Terry Mauro

Where is the proof that they were ever married, and the proof that they were ever bigamists......?

Documentation, please....

B....

Bernice, I agree with you. I've been trying to find proof. Supposedly there's some guest list or pamphlet at the time where there's a mention of their names -- apparently, she as "Mrs. John F. Kennedy." Probably some other books mention this rumor.

Kathy

Here is more info on President Kennedy's alleged marriage to Durie Malcolm.

"Consider, for example, Hersh's finding that JFK was a bigamist. The rumor began circulating in the extreme right-wing press in 1961 that in 1947, JFK, then a congressman, had secretly married Durie Malcolm, a Palm Beach socialite. Both JFK and Malcolm denied the story, and when it persisted, JFK asked Ben Bradlee, then at Newsweek, to investigate it. Bradlee determined it was a false story emanating from an error in a flawed book of genealogy (which even spelled Malcolm's name incorrectly). Some 35 years later, Hersh resurrected the story, not on the basis of any witness or document to the alleged marriage but on the basis of a piece of conversation that he managed to elicit from a 79-year-old Palm Beach resident, Charles Spalding. Spalding, who, though interviewed many times before over 50 years, never before claimed a role, now told Hersh that he knew about the supposed first marriage because he had himself eliminated the record of it ! at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, saying, according to Hersh! , "I went out there and removed the papers." Presumably, in previous interviews after JFK's death, he had not remembered this extraordinary (and criminal) act.

But how reliable is Spalding's new 1997 memory of this incident that supposedly happened in 1947? Before Hersh interviewed him, Spalding had problems with his ability to recall routine information, which Hersh generously describes as an "impairment of his short-term memory." Such a deficiency notwithstanding, this piece of recovered memory about JFK stands or falls on a simple test. If the 1947 marriage registry in Palm Beach County, which was then handwritten and bound, was marred or missing a page, Spalding's story could be valid. If on the other hand the registry was intact and the entries consecutive, Spalding's memory of removing the papers could not be any more valid than the forged archive of Monroe letters. As it turned out, Hersh and his investigators were unable to find any such gap in the marriage records nor, for that matter, any record of a marriage application, which had to be made three days before the ceremony. Nevertheless, on this piece of recovered memory ! from a person who Hersh knew suffered memory lapses and whose recollection was impeached by an investigation of the records, he asserts in "The Dark Side of Camelot," as established fact, that both JFK and his brother Robert "had lied in their denials to newspapermen and the public about Jack Kennedy's long-rumored first marriage to a Palm Beach socialite," that JFK's marriage to Jackie was not a legal union and that his children were born out of wedlock." -- from Edward Jay Epstein's review of Hersh's book.

www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/hersh.htm

For the record, Durie Malcolm has always denied any veracity of the rumor.

Kathy

**********************************************************************

"For the record, Durie Malcolm has always denied any veracity of the rumor."

Shouldn't that carry a modicum of weight, considering the circumstances? Or, are you simply suggesting we go along with some purported story, on behalf of the press, that Malcolm might have been paid off by the Kennedys to say just that?

"Consider, for example, Hersh's finding that JFK was a bigamist. The rumor began circulating in the extreme right-wing press in 1961 that in 1947, JFK, then a congressman, had secretly married Durie Malcolm, a Palm Beach socialite. Both JFK and Malcolm denied the story, and when it persisted, JFK asked Ben Bradlee, then at Newsweek, to investigate it. Bradlee determined it was a false story emanating from an error in a flawed book of genealogy (which even spelled Malcolm's name incorrectly). Some 35 years later, Hersh resurrected the story, not on the basis of any witness or document to the alleged marriage but on the basis of a piece of conversation that he managed to elicit from a 79-year-old Palm Beach resident, Charles Spalding. Spalding, who, though interviewed many times before over 50 years, never before claimed a role, now told Hersh that he knew about the supposed first marriage because he had himself eliminated the record of it ! at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, saying, according to Hersh! , "I went out there and removed the papers." Presumably, in previous interviews after JFK's death, he had not remembered this extraordinary (and criminal) act.

But how reliable is Spalding's new 1997 memory of this incident that supposedly happened in 1947? Before Hersh interviewed him, Spalding had problems with his ability to recall routine information, which Hersh generously describes as an "impairment of his short-term memory." Such a deficiency notwithstanding, this piece of recovered memory about JFK stands or falls on a simple test. If the 1947 marriage registry in Palm Beach County, which was then handwritten and bound, was marred or missing a page, Spalding's story could be valid. If on the other hand the registry was intact and the entries consecutive, Spalding's memory of removing the papers could not be any more valid than the forged archive of Monroe letters. As it turned out, Hersh and his investigators were unable to find any such gap in the marriage records nor, for that matter, any record of a marriage application, which had to be made three days before the ceremony. Nevertheless, on this piece of recovered memory ! from a person who Hersh knew suffered memory lapses and whose recollection was impeached by an investigation of the records, he asserts in "The Dark Side of Camelot," as established fact, that both JFK and his brother Robert "had lied in their denials to newspapermen and the public about Jack Kennedy's long-rumored first marriage to a Palm Beach socialite," that JFK's marriage to Jackie was not a legal union and that his children were born out of wedlock." -- from Edward Jay Epstein's review of Hersh's book."

Kathy. All you've managed to do here is to paraphase a re-hash of the same thing you posted above, which is nothing more that a hearsay smear. This is sensationalism at its worst and most incidious, on the part of an Operation Mockingbird "dupe," which is all Hersh apparently does for a living, Nobel Prize winner, not withstanding. You see, when you continue to post these smears it makes you appear as no better than they are. Why? Because all you're seemingly serving to do is parrot their lies, and tending to lend credibility to their insinuations by asking us to prove them wrong, for you.

You should take Bernice's advice about finding some substantiated proof to counter these attacks, instead of repeating the same allegations, which only serves to make you seem like a synchophant of these harpies. Remember the old adage, "Don't be part of the problem. Be part of the solution." In other words, why continually present the problem, without offering a solution? Which is how it appears to some folks, here. And, this is not meant to be taken as any kind of an attack, mind you. Just a suggestion.

I've been searching back through the threads for Purv, and haven't come up with anything.

Has he pulled them and left the forum? If so, does someone have contact with him? Please give him my e-mail address: tmauro@pacbell.net, if you would be so kind.

Thanks,

Ter

Just post something on the William Pawley thread and I suspect he will return.

****************************************************************

Thanks, John. Will do.

Ter

Terry;

Certainly not ignoring you!

Being in the process of completely re-modelling two back bedrooms into a single bedroom with large walk-in closet space, along with normal yard/flower garden work, I am in quite a mess.

In fact, the computer is even difficult to get to as it is stuffed in with all of the other stuff pushed aside.

I have been searching for the answers to the Hunt family in order to attempt to demonstrate the potential interconnections which they had which were most probably the sources of some of their right wing activities.

As example, old man Hunt lost his first fortune in the Florida Real Estate market.

He had gone to Florida and was investing in Real Estate at exactly the same time as was William D. Pawley living in south Florida and also dealing in real estate.

However, I have never managed to find any direct information which would serve to indicate that the two knew each other at this period in time.

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online...s/HH/fhu59.html

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_04/laborde012704.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another item which should be brought into mind is the fact that the father of old man Hunt (Haroldson LaFayette Hunt) was from Walker County, GA, and was in fact a Confederate Civil War Veteran.

His name was Haroldson Lafayettte Hunt, and although born in Georgia, it appears that he served in an Arkansas unit during the Civil War, and thus must have moved there prior to the beginning of the war.

Thus, it is no suprise that H.L. Hunt moved from the final home in Illinois, initially to Arkansas.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Waddy Thorpe Hunt

Title: (Captain)

Sex: M

Birth: 1825 in SC

Death: 1864 in shot & killed nr Little Rock AR after war

Occupation: farmer in 1850

Note: Was he born in Haversham Co GA in 1821? Census records say he was born in SC.

Note: Civil War veteran. Confederate.

Note: 1850 GA census, Walker Co, Peavine: Waddy T Hunt 25 SC, Mellissa A. 23 SC, Haroldson 8 GA, James 6 GA, Mary 4 GA, John 2 GA. Living next door to Margaret Hunt 58 SC.

Note: 1860 GA census, Walker Co, Upper Cove, Cedar Grove: W. T. Hunt 36 SC, Molissa 36 SC, Harritson 15 GA, James 14 GA, Mary 13 GA, John 11 GA, William 7 GA, Robert 1 GA.

Note: After Civil War he moved his family to a farm near Little Rock AR. After he was killed, the family moved to Illinois.

Change Date: 2 APR 2006

Children

H. L. (Hash) Hunt b: 1842 in Walker Co GA

James M. Hunt b: MAR 1844 in Walker Co GA

Mary Hunt b: 1846 in Walker Co GA

John Hunt b: 1848 in Walker Co GA

William Hunt b: 1855 in Walker Co GA

Robert N. Hunt b: MAR 1859 in Walker Co GA

Thus, the Hunt family generations were all direct line descendants who were "Sons of the Confederacy".

H. L. (Hash/Haroldson Lafayette Hunt, Sr. was a veteran)

His father, Waddy Thorpe Hunt was a Captain in the Confederate Army.

The 27th Regiment of the Arkansas Infantry, list W.T. Hunt as well as H. L. Hunt, which appears to be the father and son.

It is also noted that the primary home of the Hunt family was from South Carolina, also the home state of William Douglas Pawley.

(to be continued)

*********************************************************

"As example, old man Hunt lost his first fortune in the Florida Real Estate market.

He had gone to Florida and was investing in Real Estate at exactly the same time as was William D. Pawley living in south Florida and also dealing in real estate.

It is also noted that the primary home of the Hunt family was from South Carolina, also the home state of William Douglas Pawley."

Thank you, Purv. As these are the issues I've been following in your posts that are of interest to me. Thanks for those links. The ones you send always take me on an adventure.

But, I was mainly concerned about all of us, who are getting up there in years. Yeah, I know. Speak for yourself, Ter. So, when I don't see a name coming up in the usual sequence of events, I begin to worry that maybe someone got ill, or struck down, or God knows what all! And, since my job keeps me from frequenting the forums as much as I used to, I might fall behind in the progression of the threads.

Therefore, I'm extremely happy to hear that you have been in the process of re-modeling your house and garden, which I'm sure is going prove to be more functional and more to your liking, once it's completed. I value your expertise, Purv. Sorry, to have worried unnecessarily, but you're always right back 'atcha with anything I've ever asked for. I just hope I haven't contributed to any disruption of your workflow. I simply must remember that there are those who have a life outside of JFK, much the same as I do.

Ter

I've been searching back through the threads for Purv, and haven't come up with anything.

Has he pulled them and left the forum? If so, does someone have contact with him? Please give him my e-mail address: tmauro@pacbell.net, if you would be so kind.

Thanks,

Ter

Hey Purv,

I know this probably sounds like a stupid question, and apparently has been worked over before, I'm sure. But, in the course of your research, have you ever come across any connection between the two Hunts, to date? A "yes" or "no" would suffice, for now.

I'll check back later, since I'm heading off to work.

Thanks,

Ter

I know this is off topic but I have developed a sneaky feeling that Lee H Oswald didnt shoot Kennedy, and that it was, in fact a massive conspiracy> Someone should start a forum about it.

A very perceptive comment. So far this thread has had 664 viewings. No doubt a large number of people visit the forum to get a regular laugh from some of our regular posters.

******************************************************************

"So far this thread has had 664 viewings. No doubt a large number of people visit the forum to get a regular laugh from some of our regular posters."

Well John, I guess that just goes to show you that the bloody, colonial dregs, first exiled to the Penal Colonies of the Americas, and then on to the shores of New Zealand and Australia, definitely learned to develop a grand sense of humor needed to deal with their plight. A positive evolutionary, if not revolutionary, trait. However vulgar it may seem, yet hilarious, nonetheless.

Is this a great forum or what? I'm simply overwhelmed by the response to my predicament.

As you all know, fully half of my vocabulary consists of profanity. Therefore the new moratorium on swearing has hobbled me, and I'm in the midst of a painful period of adjustment. I'm so grateful to those who have selflessly given of themselves to suggest remedies and make accommodations for my special needs. It demonstrates how well we can function as a team, or by pairing off as some have suggested.

There are so many to thank... Where to begin?

Well gosh, first I'd like to thank Ron for his selfless offer, or I should say offers, given his adorable persistence. And Frank, a man so dear that he's willing to extend himself for someone he barely knows. And Terry! My soul sister Terry. Willing to fall on her sword for me, to sacrifice herself so that I may be spared. I'm genuinely touched. Both Terry and John D. said the nicest things. While that's not in the same category as Ron's and Frank's offers, it's still appreciated.

And of course John S. and Antti, without whom none of this would be possible. Not to mention my muse--Kathy. Thank you all. Yet there are still more: Sid, for remembering--not actually remembering me personally but close enough. Thomas, for the sincerity that is his trademark.

Thank you Greg for being the lone adult voice of reason and trying to put a stop to this absurdity. Thank you everyone else for ignoring Greg.

Gary, many thanks for deftly changing the subject and almost getting me off the hook. Charles, for reminding everyone of the subject and getting things right back on track. Mark, for the wisdom you showed in deleting your post. If only we could all be that wise...

Then there's William. Who took valuable time away from his activities on myspace.com to be here for me. What can I say about such generosity? That's time he'll never ever get back.

As a result of this outpouring, I am inundated with offers, many more offers than I can possibly entertain. Therefore I have decided to accept resumes from candidates so I can learn more about your special qualifications. Please include a cover letter with your resume explaining why you are the right person to talk dirty to, and/or to dispense spanking. I also require three references--not immediate family members (ewwww). Finalists will be contacted. For those who are not contacted, I'll keep your resumes (that's "CV" for you Europeans) on file for 12 months. Resumes, or CVs, should be submitted to likethiswouldeverreallyhappen@inyourdreams.com.

Thank you again.

This gives new meaning to the phrase "hands across the world."

Myra

Very funny Myra.

Incidentally, I did a WHOIS search to establish who owns the domain "inyourdreams.com"

It's a lady called Elizabeth Kennedy who lives in Ann Arbor

Looks like she'll be getting some interesting offers

I hope she's not a prude

**********************************************************

"Incidentally, I did a WHOIS search to establish who owns the domain "inyourdreams.com"

It's a lady called Elizabeth Kennedy who lives in Ann Arbor

Looks like she'll be getting some interesting offers

I hope she's not a prude."

Hey My, maybe you'd better change it to: @inyourwildestdreams.com

Is this a great forum or what? I'm simply overwhelmed by the response to my predicament.

As you all know, fully half of my vocabulary consists of profanity. Therefore the new moratorium on swearing has hobbled me, and I'm in the midst of a painful period of adjustment. I'm so grateful to those who have selflessly given of themselves to suggest remedies and make accommodations for my special needs. It demonstrates how well we can function as a team, or by pairing off as some have suggested.

There are so many to thank... Where to begin?

Well gosh, first I'd like to thank Ron for his selfless offer, or I should say offers, given his adorable persistence. And Frank, a man so dear that he's willing to extend himself for someone he barely knows. And Terry! My soul sister Terry. Willing to fall on her sword for me, to sacrifice herself so that I may be spared. I'm genuinely touched. Both Terry and John D. said the nicest things. While that's not in the same category as Ron's and Frank's offers, it's still appreciated.

And of course John S. and Antti, without whom none of this would be possible. Not to mention my muse--Kathy. Thank you all. Yet there are still more: Sid, for remembering--not actually remembering me personally but close enough. Thomas, for the sincerity that is his trademark.

Thank you Greg for being the lone adult voice of reason and trying to put a stop to this absurdity. Thank you everyone else for ignoring Greg.

Gary, many thanks for deftly changing the subject and almost getting me off the hook. Charles, for reminding everyone of the subject and getting things right back on track. Mark, for the wisdom you showed in deleting your post. If only we could all be that wise...

Then there's William. Who took valuable time away from his activities on myspace.com to be here for me. What can I say about such generosity? That's time he'll never ever get back.

