I am the messenger here, so do not direct responses to me. Frank will answer posted replys - providing they are substantive and are worth responding to.
Thank you,
David Starks
On 4 Sep 1998 00:04:07 -0500, Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> On 29 Aug 1998 18:48:30 -0500, David Starks <a...@cynet.net> wrote:
> >> Posner has, and has produced, phone records that show a > >> lengthy call to Boswell. Steve Bochan is one of the > >> people who has seen these records.
> >What does it do to Posner's credibility that he refused > >(still...as far as I know) to turn over to the ARRB > >his notes and tapes of these purported phone calls among > >other things? > Why should he bother? He produced the phone records, only to have > Aguilar claim they were faked! And only to have other buffs *repeat* > the nonsense about his not calling Boswell, and not calling Tague, as > though he had never produced those records?
Did Gerald Posner provide you with the original phone records, or with copies of the records? It has already been pointed out that anyone with a scanner and the basic paint program provided with Windows can produce a realistic looking altered copy of a record in a few minutes.
The original phone bill, of course, is no proof that Posner spoke to Boswell. Only the purported tapes and/or notes can prove that.
Posner asks us to make a leap of faith and essentially take his word that the material he provided you is authentic and proves his points, while holding back material that we can easily verify, such as the purported voice tape of the interview. Anyone who doubts how far a talented journalist con man will go to avoid exposure should take a few minutes to acquaint themselves with the story of Stephen Glass, from the Philadelphia Inquirer magazine of August 30, 1998, at http://www.phillynews.com/sunmag/830/feature3.shtml
Glass was a young rising rocket in the world of big time "serious" writing, like Posner, when someone at New Republic finally took the time to check his sources for a story on hacking, instead of taking the charismatic boy wonders' word for everything. What happened next was nothing short of incredible;
"In the end, the magazine [New Republic] published an apology, acknowledging that Glass had entirely fabricated three stories - about the hacker, the Monica-tchotke convention, and a meeting of anti-Clinton activists. He had fabricated material - quotes, sources or scenes - in 23 others,even creating notes, e-mails and memos from fake people to cover his tracks. Many stories can't be confirmed either way. "A sensible reader will no longer trust the pieces," Lane says."
I don't know for certain that Posner's career will end up in the same dump as Glass's. I do believe that any journalist who refuses to provide basic, verifiable information relating to his stories does not deserve the respect of his readers or potential employers.
> Why should he lift a finger to placate the buffs?
Professor McAdams, Posner VOLUNTEERED his information to CONGRESS, while under oath. He told Congressman Conyers that he was correcting the record, and, the (apparently false) information he provided unfairly predjudiced the Committee against Dr. Randolph Robertson's testimony. It isn't us "buffs" that Posner needs to "placate".
Mr. POSNER. I have interviewed the autopsy doctors. I have interviewed Mr. O'Neil. What is left here on the record today should not be allowed because it is not correct, which is the implication that the autopsy doctors agree with their original drawings in 1963, which were made without the benefit of the X-rays and the photographs, that they had had done at the autopsy.
It was the work of that committee [HSCA] that had the two autopsy physicians change their mind, that they had been mistaken about the placement of the wound here, and that it is in fact correctly placed 4 inches higher. I have spoken to them about this and they have confirmed their change of testimony that they gave before the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
Posner promised Congress, not the "buffs", that he would place his record correcting interviews in the National Archives...
Mr. LESAR. I would like to request of Mr. Posner if he would be willing to donate his notes and if he has any tapes on his interviews with these doctors to the National Archives, to donate copies of them, so we can all have access to the original materials on which he is basing his remarks.
Mr. POSNER. I would be happy, Mr. Chairman, to ask Drs. Humes and Boswell if they would agree for their notes to be released to the National Archives.
Another question; has Posner ever contacted Humes or Boswell to obtain their agreement?
> And the ARRB didn't ask Boswell about this "issue." Sort of puts it > in perspective, doesn't it? A bunch of livid anti-Posner buffs is > loudly insisting this is an important issue, but the ARRB doesn't > think so.
"Livid buffs" implies that those who are criticizing Posner on this issue are both abusive to him and ill-informed, neither of which is the case. It is really regretable that you must resort to this smear in a group you moderate. Whatever miniscule rhetorical advantage you think you are gaining by characterizing your opponents in this way, without providing examples, is not worth the loss of your credibility.
With the unprecedented number of scandals that have plagued the media this year, no one at places like the New York Times, PBS or CBS can afford to give any writer a free ride on truthfullness, and risk looking like charlatans themselves.
Sooner or later, someone at one of the major media outlets that have published Mr. Posners' work will ask to see his source material. At that time, Posner, if he wishes to be taken seriously as a journalist or historian, will have to produce the tapes of the interviews that he claims to have made, his real phone records and interview notes, and his massive index to the Warren Commission he produced and wrote on index cards.
a...@cynet.net wrote: > Frank Perri asked me to post this item.
> I am the messenger here, so do not direct > responses to me. Frank will answer posted > replys - providing they are substantive > and are worth responding to.
> > >> On 29 Aug 1998 18:48:30 -0500, David Starks <a...@cynet.net> wrote:
> > >> Posner has, and has produced, phone records that show a > > >> lengthy call to Boswell. Steve Bochan is one of the > > >> people who has seen these records.
> > >What does it do to Posner's credibility that he refused > > >(still...as far as I know) to turn over to the ARRB > > >his notes and tapes of these purported phone calls among > > >other things?
> > Why should he bother? He produced the phone records, only to have > > Aguilar claim they were faked! And only to have other buffs *repeat* > > the nonsense about his not calling Boswell, and not calling Tague, as > > though he had never produced those records?
> Did Gerald Posner provide you with the original phone records, > or with copies of the records? It has already been pointed out > that anyone with a scanner and the basic paint program provided > with Windows can produce a realistic looking altered copy of a > record in a few minutes.
> The original phone bill, of course, is no proof that Posner > spoke to Boswell. Only the purported tapes and/or notes can > prove that.
