Glenn Viklund

Thanks Bernice, I have read a few of these documents but not all of them. I will have a look at all of this.

David, Of course I would. But we're still back to square one as the discussion circled around the WC. The WC were not accomplices in this deed, other than possibly indirectly. If, in my view, this was to be agreed upon, maybe then things could move one step forward.

(Don't worry...the "minders" @wikipedia moved in within two hours to remove everything displayed in the above quote box because the details interfered with the eternal, sanitized version of the wikipedia Earl Warren biography, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren ) My guess is that section was deleted because most of the citations were links to Google searches that normally did not support the claim and few, IF any, of the others supported the claims made. Was that your handywork? Funny that neither the LA Times 3x obits nor the AP or NYT obits of Ziffren mentioned him being accused of ties to the mob. The latter said, “[in 1960 Democratic presidential]Hopefuls like John F. Kennedy and Hubert H. Humphrey sought him out.” Hmmm so if Warren is tainted by supposedly making his son a cleark, what does that say about JFK? http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-04/local/me-101_1_paul-ziffren http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-02/news/mn-458_1_paul-ziffren http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-04/local/me-10_1_los-angeles http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1916&dat=19910603&id=7gYhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lXYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3069,164975 http://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/03/obituaries/paul-ziffren-democratic-leader-in-california-in-1950-s-dies-at-77.html Gus Russo however makes similar charges Wow Glen that is indeed quite an admission. That you have actually STUDIED this case all these years and nothing has convinced you of conspiracy. My study began day one, at age 14. It was clear to me from day one, and totally so by the time LHO was shot, that the fix was in. It would color-and virtually dictate- everything else in my life for the next nearly 50 years. Then in 96 I met a wonderful man, an attorney like myself, and we fell in love. Of course the case came up as it always with me (I have an obsession with the truth) and I asked Erick his view. Much to my shock and dismay he replied that he'd never given it a thought. To his credit he began reading books and by the time of our wedding- a mere four months later- he knew enough to (1.) know it was a conspiracy and (2.) be relatively conversant with longtime students of this case. No he does not read all the stuff I do, he did, more recently, read Brothers and JFK and the Unspeakable...so he KNOWS...but YOU???? It is hard to take seriously what you say. The only people I have ever encountered who refuse to believe conspiracy who have actually studied the evidence are people who are ah...assets of some sort. I am not saying you are...I just find your story amazing beyond all belief. As JIm Garrison once said and I paraphrase, "the only way you can believe in the WC is to not study it". But I appreciate you telling your most strange tale and I will just take you at your word, no matter how difficult it is for me to comprehend. I mean it was IN- OUR- FACES blatant.imho. Dawn Dawn, Darn, my intention was by no means to shock anyone the way you seem to have been? Are you alright? Beyond that, I'm really glad that I could give you a good laugh, I'm always inclined to look between my fingers whenever I can achieve that. However, I've admitted nothing - as a lawyer I would expect you to be well aware of the distinction between an admittance and a statement? No? You know, unlike what you seem to think, it's not criminal to have views about this case that differs from yours. I'm not accused of anything, as far as I understand? One thing that I can detect in this posting of yours is that this is a matter of your way or the highway. You, on the other hand, have been working hard and consistently to throw out any evidence of JVBs lies. Some time ago you commented that "we all know why you are here". Above, you are continuing along the same lines: "... who have actually studied the evidence are people who are ah...assets of some sort." You just cant help yourself, can you? If I disagree with you, I'm a CIA agent? Let's sum this up. You knew from the age of 14 that this was a conspiracy. You have an obsession with the truth. Your partner has now read two books and accordingly I do not know what I'm talking about? Moreover, it was all IN-MY-FACE? If nothing else, perhaps I'm "an asset"? Dawn Meredith, I am sincerely glad that I live in a country where I will never be at risk of having you representing me.

Glenn, I think I understand your point and I guess I agree - in a sense. To clarify: I'm saying that the commission looked at the specifics of Dealey Plaza and realised that there had to be more than one shooter. I'm not saying they knew who was involved in the conspiracy, because I'm sure they didn't. Martin, It took a few back-and-forths and perhaps we agree on this issue. Be that as it may, I have no problems discussing issues with reasonable people like yourself.

Martin, You are making my point: They may well have been part of a cover up. But nothing of what you have brought forward here, or for that matter, what has ever been brought forward suggests that the WC knew what it was they - possibly - were covering up. And that, Martin, is a fact, not speculation. If you have anything that proves the contrary, I will immediately re-evaluate my position. It is, without a doubt, a very different ball game what the answer to this is, would you not agree? Did, or did not, the WC know that they were covering up a conspiracy? The reasonable answer is that they did what LBJ and Hoover instructed them to, "nail this guy, we can't afford the trouble that might otherwise arise". And that is exactly what I think their mission was, and what they lived up to.

Martin, This is your evidence: "The WC knew, as one of the staff lawyers admitted to Ed Epstein, that if JFK and Connally were hit by seperate bullets then there had to be at least two assassins. This is why they endorsed the SBT even though they knew the medical evidence and the Zapruder film disproved it." The WC themselves clearly pointed out that the sequence of the shots was not clear. It is no secret that the staffers and the WC sometimes had different views. That could not be news to you. This stuff does nothing to support your views that the WC was knowingly cover up a conspiracy of which they had knowledge in advance. You are speculating, Martin.

