On The Trail Of Delusion

[Jon Banks]

How do you connect Shaw with the assassination other than through the Garrison claim that he conspired with Oswald to shoot JFK? Is there another way? Stone and especially DiEugenio are fervent Garrisonites. They have to throw him overboard in order to have an innocent Oswald.

The Dean Andrews and “Clay Bertrand” story was mentioned in the film prior to the mention of Shaw. As you probably know, some allege that Clay Bertrand was Clay Shaw’s alias. If Andrews’ story was true and if “Clay Bertrand” was Clay Shaw, then yeah, he’s connected in some way. But imho Andrews doesn’t seem like a credible witness so I don’t personally put much stock into that story.

Your problem - and Stone's and DiEugenio's and now Morley's (if I can lump you all together) - is that none of this CIA intrigue explains or is connected to what happened on November 22, 1963. It doesn't explain Oswald's actions and behavior which implicate him in the assassination. I simply don't believe he had curtain rods in that bag. I simply don't believe he was framed for shooting Tippit. I simply don't believe he left the building and work shortly after the shooting because he thought he would have the rest of the day off. And on and on.

If you followed my posts in Bill’s “No Power Lunch” thread, you probably know that I remain open to the possibility that Oswald was on the first or second floor while someone else was shooting on the Sixth Floor.

I don’t know if Oswald shot Tippit nor do I know how many shooters were in Dealey Plaza on November 22 but I don’t believe the Single-Bullet Theory or that “no more than three shots” were fired at Kennedy. And it should be easy to understand why most people aren’t convinced by the single-bullet theory.

I don’t believe Morley has ever claimed that Oswald is innocent. I’ve read him for years and suspect he believes Oswald was involved (he tends to be ambiguous about his own theory of the Kennedy assassination).

I agree that Stone and DiEugenio can be labeled “Garriosnites” but I don’t think that label applies to me given my low opinion of Garrison. Still, kudos to Stone and DiEugenio for not making their film another story about Garrison’s investigation. They instead chose to make a documentary that will reopen some good conversations about the JFK case.

At this point there are only two conclusions:

A - The Warren Commission reached the right conclusion in spite of the cover-ups and flawed evidence.

or

B - The Warren Commission helped cover-up the conspiracy behind the murder of JFK.


The more we learn about the investigations the more I lean towards B

[Fred Litwin]

JFK Revisited: Were the Oswald Backyard Photographs Faked?
Oliver Stone's so-called documentary raises the issue of the Oswald backyard photographs. Do we really need to rehash this - the evidence on this is conclusive - the photographs are legitimate.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-were-the-oswald-backyard-photographs-faked

[Richard Smith]

The most incredible thing about Stone's nonsense is how many people he claims were involved.  Everything is faked or the product of lies.  When you add up the number of individuals that he claims directly or indirectly participated in the conspiracy it must be hundreds or even thousands.  Many are just random people.  But they all lied for some unknown reason.  Having to cast doubt on the evidence as the product of lies or fakery is an implicit acknowledgement on Stone's part that the evidence links Oswald to the crime.

[Charles Collins]

The most incredible thing about Stone's nonsense is how many people he claims were involved.  Everything is faked or the product of lies.  When you add up the number of individuals that he claims directly or indirectly participated in the conspiracy it must be hundreds or even thousands.  Many are just random people.  But they all lied for some unknown reason.  Having to cast doubt on the evidence as the product of lies or fakery is an implicit acknowledgement on Stone's part that the evidence links Oswald to the crime.

 Having to cast doubt on the evidence as the product of lies or fakery is an implicit acknowledgement on Stone's part that the evidence links Oswald to the crime.

The same could be said for the naysayers who frequent this forum. Yet they would never admit that the Warren Commission got anything right.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

 Having to cast doubt on the evidence as the product of lies or fakery is an implicit acknowledgement on Stone's part that the evidence links Oswald to the crime.

The same could be said for the naysayers who frequent this forum. Yet they would never admit that the Warren Commission got anything right.

They reject any and every claim by the WC regardless of its significance to the event. It can say nothing about Oswald's guilt, be completely irrelevant to that question, but it has to be denied. Why? Because it's part of the "official story".

"Official story." They argue a tautology: the WC is supposedly the "official story" and so must be rejected because, well, it's the "official story." I have no idea what "official story" means since it was never approved by any element of the government and thus never made "official." In fact, the government authorized several follow up investigations, e.g., the Rockefeller Commission, the HSCA. So much for being the "official story."

[Jon Banks]

A few notes on the Backyard photos:

- There are visible differences between the rifle in the BYP and the Sixth Floor rifle.

- The Sixth floor rifle appears to be a different Carcano model than the one Oswald allegedly ordered.

- Marina says she didn't take the photos fwiw. I've long held that Marina isn't a credible witness due to her willingness to lie and misremember stuff but LN'ers almost always cherry-pick the testimony from Marina that supports their narrative while downplaying her credibility problems.

- I have no idea what to think of the rifle and backyard photo controversies. It isn't the most important issue in my opinion. It's just one of many weird things in the Kennedy assassination investigations.

[Fred Litwin]

Marina certainly said she took the photos.

fred

[Jon Banks]

Marina certainly said she took the photos.

fred

She said she took “one photo” (it looks like several different poses were photographed) and today she denies ever taking the photos.

If you’re going to lean so much on Marina’s testimony, don’t cherry-pick or at least acknowledge that she’s given inconsistent testimony…