Andric Perez

John Kerry is a great liberal Senator who was also Skull and Bones. I don't think all S&B are evil.

Mr. Parker, how do you explain the sighting of a nervous, fleeing Oswald look-alike in El Chico Restaurant parking lot near the Tippit shooting scene, at 2pm, at a time when Oswald was detained? What do you make of the license plate number written down of this man's car, which was traced to CIA contractor Collins Radio?

These are just observations as I recall them.

I do not specifically recall the mechanic stating the driver was "nervous".

I recall having some doubts about the 2pm time-frame as it did not seem to fit other information he imparted.

The car number plate was issued to a different car than the one described.

The mechanic was elderly, yet his eyesight has never been questioned, and no mention was made as to whether he needed glasses, or whether he wore glasses.

Let's just assume that this sighting is of an impersonator and it was in fact at 2:00pm

Let's assume that an Oswald impersonator was arrested and taken out the back of the TSBD as is often claimed.

We're now up to two Oswald impersonators and one real Oswald running around Dallas that day...

Are there others? Who got into the Rambler? the real Oswald; one of the above two? A third doppleganger? An innocent schmuck who fit Oswald's general appearance?

Was it one of these Oswald's at the Top 10 record store, or yet another one?

Which one was buying beer that morning?

---------------------------------------------------------

Let's try and name all those close to Oswald or Ruby who have been said to resemble Oswald:

Robert Oswald

Larry Crafard

Buell Frazier

Billy Lovelady

Other?

Then in the next tier you, you have the criminal and/or anti-Castro types

Thomas Vallee

William Seymour

Other?

Just how many young men did resemble Oswald in Dallas/Fort Worth alone? I'd say it would be a substantial number. And some probably much more so than a shorter guy with a New York accent and different eye color.

Generally, I split sightings into two different groups.

One group being sightings only where nothing but the visual is used to suggest it was Oswald. The vast majority in this group would be down to mistaken identity or mental issues of the observer (usually seeking attention).

The other group would be those sightings where the name "Oswald" (or Lee/Leon) is said to be used, or other data is used to suggest it was Oswald other than just visual. This is the group that needs most study.

This sighting doesn't fit neatly into either of those categories due to the coincidence (or not) of the number plate belonging to a car owned by Carl Mather who just happened to be a friend of Tippit and who just happened, as you point out, to work at Collin's Radio.

I will look into this further when time allows and try and come up with something definitive (as well as correct any memory mistakes) , but twist my arm right now, and I'd say either the mechanic got the number plate slightly wrong (which makes his mistake a very huge coincidence, I admit, considering where it leads), or it was Carl Mathers himself because another thing I recall is having some doubts about his timeline (alibi).

Finally, can I ask what you make of it? How does it fit into the grand scheme of things?

I personally think that it would be a huge coincidence (agree with you) that someone with bad vision gets a license plate number wrong, and this number happens to correspond to a contractor for the agency (CIA) accused by most CT of having been involved in the assassination.

Mr. Parker, how do you explain the sighting of a nervous, fleeing Oswald look-alike in El Chico Restaurant parking lot near the Tippit shooting scene, at 2pm, at a time when Oswald was detained? What do you make of the license plate number written down of this man's car, which was traced to CIA contractor Collins Radio?

I look back to the Edwin Walker shooting incident as the key. It's been awhile since I read Dick Russell's The Man Who Knew Too Much, but he did some stellar original research here, and tied that to Larrie Schmidt and the Hunt Bros.

The Walker shooting was a dress rehearsal for the JFK hit -- Oswald (Harvey in Armstrong's scheme) was there, I think, and may or may not have fired the shot that was probably a deliberate miss -- a staged "assassination" attempt, which may have been what LHO was told would happen in Dallas for JFK (the Gary Weans/John Tower/Audie Murphy story). He had proven his willingness to participate in such a staged provocation with Walker, and immediately after this he was sent to New Orleans in April, where the real patsy set-up work began. According to Judyth Baker, LHO balked at playing the pro-Castro activist in Dallas after the Walker shooting, fearing it was too dangerous.

