The Website of Carlos Whitlock Porter



The main point of this is not that "conspiracy theories" are ipso facto valid or invalid, but that any theory must fit and explain the facts. I don't care about Kennedy or Oswald and never have. People who disagree with me can answer my questions.

I have been unable to determine the relationship between Neutron Activation Analysis and Bullet Metal Analysis, except that they are not the same thing. Bullet Metal Analysis has been more or less discredited, partly because of sloppy methodology and dishonesty on the part of the police, i.e., it might still be reliable if performed with proper controls. At any rate, Bullet Metal Analysis has been abandoned. Neutron Activation Analysis is extremely expensive (the tests performed for the House Special Committee on Assassinations cost a quarter of a million dollars) and is a completely different method. It might be best to disregard this point, as I point out. At any rate it only relates to the tiniest fragments. Since Neutron Activation Analysis is a non-destructive form of testing, presumably the same tests, or other tests, could be performed, again, on the same fragments. But disregard it, if you prefer.

[Update Feb. 2011: Neutron Activation Analysis has not been discredited. Although an extremely expensive but non-destructive method of testing, it is still widely used when justified in terms of cost. -C.P.]

Composite of messages exchanged with several people.
Due to the chaotic nature of e-mail, this is a bit more disorganized and repetitive than usual. Apologies are in order.
I've added a few references and quotes in [brackets] because it seems irresponsible not to, but I don't want to clutter it up and make it too academic. This is e-mail, an improvised exchange.
Certain persons are mentioned for purposes of example only. Nothing personal.
Principal assassination-related points in blue.
Principal political points in green.

Contains profanity.
Q: = Reader
A: = ME

Q: [Discussion of Fort Hood shooter, etc. etc.]

A: There are a lot of theories about Hassam [Fort Hood shooter], and I think most of the truth will come out. Too many witnesses, and he's alive, so far. The truth always comes out when nobody cares, that's the only way it can come out.
Ever read THE JFK MYTHS by Larry M. Sturdivan, or THE DARK SIDE OF CAMELOT by Seymour Hersch?
I agree about Vince Foster and 911.

Q: I never thought of it like that........that something could come out when no one would even care.
I guess the list includes JFK, RFK, MLK, Vince Foster, 9/11 and now Ft. Hood. Imagine, no one in the media even asks what weapon that Hassan used, where the weapon is, HOW he even shot 40 people with supposedly just a handgun (at the start when there were 3-4 shooters it was AK47s). No one.
I have never even heard a single journalist ask how Foster could have shot himself with his right hand when he was left handed. At minimum......... But it must have had something to do with Rose Law Firm's connections to Bush 1 in relation to the cocaine smuggling of the CIA, and probably the Zionists as well..........

A: In this case, anything is possible. There are supposed to have been dozens of murders in Mina, Arkansas connected with all the cocaine smuggling operations there, which of course could not have stopped when the Clintons moved to Washington. The USA stinks from top to bottom, like some weird banana republic. It needs a real clean up, no pussy-footing around.
If I am not indiscreet, may I ask how old you were when JFK was assassinated?

Q: Seven years old, in second grade. I remember coming home and finding that my favorite TV show wasn't on because of news coverage........

A: Just wondering. I was 15. More lies have been written about JFK and his pathetic, but very successful, assassination, than any other subject in the 20th century except the Hoaxoco$t and racial differences. In all cases, the source of the lies is the same: the political Left. In all cases, the physical evidence is all on one side. The Left has no respect for the truth.

...It's interesting to ask a few questions. How do you frame someone who will almost certainly have an alibi if he is innocent? How could the conspirators have known he wouldn't be watching the motorcade with the others?  The only way a conspiracy could know that Oswald would have no alibi would be if they knew for certain that he would be concealed for the purpose of killing the President. Oswald was notoriously rebellious and unreliable. What happens if he doesn’t even come to work that day? OK, so no frame-up.

How about a conspiracy? No conspiracy will use a rifle that can be easily traced to one of the members. A conspiracy would probably use a sporting rifle with hollow point ammo. A hollow point bullet for the neck shot would probably have blown JFK's head off. Also, a conspiracy would certainly have used a silencer, which, even in 1963, could be made to imitate other noises, such as machinery.

No conspiracy would send its principal assassin into action without his pistol, with no discernible means of escape, and with 4 bullets for a 6-bullet clip.
No conspiracy would allow its principal assassin to wander around in the street afterwards getting in buses and taxis with $ 13.87 in his pocket.

Oswald applied for 3 different jobs the month before and was only assigned to that warehouse more or less by accident. They had two warehouses. He was trying to leave and find another job. The visit to Dallas was only decided on about a week before, or less. The motorcade route was decided upon 4 days before, announced in the newspapers 3 days before, Oswald was living separated from his wife in a rooming house and never went out. During those 3 days, he never went out, made one phone call per night to his wife, in Russian, received no visitors, no mail, no nothing, and had no money. His total net worth when he died was about 180 dollars. All these tales about the last-minute change in the motorcade route are just fiction. And so on. There are a million lies.  

By the time he was arrested, he was guilty of at least 5 or 6 serious state and Federal felonies or misdemeanors, worth about 25 years imprisonment, even without the 2 murders (2 counts, violation of Federal Firearms act, 10 years; forgery of Selective Service card, 5 years; carrying a concealed weapon, in Texas, probably a year, although anything is possible; attempted murder of a police officer, probably 5 years, maybe 10; making false statements to the Post Office -- don't laugh, this is a Federal felony punishable by 5 years imprisonment, it's Title 18, US Code, Section 1001, False Statements). Why did he do these things, if he was just an innocent victim?

So, no conspiracy. OK. There are 2 ways of shooting a public figure: from above, where nobody can see you, with a rifle, or you mingle with the crowd and plug him with a pistol.

No conspiracy is going to place an assassin on the Grassy Knoll, on ground level, in plain sight of thousands of people, including hundreds of amateur photographers, at the end of a Sheriff's Department parking lot [!] which was also used by the Dallas District Attorney's office [!] and was sealed off by the police for 2 hours before the motorcade [!], so that's out.

OK, some more questions. If the shoulder wound did not exit the neck, where did it go? If the bullet that went through JFK did not hit Connally, where did it go? Where else could it go? If the neck shot is an entry wound, where did it exit? If the shots were fired from the front right, how did Connally get shot? From the lower back of the seat in front of him? Connally's wound was oblong, indicating it was tumbling, i.e., it had already hit something. What could it have been, if it was not JFK? If a shot was fired from the Grassy Knoll, what happened to the bullet? It didn't hit anything, and was never found. It didn't even hit the car. And so on.  You'll never get an answer.

To me, the JFK conspiracy theorists are irrational and illogical. Plus, they lie. For example, for 45 years they've been saying, how could “one bullet cause 7 wounds”? First, they cannot count straight, and second, they count every through-and-through bullet wound as TWO WOUNDS. That is dishonest. So we get JFK, [1] through-and-through bullet wound, shoulder, counted as 2 wounds; Connally, [1] through and through bullet wound, back, also counted as 2 wounds, + [1 wound] wrist + [1 wound] leg. That's 6, not 7, and in reality it's only 2 through-and-through wounds, plus the wrist and leg, = 4. The thigh wound did not even penetrate the muscle. Where was it fired from? The floor of the car? 

For 45 years, they've been talking about the "pristine bullet", which isn't pristine at all, it's smashed completely flat on one side, flatter than you could smash it with a hammer, the sign of a tremendous impact. Why don't they ever show the end-on view of it? For 45 years I never saw an honest picture of it. Why not?

For 45 years, they've been regaling us with obvious absurdities as if they were self-evident truths, usually in the form of single sentences, without proof or elaboration, but with great displays of righteous indignation, for example: "The CIA killed Kennedy", "The FBI killed Kennedy", "Oswald was in the CIA", "Oswald was in the FBI and was trying to prevent the assassination", "JFK, RFK and MLK were all killed by right-wingers", just as if it were all perfectly obvious. They don't stop and explain, they just run over it and keep going -- a sort of "Hit and Run Assertion Technique".

(Sirhan Sirhan, a "right-winger"! Oswald, Sirhan and James Earl Ray, all "right-wingers"! Yeah, sure, etc. etc.).

For 45 years, I've been thinking, "What the hell are they talking about?" It doesn't take a lot of experience with these people to realize that they say things which aren't true at all.

You think you're getting "fact" when they talk, but really, what you're getting is just somebody else's speculative theory. And there is always someone cashing in.

They keep saying Oswald's shooting feat was impossible, but never tell you why. Why can't a trained Marine marksman hit a slowly moving target (in effect, it was not moving at all, since it was travelling directly away from him at only 11 miles an hour, with a downward slope of less than 4 degrees) at only 59 and 88 yards? Oh, absolutely impossible. BUT: perfectly possible with all kinds of longer-distance cross-shots from the Dal-Tex building, the windows of the Dallas County Courthouse building (where the windows don't open), both nearly twice the distance and at an angle, or the Grassy Knoll, OK, closer, 100 feet, but a moving target, straight left to right, which obviously missed. 

In 1963, the Mannlicher Carcano was still being used by the Italian NATO rifle team in international competition [Bugliosi, p. 493]. The bullet could penetrate 2 feet of pine board or 30 inches of gelatine tissue simulant, come out the back and penetrate the earth so deeply it could not be found. The rifle could be cocked, shouldered and fired twice in as little as 1.66 seconds
("The HSCA later found that Oswald's rifle, using the iron sights rather than the scope, could be fired twice in a shorter time than 2.3 seconds. 'The Committee test-fired a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle using the open iron sights. It found it was possible for two shots to be fired within 1.66 seconds'" [Bugliosi, p. 490]). Oswald had at least 5 seconds for the 3rd shot. In the Marines, Oswald scored 91% in rapid fire at 200 yards, and only 76% in slow aimed fire [Bugliosi, p. 496]. Remember, he missed 2 out of 3 shots, since he wasn’t aiming for JFK’s upper back, he was aiming at the head.  So he “scored” below his usual average [see Bugliosi generally, pp. 490-496].

World class marksmen obtained world-class results using Oswald's rifle, the same weapon. His shooting has been duplicated many times by Marines qualified at his level of skill, with identical weapons. They talk about all kinds of impossible glass bullets, exploding bullets, short-charge bullets, long-distance cross-shots, “saboted” bullets [which would have required following Oswald around as he does his target practice, recovering a bullet fired by Oswald, non-deformed, using the same bullet to assassinate the President, from the same building, using a wooden or plastic "sabot" or “shoe” to hold this same, used, but non-deformed, bullet, through the barrel of another rifle, which would of course be much less accurate, as well as impossible in many other ways – you see how crazy this all is; it is also an implicit admission that all the shots were fired from Oswald's rifle], but no, absolutely impossible with an ordinary bullet at only 88 yards! In the Marines, you qualify at 200 yards. The rifle can be fired at least twice as quickly without the telescopic sight. At 88 yards the telescopic sight offered no advantage and he almost certainly did not use it. Os
wald had the reputation of becoming icily calm in any real crisis [Bugliosi, p. 840]. 

JFK's brain was examined by 17 pathologists having performed a total of 100,000 autopsies between them, and they all stated that there was no damage to the left hemisphere of the brain, that there was only one wound channel through the brain, from back to front, that the exit wound was over the right eye, near the hairline. The entry wound was in the back of the head, leaving an expanding trail of bullet fragments from back to front. The explosion of the skull was a structural failure unrelated to the position of the shooter. His head moved 2 inches forwards (the maximum distance a bullet can move a human head attached to a body), followed by the convulsive movement to the rear, which is symptomatic of a brain injury. No bullet of reasonable size can "throw" a human body in any direction. It's easy to prove. Just hang a body up in the air and shoot at it. This has been known for centuries. The reason a person moves when you shoot him is because he is alive (or was).             

Plus, the kactologists are amateurs. You have people who are not doctors talking about surgery on a corpse, which is impossible, or how to read X-rays, people who are neither photographers nor doctors claiming that all the X-rays were switched or faked, cancer specialists telling you how to perform forensic autopsies, junior residents pretending to be great life-saving surgeons, etc... phony trees, sewer marksmen, manhole assassins, umbrella men, 3 tramps, etc., the whole deal, just like the Hoaxoco$t steam chambers, electrical chambers, pedal driven brain bashing machines, electrical-frying-steaming-air-pumping-quicklime-trapdoor-gas chambers and all the rest of it. The whole situation is an exact parallel. The only difference so far is nobody puts you in prison if you say Oswald was guilty. No doubt that is coming.
Everybody in the country is in the conspiracy. Except the guy who writes it and the guy who buys the book. It's like the Hoaxoco$t of the Jews. It's very profitable.

Oswald had the reputation of becoming extremely calm in real emergencies. The slightest frustration caused him to go berserk, but in a real emergency, like, in the service, he worked on a radar system, and if there was any danger of a plane crash, he issued his orders in a matter-of-fact tone of voice and never got nervous at all [Bugliosi, p. 840]. Oswald was an attention seeker. An ordinary person, in an emergency, thinks, God, this is terrible, what's going to happen, what am I going to do? But an attention seeker thinks, hey, this is great, they're all looking at me, to see what I'm going to do, I'm the center of attention, this is great! So he's like a born actor with an interested audience for the first time in his life and he gives the performance of a lifetime.

Oswald obviously enjoyed being interrogated so much that he just would not shut up. At the same time he was determined not to confess to anything, so he kept telling obvious lies, lies he knew anybody could disprove at any time. It's lucky Ruby shot him, because a lot more evidence came out that way. Texas law would not have permitted Marina to testify against him, but once he was dead, she no longer felt obligated to protect him and was free to speak freely. She said she knew he was guilty. Nobody who knew him was at all surprised.

Oswald was a typical Marxist, and the second person he killed, Tippit, was just the sort of person Marxists are always claiming they want to help: a former sharecropper driven into police work by poverty, risking his life for a few hundred dollars a month, working two jobs to survive, too poor to pay for decent life insurance. His widow's pension would have been a couple hundred a month. Again, a typical Marxist, Oswald blamed society for all his own failings. A typical Leftist. They had enough evidence against him to electrocute him 20 times over. You could throw out 80% of it, and still get a conviction. Try it. I’ll list the evidence against him later. Plus his arrogance and obvious lying would not have gone down well with a Texas jury. The D.A. said he intended to ask for the death penalty, he'd asked for it 24 times and got it 23 times. Oswald's goose was cooked. Ruby did him a favor.

But Ruby also did us a favor, by allowing Marina to testify. Otherwise none of the information about Oswald's assassination against General Walker or half that other stuff would ever have come out.

In Texas, with all that evidence, ordinarily he wouldn't have lived a year, he'd have gotten the chair for sure. Police Chief Fritz said they were charging him for both murders and going for the death penalty. One of the officials involved, District Attorney Henry Wade, said he'd gone for the death penalty 24 times and gotten it 23 times. In another case, Wade delivered what is probably the shortest summation in a criminal case on record. After an eloquent plea for mercy from the court delivered by the defense, Wade rose and said, "Ladies and gentleman of the jury, this boy belongs in the electric chair." Period. That’s Texas! And they sentenced the defendant to death.

To prove Oswald innocent of killing Kennedy, they must prove him innocent of killing Tippit as well. Instead of trying, which is impossible, they simply ignore it, and say, oh, well, “I don't think Oswald shot JFK, or Walker”, or, “If he did, he did it in a conspiracy with Ruby”, or “maybe” he shot Tippit, but “maybe there was some other reason”! 