As a result of this outpouring, I am inundated with offers, many more offers than I can possibly entertain. Therefore I have decided to accept resumes from candidates so I can learn more about your special qualifications. Please include a cover letter with your resume explaining why you are the right person to talk dirty to, and/or to dispense spanking. I also require three references--not immediate family members (ewwww). Finalists will be contacted. For those who are not contacted, I'll keep your resumes (that's "CV" for you Europeans) on file for 12 months. Resumes, or CVs, should be submitted to likethiswouldeverreallyhappen@inyourdreams.com.

Thank you again.

This gives new meaning to the phrase "hands across the world."

Myra

***********************************************************

HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH!

OH MY GOD!!! IROFLMAO!!! My, you really crack me up! After dragging my ass home in an hour's worth of traffic [7.07 miles from Culver City to Santa Monica, as the crow flies] from The Hill Of The Seven Jackals [santa Monica-UCLA] to find this kind of camaraderie going on is sooo refreshing, and delightful. I love you, kid. YOU GO SISTA'-GIRL!!!

Female members should feel free to PM me when they want to talk dirty. I will always be here for you.

************************************************************

Spoken like a true "Yank."

Hi Ho! Hi Ho! It's off to work I go!

_____________________________________________________

And, for Charlie. We'll always be considered as "those bloody, bullying, aggressive colonial upstarts, from across 'the pond.' "

See ya later.

This is an educational forum that is read by young people. Therefore, we do not expect people to use swear words in their postings. In European culture, swearing is an act of aggression and is not something we encourage in educational settings.

It has been brought to my attention that one member, Myra Bronstein, has reacted very aggressively when being warned by moderators about their language. I can assure her and other like-minded members, that swearing is not acceptable and that moderators have my permission to remove such language when it appears in postings.

Well aint this a cold slap in the groin.

Say there... is "groin" a swear word?

I don't want to screw up and have Antti get his knickers all in a twist again.

...

Oops! Is "screw up" a swear?

Gosh, it's such a verbal mine field when moderators decide to police language.

And I do so want to avoid having my gosh darn diddley doodley posts censored.

(Is "gosh darn" a swear?)

I remember girls like you from schooldays, Myra.

You sat at the back of class, giggled a lot, told great jokes, popped bubble gum when teacher's back was turned (and sometimes stuck it under the desk), had the best parties and my mum warned me about you.

Now I know what happened when you grew up

**********************************************************

Yeah, and we were the ones who wore those black lace bras you guys ached to catch a peek of. Even if it was only a strap slipping down from under the sleeve of a blouse, or off the shoulder from under a sleeveless shirt.

We were also some of the most creative writers in English Lit., and you might have even seen a paper or two of ours hanging up on the border of molding that surrounded the classroom. Or, maybe a schematic drawing of a cathode ray tube would be on display in the physics classroom, because we were talented and detailed oriented, and could be counted on when asked to draft the circuitry involved in an electrical transformer, on the blackboard for the rest of the class to copy. You see, the teacher recognized something dynamically different about us, and could count on us to deliver it when the chips were down, or when a deadline needed to be met.

Everyone wanted to copy our notes, they even offered to pay us for them.

And, when we grew up, we became a force to be reckoned with.

How'd you know I had a 3.73 cumulative gpa for my electronics degree?

Gosh diddley doodly darn you are one psychic woman Terry.

Ya little minx.

*****************************************************************

Because, I had a 3.6 in Radiologic Technology and Nuclear Medicine, that's how. I recognized you a mile away. Birds of a feather, Sister-girl...

I remember girls like you from schooldays, Myra.

You sat at the back of class, giggled a lot, told great jokes, popped bubble gum when teacher's back was turned (and sometimes stuck it under the desk), had the best parties and my mum warned me about you.

Now I know what happened when you grew up

It was worse for me. I taught (or did not teach) dozens of girls like Myra. The main aim was to be the centre of attention. Being told off was what they wanted.

************************************************************

"The main aim was to be the centre of attention. Being told off was what they wanted."

Is that right, John? I can't believe you said that. Myra hasn't been derogatory, except one time that I'm aware of, and I told her to be careful she didn't get branded as a trouble maker, like myself. If you need to single someone out, single me out. I'm the one who cusses like a sailor around here, not Myra!

And, when it comes to swearing, keep this in mind. In NYC, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, at least when I was growing up, calling someone a stupid son of a bitch, or a stupid bastard, were thought of more as terms of endearment than cursing someone out. The F word, and the C word were the ones considered to be "fighting" words.

But, say no more. I'll keep electrical tape plastered across my mouth and twisted around my fingers to remind me not to cuss anymore. Bless me Father for I have sinned...

This is an educational forum that is read by young people. Therefore, we do not expect people to use swear words in their postings. In European culture, swearing is an act of aggression and is not something we encourage in educational settings.

It has been brought to my attention that one member, Myra Bronstein, has reacted very aggressively when being warned by moderators about their language. I can assure her and other like-minded members, that swearing is not acceptable and that moderators have my permission to remove such language when it appears in postings.

Well aint this a cold slap in the groin.

Say there... is "groin" a swear word?

I don't want to screw up and have Antti get his knickers all in a twist again.

...

Oops! Is "screw up" a swear?

Gosh, it's such a verbal mine field when moderators decide to police language.

And I do so want to avoid having my gosh darn diddley doodley posts censored.

(Is "gosh darn" a swear?)

I remember girls like you from schooldays, Myra.

You sat at the back of class, giggled a lot, told great jokes, popped bubble gum when teacher's back was turned (and sometimes stuck it under the desk), had the best parties and my mum warned me about you.

Now I know what happened when you grew up

**********************************************************

Yeah, and we were the ones who wore those black lace bras you guys ached to catch a peek of. Even if it was only a strap slipping down from under the sleeve of a blouse, or off the shoulder from under a sleeveless shirt.

We were also some of the most creative writers in English Lit., and you might have even seen a paper or two of ours hanging up on the border of molding that surrounded the classroom. Or, maybe a schematic drawing of a cathode ray tube would be on display in the physics classroom, because we were talented and detailed oriented, and could be counted on when asked to draft the circuitry involved in an electrical transformer, on the blackboard for the rest of the class to copy. You see, the teacher recognized something dynamically different about us, and could count on us to deliver it when the chips were down, or when a deadline needed to be met.

Everyone wanted to copy our notes, they even offered to pay us for them.

And, when we grew up, we became a force to be reckoned with.

To my thinking, there can never be true "closure"

to the horror of the event. I would be satisfied however when History Books record that JFK was killed on 11/22/63, the result of a Coup d' Etat which was engineered by the principals at both the highest levels of of the U.S. government and its agencies. This coup was not only strongly encouraged, but truly demanded by those whose financial monopoly held the "true power" behind the transparently "token government". The power which drove this coup is now realized to forever have changed the path taken by the U.S. in both domestic and international matters. The United States now attempts to RE-EARN the respect it once held in a government of the PEOPLE, which had once taken those first steps to rationally bring accord to problems which arise between nations in an ever shrinking world.

To me "The Admission of Conspiracy" will come closest to historical closure for me.

AS far as "who dunnit" and "how done"....we actually have known for some time. For those of you who are not satisfied until you learn who paid what people to hide, in which places, and to fire an exact number of shots......I am convinced that you will forever be cursed with looking at faded pictures and trying to convince others that "shrubs" are "shooters" and where others were positioned.

I frankly don't give a damn about people who are dead or octogenarians being brought "to justice".

To my thinking, JUSTICE is the admission of what occurred, and that PREVENTATIVE STEPS have been taken to insure that this can never happen again !

I don't know the exact mechanics of the plot, but I surely for years have known "Who Did It and Why".

This is why I have no cause for further actual research. The ONE FACTOR which should be blatantly obvious to anyone studying this case for even a brief time, is the self destruction of researchers by their individual feelings of independence, and their failure to concede minor points in their "Pet Theories", so that a united force can move forward

with the agreement, that their purpose is only the ADMISSION that a Coup occured on 11/22/63 and that it is realized and that steps have been "entrenched", that will not allow it to happen again.

IMHO, the very obvious lack of a "united front" is what has kept this case alive. That is why the Warren Report Buffoons laughingly point to us as "buffs" and "theorists", and continue to point to the fact that we are all so "loony" that we cannot agree with each other.

Regarding this "they ain't wrong"....and without some sort of unification, I would wager if I had a chance of then being alive, that 43 years from now

someone will again be asking..."If the Z film were altered, why did they show JFK's head apparently react to a frontal shot?"

Our sights must be raised for any type of closure.

Raised to demanding proof that IT WAS DONE.....not by who or why. We need to graduate to a higher level. I personally don't need to know the names of those who actually stabbed Julius Caesar, any more than I need the names of the soldiers who nailed Jesus Christ to the cross! We don't need the names because we truly know the "WHY".

I think the time for research has passed and it is now time for "True Analysis" and ORGANIZATION !

Charlie Black

***********************************************************

Now, this is the Charles Black I had come to admire back in November - December, before those damned "Marilyn" threads. This is where you shine, Charlie. This is where you should be directing your time and energy. Because, this is the podium from which I first witnessed what I believed was your dogged determination in pointing your finger in the direction of the real perps. You and Myra, seemed to be the new blood so necessary in raising the conciousness, as well as the evolutionary process, in order to drag this investigation out of the mire in which it's been languishing.

And, I sincerely mean that, Charles. Please don't mistake this as some kind of an attack, because that is definitely not my intention, here.

Wow, thank you Terry.

In fact I'm going to pounce on this to flog a project I've been wanting to work on, and it's finally to the point where I'm soliciting input:

http://www.jfktimeline.com/

Everyone please keep in mind that this is a super early version. I'm just now getting the format nailed down. It will take months to really put some flesh on the bones. And a big part of the reason I'm going quasi-public with it now is because input from other researchers/historians is essential given the scope of the effort.

My objective is to give context to President Kennedy's murder and thereby explain what's going on today because it's all so closely related. I'm also doing this because the murder is a huge puzzle, so I'm assembling it like a huge puzzle. Ultimately the perps & victims will be very obvious from my presentation. The format will allow for a lot of information at a glance, while incorporating drill-down capability. If someone wants to know more about a topic I'll link to my own summaries. Then if they want to know still more I'll provide links to (what I consider) the best JFK resources.

Again, input info and ideas would be greatly appreciated.

****************************************************************8

Myra,

I am both astonished and beaming with pride for you. You have been one busy little bee! I would like to add to the title, "JFK Timeline - The Historical Truth." This is a wonderful idea, and a wonderful watershed from which a team effort among the serious historians in the membership might be able to come together and collaborate. I will certainly drag my books out and consult with my brightest pals for this one.

This is the kind of project we should have all set aside our differences and undertook back in 1992, instead of allowing ourselves to become divided and conquered like we've been for the last decade.

Thank you, My.

Terry & Dawn

It is a pleasure for me to say "Thank You".

I want you to know that I post only what "I" truly believe (except when joking).

The posts to which both of you took exception were perhaps worded in a confusing manner. I meant nothing more than to state, besides the good that they did, they, as has everyone before them and since, made mistakes.....as they were human.

The problem was that their mistakes, were made while surrounded by hostile enemies, who were long entrenched and supported by the "true power" behind the politics. Politics motivated by greed and power only. JFK's plans for the good of the nation and the world in general, were becoming an immoveable obstacle. Money and power, as usual had its way. Only in this case, power could not "coerce", SO, it removed the problem.

My problem is that I truly feel that more of the good could have been accomplished, possibly forever, if the problems were approached in a manner that a "16 year control over the Presidency" could have insured entrenchment of certain standards. Too much was attempted in too short a time, that scared the pure hell out of "the old power base", and ended what could have been a 16 or possibly even a 24 year old campaign, rather than one of less than three years.

I strongly have ALWAYS supported the "Kennedy Purpose"....I feel that the purpose could have been "doable". What was needed was a "four quarter game plan", not necessarily assured victory in the first quarter.

The foe was big, powerful, very experienced and well entrenched. They could not be overwhelmed in the first quarter by anyone. And they still haven't been !

It has of course been, only in hindsight, conjectured by me, that more politics, patience and protocol, may have produced a victory had it been pursued over a longer time period. The Best and Brightest, may not win in the short term, over a very experienced and capable opponent.

My criticism is of method....not purpose.

Mistakes have been made by everyone...but not with the same penalty !

My problem was certainly not the "Kennedy Goal". It is that this goal "may" have been almost "completely" attainable with a longer term plan to achieve these objectives. The possibility of a 24 year occupancy of the White House as opposed to less than three.

I questioned the wisdom of their methods. Not ever their "Goals" !

Charlie Black

***********************************************************

"Too much was attempted in too short a time, that scared the pure hell out of "the old power base", and ended what could have been a 16 or possibly even a 24 year old campaign, rather than one of less than three years."

My problem was certainly not the "Kennedy Goal". It is that this goal "may" have been almost "completely" attainable with a longer term plan to achieve these objectives. The possibility of a 24 year occupancy of the White House as opposed to less than three.

I agree, one hundred percent, and I know you didn't have a problem with their goal. You're merely expressing the need for more foresight, on their part, than they may have been capable of at that point in time. None of us would have ever dreamed it was going to be retaliated in a coup d'etat of that magnitude. It may have taken a considerably longer amount of time in having to play along with the fascists, who weren't about to give up the lucrative ventures they had staked out for themselves in SEA. Plus, JFK would've had to resign himself to the fact that he'd forever have to bite the bullet for the BOP, and taken the heat for the lives that were about to be lost in SEA.

The money-men and their vested interests were desperate to keep control of the war machine, and they were going to keep moving it in the direction they'd been planning since the end of the Korean conflict. Any diversionary tactic JFK may have tried to employ in order to facillitate a re-direction of that course was inevitably going to cost him. And, any popular support from his constituency was going to have to be squelched, one way or the other.

Unfortunately, I believe it would've have eventually ended up costing him his life, anyway. The best laid plans of mice and men, if you will. Because, for Eisenhower to have taken the time and the risk to have issued that warning in his final State Of The Union Address, a warning I seriously doubt the general populace caught the gist of not having been familiar with the terms being used [military industrial complex], at the time. No one had an inkling of what a place called Laos, or South East Asia, had to do with us here in the U.S.A, either.

Remember, we were conditioned to believe that in order for the U.S. to enter into any form of combat or warfare on foreign soil, we had to have been attacked, first. The Geneva Accords were taken seriously after WWII. We had been assured by our fathers and uncles that WWII had been specifically fought, along with the massive amount of lives that were lost, in order that their children [us] would never have to do combat like that, ever again. What was staring us in the face in August of 1963, was something we had never counted on. Our lives were about to be disrupted, and would never be the same again. We were so naive.

I believe this American Coup took place as a warning to the generation spawned of the WWII vets.

It's message was to cow us into the realization that, "Regardless of how free you may think you are in this illusion of checks and balances, the fact remains that your opinion and your vote, really don't amount to a hill of beans. Especially, when you try to buck the status quo, of which you middle class plebes will always be required to pay twenty-eight percent of your earnings to keep us in business, as usual. Any deviation from the "norm" set by us, will cost you, dearly."

If nothing else, it made some of us, especially those of us who frequent these forums, acutely aware of who really runs the show in the Anglo-American system. It took the murder of a man who tried to lead his country in the way he, and the citizens of his country were taught to believe it was supposed to be led. But, instead were startled into the realization of how it was going to end up being forcibly led.

Thanks again, Charlie. Truly the end of the innocence. We won't be fooled again.

The following was written for presentation at the 1996 JFK Lancer conference, and published in "The Fourth Decade" in 1997. So yes, it is dated, and yes, I cringe at the less-than-artful language with which it often is plagued.

But I believe that the core questions herein raised remain unanswered.

If you struggle through, I would be most interested in your comments.

Charles

____________________________________________

In the Blossom of Our Sins:

An Eleventh Hour Plea for War and its Absolutions

by Charles R. Drago

(The Fourth Decade, Volume 4, Number 4, May 1997, pp. 3–8)

I say we had better look our nation searchingly

in the face, like a physician diagnosing some deep disease.

-- Walt Whitman

O, how incomprehensible everything was, and actually sad, although it was also beautiful.

One knew nothing … And sometimes it seemed that something never seen yet long desired

was about to happen, that a veil would drop from it all; but then it passed, nothing happened, the riddle remained unsolved, the secret spell unbroken, and in the end one grew old and look cunning … or wise … and still one knew nothing perhaps, was still waiting and listening.

