Stephen Roy

Some really closed-minds out here. And condescending, too.

Of course WE know the answer. Simple: a conspiracy murdered JFK on the streets of Dallas, Texas., 22 Nov 1963, that's it! All the nonsense is about destroying LHO, guilty of murder or not--by association or NOT! Preserve the conclusion of the 1964 Warren Commission Report Seeya 'round kiddo! You'se guys have worn this undecided, LHO *did it all by his lonesome* oldtimer out! Very hard to follow, Dave: Why do LNs obsess about JVB? I don't know. You may be right that they see it as a way of discouraging conspiracy thought. Capisce??

Douglas, a very important question: If a new witness emerged, and their accounts were determined by specialists and experts in the field to be unreliable, possibly false information, WHAT SHOULD RESPONSIBLE RESEARCHERS DO? Just let it happen? Take the (foolish) "evidence equivalency" path, that all evidence is equal?? Let the unreliable evidence FOREVER mix in with the reliable evidence? Accept any and all evidence as equal, even if it might be disinfo, designed to lead us off the trail. Certainly an experienced attorney is not advocating these things. WHAT SHOULD WE DO??? If that's the way you really feel, Douglas, then I politely, publicly, unequivocally disagree with you.

If, by the "why," you mean: "True lone nutters just can't seem to leave her and her tales of woe alone, why?", I don't know the answer. David, you ARE trying to make it partisan, saying it is ONLY the LNs, whom you hate, who are behind this. But not so, and if you care for truth and some degree of consensus in the research community, you'll drop the partisanship. Let's work together, not against each other. The source of the rumor that DiEugenio is writing a JVB article is...DiEugenio himself, in a DPForum post.

I think the main things that concern many parties - LN and CT alike - are that her claims are mixing into the good evidence stream, and some newbies are citing them as established facts; and that she seems to be trying to legitimize herself by holding conferences. You've long been a very partisan guy, and I see you trying to make it an "LN thing," but the current wave of concern over her story has lots of CTs. The most recent was Greg Parker; there are rumors of an impending article by Jim DiEugenio; and there are lots of other CTs who mistrust her stories (Lifton, Conway, Junkkarinen, etc).

I may be contradicting other writers, but I'm dealing in the raw evidence. Gerry Hemming said many things in his life, some of which were very controversial. I can find no HSCA volume 13; my set only goes up to 12. Hemming was involved in looking for a training site in the area in 1962, but he had nothing to do with the small camp in summer 1963. As I said, Banister's limited activity gets glommed in with other info, and it gets "Linked" to things it is unconnected with. Banister was not involved in arms or a Ponchartrain camp in 1963. This creates doubt in my mind about Lewis, along with other things. Let me simplify this again: I have good experience at researching the New Orleans angles, and my judgement is that Ron Lewis's story is probably not true.

There's an example right there: Banister was only known to have stored weapons in his office one time, and it wasn't when Oswald was in New Orleans, it was two years earlier. And Lewis didn't haul any of those weapons.Now, you'll ask if I can be certain that Banister didn't have weapons one other time, something he kept secret from others. No, I can't be certain, but I don't think so. Fair enough, Stephen, I'd like to explore this further. You're almost certainly speaking about the 'Schlumberger' weapons robberies in 1961. In that specific case, we have official reports that some of those weapons were stored in Banister's office-storeroom early in 1961. This was even before the Bay of Pigs. The implication from Ron Lewis is that even in 1963 this was going on. You question that, as you find no documentation on it. I respect that position. It might turn out, once again, that Ron Lewis was exaggerating in this particular case. He has been known to exaggerate in the past. However, we can't conclude on the basis of a LACK of evidence -- we can only doubt. In other words, here's the scenario. Perhaps we can agree that Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall and Larry Howard were interacting with Guy Banister and David Ferrie in the Lake Pontcharttrain Paramilitary Training Camp outside New Orleans. Where did they get their training weapons? Loran Hall's history tells us -- he was a courier for John Birch Society supplies from wealthy donors in Southern California. He and Larry Howard would run guns and drugs from Southern California to Dallas, New Orleans and Florida -- and Gerry Patrick Hemming was one of their beneficiaries. So was the Lake Pontchartrain camp. Now -- if Guy Banister's office (and David Ferrie's apartment) had been used as storage for contraband weapons in 1961 -- what is there to prevent them from using those same sites in 1963? Loran Hall admitted to making these gun runs. That's aside from Harry Dean's confessions about those same gun runs. Also, Loran Hall was "busted" in Dallas with some of these supplies at one point -- so there are police records of his payload. THIS WAS IN 1963. It's not impossible. I need to see more data myself. Regards, --Paul Trejo 1) We don't have official reports about there being weapons in Banister's office in early 1961, before the Bay of Pigs - that's just the theories of writers. The actual Houma police report is in August 1961. 2) I have never seen any specific info that Hemming, Hall and Howard were working with Banister and Ferrie at any time, ever. 3) Banister and Ferrie were not associated with the 1963 "Lake Ponchartrain training camp," which was in fact one small training cabin and a nearby but separate trailer of arms. Hemming, Hall and Howard were not associated with the 1963 camp, either. 4) Nothing prevented Banister's office and Ferrie's apartment for being used for arms storage in 1963, but they simply weren't used that way in 1963. (I don't want to post too much of this here.) The Houma weapons were picked up in August 1961, seen by several people in Banister's office and driven to Miami within about a month by Carlos Quiroga. It is easy to misread books written by authors who, themselves, have misread the source material, but it is better to read the source material, rather than glom together unrelated things.

