Pat Speer

Have you ever met Frazier? He has said from day one that the paper bag he saw in Oswald's possession was not the bag pulled from the depository. He has said further that the bag he saw was less than half the size of this bag. And he has also said that Oswald did not bring a bag out to the house on the 21st. And, oh yeah, he has also said that Oswald was a smart fellow who loved children. In short, he is one of the best witnesses for Oswald's innocence. The idea floated by people who've never met him--that he is part of some cover-up--is both ridiculous and insulting. As far as his reticence to talk to Garrison's people... I hope you know that most all the witnesses were reluctant to talk to them. The word had been put out that Garrison was in it for the publicity, and his personal behavior didn't exactly help. The bit about the Altgens photo is most telling, for that matter, People desperate to believe Oswald was on the steps had been contacting Frazier and other witnesses to ask them if it was Oswald in the photo. The witnesses all said it was Lovelady. And yet the parade of believers continued, and continues to this day. Presumably, Frazier was testing them to see if they were gonna try to get him to say it was Oswald. This ties back in to Prayer Man. I have witnessed Frazier being asked abut Prayer Man, and it's clear he is quite tired of it. But he always says he's not sure who that is, but he feels certain it isn't Oswald. He says if it was Oswald he would have remembered Oswald being there. "Well, that's it" the Prayer Man devotees are saying, This proves Frazier was in on it. Only...no. It proves something about themselves but next to nothing about Frazier.

But it's a fantasy, Sandy. First of all, you don't believe Oswald told the truth. You believe YOUR interpretation of an image, and YOUR interpretation of some vague notes. And in order to bolster YOUR belief in YOUR own powers, you disregard the statements of Frazier, Truly, Baker, Reid, etc... which when taken in sum suggest Oswald's innocence. It's a circular firing squad. In order for you to be right, the best witnesses for Oswald's innocence must all be XXXXX. So XXXXX they be. In the meantime, the orchestrators and defenders of the official lies are dancing a jig.

Here we run into the same problem. Fritz's notes were disjointed and made up of sentence fragments. The out front with Bill Shelley reference is quite possibly a reference to how Oswald left the building, and not a reference to where he was when the shooting occurred. As stated, if Oswald had told them he was outside during the shooting, they would have screamed this to the hills, as there were no witnesses to his being outside at this time, and this would have been as good as a confession. I mean, think about it. If James Earl Ray had told the FBI he'd been at a crowded restaurant when he was thought to have been shooting MLK, and no one at this restaurant would confirm that he was there, they would have leaked this to the press and it would have convicted him in the eyes of the public...to such an extent even that doubts about his guilt may never have surfaced. It may also have squelched his plea agreement. The prosecution knew they had a hard case to prove, and chose to offer up life in prison. If he'd said he was in a crowd and no one would corroborate it, this may have been the final nail in his coffin. But he didn't. So why is it then that people are so anxious to believe Oswald offered up an "alibi" that could easily be disproved...that was then hidden by the coppers? I mean, it's really very silly when one takes a step back.

Feel free to start a separate thread on this so I can refute this nonsense.

