Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David,

What you say may well be true. I am simply unaware that you marshalled the argument by putting together all of the pieces to show how the medical evidence impeaches the film. I went to "Zapruder Fakery, YouTube", by the way, and immediately encountered "Zapruder Fakery 6 - David Lifton Part 9", where you talk about my discussion of the TV interview during which Zapruder placed his hand over the right-front of his skull at the location of this non-existent wound. Looking for more, I then turned to "Zapruder Fakery 1 - James Fetzer Part 3", which begins with my discussion of the very point about the missing mass from the right-front, for those who want to follow what we are discussing here. Let me know if BEST EVIDENCE uses the same array of medial evidence to impeach the film, which I doubt, if only for the simple reason that, when it dawned on me that these were pieces of a mutually-reinforcing and cleverly contrived fabrication of the evidence to support the depiction of the wournd in the film, where his brains are bulging out to the right-front, IT CAME AS A REALIZATION, which, to the best of my knowledge, I had never read before. But, as you know from the Duluth conference, I have never ceased to be impressed with what you learned about the case in the course of your research, so it would not terribly surprise me. If either of us tracks it down, let the other know. I certainly prefer to be on the same side of these issues, which of course is also true of my attitude toward Jack and Weldon. Incidentally, you mention the Wecht conference. I may have told you this before, but I actually had in hand a formal written invitation from Cyril to attend, which I planned to do but had not as yet decided what I would discuss, when I was notified that my invitation had been rescinded! That was very troubling, but I was later told that two others had stated that they would not attend if I were on the program, which I gathered had been Aguilar and Thompson, who apparently are close to Cyril's son, Ben. I've no doubt that it would have been a far more lively and interesting event had you and I been present, but that's the politics of the JFK research community. I protested to Cyril about it at the time, but to no avail.

Jim

Jim,

I am writing this simply "for the record" and in response to just one statement that is made in your post #1480.

Quoting you:

"It was only the way I put all of these pieces together to discern exactly how they were going to try to get away with it for which I meant to assert discovery--which is hard to dispute, since, to the best of my knowledge, no one else (including you and David Mantik) has made the point about the missing mass from the right-front of the lateral-cranial and the anterior-posterior X-rays. Correct me if I am wrong, but even Gary Aguilar, on the occasion of our first meeting, told me that the APPEARANCE of missing mass was an effect of OVEREXPOSURE and was not genuine. I thought that was a rather odd thing to say to me on our first meeting, but it stuck with me and I now believe not only that he was wrong but that the missing mass was a crucial ingredient in the medical cover-up that could be used to support what is seen in the film. We know it was not true," UNQUOTE

FYI: I believe this very point--the clear visual contradiction between what the JFK lateral X-Ray shows, with a major "black" area on the forward right hand side, and the JFK "stare of death" autopsy photograph was published in the 1988 Carroll and Graf edition of Best Evidence, which published the JFK autopsy photographs for the first time. I do not have the Carroll and Graf edition of B.E. in front of me as I write this, but here's what I recall.

It was the Spring of 1988, I had had these photographs since 1982, and the decision had been made by Carroll and Graf to re-publish BEST EVIDENCE, and to publish these photographs; and I was drafting the Epilogue describing the results of what happened in December, 1982 and January, 1983, when I visited Dallas and--along with Pat Valentino, in January--showed the autopsy photos to as many Dallas doctors and nurses as would meet with us. To get the finest possible prints, I had submitted my best copies to the photo lab at the UCLA Medical Center. I also happened to work at UCLA, at the time, in the pediatric radiology unit. I was looking at the autopsy photographs--and at the X-rays--and I had one of those "aha" moments, because there, on my desk, was this amazing, and--to me--inexplicable, contradiction. How could the X-rays show this huge black area, and yet the "stare of death" photo show the front of JFK's face so completely uninjured.

Being at UCLA, it was easy to solicit the opinion of a variety of doctors, and I did so. As I recall, the verdict was near unanimous: the two were contradictory.

What I remember then doing was either adding to the text of the 1988 Epilogue or actually incorporating this observation into the captions I was then responsible for writing. But somehow, I do remember communicating this clash between what the photos appeared to show, and what seemed so evident on the X-rays.

If I am wrong, I will modify this post, but that is my current recollection.

