John Simkin Thought John McAdams Was a CIA Propagandist

[James DiEugenio]

I think you are correct on that.

Vince published in 2007.

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Both your reviews have merits in my opinion Jim D. (and agree or disagree I always read your book reviews). On B’s pledge to disclose the best of opposing arguments, an admirable pledge. No one’s going to get that done perfectly but he seems a lot better on that score than Posner. 

One thing I don’t think B’s 1600 + 1000 pages address is addressing Oswald’s claimed alibi. That is not B’s fault because until Fritz’s and Hosty’s handwritten notes became unexpectedly available, I believe both after B’s date of publication, nobody knew that Oswald had claimed a very specific alibi: he said he was “out front with Shelly” to Fritz in the handwritten, omitted in Fritz’s typed report for the record. “Went out to watch P Parade” in Hosty’s handwritten, omitted in Hosty’s typed for the record. That’s what he claimed, testable by checking photos of the front steps when Shelly was there and see if Oswald is nearby.

As it stands, Oswald was condemned by prosecutor B without knowledge of, let alone addressing of, his alibi claim at the time someone was shooting from the sixth floor.

But B did not know Oswald claimed that alibi, the Warren Commission never knew, nobody knew, until those two handwritten sets of notes representing earliest information came to light by unplanned accident.

Well, I don't "know" Oswald claimed that alibi, either. 

It's a stretch to say we know someone said something when there are no tapes of what he said, and no one who was in the room with him said he said it. What we have instead are the tossed aside notes for a report written after the fact, that appear to suggest but don't entirely spell out a scenario at odds with what ended up in the report. (Now, that said, I am open to the possibility Hosty wrote a report claiming Oswald said he was outside...that got  s-canned, either because his partner said he was incorrect or his superiors said he wasn't allowed to present Oswald's alibi.)

 But the point is it's not solid evidence. Imagine a scenario in which someone finds a note written in Pope Paul's hand which suggests Jesus had told him he was just a man, and no more the son of God than other men. In light of everything else Paul wrote and claimed throughout his lifetime this would be rejected by both the Church and most historians, right? 

 

 

[David Von Pein]

27 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Well, I don't "know" Oswald claimed that alibi, either. 

He didn't. According to Captain Fritz' written report AND the Hosty/Bookhout joint FBI report, Oswald's alibi was that was inside the building, on the first floor, when JFK was being shot.

From a 2015 argument I had with the very off-the-wall CTer, Ralph Cinque....

"Via Cinque's skewed interpretation of DPD Captain Will Fritz' handwritten notes, Ralph actually thinks that the accused assassin (to whom all the evidence leads) was telling the unvarnished truth when he said "out with Bill Shelley in front". Which, per Cinque, means that Lee Oswald was "out with Bill Shelley in front" of the Book Depository when the shooting was occurring (which is not what Fritz meant in those sketchy notes at all).

What Oswald meant, of course, was that AFTER the shooting, and AFTER his lunchroom encounter with Officer Marrion Baker, he went "out front" and saw "Bill Shelley" there near the front entrance of the building.

We know that Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was "having his lunch about that time [of the assassination] on the first floor" (quote from Fritz' police report; see Warren Commission Report; Page 600).

Fritz didn't say there on page 600 of the Warren Report that Oswald told him that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" as the assassination was taking place. Oswald specifically said something completely different---that he was inside the building on the first floor having his lunch at just about the same time President Kennedy was shot (which was a big fat lie, of course).

If Oswald was innocent, Ralph, why did he tell that lie to Fritz about having lunch on the first floor at the time of the assassination? Let me guess --- Cinque really thinks it was Captain Fritz who was the liar in that "first floor" statement allegedly made by Oswald. Right, Ralph?" -- DVP; Oct. 2015

CONTINUED HERE

----------------------------------------------------

Re: the Hosty "P. Parade" note....

"I don't think the words "Presidential Parade" came out of the mouth of Lee Harvey Oswald. Based on all of the official FINAL reports (from Fritz, Bookhout, Hosty, and Kelley), I think the words "P. Parade" that appear in the "new" Hosty note were probably HOSTY'S words and HOSTY'S interpretation of Oswald's "out with Bill Shelley" statement. Otherwise, we'd have a lot more reports (and notes) that had the word "Parade" in them." -- DVP; Feb. 2019

CONTINUED HERE

 

Edited Friday at 12:53 AM by David Von Pein

[Greg Doudna]

32 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Well, I don't "know" Oswald claimed that alibi, either. 