"1. Hosty never said that Oswald said he was outside at the time of the shooting. He never said it, at least not on the record. Oswald told Hosty he went out to watch the P parade after eating his lunch. There was a shooting as the motorcade, that Oswald said he went to see, it passed the TSBD. The plain meaning of Oswald's statement is obvious. (1. It was not Oswald's statement. It was a line from a draft of a report to be written by Hosty that did not make it into his final report. Neither Hosty's completed report nor any of the other reports said this was Oswald's alibi. It may be what you want to believe. But that doesn't make it true.) You keep asserting Oswald could have meant some other time by his statement, but offer neither reasoned analysis nor any basis for your claim. If Oswald wasn't out front at the time of the shooting when was he out there? (2. Oswald is reported to have said he went outside after the shots. But he may also have said something about wanting to go outside or even going outside before the arrival of the motorcade, but then coming back inside. In any case, Hosty and all witnesses to the interview were consistent in that they said Oswald told them he was inside the Domino Room at the time of the shooting. They had no one to refute this. So their lying about his claiming as much makes little or no sense.) "And no one who knew him ever came forward claiming he'd said it in private." (3. This was clearly a reference to Hosty, not Oswald.) He said it in the initial questioning as recorded by Hosty. This is a diversion. (4. Your interpretation of a line in the draft of a report is the diversion. No witnesses to the interviews said Oswald claimed as much. Oswald failed to say so himself when given the opportunity. And his family failed to say he said as much. If you read the record you will probably find dozens if not hundreds of statements which disagree with each other. You can not simply pick the one you like and claim all the others must be part of a cover-up. Particularly when the statement you choose to believe doesn't even say what you claim it does...) 2. "The note in which he said Oswald went outside to watch the P. Parade does not specify that this was Oswald's whereabouts at the time of the shooting. This is an assumption made by those who want to believe that's what it says, but in fact it does not say it." I've lost track of the number of times you have said that Oswald saying he went out to watch the motorcade does not establish where he was when the shots rang out. See above. (5. So you admit you can not count. So why is it then that we are supposed to trust your interpretation of a line in a report that does not specify what you claim it does? Oh, wait, sorry. That was the technique used by Joe Ball to discredit problematic witnesses. I present it here to demonstrate that I am fully aware of how and to what extent Ball and Belin pinned the tale on the Oswald. And yet there was no need for them to discredit the witnesses who saw Oswald outside. Because, by golly, there were no such witnesses.) Let's see if I can clarify something. If nothing else, Oswald saying he "went outside to watch the P Parade" means he couldn't have been shooting Kennedy from the 6th floor doesn't it? He wouldn't have shot Kennedy and then went outside to watch the parade that was already over, that he had just destroyed, would he? (6. Few have argued for Oswald's innocence regarding the shooting of Kennedy as forcefully as myself. I have spoken at numerous conferences and I have written what amounts to 5-6 books on the subject. Having read all the testimony regarding the shooting, and having created the largest database of witness statements regarding the shooting, and having read hundreds of articles and textbooks on sniping, wound ballistics, forensic radiology, forensic pathology, neutron activation analysis, fingerprint analysis and cognitive psychology, it can probably be said that I know as much about the shooting as anyone. So do I think Oswald was up on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting? Of course not. But it's not because of one line in a disregarded draft by an FBI agent.) A couple of times you have flirted with the idea, and do so in this piece again, that Hosty was mistaken, that perhaps Oswald never said it. But we know Hosty was at the questioning and wrote the passage. You offer nothing but bald conjecture that perhaps Hosty was mistaken or somehow didn't actually write it. More below. (7. I never said I thought Hosty didn't write it. And my conjecture that if he did mean for the P. Parade line to represent Oswald's alibi that he was probably mistaken is on much more solid ground than your conjecture that he was not mistaken. To repeat, because it bears repeating... No one saw Oswald outside. No one who was at the interviews with Oswald said he said he was outside. No one in Oswald's family said he said he was outside. And Oswald himself, in his multiple chats with the media on 11-22 and 11-23 never said he was outside. There is no there there. Why is this so hard to see???) You can dance around the topic where he was at the time of the killing all you want. I, for one, don't know his exact position when the shots rang out. Was he on the steps, or perhaps was he a few seconds late but there when Darnell swung his camera around? (8. Aha! The moment of truth. You think you see Oswald in Darnell, and you are willing to scramble everything up so you won't have to admit the possibility you're mistaken. Never mind that many of those involved in the initial threads about "Prayer Man" including myself, failed to see Oswald in Darnell. Never mind that some of the most famous CTs' have seen clear versions of Darnell and thought it inconclusive or worse. You think you see something! Hooray for you! But that doesn't mean there's a strong factual basis for this belief.) Doesn't really matter does it? If Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor pulling the trigger, there needs to be a reckoning as to who murdered Kennedy. "The first researcher to uncover this note, Malcolm Blunt, moreover, failed to see it as significant. Malcolm Blunt is a cautious man." You're claiming the support of Malcolm Blunt for your conjecture? Pretty outrageous. Have you seen the videos in which Kamp and Blunt discuss the material? Has Blunt objected to Kamp's interpretation that the note was Oswald's alibi? Did you ask Blunt before making your claim? (9. Blunt is friends with Bart, so I wouldn't expect him to nay-say Bart's discovery. I've met Blunt, and found him to be very cautious, and mostly interested in the paper trail among the intelligence agencies. I don't recall his ever saying he thought "Prayer Man" was Oswald but I could be wrong. Some very smart people have some very silly theories regarding this case. Prof.s Gerald Mcknight, David Wrone, and James Fetzer, for example, continued to claim it was Oswald in the Altgens photo long after it became apparent to most everyone else this was nonsense.) "3. IF in fact Hosty did mean to write that Oswald said he was outside at the time of the shooting, we have little reason to believe it. Let's break this down as well... a. The FBI's report was co-written by Hosty with Bookhout. The absence of this claim from this report would indicate then that Bookhout failed to back up Hosty's recollection." No, it means that after Oswald was fingered and then murdered both recognized his alibi contradicts their narrative and they dropped it. (10. This makes no sense. The alibi they said Oswald offered contradicted their narrative. The alibi you say they rejected--that Oswald was outside--would have helped their narrative--tremendously--as there were no witnesses to his being outside and they could have used this to paint him as a xxxx.) "b. None of the other attendees at the interview said Oswald claimed he was outside at the time of the shooting." C'mon, Pat, none of the "attendees" (you mean the cops) were going to back Oswald's alibi. (11. As stated, Oswald's claiming he was outside when there were no witnesses claiming they saw him outside would have been of tremendous help to the DPD and FBI.) "c. Oswald himself, despite numerous opportunities, never said he was outside at the time of the shooting when