Michael Griffith

Another possibility is that Oswald was telling the truth when he said that the only bag he brought to work that day was a bag that contained his lunch, and that Frazier was mistakenly referring to another day. Marina said she recalled that Oswald left the house that morning with a bag containing his lunch. We should keep in mind, also, that Frazier said the bag that Oswald carried was a standard grocery bag. I find this interesting because for years I used standard brown grocery bags to carry my lunch to work. Yes, the bags were much bigger than my lunch, but they were free and handy, so I used them as a lunch bag.

I'm guessing you summarily, automatically rule out the possibility that the DPD misrepresented some of Oswald's answers, right? However, I can think of an entirely logical, innocent reason that Oswald would have falsely denied bringing curtain rods to work that day: He knew it would look bad if he admitted to carrying a sizable package into work that day, even if the package had merely contained curtain rods, since it was already obvious to him that the police were using phony evidence to falsely blame him for JFK's death. Recall that Oswald told his brother not to believe "the so-called evidence" against him. And, are you ever going to explain how the well-oiled rifle could have failed to leave a single trace of oil on the paper bag or on the blanket, given the claim that the bag supposedly carried the disassembled rifle, and given the claim that the rifle was allegedly stored in the blanket for many weeks?

Rather than rely on what Frazier said in 1986, how about if we consider what he said when the events were still fresh in his mind in late 1963 and 1964. Frazier told the Warren Commission that the bag he saw Oswald carrying was about two feet long, and that it was the kind "you get out of the grocery store." Weeks earlier, on December 1, 1963, FBI agents asked Frazier to mark the spot on the back seat of his car where the bag reached when it was placed there with one end up against the door. The agents reported that the distance between that spot and the door was 27 inches. Frazier's sister, Linnie Randle, who also saw the bag, likewise said it was 27 inches long. There's no way that a disassembled Carcano could have fit into that bag, much less an assembled one.

Sylvia Meagher made some cogent points about the paper bag that Oswald allegedly used to carry the rifle: But there is no evidence to back the Commission's assumption that Oswald took wrapping paper and sealing tape from the wrapping bench. On the contrary, Troy West, the wrapping clerk, testified that to his knowledge Oswald had never borrowed or used those materials and that he had never seen Oswald near the roll of wrapping paper or the tape dispenser. Moreover, Harold Weisberg in his book Whitewash has pointed to a significant fact which escaped mention in the Warren Report: when tape is pulled from the Book Depository tape dispenser it is automatically moistened by a mechanism like a water wheel. . . . According to the Commission's findings, Oswald must have carried the paper bag concealed on his person when he accompanied Frazier to Irving on Thursday. Frazier saw no paper bag or any sign that Oswald had concealed on his person the six-foot length of wrapping paper necessary to construct a bag consisting of two sheets, each about three feet long, sealed at the edges. Neither Marina Oswald (1 H 120) nor Ruth Paine (3 H 49, 77) noticed anything which provided the smallest corroboration for the Commission's assumption. . . . The Commission has offered no firm physical evidence of a link between the paper bag and the rifle. The Report does not mention the negative examination made by FBI expert James Cadigan. Cadigan said explicitly that he had been unable to find any marks, scratches, abrasions, or other indications that would tie the bag to the rifle. Those negative findings assume greater significance in the light of an FBI report (CE 2974) which states that the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository was in a well-oiled condition. It is difficult to understand why a well-oiled rifle carried in separate parts would not have left distinct traces of oil on the paper bag, easily detected in laboratory tests if not with the naked eye. The expert testimony includes no mention of oil traces, a fact which in itself is cogent evidence against the Commission's conclusions. Equally significant, there were no oil stains or traces on the blanket in which a well-oiled rifle ostensibly had been stored—not for hours but for months. This serves further to weaken, if not to destroy, the Commission's arbitrary finding that the Carcano rifle had been wrapped in that blanket until the night before the assassination. (Accessories After the Fact, pp. 47-48, 62)

And what evidence do you have that the bag lying on top of those boxes was the same bag that was allegedly used to transport the rifle into the building? One would imagine that paper bags were rather plentiful in a book depository, right? One also wonders why the DPD did not take an evidence photograph of that bag, i.e., a photo that was taken specifically of the bag and not a photo taken of an area and that just happened to include a bag. Finally, would you venture a guess as to why not a trace of oil was reported as being found on the bag that was allegedly used to transport the rifle, given the fact that the rifle was well-oiled?

