Don Jeffries

This has been a very interesting thread. I read Best Evidence shortly after it was released. I found it be one of the most provocative books on the assassination ever written. David Lifton made me look at the medical evidence in a different light. However, I had trouble, and still have trouble, understanding why conspirators would literally alter JFK's wounds when it would be so much easier to simply enlist all the necessary parties (Humes, Boswell, Finck, etc.) in the coverup. In fact, I strongly believe that those running and performing the autopsy were willfully dishonest, and Mr. Lifton's theory tends to convert them into innocent dupes.

I compare David Lifton's research to John Armstrong's; both men undeniably unearthed crucial and valuable information, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we have to accept the theories they constructed from all that data. I also think this is analogous to the work of Jack White, Jim Fetzer and other film alterationists. We can question any of Lifton's body alteration thesis, or any of John Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" thesis, or any of Jack White's and Jim Fetzer's film alteration studies, but I don't think anyone has the right to question their sincerity or deny that they've raised valid points and produced some invaluable research.

To those who may not know, Kerry Thornley in later life because a rather bizarre inspiration to sci-fi writers Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson, who utilized his nearly incomprehensible, wildly eccentric philosophy of "discordianism" to fuel their classic trilogy Illuminatus. I wouldn't suggest that Thornley was a conspirator by any means, but anyone who was writing a book about Lee Harvey Oswald BEFORE the JFK assassination has to arouse the interest of assassination researchers. Then there is the fact that his WC testimony was much more extensive than that of Oswald's other Marine Corps. peers, and conflicted with most of their recollections. Finally, Thornley himself came to believe he'd been a part of the MK-ULTRA program.

Sounding again like a broken record, let me bemoan the continuous state of feuding that seems to exist between good and honest people who've devoted so much time and effort to exposing the truth about this subject. I like the way Cliff Varnell wrote, earlier in this thread, about any perceived differences he had with Jim Fetzer. If only others could have the same attitude. The 50th anniversary of the assassination is fast approaching, and we need to stop the internal bickering and ego posturing and concentrate on the big picture.

Len,

Not suggesting that there are two different people being represented as Loughner, but your assertion that the court drawing shows the same head that the mug shot does just a day or two before is way off base. There is unquestionably a full head of short hair on the guy in the drawing, while the mug shot shows a shaved head (and eyebrows). Whatever that means, it is very odd and doesn't make sense to me. No one's hair grows THAT fast. And I don't think any courtroom artist would keep his job very long if he mistook a shaved head for the one he drew.

Loughner may well be just an incredibly disturbed young man, but if so then his numerous online rants and ravings are being very selectively utilized by the mainstream media (and politicians) to paint him as a political "extremist" and lover of conspiracies. At the same time, there is tne underlying inference that the Republicans, or Sarah Palin in particular, are somehow responsible for his lunacy. This is ridiculous; as I pointed out, he had severe gender identification issues, was an outspoken atheist and had an occult alter in his back yard. Wonder why none of those "journalists" are blaming any of THAT for his alleged actions? Somehow, I can't see this guy fitting into any part of the Republican party.

You are right- I am unquestionably predisposed to doubt almost all "official" stories, and with good reason. You, on the other hand, are just as unquestionably predisposed to defend them. It comes down to the simple reality that I don't trust the kinds of establishment sources you find credible. What concerns me most here is that this tragedy, already being exploited by nearly everyone in public life, will result in more onerous leglislation like the Patriot Act being passed. We have already lost far too many of our liberties.

Okay, have now started independently looking at news reports and internet postings about this tragedy. I'm starting to have a lot of questions about this....

There is the 911 recording, on which the person describes the shooter as running "north" from the scene. Seems hard to make a mistake like that- as it's been widely reported that Jared Loughner was tackled at the scene of the crime by 2-3 people. Then there is that disquieting photo of a bald Loughner, including no eyebrows (shades of David Ferrie). If you've seen the artist's renderings of Loughner in court, you know that he is depicted with a full head of short hair. I think it's been established that the monstrous bald photo was taken BEFORE Loughner's appearance in court.

