William O'Neil

Greg, I take it then you don't believe Osawald opened the P.O. Box 2915 either? If he did, then it appears to me that the ACLU is in 'play', and subsequent actions by Lee are expected. There are indeed surface oddities that make the record confusing, as to what gambit /charade is being conducted in Dallas (post arrest), and by whom. However , I do see Oswald as an instructed, if not willing, participant in it, at least up to that point. You may well be correct, that others beside Oswald are laying on additional evidence without his knowledge. I'm just not convinced that Oswald did not ask for Abt. -Bill

Jim and Greg, What amazes me about Wade, is how absolutely stupid and uninformed this guy seems about events happening around him , and of which, he SHOULD be informed . It makes me wonder if this was by design. (?)

"In 1969, Nichols wrote a piece for Reader's Digest in which he stated that after Nixon's nomination, he was summoned to a strategy meeting at the Mayflower Hotel. Nixon had a "special assignment" for him. It was to head up Operation Integrity which involved heading up a volunteer army of 100,000 to ensure a fair count in the election. It seems Nichols and Nixon went waaaay back..." This part of post I now know is incorrect, and highlights the dangers of relying on a single uncited article (Occupied America) The person in question was actually Louis B Nichols who had been a top FBI agent. The other reason for bringing this thread back was that I found a Third Decade article which puts forward a convincing argument that Oswald never asked for Abt John J Abt: Did Oswald Ask for Him? There is also a related thread here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3502 Greg, How timely. This is an area I'm woking on presently. I think the reason Os did not mention the ACLU to Paine , was that his primary goal was to contact Abt, somehow, someway! He probably felt that getting an ACLU attny was not something he needed outside help doing. As you say, we don't have much except the word of Fritz and Nichols on the ACLU thing, but it is consistant with his previous political aim (If you know what I mean). At some point someone decided to invove the ACLU in all of this, it's just a matter of when. Was it Os, at the time of the PO box opening, or someone later taking advantage of that fact? In all likelyhood, probably both. -Bill

FYI, Dan Campbell, who [along with brother Alan] worked with Guy Banister in the earl 60's, passed away yesterday. He had kidney failure due to cancer. Dan had many interesting things to say about Oswald and Banister in 63', some of which came out in the Garrison probe and the HSCA. -Bill

Terry , In my heart of hearts I know we may lose the battle of history, but my anger has not waned,. I suppose that's what still drives me, I WILL go down fighting........!

Terry, I don't speak for Greg , but I don't think that's what he meant . I too, think that pessimism will only discourage production in this case. I think that's the sentiment Greg was aiming for. -Bill

Hopefully the writer's strike will still be going on then.....