It's important that we understand one key fact that often gets ignored in discussions on JFK's Vietnam policy vs. LBJ's Vietnam policy: JFK never had to deal with a large-scale escalation of the war by North Vietnam. Until JFK's death, North Vietnam only sent small numbers of NVA regulars to South Vietnam. However, in 1964, North Vietnam began sending much larger numbers of NVA troops to South Vietnam and began carrying out more attacks on South Vietnam than they had ever done before. (South Vietnam's small-scale sabotage raids and naval coastal attacks were in response to this increase in hostile activity by North Vietnamese forces.) Because of the increase in North Vietnamese infiltration and attacks in 1964, South Vietnan was in serious trouble by the end of 1964 and going into 1965. We simply do not know what JFK would have done in resonse to this situation because the situation in South Vietnam as of the day he died was much different than it was by late 1964. When Bobby Kennedy was specifically asked about a scenario where South Vietnam was about to collapse in his 4/30/1964 oral interview, his answer did not rule out the option "to go in on land," i.e., direct American intervention on the ground (infantry units and/or artillery units to provide direct artillery support to ARVN units): If you read the entire interview, you see that Bobby repeatedly said that JFK was determined to keep South Vietnam free, to aid South Vietnam until the war was won, etc. I should add that when Bobby gave this interview, the war in Vietnam was facing increasing attacks in the news media (attacks that we know JFK considered distorted and exaggerated, as Selverstone notes). A number of news outlets, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, had been voicing criticisms and doubts about the war effort since 1963, as had a few members of Congress. Media skepticism about the war effort as of April 1964 was not nearly as loud or emphatic as it would be a few years later, but it was not slight or inconsequential either. So it seems doubtful that Bobby said what he said merely because he felt safe in supporting the war at that point. And, as Selverstone documents, Bobby's later statements about JFK's intentions behind the withdrawal plan not only contradict his April 1964 remarks but contradict the documentary record of the plan's development and JFK's own private and public statements about his determination to keep South Vietnam free. Anyway, the point is that no one knows what JFK would have done if he had lived and had faced North Vietnam's substantial escalation of the war in 1964. The weight of the evidence seems to favor the view that JFK would have responded to that escalation with more military aid, more advisers, and probably air strikes (as Bobby indicated), and that he may have introduced infantry and artillery troops as a last resort but not to the degree that LBJ did. But we cannot know for sure. My own personal opinion is that JFK would not have placed the absurd, suicidal restrictions on our air operations that LBJ did. I think JFK was made of sterner stuff when it came to such matters. But, we have no firm evidence that settles the matter, because JFK never had to confront a situation where air strikes would have had to be considered.

Personally, I find Tucker rather refreshing because he has a strong libertarian streak, especially on foreign policy and individual rights, because he does not robotically follow the GOP line, and because he does not hesitate to disagree with neo-conservatives when he feels he must. This is one reason that I like Reason magazine. Reason criticizes neo-conservatives almost as often as it criticizes liberals, and in a number of cases the magazine sides with neither side but takes an independent position. Anyway, yes, I, too, praise Tucker for discussing evidence of conspiracy in the JFK case on prime time TV. I'm sure that Ben Shapiro is not at all happy that Tucker is doing this (and I say this as someone who respects Shapiro and agrees with him about 60% of the time).

IOW, if anyone challenges your assumptions, they are ducking the conundrum that you claim exists. If anyone argues that your alleged basic facts are not actually facts, they are merely avoiding your point. Such posturing only reveals your strong bias and failure to follow critical thinking principles. Do you know who Jesse Curry was? He was the chief of the Dallas Police Department at the time of the assassination. Do you know what he said in 1969 about the evidence against Oswald? Let's take a look: "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand." (Dallas Morning News, 6 Nov 1969, https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Rewriting_History_-_Bugliosi_Parses_the_Testimony.html) Why do you suppose Chief Curry said that? Certainly nobody would accuse Curry of having been a conspiracy theorist. But, his statement suggests that he was aware of at least some of the gaping holes in the case against Oswald. Over and over again in this thread, you have declined to explain evidence that Oswald was framed and/or that there was a conspiracy, even going so far as to admit that you "don't really care" about such a crucial piece of evidence as the paper bag in which the alleged murder weapon was supposedly wrapped and carried into the building. You posture as though anyone who presents facts that challenge your assumptions is being irrational and evasive, even though you seem unable to explain those facts.

IOW, you won't accept clear evidence that Oswald was framed because you prefer to believe that a conspiracy would have done a better job of framing him, and because you cannot provide a reasonable explanation for that evidence. If police detectives adopted your approach toward crimes that resulted from conspiracies, few such crimes would ever be solved. If gun oil had been found on the paper bag and the blanket, you would logically cite that as evidence that the rifle had been inside those items, but you can't explain why no traces of oil were found on those items, and you refuse to accept the logical conclusion that no oil was found on those items because the rifle was never inside them. If a reenactment with the Carcano rifle had produced a shell that had fired a bullet and had emerged as dented as CE 543, you would argue that this proves the dented shell could have fired a bullet during the assassination, but you refuse to deal with the fact that no reenactment has ever produced such a dented shell, nor do you offer any explanation for the other problems with CE 543. CE 543 is hard physical evidence that the sixth-floor gunman could have only fired two shots, but the lone-gunman theory demands that he fired three shots. You declined to address the fact that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit and began to reach toward his throat during the period when the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree. This pre-Z190 shot poses an enormous problem for the lone-gunman view because JFK is visibly knocked forward in Z226-232 in the second-most dramatic, obvious reaction in the film, clearly indicating a shot fired at Z224. Obviously, the pre-Z190 shot was the throat shot and the Z224 shot was the back shot, but lone-gunman theorists cannot accept this because it destroys their theory of the shooting. And on and on we could go. The problem is that your anti-conspiracy bias is so strong that you will not logically and objectively analyze the evidence. When you are confronted with evidence that you cannot explain, you fall back on the argument that no conspiracy would have left behind credible evidence, much less obvious evidence, of a frame-up and a cover-up. You make the strawman assumption of a gigantic conspiracy that included hundreds of obedient participants, even at the lower and intermediate levels, whereas most WC critics posit no such conspiracy. Much of the evidence of conspiracy resulted from the fact that most of the local and government personnel who handled evidence or took part in investigative activity were not part of the plot.

