Jump to content
The Education Forum

Allen Lowe

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Allen Lowe

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. watching that footage, those guys are working pretty hard to carry that casket. It is not empty. Unless you have x-ray vision.
  2. Larry, can you give a link to a way to purchase your research on Nagell? thanks. And just to add, I first read the Nagell book when it came out, and then re-read it two or three times in the revised edition. At first I remember thinking "how can this be true?" because of some of what seemed like his more radical allegations; but the amazing thing is that as time passed, and as more and more came out in terms of research and direct documentation (by people like Larry and Jim in particular), pretty much everything Nagell claimed could either be verified or matched through interviews, docume
  3. Jim, you probably know about this, but it's pretty damning about Connick Sr: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/opinion/justice-gone-wrong-in-new-orleans.html
  4. we who believe the "big bad CIA" was complicit in the assassination do NOT need Prouty to prove it. You haven't been paying enough attention.
  5. someone mentioned the Clay Shaw letter to Sylvia Meagher - we should also note that there is film of Shaw at what I think is a press conference referring to "Harvey Lee Oswald," which to me is basically a confession of guilt.
  6. that's fine, and I don't want to appear ungrateful for all the amazing work you and so many others have done not just this year but for the last 57 years. I do think we owe the honest opposition a hearing, but I just don't think he is one of them.
  7. sorry, there is a huge difference between multiple viewpoints of the kind that accept the basic premise of the conference - that there was indeed a conspiracy in the murder of JFK - and viewpoints that so dishonestly misrepresent the basic facts of the case. Which is what Steve does quite regularly on Facebook. The difficulty of arguing with the opposition about the murder of JFK is that they most-often choose dishonest arguments based on disinformation. It makes arguing with them a matter of not just refuting certain kinds of logic, but of first having to sift through the lies in order to be
  8. I am reading the Kindle version. Obviously this is an essential set of interviews, though I think that anyone who comes to it without extensive background will be completely unable to discern the points and threads. I do wish they had edited it down to isolate the more essential comments - and then at times, also, they seem to suddenly abandon interesting points of interest because they know what these mean (though I often don't). Still, it has fascinating fragments that, given my own years of reading, I can still assimilate fairly well (and then of course there's Google to fill in a lot
  9. all I would add is that it makes no sense that rather than altering the Zapruder film they didn't simply lose it, especially since it is THE thing that turned the tide in assassination attitudes with its clear depiction of a shot from the front. And I have trouble agreeing with Joseph McBride, who has told us that Mary Ferrell was involved in the cover up of the assassination and that Kenneth O'Donnell was involved in the planning. The authorities apparently lost other things that were far less probative, so why not Zapruder? But I will check out the Wilkinson.
  10. I am amazed to see Steve Roe listed as a speaker, Larry. In my various encounters with him on Facebook he was a dedicated LN'er who insisted no one in the motorcade heard 2 shots together, and that there were no inconsistencies with the rifle as Oswald supposedly ordered it. Among other regular anti-conspiracy posts. He is entitled to his opinion, but isn't this like letting the fox into the hen house because he says he needs some eggs?
  11. very interesting article, Jim, but do you agree with Mantik that the Zapruder film was altered?
  12. that is absolute nonsense. You think they don't want to do anything? You are just regurgitating what is basically a Fox news line.
  13. reading the AARB notes confirms my long -term suspicions about Prouty - his fake expertise on presidential security, his talk of a manual of procedure as though he was specifically aware of one and how it had been violated in Dallas. He always, to me, had an aura of fakery. This, assuming it's all accurate, confirms it.
  14. it's very faulty logic to say Phillips, as a plotter, wouldn't be in Dallas on that day for multiple reasons: 1) somebody had to be there. If nobody showed up there would be no assassination. And you are making the mistake of looking at the event through current-day eyes after years of Phillips' name appearing in print. Phillips wasn't by any means a public figure in 1963, nobody outside of the CIA knew who he was. And as I said, there had to be supervisory personnel in Dallas that day if there was, indeed, a plot. 2) There is no reason Phillips' brother or son, who confirmed the sto
  • Create New...