When I confronted Stone after the screening last summer, he insisted that the direction of the film was entirely his own, and that it wasn't tailored to fit anyone's agenda. He claimed he'd made the film and screened it as an independent, and that PBS didn't get involved until after it had been screened. I'm somewhat skeptical, but suspect he was telling the truth. This, of course, does not get PBS off the hook. Would it invest in a film that presented the evidence for a conspiracy? I think not. I wasn't impressed with Stone's film at all. It could have been done a decade ago. And the message wasn't clear - the assassination has had an incredible impact on our politics, history and society, and one of the reasons it still is affecting us is its unresolved nature. And that won't end until it is resolved to a legal and moral certainty. If an independent film maker makes a good film about the assassination and explains the conspiracies, the crimes, and how they were committed, I'm quite confident that such a film will find an outlet. The PBS is after all the Public Broadcasting Network, financed in part by the government and millionaire philantropists, many of who also shill for the CIA, so what do you expect? BK *************************************************************** Does anybody know who this guy is? I found this in my e-mail this morning. Why couldn't he just post this on the forum to begin with, seeing as it's appropriate to the discussion. No hard feelings, of course. I could care less what he thinks of my opinion. See below: From: "Paul May" < > Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book Add Mobile Alert To: tmauro@pacbell.net Subject: Oswalds Ghost Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:20:36 -0800 Ms. Mauro: Although I infrequently visit the JFK site on the Education Forum, I had the opportunity to read your critique on the film "Oswalds Ghost". For myself personally, it was an extremely balanced story. Much time was given to conspiracy theorists ranging from Jim Garrison to Mark Lane. I believe yourself and Mr. DiEugenio missed the point entirely. The purpose of the film was not to spark debate over the events of November 22nd, but how those events of that day infected or affected the population and interests of the United States. Mr. Stone is no doubt an "Oswald did it guy" but the balanced nature of the story precludes those "of your ilk" [My emphasis. TM] from screaming "disinformation" and then blaming PBS for airing the story. Quite frankly Ms. Mauro, your comments on the Education Forum were tantamount to a child throwing a tantrum over what snack he was given after school. You then take the position if PBS does not show what you believe they SHOULD show, you withdraw your support. How bizarre. Did you by chance take this same position with the motion picture studio that produced Oliver Stone's JFK? Oliver Stone essentially got three things right in that film: The victim, the date and the location. If you are indeed a seeker of the truth, you already know this. You cannot have it both ways Ms. Mauro. The truth does not require anybodys belief. PBS is surely under no obligation to broadcast opposing points of view. DiEugenio stated "so clearly, with this talking head line-up, Stone basically announces that he has no interest in divulging any new information or exloring any outstanding mysteries of this case". Absolutely true. His sole purpose was the impact of the events; not one more investigation of the events. Why is this so difficult for conspiracy theorists to grasp? Whether one chooses to believe in Oswalds guilt or in a conspiracy, when one throws their objectivity into the garbage, they throw away opportunities for growth. For you Ms. Mauro as a representative of the conspiracy side to actually say...."I hereby withdraw all future support of your station into perpetuity, unless some steps are taken by your company to present a more balanced view on the subject" is both immature and foolish. It is however what I've come to expect from the conspiracy community when faced with dwindling numbers of public support (according to a Scipps-Howard poll, summer of 2007) that now 40% of the public believes in U. S. Government involvement in the assassination itself. I suspect if the Tom Hanks production of Mr. Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" is actually made into a miniseries on HBO, that number will shrink even further. Paul L. May Funny how he states, "The truth does not require anybody's belief ", and then two paragraphs later, sites an opinion poll about such beliefs ....

When I confronted Stone after the screening last summer, he insisted that the direction of the film was entirely his own, and that it wasn't tailored to fit anyone's agenda. He claimed he'd made the film and screened it as an independent, and that PBS didn't get involved until after it had been screened. I'm somewhat skeptical, but suspect he was telling the truth. This, of course, does not get PBS off the hook. Would it invest in a film that presented the evidence for a conspiracy? I think not. I wasn't impressed with Stone's film at all. It could have been done a decade ago. And the message wasn't clear - the assassination has had an incredible impact on our politics, history and society, and one of the reasons it still is affecting us is its unresolved nature. And that won't end until it is resolved to a legal and moral certainty. If an independent film maker makes a good film about the assassination and explains the conspiracies, the crimes, and how they were committed, I'm quite confident that such a film will find an outlet. The PBS is after all the Public Broadcasting Network, financed in part by the government and millionaire philantropists, many of who also shill for the CIA, so what do you expect? BK "But it's run by listener supoprted funding, they woudn't engage in disinformation and propaganda for the Corperations " This was the response I got from a woman who was a long supporter of public broadcast networks, when I told her the show was just the recycled LN garbage that the corperate media has engaged in, for years. This is why it's even more insidious, because people like this think they can trust things like PBS, that somehow it's different from the networks...the beat goes on.

What's with PBS once again joining the ranks of LN's? Who in that outfit is pushing that kind of programing , and why? I know the management has changed over the years, but I'm not familiar with it's present lineup. Anybody? -Bill

John, Do you remember where you got that qoute source from Goff, re Oswald calling him? That is very interesting to me. Did you actually find the issue of the White Sentinal? Thanks

I think they chose to leak this , as pay back to Bush... for throwing them under the bus, for 911 etc. I think they destroyed the tapes by instruction from someone in the administration.

