Ron Ecker

Osborne never told the FBI that he spoke with Oswald. He said from the beginning of the interviews that he sat next to a man who looked Hispanic and they never conversed. He changed his story about his own identity etc. but not about the apparent Hispanic who sat next to him. As for Osborne demanding to know if he was on trial, he should have been put on trial for lying, repeatedly, to the FBI. But instead of charging him, that venerable law-enforcement organization simply quit talking to him, i.e. listening to his lies.

Yes, there's always the possibility that a CIA person is telling the truth. Look at poor E. Howard Hunt. A lot of people won't even believe his "deathbed confession." And who can blame them?

I don't know how many times the CIA director nominee said this in her confirmation hearing. (I could only watch so much.) Why wouldn't somebody ask her about releasing documents according to the law? The answer, of course, is that nobody asking the questions cares. Oh, and she said that the CIA won't do anything that's immoral. How are those people keeping straight faces? One thing we do know is that lying is alive and well in the intelligence community. But isn't that immoral?

No studio or backers would touch it. And I'm sure there's a reason why Stone didn't make his Marita Lorenz movie, or why his movie about 9/11 (as far as I know, just what I've read) was straight official history. Now if JFK had been a superhero out of Marvel Comics, there might would be a chance. Then the conspirators could be depicted as nasty aliens from outer space.

As I understand it, all documents have been released, but not all have been released in full. They're holding back parts of the documents, for at least three years. Why? Because... because... Well, they won't say, so it's just because. It would be interesting to hear Trump explain the why, but no one is going to ask him.

The point of my post was not how to describe Donald Trump. Describe him any way you want to. The point I tried to make is that Trump caving in has nothing to do with "his personal character, priority agenda and belief system." He caved in because like any president of the United States, he had damn well better fear the CIA.

I take it that you think we have a loose cannon as president. If a loose cannon in the White House won't tell the CIA to release all documents and follow the law, what kind of a president would? I can't think of any kind. I think that this president, as loose as he is, and as disrespectful of the CIA and its ilk as he had been in the past, took to heart (as any president will) Chuck Schumer's wise warning that "the intelligence commiunity has six ways from Sunday to get you."

Sickening, yes. But what more does the CIA have to do to convince us they did it?

Trump and Pompeo are good buddies. If Pompeo tells him they can't do it, they can't do it.

Trump is on live by phone right now with Fox & Friends. But all they want to ask him about is Kanye West, James Comey, and Ronny Jackson. JFK? Who cares!

When Al Carrier used to post here I remember him making a good argument that the fatal head shot from the south knoll area would have just cleared the windshield. I assume Fiester would agree. I haven't read her book but I remember her posting on a south knoll shot at JFK Lancer. Whether the same shooter or another one inflicted the throat wound through the windshield is another question, I guess.

To that I would add that Officer White, xxxigned to the west side of the underpass, told the WC that he didn't see the approaching motorcade or the shooting because "a big long freight train" was passing at the time. Didn't hear shots either, it was "a noisy train." There was no such train passing during the shooting. Why would he say that (with the WC of course not calling him on it)? Could it be because this fictional train would have blocked his view of anyone who might have been a shooter at the south end of the underpass? Who knows, because the WC simply took the officer's passing train as a fact, though no one else in the area ever saw or heard it.

There was at one time. I remember an article or discussion of this years ago, a question being was the drain still there at the time of the assassination. There was a researcher who wrote about this, but all I remember is that his last name started (I think) with a W. EDIT: Found it. The researcher was Douglas Weldon, and his article is in Fetzer's Murder in Dealey Plaza. He states that the storm drain at the south end would have provided a perfect trajectory for a shooter, and could not be seen from the main part of the underpass. He concludes that the throat wound was caused by a shot through the windshield from that location. (He discusses all the witnesses to the windhshield hole, with Ellis saying he actually put a pencil through it.) He says that the drain is now paved over. He says it may have been paved over for safety purposes due to walkers on the underpass, but if so, why wasn't the north end storm drain paved over?

Thanks. I personally not only favor the head shot being from the spot near the south end of the overpass where you took the pic, but I think that James Tague, standing below that spot, possibly encountered the shooter, a "patrolman" who turned up by Tague and asked him what happened. (Tague's original account before he changed his story.)

