A discussion of Ed Haslam's work

[Jennifer Lake]

Thankyou Wim. I like the direct approach. And I will not take it for granted that you agree with my definition of 'disinfo', as 'silence' is not 'assent'. I intend no disrepect, and your previous query makes me think I'm about to be sent to stand in the corner, "daring" to question, so I appreciate you asking me now. Other than to introduce myself to the group, I haven't presented any story to this thread. I'm an active researcher on a number of topics and I function on my own authority. If you'll give me a chance, I'll gladly demonstrate the areas of disagreement with Ed's work. Also, for consideration, is the fact that Ed has written himself into Dr. Mary's Monkey as a main character and therefore his self-characterizations are inseparably relevant to critique. I'll make an effort to go carefully here.Most of all, I have no particular expectation that Ed will participate or care to debate and discuss. No loss of honor either way, in my opinion. Unanswered questions can just 'hang there' as unanswered. I do, however, take issue with playing fast and loose with facts. This is a bad omen to me and bespeaks a lack of good faith. Sometimes, these facts may very well be the fulcrum of an alternative history. In the case of 'evidence' or facts, I do what other researchers do --cite my sources and draw authority from those sources. If I'm stating my opinion, I'll point out that it's my opinion. Ideally, I'd like clarifications. I have a lot of questions, i.e. Ed's reference to "Cuban DNA" in the Herzog interview. I'd like to know what he means by Cuban DNA and if he can elaborate. I heard Judyth say something (on the disc you produced) in regard to human experimentation that raises the possibility of "Cuban DNA" as meaningful to these experiments and I have a perspective. I'd like to ask for his comments. In lieu of a response, I'll post whatever pertinent information I can link from the internet that is germaine and present my "story" or objection, as the case may be, with regard to the propriety of this venue. Fair enough?Ed has said that his DMM work represents "the health and safety of everyone". Given that any number of "extinction events" may be underway at this present moment, I heartily agree with that assessment.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

dankbaar wrote:Is Ed Haslam disinfo? Who exactly dares to pose this question? WimWim,I know you obviously know who started this topic. You know me by now after all my contribution to this forum. No disprespect is meant to Ed Haslam or anyone else on my part. I only started this topic to bring to light issues that I feel need to be addressed.All I seem to see so far are questions instead of answers. This is all about the respectful sharing and discussion of ideas and issues. No harm is meant to anyone. Pasquale

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

kenmurray wrote:My take on this topic is this:4. I don't think Haslam is an intentional disinfo agent. Sure I think there are some mistakes in his book.Ken,That's an excellent point that I'd like to revitalize here. There is a distinction between intentional disinformation and unintentional disinformation. The whole point of this thread or topic is to address which is which, or to put it more plainly, to determine what's going on. Dealy Joe wrote earlier in this thread/topic: "we have to do the same os ED, get some facts together and see what it looks like."I agree.

[dankbaar]

Jennifer, You need a lot of words to say very little. You say that you question, leaving a suggestion that something smells. What is it exactly that you question? Which questions remain hanging there "unanswered". Are they just unanswered questions or "areas of disagreement with Ed's work"? Did you approach Ed himself with your questions and disagreements?

[Jennifer Lake]

I answered your question, Wim. Are you faulting me for answering your question? Questions directed to Ed are in the thread. Unanswered.

[Jennifer Lake]

