Greg Doudna

Are you sure of that? What is the evidence Dorothy Kilgallen interviewed Acquilla Clemons?

The following unverified claim (below) appears on page 107 of John Davis, The Kennedy Contract (1993). Never mind the issue of Karen Carlin being alive or dead, the question is whether Gary Shaw ever said Karen Carlin told him what is reported here. Davis cites no footnote or documentation, and I can find nothing to confirm that Gary Shaw or anyone else claiming to have been in contact with Karen Carlin said that Karen Carlin said what Davis claims. Davis: "[I]n October 1992, Karen Carlin came back from the dead. She contacted Gary Shaw, director of the JFK Assassination Information Center in Dallas, after almost thirty years living under an assumed identity, and told him she knew of a conspiracy to kill Lee Harvey Oswald, that Ruby told her to phone him Sunday morning and that an hour later he would telegraph her $25, just before shooting Oswald, to establish an alibi to justify his shooting of Oswald as an impulsive act of revenge. And who was ultimately behind the conspiracy to kill Oswald? Kar[e]n Carlin mentioned two names to Gary Shaw, Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante, Jr." Here is a newspaper interview I found of Gary Shaw's own account of his contacts with Karen Carlin of 1992-1993, which does not back up John Davis's claim: https://www.cleburnetimesreview.com/news/local_news/this-just-in-little-lynn-still-dead/article_8fcf8e54-cfad-5fd2-b0b7-f5bfbfd2678b.html. Does anyone know if there is any verification or source stating Gary Shaw said Karen Carlin actually told him this, or is this urban legend and/or misinformation retailed by John Davis?

OK David I think you’re right on the coincidence. Brennan already had his 6th floor shooter at 165-175 lbs, first-day written statement, or 160-170, WC testimony, thinks the height was about 5’10”, WC testimony, and the description given by Sawyer juxtaposed with Brennan’s makes Brennan pretty clearly Sawyer’s source. Therefore the agreement with the preexisting Oswald height and weight does look like coincidence, a “false positive” so to speak. That is coincidence, but it still seems a bit much to me that Baker also has the exact same 165 lbs applied to his non-165 lbs Oswald, not because Baker did not run into Oswald (as Oswald was about to exit the second floor to go down the NW stairwell to exit out the back as I understand it), but because Baker must have picked up the 165 lb estimate overheard from somewhere, and having no clearer idea of Oswald’s weight just used the 165, though Baker’s height estimate (5’9”) and clothing description would be original to him.

Thanks for the answer David. I don’t agree with Robert M that Baker and Brennan were involved in trying to frame Oswald or that anyone put either of them up to lying that weekend. I suppose unanswered questions are is it certain Brennan was Sawyer’s source, and did Brennan confirm he gave a 5’10” height estimate specifically. Did Sawyer’s source claim to have seen the shooter leave the building with a rifle (which was other than a Mannlicher-Carcano)? That sounds like what the source told Sawyer, but is that what Brennan told Sawyer? I’m a little puzzled why Sawyer could not identify who told him that original height and weight estimate, never directly confirmed it was Brennan. But Brennan—wasn’t he wearing a hardhat or something, difficult not to remember? An important piece of information for Sawyer and to have no name record or memory of physical description of the source? A little odd. It’s not an impossible coincidence (the coincidence explanation), just a little odd is all.

Thanks David for that discussion of the topic. I don’t see that it clears up the question I asked though. I agree Baker saw Oswald, and Baker reported Oswald (the real Oswald) as 165 lbs. But the issue is not whether someone could mistake 140 lb Oswald for 165 lbs—that is not the question—but the specificity of the DPD radio broadcast error being 165 and not 160 or 170, combined also with the specificity of the error in Oswald’s height being 5’10” and not some other inch. Referring to that 12:44 police radio broadcast. Without questioning that Baker saw Oswald, I have wondered if Baker somehow heard or got the 165 pounds number from somewhere and wrote it, or maybe not. If he truly had no knowledge of a 165 number from any other source by the time he wrote his report of his encounter with Oswald, if his 165 pounds for Oswald truly was uninfluenced and his own, then that is coincidence and irrelevant here. So forget Baker, and forget your point correctly shown that a weight estimate of someone of Oswald’s weight by a witness can be mistaken by 20 or 30 pounds, that’s not the issue here. The question is how is it the DPD 12:44 broadcast EXACTLY matches to the inch and the pound the preexisting inaccurate written record on BOTH Oswald’s height and weight before his name was known as a suspect. What is your answer to that question Coincidence? I assume that is your answer—but would you confirm that?

But Michael, how can you deny (or Selverstone if so) that JFK was “looking to pull out while not losing at the same time”, when in your next breath you refer to NSAM 263 as “a withdrawal”? Was JFK intent on a conditional withdrawal or not? You seem to be arguing both ways simultaneously. Also you say McBundy’s draft of NSAM 273 represented JFK’s thinking but you did not answer whether in your understanding 273 did or did not end the earlier stated 1965 timetable for a conditional intended withdrawal? In other words, was the 1965 planned (conditional) withdrawal of NSAM 263 for real as JFK intent, or not, and when exactly did that real intent (if so) get formally cancelled in top-level war planning by the US? And by whom exactly?

David von Pein, could you give a LN response to Robert Morrow’s point above (and references in his blog post linked there) concerning the 5’10”, 165 lbs., mistaken physical description of Oswald stemming from Marguerite’s mistaken information to FBI Fain in 1960 … a mistaken Oswald physical description as early as 12:44 pm on Dallas Police Radio, before Oswald was a suspect? It cannot stem from a real description of Oswald from a witness because if so there would not be the exact agreement to the pound and to the inch with the mistaken Oswald physical description. And it cannot stem from Oswald being suspected and then obtaining a written physical description of Oswald because this was before Oswald was a suspect. It looks like catching a plagiarist or someone cheating on a test at school because they copied a telltale mistake that was in the source. Does that look like someone planned to incriminate Oswald prior to the shots being fired? Is there a mundane, innocent explanation for the exact height and weight match to the mistaken Oswald physical description for the suspect, before Oswald was a suspect?

Michael G., is it consensus historians’ view that JFK would have signed NSAM 273 without any editing as it stands (as LBJ did sign it)? The earlier NSAM had the written 1965 objective of near-withdrawal (understood most read that as with conditions, nevertheless that stated policy and planning objective)—is it consensus historians’ view that that element was now being dropped or abandoned or repudiated in NSAM 273–and that JFK would have been OK with that dropping, abandonment, or repudiation of the stated 1965 timetable planning? It just looks like JFK by Nov 1963 was seeing Vietnam as a morass and looking for an acceptable wind-down or disengagement while not “losing” at the same time, whereas a majority of joint chiefs etc had no such intent or interest or belief in a feasible possibility of a 1965 near-end to engagement. And that these differences in wordings reflect internal battles over framing policy at staff/Joint Chiefs level? Did JFK usually sign such prepared draft NSAM’s unaltered or did he frequently have them revised or reworded, in practice? I.e. how certain do you feel that JFK if he had returned to Washington instead of being assassinated, would have knowingly signed an abandonment of a policy commitment to plan for disengagement/withdrawal (mostly) by 1965?