If he did run, I can't find any trace of it. In all my files and in several bio's on Walker, there is no mention of a 64' campaign.

Tim, Walker was not running for office in 63'. He ran an unsuccessful campaign for Gov. in 62'

Indeed, John. Lee's most damning act , was helping to facilitate the agenda of the conspirators, right up till the very end..... -Bill

I believe that the Bowers information was revisited initially in Post #30, the reason given as an example of "irrational exuberance". http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=128635 Kathy, Miles isn't going to want you exposing his childish xxxxx game playing. I guess its about time to post more on how a xxxxx operates. They set up little divergences and then come back to complain about the thread getting off-track. Oh by the way, Kathy. You were in Dallas this year. I wanted to ask you .... did you by chance get to the knoll and check the view of the tower from where the men on the steps were positioned and if so ... was the Bowers window visible from there or was Groden and Mack correct that Lee Bowers could not have seen anyone standing on the steps whether it be when the caravan entered the plaza or during the shooting??? Bill Hello Bill!!! Why, YES, I was in Dallas, attending a conference. And yes, I went to the knoll. Immediately, we had a vendor step to where we were, and began to give us his take of the events on 11/22/63 (where shooters were, etc). I was very curious about the information that I had read on the Bowers thread. He had a tabloid loaded with pictures, and realizing I was near the steps, I asked him if the tabloid contained Moorman 5, and it did. I was allowed to look at it (for $10. ), and positioned myself, facing the tower, in all 3 of the men's positions on the steps. I was not able to see it(the window). Moving to the left of the stairs gave me a good view of the tower, although it was probably a foot over, at least. I hope that answers your question. BTW, we were also able to meet Ed Hoffman, and I wanted you to know that he is feeling much better. Sincerely, Kathy Beckett I was also there at the same time Kathy was (Hey Kathy!), and will confirm that there is no line of sight from Hudson's posistion to the tower, or visa versa. I also asked Jerry Dealey about this, he said that he'd been up in that tower and you cannot see that far down on the steps, the end of the pergola is in the way. Larry Hancock also confirmed this , and the fact that Bowers would not have consisdered men on those steps suspicious in the first place, as he knew there was a parade coming by. It's a bogus issue ! I took photo's but do not know how to post them. -Bill O

Also, the white object's posistion, in relation to the dark spot ( depression) on the grass (to the left), never changes. Distortion from panning movement, may explain the changing shape of the white object. -Bill

Peter, I realize there are sharks in the water, but if you allow them to distract you, you'll never get to shore.

(Sigh) As I prepare to leave for Dallas on another research journey, I am saddened to see yet another Forum decend into sophomoric bickering. I am left with one suggestion, Focus, people !....Focus.

I knew a man ( whom I trusted) in the 1970's who was well versed in so called "Fortean" research, and Adamski. He said Adamski was a "charlatan of the highest order". Hell, One look at his UFO pic's would tell you that!

I remember him and his energetic talks , especially the one about the Postal Inspectors Office and it's activities regarding Oswald. I have a copy of it from Lancer, it's a subject that has not gotten enough attention. It seems that was George's research style , to examine those issues that others neglected or ignored. George and his style will be missed! -Bill

Larry , I agree... Is this guy important to these people for unrelated reasons, or because he has mistakenly been labled as 'Oswald' ? Do Scott and King even know what LHO really looks like at this stage?

John , Could you give me a source for your 2nd paragraph, regarding Butler employing Guy Banister in AFIP? Thanks, -Bill