-- Hermann Hessse

* * *

INTRODUCTION

Why do we decline at all cost to know, and instead choose merely to believe – in seemingly limitless, mutually exclusive, self-serving variations – the truth about the genesis, planning, execution and cover-up of the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy?

Why, 33 years after our initial self-anointings as investigators and court and jury of record in this case of 20th century regicide, do we remain incapable of defining, let alone serving, justice?

Are our sins, our indefensible failures of judgment and will, attributable to the subconscious fear that, as a consequence of the attainment of knowledge of truth and the effecting of justice, we shall bring about the destruction of the self? Destruction of the nation?

Are we prepared to declare total war on our blood enemies: the assassins and their accessories? Should we impose moral constraints on our strategies and tactics in such a war? What would constitute victory? Can we unite to overcome the egotism and greed that from the beginning have divided us and rendered us defenseless?

Who are we? Should we define ourselves as warriors? Scholars? Victims?

Whither our passions?

WHY DO WE DECLINE TO KNOW THE TRUTH AND FAIL TO EFFECT JUSTICE?

Know that I define justice in the case of the assassination of President Kennedy as the utilization of the attainable absolute truth to cleanse or, if necessary, literally deconstruct and rebuild the corrupted system responsible for the assassination and related crimes.

We must accept the notion that, as this late date, justice will not be served by sending anyone to prison. Indeed, I herein restate my original call for the extension of a broad and legally binding immunity to all surviving conspirators, contingent upon their coming forward and telling the truth (the offer to be made by an independent special prosecutor as appointed by the Congress of the United States; for reasons having nothing to do with the moral standing of that body, and in full recognition of the fact that I am asking the criminal system to investigate and indict itself, there yet can be no meaningful healing of America’s most grievous self-inflicted wound that is not self-administered).

Justice will come about only as a function of the revealed truth. And that truth is at once our last remaining weapon, our most powerful weapon, and the weapon we seem least willing to wield in the war in which we are engaged.

Why do we hesitate? When in the words of Vincent Salandria, one of the first Warren Commission critics, the truth has been “blatantly obvious … all the time.” Why?

Are our individual and collective identities symbiotically linked to the roles we play as Kennedy Assassination Researchers/Investigators/Gadflies to the degree that the termination of those roles, a certain consequence of our ultimate victory, is perceived to be tantamount to the termination of the self? As sufferers of such a fear, we would be in exalted company.

Writing in The End of Science of what he perceives to be scientists’ fear of reaching for absolute answers, John Horgan notes: “ … after one arrives at The Answer, what then? There is a kind of horror in thinking that our sense of wonder might be extinguished, once and for all time, by our knowledge. What, then, would be the purpose of existence? There would be none … Many scientists harbor a profound ambivalence concerning the notion of absolute truth. Like Roger Penrose, who could not decide whether his belief in a final theory was optimistic or pessimistic. Or Steven Weinberg, who equated comprehensibility with pointlessness. Or David Bohm, who was compelled both to clarify reality and obscure it. Or Edmund Wilson, who lusted after a final theory of human nature and was chilled by the thought that it might be attained. Or Freeman Dyson, who insisted that anxiety and doubt are essential to existence … ”

And if not death of the self, then what of that of the nation, a necrotic body politic that – as we witness in, among other tableaus, Zapruder film frame 313 – long ago suffered the demise of its moral authority to govern and command allegiance?

Allow me a metaphor that will take a moment to develop. The Mt. Rushmore National Monument is located in the Black Hills of South Dakota. To the indigenous North American tribal peoples commonly referred to by their Caucasian conquerors as the “Sioux,” the Black Hills, or Paha Sapa in the language of the Lakota, remain the holiest of places – like the Vatican to Roman Catholics. Assayed and determined to be worthless wilderness by the high priests of Mammon-on-the-Potomac, the Black Hills were magnanimously acknowledged to be sovereign Sioux property in a formal, legally binding treaty ratified by Congress. Shortly thereafter, in 1874, a certain young conquistador named Custer led a U.S. Army expedition into the area for a second look. Two millionaire miners were with that merry band, and they discovered gold in them thar hills.

Faster than you can say Eureka! the treaty was unilaterally abrogated, war was manufactured , and the Sioux were cast out.

Then – this is rich – to add insult to the injuries of grand theft, genocide, and cultural annihilation, one of the most sacred peaks of Paha Sapa was desecrated with the carvings of the likenesses of the leaders of the cutthroats and thieves.

It is as if barbarians had occupied post-Renaissance Rome, put its citizens to the sword, looted the Vatican, and on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, over Michelangelo’s masterpiece, painted craven images of their chieftains.

Some years later, a Polish immigrant decided to balance the books by carving on a nearby summit the gigantic likeness of the Lakota war leader Teshunka Witko, or Crazy Horse. Today the artist’s heirs struggle to complete his daunting project. Tourists visit the site each year, although in nowhere near the numbers who regularly flock to Mt. Rushmore. Which I’ve visited. Where the symbolism and savage irony hang thick and dank in the poisoned air.

As dusk falls, hundreds gather in the amphitheater at the foot of the monument to watch a documentary film about the great sculpture’s creation. At the appointed time all rise and sing their national anthem, and as the lyric “brave” echoes through Paha Sapa, immense searchlights illuminate what I prefer to appreciate as the memorialized prototype for a later, equally portentous (if understandably less overtly celebrated) summit meeting of true American power-brokers: the Appalachin Conference.

With the labors of our intellect and, I pray, the furious manifestation of our passions, we are sculpting a Crazy Horse Monument of our own: the popularly labeled “Conspiracy Theory.” We do so to counterbalance the suffocating psychic weight of the Mt. Rushmore of officially created and sanctioned assassination myths. But will we ever complete our work? Do we dare to complete it? Could we have achieved our goal years ago? Have we given sufficient consideration to the dynamiting of our Mt. Rushmore as the first in a series of actions that would perforce be described by targeted groups as “terrorist” in nature? Acts of war?

The illusion that is projected as Mt. Rushmore is a sine qua non for the survival of America as a morally defensible political entity. So too are the officially created and sanctioned assassination pulp fictions.

Without the succor offered by these and related lies-as-history – which is to say, with their long-denied counter-realities (the genocide of North American aboriginal populations by the developers of the USA, the disenfranchisement of the American electorate that took place on November 22, 1963, et al) broadly accepted in their stead – no rational, moral citizen could do less than plot the drastic overhaul, if not the overthrow, of a national entity clearly revealed to be without legal and moral justifications.

So perhaps our illusions are more important to that most sacrosanct of crusades, the preservation of the union, than is the truth. More important than is justice. Perhaps truth and justice once again must be sacrificed on the altar of National Security. – no matter the nation’s worth.

Not to worry. We can preserve the self and America with it while continuing to play the role of super sleuth in this case. And when, inevitably, push comes to shove, when belief must either metamorphose into knowledge and action or be abandoned, all we need do is scurry backward into our voting booths like light-panicked lobsters seeking the safety of the trap. Nothing sacred will have been damaged. And maybe, someday, if we manage to save enough blood money to afford a real vacation, we can visit Mt. Rushmore or make the pilgrimage to Dallas and get that oddly familiar, forbidden thrill – the kind experienced when, walking down Main Street with the spouse and kids, an almost forgotten extra-marital paramour appears on the next corner.

Or we can fight!

A PLEA FOR THE DECLARATION OF WAR

We are at war with the murderers of John F. Kennedy.

And I am sickened by the mercy we extend to a merciless enemy each time we treat with collegiality their disgraced surrogates.

But before we can know our enemy, we must know ourselves. Define ourselves. Be at peace and possess the courage of our convictions. Unite in a common crusade, the substance of which would render our superficial stylistic differences meaningless.

How many of you occupying high-profile positions in the community of assassination researchers are prepared to stake your professional reputations and, in certain cases, the reputations of the journals you edit and/or the organizations over which you preside, on your public endorsement of the following statement: CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY IS HISTORICAL TRUTH.

How should any of us who care about truth and justice in this case treat the well-respected newsletter editor who writes (I paraphrase), “We have to be prepared to accept the possibility that Oswald did it alone.”?

Or the influential and celebrated author, ostensibly on the side of the angels, who, at the Boston public meeting of the Assassination Records Review Board, graciously greets and caters to the needs of the infamous, wizened madam of the Warren whores? Or the controversial writer/activist who is driven to slander and otherwise sabotage the work of researchers and organizations not under his influence?

We can condemn them as cowards, traitors and/or dupes. Or we can labor to find a common ground for all willing to accept the tenets of our crusade. Liberate ourselves from the debilitating manners, misconceptions, petty jealousies, and greed on which our enemy depends for advantage. Draw strength from the very diversities of intellect and passion that today factionalize us.

E pluribus unum the bastards to death.

Who are we? Who are our role models? A process of elimination prompts (troubling) answers.

I shall now put forth—only to dismantle—as fine an argument as I know for the perpetuation (and there’s the rub) of our collegial treatment of the enemy’s pimps, behavior that commonly characterizes “gentlemen’s disagreements” between scholars.

The historian Gordon Craig, in his New York Review of Books analysis of David Irving’s controversial biography of Josef Goebbels, wrote, “It is always difficult for the non-historian to remember that there is nothing absolute about historical truth. What we consider as such is only an estimation, based upon what the best available evidence tells us. It must constantly be tested against new information and new interpretations that appear, however implausible they may be, or it will lose its vitality and degenerate into dogma and shibboleth. Such people as David Irving, then, have an indisputable part in the historical enterprise, and we dare not disregard their views.

“Recently,” Craig went on, “when Christopher Hitchins talked with Raul Hilberg, author of the classic text The Destruction of the European Jews, he found him unambiguous on this point. ‘If these people want to speak,’ Hilberg said, ‘let them. It only leads those of us who do research to re-examine what we might have considered as obvious. And that’s useful for us. I have quoted Eichmann references that come from a neo-Nazi publishing house. I am not for taboos and I am not for repression.” [7]

Nor am I. But would Hilberg join or in any other way dignify an effort to “re-examine” the historical truth of the Holocaust that would compel him in advance to acknowledge the Deniers’ position as an intellectually honest, academically sound, reasoned point of view? Or is his point simply that the arguments of Holocaust-deniers are useful so many years after the established historical truth of the event insofar as they may unintentionally further reveal the nature of the beast?

Could Messrs. Craig or Hilberg or any of us, in good conscience, have entertained the arguments of apologists for Goebbels and the rest of the Bunker Boys at a time when the gas yet hissed and the piano wiring yet tightened?

In our time we dare not be about the historical enterprise, except as a tactic in a greater campaign. Unless, of course, we are willing to concede that the battle for justice in the case cannot be won. Unless we are willing to concede that the case has indeed, as Anthony Summers feared, “toppled over the boundary between current affairs and history.” [8]

I for one make no such concessions. We are fighting a war about which future historians can in good conscience argue with professional detachment. But be advised: Their judgments of our acts today will be harsh and even damning if we do not comport ourselves as warriors engaged in what is truly a life-and-death struggle. If, instead of making a stand, we fade away without commotion, with all of our failures and all of our sins in full blossom.

I am decidedly not about the cold study of history when I ponder the murder of John F. Kennedy. And I am not, by the way, advocating the elimination from our arsenal of the potent weapons of the historian. Rather, I am pleading for our reconsideration of the collective self, and for our unanimous adoption of a more contextually valid and at the same time emotion-driven self-image.

Who are we?

We are the Lakota—of AIM. We are the Jews—of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. We are the Viet Cong—of Tet.

We must know ourselves to be freedom fighters. [9] We are warriors who will not hesitate to use pages of the Geneva Convention treaties as kindling for the execution pyres for our enemies. With victory will come the spoil of defining “war crimes.”

Let us not fear to know our enemy with equal certainty, even if the enemy too closely resembles us. America is not the enemy. America is the enemy’s victim. Your patriotism is suspect only if you decline to do battle with the brute wrapped in your flag.

We are at war, yet consider: Who do we most often choose to engage? When we level our guns on the Warren/HSCA apologists, proceed to annihilate their arguments to the smug satisfaction of our little squad of irregulars, and then insanely decline to press the advantage, we are in effect shooting the messengers while allowing the true enemy to escape unscathed. Worse, we permit the enemy unimpeded use of its most powerful weapon: time.

Journalists did not kill John Kennedy. Historians did not kill America. Contrary to what you are asked to believe, our enemy is not Gerald Posner and his ilk. How many divisions does Posner have?

Posner’s masters did not set out to sway public sentiment with their manufacture of Case Closed. At least not directly. Rather, their immediate objective was to conscript (and in many cases re-up) into the ranks of lone assassin touts a majority of the world’s most influential journalists and scholars, whose own co-opted “opinions” could in turn continue to preserve and encourage the impotent beliefs of, and deny knowledge to, an undereducated, hapless citizenry.

In essence, this operation was a variation on the intelligence operative’s classic so-called

“honeypot” blackmail maneuver, wherein a target is “doubled” after having been lured into a compromising situation (most often sexual in context, but in this case intellectual).

To wit: Once on record as a proponent of the no conspiracy fiction, any one of these movers and shakers inspired to recant by a confrontation with the truth would in effect be confessing prior professional incompetence and personal naiveté. Further, such an act (requiring, alas, reserves of courage and conviction not exactly overflowing from the ranks of the Fourth Estate and academia) would be construed as treason by compromised colleagues left behind in the enemy camp. Retribution no doubt would be swift and terrible.

The degree to which this strategy has succeeded may be measured by cataloging Posner’s dust jacket endorsers. Who should know better. But those original testimonials remain unrescinded (at least publicly). No matter that Peter Dale Scott, Harold Weisberg and others have proven Posner to be a xxxx, plagiarist and traitor to his Constitution.

Once stuck in the honeypot, there is almost never a way out.

But I say that, as the first campaign in our newly declared war’s secret theater, we can and should “redouble” these agents. The truth is on our side. The truth is the most powerful of weapons. Let us hold it, safety off and round in the chamber, to a few temples.

If this tactic is to succeed, our bellicose posturings must leave no doubt as to our mission, strength and will. And they must be backed up by the application of creditable threat: Be warned! We know the truth, and with it we intend to empower former victims who will not find charity in their hearts for their tormentors’ propagandists.

At the same time, we promise meaningful reward: Be saved! All prior sins can be forgiven. If not forgotten.

We extend our own form of blanket immunity to William Styron and Stephen Ambrose and Tom Wicker, not to mention Norman Mailer, Dan Rather and the rest. We rehabilitate them. We commiserate with them, let them off the hook. Stipulate that they were “jobbed” by the most fiendishly clever of foes, that anyone in their position would have behaved similarly. We educate them. Then we force them to choose a side. In other words, we use them. Shamelessly.

Imagine the strategic advantage afforded by a press conference at which Posner’s early champions come forward en masse to tell the world not just that their initial endorsements of Case Closed were the wrongheaded products of gross manipulations, but also that they now will devote themselves tirelessly, on behalf of the public they have served so poorly for so long, to the search for the whole truth in the open case of President Kennedy’s assassination.

The most important benefit of this campaign? We will have established a precedent for the adoption of that tactic most unpalatable, yet indispensable to victory, in armed conflict with a ruthless foe: utilization of the enemy’s own darkest methods. For total war cannot be waged victoriously by a combatant whose actions are burdened by self-imposed moral restraints not suffered by the opposition.

Were any pieties in evidence in Dealey Plaza that day?

Next, we must become master shapers of public opinion. Noam Chomsky has observed that propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship. We must appeal to the hearts and minds—in that order—of the people. We need another JFK, another great work of propagandistic art to get the juices flowing. But this time, instead of contenting ourselves with Take that! victory celebrations, premiere galas, and public television debates of semiotic minutiae, we must storm through the gates that such art will have battered down. Use the truth to liberate the townsfolk. Demonstrate kinship with them. Educate them. Enlist them in our crusade. Promise, and be prepared to deliver, great rewards for their service, including meaningful re-enfranchisement and true ownership of their country.