> Posner asks us to make a leap of faith and essentially > take his word that the material he provided you is authentic > and proves his points, while holding back material that we > can easily verify, such as the purported voice tape of the > interview. Anyone who doubts how far a talented journalist > con man will go to avoid exposure should take a few minutes > to acquaint themselves with the story of Stephen Glass, from > the Philadelphia Inquirer magazine of August 30, 1998, at > http://www.phillynews.com/sunmag/830/feature3.shtml
> Glass was a young rising rocket in the world of big time > "serious" writing, like Posner, when someone at New Republic > finally took the time to check his sources for a story on > hacking, instead of taking the charismatic boy wonders' > word for everything. What happened next was nothing short > of incredible;
> "In the end, the magazine [New Republic] published > an apology, acknowledging that Glass had entirely > fabricated three stories - about the hacker, the > Monica-tchotke convention, and a meeting of anti-Clinton > activists. He had fabricated material - quotes, sources or > scenes - in 23 others,even creating notes, e-mails and > memos from fake people to cover his tracks. Many stories > can't be confirmed either way. "A sensible reader will > no longer trust the pieces," Lane says."
> I don't know for certain that Posner's career will end up in > the same dump as Glass's. I do believe that any journalist who > refuses to provide basic, verifiable information relating to > his stories does not deserve the respect of his readers or > potential employers.
> > Why should he lift a finger to placate the buffs?
> Professor McAdams, Posner VOLUNTEERED his information > to CONGRESS, while under oath. He told Congressman Conyers > that he was correcting the record, and, the (apparently false) > information he provided unfairly predjudiced the Committee > against Dr. Randolph Robertson's testimony. It isn't us > "buffs" that Posner needs to "placate".
> Mr. POSNER. I have interviewed the autopsy doctors. > I have interviewed Mr. O'Neil. What is left here on > the record today should not be allowed because it is > not correct, which is the implication that the autopsy > doctors agree with their original drawings in 1963, which > were made without the benefit of the X-rays and the > photographs, that they had had done at the autopsy.
> It was the work of that committee [HSCA] that had > the two autopsy physicians change their mind, that > they had been mistaken about the placement of the wound > here, and that it is in fact correctly placed 4 inches > higher. I have spoken to them about this and they have > confirmed their change of testimony that they gave before > the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
> Posner promised Congress, not the "buffs", that he > would place his record correcting interviews in the > National Archives...
> Mr. LESAR. I would like to request of Mr. Posner if he > would be willing to donate his notes and if he has any > tapes on his interviews with these doctors to the National > Archives, to donate copies of them, so we can all have > access to the original materials on which he is basing > his remarks.
> Mr. POSNER. I would be happy, Mr. Chairman, to ask Drs. > Humes and Boswell if they would agree for their notes > to be released to the National Archives.
> Another question; has Posner ever contacted Humes or > Boswell to obtain their agreement?
> > And the ARRB didn't ask Boswell about this "issue." Sort of puts it > > in perspective, doesn't it? A bunch of livid anti-Posner buffs is > > loudly insisting this is an important issue, but the ARRB doesn't > > think so.
> "Livid buffs" implies that those who are criticizing > Posner on this issue are both abusive to him and ill-informed, > neither of which is the case. It is really regretable that > you must resort to this smear in a group you moderate. > Whatever miniscule rhetorical advantage you think you are > gaining by characterizing your opponents in this way, > without providing examples, is not worth the loss of your > credibility.
> With the unprecedented number of scandals that have > plagued the media this year, no one at places like the > New York Times, PBS or CBS can afford to give any writer > a free ride on truthfullness, and risk looking like > charlatans themselves.
> Sooner or later, someone at one of the major media > outlets that have published Mr. Posners' work will ask > to see his source material. At that time, Posner, if > he wishes to be taken seriously as a journalist or > historian, will have to produce the tapes of the > interviews that he claims to have made, his real phone > records and interview notes, and his massive index to the > Warren Commission he produced and wrote on index cards.
> Posner has provided original phone bills and Aguilar has supplied > (presumed original) tapes, but, Boswell has not endorsed either claim.
> Boswell has not verified that he spoke with Posner and has not verified > that he spoke with Aguilar.
> So, all one can say at his time is that both claims are unsubstantiated by > Boswell and should be regarded as alleged but unproved.
> In the absence of proof, an agnostic attitude is wise.
> Jerry Fletcher
Mr. Fletcher,
Dr. Aguilar has donated the tape of his interview with Dr. Boswell to the ARRB, and this was accepted as part of their collection. The ARRB already has a tape of their own interview with Dr. Boswell. I find it extremely unlikely that Dr. Aguilar would turn over falsified evidence, particularly when we can so easily verify that it is Dr. Boswell's voice on the tape, and if the tape was altered.
On the other hand, we have nothing but Gerald Posner's word for any of his assertions about his own interview.
Posner has said only that he provided copies of the phone records, not the originals. Have you, or anyone else, seen firsthand the actual phone bills? How are we going to have Dr. Boswell substantiate or comment on anything he may have said to Posner if he won't turn over the tape?
>I am the messenger here, so do not direct >responses to me. Frank will answer posted >replys - providing they are substantive >and are worth responding to.
>> >What does it do to Posner's credibility that he refused >> >(still...as far as I know) to turn over to the ARRB >> >his notes and tapes of these purported phone calls among >> >other things?
>> Why should he bother? He produced the phone records, only to have >> Aguilar claim they were faked! And only to have other buffs *repeat* >> the nonsense about his not calling Boswell, and not calling Tague, as >> though he had never produced those records?
>Did Gerald Posner provide you with the original phone records, >or with copies of the records? It has already been pointed out >that anyone with a scanner and the basic paint program provided >with Windows can produce a realistic looking altered copy of a >record in a few minutes.
It would be foolish indeed to turn over individual phone records, given the information on them -- including, for example Posner's account number, phone numbers of all his contacts and relatives who might become objects of harrassment, etc.
Are you saying the forged the phone records?
Or are you just *implying* that, while not having courage to actually assert it?
>The original phone bill, of course, is no proof that Posner >spoke to Boswell. Only the purported tapes and/or notes can >prove that.