If you've handled guns, you know that a properly oiled gun wrapped in a bag, disassembled no less, is going to leave some oil on the bag. Similarly, even a minimally oiled gun wrapped in a blanket for weeks is going to leave some trace of oil on the blanket. Let's get real. Your comments about the dented shell suggest you didn't read the link I provided. No, other tests have not proved that the Carcano rifle will dent some shells as much as CE 543 is dented--not even close. There's also the problem that the marks on the bottom of CE 543 were not found on the two other shells nor on any of the shells that were ejected from the rifle in the WC test firings. And there's also the problem that CE 543 does not have the alleged murder weapon’s characteristic chambering mark on its side but that the other shells do, which indicates that the shell was never chambered in the rifle. I notice you didn't comment on the implausible scenario of Oswald buying his gun via mail order vs. simply buying one in a gun store. Oswald was highly intelligent. The lone-gunman story about the rifle's purchase defies common sense and is too pat and convenient. A few other suspicious facts about the case against Oswald: -- Not a single spare bullet for the Carcano was found on Oswald's person, at his rooming house, or among his belongings. Not one. -- Only two stores in the Dallas area sold ammo suitable for the Carcano rifle, and both stores were certain they had never seen Oswald or sold ammo to him. -- No fingerprints were found on the spent shells nor on the live round that was left in the rifle's chamber. -- No cleaning supplies or gun oil were found among Oswald's possessions or at his rooming house. None. -- The one and only Oswald print allegedly found on the rifle was not photographed before it was lifted, in violation of the most basic standard procedure. Lt. Day photographed the worthless trigger-guard prints but not the print on the barrel. -- This alleged print, a palmprint, was on a part of the rifle that would not have been handled while firing it--it was on a part of the barrel that could only be accessed by removing the wooden stock. -- When the FBI got the rifle, Latona found no evidence that the rifle had even been processed for prints. He also saw no trace of a print on the barrel, even though Lt. Day claimed the print was still visible after he allegedly lifted it.

These two paragraphs alone contain several questionable or doubtful assumptions and suggest that you need to read some of the better crtiques of the lone-gunman theory. Here are a few--just a few--of the problems with the evidence against Oswald: -- In the Texas of 1963 Oswald could have bought a rifle across the counter with few if any questions asked. He could have done so and risked only a future debatable identification by some gun shop worker. Instead, we are asked to believe that Oswald ordered the murder weapon by using the alias "A. Hidell," gave his own post office box number, committed his handwriting to paper, and then went out to assassinate JFK with this same "Hidell"-purchased rifle and while carrying a Hidell ID card in his wallet. This is an example of evidence that appears to be too pat and that defies common sense, since we know Oswald was highly intelligent. -- The bag in which the alleged murder weapon was carried poses several problems. For starters, FBI expert James Cadigan reported that he was unable to find any marks, scratches, abrasions, or other indications that would tie the bag to the rifle. -- More problematic is the fact that the Carcano rifle supposedly found in the sniper's nest was well oiled, yet no oil traces were found on the bag. It is difficult to understand how a well-oiled rifle, carried in separate parts in the bag no less (per the WC), would not have left traces of oil on the paper bag, easily detected in laboratory tests if not with the naked eye. -- Even more incredibly, there were no oil stains or oil traces on the blanket in which the rifle allegedly had been stored--not for hours, but for months. The WC claimed that the Carcano rifle was wrapped in that blanket until the night before the assassination. -- CE 543, the dented shell found in the sniper's nest, could not have been used to fire a bullet during the assassination. (LINK) -- Even the HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel admitted that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit by Z190, that he begins to visible react by Z200, and that this shot was fired at around Z186. However, the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166-210. -- As a number of medical experts have pointed out, the JFK autopsy skull x-rays and brain photos clearly prove there were two separate cavitation wounds in JFK's brain, one near the top of the brain and the other at least 2 inches lower (or one cortical and the other subcortical), with no connection between them, which proves that two bullets must have struck his head, since one bullet could not have caused both of the cavitation wounds. One indication of fraud in the autopsy evidence is the astounding fact that the autopsy doctors said absolutely nothing about the very obvious damage to the cerebral cortex, i.e., the cortical damage. Humes said nothing about it in the autopsy report, and the three autopsy doctors, incredibly, said nothing about it in the supplemental autopsy report, even though the main purpose of the supplemental report was to describe the brain damage that they found after they sectioned and examined the brain, No one can believe that they "missed" the obvious cortical damage to the brain. The HSCA medical panel noted and described this damage. Yet, although the autopsy doctors described the subcortical damage in great detail, they said nothing about the equally obvious cortical damage. To clarify, cortical damage is damage that is on or near the surface of the brain. Subcortical damage is damage that is deep inside the brain and can be several inches away from the cerebral cortex. Now, why did the autopsy doctors say nothing about the cortical damage? For the same reason they said nothing about the high fragment trail associated with the cortical damage: they knew there was no way they could relate the cortical damage and the high fragment trail with the EOP entry wound. The cortical and subcortical cavitation wounds (wound tunnels) are several inches apart and are not connected, so they could not have been made by the same bullet. As Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroanatomist, notes, "This is not a matter of interpretation but of anatomical fact." When a bullet travels in/through a brain, it creates a wound tunnel in the brain tissue, a tunnel technically known as a "cylinder of disruption" or a "cavitation wound." A single bullet cannot create two cavitation wounds separated by several inches unless it, or a fragment from it, travels from the first tunnel and creates the second tunnel, and if it does so, there will be a connecting tunnel. But, there is no connecting cavitation wound or fragment trail between the cortical and subcortical cavitation wounds. This can only mean that two bullets struck JFK's head. Another key fact about the subcortical damage is that, amazingly, there is no fragment trail associated with it on the extant autopsy skull x-rays! There is a fragment trail in and around the cortical damage but no fragment trail in/around the subcortical damage, which is several inches deeper into the brain than the cortical damage. This is an astounding contradiction. To further thicken the plot, the autopsy report says there was a fragment trail going from the EOP to the right orbit; however, no such low fragment trail appears on the extant autopsy skull x-rays. The HSCA medical panel noted both the cortical and subcortical damage, but did not explain the lack of any connecting damage between the two wounds and the lack of any fragments in/around the subcortical damage. (LINK) (LINK). -- The autopsy skull x-rays show two small fragments on the back of the skull, but no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited two sheared-off fragments as it entered a skull, not to mention that the two fragments are in different layers of the skull and are 1 cm away from their alleged entry point. The alleged lone gunman supposedly used FMJ bullets. Even former HSCA wound ballistics expert Dr. Larry Sturdivan admitted in his 2005 book that FMJ bullets simply do not behave like this. -- The 6.5 mm object seen on the AP skull x-ray has been proved to be an artifact, not a bullet fragment, via OD measurements. Dr. Sturdivan has acknowledged that the object cannot be a sheared-off fragment from an FMJ bullet. He speculates that the object is some kind of artifact, though he has no plausible theory for how it could have been accidentally created. Dr. David Mantik has duplicated how the object could have been added to the AP x-ray.