To me, this is the infantile mentality of people who refuse to accept obvious facts. Why don't they say what they mean? It would be so much easier. "I'll do poo-poo in my pants if you don't say Oswald was innocent! I'll hold my breath until I turn purple! I will! I will!" In which case, one could simply say, "There, there, don't kwy, Ozzie-Wozzie innocent, now, have a nice iggle boggle and a pretty toy -- see how pretty? Now sit down and shut up before I brain you one".

Yeah, well, “maybe” there were invisible space aliens rummaging around in my house last night, that's why I couldn't find my glasses this morning. “Maybe” they zapped them to outer space for study, then zapped them back again, so I could find them, and not get wise to their existence. Hmmm… Why are the space aliens so interested in me? I must be a very special sort of guy, “maybe” it’s my superior intelligence. That’s it! Too bad nobody else recognizes the same thing. Even my wife, she says, “Look, if you found your glasses on the book shelf, you must have put them there”. Now, is that fair? Is that logical? Of course, not. “Maybe” it proves she's in cahoots with the space aliens to keep me from realizing they're watching me! “Maybe” she's a space alien too! I'd better watch her. She's been acting kind of funny lately...         

They show you these ludicrously mendacious diagrams illustrating the "single bullet" theory (which would obviously be the truth if they drew their diagrams correctly). What strikes me is the difference in style, in attitude. Where JFK is concerned, sensible people become typical Jewish far-left liberals, shrill, accusatory, hysterical. The same people might ordinarily be cautious, tentative.

The main points of all this were immediately obvious and I never heard of anybody who didn't think Oswald was guilty until 1967. In 1967 I heard Mark Lane on the radio right after the Jim Garrison fiasco, and he said, the CIA killed Kennedy, and the only reason we can't prove it, is because the CIA is covering up all the evidence, and this proves the CIA killed Kennedy!  It really was, and is, this crude. My reaction then was the same as it is now: how can they possibly expect me to take them seriously? It gets even worse. A lot worse. But those are the main points.  

Everything reported in the papers at the time indicated that Oswald was obviously guilty and everyone thought so. I never even became aware that anyone thought he was innocent until 1967. Nothing that was reported at the time has ever been explained by the JFK conspiracists today. They just ignore all the evidence and never explain anything. I don't give a damn about JFK or Oswald. If they have a better explanation, that's fine with me. But they don't. All the early conspiracy theorists were Marxists. This was true for about 20 years. The Communist Party came up with the official party line on the event within 4 days, and the kactologists have followed it ever since. I was associating with very ordinary people and what I say is the truth. The whole industry was created almost single-handedly by Mark Lane. The industry is very profitable. You can make hundreds of thousands of dollars off even a mediocre JFK conspiracy book as long as it is sensational.  All you need is some sort of tenuous or indirect alleged connection (even second hand) with law enforcement or government or the military -- or not even that -- and you can make a fortune.

[For example, in 1987 [!], a Ventura, California, policeman wrote a book, There's a Fish in the Courthouse, essentially, his memoirs as a policeman, but describing a "meeting" he had, in late 1963 [!], in the company of three famous people [!], naturally all long dead by that time [!], spinning a fantastic tale about the JFK assassination, backed up by "documents" which are never reproduced or quoted and which had all disappeared [!]; he doesn't say where they went. As a result, Wean's book, now out of print, sells for very high prices second hand! For an ordinary set of memoirs!
Having trouble making ends meet? Worry about paying the mortgage this month? Yes, friends, now, you, too, can write your own JFK assassination best-seller and put financial insecurity behind you! Send 2 dollars for details. Why not?

Just as another example, one of many, JFK FINAL JUDGEMENT by Michael Collins Piper sold 40,000 copies at 25 bucks each and it’s complete rubbish. Piper's book is on line in convertible PDF. You can search it. If you really want to see what I mean when I say that he says NOTHING about anything important, this is the version to use. You can enter key word after key word relating to the assassination, and you won't find them. For example, Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater in possession of the .38 revolver used to murder officer J.D. Tippit.
OK. Search for "Texas Theater" (or "Texas Theatre", the British spelling), ".38", "revolver", and you find NOTHING. Search for the word "pistol" and you find it, but only in relation to Sirhan Sirhan. Neutron Activation Analysis proved that the Western Cartridge Company ammunition manufactured for the Mannlicher-Carcano contained highly variant trace quantities of 20 different metals, chiefly barium and antimony, and that each bullet, or fragment, no matter how small, could be traced to the bullet it came from. You don’t like Neutron Activation Analysis? OK, disregard it. Oswald's fingerprints were all over the crime scene, the rifle and the Post Office forms that he used to order the murder weapons, the shell casings and bullets were fired from Oswald's rifle, everything. OK. Search for any of these key words, “ammunition”, “bullet”, “Western Cartridge Company”, “Neutron Activation Analysis”, “cartridge”, “Mannlicher-Carcano”, “Carcano”, anything, you'll find NOTHING, or perhaps a few mentions of the same word in other contexts, like "bite the bullet", or "Meyer Lansky's fingerprints are all over the case".

Incredibly, he mentions Tippit, but not in connection with Tippit getting shot.

[What Piper actually says is as follows:

"Posner cites a witness named Jack Tatum who reportedly saw Oswald
leave the scene of the murder of Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tippit,
stating that Tatum 'told his story for the first time to investigators for the
House Select Committee on Assassinations.'
This is interesting because in other instances when other witnesses who
contradict Posner's thesis had not come forth and told their stories initially,
Posner questions their reliability. However, when a late-coming witness,
such as this one, seems to confirm Posner's thesis, he cites such a witness
as being reliable and 'proof' of his (Posner's) correctness" (p.493)
[emphasis added].

This is a very weak reed to beat Posner over the head with -- what about the pistol? what about the theater? -- but it is a valid point. Jack Ray Tatum's statements were corroborated by physical evidence; but for the reason stated, he is not included among the 9 witnesses mentioned below. This proves my point: if you don't like any of the evidence, disregard it. There's plenty more evidence where that came from. Nor does my list of "9 witnesses" include Domingo Benevides, who said "It looks like the man, but I can't be sure". There were 12 witnesses. OK, say 9. All 9 identified Oswald from photographs or a lineup before Oswald was killed. Suit yourself.

Piper is not telling the truth about what Jack Ray Tatum claimed to have seen. Tatum did not claim to have seen Oswald "leave the scene of the murder", he claimed to have seen Oswald plug Tippit right between the eyes as Tippit lay wounded and helpless on the ground, which is rather a different matter. This was confirmed by a discrepancy in the angle of entry of one of the four bullets, the one in Tippit's forehead.
OK, agreed, let's forget about Jack Ray Tatum. We don't need him.
The point is that anything the kactologists don't want you to know is simply air-brushed out of the picture and replaced by wish-fulfilment fantasies.

(Incidentally, Tatum's reason for keeping quiet for several years was, according to him: "There were enough other people around and I didn't see that I could contribute anything" -- in other words, "Why get involved???"
Mistaken, of course, but if you've ever had anything to do with the police or the courts, you can understand how he felt.)

Now get this:

(emphasis added):

"The people at the facilitation level could also have been [!] utilized in
helping the actual assassins escape. Jack Ruby would have been [!] an ideal
facilitator used in manipulating members of the Dallas police force. A few
hefty pay-offs here and there would [!] do the job. Officer J. D. Tippit was
probably [!] one involved and it seems to me [!] that Tippit was killed when he
refused to do his job. And then, again, perhaps [!] Tippit was actually slated for
execution for the purpose of pinning the crime on Oswald" (p. 657).

Piper is a past master of evasion: the indirect, the irrelevant, the hinted-at, the "maybe". These are the only mentions of Tippit in a 768-page book. There is a name for this technique. It is called "innuendo".
"Innuendo" is the art of leading people to believe something while refusing to take the responsibility for actually saying it, usually because you know perfectly well it isn't true.

In a single sentence, he speculates that Abraham Zapruder "may have" been in the conspiracy! What is the factual basis for all these "may haves"?
Whales "may" speak French on the bottom of the sea; you can't prove they don't.
It "may be" that the only reason they don't do it when you're listening is because they want to keep it a secret. Pourquoi pas? ]


This is typical of all kactological literature.There is NOTHING. He says NOTHING relevant about ANYTHING.

Another example. He speculates that E. Howard Hunt (a professional spy, spy novelist, and con artist) "gave" Oswald the rifle used to kill the President. OK. The Post Office and Federal authorities found 11 documents in Oswald's handwriting, with Oswald's fingerprints on them, relating to the purchase of the rifle and pistol by Oswald. But no, E. Howard Hunt "gave" him the rifle. They had 6 witnesses to Oswald attempting to murder the officers who arrested him, they had 9 witnesses to Oswald murdering Tippit or running away afterwards, carrying the pistol and manually ejecting shells, they had 4  photographs of General Walker's house, 5 photographs of Oswald holding the weapon, all taken with Oswald's camera, one of them bearing Oswald's inscription and signature! He had no way of knowing whether the photo with the signature could be produced, but he lied about it anyway. They had 2 witnesses (actually about 5) who saw him shooting from the window, there are two famous news photos of the window, taken immediately after the first shot, he was guilty of at least 5 or 6 federal or state felonies by the time he was arrested, without counting the murders, but no, he's innocent, an innocent patsy! They traced the weapons to him, the bullets and all bullet fragments to the weapon, the rifle, and easily reproduced his allegedly impossible shooting feats. It has also been done in far less time. As might be expected of a battlefield weapon, the Mannlicher-Carcano can be cocked, reshouldered and fired (point shooting) in as little as 3/4 of a second. (Obviously it takes a skilled rifleman, not somebody like Jim Marrs.) The distances were only 59 and 88 or 89 yards, at what was essentially a still target (moving away from him at less than 11 miles an hour). Oswald scored 91% in the Marines in rapid fire at 200 yards, and only 76% at slow, aimed fire. In other words, he was better at rapid fire than slow, aimed fire. But he still missed twice (the neck shot was obviously aimed at the head), and he had up to a total of 8 seconds. At least 5 seconds for the head shot (which almost missed). The telescopic sight slows you down, you can fire at least twice as fast without it. At any rate, it wasn't a difficult shooting feat, with or without the sight.
Piper even has the chutzpah to dismiss all the technical stuff by saying that people have wasted too much time trying to figure out where the bullets came from, who cares?
Ha! Ha! Ha! And this colossal pile of horseshit is worth 100,000 bucks to him?

All the wounds were inflicted from the high upper rear right, and there were no other wounds. Obviously, no conspiracy would use a rifle that could easily be traced to one of the conspirators, and a conspiracy would probably use a sporting rifle with soft point ammo. With soft point ammo, the neck shot would have blown Kennedy's head off. So then Oswald leaves the depository and starts boarding buses and taxis with 13 dollars and 87 cents in his pocket and goes back to his rooming house, the first place anybody would look for him! Of course, to pick up the revolver, and try to hop another bus. Some conspiracy! OK, how about a frameup? How can you frame somebody who will obviously have an alibi if he is innocent? The only way anybody could know that Oswald would have no alibi, would be somebody who knew that Oswald was concealed, shooting at the President. If he'd been innocent, he would almost certainly have been watching the motorcade with other employees. After all, he was the guy so interested in politics. There were 65 employees, almost all of them were watching it, in groups. Oswald claimed he was eating lunch with Junior Jarman and Harold Norman, two employees. They said that was untrue, they never saw him at that time. So there goes the frameup. And so on.

... As I say, you can enter any key word relating to the assassination and 9 times out of 10 it won't appear, or it will appear in relation to something else. You can enter the names of most of the witnesses, and they won't appear. But you have tons of junk about people who weren't worth mentioning even 50 years ago. Piper's job isn't to say what happened, his job is to establish "connections". A knows B,  B knows C, and C knows D. Presto! You have established a "connection" between A and D. These "connections" may be very tenuous or even entirely speculative; their significance is never discussed. They are considered an end in themselves. So everything he ever read, everything he ever wrote about, everything he ever heard of, is in there, in every book he writes, just nothing about Kennedy, the assassination or Oswald. 

[Am I being unfair? This is what Piper says about Oswald
(emphasis added):
Oswald may have been [!] instructed to bring a rifle to the Texas School
Book Depository (from where the Warren Commission claims Oswald fired
the fatal shots). Whether it was his own rifle [!] or another rifle or whether that
weapon was actually used
[!] to fire any of the shots we will probably never
know [!]. (There are some who question [!] whether or not Oswald was actually
the person who obtained the alleged assassination weapon through the mail
to begin with!)" (p. 658).
This is taking innuendo to the level of a fine art. These methods are not worthy of an historian. Did Oswald purchase the rifle, yes or no? Did he use it, yes or no? What about the evidence?
Another Piper book, THE NEW JERUSALEM, accuses the Jews of "supressing the truth about the JFK assassination"; yet the only example he cites is one, not of suppression, but of publication: the publication by Random House of CASE CLOSED by Gerald Posner. This is a perfect example of the manner in which the mentality of the kactologists reflects the mentality of the Jews, for whom disagreement always equals persecution.

Don't blame me, I voted for LynndieEngland)

[Is it mean of me to knock Piper? Don't worry about Piper. Anybody named after Michael Collins can take a few knocks. At least I didn't shoot him.]
... He drops so many names it's like reading a phone book, plus his style is so execrable, so atrocious, so chaotic, that he belongs in a museum of bad writers, besides the fact that he never says anything, I don't think a high-school newspaper editor would send him to cover a track meet. I know he wouldn't. I used to edit a high-school newspaper, and I wouldn’t.
"Whether or not Horowitz McGillicuddy set a new school record in the high jump, as has been speculated by some, will probably never be known. However, according to the [usually unnamed] sources of so-and so [some obscure person), there is reason to believe, maybe possibly probably perhaps, may have, could have, etc. etc., blah blah blah for 500 pages, this is all speculation, but it is something to consider."

When I read something like that I feel like grasping the writer by the throat and saying, "Look! Is it your contention that the Mossad killed Kennedy, yes or no? And I want a straight answer, not 500 pages of horseshit talk. I want to know the identity of the assassin, or at least, some evidence that he was an Israeli agent, I want to know what kind of rifle was used, what kind of ammunition, where the bullets were fired from and where they went. Most of all, I want to know how you account for all the physical evidence."  
You'll never get an answer. This is horseshit journalism. 40,000 copies of this at 25 bucks each?
Even if he only nets 10%, it buys a lot of beer. I think I'll try it myself. It's easy to do.

Price second hand: $ 999.99,
iper has now admitted that there is no forensic evidence that the Mossad killed JFK at all! So much for a 768-page book!
And it's just an example, one book out of thousands.

At this rate, you could write an 800-page book about every person in Dallas -- or even the world -- who ever had a reason to resent Kennedy and ever had access to a firearm (or not even that).
The money's good. Why not try it?


The American people will believe anything, and the stupider the better. A woman named Giorgio wrote a book about Elvis sightings, she appeared on a TV show, the station took 30,000 calls, and 25,000 thought Elvis was still alive! [Bugliosi, p. 1056]. It is claimed that 20% of the American public believe that the sun orbits around the earth. Something like 80% of them do not (allegedly) believe in evolution. Then there's Roswell, live toads unearthed inside solid rock 10 million years old found in coal mines (Ripley's Believe it or Not), etc. Some people think JFK is still alive. Piper panders to this mentality with cheap fantasies of his own.
The worst thing is his theories don't explain anything.
The trick is to dream up theories that account for the facts. This is what Piper notoriously fails to do. He is chock-a-block with theories, but he ignores all the facts.

Q: He also claims to have some Indian blood in him – covering all bases, then secretly passes himself off as a National Socialist…he’s a real performer…

A: What can you say about somebody who writes a 700-page book about the Kennedy assassination and says NOTHING about Kennedy (except the repeated assertion that he opposed allowing Israel to obtain the Bomb), NOTHING about the assassination (and I mean NOTHING), and NOTHING about Oswald (or nothing that can be described as fact).