speaking to the press, or speaking to his family. " You have no reliable way of knowing what he told his family. (12. What? Robert said Lee told him not to trust the so-called evidence. Well, how much of a leap would it have been for Robert to have reported that Lee had said he was outside? Marina, for that matter, has claimed for decades that she now believes Lee was innocent. Lee's daughters have also said as much. And we all know about Marguerite. IF he'd told anyone in the family he was outside at the time of the shooting, it is highly likely they would have said as much.) As for not blurting out his alibi in the hallway, he was too savvy for that. (13. Absolutely not. The "savvy" thing would have been for him to say "I was outside at the time of the shooting. I implore the following witnesses (he would then name the witnesses) to come forward and say as much so a hunt for the actual shooter(s) can begin.") Had he been able to have a lawyer, which he had been asking for right from the moment of his arrest, you wouldn't be able to raise such a silly point. The first thing a lawyer would have told him is to keep his mouth shut. (14. Yes, but right after he told Oswald to shut up, he would put out a statement outlining Oswald's alibi and asking for witnesses to come forward. I mean, really. Oswald was not gonna get cleared based upon his claim he was outside. He would need witnesses to back it up. And the more time that passed between the shooting and his appeal for witnesses, the less likely he was to find such witnesses.) Besides, it was obvious that the hallway reporters were told he was the killer, and were out for the story, for blood in other words. When he blurted that he was just a patsy as he was being shoved into an elevator, did any of these guys look into his claim. Of course not. (15. Apples and oranges. Crime reporters are not used to investigating whether or not a suspect is being framed. They are used to tracking down potential witnesses, however. If Oswald had named the names of people who could verify he was outside, a mob of reporters would have been at the homes of these people within minutes.) "Points a-c, then, when taken in combination, would suggest that IF the line in Hosty's draft about Oswald being outside was meant to represent Oswald's alibi at the time of the shooting, that Hosty was simply mistaken." None of the points stands on its own merits and together they show nothing of the sort. (16. Let me see. None of the witnesses support your conjecture. And all of the witnesses support my conjecture. Yes, it's best you declare victory and run away. Or worse... stay... and repeat easily debunked arguments.) "Particularly in that... d. As no witnesses said anything about Oswald being outside at the time of the shooting in the days following the shooting, Oswald's saying he was outside at the time of the shooting would have been highly damaging, and central to the case the DPD and FBI were building against Oswald." Oswald's alibi, if allowed to be offered in court, let's say, would have been highly damaging to him? Did I read that right? Wow. I'm out of words. (17. Geez. Think for a second. If he said he was outside it wasn't an alibi, it was a FAILED alibi, that would almost certainly guarantee his conviction and execution.) "Its absence from the reports on his interviews, then, can only be seen as an indication he never said such a thing..." Its absence from the reports on his interviews, then, can only be seen as an indication that those concocting a narrative to frame Oswald were not going to allow anything that contradicted their story to see the light of day, (18. Nonsense. Much of what Oswald claimed contradicted their story. This was exactly what they wanted, moreover. They could use this to paint him as a xxxx.) if they could help it. There. I fixed your sentence for you. And no, I'm not done... "The belief Oswald said he was outside at the time of the shooting, and that this was covered up, strongly suggests that Oswald's saying as much would have carried some weight with the public. This was a man who'd publicly declared his innocence, and said he was a "patsy". It's hard to see then that a report claiming he'd said he was outside at the time of the shooting would need to be covered up." The opposite is true. Oswald's alibi needed to be covered up (19. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. It was not an alibi. It was a failed alibi that would have almost certainly guaranteed his conviction. If Oswald had said he was outside no one would have needed to cover it up. In fact, they would have leaked it to the press within days to prove he was a xxxx.) and he had to be murdered so that the WC had free reign to invent their a story. (20. It's a minor quibble but I would beg to differ. In my estimation Oswald had to be murdered because the case against him was bound to fall apart under close scrutiny from a competent lawyer, and the reputations of a number of prominent men would have suffered.) Including ridiculous yarns like the magic bullet and 2nd floor lunch room encounter. "We know, moreover, that this possibility was explored by the first generation of critics. The Altgens photo, and Billy Lovelady's resemblance to Oswald, led to a full-court press of researchers into Dallas searching for someone, anyone, who would verify that Oswald was outside. It failed miserably, to such an extent even that Mark Lane, in an effort to bolster the credibility of the research community, publicly declared that it was not Oswald in the Altgens photo. We then jump forward 40 years or so. Now someone thinks they see Oswald in a different photo, and the arguments begin anew. But something is overlooked. The early researchers combed Dallas looking for witnesses to suggest a conspiracy. They found witnesses who were willing to state they saw smoke on the knoll. They found witnesses who'd stood in front of the depository, who'd thought the shots came from their right. They found witnesses who said someone who didn't look like Oswald had killed Tippit. But did they find one witness claiming Oswald was outside? No, not one. " Not one witness. Because If he was on the steps, Oswald was back in the corner behind everyone in front of him focused on first the motorcade, then the commotion once the shots were fired. (22. Excuse me if I'm incorrect, but my recollection is that the Prayer Man theory has Oswald sticking around by the entrance for some time after the shooting. And yet no one saw him. Truly, Baker and Reid said they saw him up on the second, which by no means suggests he'd been up on the sixth and actually suggests he had not been up on the sixth, but no one said they saw Oswald just after the shooting on the first. Is that correct?) More than that, in your tale of the search for witnesses to back up Oswald, you show little or no understanding of either the atmosphere of intimidation at the time, or the powerful role of the major media and elements of the government in selling the WC fairy tale. (23. Lecturing me about the witnesses is a bit silly. A large number of witnesses said things they knew raised doubts about the lone-assassin scenario. Many said they thought the shots came from the train yards. Many said the last two shots were bang-bang, too close together to have been fired by a bolt-action rifle And a number of those on the overpass said they saw smoke by the picket fence. You also fail to realize that stories about Oswald's being in the Altgens photo and the WC's failing to talk to Tague were in fact covered by the major media. So this idea that everyone was scared and the evil media was anxious to shut everyone up is just not true.) As a refresher, you ought to read the revies in the NY tImes of the WR when it came out in 1964. It was, they said, a masterful work that answered all the questions about what happened. That set the stage for the media's performance ever since. (24. Oh my, dude. My review and analysis of the media's coverage of the 50th anniversary of the assassination has been cited in books on media. It was even praised by John McAdams, who begrudgingly had to admit that the 50th anniversary coverage had a clear LN bias it's called The Onslaught, Parts 1 and 2, and can be found on my website). My responses in bold.

