Richard Booth

And why did he change his story for his book? And why does he damn near burst into weeping when he talks about Lee Oswald? Rob Clark convinced me that there is something wrong with Buell Wesley Frazier's account. I have not figured it out but someone else will, eventually.

I think there was a bit more to it than just that one query. The polygraph seems to be a part of the overall intimidation of Frazier. I mean, they put in front of Frazier a confession to sign! They took into custody his Enfield rifle and ammo. It looks a lot like the DPD was ready to frame his ass if he didn't play ball. I suspect he made up that story about "curtain rods" to please them so they would have a witness they could use to attest to Oswald bringing a rifle into the building. What is interesting is that Frazier used to have a job fulfilling orders for curtain rods. Specifically that product. Seems like he invented that entirely, fabricating something that made some sense to him personally from his own personal experience. I think Frazier was going to be made a part of the conspiracy, arrested and tried as an accomplice, if he did not go along, and it seems he half-ass went along to save his ass. When you see Frazier talking about Lee Oswald he very often gets damn near tears. I think it's because he feels guilty for making up something.

You should write a memoir, AMKW. People like you and Malcolm Blunt have done so much actual work, hours spent in archives, it would be so interesting. One of the better JFK related books I have read in recent years was "The Girl on the Stairs" and it was largely interesting because it provided the reader with a front-row seat to a researcher's journey over the years. That was so appealing to me.

Also Marina and Kerry Thornley, didn't Garrison make that insinuation? It is a little much.

Wow ... AMKW - I am in the presence of heavy hitters. I will say that I opted out quick because I was not convinced - AT ALL - by that picture. To me it could have been anyone and I thought "I cannot believe anyone would claim this is Oswald" Just my opinion. Regarding documents I am pretty sure everyone knows none of us are making money off this case. For sure, it's not exactly lucrative. Love your work you are an original and dedicated. Thank you.

Very interesting - and you see these threads woven in the Mexico City visit, in David Phillips wanting Veciana's cousin to say he saw Oswald getting money from Communists, other areas. Because it wasn't used these threads were just ignored, but it's quite clear they were there and that D.R.E. was pushing this narrative to friendly media outlets on 11/22/63 at the direction of their CIA superiors. Morley's book Scorpion's Dance has some good stuff about that.

Never did have much faith in ideology as I've watched as it does nothing but split people apart, saw that since I was 16 and decided "this stuff isn't for me"

I am loosely described as a Libertarian, I would say that I like their views on some things but thing it's impractible to find a lot of Libertarians holding office which is fine by me as the less a politician can get done the better.

Okay

I agree with this and I am [technically] a Conservative. In 2001 after I saw how the networks reacted to 9/11, I cancelled my cable subscription and since that time I never watch TV programs for news. I only read print/online-text based reporting and try hard to examine multiple sources, and also look towards people whose intellectual capacity I respect to see what their analysis is. In 2001, I was offended to see how the networks continuously showed footage of the planes hitting the towers and/or people jumping. It was thoughtless (re: how traumatic it might be to people) and seemed intent on whipping up hatred. I also noticed that Fox News began to position their cameras in such a way as to highlight the legs and tight-fitting clothes of their female hosts. Gone were the days of above-the-waist and we got these camera angles that obviously intentionally were appealing (in a subtle way) to males in the audience to the detriment of the females on the programs. And that is just two examples, there are many that are probably far worse. It was obvious to me that this Kilmeade was a dumb person (regardless of ones' ideological positions) and I agree with you.

I picked up and flipped through "Oswald's Tale" by Mailer and there was a section there where he told someone there he wanted to learn languages. Due to the FPCC and USSR defection highly unlikely he could have obtained any government job as a translator but in the private sector--during the Cold War--he could have done pretty well for himself.

Had Oswald not become caught up in the things he got caught up in, he could probably have had a good career as an interpreter and translator. With additional study, even with dyslexia, he could have refined his ability. It's interesting that Ruth Paine did not focus on trying to talk to Oswald more. If his Russian was as good as these people say he would be better than Marina to study with because he could explain things to an English speaker better. He may have been one of these people who was gifted or otherwise skilled at language: had to be, learning Russian at 20-24 years old, self taught: you cannot overstate how impressive that is. If he had lived into his 30s and 40s he could well have spoken several languages.

This is what I believe - that his proficiency was such that he could carry on conversations and also read Russian. That is very impressive for a 20-24 year old self taught person. Very impressive. I have read the Norwood piece. I think a great deal of Armstrong's research material both on his site and the Baylor archive is incredibly valuable and find myself having to put a disclaimer that this doesn't mean I buy his "two Oswalds and two mothers" theory. Funny how nuance gets lost on forums when people want to argue--surprised someone has not flamed you for posting the Norwood piece saying "omg that idiotic two Oswald theory"

I didn't say anything about Armstrong's theory. I referred to his research, which are two different things. As far as I can tell you're just being argumentative so I will ignore you

What is ironic is that I will also get burned up for this. People who previously enjoyed our interactions or discussions will become cold due to preconceived notions relative to ideology. It's one reason politics sucks and poisons everything, always. But if you put me on the political compass, I'm on the Conservative side. There are legions of Marxists on a social media platform who call me a fascist for not being far-left. It is what it is. I find it both tedious, predictable, and sad that this always happens. More often than not people make an ass of themselves by assuming my positions on matters inconsequential to the discussion, such as where I might land on religion. Or abortion. Or traditional relationships. My closest research collaborators have been Roger G. Charles and Jesse Trentadue. Roger was a U.S. Marine who worked for Newsweek, 20/20, and 60 Minutes and was a staunch conservative. He passed away in 2022. Jesse Trentadue is an attorney who is also a conservative. Our last piece (about FBI FOIA non-compliance) was going to be published on Lew Rockwell, but we ran it on the Libertarian Institute instead. I get along with people of all political stripes because what we have in common in this fight is far more important than any perceived differences.