Allen Lowe

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?

very interesting article, Jim, but do you agree with Mantik that the Zapruder film was altered?

sorry Jim, will let this ride.

that is absolute nonsense. You think they don't want to do anything? You are just regurgitating what is basically a Fox news line.

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.

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 story, would lie about being told by Phillips he was there, and there was no reason Phillips would lie to his brother about being there. 3) And, anyway, if Phillips was NOT part of the plot, as you maintain, well, then, there is no reason he shouldn't be there.

Fonzi possibly "in on this plot" ? Always great to attack the dead, especially when you have no evidence. And I am certain that John is NOT suggesting that Fonzi was in on it. Please.

Steve Roe is now, as usual, shooting blanks intellectually.

interesting and surprising to see a Clay Shaw bio; the intro doesn't fill me with hope, as, unless his point of view changes, he cites the usual anti-Garrison-isms. And I wonder if he's read the Probe articles on the government's active intervention in the case.

as someone who lurks here a lot, Hank, I wouldn't abandon places like this, as nasty as they can get some times. I have both your recent books, and there is is a lot of important stuff in them; the Secret Order less so, I think, because it does seem to have indications of a lack of independent corroboration of some things which are questionable in the whole assassination picture; things which have been regularly addressed by the very assassination community you attacked a few posts back. Which doesn't mean that you would necessarily change your mind about them; it would, however, give you some necessary background. I too feel like an outsider here, but there is just too much good info - from people like Jim, Martin Hay, Bill Kelley, Greg Parker - to ignore if you want to keep up with the latest. It just takes a discerning personal filter.

I would add, Jim, that Whitney points out that she changed what she wrote, relative to Oswald, after the assassination, to make him seem more sinister in retrospect - there are key phrases and language she uses in her re-write to make him seem more threatening, more of a loose political cannon.

to claim that Thompson has done damage to the conspiracy side, or that he is some kind of corporate whore, because he has a disagreement with some here, is really part of the whole problem, and helps further marginalize the pro-conpiracy side. 6 Seconds is a landmark book that stands up remarkably well 45 years later; Thompson is himself a brilliant and principled investigator who made a conscious decision, years ago, to get out of academia and face the real world. That in itself took guts. And to attack his motives just because you disagree with him is just nasty and un-called for (and you should read his book Gumshoe, btw; fascinating stuff). and if you have some better evidence about Umbrella Man, let's hear it.

sure, sure, sorry, I don't want a sip of that Kool-Aid. Yes, the US government took down those buildings, but not before the Jews got a call - as a matter of fact, I heard it myself: "hey Moishe, get yout tuchus out of there. A bunch of goyim in a plane are on the way - and I don't mean Sky King and his daughter Penny."

since I apparently have to do your research for you, Douglass is a member of Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth, which is devoted to, among other things, proving that the WTC buildings were deliberately destroyed by domestic forces - one quick quote from a footnote in an article on their site: "3 For evidence that the Twin Towers and WTC-7 were destroyed by explosives, see Steven Jones, “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?” (www.st911.org) and David Ray Griffin, “The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True” (www.st911.org). For evidence that the official account of Flight 93 is false, see Rowland Morgan, Flight 93: What Really Happened On The Heroic 9/11 ‘Let’s Roll’ Flight (London: Constable & Robinson, 2006)."

were you there? Are you accusing me of lying? Someone in the audience made that statement about the Jews; I walked directly up to Douglas afterward and asked him to disavow the statement; he looked at me and walked away. I almost went to the anti-defamation league on this one. And Douglas gave a long on spiel on someone whose whole position was that the WTC was a pre-set explosion (or implosion). So before you make accusations, do your own research. Stop blaming the messenger. I was there. It's not my responsibility to produce a transcript.

I have great respect for his book; however, when he spoke in Portland, Maine about 3 years ago it was not good - first he endorsed theories that the the WTC was blown up domestically, by the US itself; then, when I asked him, from the audience, to disavow someone who, previously, had said that the Jews were warned out of the WTC in advance, he refused to respond. After I asked this I was pretty much shouted down by the audience, which had a disturbingly cult-like aura to it. It was not a happy experience.

of course we killed them both, just like we killed Jesus - and Angelton's name: James JESUS Angleton - coincidence? I think not.

he discredits himself, however, by attacking the motivations of those that disagree with him. To me that's a red flag of someone whose arguments cannot be trusted. It indicates an insecurity otherwise masked.

still waiting for any direct evidence of LBJ's involvement; all the above proves is that he was a slime and a war criminal. That I knew. And it doesn't take a recorded phone call to illustrate exposure. Hell, he was the president of the USA, what's more exposed than that? And once again, someone would have talked......

I disagree about opportunity. LBJ was way too exposed. As for motive, that's questionable. In politics these kind of survival situations come up every day, without murder.

he's different from other suspects, in the JFK assassination, most basically, because we have no evidence that he was a participant. So to accuse someone without evidence is something I would call irresponsible. Your definition may vary. It's historically irresponsible (because, at the same time, we make accusations against the other side for their distortions and leaps of logic) and politically irresponsible (because it distracts us from other, and more direct, leads). as for who makes the call, that's a silly question - who makes the call that the Warren Commission was botched? Who makes the call that the Tea Party is wrong? Who makes the call that Adolphi Hitler was bad? Well, in each of those, the call is made by citizens like you and I.

so I guess we can assume those other 6 were conspirators, too, relative their respective ascendancies. As a matter of fact, they are more likely than LBJ to have conspired because THEY didn't talk about it. Serously, I find it irresponsible to keep speculating on this without any real empirical evidence.

it doesn't matter - no matter who conspired, Cuba was a major part of the deal - a politician of LBJ's magniture - President of the USA - could NOT have made a deal with the Cubans on something like this and then gone against it without leaving himself open to blackmail - if he screwed them, they would have screwed him back; look what they did to JFK - political blackmail would have been easy compared to assassination. nothing like this happened - hence, LBJ had nothing to do with it.

I want to add something to my previous argument that LBJ had nothing to do with the assassination - if we accept that the conspiracy had a great deal to do with Cubans who wanted us to depose Castro, and who thought JFK was too weak in this refgard - then we can assume that any such conspiracy that accepted LBJ as a co-conspirator would assume that he would act accordingly after JFK's death, in order to bring Castro down, The reality is that he did the opposite, and, if anything, worked to defuse the situation in Cuba. These are not the actions of someone who was in on the planning. And if he HAD been in on it, well, then, the Cubans would have considered him to be a traitor to their cause.

I agree he was a horrible guy, involved in not only all kinds of political and financial dishonesty but ready to engage in mass murder (Vietnam). But one can also see his desire to cover up and then pursue evil military ends as the result of both mendacity and military blackmail - which is what he told John Kenneth Galbraith. And his desire to cover up was no more intense than Specter's or Gerald Ford's or Earl Warren's. There are just no known associations between LBJ and those most likely to have conspired, from military and military intelligence to CIA assests or Cuban exiles. Unless you take Madeiline Brown seriously. and once again I urge you to discuss this with James Galbraith, who has done great work on the military side of the conspiracy, if in oblique ways. He has discussed the Joint Chiefs' urging of JFK to launch a first strike a few years before, and has documented it well. He has, through his own research and through his father's close knowledge of both JFK and LBJ, come to a conclusion far different than those who think LBJ was in on it.