Ron Ecker

I don't understand this part of the story. Why did they play footsy to hide something from Gary Mack? If he was right there, I don't understand why they wouldn't ask his opinion of what they saw. Gary Mack himself indicated to me that the strongest evidence for conspiracy was the hole in back of the head.

Ron, thanks. I obviously need to read more on this subject, as it sounds like there was something strange going on.

JIm, Okay, thanks. Yeah, I remember now it was Geneva Hines talking about the phones.

Well I'm just going from memory, but I thought that the electricity in the building never went out. This assumption was made because one of the ladies said the lights went out on the phone, meaning that there were no phone calls made as the motorcade approached, therefore no phone extension lights were lit. But my memory has been faulty before.

I think that a bullet through the windshield was as good a signal as any for Greer to start slowing down.

Since this got no response pro or con, I assume it's a valid hypothesis. So I say three cheers for pornography.

I now have an hypothesis about the photo I saw. A compromising photo of Hoover appearing in an obscure publication right around the time of the assassination ("Dear Mr. Hoover, pick up a copy of...") would have the same desired effect on Hoover as a Mac Wallace "fingerprint" from the sniper's nest would have on Lyndon Johnson. Both men would know what to do for their own good.

Ron, thanks. That exactly describes the photo I saw. And the Sexology issue would have been almost certainly in 1962-1964, sometime between fall and spring when I was in school. Edit: It's conceivable that the photo was in a girlie magazine and not Sexology. As I said, I would look at both at that newsstand, and you know how memory tends to do things over a period of 50 plus years. It just seems to me it was in Sexology (more specifically in a letters-to-the-editor or questions-and-answers section), although a girlie mag, as opposed to a quasi-scholarly mag, might seem a more likely place to find such a photo. The thing is, no girlie mags at newsstands in those days were that explicit. If it was in Sexology as I remember, old issues from that time might exist somewhere. If it was in a girlie mag, forget it.

But that desire plus the possibility of going to prison could have been more than enough. Perhaps the most striking coincidence in this whole saga was a hearing on Johnson corruption taking place on Capitol Hill on 11/22/63. Never to be reconvened.

Has any photographic evidence ever been found that the Mafia or others indeed had the photographic wherewithal to blackmail Hoover about his sexual orientation? I ask this because I myself may have seen such evidence, though I certainly can't attest to its authenticity. Many years ago there was a monthly quasi-scholarly magazine called Sexology. Articles included things like "How to Live with a Sexual Deviation," "The Problem of Prison Sex," and "How It Feels to Be a Virgin." As a college kid I used to leaf through it at newsstands, since it was right next to the girlie magazines. Anyway I remember seeing a photo in Sexology purportedly of Hoover (and it certainly looked like him) performing a sex act on some other man (which I assume would be Tolson). I have to wonder why this and any other photos have not surfaced outside of that one issue of Sexology if the photo was authentic. And if it was authentic, how or where did they get it? Since I'm also the only person I know of who remembers seeing the arrival of the Dallas casket in front of Bethesda on live TV (a "false memory"?), that coupled with the photo I saw of Hoover (?) in Sexology puts me in pretty select company. (Just me and myself.)

When Hoover reportedly told someone that if the truth got out it would be bad for the country, it's hard to tell if he was referring to himself or the assassination.

All you have to do to see how easily Edgar and Clyde were controlled is to consider the fact that Hoover once said the Mafia didn't exist.

Larry, thanks.

Larry, the warning messages to the LIberty came from whom? Did someone in our government know that Israel was fixing to attack the Liberty? Or did someone in the Israeli government send these warnings? How far did foreknowledge extend? Did LBJ have some foreknowlege, ala Roosevelt (allegedly) about Pearl Harbor? This info about warnings is confusing.

Gerry Patrick Hemming said, "You had so many people planning the Kennedy thing, it was bound to happen."

Certainly they would use their knowledge. But I daresay that most people, whatever their level of expertise, will think twice before crossing the government on something as serious as a presidential assassination. They might deem it best for themselves, their careers and their loved ones to use their knowledge to come up with the "right" answers. As a prime example, why do you think the experts who were given the task by the government of explaining how/why the twin towers collapsed on 9/11 did not even test the debris for explosives?

What is your life expectancy?

Steve, You need to eat some of David Von Pein's chicken. It's been known to clear up delusional minds.

Merry Christmas. Though I refuse to believe that an old man with some reindeer and a bunch of elves has anything to do with what happens every Christmas Eve.

You know, there’s a mystery here. One has to wonder, judging especially by DVP's postings, why LNs don’t do what Trump is doing in Syria. Declare victory and leave. Who would want to stay in this conspiracy hellhole? I see that Lance has actually done this. In a thread that he started he has declared victory and says that he “will not be reemerging” at least till further notice. But somethig tells me that DVP will stay on here, despite delaring victory over and over, in order to revel in said victory. The idea, I guess, is that if you claim something long enough then people will start to believe it. Even though, as Trump would say, it’s fake news.

You can do that by ignoring a likely scenario, and this is the last comment I'm going to make on this LN stuff. It's likely that Oswald was not supposed to be a lone shooter. He was to be the one shooter who got caught. There was obviously more than one shooter. But they decided to claim Oswald was the lone shooter when something went wrong. Like Oswald being taken alive, for example. And obviously claiming that Oswald was a lone shooter makes NO SENSE AT ALL. But they got away with it, and we've seen how they got away with it for 55 years. Now I hereby take Cliff and Jim's advice to ignore this stuff. I just hope I have the will power to stick to it when more nonsense is posted here. My will power has failed me in the past.

For one thing, I would say they did not shoot JFK on Houston Street because the patsy (who was probably not even on the 6th floor) had to have time to have gone down to wherever he was in the building (like the lunch room where in fact he was found). He would have more time to do so (barely) if the target had already gone past the building, making it less readily apparent where the fatal shot came from. For another thing, I share the view that the assassination was designed to look like a hit team from Castro (for an invasion of Cuba). Oswald was the designated Castro-did-it patsy, the others getting away. Getaways for the shooters were easier down Elm Street around the Grassy Knoll than right there on Houston. No matter who the shooters were (whether for Castro or whomever), getaways were easier further down in the plaza. Now you mention various complications that had to be dealt with, like alterating evidence etc. Such complications were the choice the assassins made when they decided that it was important that the president be seen butchered in broad daylight. As opposed to, say, being poisoned or having an induced heart attack.They wanted to blow his brains out and they did. ("Shock and awe," to use 9/11 terminology.)

I'm at my wit's end on the question of UM.

The main problem with him is that his own account of his actions is contradicted by the actions of UM. No one should know better what UM was doing than UM. It appears that Witt didn't even bother to check.

The official government story as presented in the Warren Report is disinformation. That is the paramount fact we have to deal with, irrespective of how much disinformation may be found in some books on the assassination. I imagine that books that conclude there was a conspiracy may contain wrong information or a lot of speculation as opposed to being deliberately deceptive. Books supporting the WC are disinformation by definition whether they know it or not.