>Posner asks us to make a leap of faith and essentially >take his word that the material he provided you is authentic >and proves his points, while holding back material that we >can easily verify, such as the purported voice tape of the >interview. Anyone who doubts how far a talented journalist >con man will go to avoid exposure should take a few minutes >to acquaint themselves with the story of Stephen Glass, from >the Philadelphia Inquirer magazine of August 30, 1998, at >http://www.phillynews.com/sunmag/830/feature3.shtml
>Glass was a young rising rocket in the world of big time >"serious" writing, like Posner, when someone at New Republic >finally took the time to check his sources for a story on >hacking, instead of taking the charismatic boy wonders' >word for everything. What happened next was nothing short >of incredible;
> "In the end, the magazine [New Republic] published > an apology, acknowledging that Glass had entirely > fabricated three stories - about the hacker, the > Monica-tchotke convention, and a meeting of anti-Clinton > activists. He had fabricated material - quotes, sources or > scenes - in 23 others,even creating notes, e-mails and > memos from fake people to cover his tracks. Many stories > can't be confirmed either way. "A sensible reader will > no longer trust the pieces," Lane says."
>I don't know for certain that Posner's career will end up in >the same dump as Glass's. I do believe that any journalist who >refuses to provide basic, verifiable information relating to >his stories does not deserve the respect of his readers or >potential employers.
OK, you are saying Posner is like Glass. But you have no evidence of that, except for Posner's failure to produce a tape that you buffs care very much about, but nobody else does.
The ARRB didn't even bother to ask Boswell about his conversation with Posner. Sort of puts this in perspective, doesn't it?
And the existence of one dishonest writer doesn't make Posner dishonest. Should I say that the existence of UFO buffs and Scientologists and Liberty Lobby fascists makes *you* a crackpot? If you can say that he existence of one dishonest writer makes another with whom you disagree dishonest, can't I say that the existence of a ton of crackpots makes people with whom *I* disagree crackpots?
Same logic.
>> Why should he lift a finger to placate the buffs?
>Professor McAdams, Posner VOLUNTEERED his information >to CONGRESS, while under oath. He told Congressman Conyers >that he was correcting the record, and, the (apparently false) >information he provided unfairly predjudiced the Committee >against Dr. Randolph Robertson's testimony. It isn't us >"buffs" that Posner needs to "placate".
It's only the buffs who are loudly demanding the tape. When Posner turned over the phone records the buffs simply refused to believe what they showed.
>Mr. POSNER. I have interviewed the autopsy doctors. >I have interviewed Mr. O'Neil. What is left here on >the record today should not be allowed because it is >not correct, which is the implication that the autopsy >doctors agree with their original drawings in 1963, which >were made without the benefit of the X-rays and the >photographs, that they had had done at the autopsy.
>It was the work of that committee [HSCA] that had >the two autopsy physicians change their mind, that >they had been mistaken about the placement of the wound >here, and that it is in fact correctly placed 4 inches >higher. I have spoken to them about this and they have >confirmed their change of testimony that they gave before >the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
>Posner promised Congress, not the "buffs", that he >would place his record correcting interviews in the >National Archives...
>Mr. LESAR. I would like to request of Mr. Posner if he >would be willing to donate his notes and if he has any >tapes on his interviews with these doctors to the National >Archives, to donate copies of them, so we can all have >access to the original materials on which he is basing >his remarks.
>Mr. POSNER. I would be happy, Mr. Chairman, to ask Drs. >Humes and Boswell if they would agree for their notes >to be released to the National Archives.
>Another question; has Posner ever contacted Humes or >Boswell to obtain their agreement?
I don't know. Why don't you ask him? He's easy enough to contact through his web site.
>> And the ARRB didn't ask Boswell about this "issue." Sort of puts it >> in perspective, doesn't it? A bunch of livid anti-Posner buffs is >> loudly insisting this is an important issue, but the ARRB doesn't >> think so.
>"Livid buffs" implies that those who are criticizing >Posner on this issue are both abusive to him and ill-informed,
It implies they are abusive, which is true.
>neither of which is the case. It is really regretable that >you must resort to this smear in a group you moderate. >Whatever miniscule rhetorical advantage you think you are >gaining by characterizing your opponents in this way, >without providing examples, is not worth the loss of your >credibility.
You and Dave Starks and lots of conspiracy people *have* been livid about attacking Posner and calling him a liar.
And the reason is obvious: he disagrees with you about the assassination, and he gets a lot of media attention.
You don't like being called a "buff?" But you feel absolutely free to call Posner a liar? Such a double standard won't work.
>With the unprecedented number of scandals that have >plagued the media this year, no one at places like the >New York Times, PBS or CBS can afford to give any writer >a free ride on truthfullness, and risk looking like >charlatans themselves.
>Sooner or later, someone at one of the major media >outlets that have published Mr. Posners' work will ask >to see his source material. At that time, Posner, if >he wishes to be taken seriously as a journalist or >historian, will have to produce the tapes of the >interviews that he claims to have made, his real phone >records and interview notes, and his massive index to the >Warren Commission he produced and wrote on index cards.
>Do you think he has this material?
Yes, but he's not going to bother to produce it merely to placate buffs.
Simple fact: you hate him, and you're going to continue to hate him regardless of what he produces. He produced the phone records and was greeted with claims that they are faked.
>Posner has provided original phone bills and Aguilar has supplied >(presumed original) tapes, but, Boswell has not endorsed either claim.
>Boswell has not verified that he spoke with Posner and has not verified >that he spoke with Aguilar.
>So, all one can say at his time is that both claims are unsubstantiated by >Boswell and should be regarded as alleged but unproved.
>In the absence of proof, an agnostic attitude is wise.
>Jerry Fletcher
>In article <36141972.1...@cynet.net>, > a...@cynet.net wrote: >> Frank Perri asked me to post this item.
>> I am the messenger here, so do not direct >> responses to me. Frank will answer posted >> replys - providing they are substantive >> and are worth responding to.
Ah, but you are being consistent here. One is not *supposed* to be consistent. The burden of proof is supposed to be much higher for lone nutters than for conspiracists. Aguilar is free to imply that Posner's phone bills are forged, but you *aren't* supposed to imply that Aguilar's tape could be faked.