In Farewell America, the book supposedly produced by French intelligence at RFK's behest, there was a celebration at the Hunt offices immediately after the assassination. And there have been allegations that the Hunts funded the hit. Not to say that the Hunts were the prime movers, but they were tied in with Willoughby, Ruby, the CIA, LBJ, and all the major suspects.

If the Gary Weans story is true, it explains how many participants (e.g., Secret Service, perhaps Tippit) may have been roped into the operation, never believing that it would actually be lethal. This may have grown out of the Operation Northwoods schemes. But a fake assassination, even if it had worked as a pretext for launching an attack on Cuba (if LHO had been escorted out of the country), would never have dimmed JFK's re-election prospects -- quite the opposite, in fact. His ratings would have skyrocketed -- rally around our attacked president! Thus for the Hunts, LBJ, Hoover, the CIA, Mob, and MIC -- all who stood lose both institutionally and personally if JFK were re-elected in '64 -- the fake hit had to become the real thing. Some were in on the conversion, some were probably not. If this is indeed how it happened, it is similar to the recent spate of terrorist exercises and drills (9/11, 7/7) that served as Trojan Horses for false flag attacks.

self-delete.

The movie can be seen in its entirety

Sometimes the whole Oswald family was seen in places they couldn't have been according to the official story. One example is that gun shop in Irvin, TX (or Dallas, can't remember very well). Oswald was seen driving the car, but he allegedly could not drive.

Wayne January saw Oswald with a woman in a Dallas airport.

Andric,

you said it all when you said 'allegedly" couldn't drive. I'm curious as to why this could not have been the O's (apart from the driving issue)? Where else were they supposed to have been at the time?

I'm perfectly at ease with the Irving incidents being the O's as I have looked into those sightings quite recently, but it's possible I missed that they were supposed to be elsewhere. The January one, I'd have to take another look at -- has been a while...

According to American AViation's owner (Wayne January), A man who looked like Oswald stayed in a car while a heavy set man and a woman came out and approached Wayne January on November 20th, 1963 asking questions that made January believe they planned to hijack a Cessna plane to Cuba. January decided not to rent the plane.

Do you believe this was the real Oswald? January said this happened on the morning of November 20th, which would be the Wednesday prior to the assassination. An impersonation doubter would have to explain why Oswald's manager in the Texas School Book Depository never spoke about LHO taking the morning off couple of days before the assassination.

The excerpt related to January's inteview with author James Douglass (JFK and the Unspeakable, 2008) can be seen in the following link, on page 244: http://books.google.com/books?id=KS-6XrdalGkC&pg=PA244&dq=wayne+january+unspeakable+oswald&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Fwv5Tr_rLePr0gHxufmWAg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Sometimes the whole Oswald family was seen in places they couldn't have been according to the official story. One example is that gun shop in Irvin, TX (or Dallas, can't remember very well). Oswald was seen driving the car, but he allegedly could not drive.

Wayne January saw Oswald with a woman in a Dallas airport.

De Mohrenschildt was a White Russian. Oswald was allegedly a Communist. White Russians and Communists were arch-enemies; In the Soviet Union, there Reds and Whites. They were fighting for totally opposite reasons. White Russians were Conservative Tsarists; The Reds were Conservative Anti-Tsarists. De Mohrenschildt's father was jailed twice by the Communist regime for his anti-Red criticism; the second time hew as jailed he was sent to Siberia. Only a LN would believe that it is not suspicious that a person whose father was jailed and sent to Siberia for no good reason would become good friends with a Communist.

I personally don't have a problem with the posting of gory pictures here.

As Mr. DiEugenio pointed out, Hitchens loved the Iraq War.