I think it would be worthwhile to quote JFK's entire statement against withdrawing and for staying the course in Vietnam in his 9/2/63 interview with Walter Cronkite, and then to quote what he said on the subject in his 9/9/63 interview with Chet Huntley. First, from his interview with Cronkite: All we can do is help, and we are making it very clear, but I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. I know people don't like Americans to be engaged in this kind of an effort. Forty-seven Americans have been killed in combat with the enemy, but this is a very important struggle even though it is far away. We took all this--made this effort to defend Europe. Now Europe is quite secure. We also have to participate--we may not like it--in the defense of Asia. Mr. Cronkite: Mr. President, have you made an assessment as to what President de Gaulle was up to in his statement on Viet-Nam last week? THE PRESIDENT: NO. I guess it was an expression of his general view, but he doesn't have any forces there or any program of economic assistance, so that while these expressions are welcome, the burden is carried, as it usually is, by the United States and the people there. But I think anything General de Gaulle says should be listened to, and we listened. What, of course, makes Americans somewhat impatient is that after carrying this load for 18 years, we are glad to get counsel, but we would like a little more assistance, real assistance. But we are going to meet our responsibility anyway. It doesn't do us any good to say, "Well, why don't we all just go home and leave the world to those who are our enemies." JFK's comments on withdrawal and staying the course in his interview with Huntley: Mr. Huntley: Mr. President, in respect to our difficulties in South Viet-Nam, could it be that our Government tends occasionally to get locked into a policy or an attitude and then finds it difficult to alter or shift that policy? THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that is true. I think in the case of South Viet-Nam we have been dealing with a government which is in control, has been in control for 10 years. In addition, we have felt for the last 2 years that the struggle against the Communists was going better. Since June, however, the difficulties with the Buddhists, we have been concerned about a deterioration, particularly in the Saigon area, which hasn't been felt greatly in the outlying areas but may spread. So we are faced with the problem of wanting to protect the area against the Communists. On the other hand, we have to deal with the government there. That produces a kind of ambivalence in our efforts which exposes us to some criticism. We are using our influence to persuade the government there to take those steps which will win back support. That takes some time and we must be patient, we must persist. Mr. Huntley: Are we likely to reduce our aid to South Viet-Nam now? THE PRESIDENT: I don't think we think that would be helpful at this time. If you reduce your aid, it is possible you could have some effect upon the government structure there. On the other hand, you might have a situation which could bring about a collapse. Strongly in our mind is what happened in the case of China at the end of World War II, where China was lost, a weak government became increasingly unable to control events. We don't want that. Selverstone makes a powerful case from internal documents and from White House tapes that these views were identical to the views that JFK expressed in meetings and conversations with his advisors and with cabinet officials.