Interesting Paula. Without knowing any better, it just sounds like from her high-level Party or intelligence English-tutoring clients she may have heard about Oswald (natural topic for conversation, how could it not come up, right?). They probably like Mary on a personal level, she tells them she hasn't met him but if she does she will let them know. But she really does not want anything to do with it so discourages Ernst's offer to introduce them. You ask why she was not more proactively enlisted to befriend Oswald and see if he would open up to her... maybe because it would look too transparent to Oswald and if he was a spy he would be unlikely to open up like that? And they had him heavily surveilled already. Ernst Titovets, who knew Oswald closely, just like two others who knew Oswald closely, George de Mohrenschildt and Buell Wesley Frazier ... each of these, against the grain of common thinking, and suffering negative consequences as a result, but simply saying so because it is what they think to be true, say the Oswald they knew was no killer, and would not have killed President Kennedy. Each of these said this and stuck to this after having seen and heard all the major and familiar points of evidence of the case. In rereading the preface to the third edition (2020), the one I have, of Oswald: Russian Episode, I see your name and am struck anew at how accidental and unlikely some book publications are, juxtaposed to the unforeseen and unknowable effect some books have, not necessarily immediately, that do see the light of day, so difficult to foresee in advance. Titovets writes: "My first literary agent, A***** L***** [name is published in Titovets] of the A***** L***** Literary Agency Ltd in London, demonstrated high interest in my book. After he had received the script, he kept it for a long time without any discernible progress. When I finally saw him at his office in London, he, without any explanations, said that the book had better be rewritten by a ghostwriter. I said, 'No way.' We parted. "M****** A***** [name is published in Titovets] of Johnson and A***** Ltd. in London was equally enthusiastic to get the script. Again, there followed a period of an unaccounted-for procrastination. Finally, he informed me of the opinion of an anonymous reviewer, who found nothing new in my book. [!--gd] There came a suggestion to include some material from the then-recently declassified JFK files. I saw no point in inflating my book with information peripheral to my first-hand account. That meant the end of our cooperation. To sum it up, the two literary agents delayed publication of Oswald: Russian Episode by at least ten years. "Eventually, Oswald: Russian Episode, edited by Paula Botan, was published by MonLitera in Belarus. "In 2013, as the book's author and as a person who closely knew Oswald in Russia, I was invited to serve as a keynote speaker at an annual conference held in Dallas in November by the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA). The event was focused on the 50th Anniversary of JFK assassination. "However, there arose a problem in obtaining my U.S. visa at the American Consulate in Minsk. Carrying COPA's official invitation and a copy of Oswald: Russian Episode, I went to the consulate, while thinking that approval to visit for my forthcoming speech would be a mere formality. Unexpectedly, the interview turned out to be a psychological assault by the consulate officer that bordered on outright provocation. "She made it so stressful for me that I can only think to describe it with the American expression, 'Keep your shirt on,' which is reputed to stem from the frontier days when a man's removal of his shirt meant that he was ready to fight (but not willing to damage clothing valued in that era). By the end of her act, the officer suddenly became calm and all business. She collected my papers and announced that I had to wait for a decision. Still furious inside, I left the consulate pondering the meaning of the show that she had staged with me. "I waited to hear anything from the U.S. consulate for over a month. With the time of my scheduled departure fast approaching, I decided to act. I appealed to the Americans involved with the conference for polite letters of support to be sent to the consulate in my behalf by those who expected my visit. (. . .) This and perhaps other circumstances worked. Before long, I obtained my U.S. visa. (. . .) "This book gives a straightforward, firsthand account of Oswald and his everyday life in Russia. That includes his work and leisure, love and disappointments, interests and ambitions, his socio-political views, and his writings. "I often ask myself why such a book would be hindered and so little known, especially in the United States when there is so much interest in the life and death of the popular president. The reviewers who took the trouble to write are unanimous in stating that Oswald: Russian Episode presents the real Oswald and humanizes this much-dehumanized man. "The real Oswald would not pull the trigger at JFK. This view, based on my observations and professional evaluation of Oswald, is in opposition to the U.S. official view on Oswald's role in the JFK tragedy. This makes Oswald: Russian Episode an undesirable nuisance except for those [who] know or who care to understand the facts. "Ernst Titovets, M.D., Ph.D., Minsk, Belarus, September 2020."

That’s an interesting point Robert Morrow—on Kilduff remembering LBJ’s first thought at ca 1:00 or 1:15 pm Fri Nov 22 being “Communists did it” (in agreement with the DRE/Miami-station attempts to falsely implicate Castro via an Oswald connection as a casus bellus for retaking Cuba), and not as more expected and feared in Dallas, from right wing hatred or fanatics. But before running too far with it, does Kilduff’s statement on that have independent support or verification? This is Kilduff in 1991 saying that. Is that claim (of LBJ’s earliest reaction going to communist conspiracy, prior to the arrest of Oswald) attested earlier than 1991? Still, Kilduff’s account even standing alone in 1991 has some force, in that Kilduff is credible, and raises the question whether the always-wily LBJ was purposely planting to Kilduff, the acting press secretary whose words minutes later would be echoed and reported nationwide shaping news coverage to follow, the idea of a Castro or Russian role. As if without directly telling Kilduff so, LBJ was giving something for Kilduff to tell if it came up. Which raises another question. It is well known that LBJ and Hoover cooperated in killing the Castro conspiracy idea very quickly that weekend, against what looked like a serious attempt of some agency actors to have made that the narrative. Accepting that change (from communist conspiracy to LN Oswald narrative) as fact, which nobody now disputes, the question is why. The accepted narrative reason why, is LBJ et al did not want a risk of World War III. That is the benign coverup explanation. But is it excluded a different explanation—that somehow, awareness that an intended false flag was not going to work on strictly pragmatic or operational grounds, a cover blown or something, whatever (maybe even the unknown wild card of how much Oswald might have talked or could talk?), and it was that pragmatic knowledge that caused that LBJ/Hoover decision from the top to abandon a false flag narrative accusation and go LN focus? If LBJ’s first planted reaction with the acting press secretary that the assassination was a Communist conspiracy is true, before there had been any arrest or known focus on Oswald as suspect, it seems that could add weight to the idea of LBJ foreknowledge.