So...he was bald and then grew a full head of hair the next day in court?

Lots of strange aspects to this story.

Again, the response to this tragedy is as predictable as it is disturbing. Loughner was a strident atheist. He was also an avowed homosexual, who hoped one day to become a woman. Finally, he had an occult alter in his back yard, complete with a human skull. So, did perhaps those beliefs cause him to open fire on a crowd of people?

Loughner mentioned various conspiracies, the fed, Alex Jones, etc. in some of his endless, often incomprehensible diatribes. In no way, shape or form can he be connected to Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, or "the right" in general. Yet the estabishment persists in painting him this way. Why? To ban guns? To ban "hatred," or at least their definition of that? To cut down on the "ugly political rhetoric" they keep bemoaning?

The mainstream media and politicians from both parties are exploiting this tragedy, and especically the little girl who lost her life in it, for their own partisan purposes. The message we are getting constantly from all these sources is: the "hate" and "ugly discourse" must stop, or be curtailed. While very few of our elected representatives have ever had any affection for our Bill of Rights, in this case they are using human tragedy to try and cut back on our dwindling civil liberties, much as they did after the Oklahoma City bombing and 9/11.

Loughner should be studied intently, but I suspect he will be summarily convicted and executed, much like McVeigh was. Whatever happens, we cannot continue to permit our odious leaders to use every horrific public tragedy to enact leglislation that diminishes our freedom.

Thanks, Mike, for sharing that.

This Blaine is a real piece of work. So the agents saw "all three bullets hit their mark?" So they never took their eyes off the limousine? So it is acknowledged that they were only 12 feet from the limo at the time of the shots? Did this disgraceful man even do any basic research about the assassination? Like Gov. Connally, he appears oblivious to the fact that the "three bullets hit their mark" assertion, and the dismissal of the SBT, alone repudiates the lone assassin thesis he is so beligerantly defending.

WHY is anyone defending trained professionals, who never moved a muscle towards the man they were sworn to protect, during the app. six seconds from first shot to last? Blaine is admitting they were only 12 feet from the limo; does anyone honestly think that none of these agents could traversed that distance before the head shot? Without realizing it, Blaine is condemning these agents for, at best, utter dereliction of duty. If they never took their eyes off the limo, and were only 12 feet away, they directly allowed the head shot to end the life of John F. Kennedy.

It's a real shame that the attention we've paid to this worthless book has helped it sell so well.

Sorry to make Craig fall off his chair again, but the mainstream media (with the exception of Fox News, which has a different agenda) invariably react in the same simplistic way to these terrible tragedies. The mantra is: "how could HE have obtained a gun so easily?" As I understand it, Loughner had a clean record, and passed a background check. Yes, now there are kids coming out of the woodwork who reported he was "weird," "strange," etc., but it's kind of hard to legislate against eccentricity. He wasn't kicked out of college for any specific act, so that wouldn't have been on his "record" anyway.

The media and public reaction to the shootings in Arizona interest me more than the crime itself. On the surface, Rep. Giffords was a middle of the roader, who was not controversial in the least. I don't see a good reason for a conspiracy here, but as always there are lingering questions. For instance, the older guy seen with Loughner; once questions were raised about him, the authorities claimed he'd been investigated and was the taxi driver who brought Loughner to the scene of the crime. When it was then pointed out, by intrepid souls on the internet, that taxi drivers don't normally remain with their fare after they've reached their destination, they quickly amended that to say that he was there to get change for a 20 dollar bill. The same inquisitive voices on the net followed up with- don't cabbies always carry plenty of change with them? No reply yet to that one from the authorities.