As to Gary Aguilar, he has made a small career out of attempting to deny the validity of BEST EVIDENCE, so I would heavily discount anything he has to say. Many years ago, when I first met Aguilar, and when I would speak to him on the phone, he referred to me as "chief" (as if he were a soldier, snapping his heels. "Yes, chief", etc.). That was when I was up on some sort of pedestal. Then I fell off the pedestal, and he busily tries to discount the major tenets of my book, all the while qualifying his negative message with statements like, "Now, mind you, I am not saying there couldn't have been surgery!" FYI: I tried to get a slot at the 2004 Wecht Conference so that Doug Horne and I might present the new ideas--recently synthesized by Doug--that there was "post-midnight" photography and that Knudsen may have been the photographer. I approached Wecht via a close friend of his, and his immediate response was "yes." Then, about one to two weeks later, came another message: "No," and the explanation: "Aguilar."

So that year, many heard the usual speeches about the Single Bullet Theory, but some truly original work was not presented--and it could have been.

That's all I have to say for now.

DSL

4/22/10, 5AM PDT

Edited April 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

To quote an old friend of mine, READ THE BOOK! In this case, however,

it is not HARVEY & LEE but DR. MARY'S MONKEY. You cannot begin to

understand the case without becoming familiar with the evidence, as I

am gradually working my way in the book you recommended to me. I

think you'll have a better grasp of events in New Orleans if you read it.

Jim

J.White: How was this ZOO managed?

Did all the neighbors notice all the monkeys coming and going?

This is very peculiar.

LOL---I suppose for the purpose of camouflage Ferrie let them walk in and out during Mardi Gras...

[Dean Hagerman]

was published in Chapter 24 in Best Evidence, published in January, 1981

In any event: please note that I was on record with the belief that the Zapruder film was altered, for these reasons, and published this in Best Evidence in 1981.

Holy cow!

I dont ever remember reading that footnote in "Best Evidence"

I read BE back in 1987 for the first time and have read it probably 20 times, I do not remember that footnote!

I grabbed my original hardcover copy of BE turned to chapter 24 and there it was!

Great job David, the first time I remember reading about alteration was in Crossfire while reading the section on Jack White back in 1989

[Pamela Brown]

DL said:

In any event: please note that I was on record with the belief that the Zapruder film was altered, for these reasons, and published this in Best Evidence in 1981.

Let's keep in mind that Lifton is one who claims to be an alterationist, yet has no interest in early viewings of the Zapruder.

Let's not also forget that MFW, though self-published, came out long before BE and put forth not only the concept of body alteration but of Z-film(s) alteration.

[Jack White]

Thanks, David, for this historical summation! It is important to have this on the record.

And I must thank you for your Best Evidence "Zapruder footnote". It is what got me

started on closer examination of the Zfilm, so that soon afterward I was including enlargements

of the fake "head wound" in my slide presentation. Since I showed my slides twice a year

at Jim Marrs' JFK class at UTA, this is what caused Jim to state in Crossfire that I thought

the film was faked. But I must give you the credit for causing me to examine the film

for fakery. Until I read Best Evidence, I had always thought the film genuine.

Jack

Jim,

A number of statements made in your post #1447 (a post asserting who was responsible for a number of original discoveries re theories pertaining to the falsification of the Z film) are incorrect. Immediately below is your statement, and below that is my attempt to “clarify the record” regarding your claim of being “apparently the first” to discover an “interlocking pattern of deception” etc.

Here is your statement:

• Re “It was I who . . . [was] apparently the first to explain the interlocking pattern of deception involved in painting in the blow-out to the right front (“the blob”), the patch the back of the head (which Mantik discovered), the Life Magazine caption for its Frame 313. . . “

This statement contains multiple errors, and numerous false implications. Rather than try to sort through each one, here is my own statement, “for the record” (as the saying goes):

•The school year 1966-67: The business of the back of the head being blacked out on the Zapruder frames was perfectly obvious --certainly, to me--when I was able to examine Life’s 3" x 4 “ transparencies when they were sent to Los Angeles as part of Professor Wesley Liebeler’s UCLA Law School seminar on the Warren Commission, in the school year 966-67. That the back of the head was “blacked out” was already noticeable from frames of the film published in the 11/29/63 of Life Magazine, the LIFE MEMORIAL issue (Dec 7, 1963) and the October, 1964 issue Life Magazine. But Liebeler's UCLA class was the first time I realized that it actually appeared that way (i.e., blacked out) on the Life slide set.