This is one of those cases where, due to my inability to simply state what I've found, I am faced with publishing a detailed piece of research here, rather than in my book. First, Banister's active period in anti-Castro affairs was shorter than people realize. His activities dropped off significantly when two of his associates stopped working with the movement. All of the sightings of arms in Banister's office refer to the same event, the Houma heist in August 1961. I can't find any evidence of any other arms activity (outside of a conversation Banister had with some anti-Castro Cubans, but that conversation also occurred in the same period. See also my response to Paul T.

There's an example right there: Banister was only known to have stored weapons in his office one time, and it wasn't when Oswald was in New Orleans, it was two years earlier. And Lewis didn't haul any of those weapons. Now, you'll ask if I can be certain that Banister didn't have weapons one other time, something he kept secret from others. No, I can't be certain, but I don't think so.

I've mentioned this before to Paul Trejo, but to no avail, so I'll just say it to any readers: To the extent that his theories are based on "Flashback" by Ron Lewis, it is likely that Lewis's claims of knowing Oswald etc. are untrue. I have researched the New Orleans case for years and I've looked specifically into this, and this is my professional opinion.

Another thing to consider in evaluating Baker's account(s): Some caught-on early to her tendency to sanitize her account. That is, when she is caught in a seeming falsehood, contradiction, problem, she is strikingly resourceful at "spinning" her way out of trouble with a torrent of nonlinear prose, effectively changing her story. She has done this again and again. (I disagree with those who see her as very intelligent: Crafty, yes. Smart, no. She has made poor judgments again and again. One decision in particular.)

Separating out all of the fascinating but irrelevant biographical stuff, what remains is: A good chunk of it is borrowed liberally from existing sources: internet, books, articles, etc. (sometimes with attribution, sometimes not). Some of this material is, itself, questionable, such as Haslam's unproven theories. A few things are new but completely unproven and unprovable. Elusive fact or outright invention? Was Oswald consulted by the Secret Service on the motorcade route?? The rest is Baker taking situations where our knowledge is limited, and filling in the blanks. We don't have a definitive answer on 544 Camp St, but Baker does. We don't have a definitive answer on Clinton/Jackson, but Baker does. Did Oswald know Ruby, Shaw, etc.?? Baker knows. And let's not even talk about her frantic attempts to make herself seem more genuine, by claiming people are doing dastardly things to her. Her writings are not reliable history.

No.

She claims she was advised by Sixty Minutes folks never to take one. While they are not definitive, a polygraph test could certainly go a long way toward confirming or denying her story. I would pay for a polygraph myself. Her flat refusal to take one is troubling, but I think I know why she is afraid of it.

What if it's untrue? Should false information (unsupported by the presented evidence or regarded as specious by a majority of recognized experts in the field) be seen as equal to the documented information of scholars in the field?