Good question. Only thing I can think of was she somehow learned Lee was under special scrutiny or surveilled, or conceivably she herself had been asked if she would inform on him and had not wished to do so or declined. If she believed any contact would be followed by a visit from the friendly local neighborhood KGB equivalent (whatever its name was) seeking to debrief her re Oswald, she might try to steer clear of that by not willingly meeting with him to begin with. I don’t know, just guessing.

I just looked up all the Mary Mintz references in Titovet’s book, and see where Mary Mintz had obviously heard about Oswald (though he had never met her), and did not want to meet him when Ernst offered. My interpretation: she is a fully assimilated happy settled emigrant in Minsk since the 1930’s, has her family and life there. She has heard of Oswald, the American rumored to be a little strange as in possible suspected spy, she does not want unwelcome attention from the authorities on her if she were to become friendly with him. That is my interpretation of her out-of-character standoffishness. Not that she has any actual knowledge he is a spy, just the rumor that the authorities could suspect it would be enough for her not to wish to bring unnecessary possible trouble on herself and her family by an association.

So that’s not urban legend, but actually was LBJ quoted April 24, 1963, in Dallas, in print in the Dallas Times Herald, “at least wait until next November before you shoot him down”, referring to the president, JFK. Who were LBJ’s remarks—overtly a call for support for JFK pending the next election—directed against… who did he have in mind, who were characterized by “hate” and who were saying the US govt led by Kennedy was “disloyal” to America and that Kennedy had to go? His audience, Democrats of Dallas, are reported as cheering his remarks (condemning those who hated JFK). I can’t read it other than that he was talking of the Walker types, Bircher types, southern racist wing of the Democrats types … but above all squarely Walker. Overtly he is urging Democrats (? Or does he mean the whole country including Republican critics of JFK?) to be united in support of the president through the four-year term to which he had been elected. If the ones to whom he is referring are dead set on thinking JFK was a bad “pilot” of the plane which was America, in the analogy, wait until the next election cycle to nominate and/or elect someone different … constitutional process. But it is a very eery double-entendre in retrospect, the kind that brings a gasp reading the words in light of Nov 22, 1963 Dallas. It also is reported that LBJ’s prepared remarks for the next stop after Dallas if the assassination had not intervened—I think Austin (?)—had LBJ congratulating JFK for having gotten that far in his Texas trip without being shot dead, or words to that effect, alluding to sentiment in Texas critical of the Kennedy administration. Big laugh line—what a card LBJ was. Remarks that of course were not delivered because JFK was shot dead … in Dallas, “next November” from LBJ’s April 1963 Dallas words. Said by the #1 figure with motive. But lacking, on his own, means, but not lacking alignments inside the ruling circles of the country which regarded JFK as having crossed invisible lines, who did have ability—means—to have something done operationally. Accidental words?… Freudian slips?… or…?

