Allen Lowe

I understand and appreciate your points, but do you really think the plotters had no thoughts as to what would happen in the aftermath, no plans for handling conspiracy allegations? One thing that I think is important to realize is how different the world was in 1963, just in terms of cameras and photographs - it wasn't like today when everybody who could breathe was documenting anything that moved; as we see, even the extant photographic record is vague, blurred, messy. I think the plotters knew how difficult it would be for anyone to produce a blatant document of third-party assassins; and I doubt anyone even thought about acoustical proof. And the real truth is that, without Zapruder and his film, we would be absolutely nowhere today.

here we go; the fake Twist Party: from Arnaldo Fernandez: "The info provided by Thomas was pure crap. The story of the twist party (Castro intelligence agent Sylvia Duran instructing Oswald to kill Kennedy in a party that included Garro herself and the notorious red-hair Cuban negro invented by Gilberto Alvarado) was told by Thomas´ friend, Mexican writer Elena Garro, and dismissed by the FBI due to flagrant lies and inconsistencies, like all the other allegations of red conspiracies in Mexico City made by Alvarado and also Pedro Gutierrez, Salvador Diaz-Verson, Vladimir Rodriguez Lahera, Antulio Ortiz Ramirez, Marty Underwood… Shenon put Garro´s crap in his fact-free analysis on the Castro connection. See “Philip Shenon’s Crap Detector”, by Arnaldo M. Fernandez and Jim DiEugenio, at http://www.ctka.net/2015/Shenon%27s%20Crap%20Detector.html"

there was a well-known actor who was supposedly at that party who was interviewed and denied it ever happened or that Oswald was anywhere near there, and the woman who supposedly sponsored it was known as a CIA-connected informant. No, I don't have chapter and verse, this was exposed years ago as a complete fraud. Really, no one takes it seriously any more, and at this point I cannot re-trace the de-bunking, but the twist party idea is just beyonf idiotic. As for LaFitte, I just don't believe it, and there is not a single credible researcher - Simpich, DiEugenio, Talbot, Morley, Scott - who takes it seriously. You can keep chasing it, but at the end you will be back where you started, with nothing. And I am sorry, it is too good to be true, which means it is a contrived confirmation of everything some people want to hear. It is no more real than Judith Baker.

thanks.

two things - 1) I have never trusted Albarelli since, in A Secret Order, he expressed a belief in the ridiculous "twist" party that LHO was supposed to have attended. This is one of the dumbest theories of LHO's pre-assassination actions. It didn't happen. 2) This may seem strange to ask, but I think is completely logical: Did Souetre/Mertz or whoever else was supposedly involved from the French side speak English? Has anyone ever confirmed that he/they/it did? I continue to be wary of supposed recountings of events like LaFitte's diary because they are just too perfectly designed to fit into the plot - they too perfectly satisfy our desires, so many years after the fact, to sum everything up into neat and tidy organizational explanations and to thus confirm our theories.

there is nothing clear about whom Oswald is claiming set him up - if anything it makes no sense for a guy, who was an intelligence operative caught up in the middle of an assassination, to blame the local cops, who were clearly responding to the immediate post-assassination dissemination of disinformation. LHO had been with Naval Intelligence since the 1950s (on the testimony of a gentleman I know to whom LHO admitted this), and the whole use of the term "patsy" is much different than what which he would have used if he was just a fall guy or had simply been set up by the locals to solve a murder they could not otherwise solve. "Patsy" is fraught with much deeper implications - show me a previous situation where a prisoner used that terminology - a simple local scheme would be referred to as a frame or a set up. "Patsy" is much deeper and broader, implying a scapegoat role which the arresting cops would not have come up with so quickly. Historically the burden of proof is on you to show that this was a common term used by arrestees to claim innocence. I have never heard it used this way otherwise. It shows a clear state of mind on LHO's part that he was being manipulated in a complex way. Otherwise he would have simply said "I am innocent."

The title of this thread is a double negative - I think you meant to say "So you THINK that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't drive." As I read your intent you are complaining that they are suggesting he didn't drive, which you think is nonsense. I agree. The way you wrote it sounds like you are complaining that they think he drove.

I like Biden, but the reason this is happening is that, though yes, I agree that is it b.s., he is allowing the intelligence services to convince him that he has to be The Responsible Adult; of course it's crap for 60-year-old info, but being president does, I am certain, change his perspective. Though some of my best friends are liberals, they tend to be easily cowed and too damned timid, and fall like duck pins to certain kind of right-wing fear mongering. It's disgusting to me, and this is like an informational nail in the coffin. I hope the lawsuit changes things but I honestly now doubt we will ever see most of this stuff; at least, to sorta quote Earl Warren, Not In Our Lifetime. The murderous forces of evil have clearly won this one (for now at least).

thanks for all this, Mike, it is very convincing. I do ask, re your earlier comment, what you regard as evidence that Zapruder was edited? I don't disagree with you, I am agnostic on this (and it makes more sense than the kind of alteration that others have alleged), but can you explain? Thanks.

truthfully, I am reading Roe's chapter in Gayle Nix's book, and it is sloppily written, contradicts itself, and poorly argued. So I would not be too worried about anything he says (and it is interesting how the LN'ers write so badly and seem to deflect criticism of their work; at one point I read Gus Russo's book, Live By the Sword, and I was similarly shocked by the weakness of his arguments and the obvious distortions; at least Von Pein knows how to do fake his documentation and cover up the gaping holes in his arguments).

