Martin Hay's review of David Von Pein's book

[Michael Walton]

only the very top of President Kennedy's head—somehow provide any kind of definitive proof that JFK has just been hit by a bullet, then I fear that person's imagination has run away with itself:

CLICK HERE FOR THE Z206—Z211 CLIP

David - thanks for sharing those frames. I'm relieved because nothing changes regarding the stuff I've been working on.

[Michael Walton]

This thread again exemplifies why the research community has become little more than a tiresome debating society.

Don - I agree with you. It is amazing to me how the LN community seems to be able to stay on topic over and over and over again, preaching to the choir (the CT community as well as people who don't know any better), while the CT community seems to bicker, fight, and argue over things. I think it does much more harm than good to the overall message that the CT community presents to the public because the CT community does have an extremely important message to tell.

[James DiEugenio]

Davey:

If I ever need someone to absolutely distort and mangle anything I say, and to show how you guys are professionals at this, you are that man.

I said JFK's head buckles at 206-211?

And then that is what you show.

This is what I said, and this is what others I quoted have said--which you leave out:

1. JFK stops waving his hand

2. HIs body freezes

3. His head begins to buckle in two dimensions, that is it turns, and begins to ante flex.

Now, was I the first onto this? No. In fact, I was kind of late.

As I said, Ray Marcus did this for Garrison back in 1968.

CBS pinpointed 190 in 1967.

The HSCA photo panel did this in 1978. And I think Speer buys this also.

So your tripartite strategy: to clip off the frames in thumbnails where you can barely see anything at all, then to isolate them from the previous frames beginning at about 189, and then try to say that this is Jim DiEugenio's idea, and his alone, I mean Puhlese. Its see through.

Give it all a break. I hope you don't treat your customers like this--"No, you didn't say the four piece meal, you said the four pieces!."

[David Von Pein]

[JFK's] head begins to buckle in two dimensions, that is it turns, and begins to ante flex.

If I ever need a person to see things that only exist in a CTer's mind, you're the guy!

The "buckling", of course, is nothing but BLURRINESS in the film, which is particularly obvious in Z209 and Z210.

How can you possibly determine any "buckling" through these crappy Z-Film frames? Incredible.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z209.jpg

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z210.jpg

Edited April 4, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

[JFK's] head begins to buckle in two dimensions, that is it turns, and begins to ante flex.

If I ever need a person to see things that only exist in a CTer's mind, you're the guy!

The "buckling", of course, is nothing but BLURRINESS in the film, which is particularly obvious in Z209 and Z210.

How can you possibly determine any "buckling" through these crappy Z-Film frames? Incredible.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z209.jpg

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z210.jpg

David, the HSCA photography panel, after studying the films, concluded JFK showed signs of being hit before going behind the sign in the Zapruder film. It doesn't make it a fact. But it does make it something other than the "CT myth" you (and many others) want it to be.

Now, I know what your knee jerk response is gonna be. Because I've heard it before. Many times. The knee-jerk response of LN's like yourself to this information is "Yeah, but they were just telling Blakey what he wanted to hear and going along with the acoustics evidence placing the SBT shot at Z-190."

Well, there's a problem with this. A big problem. The photography panel came to its conclusions months before the acoustics consultants came to their conclusion regarding a shot at Z-190. Look it up.

So...There it is. Your single-assassin conclusion is at odds with both the timing of the shot striking Kennedy in the back, according to the last panel of experts to study the issue, and the location of the impact of this bullet on the back, according to the last panel of experts to study the issue. You are a single-assassin theorist.

Now, this is fine, in my book. We have a conspiracy theorists and we have single-assassin theorists. Just don't go around pretending your pet theory is supported by all the experts, blah blah blah. It isn't, and probably never will be.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

David, the HSCA photography panel, after studying the films, concluded JFK showed signs of being hit before going behind the sign in the Zapruder film. It doesn't make it a fact. But it does make it something other than the "CT myth" you (and many others) want it to be.

It isn't a "CT myth", of course, because the HSCA still supported the SBT even with their absurdly early Z190 timing.

The Z190 timing is just wrong, that's all. Anyone endorsing such an early SBT timeline has no choice but to just completely ignore all of these obvious signs of Governor Connally being hit at circa Z224 — the grimacing, the flinching, the lapel movement, and the hat flipping up — none of which can possibly be the result of a "delayed reaction" to Connally being struck way back at Z190, because each of those things is an involuntary movement on the part of the Texas Governor.