The other one I read was THE JUDAS GOATS. He's also a hypocrite, something typically Irish and Irish-American, I'm afraid. Oh, he's not a racist, oh, he's not a right winger, oh, he's not an anti-Semite, oh, he's not a Hoaxoco$t denier, oh, no, he doesn't say "the Jews killed Kennedy" [then what is he saying?], etc. OK, so then what's he doing writing a book called THE JUDAS GOATS, which is all about phony right-wingers? I wouldn't write a book about phony Left-wingers, would I? It takes a Left-winger to write that. He doesn't list David Duke and Dr. Fields as among the phonies, so I guess he knows the truth about the blacks and the Jews, etc., but you'd never know it. Same stuff, same huge masses of alleged information swirling around to no purpose, proving nothing and going nowhere, same factoids, same obscure people, etc. etc. just as if they were important. The worst thing is, when he makes a good point, he never bothers to prove it. For example, he says MASTERS OF DECEIT by J. Edgar Hoover was ghost-written, which is the truth. But he doesn't prove it. He just doesn't care. Vincent Bugliosi proves it.  

Let's be charitable and say that 80% of what Piper says is true. OK. Only half of that is alleged fact, the other half is pure speculation, and worse, it's not even related to the factual material. Both the Clintons are CIA agents, John Kerry was a CIA agent, Timothy McVeigh was a government agent, etc. etc. OK, I agree about McVeigh, and his theory about Kerry is plausible. The problem is, he says the same things about everybody. He says Vince Foster was murdered by the Clintons because he foiled a CIA plot to assassinate Saddam Hussein. OK, I agree, Foster was murdered. But it's unsolved. Does he know who did it? Does he have a confession? Can he even prove there was a CIA plot to murder Hussein? OK, let's assume there was (which is probably true), how do we prove Foster foiled it, and was murdered for that reason? He "proves" all this in about one paragraph based on the unnamed "sources" of some obscure person named Skolnik. Wow!

On one page he says JFK was killed because he was a great self-sacrificing idealist who was determined to prevent Israel from obtaining the Bomb, then, on another page in the same book, he claims JFK enlisted the services of a Jewish Zionist gangster, Mickey Cohen, in Los Angeles, to start screwing a movie actress, Marilyn Monroe! This is the same writer in the same book! What would he need Cohen for?

Plus, his chief source (there are two) for his info that JFK didn't want Israel to get the Bomb is a book called THE SAMSON OPTION by Seymour Hersch, who also wrote THE DARK SIDE OF CAMELOT, which totally destroys all his assassination theories; so, instead of attacking Hersch's credibility, he shores it up, saying, why did he publish this stuff now? Everybody knew JFK was fucking everybody on the face of the earth! Yeah, great idealist.

The Kennedys are an industry in which anything will sell. There are no limits. They tell you the Kennedys were a dysfunctional family of sexual sociopaths and financial criminals with Mafia ties, having extra-marital affairs with movie actresses and plotting to murder them, then in the next breath, the same people tell you they were selfless idealists whose saintliness would have transformed America!

The kactologists are so blinded by what they want to see that they simply do not realize what they are saying.

Then in JFK FINAL JUDGEMENT he quotes Victor Ostrovsky, who claims the Mossad tried to duplicate Oswald's shooting feat and couldn't do it. To me, this adds plausibility to Piper's theory that the Mossad did it. It's why I read the book. After all, if the Mossad did it, they would naturally claim that what they did was impossible. Right? So Piper takes that at face value, and wants it both ways: what Oswald did was impossible, nobody could shoot somebody in the head at 88 yards, using a TELESCOPIC SIGHT, for Christ's sake,
but easy-peasy to shoot him at much greater distances, difficult angle shots, and -- he doesn't go into this but it's part of the yarn other people spin -- using all kinds of impossible “saboted” bullets, non-existent glass bullets, plastic bullets (not available in 1963, these bullets use a primer only and carry no charge), "short load" bullets, "frangible" bullets (which consist of metallic powder held together simply by glue), etc. etc., from the Dal-Tex Building, the Grassy Knoll, the 2nd story of the Dallas County Records Building (where the windows do not open), etc. etc. Actually Piper doesn't even go into all these yarns, he claims the kactologists are wasting their time, and have been for 45 years, trying to figure out where the bullets were fired from, what kind of bullets were fired, what happened to them, where they went, etc. etc. That's all just a waste of time!

So much for evidence. Zo easy it iss to write a book.

... Did you know some people believe JFK was killed by his own driver to prevent JFK from revealing that the USA had established a space station on the moon in collaboration with the Soviets and space aliens? Another "popular theory" is that JFK is still alive on the top floor of Parkland Hospital, and appeared at a birthday party for Truman Capote. Somebody named George Thomson believes 22 shots were fired and 5 people were killed, but JFK was not one of them, the person killed in his place was Officer Tippit. The killing of JFK never took place according to this theory. You can't read about it for 15 minutes without finding another goofy, wacko theory. I'm sick of hearing it. What's more, not only is it all nonsense, but it's distracting intelligent people from their real problems.

It's obviously a very easy way for a writer to make money. One recent book claims the South Vietnamese killed JFK.  Enough is enough, already.

As far as I know, no JFK conspiracy theorist has ever written a biography of JFK, and no JFK biographer has ever written a conspiracy book on the subject. In other words, first they free their minds from any knowledge of JFK the man, then they ignore all the evidence in the assassination and make up their theories, without proof.  

I've never heard of a criminal case in which there was so much evidence against one person, never, or even close. You could throw 90% of it away and convict Oswald of murder 10 times over. The question of whether he acted alone is somewhat less clear, because of the nature of proving a negative, but it should have been obvious, even at the time, if you know the facts, that he did act alone.

To me, it's very simple to start with, and can be expressed in 3 to 5 very simple yes or no questions:

"a) Is it or is not a fact, that Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater in possession of the same pistol that was used to kill Officer Tippit?
b) Is it or is not a fact,  that he produced that pistol and attempted to kill the officers arresting him?
c) Is it or is not a fact, that he was also carrying a forged Selective Service card bearing his photograph, and
d) the name, in his own handwriting,
e) of Alex J. Hidell, the name used to purchase the firearms used in both murders?"

[Bugliosi, pp. 105-108; Sturdivan, pp. 14-15, Posner, 3-4, 280-282]

[references just for starters; search and ye shall find]

How obvious can you get? Why not just leave your calling card at the scene of the crime?

In 45 years, I've never heard an answer. They'll talk about the length of time it took Oswald to ride a certain distance by taxicab, to walk a certain distance on foot, but they'll never answer your questions. If you say, "Look, I don't care about any of that stuff, I want to know what happened in the theater", you'll never get an answer.

Instead, you get all these red-herring questions, like “Why did Oswald drink a Coke after the assassination instead of a Dr. Pepper? He hated Coke, always drank Dr. Pepper”, big mystery, as if this were breath-takingly important.

Well, OK, now that you mention it, the reason he drank a Coke after the assassination was because the Coke machine was located on the 2nd floor, and he’d just come down from the 6th floor, where he shot the President, and that was as far as he got! [Bugliosi, pp. 955-57]. The Dr. Pepper machine was located on the 1st floor, where he claimed he’d just eaten lunch, with Junior Jarman. He had to have an excuse to be in the 2nd floor cafeteria, now, didn’t he? So much for the Coke.

More questions:
g) "If he didn't kill JFK, why did he kill Tippit?
h) Why did he leave the School Book depository?"

You'll never get an answer to that, either (or never one that makes sense).

Short list of evidence proving Oswald was guilty:
-6 witnesses to Oswald attempting to kill the cops that arrested him;
-9 witnesses to Oswald shooting Tippit and/or running away with a pistol afterwards, manually ejecting shells (all 9 of these 9 witnesses identified him from photographs or a line up before he was killed);
-2 witnesses saw him shooting at JFK from the window, and gave an accurate description of him (so accurate, in fact, that Tippit obviously stopped Oswald on the basis of this description and was killed);
(or “maybe” there was “some other reason”; “maybe” they played tiddlywinks together; “maybe” the tiddlywinks club was in China, which is why nobody knows it existed. After all, “anything is possible”, isn’t that right?) 
-2 photographs of the window Oswald fired the shots from, taken immediately after the first shot, proving that’s where the shots came from;
-4 shells manually ejected by Tippit's murderer at the scene were matched to Oswald’s pistol, which was in his waistband
(the reason the bullets in Tippit's body were only "consistent" with having been fired from Oswald’s pistol was because the weapon had been re-chambered, but not re-barreled, from .38 to .38 Special, so the bullets wobbled leaving the barrel and the striations were incomplete);

Not to mention:
 3 shell casings, fired from Oswald’s rifle in the Texas School Book Depository;
-11 original  documents in Oswald’s handwriting, with his fingerprints all over them, proving he bought the rifle and pistol and gave Alex J. Hidell permission to receive mail at his box;
-the envelopes, which were in Oswald’s handwriting too, but only existed on microfilm, and were disregarded by the Warren Commission; 
-the original altered negative he used to produce the forged Selected Service card;
-5  photographs of himself holding the rifle, one of them bearing his own dated signature on the back;
-the rifle itself, with his palm print on it; 
-his fingerprints all over the boxes and window sill in the Depository;
-Marina Oswald and Ruth Payne's identification of the jacket abandoned by Tippit's killer;
-he never filled any orders that morning;
-his clipboard was located on the 6th floor about 10 feet away;
-2 witnesses saying he brought a long heavy paper bag to work containing "curtain rods" which were never found and which Oswald never mentioned to anyone else;  
-the bag he brought the rifle to work in, with his palm print and fingerprint on it;
-no one in the Depository saw him that morning;
-no one ate lunch with him; there were no other Depository employee fingerprints on the boxes, even though none of them wore gloves;  
-and they had all his lies.

He denied ever owning a rifle and pistol
(actually he contradicted himself later and admitted purchasing the pistol and carrying it, but claimed he bought it in Forth Worth);
-denied knowing anyone named Alex J. Hidell;
-denied ever living at Neely Street, where the backyard pictures were taken;
-they had Marina's testimony that she took the pictures;
-he denied it was him in the photographs, even though he knew full well that one of them bore his signature (it wasn't found for 5 years, but he couldn't know that);
-he denied bringing a bag to work; 
-they found the camera with which the pictures were taken;
-they found one original negative;
-they located the pharmacy where the pictures were developed; Oswald denied everything.

He claimed he ate lunch with Junior Jarman, a negro employee. Jarman said he ate alone. He also contradicted himself and admitted he was on the sixth floor, then he admitted that he owned the pistol, but claimed he bought in Forth Worth. 

They found 4 photos of General Walker's house. If he didn't shoot at Walker, what were they for? They had Marina's testimony about his assassination attempt on General Walker. 

They matched the fibres (not only the colour but the twist) on the butt plate of the rifle to the shirt Oswald was wearing when we went to work that day, as well as to the blanket in which the same rifle was stored in Ruth Payne's garage.
This is not considered conclusive evidence, so OK, let's disregard it.

One of the reasons the throat wound was so small was that the flesh and muscle were held very tightly in place by a tight shirt and necktie knot. The bullet pierced the fibres of the shirt from back to front, barely nicking the knot in the tie, leaving residues of lead and copper on the fibres. The attending physicians (mostly junior residents, since the senior physicians and specialists were away attending a conference in Galveston) were trying the save the President's life, not solve a crime -- he'd been shot; what was the big mystery? -- so they performed a tracheotomy through the wound, obliterating it. Senior physicians who arrived later were unable to find the exit wound. Remarks made at the time, under circumstances of great confusion, without full knowledge of the facts, have been exploited by the kactologists ever since.

Only 2 bullets hit the car, or the occupants, and both were fired from Oswald's rifle. The Western Cartridge Company Mannlicher Carcano bullets were found to contain highly varying trace amounts of about 20 different metals, from a few parts per million to over 900. This enabled them to match every fragment, no matter how small, to the bullet from which it came. The technique involved is called Neutron Activation Analysis. All the evidence is on one side. You don’t like Neutron Activation Analysis? Disregard it. There was still only one bullet wound in the head, and it was inflicted from the high rear upper right. Go ahead, disregard it.    

He denied being a Communist. You know what he said? "I'm not a Communist, I'm a Marxist, Marxism is pure Communism". So naturally every Marxist in the world set out to defend him. It's always like that.
(Compare: "That's not a dog, that's an Airdale. An Airdale is pure dog." Typical Marxist logic.)

The Daily Worker came out with the official party line on the assassination on November 26, 1963.  

That's without even discussing the ballistics, head wound, head snap, head explosion, Connally, grassy knoll, and all these other things, etc. They matched every bullet fragment to the bullets from which they came, proving only 2 bullets hit the car or the occupants, and both were fired from Oswald's rifle.

All the evidence is one side. It's like the myth that “race is not a scientific concept”, or that “Hitler gassed the Jews”. It's bluff. 

Thrill to "Holo-Land"
Fun for the Entire Family

Q: Is he really defiantly raising his fist or just showing that he's manacled? The other hand also seems to be in a fist.

A: He's handcuffed, it's definitely a Communist clenched fist salute, which was not well known in America at that time. And look at the gleam in his eyes. This is a gesture of triumph. Also he wanted to be defended by John Abt, a well-known defender of Marxists.
To me, the most obvious, absolute, proof of Oswald's guilt was his refusal to admit things he knew they could prove. An ordinary criminal would say, OK, I bought the weapons under a false name, it's because I'm a Marxist, I was afraid of getting on a list or something, OK, sure, that's me in the photographs, I'm a militant, a revolutionary, I don't deny that, but I didn't kill anybody. Sure, that's my rifle, it was stolen out of Ruth Payne's garage about 3 weeks ago, you find the guy who stole my rifle and you've got the guy who shot the President. Sure, I brought curtain rods to work, I left them on the 1st floor, I don't know what happened to them, you find them. OK, so my room had curtain rods, OK, I never mentioned curtain rods to anyone, OK I wasn't allowed to make any changes to the room, but I was thinking about asking the landlady whether she would let me install them, even though I had no right to. Sure, I used the name Alex J. Hidell, but that doesn't make me a murderer. Sure, I used the name H.O. Lee, etc. etc."

It wouldn't have worked, but it would have given him some credibility. Instead, he denied everything, no matter how obvious it was. He loved it. He loved the attention he was getting. This was why he was so calm. An ordinary person, in a crisis, thinks, God, what's going to happen, what am I going to do? But an attention seeker thinks, hey, everybody's looking at me to see what I'm going to do, I'm the centre of attention, wow! So he's like a born actor with an interested audience for the first time in his life, so he gives the performance of a lifetime.   

The best books on this are THE JFK MYTHS by Larry M. Sturdivan, and RECLAIMING HISTORY by Vincent Bugliosi (2700 pages). (You want a description of JFK's underpants the day he was killed? It's in there, in a footnote. I'm not kidding.) CASE CLOSED by Gerald Posner is an excellent book, with about half a dozen very serious errors on very minor points. He should publish a revised edition. I think he could answer all his critics with about half a dozen footnotes of moderate length. For example, he is mistaken about the existence of a Liberty Bell at the Dallas Trade Mart, and, worse, he badly mangles the quote from his source of information. But since there was no bell, and since the "bell tone" on the Dictabelt tape is not a bell, but an electronic tone, and since the Dictabelt tape is rubbish anyway, since it originated from a 3-wheeled motorcycle at the Trade Mart 1 minute after the shooting (there were no 3 wheeled motorcycles at the motorcade), and since the tape contains no shooting, no screaming, no crying, no hysteria or excitement, anyway, since it was recorded 3 miles away, and there is somebody calmly whistling a little tune (!), how important is this error? Not important at all, but it is an error and should be corrected. 