•In June, 1970, at the Beverly Hills office of Time-Life: it was very obvious to me—and three other JFK researchers—who spent hours examining the 35 mm version of the Zapruder film that (a) the back of the head seemed artificially blacked out and (b ) the so-called “large head wound” was painted on. This was the first time I could see with my own eyes that this blacking out was not just a feature of the Life slide set (which I had already seen, as noted, when I examined the slides as part of Liebeler's UCLA Law class) but on the actual film itself. In June, 1970, I was able to actually pull a 16mm copy of the original Z film through a Recordak Microfilm reader, and could see the blacking out right there on the screen. All this is described in detail in “Pig on a Leash,” which I wrote and was published in the anthology you edited (2003). As a consequence of a letter written by the famous Hollywood director, Haskell Wexler, (in which we were described as "appraisers"), we all were able to examine these extraordinary materials, and we could all see that (a) the back of the head had been blacked out and (b ) the “wounds” appeared painted on. The four were: Fred Newcomb, Jack Clemente, Dennis Roy, and myself—we all saw it. It was rather obvious. “Can you believe this?! They altered the Zapruder film!” That was the general tone of the reaction. Of course, we didn’t know how “they” had done it, or exactly who “they” were.

•Turning to the situation as it existed in 1980: in writing Best Evidence, I was quite aware that while I was contrasting the Dallas and Bethesda description of the wounds (in making the case that the boy had been altered) that the Zapruder film frames portrayed “Bethesda-like” wounding. Also, by that time, the famous CIA documents (CIA 450) had been released to Paul Hoch under the FOIA. Consequently, firmly convinced that the film had been altered, but seeing no practical way to argue that on the pages of a hardcover book (remember: there was no email, or YouTube back then), I wrote what I called my “Zapruder film footnote”—a 750 word summary about the situation, calling attention to these key facts. This was written specifically with an eye to the future, and to preempt anyone who would cite the imagery on certain Z film frames and attempt to argue my central thesis was false. The “Zapruder film footnote” was published in Chapter 24 in Best Evidence, published in January, 1981,and discusses the artificiality of the back of the head being blacked out, as it appears on the Zapruder film. It also published the text of an April 1980 letter by Dallas doctor Peters (to JFK researcher Wallace Milam, another JFK researcher who, by the way, also firmly believed the Z film had been falsified, and that the head wound imagery had been painted on. Dr. Peters, who saw the President’s head in Dallas, said the large head wound that appeared towards the front, in the Z film frames sent him by Milam, must be an artifact, and in any event was not what he examined JFK at Parkland Hospital. In any event: please note that I was on record with the belief that the Zapruder film was altered, for these reasons, and published this in Best Evidence in 1981.

Continuing with my own follow-up activities re Z film being altered, and specifically, the head wound imagery being “painted on”:

•It was again rather obvious when I was able to obtain the actual 35mm Weitzman negative in July, 1990, in New York City, rented facilities at an optical lab, personally operated the Oxberry Optical Printer, and made blowups of this sequence—and, for precisely that reason: that the back of the head looked blacked out, and the head wounds painted on. Another purpose of doing all this was to break--once and for all--Robert Groden's "monopoly" on the Z film. Again, see my essay in Pig on a Leash, published in TGZFH, 2003, for details.

•In October, 1992, I decided to “give away” all my Zapruder insights, because I was fed up with Robert Groden presenting slow motion enlarged imagery, implying that the wounding of Kennedy, as shown in the Zapruder film, was faithful to what the Dallas doctors saw. Obviously, it was not. In my presentation, which was preserved on audio tape, I explained how the Zapruder film could have been altered using an optical printer. In the audience was Noel Twyman, and Harrison Livingstone. Both were quite excited by my presentation. Twyman immediately sought some guidance and advice, which I provided. Both went on to write books on the subject of the Z film being altered, and both talked about the falsification of the imagery. Also, by this time, JFK researcher Wallace Milam was thoroughly convinced the Z film had been falsified, and we had many conversations about it.

•At the JFK Lancer convention of 1996, I gave a multi-hour talk on the falsification of the Zapruder film, and the related falsification of the imagery. (Its all on video tape.)

•At the Lancer convention in 1998, and looking for something additional to say, since I had already presented all the major points in my 1996 presentation, I decided to focus on the back of the head being blacked out, and the artificality of the head wound imagery. So I went to the trouble of taking my Weitzman 35 mm internegative to an L.A. optical house, again hiring time on an optical printer, and creating a “reversal color internegative,” --this time focusing on the enlarged imagery of JFK’s head, in the 20-30 frames after the fatal show, and creating the result in "reversal" color--i.e., so that the blackened out area would appear to be white, in frame after frame, and then step-printing the result and presenting it as the main feature of my presentation arguing that the Zapruder film had been falsified, and the back of the head had been blacked out. (My presentation should be available as a JFK Lancer video).

