at4rif-v1AA.

5/(i4i Pmifri6 ay-4 ylo-7

K.A2a-e--beettr,

110110,11.11,

All hail Gerald Posner!

he has donehe impossible - what had not been done in thirty years!

He solved the JFK assassinationCase, what the Vekrren Commission, the FBI, the

CIA and all those other government agencies, and all the others who have written on

the subject (which for almost all means more or less the subject), those Posner -4

critiCioiZes and condemns throughout, were notable to do.

Tim's, with his characteristoc modesty, his title, Case Closed/

All the major media seems to agree. There is virtual combat to get him on the tube.

ven the CIA pitched it by arranging for its prize/and h&dden Z KGB defector, Yzii /q

Yuri Nosenko, appeared with Posner ma the August 27 0/20. Brokaw had him on NBC. Even - /

Marina Oswald, who foi-W-Years has disagthestrongly with Posner's Case Closed* ham.{

801u-balm, that alone and unaspted, her late husvabd did it all, helped him:7-1,444-49 Stikt-01431 -51re pi TV 'Art-4 h .14...1444. Cit.441,

Media notables were so excited in a6rance of publication that they jewelled

the dust jacket with virtunl]y unprecedented praises.

David Wise helm:bid-heralded it as the long-overdue "vlice of sanity, " as bril-

liantly researched, utterly convincing and compelling."

Frederick Dannen (author of j,41, Men) proclaimed "This book really does close the

case." Displaying his detailed and intimate knowledge of the writing in the field,

Dannei is ecstatic becalms Posner, "for the first time ever, presents an adcount Of

the Zennedy assassination devoid of speculation." (Did he rea4 the book?)

Apparently William Styron did not rsad Dannents hosannah becaaseheosner's

analysis, "a brilliant and meticulous analysis," and one man's analysis is another man's

speculation."

Stephen Ambrose is a bit cagier, although he does conclude that "This case 11.01been

closed by Mr. Posner's work." kd& is work is worth rememb2ring.)

AmPose must have-read-ene-- -er-books like perhaps-his-Mengele.

Of, what he . -,Mrg--of--tizretts—liazi—fieeter=fihs—ex)e-y-imertted on human beings alread: h,e,

ambrose must have had one of Posner's earlier books in mind in speaking of

Case Closed as the work of "a single researcher, working alone." Posner himself, inthe that is

half of his dedication' to his wife Trisha, says she is hiTaL "partner") and two are

not "a single researcher." In describing the book as "a model of historical research"

Ambrose was apparently so overwhelmed by Posner's representation of what he had done

and read in about a year that he did not even ask himself if that shy of selahy books Ly12.1*

" researcher!"— all those interviews, all that travel, a that readin4 of

1-0,09.00 ten million words in the .:arren Commission twenty—six volumes of appendix alone

Abesides its nine—hundred page re Report, end indexing that massive ap.dendix too.

Dre41”;Zt14"/ .0114 .4.-11.4rgaIR 44rvi.t. ;1..4A 1-y 4 4441,14 1.1.

• all of this and the time of the writin nodelli alls far short

of an adequate description of the impossible.

Tom Wicker begins his encomium referring to the literature on the subject,

as does Posner, ias of "one Kennedy assassination conspiracy after another," which both

know not to be true, refers to them all as //dishonest," a word that will come back to

haunt, and conclude the case of JFK is indeed closed."

Impressive as is this indictment of all those who failed or erred, hundreds of busks

books and their authors, it was inadequate fron for Random House.

tre er, we.Mdbart-eaene.

Tom Wicker concluded his encomium that begins, as Posner's book would lead one to

under Eitle•r-le-eathcamp/c_death-camp tortures; Posner-said-not-quite "case-closedlbut

Baer le-stme-thing.-4S_is a case=ce4ser and he s admits it himself. But in t4s

b • ak, which 11.1,10trose missed if h d it, Posner says his wife Trisha, is his "partner." e\la T .

believe, that all thessassination literature is of theorized conspiracies, by saying

that thanks to Posner, " the case of JFK is indeed closed."

