-
Posts
8,017 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Von Pein
-
-
6 hours ago, Michael Crane said:
I would like to see Doug Horne vs Vincent Bugliosi...
EXCERPT FROM VINCENT BUGLIOSI'S BOOK (RE: DOUG HORNE'S INSANE "TWO BRAINS" THEORY)
Also See:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/doug-horne-part-1.html
-
4 hours ago, Michael Crane said:
So, I would like to see Doug Horne vs Vincent Bugliosi because these guys have not been mentioned yet.
Vince Bugliosi passed away in 2015, Michael.
-
After having just now [on October 13, 2023] read the key "bullet" portions of Paul Landis' newly-released book "The Final Witness" (via the book excerpts that have been made available on this webpage [thanks, Tom Gram, for posting the link]), some additional problems and questions arise, with one of these problems being a massively important one regarding the precise location of where Landis says he left the whole bullet that he says he found on the top of the back seat in the Presidential limo.
All of the available testimony from the Parkland Hospital personnel makes it clear that President Kennedy was never moved from his stretcher (gurney) during the entire time the President was being treated in Trauma Room No. 1.
Former Secret Service agent Paul Landis, however, says something completely different in his book. He says this (quoting from the book itself):
"As I entered—or, more to the point, was pushed into—the trauma room, the president’s lifeless body was already being lifted off the gurney and placed onto a white cotton blanket that covered the surface of a stainless-steel examination table in the middle of the room." [End Quote.]
Landis then goes on to say this in his book:
"I removed the bullet from my pocket, and reaching out over the examination table, I carefully placed it on the white cotton blanket next to the president’s left shoe." [End Quote.]
But let's now compare the above book excerpt with the following statement made by the same Mr. Landis just one month ago:
"I put the bullet on the gurney right by his [JFK's] feet" -- Paul Landis; September 12, 2023 (NBC Interview)
So the question of great importance now becomes: Did Landis drop the bullet onto JFK's stretcher/"gurney"? Or did he leave it on an "examination table"?
That's an exceedingly important question to answer, because if we're to believe he left it on an exam table instead of the stretcher (with a stretcher, of course, having wheels on it, which means it could easily be moved from one part of the hospital to another), we've then got to ask: How, then, did that bullet (if it was really CE399, which Mr. Landis does seem to think it was) manage to get from the exam table to a stretcher in the corridor of Parkland Hospital, where it was then found by hospital employee Darrell C. Tomlinson a short time later?
Another possible problem with Landis' story crops up in the book excerpts linked above, although this "problem" isn't nearly as important or imperative as the "gurney vs. exam table" head-scratcher. This additional problem concerns the timing of Vice President Johnson's arrival at Parkland Hospital on 11/22/63. Landis says in his book that LBJ and the Vice President's Secret Service car had not yet arrived at Parkland Hospital by the time JFK's body was being lifted out of the back seat and onto a stretcher. Quoting again from Mr. Landis' book:
"The vice president’s limo had yet to arrive, so there were no agents from his detail in sight. In fact, there were no other agents in sight anywhere to the rear, to my right, or to the front. Where are they? Where the hell is SA Greer? He was driving the president’s limo. He should be here. The follow-up car was empty too. Where the hell is Special Agent Sam Kinney? He was driving it. Jeez, oh man! Where the hell is everyone? Where did all the agents go? Who is going to secure the car AND THE CRIME SCENE? Everyone seemed to be crowded around the president’s body. No one was paying attention to anything else. My immediate concern was the bullet. It would be visible to anyone happening to walk by. What about photographers? Or worse yet, What about a souvenir hunter? Thoughts continued to race through my mind." [End Quote.]
But with regard to Vice President Lyndon Johnson and his exact whereabouts at the time when President Kennedy was being wheeled into the hospital, there is evidence (via the observations of ambulance driver Aubrey Rike) which would indicate that Johnson actually entered Parkland Hospital prior to the time when either JFK or wounded Governor John Connally entered the emergency room entrance.
Listen to the chronology of events provided by Aubrey Rike, in two separate interviews he did on November 22, 1963, HERE.
If Rike's chronology of the timing for when each man entered the hospital is correct --- i.e., Johnson, then Connally, then Kennedy --- that would, in my opinion, place a serious cloud of doubt over Mr. Landis' account (and his mindset) concerning those same events.