It is generally really no concern to me what the flat earthers do with their arguments, and I suffer from no illusions about my ability to influence their views. What I really care about is the marketplace of ideas, and the availability of sound and valid information about those ideas for those assessing the merits of competing ideas and the supporting evidence for those ideas. Jeffersonian Democratic Theory, influenced by the ideals of the enlightenment, on which it was intended that the American system of governance should be based, held that full knowledge leads to right action, and that without full knowledge, right action is impossible. Propaganda and sophistry are incompatible with right action, and with an effective presentation of valid and sound evidence, the full knowledge necessary to discredit propaganda and sophistry may be acquired, thus allowing that right action may prevail over the darkness of inequity and injustice. Therefore, in my view, and the views of many others, flat earthers and the enablers of political assassinations (and associated obstruction of justice) are incompatible with a free and equitable society, and conscientious citizens should consider it a duty to vigorously oppose their influence upon the marketplace of ideas. You may as well have written: As I understand it the heated controversies over the [question of whether the earth is flat or not due to] apparent conflicts in data and different attempts to resolve and interpret those. Personally, I don't concern myself so much with ideas that can be feasibly argued one way or the other, my concern is with facts and the evidence that supports those facts. I have found that flat earthers and enablers of political assassinations (and associated obstruction of justice) by necessity must misrepresent and distort the supporting evidence for the unsound and invalid beliefs that they advocate, and consistent with my belief that all conscientious citizens have an ethical duty to challenge and refute such distortions and misrepresentations, I conduct myself accordingly. You may as well have written: As I understand it Pat's present position is not that [the earth is as flat as a pancake]. But that [it is flat with mountainous terrain and valleys that make for the illusion that the earth is a sphere] when in fact [the earth is generally flat only with peaks and valleys that the governments of the world are misrepresenting as being spherical]. As set forth above, I am not concerned about the existence of the baseless and irrational arguments of the flat earthers and enablers of political assassinations. What matters to me is the accessibility of competing reliable facts and evidence in the marketplace of ideas. It is important to me to fulfill my duty to vigorously oppose their impact upon others who do not suffer from the same pathology, or delusions, or whatever it may be, of those who seek to lead them away from trustworthy knowledge. My standard for distinguishing truth from falsehoods is based on whether I could convince a jury of my peers of the facts in question, and I operate as if those engaging in the marketplace of ideas are part of that jury of my peers. You may as well have written: That was [the testimony of Greek philosopher Pythagoras, who lived in the 6th century BC, that the earth is a flat, disk-like shape]. Do you seek to make it illegitimate for anyone on this forum to argue in favor of some form of [the explanations of Pythagorus and more contemporary flat-earthers that the earth is flat]? Yes? No? No, I do not aim to make it "illegitimate" for the flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, or other varieties of irrational persons to advocate their beliefs. I am confident that the majority of participants in the marketplace of ideas have the capacity to assess and evaluate the credibility and weight of competing evidence, and to arrive at sound and valid conclusions. You may as well have written: I realize you do not accept that explanation and you give your reasons and have your views, I understand that. Virtually everyone understands at this point that that there are [huge discrepancies in the evidence that the earth is flat, such as sunrises, sunsets, eclipses and footage of a spherical earth allegedly made by satellites and the like], all of which is disputed and argued. Yes, you are, it appears to me, describing the marketplace of ideas, and the manner in which fraudulent and invalid evidence is discredited within that framework. You may as well have written: The question is whether you are trying to make illegitimate any place for discussion and/or argument in favor of e.g. [the flat earthers own explanations that the earth is flat]. No, as set forth above, I am not attempting "to make [it] illegitimate" for flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, or other varieties of irrational persons to advocate their beliefs. I am fully confident that the majority of participants in the marketplace of ideas have the capacity to assess and evaluate the credibility and weight of competing evidence, and to arrive at sound and valid conclusions. You may as well have written: Are you trying to shut down [the flat earthers]? No, I am not "trying to shut down" flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, or other varieties of irrational persons. I am fully confident that the majority of participants in the marketplace of ideas have the capacity to assess and evaluate the credibility and weight of competing evidence, and to arrive at sound and valid conclusions. What matters to me is the accessibility of competing reliable facts and evidence in the marketplace of ideas. It is important to me to fulfill my duty to vigorously oppose their impact upon others who do not suffer from the same pathology, or delusions, or whatever it may be, of those who seek to lead them away from trustworthy knowledge. You may as well have written: This is looking like a vendetta, of trying to shut down [the flat earthers and their] arguments. If that is not correct could you clarify? No, there is a distinction between holding a "vendetta" and "trying to shut down" flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, or other varieties of irrational persons, and being committed to discrediting their baseless and unsound ideas and supporting evidence in the marketplace of ideas. You may as well have written: Do you seriously believe [the flat earthers are] being knowingly wilfully evil and dishonest? (That notion is truly absurd.) As opposed to simply (in your view) wrong and bullheaded? In my experience, it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain the actual motives and intentions of flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other varieties of irrational persons. I strongly suspect that there are often pathological, or concealed/covert operational explanations for what you describe below as "bullheadedness." When covert operational activities are involved, and they often are when the subject matter involves questions like the flat earth and the true culprits and accessories of political assassinations, I would characterize that as indeed being "willfully evil and dishonest." In such cases, the operatives are unlikely to ever reveal the details of their assignments. Yes, I am indeed familiar with cases in which scholars have become deeply entrenched in their published work and are dedicated to protecting their territory. What you are describing is associated with the phenomenon referred to as "paradigm shifts" by Professor Thomas Kuhn in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). However, I would like to differentiate that from situations involving flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other irrational individuals. It does happen, as evidenced by the example of Professor Cass Sunstein, who authored the book Conspiracy Theories in 2008 and was subsequently appointed by President Obama as his propaganda czar, providing intelligence agencies with a blueprint for conducting counterintelligence operations against researchers working to expose the crimes of those intelligence agencies. However, when conspiracy researchers -- of the type I label as "honest brokers" -- later confronted Sunstein about his counterintelligence activities, Sunstein attempted to deny and distance himself from such operations in an attempt to preserve his integrity as an academic. In my view, flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other irrational individuals are seldom professionals with credentials. While there are indeed many credentialed professionals who are covert intelligence assets, these professionals are generally too concerned about safeguarding their credentials and reputations to engage in high-profile intelligence activities such as internet counterintelligence operations. On the contrary, flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other irrational individuals are more frequently individuals involved in counterintelligence activities due to a lack of professional credentials and esteemed academic positions, attempting to compensate for these inadequacies. You may as well have written: All I can say is if your wish is to see [the flat earther's] work silenced, and you were to succeed in that, it would be a loss, and many more good minds than just [those of the flat earthers] would be lost to this forum. And if that is not your purpose I hope you would clarify that. I completely disagree with your assessment of the value of the distortions and propaganda of the flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other irrational individuals, but I would fiercely defend and uphold your right to hold and express that opinion, even though I strongly oppose it. Keven, I agree with all of your condemnation of flat earthers and enablers of political assassinations. That, however, is not the issue. The issue is Pat Speer's research on the JFK assassination. Your hypnotic repetition-mantra substitution of "...enablers of political assassinations" for the topic at issue, Pat Speer's expression of his research, is absolutely shameful smear rhetoric. Your lengthy hypnotic-like mantra only has force if your unexpressed premise is accepted that Pat Speer is analogous to flat-earth argument or "enablers of political assassinations". Are you saying that? In fact, pursuant to a moderator's stated policy, in which any forum member can request that posts which violate forum rules be taken down: You have attempted to publicly shame a fellow researcher. And you have misrepresented me (your "you might as well have said" hypnotic rephrasings of what I was saying). Both of these counts violate forum rules. I request you remove the above post. Pat Speer does not deserve this. He's either right, stupid, or smart but mistaken (and bullheaded), on any specific argument, as the case may be, as are we all. But he is not analogous to flat earth argument or "enablers of political assassinations". You are really out of line. To the moderators, I strongly protest this rhetoric used of one of the most productive and sensible researchers on this forum (present issue of the autopsy interpretation issues to one side).

There has been a strange story that the Mary Ferrell Foundation gave Lifton $165,000 in interest-free loans in 2001-2006, never repaid, that were considered advances on his book that never appeared, and just now Paula Botan, who knew him in years immediately following that time frame, says she doubts any manuscript existed--and no evidence so far in the year 2024 has come forth of a draft manuscript's existence, even though it has always been assumed there must have been something in progress all these years. Does anyone know the background to how that decision was made and whether there was ever any attempt to require timely showing of evidence of progress on the book or, if not, request for repayment of the $165,000 "loans"? (Source: https://jfkresearch.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/lifton-loans-redux/)

Interesting Paula, and thank you for your behind-the-scenes assistance to Titovets in helping his good book see the light of day.