Hitchens called the war in Iraq, "A War to Be Proud Of." That was the title of one of his war-loving articles. Link here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/995phqjw.asp?page=3

Hitchens did not have a very bright mind. He once swore that if Hillary Clinton became Obama's Secretary of State, she would behave like an egomaniac who wanted to become President really bad. Now Mr. Hitchens' words are officially dumb, unless someone points out any indication that Hillary Clinton wants to challenge Obama in the upcoming Primaries. The Iowa Democratic Primary is less than 3 weeks from today, by the way. Here's Hitchens' quote:

"HITCHENS: I actually agree with what Tom Friedman said. It must be very nerve-wracking to have a Secretary of State who you know is thinking about four years ahead or maybe eight all the time. She never thinks about anything else, never has thought about anything else, except the possibility that she might one day be the president of the United States.....Someone who simply can't think about anything but her own ego, or sometimes her husband's. If Barack Obama does this to himself, he will never have a minute's peace in foreign policy and neither will we."

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh112008.html

Here's a good obituary telling the truth about Hitchens: http://gawker.com/5868761/christopher-hitchens-unforgivable-mistake

I won't be too harsh on Hitchens for being an alcoholic, as reported here, since he was a bad journalist regardless of his habits.

How can you tell a man is "Cuban-looking" without even seeing his face? Why can't the man be Caucasian, or from a Latin-American country other than Cuba?

Has it been determined at which Z-frame the umbrella man began pumping his umbrella? Since the first shot seemed to have been fired at around frame 190 (Speer and other researchers) then the umbrella-pumping action should have begun shortly before that frame in order for it to be considered suspicious.

The evidence that Connally had foreknowledge of the assassination is weak in my opinion. His life-time testimony has been used by several conspiracy theorists as proof of conspiracy. If Connally was part of the conspiracy he would have simply followed the lone-nut theory to a tee.

The phrases "Kennedy assassination," "john f. kennedy assassination," and "jfk assassination" all have McAdams ahead of anyone else besides Wikipedia.

On a positive note, the term "Warren commission" yields several CT websites and McAdams is 8th.

The clouds prove, IMO, that a gray object can look white depending on how much light reaches it. (sunny day vs. cloudy day, outdoors vs. indoors).

Why are clouds often gray at the bottom and white at the top? Here's the answer from a 2003 article in the USA Today unrelated to the JFK assassination:

By Jack Williams, USATODAY.com

Q: Why are rain clouds gray? Do they turn from white to gray and if so, how?

sun illuminates the tops of these towering cumulus clouds, making them white, while the bottoms are dark gray.

NOAA

A: Imagine taking off in an airplane on a rainy day with the sky covered by gray clouds. As your airplane flies through the clouds, the sky becomes brighter and brighter and eventually you see bright sunlight and look down: the tops of those gray clouds you've flown through.

Now, the clouds are white.

Before coninuing to read this comment, I invite readers to google "clouds" and go to "images" and you will see how many different shades of gray/white can be seen in the same cloud.

The images shown in this threads are apples vs. orange (jacket in sunlight vs. jacket indoors). Was more light hitting the jacket outdoors? My guess is yes.

Note that nobody has noticed any different in the shape of the jackets, perhaps because there is another apples vs. oranges situation: One image shows the back of the jacket, the other image shows the front. Only the color has been an issue of contention in this thread.

A second point I want to make is that labeling the left-side jacket as "white" is complicated, because the sleeves are even whiter than the rest of the jacket. This is further proof that grays can be easily affected by lighting conditions. I have two hypotheses:

1) The Oswald look-alike seen at 2pm fleeing in a car killed Tippit and planted the jacket as he rounded Jefferson St. around 1:10-1:20pm, and then took refuge in El Chico restaurant until 2:00pm; or

2) Oswald did kill Tippit as he realized he was being set up and could not trust anyone anymore. In fact, CT researcher Pat Speer believes that the tests performed on Oswald's hands suggest that he killed Tippit (but did not shoot JFK):