While I would agree that the personal flaws of men like Posner and Bugliosi does not preclude their being correct about the Kennedy assassination, it's hard to feel sorry for them seeing as the smearing of CTs has long been among he prime M.O.s of Warren Commission defenders. Many of the early defenses of the commission involved questioning the patriotism of men like Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg and Edward Epstein. These defenses pretty much said that they were leftist Jews who couldn't be trusted. I think it was Posner (and perhaps even Bugliosi) who tarred Sylvia Meagher with this same brush--that her book was not to be trusted because she once admitted she was one of perhaps 100 million Americans who immediately suspected right-wingers were behind Kennedy's death. (In retrospect this was like saying someone is racist because they immediately suspected Salmon Rushdie's attacker was a Muslim.) As I recall, similar smears have been used against Garrison (who had a breakdown of sorts during the Korean War, and was thereby a total loon) and Stone (who had questioned America's involvement in Vietnam and subsequent wars and was thereby an America-hater.) So what's bad for the goose is bad for the gander.

The WC thought the same way--that the shooter would have to have been in place well before the motorcade was supposed to be there--which if I recall was 12:15. So they disregarded the statements of Eddie Piper--one of the most consistent witnesses. Piper had claimed numerous times starting on 11-22-63 that he spoke to Oswald downstairs around 12:00, which supported Oswald's claim he came downstairs for lunch. Bill Shelley and Carolyn Arnold also said they saw him downstairs at lunchtime. A few years back I re-read all the reports and testimony regarding the whereabouts of people in the TSBD leading up to the shooting, and it became crystal clear to me that Joe Ball and David Belin--who were tasked with placing Oswald in the sniper's nest--had deliberately avoided certain witnesses (e.g. Saundra Styles and Peggy Ann Garner) and had deliberately misrepresented or distorted the testimony of other witnesses (e.g. Eddie Piper and Jack Dougherty) in order to sell the Oswald did-it scenario. They also misrepresented the circumstances of the descent of the elevators at lunchtime. The bulk of the testimony of the men who'd engaged in the elevator race suggested that Oswald wanted to ride down with Givens, but Givens refused to stop. The commission's staff, however, spun this into Oswald's not wanting to come down with them, but telling them to leave the gate open on the west elevator at the bottom so he could call the elevator back up after the shooting. This and other WC deceptions and distortions are discussed in great detail in Chapter 4: Pinning the Tale on the Oswald.