Loughner was not referred to as a stereotypical "three namer" right away, but now all mainstream media reports refer to him as Jared Lee Loughner. How many people have you ever known who go by all three names? This goes back a long way- I recall reading about Richard Hauptman protesting in vain over the constant references to him as "Bruno Richard Hauptman," when he'd never gone by his first name in his life. What is it about this three name thing- do they think it makes the suspect sound more like a lone nut?

Loughner's eccentric ideology and/or untreated psychotic nature don't appear to fit into any conventional "left" or "right" categories. He was also apparently strident about his homosexuality and his atheism. However, I don't expect anyone to try and connect that with his violent act. Instead, it will be his supposed interest in "conspiracy theories" and any other kind of anti-government ranting they can find that will make the headlines. However you look at it, these kinds of tragedies continue to be milked for whatever political value they have, by the mainstream media and politicians from both major parties.

This is a horrible tragedy, but it is being portrayed by the mainstream media as all such tragedies inevitably are. I have never shot a gun in my life, and have no desire to own one. However, I recognize that the second amendment is important, and that citizens should have the right to arm themselves. I believe Jerry Brown once described this issue best, when he said he supported individuals having the right to bear arms "as long as the government and police can." There are a myriad of gun contol laws on the books everywhere, but the old argument about criminals not obeying laws, and thus being able to get guns easily, is a really good one, imho.

Already, the press is focusing on various hot button labels when describing this very predictable "lone nut." I have heard several references to his affinity for "conspiracy theories." He supposedly doesn't believe we went to the moon (or the space shuttle, either, evidently). Well, what would one expect an upstanding "lone nut" to stand for, anyhow? It's kind of amazing that no boring conventional liberal Democrat, or conservative Republican, is ever driven by their mental illness to open fire on politicians or anyone else, isn't it? I mean, surely mental illness is not the express province of political "extremists," is it? How come none of Oprah's obsessed fans, or maybe one of Madonna's ex-aides, driven to madness by her bitchiness, ever goes crazy with a gun?

I have heard the ominous, between the lines warnings, in each report on this story, that "something must be done" about those like this "lone nut." Not about his act of violence, per se, but about those "extremist" beliefs that must have set him off. My own family member recited to me, like any good member of the sheeple should, the scary fact that THIS guy had access to youtube, and "was allowed" to post his rantings there. The message is- we need to control that youtube, and the internet at large, so that these things don't happen in the future.

My sympathy goes out to the families of the victims, and I hope that Rep. Giffords makes a complete recovery. However, I do think we all need to be just a bit more skeptical about the way these events are manipulated, reported and "interpreted" by the lame, wildly overpaid establishment reporters.

Tony,

Vince's work represents some of the most important research, imho, done by any assassination researcher over the past 20 years. The prevalance of unprovable allegations that someone is a "plant," recklessly lobbed by CTers against each other, are one of many reasons why the critical community continues to be beset by such strife and discord. I was as upset as anyone about Vince's sudden LN conversion via Bugliosi, but thankfully he's back in our camp.

Pat,

Blaine and Hill are hardly unique, in supporting the official story while dismissing the SBT. To cite perhaps the most obvious example, look at Connally- he was fervent in maintaining he'd been hit with a seperate bullet. That's the problem with many of these people- they are so adamantly opposed to those dreaded "conspiracy theories" that they simply don't care to examine the actual evidence.

As for Rybka- I don't think that the guy in the film has been proven to be Lawton, by any means. It's certainly a convenient "identification," isn't it? At this point, I would lend little credence to anything Lawton, or any other member of JFK's detail, has to say about the assassination. The problem here is Henry Rybka; so little is known about him, and trying to identify the guy in the video from the few available pics of him or Lawton is pretty difficult, imho. It would be great if someone from Rybka's family had come forward to shed light on this subject, but Vince was unable to contact them, although he said that Debra Conway told him she had contacted them, but he couldn't get her to elaborate on that.

If the figure in the video is indeed Lawton, why hasn't he come forward until now? Like the dubious Steven Witt, who belatedly claimed to the Umbrella Man, this guy had to have known how popular this video has been for several years. Whether he was the figure or not, he had to have been aware of this for quite some time, but curiously, like Witt, never issued any kind of public statement.