Glenn, If, after all this time, you don't see any evidence of conspiracy then I doubt anyone can convince you it's there. I certainly don't intend to try. But if you're going to characterize the Warren Commission as a "poor investigation" rather than a deliberate cover-up then I'm afraid it is you who is spouting "nonsense". Provably so. The proof is in the fact that the commission deliberately and knowingly misrepresented JFK's wounds so that it could endorse the SBT and make a single shooter seem possible. As the transcript of the Commission's January 27, 1964, executive session shows, it was fully aware that President Kennedy's back wound was lower than the hole in his throat: RANKIN: Then there is a great range of material in regard to the wounds, and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck...We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, the angle, it seems quite apparent now, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade, to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn’t strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through. So how it could turn— BOGGS: I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger’s length. RANKIN: That is what they first said. As the Commission collected the facts of the shooting it quickly became obvious that the only way it would be able to pin the blame solely on Oswald would be to endorse Arlen Specter's Single Bullet Theory. But this meant that the back wound had to be higher than the throat wound. The answer to this apparently insurmountable problem was simple: Commission member and future president Gerald Ford simply moved the wound up the body to the back of President Kennedy’s neck. And to insure that they got away with it, the Commission kept the autopsy photos out of its report and the accompanying 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits and had the autopsy surgeon prepare deceptive and fallacious diagrams that showed a completely ficticious wound in the back of the neck. No matter how you cut it, this was a deliberate act designed to hide the true facts and, therefore, a cover-up. Martin, thanks for your answer, I appreciate your views. First, I realize I did not explain that very good. So let me try this again. What I was trying to say is that the WC may well have been trying to cover up something - more specifically through the fact that their mission was flawed from the outset. By this I agree to what many others have concluded; their mission was basically to support the findings that Oswald was the lone assassin. The reasons for this we can leave aside in this discussion. But if you are suggesting that the WC knew they were covering up a conspiracy - well, then this is where I strongly disagree. That version of events is based on the assumption that the WC had beforehand knowledge of a conspiracy. That's where I think it's all baloney. And that's also why I prefer to use the description "a poor investigation". Arguably, not brilliant but I think you understand what I mean. Glenn, I'm sorry but again it is your argument that is "baloney" - no offence intended. The WC knew, as one of the staff lawyers admitted to Ed Epstein, that if JFK and Connally were hit by seperate bullets then there had to be at least two assassins. This is why they endorsed the SBT even though they knew the medical evidence and the Zapruder film disproved it. They knew the SBT was impossible but they misrepresented the evidence so they could endorse it and cover-up the existence of a second shooter. There is no way around this simple and basic fact - unless, of course, you pull a Bugliosi and lie by saying the Commission didn't see the photos and, therefore, didn't realise the back wound was lower. Martin, Am I understanding you correctly - you are implying that the Warren Commission knew there had been a conspiracy and that they were trying to cover this up?

Robert, You have left no one in any doubts about what your conclusions are. I disagree for two reasons; you cannot present anything that resembles evidence and you cannot defend you positions in any intellectually acceptable manor. As I'm sure, you can't have missed, you are convincing no one of nothing. Personally, I think you've started in the wrong end of this thing. You thought you had all the answers - just as you have repeatedly told all of us here - and accordingly you have only been looking for that which support you views. This approach does not cut it. Period.

Glenn, If, after all this time, you don't see any evidence of conspiracy then I doubt anyone can convince you it's there. I certainly don't intend to try. But if you're going to characterize the Warren Commission as a "poor investigation" rather than a deliberate cover-up then I'm afraid it is you who is spouting "nonsense". Provably so. The proof is in the fact that the commission deliberately and knowingly misrepresented JFK's wounds so that it could endorse the SBT and make a single shooter seem possible. As the transcript of the Commission's January 27, 1964, executive session shows, it was fully aware that President Kennedy's back wound was lower than the hole in his throat: RANKIN: Then there is a great range of material in regard to the wounds, and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck...We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, the angle, it seems quite apparent now, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade, to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn’t strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through. So how it could turn— BOGGS: I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger’s length. RANKIN: That is what they first said. As the Commission collected the facts of the shooting it quickly became obvious that the only way it would be able to pin the blame solely on Oswald would be to endorse Arlen Specter's Single Bullet Theory. But this meant that the back wound had to be higher than the throat wound. The answer to this apparently insurmountable problem was simple: Commission member and future president Gerald Ford simply moved the wound up the body to the back of President Kennedy’s neck. And to insure that they got away with it, the Commission kept the autopsy photos out of its report and the accompanying 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits and had the autopsy surgeon prepare deceptive and fallacious diagrams that showed a completely ficticious wound in the back of the neck. No matter how you cut it, this was a deliberate act designed to hide the true facts and, therefore, a cover-up. Martin, thanks for your answer, I appreciate your views. First, I realize I did not explain that very good. So let me try this again. What I was trying to say is that the WC may well have been trying to cover up something - more specifically through the fact that their mission was flawed from the outset. By this I agree to what many others have concluded; their mission was basically to support the findings that Oswald was the lone assassin. The reasons for this we can leave aside in this discussion. But if you are suggesting that the WC knew they were covering up a conspiracy - well, then this is where I strongly disagree. That version of events is based on the assumption that the WC had beforehand knowledge of a conspiracy. That's where I think it's all baloney. And that's also why I prefer to use the description "a poor investigation". Arguably, not brilliant but I think you understand what I mean.

Jim, Ruby was a low life thug, with lots of connections in the local underworld. While I have no idea about his motives, they may well have been those he told. Nevertheless, his connections in the DPD combined with what he was doing just before he shot Oswald, as well as the extremely tight time schedule leaves a lot of questions about this. By no means would I conclude it's a done deal that Ruby did this in order to silence Oswald as any predefined conspiracy. On the contrary, as I see it, he was just lucky to achieve what he set out to do a few hours earlier that morning. Who he knew and socialized with as an explanation to what he did, is far fetched in my view. Again, it's not impossible but still only speculation.