Because if LBJ's car and his Secret Service follow-up car were actually there at the hospital prior to Landis and JFK and Mrs. Kennedy exiting the limo and going into the emergency room, it would also mean that Mr. Landis would very likely have had no reason to say this to himself --- "Where did all the agents go? Who is going to secure the car AND THE CRIME SCENE?" --- because there would have still been plenty of SS agents there at Parkland to look after the limousine/"crime scene".
So with each passing glance at Paul Landis' new 2023 story regarding the events of November 22nd, more and more questions (and doubts) seem to surface.
-
Here's the recent interview that Larry Schnapf & Jeff Morley did with James Robenalt. Not really much of anything new revealed here that we hadn't heard in prior interviews. I was hoping to hear more details about how Paul Landis has attempted to explain the contradictory info that appears in the newspaper interviews that Landis did back in the '80s, in which Landis claimed to have found a bullet "fragment" that he then "gave to somebody". But there's not a single word spoken by Robenalt in this recent interview about those contradictions. And neither Schnapf nor Morley even asked about it.*
* 10/21/2023 EDIT ---- And this full-length version of the interview (which is 10 minutes longer than the edited one below) also doesn't say a word about Landis' contradictory 1983 and 1988 newspaper interviews, despite the fact that Larry Schnapf said on October 14, 2023 (via a JFK e-mail group), that he did, in fact, ask Robenalt specifically about those '80s statements during this interview. ~shrug~
-
2 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:
How could the FBI have leaked that "wrong" information to the NYT on December 9, 1963, if they really had the now "official" version of the autopsy report in hand?
But it's very obvious from the verbiage found in the 12/9/63 FBI Report that the FBI (incredibly) didn't even glance at the autopsy report until at least the middle of January 1964.
More here....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/12-9-63-fbi-report.html
-
-
1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:
You ask why would Oswald go back in the building to go up one floor, over, and back down at the NW to then exit by the rear. If he already was outside, why not just walk down the front steps and go, if exit was his objective? (under the scenario of if he was Prayer Man, understanding you are not endorsing that, nor for the record am I with certainty)
Nothing wrong with the question David, but before going into mockery mode, consider being a little slower to leap to closure. Per hypothesis (stay with me a moment on this), imagine a frightened, yet at the same time controlled, Oswald hearing the shooting, believing that something was terribly wrong, even suspecting his own life could be in immediate danger, deciding to make an evasive exit and not be tracked in the process.
Why would such a person possibly want to go back in the building and to the rear of the building rather than leave by the front where he already was? (Those are the only two options for leaving.)
Just can’t imagine any possible reason above mockery level why someone might go back in first before leaving?
I don’t know why, but I can imagine several non-laughable possibilities.
Maybe he wanted to get his jacket—the gray (that’s the g-r-a-y jacket described by Buell Frazier as what Oswald wore that morning, which was never found at the TSBD)?
Or how about something so mundane as he needed to take a leak or wanted a last pit stop in a restroom.
Or, I don’t know, was there something in a jacket pocket he did not want to leave behind? Or something to do with hiding curtain rods he had brought where they wouldn’t be discovered until he chose to do so in exercise of an alibi?
Or, perhaps he wanted to step in a restroom stall just long enough to take off his light-colored, button-down collar maroon shirt, stuff it down the front of his pants, rebuckle his belt, and leave in only a white T-shirt under his jacket. Lest that be considered an outlandish conjecture as to intention, I see no better way to interpret Mrs. Reid’s testimony, which I regard as credible, than that Oswald in fact did exactly that after his encounter with Baker. (Trivia note here, not sure if it means anything, but the Warren Report reconstructed some half minute or so gap in time after Baker left Oswald to the time Oswald walked out past Mrs. Reid.)
Or, suppose he knew or suspected he was being watched there in the front, perhaps in association with a prearranged getaway vehicle which Oswald’s instincts kicked in to now avoid and evade at all costs. And he wants to go out the back sight unseen to “them”, and chooses his strange means of getting there so as to be less easily tracked inside the building by one of “them” coming in after him specifically. And it is not even necessary that that fear actually have been true, only sufficient uncertainty in Oswald’s mind that he thought there was a risk of that being true.
Any of these factors could prompt Oswald to go back to the domino room where his gray jacket was, and restrooms, at the rear of the building on the first floor, before leaving the TSBD and making an evasive exit.