That this lacksdi*iag editing, as the book lacks peer review acknowledgements,

nobody at Random House picked up. But then they were not the picker-uppers ; Posner

was.

publisher broad,1ned ed it a bit

Perhaps not without reason ett

does begin hepitch with false modesty and unequivocally by sating that "After

thirty years, Case Closed finally succeeds where hundreds of other books ( considerable

fewer than Posner's

)and investigations have failed - it resolves the greatest

murder mystery of ourtime, the assassination of ifli." !'7.1-11,414 AcAi Hri

±netftasa it is true of r one ofxhat

Pove base his book' upon is not new. Y 0004 oolow- an -I B4--

tall.a_j_.vvk r-zo itd d " ..-

a)(- 0,te /kuttx,?- fact-af._the-assals la.ct A.uar-i-J--tea-te-eientific

eviiiesee." atol Faust-.km jacket,

Here Random Houscritiiotes Stephen Amrose 4 saying what it saved from hid/back-cover

blurb, "Mr. Posner's chapter on the single bullet is a tour de force, absolutely brilliant,

dding "the Warren Commission (to those who) erred.

does not include the FBI and the CIA. But-ite-'d

.atgrn

9a Of allRandom House 67171-Mad-ibia-15basiblei-A47147iiith ono 'bad dd kie/ glu65 11)1't-c( gArt/1-4/017 k6"gA-

alI-buL of Vhat •

GtA 1.42121-' 1.1.-a.44% cpvt-i( ki AA, La

Zet1;6-1{,t4V1 _Ilege421,- 4"e- tr esedr"

computer-enchancement of film and

absolutely convincing." i4/42.1 ii ALL.

-- Random House sing es

as particular • -leant, forgetting that ABC-TV News acre

several weeks.

Posner's use of them is not'quite in accord with all lese-ecstacies of wonde

1419)7e3assified-KGB-filen

to it for sevral

Random House singles out as new "startling details from his (Oswald's) classi-

fied KGB file" as it does in referring to some Of the book's Oswald content as "told

for the first time by the KGB agent who handled his case. ABC—TV News had access to

that'as same supposedly "classified KGB file" and broad4St it months before the book

appeared eld that former KGB agent, former by almost three,bcades, did not "handle"

,0- Osuald's case. His imoortance is that he knew about it and for a short priod of time

4

after the assassination had and read the "case" file when it was retrieved from Minsk

ffor that agent, Yuri Nosenko, who was based in Aoscow.

There is no "revelation" in the book that Posner got from Nosenko, who was a gift

to him from the Ill CIA, as he does not tell his readers and for which he paid with

his integrity.

What Posner used from the KGB is not quite in accord with all those ecatacies

of wonderment resplendent in the blurbing.

that she has stopped, OK

His "brill.Lantly researched" book, David Wise's words, "meticulous," William tyron's,

"model of histprical.research," Stephen Ambrose's, and "deliberate, detailed, thoroughly

't /IP? iinIzrWl4)17) documented," Tom Eicker's, does not include milai:1 published T-13emm in 1975. And

Posner has that book.

Ileturning to those "secret files" in. Random House's clam, and to what Posner

learned thaltothiClAfrom"the KBG agent who handled his case," perhaps

Q o more than the usual publisherxcess in referring to Nosenko, Posner's book says that

A ;weld and Osw d alone wq44—suar*—the was the assassin. Nosneko disi)uted this, telling the

An1141 20 20 audiencerthat Oswald Bould not hit the side of a barn doo-Kwith a shotgun, leave

alone a rlfe AAA/ Wu/14 1/14A041-(4041 4.41,141/1n.

dlowoAk yhat Random Howe refers t/ks "the latest scientific and computer enhance-,

ments" ace the key, in. Posner' s awn words (pages 321-2), to ijisolution" to "the

m4, 444 greatest murder mystery of all time?

Glido aim fists to Ambrose's "tour de force;) Posner's proof of the single—bullet theory

that is quintessential to the official "solution" to the crisne444441 4 P+.0

And to a moo- mfersweet e ten—year oklirl4reA, now married and a school teacher.