Thus armed with a terrible resolve, certain of our enemy, emboldened by our newfound allies, let us take the initiative and choose the field. And that field is not Dealey Plaza, where the enemy would have us fight ad infinitum the conspiracy/no conspiracy battle. Which we have won, but which will not amount to a true victory until we demonstrate the courage to accept it as such and press the strategic advantage it offers.

We outnumber the enemy. We outgun the enemy. We can be defeated only by our closely held fears and self-deceptions. And by our unwillingness to feel.

A CALL FOR PASSION

We must understand that, as far as our work is concerned, the repression of passion assures ultimate failure.

In his memoir, A Drinking Life, Pete Hamill recalled the reactions of the Irish to the news of President Kennedy’s death. Hamill was touring Ireland when the word came.

“I let out a wail, a deep scary banshee wail, primitive and wounded, mariachi wail, Hank Williams wail, full of fury and painkids were wailing nowbut I turned, ashamed of my pain and my weeping, and rushed into the night. All through the Catholic neighborhood called Andersontown, doors were opening and slamming and more wails came roaring at the sky, wails without words, full of pagan furies as old as bogs. I wanted to find my father, wanted to hug him and have him hug me. But I careened around dark streets, in the midst of the wailing. I saw a man punch a tree. I saw a stout woman fall down in a sitting position on a doorstep, bawling. I ran and ran, trying to burn out my grief, my anger, my consciousness. I found myself on the Shankill Road, main avenue of the Protestant district. It was no different thereI saw a man kicking a garbage can over and over and over again in primitive rage. I saw three young women heading somewhere, dissolved in tearsThere was a documentaryabout Kennedy’s trip to Ireland in May, smiling and laughing and amused, promising at the airport to come back in the springtime and I thought of the line from Yeats, 'What made us think that he could comb gray hair?' ”[10]

We are as obliged by our special knowledge—and by the very fact that we are alive to comb gray hair—as was John Fitzgerald Kennedy obliged by his privilege, to do the good that others have not the power to do.

We can begin by looking the nation searchingly in the face. By treating its deep disease.

By kicking over a garbage can.

1. A word may be in order concerning Keats’ currently fashionable Negative Capability “of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts without irritable reaching after fact or reason.” The usefulness of this quality as an editing medium for the refinement of our investigative focus is defensible: so many possibilities, so little time. Yet it is the very discomfort of which the poet wrote that gives rise to the resolve required to overcome the clever bastards who would mire us in false mystery. And since both “fact” and “reason” as Keats would accept the terms remain firmly within our reach, the adoption of Negative Capability as a defining principle of our efforts would be morally unacceptable. We have no right to the luxury of not knowing.

2. Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation. (New York: Thunders Mouth Press, 1993, p.29).

3. John Horgan, The End of Science. (New York: Addison-Wesley Melix, 1996, p. 266).

4. Was there a “Gulf of Tonka” resolution?

5. Korczak Ziolkowski, a self-taught sculptor who had worked on the Mt. Rushmore abomination. The idea for the Crazy Horse monument originally was proposed to him in 1939 by Lakota Chief Henry Standing Bear. Work began in June, 1948, and continues today, more than 20 years after Korczak’s death, under the direction of Ruth Ziolkowski and seven of their 10 children. With some of the $20 million raised through donations and tourist fees, they have purchased the mountain and 328 surrounding acres from a semiotically-challenged U.S. government. Yet continued funding is by no means assured. Korczak twice declined $10 million in federal funds, unwilling to give up the nonprofit status of his work and thus jeopardize plans for a medical training center and university for Native Americans envisioned for the base of the fully realized monument. Not to mention the fact that to have taken the cash would have permitted the original thieves to assume legal control of the project. Estimated time of completion: 2050.

6. It should be painfully obvious by now that public debates of multiple version of the Kennedy murder please the murderers no end. The State ultimately is as well-served by fostering the Mob-did-it, Castro-did-it, and/or even CIA-did-it fables as it is by propping up the lone gunman lie. These straw man scenarios amount to so much firewater – grossly effective soporifics that numb the mild but potentially ominous discomforts of an increasingly skeptical electorate and keep all but the most incorrigible of renegades on the reservation. Where they can grow old, look cunning and wise. And know not a damn thing.

7. Gordon A. Craig, The Devil in the Details. The New York Review of Books, September 19, 1996, p. 8.

8. Anthony Summers, correspondence, 1994.

9. Then againRiffing on the Contras, George Carlin mused, “If crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fires, what do freedom fighters fight?”

10. Pete Hamill, A Drinking Life. (New York: Little, Brown, 1994, pp. 241–242).

*****************************************************************

Thank you, Mr. Drago.

I've taken the liberty of bolding and high-lighting the areas I find most pertinent and meaningful in relation to my views. Especially, when coming across a document as well written and well thought out as this one. I copy and paste my "emphasized" version into an e-mail for myself in order that I may keep it for my files. I hope you don't mind.

With gratitude,

TM

To my thinking, there can never be true "closure"

to the horror of the event. I would be satisfied however when History Books record that JFK was killed on 11/22/63, the result of a Coup d' Etat which was engineered by the principals at both the highest levels of of the U.S. government and its agencies. This coup was not only strongly encouraged, but truly demanded by those whose financial monopoly held the "true power" behind the transparently "token government". The power which drove this coup is now realized to forever have changed the path taken by the U.S. in both domestic and international matters. The United States now attempts to RE-EARN the respect it once held in a government of the PEOPLE, which had once taken those first steps to rationally bring accord to problems which arise between nations in an ever shrinking world.

To me "The Admission of Conspiracy" will come closest to historical closure for me.

AS far as "who dunnit" and "how done"....we actually have known for some time. For those of you who are not satisfied until you learn who paid what people to hide, in which places, and to fire an exact number of shots......I am convinced that you will forever be cursed with looking at faded pictures and trying to convince others that "shrubs" are "shooters" and where others were positioned.

I frankly don't give a damn about people who are dead or octogenarians being brought "to justice".

To my thinking, JUSTICE is the admission of what occurred, and that PREVENTATIVE STEPS have been taken to insure that this can never happen again !

I don't know the exact mechanics of the plot, but I surely for years have known "Who Did It and Why".

This is why I have no cause for further actual research. The ONE FACTOR which should be blatantly obvious to anyone studying this case for even a brief time, is the self destruction of researchers by their individual feelings of independence, and their failure to concede minor points in their "Pet Theories", so that a united force can move forward

with the agreement, that their purpose is only the ADMISSION that a Coup occured on 11/22/63 and that it is realized and that steps have been "entrenched", that will not allow it to happen again.

IMHO, the very obvious lack of a "united front" is what has kept this case alive. That is why the Warren Report Buffoons laughingly point to us as "buffs" and "theorists", and continue to point to the fact that we are all so "loony" that we cannot agree with each other.

Regarding this "they ain't wrong"....and without some sort of unification, I would wager if I had a chance of then being alive, that 43 years from now

someone will again be asking..."If the Z film were altered, why did they show JFK's head apparently react to a frontal shot?"

Our sights must be raised for any type of closure.

Raised to demanding proof that IT WAS DONE.....not by who or why. We need to graduate to a higher level. I personally don't need to know the names of those who actually stabbed Julius Caesar, any more than I need the names of the soldiers who nailed Jesus Christ to the cross! We don't need the names because we truly know the "WHY".

I think the time for research has passed and it is now time for "True Analysis" and ORGANIZATION !

Charlie Black

***********************************************************

Now, this is the Charles Black I had come to admire back in November - December, before those damned "Marilyn" threads. This is where you shine, Charlie. This is where you should be directing your time and energy. Because, this is the podium from which I first witnessed what I believed was your dogged determination in pointing your finger in the direction of the real perps. You and Myra, seemed to be the new blood so necessary in raising the conciousness, as well as the evolutionary process, in order to drag this investigation out of the mire in which it's been languishing.

And, I sincerely mean that, Charles. Please don't mistake this as some kind of an attack, because that is definitely not my intention, here.

1971

Performer: Emerson, Lake & Palmer

Title: Lucky man

Lyric text:

He had white horses

And ladies by the score

All dressed in satin

And waiting by the door

Oooh, what a lucky man he was

Oooh, what a lucky man he was

White lace and feathers

They laid on his bed

A gold covered mattress

On which he was led

Oooh, what a lucky man he was

Oooh, what a lucky man he was

He went to fight wars

For his country and his king

Of his honour and his glory

The people would sing

Oooh, what a lucky man he was

Oooh, what a lucky man he was

A bullet had found him

His blood ran as he cried

Nobody could save him

So he laid down and died

Oooh, what a lucky man he was

Oooh, what a lucky man he was

So for the alteration nay-sayers, back to my original questions about the circumstances of Time/Life's possession of the Z-film.

Do you find it at all odd that a major news organization--Time/Life--would purchase a film showing the assassination of the President of the United States, and do nothing with it for years other than print a few stills?

No.

...

Not one to over discuss things eh Kathy?

You take the astonishing position that there's nothing at all odd about a major new organization purchasing then hiding one of the most significant pieces of evidence in one of the biggest crimes ever committed, and feel no need to explain your thought process.

Well your succinctness sure keeps the thread short. There is that upside.

...

I can't see for the life of me what purpose it serves,were it altered.

...

We would have to know all the details of the murder to understand the purpose of altering evidence wouldn't we?

Given that we (or at least I, don't want to speak for you) don't know all the details I can only speculate about the purpose of altering major evidence like the Z-film. Among the possibilities:

-Hiding the possibility that the presidential limo came to a stop.

-Hiding the possibility that one of SS agents in the front seat of the presidential limo did something incriminating.

(Even more incriminating than sitting around while the president is murdered.)

-Hiding indisputable evidence of a shot from the front.

-Hiding indisputable evidence of more than three shots fired.

There are infinite possibilities, and infinite reasons for altering footage of a successful plot to murder a US president.

...

I believe the Backyard Photos are doctored, but that has a purpose---to make Oswald very much look like the assassin.

...

Gee, altering the Z-film to hide shots hitting multiple parts of the limo and occupants from multiple angles just might serve the exact same purpose--"to make Oswald very much look like the assassin"--eh?

...

Perhaps, Myra, maybe we should turn all the lights off in Dealey Plaza, and see what is left---

only sounds.

Wow that is so poetic.

What does it mean?

***********************************************************************

"-Hiding the possibility that the presidential limo came to a stop.

-Hiding the possibility that one of SS agents in the front seat of the presidential limo did something incriminating.

(Even more incriminating than sitting around while the president is murdered.)

-Hiding indisputable evidence of a shot from the front.

-Hiding indisputable evidence of more than three shots fired."

Hey My,

Be careful. You might end up being relegated to Terry Mauro [Trouble Maker] status with them thar fightin' words. They don't cotton to no confrontational wimmen folk, here in this neck of the woods.

Ter

Edited language.

So for the alteration nay-sayers, back to my original questions about the circumstances of Time/Life's possession of the Z-film.

Do you find it at all odd that a major news organization--Time/Life--would purchase a film showing the assassination of the President of the United States, and do nothing with it for years other than print a few stills?

For one thing, having the film in their possession enhanced the status of the owners and editors in Washington. From a social caste point of view, snagging the Zfilm was the ultimate "get" for a news outlet. It turned the Saturday Evening Post, Newsweek and Look into also-rans for years.

Also consider how media outlets behave when they are in possession of something that turns out to be bogus. For example, Germany's Stern magazine couldn't wait to serialize the fake Hitler Diaries. imo, when people have something truly valuable they keep it close to the vest and release tidbits.

Once they release it fully to the public, it's not theirs any more, their cachet evaporates. In the media and in politics, status is everything.

"Status." Ok, asked and answered. News organizations squirrel away crime evidence for status rather than newsworthiness.

This is a most informative thread.

Myra, this may seem hard to believe, but it's clear to me that Life Magazine bought the Z-Film for two reasons, 1) to keep the gruesome film from becoming a public spectacle 2) to make a boatload of cash. Life was big news in the 60s, and having the Z film meant millions of sales. Just as importantly, having the film prevented their competitors from getting millions of sales. I'd bet you the purchase paid for itself within the first year.

As far as alteration, I don't think there was any. There is reason to suspect that the FBI and Warren Commission deliberately printed the head shot frames in the wrong order, in order to hide that the head went back after the shot. As Life executive C.D. Jackson was close to Warren Commissioner John McCloy, there's also a possibility Life colluded with the WC to keep certain frames from the public. Since Jackson died in 64, however, it's possible his promises died with him...which might explain the magazine's switcheroo in 66.

****************************************************************************

"As far as alteration, I don't think there was any. There is reason to suspect that the FBI and Warren Commission deliberately printed the head shot frames in the wrong order, in order to hide that the head went back after the shot. As Life executive C.D. Jackson was close to Warren Commissioner John McCloy, there's also a possibility Life colluded with the WC to keep certain frames from the public. Since Jackson died in 64, however, it's possible his promises died with him...which might explain the magazine's switcheroo in 66."

Yeah, but Pat, wouldn't that still constitute "alteration" regardless of whether it was done with a razor and splicing tape, or whether it was done by deliberately printing the head shot frames in the wrong order?

I'd like to express my thanks to Peter Lemkin and John Geraghty for taking the time to post these very important points of contention, as well as for providing links to the censored parts of Nigel Turner's series. Also, my thanks go to Rich DellaRosa for having provided me with the original series of TMWKK, five years ago. And to my good friend, Dawn Meredith for the CD she compiled for me of the remaining censored parts of the series, two years ago.

The information provided should go down in the annals of history as the truest form of research documentation on record, to be combined with the works of Prouty, Lane, Lifton, Weisberg, Gibson, DiEugenio, Pease, Oglesby, Mullen, Quigley, and LaRouche, et.al. FWIW, I am grateful for this documentation, and the dogged determination of the above mentioned pioneers in this field, to date.

********************************************************

"Try this outstanding speech for starters.....for details...."

John Armstrong's University of Minnesota Speech

Minneapolis--May 15, 1999

PART I

My presentation is based upon documentation and photographs which will be displayed on these two screens. These slides are presented as visual aids and show relevant portions of documents that are often too large to be depicted in full. They show the documentary evidence behind this presentation.

For 35 years critics have called Kennedy's assassination a conspiracy. But long before the critics, the book writers, and the various government agencies that were established to investigate Kennedy's murder, there was one man who called the assassination a conspiracy. He was the first and his name was Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald told Dallas Police Captain Fritz there was a conspiracy--months before... MONTHS BEFORE the word "conspiracy" was ever used publicly. Within 48 hours Oswald was killed--the first of over a hundred assassination related witnesses to die.

We cannot question Oswald, but we can piece together his life story from testimony, evidence, photographs, and documentation. I will begin by discussing the last 10 years of Oswald's life in chronological order. I will then show how evidence was manipulated in order to hide Oswald's true identity and conceal his connections to US intelligence.

In 1961 the British arrested Gordon Lonsdale for espionage (LEFT-SLIDE 1). Among his possessions were fake birth certificates and fake passports which gave Lonsdale dual identities. They learned that his real name was Konan Molodi, a native born Russian. Molodi spent his teenage years in California, learned to speak English fluently, and returned to Russia where he was trained in espionage. He took the name Gordon Lonsdale and posed as a businessman in England; but his real purpose was spying out British defense secrets.... Dual identities, the ability to speak Russian and English perfectly, and involvement with intelligence agencies are the tools of a spy. Lonsdale possessed these qualities at a young age... and so did Oswald.

In the early 1950's an intelligence operation began that involved two teenage boys--Lee Oswald, from Fort Worth and a Russian speaking boy who was given the name "Harvey Oswald", from New York. In 1952, these boys were brought together in New York City. They lived parallel but separate lives, often in the same city. The ultimate purpose of this operation was to switch their identities and eventually send Russian speaking Harvey Oswald into the Soviet Union. This is exactly what happened, 7 years later, when Harvey participated in a CIA sponsored defection program in 1959.

Lee and Harvey attended schools, worked at various jobs, lived in the same cities and created numerous paper trails. When the Warren Commission began piecing together "Lee Harvey Oswald's" life, they found substantial evidence of Oswald in two places at the same time--evidence which they never explained and often ignored. Warren Commission Attorney Albert Jenner wrote (LEFT-SLIDE 2) "our depositions and examinations of records and other data disclose there are details in Mr. Ely's memorandum concerning the Oswald's background which will require material alteration and, in some cases, omission". The evidence requiring "material alteration and omission" concerning Oswald's background is the key to understanding the lives of Harvey and Lee Oswald. Most of it was not printed in the Warren Volumes.