You're basic dilemma in consistency is that you'll consistenly mention the Lane-Markham situation without dealing with the substance of that issue. Dealing with the substance is what makes your stance vis a vis Posner inconsistent, indicative of a double standard. Under your scenario, we are supposed to believe that John McAdams, having been shown paper proof of a Lane-Marhkam meeting, would absolve Lane of all guilt, and wouldn't level any charges of selectivity or unethical behaviour against Lane if he then refused to turn over the video of their conversation. This is quite odd, considering that when Lane *did* turn over the video, LNers still attacked his integrity. Why? Because they said he mishandled Markham, misrepresented on paper what happened in actuality, was selective. Now are you telling me that you wouldn't strongly suspect Lane of doing those same things had he refused to turn over those tapes, in light of what Markham was saying? Are you saying that had he merely provided paper proof of their encounter, that you wouldn't be suspicious that what he reported her as saying was misused and deliberately falsified? Are you saying that Lane would have secured your approval by NOT releasing the tapes; you would have simply believed him that Markham contradicted her statements? No, John McAdams would have:
- Pounced on Lane for hiding his tapes from an independent government body
AND
- Voiced strong doubts, based on Lane's refusal, and based on what Markham had said in the past, that Lane had totally misrepresented what she siad.
You would have attacked him in the same way you attack the LFs for being "afraid" to bring Elrod before the ARRB. But because Lane is a CTer, and Posner is an LNer, his breach of ethics becomes defensible.
>You're basic dilemma in consistency is that you'll consistenly mention the >Lane-Markham situation without dealing with the substance of that issue. >Dealing with the substance is what makes your stance vis a vis Posner >inconsistent, indicative of a double standard. Under your scenario, we >are supposed to believe that John McAdams, having been shown paper proof >of a Lane-Marhkam meeting, would absolve Lane of all guilt, and wouldn't >level any charges of selectivity or unethical behaviour against Lane if he >then refused to turn over the video of their conversation. This is quite >odd, considering that when Lane *did* turn over the video, LNers still >attacked his integrity. Why? Because they said he mishandled Markham, >misrepresented on paper what happened in actuality, was selective. Now >are you telling me that you wouldn't strongly suspect Lane of doing those >same things had he refused to turn over those tapes, in light of what >Markham was saying?
Of course I would have been suspicious. But the difference is that Lane's claim about what Markham told him is an important matter, and what Boswell told Posner isn't important at all.
Why lie about something that doesn't matter?
Jerry posted a brief snippet from Posner where Posner said that Boswell admitted that the "lower" head wound is not what the x-ray shows. Posner apparently took that for a recantation, and Boswell didn't.
Do you admit that this is in fact plausible? Or do you want to hold out for Posner not speaking to Boswell?
>>You're basic dilemma in consistency is that you'll consistenly mention the >>Lane-Markham situation without dealing with the substance of that issue. >>Dealing with the substance is what makes your stance vis a vis Posner >>inconsistent, indicative of a double standard. Under your scenario, we >>are supposed to believe that John McAdams, having been shown paper proof >>of a Lane-Marhkam meeting, would absolve Lane of all guilt, and wouldn't >>level any charges of selectivity or unethical behaviour against Lane if he >>then refused to turn over the video of their conversation. This is quite >>odd, considering that when Lane *did* turn over the video, LNers still >>attacked his integrity. Why? Because they said he mishandled Markham, >>misrepresented on paper what happened in actuality, was selective. Now >>are you telling me that you wouldn't strongly suspect Lane of doing those >>same things had he refused to turn over those tapes, in light of what >>Markham was saying?
>Of course I would have been suspicious. But the difference is that >Lane's claim about what Markham told him is an important matter, and >what Boswell told Posner isn't important at all.
Whoa there! It WAS important, John...and if you didn't think the placement of that wound was important, then you wouldn't argue against it so vehemently.
>Why lie about something that doesn't matter?
Why interject something into the record of a congressional hearing if it doesn't matter? Posner thought it mattered very much....he told the committee that what Robertson was telling them should not be allowed on the record because it was not true...and he knew that because he had personally interviewed the autopsists and they had admitted a four inch error to him.
>Jerry posted a brief snippet from Posner where Posner said that >Boswell admitted that the "lower" head wound is not what the x-ray >shows. Posner apparently took that for a recantation, and Boswell >didn't.
>Do you admit that this is in fact plausible? Or do you want to hold >out for Posner not speaking to Boswell?
I guess I must have missed Jerry's "snippet"....was this a *direct* and accurate quote from Posner? And I don't buy it anyway....Posner told the Conyer's committee that "they have confirmed their change of testimony". Wqas Jerry's snippet from something Posner told him personally...or was it from the Conyer's hearing....I ask because posner starts his little speech by commenting on the work of the HSCA and them getting the autopsist to recant. THEN he sayd he spoke to the autopsists about that very point himself and "they confirmed" their change to him.
If a journalist/author is confirming a point with someone, they should be specific and go over it and make sure they are understanding what is being said. How careless do you think Posner may have been...and with *both* autopsists?
As for not speaking to boswell...it's Boswell who holds out for that.
Why do you consider a statement by Boswell to Posner important?
What has happened to 'refresh' Boswell's recollection so that he can recall more accurately now - or in '93 - what he saw on 11-22-63 - than he could when he concurred with Hume's report?
Boswell believed that the wound is near the EOP.
Frazier and Sis believe the package is too short.
I have no trouble with either, tho, I don't agree with either, either.
Jerry
PS: Gerry Posner is a charming guy and I bet if he got you on the phone he'd convince you the wound was 'high', too! ;)
In article <366f7958.227720...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, bar...@ix.netcom.com (Barb Junkkarinen) wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 05:17:40 GMT, 6489mcada...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John > McAdams) wrote:
> >On 1 Nov 1998 18:34:43 -0600, stugra...@aol.com (Stugrad98) wrote:
> >>John,
> >>You're basic dilemma in consistency is that you'll consistenly mention the > >>Lane-Markham situation without dealing with the substance of that issue. > >>Dealing with the substance is what makes your stance vis a vis Posner > >>inconsistent, indicative of a double standard. Under your scenario, we > >>are supposed to believe that John McAdams, having been shown paper proof > >>of a Lane-Marhkam meeting, would absolve Lane of all guilt, and wouldn't > >>level any charges of selectivity or unethical behaviour against Lane if he > >>then refused to turn over the video of their conversation. This is quite > >>odd, considering that when Lane *did* turn over the video, LNers still > >>attacked his integrity. Why? Because they said he mishandled Markham, > >>misrepresented on paper what happened in actuality, was selective. Now > >>are you telling me that you wouldn't strongly suspect Lane of doing those > >>same things had he refused to turn over those tapes, in light of what > >>Markham was saying?