I share RCD's concerns about this kind of dirty laundry being aired out on the forum. I think I'll stop bemoaning the constant strife between warring individuals and cliques in the research community. It must be obvious, at this point, that such disputes may very well be more important than the JFK assassination itself, at least to those who continue to delight in engaging in dramatic words of war.

I am personally disallusioned by all this infighting. As I've noted before, I usually agree with most of those who feel compelled to keep arguing with each other. In this latest bit of theatrics, the players are all people whose views are normally in accord with my own. Myra Bronstein, for instance, was one of my very favorite posters here. I also admired Charles Drago's no-holds-barred posts, even while bemoaning his often bombastic style. I could never find anything bad to say about Dawn Meredith.

Let's pretend that all the best and brightest CTers could ever come together at one place- let's call it a convention, for lack of a better word. They've been granted the right (I know, this is impossibly naive, but please play along) to name their own blue ribbon investigative commission, to finally discern the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. So...who would be on that commission? How would the CTers ever agree on even one member, let alone several? Is there one critic who someone would not passionately object to? This is the present state of the critical community; beset with an increasing number of those I call "neo-cons," or people who have grown to dismiss many of the strongest tenets of conspiratorial platform, and plagued by personal feuds between the most knowledgable CTers.

With all these beligerant debates, often involving personal matters and frequently between people who haven't ever met each other personally, it has become increasingly easy for suave LNers to cruise into forums like this and use the discord between CTers to their advantage. I wouldn't strongly object to these DPF threads being closed, and the subject becoming verboten here, but I admire John Simkin for allowing a free exchange, unfettered by the kinds of excessive control exercised on many other forums.

Steve,

Sorry for the delayed response. Basically, I don't think that the murders of poor prostitutes in the East End of London would have been covered up, unless there were some powerful forces behind them. Of course, I can't prove the royals were involved, any more than anyone else can prove their pet theory at this point, but I do believe Knight's hypothesis was compelling.

What really is telling, in my view, is the knee jerk negative reaction, from all the best respected "ripperologists," to any talk of Prince Eddy, the Freemasons, or even Eddy's tutor, being involved. I will acknowledge that it is impossible to prove royal involvement, but the evidence tying Eddy to the crimes, or some sort of "From Hell"/Stephen Knight Freemason-tinged theory, is no more lacking, imho, than the evidence implicating Kosminski, Montague Druitt or any anonymous Polish Jew.

As I noted, at this stage Jack The Ripper must remain a tantalyzing, but probably forever unidentified figure.

I agree with Steve about Patricia Cornwell- what a mess of a book, imho. Her convoluted effort to blame the Ripper slayings on Walter Sickert was all pop-psychobabble, without any real evidence at all, imho. And worst of all, she never even credited the much maligned Stephen Knight for introducing Sickert into the drama in the first place, some 35 years ago.

Did any of you catch the special on the Science Channel last week- "Jack The Ripper: New Evidence?" In my view, this new "theory" is even less credible than Cornwell's. I think the guy was the same one Steve referred to- Trow. Anyhow, he was hell bent on making some heretofore unknown mortuary assistant, Robert Mann, into JTR. His "evidence" for this was the startling fact Mann lived in the general area where the murders too place, and because he was a familiar face, would have "blended into the crowd" without causing suspicion! Yeah, so would thousands of other people. Of course, he also made much of the fact that 2 or 3 (can't remember exact number) of the Ripper victims were brought to his mortuary. Wonder wny none of the coroners from the mortuaries where the victims were taken were considered suspect by this brilliant detective?

As some of you may know, my own conspiratorial mindset led me early on to believe that Knight was generally on the right track. I think there was some kind of Royal connection to the JTR killings. I understand it's a theory that has holes in it, and can't be proven at this juncture. However, what irks me is the fact that nearly every self proclaimed "Ripperologist" instantly derides any notion that the Royals could have been involved, but then trots out theories of their own, which are at least as ridiculous and also cannot be proven, as if they have great validity.