There are 3 further impossibilities. 
All JFK conspiracy theories are based on 3 assumptions.
a) that JFK was worth assassinating;
b) that destroying him politically or preventing his reelection would have required his assassination;
c) and that assassinating him would have required shooting him from a distance.

All these assumptions are false and contradict absolutely everything known about the man. The best books in this respect are THE DARK SIDE OF CAMELOT by Seymour Hersch (absolutely unanswerable) and KENNEDY: THE MYTH AND THE MAN by Victor Lasky.

Q: [Discussion of JFK Jr. plane crash...]

A: As for JFK Jr., incompetence and recklessness were and probably are typical of all the Kennedys. Just think of Chappaquiddick and the Bay of Pigs. JFK Sr. was the only one I can't think of any good reason to get rid of. The others were dangerous. So anything is possible. I don't know. What's the evidence? There's a lot of junk on the Internet and a lot of junk books. You only understand this if you're a revisionist. JFK Jr. would have destroyed himself if Oswald hadn't beaten himself to it. Instead Oswald made a martyr out of him. Then Ruby made a martyr out of Oswald. 

The JFK conspiracists go on and on about JFK's would-be accomplishments, but the same people cannot name one success of the Kennedy presidency. What do they consider a success? The Cuban Missile Crisis? You see how irrational this is. Why kill him? He was an opportunist, a fun-lover. In short, he was a Kennedy. The Kennedys were, and probably still are, interested in 4 things, and 4 things only. Money, sex, power, and adulation, not necessarily in that order. I think Robert Kennedy JR. has some integrity and may do great things, but I hope he stays out of politics.

What is the point of publicly assassinating a mediocrity? Bugliosi quotes someone who says “JFK is remembered, not for anything he did, but for his promise”. What does this mean? He was in office for nearly 3 full years. Is the White House a playpen for political adolescents with “promise”? He turned it into a house of prostitution (literally). I defy the admirers of JFK (including Bugliosi) to cite one single success of the JFK administration, of his entire political career. He was in Congress for nearly 14 years, was rarely present and almost never voted. He never got his name on any bills. He never introduced any legislation. His attempts at writing legislation consisted of "borrowings" from bills written by other people (Lasky, pp. 329-332 ff). He was a “feel-good” candidate, with what LBJ called his "Madison Avenue toothpaste smile". I agree with his admirers that he wanted peace, but you'd have to be an idiot not to. I didn't hate him but I thought he was in the wrong job. I watched all 4 Nixon-Kennedy debates with my parents in 1960. He made a very good impression at first but 5 minutes later you couldn't remember anything he said, because it was all generalities. Plus most of it was completely incoherent (Lasky reproduces long passages from these debates). Nixon's answers were logical, structured, and to the point. It went right over people's heads. To me, Nixon was a man of ability who never lived up to his promise. The only things the Kennedys (any of them) were good at was fucking girls and getting themselves elected. I'm sorry to swear but it's the truth. JFK could have been a very good Malachy McCourt type of character. Look him up. He wrote a great book called A MONK SWIMMING, JFK could have written like that, very original, completely wacko semi-ethnic humorous writing. He was gifted for that kind of writing, but nothing academic. His educational career (including his famous summa cum laude from Harvard) was a fraud, his books were a fraud, his marriage was a fraud, and his Presidency was a fraud. He wanted to be a writer, a creative writer. He was a C- student at Harvard, earning a "gentleman's C", which means he deserved to fail but his old man was rich. Most of his college papers were written or finished by other students. His book, WHY ENGLAND SLEPT, was rewritten and edited by about 5 different professional writers, his old man arranged for publishing and bought enough copies of it to make it a best-seller, as a result of which JFK was given a summa cum laude degree and became famous! [Lasky, pp. 99-106]. His brother Ted was expelled for cheating, and was readmitted to the same university, Harvard! JFK failed at journalism. Even Oswald resented this, saying in America, anybody can buy the Presidency.

To me, the secret to JFK's death lies in his life. Find out what kind of person he was, and you'll find out why he was killed. This should be obvious. For example, if Bill Clinton got shot, nobody would claim that it was to prevent him from implementing all kinds of high-minded altruistic ideals and reforms which would have transformed the country. So what kind of man was JFK? Answer: in actual fact, just like Bill Clinton, but with a veneer of class. 

Oswald was an attention seeker. How else do you explain buying 2 firearms illegally and having them sent to your own Post Office box? How do you explain committing the crime of the century and then getting yourself arrested in possession of the same forged Selective Service card which was used to purchase the firearms -- with your own picture on it, no less? Selective Service cards never bore a photograph [Bugliosi, p. 156], but Oswald’s forgery did [ibid], and the photograph and signature were Oswald’s.

Then, he claims he never owned a firearm and didn't know anyone named Alex J. Hidell!
He was enjoying himself, having the time of his life. 
Be careful what you read. Marxists are all liars.

Q: I agree with you about the issues of JFK and the Kennedys and all the stupid mythology about them. I understand the point as to why have a President shot from a building instead of a plane accident, etc. (although perhaps one could say that shooting makes it seem less likely a conspiracy than more likely, even when J Edgar Hoover happened to mention "Mr. Bush of the CIA"). I'll have to start reviewing all these issues again.

A: Well, if some reputable, creditable person comes along and debunks the 911 conspiracy theories, the Vince Foster conspiracy theories, and all the rest of them, I'll change my mind. Let them prove Foster committed suicide. Let them prove it. Then I'll believe it. Somebody said to me, but then everything is up for grabs, anything can be true or false. That's true. But it's always been this way.

In this case, it's the BIG LIE technique. Like the Hoaxoco$t of the Jews. People say, how could it be a lie? Too many people believe it. OK, so let them answer the arguments of the revisionists. Let them send their own technicians to the so-called death camps and prove we're wrong. We're not stopping them.

It's a great mistake to assume that a theory must be true or false just because it can be described as a “conspiracy theory”. Either they explain the facts, or they do not.

Incidentally, there are some interesting anti-911 conspiracy theory sites, google search for "debunking 911", and they look very good at first, but they are just not good enough.

Same with the "Moon Hoax". To me, psychologically and politically, it’s very hard for me to believe that the Americans went to the moon, because that’s not the way Americans do things. But the technical questions have all been answered to my satisfaction, so I believe the official story is true, that America went to the moon. That's all I can say. I like crime stories. But all I am interested in is the evidence. For example, to me, Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty. But just because of the forensic evidence. I wouldn't believe any of the witness testimony. It is possible that Sacco was guilty and that Vanzetti was innocent, but I doubt it.

It's the same with every single one of these myths: you track it down and there's nothing. 
The way I proceed is this way: who answers questions sensibly, and who doesn't?

If you ask about the Moon Hoax, you get sensible answers. OK, the Americans went to the Moon. You ask about 911, and you don't. You get no answers at all. Same with the Oklahoma City Bombing. Same with Global Warming. Who gives you a sensible answer, and who gives you a load of insults, mysticism and circular arguments? A theory has to account for known facts, and, to the extent that it is scientific, it has to be verifiable and falsifiable.

What the Left has done here is nothing new. They destroyed the science of physical anthropology. You can't even study it. There is no chair of physical anthropology in any university. Why? Because it is the study of racial differences. And so on and so forth.

Global Warming is obviously political. The 911 Truth Movement is non-political. So is the Oklahoma City Bombing Truth Movement (although somewhat dormant). People who ask questions about McVeigh are not all militia members and right-wing sympathizers. Who gives you a sensible answer to your questions? FEMA doesn't. NIST doesn't. It's not the 911 Truth Movement that publishes books that fail to show the 47 core columns fell down, or who say, oh, we don't know why WTC-7 fell down. What about the molten metal in the basements 100 days later? "Oh, I'm not aware of any molten metal". They publish diagrams with key features missing.

Same thing with the Moon Hoax, but the other way around. In this case, the official story gives you sensible answers. The Moon itself is a light source. The photographs were taken in a vacuum, and could only be taken in a vacuum, and they tell you why. The stars are not visible because of the light filter they used, and they tell you why they used it. Otherwise you wouldn't see anything at all, you'd be blinded, etc.

The dust in those pictures does not rise in a dust cloud. It forms a perfect parabola and falls back down. That can't be done just filming in the desert. In the desert or on the beach you would get a dust cloud. If you wet the sand, you get random spatters. Besides the defenders of the official Moon story don't give you 50 different versions of the same story, all mixed up and constantly changing.

These things are not necessarily related. If you prove one theory is false, it doesn't follow that another theory on an entirely different subject is false, as well. Not all accusations made against the government can be the truth, because there are so many of them. Some of them have to be false or mistaken. I hate to defend the government, but let's be sensible.  

If anybody wanted to kill JFK, all you  needed was a good-looking female agent disguised as a prostitute, she gets in, puts him in a leverage choke, jiu-jitsu choke,

[Trick: Kick him in the back of the knee, pull him backwards and off balance, arch your back, pull your shoulders back, push forwards or sideways with your head, and squeeze like hell. If he blacks out and you don't want to kill him, lay him on his side to keep him from swallowing his own tongue, and he'll "come to" in a matter of seconds, usually about 30 seconds or less. Once the hold is applied and is tight, and the victim is off balance, he has no chance whatesoever except to attack the eyes or the testicles, so shut your eyes tight and fasten your legs tight around his body, without crossing your ankles (otherwise he can break your top leg), and squeeze like hell. This also works against animals. A small boy in Bakersville CA recently used this technique to save the life of a much older girl being mauled by a large dog. It is such a strong hold that it is known as the "Lion Killer" ("O Mata-Leão") in Brazilian jiu-jitsu. It can also be applied from the front.]

he's unconscious in 5-10 seconds, injects him with an overdose of the painkillers or drugs he took anyway, in massive doses anyway, wipes the place down for fingerprints, walks out of the room, takes a fast car to the airport, and is in Israel or Cuba or Russia before the Secret Service even knows he was dead. They were not allowed to enter the room until the next day, after he came out. Everybody knew this except John Q. Sucker. He turned the whole Presidency into a house of prostitution.

Q: [Discussion of Fort Hood shootings]

A: Well, I don't believe one word of that one either, sure, on a military base, you shoot 45 soldiers with two pistols. Ha! Ha!
Ever see my articles about Leo Frank? He was lynched on a charge of raping and murdering a 13-year old girl in 1913. I think he was innocent. I'm only interested in the evidence. I would love to see some evidence that he was guilty, but I've never seen it yet and I don't think I ever will. To me, JFK is the same. It would be very positive for America if it could be proven that he was killed by a government agency. But they've never proven anything yet, and I don’t think they ever will. I think the public is getting fed up with their shenanigans.

Q: What I understood was that he thought it was a ploy and then they eliminated him later.

A: I'm sorry, that's ridiculous, I couldn't finish reading it. Oswald was in custody for 2 days, it was a little late to eliminate him. And so on. Bugliosi does a good hatchet job on these Ruby theories. 

Typical quote from the kactological geniuses:  "Oswald and Ruby faked the shooting as a part of an undercover operation designed to eventually eliminate Oswald's knowledge of the real JKF assassination team as well as his part played as the government's patsy… Oswald probably was told to fake the shooting and then was double crossed by CIA operatives who killed him in the ambulance in order to eliminate any loose ends in the Kennedy assassination.

That's ridiculous. Or, putting it another way, fine, let them prove it. These theories make every cop in Dallas a member of the conspiracy. What loose ends could there be? The evidence is all there. The answer of the kactologists is always, "It's all lies, and everybody in the country except us is a member of the conspiracy". It's obvious how ridiculous this is. There is no evidence of any involvement on the part of any other person.

You should read Sturdivan first. His introduction by a professor of astrophysics could have been written by a revisionist about the gas chambers. Sturdivan says his task is to establish the truth, not the endless task of combating all that is false, and that anyone seeking to chase down and disprove all these other fairy tales is on a fool's errand. But establishing the truth disproves all the other versions anyway.

The method of the kactologists at all times is to ignore the evidence and make up thousands of other theories, and sell them like hot cakes.

For example, everybody in the hospital would have to be in the conspiracy as well, in fact 2 or 3 hospitals. It's not enough to fake the JFK autopsy, now they're faking the Oswald autopsy, too. And where's the proof of it? As Faurisson says, proof, just one proof. Give us one proof.

Q: Why does the Zapruder film show Kennedy grabbing his throat if the shot came from behind?

A: Because it's symptomatic of a spinal injury. It's called a Thorburn reaction. This is why he reacted quicker than Connally, a spinal reflex is faster than a voluntary reflex. The second, violent convulsion to the rear is symptomatic of a brain injury, which is the quickest of all.

According to other specialists, it wasn't a Thorburn reaction at all, but rather, an almost identical reaction caused by injury to the brachial nerves, which branch out immediately adjacent to the spine. Personally, I think this second explanation is correct. In any case, JFK was not "grabbing his throat" and it does not prove that "the shots came from the front".

Talking about Elvis, Bugliogsi points out that a woman writer with an Italian name, I think Giorgio, wrote a book about Elvis sightings, and was interviewed on TV. They received 30,000 calls, and 85% of the callers believed Elvis is alive. Some people think JFK is alive. There is no end to it.

Q: According to the Warren Report that bullet that hit Connally had to go through Kennedy, turn and go down, go into Connally and then exit. And also, can't some of these bullets have remained lodged inside? On Zapruder, the head shot looks like it also came from the front. What was the purpose of the magic bullet theory in the Warren Commission report that was put together by Arlen Spector??

A: It wasn't put together by Specter, that's another myth. For the answer, try answering some questions. If the bullet hit JFK, it had to continue travelling and hit Connally. There was nowhere else for it to go. And if the throat wound is an entrance wound, what happened to the bullet? Where did that go? How did Connally get shot? From the floor of the car? Why is his back wound oblong? Bullets have tremendous penetrating power and that particular bullet never hit any bone until it hit Connally's rib.

Talk about magic bullets! All these Grassy Knoll bullets never hit anything and are never found, the assassins are invisible and are never seen or photographed, even though they are in plain sight, and the kactologists talk about “magic bullets”! It's a world of lies.

Q:Then there is the LBJ twist. Take a look at Madeleine Brown on assassination.

A: I've seen it. There's no end to it. First, she describes a party which never took place, second she says, LBJ said, “those sons of bitches will never bother me again”, which is something anybody could say about anybody. After 45 years, even if her memory is correct and she is telling the truth, what is the value of this? It's like all these "proofs of the Holocaust" we are always hearing about. And how about the E. Howard Hunt "deathbed confession", which does not even mention the assassination? It's like the Himmler “Secret Speech”. They read their meanings into everything they see, without ever any proof.

Q: Yes, that's true too. But the interview does suggest something nefarious was going on there.
I suppose we could even say that John Kennedy Jr. also simply died in his airplane because of malfunction. But it seemed too convenient.......

A: But the fact is, after 45 years, they've never found one person who has said, "I know who killed JFK", "I was part of the group that killed JFK", "I was in the FBI or the CIA with Oswald", nothing. All our information comes from swindlers, criminals, attention seekers, liars, spies, and so on.

Q: Well, this is all for sure totally nuts........ Haven't there also been "sightings" of Hitler?!
I suppose they may say that Hitler had worked out a deal with the Allies to get away and spend his life in hiding.........

A: Sure, there's even a photograph of Hitler as an old man, complete with moustache, sunning himself on a beach or veranda or something, supposedly in South America. Other people say he died in Munich. All these people live to be a hundred, you know. John Wilkes Booth, Jesse James, Billy the Kid, etc. etc. They always survive. But where is the evidence of it?

