the DellaRosa forum because

every posting referred to Jack White in a derogatory manner as above.

He was ordered numerous times to cease the personal attacks and did not.

He was booted off the forum. I guess that is why T. Folsom called me his

NEMESIS...because if Folsom IS Bradford, he blames me for his exile.

Jack

Yes, it is pretty obvious it is the same guy. Doesn't say too much for his crediblility to have to resort to such underhanded tactics does it? These guys almost seem to be following a script with their predictable tactics. It's almost like they have had some kind of training on how to disrupt serious discussion where conspiracies are be dealt with. They use every dishonest and underhanded tactic in the book.

[Charles Drago]

Don't you get it yet, my friends?

"Who is Folsom?"

"One of us?"

"More than one of us?"

The seeds of mistrust are sewn.

The simple answer: One of them.

As Jack Nicholson puts it so well in The Departed -- "Act accordingly."

Charles Drago

[John Simkin]

How come I had to put up a personal biography and photo before being granted posting rights while this cracker jack doesn't have to?

I am afraid I was away for a long weekend and did not see this post to this morning. It is true that T. Folsom joined the forum at a time when it was not compulsory to post an avatar and biography. However, as he has been inactive this has not become an issue. I have now suspended his rights to post until he posts an avatar and biography.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

How come I had to put up a personal biography and photo before being granted posting rights while this cracker jack doesn't have to?

I am afraid I was away for a long weekend and did not see this post to this morning. It is true that T. Folsom joined the forum at a time when it was not compulsory to post an avatar and biography. However, as he has been inactive this has not become an issue. I have now suspended his rights to post until he posts an avatar and biography.

Would this mean that I am again out on this limb all alone again?????

Or perhaps, have a few of the other true researchers begun to climb out with me???

POLL TIME:

It is therefore requested that all those who, at minimum, recognize that the last shot fired during the assassination shooting sequence was in fact fired down directly in front of James Altgens, please sign their names.

[Duke Lane]

I posed the following eleven question to Bill Miller and they were ignored. I am always curious to get a general feel of exactly WHAT the conspiracy nuts out there really think happened. My general experience in studying the assassination since 1973 has been that conspiracy nuts are very good at asking questiions and raising issues but woefully unskilled at providing answers. Here are eleven questions I would like to have a few people tackle. Then we can start discussing the evidence after the responses start to pile up. ... Let the nuts start cracking.

I for one am generally not disposed to respond to the likes of the question "so, when did you stop beating your wife," which of course presupposes that I ever did, which if I disclaim, merely has me "in denial." So it is with someone who, no matter how well thought-out and reasoned your response, considers it to be from a "nut" who is "very good at asking questiions and raising issues but woefully unskilled at providing answers." That may be true of the "nuts," but it is not necessarily true of all those who believe that there was a conspiracy - of any sort, with or without Oswald being involved - who are not "nuts" by definition.

Why would anyone choose to "ignore" someone who's already carrying the sign that says ?? Duh.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I posed the following eleven question to Bill Miller and they were ignored. I am always curious to get a general feel of exactly WHAT the conspiracy nuts out there really think happened. My general experience in studying the assassination since 1973 has been that conspiracy nuts are very good at asking questiions and raising issues but woefully unskilled at providing answers. Here are eleven questions I would like to have a few people tackle. Then we can start discussing the evidence after the responses start to pile up. ... Let the nuts start cracking.

I for one am generally not disposed to respond to the likes of the question "so, when did you stop beating your wife," which of course presupposes that I ever did, which if I disclaim, merely has me "in denial." So it is with someone who, no matter how well thought-out and reasoned your response, considers it to be from a "nut" who is "very good at asking questiions and raising issues but woefully unskilled at providing answers." That may be true of the "nuts," but it is not necessarily true of all those who believe that there was a conspiracy - of any sort, with or without Oswald being involved - who are not "nuts" by definition.

Why would anyone choose to "ignore" someone who's already carrying the sign that says ?? Duh.

Anyone who is of the opinion that LHO was not engaged in conspiratorial activities may not be "nuts", however they certainly have not demonstrated the capabilities of separate and independent thought process.

The primary problem being in defining the exact scope and nature of the "conspiracy", and whether it was always targeted at JFK (which does not appear so), or else was the conspiracy more in line with the initial target being Castro.

Then, for whatever reason, the target was changed to JFK.

Therefore, the pertinent questions would appear to be:

1. Was the conspiratorial nature of the activities of LHO always target to JFK?

2. Were the conspiratorial nature of the activites of LHO initially targeted at someone like Castro, and then changed to JFK?

3. If #2 above is the actual case, did JFK become the target by direction, or did LHO decide to take it upon himself (for whatever reason) to make JFK the target.