[Pat Speer]

I think that Martin's review is flawed. I don't have time to pick it apart, because there is too much to pick apart. So I'd like to focus on one part of Martin's review. Then, like a house of cards and a breeze, it all falls flat on its face.

That package. It's not too hard to tear apart any argument about its perceived size, or what it contained. In hindsight, of course, we all like to pay special attention to that package. At the time though it probably wasn't considered important by anyone that noticed it.

Lee told Frazier that it contained curtain rods. This is a lie. Why? Because:

* Lee didn't need curtain rods.

* No curtain rods were found anywhere in the TSBD in the wake of the assassination.

* Why on earth would Lee make a special journey to get some curtain rods that he didn't really need? If he did need them (which he didn't) why didn't he just get them during his usual weekend visit?

It's really a no-brainer.

So we know that the package didn't contain curtain rods, but we know it existed and that it contained something. So what was in that bag if it wasn't Lee's rifle?

One thing you can't accuse the the authors of is failing to apply basic common sense.

Package argument destroyed. My, that was quite easy!

Paul.

You're being way too kind to call Hay's review "flawed."

I just read through some of his writings and they are absurd.

He writes well, but his facts are screwed up, and he's guilty of terrible cherry picking--which he loves to accuse others of.

Some quick examples:

1. Ruth Paine was --imho--not part of any conspiracy. But he refers to her as "the custodian" of the evidence against Oswald. That's just sheer nonsense. (She's a custodian because Oswald kept a rifle in the garage?)

2. Hay says no one saw Oswald with "the" rifle or "a" rifle (which is not clear) for two months perior to the assassination. Has he (conveniently) forgotten about those who saw Oswald engaged in rifle practice, the week before? What about Dr. Wood, and his son? They were deposed by Liebeler. Has Hay (convieniently) forgotten about that testimony?

3. Hay makes it appear that because Ruth Paine telephoned the TSBD, she "got him" the job. More nonsense. Hay clearly does not know the "back story" of that situation. Its not so simple, Martin. I think you need to study up on that situation.

4. He says that the call to Ruth Paine from Michael Paine was a collect call (huh?) and made on 11/22. Pardon me, but I remember seeing those FBI reports, and I think they are dated 11/23. (If I am wrong, I will gladly admit it. But for Hay to reference that to John Armstrong is very "iffy". And his whole rendition of the situation is akin to a novelist telling a story.

5. In the area of the medical evidence--it seems to me that anyone who is a sentient human being with an IQ above room temperature has to realize that-wound sizes and such discrepancies aside--there is definite evidence that JFK's body did not make an uninterrupted journey from Parkland to Bethesda. It left in a ceremonial casket, arrived at Bethesda in a shipping casket; it left Dallas wrapped in sheets; arrived at Bethesda in a body bag. All of this was established by interviews I conducted in 1979 (and published in Best Evidence) and then in filmed interviews in October 1980. (Google: Best Evidence Research Video)

Stanhope Gould--the senior producer at CBS (under Cronkite) who later worked at KRON-TV in San Francisco, and who (along with Sylvia Chase) did a TV recap of my work (1988) re-interviewing the key witnesses, said that I ("David Lifton") had "courtroom quality evidence that President Kennedy's body was intercepted between Dallas and Bethesda." But, our friend Martin Hay, who decries cherry picking, and tells us that WC attorney Willens was "in denial," engages in that very same behavior when it comes to the issue of autopsy fraud, and , in particular, autopsy fraud that began with the covert intercept of the body, and then the matter of bullet removal and wound alteration.

How anyone can engage in this sort of behavior and remain credible is completely baffling.

6. Does Hay believe that Lyndon Johnson became president because Harold Willins (and others on the Warren Commission) endorsed the single bullet theory?

IMHO: Martin Hay emerges as a propagandist with a very narrow view of conspiracy and who wears blinders as to what kind of conspiracy he finds to be "politically correct" (by his standards). And he is often ill informed. A writing style that is stylish is not a substitute for getting one's facts correct, or avoiding key areas of data that any historian or law professor would understand are in the realm of 'best evidence.'