> >Of course I would have been suspicious. But the difference is that > >Lane's claim about what Markham told him is an important matter, and > >what Boswell told Posner isn't important at all.
> Whoa there! It WAS important, John...and if you didn't think the > placement of that wound was important, then you wouldn't argue against > it so vehemently.
> >Why lie about something that doesn't matter?
> Why interject something into the record of a congressional hearing if > it doesn't matter? Posner thought it mattered very much....he told the > committee that what Robertson was telling them should not be allowed > on the record because it was not true...and he knew that because he > had personally interviewed the autopsists and they had admitted a four > inch error to him.
> >Jerry posted a brief snippet from Posner where Posner said that > >Boswell admitted that the "lower" head wound is not what the x-ray > >shows. Posner apparently took that for a recantation, and Boswell > >didn't.
> >Do you admit that this is in fact plausible? Or do you want to hold > >out for Posner not speaking to Boswell?
> I guess I must have missed Jerry's "snippet"....was this a *direct* > and accurate quote from Posner? And I don't buy it anyway....Posner > told the Conyer's committee that "they have confirmed their change of > testimony". Wqas Jerry's snippet from something Posner told him > personally...or was it from the Conyer's hearing....I ask because > posner starts his little speech by commenting on the work of the HSCA > and them getting the autopsist to recant. THEN he sayd he spoke to the > autopsists about that very point himself and "they confirmed" their > change to him.
> If a journalist/author is confirming a point with someone, they should > be specific and go over it and make sure they are understanding what > is being said. How careless do you think Posner may have been...and > with *both* autopsists?
> As for not speaking to boswell...it's Boswell who holds out for that.
Barb Junkkarinen wrote: > On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 05:17:40 GMT, 6489mcada...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John > McAdams) wrote:
> >On 1 Nov 1998 18:34:43 -0600, stugra...@aol.com (Stugrad98) wrote:
> >>John,
> >>You're basic dilemma in consistency is that you'll consistenly mention the > >>Lane-Markham situation without dealing with the substance of that issue. > >>Dealing with the substance is what makes your stance vis a vis Posner > >>inconsistent, indicative of a double standard. Under your scenario, we > >>are supposed to believe that John McAdams, having been shown paper proof > >>of a Lane-Marhkam meeting, would absolve Lane of all guilt, and wouldn't > >>level any charges of selectivity or unethical behaviour against Lane if he > >>then refused to turn over the video of their conversation. This is quite > >>odd, considering that when Lane *did* turn over the video, LNers still > >>attacked his integrity. Why? Because they said he mishandled Markham, > >>misrepresented on paper what happened in actuality, was selective. Now > >>are you telling me that you wouldn't strongly suspect Lane of doing those > >>same things had he refused to turn over those tapes, in light of what > >>Markham was saying?
> >Of course I would have been suspicious. But the difference is that > >Lane's claim about what Markham told him is an important matter, and > >what Boswell told Posner isn't important at all.
> Whoa there! It WAS important, John...and if you didn't think the > placement of that wound was important, then you wouldn't argue against > it so vehemently.
> >Why lie about something that doesn't matter?
> Why interject something into the record of a congressional hearing if > it doesn't matter? Posner thought it mattered very much....he told the > committee that what Robertson was telling them should not be allowed > on the record because it was not true...and he knew that because he > had personally interviewed the autopsists and they had admitted a four > inch error to him.
> >Jerry posted a brief snippet from Posner where Posner said that > >Boswell admitted that the "lower" head wound is not what the x-ray > >shows. Posner apparently took that for a recantation, and Boswell > >didn't.
> >Do you admit that this is in fact plausible? Or do you want to hold > >out for Posner not speaking to Boswell?
> I guess I must have missed Jerry's "snippet"....was this a *direct* > and accurate quote from Posner? And I don't buy it anyway....Posner > told the Conyer's committee that "they have confirmed their change of > testimony". Wqas Jerry's snippet from something Posner told him > personally...or was it from the Conyer's hearing....I ask because > posner starts his little speech by commenting on the work of the HSCA > and them getting the autopsist to recant. THEN he sayd he spoke to the > autopsists about that very point himself and "they confirmed" their > change to him.
Hi Barb,
Here's what Jerry had to say back on the 9th of September:
"Gerald Posner told me that he phoned Dr Boswell and was able to get from him only this regarding the location of the head-entry: "He very grudgingly admitted to me that the EOP location was not what the x-rays showed." ".
But since we have recently seen Jerry misquote you I'm not sure that we can say that this quote is exactly accurate either.
>On 1 Nov 1998 18:34:43 -0600, stugra...@aol.com (Stugrad98) wrote:
>>John,
>>You're basic dilemma in consistency is that you'll consistenly mention the >>Lane-Markham situation without dealing with the substance of that issue. >>Dealing with the substance is what makes your stance vis a vis Posner >>inconsistent, indicative of a double standard. Under your scenario, we >>are supposed to believe that John McAdams, having been shown paper proof >>of a Lane-Marhkam meeting, would absolve Lane of all guilt, and wouldn't >>level any charges of selectivity or unethical behaviour against Lane if he >>then refused to turn over the video of their conversation. This is quite >>odd, considering that when Lane *did* turn over the video, LNers still >>attacked his integrity. Why? Because they said he mishandled Markham, >>misrepresented on paper what happened in actuality, was selective. Now >>are you telling me that you wouldn't strongly suspect Lane of doing those >>same things had he refused to turn over those tapes, in light of what >>Markham was saying?
>Of course I would have been suspicious. But the difference is that >Lane's claim about what Markham told him is an important matter, and >what Boswell told Posner isn't important at all.
John, we can put aside for the moment whether or not what Boswell said is important *to the JFK assassination* for one second. In reality, that assertion is what is not important. What IS important is that Posner's deliberately misrepresenting Boswell (as well as others) renders his credibility zero! That's why I bring up Lane all the time. I don't care what Lane misrepresented a witnesses testimony on. If he did it an obvious and egregious manner, he's a fraud. And that's the key: I'm willing to call Lane a fraud. Why aren't LNers willing to call Posner a fraud for doing the very same things?
>Why lie about something that doesn't matter?