SPEER: That the residue on Oswald's right hand came from his merely handling his weapon is discounted by a more recent study as well. For this study, as described in the November 1995 Journal of the Forensic Sciences, the hands of 43 police officers—none of whom had recently fired a weapon-- were tested to see if they had picked up gunshot residue from merely handling their weapons. The tests were positive for only 3 of them. This once again suggests—it is by no means conclusive--that Oswald fired his revolver on November 22, 1963. If this is so, moreover, then Oswald is undoubtedly the leading candidate for the murder of Officer Tippit. If one is to use gunshot residue tests to suggest that Oswald shot Tippit, however, one must simultaneously acknowledge that these same tests failed to indicate that Oswald killed Kennedy, and that this absence speaks volumes.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4e%3Acastsofcontention

I'm split on whether an imposter framed Oswald or he shot Tippit; all I know is I find the two-jacket theory the least plausible of all three.

The same clothing item may look different in different lighting conditions (i.e. indoors vs. outdoors). That's why they even sell indoors film and outdoors film. Was it very sunny at the time Tippit was shot? the light dim or bright in the room where the WC Exhibit was photographed. What exposure settings were used? These are important questions, IMO.

What I do found interesting is that the jacket had laundry tag # "B 9738" and the FBI failed to investigate whether Oswald or someone else had it cleaned, according to Sylvia Meagher: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/meagher/Notes_for_a_new_investigation.html

Let's not forget that an Oswlad look-alike was seen at 2:00pm at the back of El Chico Restaurant. He may have been wearing this light grey (or white, depending on the lighting) jacket.

I hope ABC or someone else makes a transcript of the whole thing.

By reading parts of the tapes it is now official that JFK and LBJ had totally different political views. JFK thought LBJ would have been bad for America. The people who claim JFK would have followed LBJ's path in Vietnam struck out. Kudos to the researchers and historians who pointed out that JFK would have sought peace in Vietnam. His troop withdrawal attempt in 1963 and private conversations with friends about leaving Vietnam should have left no doubts in anyone's minds that JFK was no LBJ; but these tapes provide even further evidence. From the Independent UK article cited above, quoting Jackie:

"He didn't like that idea that Lyndon would go on and be President because he was worried for the country."

LN will maybe spin this into saying JFK was speaking about economic issues, despite the fact that LBJ went on to become one of the worst foreign-policy Presidents of all-time (immediately reversing JFK's withdrawal plans) as opposed to being one of the worst domestic-policy President. Hillary Clinton actually praised LBJ's role in advancing Civil Rights a few years ago.

It's a shame Garrison discussion is so polarized: He's evil, he's perfect.

I don't think the discussion is as polarized as you make it seem. Mike Williams said there's nothing to believe about Garrison. His thread title was, "Why in the World would anyone believe Jim Garrison?" without specifying what part of his work was hard to believe. Are there people on the other side claiming that everything Garrison claimed is true? I am not sure, but I highly doubt that Jim DiEugenio, for example, has praised every single bit of evidence presented by the prosecution in the Garrison trials. This thread should be about Mr. Williams' blanket statement.

Are the Clinton witnesses all lying about seeing Oswald with Ferrie and Shaw? Does Mike Williams distrust all of them?

I do not believe the pro-Garrison witness who was a heorin addict, for example; but that is only one person. The Clinton witnesses, on the other hand, gave solid testimony IMO.

And Mr. Kennedy on Franklin D. Roosevelt: “Charlatan is an unfair word,” but “he did an awful lot for effect.”

I would love to hear Kennedy elaborate on this, now that FDR's "effects" have being dismantled since 1980.

Then again, I would have loved to hear Kennedy elaborate on anything after 1963.

Could anyone explain what "to do a lot for effect" means? Never heard that phrase.

In Tapes, Candid Talk by Young Kennedy Widow

The New York Times

By JANNY SCOTT

September 12, 2011

In the early days of the Cuban missile crisis, before the world knew that the cold war seemed to be sliding toward nuclear conflict, President John F. Kennedy telephoned his wife, Jacqueline, at their weekend house in Virginia. From his voice, she would say later, she could tell that something was wrong. Why don’t you come back to Washington? he asked, without explanation.