It's a stretch to say we know someone said something when there are no tapes of what he said, and no one who was in the room with him said he said it. What we have instead are the tossed aside notes for a report written after the fact, that appear to suggest but don't entirely spell out a scenario at odds with what ended up in the report. (Now, that said, I am open to the possibility Hosty wrote a report claiming Oswald said he was outside...that got  s-canned, either because his partner said he was incorrect or his superiors said he wasn't allowed to present Oswald's alibi.)

 But the point is it's not solid evidence. Imagine a scenario in which someone finds a note written in Pope Paul's hand which suggests Jesus had told him he was just a man, and no more the son of God than other men. In light of everything else Paul wrote and claimed throughout his lifetime this would be rejected by both the Church and most historians, right? 

Pat I would actually like to take this up with you because I believe there is new information to be brought to the table on this. I don’t know whether here or a new thread would be better. 

On the point you raise, those handwrittens are either from real time during the interrogation or ca immediately after from memory while memory is fresh. It’s going to be one of those two. I think a lot of FBI interview reports were the latter. Intended for personal use only in the preparation of the typed report after which the notes could be disposed of. 

But the point is those handwritten notes are witness evidence Oswald said that, earliest and most reliable of anything written. Fritz is not going to make that up, or Hosty. 

On your apostle Paul hypothetical, if it was authentic and not dismissed as forged, yes historians would give it high credibility. 

There are two other factors to consider. One is the incredibly important issue of alibi of any suspect and how seemingly fluid and inexact the reports for the record are on that for Oswald. The second is if Oswald was down there on that first floor (or second or any lower floor), he loved JFK and cared about politics, it is just a no-brainer he would be out there watching the parade—of course he would. 

The Fritz and Hosty handwrittens are redundant corroboration that he did say he was. That is established from the fact those are present in those handwritten notes (combined with establishing the time meant was when the parade went past the TSBD, which is not hard to establish).

The puzzle is why that isn’t in the typed for the record. Not that Oswald didn’t say what the handwrittens say he did.

When I recently had a walk with a daughter of Curtis Craford, the first thing I did after was go to an all-night diner and write longhand page after page of everything said and remembered while it was fresh to me. When I write up later in typescript form from those notes, the handwritten is primary in terms of closest memory and freshest. The same with Fritz’s and Hosty’s. 

Edited Friday at 12:58 AM by Greg Doudna

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

He didn't. According to Captain Fritz' written report, Oswald's alibi was that was inside the building, on the first floor, when JFK was being shot.

From a 2015 argument I had with the very off-the-wall CTer, Ralph Cinque....

"Via Cinque's skewed interpretation of DPD Captain Will Fritz' handwritten notes, Ralph actually thinks that the accused assassin (to whom all the evidence leads) was telling the unvarnished truth when he said "out with Bill Shelley in front". Which, per Cinque, means that Lee Oswald was "out with Bill Shelley in front" of the Book Depository when the shooting was occurring (which is not what Fritz meant in those sketchy notes at all).

What Oswald meant, of course, was that AFTER the shooting, and AFTER his lunchroom encounter with Officer Marrion Baker, he went "out front" and saw "Bill Shelley" there near the front entrance of the building.

We know that Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was "having his lunch about that time [of the assassination] on the first floor" (quote from Fritz' police report; see Warren Commission Report; Page 600).

Fritz didn't say there on page 600 of the Warren Report that Oswald told him that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" as the assassination was taking place. Oswald specifically said something completely different---that he was inside the building on the first floor having his lunch at just about the same time President Kennedy was shot (which was a big fat lie, of course).

If Oswald was innocent, Ralph, why did he tell that lie to Fritz about having lunch on the first floor at the time of the assassination? Let me guess --- Cinque really thinks it was Captain Fritz who was the liar in that "first floor" statement allegedly made by Oswald. Right, Ralph?" -- DVP; Oct. 2015

CONTINUED HERE

----------------------------------------------------

Re: the Hosty "P. Parade" note....

"I don't think the words "Presidential Parade" came out of the mouth of Lee Harvey Oswald. Based on all of the official FINAL reports (from Fritz, Bookhout, Hosty, and Kelley), I think the words "P. Parade" that appear in the "new" Hosty note were probably HOSTY'S words and HOSTY'S interpretation of Oswald's "out with Bill Shelley" statement. Otherwise, we'd have a lot more reports (and notes) that had the word "Parade" in them." -- DVP; Feb. 2019

CONTINUED HERE

 

Well, I don't think we know either way. But I was friendly with John Judge, who used to say that he may be a conspiracy theorist, but those supporting the Warren Commission were "coincidence theorists" in that they relied upon a lot of coincidences. 