•Regarding David Mantik: no doubt, once he became interested in the JFK assassination (he called me around 1992, with high praise for my book, which I assumed he had recently read), he also realized the obvious: that the back of the head was artificially patched, but I do not know when that was. When did he first have an opportunity to examine a high quality duplicate of the Zapruder film? I know he asked to borrow certain Nix frames about 1994; and I also do remember on at least one occasion, in the early 1990s, asking Mantik—who had done densitometry on the JFK X-rays, whether it would be possible to do densitometry readings on the 35 mm Weitzman negative to show that the “blacking out” was completely artificial.

•As to the changing captions in the frames of Life Magazine’s famous issue of October, 1964—your statement also implies that you were the first in that area, too. FYI: those discoveries were made starting in October, 1964, so I do not understand why anyone would lay claim to such discoveries much beyond that. Specifically: Ray Marcus in Southern California and Vince Salandria in Philadelphia (not to mention Josiah Thompson, Thomas Stamm, Sylvia Meagher and others)--all knew that the captions had been changed. (Salandria even obtained a letter from Life editor Ed Kearn on the extraordinary and explicable changes). At UC/Berkeley, Paul Hoch collected all the Life issues and produced a tabular graphic –a matrix of sorts--tracking the changing caption and pictures. In Best Evidence, published in January, 1981, I commented on Hoch’s work—and I did the same in Pig on a Leash, published in the anthology you edited, published in 2003. So that discovery—about the Life issue of October, 1964, and its changing captions—goes back some 47 years.

In summary: Having lived and toiled in these vineyards for some 40 years, it irks me to see someone come along decades later and blithely claim credit for discoveries which were made decades ago, and were a source of constant commentary among knowledgeable JFK researchers (back then called “Warren Report critics”).

As an expert in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, you should be more careful.

DSL

4/22/10; 2 AM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David,

In Chapter 24, the footnote about the possible alteration of the film appears on pages 555-557. In particular, on page 557, you state, "In my view, previously unreported CIA possession of the Zapruder film compromised the film's value as evidence: (1) the forward motion of Kennedy's head, for one frame preceding frame 313, might be the result of an altered film, and if that was so, it made the theory of a forward high-angle shot (see Chapter 2) completely unnecessary; (3) an altered film might also explain why the occipital area, where the Dallas doctors saw a wound, appears suspiciously dark, whereas a large wound appears on the forward right-hand side of the head, where the Dallas doctors saw no wound at all." For the purpose of comparison, here are a few paragraphs from "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid":

In an earlier article, "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery" that appeared in OpEdNews (February 5, 2008), I laid out multiple indications that the Zapruder film is a fabrication. But none of those proofs even reaches to the mutually reinforcing deceptions of (a) the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, ( the missing right-front in the anterior-posterior X-ray, and © the publication of 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that the bullet had entered the back of his head and blown out the right-front--a caption rewritten twice after breaking the plates. And it implicates Abraham Zapruder in the deception, when (d) he described a blow-out to the right-front during a televised interview that that night (HOAX, page 435)!

None of it was true. Jackie herself reported that, from the front, he looked just fine but that she had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back of his head. None of the witnesses or doctors reported it. Not even the mortician! Indeed, the massive defect can even be seen in late frames of the film, including 374. During a phone interview with Joe West, a private investigator, the man who had prepared the body for burial, Thomas Evan Robinson, described the wounds on May 26, 1992, as follows (MURDER, p. 116; HOAX, p. 9):

* large gaping hole in back of head patched by stretching piece of rubber over it. Thinks skull full of Plaster of Paris.

* smaller wound in right temple. Crescent shape, flapped down (3")

* (approx 2) small shrapnel wounds in face. Packed with wax.

* wound in back (5 to six inches) below shoulder. To the right of back bone.

* adrenal gland and brain removed.

* other organs removed and then put back.

* no swelling or discoloration to face. (died instantly)

Correct me if I am wrong, but of the points that I cite in describing "the mutually reinforcing deceptions of (a) the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, ( the missing right-front in the anterior-posterior X-ray, and © the publication of 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that the bullet had entered the back of his head and blown out the right-front--a caption rewritten twice after breaking the plates. And it implicates Abraham Zapruder in the deception, when (d) he described a blow-out to the right-front during a televised interview that that night", you address the blow-out to the right-front seen in the film, the "suspiciously dark" area at the back of the head, and that the Dallas doctors did not observe a wound at the right-front of the head.

