Tim Gratz

Below an interesting 2003 quote from Joseph Farah, the conservative and articulate man behind "World Net Daily". WND published "Triangle of Death" and while I do not agree with its ultimate premise of S Vietnamese involvement in the assassination, it did have some good new information, including detailed information about Mertz/Souetre.

It is good to see a conservative articulating the same condemnation of the government cover-up and calling for the release of all documents as is being made by Bill Kelly. Mr. Farah could turn out to be a worthwhile ally when the time comes to make a real push to Congress.

Frankly, if we can't answer with some degree of assurance the question of who killed our president 40 years ago, there is very little we can be certain about with regard to our government operations and public policy.

That's why this book ["Triangle of Death"] is important now. That's why this question will never go away. That's why it's still important that we clear the air, open up all the government files and address this issue head on – with no more cover-ups.

There's no question the government was complicit in the cover-up of the facts. The government intentionally withheld information from the public. And it continues to do so.

That is not acceptable. As America holds itself up as a beacon to the rest of the world – as the model for self-government and freedom – we cannot afford to allow the government to hold back secrets from the people any longer.

It's time for some straight talk.

Well I know the story is not new. I read all about it in "Ultimate Sacrifice" over two years ago.

I just thought it strange that you brought up the "right-wing extremist" but not the Cuban nationals that might have been involved in the Chicago plot.

Now if you are telling me that the news service from which you made the post mentioned the right wing extremist but not the Cuban nationals, well, then, that might be even MORE curious!

So are you telling me, Accogli, that ANSA (if that is its name) did not mention the Cuban nationals who were at least an equal subject of concern?

Here is a draft of my reply (again suggestions are welcome):

In "The Culture of Conspiracy" (WSJ, November 24, 1963), James Piereson states that "the evidence against [Oswald as the sole assassin] of JFK was overwhelming." His proof?

1. Oswald's "rifle fired the shots that killed the president." It is probable that a shot that hit JFK came from a Manlicher-Carcano rifle sent to Oswald's post office box. But recent study of the paraffin tests conducted on Oswald shortly after his arrest offers clear and convincing evidence that he had not shot a rifle on November 22, 1963 (the same test indicated he MAY have fired a handgun).

2. "Spent shells from the rifle were found in the building where [Oswald] worked." Well, so was the rifle itself but as indicated above there is now compelling evidence that Oswald did not fire a rifle that fateful afternoon in Dallas .

3. "He was seen in the area before the shooting." The last time Oswald was seen on the sixth floor was shortly before noon. There is no question he was encountered on the second floor by a policeman and the building superintendent only 90 seconds after the shooting, and he was not out of breath. It is possible but problematic that he could have completed the shooting, hid the rifle, and made it down four flights of stairs within that period. The timing and circumstance of his first sighting after the assassination suggests he was not the shooter.

4. "Witnesses on the street saw a man firing from a sixth floor window." Mr. Piereson is to be commended for his precision here; there was no credible eyewitness testimony identifying Oswald as the sixth floor shooter.

5. "Based on a description, a policeman stopped Oswald while he was walking in another section of the city." There is no evidence that Tippit stopped Oswald based on a description of the man who shot Kennedy. A recent book suggests Tippit stopped Oswald because Oswald turned direction after spotting the police car.

6. "Oswald shot the policeman [probably he did, but if in fact he was a framed "patsy" he could have shot Tippit in a desperate attempt to escape the frame he saw closing around him] then fled to a movie theatre where he was captured [true].

Piereson states: "For those who weigh the evidence, there can be little doubt that Oswald was the assassin." A preposterously false statement. There are many brilliant minds who have carefullly weighed the evidence (probably at far greater length than Mr. Piereson has) who seriously doubt that Oswald was the assassin. As noted above, the paraffin test conducted on Oswald the afternoon of the assassination and the neutron activation analysis of Oswald's paraffin casts strongly suggest that Oswald did not fire a rifle on November 22, 1963. (By the way, I have also argued strongly on an assassination-oriented forum against those who suggest that anyone who doubts a conspiracy is "cognitively impaired". It is clear that reasonable and intelligent persons who have studied the evidence can and do reach opposite conclusions on the conspiracy question.)

Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry told interviewer Tom Johnson that he was not convinced that Oswald had killed Kennedy, stating: "We don't have any porof that Oswald fired the riflle [as noted the evidence strongly suggests he had NOT], and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building with a gun in his hand." Given the statement of the man who sat through the two-day interrogation of Oswald, and who was intimately familiar with the evidence collected by his officers, how can Mr. Piereson state in good faith that no one who has studied the evidence can doubt the guilt of Oswald?

Does anybody spot any factual errors in the above?

Or anything that should be added to the rather limited reply I am making?

Thanks, Greg!!!

This most rank as one of the most ridiculous statements ever published by the WSJ:

For those who weigh the actual evidence, there can be little doubt that Oswald was the assassin.

By the way, tonight I intend to send a reply/letter to the WSJ. I will concentrate on his "reasons" why the case against LHO is so "airtight". I welcome anyone's suggestions.

Or, send a reply of your one to the WSJ letters section.

Kathy, I certainly agree with you about not making light or humour of the tragedy of the assassination.

My ducking comment was also meant to illustrate the utter absurdity that the conspirators would give JFK "advance notice" (even if only a second or two) that he was about to be hit. His reaction or even that of a SS could then have destroyed the conspiracy.

Kathy, of course I was being facetious to illustrate the absurdity of Don's suggestion that whatever the man was holding was meant to send a message to JFK. Of course, mallet or not, the "symbolism" is not "clear". In fact, it's to laugh.

From Post #1:

Was it meant to show JFK that judgment has been passed on him and his sentence is death?

Of course the mug or mallet was not a signal to the shooters but Don may be right in the sentence quoted above.

Little question that when JFK saw the raised mallet or mug he knew a death sentence had been passed upon him. The symbolism could not be any clearer. The only question is why he forgot to duck.

Don, partially agreed except the throat wound was not a wound of entrance, IMO.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=58836

Please look at the photo on the page.

It certainly seems to show that JFK's coat was "bunched up".

I still think the hole in his coat would be an inch or more below the bunching but it does place the hole higher in his back.

Could a bullet entering the back an inch or two below the coat-bunching have exited his throat?

Well I do not think the throat wound was large enough for an exiting bullet but for the time being ignoring that consideration if a bullet did hit JFK in the back about where the photo suggests and exit his throat right around the top of his collar it certainly suggests a trajectory far to close to level to be traced back to the sixth floor of the TSBD.

Your comments?

About eight years ago I attended the wedding in Key West of Michael Jackson. I sat at a table with Debbie Reynolds. Needless to say . . .

"Snake his way"? Do you by chance mean "sneak his way?"

No idea about that, Bill. My only point is that I think he has some things right about the ballistics.

Query whether under his scenario there was sufficient time elapsed for a single shooter to fire the first shot and hit JFK in the back and the second shot and hit Governor Connally?

I am fairly convinced that CE399 was the bullet that hit JFK in the back and MIGHT even have been recovered from JFK's stretcher.

I would like to hear his colloquy with Dr. Wecht.

Bill asks why we should pay any attention to one who believes JFK was killed by "my a Marxist". I am sure Bill means "by" not "my" and it is a slip of the finger but not a parapraxis. (I certainly do not believe he was inadvertently confessing that he was the Marxist control agent for LHO!)

The reason why we must pay attention to these articles is because there is a battle for the opinion of the American public re the assassination. It is important for us to understand the reasoning of those who propose that Oswald was the sole assassin and that we reply to it. In fact, I am composing a reply to his arguments that Oswald was the sole assassin. I believe that every time there is a LN article in a major media like the WSJ we should at least attempt a reply to it.

It is interesting that when Piereson recites his reasons why LHO was the sole assassin he is caregul to state only that witnesses saw a sixth floor shooter; he does NOT state that amy eyewitness identified Oswald as the shooter. I give him a chit for honesty there.