“From then on, it seemed there was no waking or sleeping,” Mrs. Kennedy recalls in an oral history scheduled to be released Wednesday, 47 years after the interviews were conducted. When she learned that the Soviets were installing missiles in Cuba aimed at American cities, she begged her husband not to send her away. “If anything happens, we’re all going to stay right here with you,” she says she told him in October 1962. “I just want to be with you, and I want to die with you, and the children do, too — than live without you.”

The seven-part interview conducted in early 1964 — one of only three that Mrs. Kennedy gave after Mr. Kennedy’s assassination — is being published as a book and an audio recording. In it, the young widow speaks with Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., the historian and Kennedy aide, about her husband’s presidency, their marriage and her role in his political life. They do not discuss his death. The eight and a half hours of interviews had been kept private at the request of Mrs. Kennedy, who never spoke publicly about those years again before she died in 1994.The transcript and recording, obtained by The New York Times, offer an extraordinary immersion in the thoughts and feelings of one of the most enigmatic figures of the second half of the 20th century — the woman who, as much as anyone, helped shape a heroic narrative of the Kennedy years. Though the interviews seem unlikely to redraw the contours of Mr. Kennedy or his presidency, they are packed with intimate observations and insights of the sort that historians treasure.

At just 34, and in what her daughter, Caroline Kennedy, describes in a foreword to the book as “the extreme stages of grief,” Mrs. Kennedy displays a cool self-possession and a sharp, somewhat unforgiving eye. In her distinctive breathy cadences, an intimate tone and the impeccable diction of women of her era and class, she delivers tart commentary on former presidents, heads of state, her husband’s aides, powerful women, women reporters, even her mother-in-law.

Charles DeGaulle, the French president, is “that egomaniac.” The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is “a phony” whom electronic eavesdropping has found arranging encounters with women. Indira Gandhi, the future prime minister of India, is “a real prune — bitter, kind of pushy, horrible woman.”

The White House social secretary, Letitia Baldrige, Mrs. Kennedy tells Mr. Schlesinger, loved to pick up the phone and say things like “Send all the White House china on the plane to Costa Rica” or tell them they had to fly string beans in to a state dinner. She quotes Mr. Kennedy saying of Lyndon B. Johnson, his vice president, “Oh, God, can you ever imagine what would happen to the country if Lyndon was president?” And Mr. Kennedy on Franklin D. Roosevelt: “Charlatan is an unfair word,” but “he did an awful lot for effect.”

She suggests that “violently liberal women in politics” preferred Adlai Stevenson, the former Democratic presidential nominee, to Mr. Kennedy because they “were scared of sex.” Of Madame Nhu, the sister-in-law of the president of South Vietnam, and Clare Boothe Luce, a former member of Congress, she tells Mr. Schlesinger, in a stage whisper, “I wouldn’t be surprised if they were lesbians.”

Any shortcomings on the part of her husband are not mentioned. She speaks of his loyalty, sensitivity, courage — traits consistent with the Camelot template she had been the first to invoke. She presents herself as adoring, eager for his approval and deeply moved by the man. There is no talk of his extramarital affairs or secret struggle with Addison’s disease, though she does speak in detail about his back pain and the 1954 back surgery that almost killed him.

He was, she says, kind, conciliatory, forgiving, a gentleman, a man of taste in people, furniture, books. Fondly, she recalls him ever reading — while walking, dining, bathing, doing his tie. She remembers with amusement how he would change into pajamas for his 45-minute afternoon nap in the White House. She lets slip a reference to a “civilized side of Jack” and “sort of a crude side,” but she clarifies: “Not that Jack had the crude side.”

He wept in her presence a handful of times. Mrs. Kennedy describes how he cried in his bedroom, head in hands, over the debacle of the attempted invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs in 1961 by Cuban exiles opposed to Fidel Castro and trained by the Central Intelligence Agency.