Wow. Let's break this down. 1. Hosty never said that Oswald said he was outside at the time of the shooting. He never said it, at least not on the record. And no one who knew him ever came forward claiming he'd said it in private. 2. The note in which he said Oswald went outside to watch the P. Parade does not specify that this was Oswald's whereabouts at the time of the shooting. This is an assumption made by those who want to believe that's what it says, but in fact it does not say it. The first researcher to uncover this note, Malcolm Blunt, moreover, failed to see it as significant. Malcolm Blunt is a cautious man. 3. IF in fact Hosty did mean to write that Oswald said he was outside at the time of the shooting, we have little reason to believe it. Let's break this down as well... a. The FBI's report was co-written by Hosty with Bookhout. The absence of this claim from this report would indicate then that Bookhout failed to back up Hosty's recollection. b. None of the other attendees at the interview said Oswald claimed he was outside at the time of the shooting. c. Oswald himself, despite numerous opportunities, never said he was outside at the time of the shooting when speaking to the press, or speaking to his family. Points a-c, then, when taken in combination, would suggest that IF the line in Hosty's draft about Oswald being outside was meant to represent Oswald's alibi at the time of the shooting, that Hosty was simply mistaken. Particularly in that... d. As no witnesses said anything about Oswald being outside at the time of the shooting in the days following the shooting, Oswald's saying he was outside at the time of the shooting would have been highly damaging, and central to the case the DPD and FBI were building against Oswald. Its absence from the reports on his interviews, then, can only be seen as an indication he never said such a thing... And no, I'm not done... The belief Oswald said he was outside at the time of the shooting, and that this was covered up, strongly suggests that Oswald's saying as much would have carried some weight with the public. This was a man who'd publicly declared his innocence, and said he was a "patsy". It's hard to see then that a report claiming he'd said he was outside at the time of the shooting would need to be covered up. We know, moreover, that this possibility was explored by the first generation of critics. The Altgens photo, and Billy Lovelady's resemblance to Oswald, led to a full-court press of researchers into Dallas searching for someone, anyone, who would verify that Oswald was outside. It failed miserably, to such an extent even that Mark Lane, in an effort to bolster the credibility of the research community, publicly declared that it was not Oswald in the Altgens photo. We then jump forward 40 years or so. Now someone thinks they see Oswald in a different photo, and the arguments begin anew. But something is overlooked. The early researchers combed Dallas looking for witnesses to suggest a conspiracy. They found witnesses who were willing to state they saw smoke on the knoll. They found witnesses who'd stood in front of the depository, who'd thought the shots came from their right. They found witnesses who said someone who didn't look like Oswald had killed Tippit. But did they find one witness claiming Oswald was outside? No, not one.