BUT--just as there are many among us who cannot conceive that a reasonable mind (one not "cognitively impaired") can accept the LN premises, Piereson argues that anyone who has weighed the evidence can have little doubt that Oswald was the sole assassin.

I would like to see Piereson and Drago locked in a room together arguing with themselves, to be released only when they each conclude that reasonable minds can look at the evidence and reach different conclusions. Piereson's proposition is as preposterous as Drago's, of course. Drago disproves Piereson and Piereson disproves Drago.

I recommend people read Ziegler's editorial.

http://www.johnziegler.com/editorial.php?e=144

I think he probably has many facts correct, e.g.

1. The first shot entered JFK's back but only shallowly.

2. CE399 was the bullet that hit JFK in the back but it did not hit Connally.

3. Connally was hit by a shot that did not hit JFK.

4. There was no wound in JFK's neck caused by either an entering or exiting bulllet.

Of course, I do not think he has it right that 1. Oswald shot JFK; and 2. There was no conspiracy.

But I think his "take" on the bullet sequence merits serious consideration.

Well, Accogli (conveniently, perhaps?) left out this part of the Bolden story:

Former agent Abraham Bolden, 72, told Chicago ABC affiliate, WLS-TV, Kennedy was waved off from a much-publicized visit to Chicago on Nov. 2, 1963, to attend the Army-Air Force football game at Soldier Field and ride in a parade after the Secret Service received a report from a motel manager who told of seeing several automatic weapons with telescopic sights on the bed of a room rented to several Cuban nationals. They had an outline of the route Kennedy was to follow from O'Hare airport that would take his motorcade past the motel. The route had been printed in Chicago newspapers.

Bolden, a former Illinois state trooper, was the first black agent to protect a president.

The Secret Service was already uneasy about the presidential visit because an outspoken critic of the president, Thomas Vallee, had arranged to take off work for Kennedy's visit. Vallee was arrested before the planned visit with an M1 rifle, a handgun and 3,000 rounds of ammunition in his possession.

News of the Cuban nationals triggered an investigation but, Bolden charges, the surveillance was mishandled and the Cuban suspects disappeared and were never identified.

"No one was sent to the room to fingerprint it or get an ID. The case was lost and that was the end of it," he said.

The Chicago plot and the probable framing of Bolden is discussed at some length in "Ultimate Sacrifice".

Does anybody have access to the WSJ who can post the article? It was published in the November 24, 2007 weekend edition of the WSJ.

Pierson is the author of "Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of JFK Shattered American Liberalism".

One sentence summary of the article: "The evidence against [Oswald] was overwhelming."

John, I have been thinking of starting a women's lingerie company and calling it Freud.

I meant well-researched. Case in point: "Harlot's Ghost" contains a very obscure reference to the murder of Gus Greenbaum and his wife, without mentioing their names.

The problem with a well-researched book of fiction based on fact is of course that one often cannot distinguish between when the author is reciting an actual fact of history and when he is creating a fact.

A suggestion to John: I think you should post your above post to a thread on Paisely, don't you think?

Unless you have a little tiny scintilla of evidence connecting HG to the JFK case, why are we spending any time at all reading about this guy?

I second John's praise for Harlot's Ghost. It is a most interesting, and at times a most entertaining, read.

It contains two conversations between Rosselli and Harvey that are, IMO, side-splitting.

And it is clearly very well-rehearsed.

Jack Ruby was framed. That was really E. Howard Hunt who shot LHO, dressed in a masterful disguise created in Langley, VA by the CIA master of surprises. No doubt when Ruby was thrown into jail threats were made against his sister, brother and perhaps even his dogs if he "talked".

Why of course it is a myth that organized crime shot JFK, Charles.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Mike and Terry are absolutely correct. I have learned important things even from books with whose ultimate premise I have disagreed.

________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________

Drago's premise that anyone who disagrees with his view of the assassination is part of a "disinformation campaign" is at best pathetic and at worse pathological.

My reply in answer to the question posed is of course there could still be a conspiracy even if Oswald was the lone gunman.

He could have been hired, assisted or even encouraged by others for whatever reasons they might have.