On the subject of her marriage, she presents herself in many ways as a traditional wife — one year after the publication of “The Feminine Mystique” by Betty Friedan had helped inspire a wave of rethinking of that role. Her marriage, she remarks, was “rather terribly Victorian or Asiatic.” Her aim was to provide “a climate of affection and comfort and détente” — and the children in good moods. She suggests the couple never really had a fight. She insists she got her opinions from her husband. On that last point, at least, Michael Beschloss, the historian, who was enlisted to write an introduction and annotations to the book, said in an interview, “I would take that with a warehouse of salt.”

In fact, he said, he found “a very high correlation” between the people Mrs. Kennedy runs down in the interviews and those known to have had difficulty in the Kennedy administration. In some cases, they were in danger of being fired. Those she praises, Mr. Beschloss said, tend to have flourished. To what extent that correlation reflects Mrs. Kennedy’s influence on her husband, or vice versa, is open to interpretation and is likely to vary from case to case.

Recalling a trip to India and Pakistan with her sister, Lee Radziwill, in 1962, Mrs. Kennedy says she was so appalled by what she considered to be the gaucherie of the newly appointed United States ambassador to Pakistan, Walter McConaughy, that before even completing her descent from the Khyber Pass, she wrote a letter to her husband alerting him to “what a hopeless ambassador McConaughy was for Pakistan, and all the reasons and all the things I thought the ambassador should be.”

She even named possible replacements.

“And Jack was so impressed by that letter,” she tells Mr. Schlesinger, that he showed it to Dean Rusk, the secretary of state (whom Mrs. Kennedy disparages as apathetic and indecisive). According to her account, Mr. Kennedy said to Mr. Rusk, “This is the kind of letter I should be getting from the inspectors of embassies.”

Even so, Mr. McConaughy, a career diplomat, remained ambassador to Pakistan until 1966.

There are men she praises, too, in the book, which is titled “Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life With John F. Kennedy” and published by Hyperion. She credits Joseph P. Kennedy Sr., the president’s father, as the dominant influence in inculcating a sense of discipline in his children. Among the administration figures she admires are Robert F. Kennedy, the president’s brother; Robert S. McNamara, the defense secretary; and McGeorge Bundy, the national security adviser. She calls André Malraux, the French novelist, “the most fascinating man I’ve ever talked to.” She says she was impressed above all by the Colombian president, Alberto Lleras Camargo, whom she finds “Nordic in his sadness.”

In many of her accounts of her marriage, the grieving widow in her early 30s appears to bear little resemblance to the woman who married Aristotle Onassis, the Greek shipping magnate, four years later, or who, after his death, embarked upon a career as a book editor in New York and later told a friend she had come to realize she could not expect to live primarily through a husband. Doris Kearns Goodwin, the historian and wife of Richard Goodwin, a Kennedy aide, said in an interview on Friday, “It’s certainly not the Jackie that we knew later on.”

But, she added, “By then, she’s a different woman.”

Mrs. Kennedy might have been intentionally projecting the image expected of women at the time. She also knew that she was speaking for the historical record, since the conversations were part of a larger oral history of the Kennedy presidency. But her self-confidence seems to have grown in the White House. For the first time, she became one of her husband’s most visible assets. Her televised tour of the White House restoration that she had initiated was watched by 56 million viewers.

“Suddenly, everything that’d been a liability before — your hair, that you spoke French, that you didn’t just adore to campaign, and you didn’t bake bread with flour up to your arms — you know, everybody thought I was a snob and hated politics,” she tells Mr. Schlesinger. All of that changed. “I was so happy for Jack, especially now that it was only three years together that he could be proud of me then,” she says. “Because it made him so happy — it made me so happy. So those were our happiest years.”

She humorously recounts a visit from Sukarno, the president of Indonesia, to the Kennedys’ private sitting room. The briefing papers she had read in preparation had mentioned that Sukarno had been flattered by Mao’s decision to publish his art collection. To impress Sukarno, Mrs. Kennedy asked the State Department for the volume, positioned it prominently on the table and invited him to sit on the sofa between her and Mr. Kennedy and admire the paintings.