At this point, I think Jack The Ripper must remain a tantalizing mystery that will never be solved. And, to tell the truth, many of us would be disappointed if we ever did get a definitive solution.

The problem with Waldron's thesis, and really all the theories that proclaim "Cuba" to be the overriding reason why JFK was assassinated, is that it is totally contradicted by what happened afterwards. If we surmise that JFK was killed because he was "soft" on Castro, or even if we accept the flawed (imho) view that he knew of the plots to kill Castro, but was insufficiently hard line about it, then presumably those who decided to assassinate him expected our Cuban policy to change significantly as a result.

The reality is, Cuba (and Castro) practically vanished, as an American political issue, after Kennedy was killed. Why didn't LBJ, or Nixon, plan a second Bay of Pigs-type operation in the years that followed? Instead, the Cuban leader's power grew, and the same livid anti-Castro forces that despised Kennedy for his attempts at rapprochement apparently felt no hostitily at all towards LBJ or Nixon, for what should have been seen as a complete failure to accomplishment the supposed "mission" behind the assassination of JFK. If anti-Castroites were responsible for planning the murder of JFK, they had to have been mightily disappointed at American foreign policy in the years that followed. Any way you look at it, if "Cuba" was the driving force behind the assassination, then those who planned and executed it had to have considered the whole thing to ultimately be a failure.

I have always thought that "Cuba" was a smokescreen for researchers to waste their time on, much as the "mafia-did-it" theories are. Instead, I think we should look at the Secret Service, LBJ, Hoover and other powerful figures in America at that time, the CIA, the entire military-industrial complex and the way our Viet Nam policy obviously, dramatically changed after the assassination (in contrast to how our Cuban policy didn't). At least that's my take on it.

I agree with Ray here; part of LBJ's perpetual politicking style was to cover all his bases, all the time. If you've listened to many of his previously released audio tapes from the Oval Office, you will notice how transparently phony LBJ is, especially in his conversations with RFK or Jackie or those closest to them. I can't imagine anyone actually falling for him wildly exaggerated, insincere "charm." In all the conversations, one thing is blatantly obvious; at all times, LBJ was cognizant of being recorded, and conducted himself accordingly.

At any rate, I can certainly imagine him waiting to see which way the winds were blowing, in the immediate aftermath of the murder of Oswald. I do not believe he was the mastermind, or even one of the primary movers and shakers, behind the assassination of JFK. However, I also find it extremely unlikely that he wasn't briefed about what was going to happen beforehand. I think the record shows that LBJ had few admirable qualities, so it is difficult to imagine him summoning up any moral fiber and uttering a peep of protest in any case.

With all due respect, I also must disagree with Jim on the question of Hoover. As the architect of the coverup, I picture JEH as one of the most significant figures in the conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Of course, we can't prove that, much as we can't prove that any individual was involved with absolute certainty, but I think it's reasonable speculation that Hoover would have been in on things from the very beginning. With the way he felt about the Kennedys, like LBJ, there was certainly no chance that he would offer any discouraging words.

I DVR'd the show and didn't get to watch it until last night. I echo the comments of most here; the importance of having this kind of information broadcast on a television network seen my millions overshadows any of the minor criticisms I had with it (and they are pretty much the same ones others have detailed here).

I understand the view that Jesse Ventura's sensationalist, tabloid style is often easier to debate than the scholarly work of a John Newman, for instance. This holds true, to an even greater extent, for the much maligned Alex Jones. However, as I've stated before, it may take just this kind of "carnival barking" to capture the attention of the vast numbers of disinterested (and largely apolitical) Americans. Young people are far more apt to be attracted to a Jesse Vantura, or an Alex Jones, than an anonymous researcher whose work, without question, would certainly be far less susceptible to the barbs of LNers and mainstream journalists.