As most here know, Oliver Stone is an ardent environmentalist, but many may not know that he is also a strong advocate for nuclear power, as the article below explains. I totally agree with him. Green extremists have blocked the building of new nuclear power plants in the U.S. and in some other nations, an action that Stone correctly laments and condemns. Stone has produced a new documentary titled Nuclear Now that makes the case for nuclear power. Here's an excerpt from the article: “We had the solution [nuclear power] … and the environmental movement, to be honest, just derailed it. I think the environmental movement did a lot of good, a lot of good ... [I’m] not knocking it, but in this one major matter, it was wrong. It was wrong". . . . The International Energy Agency states that “nuclear power has historically been one of the largest contributors of carbon-free electricity globally.” It adds that “while it faces significant challenges in some countries, it has significant potential to contribute to power sector decarbonisation.” Oliver Stone slams environmental movement over actions on nuclear (cnbc.com)

In his 1967 book Oswald: The Truth, I think German journalist Joachim Joesten made some good points about the Oswald impersonation at the Furniture Mart: Despite this stern, and unwarranted, slap at Dial R. Ryder, the Commission isn’t quite sure that this man is really a perjurer and forger, as the next item on its agenda shows: "Possible corroboration for Ryder’s story is provided by two women, Mrs. Edith Whitworth, who operates the Furniture Mart, a furniture store located about one and a half blocks from the Irving Sports Shop, and Mrs. Gertrude Hunter, a friend of Mrs. Whitworth. They testified that in early November of 1963, a man who they later came to believe was Oswald drove up to the Furniture Mart in a two-tone blue and white 1937 Ford automobile, entered the store and asked about a part for a gun, presumably because of a sign that appeared in the building advertising a gunsmith shop that had formerly occupied part of the premises. When he found that he could not obtain the part, the man allegedly returned to his car and then came back into the store with a woman and two young children to look at furniture, remaining in the store for about thirty to forty minutes. "Upon confronting Marina Oswald, both women identified her as the woman whom they had seen in the store on the occasion in question, although Mrs. Hunter could not identify a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald and Mrs. Whitworth identified some pictures of Oswald but not others. Mrs. Hunter purported to identify Marina Oswald by her eyes, and did not observe the fact that Marina Oswald had a front tooth missing at the time she supposedly saw her. After a thorough inspection of the Furniture Mart, Marina Oswald testified that she had never been on the premises before." This story is extremely revealing of the elaborate arrangements that went into the frame-up of Lee Harvey Oswald. Not only does "Oswald" here again appear on the scene, but Marina and her two children also get into the act. Evidently, the plotters had at their disposal a young woman who looked even more like Marina than her "husband" looked like Lee Harvey. (History, since then, has tragically revealed the identity of this hapless woman, but this is a matter of such consequence that I propose to explore it in another book at a later date.) On no other assumption can it be explained that both these witnesses identified Marina as the woman they had seen while the Oswalds clearly were not involved. The fact that Lee Harvey at no time owned a car and couldn’t even drive, as well as Marina’s missing front tooth, which both women failed to see, affords sufficient proof of that. Observe also the elaborate frame-up technique. A man goes into a furniture store to ask for a gun part on the flimsy pretext that there had once been a gunsmith shop in the same building. This action was clearly designed to fix this incident in the mind of the store owner who would not easily forget such a foolish query. When told that there were no gun parts for sale in this place, the customer comes back with a woman who strikingly resembles, but is not, Marina Oswald and with two young children who might easily be mistaken for Rachel and June. They stay in the store thirty to forty minutes without buying anything —much longer than ordinary customers normally would do, evidently for the purpose of creating a strong and lasting impression of a family not to be mistaken for another. To the recollection of a young man interested in guns thus is added, in the minds of the two witnesses, the picture of a family not yet in a position to buy furniture but which will soon be able to. Thus an instinctive association of ideas is created between shooting and monetary gain. The Report goes on: "The circumstances surrounding the testimony of the two women are helpful in evaluating the weight to be given to their testimony, and the extent to which they lend support to Ryder’s evidence. [The implication: if Whitworth and Hunter aren’t to be believed, Ryder is finished for good - J. J.] The women previously told newspaper reporters that the part for which the man was looking was a 'plunger,' which the Commission has been advised is a colloquial term used to describe a firing pin. This work was completely different from the work covered by Ryder’s repair tag, and the firing pin of the assassination weapon does not appear to have been recently replaced. At the time of their depositions, neither woman was able to recall the type of work which the man wanted done." What does it matter? If, as every circumstance of this episode suggests, this was merely another item in a well-planned frame-up campaign, the purpose of that man's visit to the Furniture Mart was simply to have a few more witnesses attest to Oswald’s concern with guns and to his financial prospects about to improve substantially. Now comes a most revealing item: "Mrs. Whitworth related to the FBI that the man told her that the younger child with him was born on October 20, 1963, which was in fact Rachel Oswald’s birthday. In her testimony before the Commission, however, Mrs. Whitworth could not state that the man had told her the child’s birthdate was October 20, 1963, and in fact expressed uncertainty about the birthday of her own grandchild, which she had previously used as a guide to remembering the birthdate of the younger child in the shop." This paragraph again demonstrates the deep-rooted bias of the Commission and its total unwillingness to pursue any clues pointing toward conspiracy or frame-up. For it would indeed be too much to assume that mere coincidence was at stake here. The mention of that birthdate, on that occasion, is cogent evidence that the man in question either was Lee Harvey Oswald, or somebody exceptionally familiar with Oswald’s circumstances. If it was not Oswald-and the Commission arrived at the firm conclusion that it was not - then this incident is hard evidence of frame-up. On the other hand, note how the Commission, again most unfairly, tries to create the impression that Mrs. Whitworth is a poor old soul who just doesn’t know what she is talking about. Why, in her testimony before the Commission "she could not state" what she had previously told the FBI. Why couldn’t she? Obviously because, in the meantime, she, too, had been subjected to some of that pressure and harassment which practically all witnesses whose testimony in some way ran counter to the official version have experenced. Or she was simply overawed by the Commission and got bewildered. Who could blame her? But she did tell the FBI and that’s in the record. What the Commission has to say about the circumstances that preclude the couple in question having been the Oswalds makes more sense: "Mrs. Hunter thought that the man she and Mrs. Whitworth believed was Oswald drove the car to and from the store: however, Lee Harvey Oswald apparently was not able to drive an automobile by himself and does not appear to have had access to a car. "The two women claimed that Oswald was in the Furniture Mart on a weekday, and in midafternoon. However, Oswald had reported to work at the Texas School Book Depository on the dates referred to by the women and there is no evidence that he left his job during business hours. In addition, Ruth Paine has stated that she always accompanied Marina Oswald whenever Marina left the house with her children and that they never went to the Furniture Mart, either with or without Lee Harvey Oswald, at any time during October or November of 1963. There is nothing to indicate that in November the Oswalds were interested in buying furniture." In spite of the somewhat cagey wording used by the Commission--as though it wanted to leave a possible way out for itself in another seemingly inexplicable incident--the incontrovertible fact of the matter is that the visitors to the Furniture Mart on that day cannot have been Oswald and family, for the records of the Book Depository prove that Lee Harvey was on the job every weekday during the period in question. Inevitably, then, somebody else, or rather two other persons, had been impersonating Lee Harvey and Marina Oswald on this occasion--unless Mrs. Whitworth and Mrs. Hunter, dreaming in unison in broad daylight, just had imagined the whole thing. And so the Commission, in sheer desperation, snatches at this straw and clings to it for dear life: "Finally, investigation has produced reason to question the credibility of Mrs. Hunter as a witness. Mrs. Hunter stated that one of the reasons she remembers the description of the car in which Oswald supposedly drove to the furniture store was that she was awaiting the arrival of a friend from Houston, who drove a similar automobile. However, the friend in Houston has advised that in November 1963, she never visited or planned to visit Dallas, and that she told no one that she intended to make such a trip. Moreover, the friend added, according to the FBI interview report, that Mrs. Hunter has 'a strange obsession for attempting to inject herself into any big event which comes to her attention' and that she 'is likely to claim some personal knowledge of any major crime which receives much publicity.' She concluded that 'the entire family is aware of these tall tales Mrs. Hunter tells and they normally pay no attention to her.'" Here the Warren Commission really goes the limit in unfair treatment of a witness that cannot even be described as hostile but who merely wants to tell the truth as she experienced it. On the say-so of an unidentified "friend" in another city, without at least confronting Mrs. Hunter with these disparaging remarks, without even remembering the corroborating evidence of Mrs. Whitworth, the Commission concludes that this witness is given to spinning tall tales and that, therefore, the whole episode related above presumably did not take place. And, in the process, poor Ryder is also relegated to limbo. (pp. 78-83)