You'd be surprised, a faker and forger named Gregory Douglas, real name Stahl, sells a book about how Hitler escaped to Spain, and even shows you a picture of the airplane!

It’s like the Hoaxoco$t. You see the logic? It's like the joke, my dog treed a 300-pound possum yesterday, and if you don't believe it, I'll even show you the tree he treed him in. There's a whole Internet site about Hitler in South America, another one about how he lived to an old age in a rest home in Munich.

I wasn't happy when JFK got shot although I wasn't a big fan of his, I thought it was bad for America. And it was. I was glad when RFK got shot because I thought he was very dangerous, and I still think so. No more Kennedys, let's all hope and pray.

JFK was basically not a bad guy, except for the way he treated women, but he was in the wrong job. He was a show business personality who thought he was a politician. You know a writer named Malachy McCourt? JFK could have been like him. Wacky, semi-ethnic humorous writer, talk show guest, maybe even talk host, like Dick Cavett or Johnny Carson, or Jack Parr. Instead his father forced him into politics. He had no interest in politics and was bored with everything in one hour. What kind of statesman, what kind of Head of State, is bored with everything in one hour?

Q: Interesting........... Didn't Ted Kennedy almost get killed in a plane crash 5 years before Chappaquidick?

A: I don't know. I never heard that. Maybe Chappaquiddick was a plot, too! You can see plots everywhere if you want, but where's the evidence?

An expert can cock a bolt action rifle without hardly moving it. And he had a good 5 seconds for the third shot. Even then, he was aiming for the head and missed it 2 times out of 3. Far below his average. Military rifles are designed to be accurate without a telescopic sight, at ranges of 300-400 yards. What's 88 yards to a Marine? 

Q: This youtube video brings out a Russian who says that the KGB files indicated that Oswald didn't show much interest in Communism or attend any classes. And that he went overboard to pretend that he was a leftist.

A: I don't know. I can well believe it in a way. He couldn't stand discipline, intellectual or otherwise, and knew relatively little about Marxism.

Q: He may have had something like Attention Deficit Disorder.......

A: To me, he was just a typical Marxist. He blamed society for all his failings, but was unwilling to do anything to make the slightest effort to improve himself. He expected society to do it all for him. He expected to be greeted with open arms in the USSR, then Cuba. When the Cubans rejected him, he felt his life had come to an end, more or less.
Bugliosi makes an interesting point arguing against conspiracy. Oswald returned to Irving Texas the night before the shooting to ask Marina to return to him (they were separated) and she refused. He was in a super foul mood during the night. That morning he took his rifle in a bag to work. Bugliosi says a member of a conspiracy wouldn't do that, either you're in or you're out. You don't make it all tentative on whether or not your wife will return to you.

The strange thing is, he was very intelligent. His daughter became a straight-A university student and valedictorian, and now has some posh international job in business. His other daughter is a nurse married to a doctor. Many of his character defects resemble those of his mother -- a complex, abrasive, vainglorious person, who thought everybody was persecuting her. A real flake. How can anyone use her as a source of information, for example, as to whether Oswald was a member of the intelligence services (something he never even claimed himself). This is typical. James Files, Chauncey Holt, E. Howard Hunt, Billy Sol Estes -- the kactologists always believe the word of any criminal, any chronic liar, any low-life, at any time, without proof, over the word of decent, law-abiding, respectable people. To them, criminals are like the Bible to a Fundamentalist. There are thousands of these fairy tales.

Q: Points worth digesting.......

A: I appreciate your interest, most people are completely sick of Kennedy but do not want to hear that Oswald was guilty. It is a religion. Ever hear of Sebastianism? Look it up, that's what it is, American Sebastianism. A sleeping king legend, aka king in the mountain legend. Look it up.

To me, Jack White makes a good impression at first, then he introduces some crazy Frenchman, William Reymond, who can hardly speak English, who is then interviewed by Jim Marrs, then look up Lois Gibson, a police artist, who sells a video called JFK Assassination Solved -- they've always got something to sell -- and you know what?

Portrait d'un malin.

Reymond claims the good-looking tramp in the sports jacket is a Frenchman named Max, ex-army, ex-OAS, one of the best snipers in the world, arrested on a freight train after the assassination, claims he was released by the police soon afterwards and that one of the other tramps was French, too.

Lois Gibson claims the same good-looking tramp was a man named Rogers, who was wanted in Texas for murdering his parents and putting the body parts in his refrigerator, and that all 3 tramps were assassins! Reymond claims “Max” was part of a team of 3 professional snipers, one of 3 teams, 9 rifles, waiting for the “umbrella man” to tell them when to shoot, because “Plan 1” had failed, and they had to go into “Plan 2”.  Reymond has identified this tramp as being 3 different people over the years. OK.   

This amounts to 3 intelligent people who seriously believe that up to 3 professional assassins, identified by up to 3 different names, out of a firing squad of up to 9 assassins, with of course 9 rifles, killed JFK and then attempted to escape by freight train! I won't bother explaining how insane this is, if you know anything about freight trains, you know it's the slowest and most unreliable possible way to travel, plus it's dirty, dangerous and illegal, these guys are professionals, they're getting paid, you could buy a used car in those days for 35-50 dollars, but no, they walk to the freight yards, which weren't even a main yard, and hang around waiting for a train. 

At this point, I give up, I'm sorry, the kactologists are COMPLETELY CRAZY. How can Marrs bring himself to be polite to this crazy guy? It must be the 10,000th JFK assassination theory he's heard in his life, why doesn't he just say, look, do you expect me to believe, that a professional assassin, “Max”, one of the best snipers in the world, former French army, former OAS, "eeze job eeze keeling pipple", is going to kill the President of the United States and then attempt to escape by FREIGHT TRAIN? Come back when you can speak English so I can understand more than 10% of what you say, I'm busy, go back to France. I translated a reply to this nut case from French.

[Warning: You must never compliment a Frenchman on his English, no matter how good it is, because the effort of pronouncing it is so tremendous that the moment he thinks he's doing OK, he'll give up completely, and you'll never understand another word he says! Like Reymond, instead of pronouncing the words, they start mumbling like crazy! They almost always do this. Instead, you must make them as nervous as possible, to keep them on their toes. It's the way they treat you, and you must treat them the same way if you want to understand them. ]

This same crazy Frenchman has written about 15 books in probably about 10 years, big huge tomes, telling you all the secrets about America, JFK, Coca Cola, Marilyn Monroe, everything, he knows everything, see, he claims to live in Dallas, but he can't speak English so you can understand him when he gets excited.

Railroad property is not a smart place to go if you have just committed a serious crime, because the minute you set foot on their property you're trespassing, they know you're there and they know more or less where you are, they've got control towers where they can see everything, they can send a railroad cop to arrest you in about 5 minutes.

Plus the first thing the police do is search all the trains for 100 miles
, but no, 3 JFK assassins, with 3 rifles (what happened to the other 6 assassins and 6 rifles?) go the freight yards and get arrested within 45 minutes. But the rifles disappear.

See? Talk about magic bullets. This crazy guy claims the 9 assassins were waiting for the "umbrella man" to flap his umbrella up and down to tell them that Plan 1 had failed and that they were supposed to go into Plan 2, see, and so on. Who needs an umbrella man? It sounds like I understood him well, but I only understood between 10 and 25% when he started speaking quickly. Why don't these people use an interpreter? 

Q: Carlos, it seems to me that any Russian in 1959 would be highly suspicious of a 20 year old American moving into Russia, wanting to live there and get married, even on a student visa. They would think he was a lunatic or a spy. Now given that he was in the Marines and studied Russian, what would it be? Why else would an 18 or 20 year old marine study Russian in the '50s? Especially if he worked at a CIA base in Japan? And then he returns back to the US like he was on a trip to the Riviera after having tried to surrender his passport??

A: Of course, everyone was suspicious of Oswald. Nobody took him seriously, for the precise reason that he was a mediocrity who imagined that he was a big shot. This was true to the end of his life, and shows why he was so obviously pleased at the attention he was getting in Dallas.

... Note the manner in which everything is interpreted as proving what is assumed in the first place. For example, at the Dallas 6th floor museum, the exhibit consists of cardboard boxes piled up in front of a window. They don't want people moving the boxes and altering the evidence or writing graffitti, so they put up a plastic barrier. This is interpreted to prove that if you could approach the window you would see Oswald's shooting feat was impossible! From the 7th floor it would have been impossible, or very difficult, but no, why didn't he shoot from the 7th floor where the ledge extended far further out from the building and the sill was far higher, meaning he couldn't fire from a sitting position using the sill as a rifle rest, and there weren't hundreds of boxes of books to hide behind? Yeah, really, why not? And so on.

Example 2: Nobody says "how was it allowed to happen" that a deranged neo-Nazi got within a few feet of President Reagan and almost killed him; ditto for 2 members of the Manson Gang who almost killed President Ford, twice, etc. etc. and so.

The whole country is full of lone nuts. But it is only "impossible" when they kill some big liberal icon. For example Joseph Paul Franklin shot 20 people, but they didn't matter because they were only people. He shot Vernon Jordan and Larry Flynt. How was that "allowed to happen"? Same thing for Malcolm X, John Lennon, and so on.

All these random events occur constantly. The problem is looking at the evidence. Theories are OK, but if you can't prove them, what good are they? Like what I said about Timothy McVeigh. I can't remember if I mentioned it. That he was an agent and that they promised to fake his execution, double-crossed him and killed him. I can't prove it, so it's worthless.

Q: Good points to think about. Even now, one would imagine liberal leftists would be out there questioning all the details about what happened at Ft. Hood. So far nothing. Not about the pistol, the movements, the timing, nothing. But if he had shot a big liberal leader, one can suppose there would be lots of talk. On the other hand one should note that they don't even ask any real questions about 9/11 probably because they are Zionist liberals who like the war to protect poor li'l Israel..........

A: Yes, a lot of the problem is believing what you want to believe. I was never an admirer of JFK, so the kactologists never had any appeal for me. On the other hand, I'm not a great fan of the Jews either, but to me Leo Frank was innocent. Same with the Scottsboro Boy case. I'm surprised that 9 niggers on a freight train DIDN'T take advantage of the opportunity to rape 2 white girls, but I don't see the evidence that they did (I mean physical evidence). In this case, the Communists told the truth, because nobody else would, so they were allowed to exploit the situation. One of the alleged victims toured the country with them and said they had both perjured themselves to escape a vagrancy charge, and I believe it. But I would be very happy to see evidence that Frank and the Scottsboro Boys were guilty. If I thought there was a Hoaxoco$t I would admit it. And so on.

Q: One wonders why the Kennedy lovers would want to blame Castro for Kennedy's assassination as leftists.
As far as I recall the possible other culprits were the Mafia (because of persecution by RFK), the Soviets (because of the Cuban Missile Crisis and Bay of Pigs), the CIA/Right wing (because of the Bay of Pigs and something to do with the Federal Reserve), and the Israelis (because he wanted to prevent Israel from getting nuclear weapons).

A: … I don't think most of them pay much attention to Castro as a suspect. I never heard it. On the other hand, during the war in Viet Nam, I used to hear the hippies saying "the CIA killed Kennedy" all the time, and I thought, what the hell are they talking about? It fit in very well with the far-left atmosphere of the 60s.

Oswald had the lowest level security clearance and worked on a radar screen. He did not work on the U2. Anything he knew of value would of course lose its value upon his defection. He served 3 years, was court-martialled twice and spent I think 6 weeks in the brig. He also shot himself accidentally. And people carry on like he was Gary Powers or Kim Philby? 

Everything, absolutely everything, is interpreted as proving what they assume in the first place. They look at photographs of the crowd at the RJK assassination and think they have identified 2 CIA agents and an anti-Castro Cuban, and this "proves" that the CIA killed RFK! As easy as that. Well, maybe they did and maybe they didn't. If the dog had run a little faster maybe he would have caught the rabbit.

Q: They say the real assassin was Thane Eugene Cesar, not Sirhan. In any case, perhaps it is just too incredible to believe that some jerk like Oswald just "happened" to be in the right place at the right time with the right weapon to kill a president, leading to everything it implies.

A: A lot of incredible things happen. Ruby showed up an hour late and would have missed his chance to shoot Oswald if he'd gotten there a few seconds later. 1 chance in a million, maybe 10. He spent 20 minutes at Western Union wiring 25 dollars to one of his strippers when he was supposed to be in the crowd awaiting Oswald.
Oswald had 3 days to plan the assassination. The only real example of "chance" is that Ruth Payne got him the job and that Roy Truly assigned him to that warehouse. If JFK was going to travel to the Dallas Trade Mart he had to pass beneath that window. There was no other way.

Q: I think the CIA theory has always been pre-eminent over the others, except that they accomplished it with the help of the mafia, who Kennedy himself was close to in order to get rid of Marilyn Monroe.

It's incredible though that somehow JFK was going specifically to that city, in an open car to the route where someone just happened to work and just happened to have a gun handy for a purpose he didn't have. What would have happened had Kennedy gone somewhere else in Dallas, or taken a different route, who would an Oswald have killed then with his gun?

I was just thinking how hard it was for people to accept what happened to this young Kennedy.
That it just happened that the route of a trip to Dallas was known 3 days in advance.
That it just happened that a guy who worked there knew about it.
That it just happened that he happened to work in a building along the route.
That he just happened to have a rifle that could do the job.
That he just happened to be available that day and want to do it.
That it just happened that Ruby got in there and managed to kill him (with or without blood - did you see the photo I sent you?)

A: Well, these are philosophical questions, it's incredible that mere evolution could produce an ordinary seashell.
The funny thing is that the same people who say JFK killed MM are the ones who say he was such a great idealistic guy. By the way, they say he was going to get out of Viet Nam. The speech he was going to give at the Dallas Trade Mart was in his pocket when he was killed. In it he said he would commit troops to Viet Nam if he felt they were warranted by the circumstances [Bugliosi, p. 1412].

Q: .....that's only if you believe in evolution..........

A: Evolution only makes sense if there is a principle of intelligence built into the universe itself, by its very nature. That “chance” is actually a form of “intelligence”. For example, in gambling, there is a definite reason why the odds against getting a royal flush in draw poker before the draw are what they are; nobody claims that poker odds are that way because "God made them that way". It’s just the way things are. I'm only interested in gambling as a theoretical exercise.
 I used to know all the odds for everything. The law of averages works out very exactly but only in the very long run. You see things happening honestly that seem impossible, you think it's impossible, but it's not at all.

What evolution does imply is an enormous length of time, and an enormous number of organisms dying without purpose. That the value of the individual life is absolutely zero.

To me, this is not a perfect theory. There has to something more to it than simply redefining “chance” as “intelligence”. For example, if you define “God" as "The Intelligence of the Universe Understood as a Universal Law of Cause and Effect, like Karma”, then I believe in God. But it's not very satisfying. For one thing, such an intelligence would be infinitely impersonal, and infinitely cruel. This is precisely the way things are. But it’s not very satisfying.

Q: Plus it just happened to be that Kennedy was in an open car. Could Oswald have killed him had he been in a closed car?!

A: … In a discussion of "motive, means and opportunity", Bugliosi points out that there must have been thousands of people in Dallas who hated Kennedy, many of whom were watching the motorcade and most or many of whom owned firearms. He also describes the reactions all over the South. Of course most of the people who hated him were segregationists, but just the same, as JFK said, if somebody wants to shoot me from a window with a rifle there's nothing we can do about it, so why worry about it? In that way, I have to admire the man, he had physical courage, even in great pain.

Bugliosi says Oswald and Ferrie were in the same National Guard outfit, or something like that, when Oswald was 15, but there is no evidence that they ever spoke or otherwise knew each other. The bullet top was rain-proof but not bullet-proof. The reflection might have prevented Oswald getting a good aim, though.