Timing reconstruction: Oswald enters theater as paid-ticket patron (ticket bought from Julia Postal, handed to general manager Callahan at the door), ca. 1:15 pm, ground level seating. Then Oswald does his odd seating in the seat directly next to Jack Davis during what Jack Davis says was the opening credits of the film, then getting up and sitting next to someone else ... before finally seating on his own toward the rear of the middle section. 1:35 pm the killer of Tippit, misidentified as Oswald by Brewer, goes past Brewer's store and up into the balcony when Julia Postal's attention is otherwise distracted. (I half suspect that killer of Tippit actually had a legitimately earlier purchased ticket in his pocket ready to show if he had been confronted.) Brewer (well in keeping with behavior of neighborhood merchants and store managers in my experience), suspicious and following, goes to Julia Postal and into the theater to find the unidentified ticket-crasher who went into the balcony. Brewer and Burroughs look in the darkness into the balcony but see no one. Police are called of someone suspicious and hiding from police (everyone has the JFK assassination in mind as context, and for police, they had been through two false leads in hot pursuit of an armed and dangerous Tippit killer--the library, and the antique store next to Dean's Dairy--so they believe there is a killer at large in the vicinity, explaining the strong and rapid Dallas Police response and of anyone else listening to police radio). Immediately police (and deputy sheriffs and a couple of FBI and a reporter or two) arrive and converge. Courson arrived no differently than the earliest of the other arriving police, for he says he learned of the Texas Theatre location from police radio. (Courson claims in his Sneed interview, in this his only account ever of his movements that day, that he was at Tenth and Patton and overheard the police radio call from the radio in Tippit's patrol car.) Police were entering both the front and the alley rear entrance simultaneously as rapidly as they could get there and go inside. Entering the front there were two choices: remain on the ground floor and proceed to the main seating area, or go up a stairway into the balcony. From early written reports and later interviews in Sneed, officers who went up the stairs to check in the balcony include Courson, Cunningham, Toney, either Buck or Taylor, Paul Bentley, Gerald Hill, and I think Buddy Walthers all said they went into the balcony. (Gerald Hill's written report to Curry says Bentley was with him in the balcony.) Cunningham and Toney each tell of interviewing the same man described by Courson coming out of that balcony, coming from exactly where the killer of Tippit was last known to have gone minutes earlier. What is known of that particular young white man: one thing, he was a smoker. (For what it is worth, Oswald was not a smoker. Craford was a smoker.) And he had on a "a kind of plaid or checkered shirt" (color not stated) and no jacket (Courson), and he must have looked similar enough to Oswald in physical description that he was capable of being mistakenly remembered as Oswald by Courson. Officer Cunningham, the lead officer of Toney, Buck and Taylor, asked the man's name and the man told him. Cunningham wrote it down. But Cunningham said he did not remember whether he turned that name in and said it did not matter because none of those witnesses had anything important to say anyway, so it did not matter that their names were not preserved. (Cunningham in Sneed, 266: "I just talked to them and took their names down. In fact, I don't recall whether I turned the list of names in or not. In any case, there was nothing there in light of useful information.") Cunningham also self-identified in that Sneed interview as "I knew Jack Ruby probably as well as any officer in Dallas". Officer Toney who helped collect the list of written names of patrons believed the names had been turned in (Sneed, 309). But the names either were not turned in or were disappeared after having been turned in. The Warren Commission wondered what those names were because no one was producing them and asked Capt. Westbrook, officer in command at the Theatre. Westbrook confirmed he had ordered the names of patrons to be taken and preserved. But Westbrook, though he had ordered the names taken, answered that he had no idea what was done with the names, said ask Cunningham. Here Cunningham says he "do[es]n't recall whether I turned the list of names in or not", which is other language for Cunningham saying "I tossed them". Why would Cunningham do a thing like that? I have wondered if Cunningham's "I knew Jack Ruby probably as well as any officer in Dallas" had anything to do with Cunningham tossing those written names, such that the name given by the man in the balcony where the killer of Tippit had last been known to have been minutes earlier, is unknown today. According to Toney's report to Curry, the officers checked with general manager Callahan on the ground area below concerning the man in the balcony, and Callahan told them that man was OK, because he had purchased a ticket at "12:05". That time, 12:05, does not make sense since supposedly tickets did not start being sold until 12:45. The possibility exists that 12:05 was an error for 12:45--general manager Callahan vouching for remembering that man had bought a ticket at 12:45--or was 12:05 no mistake and he bought a ticket at 12:05?--before that man perhaps slipped away with the assistance of a driver in a vehicle, murdered Tippit, then returned on foot to the Texas Theatre with intent, as reconstructed, to kill Oswald there. The theater was sealed upon police arrival just before Oswald's arrest, and then after Oswald's arrest all the patrons' names and contact information were taken--this was the written information that Cunningham decided against orders was of no value for him to turn in--and then the patrons were released, which would have included the man from the balcony. He did not walk out the doors on his own before this, but rather was sealed inside with the other patrons until names were taken and preliminary questioning, etc., and then that man left the theater along with all the other patrons when they were all cleared to leave, and nobody to the present day knows who he was. He was probably only the killer of Tippit, but apart from that, as Cunningham assured everyone, there was nothing of interest to anyone in knowing the identity of that man. I collected testimonies related to that man in the balcony and the officers' encounters with him at pp. 1-20 here, https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/T-Jackets-112.pdf. Incidentally, in that paper I noted a reference to a pickup truck near the rear entrance of the Texas Theatre with its engine running and no driver, seen by police at the time of arrival. I wondered if that was a getaway vehicle ready for a killer of Oswald if Oswald had been killed following the Tippit killer running into the balcony. I don't know that that is excluded, but I may have found a possible reference to that pickup truck. Dallas Morning News reporter Jim Ewall, in Sneed, speaking of Oswald's arrest: "Oswald then took my place in the backseat of the same car that I arrived in. So when they left with him, I stood there, stranded. I then hitchhiked a ride with a man in a pickup truck." Whether it was that pickup truck or some other vehicle, according to my reconstruction there should have been a getaway vehicle of some kind. The other possibility could be the red car seen in the El Chico parking lot on N. Beckley, bearing on that day someone else's license plates on it, reported by mechanic White of Pate's auto garage. That red car may have belonged to Igor Vaganov, the same Vaganov who spent time in the days just before the assassination in the very building of the Carousel Club where lived suspected Tippit killer, Ruby employee and self-professed hitman Curtis Craford, several times known to have been mistakenly identified as Oswald by sincere witnesses. But Vaganov, if he was the driver seated inside the red car of mechanic White's sighting, could look like Oswald's face in agreement with mechanic White's sighting. If Oswald had been set up he would have been targeted for death before being taken into police custody, therefore at the theater if it was known he was there. I have previously suggested that a memo in a little notebook of Curtis Craford that Craford carried around on his person all the time may allude to the details of a planned meeting of Oswald in the Texas Theatre, "Mr. Miller Friday 15 people Collins Radio Co.", no phone number or calendar date given (i.e. Friday Nov 22, 15 o'clock or 3 pm, someone of Collins Radio Co. [Carl Mather?]). What I have since learned is this: immediately following that entry in Craford's notebook is this: "Cody--City Hall." That is believed to be a reference to Dallas Police officer Joe Cody. The juxtaposition of those two entries--the only two entries on that page in Craford's notebook (the bottom half of which page is torn off and missing)--suggests the possibility that Cody could have been the source of the information of the entry immediately above, the Friday Collins Radio Co. "15 persons" reference. Well wonder of wonders, a phone number written by Oswald twice in his address book--not once but twice on two distinct pages--without any name or other identifying information--is the home phone number of Dallas Police officer Joe Cody. Up until now that has been explained as Oswald wrote that number down--twice, with no other notes--because he saw that number listed for Joe Cody's uncle who was renting apartments in Oak Cliff. But Joe Cody's uncle and Joe Cody lived at the same place and shared the same home phone. And Joe Cody was very close to Ruby, as told in Joe Cody's account in Sneed. Oswald has his home phone number. Signal or static? I don't know.

In No More Silence, p. 485, deputy sheriff Bill Courson tells of meeting one of the persons coming down from the balcony in the Texas Theatre, and how he (mistakenly) believed that man had been Oswald. He could not have mistakenly believed someone was Oswald, who was white, if that man from the balcony had been black. Of all the witness accounts that day, no one has said any of the ca 12-20 patrons in the theater that day (Julia Postal remembered the number of tickets sold had been either 14 or 24, and the witness accounts overwhelming favor the 14 as being the correct number of the two), either on the ground level or in the balcony, were African-American (colored in the language then), and there is no evidence the Texas Theatre had a formal rule of or was practicing strict segregation in Nov 1963. The killer of Tippit, a white man, without dispute ran into the balcony at about 1:35 pm because that was logistically how a person without showing a ticket could get into the theater without being seen by concessionaire Burroughs in the lobby at the ground level. (That killer of Tippit who ran into the balcony was probably the same man Courson mistakenly thought was Oswald coming down from the balcony.)