pp.270-271Chapter note 2..."I found a photograph of a scientist dismantling a particle accelerator for use in the Manhattan Project. I had not thought about centers of nuclear research that existed before the project. The caption explained that the accelerator (and the scientists) were about to be shipped to New Mexico for the super-secret Manhattan Project. The accelerator that they were dismantling was at Harvard. The point was so simple and so obvious. It was Boston, not Chicago or New Mexico, that was the actual intellectual headwaters of nuclear research in the United States. Of course, Boston would have been where the first commercial linear particle accelerators were built. At least Mr. Y was from the right place." The issue: an accelerator from Harvard/Boston is dismantled and shipped to New Mexico for the super-secret Manhattan Project. Ed concludes, "so simple and so obvious", that Boston was the "headwaters" of nuclear research. Is he right? The statement requires proof. If you disagree based on Ed's absence of evidence, are you subtly being insulted as unable to see something "so simple and so obvious"? My conclusion, prior to the insertion of Ed's, is that particle accelerators were used for nuclear weapons work. period.Ed's statements look like an erroneous syllogism:1) Particle accelerator is dismantled and sent to the N.M. location of the Manhattan Project2) Particle accelerator comes from Harvard/Boston3) Therefore Harvard/Boston is the 'headwaters' of United States nuclear research. Question: If Harvard was the US nuclear headwaters, wouldn't they want to keep their accelerator and let another one go to Los Alamos? Ed continues, "Of course, Boston would have been where the first commercial linear particle accelerators were built." This statement requires proof. Fact-checking indicates that Ernest O. Lawrence at the Berkeley, Ca. "rad lab" had the first commercial accelerator. Can Ed prove that the first accelerator was built in Boston?http://www.aboutnuclear.org/view.cgi?fC ... LawrenceWe are not told anything verifiable about Mr.Y's identity. No reader of DMM can prove he existed. Ed learned of Mr.Y from Dr.X who gave secondhand information to Ed, he claims, so Mr.Y is not a legimate source of information unless Ed can prove his existence. Anyone who claims to be "making a case" has to use verifiable sources or the case is fiction. Question: what kind of 'case for a case' is Ed making, and who/what is the subject of the case?

[Jennifer Lake]

Ed, would you like to comment on Chapter 11 note 2?Will you explain the kind of "case for a case" Dr. Mary's Monkey is making?such as:(1) legal case(2) scholarly case(3) case for a movie script(4) multiple cases, (which ones?), and what you would like to accomplishthankyou.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

I would like to ask Ed Haslam or the rest of you, if the following information can be reconciled with Ed Haslam's material.I have an electronic copy (pdf format) of the book "JFK; The Dead Witnesses" by Craig Roberts and John Armstrong. It lists on page 45 the death of Dr. Mary Stults Sherman as very different from Ed Haslam's version. (The actual page number might be different for those of you who have an actual hard copy of the book.)The book says that she died, I believe, in a different year and by gunshot. It also says that she was an assistant to the doctor who performed the autopsy on David Ferrie. It says the following regarding her death:"Dr. Mary Stults Sherman March, 1967Dr. Sherman, who was an assistant to Dr. Chetta, the medical examiner who performed David Ferrie's autopsy, was also, strangely enough, a friend of Ferrie's. She had worked with Ferrie on cancer research, helping with the experments with the mice that shared his apartment. Sherman was murdered in bed just a couple of weeks after Ferrie died. When she was found, she had been shot, and then her bed had been set on fire in an attempt to destroy the evidence."Did Ed Haslam's father positively identify Mary Sherman's body? Was he the only one who could have identified the body due to its mangled condition?

[kenmurray]

Pasquale, I would like the answer to that question. Obviously, somebody is wrong about the Mary Sherman murder.Here is Craig Robert's site:http://www.riflewarrior.com/

[Jennifer Lake]

page 116, Dr. Mary's MonkeyThere is a very poor quality photo image of the 'New Orleans States-Item' made by overlapping cut-out articles to resemble a Front Page. The date is Tuesday July, 21, 1964. My city newspaper does not have a crowded looking front page and if you notice under "Bulletins" it reads "Earlier details, page 1" so this is not an image of a front page and has been obviously cobbled together. Why is the quality so poor?It would be an easy thing to lay cut-outs over another paper with a different date; this is not "evidence". Did Ed learn about monkey viruses in highschool from Dr. Chetta's son? Dr. Chetta was dead in 1968 according to the Dead Witnesses source. Was Dr. Chetta dead when Ed heard the story in class? If so, he failed to mention it.