This program, and really all the episodes of "Conspiracy Theory." represent a tremendous breakthrough, in my view. It's really the first time that conspiracy-oriented thinking has been the basis of a network television series. There have been fictionalized programs, like "The X-Files," but Jesse's show is far more significant, because here we have real people and real events being dissected, not by the Dan Rathers and Walter Cronkites, but by those who actually believe conspiracies are a very real aspect of our world.

This show's importance cannot be overstated.

Ray,

Are you starting to understand why so many of us here find your views baffling? When David Von Pein is under the impression you are a LNer, you really ought to reconsider how your thoughts are being expressed.

Bill,

As always, I truly appreciate you posting this kind of stuff. The "mock death" of JFK movie has always intrigued me. Has anyone ever seen this alleged film? To be honest, I find it very hard to believe that the Kennedys would think about doing such a thing. Kind of like it's always been hard for me to accept that those who are about to be assassinated just happen to mention the possibility of this, right before it actually happens. JFK was no exception here, supposedly talking about how easy it would be to shoot him, mentioning a high rise building, etc.

Well, I guess if this is indeed true, it still wouldn't be as incomprehensibly ironic as Lee Harvey Oswald's only known appearance in a personal home video occuring on November 22, 1962. Just imagine the odds there....

Again, maybe I missed something, but has anyone ever seen this "mock death" of JFK film?

There have been a slew of glowing, five star reviews of Blaine's book on Amazon, in the wake of Vince Palamara's damning indictment. As a result, they are offsetting the negative reviews some of us have added. Ironically, all the attention that Vince and other critics have directed towards this ultimately pretty unimportant book has propelled it upwards on Amazon's ratings list.

It's sad to think we've contributed to more of these books being sold.

Thanks for this, Bill. I think Blaine's book is making critics like myself start to despise some of these Secret Service agents. The only reason Hill hasn't had to "talk about that day" for so long is because our government never conducted a real investigation into the crime. A real investigation would have made Hill and his fellow agents "talk" quite a bit about their extremely suspicious, total lack of response when shots were fired.

Like others before him (John Connally comes immediately to mind), Hill either doesn't care that his personal testimony contradicts the official version of events he is so beligerantly defending, or simply has never bothered to study the details of what must surely have been one of the seminal events in his life. Not only does he continue to describe that gaping hole in the back of JFK's head, he also clearly states that the wound in the back was six inches down, exactly where the bullet holes in the clothing and other testimony indicate it was.

These guys are stuck in a "love it or leave it" frame of mind, where "conspiracy theorists" have become what "hippies" once were, in their eyes. They are also desperately defending their own complete dereliction of duty. What's truly disappointing is that so many are willing to not only excuse their ineptitude (and I'm being kind in using that word), but to actually laud them as heroes.

This thread illustrates, once again, the apparent impossibility of ever achieving a general cohesiveness amongst conspiracy believers.

Greg Parker is generally someone I agree with, and seems to have done some good work. However, he is way off base here, and coming close to having his warning level raised, imho, for his over the top insinuations about Jack White. I understand John Armstrong is yet another of the polarizing figures in the CT community, but I don't believe it's imperative that we accept 100% of anyone's work. Armstrong obviously put a great deal of time and effort (and evidently his own money) into a massive amount of research. Dispute any of his conclusions all you want, but can't you recognize the genuine effort that went into his work? If you assume he was being dishonest here, what was the motive? Financial? Like most CT writers, I'm quite certain Armstrong made little or nothing on his book.

Greg- what is it that you are inferring here? Even if someone accepted your semi-slanderous accusations that Jack is not being truthful about his relationship with Kudlaty, exactly what is your point? Do you believe that Jack lied about the extent of his friendship with this guy? If so, why? How did that aid in Armstrong's research? Why would Kudlaty distort the truth- to make Armstrong's hypothesis more believable? Again, not that I accept that Jack, Kudlaty or Amstrong has done anything dishonest whatsover, but please explain why this is all so important to you. Even if you somehow could prove your curious thesis, what will you have accomplished?