Pat, thanks for your answer. I believe you are missing my point about bringing those issues forward, which in fact is one of the main reasons to my skepticism. As I said, I could have made that list much, much longer. Don't you find it a bit awkward that while on the one hand there are so many people that are die hard believers in a conspiracy, when on the other hand there's a complete and utter lack of consensus about what the evidence for this conspiracy are? I'm sure you know better than I do how completely divided those who believe in a conspiracy are. What I see is a clearly visible pattern about this. A pattern that leads me to, at least question, the very foundation of a conspiracy. Neither do I neglect the well known and establish fact that when politicians in high positions are assassinated, it's a basic human instinct to react with disbelief to the proposition that someone of such insignificance could actually take out someone as significant as president Kennedy. It's just not comprehensible. In fact, there's a good example of this in this very thread: "My study began day one, at age 14. It was clear to me from day one, and totally so by the time LHO was shot, that the fix was in." Understandable, of course. But very clearly based on anything but evidence. An instinctive psychological reaction which surely didn't have much to do with age as it probably was, and most likely still is, just as frequent among all age cohorts. As I also said, the two areas that I've tried to understand - what happened at the Plaza and the medical evidence - are indeed hard to grasp. In my case, especially the medical evidence. I'm the first to acknowledge that there are a whole range of unanswered questions related to those areas. I believe I have read your take on this but I'll do it again as soon as time allows, and perhaps then comment on what your conclusions are, if you are interested. For the record, I may or may not agree with McAdams on certain issues, I really don't know. Except about Judyth Baker where I do know that I am in complete agreement with his take, but that whole thing is just a distraction and a waste of time. What I also do know is that whatever opinions I have in this case, they're not based any one persons views. I'm trying to look at the evidence from all angles, where that is possible.

Tom, Let's look at the De Mohrenshildt (DM) for a second. Here at EF it's regarded as a given that DM was CIA. Have you seen any conclusive proof of this? I have not, nothing. Speculations? Sure tons and tons of them. I wonder how many of those who are speculating in DM being CIA (or any other government agent) have the slightest idea of what mining is all about? So far, I've seen no one. I've been an investor in the commodities sector, full time, for many years. The story that DM gave to the WC makes perfect sense to me, including his year in the Central America trails. A CIA-agent spending several years in the deserts of Arizona, Texas and Colorado, among several other distant places - abroad as well? Sorry, I do not buy this for one second. Pure speculation, completely without foundation. Yes, I'm fully aware of the way CIA worked back in those days, but to believe that DM was somehow working for the government looks very unlikely in my eyes. Once one digs in to his fantastic life that ended in such sadness, I can surely see that he is the perfect target for such accusations and speculations. But that derives from the exceptionality of his life more than anything else, in my view. Until I see anything clearly substantial, I will easily put DM in the speculations department only. No doubt. EDIT: "My point is the WC made sure you could not know enough to make a qualified assessment of who did what. They did this intentionally and then they sealed the investigative records for 75 years." Well, depending on what you think are the reasons for this, I may agree with you. However, not for a second if you are suggesting that the WC was knowingly cover up the assassination. Such a claim, from those who make it, I regard as nonsense.

David, Absolutely not. //GV

My interest in the JFK assassination goes back to a couple of years when I was an exchange student for two years in Sacramento, California. At this time, in the mid-seventies, there was a heated debate in the US about the assassination and whether to have an another official look at this case. That came about a couple of years later, as we all know. Those hearings ended up with the strange result that there are now two official conclusions. I've probably spent a few thousand hours over the years of following this case and trying to get my head around it. Which by no means is an easy task, in this instance I agree with Bugliosi; stay away "it's toxic". It is indeed toxic. But my interest has always been based on the notion that there are a lot of questions that were never answered. Many of those questions were raised by the first generation of researchers, Lifton, Thompson and others. Rightly so, in my opinion. The Warren Commissions mission was flawed from start and thus they did a poor job of investigating this case. Of his I've never had any doubts. Their conclusion? Well, please let me come back to that. As I believe is the case for most others I was fully convinced that there had got to have been a conspiracy of some sort. A president of the US cannot become the victim of anything like this with less than a sophisticated conspiracy behind it. So, I read whatever I could get my hands on; books, articles, speeches and so forth. Then came the Internet. As it was a revolution for many of us professionally in 95-96, it was so too for me personally regarding the JFK case. With an ever growing enthusiasm I was from time to time lurking around many of these sites discussing the JFK case. No lack of conspiracy theories back then, as of course is the case today also. When, in 2008, I by sheer coincidence came, what seemed a little bit closer to the assassination debate, it was admittedly quite exciting. I discovered that Judy Baker had landed in Sweden and had applied for asylum. While it was interesting to discover that what she had claimed was a nothing less than a whole parade of lies in relation to this, I'm not going into this event much at all, today. Except to state one thing - James Fetzer's characterization of JVB as the "real deal", is a fantasy. After having explained, on McAdam's site what happened in relation to JVB, I also ended up on this site. This time dealing with both Fetzer and Baker. The excitement was quickly gone. This woman is a fraud and in no way did I come "closer" the core of the JFK assassination debate by engaging in Judy Bakers shenanigans. This whole thing was - and is - nothing but ridiculous. (I will at some point get down to sum this up in a detailed essay, the project has started but will take some considerable time to do). During the course of that matter I also got to understand the EF a bit better. Unlike McAdam's site and most of the participants there, on the Education Forum those who believe the WC got it right can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Well, fair enough. I've followed the discussions on this site way more closely than I'd ever previously done, in part because I've had the time to do so over these past few years. Let me state this clearly: I've seen nothing so far that has convinced me of a conspiracy. What I have seen is a huge number of theories that have been thoroughly debunked, over the years. I have seen dozens of theories built critically on the assumption that a various number of civilians was lying. I don't buy it and I have seen not a scintilla of evidence to convince me of the opposite. On this site some members are endlessly accusing Lyndon Johnson of being the main culprit behind the assassination. Again, without one little shade of real evidence to back this up. The story of what I haven't seen could be extended in the extreme. So I'm gone do the contrary. Let's assume there was indeed a conspiracy. And let's assume that the combined knowledge on this site in any way reflects that fact. What can we then conclude? Let's see where there's agreements on this critical point. Oswald, participant or innocent? No agreement at all. Shots fired - no agreement at all. Origin of shots - no agreement at all. Secret Service involvement - no agreement at all. Limo stop? - no agreement at all. Umbrella man - no agreement at all. Medical evidence - a huge understatement to suggest that there are disagreements. Witnesses on Dealey Plaza - no agreement at all about who are trustworthy. I could very easily quadruple this list. On purpose, Dealey Plaza only. These are basic questions beyond which I beleive it's only all speculations. For the one single reason that no one has yet been able to explain what happened on the Plaza that day in November of 1963. That includes the arrogance with which the single bullet theory is dismissed. To which I do not agree. And, it includes the complete dismissal of Sitzmans statement to Thompson that "she saw no one behind the fence", at the time of the shooting. Just to name a few examples. If I, or anyone else brings issues like these up, in this forum those questions are immediately dismissed as stupid. If answered at all, that is. It doesn't stop here. Whenever a discussion of substance is initiated it takes no more time than I would have a cup of coffee before the pissing contests begin. This seems to be a question not of age, but of participation; the longer you've publicly spent debating this the more accepted you are. Likewise, those of us who has not publicly spent a lifetime debating this are treated with arrogance, at best. Often much worse. This, however, is just a mild breeze in comparison with how some of those who have spent decades, two-three-four or more, are treating each other. There are obviously axes to grind in almost every corner of this debate. Ugly, denigrating and completely useless as it is. I've tried - and I've tried my very best - to learn something substantial from the debates here at the Education Forum. Yes, I have learned a few things, no question about that. But do I think that I, or anyone else here have made the unanswered questions get closer to an answer? Absolutely not. It's mostly an endless circle of unfounded speculations. The questions I had about this - the shooting and the medical evidence - remain just as unanswered as they did thirty years ago. Which is I why I'm still an agnostic about the JFK assassination. As flawed as the WSs mission was from the outset, personally I lean towards them getting it right, in the end. Despite this rather poor investigation. PS. Again, I would like to apologize to Jim DiEugenio for not having answered him as promised, before. FWIW, I hope this posting fills that gap.