When you dismiss the most obvious explanation--impersonation--because you find it unacceptable, it's downhill from there. The fact that Oswald was impersonated on other occasions has been established beyond any credible doubt. Ruth Paine was hardly an innocent, reliable witness. What would have been so hard, so impossible, about finding a woman who at least bore a resemblance to Marina? What? Or, why is it so hard to believe that Marina accompanied the Oswald imposter and then denied it later? Recall that Marina claimed that she saw Oswald cleaning and practicing with "his" rifle in January 1963, which was two months before he allegedly bought the weapon. Yes, Oswald's timecard puts him at work at the time of the visit to the furniture store. His timecard also puts him at work at the same time he supposedly bought the money order to buy the rifle, leaving aside the fact that he bought the money order with money that could not have come from his paycheck. Obviously, if the Oswald at the furniture store was an imposter, then the real Oswald's timecard poses no problem.

This is sad but not surprising. Remember the CIA's infamous 1997 animation of TWA Flight 800's explosion and crash, which tried to explain away the 200-plus eyewitness accounts of a missile streaking toward and hitting the airliner? One would be hard pressed to find another accident animation packed with so many errors, distortions, and omissions.

Wiesak's odd puzzlement over why JFK agreed to greatly increase the number of U.S. military advisors and the amount of U.S. military aid to South Vietnam is revealing. It is an unfortunate example of how extreme bias can make one miss the forest for the trees, can make one miss the obvious because they find the obvious unacceptable. She says, Nevertheless, JFK agreed to expand the number of military advisors in South Vietnam and supply general military aid to support the South Vietnamese against the North Vietnamese Communist infiltration. Why JFK decided to do this, we may never fully know. (p. 160) "We may never fully know"? Actually, we have known why JFK did this since the time he did it. JFK himself made his reasons for doing this very clear: First and foremost, he wanted to prevent a Communist takeover of South Vietnam. He also wanted to bolster South Vietnamese morale and demonstrate that we were serious about helping them remain free. The evidence on this point is so abundant and clear that it is hard to comprehend how anyone could be confused about why JFK approved NSAM 111 and why he continued to increase economic and military aid to South Vietnam. Anti-war liberals frequently quote JFK's comment in his September 1963 interview with Walter Cronkite that the war was South Vietnam's war and that the South Vietnamese were the ones who had to win or lose it: In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it, the people of Vietnam, against the Communists. But moments later, JFK said that he disagreed with those who called for withdrawal, that withdrawal would be a "great mistake," and that whether we liked it or not we had to participate in the defense of Asia: But I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. . . . [The United States] made this effort to defend Europe. Now Europe is quite secure. We also have to participate--we may not like it--in the defense of Asia.