Martin Hay ignores the critical evidence of conspiracy in the medical area; he makes false statements about the Paines; he asserts that Marina Oswald's testimony is "worthless" (what balderdash!); he claims Oswald did not carry a package long enough to the TSBD (apparently blissfully unaware that, in her original FBI interview (on 11/22 at the DPD) Linnie Mae Randle told the interviewing FBI agents that the package she saw Oswald carry was 36" long, and about 6" wide). Get real, Martin.

Then Hay has the gall to package his ill-informed beliefs as if he knows the truth, and everyone else is either mistaken or intellectually dishonest. (And, of course, he will be the judge, excusing himself, of course, when he indulges in such behavior).

Does Hay understand that documents--and about 10 witnesses--establish that JFK's body arrived in a body bag at Bethesda, about 20 minutes before the Navy ambulance carrying the coffin? Or has that escaped his notice?

Does Hay understand that serious minded lawyers for Macmillan checked and reviewed the evidence of intercept before accepting my manuscript for publication? And before running ads across the nation showing the AF-1 offload and proclaiming: "The coffin was empty?" Does Hay understand the screening process that goes into the selection of a book for "Book of the Month" selection? And which resulted in the selection of BEST EVIDENCE --from over ten of thousands of books, as a Book of the Month alternate in early 1981?

Does Hay understand that my book was published by four separate publishers over a 17 year period (yes, there will be a fifth) and that there was not a single lawsuit?

Instead of dealing with real data and the most important data of all--that resident in the President's body--Hay crawls into his shell, this cocoon that I call a "1967 view" of the JFK case, fourteen years before the publication of Best Evidence, and reports back from his time-capsule as if the truth wasn't found because of a political conspiracy on the staff of the Warren Commission.

Oh yeah. . sure. . dream on, Martin Hay.

The truth wasn't found in this case because of fraud in the evidence. Not all of the evidence, but a critical part of it.

The truth wasn't found, in this case, because of the successful execution of a strategic deception on November 22, 1963, and in the days immediately following, which created the false appearance that Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon; and that Oswald was the assassin.

The notion that Hay's kind of oversimplified, juvenile analysis--his oversimplified view of "political science"--circa, 11/22/63 ( Martin Hay style)-- is continually posted at CTKA, where--apparently--it receives the blessing of DiEugenio is most unfortunate.

Does Martin Hay really want to solve the Kennedy assassination, or is he interested in an interminable debate?

I recall what a law professor said --most unfairly--about Mark Lane, but which certainly applies to Martin Hay:

"Great lawyers have an instinct for the jugular; Martin Hay has an instinct for the capillaries."

DSL

4/2/16 - 6:49 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

It's nice to hear from you, David. But I do think your outrage is misplaced. If one is to conclude that everyone doubting the body was altered en route to Bethesda is somehow unqualified to write about the assassination, as you have apparently concluded, then one will be forced to conclude that 80-90% of all negative reviews of Oswald-didi-it material have been written by people unqualified to write about the case. Well, if this is so, then you oughta get busy. Someone needs to confront these books, articles, and programs. Perhaps you think there is an army of CTs who fully embrace your theories willing to pick up the slack. But I spend too much of my time online, and have attended 6 conferences in the past three years, and can assure you no such army exists. Most CTs today hold some sort of personal hybrid theory...some shots from behind, some from the front. Many if not most of those thinking the body was altered believe it was done so at Bethesda, as opposed to en route. It seems clear then that while your theories were ground-breaking, and influential, that they haven't been fully embraced. But who knows? Things could always circle back.

I think it strange, moreover, that you have opted to go after a review most of us have forgotten, of a book very few will ever read, and that you have chosen to go after Mr. Hay over some aspects of the case where his perspective is far more popular than your own. Now, you could always be correct on this. But you're not gonna win many converts to your cause by attacking Mr. Hay for his mistrust of Ruth Paine, when the vast majority of CTs similarly mistrust Ruth Paine.

And then there's this: "Martin Hay ignores the critical evidence of conspiracy in the medical area; he makes false statements about the Paines; he asserts that Marina Oswald's testimony is "worthless" (what balderdash!); he claims Oswald did not carry a package long enough to the TSBD (apparently blissfully unaware that, in her original FBI interview (on 11/22 at the DPD) Linnie Mae Randle told the interviewing FBI agents that the package she saw Oswald carry was 36" long, and about 6" wide). Get real, Martin."