When the FBI found out about the polygraph, they interviewed members of the DPD about its results. They acknowledged at this time that during the polygraph they showed Frazier the paper bag supposedly discovered in the sniper's nest. And that he said it was both too large and of the wrong kind of paper to be the bag he saw in Oswald's possession. And that he passed the polygraph.The DPD was so shook up by this, moreover, that they told the FBI they thought Oswald had concealed the rifle within the bag found in the depository, but had transported it in a broken-down condition within a much smaller bag. That's right. They mused that he'd put it in one bag (the bag discovered in the SN), and then placed this bag in another (the bag observed by Frazier.) Of course, they had no idea at this time that the rifle could not be broken down to fit in a bag the size of the one described by Frazier. But this shows how seriously the DPD took Frazier's polygraph. Well, this led me to believe that's why it disappeared. Keep in mind that at the time of the polygraph, the case was Fritz's case. Fritz and Wade's. They couldn't have a problematic polygraph laying around just waiting to be snatched up by a defense attorney, now could they? P.S. One should keep in mind, moreover, that the DPD filed no reports regarding Brennan's refusal to ID Oswald, and that a non-Oswald thumb print they claimed was on Box D disappeared from the record. I take from this that they were deliberately concealing evidence that ran counter to the Oswald-did-it conclusion. But, ah shucks, it could just be a coincidence. Right?

I hope you didn't take my quoting Bugliosi as a sign I hold him in high regard. My calling him a 'friend" was an inside joke between Jim and me. Jim has done more to discredit Bugliosi re the JFK assassination than anyone. But I am probably a close second. We have a mutual distrust/dislike for Bugliosi's book. If you haven't read it, you might find Chapter 19b on my website ("Vincent Bugliosi is the Real Oliver Stone") of interest.