Prior to LHO's trip to Mexico, there is little to indicate that he had any "plans" which encompassed the assassination of JFK.

In fact, his activities appeared to be more directed at getting him closer to Cuba and therefore "Castro".

Only after the return from Mexico and the failed attempt to get to Cuba, did the activities of LHO take on the activities which indicated that JFK had become the target.

Thus, from available information, the return from Mexico is what signalled the "shift" for LHO.

This does not mean that whoever was directing the activities of LHO did not have "alternative" plans for his actions.

Merely that LHO did not begin those activities which indicate that JFK became the primary target until after his return from Mexico (& New Orleans)

The nice thing about being a "paid assassin" is that one truly does not nave to worry about who the target may be until such time as it is designated by those who make the payments.

Then and only then does one actually begin to stalk their prey.

[Charles Drago]

" 3. [D]id JFK become the target by direction, or did LHO decide to take it upon himself (for whatever reason) to make JFK the target. [sic]" (emphasis added)

Finally it all becomes clear.

Mr. Purvis's baseline, that is.

Why not go for another, equally well-reasoned and likely possibility, this one best expressed in the form of a fictional newspaper headline found in an alternate universe where LHO survived and went to trial:

"'Didn't Know Gun Was Loaded,' Oswald Tells Jury"

Charles

Edited July 4, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Duke Lane]

Anyone who is of the opinion that LHO was not engaged in conspiratorial activities may not be "nuts", however they certainly have not demonstrated the capabilities of separate and independent thought process. ...

They have not reached the same conclusions as I have, so they are not only wrong but also cannot think.

I have several areas in my life where applying this rule might prove useful. Thanks for the tidbit!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

" 3. [D]id JFK become the target by direction, or did LHO decide to take it upon himself (for whatever reason) to make JFK the target. [sic]" (emphasis added)

Finally it all becomes clear.

Mr. Purvis's baseline, that is.

Why not go for another, equally well-reasoned and likely possibility, this one best expressed in the form of a fictional newspaper headline found in an alternate universe where LHO survived and went to trial:

"'Didn't Know Gun Was Loaded,' Oswald Tells Jury"

Charles

Why not, as you have with your LACK of Custer knowledge. amaze us all with all of your knowledge; experience; training; etc.

In fact! I would especially be interested in all of the great factual research which you have done on the subject matter of the JFK assassination.

Exactly how many of the autopsy surgeons was it that you have spoken with there Charles?

Exactly how many times was it that you spoke with FBI Agent Frazier Charles?

Exactly how many of the other FBI Agents from the FBI Lab was it that you spoke with Charles?

Exactly how many of the Parkland Dr.'s and/or Nurses was it that you have spoken with Charles?

Exactly how many Carcano rifles was it that you have acquired and tested Charles?

Exactly how many Ballistic Experts have you submitted your garbage to Charles?

Exactly how many Forensic Experts was it that you have submitted your garbage to Charles?

Exacly how much TRUE research into the background of LHO was it that you have done Charles?

Exactly how many times have you been to New Orleans to study the culture there Charles?

Exactly how much knowledge of the Survey Data information was it that you located and secured Charles?

Exactly why is it Charles, that despite the fact that there is more than ample evidence within the WC witness testimony, as well as all of the other witness's whose testimony exists in the Dallas Archives, all of who tell about the three shots, yet, Charles can not figure out that the last shot was fired down in front of James Altgens position.

The simple facts are that you know less about the assassination of JFK than you do about Custer's Last Stand.

Which by the way appears to be on the negative side for both items.

[Charles Drago]

How many participants in the LBH fight have you interviewed?

How many assassins of Caesar did Gibbon interview?

How many times did Sandburg interview Lincoln?

I have been cautioned more than once on this Forum that you are an elderly gentleman who served his country with bravery and honor, but who today has little to do but fulminate against the unfairness of it all. "Go easy," is the message.

(I'm reminded of the "Playboy" cartoon of some years back in which a wizened Hitler sits in a rocking chair on the veranda of a jungle plantation. His cheeks are flushed, his fists are clenched, drool spills from the sides of his mouth.

Behind him is a massive SS bodyguard, his eyebrows raised in frustration as he says, "Please ... it's all been over and done with for years.")

Mindful, then, of your age and national service and the ravages of each, I state gently that, as far as the JFK murder is concerned, you appear to me to be just another in a long line of disinformationalists (intentional or not I cannot say) -- sort of the Fred Leuchter of the JFK set.

Your fatally flawed arguments from false authority and the infrequent nuggets of truth around which they are based and on which they depend for support -- key elements in all disinformation -- thus are tolerated.

That's all.

Have a wonderful day. Be careful on the stairs. And don't go getting all exercised, especially just before you eat.

Charles