This is just fantastic. JT summed it up in a couple of sentences. If nothing else "it's a fake", according to Professor Fetzer. "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit", said OJ's lawyer. "If it doesn't fit, we must fake it", says Jim Fetzer. Again and again, no matter what the photographic evidence relates to. Moreover it is a true pleasure to see one "expert" after another being brought forward by Professor Fetzer. The arguments in this discussion, as in most others, are dependent of Fetzer's endless referrals to those "untouchables". It is a discussion that boarders the farcical, to say the least. While it is an established fact since decades back that it, indeed, is Mr Lovelady in the Altgens photo. Amazing.

The FETZERING continues. Your ENTIRE argument is based on your so called abilities at photographic analysis and yet you can't even BEGIN to answer this simple question... So tell us Jim, how have you proven the tee shirt on doorway man was NOT a round collar shirt? If you can't aptly describe the process of making this claim and proving it to be true, your argument, BASED ON YOUR SO CALLED ABILITY TO ANALYZE THE CONTENTS OF A PHOTO, fails. Ignorant hand waving is not proof, and that's all you have presented. FETZERING at it finest.... I agree, Craig. Though I would not use your antics, of course you are right about this. JT phrased it very well in this thread.

Thanks Jim ( and thanks Martin and Joseph also). I just arrived back from a late nite dinner, I will respond tomorrow.

Jim, A couple of months ago you argued that there are as much (or more..) evidence about a conspiracy in the JFK case than there is about the Holocaust taking place. Subsequently we had a rather heated debate about this claim of yours. Now, perhaps I was a bit too judgmental about the wording used by you. But if that is so, I would like to hear about your version of what happened in Dealey Plaza - who were the shooters and how many shots where fired? And above all, who were the people behind this? I think that on the basis of your statement about the slam dunk case, these are fair questions. (needless to say, anyone should feel free to chip in..) //GV

Tom, Indeed the same man. One may not agree with every position Hitchens had taken, in fact I believe few did. But at the very least he had the ability to make people think their views through properly, no matter what the subject was. And surely no one could resist being impressed with the way Hitchens argued his case, irrespective of what was the subject. Here's a good example, Hitchens and Stephen Fry are debating the role of the Catholic Church with a conservative MP and a catholic bishop. If you listen through all parts you will notice how the audience is voting before and after this debate. Amazing, and surely Hitchens had a large part in this remarkable switch - as did of course Stephen Fry. (Personally, I disagree with Hitchens position on the Iraq war, for example, but he certainly made me think twice about it...) Robert Well put, no punches pulled, as many debaters painfully experienced over the years. Moreover, he often demolished others with a large portion of humor baked into the cake. Doing this without coming across as arrogant is an art that Hitchens was very, very skilled at. David Interesting. I didn't know he had been that much into the assassination of JFK. Unfortunately I never had the chance to meet the man or listen to him live. But I am now finally going to buy his memoirs, released last year just before he was diagnosed with cancer; "Hitch 22, a memoir".

Perhaps a bit off topic here, but I do think it's worth mentioning. It is a sad day. Christopher Hitchens passed on Wednesday. One of the most exciting, thought-provoking and endlessly masterful debaters of our - and I'd say, of all - times. This UK born American never ceased to provoke or stand rock steady no matter what. A master of the English language as well as a staunch atheist - or with his own words, anti-theist. Here he is with his brother, in the US 1995: Hitchens on Camelot This is from Fora.TV, "Hitchens in memoriam": Fora.TV. A sad day, the world need lots more personalities of "The Hitch" caliber.

Jim, Please. Don't be ridiculous. This is a fair question that you should have no problems answering.