And add to that this, going beyond conjecture to arguably probable fact: that Oswald probably did in fact leave by the rear even after he was at the inside front of the building, following the Baker encounter, as witnessed by Pierce Allman near the front doors. The argument for a rear exit in fact of Oswald seems to me strong: no evidence whatever for Oswald leaving at the front despite many cameras and TSBD witnesses out front at least one of which might be expected to have seen him if so. That in itself is a stand-alone argument of some weight in favor of the default only other possibility, exit out the rear. But in this case there is also a credible witness, Frazier, telling of seeing Oswald’s exit which came from the rear. Frazier did not tell of that originally, true, but I judge it more likely that Frazier was belatedly telling truthful testimony on that than that he later decided to fabricate that for no reason I can think of.
The point is Oswald did, per good argument, go out the back, taking his gray—as in g-r-a-y—jacket with him, even when he could have gone out more quickly from the front. Therefore it is reasonable he would have intended to get to the domino room and then out the back from there originally in the moments following the shots.
In that light the only remaining question would be, if a domino room and rear exit was intended, why go up the one floor and back down again by the opposite stairwell, as means of getting to the back, instead of walking back on the ground floor.
Perhaps he wanted the use of a bathroom in privacy for the shirt removal and thought a second floor restroom could be better for that with less chance of being seen taking off his shirt.
Or it could be a feint for deflection purposes if anyone was asked “where did he go?” “I saw him go up those SE stairs right there”. Again, Oswald actually did exactly that genre of feint at this stage, when he purposely stood at a bus stop going north in front of his rooming house on Beckley, the opposite direction of his destination the Texas Theatre to the south—the northbound bus stop where he knew housekeeper Earlene would look and see him and if she were asked which way he left, would point questioners in the opposite direction from the way he really went.
None of this proves the scenario true as such, but rather goes to the issue of your claim of implausibilities.
Thanks, Greg, for your detailed explanation of why you think Lee Harvey Oswald just might have had a desire to go back inside the Book Depository Building after the assassination (even though, via the "Prayer Man Is Oswald" theory, he was already outside when the shooting occurred).
You, of course, surely already know all the problems with your scenario which has Oswald possibly going back inside the building in order to get his "gray" jacket. The main problem there, of course, being that Earlene Roberts said that when Oswald came rushing into the Beckley roominghouse shortly after the assassination, he was not wearing any jacket. In her Warren Commission testimony, Mrs. Roberts said:
"He [LHO] went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket."
And there's also the testimony of Mary Bledsoe, who saw Oswald during the brief time when both she and Lee were on Cecil McWatters' bus on Elm Street on Nov. 22. Bledsoe is clearly a witness who aligns with Earlene Roberts' observations of Oswald not wearing any jacket between the hours of 12:30 PM and 1:00 PM CST on 11/22/63.
You can always resort to using cab driver William Whaley to support a proposed claim that Oswald was, indeed, wearing a jacket of some kind just after he left the TSBD. You can even utilize Whaley to try and support the very weird idea that Oswald was wearing a total of "two jackets" when he was riding next to Whaley in his taxicab on Nov. 22.
But if you choose to use Whaley's testimony, you'll then have to wonder why neither of those other witnesses (Bledsoe and Roberts) saw the jacket(s) that Mr. Whaley said he saw Oswald wearing. ~shrug~
Another one of your "possibilities" (to potentially explain why LHO would want to go back into the TSBD after the shooting) is based on something that is unquestionably a lie that was told by Lee Oswald --- the "curtain rods" story. So Oswald, quite obviously, could not possibly have wanted to go back into the Depository to retrieve any curtain rods, since those "rods" only existed in Oswald's made-up story that he fabricated for Buell Wesley Frazier's benefit.
I, of course, have an advantage over conspiracy theorists like Gregory Doudna, in that I don't need to concoct all kinds of cloak-and-dagger scenarios to explain Lee Oswald's behavior on November 22nd. And that's because I'm confident of the following fact (beyond all reasonable doubt):
-
Another man's opinion of the ole curmudgeon:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html
-
-
Below are some highlights from this book review of Bart Kamp's new book. The review was written by former EF Forum member Lance Payette....
Review Title:
"Well-meaning and worthwhile
presentation of patent nonsense"
Review Highlights:
"Bart Kamp is a serious and well-meaning JFK assassination researcher who is a fixture at the Reopen the Kennedy Case forum, where the overarching theme is that LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS COMPLETELY INNOCENT!!![...]