...The JFK murder was the best investigated murder in history. There were 4 investigations, not just 1 or even 2, with 100s of the top scientists in the country, dentists, anthropologists, astrophysicists, etc. etc. etc. The Commission made mistakes, but not as many as people think.

If he shot at the car as it approached, everyone would be looking in his direction and he would be seen, plus the sun would be in his eyes to some extent. The other way nobody would see him. It is not true that the driver slowed to a stop, he was startled and slow to react, I think. The Secret Service men were ordered away on JFK's orders. He rode around Ireland without any protection at all, with thousands of people looking from windows. In Dallas most people were on the street. He didn't believe in a lot of security. He wanted people to see him, which I think is admirable.

... I wanted to mention the degree to which the case has always attracted attention seekers, people almost as neurotic as Oswald himself. Jean Hill claims to have seen a sniper on the grassy knoll and to have chased him up the hill as he ran away. She always wears red, hands out red business cards, signs her autographs in red ink, and claims to have been the person "closest to JFK when he was shot" (closer than Jackie?). The Zapruder film proves that she did nothing of the sort and remained seated on the grass next to her friend Moorman, forget the first name offhand, who took a famous photograph. Hill could not possibly see anything on the Grassy Knoll from where she was sitting.

Another witness speaks of someone who had something in his hand which "could have been a headpiece [hat]." Under prodding from Mark Lane months or years later he claimed it "could have been a gun". Larry Sturdivan remarks that he may have been far enough away to be unable to tell a hat from a gun, but if he could not tell a pistol from a rifle one must question the value of the observation. The same witness claims to have heard a fourth shot about "five seconds later". Of course this is deleted.

Ruby demanded to be allowed to go to Washingon, he had something very important to say. He then said, "There was no conspiracy". Lane quotes this and deletes the last 4 words. It's like this all the time. A witness named Holland claimed to have seen something from a railroad tower, but anyone sitting where he was working could not have seen anything at all. Plus he threw a switch immediately after the assassination, which means he could not have been standing at the window, and so on.

Sturdivan explains the acoustic phenomena associated with gunshots. Depending on where you are standing (or lying down, etc.), you will hear anywhere up to 3 or more reports from a single shot, all appearing to come from different directions. You hear a crack as the bullet passes you, which appears to come from in front or behind you, you hear a thump from the actual location of the rifle, then you hear a variety of booms from all over, which are echoes.  

Q: Since Oswald was such a good shot, one wonders why he didn't just feel like finishing off everyone in the car, especially since he didn't care what happened to himself.

A: As for Oswald, he had to fire as many shots as he needed and then get the hell out of there. Of course he had almost no chance of getting away but he was probably thinking of heading for Mexico by Greyhound bus. The fare to Monterrey Mexico (where he'd been before, I think) was only about 13 dollars and the terminal was a bus ride away from where he killed Tippit. Oswald had nothing against Kennedy personally and was not a serial killer, a maniac who killed just to kill, although the Tippit murder was very cold-blooded. He didn't even wound the guy and leave him, he plugged him between the eyes lying on the ground.

Q: What do you think about James Earl Ray?

A: I wrote to Ray in prison and became quite friendly with him. To me he never admitted or denied shooting King. I made no secret of my belief that he was guilty, making it clear that the victim got what he deserved (which I still believe, although obviously the shooting was a mistake since it made a martyr out of King at a moment when if he'd lived he would have destroyed himself; same thing is true of JFK). He seemed to enjoy the attention but kept spinning a lot of fairy tales about "Raul", which I thought were obvious lies. I think anybody who believes one word of his stories about "Raul" is a fool. I think somebody probably strung him along with small amounts of money, promising him more later. If he was naive enough to think he could go to Rhodesia or South Africa afterwards and become a "mercenary" (nobody was hiring mercenaries in 1968 and these countries did not accept criminals, plus Ray was about 40 and was not a professional soldier; they would never have accepted him, even if they didn't realize who he was), then maybe he was naive enough to think he could shoot a world famous figure, escape from the scene, and collect the money. He had 50 pounds sterling on him when he was arrested, so who knows? It doesn't make sense. To me Ray was not a racist and had no motive for doing anything except money. If he was a racist, he was no more racist than 10s of millions of other Americans, including myself, and this proves nothing. Also he had a girlfriend in Mexico who was a Negro prostitute. Gerald Posner reproduces a photograph of her. Some racist (if it's true). I doubt that a conspiracy in this case would involve high levels of government, the rumour is that a Louisville businessman offered $ 50,000 for anybody who would kill King. In the end I quit writing to him because I got tired of reading all these fairy tales. The only thing certain is that he never told the truth about anything.

Incidentally, since Ray used hollow-point ammo, the bullet was so badly deformed that it could not be matched to the weapon! They had the rifle, with his palm print on it, they could prove that he bought the rifle and car, and that he, the rifle and car were present at the scene, but not that the rifle fired the shot! This is not a lot of evidence compared to what Oswald managed to manufacture against himself. Ray was intelligent and wrote well. In my view, he was intelligent enough to have procured that Canadian passport on his own, in exactly the manner he describes, although I am not entirely convinced that he did so. Ironically, he borrowed a lot of his material for his fairy tales about "Raul" from Michael Collins Piper's old paper, The Spotlight, apparently the only newspaper he read, which no doubt borrowed them right back again as the truth.

photo of Ray sent from prison

The funny thing is, he was in Lisbon, trying to disappear by going to Rhodesia, he could have travelled by train to Cádiz in southern Spain and joined the Spanish Foreign Legion and disappeared, they wouldn't have cared, but he would have been better off in prison. I knew people who were in the Legion, I used to see them swaggering around the streets in Cádiz in 1965 and I knew three of them at one time or another. They ran recruiting ads in the local paper every day ["Spaniards and Foreigners, The Legion Awaits You!", 3, 5 and 10-year enlistments, cash bonus on enlistment]. They accepted anybody, without ID, up to age 45. Of course without ID, you could even be older and they'd take you. But your life would be hell, any attempt at desertion and you were shot on the spot. On the spot. Fill out the paperwork later. [This was true during wartime at least, in North Africa. If you wanted to desert, you had to wait until you went on leave in Spain, but then where would you go?] Prison is a life of luxury by comparison. Any crime in Spain except high treason, you were safe from prosecution, extradition, everything, as long as you stayed in the Legion. When you went to join the Legion, the first question they asked was, "What do you want to be called"? They quit recruiting foreigners in the mid-70s.   

Under the old system, the Legion did a great service to the world by rehabilitating criminals: desperate, broken men who had burned their last chance, had nothing left to lose and nowhere else to go -- giving them, not only a new identity, but a new sense of self, through selfless service to an ideal: the Legion, an entity far greater than themselves, for which they were expected to be prepared to sacrifice their lives at any time, or for the protection of any other Legionaire, without question. One of my best friends in Spain had been in the Legion with a man who turned out to be an ex-pickpocket. When the erstwhile Artful Dodger went on leave to his old haunts in Cádiz in his Legion uniform with the corporal stripes, he was really somebody: everybody respected him, everybody was proud of him. As a pickpocket, he was nothing, he was scum. He said, "If I could be born a thousand times, I could never repay the Legion for what the Legion did for me". They had veterans from every army in the world, men who knew every kind of warfare, every kind of weapon, who spoke all the languages of anyone they might have to fight, men who didn't need to be taught anything. With the "transition to democracy", all this changed, and these men -- many of whom would be ineligible or unfit for ordinary military service -- no longer had anywhere to go, except the prisons and the street.

Q: It always refers back to J Edgar Hoover and LBJ........

A: That's ridiculous, both men had enough dirt on JFK to ruin him politically. That's how Hoover kept his job and it's how Johnson got put on the ticket as Vice President. Hoover's file on JFK's sexual affairs was 600 pages thick, and LBJ knew perfectly well what was in it. The American people were not prepared for a Bill Clinton act-alike in the White House in 1960 or 64. Plus all these sexual affairs endangered American security. The same principle applies to MLK. Hoover's file on MLK was 800 pages thick, wiretaps, everything, authorized by RFK. If there was a conspiracy in the King case, I think it might have involved a few people in the Memphis police, but nothing any higher. Nobody ever found out who sent the radio messages saying the assassin was fleeing the city in the opposite direction. Maybe it was just a mistake. Maybe it was an insignificant prankster, like the guy who sent the “Yorkshire Ripper audio tapes” that delayed the investigation for years, and led to at least 3 more murders. He was just a prankster…

… PS, how do you like the way the President gets shot, then they're not supposed to keep an eye on other possible subversives in the country, people exactly like King? Of course they spied on King. They were criticized for not spying on Oswald enough.

...In Ray's book he says he trained on a similar rifle in the army. I don't know anything about the direction of the bullets or any of that stuff. But it's interesting to compare Ray and Oswald, because if Oswald had been in a conspiracy he would have done what Ray did. Ray paid 2000 dollars for a good, fast second hand car, and 700 dollars for a very powerful, new sporting rifle, using hollow-point ammo. He was only 100 yards away, with a 7-power sight.

Oswald had a 4 power sight and was 88 yards away
[Bugliosi, p. 496], maximum, with military ammo and a cheap war surplus rifle. Then he hops into a bus and taxi cab with $13.87 in his pocket. Does that sound like some top-level conspiracy?

Ray's finances were probably the results of armed robberies he pulled off, he was a very professional criminal, but only an armed robber. So people talk about the JFK assassins attempting to escape by freight train! Even Ray didn't do that, and he knew the freights. On the freights it might take you 12 hours just to get out of town. 4 to 6 easy. At least 2 on average. They don't run according to any real schedule (or only very approximately), they run when they're made up. They are "called" for a certain time, but they can be hours late. All these stories are ridiculous. The Pacific Terminal Railroad yard in back of the Grassy Knoll parking lot was not even a main yard. It ran the passenger terminal. It even had passenger cars in it, something you never see in a serious freight yard. You'd have to wait for a train to a main yard. And you still wouldn't be out of town.

You cannot catch a freight out of town from just any yard. You need a main yard. Yet the yards all look alike. OK, you know the yards, you know there is a freight out of a certain yard every day at 1 PM. You've just killed the President. You high-tail it to the yards hoping to catch the eastbound train. What happens if any one of the 80-100 freight cars plus 4-7 Diesel engines has a mechanical problem? What happens if there's a work slow down or an accident or even a wild cat strike? What happens if there is no place to ride in a concealed position and you have to ride in the open, where you will be seen by thousands of people? What do you do with the rifle? Give it to the Tooth Fairy? You've been paid a million bucks to kill the President, gas is 25-26 cents a gallon, but you forgot to save 50 bucks for a used car to get out of town in?

The freights: not recommended for assassins in a hurry

Another thing, Ray was very ignorant about the world and could not plan anything or stick to anything for more than a few weeks. If he acted alone the MLK assassination was the only disciplined, sustained and sophisticated effort he ever put into anything, with months of meticulous planning. The same guy enrolls in a bartending class when he's on the Most Wanted list! That's crazy. If the FBI was after you, would you want just anybody being able to come into where you were working, at any time, maybe night after night, just to have another look at you to see if you really look like that guy in the photograph they saw at the Post Office or on TV? A wanted criminal might work in a kitchen, but as a bartender, never. Maybe a skid row dive for a night or two, but that's all. And dancing lessons! What for? [probably to romance women with a bit of cash who could vouch for him; he describes this in his efforts to obtain a Canadian passport] You see? They goofed giving him 99 years. They should have promised him immunity

Q: So given all the statistical possibilities of everything, one can in general imagine the chances of some major politician travelling in a convoy of open cars among tall buildings in a large city of a hostile population and getting shot are rather high statistically...

A: Probably the same as your chances of getting mugged in any large city, yes. Thousands of people hated Kennedy. And thousands more are ready to plug anybody, for little or no reason, just at random. The world is full of lone nuts. I don't see why this is so difficult for people to accept.

Q: Yet he could have just as easily shot Jackie and Connally within a fraction of an inch of distance. Or he could have aimed at Johnson's car too........

A: Yes, but what for? For notoriety, to strike a blow against capitalism, against JFK as the symbol of the USA, he had to go for the gold, he had to shoot JFK. As for Connally, JFK was sitting in front of him. That's the sense of the magic bullet theory. Then they say, why didn't he aim for Connally, or maybe he was really aiming at Connally? He could have shot Connally almost any time, the guy lived in Texas, but what for? This is all speculation. Maybe he was shooting at Jackie because he hated his mother, and just missed 3 times. Freudianism.

...Bugliosi discusses some of the reactions to the assassination in the South. One person called a major newspaper and said, "So somebody shot the nigger lover. Good for whoever did it." A teacher in New Orleans said one girl in her class cried, and everybody else laughed. Don't forget, in the South, JFK ran as a segregationist, as "Dixie's Favourite Yankee", promising to go easy on integration, and was endorsed by many leading segregationists. These endorsements were never declined with thanks or repudiated. Then he double-crossed them. In Alabama he was listed in the "white supremacist" column on the ballot. He was never interested in civil rights until right before the election and was never known as particularly liberal until the very late 50s. Adam Clayton Powell said anybody would make a better President than JFK, and Jackie Robinson endorsed Nixon and stuck by that endorsement to the very end, even though the Saturday Evening Post terminated his column for it. As you know Robinson was one of the most respected Negroes in America. In this sense JFK was like Lincoln. A segregationist whose image has been distorted for propaganda purposes.  The family spent 40 years in Palm Beach, Florida, one of the most rigidly segregated towns in the whole country, his old man owned a big business in Chicago, the Merchant Mart, that never hired Negroes at all except in the most menial positions. Nixon never mentioned this because he figured he was running against JFK, not his father. Nixon was not a good President when he finally got elected, but as a man he had integrity. The only Negro JFK ever had any personal dealings with was George, a servant. The Navy was segregated during WWII and he spent his life in posh schools, the Navy, or Congress and the White House. He had no idea what Negros were like or what they wanted, how they thought. The Kennedys were such fantastic political prostitutes that they sold themselves to the McCarthyites; the non-ideological but generally anti-Communist American public; the generally anti-Communist Slovaks, Poles, Italians, Irish and other Catholics; the Southern segregationists; the anti-Castro Cubans; the blacks, Jews, ADL and Communists -- who advocated the same immigration and racial policies as the ADL -- and finally, under Bobby, in 1968, the New Left! The truth is, they just didn't care.

Q: Indeed, so much mythology.............And then it was doubled with RFK, who is a "bigger saint" than JFK!

A: Yes, the further Left you go, the bigger a hero you are to the Left. It's a tautology. Kennedy was the biggest sellout to the ADL in the country's history.

There is always a risk in anything, yes, obviously. It's untrue that the Secret Service could have shut every window for 5 miles. At that rate, why have public appearances at all? Like John Lennon said, why get a bodyguard? If somebody wants to shoot you, he'll just shoot the bodyguard first.

Q: And today the left makes them out to be Saints. They have been canonized as Saint John, Saint Robert and Saint Ted. Even Joseph who was killed in 1944 is a Saint.
It reminds me of the story of the lady with the Polka Dot Dress who was seen running out of the hotel after RFK was shot. How did Sirhan know that Kennedy would come into the kitchen?

A: I don't know enough about the Sirhan case to answer those questions. My guess is that the first question has an innocent explanation and that Sirhan was simply stalking, waiting. Otherwise he'd have to have been a conspirator, which is unbelievable. A schizo with a .22? Who would conspire with somebody like that? Suppose you knew him and tipped him off, how could you depend on him? I suppose it's possible. But unlikely. It wasn't published in the papers like JFK's motorcade route.