First off, there WAS a bombing, and the victims and the area were covered with hardware and metal. Your argument seems to be your opinion that it was a "lousy" method to choose. Somebody built two devices filled with hardware and exploded them at the Marathon. Coincidentally, right about the spot where videos show the Tsarnaevs carrying backpacks, then not carrying backpacks. What a coincidence. The same Tsarnaevs who subsequently had a shootout with the police. Coincidences abound.

Robert, I was there. I saw Bauman with his legs blown apart and I've spoken with him several times. Your speculation about the way people always must react in situations is wrong. There is much more variance and nuance than you know.

Again: I was there. The injuries I saw were real.

Bob: I was there. His name is Jeff Bauman. There was nothing fishy about his wounds or about the bombing. It was a horrible day. You really need to be more careful about your perceptions of events and more measured in your judgments of other people.

Here's a hypothetical: A man who coincidentally worked at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall at the same time as Oswald reads Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" and becomes convinced that Oswald killed JFK alone, and that he was a genuine leftist. To strengthen his argument, he begins claiming that he knew Oswald personally and that Oswald and he engaged in numerous activities with left-wing organizations. He claims to know from his own knowledge that Oswald was a secret CP member and that he was in touch with agents of Soviet and Cuban intelligence. A number of well-regarded researchers find significant problems with his story: He appears nowhere in the record and no witness ever knew him. All of the evidence he presents to support his story is either irrelevant or things that can be faked but not disproven. There are dozens of near-conclusive and lesser contradictions, but no single unequivocal impeachment. Some of these problems illustrate how the man is picking up hints from researchers like us on the internet, from books and films, and recycling them as if from his own knowledge. Worse, the man manages to make any legitimate criticisms of his story seem like a KGB plot to silence him. Despite this rejection by the critical community, the man persists, publishes three books, goes on book tours, recruits newbies from social media sites, and ultimately begins organizing conferences on his own featuring marginal presenters. His untrue claims start leaking into the verified evidence stream and come up most often in Internet searches. How would/could/should the critical community deal with such a case? Let it go unchallenged as freedom of speech, a false equivalency with genuine evidence, forever confusing scholars of the future? Or to try to find some way to contest it or blunt its impact?

I'm not going to debate particulars. Re-read the posts. I'm rejecting that kind of thinking. The forum rules make it hard to be specific. To answer your questions: false flag attacks occur, but not often. I think it's reasonable to question such a thing if the evidence substantially warrants it, unreasonable if it does not. Most of it was wrong. Hyper-suspiciousness, mistrust of other people, implied motivations, rude descriptions. As I get older, my patience wears thinner. I said what I feel. Let's leave it at that.

I support the right of all forum users to express their opinions, as I have a right to express mine. And in keeping with the forum policy to criticize the ideas, not the person: I strongly and profoundly disagree with almost everything expressed thus far. I don't think this is a rational way to look at the world, a completely unrealistic fear and hatred, expressed with some truly offensive and incendiary descriptors. Completely wrong.

The sensible thing to do is to determine if the terror act is genuine, if it is part of a pattern, and develop partnerships and plans to punish those responsible, and to find ways to make sure it does not happen again. The non-sensible thing to do is to overanalyze and blame parties who don't deserve the blame.

Yes, I guess I am. I come from the old school of researchers** - that we should go only as far as the evidence allows, that countertheories require the same scrutiny we give the WC theories. But I am beginning to think that I am out of step with the newer generation of researchers. There is something that troubles me about Dr. Kurtz, and I'm almost afraid to say it: It is one thing for Joe Average to challenge the WC, but it is a different thing altogether for a professional historian to challenge the WC. I get the impression that Kurtz enjoys that role a little too much and that he feigns academic impartiality while being eager to place the imprimatur of "professional historian" on his interpretations of events. But I also think that even professional historians can have biases, be wrong, and make bad decisions. ** What is a researcher? I don't think a person who reads a lot of books and constructs theories is really a researcher. At the minimum, a researcher is one who has a grasp of the actual primary evidence (much of which is is now online at the MFF and other places) or better, one who conducts new interviews and finds new documentary evidence. I chuckle when a person reads, say, 15 books and thinks they're a researcher.

Kurtz must be aware of all the doubts among the research community. I wonder why he doesn't address the issues.