Mr Fetzer, After your furious defense of Judyth Baker in this forum last year in the "living in exile"-thread, declaring her "The Real Deal" and that she had lots of new information, it's more than surprising to see that you are now not mentioning her in this thread. As I recall, you spent three months basically around the clock on that thread? Does she not belong among those things you know now that you didn't two decades ago? Or could it be that you've simply changed your mind about her? Or perhaps there's some other reason for avoiding to bring this subject up, for example that she's indeed not bringing anything new into the JFK research? This is what you concluded about her in March of 2010: "Posted 01 March 2010 - 01:31 AM ..... 13 REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT JUDYTH VARY BAKER WAS THE LOVER OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD REASON #1. Documents and researchers prove Baker and Oswald worked together for months at Wm. B. Reily Co., a coffee company in New Orleans, and that these jobs were pre-arranged cover jobs: a) The A-1 employment agency shows records for both Oswald and Baker . Reily Coffee Company interviewed both Baker and Oswald on the same day (May 9, 1963). The Reily ads were 2 wks. old, but no one was hired until Baker and Oswald were interviewed. Note: Baker has much additional corroborating evidence, such as check stubs, w-2 forms, exactly matching Oswald’s dates, plus: Oswald, as a ‘gift’ on Baker’s birthday, May 15, pretended to job-hunt at A-1 again, and though employed at Reily’s, told A-1 nothing about having been hired there; at this time, Oswald is on record for the visit, which was to induce A-1 to reduce an unjust fee placed against Baker by A-1, due on May 27. Baker has all relevant records for this event. c) They were interviewed and hired the same day (May 9) by the same person. d) They began work the same day, on May 10, at the same address, a block from Reily Coffee Co. e) They were working in the same small sub-company of Reily, called The Standard Coffee Company, even though that small suite did not have a maintenance man (Oswald’s job for Reily) and Baker was Vice President William Monaghan’s secretary (Monaghan’s two offices were located in the Reily building). Baker was there to launder Oswald’s past so he could transfer with a clean record to Reily’s, for Oswald had been a fake defector to the USSR and had returned from that mission without arrest or detaining, to start new assignments. Reily was known for its ‘patriotic’ anti-communist position. f) Both Oswald and Baker were transferred on the same day, one week later, to Reily, across the street. g) The day Oswald was fired (July 19) an ad was ordered to replace Baker; a modified ad with more inducements appeared 2 weeks later when the first ad did not produce a replacement for Baker. h) The day Oswald was arrested for distributing pro-Castro pamphlets (August 9) Baker was forced to resign. Baker had been at Reily’s primarily to cover for Oswald’s and her activities elsewhere. i) Baker and Oswald rode the same bus to and from work (Magazine St. bus): there was only one stop between their respective bus stops; their apartments were within walking distance; both Oswald and Baker lived within minutes of each other, and key persons and places mentioned in Edward T. Haslam’s shocking new book (see below). Oswald and Baker bonded when he helped her after a police raid. REASON #2: Baker has the testimonies of living witnesses confirming her intimate relationship with Oswald in New Orleans: a) William “Mac” McCullough, who was a musician, bouncer and bodyguard for New Orleans godfather Carlos Marcello, describes seeing Oswald and Baker together at a park, a restaurant, and seeing them together on several other occasions. His mother worked at a restaurant where Baker and Oswald ate, and he also saw them at a hotel where he sang and played the piano. Anna Lewis, wife of DAVID FRANKLIN LEWIS (known witness in JFK murder case) who was a private investigator for Guy Banister and an associate with Jack Martin in investigations and political activities in New Orleans, has testified on two audiotapes and on film that she and her husband accompanied Baker and Oswald on double dates in New Orleans, plus sessions of talk at Thompson’s Restaurant in New Orleans, over a period of months. Lewis was pressured to recant her statements but refused to do so. c) Baker told her sister, Lynda, that her secret lover had been killed while serving his country, and that he was working for the government in secret missions on the first anniversary of Oswald’s death in 1964, charging Lynda never to mention the matter again. Lynda finally spoke out decades later after Baker released her from this promise. REASON #3: Baker identified former Customs Agent Charles Thomas, also known as Arthur Young, as the person who was introduced to her by Oswald as the agent who expedited Oswald’s passport (along with others, to disguise the matter) to be issued only 24 hours after requested. Thomas described meeting and befriending Oswald in Buffalo, New York, when Oswald was a young teen. a) Baker described tattoos on the fingers, silver hair, German accent, his previous Customs station in Buffalo, NY, his connection to anti-Castroites and to the Mafia in Miami, and marriage to a Chitimacha Indian woman to Thomas’ granddaughter, whom she met in a class at The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, LA The granddaughter, Kelly Thomas, verified that Charles Thomas also used the name Arthur Young, and then brought forth photos showing Cuban and mafia associates; the granddaughter and her family also had photos showing the tattoos on the fingers, the silver hair, verified the German accent and the Customs post in Buffalo, NY, which Thomas headed, even having a photo of the customs station at Buffalo. Charles Thomas had been dead for years and had kept his past a secret from the outside world, living in obscurity on the Chitimacha Indian reservation with his Chitimacha wife after the assassination. c) Baker contacted researcher Joan Mellen with details about Thomas; Mellen later wrote in her book that she had obtained evidence that Oswald worked with Customs and described his connections to Customs, without giving Baker any credit for the lead. This lack of giving credit has occurred several times with researchers. REASON #4: Baker has provided a cashed $30 American Express money order receipt dated May 27, 1963, linked to her bank records and receipts and to letters from Oswald indicating his use of $30 for office rent on the same date. a)The American Express receipt is linked in such a way as to show it was illogical for Baker to have purchased it for any reason other than to give Oswald an untraceable $30 ‘donation’ that he, with limited income, would not have to account for via his small salary. $30 = approx. $270 in today’s funds. An American Express file about Oswald exists in Rotterdam, Holland c) Oswald received multiple American Express money orders from an unknown source in 1963 d) Witness Delphine Roberts has testified to Anthony Summers that Oswald had an office REASON #4: Baker has a green glass which has been in her possession since 1963, given to her by Oswald, known to many by 1980 as given to her by Oswald. a) over 30 people heard Baker, in 1980, explain that the glass had been given to her by Lee Harvey Oswald at Reily company, in 1963, and that they had ‘worked together’ there. Baker’s son, Josiah, has confirmed this; he also remembered his mother describing streetcar and bus rides with Oswald in New Orleans c) Baker’s daughter, Sarah, remembers accidentally throwing away a note that Oswald wrote that was kept in the glass, and has been able to describe the note, and how upset her mother was. This event occurred during a household move from Orlando, Florida, to Lafayette, Louisiana. She also affirms that the green glass was given t her mother by Oswald. REASON #5: Baker provides evidence that her job and Oswald’s job at Reily’s were cover jobs for clandestine activities elsewhere. a) Baker provides time cards and clock-in/clock-out records showing Oswald’s outrageously late clock-ins, for which he was unaccountably not docked, while others who were late were docked, with Warren Commission testimonies backing her information; the clock-outs are precise, the clock-ins, irregular. Baker provides explanations: these and other details, such as 4907 mail problems, were not noticed by researchers -- until Baker pointed out much that was obviously wrong in the official record. Baker provides inside knowledge of Oswald’s whereabouts that for the first time explains them logically, with important direct and circumstantial evidence to support her statements; many of her statements have been confirmed later by other researchers, following her leads; usually, she was not given any credit for these leads, but comparing er statements with researchers’ ‘finfds’ cnfirm her pre-knowledge. c) Baker provides a financial information/character report on Oswald showing how it was deliberately created and rigged by herself and Oswald to cover up Oswald’s past, including his nearly 3-year stay in Russia as a defector, so that the highly conservative, anti-communist Reily Co. would be able to employ Oswald; a close and careful examination of all testimony concerning this document proves collusion. REASON #6: Edward T. Haslam investigated Baker and has confirmed her ability to conduct secret lab activities in New Orleans as described thoroughly in his landmark 2007 book, Dr. May’s Monkey. Haslam, a New Orleans native who knew some of the persons encountered by Baker and Oswald, only learned about Baker’s still being alive through Sixty Minutes investigators. Haslam describes Baker and Oswald’s clandestine activity together in New Orleans, with verified information as to its importance: a) Baker provides substantial reasons for why she should never have been employed at Reily’s as a Vice President’s secretary, when her expertise was in cancer research and medical technology: New Orleans’ Ochsner Clinic was world-renowned as a cancer research center. It’s reasonable to assume that Baker would not leave her studies, family, and friends in Florida simply to become a secretary in New Orleans. Her ease in obtaining a well-paying chemistry research position soon after her return to Florida proves she had no reason to leave unless it was originally, as she asserts, to work under the prestigious Doctors Ochsner and Sherman. c) Haslam himself is a living witness that Judyth Vary Baker was impersonated in New Orleans in the 1970’s when he was trying to find out more information about the clandestine