(RIGHT-SLIDE 1) This FBI document describes the statements of a woman who telephoned Mrs. Jack Tippit, of Westport, Connecticut the day after the assassination. The woman said she personally knew Oswald's father and uncle in New York City, who were from Hungary and promoted communism. This woman asked Mrs. Tippit to relay her information to Dallas authorities. This woman may have thought Oswald's relatives were communists, but in reality they were most likely working undercover for our government.

Lee Oswald was born in New Orleans in October 1939. His father died two months before he was born. At age 13 Lee was attending elementary school in Fort Worth, Texas. His friend and neighbor Richard Garrett described Lee as "the tallest, most dominant member of our group in grammar school" (LEFT-SLIDE 3). Lee and his mother left Ft. Worth in August, 1952 for New York. They stayed with Lee's 20 year old brother, John Pic, who was married and in the Coast Guard. Lee's other brother, Robert, was 18 years old and in the Marines.

From the time Lee arrived in New York in 1952 his life was filled with unexplained contradictions. (LEFT-SLIDE 4) John Pic told the FBI and the Warren Commission that Lee attended junior high a block from the Pic apartment, yet Warren Commission records (RIGHT-SLIDE 2) tell us Oswald attended Trinity Evangelical School in the Bronx--many miles north of the Pic apartment.

The Warren Commission tells us Oswald did not attend junior high and was placed in the Youth House for truancy. He was first seen by New York Psychiatrist Dr. Milton Kurian who described him as a very thin, short boy about 4'6" tall. Oswald was seen a few days later by Dr. Renatus Hartogs who also described Oswald (RIGHT-SLIDE 3) as "thin, malnourished, and reminiscent of children he had seen in concentration camps in Europe after the war". These two New York psychiatrists interviewed a short, malnourished boy--Harvey Oswald. A week later (LEFT- SLIDE 5) New York School health records, Warren Commission exhibits, recorded Oswald's height at 5'4" tall-nearly a foot taller than the boy seen by the psychiatrists. Oswald told Dr. Kurian he had been placed in Youth House for truancy. He also told Kurian that his brother would occasionally substitute for him and take his place in school. But which brother? Twenty-one-year-old John Pic and 19-year-old Robert were too old to be substituting for their 13-year-old brother in the 7th grade. The "brother" who was substituting for the thin, malnourished Harvey was probably the tall, (LEFT-SLIDE 6) well built Lee Oswald from Ft. Worth, Texas. Lee Oswald's 174 days of attendance at Public School #44 is recorded on these Warren Commission and FBI exhibits (LEFT-SLIDE 7). Harvey Oswald's truancy and placement in the Youth House is recorded on this Warren Commission exhibit (RIGHT-SLIDE 4); two records for two Oswalds in the spring of 1953--both Warren Commission documents.

This is (LEFT-SLIDE 8) Lee Oswald, in the 6th grade in Ft. Worth--the boy who lived at Pic's apartment in the fall of 1952. This is a photo of short, thin, (RIGHT-SLIDE 5) Harvey Oswald taken at the Bronx Zoo. When John Pic was shown this photograph, he told the Warren Commission "Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald". The Warren Commission attorney replied "that young fellow as shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City?" Pic replied "No, sir". Harvey and Lee at age 13.

In the summer of 1953, Lee Oswald and his mother were living in New York City. In July, 1953, Harvey moved to Stanley, North Dakota where he introduced himself to 12 year old William Henry Timmer as "Harvey Oswald". (RIGHT-SLIDE 6) Harvey told Timmer of gang fights in New York City where he made weapons with razor blades stuck in potatoes, and of living all over the country. He showed Timmer a pamphlet on Marxism. Timmer wondered where this young boy would get such a pamphlet? Probably from his father and his uncle in New York City, who were alleged to be Hungarians and promoting communism.

Six years later, in 1959, Harvey Oswald was interviewed by news reporter Aline Mosby in Moscow. Mosby (RIGHT-SLIDE 7) quoted Oswald as saying "we moved to North Dakota". When Oswald was arrested in August, 1963 in New Orleans, he was interviewed by Lt. Francis Martello. He told Martello that he had moved from New York to North Dakota (RIGHT-SLIDE 8). But when Harvey travelled to North Dakota, Lee remained in New York City.

In in the fall of 1953 this Warren Commission exhibit (LEFT-SLIDE 9) shows Lee Oswald attended 62 days of school in the 8th grade at Public School #44 in the Bronx. At the same time this Warren Commission exhibit (RIGHT-SLIDE 9) shows an "Oswald" attended 89 days of school in the 8th grade at Beauregard Junior High in New Orleans. Once again, we have two different sets of school records published in the Warren volumes: Lee in New York, Harvey in New Orleans during the Fall Semester of 1953.

That following September, Lee Oswald's height was again recorded at 5'4" by his health chart (LEFT- SLIDE 10). When Harvey entered Myra DaRouses 8th grade homeroom class in New Orleans that fall, she described him as 4'6" tall, skinny, and small for his age. He asked Myra to call him "Harvey" and to this day when Myra is asked about Oswald she always refers to him as "Harvey." Myra's description of a short, skinny boy is nearly identical with the New York Psychiatrist's description of Oswald at the Youth House several months earlier. When a piano fell on Harvey's legs in early 1954, Myra drove him to the doctor and then to his apartment on Exchange Alley.

But the Warren Commission tells us Lee and his mother (LEFT-SLIDE 11) were living on St. Marys Street at that time. Their landlord, Myrtle Evans, had known Marguerite for 25 years and lived in the apartment next door. Myrtle and her husband Julian told the Warren Commission "she was a fine woman, intelligent, soft spoken-a beautiful woman with black hair. She used to be a fashion plate." (LEFT-SLIDE 12). Marguerite Oswald is standing next to her husband, Edwin Ekdahl, who was over 6 ft. tall. When Julian Evans saw her on TV, after the assassination he said, "she looked so old and haggard, and I said, that just couldn't be Margie" (RIGHT-SLIDE 11). "There's no other way to describe it, the change that has come over her. You wouldn't have recognized her if they hadn't told you who she was; she looked that different". Myrtle and Julian Evans knew that something was not right. The Marguerite Oswald they saw on TV (RIGHT-SLIDE 12) was very different from the woman they knew. Here's Marguerite Oswald looking up at 5'1" Marina Oswald, quite a bit shorter than the woman standing next to her 6 foot tall husband.

In New Orleans during the first half of 1954, we have Lee Oswald (LEFT-SLIDE 13) living next door to Myrtle and Julian Evans on St. Mary's Street while Harvey Oswald (RIGHT-SLIDE 12) is living 2 miles away at 126 Exchange Place. Two teenage Oswalds in New Orleans in 1954 and two mothers to look after them.

In the fall of 1954 tall, husky Lee Oswald entered the 9th grade at Beauregard. He got involved in a fight with Johnny Neumeyer. A fellow student, Ed Voebel, got some ice and attempted to patch him up. Voebel told the Warren Commission "Oswald's lip was cut and his tooth was knocked out". Voebel took this LIFE Magazine photograph of Lee Oswald (LEFT-SLIDE 14) showing the missing front tooth at age 15. In 1981, Oswald's body was exhumed from his grave in Ft. Worth. Neither x-rays (RIGHT-SLIDE 13) nor photographs (RIGHT-SLIDE 14) showed any missing or chipped teeth.

The boy in the LIFE Magazine photo with the missing front tooth was Lee Oswald. The person exhumed in 1981 with no broken or chipped teeth was Harvey, the person killed by Jack Ruby. I showed the LIFE Magazine photo to Oswald's 8th grade homeroom teacher, Myra DaRouse. Myra said this was not Harvey--not the young man in her home room. Myra was correct, the photo was of Lee.

While Ed Voebel and Lee attended Beauregard in the 9th grade in the fall of 1954, Harvey attended Stripling Junior High in Ft. Worth. Harvey, remembered many Stripling students, lived across the street from the school on Thomas Place--the same house Marguerite Oswald lived in at the time of the assassination. Harvey's attendance created Stripling school records which remained in storage at Stripling until the day after the assassination.

Additional confirmation that Oswald attended Stripling came from Robert Oswald. (RIGHT-SLIDE 15) In October, 1959, when Harvey defected to Russia, Robert Oswald told the Fort Worth Star Telegram his brother had attended Stripling Junior High in Fort Worth. (RIGHT-SLIDE 16) In June, 1962, when Harvey returned from Russia, Robert Oswald again told the Fort Worth Star Telegram his brother had attended Stripling Junior High in Fort Worth. Two years later (RIGHT-SLIDE 17) Robert Oswald told the Warren Commission that his brother had attended Stripling in Fort Worth. No one seemed to notice that records published in the Warren volumes said Oswald attended all of his junior high school years in either New York or New Orleans-never a single day at Stripling Junior High in Ft. Worth. Robert Oswald knew about Harvey's Stripling Junior High School attendance. He also knew about the two Oswalds.

Harvey Oswald left Fort Worth and returned to New Orleans in early 1955 where he and Marguerite began work at Dolly Shoe Company in New Orleans. The store owner and employees remembered Oswald as being a very quiet and physically small child. Owner Maury Goodman identified this photograph as Marguerite Oswald (RIGHT-SLIDE 18) who worked at his store. He remembered her because she was the only employee who refused to fill out a personal information form required by the company's insurance carrier. When she continued to refuse to fill out the form, he fired her. The Wednesday following Easter, in April, 1955, Louis Marzialle was hired as store manager. Louis observed Oswald working during the morning and told Mr. Goodman he was doing a poor job. After lunch, Louis fired Oswald. Here are Beauregard Junior High school records (LEFT-SLIDE 15) showing Lee Oswald did not miss a single day during the Spring 1955 semester. How could Oswald attend Beauregard Junior High and work at Dolly Shoe in the mornings from February thru April at the same time? He couldn't. Harvey and Marguerite (RIGHT-SLIDE 19) worked at Dolly Shoe during the day, while Lee attended Beauregard and lived with his mother (LEFT-SLIDE 16) on St. Marys Street--the good-looking woman remembered by Myrtle and Julian Evans.

In July of 1955, Robert Oswald was discharged from the Marines and visited Marguerite and Lee in New Orleans for one week. Robert told the Warren Commission (LEFT-SLIDE 17) "Lee was working for an export firm there in New Orleans". The export firm was Gerard F. Tujague, Inc., and the date was July, 1955. Frank DiBenedetto was Oswald's supervisor at Tujagues. Frank told the HSCA (LEFT-SLIDE 18) Oswald had worked for Tujague's "a year to a year and a half". Gloria Callaghan, a secretary at Tujague's, remembered Oswald worked at Tujague's thru April of 1956 when she took a leave of absence to have her first child. Frank did not remember the month Oswald quit but did remember he quit to join the Marines. Lee Oswald left New Orleans in July, 1956, moved to Ft. Worth and joined the Marines in October. From Robert Oswald, Gloria Callaghan and Frank DiBenedetto we learn Lee Oswald worked at Tujague's from July, 1955 through April, 1956. The Warren Commission, however, says Oswald did not begin work at Tugagues until November.

Why? Because New Orleans school records showed that Oswald attended Warren Easton High school that September and October. This conflicted with Oswald working at Tujagues at the same time. So the Tujague employment records were changed. In October, Harvey Oswald wrote this note to the school saying (RIGHT-SLIDE 20) "we are moving to San Diego in the middle of the month." There are indications that Harvey did move to California. In early October of 1963, Harvey told Texas Employment Commission employee Laurel Kittrell that he had worked as a motor cycle delivery boy in California at age 16. (RIGHT-SLIDE 21). I'll discuss more of Laurel Kittrell's interview with Oswald later.

In the fall of 1956, "Harvey" moved to Fort Worth, Texas, and briefly attended Arlington Heights High School. Former classmate and neighbor Richard Garrett said (RIGHT-SLIDE 22) "he walked up to me in the hall at school. I remember I had to look down to talk to him and it seemed strange, because he had been the tallest, most dominant member of our group in grammar school. He looked like he was lost. He was very different from the way I remember him". Very different indeed. Garrett did not realize that the shorter and smaller Harvey (RIGHT-SLIDE 23) had replaced Lee. Two months later this Marine photo (LEFT-SLIDE 19) was taken of Lee Oswald. Harvey and Lee at age 17.

According to the Warren Commission, (LEFT-SLIDE 20) Oswald joined the Marines in October, 1956. His Marine medical examination lists a 3-inch mastoid scar behind his left ear from a 1945 operation. Lee Oswald was sent to Boot Camp and ITR training in San Diego, Aviation Fundamentals school in Jacksonville, Florida, radar school in Biloxi, Mississippi, transfered back to El Toro, California in July, and left for Japan in August, 1957.

Marine Allen Felde told the FBI a similar but different account of Oswald's activities. (RIGHT-SLIDE 24). Felde said he and Oswald were in Boot Camp and ITR training in San Diego, A & P School in Jacksonville, and Electronics School in Memphis. Felde said Oswald was constantly complaining about Eisenhower and writing leftist-type letters to senators. Felde and Harvey Oswald were still in Memphis in September, 1957, when Lee Oswald was in Japan. Felde was not interviewed by the Warren Commission and the FBI made no attempt to locate or interview fellow Marines who had served with Felde and Oswald in Memphis--while Lee was in Japan.

From Memphis, Harvey Oswald may have travelled to Columbus, Ohio where reports by the Columbus, Ohio Police Department say he briefly attended Antioch College in the fall of 1957--Ruth Paine's alma mater (RIGHT-SLIDE 25). He was asked to leave when he failed to produce high school graduation records.

In September 1957, (LEFT-SLIDE 22) Lee Oswald arrived in Japan. While overseas Lee never spoke Russian, read Russian newspapers, nor discussed Communism with anyone. He hated the name "Harvey" or "Harv", and was given the nickname "Ozzie".

Marine medical records show "Oswald" was twice treated for tonsillitis and given injections of penicillin (RIGHT-SLIDE 26). But according to this FBI report (LEFT-SLIDE 21), Dr. Philben, of Dallas, Texas had removed Lee Oswald's tonsils twelve years earlier--in January, 1945.

In October, 1957 Lee shot himself in the left arm with a .22 derringer. The entrance wound was closed with stitches and the bullet remained in his arm. Two weeks later an incision was made on the back side of his arm and the bullet removed. Two incisions--two sets of stitches--two scars. After Harvey Oswald was shot and killed by Jack Ruby an autopsy was performed by Dr. Earl Rose. Dr. Rose noted several of Oswald's scars in his autopsy report (RIGHT-SLIDE 27)--some were as small as 1/16". But no scars were noted for the upper left arm, nor is there a notation of a 3-inch mastoid scar which was listed on Oswald's 1956 Marine medical exam. It is not likely that Dr. Rose missed three noticeable scars. Dr. Rose also took 27 color slides of Oswald's body which are now in the National Archives. No upper arm or mastoid scars are visible. Harvey Oswald was prepared for burial and emballmed by Mortician Paul Groody. Groody was twice asked about scars on Oswald's arms. Groody said he had not seen any scars on Oswald's upper left arm. It was Lee Oswald who had the three-inch mastoid scar from the 1945 operation and two upper left arm scars from the self-inflicted bullet wound. It was Harvey who was killed by Jack Ruby and had no such scars.

Lee Oswald was close with three Marines-George Wilkens, Zack Stout and Bobby Warren. This photo (LEFT-SLIDE 24) of Lee was taken by Bobby Warren in Japan in 1958. They were together on Atsugi, Corregidor and Subic Bay. Stout and other Marines said "Ozzie" was always writing letters to his mother. This 1957 telegram from the Red Cross refers to Oswald writing letters to his mother on a weekly basis. Yet no letters from Japan can be found. Why? It is doubtful the handwriting in Lee's letters from Japan would match Harvey's handwriting. The FBI interviewed Marines who knew Lee Oswald in Japan, but their investigation was very superficial. They could have interviewed a number of Marines who worked, bunked, and went on leave with Oswald, like Zack Stout, George Wilkens and Bobby Warren. Instead they intentionally interviewed only eight Marines who barely knew Oswald and were unable to describe him.