Another thing that impresses me about Selverstone's book is that he includes some of the important new information we have learned from North Vietnamese sources. He notes that Communist archives confirm that the war effort was going well in 1962: But optimism continued to dominate official thinking about Vietnam. Military operations against the Communists seemed increasingly effective, and the Strategic Hamlet program was accelerating and apparently resilient. Indeed, Communist archives have attested to that perceived early success. (pp. 88-89) The footnote for this observation cites Pierre Asselin's book Hanoi's Road to the Vietnam War, 1954-1965 (University of California Press, 2013), Mark Moyar's book Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965 (Cambridge University Press, 2006), and Peter Busch's book All the Way with JFK? Britain, the US, and the Vietnam War (Oxford University Press, 2003). As I've noted before, liberal anti-war scholars have ignored the trove of new information from North Vietnamese sources because that information destroys their portrayal of the war. Selverstone also notes that even British counterinsurgency expert Robert Thompson agreed that the war effort was going well in 1962: BRIAM [British Advisory Mission] chief Robert Thompson was particularly encouraged and conveyed his sense of progress over the previous six months, especially in the Strategic Hamlet program. (p. 89) Thompson's assessment is significant because Thompson was not only opposed to a large-scale U.S. presence in South Vietnam but was one of the most honest, objective observers on the ground. These facts, and others, refute the view held by most of my fellow conspiracy theorists that U.S. military officials in South Vietnam were deliberately giving JFK false/overly optimistic assessments of the war effort. If anyone was giving JFK inaccurate assessments of the war effort, it was liberal officials who refused to acknowledge progress in the war because they were trying to persuade JFK to adopt a Laos-style neutralization solution in Vietnam.

That video is absurd. You must be kidding. You are apparently unaware of the massive body of scientific scholarship that has refuted the 9/11 Truther nonsense. So here we are again with the far-left bias seen far too often in this forum. You scream about citing Alex Jones, and I agree, but you turn around and post obscenely absurd 9/11 Truther trash. In other words, far-right extremists are to be shunned but far-left extremists are welcome. Just imagine what new visitors see when they browse this forum: They see talk of UFOs, and claims that JFK was killed because he was gonna blow the lid on UFOs. They see Trump called a N-A-Z-I (never mind that he's an ardent lifelong supporter of Israel and that part of his immediate family is Jewish). They see claims that the entire CIA is a criminal outfit. They see Communist brutality and oppression whitewashed and even denied. They see 9/11 Truth craziness peddled, years after that nutty stuff has been demolished by reputable scientists from all across the political spectrum.

I think this is an obscene, baseless comment. Where do you get such trash? To even hint at a comparison between the N-A-Z-Is and Donald Trump is baseless and slanderous. Trump is a longtime friend of Israel and was the most pro-Israeli president in our history, the only one who had the courage and fairness to move our embassy to Israel's true capital, Jerusalem. FYI, Trump's daughter Ivanka is an Orthodox Jew, and Trump, as a result, has three Jewish grandchild. I have voiced many criticisms of Trump's conduct, personal and professional, and of his apparent refusal to immediately call on the rioters to stand down on 1/6. I have also said publicly that I hope he does not get the 2024 GOP nomination. But to compare Trump to N-A-Z-Is or to label his policies as N-A-Z-I is vile and reckless, not to mention that it has nothing to do with the JFK case.

Every one of the arguments made by Paul Jay in that video is answered in the links I've provided. Every single one of them. And he ignores a large body of evidence that contradicts his anti-Israeli narrative. I'm guessing you have not bothered to read any of the linked sources I've provided, right? Are any of you Israel bashers who are repeating these timeworn arguments about the USS Liberty incident going to read any of the scholarly sources that I've provided in my replies? Any of you? Or are you just so determined to believe the worst about the only genuine, pluralistic democracy in the Middle East that you won't read anything that defends the Israeli position on the subject (and the position of every single U.S. Government investigation into the incident, including the U.S. Nany Court of Inquiry investigation)? Here again we see JFK assassination research hijacked by a far-left agenda. As I've noted, if Wiesak had not gone beyond what JFK said about Israel, there could be no complaints about her chapter on Israel, but she went well beyond what JFK said on the matter. She did the same thing in her chapter on Laos/Vietnam. She mentions American "atrocities" in the war, but JFK never said one word about American "atrocities" in Vietnam. For the record, there was one small-sized American atrocity during the entire the war, i.e., the My Lai Massacre in early 1968, whereas there were dozens of Communist atrocities, including the Hue Massacre, which dwarfed My Lai in size and scope. None other than Adlai Stevenson set the record straight on who were the good guys and the bad guys in the war: Adlai Stevenson and the Vietnam War: A Stirring Reminder Wiesak quotes every hearsay claim from anti-war liberals who knew JFK regarding his alleged intention to totally disengage from South Vietnam after the '64 election, but she does not quote a single anecdote that contradicts this belated hearsay. If you look at her notes for the chapter, you see that she relied on only a handful of sources, mostly Newman's book and Douglass's book. She says that although JFK publicly opposed a withdrawal of all military advisers from South Vietnam, privately he was "making moves in that direction." No, he most certainly was not. This was clear even before Selverstone's book came out. Even John K. Galbraith admitted in a 2013 article that the JFK withdrawal plan would have left behind over 1,000 support troops and that economic and military aid to South Vietnam would have continued. If even Galbraith can admit this, the fact that Wiesak does not reflects poorly on her research for the chapter and on her bias on the subject.