lab activities REASON #7: Film producer Nigel Turner had successfully presented six documentaries in the popular series, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, a secure fixture on The History Channel that ran more than two decades. On the recommendation of known CIA asset Gerry Hemming, Turner investigated Baker and her witnesses for over a year. He photographed much of her evidence. He filmed her for 38 hours and matched 55 hours of her spoken testimony taken months earlier on a tape recorder with her filmed testimony. He had witnesses Baker knew nothing about verifying many of her statements. Turner was contracted by The History Channel to produce two more documentaries in the popular series -- The Smoking Guns, and The Guilty Men-- but requested and received permission (and then filmed) a third segment – The Love Affair , about Oswald and Baker’s romance and clandestine activities together in New Orleans , and their continuing relationship until Oswald’s death two days after Kennedy’s assassination. But Turner got too close to the truth, and all hell broke loose, destroying his series. a) The Love Affair was the first and only time in Turner’s series where only one person – Baker—was featured for the entire documentary. Though banned in America, it is currently an underground favorite on YouTube and is a popular underground film overseas. Living witness statements supporting Baker’s testimony were illegally withheld by a third hostile party who essentially stole the videotapes. They were later recovered, but were not included in the documentary. There may have been plans to produce a sequel to the documentary with witnesses. c) There was an outcry from Official Version Oswald-did-it important people, such as former President Ford, Jack Valenti and Mrs. Lyndon Johnson and her friends, over the new documentaries, and suddenly, three were banned, though the series was supposed to run for nine years. d) Over 50,000 copies -- prepaid -- were destroyed and money returned, as a board of historians were called together by The History Channel to pronounce the documentaries falsely incriminating of former President Lyndon Johnson, who is clearly indicated as ruthless and involved. However, NONE of the historians met with or conferred with ANY of the witnesses, including Baker, nor did they look at ANY evidence whatsoever. This was the first documentary ever banned by The History Channel, or by anyone., so far as we are aware. In 2007, The History Channel lampooned Baker’s testimony. e) Nigel Turner was systematically maligned on the Internet and has been incommunicado since 2004. f) Baker was systematically maligned on the internet with big, impressive websites against her, and with newsgroup posts creating lies (such as that Baker claimed to be of Russian nobility, or that she said she was offered $600,000 for her story by a tabloid, or that she was a close friend of Dr. Suess, that Liberace learned ow to play the piano on her father’s piano, and other ridiculous statements ‘proving’ she was non-credible!). Other statements claiming to be Baker’s flooded newsgroups, ruining her reputation. Arrest threats, job loss, and death threats began to plague her life. Reason #8: Wealthy Dutch researcher and film producer Wim Dankbaar investigated Baker and her witnesses for six years and fully supports her testimony and story. a) Dankbaar provides DVDs of Baker and her witnessess’ statements and their stories on his website. Dankbaar twice tried to produce a movie about Baker’s story, but was stopped the first time by a contract by a co-producer (Woods) who demanded Baker’s lifetime story rights, and the second time by a specious lawsuit by Robert Vernon, who stole evidence and spread lies about Dankbaar and Baker on the Internet. Vernon also distributed pornography about Baker and urged potential witnesses not to talk to Baker or Dankbaar. Important corroborating evidence, such as phone call records and films, have now vanished. Some witnesses were threatened and lost their jobs. Baker was hit twice by vehicles in Dallas. Reason #9: Famed Dutch investigator Peter DeVries, noted for uncovering political crimes and frauds, and solving murder cases, investigated Baker in 2005-2006. a) Devries fully supported Baker’s testimony and story in an internationally televised miniseries shown across Europe in 2006. a) DeVries recently uncovered new evidence in the Aruba murder case famed in the US, using secret cameras and microphones, uncovering a confession no one else was able to obtain Reason #10 : CBS’s Sixty Minutes investigated Baker’s testimony and story for eighteen months and nearly filmed it three times. They called it their “longest and most expensive investigation” in their entire history. But an insider told Baker that (now disgraced, for lying about Bush) higher-up Dan Rather closed the investigation. “The door was slammed shut in our faces,” according to Sixty Minutes’ founder, Don Hewitt, explaining the problem to C-Span. “I brought that woman in to New York!” he stated. Hewitt called the story the mist important story in Sixty Minutes’ history. Emails from Sixty Minutes producer Phil Sheffler state “we did not walk away from this story.” a) When the investigation closed, Sixty Minutes had not yet interviewed Baker’s living witnesses! Sixty Minutes was advised by Brian Duffy of US News & World Report to drop the investigation because there was ‘not enough evidence.’ Duffy was later found to have written a large article for USN&WR supporting Gerald Posner’s ‘Case Closed’ (Oswald-did-it) book – a big embarrassment to Duffy if Baker’s story became known to the general public. Duffy had just been re-hired by USN&WR and would later become a chief editor there. c) Sixty Minutes’ chief source to check Baker’s reliability, Howard Liebengood, had been privy to all CIA and MKULTRA documents gathered by the HSCA, and was a renowned and trusted specialist in the Kennedy assassination. Liebengood confirmed Baker’s knowledge in general, and also her knowledge, specifically, of secret MKULTRA documents they had both seen, in front of CBS producers, Dr. Howard Platzman, and Baker. He urged CBS to film Baker. d) Liebengood died of a sudden and unexpected heart attack just a few days after retiring, and just before his promise to help Baker’s story get filmed by Sixty Minutes. Reason #11: More evidence and witnesses: At the time of the Sixty Minutes’ investigation, Baker did not know what evidence was important. She had avoided all contact with the case for three and a half decades. Only after she was allowed to look at records in the case was she able to recognize what evidence she possessed that was important, such as the American Express money order, and Oswald’s time cards, which she had initialed. a) Baker kept evidence from 1960-1964 concerning her cancer research, her relationship with Oswald, and the events in her life immediately before and after his death, much of which her family saw (such as Reily check stubs) without realizing what was important and what was not. The collection of evidence was finally placed in twelve 50-page books. Baker did not save anything but family photos and an occasional item from any other year. The mass of materials from this time period is rich and detailed. break-ins, robberies, and even kidnapping has resulted in the loss of some evidence, but all of it has been seen and photographed numerous times, and has been successfully linked to Oswald’s activities c) new witnesses such as William Livesay (confirms secret medical experiments in 1963 were going on at Jackson hospital using Angola prison (volunteers), Edwin Lea McGeHee, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Kelly Thomas, Mary ferrell (gray Russian book unknown to public and a unique possession of Oswald’s, described by Judyth to Ferrell in front of witnesses), and many others confirm previously unknown details Baker has given, d) Baker described Bobby Kennedy’s involvement with Guy Banister and knowledge of Oswald, divorce plans of Oswald, details about Oswald’s Mexico City visit which were later confirmed by new witnesses e) Baker’s presence in a car with Oswald in Jackson (by two different witnesses of repute), and Baker’s explanation of the Clinton matter (which for the first time logically places Oswald, David Ferrie, and Clay Shaw together as seen by – but unable to be explained by – eight disparate witnesses in Clinton, Louisiana), where a black Cadillac sat for five hours for no known reason (however, Baker’s testimony clears up the matter, with additional new evidence from the Clay Shaw Grand Jury testimonies finally released to the internet)(see the banned documentary, The Love Affair) Reason #12: Dr. John Williams, a US professor with a doctorate in statistics, collected data and statistics about the confluences and evidence Baker has presented, with the help of witness Kelly Thomas Cousins, and produced an analysis of events indicating that the chances that Baker and Oswald knew each other intimately are 99%. a) Dr. Williams also produced a statistical study indicating that there was only one chance in a MILLION that Oswald and Baker did NOT have prearranged jobs with Reily. Dr. Williams has now published two technical papers in The Dealey Plaza Echo which publishes journal style papers on the JFK/RFK/MLK assassinations in Great Britain. Reason #13: Why is Baker ‘s life being threatened? She is currently in hiding in a Scandinavian country under EU political asylum rules and regulations due to denigrating Internet and television productions, break-ins, robberies, burglaries, Internet stalking, persecution, live stalking, arrest threats, and death threats. a) Baker’s book has twice gone to print without her permission, with changes and excisions Baker wants the REAL book to get published, and will support and authorize its sales c) Baker will not return to the United States until after the book is published: she is willing to risk her life to promote the book. d) “If I had said Oswald DID IT, today I’d be a rich woman, instead of in hiding, fearing for my life.” (JVB) The book is true. It’s relevant, pointing to Oswald’s innocence and indicating a Coup d’etat. Film rights information : contact Sydney Wilkinson (tinypaws@earthlink.net): Pair of Hands Post Productions. Contact Edward T. Haslam (see author’s website), Dr. Howard Platzman (howpl@aol.com) , or Tom Rozoff (rozoff@aol.com) for information. Baker will risk her life but asks for protection for interviews (must be major filmed interviews: Baker gets to tape record). Hear interview on Black Op radio (see website). Beware fancy websites that come up ‘first’ on the Internet: see YouTube "The Love Affair"."