Regarding the reason Jim Root resurrected this thread, to renew his argument that John J. McCloy was the "big fish", my response is that that argument is hogwash.

In my opinion, and with respect to Jim's argument, it is tawdry to blacken the reputation of someone merely because he or she had a policy dispute with JFK. Policy disputes regardless of the intensity thereof do not turn civilized, law-abiding men into murderers. You need more that MMO to drag someone into the JFK assassination.

Now this thread is based on the premise IF Oswald was a shooter of JFK. That "IF" is a mghty big word in this context. Based on Pat Speer's magisterial work on the paraffin tests, I believe there is reasonable doubt that LHO shot JFK. In fact, it might even be said that the weight of the evidence tends to refute that LHO shot a rifle on November 22 1963.

Note however that it cannot be EXCLUDED that LHO was part of a conspiracy even if he personally did not shoot JFK.

Charles:

I did misinterpret you, and your point is a good one.

Armstrong's theory is certainly intiguing but I agree with you that in the final analysis it fails.

To Mr. Black:

I would put references to Mr. Armstrong's theory under "Other Sightings of Oswald or an Oswald Look-Alike" but we could give it its own poition in the Outline.

Mark wrote:

To the rabid right wing, the assassination of JFK must have been a glorious moment. Here was a president who, in their collective opinion, was a collossal failure

The assassination was a glorious event to members of organized crime who were being vigorously prosecuted by JFK's brother.

With respect to celebration even by the "rabid" right wing, I am sure some occured and indeed has been documented. But it is unfair I think to brand even right-wing extremists as people who would celebrate the murder of a political opponent.

Look at it this way: many members consider the administartion of the current president as at best a "collossal failure". But I hope that in the unlikely event he should share the same fate as JFK few of you would celebrate it as a "glorious moment."

Back then, I was not an extremist but I was quite conservative. I cried that entire weekend and I know that was also true of many other supporters of Barry Goldwater. JFK was the president of all Americans even those who disagreed with his policies and his assassination was a crime directed not only at him but at our democratic system.

And Mark is wrong, the programs that have been aired about JFK have been anything but negative about him.

Mark is also wrong that the "right wing" owns the media. Left-wing bias in the main stream media is well-documented.

No doubt the answer to the question posed by this thread will be answered in Mr. Morley's upcoming book. If he was indeed murdered, we can also expect thename of the murderer. (Kidding, of course!)

But I do agree with John that we are all looking forward to Mr. Morley's book!

To bad I was working a charity event Thursday and did not see the Holland piece until last night.

I am going to try to submit this rebuttal to the NY Times but would encourage comments before I do:

The “new paradigm” for the ballistics in the Kennedy assassination argued by Max Holland in his Nov 22, 2007 Op-Ed piece (that the first shot that was fired and, he believes, missed, occurred during a gap in the Zapruder film when he was not shooting) is not only replete with problems (what happened to that missile?) it also does nothing to resolve the primary ballistics problem of the Warren Commission Report: its theory that the second shot (the bullet that is designated as CE399) hit JFK in the back, exited his throat and proceeded to inflict the several wounds suffered by Gov. Connally. (Holland’s “new paradign” still posits a “single bullet” that wounded Kennedy and Connally.) It has been discovered that three of the seven members of the WC could not accept the single bullet theory. The problems with the single bullet theory include the testimony of both Gov Connally and his wife that JFK was hit by the first shot and Connally was hit by the second shot; that the wound in JFK’s back was lower than the wound in his throat; that the wound in the throat was too small to represent the exit of an intact bullet, and that CE399 was not sufficiently deformed to have inflicted all of the damage to Governor Connally. The Warren Commission engaged a panel of four ballistics experts. What the Warren Commission did not report was that three of its own four ballistics experts refused to believe that CE399 could have inflicted all of the wounds on Gov. Connally. What Mr. Holland fails to tell readers is that the neutron activation analysis, to date the strongest evidence that CE399 was in fact the bullet that wounded both JFJ and Gov. Connally, referred to as the “linchpin” of the single bullet theory, has now been demonstrated to be based on an erroneous methodology, a fact conceded by defenders of the Warren Commission.