Everyone can judge this matter for themselves, but I learned more from BEST EVIDENCE than from any other source when I became serious about JFK research. "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", by the way, only appeared on March 28, 2009, while "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery", in which I explained John Costella's discovery that Officer Chaney had motored forward to inform Chief Curry that the President had been shot, which, of course, is also missing from the extant film, appeared on February 5, 2008. "Moorman in the Street Revisited", which appeared in January 2009, provides additional resources related to the study of these issues, including the appendix in which you discuss the apparent manipulation of Mary's testimony by Gary Mack.

In the "Prologue" to THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), I discuss Noel Twyman's finding from Roderick Ryan, a Hollywood expert of special effects, that the blood spray and the "blob" had been painted in (on page 23), that comparison of the "blob" with the anterior-posterior X-ray "appears to be extremely revealing of a pattern of interlocking deceptions", and that frame 374 reveals the blow-out to the back of the head, which corresponds very closely to McClelland's drawing, Crenshaw's drawing, and especially "Area P" of David Mantik's studies of the X-rays (on page 25), originally published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998).

Jim

was published in Chapter 24 in Best Evidence, published in January, 1981

In any event: please note that I was on record with the belief that the Zapruder film was altered, for these reasons, and published this in Best Evidence in 1981.

Holy cow!

I dont ever remember reading that footnote in "Best Evidence"

I read BE back in 1987 for the first time and have read it probably 20 times, I do not remember that footnote!

I grabbed my original hardcover copy of BE turned to chapter 24 and there it was!

Great job David, the first time I remember reading about alteration was in Crossfire while reading the section on Jack White back in 1989

Edited April 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

Ferrie's underground lab was across the street from his residence JVB.

Ferrie's underground lab was across the street from his residence? And all this time we have been

told it was in his house?

Another new version emerges.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

READ THE BOOK! It's called DR. MARY'S MONKEY. Ferrie's apartment was

at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway. Ferrie's "Little Lab" (Barbara's apartment)

was at 3225 Louisiana Avenue Parkway. There's even a photograph showing

their relative locations on page 110 of the book. Some of the research was

done at Ferrie's apartment, but most of the animals were kept at the lab--in

cages, in case you hadn't guessed. Do me a huge favor: READ THE BOOK! If I

can read Armstrong's book, surely you can reciprocate by reading Haslam's!

Ferrie's underground lab was across the street from his residence JVB.

Ferrie's underground lab was across the street from his residence? And all this time we have been

told it was in his house?

Another new version emerges.

Edited April 22, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

DL said:

In any event: please note that I was on record with the belief that the Zapruder film was altered, for these reasons, and published this in Best Evidence in 1981.

Let's keep in mind that Lifton is one who claims to be an alterationist, yet has no interest in early viewings of the Zapruder.

Let's not also forget that MFW, though self-published, came out long before BE and put forth not only the concept of body alteration but of Z-film(s) alteration.

Murder From Within was never "self published" as far as I know. It existed only as a typewritten

manuscript. The only copy of it I ever saw was a xerox copy owned by Mary Ferrell.

My understanding is that all copies of it which proliferated were similar xeroxes. Am I wrong?

Jack

[Jack White]

READ THE BOOK! It's called DR. MARY'S MONKEY. Ferrie's apartment was

at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway. Ferrie's "Little Lab" (Barbara's apartment)

was at 3225 Louisiana Avenue Parkway. There's even a photograph showing

their relative locations on page 110 of the book. Some of the research was

done at Ferrie's apartment, but most of the animals were kept at the lab--in

cages, in case you hadn't guessed. Do me a huge favor: READ THE BOOK! If I

can read Armstrong's book, surely you can reciprocate by reading Haslam's!

Ferrie's underground lab was across the street from his residence JVB.

Ferrie's underground lab was across the street from his residence? And all this time we have been

told it was in his house?

Another new version emerges.

I have MARY, FERRIE AND THE MONKEY VIRUS. I do not have DR. MARY'S MONKEY

and do not intend to get it.

Jack

[Stephen Roy]

Miss Baker:

I still do not wish to be drawn into a debate about this case. I will respond to points you have raised.

