barbae 
RUM 
AS MADE OVER ipO^W^S 
the island of barm 
blended and exported by 
gay distilleries 
EXPENSIVE. 
THE BESTTHINGS 
USUALLY 
ARE. 
"21" Brands. Inc., N.Y., N Y. 90 Proof Rum, ©1980 
mount GKY VO 
*"ous FOR oveh\OQ 
GA 
PARADISE 
FOUND. 
The jungle resort of Canaima, only reached 
by plane from Ciudad Guayana-our stop 
180 miles up the Orinoco River in the heart of 
Venezuela Here, on a bluff above a dark 
lagoon-its surface churned by seven tum- 
bling waterfalls— you'll look out on dense jun- 
gle, and truly feel like a stranger in paradise. 
And this is only one call made by the inti- 
mate Stella Oceams, as she follows a yacht 
itinerary in a series of 14-day Leeward to the 
Orinoco Cruises out of San Juan this winter 
For details, see your travel agent. For more 
information, send this ad for our brochure or 
call us collect at (212) 397-6400. 
Sun Line, One Rockefeller Plaza, NY, NY 
10020. Room 315. Greek registry. 
St. Barth^lemy 
Antigua 
Guadeloupe . 
Name 
Address. 
NH1 
City State Zip. 
My travel agent is 
STELLA OCEANIS 
surprised by these commentaries, al- 
though I am disappointed in one sense 
(and secretly pleased in another) by 
their weakness based upon a common 
failure to state accurately or even to 
consider the major points of my case. 
(My pleasure, of course, derives from 
the survival, if not strengthening, of 
my hypothesis in the face of criticism 
from its potentially most severe and 
knowledgeable critics.) 
A standard method of attack 
against complex hypotheses involves 
chipping away at unimportant and ad- 
mittedly weak points, ignoring the 
strong points, and then hoping that 
the edifice might tumble by impli- 
cation. Because I anticipated such a 
response, I was careful to list my ar- 
guments explicitly in the order of their 
strength as I saw it. I even numbered 
them and stated that the first two 
were my essential claims, and all the 
others subsidiary. Yet both Washburn 
and Dodson devote most of their re- 
sponses to the subsidiary points. 
The first two-thirds of Washburn’s 
commentary is primarily an argument 
for Dawson’s involvement in pursuit 
of fame. I disagree with none of this 
and find most of it irrelevant to my 
case. Washburn seems to be under 
the misconception that I tried either 
to exonerate Dawson or to paint Teil- 
hard as the mastermind and Dawson 
as the tagalong. On the contrary, I 
clearly stated my assumption of Daw- 
son’s guilt on the first page: “J. S. 
Weiner’s elegant case virtually pre- 
cludes Dawson’s innocence.” On the 
same page I wrote that Dawson had 
“found” the initial bones before Teil- 
hard arrived at Piltdown and that he 
must therefore have been the chief 
perpetrator of the hoax. The only pos- 
sible relevance of the first two-thirds 
of Washburn’s letter relates weakly 
to my speculations about Teilhard’s 
motive (a theme that I regarded as 
the least important of my piece and 
therefore relegated to the last page 
— we can only speculate about mo- 
tives, but we can present facts about 
involvement). Washburn argues that 
if Dawson was a forger and if Dawson 
acted maliciously for fame, then Teil- 
hard was either innocent or also acted 
from malice (and not for a joke, as 
I speculated). But how does this fol- 
low? If we know anything about con- 
spiracies in all their murkiness, we 
certainly understand that people get 
involved in common projects for the 
damnedest and most varied motives. 
Do any of the Kennedy assassination 
26 