What? Martin is 100% correct on this issue and you are 100% wrong. Ms. Randle approximated that the bag was 3 feet long and then said it was much shorter once the FBI re-enacted the bag and showed her what a 3 foot long bag would look like. She also deferred to her brother, who got a much better look at the bag, and swore from day one and continues to swear that the bag shown him on the night of the shooting was not the bag he saw Oswald carrying early that morning, and that this bag was both way too big and made from a different kind of paper.

And that's not all--what's with your claim Oswald practiced with his rifle? Martin Hay was correct. The FBI and WC looked into it and found no credible evidence Oswald had practiced with his rifle in the months before the shooting. A number of witnesses had popped up claiming he had done so, but they were all shot down for various reasons. Are you claiming the FBI and WC were wrong about this, and that they were overly-generous to Oswald in rejecting these "sightings"?

Pat:

You write: "What? Martin is 100% correct on this issue and you are 100% wrong. Ms. Randle approximated that the bag was 3 feet long and then said it was much shorter once the FBI re-enacted the bag and showed her what a 3 foot long bag would look like."

Sorry, Pat Speer, but its you who are mistaken.

Here's what Linnie Mae Randle said according to the report of FBI Agent Bookhout on 11/22/63--a report which was not published in the 26 volumes but represents the earliest recorded recollection of the witness. It can be found in Commission Document 5, at page 320:

QUOTE:

Randle stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile." UNQUOTE

Randle's original description, if true, makes clear that the package she saw was certainly big enough to contain a rifle.

What happened next is that Buell Wesley Frazier did not want to be in the position of being accused of having transported Oswald (and his rifle) to the TSBD. So he (subsequently) claimed the package was smaller, and his sister then went along with that story.

But let's take a closer look at this situation.

There is a major difference between a 36" long package and a 27" long package. The increase in length--from 27" to 36" in 30%.

Buell Frazier was scared to death that he was going to be accused of having knowingly transported Oswald--AND his rifle--to work, if his sister's longer description was the case.

You write that she changed her story after the FBI "showed her what a 3 foot long bag would look like."

Are you serious? Are you telling me that Randle did not know, from common everyday experience, "what a 3 foot long bag would look like"??

Are you implying that agents of the FBI had to "show" Linnie Mae Randle what a 3 foot long bag "would look like", in order for her to understand what she had originally described?

Surely you do understand that this is not a subtle matter; this is not the difference between 1 and 3 centimeters. We're talking about a 30% difference between 27" and 36". Also, in your eagerness to embrace Martin Hay's "politically correct" argument, you omit the other dimension: it was not just the length (of 36"); Linnie Mae Randle added a dimension of width: "approximately 3 feet by six inches."

And there's still more. Later that morning, Lee Oswald was observed on the elevator, going upstairs, and passed a witness (and her supervisor) and they both saw him carrying a long package. "What'cha got there?" he was asked. And Lee responded that it was a "fishing pole."

Are you unaware of that evidence? Very likely you are.

So what have we got here? Let's recap:

1. Linnie Mae Randle told the FBI on Friday night that the package was "a long brown package approximately 3 feet by six inches".

2. Oswald told Frazier it was "curtain rods"

3. Later that morning, he told two employees of the TSBD--who observed him with a long package--that it was a fishing pole (or "fishing rods")

The Warren Commission legal staff--specifically, Joe Ball and David Belin--did not publish the original FBI account in which Randle described it as "3 feet by six inches." By doing so, they rendered that important FBI report invisible to the public until (as far as I know) I received it in a microfilmed order in 1969. I know that I discussed it --multiple times, and at length--with JFK researcher Todd Vaughan some 20 years ago. Further, Todd produced a memo showing that the Bookhout report was noted --within a day or so--at the Assistant Director level of the FBI.

The Warren Commission legal staff did not do what any normal homicide investigation would do. THey did not confront Linnie Mae Randle (now deceased) with her original description.

The Warren Commission legal staff did not call FBI agent Bookhout to testify and get him to give sworn testimony about his report. No doubt he would have stood by his report. (And that could have set the stage for a confrontation between Bookhout and Randle). Instead, the WC legal staff became complicit in a re-enactment which involved a "smaller" bag, and concealed the "problem: presented by Randle's original statement by shunting that report off to the archives and mentioning nothing about it in the Warren Report.

jAnd you go along with all this?