The guard Eugene Cesar was hired last minute, he had no advance knowledge, and he voluntarily admitted to owning a .22. But if they couldn't find it on him at the time, he wasn't carrying it, and if the ballistics show only one gun was used, Sirhans's gun, how could they indict him? So he was questioned and released. He joked, just because I don't like the Democrats doesn't mean I go around shooting them.

By the way, that Executive Order 10001 doesn't say what people say it says. JFK merely delegated the power to issue silver certificates (which already existed, I remember seeing them in the 50s), to the Sec. of the Treasury. One would think, if it's worth killing him over, it's worth repealing the law, but it remained in effect until the 80s. The US never went off the silver standard until 1968 and never went off the gold standard until the 1970s. Issuing a small amount of silver certificates is not equivalent to abolishing the Fed, issuing debt-free money (at least not on a large scale), or anything else people claim. And he delegated the power, a power which he already possessed! He never personally ordered the issue of any silver certificates at all.

This is a variant of the yarn that Lincoln was killed because John Wilkes Booth, allegedly a Jew and a Rothschild, objected to the issuance of "greenbacks", which were a failure as money and lost 65% of their value in one year. Booth was not a Jew and people never give you a source for this fairy tale.

One final thought I'll leave you with, since I think we have exhausted the topic. Bugliosi was addressing a symposium of 650 top lawyers from all over the country. During the question and answer period the subject of JFK came up and it was obvious that they appeared to believe in the standard conspiracy theory of the assassination. He said, would you believe that if you give me 60 seconds, I can prove that you are all intelligent lawyers at the top of your profession, but that you are not being rational about the JFK assassination? One of them shouted "We don't think you can do it!". He said to his assistant, OK, start counting. He said, give me a show of hands, how many of you believe JFK was assassinated as the result of a conspiracy? There was a forest of hands, probably 85% of the audience. He said, OK, now, we're all lawyers, we know that you can never judge a case without hearing both sides. As an old West Virginia mountaineer once said, no matter how thin I make my pancakes, they always have 2 sides. Now. How many of you have derived your ideas from the various conspiracy writers and conspiracy books? Then he said, OK, now, how many of you have actually read the Warren Report, I don't mean the 26 volumes of documents, exhibits and statements, just the 888 page volume released to the public? There was complete silence and only about half a dozen people raised their hands. They got the point. It took 47 seconds.

The reason I believe Bugliosi is that I can see that people like Alex Jones and Jim Marrs and Mark Lane are irrational and illogical, and the more I look the more obvious it becomes. In 45 years, the only person (or the first person) who ever answered my question about the Texas Theater was Gerald Posner. Most of them don't even mention Tippit or the theater and very few mention the pistol. They just don't mention the attempted murder of the cops that arrested him. That's 15 witnesses right there, ordinary people. If they don't believe it, that's fine, but they can explain it, they can come up with a better answer. They won't do it. They simply ignore all the evidence and come up with horseshit theories of their own, such as that "I think E. Howard Hunt gave Oswald his rifle and instructed him to bring it to the Depository that day", etc. etc. blah blah blah, but still without Tippit and without the pistol! They're liars, money grubbers. It's incredible the lies you read.

Another thing, when a deranged neo-Nazi almost killed President Reagan, the Nazi party to which he had applied for membership to issued a public statement saying that he was not a member of their group, that he had applied for membership, but that they had rejected him on the grounds of mental defectiveness; they had no prior knowledge of the assassination attempt, they did not condone it and that they did not intend to further their political aims in that way.

After Oswald shot JFK, any Communist organization in the world could have issued a similar statement. Why not? He was never a member of any group and never received any training as a Marxist. But this isn't the way Marxists operate. Former Marxist Max Eastman has called Marxism a "religion of immoralism", and it is. Instead, within 4 days the Communist Party of the United States issued a statement saying JFK had been killed by the radical segregationist right, and that is the line they have followed ever since, all over the world. That was on November 26, 1963. Remember that the case against Oswald was built almost entirely in the first 11 and a half hours. The only thing they didn't have was the autographed backyard picture and the Neutron Activation Analysis. They had everything else. About 30 witnesses, 3 bullets, 7 shell casings, 2 weapons, fingerprints, dozens of original documents and photographs, negatives, everything they needed. Plus all his lies.

Q: What could Oswald have been thinking when he said, "No sir, I didn't kill anybody." or "I am a patsy." He could have shed some light on who set him up, etc.

A: Bugliosi says, what else could he say? He had no alibi, what else could he say but "I was framed"? OK, by whom? How do you frame somebody who will have an alibi, any number of 65 other employees, if he is innocent? There were no strangers in the building that day. He did not claim he was being held bound and gagged by strangers (maybe aliens from another planet, why not?) People say he was an agent. In 2 days he never once said, look, you know I'm with the Agency, call them up and have them get me out of here. James Hosty showed up, and Oswald never said, hey you know I'm an agent, get me out of here.

People say he was watching from the front doorway. The man watching from the doorway was named Billy Lovelady. Lovelady says it was him, 5 other employees say it was Lovelady, and Oswald claimed he was eating lunch with Junior Jarman and/or Harold Norman on the 1st floor. They said they didn't see him. People claim alibis for Oswald that he never claimed for himself. What's the point of that?

The point about Billy Lovelady illustrates one weakness that I've always noticed. They raise objections at point A that just cause problems at points B, C, D and E. They fail to integrate their objections into a comprehensive theory. A comprehensive theory would run like this:

"Lovelady and Oswald are gay lovers. Lovelady shoots JFK in a plot in which all 65 employees are conspirators. To save his friend, Oswald leaves the building and engages in all sorts of actions intended to draw attention upon himself. 'Tis a far far better thing I do, etc."

Of course he bought the rifle in April and nobody could predict he'd even get the job, but hell, they could have known each other for years. May have, could have, maybe, possibly, probably, perhaps. All without proof. It's an industry.

The only thing you have to explain now is why a law-abiding person like poor little innocent Ozzie-Wozzie would buy two firearms in violation of Federal law and attempt to kill General Walker if Lovelady and the other employees are the real assassins.

... The JFK assassination was the perfect crime, a one in a civilization event, there will never be another one. The weakness of assassination as a tactic is that it may rid you of a hated enemy but it does nothing to convince your enemies that they are wrong and that you are right. Usually it causes a reaction that destroys the group or cause that pulled off the assassination. For example, the Lincoln assassination by a group of Confederate draft dodgers and deserters, people who did not really represent the South at all, led to a 12-year orgy of vindictiveness that destroyed the South even more completely than the war. Plus it shamed the South, the assassin became a pariah. In the South, you can shoot a man, but not in the back, you shoot him in front, even if he's unarmed, but in front.

T-shirt design stolen from
But Oswald had the whole political Left out there trying to convince the world that he was framed, that he was a right-winger, that he was in the FBI, and all this other BS, so there was no reaction against the Left. JFK became a martyr, legislation was passed that might never have passed otherwise. Oswald accomplished all his goals: he became famous, he struck a blow against capitalism and became a martyr himself, especially, when Ruby killed him. In this sense Ruby did us a disservice. On the other hand, Ruby did us a great favour, because
if Oswald was alive, Marina's testimony would not have been admissible, and she would have felt obligated to protect him. So much of what we know, the real inside dope, we owe to Ruby. It couldn't possibly have been more successful in every possible way. Most people think Oswald was innocent and almost nobody thinks he was a Marxist. Nobody blames the Left for it; but the "right", yes. You can always blame the right for anything.  

Another thing. I was flabbergasted by the seriousness of it all, when I started to research this (I took no interest in it for 45 years) to hear Jim Marrs say JFK was killed at a distance of 250 yards. This is a guy who's studied the assassination for 45 years, who's written a major book on the subject, which earned him a fortune in sales and which served as the basis for the film JFK, who earned 300,000 dollars from the film alone, and he's got the distance wrong by almost 300% (88 x 300% = 264)! How is this possible? Everybody has always known for 45 years that the maximum distance was 265 feet. But no, Marrs says, 250 yards, just as if it were obvious! This is very, very serious. He also says the limousine was travelling sideways [false], that there was a tree in the way [false again], etc. etc.. Something is really wrong wherever this is possible. Same thing for both Marrs and Jones saying 6 shots for Sirhan's pistol (ibid). Anybody who remembers the RFK shooting knows Sirhan had an 8-shot revolver, the only one I've ever heard of, an Iver-Johnson Cadet. How can these people be so ignorant? It's a religion.

Jim Marrs: cannot discuss the assassination for 5 minutes without getting the distance wrong by 300%, with 2 or 3 other stupid mistakes.
Oh, well, the money's good.
"How to Write Your Own Mega-Best-Selling JFK Assassination Conspiracy Book": click here

goes on to say that "bullets of other calibres, fired from other guns", were recovered from the scene of the RFK assassination, which isn't true at all. How is this possible? I always get the impression that these people simply make up what they say as they go along, because you never get the same story twice.

... Incidentally Oswald's brother Robert says Lee was a very good shot. They used to go bird and squirrel hunting at age 12 and Robert said Lee usually bagged something, or usually got what he was shooting at, something like that. He was certainly an expert with the bolt on the Mannlicher Carcano, which was not an easy rifle to operate, but was very accurate and deadly, firing a very heavy bullet with very little tendency to tumble (because it was much longer and heavier than modern ammo) and tremendous penetrating power, initial muzzle velocity 2100 ft. per second. It was obsolete because of a change in military fashion, no other reason. It made nice neat holes in people when it didn't hit bone, but if it hit bone it made jagged holes. Well, jagged holes are out of fashion. After all, all we want to do is kill people, we don't want to hurt nobody -- who us?  

Q: Amazing......and he bought the gun from a catalog.........just imagine if he didn't have that particular rifle available. He must have wanted to save it for a special occasion to go out in style...........

A: It was corroded, gouged, nicked, worn, etc. but mostly on the exterior. The working mechanism was in very good shape. Typical war surplus weapon. Still, there are a lot of good weapons. The Brown Bess flintlock used in the Revolutionary War was very accurate up to 300 yards but you could only fire 2 shots a minute. Then they tell you it takes 19 seconds to fire 3 shots with a bolt action? That would make a bolt action only 4.5 times as efficient as a muzzle-loader. The kactologists are nuts. As I say, the Mannlicher Carcano can be recocked, reshouldered and fired in as little as twice in 1.66 seconds (point shooting), moving one's head and the barrel only a few inches. How can anyone imagine a battlefield weapon that couldn't be?  

Don't forget, Italy was considered a world power until 1943, and they fought 3 major wars with the Carcano, which was essentially a modified Mauser. Jim Marrs says it was basically a “piece of junk”, because it was called the "humane rifle". This is an example of the superficiality of the critics. The way to determine whether it is any good or not is to test it, which has been done repeatedly. Why was it called the humane rifle? Because it makes a perfect rhyming couplet in Italian, "Mannlicher Carcano, fucile umano". In many parts of the Mediterranean there are elaborate rhyming jokes in which every woman in a village will be said to possess some quality which rhymes with the name of the village. If I say "femmine romane, tutte puttane", does that mean Roman women are all whores? Or does it just mean I want to insult the Romans, probably because I don't like their football team? So how much of this “humane rifle” business is a serious criticism and how much of it is an idiotic rhyming joke? With people like Marrs, the aim is not to discover the truth but to make a point and to convince people, just to make money. He also writes huge tomes about the secrets of the ancient pyramids, secret societies, etc. All the arcane, inside secrets of the world, Knights Templar, everything, 2000 years back, he knows everything. These people dish out huge tomes like hot cakes. To a serious scholar a 500 page book might represent a lifetime's work, but Marrs and Reymond dish them out like flapjacks. Plus they constantly jump to conclusions and present their conclusions as fact. The only thing missing is evidence.

... In 1968, in an hour-long TV special with Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite, a team of Marines qualified at Oswald's level were given a chance to practice with an identical rifle at a nearby firing range, and were then filmed firing at an identical moving target from a platform. Everything was duplicated, the angles, heights, slope, distances, size of the target, everything, and most of them outdid Oswald in less time. The head-size target was mounted on a moving electrical trolley, etc. travelling at the same speed, 11 miles an hour, same slope, 3.9 degrees downwards, same distance, 59 and 88 yards for the 2nd and 3rd shots [Bugliosi, p. 496], etc. ("A weapons engineer had the best score, making three out of three hits in 5.2 seconds, meaning he was operating the bolt and firing accurately every 1.7 seconds, clearly besting Oswald's marksmanship on November 22, 1963", [Bugliosi, p. 495-6]).

In photographs, the camera distorts the distance, perspective and angles, just like when you photograph your dog and his nose looks a mile long. From the actual window, from what Jim Moore says (author of a good book called CONSPIRACY OF ONE), it looks very easy, and almost all visitors to the 6th floor museum are surprised at how easy it looks. He helped put the exhibit together. 

Jim Moore describes how some professor who taught a course on the assassination came to the conclusion about 10 years ago that Oswald was guilty, and his students felt he was taking the "fun" out of the assassination! So he had to go back to saying there was all this mystery, etc. Same thing with the Hoaxoco$t. If you proved there was no Hoaxoco$t, you'd be taking the "fun" out of it. What's next? Grinding millions of Jews in giant blenders? Forcing millions of Jews to flush themselves down the toilet? Really. People love it. That's what we're up against.  

Q: I guess it's a form of entertainment.......speculating and examining things for secrets.......I mean I have read that people have even argued that Hitler was in contact with aliens, UFOs, secret weapons.........
However, I do wonder what unexplained flying objects or cryptozoological creatures are actually, Area 51, etc. It's rather ironic because people also lump "holocaust deniers" in with UFO believers, conspiracy theorists, etc. It's all so absurd. The Holocaust is the most ridiculous conspiracy theory in itself. Including 9/11. They are putting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on trial in NY as the "mastermind of 9/11" forgetting that they used to say that Osama bin Laden was the "mastermind." How silly Obama is, saying that Al Qaida is the greatest threat to the United States. But if you ask them to prove this assertion all they say is "Oh, 9/11" blah, blah, blah.

A: Yes, what can you say when something like Ripley's Believe It or Not used to publish stories about frogs discovered alive inside solid rock in coal deposits 10 million years old? 

A good writer can convince a reader of anything and a successful book is very profitable.

Most people simply do not understand what it takes to prove something seriously. It's poor education, and even if they do understand, they only understand it in their own field. For example, Bugliosi is very naive about Hitler and the Hoaxoco$t himself. But give him 300,000 dollars to defend a revisionist, and then he'll read their stuff seriously and maybe become convinced that we are right. In the meantime he sees no reason to examine it seriously.

Pedal-Driven Brain-Bashing Land
3 Rides for 5 Bucks

Of course, Bugliosi is a lawyer. If you paid him 300,000  dollars to defend a revisionist, and he spent the time to study our literature and became convinced that we were right, he would stand up for us. But he doesn't know anything about it, because nobody paid him yet. These are things he knows nothing about. That's natural. For example, he says, you can take the "if" argument and say, golly, if people had bought Hitler's paintings in Vienna in 1914, there wouldn't have been any Hoaxoco$t! That just shows he never studied Hitler.

 left Vienna for Munich in May of 1913. He was a serious, successful and methodical professional artist, in both Vienna and Munich, earning 50% more than a bank clerk or school teacher. He sold a lot of paintings, many of them to Jewish art dealers. One of his paintings was misappropriated by a man named Hanisch, Hitler denounced him to the cops, Hanisch spent a week in jail, went into exile, and helped make up all these stories about Hitler sleeping on park benches, etc., with a half-Jewish emigré named Konrad Heiden, author of DER FÜHRER and other books, written almost entirely without access to any documents. But he had Hanisch! Hitler was the surviving son of a high-ranking customs official, with a sizeable pension from the Orphans Fund, and a substantial inheritance, which he waived in favour of his sister Paula. That "men's home", that "flop house", or "doss house", he lived in, was a substantial stone building, fairly high rent, with a concierge. He had his own room, with plenty of light, and painted in front of the windows wearing an old business suit. He wore a top hat, white kid gloves, carried a cane, went to the opera, the theater, and led a very bourgeois life style. He spoke very good French and had a very good passive knowledge of English. He was also a very good mathematician and musician (piano). All his original income tax returns are still in existence and it's easy to prove how much money he earned. He earned a very good living, never did manual work and was never poor. 
But this is all because Bugliosi never studied the matter. On the whole, though, if he doesn't know something, he keeps his mouth shut.