The polygraph disappeared because the DPD was trying to hide Frazier's non-compliance in the days after the shooting. The story was put out that Oswald was seen carrying a bag, and then a story was put out that the bag had Oswald's prints on it. But the story of Frazier and his sister--which indicated the bag was too small to have held the rifle--was suppressed for some time after the shooting. As far as Frazier's lack of credibility... Almost every witness' story changed over time. This is not a surprise. This is to be expected. Over time, our memories--which are based on our impressions, which are quite often inaccurate to begin with--change to conform to what we feel to be true. In Frazier's case, almost every change in his story has added to the likelihood of Oswald's innocence. As a result, it makes no freaking sense to assume he is concealing facts that would prove Oswald's innocence. As far as PM, I believe I was the first to suggest it could be Sarah Stanton, who Frazier said was standing beside him. I have seen nothing since to suggest it isn't Stanton. The only thing that gives me any doubt that it is Stanton is Frazier's failure to say so. Instead, after being confronted with the PM image time and time again, he says that he doesn't know who that is. While a lot of researchers focus on the malleability of witnesses when confronted by law enforcement, I think very few realize that these same witnesses are often coerced or pressured into saying stuff contrary to what they believe by people like themselves. I've seen this for myself. I've seen witnesses confronted by people with a clear agenda, where the witnesses end up letting these people think they agree with them, when they do not. Tellingly, I once confronted James Jenkins on this very issue. I pointed out that people were using his statements to suggest there was a gaping hole on the back of Kennedy's head, when he'd been very clear that there was no such gaping hole. He looked at me and said, with a world-weary voice, "People will believe what they want to believe."

Yes, absolutely. Frazier stuck to his guns (or rather lack of a gun) regarding the paper bag. If Oswald was on the front steps, Frazier would almost certainly have said so. He would have figured, moreover, that others had seen Oswald as well, so why lie about it. There is no evidence whatsoever supporting that there was some mass cover-up about Oswald's being outside. It is, in the words of our good "friend" Bugliosi, pure moonshine.

One of the elements of the crime that continues to intrigue me is the possibility there was some accountability. Hoffa, Giancana, Rosselli...all murdered, their murders never solved. Johnson, Helms, and Nixon...all forced out in disgrace. I've always wondered if maybe just maybe Ted Kennedy was pulling the strings on a lot of this, and if he did not in fact avenge his brothers' murders. If I was to write up that period as a drama, that would be my take. In fact, it was my take. It was while researching a screenplay with such a plot that I got sucked into this quagmire. That was 20 years ago.

Nope. Let's stick to the facts. Oswald himself never offered his being outside as an alibi. Those who spoke to him said he'd denied being the shooter, and said he was in the Domino Room at the time. If they were gonna lie about his "alibi" does it not make sense that they would claim he'd said something that incriminated him--such as something that could easily be refuted? Hmmm... IF Hosty really did mean to imply that Oswald claimed he was outside during the shooting, this would have been exactly the kind of lie the powers that be would tell to further implicate Oswald in the crime. He said he was outside. No one saw him outside. Case closed. Coincidence? I suspect so. Hosty doesn't specify that the line about the P. Parade was Oswald's alibi, and everything he said afterwards indicates that Oswald didn't claim that as his alibi.