Ofcourse it matters. Posner manipulated, omitted and distorted EVERYTHING that he couldn't easily explain or to make his arguments stronger. If that's you're modus operandi, you certainly don't care if the lie is small or large. Boswell's "admission" makes it look like critics such as Gary and Barb have their premise wrong: the wound location on the lower rear of the skull was never truly advocated, argues Posner. But it WAS and still IS and Posner misrepresented Boswell to make sure it didn't look that way. The question one must ask themselves if the autopsy photos are such an accurate representation of the body (even though every pathologist on that HSCA would tell you in a heartbeat that they'd prefer to work with an actual body much less sloppy photographs) is: why are the autopsists STILL so insistent that they were right?
>Jerry posted a brief snippet from Posner where Posner said that >Boswell admitted that the "lower" head wound is not what the x-ray >shows. Posner apparently took that for a recantation, and Boswell >didn't.
If this were the case John, Posner would definitely have released his tapes. But because LNers are serving as Posner's enablers-- not criticizing him for this action as they would a CTer, not complaing to the media about their consistent unquestioned use of such a person-- Posner gets away scott free with his misrepresenation. I have little doubt that the tapes show fraud on Posner's part because he would obviously have released those tapes otherwise.
>Do you admit that this is in fact plausible? Or do you want to hold >out for Posner not speaking to Boswell?
Nope. I don't admit it is plausible that Posner made an honest misinterpretation of what Boswell said. If he had done so, those tapes would be in the archives.
John you're quick with scathing criticism (justifiable criticism) of the LaFontaines for not producing Elrod for the ARRB for much the same reasons: if he's so important and reliable, you say, why didn't they get him before the ARRB? Why aren't you asking the same questions about Posner and his miraculous tapes? Witnesses are changing things they've said consistently before and AFTER Posner's book; why would they do this?
And PLEASE don't tell me you are offering Case Closed to your class and lending it credibility. As I said, there are people who may be crazy in this case. There are some who are thick-headed and wedded to their own theories. Some are scholarly. They exist on both sides of the issue. But there are also those who exploit the case using unethical standards to make money. Posner and Lane stand on the extreme sides of the issue. But many CTers are willing to acknowledge that the selectivity, misrepresentation and one-sidedness of Lane is horrible. Why can't you LNers admit the same thing about one of your own, Posner, when it's so obvious. It's to the point that people are offering excuses like "Everyone needs to be selective" and "I don't think Posner giving a completely one-sided view of the most crucial part of any LN book is all that bad". It's silly.
In article <19981210181733.27711.00000...@ng-fb2.aol.com>, stugra...@aol.com (Stugrad98) wrote:
> >On 1 Nov 1998 18:34:43 -0600, stugra...@aol.com (Stugrad98) wrote:
> John, we can put aside for the moment whether or not what Boswell said is > important *to the JFK assassination* for one second. In reality, that > assertion is what is not important. What IS important is that Posner's > deliberately misrepresenting Boswell (as well as others) renders his > credibility zero! That's why I bring up Lane all the time. I don't care > what Lane misrepresented a witnesses testimony on. If he did it an > obvious and egregious manner, he's a fraud. And that's the key: I'm > willing to call Lane a fraud. Why aren't LNers willing to call Posner a > fraud for doing the very same things?
Stu:
Wishful thinking and self-delusion will get you nowhere. These NGs reek with Posner envy. The fact of the matter is a bunch of CTers (no offense intended) seem to think that if they say "Posner has zero credibility" ten times fast, it will come true. Reality check -- Posner has tremendous credibility in the mainstream. His work is considered authoritative. When discussion of the JFK assassination arises, he is still sought out from all points of the compass. And if you really believe that Posner is generally viewed in the same way Lane is viewed, then *your* credibility is less than zero. Only the rabid Posner haters say that. Established and respectable institutions and individuals recognize his important contribution to the field.
The 35th anniversary of the assassination has passed. The majority of the country has moved on to other things. In the country as a whole, serious thought of any "breakthrough" has almost disappeared. Posner helped put old myths to rest. For that he should be commended.
I don't know about you, but I hear almost NOTHING about the assassination out in the real world. People have lives to live. At best, the assassination (and the wacky theories) have become entertainment to most people -- like a good sci-fi book. It's time some people realize the case is effectively closed.
Rick Gibson
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>> >On 1 Nov 1998 18:34:43 -0600, stugra...@aol.com (Stugrad98) wrote:
>> John, we can put aside for the moment whether or not what Boswell said is >> important *to the JFK assassination* for one second. In reality, that >> assertion is what is not important. What IS important is that Posner's >> deliberately misrepresenting Boswell (as well as others) renders his >> credibility zero! That's why I bring up Lane all the time. I don't care >> what Lane misrepresented a witnesses testimony on. If he did it an >> obvious and egregious manner, he's a fraud. And that's the key: I'm >> willing to call Lane a fraud. Why aren't LNers willing to call Posner a >> fraud for doing the very same things?
>Stu:
>Wishful thinking and self-delusion will get you nowhere. These NGs reek >with Posner envy. The fact of the matter is a bunch of CTers (no offense >intended) seem to think that if they say "Posner has zero credibility" ten >times fast, it will come true.
No. I think if I say
"1) Posner combined witness testimonies on at least two separate occasions and pretended as if they were one to make his point, when separately, they don't"
"2) When he wasn't misrepresenting himself *to* the people he was interviewing, he was misrepresenting the interviews themselves. Rick, if this were Mark Lane, and he refused the ARRB access to tapes of witnesses who claimed he was lying-- EVERY singe LNer on this group would be down his throat and crying fraud."
"3) Posner used EXCLUSIVELY the prosecution's evidence as presented in a mock trial. Let's not beat around the bush: proving the SBT is probably the single most important aspect to any LN theory and Posner blatantly misrepresented the strengths of his case. Remember the LN criticism of Mark Lane for writing a defense brief. Rick, it's entirely up to you to show me how Posner didn't do the exact opposite, and then explain, if he did, why it's justifiable for to criticize a CTer for doing it but give an LNer an A+ for credibility"
If I say that ten times, maybe an LNer like yourself will actually address the issues rather than make bogus appeals to authority. Can you argue for yourself?
Reality check -- Posner has tremendous
>credibility in the mainstream.
And Lane convinced Bertrand Russell who was one of the foremost thinkers of our century. He also, as much as I disdain his tactics, is probably more responsible than just about anybody for convincing the mainstream public by an overwhelming majority. That's the problems with appeals to authority Rick: the assumption that the authority has researched the issue.