Q P0144- Y') I elLttribu-tifig- his new evidence that "closes" the case to "Ne/lruder enharreatsA

418--elts'is—rtotrilorn --Inatie—the what---par-perac

••• • . imam lor som - —genet' 4 ow0Alkul,

9-Posner gets right- doWilWift, if that can be said of what he first mention) half-

way thro44 the book, including appendices, notes, acknowledgements, bibliography and

r.W 4'15 424-* 4444)0 ,,,11 -r • t ikt 114 ,7 re.444-)-47-14101(frit4,7(4.7

"Beginning at .frame 160 (of that fs, ed Lepruder film). a ydlung girl in a red Skirt

aad and white -1-;L was running along the le side of th. President's car, down Tom

,reet,dafzinrocacgazamcapSzumnimtivaxisainjacc began ring to her right. Btfftme 187,

less than 1.5 seconds later, the enhancement clearly shows

twisted completely amiiaaway from the motorcade,and was 3-44! back at the School -\\

Book repository. That girl was ten—year—old Rosemary Willi48.

Let us pause here to be certain it is clearly understood thatC,all o this Os xi=

Abraham Zaprude was a Dallas manufacturer of women's clothes. His place of

oh 4ly /h 41 ' business was ie-I e Dal-Tex Building. It is jacross Houston Street at Elm, on the north-

east corner of what is called Dealey Plaza. Wthe other side of Houston Street also at

Elm is the Texas School!! Book Depository Buildingfin which Oswald worked and from which

Posner says Oswald fired the three shoEs of the assassination, as deux the official

/ That accounts of the crime.vesode of the FBI and the Secret Service are not identical with

that of the Presidential Commission appointed by President tyndon Johnson to investi-

da.0 and report on theerieleihrterking,74-1.1 ok401-44, OV /4 4f/4214%411 14 ,144-1r7-3.-'

i-uX rkh4E kvt, 4.441.4-eedwrig ft-I-LA g., Zapruder, sa ding atdp a concrete structure to the west of the TSB building,

used a Belli Howell eight millimeter motion picture camera in photographing what became

the most important single piece of photographic evidence of the crime and the official

timeOF&—Elock of it. Notion pictures are really a series

-

of individual pictures

called "frames:'' That film of that era was only about fi;r6sixthenth of an inch wide.

Zapruder assignment his rights to his film to the TIMETIGE publishing giant. k_of some of the film14 n4,01464

It proved provided thety-five millimeter color slides to the Commission. Enlargements

of some of thosegames 4wre made for the Commission by the FBI laboratory.They became

Commission Exhibit (CE) 885, published in the Commission's Volume XVIII of those twenty-

six volomse of appendixion pages one to eighty-five, inclusive. (18111-85). They are

pdWished two to a page. As I brought to light in the second of my six published books

on the JFK assassination, Whitewash II: The FBI-Secret Service Coverup (1966)for an th;te OM

unexplained reason the Commision, failed to publi5h the lam nine of t pee frame „As .s.

Xi44414 the result of my exposing this, those ffames were added to the `rays of them Xn the

National archives in Washington, where then cand be projected, reviewed and studied as

9 Mt I r A i ixj,k) [Ou Azi-friithriv /ea et4, tibia/Y-11 fkLeiNtrad, in 1966 and early 1967 I did. •

bootleg copies of Zapruder's film, Before long most of poor qoplity, appeared and were .themselves dupli-

cated. Posner does not =gm tell his readers any of this, perhaps4 indicating; rush in ,10- -

the0ynting and editing of his book for appe4rance before it was scheduled to appear. Be

also does not say what copy of the film he had enhanced, whether it was the original -

that after scandals about the film and extraordinarily high charged made for its use, 1

_ye

1n

in was deposited xi the Archives. Because Zapruder's heir; etain the co

• i

Posner and Random House requiredrpOYffiiision to use

any version of that film. The more remote from the original the cry of the film used

des the greater the loss in clarity.

C'When motion picture film is projected former viewing, those individual— —frames

nre moved a sprocket whose teeth eigage rect_ngular holetinztheam cut into

th.: film 1.len it manufsetuered.

What Posner also keeps secret in his "deliberate, detailed, thoroughly

/. documented" and "conclusive" book thayee such " a model of historical

research" is

that a little more than twenty percent of the image captured on the film is not seen

when the film is projected or when it is duplicated in authmatic copying machihes.

Keeping the this secret is an absoldle essential to Posner's interpretation of what

he says is the enhancement of the film that is the basis for his "closing" of the "case."

In any honest examination of the film :hod its meaning and the timing of the shooting,

this ix twenty percent of the image that is lost Alen the film is protected is also

144,4-441o4pla

an absolite essential—Waring. becauseiffIdsidence not.fieeen on projection.

tett41 This relates to thirtylffive millimeter pictures tisane by a bystander,

Phil Willis.