The witnesses who saw Oswald with the longer package (that he explained as a "fishing rods") did not make their statements to the FBI, but certainly did talk about it years later. It was first published in 1988 in American History Illustrated. I communicated with the author --Ed Oxford--and found his research and interviews, to be quite credible. (But that's a whole other story).

Meanwhile, Buell Wesley Frazier, IMHO, has gotten away with elaborating on a completely false story and then has further embellished it with Fritz coming in and slapping him, and demanding that he sign a confession. (Do you believe that story? . . told decades after the fact?)

And you, Pat Speer, now buying into this "group think" and this orthodoxy of political correctness rather than dealing with the original statements and what they clearly imply?

And so now you tell me that "Martin [Hay] is 100% correct on this issue and you are 100% wrong". Oh pleez. . .

Turning to the matter of rifle practice. . I have to ask if you have ever studied the original FBI investigation--and by that I mean Commission Document 5, 7, and the other early FBI Field reports (i.e., the Gemberling Reports). Each of them has a section dealing with "Alleged Rifle Practice." Obviously, not all of the reported incidents were Oswald, but to make the blanket statement that none of them were Oswald I find surprising. Are you unaware of the WC deposition of Dr. Wood, and his son? They were at a rifle range, and saw someone who appeared to be Oswald practicing. (Do you dismiss their accounts?) And what about the original media reports in which Oswald was identified as being at a rifle range. You dismiss all of that, too? In one of them, another person present, was identified by name as Frazier. (That was actually published in the newspaper). I do not have all of that material in front of me at this moment, but if you are taking the position that there is no case to be made that Oswald was ever at a rifle range, between the time he returned from Mexico City on October 3, and the day of the assassination, I think you are mistaken.

DSL

4/3/16 - 9:30 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

I don't know what you've got against Buell Frazier, David. I've talked with Frazier on several occasions, and have heard him speak in public as well. I came to conclude that both Buelll and his son are decent people, trying to tell the truth as they know it. He was essentially a "country" kid, who got wrapped up in all this stuff against his will. He didn't really understand all the issues, for that matter, until I explained them to him. While he knew his failure to claim the bag was big enough to hold a rifle was a big deal, no one had ever explained to him that the WC's theory held that the paper used to create the bag was smuggled to the Paine's house the day before. He was blown away by this. As someone who'd worked in warehouses, and was familiar with the qualities of brown shipping paper, I knew that it was highly unlikely Oswald could smuggle a large piece of paper under his clothing without Frazier's noticing. And he not only agreed. He turned to me and looked me dead in the eyes, and said "That didn't happen."

Now, of course he could be wrong. People are wrong all the time. But you're claiming Frazier, this kid from the country, was slick enough to fool the Dallas Police, the FBI, and a lie detector machine, when he told them he didn't know Oswald had a rifle, and that the bag he saw in Oswald' s possession was not big enough to hold the rifle.

There's also this. You seem to find the WC's failure to publish the FBI's report on Randle (in which the FBI claimed she'd said the bag was a about 3 feet long) suspicious. You neglect to note that this FBI report was published a few years later with the commission's documents, as was a Secret Service report from a few days later, in which she was quoted as saying the bag was about 2 feet long. So, which carries more weight? A second-hand approximation, or a supposed direct quote?

Your bad smell detector just isn't in working order, IMO. You seem completely unaware of the 11-29-63 FBI report of James Anderton in which he revealed that Frazier "recalls that on the morning of November 22, when Oswald rode to work in his car, he had something in a brown paper sack, the kind you would obtain in a dime store, specifically that the paper in the sack was of a flimsy, thin consistency. Frazier stated that he could not observe the sack very well since Oswald threw it in the back seat of his car, and upon arriving ...at work Oswald carried the package in a vertical position under his right arm, appearing to be holding the end of whatever was in the sack, which he recalled was about two feet in length. Mr. Frazier was questioned as to the ends of the sack and if two sacks had been placed together, but he could recall only seeing one sack described above...Mr. Frazier stated that between 11:00 PM and midnight, November 22, 1963, he was in the polygraph room of the Dallas Police Department and before taking the polygraph examination a police officer, name unknown to him, brought in a large paper sack, approximately three to four feet in length and the type a grocery store receives their five-pound bags of sugar in, specifically that the paper in the sack was very thick and stiff. He stated that this sack shown to him appeared to actually have been made by someone cutting down a larger sack. He said he told the police officer that this sack had never been seen by him before. He also said that this sack was definitely not the one he had observed in possession of Oswald the morning of November 22, 1963."