The case for conspiracies As JFK proves, the theories are usually much more interesting than the truth. By Meghan Daum Los Angeles Times August 4, 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...inion-rightrail Since the May release of his 1,612-page book, "Reclaiming History," criminal prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi has been appearing on everything from C-Span to "The Colbert Report" telling the world that JFK's death had nothing to do with a government conspiracy. By most accounts, he's made a pretty airtight case. Bugliosi, famous for prosecuting Charles Manson and for coauthoring the book about the case, "Helter Skelter," has spent 20 years examining just about every theory ever put forth about the assassination. "It's my view that it's impossible for any reasonable, rational person to read this book without being satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone," Bugliosi told the New York Times in May. Since then, overwhelmingly favorable reviews have suggested that the days of the grassy knoll-Mafia-missing bullets conspiracy theories might at last be over. Despite the sense that Bugliosi's is the final word, for some people the simple explanation remains less compelling than the labyrinthine alternatives. It was notable that Tuesday, the print edition of the New York Times published a two-page ad, an "open letter" from one Paul Kuntzler, declaring that "President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was murdered by vice president London [sic] Baines Johnson in a widespread, incredibly complex and brilliantly planned conspiracy. . . ." The letter went on to implicate Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Arlen Specter, the United States military, the Ford Motor Co., Life magazine and something Kuntzler called "big Oil of Midland, Texas," among many others. Who is Kuntzler? Since he included his telephone number at the bottom of his letter, I called him to find out. As you might imagine, I learned more than can possibly fit in this space, but the basics are these: He's 65, a former exhibits and sales director of the National Science Teachers Assn. and once a prominent D.C.-based gay activist. He first became interested in the JFK assassination in 1991 after reading Jim Marrs' book, "Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy" (this was also, incidentally, the year of Oliver Stone's film "JFK," which Kuntzler calls "98% accurate"). In 2004, Kuntzler's longtime partner, Stephen Miller, died of complications from AIDS and left him Miller Reporting Co., which had transcribed documents that Kuntzler believes are relevant to the assassination. Following the company's demise (Kuntzler referred to "millions in estate taxes"), he sold the building that housed it, using the money to pay off his credit card debts (including $25,000 he spent organizing an assassination panel discussion last year) and spent $186,000 on the New York Times ad. Altogether, Kuntzler estimates he's spent a quarter of a million dollars on what he calls "the last opportunity for the American public to have confirmation on what happened on Nov. 22, 1963." "I don't have much money left," he added. "I expect that once the truth comes out, I'll go on a speaking tour. If not, I'll have to take out another mortgage on my house." After I talked to Kuntzler, I called Bugliosi, who listed for me many of the same points he made on C-SPAN and "The Colbert Report," including his belief that the Stone film is "one continuous lie, [other than] he did have the correct date and the correct victim." "I didn't read [Kuntzler's letter] carefully," Bugliosi told me. "But I went through it enough to see that he was regurgitating all the old hoary theories that even those in the mainstream community have rejected. He's not even reading mainstream conspiracy dogma." We then spent some time talking about why, despite the conventional wisdom that the simplest explanation is usually the best explanation, the human mind seems so naturally drawn to the complexities and innuendoes of conspiracy theories. Bugliosi admitted that they are usually more interesting than the truth. In the case of President Kennedy, he said, they point to a kind of collective inability to accept that such a monumental, historical event could be caused by a single, ordinary person. "It gives more meaning to his life and death," Bugliosi said, "to believe dark forces are responsible for his death. Jackie herself said we don't even have the satisfaction of him being killed for a cause." That makes sense. But speaking of simple explanations, what about the fact that every once in a while a conspiracy theory comes along that has some truth to it? Take, for example, this particular moment in this particular nation. You don't have to believe in fake moon landings or even stolen elections to sense that we're experiencing one of the most secretive periods in recent political history. When it comes to the current state of things, smelling a rat isn't necessarily contingent on living in your mother's basement and wearing T-shirts that say things like "Inside Job!" It's simply a matter of paying attention. Then again, there's such a thing as paying too much attention. "If you're a parent and your child gets interested in the JFK case, it's toxic," Bugliosi told me. "It's caused divorces, bankruptcies and suicides." "My mother and my sisters received copies of the ad via FedEx," Kuntzler told me. "They knew how much I was spending. Well, actually, I haven't told my mother yet." mdaum@latimescolumnists.com Once again, people like Kuntzler who run around half-cocked, do more harm than good. The "government" would be proud. Fools and their money......