Yes Alan--your work on that curtain rods fingerprint document, and I see Pat Speer credits you in his chapter on the curtain rods on that (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4h-the-curtain-rod-story)--is compelling and correct. And not only does the March 15 date the curtain rods were submitted call for explanation (which precedes two curtain rods obtained from Ruth Paine's garage by the Warren Commission on March 21), but the two versions with differences that independently came to light from the Warren Commission published in exhibits (showing a return by Day of DPD to Secret Service Howlett on March 24, not signed by Howlett, carbon copy) and from the Dallas Police Department (showing a return by Day of DPD to Secret Service Howlett on March 22, signed by Howlett, top original), with -- this is the tough one to explain -- two different signatures of Day as the officer disbursing those curtain rods to Howlett, on the original and the carbon of the same form. Neither form with its dates makes sense as being the curtain rods picked up from Ruth Paine's garage on March 21, but the problem is compounded by two versions of the same disbursement form! The best I can figure is these indeed were the two curtain rods that Lee had brought in on Nov 22, which may have been found or turned over by a McKeel Sportswear seamstress as early as Dec 6 to Howlett when Howlett was at the TSBD doing the Secret Service reenactment, as Pat S. suggests. That same day, Dec 6, was when the FBI investigated the TSBD 2nd floor Warren Castor rifles of Nov 20, as a part of the investigation of the parking-lot rifle conveyance sighting reported by Henrietta Vargas, the seamstress, the one who showed up to make this report with an attorney. Did Henrietta Vargas (with her attorney) turn over two curtain rods at that time, part of what she was working for Oswald's curtains? (Speculation.) The role of the Secret Service, Howlett, instead of the FBI, in the curtain rods forms and in the Warren Commission testimony taken in Ruth Paine's garage on Marh 21, instead of the FBI, also seems odd. Maybe Pat S. is right that it was a way of handing off from the FBI, it was received by the Secret Service (Howlett) on Dec 6, and was simply delayed until a later time when it was checked for fingerprints (by Howlett). By this reconstruction those curtain rods fingerprinted by Howlett were not the two found in Ruth Paine's garage, but two brought in by Oswald on Nov 22 and given to the seamstress, perhaps Henrietta Vargas, who turned them in at the time she appeared with her attorney at FBI offices on Nov 25. If that had happened, it would be expected that the FBI would have asked Henrietta not to talk about it, since that is what the FBI seems to have asked practically all the witnesses it interviewed. Two days ago I talked to a seamstress I know who worked in a sweatshop decades ago (which may be what McKeel Sportswear on the 2nd floor of the Dal-Tex was). She told of how it was assembly line, jobs would have a week or so turnaround, and it was tightly controlled in a wide-open workspace such that there would be no opportunity for personal work easily done by any of the seamstresses. She suggested though that a seamstress might agree to take the work home, do it at home, then return or meet the person to hand it over. As she said, "money is money". From what this seamstress told me it is not likely that Oswald's curtains need would be taken care of by McKeel Sportswear which seems to have been industrial, supplying retail stores. But Oswald could have walked across the street and asked, and one of the seamstresses offered to do the job herself for cash, told him what to bring to her and she would take it home and meet him to deliver it to him. In that case Oswald bringing the fabric and curtain rods to her on Fri morning Nov 22 would not have expected to have his curtains by Friday night. But it would not necessarily have meant a wait until Monday for Oswald to have curtains in his room for privacy. The seamstress I talked to said a seamstress doing that work might agree to meet to hand over the finished work on Saturday morning. That is when Oswald can be reconstructed to have anticipated having his finished curtains ready, by a seamstress across the street from his workplace doing the job on her own for cash. Then, after the assassination the possible seamstress of this, Henrietta Vargas, got an attorney forthwith and reported it to the FBI on Nov 25, including the curtain rods, following which in accord with a request of the FBI she did not talk of that. Would that mean that seamstress never told? Consider this, from Sara Peterson and K.W. Zachry, The Lone Star Speaks (2020), chapter drawing from interviews of Buell Wesley Frazier of 2015 and 2019, at pp. 186-7. Maybe the seamstress did talk in one instance come to light, in this phone call to Frazier described below? Never mind the editorial assumption of Peterson and Zachry of a TSBD location--assume that is editorial. Note that the caller was a woman. "For his own peace of mind, Frazier located a rifle with a serial number only a few digits off from the serial number of the rifle Oswald was accused of using to kill the President. He dismantled it and wrapped it in brown paper so he and his sister could compare the size with the way they remembered Oswald's package looking on that Friday. "'It was obviously still too long,' he said. 'Lee could not have carried even a dismantled rifle like that one under his arm.' Frazier's sister agreed. "If Oswald had really been carrying curtain rods that day, they should have been found somewhere in the Depository. Supposedly, they were never found. However, a few years after the assassination, Frazier received an intriguing phone call. Once the caller established that she was speaking to the man who had driven Oswald to work on November 22, 1963, she quietly confided to Frazier that some curtain rods had indeed been found in the Depository after the assassination. "She then hung up without revealing her identity. Apparently, this woman wanted Frazier to know that someone knew his story was true."

I understand the problem and, though this is unsatisfactory, I have no good solution to propose to it. I am independently convinced as a fact that Lee (and Marina) removed the rifle from the garage on Nov 11 to prepare it for some kind of sale or disposition, but what happened after that point on that date is a black hole of information. It hardly makes sense that it would be broken down again and returned to the blanket in the garage after spending all that money repairing it. It also makes no sense that Lee would take it to his room in Oak Cliff sight unseen to hide under his bed. But what did happen with the rifle after the scope base installation was repaired and the sighting-in on Nov 11? (Took it to a pawn shop and sold it? Met someone in Irving and conveyed it for cash that day? Stashed it in a storage locker at the Irving bus station? Returned again to the blanket in the garage? Don't know.) I suppose there are three hypothetical lines of possibility: (a) he was clueless to and had nothing to do with shots fired at the president but somehow realized he had been set up by means of the rifle sale; (b) he was witting to something other than an assassination and when the assassination occurred realized he had been set up; or (c) he was witting to being party to an assassination attempt that he thought was for the benefit of Castro (not necessarily as shooter). The fact that he had not much money on him, that he either had no getaway car or refused to get in one if one was there for him, that he had to make a risky rapid stop at his rooming house to pick up his revolver (scared and for self-defense), weigh in favor of "a" or "b" and against "c". Somehow he was set up--the Boylan and Hancock Redbird Airport leads article for possible background on that (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rODOLtGaAe0cni6N5rBnmgmwC71N2hpN/view)--and his rifle was used and that implicated him overwhelmingly in the eyes of law enforcement and the public, and he never got a trial to explain anything differently. At the very week of the assassination there was separate "sting" activity on gunrunning involving circles seemingly associated with Jack Ruby. This "sting" activity involved persons pretending to be involved in criminal activity with real criminals, as sort of entrapment activity by law enforcement. The hunch would be that Oswald could have been involved in something similar, but we may never know for sure.