So why is this important? Well, this was apparently the first the FBI knew of Frazier's positively absolutely rejecting that the bag presented to him was the bag he'd seen Oswald carrying that morning, and of his taking a polygraph...

And what happened to Anderton's memo? It was never published by the WC, or in the Commission Documents to come out later. Not that I can find, anyhow. It was, I believe, only uncovered by Weisberg through one of his FOIA acts.

So here's what my bad smell detector tells me. It tells me that the disappearance of Anderton's memo was no coincidence. And that the FBI hoped to hide that the DPD had strangely failed to tell them about Frazier's polygraph. Because, sure enough, the FBI coughed up reports from this very same day in which WIll Fritz and R. D. Lewis acknowledged Frazier had been given a polygraph, and that they'd believed he'd been telling the truth. CD7, 290-291.

There's no context in these reports explaining why these men suddenly came clean on this issue, mind you.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

David, the HSCA photography panel, after studying the films, concluded JFK showed signs of being hit before going behind the sign in the Zapruder film. It doesn't make it a fact. But it does make it something other than the "CT myth" you (and many others) want it to be.

It isn't a "CT myth", of course, because the HSCA still supported the SBT even with their absurdly early Z190 timing.

The Z190 timing is just wrong, that's all. Anyone endorsing such an early SBT timeline has no choice but to just completely ignore all of these obvious signs of Governor Connally being hit at circa Z224 — the grimacing, the flinching, the lapel movement, and the hat flipping up — none of which can possibly be the result of a "delayed reaction" to Connally being struck way back at Z190, because each of those things is an involuntary movement on the part of the Texas Governor.

So...hmmm. The early hit on Kennedy noticed by the experts must be an illusion because it doesn't jive with the much later hit on Connally readily observed by you...

This is classic Science Fiction material. DOES NOT COMPUTE. DOES NOT COMPUTE. You are so close to becoming one of us, David. So close.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

Well, Pat, disagreement is always the order of the day when talking about the JFK case. Right?

You don't actually expect anybody to agree with anybody else, do you? That's way yonder too much to expect when discussing anything relating to the Kennedy case. You should know that by now. (Although most LNers do agree with each other on the major aspects of the case, including the SBT. The same can hardly be said of the conspiracy crowd.)

Edited April 4, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

[deleted]

Edited April 4, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

This thread again exemplifies why the research community has become little more than a tiresome debating society.

Martin Hay represents the most reasonable school of thought in very effectively critiquing David Von Pein's and Mel Ayton's predictably impossible Oswald-did-it book. David Lifton's curious, belated response relies on unwarranted faith in both Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald, the two witnesses who almost exclusively were responsible for painting a negative picture of Lee Harvey Oswald. David further maintains that Oswald DID carry a rifle into the TSBD that day. Is David now claiming Oswald fired shots? I thought his thesis was that all shots came from the front. What about Jack Dougherty, the only known witness to see Oswald arrive at work that day? He reported that Oswald was carrying no package. Oswald himself supposedly strongly denied carrying anything other than a lunch sack.

Forgive me if I have any of this wrong:

David Lifton believes that JFK's body was altered before the autopsy at Bethesda, to falsely leave evidence of shots from behind, when all shots actually came from in front. Other than this rather "extreme" theory, he generally accepts all aspects of the official story.

Pat Speer believes that all shots came from the rear, and that the medical personnel at Parkland who claimed to have seen a large hole in the back of JFK's head were mistaken (actually, I think he maintains that we have all been misinterpreting their testimony). He therefore believes the autopsy photos and x-rays showing no such large defect are legitimate.

Jim DiEugenio comes closest to my own perspective, and in my opinion represents one of the few present-day critics who haven't rejected much of the ground-breaking work of the original band of critics, who decades ago conclusively proved there was a conspiracy.

The research community is basically divided on John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee theory. Note- I am presently reading this book, and am even more impressed than ever with the extent of Armstrong's research.