414.4 When he had the fifth of the series of these picture-1:ms,

tank is established

._,14.14/t beyond question in thse—irly in that part of the film not seen a

n projection. I

brought this to light in my second book, in 1966,41 has not been contradicted and

Posner has that book. He raised no questions about it with me. I obtained about a quarter

of a million pages of once.,•withheld official records, mostly those of the FBI, by a dozen

lawsuits against the governmpnt under the Freedom of Information Act (FaTATIMBYe is

no contradiction_ of what I published in .hat chapter, 'Wills in His Own Name," on pages

195-206.

This a vital element in any version of the "single—bullet theory." It

4.evi 4,,t.tif _ u is as :&ese4-61,tely vit al to Posner's book and " solution" as it was to t

he Commission's.

Both ignore it. Neither makes any mention at all of it. This, too, is what Am-

brose refers to vi "a tour de force, absolutely brilli.anT, absolutely convincing."

This illustrates the hazard to those of prominence who know nothing at all about

a Est subject yet are unstinting in their praises abut the work od any author when

the personal and professional integrity of the endorsers is the captive of the personal

of the author. The limited to what they read in the and professional integrity

kr t I book and what they read in the book is what the author ham there. They have no way of

knowilvz lihether the author includes all that is relevant or does not. i1 MAI /,J A.e/i/ le-h"'1 /"4

What is a real tour de force in Posner's book is his wholseale omission/from of gu, t il itio ax

it of what he knows and excludes because it is not congenial to the preconc

awe alit* JIM with winch ird —Ca ii )and e ded his "brilliant and meticulous analysis," Styron's words.

It if a tour de force but not the kind Ambrose imagined, /OW Jjtite....

i1t t,,,--$1-zw\ Posner does not say when or for what purpose his 'enqincemeils" were made. This

leaves it to be wondered if they were not made for him a<) ke 3/tt_LI. sao n

aey

en ma o ici y.

Analysis

flont of this "enhancement" Posner attrinutes to-FaifurefAssociat4s in a note

beginnin,.; on page 317 and extending onto paget 313. He itaii-de-§c`fib&F-kifia-werk as "an

extensive undertaking involving 3-D mimiRla scale generations of Dealey Plaza, physical

mockups of the presidential car, and stand-in =deli for the President and Governor, all

to determine ikm trajectory angles and the feasibility Of one bullet causing both sets

of (nonfatal) wounds ( to both viatims). Failure Analysis also recreated experiments with

the 6. mm ammtvition, using more updated information tha Vwas available to the Warren

UOMMiGEA.011, topurther tent the 'single-bullet theory' and the condition of the missile."

One thing only is clear about Failure Analysis: Posner does not say this elaborate

and costly work was done for him. He also does not say in his bo,k oek~la eel

"clos0 the "case" of thr Prpnnedy assassintion who invested such an extraordinary amount

of money in an effort to prove that the single-bullet theory was gaid and then gave it

all to him, without any charge. '

Is it rIght for Nicsner to IF9f2.-titi.i2ntit-y=er--1/11111thre-Ana- ysThlient

0- cfr ( secretit-Or the reason for this very big undertaking? Why does he keep it s

ecret? He

dtles not even give an address for 2ailure Analysis, or say how it is staffed. gan----

thel,o-ba-nycliou-t-fer-this-rflassive-=tirf-and-cestly-vtork-oth-er-than-thr-federai-gevern-

viL is ft oes-itaret-T-TrinturL--for?

Just the cost of preparing for the work Poener.ecl scribes has to be beyond all infli-

viduals an who have such interests. 1104! corporations are known to have those interests.

1/.77

Qui

t. a ' . . . • yei-s3-c-Ltent to t-M--gcrvernment-and-wi-tbin-t

geyetrnment there_cannet be manzagencies--whose--apprepriat.Long73 federal-money-need-not

be_specified Midittre o iem is a Permanent,secret-o---;- 414 fr)

_Whether 01:_n_o_t_a04_14eeme-thnt-the mo61 liarTaient with-Ihese-f

I$-eekrny-rn-the-wan7WTAId-tt-upand-all that taxpayers' men p-and-gi3ze_ii_Lall

to Posner! ITh7y7iii perrp-1-e?--By-ifitat ri-ght-TraTs-rt-aven to anyone when he-money

came fr8h-the_taAes-Tepple-pay?-----

Y1,4,/ /1-4-4.14424

Lati

This is a mystery Posner should notitaTe- -setret. 141 calp-r

How many reasons can there be for his keeping it secret?