I think Von Pein did it and is trying to pawn it off on Oswald. What Dave's alibi? He actually has more motive, trying to cover it up for so many years.

of course it hasn't been debunked - it's been bunked, proven to be nothing but bunk. Thank you for clarifying.

I am just reading your anthology, Gayle, but am mystified as to why you included Steve Roe, known widely as an LN'er. Also, truthfully, I just started his chapter and it is surprisingly sloppily written and poorly researched. I hope to finish reading it (though it is painful to do so, as I keep making editing corrections in my head) but I assume he is heading toward a conclusion that Dallas was a hotbed of radical-right activity in which the Leftist LHO pulled off the miraculous shooting feat which no sharpshooter has duplicated since. However, I do look forward to the rest of the book.

on the other hand, maybe I over-stated. I think Michael Griffith's politics are....well, grossly wrong, but I have been reading his JFK work for years and I respect it hugely, and I think he broke a lot of new ground. Ok, Mike, here is where you say I may be certifiably insane, am wanted in three states, owe everyone money, but you respect my opinions (and are glad I didn't marry your sister).

never mind; see below.

apologies for being overly glib; I just worry, on this topic, that we have to be as attentive to detail and credibility as possible.

absolutely; not untrustworthy, but less trustworthy. It damages his credibility quite seriously.

FIrst of all, Michael, you do the same thing repeatedly here - cite sources as unreliable because of their affiliations, past statements, etc. Please stop the bullshit - calling me "rabid" because I disagree with you. Worthy of Marjorie Taylor Green. And please stop the disgustingly dishonest debate method which implies I think we should burn the books of people we disagree with otherwise. Truth is, if this was the standard, with your insane advocacy of our fighting in Vietnam, there would be a giant pyre outside on my lawn. But I respect the JFK work you've done, which proves you are blindly and willfully wrong in this argument - I take these things as they come, and you yourself have brought enormous discredit on your prior work by taking these murderous and reactionary political positions. But I still read your work. As for not trusting Mamet because of his political positions, it does damage my view of other things he says because it shows such huge intellectual gaps - as do your posts which, yes, would cause me to peruse your other claims with greater skepticism. Anyone who, 50 years later, supports mass murder (the war in Vietnam) is not gonna remain on my reading list.

perfect topic: No proof, no facts, no real info. Stone "may well hold knowledge." Sure, and so may 1,000 other people who may still be alive from that era.

we need to remember that Mamet is a Trump supporter and has been quoted as saying Trump did a great job; this immediately makes him, to my mind, extremely untrustworthy.

in terms of appearance, how many tramps have you known and met?

Steve - just because someone talks doesn't mean they are saying something. NOTHING you quote puts LHO there with a rifle, nothing has him firing the rifle, nothing has him hiding the rifle. A million bullets would fit that rifle - ever hear of a firing range? You disappoint me, you are usually more clever than this in concealing your lack of knowledge. The LN case has sunk down so low that it has gone (as you have) where the sun don't shine. There were men there, a car with a license plate that was later cut out; and besides, think about it - if Oswald couldn't hit THAT target, how would he hit any other, especially one that was moving (and a feat which no sharp shooter has ever replicated; and don't start with your examples, I am talking about HITTING a moving target, not just getting shots off; even someone like you could probably do that)? So, Steve....your time is up. As a matter of fact it has long since passed. Please slink off into the LN sunset.

Earth to Steve Roe: Where is your proof? You LN nuts are all the same - you demand material, empirical proof until you don't demand material, empirical proof, which is when YOU make an argument. And honestly, the concealment idea is the dumbest effing thing I have heard in the whole JFK LN fiasco. Yeah, he could have buried it, you might have helped him. Anything is possible in LN Land. Try again, we on the other side are not that dumb.

it's actually not certain that he was armed at the theater; are there any police evidence photos of the hand gun? We have only the Dallas cops' say-so, no evidentiary proof, as far as I know (other than the aural reports and supposed notes of what he said in the interrogation, for which there is no documented - as in recorded, or stenographer-driven - proof or confirmation. I think it is possible that he had some part in the whole thing, but there is no possibility he fired any gun; there is nothing placing him on the third floor, we know from the book by Barry Earnest that he did not descend from the sixth floor after the shooting, he was spotted in other parts of the building close to the time of the shooting. None of this adds up. The more we know, the less we know.

as for Lemay, LBJ thought he was involved in the JFK assassination, and told this to John Kenneth Galbraith (as reported by his son James).