A growing number of researchers, largely associated with Greg Parker's ROKC forum, are putting all their eggs in Sean Murphy's "Prayer Man" basket. Needless to say, if "Prayer Man" is Oswald, his innocence is conclusively proven, but both sides acknowledge that higher-quality images are imperative if a conclusive identification is to be established. This same group just as strongly opposes not only Armstrong's theory, but the general notion that there were people impersonating Oswald.

From my first few JFK assassination classes, I can conclude that more people are simply accepting the official narrative that Oswald acted alone. I can only guess this is due to the favorable publicity the mainstream media gave Posner, Bugliosi, Hanks' Parkland and now Stephen King's monstrous piece of disinformation. I think recent polls are demonstrating this. In other words, our task has become harder. It's tough fighting Stephen King and Hollywood.

My point, again, is that we hardly represent any kind of united front on this subject. The official story is impossible. Impossible. That is with or without Harvey and Lee, or body alteration, or Zapruder film alteration, or Prayer Man, or any other aspect of this case that has been hotly debated on this forum. This is what I tried to stress in my book, and what I have stressed during interviews.

Unless we recognize this simple truth, the lone nutters will eventually win the day. Their version is already in all the conventional history books. As we all know, history is written by the victors.

It should be an undisputed fact at this point that those who assassinated John F. Kennedy were the victors.

Don,

From my experience here, your summary appears to be spot on. I happen to agree with nearly all of it.

But I wouldn't lament the fact that a good deal of debate goes on here between adherents of the various theories. It is because of those debates that a newbie, such as myself, can bring himself up to speed and decide for himself which theory has merit and which doesn't.

Think about how important it is for those in younger generations, who have interest in the JFK case, to be exposed to all this. I suppose it could be argued that all this debating merely serves to confuse the uninitiated. To that I would reply that those most likely to benefit "the cause" -- the scholars and writers of the world -- will be those who welcome the debate.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Jim Hargrove]

This thread again exemplifies why the research community has become little more than a tiresome debating society.

Martin Hay represents the most reasonable school of thought in very effectively critiquing David Von Pein's and Mel Ayton's predictably impossible Oswald-did-it book. David Lifton's curious, belated response relies on unwarranted faith in both Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald, the two witnesses who almost exclusively were responsible for painting a negative picture of Lee Harvey Oswald. David further maintains that Oswald DID carry a rifle into the TSBD that day. Is David now claiming Oswald fired shots? I thought his thesis was that all shots came from the front. What about Jack Dougherty, the only known witness to see Oswald arrive at work that day? He reported that Oswald was carrying no package. Oswald himself supposedly strongly denied carrying anything other than a lunch sack.

Forgive me if I have any of this wrong:

David Lifton believes that JFK's body was altered before the autopsy at Bethesda, to falsely leave evidence of shots from behind, when all shots actually came from in front. Other than this rather "extreme" theory, he generally accepts all aspects of the official story.

Pat Speer believes that all shots came from the rear, and that the medical personnel at Parkland who claimed to have seen a large hole in the back of JFK's head were mistaken (actually, I think he maintains that we have all been misinterpreting their testimony). He therefore believes the autopsy photos and x-rays showing no such large defect are legitimate.

Jim DiEugenio comes closest to my own perspective, and in my opinion represents one of the few present-day critics who haven't rejected much of the ground-breaking work of the original band of critics, who decades ago conclusively proved there was a conspiracy.

The research community is basically divided on John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee theory. Note- I am presently reading this book, and am even more impressed than ever with the extent of Armstrong's research.

A growing number of researchers, largely associated with Greg Parker's ROKC forum, are putting all their eggs in Sean Murphy's "Prayer Man" basket. Needless to say, if "Prayer Man" is Oswald, his innocence is conclusively proven, but both sides acknowledge that higher-quality images are imperative if a conclusive identification is to be established. This same group just as strongly opposes not only Armstrong's theory, but the general notion that there were people impersonating Oswald.

From my first few JFK assassination classes, I can conclude that more people are simply accepting the official narrative that Oswald acted alone. I can only guess this is due to the favorable publicity the mainstream media gave Posner, Bugliosi, Hanks' Parkland and now Stephen King's monstrous piece of disinformation. I think recent polls are demonstrating this. In other words, our task has become harder. It's tough fighting Stephen King and Hollywood.