There is an initial mental hurdle you must overcome to find this book fascinating and worthwhile. It must make sense to you that Oswald, the designated patsy whose rifle would be found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, was nevertheless allowed by the bumbling conspirators to be standing on the steps of the TSBD at the time of the assassination.[...]
I can conceive of no possible conspiracy scenario this side of "Reptilian aliens did it!!!" that would have allowed Oswald to be standing on the steps of the TSBD at the time of the assassination. Nope, sorry, I regard Prayer Man as utter and self-evident nonsense.
That being said, I emphasize again that Mr. Kamp is a serious assassination enthusiast whose Prayer Man website is a veritable goldmine of documents and information even if you regard Prayer Man as nonsense. Ditto for this book. It is chock-full of worthwhile information and links regardless of your perspective on Prayer Man. I give it 4 stars for sheer effort. I am constantly agog at some of the wild and wacky notions that seemingly sane and intelligent conspiracy enthusiasts manage to compartmentalize in their otherwise sane and intelligent minds, and this book also serves as a good illustration of why I am constantly agog." -- Lance B. Payette; August 4, 2023
-
2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:
Therefore all factors of why Oswald would have been where he was in that Baker encounter, with nothing to do with his actual purpose that time being to get a coke, are supported by known Oswald behavior, in terms of a scenario in which he was on the first floor at the time of the shots (his claimed alibi).
Greg,
I think your made-up scenario of Oswald going back into the TSBD after the shooting is totally ludicrous. You've got him going up and down stairs and then out the back door for no really good reason (IMO).
Via your scenario, Oswald was ALREADY OUTSIDE THE BUILDING (on the steps, I assume? Or do you have him INSIDE the building, on the 1st floor, at 12:30? You seem to imply that it could have been either). But in either case, why would he possibly want to take a circuitous UP-AND-DOWN route via the two staircases just in order to get outside?! It's incredibly silly.
It's especially ridiculous from the standpoint of Oswald being INVOLVED (in at least SOME peripheral fashion) in a plot to kill JFK, because via such an involvement, Oswald would have no doubt wanted to get away from the scene of the crime as fast as he could....and since he was ALREADY OUTSIDE (if you think he is Prayer Man) or (alternatively) very near the FRONT DOOR on the 1st floor (if you think he took the SE stairs, which are practically right next to the FRONT entrance)....then why the heck wouldn't he just walk out the FRONT DOOR?
Plus, via your scenario, going back INTO the building itself (via the Prayer Man theory) would be mighty risky from LHO's POV too, because he would certainly have to think that the whole building was going to be sealed off very quickly after the shooting by the police (and it was, at about 12:37). So why would he have the slightest desire to go back into the building at all?
And I can't see why he would feel that leaving via the front entrance and being seen by somebody would look any worse (or be any more suspicious) than leaving by the back door. In fact, I can easily argue the opposite---that leaving by the BACK DOOR would look way more "suspicious" to anyone who might catch a glimpse of him than simply walking out the front door and exiting Dealey Plaza.
Sneaking out the back way is always a little more "fishy"-looking to most people, isn't it? In fact, aren't there many CTers who DO believe that one or more of the "real killers" of Kennedy did, indeed, sneak out the back door of the loading dock in order to make their getaway on 11/22?
I'd advise you to try again, Greg. Because your scenario of having Oswald going up and down the various stairs just in order to get out of the building is just laughable.
But, Greg, I do appreciate all the time and effort you have been putting into your very well-written posts in this thread over the last few days. I've enjoyed reading them. But this latest bit about Oswald's totally superfluous post-assassination escapade within the Book Depository is just not the slightest bit believable (IMO) and, frankly, reeks of CTer desperation.
-
12 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:
It is as if you latch on to that confused report of Bookhout like a fundamentalist citing inerrant scripture, no matter that all other reports and common sense tell you that Oswald told of his lunch occurring during his lunchtime.
The key point isn't really the specific "lunch" aspect of any of Oswald's lies. (And maybe Oswald himself was having a hard time keeping his "lunch" lies straight after he was arrested.)