Is the man not capable of )ublic tanks for such a costly gift the results of

which could not otheriise have been available to hi0._and_:tha* is the very basis of du extraordinary

- hia book, the Usalth from it and the fame and orpublic attention that represents

ci

a license to print money for an author in that book and in any that follow it.

it-that-his-aat-identifyil. getting

all--tbat-work-?

qlnot disclose bho hig_unpreGedanted-beneSactor_is?

1".clufi'fl-W.°' Ig-it-ariaNT-CIAT-why-dil it select-Posner of-all-writel tcrhave-the Et

iiSESZpr what—lt--paid-fer- ,_in__itoolf a dubious-if-not-D.-legal thing?

Parlar,fIMILlTgligua_relationships? sal

f or-idie_way-it---unnusod d---in-no-Gther_way2

(poking back over eighty years, over varied experiences that include those of a

reporter, an investigative reporter, a United states Senate investigator and editor,

6an analyst and trouble-shooter in the forerunner of the CIA, the Office of Strategic

Services (OSS) and on all I learned of in and as a result of those occupations and on

all the reading of a long lifetime, I cannot recall anything at all like this truly

extraordinary and unprecedented gift of all that expensive work the purpose of which is

hi

also 4C-secret from Posner's readers. I /1

As 'L j

Or -d14-he-get,--i-t-because there was no doubt-at all about what_havould do with_lt?

What-wasAaPted to, be done with it_by-the-GIA, r-by any other_snoh 1 ctor.

(:,1,cLud 611,4-7c76:-,4 Whatever-the-iMpOrTlyseciet-onswers may be, it is without any question at all

thzEt-i-f-Posner_emer-coaoldansil-swizng-ot r on lle one ac a-be_saA!Ind

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ele-a11-51.-Iliifree he was V

ri If ' dor wanted independence, he lost it. bound to useThliaslisierac-tor w

I Isaew of no-reaoe

Extra space is oo,

Th ere .a.re, as we shall see, and extraordinary number of quedtions about this

hook. Perceiving most o these questions requires detailed knowledge of the fact of

the assassination of President Kennedy and its official investigations and of the

literature. There also arc many obvious questions, obvious to the kind og critical

reading those asked to endorse a bock lught be expected to give it before vesting

their reputations in it or risk having their reputations misused to endofse a bad book

one that deceives or- misleads the people, one that, as Posner undertakes to do, has his version

as a purpose writing/some of our history, one that, as Posner does not hide, has as a

purpose defaming others.

tse and other questions should have been raised in the minds of reviewers o)

a4 roorters and commentators called upon to review or report on the book and the pub-

lice attention .to it,particularly on

who ar-enge for and produce those TV

may not be true to the peopleTiii as the truth about so important a matter in our

history without making an effort to check its truthfulness?

Aught reporters, reviewers and ail those involved in all those TV shows riakm

regards themselves as nothing but promoters of what seems attractive and exciting

and urge snake oil / on those who trust tbem?

\Did any one of these many who '1oLd up encouraging people to buy th- book without

any independent basis for knowing it is not a fraud even think of phoning some of those

it is obvious Posner has some reason for demeaning and criticizing to ask any questions

at all? I received no such call and 1 know of no reason to believe that anyone did.

All these many people of intinfluence abdidated their responsibilities to the public Ole hlte

[gild no country. They recast themeslves as mere propagandists. Posner himself discloses

that he, personally, made no such effort, as decency, honesty and responsible writing

required of him.

These are but some of the many questions that are obvious in any critical reading

of a thoroughly bad book, a professionaly and designedly dishonest book. But of all the

nll those major TV'w.shows. And should not those

4-41t shows also have questions? should they take what

Posner's__)

many questions and mysteries, none cried out as loudly for attention as almost

amateurish obscuring of where he got what without it he would hav,Ino book at all,

this Failure Analysis Associates quite costly work.

Should not any mature and has wondered why he makes a mystery of this?