My info on Hitler comes from HITLER: LEGEND, MYTH, REALITY by Werner Maser, which I have also read in German; and FÄLSCHUNG, DICHTUNG UND WAHRHEIT ÜBER HITLER UND STALIN, by the same author, which is substantially the same book. He demolishes all these "Jewish grandfather" lies, among other things, including all the "Hitler's skull" stories. No trace of Hitler's body has ever been found. The skull belongs to a monorchidic corpse found by the Soviets, and the dental records and X-rays do not match. Two complete sets of Hitler's medical records survive intact; Hitler was physically normal in every way. But since the corpse was monorchidic, the Jews had to compound their lies with a new one, that Hitler had only testicle!

That's why he hated Jews, see, Freudianism. This yarn is being peddled by a guy named Webster Tarpley, an Alex Jones associate.

This is the big new propaganda push, Oliver Stone, etc. -- Nazis, fascists.
So, no need to worry about Jews, Zionists, AIPAC, the ADL or Israel... look out! The Nazis are coming!
When the Jews become "Nazis", as defined by Jones, Marrs and Tarpley, they're not Jews any more, see, they're "Nazis". Back to sleep. The Jews are still the good guys.

At the same time, these same people distract you with fairy tales about the noble, courageous self-sacrificing Kennedys! It all fits together.

The JFK myth is a parody of the Christ myth. Kennedy was a "messenger of peace", see, but he was "too good" for America, see, so the wicked sinful Americans killed him; we couldn't stand all that "goodness", see, all us wicked selfish segregationists and the military-industrial complex.
It's an insult to the country. America was a nice country in 1963.

This was the country that Kennedy destroyed, for a short-term political advantage, to please the ADL.

Kennedy was the first President in history to pander solely to blacks and Jews. Even in the 1950s, the Kennedy electoral machine had a $65,000 computer called the "People Machine" or "People Predictor", capable of predicting the results of national elections based on a wide variety of demographic variables fed into it, county by county, all over the country. In 1962 or '63, it was decided that Kennedy could be re-elected in 1964 by pandering solely to the black bloc vote in the Northern states (plus the ADL, of course, with JFK's pet project of "immigration reform"). The Catholics, Italians, Poles, Slovacs, Southern Democrats, labor unions, working class whites, etc., were no longer required and could go hang.

To imagine that he would have destroyed his power base by offending the Jews over "Israel getting the Bomb", or "debt-free money", or anything else, is simply fantastic. If he understood anything at all, it was the power of money in politics. That means Jews. And he knew it very well.  

... Michael Rivero is one of the few conspiracy believer-type people who can write about these things without making an obvious fool of himself. But it does not add up. For example, what is the point of claiming that Oswald was in the doorway when he never claimed he was, and if Billy Lovelady and 5 other employees all say it was Lovelady? Plus close up you can see it's not Oswald. They only looked alike at a distance. He's got a huge gigantic file on it.

The real weakness is the estimation of JFK's character...

Q: So they take little things out of context, like a bullet hole or a statement from Gerald Ford and building around it......he shows a picture of Kennedy's shirt with a small hole in the back, but I guess one would think that if it were from a rifle it wouldn't be such a small neat hole, and wouldn't the autopsy photos show a little hole in his back?!
Mike Rivero put this all out on one set of links. But it becomes a case of linking circumstantial events whereby each argument doesn't say much all by itself.

A: Every sentence of something like this contains a misunderstanding. Don't take my word for it, buy Sturdivan and Bugliosi. The critics never answer the basic questions, the ones I raised at first. In 45 years I've never gotten an answer.

It's like the gas chambers. How did they know when the people were dead? How did they know how to quit throwing those cans through those holes? Cyanide poisoning causes unconsciousness and cyanide gas is lethal in proportion to its proportion in the air. How do you know the concentration in the air if you're just throwing cans around and the people are unconscious? You'll never get an answer.

With regards to the first two sentences in the first file, there were 4 investigations and all of them concluded that Oswald was guilty. The House Special Committee on Assassinations reached the same conclusion, then contradicted itself on the basis of the so-called Dictabelt recording, which I've already discussed. Rivero still talks about this as if it proved something, but if you mention Neutron Activation Analysis, he says grandly that it has been "discredited". OK, disregard it, then. It still only pertains to the very small fragments.  The large fragments and whole bullet were fired from Oswald’s rifle. People forget that the ballistics of all this have been discussed in professional journals for 45 years. 

OK, the brain is missing, but why should it be in the National Archives? It was not always missing. It was examined in detail (as I say) by 17 forensic pathologists having performed 100,000 autopsies between them. They all say the same things. 1 one wound channel in the brain, from back to front, spatter of metal fragments through the right hemisphere, no damage to the left hemisphere. How is this possible if he was shot from the right front? A shot from the right front would destroy the left hemisphere, because it would go straight through. Bugliosi points out that the kactologists never indicate what they think the brain would prove if it were produced. It was almost certainly reburied with the body by RFK when JFK's body was reburied, or else destroyed. They didn't want it ending up as an exhibit in some freak show someplace. All the documents were released in the mid-90s and proved nothing. The main thing the Kennedys wanted to keep hidden was the gruesome autopsy photos, for good reason, but it was inevitable that they would be made public some day and it was a mistake to withhold them from the Warren Commission. The Dictabelt recording is ridiculous, typical. The so-called “unique” echo characteristics were duplicated in Greenville North Carolina. No gunshots, no crying, no screaming, no hysterics, somebody whistling a little tune, etc. But oh, some "electrical impulses".

The skull exploded to the front, but it had nothing to do with the path of the bullet. Tissue moves out of the way of a bullet. The exit wound was over the right eye, near the hairline. The brain is sent swishing around like clothes in a washing machine and the skull fails structurally, in a completely random manner. This causes the convulsion. The brain is swishing around, but it's fixed at the spinal cord, so it's like grabbing a bunch of cables exiting a conduit and attempting to tear them off by ripping them sideways. Result: every muscle in the body convulses, and the stronger muscles dominate. This is called the Swan Dive posture. A corpse won't do this. It won't even move. Of course he was as good as dead before he hit the seat.

As for the second document, this is nothing particularly special. Police receive information like this all the time. I have never heard of Parrot before, so I can't say anything else.

Usually, for every true report of people really planning things there are maybe 10 or 100 false reports, so the cops never know which ones to take seriously. The Germans had reports of the exact location of the D-Day invasion, but they also had a whole slew of false reports. What of it? Note that all these points are raised in a complete vacuum. They never integrate their findings into a coherent theory of what happened. (Of course we don't know what happened on 911 either, but we don't make all kinds of silly objections that add up to nothing, or at least I don't think we do.) If Parrot is important, how does this fit in with Billy Lovelady and Oswald in the doorway? 

That same picture of Billy Lovelady standing in the doorway also shows the window Oswald fired from, with the Secret Service men looking up and back, towards the window. Rivero never admits this, although that was the reason the picture was taken! How does this fit in with the claim that the shot or shots were fired from the Grassy Knoll? You'll never get an answer. As Jim Moore says, every time you answer one of their questions they come back with another question or another supposition (usually containing the words "may have" or "could have"). Bugliosi says yeah, well, maybe if I had wings I could fly. Somebody (James Fetzer) asked him what it would take to make him change his mind, and he said "evidence, just evidence".
Bugliosi won 105 out of 106 felony cases and 21 out of 21 murder cases as a prosecutor, and his book HELTER SKELTER, on the Manson case, which he prosecuted, is the best-selling true crime book of all time, with 7 million copies sold. So he knows how to prosecute a murder case, and he knows how to write a book (although he is not uniformly a good writer stylistically). If you want the facts on something, go to Bugliosi. You should see what he says about the 2000 election or the Simpson case. Everything he says demolishes everything you've ever heard about whatever he's writing about.

Q: The cyanide is such a pathetic story. I mean at least they could have developed a theory of a device that sprayed the cyanide from the walls or even the floor. So essentially they say that some guy stood on the roof dropping cans in, one after another…
Rivero's at it again, he's got a huge article about the 3 tramps, with about 3 or 4 pics.

A: To me, this is just plain nuts. He's got a comparison of the faces. It's like reading tea leaves. They were identified, tracked down, one of them, Doyle, had died, but the other two were found. The police department released the arrest records in the 1990s. Nobody travels by freight train if you want get anywhere quickly. Note that all these theories contradict each other and add up to nothing. They are counting on a very short attention span in the reader.

Q: I didn't see that yet. I remember that people were pointing to one of the Watergate burglars as having been in Dallas as a tramp, and that the WHOLE reason for the Watergate burglary was to get information that the Democrats had linking Nixon to knowledge about Dallas...........

A: I've never heard it, because I paid no attention for 45 years, but I know about trains and this sort of thing is where I decide they're all completely nuts. The strange thing is they don't seem to care. They love hundreds of theories, one after the other. It's a form of entertainment. Where did the bullet go if it did not exit the throat? If the shoulder wound is an exit wound, where is the entrance wound? They never answer these questions. This is why they have to claim the autopsy was a fake, the X-rays were a fake, that surgery was performed on a corpse (which is impossible, any coroner can tell the difference between post-mortem and ante-mortem wounds, and who the hell is going to do all this stuff?) They'd have to have hundreds of physicians and other people recruited into the conspiracy before the assassination, plus every cop in Dallas, etc. etc. You'll never get an answer. You can look at the photographs of the body and see where the bullet hole is. Who needs this huge discussion about a shirt? Sturdivan says "It need hardly be stated that using a moveable article of clothing to dispute the position of a wound is a bad approach". What is this all supposed to prove? He was leaning forward. This is proven by the Zapruder film. Then they have to say, oh well, the Zapruder film is a fake, Zapruder was in the conspiracy. This is impossible, too. What about the hundreds of other amateur photographers along the motorcade route?

You see? It's like the Hoaxoco$t. If it's illegal to say I have 2 legs, it has to be illegal to say I play tennis, run up and down stairs, do the 100 yard dash, and everything else, ad infinitum. Everything has to be illegal, everything has to be a lie, and everybody has to be in the conspiracy. All are mad save thee and me. With the 911 conspiracy theorists and the revisionists you don't get this fantastic runaround, you get good solid answers to questions.

Q: … I'm amazed they didn't stick with the [Hoaxoco$t] "electrical chamber" story. Just a bit of water, bare feet, and a live wire on the floor...Why did they give that one up?? Why did they stick with a story that is harder to believe instead of one that is easier to believe?

A: I think too many cooks spoil the broth. No other reason. I don't know if this is really relevant, but I used to know a former mental patient (I don't suppose there is any such thing as a former lunatic) who had spent time in a mental hospital in New York because he thought Kennedy was chasing him in a red helicopter. He told his brother "If you see a red helicopter coming, it's Kennedy, don't tell him where I am". He was a 5th year medical student from Puerto Rico, studying at the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Salamanca, in Spain. I knew him in 1966; obviously Kennedy had already been killed. He never mentioned the assassination.  

Talking to him was a real "trip" because the dividing line between fantasy and reality had been completely erased. He never acted the slightest bit "crazy": no tics, no mannerisms, never nervous or excited. He had a tremendous interest in current affairs and, of course, an excellent memory, after all, he was a medical student, he read Time Magazine from cover to cover and could remember everything in it. He knew everything going on in the current administration in Washington. If you listened to him for 5 minutes you thought "Wow, that's interesting", then, if you listened to him for 10 or 15 minutes more, you thought, "Wow, that's really interesting", then, "Wow, I didn't know that", then, "Wow, that's incredible", "That's unbelievable", etc. etc. And then, very, very gradually, by absolutely imperceptible degrees, it got crazier and crazier and more and more bizarre, so that if you listened to him for 3 or 4 hours, in the end he was telling you that Dean Rusk (Secretary of State under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations) had been climbing down from the roof on a rope and trying to get in the window! And that was only the beginning, let me tell you.
One good reason not to associate with crazy people (not even the best reason) is that they fill you up with so much false information. But even a lunatic can perceive and describe reality correctly once in a while. The trouble is that by that time you no longer believe them. 

Because his demeanour of bemused detachment never varied, I could never quite rid myself of the suspicion that he was putting me on to see what I would believe. But why would a sane person go to so much trouble to convince you that he was nuts? At any rate, invented or sincere, I very quickly got into the habit of never believing anything he said.

Now comes the surprise: the second-to-last time I saw him he described a couple of -- now get this -- gay, Ukrainian, albino, identical twins to me, with a lot of crazy hallucinations, and of course I assumed they never existed. He introduced them to me at an airport about 2 days later, and they were exactly as he had described them: as crazy as hell. I wouldn't be surprised if every word he told me about them was the truth.

If I could remember his name I'd look him up, I'm sure he qualified eventually, returned to New York and became a psychiatrist. This is why psychiatrists are all nuts.

At any rate, very few people think Kennedy is chasing them, but a lot of people are still chasing Kennedy. As far as I can tell, they never caught anything yet, and I don't think they ever will. I don't even think that animal is native to these parts.
I don't know if this is helpful.

Q: Chasing Kennedy.......Maybe they'll find him in the "gas chambers".........

Conspiracy theories rated from 0 to 10 (personal opinion)
0 = no conspiracy at all
10 = 100% conspiracy and lies
JFK - 0
RFK - 1 or 2 (barely possible)
MLK - 2 or 3 (possible)
Oklahoma City - 10
9/11 - 10
7/7 bombings (London Underground) - 10
Vince Foster - 10
TWA 800 - 10
"Moon Hoax" - 1 (barely possible)
Hoaxoco$t = 10 (all lies)

See also:
JFK: Sexual Sociopath and Political Faker
JFK: Racial Destroyer of America
An Introduction to Alternative Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy Theories
Refuting Popular Myths About Conspiracy Theories (stolen from
Open Letter to William Reymond
RFK Note
Teddy, the Floating Scumbag
Is Race Really Just "Skin Deep"?
Requiem for Rhodesia
For review of "Requiem for Rhodesia", click here
Head Note
Guns, Freights and Alcohol - The American Dream by V.A. Grant
What's Wrong with Alex Jones
(about halfway down the page)
On Alex Jones et al; Did the Nazis Burn the Reichstag?

On YouTube:

Recommended reading:
RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY by Vincent Bugliosi (total 2700 pages including 1000 pages of end notes and references on CD-ROM)
THE JFK MYTHS by Larry M. Sturdivan (professional scientist: medical and acoustic aspects only; difficult but very clear);
CONSPIRACY OF ONE by Jim Moore (ex-kactologist; imperfect but very good);
CASE CLOSED by Gerald Posner (contains about 1 dozen errors on minor topics; there are also minor instances where Posner is right and Bugliosi is wrong; the advantage to Posner is that he is a professional writer who tells a very readable story, covering all bases. Written too quickly. Should issue a revised edition. Bugliosi tears Posner to shreds on minor points, but in the end, both tell the same story. As I say, those who disagree can answer our questions.)
(700 pages; much neglected; out of print; very expensive second-hand. Overdue for re-publication.)