Whether it's Duke Lane uncovering unrelated aspects of a long dead witness's life, or Ray Carroll angrily "defending" Lee Harvey Oswald from those who have worked for decades to clear his name, to Tom Purvis maintaining that Oswald fired all shots with the Carcano, but the Warren Commission "covered up," this forum is full of posters who frankly astound me. I did not previously think Greg Parker was in this category.

One thing should be obvious to any disinterested observer of the JFK assassination critical community; while CTers who agree on most important aspects of this case engage in a never ending series of dramatic feuds with one another, LNers seem to be in total accord. You will never see them expend great efforts to smear a witness that is friendly to the official story. Or publicly argue about anything with another LNer.

WE are often the greatest enemy in our pursuit of the truth. We simply will not stop eating our own.

I agree with you here. I think we need to examine all of Oswald's supposed actions on November 22, 1963 with an open mind. It's nice to know that more researchers are questioning the alleged Baker-Oswald confontation, for instance.

Frankly, I find most of what Oswald is supposed to have done following the assassination to be preposterous. Why did he leave the scene so quickly (officially at 12:33, without any evidence whatsoever for that supposition)? Walking in one direction, followed by taking a bus back in the opposite direction? Huh? Then a cab ride (after galantly offering it to another patron first), with a request that the baffled driver Whaley go past his rooming house, so he can walk back again in the opposite direction?

Why was shoe store employee Brewer so suspicious of someone who "ducked in" to his doorway briefly? To the extent that he followed him out and, although the cashier somehow didn't see him, witnessed Oswald sneaking into the theater?

The same skepticism should be extended towards Oswald's alleged comments during all those unrecorded interrogation sessions. Why would anyone-especially one maintaining his innocence-say something like, "you know how boys are- they get their gun," or whatever it was, for example? The notes by Fritz, and recollections by others, of what Oswald said in those sessions, are contradicted by his words in that all too short midnight press conference.

Oswald stated, at that press conference, that the "first he'd heard about" the assassination was from a reporter in the hallway. This seems a clear indication that he hadn't been questioned about the shooting of JFK during those early sessions. Why, then, did the testimony of those who were there indicate otherwise?

Oswald's primary concern, at that press conference, and in the snippets of conversation that were recorded as he was paraded around Dallas Police headquarters, was in quickly obtaining an attorney. He protested vigorously that he was being denied legal representation. How do we reconcile this with the testimony of Louis Nichols, the Dallas Bar official who visited Oswald in jail, to ensure his rights were not being violated? Nichols claimed that Oswald was not claiming to have been denied representation, and said "not now" in regards to obtaining a lawyer.

Curiously, while Oswald himself never mentioned John Abt's name, in those brief conversations in the hallway or at the midnight press conference, the authorities claimed he asked for Abt specifically, Ruth Paine testified that he wanted her to call Abt for him (and had the bizarre reaction of being offended by his request), and Nichols stated that Oswald mentioned Abt as well, during the Dallas Bar official's visit to his jail cell. Were these references to Abt a public ruse to associate Oswald further with communism, as Abt was famous for defending communists?

I've probably expounded too much here, and gone astray from the topic. I simply think we need to take every aspect of the official story with a huge grain of salt. With that in mind, I think it's appropriate to consider that perhaps Oswald stayed at his rooming house that Thursday night, and thus the entire story of going home unexpectedly, at an unaccustomed time, not to mention the curtain rod/paper bag aspect, was contrived.

Ted Sorensen was perhaps the greatest writer of political rhetoric in modern times. However, like almost all the "Best and Brightest" who surrounded President Kennedy, he was hardly a profile in courage on the subject of the assassination.