While Lee was in Japan, Harvey worked at the Pfisterer Dental Lab in New Orleans. Palmer McBride worked with Oswald every day from October, 1957 through July, 1958. He and Oswald became close friends and often visited each other's homes where they played records and discussed astronomy. McBride probably spent as much or more time in his life with Oswald as anyone. They double dated, went to movies and attended meetings of the New Orleans Amateur Astronomy Association. McBride said that Oswald complained of President Eisenhower's not doing enough about the U.S. space program in view of the Russian's October, 1957 launch of Sputnik. Harvey quit Pfisterers in July 1958. Three months later, in November, Lee returned from Japan and was stationed at the Marine base at Tustin, California. Harvey (RIGHT-SLIDE 28) was stationed at El Toro, and assumed Lee's identity (LEFT-SLIDE 25).

Harvey used his time in El Toro to convince fellow Marines of his interest in communism and his ability to speak Russian. His proficiency with the Russian language has caused some researchers to speculate that he learned Russian at the Monterrey school of languages in California. The next time you hear someone say that Oswald learned Russian at the Monterrey Language school, ask them to name the month and year he attended? Was it during Boot Camp or Infantry training in California in 1956? In Jacksonville, Florida or Biloxi, Mississippi in the spring of 1957? In Japan with his mobile radar unit that travelled to the Philippines and Taiwan in 1957 and 1958? No. Lee Oswald never had the time to attend a Russian language school in Monterrey or anywhere else, and never spoke a word of Russian while in Japan. When Lee returned to the United States in December, 1958, Russian speaking Harvey assumed his identity. It was Harvey who took the Russian language exam in February, 1959 while in the Marines. Harvey dated Russian language student Roslyn Quinn and together they spoke fluent Russian. Fellow Marines nicknamed him "Oswaldovich". But Harvey's sudden proficiency in reading Russian newspapers, listening to Russian records and speaking Russian was just a game. In reality Harvey was preparing for his CIA sponsored "defection", while making sure fellow Marines remembered his interest in anything Russian. Harvey and Lee at age 19.

In December, Harvey's mother, Marguerite Oswald, suffered a work related injury and was treated by Dr. Milton Goldberg. During one of her visits, she told Dr. Goldberg "that her son wanted to defect to Russia". This was 10 months before Oswald's "defection".

Lee Oswald left the Marines, and moved to New Orleans, where he was registered in room "D" at the McBeth Rooming House. (LEFT-SLIDE 26) Captain Valentine Ashworth roomed with Lee and traveled with him to Ohio. In September, 1959, Lee moved to Florida and began consorting with CIA operatives. Lee and an anti-Castro Cuban named "Mexicano" visited Mrs. Gladys Davis (LEFT-SLIDE 27) at her home in Coral Gables. (LEFT-SLIDE 28) Marita Lorenz first met Oswald, whom she called "Ozzie" in a CIA safehouse in Miami in 1960. Lee Oswald's activities in the Florida Keys were well known to former Congresswoman Clare Booth Luce. Sheriff Thompson, of Key West, Florida (LEFT-SLIDE 29) remembered when Oswald's 40 ft boat ran out of gas. Oswald placed a call to Dallas, Texas and received money by wire within a few hours. The money could have come from Jack Ruby who was running guns to Cuba. Neighbors told the FBI that Ruby stored guns in a rented house in Kemah, Texas. (LEFT-SLIDE 30) On the weekends the guns were loaded onto a surplus military landing craft and Ruby piloted the vessel to Cuba.

In September, 1959 Harvey was discharged from the Marines and obtained this Department of Defense ID card (RIGHT-SLIDE 29)--a card often issued to intelligence operatives. But the photo on the ID card was only half of (LEFT-SLIDE 31) Harvey's face--the other half was Lee. This ID card could be used by either Lee or Harvey.

On September 7th Lee Oswald's photo was taken (LEFT-SLIDE 32) and used for his 1959 passport application. (RIGHT-SLIDE 30) A week later, in Ft. Worth, Robert Oswald took this photo of Harvey. In October this photo of Lee (LEFT-SLIDE 33) appeared in the Fort Worth Star Telegram when he defected. Harvey and Lee at age 20--both known to Robert Oswald. (RIGHT-SLIDE 31)

In 1959, U.S. citizen Robert Webster also "defected" to Russia. In Moscow he met Marina Prusakova. After Webster was sent by the Russians to live in Leningrad, Marina also moved to Leningrad, and just happened to move into the same apartment building as Webster. There she again met Webster and conversed him--in English. Evidence of Marina's ability to write English before the assassination is abundant at the National Archives. There are dozens of examples of her near-perfect English handwriting on the backs of dozens of photographs and of papers where Marina has corrected Ruth Paine's Russian script. There are recipes in her English handwriting and this notebook in the National Archives is filled with page after page of Marina's English handwriting.

In January of 1961 Muhamed Reggab, a Moraccan exchange student, was dating Marina Prusakova back in Moscow. After the assassination Marina spoke English with her manager, Jim Martin. Martin said Marina spoke English quite well. He also said Marina told him about meeting and entertaining foreign ambassadors in their Moscow hotel rooms (RIGHT- SLIDE 32). She bragged about her contacts and access to high level communist officials and her travels throughout the Soviet Union. Marina's repeated contacts with foreigners, communist officials and her travels from Moscow to Leningrad to Minsk while an unemployed teenager is suspicious. The ease with which she met U.S. defectors Webster and Oswald in different, very large cities, hundreds of miles apart, is more than suspicious--someone was directing her and someone was paying her way. The freedom she had to meet and marry Oswald, the ease with which she left the Soviet Union and her ability to speak and write English long before she knew Oswald are strong indications that Marina had intelligence connections.

On a recent trip to Buenos Aires, Argentina, I met Anna Zeiger whose family knew Harvey from the time he arrived in Minsk to the time he left. She said during the year and a half she knew Oswald, she never heard him speak a word of a word of Russian. Her father, who was Oswald's supervisor at the factory where they worked, spoke English and interpreted for Oswald until the day he left. Oswald did not want anyone in Russia to know that he spoke Russian. This provided him the opportunity to listen, read, and understand the conditions and events around him in secret. When he returned to the States, Oswald wrote a 50 page manuscript detailing his observations in Russia. Published in Volume 16 of the Warren volumes, it is replete with minute detail, facts and data--not the type of information recorded by a tourist or temporary resident of Russia.

LET'S THINK AGAIN ABOUT HARVEY AND MARINA. Oswald spoke Russian before he left the United States, but while in Russia pretended not to speak Russian. Marina spoke and wrote English while in Russia, but when they came to the U.S. in 1962 she pretended not to speak English. Marina lied when she told the Warren Commission that Oswald wanted her to speak Russian in order to help him maintain his proficiency in Russian. The truth is she did not want anyone to know that she spoke English because it might cause Dallas residents to wonder where she learned English. The Dallas Russian community already wondered how she was able to meet and marry Oswald in 5 weeks, and then leave Russia. If they knew Marina could speak and write English while in Russia, they just might suspect her of being a spy. It is reasonable to conclude that both Marina and Harvey were likely connected to their countries' respective intelligence agencies. From 1959 through 1962, Russian medical records, State Department Security memos, letters to Oswald, CIA and FBI memos all refer to Oswald as "Harvey". The merging of Harvey Oswald with Lee Oswald's background had been successful. Harvey was observing conditions in Russia while Lee was working in New Orleans, Texas and Florida with CIA operatives.

By June, 1960 J. Edgar Hoover was aware of an Oswald in the States and an Oswald in Russia. This FBI memo (LEFT-SLIDE 34), warning of an Oswald impostor in the U.S., should have prompted a small army of FBI agents to locate the Oswald imposter and find out who he was and what he was up to. Yet nothing was done-not a single investigation of the Oswald imposter is known to exist. This lack of investigation strongly suggests that FBI officials were informed of the Oswald defection program and called off their search for the Oswald impostor.

CIA contact Marita Lorenz (LEFT-SLIDE 35) met Lee Oswald for the 2nd time at a CIA safehouse in Miami in 1960 and several times at CIA training camps in the Florida everglades in 1961. There are FBI reports of Oswald attempting to purchase trucks from (LEFT-SLIDE 36) Bolton Ford in New Orleans in January, 1961, visiting the (LEFT-SLIDE 37) Dumas and Milnes Chevrolet Dealership in New Orleans in May, 1961 (LEFT-SLIDE 38), meeting with Robert Taber in Havana in July, with (LEFT-SLIDE 39) Ray Carnay in Dallas, Oswald's arrest in the fall of 1961 (LEFT-SLIDE 40) by Officer Charles Noto in New Orleans. In 1961 Oswald and Jack Ruby were seen boarding a plane to Cuba by Key West airport manager Nick Faraldo. In late 1961 and early 1962 (LEFT-SLIDE 41) Oswald was engaged in disruptive activities with Steve Landesberg in New York. All of these people thought they had met the person accused of shooting President Kennedy. But they were mistaken--Harvey was in Russia at that time. These well intentioned people met or came in contact with Lee Oswald--not Harvey. Even though Lee and Harvey were not identical, they looked similar enough to deceive and fool those with whom they came in contact. Look alikes are often used by the intelligence community. A perfect example are Patricio and Antonio De La Guardia (LEFT-SLIDE 42)--identical twin brothers. They were Castro's top intelligence agents.

Harvey and Marina left Russia in May, 1962 for Texas. In Ft. Worth, Oswald impressed local Russian emigrees with his near perfect command of the Russian language. George DeMohrenschildt, a native speaking Russian emigree, said Harvey preferred speaking Russian to English. They often discussed classical (RIGHT-SLIDE 33) Russian literature--in the Russian language. The Warren Commission would like us to believe this high school dropout taught himself Russian by reading Russian newspapers at age 19 in California. In reality Harvey had been speaking Russian since childhood.

When John Pic first saw "Harvey", upon his return from Russia, Pic told the Warren Commission (RIGHT-SLIDE 34) "the Lee Harvey Oswald I met in November, 1962 was not the same Lee Oswald I had known 10 years previous". He was (RIGHT-SLIDE 35) "much thinner, didn't have as much hair, different facial features, his face was rounder, he seemed more slender, he had less hair, eyes seemed sunken, and he no longer had a bull neck". Oswald wrote his name in Pic's address book as "Harvey" (RIGHT-SLIDE 36). When the Warren Commission attorney asked Pic how he looked compared with when Pic had last seen him, (RIGHT-SLIDE 37) Pic replied "I would never have recognized him, sir".

In the summer of 1962, Harvey and Marina were living in Ft. Worth. Harvey was interviewed by the FBI in June, and again in August. At the same time Lee Oswald was living in New Orleans in a small apartment above the Court of Two Sisters restaurant in the French Quarter. The FBI was aware of Lee Oswald and his whereabouts. The manager of the restaurant, Gene Davis, was an FBI informant (LEFT-SLIDE 43).

Through 1962 and early 1963 the activities of Harvey and Lee had no apparent relationship to the impending assassination--still 9 months away. But by the spring of 1963 things began to change. In March, when Harvey and Marina were living on Neeley Street, a letter was found by a Memphis attorney in the mail box at the Carousel Club addressed to Jake Rubenstein. The return address was "Lee Oswald, 1106 Diceman Avenue, Dallas, Texas."

In the summer 1963, while Harvey was working at the Reilly Coffee Company in New Orleans, Lee was living in Dallas, Texas. Marshall Hicks, an employee of Western Union, delivered several telegrams to Oswald at 1501 W. 7th, in Fort Worth. Jack Ruby's girlfriend, Dorothy Marcum, remembered that Oswald worked for Ruby. Mechanic Robert Roy said Oswald drove Ruby's car to and from his garage on many occasions. In Ruby's club, Oswald struck up a conversation with Frances Hise and offered to buy her a drink. On another she noticed as Oswald came in the back door of the Carousel Club and Ruby casually said "Hi, Ozzie". Ruby later joined "Ozzie" in the back room. Ruby employees William Crowe, Wally Weston, Dixie Lynn, Kathy Kay and others claim to have seen Oswald in Ruby's club. Dozens of people (LEFT-SLIDE 44) saw Oswald and Ruby together in the summer and fall of 1963--precisely when Harvey and Marina were living on Magazine Street in New Orleans. It was Lee Oswald who knew and associated with Jack Ruby in the summer of 1963 and may have known Ruby when he was running guns to Cuba.

In August, Harvey was arrested in New Orleans while passing out "Fair Play for Cuba Literature". The Warren Commission asked John Pic (RIGHT-SLIDE 38) "Do you recognize the young man handing out the leaflets?" Pic replied "No, sir, I would be unable to recognize him". For the 7th time during his Warren Commission testimony, John Pic refused to identify Harvey Oswald as his brother.

Helping Harvey pass out leaflets was Charles Hall Steele, (RIGHT-SLIDE39) an FBI informant. While Oswald was passing out leaflets he was observed by CIA Agent William Gaudet, filmed by FBI informant ??? Oquinn, a film that was later shown on national television. Oswald was confronted by three Cubans and the police were called. The arresting officer thought the leafletting incident was a staged event, designed to draw attention. (RIGHT-SLIDE 40) The officer was correct, but was unaware that two of the Cubans-Carlos Bringuier and Miguel Cruz-were FBI informants and the third, Celso Hernandez, was a CIA contact. Oswald and the Cubans were arrested and taken to jail. In jail Oswald summoned and spoke with FBI Agent John Quigley. A week later Oswald was invited to discuss his pro-Castro views on WDSU radio. Moderating the discussion was Bill Stuckey, an FBI informant. Panelists included FBI informant Carlos Bringuier and Edward Scannel Butler, head of the Information Counsel of the Americas--a CIA sponsored and funded organization.

Had we known in 1963 that everyone involved with the leaf-letting incidents and the radio discussions were connected to either the FBI or CIA, we would not so easily accepted the medias portrayal of Oswald as a supporter of Castro and Communism. We would have asked why the accused assassin of President Kennedy was surrounded by FBI and CIA people. We might have realized that Oswald was not a supporter of Castro but rather a government sponsored agitator.

But here was this ex-Russian defector, with a Russian wife, filmed and arrested while passing out literature in support of Castro and Communism on the streets of New Orleans. In the summer of 1963, the setting up of Oswald as a "patsy" began.

In September, with Harvey and Marina still in New Orleans, Cliff Shasteen cut Lee Oswald's hair in his Irving, Texas barber shop. Shasteen told the Warren Commission that Lee Oswald (LEFT-SLIDE 45) had nearly black hair and a widow's peak, but Harvey's hair was (RIGHT-SLIDE 41) medium brown and he did not have a widow's peak. Shasteen told the FBI that Oswald drove the Paine's car to his barber--but Oswald couldn't drive. Shasteen often saw Oswald at the Paines house, a few blocks away, and assumed he lived there--but Oswald was living in New Orleans. Across from Shasteen's was a grocery store owned by Leonard Hutchinson who remembered Oswald as a customer.

In early September, with Harvey and Marina still in New Orleans, Antonio Veciana observed his long time CIA contact David Atlee Phillips meeting with Oswald in Dallas. The meeting took place at the Southland Building, a few blocks from Jack Ruby's Carousel Club. Why would Phillips, head of Cuban Propaganda for the CIA, meet with Lee OswaId? Because the plot to kill Kennedy depended heavily on Lee Oswald. From September through November of 1963 Lee Oswald was used to impersonate Harvey in a series of events designed to set up "Harvey as the assassin and implicate Cuba as his sponsor. It is not unreasonable to speculate that David Phillips masterminded this plan. After the assassination, Phillips received, directed and controled inquiries to the CIA station in Mexico City regarding Oswald's visits to Mexico.

Lee Oswald was sent to Houston, Texas where he attempted to purchase four high powered rifles from Robert McKeown. But Mckeown was leary of Oswald and refused his offer. McKeown told the House Select Committee "that is what puzzled me, why would he come to me to buy rifles". McKeown may have been puzzled, but it made perfect sense to those directing Oswald. McKeown had provided Castro with rifles and arms during the Cuban revolution (LEFT- SLIDE 46). McKeown was also a very close personal friend of Castro. Purchasing rifles from Castro's close friend and gunrunner and using those rifles to assassinate Kennedy would have placed the blame for Kennedy's assassination on Castro and caused a public outcry for an invasion of Cuba. The U.S. would invade Cuba, overthrow Castro, and avenge the CIA's loss at the Bay of Pigs.