Keven, may I ask what is it you are after with respect to Pat Speer? Is it simply about wanting him to clean up some wording about McClelland and a few others, a style reform? Or do you wish to shut down his arguments from having a place on the table in this forum and in wider discussion? As I understand it the heated controversies over the medical and autopsy come about over apparent conflicts in data and different attempts to resolve and interpret those. As I understand it Pat's present position is not that there was no gaping wound visible in the back of the head. But that there was some gaping wound visible toward the top of and/or to the right of the back of the head (from a gaping wound that was on the right of the head extending also on to the back), that is covered up in the BOH photo by the autopsists having lifted a flap of scalp up in that photo, giving the illusion of no visible gaping wound in the back of the head when in fact there was gaping wound underneath some scalp in an upper part of the back of the head in those photos. That was autopsist Boswell's own testimony as to how that BOH photo happened, and Boswell identified himself as one of the hands in that photo. Do you seek to make it illegitimate for anyone on this forum to argue in favor of some form of that autopsist's own explanation? Yes? No? I realize you do not accept that explanation and you give your reasons and have your views, I understand that. Virtually everyone understands at this point that that there are missing photos, some spinning of interpretation by the official bodies, etc. on that autopsy of which the kindest characterization described from all quarters is "botched". That may or may not include actual photo and x-ray alteration too, which is disputed and argued. The question is whether you are trying to make illegitimate any place for discussion and/or argument in favor of e.g. autopsist Boswell's own explanation for the BOH photo. Are you trying to shut down Pat Speer? This is looking like a vendetta, of trying to shut down Pat Speer and his arguments. If that is not correct could you clarify? Do you seriously believe Pat is being knowingly wilfully evil and dishonest? (That notion is truly absurd.) As opposed to simply (in your view) wrong and bullheaded? In the academic world I have seen a lot of ideas in my field which I know full well are wrong from academics being bullheaded. (On rare occasions I am afflicted with bullheadedness myself. 🙂 ) I have learned to never underestimate how attached academics can get to ideas once they have committed themselves in print. This is the individualized form of the larger general phenomenon of scholarly conservatism, by which is not meant anything to do with political orientation, but the difficulty in overturning established ideas and ways of thinking once entrenched by simple mere citation of opposing facts. All I can say is if your wish is to see Pat Speer's work silenced, and you were to succeed in that, it would be a loss, and many more good minds than just Pat's would be lost to this forum. And if that is not your purpose I hope you would clarify that.

I think there was an unemployment check cashed by Oswald at a grocery store in New Orleans that FBI investigation found could not have been received by Oswald in the mail and then cashed in New Orleans before the morning of Wed Sept 25. Ruth and Marina were already gone by then according to their and other persons' testimony, but Oswald cannot have left New Orleans before the morning of Wed Sept 25. Then, that is in agreement with the correct dating of the Silvia Odio sighting in Dallas, early evening Wed Sept 25, in which Oswald was in a car with two others having arrived from New Orleans, about an 8 hour drive. The timeline works, and Oswald then was seen leaving Silvia Odio's that evening driven in a car. The Warren Report could not figure how Oswald could have gotten from New Orleans that morning to Houston later that night and considered it a deep mystery, even though there is nothing implausible about Oswald having been driven as the two Odio sisters witnessed. To the contrary, a major development on the issue of the identity of Silvia Odio's "Leopoldo" and "Angel" or "Angelo" was a presentation at the Lancer conference of Nov 2023, two months ago, by David Boylan, presenting argument of Boylan and Hancock for identifications of Victor Espinosa Hernandez for "Leopoldo" and Carlos Hernandez for "Angel". The argument is strong that this is the true solution to those identities replacing prior speculations. I do not know how that argument can be accessed other than via the Lancer video presentation at this point; I hope that it will be made available as an article online. The identifications are significant in linking to Oswald's Cuban associations in New Orleans and DRE/CIA in Miami. Accessible background to this is the 2022 Hancock and Boyle article on the Redbird Airport leads in which those two figures are discussed, but without the Odio sighting identifications, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rODOLtGaAe0cni6N5rBnmgmwC71N2hpN/view.

Tony, in my writeup on the curtain rods at the link (it goes to the Ralph Yates thread), I do not have Oswald taking the package of curtain rods inside the TSBD, or leaving it for an extended period of time outside on the rear loading dock either, even though I accept Frazier’s testimony of seeing Oswald walk inside the door of the rear loading dock carrying it. Too much to repeat here but see what I wrote there. Therefore I agree no one inside the TSBD ever saw him with the 27” curtain rods bag because it never went inside with Oswald. The lunch is a contradiction, true. Frazier spoke of a lunch truck that came during breaks, such as mid-morning, and said Oswald told him Nov 22 he was going to buy his lunch which Frazier understood to be that lunch truck. I assume that is where he got the cheese sandwich and fruit, even though he told Fritz he had not brought curtain rods but had brought a lunch in a bag that he said could have been a long one. For what it is worth, Dougherty said he saw Oswald enter not carrying anything which also, if accurate, means no lunch. And Marina said she thought Oswald took a “small package” that was not his lunch to work that morning. I don’t think Buell and Linnie Mae lied in agreement with each other or scripted by handlers which he has repeated the past sixty years, prior to Buell Frazier then passing a polygraph late that night saying what he was saying was truthful. That polygraph is what appears to have cleared him in the eyes of the Dallas Police after initial severe suspicion of him. The polygraph showed he was truthful because he was, including on the length and description of the bag. But please, read my piece and see what you think.