But the most important point, IMO, is the chronology of the "Coke/Lunchroom Encounter" and "Out front with Shelley" aspects of Oswald's attempted alibi. And whether you choose to believe Bookhout, Fritz, and Hosty or not, the fact remains that those three men (Bookhout, Fritz, & Hosty) did write things down in their notes and/or reports that definitely give the impression that OSWALD HIMSELF said he followed this chronology at around 12:30 on Nov. 22:
1. Coke/Lunchroom Encounter with Officer Baker.
2. Then down to 1st floor to have lunch.
3. Then outside with Bill Shelley.-----------------
Plus: Can anyone who believes that Oswald is the "Prayer Man" figure really and truly also believe that Oswald then decided he wanted to immediately go back into the TSBD Building and dash up to the second-floor lunchroom to buy a Coke within seconds of JFK being shot out on Elm Street in front of the building?
That scenario of Oswald being Prayer Man and then immediately having a burning desire to go get a Coca-Cola on the second floor is a very loony scenario, if you ask me. But for the conspiracy theorists who wholly endorse the "Oswald Is Prayer Man" theory, then they really have no choice but to believe such an absurd scenario. Because we know for a fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was in that 2nd-floor lunchroom with Officer Baker just a few minutes after the assassination took place.*
* Notwithstanding the many CTers who now belong to the INHAA club.
-
-
5 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:
Do you seriously believe Oswald, whose lunch break started at 12:00, would claim in interrogation that he ate his lunch after the assassination which occurred at 12:30? Do you seriously believe Oswald claimed that?
Yes, I do. And that's because this chronology....
1. Coke/Lunchroom Encounter with Officer Baker.
2. Then down to 1st floor to have lunch.
3. Then outside with Bill Shelley.
....is confirmed (or at least it is present and exists) in THREE different places within the reports or notes written by the various officials:
1. Captain Fritz' notes --- HERE.
2. James Bookhout's solo 11/22/63 FBI report --- HERE.
3. James Hosty's recently-discovered notes --- HERE.
In Hosty's notes, however, he doesn't say anything about "Shelley". He, instead, says Oswald went outside to watch the "P. Parade". But, IMO, Hosty is, in effect, conflating "Shelley" and "P. Parade". But in any event, Hosty, just like Fritz and Bookhout, has Oswald going outside only after the "Coke" and the "Lunch on 1st floor".
And Hosty, in his notes, doesn't mention the encounter Oswald had with Baker either. But there's no indication in the existing records and reports that Oswald ever said anything about going to the second floor TWO times to get a Coke on Nov. 22. So, IMO, Hosty's "went to 2nd floor to get Coca-Cola" is essentially the same thing as also referring to the encounter between LHO and Baker.
And as "absurd" as it might be to think that anyone would want to go and eat his lunch after having such an encounter with a police officer (at gunpoint) and after discovering that the President had just been shot right outside the front door of your workplace, we also have to realize that such a chronology was being provided by the person to whom all of the evidence in the assassination leads---Lee H. Oswald.
In other words, Oswald's absurd and crazy chronology was all just one big fat lie being told by the actual assassin of President Kennedy (except for the Lunchroom Encounter with Officer Baker, of course, which actually did occur and wasn't just one of Oswald's made-up tall tales).
-
Even though I don't believe for one second that "Prayer Man" is Lee Harvey Oswald, I still would very much like to see the original versions of the Darnell and Wiegman films, and I'd very much like to have those films enhanced and restored to the best possible quality.
I certainly think that any such project, if a definitive "Is it Oswald or isn't it?" identification of the Prayer Man figure can be obtained, will prove very disappointing to the people who keep insisting that the blurry Prayer Man figure has got to be Lee Oswald. But I certainly am not against such a project taking place. Not in the least. As I've said before, I'm all for it. -
On 9/30/2023 at 10:24 PM, Greg Doudna said:
Oswald's claim in interrogation that he was out front...
Greg,
You're severely overstating (i.e., misstating) Lee Harvey Oswald's alleged "alibi". Oswald never once said he was outside on the front steps of the Book Depository Building at the time when President Kennedy was being shot.
When Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front", Oswald was clearly indicating to Fritz that he had only gone "out" of the building AFTER he had already had his encounter with Police Officer Marrion Baker in the second-floor lunchroom, which was an encounter that occurred, of course, after the assassination had already taken place.
(See James W. Bookhout's 11/22/63 FBI report—HERE—for verification of the chronology of Captain Fritz' sketchy "out with Bill Shelley in front" note.)
The key words in Bookhout's report, chronology-wise, are these words:
"He thereafter went outside..."