When David Talbot was researching his book Brothers, Sorensen told him that the events in Dallas were still too difficult for him to discuss. Could anything be more absurd? An employee who is still unable to talk about his boss's murder, which happened some four decades ago? If JFK was as dear to him as his writings invariably maintain, then he ought to have been somewhat concerned about the circumstances of his death. Didn't all those years of public controversy and mystery, the best selling books, radio shows and HSCA hearings, intrigue this stalwart soldier of Camelot just a little bit?

Sorensen's attitude towards "conspiracy theories" was establishment 101: he proclaimed himself an "agnostic" on the subject, but said he'd "never seen any evidence" to indicate the Warren Commission's findings were in error.

It's too bad that his political convictions never lived up to those beautiful, stirring words.

Jim,

Thanks for sharing that very intriguing article, which seems not to be linked in your post now. It was nice learning more about you, as well as Josiah Thompson's self-admitted agenda to poke holes in what he views as your pomposity. Again, as you know, I've criticized the way you deal with those who disagree with you, and I am not all that interested in the Judyth Baker story, but there is no doubt that Josiah IS obsessed with you. In fact, his only interest in JFK research at this point appears to be in proving your various contentions wrong.

Keep on seeking the truth- none of us are perfect, and despite your flaws, you have my support.

Jim,

The question you pose is an old one, usually a favorite of LNers everywhere. It's not an easy one to answer; it seems to me that the most important thing to remember is that Oswald couldn't have done it alone. Period. Without subpeona power, any legal authority whatsoever, and nearly fifty years after the event, even the most educated assassination researcher is going to have difficulty naming all the conspirators.

I believe that the Secret Service agents in JFK's detail had prior knowledge of the assassination; this is, in fact, the only thing in my view that explains their utter lack of response that day. At the very least, Greer, Kellerman and Emory Roberts would have had to have been conspirators at the literal ground level, imho. I think you can include McGeorge Bundy as well, who was confidently assuring JFK's cabinet members-as they flew back from Hawaii only a few hours after the shooting-that the assassin had been caught and there was no conspiracy. Hard for me to accept that this bureaucrat could innocently be so confident of that, when no real investigation into the crime had even begun at that point.

I am one of those who think that LBJ had prior knowledge, and I believe his behavior in the immediate aftermath of the assassination reflects that quite clearly. I don't know for certain, but I'd strongly suspect that J. Edgar Hoover was informed that a hit was going to happen, and there is little doubt that he would have approved (as would LBJ, imho). Spooks and ex-spooks like Dulles, Angleton and Helms would almost certainly have had prior knowledge, and would probably be some of the leading suspects for those who actually proposed and planned the assassination.

There are others that I suspect of involvement, but I feel most strongly about these. Of course, this is all speculation, as that is all we can do at this juncture. I may be in the minority among researchers now, but I still hold that there were many powerful people who were involved in some way in the crime of the century, and even more who helped to cover it up afterwards. I strongly believe this was a truly vast conspiracy.

I looked at this thread and what each person said concerning how they read the picture ... 'LBJ had already ducked' ... 'LBJ ducked down 40 seconds before the shooting' ... 'the photo has been retouched' ... 'the dark face is LBJ' ... all I was waiting for next was that the head I pointed out was too small to be human. (smile)

While there appears to have been a conspiracy, too much has been attributed to conspiracy because of mis-interpretation in reading the image. I'm glad that at least this matter was resolved.

Bill

Bill,

Wow- your views really are evolving, it appears. You sound like you're now not entirely certain there was a conspiracy. I apologize if I'm mistaken about that, but you're leaving that impression.

Absolutely despicable. If there had been an honest investigation into the assassination, Blaine, Hill and the other Secret Service agents in JFK's detail would have been grilled mercilessly and quite possibly convicted of treason.

Vince, you must be especially frustrated about this. I don't imagine it would matter, but have you tried contacting the reporter and/or Blaine's co-author?

Here's when it would be nice to hear something from a member of the Kennedy family.