Allen Lowe

Most of that, if any, is not evidence. Half of it is guesswork, as in “Gee if that happened here it shoulda happened elsewhere.” People split tickets and have for years and years. You know that’s nonsense to cite as proof of fraud. As for the mismatched signatures, I honestly do not believe it. The Trumpies lie about everything, reflexively. Show me the money, show me one signature that doesn’t match.

When people say to me that no one could’ve kept a secret that long, first thing I ask is: OK, who killed Jimmy Hoffa? And the reality of course is that we have much more information on who killed JFK than who killed Hoffa.

You are kind of missing point. I agree that they didn’t know to what end, but they were handling Oswald. And when it happened, they knew immediately that it was part of a deeper plot. So they are accessories, and all the more evil for failing to acknowledged what they know. And Mrs. Paine continued, after the assassination, to help frame Oswald. Which not only implies some deeper knowledge of the plot, but which makes her all the more despicable.

That’s just all nonsense. The January 6 hearings were detailed and complicated and well planned and presented like a really fine prosecutors brief. Try watching it next time. Of course there was some hearsay. But there was tons of first person firsthand testimony. Read the transcript.

I am not sure of your point relative to my post. Many congressional hearings have been quite substantial and evidential, from the Army-McCarthy hearings to the Church Committee. Also, January 6; and even the HSCA hearings, when all was released (well, not all but a lot), were revelatory.

nope. That's not the way it was back then. It would have all faded into oblivion. I know this shoots to smithereens the whole "altered Zapruder film" thing, but your position makes absolutely no sense. That kid's pictures of the RFK assassination disappeared, and no one has squeaked a word about what they probably showed. And you seem to have forgotten that the Zapruder was suppressed for 12 years anyway. Tell me, who in that time saw this as evidence of conspiracy? Did the whole nation use this as evidence of conspiracy? Cite one source (and yes, I know that many people thought the assassination was a conspiracy, but NOT because of the withholding of the film). As a matter of fact, with the showing of the film on Geraldo all hell broke loose. It was really the beginning of a new chapter in terms of examining the assassination. All enabled by the FILM. I guess they didn't do a good enough job of editing.

The thing to remember about this nonsense about election fraud is that it makes no sense, because if the Dems cooked the results in the presidential, why did they not do the same to make sure they had an impenetrable majority in the Senate? This is starting to sound like claims of Zapruder fakery, which ignore the basic logic that if they wanted to suppress the images they would have destroyed the film, not let it come out in ways which convinced the rest of the world that there was a conspiracy.

For such an astute observer, Michael, you’re surprisingly nearsighted. The Democrats never claimed the Russians stole the elections but that they tampered with the election. There is a difference. But even the fact that you’re comparing the Democrats complaints to the Republican complaints shows how myopic you are in this whole subject. I’m sorry to say this because you’ve done some very good writing on the assassination. But if you can’t even recognize Trump’s brand of very American fascism, embodied by his attempted coup, then we have very little more to discuss here. And Mueller did nothing of a kind. There was a subtlety to Russian misbehavior that has apparently alluded you; according to Time magazine: “Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.”

If you ask me, Ferrrll’s conservative leanings and general non-activism politically prove even more how much integrity she had. It’s like Liz Cheney who, despite having some political beliefs I find highly resistible, is to be respected, I think, for her personal honesty.

I actually posted something on Facebook right after the news came out. It’s an amazing parallel I think.

Enough wacky theories. As Pat pointed out, Ferrell’s documents have done more to advanced the course of assassination research than anything else. I keep getting tempted to read your book, but then you rehash the Zapruder nonsense and call out O’Donnell as being in on the plot. That’s the most bizarre idea of all. You’ve baked your credibility, which is a shame, as from what jim says there is some valuable stuff in your book.

It’s a good thing you’re not a lawyer; none of this proves your very desperate guess that she was thinking of a different building. I have to say, David, that time is wearing down your arguments, which get stranger and stranger. First you guess that something might’ve happened, and after a respectable period of time passes you change that into something that did happen, with even less information, figuring that people will forget the original ghost of an argument. So goes the entire lone nut brigade. As a relative outsider here, it’s somewhat fascinating for me to watch the deterioration of all the old, sad, lone nut theories.

It’s not the question of his citing numerous facts and reports; his opinion is like a run-on sentence, as though the sheer accumulation of space proves his point, which it does not. His method of doing it destroys any effectiveness he might otherwise have. Look at Jim DiEugenio, Pat Speer, Larry Hancock: the most knowledgeable of anyone here, none of them tries to bury the lead.

I’m not threatened I’m just bored to death by his filibustering. There are certain people who think the mere accumulation of “facts” equals truth. It does not.

I have been to many a parade and march and political rally in my 68 years, and not once have I referred to “fireworks.“ Or heard reference to such. Anyone who believes in this much coincidence or accident of expression is clearly deluding themselves

Yeah that’s great, the conditions were completely different and he used the rifle with a much improved scope. He also says any competent shooter could’ve done it, and we know from Oswald’s Marine buddies he was not a competent shooter. Not to mention that he shot the rifle at a range. Not in the actual conditions that LHO did. It works better if you actually read the articles for which you give us citations.

I seem to recall that Carlos Hathcock, the greatest sniper in US military history, recounted that they tried to set up an equivalent to the shooting, and that he was unable to replicate Oswald‘s work. Pretty damning.

Exactly David, and Ruth also thought that Oswald was going to kill that OTHER Kennedy. So she didn’t go down to the march since that other Kennedy was still in Washington DC, and his assassination wasn’t scheduled to happen until 1968.

How do you know? That’s the point. And by the way nobody I know would ever say 1 o’clock when they meant 115. Especially when a murder was involved.

Am I incorrect, as I recall reading that Peña was beaten up for revealing so much?

What? Can’t hear you.

David; no one’s listening.

I have to confess, and I should’ve credited him earlier, that I believe this was Duke Lane‘s thesis. It just made so much sense.

Truthfully the whole thing is ridiculous. As with the JFK assassination, Oswald had no motive and no reason to shoot Tippit. He had no history of violence. Not to mention the whole wallet fiasco. In my opinion the reason Tippit got shot was to pull everyone out of Dealey plaza and allow the actual assassins to get away and/or dispose of evidence on the scene, from a depository that was not sealed. Remember what Lavelle said? To them the JFK shooting was as insignificant as the murder of a black man (he used much worse language) but the killing of a cop was something else again. And we haven’t even begun to discuss Tippit’s strange movements in the immediate aftermath of the assassination.

It’s weird, Steve, but the handwriting on that bullet looks exactly like yours.