And the more-recent discovery of James Hosty's "went outside to watch P. Parade" notes—discussed in detail HERE—have also been mischaracterized by conspiracists (IMO), because the basic chronology of those Hosty notes is identical to Bookhout's report, with Oswald (per the Hosty notes) only going outside after he had gone to the second floor to get a Coke....and we know the "Coke" excursion coincided with Oswald's encounter with Marrion Baker, which was AFTER the assassination, not DURING the assassination.
FWIW....
With regard to the identity of "Prayer Man", I'll re-post the following comments made two years ago by someone whose presence on the Depository front steps on November 22nd is not disputed by even the most hardened of conspiracy theorists:
"To answer the question about Prayer Man: I have been looking at this all day, and I can tell you this: I 100% have no idea who that person is. I can also tell you 100% that is not Lee Harvey Oswald. First, Lee was not out there. I know that to be true. Second, for anyone who thinks Prayer Man is Lee, the individual has a much larger frame than Lee." -- Buell Wesley Frazier; March 28, 2021
Also See:
http://DVP's JFK Archives/"Prayer Man" Discussion
-
-
7 hours ago, Peter Fokes said:
So he saw a fragment and a whole bullet?
Two items?
He's now saying (starting in 2023) that he saw THREE bullet items --- a whole bullet on top of the back seat, plus two smaller fragments lying in a pool of blood on the back seat itself.
-
48 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:
Of course, a book can become so heavily edited as to become written by the editor (Robenalt).
You could be right. I really have no idea. I know absolutely nothing about a certain Mr. James Robenalt. Never heard of him prior to September 9, 2023, when his Vanity Fair piece came out. And I certainly have been critical of Mr. Landis' new and incredible story. I simply don't believe he found a "whole bullet". I think he probably found a "fragment" (just as he said to the press way back in 1983), and then that "fragment" was embellished by Landis (for whatever unknown reason) into becoming whole bullet CE399.
But as far as Jim Robenalt is concerned --- as of right now, I'll choose to believe him when he said on NBC-TV:
"The book was done when I read it. He [Paul Landis] had completed the book."
This EF thread reminds me of the rumors that were circulating in July of 2007 when several CTers had the very silly idea that Vince Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History" had been ghostwritten by multiple different authors:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/ghostwriting.html
-
On 9/28/2023 at 9:54 PM, Benjamin Cole said:
Groubert brought up the same phrasing.
But I can't find any reference to that phrasing ("process his memories") on the Amazon page for Landis' book, which is where Mr. Groubert says he saw it. It's just not there. So I have no idea what Groubert is talking about there (as that phrase relates to the "Amazon pre-order page" anyway.)
Edit --- I just checked the Canada and U.K. Amazon sites too. It's not on those pages either.
Maybe Groubert is mixing up his source for the "process his memories" quote. It's definitely not on the Amazon page(s), but evidently is (per Wiki) in the NYT article written by Peter Baker. [EDIT -- I later confirmed that the quote is, indeed, in the Baker article.]
-
24 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:
I think it is fair to say Robenalt likely wrote the Landis book.
I certainly wouldn't go that far, Ben.
In the NBC interview below, Robenalt specifically said this:
"Well, first of all, the book was done when I read it. He [Paul Landis] had completed the book."
This would imply, of course, that Mr. Robenalt didn't write a thing within the covers of Landis' book. Or do you, Benjamin, think that Robenalt was just being clever, tricky, evasive, and untruthful there? (The quote I mentioned comes up at the 18:30 mark in the NBC News video below. And Robenalt also says he acquired his pre-release copy of Landis' book from his [Robenalt's] publisher, which is the same publishing company that is putting out Landis' book--Chicago Review Press.)
-
On 9/28/2023 at 9:00 PM, Benjamin Cole said:
Robenalt's role in the Landis book is interesting. Could another handler of Landis brought forward a more-convincing tale?
I just noticed today that James Robenalt has a Wikipedia page, and on that Wiki page we find this (FWIW):
"Robenhalt [sic] helped former Secret Service agent Paul Landis "process his memories" of the JFK Assassination, enabling Landis to write his memoir The Final Witness (2023)."
The source used for the above quote is Peter Baker's recent [September 2023] New York Times article, which can't be accessed unless you pay for it (which is typical for NYT online material).*
But the term "process his memories" is quite interesting, isn't it?
* EDIT --- You can get around the paywall by accessing the Wayback Machine version of the article, here.
-
7 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:
Landis should have latched onto O'Reilly's shtick. His book would probably be a much better seller if its title was something like...."Killing The Magic Bullet Myth."
