Allen Lowe

the problem is that we have literally no evidence that it was an imposter call, but we do have several witnesses id'ing the caller as LBJ (the operators who recognized his voice). So we have to accept that for which we have evidence, so yes, LBJ made the call. Given his desire to cover up the crime with the Warren Report and the FBI, it makes most sense that he was keeping close tabs on the case.

People have said Craig went a little crazy, and cite this as a way of discrediting him - but if you read his book, he was fired from one job after another, likely for his outspokenness on the assassination - and as a result he lost his home, his family - something that would push the most stable person over the line. Also, just to get a sense of his Craig's credibility about harassment, in Barry Earnest's book he tells of sitting in a car with Craig when two cops come over and start to give them a hard time, clearly because of Craig's presence. So to me he has plenty of justification for losing it. I have had a mild version of this kind of personal harassment, and it makes you paranoid and hostile.

I am amazed - if that's a strong enough word - that ANYONE is repeating the thing about Israelis dancing on top of a van, or smiling or whatever TF they were supposed to be doing. Dancing on top of a van? Try doing this with one person let alone 3. You will fall on your dumb asses. Are you aware that American Nazis have been involved in spreading this crap? And that these men were sighted by a lady looking at the WTC with binoculars who said they were smiling - as though she could see all this - then WHAT THE HELL was she doing watching the burning WTC? Maybe exactly what these guys were doing - this is all so repulsive and stupid that I just had to post this to tell you how dumb anyone who spreads this stuff is. Shame on you all. Moderators, how can you permit this?

thank you Michael; this kind of thing is so disgusting, I am ashamed to be reading this forum. Of course we killed him, I mean, if we were willing to kill Our Lord, why wouldn't we kill a president? This is the kind of un-veiled and vicious anti-Semitism which roils so much below the surface of American life. To paraphrase Lenny Bruce, it's true, we found a note which said: "we killed him, we killed JFK. We did it because he wouldn't become a doctor." signed, Morty -

If JFK had wanted to remove Castro he would have done it at the Bay of Pigs. It was all set up, there was a rationale (protect the Cubans); but it is all b.s. And by the way, Morley, on his substack, has already demolished Litwin's arguments.

got it. And I think his actions in New Haven were something of a continuation of that role.

I am somewhat bewildered, but then I am not as active as many of you here - this, to me, is old news. Barnes' position as head of domestic contacts has been established for some time. It is doubly interesting because, as assistant to Kingman Brewster when he was head of Yale, Barnes was the favored contact for the Black Panthers as things roiled up in New Haven with the Ackley murder and the trial of Bobby Seal. As a friend of mine, a journalist in that city, has said, the Left loved Barnes and he was in frequent contact.

Posted July 1 "LS: The "problem" with Prayer Man remains, how can he be an effective patsy if he's filmed standing outside the building at the time of the shots" think of what you are saying - t here it is 60 years later and it worked - he is considered, by many if not most, to have been the killer. And by the official record. It worked - it worked - so where's the problem?

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.