Since the time Mr. Haslam's first edition was published, and through an updated edition, my feelings about the book have not changed. (As I noted, I have ordered a copy of the newest edition.) Despite some implications in this thread that Haslam's book is the authoritative word on certain matters, I disagree, with all due respect to Mr. Haslam. One of the central claims of the first edition is that Ferrie had an "underground lab" in his apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway, but the book provides little, if any, evidence to support this. If I am missing any evidence from the book to support this claim, please correct me.

Jim Garrison did say that he saw mice cages there after Ferrie's death, but the first responders on that day (police, Assistant DAs, coroner (and others) did not see them, and the death scene pictures do not show them. I have to surmise that Garrison was mistaken. (Garrison had recently received a Gurvich memo mentioning mice cages in a earlier Ferrie home, in 1957.)

I think Haslam concedes today that Ferrie might not have written the cancer treatise, but in his first edition, he implied that Ferrie wrote it. Ferrie had a number of medical books and papers among his effects.

You mention the possibility of a medical lab in an apartment across the street. In this discussion, I am considering only Mr. Haslam's claim that Ferrie had such a lab in his apartment.

I don't understand your comments about why I "appeared" right after the JFK film came out, and why I have specialized in David Ferrie, because I've addressed these things many times. I was interested in the assassination from the time it happened. I read all of the first wave of critical literature, ordered the WC report and volumes, and even gave lectures and wrote articles, all from a CT perspective. In 1967, I became interested in Ferrie, thinking he may have been the mastermind. I read Weisberg, Epstein, Flammonde and other books dealing with Ferrie. Because the Ferrie info was scattered in many places, I started collating it into chronologies. I started ordering documents and contacting witnesses. In the 70s, several relevant reports and many new documents became available. At that point, I decided to write it all up as a biography. To help with that, I got a computer, which eventually led me to the Internet in the early 90s, which is when I "appeared." The only discussion groups I could find at that time were the newsgroups. At one point, Dave Reitzes wrote and asked if he could collate a few of my posts into an archive, and I consented. By then, I was known as a Ferrie specialist, and I was invited to speak on Ferrie a few times at conferences. My work on the biography is ongoing; It is hard to ever declare it "done"!!! I keep finding new things, contacting new people. The text is about 2/3 done (but open to revision, as it's on MSWord). Since I've married and had kids, it has cut my research/writing time down to just a few hours a week. I think that covers it.

As for Oswald, I'm no expert on any of those aspects of the case; I just keep up with the research and have opinions, like everybody else out here. I once felt Oswald was completely innocent; but I have come to feel that it is hard to support that belief unless a great deal of evidence was faked. And in re-reading Oswald's writings, I find his thought process very idiosyncratic.

So no, I'm not in league with anybody else. I do thank you for a few of the things you said in your post. Again, I'd prefer if you kept me out of the general debate. I just don't have time to plow through page after page of stuff.

Again, my whole point was that Haslam may be right, may be wrong. I recommend that interested readers seek alternate primary sources wherever possible.

[Jack White]

Here is a LINEAR PARTICLE ACCELERATOR. Did David Ferrie have his in his apartment

or his laboratory across the street?

Jack

[Stephen Roy]

Barb J. wrote:

A major problem with this is that the Kennedy's arrival at Love Field was only televised live

on Dallas/Ft. Worth TV stations.

As a DFW resident, I believe that this statement is not true. Gary Mack would know. A

live hookup in those days would require a special microwave signal hookup and large

bulky studio cameras, which were few back then. The local stations shot the arrival on FILM,

not live video feed. Ask Gary.

The only LIVE feed that weekend, as I recall, was the abortive LHO jail transfer and shooting.

Jack

To the best of my knowledge: Several DFW TV stations decided on a pool approach to coverage of the presidential visit. WFAA took their "mobile crusier" to Love Field. They carried the arrival live, and pool-fed it to the other stations. I'm not sure if any of the others carried it live. KRLD was going to be live at the Trade Mart, and pool-feed that to other stations.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

READ THE BOOK, Jack. You are displaying your massive ignorance about

the whole case. This is the reason I have become so disillusioned with you.

You are making endless posts without knowing what you are talking about.

Here is a LINEAR PARTICLE ACCELERATOR. Did David Ferrie have his in his apartment

or his laboratory across the street?

Jack

[Michael Hogan]

Here is a LINEAR PARTICLE ACCELERATOR. Did David Ferrie have his in his apartment

or his laboratory across the street?

Jack

That answer was provided for you here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry190077