Sandy, I think there is a misunderstanding. What you are talking about in your first paragraph, of FBI intentionally misreporting or selective non-reporting of witnesses statements in written reports, without those witnesses' knowledge or approval, is a possible tactic, one which has been alleged and has to be evaluated case by case. That is NOT--not-- what I have been talking about. I am referring to your claim of large-scale subornation to perjury of false stories told and sworn under oath by those witnesses at the instruction of alleged--never named, never identified, but invoked by you and others--"handlers". Wait a minute. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have a whole lot more than three witnesses whom you consider to have been suborned to perjury and given scripted, fabricated untruthful stories that you say were told to tell under oath and continue to tell for the rest of their lives. You have Shelley and Lovelady with their testimony of their timing and movements after the shots. You have the second-floor lunchroom witnesses, Truly and Baker, and I don't know if you have some of the 2nd floor women suborned to perjury on that for good measure too. You have Ruth Paine and Marina suborned to perjury by handlers. You have Buell Wesley Frazier by some invisible handler. And who knows how many dozens more. That is what I am talking about. All these people marionette-stringed told to perjure by unseen handlers, and voila!--in every single case it goes off successfully for life with all of those witnesses, not one refusing at the time and reporting the attempt, not one saying in later years, "They suborned me to perjure. Here are their names, and the dates when this was done. They told me to lie in my testimony, to swear falsely under oath. They gave me a written script to memorize and tell that was not true, they rehearsed it with me, they made me say that. They made abc threats if I would not, and they made efg promises if I would, and they were doing that with a lot of us. And it is not just my sayso on this. I told xyz person at the time about this, and I wrote of this in a letter to a trusted confidante at the time, Exhibit Z..." Something like that. The issue is not whether it is possible three people saw Oswald outside. The issue is whether, if so, they and dozens of other witnesses in the case were suborned to perjury as you have been supposing. No double standard. I am denying subornation to perjury, not that there could be fearful or lying witnesses. I am denying your notion of organized, large-scale subornation of perjury by unseen "handlers"--scripting of false testimony at the direction of others. You still have not answered the question: who specifically do you suppose suborned Buell Frazier to perjury at the time and gave him permission of what he was allowed to say, I think is how you put it, and do you think Frazier has a handler today, sixty years later, to whom he must still obtain permission before he would be allowed to speak freely on matters relating to Oswald? Again, no double standard. I am talking about your claim of large-scale organized subornation to perjury of witnesses. I am not talking about witnesses who on their own may not tell what they saw, or who might lie about what they saw. I am not talking about possible coverup or marginalization of witnesses, discrediting of witnesses, leading them in questioning, selective or misleading reporting of interviews or even possible tampering with written statements without their knowledge. I am talking about your invocation of handlers instructing and scripting witnesses to tell specific false stories under oath which both handlers and witnesses know are untrue, know is perjury, know is a serious crime, and that this was done (you say) in case after case after case after case with civilian witnesses on any number of issues in this case without any of those witnesses ever telling that that had happened that way in all these years. You've got that right I believe Oswald had a 27 inch bag, because I don't buy your idea that both Buell and his sister were suborned to perjury by unseen handlers to tell totally false testimony on that. You see, you just decide what you want to believe, and then invoke subornation to perjury for witnesses right and left in agreement with what you choose to believe happened, even though the whole subornation to perjury of civilian witnesses idea as a systematic operational tactic with those Warren Commission witnesses is not verified and not plausible. It is the perfect, all-purpose, unfalsifiable way to explain anything, isn't it? Does it give you no pause that no one has whistle-blown or confessed in later years to the use of that tactic, the existence of that phenomenon? Evidently not. Is it really true that most on this forum ("most of us") believe that Buell Frazier was suborned to perjury--told by unseen agents of the US government to criminally lie under oath, told and rehearsed exactly what to say-- re that 27" bag and re Oswald telling him it contained curtain rods? You are telling me "most" here believe that? I find that hard to believe, I hope it is not true, but if it is, pretty sad commentary on the state of the conspiracy-theorist community. Anyone else following this: folks, Pat Speer has had a chapter on the curtain rods making the case that that is what Oswald was carrying. I see some details differently than Pat in his chapter but never mind that, he did spadework. And I have now gone well beyond that spadework and offered something genuinely new (not a rehash of old), on both the curtain rods interpretation and the interpretation of the Yates' hitchhiker. It goes to the heart of an exculpatory argument for Oswald that has not previously been made. See it here: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/13820-ralph-leon-yates/page/3/#comments.

Granted there could have been one or more witnesses who had exculpatory witness knowledge of Oswald and never spoke of it, though none known. But your idea that the govt got to them all doesn’t make sense. First, if they never spoke of it at the time, how would your govt handlers know to suborn perjury from them? They would not know who saw what. Second, if there was suppression of unwelcome testimony of that nature it would happen by familiar prosecutors methods of not calling witnesses, discrediting their credibility, and so forth, rather than widespread subornation to perjury of civilian witnesses which is not a common prosecutors phenomenon. No evidence for what you are supposing in any direct sense in those witnesses then (as there would be if it was happening on the scale you supposing), and the risks would be high in terms of suborned witnesses’ willingness to do so, keeping stories straight, later risk of blackmail or whistleblower telling of it, pangs of conscience, risk of it becoming known, need for lifelong monitoring of subornees who could go rogue. And if a credible witness came forward exculpating Oswald as shooter who could not be marginalized through known techniques to not contradict the narrative, yes a different narrative might need to be framed, just as in any prosecutors office. Something like that appears to have already happened within the first hours, when a blame-Castro multiple conspirators setup fell through and a shift to a very different narrative, Oswald alone, took its place. You did not address the question about who specifically you suppose suborned perjury from Buell Frazier then, within the first hours after the assassination, and do you think Buell Frazier has a handler six decades later today whose permission he must seek preventing him from speaking freely and truthfully in the year 2024. And you did not address the matter of not one case in all this time of one of these many suborned witnesses you suppose, having come forward and told that happened. If what you are supposing happened with large-scale civilian witness subornation to perjury, with never-identified unseen handlers working random civilian witnesses like marionette puppets on strings with scripted rehearsed perjured stories taught and controlled … for life … that would be known. It doesn’t pass the smell test that in 1963, if that was happening as you invoke as a magic solution to perceived ancient discrepancies in scenario reconstructions, would not have come to light. You continually invoke a WW3 fear and appeal to patriotism as how subornation to perjury would have been agreed to by civilian witnesses then. But that doesn’t account for later decades continuing not to tell. The Cold War is long over. There is no threat of nuclear war if witnesses or participants told of subornation to perjury in 1963, or that they had evidence of Oswald’s exculpation. Your mechanism works only fleetingly temporary at best then, does not explain zero evidence of organized large-scale suborning of perjury happening then with 100 percent compliance of multiple civilian witnesses over the next sixty years, no deathbed confession, nothing. Why do you suppose Buell Frazier was “allowed” by a handler to say the package Oswald took to work Fri Nov 22 was only ca. 27 inches? What have you got against him saying that because that is what it was, 27 inch curtain rods? No alleged handler’s permission needed, simply a credible truthful Buell Frazier. Have you read my writeup on that on the Yates’ hitchhiker thread?