It's all a slam dunk? Robert, when taking part of your theories of who dune it, it's not a question of whom to include. It's more a question of whom to exclude. "This book has it all: the Texas oil men, the Eastern bankers, the CIA, the media cover up, Lyndon Johnson, the Warren Commission farce, Oswald the patsy, New Orleans, etc." Fine. Let's assume you are correct and that all of those people are involved in the assassination. My question to you Robert, is this: where are the evidence? Where are the indications? Please, do not refer to lengthy books or otherwise..as you seems to have most of the assassination mysteries figured out: just sum up a few hardcore indications or evidence of the guilt of those you constantly accuse? Thanks.

Don, I think you are incorrect on a number of points. First, that no LNer becomes a CT. It's just not true. I leaned CT most of my life, but never really looked at the case till the early 90's. I then became a fairly typical CT--I believed the fatal head shot came from the front, and that the autopsy photos had been altered, etc. I then read the Warren Report and Case Closed. After doing so, I leaned LN, and would have identified myself as one if asked. I still had a few questions, however. These questions, then, led me to at first read a number of negative reviews of Case Closed, and then do some serious research concerning the medical evidence. This research, in turn, led me to my current position--that there is tons of gobbledygook and mumbo jumbo on both sides of the LN/CT divide, but that there is enough significant stuff on the CT side to make me conclude there was a conspiracy. My subsequent research has only strengthened that position. As far as your concerns regarding some long-time CTs dropping some of their core beliefs...I think it is a good thing the argument for conspiracy has been whittled down. A very good thing. One of the attractions of books like Case Closed, or of websites like McAdams' or Reitzes', is that they cut through some of the CT nonsense. Too many CT arguments are based on the statements of one or two people years after the shooting. Quite often these statements contradict the previous statements of these witnesses, or make little sense when one studies the bigger picture. These arguments need to be scrapped, IMO, if we are to maintain any pretense of being logical and consistent. I mean, if we are gonna discredit or discount some or all of the statements of Brennan, Bledsoe, Norman, etc, we should do the same for inconsistent witnesses more friendly to the CT position. As far as your distrust of firm LNers, I guess you haven't met the right LNers. Some of them, including a few of those on this forum, are more than willing to help out on questions regarding the official record. They are not the enemy, IMO. What's that they said in that old comic strip? "We have met the enemy and he is us..." Thank you, Pat. That's an interesting description and I can certainly see some similarities to my own thinking. If I may ask - what's your take on Oswald? Personally, I've come to realize that it is very difficult to have a distinct opinion before two areas has been sorted out about this: What exactly happened at the Dealey Plaza, number of shots fired and the shooting sequence. And the medical evidence, which I find extremely hard to understand and with lots of contradicting facts.