> His work is considered authoritative.
And that is because people like McAdams who actually know the extent of his fraud-- his combination of witness testimony, his runing scared with his misrepresentative tapes, , his preparation of a literal prosecutor's brief from a mock trial in the most important part of his book, etc-- don't have the courage to speak up and call him out on it. It's very simple. All of these things I've mentioned are obvious and documentable and INTENTIONAL errors on Posner's part that mislead the reader. If a CTer-- WHEN CTers-- have done the same exact thing, LNers jumped down their throats. Once you LNers show a common standard on how you are going to treat someone, even if he agrees with your overall thesis, then the media will get informed. It has to be bipartisan. And LNers are content to have their message spread no matter how unethicall the messenger is.
>When discussion of the JFK assassination arises, he is still sought out >from all points of the compass. And if you really believe that Posner is >generally viewed in the same way Lane is viewed, then *your* credibility >is less than zero.
I'm not saying that he "does" have that opinion of him in the media. I'm saying that anyone with any standards of ethics who actually researches what Posner did (the media didn't) will come away knowing Posner is a fraud, plain and simple. Unless Rick, are you arguing that combining witness testimony in a blatantly misleading way, being 100% selective on the most crucial part of your book, and hiding interviews from an independent government body because they show you misrepresented/misquoted more than one person, is ethical? Answer that one simple question.
80% of the American people believe in a conspiracy. Do I cite this in every post? No. Because it's a logical fallacy to assume those people are well-informed on this case. Similarly, there aren't many media people who actually delve seriously into this case. The failure of the media to actually research Posner's claim is evident in their nominating him for a prize BEFORE he edited his book and then not questioning as to why he did so, or more importantly, why he STILL was preparing a prosecutor's brief.
Quick question Rick. Very simple and clear, although it requires that you examine something yourself without appealing to people who may not know a thing about the JFK case.
If a CTer were to combine witness testimony in a misleading way to make a point, were to show only one side of an argument from a mock trial that resulted in a deadlock, were to run away scared from a government body interested in investigating their claims, what would you say about them? If they wrote a best-seller, would that make it OK?
Only the rabid Posner haters say that. Established
>and respectable institutions and individuals recognize his important >contribution to the field.
Nope. Only the rabid Posner enablers would do let Posner get away with doing the same exact things they criticize Mark Lane for. It's for that reason that Posner can get away with refusing his tapes to the ARRB. Anyone with a shred of common-sense can understand that none of these witnesses magically changed their opinions for Posner, or Posner would have released those tapes. But you see: no matter WHAT Posner did, he's ok with you guys because he wrote an LN book that actually sold. That's why you're left trying to make appeals to authority without actually defending what Posner did. What he did is obvious and without question. So we're left thinking that Chris Mathews from Hardball actually checked to see what witnesses said at that mock trial. He didn't. No one in the mainstream media did. LNers here know what was said and know what Posner chose to say and coincidentally, he excluded EVERYTHING that undermined his case. EVERYTHING was enough to hang a jury on Oswald's guilt. Why won't LNers own up to the fact that Posner was just as selective in presenting his pro-LN evidence as Lane was in presenting his pro-CT evidence.
You'll note Rick. I'm not criticizing Jim Moore. I'm not criticizing David Belin for his ethics. I'm not ranting about McAdam's misrepresenting witness testimony. Why do you think I focus on Posner? Because Posner, unlike the other three, is a fraud. If LNers were willing to admit that, maybe I'd actually start to think that they were open-minded.
>The 35th anniversary of the assassination has passed. The majority of the >country has moved on to other things. In the country as a whole, serious >thought of any "breakthrough" has almost disappeared. Posner helped put >old myths to rest. For that he should be commended.
Posner's tactics are beyond the pale. And the majority of Americans still believe that the President was killed by a conspiracy. All Posner did was comfort the media that never has dealt fully with this case. If LNers had a common standard, they'd be arguing and defending Posner's acts, not making blatant and illogical appeals to authority.
>I don't know about you, but I hear almost NOTHING about the assassination >out in the real world. People have lives to live. At best, the >assassination (and the wacky theories) have become entertainment to most >people -- like a good sci-fi book. It's time some people realize the case >is effectively closed.
It certainly wasn't closed by Posner.
Here's a trick Rick: look at the work done by John Newman. Even Jerry now, after arguing with me for months, is conceding the weirdness that is the basis of Newman's thesis. What Posner did was just affirm beliefs you already had. If you have an open-mind, and are willing to pick up a good book, you'll find out that there is ALOT that is coming above board. Ofcourse, you can comfort yourself and let Dan Rather think for you. But I have more respect for you than that.
On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 03:04:13 GMT, rickgib...@my-dejanews.com wrote: >In article <19981210181733.27711.00000...@ng-fb2.aol.com>, > stugra...@aol.com (Stugrad98) wrote:
>> >On 1 Nov 1998 18:34:43 -0600, stugra...@aol.com (Stugrad98) wrote:
>> John, we can put aside for the moment whether or not what Boswell said is >> important *to the JFK assassination* for one second. In reality, that >> assertion is what is not important. What IS important is that Posner's >> deliberately misrepresenting Boswell (as well as others) renders his >> credibility zero! That's why I bring up Lane all the time. I don't care >> what Lane misrepresented a witnesses testimony on. If he did it an >> obvious and egregious manner, he's a fraud. And that's the key: I'm >> willing to call Lane a fraud. Why aren't LNers willing to call Posner a >> fraud for doing the very same things?
>Stu:
>Wishful thinking and self-delusion will get you nowhere. These NGs reek >with Posner envy. The fact of the matter is a bunch of CTers (no offense >intended) seem to think that if they say "Posner has zero credibility" ten >times fast, it will come true. Reality check -- Posner has tremendous >credibility in the mainstream. His work is considered authoritative. >When discussion of the JFK assassination arises, he is still sought out >from all points of the compass. And if you really believe that Posner is >generally viewed in the same way Lane is viewed, then *your* credibility >is less than zero. Only the rabid Posner haters say that. Established >and respectable institutions and individuals recognize his important >contribution to the field.
Hi Rick,
You are exactly right...mainstream journalists love Posner and trot him out regularly. He put out a very well written and convincing book. Unfortunately, those mainstream journalists and newsmen are well below the curve when it comes to the facts Posner uses to bolster his thesis.
