Allen Lowe

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.

I should mention just as an interesting sidenote. A friend of mine has been working on a book about Chuck Berry, and he contacted me last year because he knew Bolden was on my friends list on Facebook, and it turns out Bolden’s son, who died very young, was Chuck Berry’s first drummer. they did get in contact and apparently had a good interview. Bolden is an incredibly nice guy.

The Henry Lee exchange is in the book? I just ordered it.

Also, Gaeton Fonzi’s book is filled with accounts of leads that were ignored or discouraged.

I was making a joke.

I would acquire the book but I think it’s overpriced.

Just to note, first of all, if the Paines thought it was right wing radicals who killed JFK, they wouldn’t have said “we know who did it,” which is cryptic and somewhat anonymous, and not how people talk unless they are trying to avoid saying something specific. Second of all I find that post above about Marina, portrayed as sexually wanton, as some kind of stereotypical tramp who, god forbid, smoked cigarettes, to be extremely sexist and offensive. It is one thing to simply be citing old-style mores; but another to use that kind of tone. I find that post to be very troubling.

Oh come on. He is saying he was guilty of participating in the plot, just not in the way Garrison charged him. “Garrison had the right idea. He was almost right.” He would not have said this if he had no connection to the plot.

It’s funny but you guys always like to bring up the crazy people. Except you leave out key people like Gus Russo and Gerald Posner.

Except for the fact that if you read Joan Mellen’s book A Farewell to Justice, Shaw made a death bed confession to having participated in the plot.

I am not a fan of LBJ and consider him to be a war criminal, but to call the President who passed the most important and comprehensive Civil Rights Legislation of his time "completely amoral" is not accurate. Contradictory as it all may seem.

Deleted

Oswald was innocent, but he wasn't an innocent, IMHO. Nagell warned him well before the assassination that it was in the works and that he was being manipulated. But he was making some money and he likely was too naive to realize how vulnerable he was.

first of all it was no crime to be anti-Communist in the 1950s, and I am not talking about McCarthy-ite types. If you know anything about sectarian battles on the Left, a lot of anti-Communist response was in reaction to Stalin and Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe. Do you support Stalin? The Russian invasion of Hungary? The KGB murders in Czechoslavakia? There was an entire (socialist) Left that opposed communism; read Irving Howe, Harold Greenberg, Theodore Solatoroff, and many others. I suppose you also support forced collectivization and the Gulag, two Russian policies that resulted in the deaths of millions. And what pro-military action are you referring to?

that article above about Lowenstein is so completely dishonest that I don't know where to start. I knew Lowenstein and worked in his campaign around 1970 - which he LOST because of Republican gerrymandering. Kind of a surprise since he was a CIA asset, huh? Aside from that there is not ONE scintilla of actual, written file evidence that Lowenstein was anything other than a misguided idealist in his early dealings with the NSA, something which he indeed talked about in later years (I remember one late-night session where he answered a question about this). And your citations are bogus - footnote #37 in that article, after claiming "he CIA was known to secretly pay for ventures such as Lowenstein’s field work in large amounts of cash," then indicates "Wilford mentions a payment of $10,000 in $50 bills Tom Braden made to Walter Reuther to give to his brother Victor Reuther in Europe. Wilford, The Mighty Wurlitzer, 63. " WTF? Something you may not be aware of was that Lowenstein approached RFK first for the Dump Johnson movement before he went to McCarthy when RFK turned him down. How the hell can you twist the Dump Johnson movement into something that was pro-CIA? I wa there, I was alive and in the anti-War movement of the time, and you have no sense of the history of that movement or of Lowenstein's brilliant work in galvanizing progressives. Yes, McCarthy was ultimately a disappointment, but he STOPPED LBJ, the president who had been previously cited as the CIA's man in the White House when he tried to subvert JFK's Vietnam policy. As for the Freedom Riders claims, you mention the "young recruits who followed Lowenstein to Mississippi, like Dennis Sweeney (who later became Lowenstein’s assassin), only to be abandoned and betrayed when Lowenstein quit the Mississippi scene because he thought others in the organizations there were communists, were caught in crossfire they did not fully understand, mostly because they thought they were fighting for Civil Rights, not against communism." Proof? What organizations was Lowenstein worried about? Can you quote the associates who were disappointed in Lowenstein? Proof, please. You say "For the Freedom Riders who had risked much during the struggle, Lowenstein appeared to betray not only them but the cause for which they were fighting." Who are these Freedom Riders? Proof? Citations? Let's see 'em. And you might try reading this article, which credits Lowenstein with being the FIRST person to start galvanizing student presence in the South during the Civil Rights movement: https://medium.com/stanford-magazine/martin-luther-king-speech-at-stanford-and-allard-lowenstein-pave-way-for-freedom-summer-87842ec98b0e Lowenstein was not perfect, but he was brilliant and progressive and was ultimately stopped by the right-wing establishment who saw him as a threat and an obstacle. So please stop spreading this pathetic disinformation. You have nothing but supposition and guilt by association. It is hateful the way the Left is so intent on self destruction, to the point of eating its own.

please try and keep up. It has been conclusively proven that Russo made his statements implicating Shaw and Ferry BEFORE he was given the sodium pentothal.

it's quite hilarious to see Parnell and Roe drool on and on about how the film was a flop. They are using criteria that is so outdated, it shows their desperation. So the measure of success is MSM and the networks and big media outlets? That model hasn't existed for over 20 years, now that social media and media visibility is so widely (and democratically) disbursed, on cable, streaming, you tube and on laptops for private use. Next they will tell us, to support their point of view, that Walter Cronkite refuses to interview Stone.

actually, not necessarily true. Equalization/filters can restore the sound to its more accurate original sound if done correctly, especially when one is working on a badly done recording. The original is no more "real" than a processed version. Each one is just an analog.