Yes, it did actually become interesting. But not because of the reasons you've outlined, but because this demonstrates very clearly why anything you say should be taken with a huge grain of salt. That's why. First, you declare that Witt is a xxxx and involved in the assassination. And that the Cuban looking guy and Witt knows each other and thus he is also accused of complicity in this crime. But just like that, ABRAKADABRA - you change your mind about Witt. When you discover (after taking part of his testimony for the first time?) that he was actually saying something that apparently fits with another of your claims, then we are told that now, Witt is indeed a believable guy. What does it mean, though? Lets see: If Witt is telling us the truth about how he understood the situation it means that: (1) He couldn't possibly be part of any conspiracy, since he actually claims something that according to you, was one of the ideas behind the alleged Z film-alteration; namely to hide that the limo ever stopped. (2) It means that the cuban looking guy for all we know is just as innocent a bystander as Witt, despite these men being close to each other during the assassination. (One can assume that Fetzer doesn't often visit crowded events similar to a presidential motorcade - it's not uncommon that perfect strangers actually do talk to each other, or even sit down for a moment together, in all certainty it proves no one guilty of anything) Have you decided yet just how you're gone cherry pick your way out of this? So, who is it that doesn't have a clue here, I wonder? Abracadabra is the magic word. I had a long time, experienced, capable JFK researcher contact me and told me in no uncertain terms that Louis Steven Witt was indeed Umbrella Man and very unlikely to have been in any plot. This JFK researcher believes the JFK assass. was a coup d'etat; he is far from a lone nutter. He said he knew folks who knew Witt and Witt had talked about his Dealey Plaza experiences long before the HSCA. I will change what I think in a heartbeat if the weight of the evidence tells me to. I do it all the time on the "minor issues" but not on the larger theory of a Lyndon Johnson/CIA coup d'etat. Recently, I changed my mind on the Malcolm Wallace fingerprint. I used to think it was a match; now I do not based on a conversation with a credible, experienced fingerprint examiner. Many JFK researchers (many people in general) are too dogmatic. They stick with a theory or a believe in a set of facts - the truth be damned, no matter what the evidence is. When the weight of the evidence tilts one way, you should follow it. Sometimes the weight of the evidence flips back to the original spot ... follow that, too. Also, those 3 yellow stripes on Elm Street are pretty much directly across from where Umbrella Man and Dark Complected Man are sitting. Of course dogmatism can be a huge obstacle. But jumping to conclusions is certainly no less serious. If anyone accuse others of being part in the crime of the century - you would expect them to have done their home work properly. Not having read such witnesses' statements is inexcusable in that regard.