Brennan did not say he saw a gunman in the Dal-Tex Building. Not on 11-22-63. Not ever. Here is his original statement. From patspeer.com. Chapter 7b; Howard Brennan was, as shown above, sitting on the Houston side of the wall encircling the fountain at Houston and Elm. He can be seen in the Zapruder and Bell films wearing a hard hat. (11-22-63 statement to the Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H470) “ I was sitting on a ledge or wall near the intersection of Houston Street and Elm Street near the red light pole. I was facing in a northerly direction looking across the street from where I was sitting. I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories anyway in the east end of the building and the second row of windows from the top I saw a man in this window. I had seen him before the President's car arrived. He was just sitting up there looking down apparently waiting for the same thing I was to see the President. I did not notice anything unusual about this man. He was a white man in his early 30's, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light colored clothing but definately not a suit. I proceeded to watch the President's car as it turned left at the corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm and Houston and to a point I would say the President's back was in line with the last windows I have previously described I heard what I thought was a back fire." The key is that Brennan looked north and saw a man at the east end of a building, and that Kennedy's back was turned to this man when the first shot rang out. This rules out the Dal-Tex. The east end of the Dal-Tex would have been to the east of Brennan, not north, and a shot from this location would not have been in line with the limo when the first shot was fired. Of course, there's also the matter of Brennan's pointing out the SN window in the TSBD within moments of the shooting.

Plus, sit in Brennan's actual position on the east side of the fountain and look up at the sixth floor window to see if you could ID the face of someone crouched down on the east side of the window.

Thanks. It's best to be clear about these things.

Uhhh... Where did he say that? The draft discovered by Kamp does not say when he went outside to watch the P. Parade nor where he was during the shooting. It is an assumption that the P. Parade line was his alibi. But neither Hosty nor any of the other participants in the interview said that was his alibi. So...really...that's not much to go by. if a man was accused of killing Dr. Oz and years later someone found a draft of an FBI report on an interview with him that said "went to get Dr.", would it be proof of his guilt? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe he said he'd went to get a Dr. Pepper...

You should keep in mind as well that Shenon's main sources were Liebeler's former colleagues. Evidently, Liebeler was a bit of a horndog, and liked to brag about it.

If I recall, Liebeler's misbehavior was reported in Shenon's pro-WC book. It's not just something some CT's made up.

Yes, agreed. The Dallas powers knew the international media would descend upon Dealey on the 50th, and they wanted it to be a conspiracy-free zone. Pathetic. But it worked. The snore-fest in Dealey received hours of national coverage, and dozens if not hundreds of reports in the international media. While at the same time, not even one journalist, as I recall, attended the Lancer conference down the street, and reported that Kennedy's cousins had attended and had declared that they believe he was killed as a result of a conspiracy. That wasn't front-page news. But I tend to think it would have been mentioned somewhere by someone should the Dallas powers not have distracted the media with their dull yet shiny object in the plaza.

I had a friend who was a huge Alex Jones fan. He became excited when I told him I was at the barricades on the 50th. I had to let him down, though. The police were actually quite professional. It was Alex Jones who tried and tried again to cause a riot, so that the cameramen following him around could capture images of policemen beating on po' Alex Jones and his "warriors for truth." As far as the show put on by the City of Dallas... They had large screens in place so that those locked out by the barricades could see what was going on. It was fairly boring. While in Dallas that year, I spoke with many attendees of the Lancer and Judyth conferences, moreover, and it turned out that a number of them had been allowed to attend the gathering in Dealey. They just submitted their names online, and tickets were handed out by lottery. It was assumed no conspiracy theorists would be allowed to attend, but it turned out that no extensive background checks were conducted, and that many CTs were in fact allowed to attend. They just weren't allowed to speak.

I too praise Bart. While he is a Prayer Man advocate, he has helped make tons of material available to myself and others irrespective of whether or not it supports his chosen scenario.

There's no reason to believe the bottle in Sawyer's hand was the bottle found on the sixth floor. That bottle was taken out of the building by Montgomery and Johnson a bit later. The bottle in Sawyer's hands is most probably a beverage bought with his own money for his own use. Cops get thirsty, too.

This was once an area of great interest to me. There was a book that had an extended section on the companies in the Dal-Tex. It was grossly overpriced. And was not highly respected. So I asked around on this forum for more info on the Dal-Tex occupants. It was provided, as I recall, by Larry Hancock. So you might want to search this forum