How many of them, do you suppose, know that when Posner asserts Marina usually got up and fixed breakfast each morning, that Posner has told them the exact *opposite* of what Marina said in her testimony to the WC. Yet, he closes a chapter with that little ditty as a segue into laying out out-of-character actions that mornoing on the part of Oswald.
He opens the next chapter with Linnie Mae Randle watching Oswald coming across the street carrying a package. How many mainstream journalists and newsmen know that the way he paraphrased what she saw is totally false...that what Posner did was meld half of Linnie Mae's description with half of her brother's description? But, to the reader, it paints a visual picture of a quite long package....certainly long enough to hold a rifle.
Next Posner has Oswald peeking in the kitchen window...another out-of-character action on the part of Oswald...or so Posner would have readers believe. What Posner does *not* do is tell his readers that it was Frazier who was out-of-character that morning...he was running late...and he testified to that to the WC. Oswald never made it to the house and peeked in the window before because Frazier was always outside before Oswald arrived. Think many journalists and newsmen would know that?
Then Posner has Oswald all but bolting from the car at the TSBD and leaving Frazier in the dust. Posner quotes Frazier as saying this was the first time Oswald had walked ahead of him when they got to work. What Posner does not do is quote Frazier's testimony on that matter wherein Frazier states, first of all, that Oswald *waited* for him while he revved his engine to charge his battery, then started walking when Frazier got out of his car....and it was Frazier who lagged behind, not Oswald bolting ahead that was responsible for Oswald getting further and further ahead of Frazier...Frazier testified that he was watching the trains in the railroad yard! Ask any of those mainstream journalists and newsmen if they are aware of that fact.
And on it goes....
>The 35th anniversary of the assassination has passed. The majority of the >country has moved on to other things. In the country as a whole, serious >thought of any "breakthrough" has almost disappeared. Posner helped put >old myths to rest. For that he should be commended.
What he did, imo, is create new...and inaccurate ...myths. And the true facts...why they fell over in a dead faint.
>I don't know about you, but I hear almost NOTHING about the assassination >out in the real world. People have lives to live. At best, the >assassination (and the wacky theories) have become entertainment to most >people -- like a good sci-fi book. It's time some people realize the case >is effectively closed.
>Rick Gibson
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- >http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 03:04:13 GMT, rickgib...@my-dejanews.com wrote: >In article <19981210181733.27711.00000...@ng-fb2.aol.com>, > stugra...@aol.com (Stugrad98) wrote:
>> >On 1 Nov 1998 18:34:43 -0600, stugra...@aol.com (Stugrad98) wrote:
>> John, we can put aside for the moment whether or not what Boswell said is >> important *to the JFK assassination* for one second. In reality, that >> assertion is what is not important. What IS important is that Posner's >> deliberately misrepresenting Boswell (as well as others) renders his >> credibility zero! That's why I bring up Lane all the time. I don't care >> what Lane misrepresented a witnesses testimony on. If he did it an >> obvious and egregious manner, he's a fraud. And that's the key: I'm >> willing to call Lane a fraud. Why aren't LNers willing to call Posner a >> fraud for doing the very same things?
>Stu:
>Wishful thinking and self-delusion will get you nowhere. These NGs reek >with Posner envy. The fact of the matter is a bunch of CTers (no offense >intended) seem to think that if they say "Posner has zero credibility" ten >times fast, it will come true. Reality check -- Posner has tremendous >credibility in the mainstream. His work is considered authoritative. >When discussion of the JFK assassination arises, he is still sought out >from all points of the compass. And if you really believe that Posner is >generally viewed in the same way Lane is viewed, then *your* credibility >is less than zero. Only the rabid Posner haters say that. Established >and respectable institutions and individuals recognize his important >contribution to the field.
Hi Rick,
You are exactly right...mainstream journalists love Posner and trot him out regularly. He put out a very well written and convincing book. Unfortunately, those mainstream journalists and newsmen are well below the curve when it comes to the facts Posner uses to bolster his thesis.
How many of them, do you suppose, know that when Posner asserts Marina usually got up and fixed breakfast each morning, that Posner has told them the exact *opposite* of what Marina said in her testimony to the WC. Yet, he closes a chapter with that little ditty as a segue into laying out out-of-character actions that mornoing on the part of Oswald.
He opens the next chapter with Linnie Mae Randle watching Oswald coming across the street carrying a package. How many mainstream journalists and newsmen know that the way he paraphrased what she saw is totally false...that what Posner did was meld half of Linnie Mae's description with half of her brother's description? But, to the reader, it paints a visual picture of a quite long package....certainly long enough to hold a rifle.
Next Posner has Oswald peeking in the kitchen window...another out-of-character action on the part of Oswald...or so Posner would have readers believe. What Posner does *not* do is tell his readers that it was Frazier who was out-of-character that morning...he was running late...and he testified to that to the WC. Oswald never made it to the house and peeked in the window before because Frazier was always outside before Oswald arrived. Think many journalists and newsmen would know that?
Then Posner has Oswald all but bolting from the car at the TSBD and leaving Frazier in the dust. Posner quotes Frazier as saying this was the first time Oswald had walked ahead of him when they got to work. What Posner does not do is quote Frazier's testimony on that matter wherein Frazier states, first of all, that Oswald *waited* for him while he revved his engine to charge his battery, then started walking when Frazier got out of his car....and it was Frazier who lagged behind, not Oswald bolting ahead that was responsible for Oswald getting further and further ahead of Frazier...Frazier testified that he was watching the trains in the railroad yard! Ask any of those mainstream journalists and newsmen if they are aware of that fact.
And on it goes....
>The 35th anniversary of the assassination has passed. The majority of the >country has moved on to other things. In the country as a whole, serious >thought of any "breakthrough" has almost disappeared. Posner helped put >old myths to rest. For that he should be commended.
What he did, imo, is create new...and inaccurate ...myths. And the true facts...why they fell over in a dead faint.
>I don't know about you, but I hear almost NOTHING about the assassination >out in the real world. People have lives to live. At best, the >assassination (and the wacky theories) have become entertainment to most >people -- like a good sci-fi book. It's time some people realize the case >is effectively closed.
>Rick Gibson
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- >http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