My point, again, is that we hardly represent any kind of united front on this subject. The official story is impossible. Impossible. That is with or without Harvey and Lee, or body alteration, or Zapruder film alteration, or Prayer Man, or any other aspect of this case that has been hotly debated on this forum. This is what I tried to stress in my book, and what I have stressed during interviews.

Unless we recognize this simple truth, the lone nutters will eventually win the day. Their version is already in all the conventional history books. As we all know, history is written by the victors.

It should be an undisputed fact at this point that those who assassinated John F. Kennedy were the victors.

Well said, Don. Thank you!

Your book is wonderful: HIDDEN HISTORY: An Expose of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover-Ups in American Politics. Thanks again!

[Paul Brancato]

Don - I concur. I'm sympathetic to David Larsen, who appreciates the diversity of opinions and free debate here. But I wish the major writers and researchers would find and express the common grounds between them while they engage in their well considered disagreements.

[Tom Neal]

I've talked with Frazier on several occasions, and have heard him speak in public as well. I came to conclude that both

Buelll and his son are decent people, trying to tell the truth as they know it. He was essentially a "country" kid, who

got wrapped up in all this stuff against his will.

Pat,

I watched a long video interview of Frazier not too long ago, and he referred to a time when he

realized that people thought of him as basically a dumb hick. This clearly affected him deeply, and

he began to educate, and improve himself.

This is what an intelligent, thinking person would do. I think you are exactly correct in your

opinion of him. I regard Mr. Frazier as a sincere, honest person, caught up in a traumatic event

that shook the country. How strongly this has affected him is obvious, and I can't imagine what

it would be like to walk in his shoes.

IMO, he has something that he would like to say, but cannot for fear of his and his families life.

I have no idea what this may be, but he appears to be struggling with conflicting emotions when

he speaks about the events of 11-22-1963 (and I am NOT referring to the Hulu miniseries!).

Having spoken with him in person, were you left with the impression that there is something that he

has had to hold back?

Tom

Edited April 5, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Pat Speer]

I've talked with Frazier on several occasions, and have heard him speak in public as well. I came to conclude that both

Buelll and his son are decent people, trying to tell the truth as they know it. He was essentially a "country" kid, who

got wrapped up in all this stuff against his will.

Pat,

I watched a long video interview of Frazier not too long ago, and he referred to a time when he

realized that people thought of him as basically a dumb hick. This clearly affected him deeply, and

he began to educate, and improve himself.

This is what an intelligent, thinking person would do. I think you are exactly correct in your

opinion of him. I regard Mr. Frazier as a sincere, honest person, caught up in a traumatic event

that shook the country. How strongly this has affected him is obvious, and I can't imagine what

it would be like to walk in his shoes.

IMO, he has something that he would like to say, but cannot for fear of his and his families life.

I have no idea what this may be, but he appears to be struggling with conflicting emotions when

he speaks about the events of 11-22-1963 (and I am NOT referring to the Hulu miniseries!).

Having spoken with him in person, were you left with the impression that there is something that he

has had to hold back?

Tom

No. Frazier has been consistent in his recent statements. I don't anticipate him providing any "bombshells" in the future.

1. He saw Oswald with a bag but the bag was not nearly large enough to have held the rifle.

2. He thought Oswald was a pretty nice guy who loved children.

3. He was arrested during the early afternoon, and not in the early evening, as claimed in the Dallas Police reports.

It should be pointed out, moreover, that a member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign (upset that Frazier says it's Lovelady in the Altgens photo) kept interrupting Frazier's speech in Dallas and that Frazier (and his son) got the guy to pipe down by giving him some one-on-one time afterward.

The key to all this is his son. Frazier's son is unlike his father in that he is quite articulate. His son, if I recall, has worked as a DJ for Armed Forces radio. He wants his father's story to be clear. While he is not a conspiracy theorist, as far as I know, Frazier's son believes his father's story and resents the way his father has been treated by both the Warren Commission and mainstream media (as a country bumpkin too stupid to know a 38 x 8 /1/2 inch bag--323 sq in--from a 26 x 6 inch bag--156 sq in) and some conspiracy theorists (as a xxxx who told the police Oswald was carrying a bag even though he was not, but then felt bad and tried to save himself by claiming the bag was too small).

His son announced at this most recent Lancer conference that they had decided to write a book that would essentially say all Frazier has to say. But I'm not expecting any bombshells.