Rick, How did you get to that spot where you took the picture? I've been to DP once, in 1990, and wanted to explore that area by walking from the north knoll, but the way was fenced off. The railroad tracks weren't fenced off, but there was a closed gate and fencing along the railing of the overpass, and I guess I didn't try to venture onto the tracks. (I'm trying to remember exactly how it was and what I did almost 30 years later, but it was frustrating not to go where I wanted to go.)

Right. Thanks. If I'm still around in 10 years or so, I'll probably ask the same question again.

Something just occurred to me. What if there were not two Oswalds but three? Lovelady would be the third one, looking more like Harvey than Lee. Was the resemblance between two TSBD employees (to the extent that one was mistaken for the other in the doorway) just another dadgum coincidence? Or did the conspirators manage to get both of them hired there? What do we know about Lovelady's mother? Would love to see a pic. I think I'm just kidding.

OK thanks. It certainly looks like a shirt, but I couldn't make sense of Lovelady's shoulder. I can see now where what looks like the top of Lovelady's shoulder (such as it is) is the darkness of Shelley's coat, which makes the shoulder look more straight-down than it is.

I agree and have a question. It's a dumb one, I guess, because I believe I had this explained to me years ago, but I've already forgotten the explanation. What is the long white thing that appears to be draped over Lovelady's left shoulder? It looks just like (but can't be) the white dress shirt and long thin necktie of a man standing behind him. But it can't be, unless Lovelady had no left shoulder at all.

Don, I remember two versions of this theory. One is that they somehow incapacitated him, killed Mary Jo and framed him. The other is that he got out of the car and told her to drive on ahead, so as not to be seen together (by a deputy sheriff in the area, as I remember it). Do you favor either version, or some other one?

Jim, The only account of Chappaquiddick that I specifically remember reading is Senatorial Privilege, and I no longer have the book or it's somewhere in storage. But I did a Google search for the quote as I remember it, and found this in an Esquire collection of Kennedy family quotes: "They're going to shoot my xxx off the way they shot Bobby." The quote is from 1969, but no source is cited. It could be what I remember reading, which got altered in my memory over time. https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/interviews/a6770/kennedy-family-history-0110/

I remember reading in one of the accounts of Chappaquiddick (don't know if it was the book Senatorial Privilege or some other account) how Ted bemoaned to one or more of his advisers that night, "They got my brothers and now they're going to get me" and "now they got me." Someone here may also remember the quote. In any case, he had to know at that point if not before, as Jeffrey posted above, that his brothers died at the hands of conspirators. And my question is not only why he would go ahead and run for president, but why any Kennedys would run for public office to serve the very establishment that had slaughtered Jack and Bobby, as if nothing had happened and with obviously no intent to have the murders re-examined. Indeed I remember at least one of the later Kennedy office holders complaining about conspiracy theories. What a family. It's not as if its members couldn't find other gainful employment. It gives new meaning to the old expression, if you can't beat 'em join 'em.

I'm going to start a little research project, to lay to rest my false memory of that night or else prove that it isn't false, and I need some advice. I want to try to contact everyone who has written articles or otherwise commented in print or online about watching TV on the night of the assassination. There is already one nationally known commentator whom I want to contact, but I have no direct or indirect email address for him. I have never joined Facebook (or Twitter or Instagram or any other facet of the "social media," which I have avoided like the plague, because that's what I believe it is, a plague on our society, particularly our texting youth, with their noses stuck on their iphones instead of in things like books or family discussions, not to mention texting drivers who kill or maim with their vehicles, but I digress). Is Facebook the best way to directly contact people whom you don't even know? Can you directly contact any other member just by being a member? Because that's what I'll do if I have to.

I'm confused. How does the claim that Oswald spoke no Russian fit into Armstrong's two-Oswald theory? I thought that Harvey was the Russian-speaker who went to Russia and Lee was the Marine who stayed home and watched the strippers in Jack Ruby's nightclub.

Yeah, I guess those were still the days of test patterns on your TV screen after 1 am or so. I meant wall to wall coverage during broadcast hours. No commercials.