But, McKeown did not sell rifles to Lee Oswald. Oswald left and continued to impersonate Harvey. In Mexico City an Oswald attempted to secure a visa to Cuba. But this Oswald, photographed in the Cuban Embassy, was unrecognized by Embassy personnel after the assassination. This Oswald visited the Russian embassy and spoke Russian so poorly, that he and the Russian embassy personnel had to speak English. When Oswald telephoned the Russian embassy, the conversation was recorded. The day after the assassination J. Edgar Hoover told Lyndon Johnson "we have up here the tape recording and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy using Oswald's name. That picture and tape recording do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, Mr. President, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there." A second Oswald in Mexico City and Hoover and Lyndon Johnson knew about it the evening of the assassination.

Placing Oswald in Mexico City was an important step in linking Oswald to Cuba. But the FBI had little evidence that Oswald was ever in Mexico City. Aware of the problem, CIA Agent David Phillips offered a Cuban embassy employee a large sum of money to say that he and his wife met Oswald in Mexico City. The attempt failed. Nine months later, in July 1964, it was Marina who conveniently provided the FBI with circumstantial evidence that placed Oswald in Mexico City. But it was the CIA, most notably through David Phillips, Frank Sturgis, and friendly media assets, who continued to try to link Oswald with Cuba.

Oswald was allegedly in Mexico from September 26 to October 3. But Mr. Price told the Warren Commission that Oswald practiced at the Sports Drome Rifle Range in Dallas on September 28. In New Orleans, an Oswald bragged about his recent trip to Cuba where he met Castro. An Oswald applied for a job with the Texas Employment Commission and the Semtner Drug Store and visited Sylvia Odio and her sister in Dallas, all at the same time an Oswald was in Mexico City.

On October 3, an Oswald left Mexico and arrived at Laredo, Texas by bus. The same day, 450 miles away in Dallas, an Oswald was interviewed by Harry Sanderson of the Texas Employment Commission. The FBI was aware of this conflict and stated, "It appears from the above information highly improbable that Oswald could have travelled from Laredo, Texas to Dallas on October 3 in time to appear personally at the Texas Employment Commission." The FBI suppressed this memo. On the evening of October 3, an Oswald registered at the YMCA in Dallas. The same evening an Oswald spent the night in Alice, Texas, a small town near Laredo. The following day, October 4, an Oswald applied for a job at radio station KOPY in Alice, Texas. He was interviewed by General Manager Laymon Stewart and engineer Robert Janca and told them he had just returned from Mexico. Both men identified Oswald as the man they had interviewed. That evening Dallas Attorney Carroll Jarnagin saw an Oswald at the Carousel Club talking with Jack Ruby. But according to Ruth Paine in these FBI reports, Oswald spent the night of October 4th, 5th and 6th at her house in Irving, Texas. (CE2124)

Former Army Intelligence Officer Richard Case Nagell knew one of the Oswalds. He was aware of an impending assassination attempt on President Kennedy and informed the FBI. Wanting no part of a conspiracy, he walked into the State National Bank in El Paso, fired shots into the ceiling, and waited to be arrested. When he was searched, the police found a photocopy of an ID card belonging to Lee Harvey Oswald. (LEFT-SLIDE 47). When Harvey Oswald was arrested after the assassination a similar ID card was found (RIGHT-SLIDE 42). The photographs and signatures on the two cards are different. Two different ID cards for two Oswalds. Also taken from Nagell was a list that contained the names of six CIA agents.

Laurel Kittrell, of the Texas Employment Commission, interviewed Harvey Oswald in early October. Two weeks later, while Harvey was working at the Book Depository, she interviewed a second Oswald. Mrs. Kittrell realized this Oswald was not the same person she had previously interviewed. She remembered they were very, very similar--but different people. (LEFT- SLIDE 48) She remembered they were "very much alike in size, shape and outline, generally, there was a marked difference between them in bearing and manner'. Mrs. Kitrell's interview of two Oswalds would have explained an Oswald in New Orleans and an Oswald in Dallas at the same time, the sightings of an Oswald in Mexico and an Oswald in the U.S. at the same time, and many of the pre-assassination sightings of Lee Oswald while Harvey was working at the Book Depository. Mrs. Kittrell gave a thirty-page statement to the U.S. Attorney in Dallas. Her statement was hand carried to the Warren Commission by the Secret Service. But her 30-page statement and subsequent 90-page manuscript in which she discusses her interviews of the two Oswalds, were ultimately ignored and suppressed.

Harvey continued to work weekdays at the Book Depository without missing a day of work. (RIGHT-SLIDE 43) On Thursday, October 31 Lee target practiced at the Sports Drome Rifle Range-making himself known to fellow shooters. He applied for a job at the Statler Hilton Hotel, a high rise building in downtown Dallas. On Friday, November 1, Lee purchased ammunition at Morgan's Gun Shop. On November 4th, Lee visited Dial Ryders gun shop to have a scope mounted on his rifle even though the gun purchased from Klein's came with a scope already mounted. On Thursday afternoon, November 7th, Oswald, wife and child arrived at the Furniture Mart in Irving in a 1958 blue Ford. They spoke with Gertrude Hunter and Edith Whitworth about furniture for their new apartment. Oswald applied at the Salvation Army for assistance giving Ruth Paine as a reference. Oswald shopped at Hutchinson's and Minyards Grocery in Irving.

Lee continued to drive Ruth Paine's car and get his hair cut at Shasteen's Barber Shop. On November 9, Lee was at the Downtown Lincoln Mercury dealership where he test drove a car at excessive speeds and said he would soon have enough money to buy a car. On November 16, he applied for a job at the Southland Hotel Parking garage and asked if the building had a good view of downtown Dallas. Once again, these sightings occurred while Harvey was either working at the Book Depository or was at the Paine's house in Irving. A rifle with a scope, ammunition, target practice, tall buildings from which to shoot the President, and enough money within a few weeks to buy a new car. The framing of Harvey as the assassin was nearly complete.

A week before the assassination (LEFT-SLIDE 49) Jack Ruby and Lee Oswald were at the New Port Motel in Morgan City, La. Corrine Villard, who had known Ruby since 1947, spoke with Ruby and Oswald for a half an hour. Later, in New Orleans, (LEFT-SLIDE 50) Lee was seen with David Ferrie, Gene Davis, and three unidentified men in an apartment above the Court of Two Sisters restaurant in New Orleans. Gene Davis, the manager of the restaurant, knew Oswald and was an active FBI informant.

On November 20, Harvey arrived for work a the Book Depository at 8:00 am. An hour later Lee Oswald was eating breakfast at the Dobbs House Restaurant in Oak Cliff and was remembered by several employees. A half hour later (LEFT-SLIDE 51) Lee was picked up a mile away at the Beckley Street entrance to the R. L. Thornton Expressway while hitch hiking. He introduced himself to the driver as "Lee Harvey Oswald" and said his 4 foot long package, wrapped in brown paper, contained curtain rods. The driver, Ralph Yates, dropped Oswald off at Elm and Houston in front of the Texas School Book Depository. This was Wednesday, two days before the assassination.

(RIGHT-SLIDE 44) The same day a package was mailed from Irving, Texas to Lee Oswald at 2515 W. 5th St--the Paine's address. It was not delivered because there was $.12 postage due. The package, held at the post office and later opened by U.S. Post Office Inspector Harry Holmes, contained "a long brown bag opened at both ends"--similar to the brown bag found by the Dallas Police in the Book Depository. Had Oswald received and opened the package he would have unwittingly placed his fingerprints on the brown bag--a bag that could have been conveniently placed on the 6th floor of the Book Depository. The expected delivery of a package could have been the reason for Harvey's uncharacteristic trip to Irving on Thursday evening.

That evening Harvey spent the night at the Paine residence. Thirteen miles away, in Oak Cliff, a young man knocked on the apartment door of an SMU Professor at 223 S. Ewing. When he asked for Jack Ruby, Helen McIntosh directed the young man to Ruby's adjoining apartment. The following day Helen recognized the young man as "Lee Harvey Oswald".

On November 22, Harvey Oswald left the Paines' at 7:30 am and rode to work with Wesley Frazier, arriving at the Book Depository at 8:00 am. Harvey was seen by fellow employees in the building continuously until 12:15 pm. (RIGHT-SLIDE 45) At 7:30 am, 13 miles away in Oak Cliff, Dub Stark arrived at his Top Ten Record Store to find Lee Oswald waiting for him. News reporter Earl Golz interviewed Stark about Oswald's early morning visit. Stark said (LEFT-SLIDE 52) Oswald purchased a ticket for the Dick Clark show and then returned a short time later and purchased another ticket. This time, Officer J.D. Tippett was in the store. At 9:30 am, with Harvey working at the Book Depository, (LEFT-SLIDE 53) Lee Oswald entered the Jiffy Store on Industrial Blvd.--a mile from the Book Depository. He brought two beers to store clerk Fred Moore and was asked for identification. He produced a Texas drivers license with the name Lee Oswald. Moore remembered the birth date as October, 1939.

Minutes before the assassination several witnesses, including Arnold Rowland, Carolyn Walther, Ruby Henderson, Richard Carr and Ron Fisher saw two men on the 6th floor-one wearing a white shirt and holding a rifle; the other wearing a dark shirt or jacket. Why would anyone intending to assassinate the President of the United States allow himself to be seen holding a rifle in a building overlooking the parade route? The only reason is so that witnesses could later describe that person to the police. It was Lee Oswald, wearing a white shirt and holding a rifle, who was seen on the 6th floor of the Book Depository. Harvey, wearing a brown shirt, was in the lunchroom on the 2nd floor.

(RIGHT-SLIDE 46) Harvey, wearing a brown shirt, left the lunchroom, walked out the front door of the Book Depository, boarded a bus and then took a cab to his rooming house in Oak Cliff. Richard Randolph Carr saw two men on the 6th floor, one who walked toward Carr on Houston, got into a light colored Nash Rambler station wagon which drove north toward the book depository. Richard Worrell may have seen the second man, who he later identified as Oswald, run out the back of the Book Depository toward the railroad tracks minutes after the assassination. Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig (LEFT-SLIDE 54) saw the Nash Rambler stop in front of the Book Depository. A man wearing a light colored shirt, who Craig identified as Oswald, came from the direction of the railroad tracks and got into the car. The car sped under the triple overpass and headed toward Oak Cliff. (LEFT-SLIDE 55) Marvin Robinson and Roy Cooper, who were driving the 1st and 2nd cars behind the Nash Rambler, also saw the man wearing a light colored shirt get into the station wagon.

As Harvey and Lee left Dealey Plaza, Officer J.D. Tippit was sitting in his patrol car two miles away at the GLOCO Station watching traffic cross the bridge from Dallas. Ten minutes later, Tippit left and sped south to the Top Ten Record Store, a block west of the Texas Theater, arriving about 1 o'clock. Tippit made a telephone call from the store and then quickly left.

The Warren Commission said Oswald arrived at his rooming house around 1 o'clock. He spent a few minutes in his room and was last seen at the corner bus stop wearing a light colored jacket and brown shirt. At the same time Lee, wearing a white shirt and jacket, was walking past the 10th St. Barber shop two blocks north of Jack Ruby's apartment. Lee passed the Town and Country Cafe, Marsalis Avenue, and was headed west toward 10th & Patton--two blocks away.

Harvey entered the Texas Theater shortly after 1 o'clock and went to the balcony. A few minutes later he purchased popcorn from Butch Burroughs at the concession stand. (RIGHT-SLIDE 47) Burroughs watched Harvey as he entered the lower level of the theater. (RIGHT-SLIDE 48) Harvey walked past Dallas Evangelist Jack Davis and briefly sat next to him. Harvey got up and walked to another aisle and briefly sat down next to another man. Harvey then got up again and walked to the concession area. It appeared to Davis that Harvey was looking for someone in the theater. Harvey's movements occurred while the opening credits to the movie were running--a few minutes before 1:20 pm. Twenty four people (RIGHT-SLIDE 49) were in the theater that day who could possibly have identified Harvey and verified the time he was seen in the theater, but their names and addresses, obtained by Dallas Police, disappeared.

While Harvey was sitting in the Theater, Lee was nearing 10th & Patton when Officer Tippit called him over to the squad car. Witnesses Jimmy Burt, Helen Markham and Jack Tatum saw Oswald walk to the squad car and talk to Tippit through the "rolled down" car window. (LEFT-SLIDE 56) Tatum, who drove within a few feet of Tippit's patrol car, said Oswald was wearing a white jacket and white t-shirt. Oswald handed something to Tippit, probably his wallet. Tippit got out of the car and was shot. Oswald started to leave, then walked around to the driver's side of the squad car towards Tippit, who was lying on the pavement. Oswald then carefully and deliberately shot Tippit in the temple (LEFT-SLIDE 57).

Witnesses: Smith, Tatum, Callaway, Brock and Scoggins, who saw Tippit's killer, said the man was wearing "light colored clothing". Police dispatch's at 1:22 pm and 1:33 pm (LEFT-SLIDE 58) said the suspect was wearing a white shirt. Harvey, sitting in the theater, was wearing a brown shirt. Domingo Benavides, a few yards from Tippit's car at the time of the shooting, saw Tippits killer as he walked away. Benavides, some 15 feet from the shooting, watched as Oswald left the scene. Benavides said (LEFT- SLIDE 59) "his hairline kind of went down and square off instead of tapering off"--above the collar line. But Harvey's hair was not squared off (RIGHT-SLIDE 50)--it tapered well down his neck" and he was in need of a haircut.

Oswald passed cab driver Scoggins who told the FBI he could not be sure the person he saw in Oakland was actually identical to Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald then passed Ted Callaway, who said Oswald had on a white shirt and a white jacket. Witnesses to the Tippit shooting and witnesses who saw Oswald prior to the assassination on the 6th floor had difficulty recognizing the difference between Lee and Harvey Oswald-the same problem Laurel kitrell had when she interviewed both Oswalds at the Texas Employment Commission a month earlier.

A jacket was discarded at the Texaco station and found by police. But whose jacket was it? (LEFT-SLIDE 60) This jacket was size medium, yet all of Harvey's clothing was size small. This jacket had two laundry tags, yet the FBI could not match either tag to any of several hundred commercial laundries which they checked in the Dallas and New Orleans areas.

Police arrived at the Tippit murder scene and found the wallet left by Tippit's killer. The wallet was photographed by WFAA-TV (LEFT-SLIDE 61) and remembered by FBI Special Agent James Hosty. Hosty said the wallet contained identification for both Lee Harvey Oswald and Alex Hidell. Why would Tippit's killer leave a wallet at the scene of the murder? To identify Lee Harvey Oswald as the killer of Tippit and the President.

Lets suppose, for just a minute, that Oswald disappeared and was not located at the Texas Theater. When police arrived at the Tippit murder scene they found a wallet containing identification for Lee Harvey Oswald and Alek Hidell. They now had the name of a suspect in the Tippit murder. They would soon learn that Oswald was missing from work at the Book Depository. Harvey's address from Depository employment records (RIGHT-SLIDE 51) would lead police to Ruth Paine's house. There they would find Fair Play for Cuba literature with the names of Oswald and Hidell, the same names they found in the wallet. There they would find order blanks (RIGHT-SLIDE 52) from Klein's Sporting Goods for a Mannlicher Carcano rifle, the rifle found at the Book Depository. Klein's records would show a Mannlicher Carcano rifle shipped (RIGHT-SLIDE 53) to A. Hidell of Dallas--and A. Hidell was the name on the second set of identification found in the wallet. Had Harvey not been found in the Texas Theater, a nationwide manhunt would have begun for Lee Harvey Oswald. From film footage of Oswald passing out Fair Play for Cuba literature in New Orleans and his attempt in Mexico City to obtain a visa to Cuba, his presumed destination would be Cuba. The wallet and identification left at the Tippit murder scene sealed Oswald's fate, no matter where he was found.

