Jump to content
The Education Forum

Allen Lowe

Members
  • Content Count

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Allen Lowe

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. actually, not necessarily true. Equalization/filters can restore the sound to its more accurate original sound if done correctly, especially when one is working on a badly done recording. The original is no more "real" than a processed version. Each one is just an analog.
  2. for someone who likes evidence, you sure make up a lot of stuff - like the whole scenario of putting the photos with her language records. Pure invention on your part, and not made any more real by so many layers of fake detail. If the back yard photos were real, they were put there for one purpose only: to "expose" Oswald in the aftermath as a crazy lefty/Communist. Of course there are a lot of problems with this, but you have to remember what the USA was like in 1963/64. This was all a big code for subversion and the cold war effects of American rabid anti-communism.
  3. "He was of the Quacker affiliation..." well, you know what they say, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....
  4. the problem with all of this "look alike"stuff is that to our contemporary eyes a lot of people look the same in these years because hair was generally clipped so short. Not to mention that everybody was thin in those days.That's a problem here; there were probably 10 LHO look-alikes on every Dallas block.
  5. nice try but that's the kind of "truth" that tends to discredit assassination research. This is third-party testimony and by none other than Humes and Boswell, who lied repeatedly about the autopsy. You are going to have to do better, maybe a memo or testimony by Burkley himself, or by RFK et al. Because we know that military and CIA disinformation has continually tried to blame the victims in the murder.
  6. to me, sorry, that's all part of the CIA disinformation campaign, to blame the victim(s), JFK and then RFK. Of course the CIA tried to blame the assassination on blowback, to JFK's supposed attempts to assassinate Castro; but as Jim DiEugenio has pointed out, the CIA's own report on the Castro assassination efforts made clear that it was done without JFK's knowledge. JFK was getting ready to negotiate RECOGNITION of Cuba; Operation Mongoose was basically busy work to keep the anti-Castroites off his back. And can you cite any real and documented proof that RFK felt guilt about the assassinatio
  7. problem with this is that the Zapruder film did not go public until 1975; we did NOT see it in the '60s. You probably saw it at the same time I did (as young as you might have been; but I was only 21) -
  8. I'm only going to add my knee-jerk reaction, which starts, as with Jim and Pamela, by agreeing that historically JFK's very progressive agenda is now understood to have extended even to the Middle East, giving us even more reason to admire him; but to warn, as I have seen in a few places on Facebook where the Israeli connection has been cited, against what, in that forum (FB) has regularly turned to stereotypical anti-Semitic ravings about Jews controlling the world. Of course I am NOT saying that this is happening here in any way, only that we need to be cautious in this respect and that I ha
  9. I gotta say, anyone who doesn't think the Zapruder film is what consolidated and then rescued the pro-conspiracy movement is just too young to understand what a different world it was in those days. We had none of the mass of public photography and public testimony as amplified a million times through social media, and there was still, pre-Vietnam, an essential trust in government. Even with Vietnam, without the full exposure of the Zapruder film, the evidence would have been based on a lot of hearsay, and much that emerged LATER - FBI, CIA files, et al - would have been much less in demand. I
  10. I do think that, without the Zapruder film, we wouldn't be here today. The film was really the thing that rejuvenated the pro-conspiracy movement. Otherwise I think it would have just faded away.
  11. evidence please; that Teddy wasn't in the car. Among other allegations.
  12. where is the documentation that Kopechne, who was a secretary, had access or knew any of this? This is all bizarre speculation, the craziest being that she "stared out in space....as though she saw things the rest of didn't." What intelligence work did she do for RFK? Was it undercover, with informants? What did she know about Smathers and his phone calls, and how do we know she knew this? Did she tell anyone? Did anyone tell us she told them? What is the source for Smathers' commentary to JFK about the trip to Dallas, the picture on Mary Jo's desk? Where is the evidence tying Smathers to B
  13. I'm not Larry, but I've never heard a reasonable argument that Zapruder was part of the plot. The whole alteration think is crazier and crazier. Like they thought, "let's make sure the film gets back into circulation because in about 10 or so years it'll leak out and the obvious shot from the front will make people think there was no shot from the front, even though this will be the thing that completely explodes the theory of a lone nut, so let's just do it so subtly, with techniques that we don't even have yet, that the film which we are altering to show no conspiracy not only shows conspira
  14. sorry this makes no sense; you reject the wallet as being Oswald's because of no testimony that anyone thought it was Oswald's; and yet you accept the wallet as Callaway's even though there is no testimony that anyone id'd it as Callaway's. So - absence of testimony is bad in one instance, acceptable in the next. Sorry, that doesn't work.
×
×
  • Create New...