Allen Lowe

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.

"He was of the Quacker affiliation..." well, you know what they say, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....

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.

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.

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 assassination?

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) -

yes I want to dispute that. What shred of evidence do you have?

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 have to admit my defenses rise up whenever I see Israel mentioned in this context.

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 feel so certain about this, and pardon me for pulling the age-card, but people born much later really often don't understand how radically different communications were in the early 1960s. I am not saying there wouldn't be a movement that thought there was a conspiracy, but without the oxygen given it by Zapruder it would be a fraction of what it is today. Also, I am a bit startled to hear the repeat of the old myth of RFK restricting the autopsy. That is pure CIA disinformation. There is absolutely no evidence that he did so.

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.

evidence please; that Teddy wasn't in the car. Among other allegations.

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 Bobby Baker and/or Marcello? These are just a few of the questions I have.

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 conspiracy but also disproves the single-bullet theory. Otherwise we can just throw it in the garbage, but that'll stop years of uninformed and crazy commentary that will continue to discredit the conspiracy folks. Plus this will give Fetzer something to do."

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.

James Galbraith wrote about this somewhere, and he and I emailed back and forth a few years ago about it. I will have to see if I can still find a link.

the reason, I believe, that LeMay was there is that the military was a central part of the plot (this btw is something that John Newman is working on, if I understand correctly). Note, as well, that when John Kenneth Galbraith went in to discuss his resignation (over Vietnam) with Lyndon Johnson, LBJ clearly indicated that he believed that the generals, and in particular LeMay, had executed JFK BECAUSE of Vietnam (this according to Galbraith's son James).

watching that footage, those guys are working pretty hard to carry that casket. It is not empty. Unless you have x-ray vision.

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, documents, witnesses, and events. That book is really the most important thing yet on the assassination.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 on a level intellectual playing field. This is their tactic, and it is very much the way our current national administration does things. I just think we should not give them a forum. And please, Larry, this is no more censorship than any other aspect of selectivity is censorship. We regularly, at these conferences and in our daily lives, make choices to exclude things which we think are not worthy of our time. That is all that I am advocating.

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 of blanks).

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.