Allen Lowe

I was merely repeating your own words back at you. You should’ve made clear it was your opinion.

thanks for posting that.

I seem to recall Thompson saying in that first book that one of the rear shots was something of a dud.

"I see," said the blind man.

well, without a detailed analysis and an explanation of HOW the results correspond to the language of a 10 year old we are left with just more hearsay. That is a data-based decision, but you continually cite it without data. You are correct, I don't know what I am talking about, because I am relying upon your information and you don't know what you are talking about. So we both sit here in the dark.

ok; well researched. So I take it you do believe this bullet - the one found and then initialed - caused all those wounds in JFK and Connally?

What is this based on? If his comprehension was that of a 10 year old Russian, that's not really the same thing as a 10 year old native Russian, based as it is on an evaluation by an unidentified individual who was presumably an American. It's an equivalency, but in no way can it be used to prove this case. I would like to see some data, how it was determined, when and by who.

and there's this, from an article by Thompson and Aguilar: "A declassified 6/20/64 FBI AIRTEL memorandum from the FBI office in Dallas (“SAC, Dallas” – i.e., Special Agent in Charge, Gordon Shanklin) to J. Edgar Hoover contains the statement, “For information WFO (FBI Washington Field Office), neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON [sic], who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet … .” [Fig. 5 - Page 1, Page 2] Whereas the FBI had claimed in CE #2011 that Tomlinson and Wright had told Agent Odum on June 12, 1964 that CE #399 “appears to be the same” bullet they found on the day of the assassination, nowhere in this previously classified memo, which was written before CE #2011, is there any corroboration that either of the Parkland employees saw a resemblance. Nor is FBI agent Odum’s name mentioned anywhere in the once-secret file, whether in connection with #399, or with Tomlinson or with Wright."

that's not my understanding of how Josiah Thompson described his interviews; if anything, he implied that Tomlinson's change in testimony was later, after he, like more than one law enforcement official, had been put under pressure. Not to mention Thompson's location of Odum (I believe it was) who very clearly contradicted the Warren Commission's claims about 399. And as Thompson added: "John Hunt has done some very good work in the Archives, has examined CE 399 with exquisite precision, and has determined that Elmer Todd's initials are not on Commission Exhibit 399. So this is, this is a running crap game! " So, as far as I am concerned, end of story.

Maybe I missed it, but doesn’t anyone find it extremely amusing that Roe and Parnell have basically corroborated the theory that 399 was falsified evidence? Both Tomlinson and Wright, IIRC, told Thompson that the bullet in evidence was NOT the one they found. So the presence of initials proves that this is bogus, planted evidence; the forgery was done on the wrong bullet! good job boys.

Wow that’s amazing Tracy. Over the years this bullet has been eyeballed up close - not in a picture - by countless people who never saw these initials. Didn’t I also see you tell the head of elections in Georgia that there were 11,000 missing votes? Oh no, that was Trump. Same difference.

While I agree with you in principal Pat, there’s just something about these “who shot John” exchanges and the fact that they are coming up like this. Given the clear context of Kennedy‘s death not that many years before, is it not possible that they were playing a spycraft game with double meanings? Even if only for their own amusement? Just a theory.

The difference is that there were no witches; but there are assets and informants. So it’s not the same thing.

You’re missing the point. There are many many documents still to be released that Reynolds would not have access to because no one has access to them. This is the kind of very dishonest reference that you guys make that doesn’t take into account the whole picture, but only that part of the picture which benefits you.

Greg you are one of the worst offenders in this respect. The way you countered the claims about the Dean Andrews call, or Marina’s reference to Ruth as being in the CIA, was fantastically dishonest. You took speculation that was contradicted by actual testimony, and then tried to pass it off as truth. I honestly can’t read your work anymore, it is so ponderously inaccurate. So please spare me a response to even this. I can’t get through your writing anymore.

“Ruth's brother-in-law John Hoke applied for a position at the CIA” - that’s about all we need to know. Does anyone here know anyone who ever applied for job in the CIA? These guys were trying to make it a family business. Even if he did get turned down. Who do you supposed suggested he apply in the first place? And re: “Max Good claims that there are dozens of withheld/redacted records on the Paines and Ruth specifically. If he knows this is true, he should know what the records/RIFs are. Please provide! If these are records which are withheld but are not in the JFK collection, please give details. [emphasis added by W. Tracy Parnell]” How about the records that remain withheld and unseen by anyone? What is your (and Greg’s) source?

I don’t believe that the Secret Service were told to procure prostitutes for JFK. This is just more BS rationale for either their failures or their plotting against him. There’s just absolutely no evidence that this ever was done. Give me some evidence other than what these guys, who clearly couldn’t be trusted (see Abe Bolden) said.

This is Cops USA in the old days. This crap happened all the time. Don’t forget that Dallas district attorney Wade framed hundreds of people and never got caught. Police brutality was commonplace throughout the postwar era, and almost nobody was getting nailed for it. No social media, no exposure.

So here you go again…you hear some direct evidence indicating something opposite of what you believe, and so you say it’s wrong, and then you try to turn that decision into fact, when you have no evidence. We know that Fritz was a bully clearly And we know what Michael Payne said, so we need to accept it as truth, even if it doesn’t follow your narrative.

Jim my recollection is that this was said by Admiral Galloway; whom I believe Lisa Pease discusses in her RFK book.

Honestly Greg, if you want to make your point, going on and on doesn’t make it any more convincing. 5 pages x zero still equals zero.

That’s pretty weak. If you’re saying she was incorrect and thought The ACL was the CIA, she could just as likely be confused in the other direction. I’m sorry but all this is much ado about nothing. She meant the CIA because she SAID CIA, and all evidence points to that.

Where is the documented evidence that Marina actually meant the ACLU?

Except that all the actual evidence indicates she said and MEANT CIA.

This is classic Roe/Parnell stuff. Faced with bad news for their cause they come up with a theory which they then try and pass off as truth. CIA? ACLU? Sure, everyone confuses those two. Maybe she meant IRS? PTA? LSD? I don’t think the Paines knew about the plot, but like George Demohrenschildt they were put in place to handle Oswald, to move him according to some third-party plan. Why the hell else would Mrs.Paine drive all over the map to help out Marina? Out of the goodness of her heart? Geez you just said she had no obligation to help Oswald or Marina. Get your stories straight.