The FBI and Warren Commission told us Oswald snuck into the Texas Theater and took a seat on the lower level. But Theater employee Julia Postal, police dispatches, and arrest reports say Oswald was in the balcony. Police officers entered the theater, ran to the balcony and began questioning theater patrons. Captain Westbrook and FBI Agent Bob Barrett, who had just arrived from the Tippit murder scene, entered from the rear of the theater. They were looking for Lee Harvey Oswald, his name obtained from identification found in the wallet. The police arrested Harvey, wearing the brown shirt, and took him out the front of the theater. They identified him by calling out his name, "Oswald" (RIGHT-SLIDE 54) to Julia Postal. They put Oswald in a squad car, and drove to Police headquarters. Detective Paul Bentley (RIGHT-SLIDE 55) then removed a wallet from Harvey's left rear pocket and found identification for Lee Harvey Oswald and Alek Hidell. The Dallas Police now had two wallets--both containing identification for Oswald and Hidell--but they didn't share that information with reporters or the public.

Bernard Haire, who owned Bernie's Hobby Shop next to the Texas Theater, noticed as a large number of police gathered. He went out the back door of his shop and into the alley. He saw the police take an unidentified white male out the rear of the theater, place him in a police car and drive off. He described the man as 25 years of age, dark hair, and wearing a light colored pull over shirt with dark pants. For years, Bernard Haire thought he had witnessed the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Harvey arrived at police headquarters around 2 o'clock. Back in Oak Cliff, Mr. T.F. White saw a red Ford Falcon quickly pull into the El Chico parking lot. This is 6 blocks north of the Texas Theater. The man and car appeared to be hiding behind a large billboard sign. Curious, Mr. White walked across the street toward the car. When White was within a few yards of the car, the driver looked directly at him, the quickly sped off throwing gravel with his rear tires. White wrote down the license plate number and make and model of the car. The license plates were traced to blue 1957 Plymouth owned by Carl Mather, an employee of Collins Radio. Mather was the best friend of Dallas Police officer J.D. Tippit. Mather was unknown to the Warren Commission and refused to discuss the matter with reporters. Years later Mather was granted immunity (LEFT-SLIDE 62) from prosecution and interviewed by the HSCA. Today, twenty years later, his interview was still classified (LEFT-SLIDE 63).

At 1:00 am on November 23rd, the day after the assassination, Harvey Oswald was arraigned for murder. Mary Lawrence was working the late shift at the the Lucas B & B Restaurant, next door to Jack Ruby's Vegas Club. She was the head waitress and had known Ruby for 8 years. Mary told the FBI she saw Oswald and Ruby together in her restaurant shortly after 1:00 am., November 23rd, (LEFT- SLIDE 64) at the same time Harvey was in the Dallas jail. Within days she began receiving threatening phone calls. One caller said, (LEFT-SLIDE 65) "get out of town or you will die".

Harvey Oswald, double-crossed and sitting in jail, was a very unusual suspect. Dallas Police Captain Fritz said, "you didn't have to sit there very long and listen to them talk to Oswald to realize that this guy had been trained in interrogation. By that I mean resisting interrogation." When Oswald told Fritz there was a conspiracy, he was ignored. When he remarked "now everyone will know who I am", he knew his work as a government informant was finished. When Oswald said, "I'm just a patsy", few people paid any attention to him". But following the assassination many people heard Oswald on TV say he was a patsy and insisting that he had not shot the President. One of those people was a CIA computer specialist, George O'Toole. O'Toole served with the CIA as chief of its Problem Analysis Branch. In his work he became familiar with a machine that measured stress in the human voice. When properly measured and interpreted, the Voice Stress Analyzer can accurately determine the truthfullness of statements. O'Toole obtained a tape recording of Oswald saying he did not shoot the president and ran the statement through the VSA. (RIGHT-SLIDE 56) The chart of Oswald's statement revealed no stress. Lie detection experts confirmed that Oswald was telling the truth. He had not shot the President.

Captain Fritz told the Warren Commission that he had questioned Oswald on Saturday at 12:35 p.m. and showed him 8 x 10 enlargements of the back yard photos. Oswald told Fritz the photographs were fakes. Captain Fritz concluded the interview and Oswald was then returned to his jail cell. Fritz then instructed Detectives Stovall, Adamcik and Rose to again search the residence of Ruth Paine in Irving, this time with a search warrant. They were met at 3:20 pm by Irving detective John McCabe. McCabe remembers that Gus Rose found the back yard photos in Oswald's seabag. (RIGHT-SLIDE 63). Rose initialed and dated the photographs for evidence. The backyard photograph was arguably the most significant piece of evidence that convicted Oswald in the minds of the public. (RIGHT-SLIDE 65) Here was Oswald with rifle...

___________________________________________________________________

All episodes of Nigel Turners 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy', an excellent documentary series with credibility,

The Coup D'état

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=61...+killed+kennedy

The Foreces of darkness

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=89...+killed+kennedy

The Cover-up

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...+killed+kennedy

The Patsy

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=34...+killed+kennedy

The Witnesses

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...+killed+kennedy

The Truth shall set you free

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=58...+killed+kennedy

The Smoking guns

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNTeQ9ckmD8#

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAW-bxxZfcM...ted&search=

Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmMXfBgjsh0...ted&search=

Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO5PAmCsw0I...ted&search=

Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMJMqbWJLQI...ted&search=

The love affair

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ry3DrsN9PY...ser&search=

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRLDm7YT25w...ted&search=

Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBbe0jexWn4...ted&search=

Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGNyprupDTU...ted&search=

Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZyJ1APE6Lc...ser&search=

The Guilty men

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaWUcyjAeIk...ser&search=

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05AsvqWfzts...ser&search=

Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJPWhn6P5fE...ser&search=

Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut-4QXzNBno...ser&search=

Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mzZGK9tNyM...ser&search=

Reply to Your Post

Any word on Tim's return?

John

No, he has not accepted the invitation to rejoin the forum.

I heard from him back in February, when he said he was putting together a fundraising event for an anti-Slavery coalition that was held in late March, and he would be busy until then. (Did you know that 40% of the world's chocholate comes from Africa where the factories are full of enslaved children?).

He said he kept monitoring the forum however.

While we are on different sides of the political fence, I get along with JTG.

BK

Bill, whilst that anti-slavery message sounds all warm and cuddly, it is being used by certain groups as a "front". The real targets are the usual ones of the religious right: abortion, gay marriage etc.

I have a sneaking respect for the Timster, too... but it's always the same old game with certain groups...

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/states/south_dakota/

*********************************************************

"Bill, whilst that anti-slavery message sounds all warm and cuddly, it is being used by certain groups as a "front". The real targets are the usual ones of the religious right: abortion, gay marriage etc."

We must've been posting at the same exact time, Greg. I never saw this before posting my reply. If this is the case then that's too bad. I just wish T.G. would come back clue us in, but why should he even want to bother. I guess we're probably "small time" to him by now, anyway.

Any word on Tim's return?

John

No, he has not accepted the invitation to rejoin the forum.

I heard from him back in February, when he said he was putting together a fundraising event for an anti-Slavery coalition that was held in late March, and he would be busy until then. (Did you know that 40% of the world's chocholate comes from Africa where the factories are full of enslaved children?).

He said he kept monitoring the forum however.

While we are on different sides of the political fence, I get along with JTG.

BK

******************************************************************

"I heard from him back in February, when he said he was putting together a fund raising event for an Anti-Slavery coalition that was held in late March, and he would be busy until then. (Did you know that 40% of the world's chocolate comes from Africa where the factories are full of enslaved children?)."

Now, that's a noble stance for someone to take. And, very un-fascistic, characteristically speaking. See, I knew we'd eventually have a good influence on T.G. Good for him!

"While we are on different sides of the political fence, I get along with JTG."

I feel the same way. I've always respected his opinion regardless of whether it was different from mine simply because he was polite, articulate, and intellectually astute in getting his point across without resorting to hysterical rebuttal. I actually learned a great deal from reading T.G.'s posts. He also had a great sense of humor, as well. I thought he had shown great promise in his willingness to acquiesce and see the other side of the coin when successfully refuted. He was a gentleman debater of the first degree. And, if someone had been taking pot-shots at me concerning my career, I'd have wanted to sue them for slander and libel, as well. Rock on, T.G.!

My gosh, Charles, I just re-read some of Terry's posts, and they were no more out of line than your own. You certainly knew going in that certain people would take exception to your argument that Bobby somehow caused his brother's death. So where's the beef? You got what you bargained for.

**********************************************************

Quite right, Pat. It seems that if there is anyone attacking anyone's mental stability here, it's Black's incessant reference to mine. If you read back in the thread, I never attacked Black's. I simply chastised him for joking about his own, which I don't feel is any laughing matter to be bandied about in a forum such as this, relegating it to the level of a chat room. I was referred to as a "dullard" for expressing my concern, which BTW has always been a point of contention for me with regard to the "free speech" amendment that is so easily thrown about, especially by those, who after a certain number of their posts, begin to reveal the true nature of their intentions, be it that of a provocateur, or that of a mentally unstable or unbalanced person with nothing better to do with their time but express their skewed opinions regarding a subject they know absolutely nothing about. Sometimes, inventing scenarios that could be considered libelous with regard to "gov. officials raping their daughters.," as happened in the not so distant past on this forum, if you get my drift, here?

I stand by my ethics with regard to how referencing, and more so, as even a "joking aside" to one's mental stability, acuity, etc. only serves to leave the rest of the forum members to be held up as "incredible, sensational, radical, and controversial in the extreme," due to the subject matter involved in this case. And, once again leaves the "bonafide" researchers and writers to be held up as cannon fodder for those gov. agents and otherwise "conduit asset status" monitors, to continue their free-for-all attacks on those who would prefer to have this case tried, as it should have been, in an unbiased "court of law," should such an institution actually exist, in this day and age.

Dawn Meredith

It seems that you began taking exception to everything that I post since I had somewhat of a running gun battle with your friend Ashton Gray.

Although you certainly have the right to expess whatever you wish regarding your personal views,

It seems ridiculous of accusing me of "Kennedy bashing" if I post anything other than flattery of the Kennedys.

Although I greatly admired Jack Kennedy personally,

that is not to say that I have admired a great deal of Kennedy family behavior neither before nor since the assassination.This lack of admiration also applies to his brother Robert, both before and after, and the attitude of the entire Kennedy family of "silence" since the assassination. I feel this has introduced an unnecessary stumbling block in the extensive investigation by researchers, and possibly has provided irreparable harm.

It is my opinion, and I feel the opinion of the majority, that when a person ascends to great public prominence,as a result of their own desire and efforts, they are felt to belong to much more than their immediate family, and have voluntarily and knowingly accepted that they are under constant scrutiny.

There have been many Kennedy family members which have risen to prominence as a direct result of JFK's election to the Presidency, however there have been virtually none that have been willing to share with the nation, which has lifted them to this prominence, an iota of assistance, in an area that has greatly divided and changed this country.

Please do not tell me of the terrible losses this family has endured....so has mine and many others.

And please do not tell me that a family which has some very sordid events in its past, should be immune to criticism, because of the rise of one of its members to lofty political prominence.

If you are not willing to accept, that regardless of the assistance which they volunteered to this nation, that they made some mistakes", is both ridiculous and childish. It is as prudent and necessary, to point out their shortcomings, possibly moreso than their acconplishments, when attempting to study the causes of their demise.

I feel that the good that John Kennedy accomplished has often been credited to him on this and other forums and discussions. A discussion of possible

mistakes, should not be considered "bashing" as it is nothing more than a discussion of history.

If this so terribly offends you, what prevents you and possibly others to start a forum on which

Kennedy criticism is forbidden...sort of like a fan club.....you might also start one for Elvis.

I find your attacks and attempted belittlement

to be immature to the point of nausea.

Remember, if the kitchen gets too hot, you are not required to enter it !

Charlie Black

**************************************************************

"I feel that it is quite immature and irrational to to constantly express the opinion that they were any more faultless than most of the billions who have lived on this earth. You often sound, to me, like a 15 year old President of the "Elvis Fan Club"."

Now, is that right! Come to think of it, I never needed to be a fan of some white boy who made millions by covering the songs of black artists, while those black artists, who wrote their own material, never received the air play or distribution afforded the white covers of their material. Or, the publishing royalties they were entitled to, for that matter. I was fortunate enough to have grown up in NYC, and had first rate exposure to the black R 'n' B radio stations. I didn't need to be a fan of some white boy copy-cat, whom I could see right through his feeble attempts to come off sounding as good as his black counterparts. Therefore, your pitiful attempts at drawing a ridiculous analogy between my support of the Kennedy brothers, and equating it to a 15 year old Elvis "fan," tend to fall hollow in your desperate attempt to discredit my views on the subject. Which, BTW is still this... Why do you find the necessity to start two threads on the exact same subject, long after it has already been hashed out quite thoroughly in Doug Caddy's original thread involving Monroe and the Kennedy brothers?

What you posted to Dawn in that other thread of yours:

"If this so terribly offends you, what prevents you and possibly others to start a forum on which Kennedy criticism is forbidden...sort of like a fan club.....you might also start one for Elvis.

I find your attacks and attempted belittlement to be immature to the point of nausea."

It's, AD NAUSEUM, Charlie. At least, that's how I described this redundant quality of yours, when I put up that first page of Doug Caddy's original thread on the subject. But no. You had to insist on re-hashing this topic in the two extra threads you've managed to start on the subject. How pathetically un-original. You're beginning to sound like some menopausal woman in midlife crisis.

"My question relates to the mental state of a U.S. President and Attorney General to have confided "anything" of a confidential nature to this mentally unstable woman. Her mental instability and drug usage was certainly known to nearly the entire world. They could not have needed to further IMPRESS this lady. They certainly were not stupid enough, to under normal conditions, have discussed publicly, in bed or at parties, issues of National Security.

Considering my immediately prior statement, were they suffering from something that may have altered their minds.....this not the rational behavior of a President and Attorney General, or for that matter, anyone entrusted with National Security issues.

Or is there something factual in reports of White House drug usage ? Or was Marilyn simply making up that she was going to expose "secrets" and had in fact a "secret diary" or possibly tape recordings.

Perhaps this drug addict did die from an accidental overdose.....but there appear to be some weird happenings at around the "time of her death".

This matter could definitely relate to some opinions of important persons, regarding JFK & Bobby's "potential recklessness", which could be endangering the security of the nation."

First of all, how about corroborating your stellar opinion with some documentation instead of your supermarket tabloid, "Only inquiring minds want to know." approach to the issue. Your conjecture and supposition with regard to what amounts to circumstantial evidence, at the most, and hearsay, at the least, may appear to be a somewhat "noble" stance for someone, such as yourself to take. Especially, the constant referencing to National Security, and the importance of maintaining what you consider to be politically correct protocol while assigned to the office of the presidency. But name me one president who hasn't had a spot on their past, or a transgression that may have eluded the general public, in the not so distant past, or even in recent years. Oh, maybe Ike, or Calvin Coolidge? Even Warren G. Harding had his skeleton in the closet. "Ma Ma, where's my Pa? He's in the White House, ha ha ha!"

So, go on and ride your horse, Charlie. Every season needs its "piety league." Or, its tabloid mentality to drive a point home.

"My very admittedly speculative question was meant to actually delve into another area....tho we will not find an answer.

"IF" their was reckless sexual behavior of John or Robert Kennedy which may have in some way have had even a remote impact on what was perceived to be National Security.....and IF this alledged behavior

( even falsely created conversational tapes ) came into the hands of JEH.....there could "speculatively" have been a number of "consequences" which followed, involving Marilyn.

My point being, and this is not meant to be Kennedy bashing, nor is this meant to be a "moral judgement" of "anyone's" sexual behavior"....when an individual accepts the honor of being the Foremost Representative of the United States, he must ACCEPT also that that his "position" disallows him freedoms which he may once have had, or would like to have. "Everything has a price that must, in one way or another, be paid." "

Yeah, right, and that's a big "IF" without actual documentation. "But, I really liked the guy. I just hated his brother."

Fine. Whatever you say, Charlie.

Happy Estrus.

Double damned duplicate post, again. Deleted by T. Mauro 4-05-07 @ 20:00 hrs PDT