Should not the obviousness with which he makes a mystery of it not have raised

additional questions, the most basic questions when without it he has nothing but a

diatribe that in itself should have raised questions?

There is also the mystery that is in itself commentary on what has happened to

our major media, to those who let the people know what is happening in their lives

and to their country, why not one of these men of outstanding retation did not ask

a single question about the work done by Failure Analysis or its purpose - even whether

Posner's is an honest representation of it.

All these reviewers, reporters an mahy TV1/and radio people also should have

been other than propagandists and should have asked this same and very obgious

questionserw bu-c-te ad ‘7 441/1.a40

Nothing more was required than a phone call to Failure Anaysis,iWto Posner

or his publisher7/L4141Arte 4171/514441.,

Yet there is no indication that any one of these professional cfmmunicators

did that simple thing.

Nell, there is no mystery about it, other than why all thsee these many communii-

caters failed to meet their personal and professional responsibilities.

SA, in due time, we shall see.

In seeing this e shell also see that among the many comanicators, mz± some of

-whom are paid more than highly-paid corporate executives, there was not one with the garment f

perceptiveness of the little boy in the fable who told th& em.-". -Vfabulous ximin

Leauty did not exist and that he was naked. state of

This raises still another Question, what does all this say o k.le 'fourth estate,"

of the nation and of its future?

Because of Posner's failure to identify Failure As4c0Ates' client, delinvrate

on his part, not an oversight, as his own words leave without any question at all, one

is left to wonder who could possiblrave vented such a job and was able and willing to

pay for it. The most obvious possibilites are the CIA and the American jlar Association. ,

Lee-this precedes ha.Aling of CIA as the client. 6,-&-tv-fr7ffri "/

If it epre not the CIA, perhaps it was the American Bar Association for its 1992

supposed legal study for its session on "The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald."

If so, this makes the association parti pris in the ,Ontroversy because it

would have sought and obtained a detailed scientific mambo-jumbo of a nature thatlYohibi-

/

ted what the bar more than all others should have ins sted upon, what the authority Wig-

more-isotdescribed As the greatest engile for este ish truth, cross -examination.

(This, of course, is also true of Posner's ugLe it.) There is no possibilijy_at all

that the lawyers representing the defense co d have known what was required to cross-

examine those who prepared that misrep*ese tation by computer ofikhe known actualities.

This means that at each and eVerr point the bar association was nota neutral like

a judge but was a partisan. This also wens that it was all over again in permitting its

use in so partisan a book. 17ite

That puts the bar associ ion in line with that of the doctors through 1:Li-e

Journal of the American 44edic Association as partisan in the fierce controversy each

meg should have sought to !explore and have expored with the most scrupulous impartiality.

If anyone at the associatoon c4red about what iras doing and the use that

wuld be made of it, or/if anyone now does, a careful factual cross-examination of this

41/44A144,1. 4 mons rous corruption of reality by one of those permited to do such things in liti

ga- /

tion dould do much to limit the possible uses of such supDosedly scientific contraptions

to defeat the purpose of our judicial system, to see to it that justice is done.

Insert where Failure Analysis Associates is me tnioned. f rom Posner's 317-8 footnote

With the sole calico to fame of his book hanging,as will bs seen, precariously,

in Failures Al Analysis, this LI all Posner says about that irm.

His Appendix B (unnumbered page 473-unnumbered ge 482),a graphic representation

of the codlramnnie theory presented as a reconstruct on and am scientific analysis by

means of advanced computer technilogy is grotes e and smakcz o smacks of Rube Goldberh

without the chutes, cbhins and asimels, as 7 shall also see,.2kixxximmdax4 is not

credited to any source. It appears to be Failure Analysis job' but by not providing

any source, his frequent practise thr#hout the book, Posner claims it as his own.

There in not a single source note r th use pages of obviously diffeirent y typography.

There is not even a heding for t in those notes. (pages 576-7), another false Bosner

representation that it his work or work done for him. ,s we shall see in detail, this

Graphical mishmash melds ignornnce, error, conjecture and gross and deliberato_omissions

to reach t preconceivdd conclusions. That intent is not even disguised.

Ar, Failure Associates Failure Analysis Associates appears in this book perhaps

"Associates" is not inappropriate in the firm name. That name, from this book, should

Failed "Analysis" 'Associates.

a