Every single one turned out to be of a woman — “naked to the waist with a hibiscus in her hair,” Mrs. Kennedy tells Mr. Schlesinger, who bursts out laughing. She says she could not believe what she was seeing. “I caught Jack’s eye, and we were trying not to laugh at each other.” Sukarno was “so terribly happy, and he’d say, ‘This is my second wife, and this was.’...” Mrs. Kennedy says. “He had a sort of lecherous look” and “left a bad taste in your mouth.”

Describing the night of the inauguration, she recalls that she was both recovering from a Caesarean section and exhausted. She skips dinner and takes a nap. But she finds herself unable to get out of bed to attend the inaugural balls until Dr. Janet Travell, who would become the White House physician, materializes and hands her an orange pill.

“And then she told me it was Dexadrine,” Mrs. Kennedy says

Asked if Mr. Kennedy was religious, she tells Mr. Schlesinger, “Oh, yes,” then appends a revealing qualification: “Well, I mean, he never missed church one Sunday that we were married or all that, but you could see partly — I often used to think whether it was superstition or not — I mean, he wasn’t quite sure, but if it was that way, he wanted to have that on his side.”

He would say his prayers kneeling on the edge of the bed, taking about three seconds and crossing himself. “It was just like a little childish mannerism, I suppose like brushing your teeth or something,” she says. Then she adds: “But I thought that was so sweet. It used to amuse me so, standing there.”

In her foreword to the book, Caroline Kennedy says her decision to publish was prompted by the 50th anniversary of her father’s presidency. It would be a disservice, she said, to allow her mother’s perspective to be absent from the public and scholarly debate.

People have certain impressions of her mother, Ms. Kennedy suggests in a video accompanying the electronic version of the book, but "they really don’t know her at all." In her printed foreword, she says, “they don’t always appreciate her intellectual curiosity, her sense of the ridiculous, her sense of adventure, or her unerring sense of what was right.”

My favorite part of the NYT article: "She quotes Mr. Kennedy saying of Lyndon B. Johnson, his vice president, “Oh, God, can you ever imagine what would happen to the country if Lyndon was president?"

From the product description, it looks like this is a Castro-killed-JFK book.

Not worth the 3 dollars.

Mr. Speer, may your father rest in peace.

I believe your analysis is valid, but bear in mind that it does not apply to Allen Dulles, who lied because he was one of the conspirators, not because of any other reason. He knew Oswald was not the killer.

Wait a second. Until now I had been assuming (without watching the video) that it was true that Guinn's opinions were based on the firearms ID panel; but the video shows no such thing.

The only thing Bugliosi asked Guinn about the Firearms Panel's findings was if he was aware of those findings, and Guinn answered "yes." Being aware of something is not an opinion. Then Bugliosi immediately asked him whether based on his NAA analysis (at the 2:41 mark in the video below) only bullets fired from the MC hit Oswald, to which Guinn said yes.

I am "aware" of the conclusions on the HSCA and in the OJ case, for example; doesn't mean I'm an expert on DNA or nay other forensics field. Now we know with the benefit of the video that Bugliosi made sure he didn't elicit an opinion on a field outside Guinn's domain.

Therefore, no one in this thread has effectively attacked Speer's assertion that Guinn lied.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFAvJaMYbuU

Mr. Von Pein, I thought Guinn's field of expertise was NAA and not firearms identification. What kind of training and/or education did he receive in the firearms identification field?

Dr. Guinn, as of July 1986, knew that the HSCA and WC had concluded that only two bullets struck JFK. (He was supposed to ignore those conclusions when he was answering Bugliosi's questions in '86, right Pat?)

Federal Rules of Evidence:

"The expert's testimony must be grounded in an accepted body of learning or experience in the expert's field, and the expert must explain how the conclusion is so grounded."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/ACRule702.htm

Can you tell us what was Guinn's field of expertise?

Did Guinn explain "how the conclusion is so grounded"?