In this instance--whether or not Oswald was outside at the time of the shots--it is my my fellow CTs who are coincidence theorists.

1. Oswald's failing to say he was outside during the shooting when talking to the media--coincidence.

2. Oswald's failing to tell his wife or brother he was outside at at the time of the shooting--coincidence.

3. Not one of a dozen or so people in position to have seen him on the steps before the shooting saying they saw him outside--coincidence.

4. Not one film or photo in which Oswald can be identified on the steps at the time of or even within a minute of the shooting--coincidence. 

Edited Friday at 04:32 AM by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

7 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Pat I would actually like to take this up with you because I believe there is new information to be brought to the table on this. I don’t know whether here or a new thread would be better. 

On the point you raise, those handwrittens are either from real time during the interrogation or ca immediately after from memory while memory is fresh. It’s going to be one of those two. I think a lot of FBI interview reports were the latter. Intended for personal use only in the preparation of the typed report after which the notes could be disposed of. 

But the point is those handwritten notes are witness evidence Oswald said that, earliest and most reliable of anything written. Fritz is not going to make that up, or Hosty. 

On your apostle Paul hypothetical, if it was authentic and not dismissed as forged, yes historians would give it high credibility. 

There are two other factors to consider. One is the incredibly important issue of alibi of any suspect and how seemingly fluid and inexact the reports for the record are on that for Oswald. The second is if Oswald was down there on that first floor (or second or any lower floor), he loved JFK and cared about politics, it is just a no-brainer he would be out there watching the parade—of course he would. 

The Fritz and Hosty handwrittens are redundant corroboration that he did say he was. That is established from the fact those are present in those handwritten notes (combined with establishing the time meant was when the parade went past the TSBD, which is not hard to establish).

The puzzle is why that isn’t in the typed for the record. Not that Oswald didn’t say what the handwrittens say he did.

When I recently had a walk with a daughter of Curtis Craford, the first thing I did after was go to an all-night diner and write longhand page after page of everything said and remembered while it was fresh to me. When I write up later in typescript form from those notes, the handwritten is primary in terms of closest memory and freshest. The same with Fritz’s and Hosty’s. 

I'm feeling guilty for derailing the thread, so if you want to discuss it further, by all means start another thread. Thanks. 

[Greg Doudna]

39 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Well, I don't think we know either way. But I was friendly with John Judge, who used to say that he may be a conspiracy theorist, but those supporting the Warren Commission were "coincidence theorists" in that they relied upon a lot of coincidences. 

In this instance--whether or not Oswald was outside at the time of the shots--it is my my fellow CTs who are coincidence theorists.

1. Oswald's failing to say he was outside during the shooting when talking to the media--coincidence.

2. Oswald's failing to tell his wife or brother he was outside at at the time of the shooting--coincidence.

3. Not one of a dozen or so people in position to have seen him on the steps before the shooting saying they saw him outside--coincidence.

4. Not one film or photo in which Oswald can be identified on the steps at or within a minute of the shooting--coincidence. 

Pat, I actually do think points 1 and 2 are coincidences but not significant ones. He knew he would have a trial for those things. 

On 4, only if you can establish beyond reasonable doubt on photographic grounds alone that the figure in Wiegman is excluded from being Oswald, or can be identified beyond reasonable doubt as some other TSBD employee (and I’m not referring to Lovelady in that photo). I’m not aware of any consensus claim from any quarter on that, as narrowly stated.

On point 3, do you accept the Pierce Allman meeting with Oswald? (Most do. I do, and I think it may have happened at ca 40 seconds after the final shot not 3 minutes after.) But Oswald can’t have been there because nobody of all around said they saw him? Why is the lack of claimed witnesses never seen as an objection to the Pierce Allman encounter, but is cited as an objection to same place 3 minutes (if so on the timing) earlier? Oswald just wasn’t very noticeable in either case apparently.

Edited Friday at 01:42 AM by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

Ok Pat will pick this up elsewhere.

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Well, I don't "know" Oswald claimed that ["out front with Shelley "] alibi ...

 

You think the WC report is just as trustworthy as original handwritten notes? That's just silly IMO. Naive.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

On point 3, do you accept the Pierce Allman meeting with Oswald? (Most do. I do, and I think it may have happened at ca 40 seconds after the final shot not 3 minutes after.)

 

Greg is right. Shelley and Lovelady both claimed that Gloria Calvary arrived at the TSBD step three minutes after the shots. But the Darnell film proves they were lying. It shows Calvary at the steps ~30 seconds after the shots.