Mr. Landis is now, in 2023, clearly not a person who believes in the Single-Bullet Theory. And as such, I can't help but wonder why the blurb pictured below still occupies space on Landis' book page at Amazon.com?
Landis has stated in some of his interviews this month that he thinks Lee Oswald WAS, indeed, the sole assassin in Dallas. But, as all of us here at The Education Forum know, if the SBT goes down the tubes, then it's almost impossible (barring some kind of miracle) for there to have been only one shooter in Dealey Plaza.
Which means that Mr. Landis is simply not very well-informed when it comes to certain things relating to the assassination (e.g., the timing of the gunshots and analysis of the Zapruder Film).
Or....
Perhaps Mr. Landis has another "bombshell" waiting for us when his book is released on October 10th, 2023, and perhaps he's going to tell us how (in his opinion) Lee Harvey Oswald was able to assassinate JFK all by himself but WITHOUT the Single-Bullet Theory being a part of the equation.
Because without some sort of explanation to logically and reasonably explain to his readers how the Lone Assassin scenario is still valid (even without the SBT), then this blurb below doesn't make much sense at all....
-
A Landis Summary.....
As of the time I'm writing this post on September 26, 2023, I think there are five versions of Paul Landis' "bullet" story, with versions 2 and 3 being virtually identical. I'll outline those versions and variations below:
Version #1: November 1963. In this earliest version, via two separate Secret Service reports (one of which is extremely long and detailed), Landis doesn't say a word about seeing or finding any type of "bullet" or "bullet fragment":
PAUL LANDIS' REPORTS (11/27/63 & 11/30/63)
Version #2: November 1983. In this version, which appeared in at least two Ohio newspapers, Landis tells Associated Press writer Tim Curran that "there was a bullet fragment on the top of the back seat" which Landis said he "picked up and gave to somebody":
THE COSHOCTON (OHIO) TRIBUNE (NOV. 20, 1983)
GREENFIELD (OHIO) DAILY TIMES (NOV. 22, 1983)
Version #3: November 1988. This version is nearly identical to Version 2, with the only difference being that Mr. Landis, in 1988, doesn't specifically say he found the fragment "on top" of the back seat. In his 1988 interview, he merely says he found a fragment "on the seat".
But another key difference in this 1988 article is the fact that the reporter/writer has placed quotation marks around the key words being spoken by Mr. Landis, indicating that these words (shown below) are not just a mere paraphrasing on the part of the author of the article, but instead represent a direct and verbatim quote coming from the mouth of Paul E. Landis Jr.:
"I distinctly remember there was a bullet fragment on the seat which I picked up and handed to somebody."
THE COLUMBUS (OHIO) DISPATCH (NOV. 20, 1988)
Version #4: 2010 (in the book "The Kennedy Detail"). In this version, like the 1983 and 1988 newspaper accounts, Landis says he saw a bullet "fragment" in the back portion of JFK's limousine. But in this 2010 version, unlike the earlier articles from the 1980s, Mr. Landis doesn't say anything about giving the fragment to another person. Instead, he says he placed the fragment "on the seat".
Here's the complete excerpt concerning Landis and the "bullet fragment" as it appears on Page 225 of the 2010 book "The Kennedy Detail" (with thanks going to Vincent Palamara for providing the screen capture linked below):
"When Agent Paul Landis helped Mrs. Kennedy out of the car he saw a bullet fragment in the back where the top would be secured. He picked it up and put it on the seat, thinking that if the car were moved, it might be blown off."
PAGE 225 OF "THE KENNEDY DETAIL" (2010)
Version #5: Landis' current version, which first surfaced publicly in September 2023, which has Landis now saying he saw and picked up a whole bullet off of the top portion of the back seat of the Presidential limousine on 11/22/63, with Mr. Landis, unlike all previous statements he has ever made concerning the discovery of any type of "bullet" material, now claiming to have put that whole bullet in his pocket and then carrying it himself into Parkland Hospital where he then placed the whole bullet at the foot of the stretcher being occupied by John F. Kennedy in Trauma Room #1.
INTERVIEW WITH PAUL LANDIS (SEPT. 12, 2023)-------------------------------
DVP's JFK Archives / Discussion About Paul Landis
Billy Lovelady is NOT leaning over (much) in Altgens 6.
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by David Von Pein
Here's a clearer version (click to enlarge):