A lot of reaching and grasping and strident attacks here, and you haven't even read the book yet. "No responsible scholar" would so stridently attack a book that he hasn't even read yet. And for you to talk about responsible scholars and then cite a quack and fraud like Fletcher Prouty is sadly ironic. Obviously, the subtitle of the thread was mine. I thought everybody would understand that, especially since I give the full title of the book in the very first sentence of the OP. So just because Selverstone works at The Miller Center, you assume the worst about his politics (the worst in your eyes, that is). This says more about your politics than about his. FYI, Selverstone is no conservative. Also FYI, some of the best research and some of the most important witness interviews on the JFK case have been done by Anthony Summers, who is quite conservative in his politics. Jim Marrs was a huge Trump supporter, yet he wrote one of the best-selling and most influential books ever published on the case. You need to stop making the erroneous assumption that only liberals can produce valuable research on the case. But, again, Selverstone is no conservative. I guess you missed the part in my OP where I mention that Selverstone cites Newman's book and article a number of times. Why don't you read the evidence that Selverstone presents before you go on a crusade to discredit his book? If you ever bother to read the book, you'll discover that Selverstone does not argue that JFK "did not know about his own withdrawal plan." That is a rather gross oversimplification of what Selverstone says in his book. Are you ever going to read his book, or are you going to refuse to read the other side and just continue to repeat your arguments as you have done with the Vietnam War? It is sad that you are still making the fraudulent argument that we "violated the Geneva Accords." As our own State Department noted in 1961, and as JFK himself noted, North Vietnam rendered the Geneva Accords null and void by their egregious violations of the Accords, especially their aggression against South Vietnam. If you will read Selverstone's book, you will discover, as he notes in the book's introduction, that his findings come down in the middle between the Camelot view (total disengagement after the '64 election) and the Cold Warrior view (large-scale escalation would have occurred even if JFK had lived). If you will read Selverstone's book, you will find much that you will like, especially the evidence he presents that JFK was ardently determined to avoid sending regular combat troops to South Vietnam. But, what you will not like is the evidence he marshals to show that JFK did not intend to abandon South Vietnam but was determined to prevent a Communist takeover of South Vietnam on his watch. He understood that a Communist conquest of South Vietnam would be a terrible human tragedy.

Here we go again with this false choice and strawman assumption that withdrawal/pullout equaled abandonment/total engagement. "I'm gonna get the boys out of Vietnam" did not mean abandoning South Vietnam, and the record is undeniably clear that the withdrawal plan (1) would not be completed until late 1965, (2) was conditional/dependent upon the situation on the ground, (3) would not withdraw all troops but would leave just over 1,000 support troops, and (4) economic and military aid to South Vietnam would continue. Anyone who argues otherwise needs to deal with the information in Dr. Marc Selverstone's new book The Kennedy Withdrawal. I would also note, again, that even James K. Galbraith admits that under the withdrawal plan we were going to leave 1,500 troops for supply purposes and would continue to aid South Vietnam: Training would end. Support for South Vietnam would continue. They had an army of over 200,000. The end of the war was not in sight. After the end of 1965, even under the withdrawal plan, 1,500 US troops were slated to remain, for supply purposes. But the war would then be Vietnamese only, with no possibility of it becoming an American war on Kennedy's watch. (JFK’s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation (thenation.com) We need to come to grips with the fact that Oliver Stone got it very wrong when he claimed that NSAM 263 called for total disengagement from South Vietnam, and that JFK was killed because he was going to abandon South Vietnam.

First of all, Selverstone is not a conservative, and I am not a conservative in the commonly understood sense of the word (I am an eclectic, a centrist Independent, with liberal views on some issues, moderate views on other issues, and conservative views on other issues). Second, Selverstone's book only came out barely two months ago, and I only finished reading it last week, which is why 95% of the info in my opening post is new. Third, we are talking about facts, not just "arguments." You'd know that if you'd bother to read his book. My intent in discussing Selverstone's book was not to "start a fire," and it says a lot about your objectivity that you would make such an accusation. To use this standard, anytime anyone presents evidence that doesn't fit your narrative, they are merely trying to "start a fire." Perhaps you should try to be more dispassionate and objective and engage in more critical thinking, instead of reacting to new information that you find troubling by making accusations about the motive behind the posting of that information.

Oh my goodness, you don't really believe this, do you? I can't imagine what facts could lead you to even remotely suspect, much less believe, that these people want an "apartheid-type dictatorship." You accuse them of being "ring-wing nut jobs," but your rhetoric sounds extreme and nutty.