None, especially Shenon's book and Garrison subject matter books by Mellen and DiEugenio.
I did not view Stone's 1992 film, JFK, until 2013. If I had read assassination themed books
or Stone's film earlier, I would not have delved deeply into the observations of the late Tom Purvis
posted on the Ed Forum calling into question the claims Garrison was a victim of sinister forces
attempting to discredit his truth. Thanks to Purvis, I found compelling evidence the opposite is closer to the truth.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=2296.0
.....

Quote

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20298-man-of-a-million-fragments-the-true-story-of-clay-shaw-2013/?tab=comments#comment-275862
Thomas H. Purvis - Posted July 18, 2013

As was long ago indicated on this forum, the Clay Shaw/Garrison case was little more than a massive "smoke screen" that was created in order to mis-direct the attentions of those who were making attempt at resolving the issues of the assassination.

In event there is any difficulty in location of these postings, one may want to look up the terminology "Land Sharks".

Tom

P.S. John.-----Glad to see that you have re-opened the forum. With the 50th anniversary of the event soon approaching there will no doubt be many who are searching for some of the factual truths.

Many of which can be found on this forum.

Authors and film producers authored products for sale. Admitting there is persuasive new research evidence tending
to prove their entire conspiracy scenarios unreliable, is not something almost any of them are inclined to do!

Stone and DiEugenio are about the last people open to or politely gracious enough to consideration of facts of sufficient weight to seriously
call into question who Garrison and his agenda truly were. DiEugenio, for example insulate himself with a belief system
intolerant to consideration that there was nothing sinister about the provenance of the postal money order linked to the
payment for the alleged assassination rifle.

The most inflexible conspiracy cult members to considering impeaching evidence are the supporters of the book authored by John Armstrong.

Instead of reading or watching products for sale, join an active JFK Assassination forum and do all of your own research.

My research impeached author Peter Janney's claims in his book Mary's Mosaic, that Mary was assassinated by a shadowy witness who testified
against attorney Dovey Roundtree's murder trial defendant in 1965 and then vanished off the face of the earth, protected by the CIA, ever since.
As a consequence Janney had to issue a revision of his book.

I found proof Garrison and Mellen's CIA people were actually first cousin brothers of Garrison's wife, Leah, and that Shaw had been informed
by one of the two, David Baldwin, shortly after Shaw's indictment, that he was Leah Garrison's Godfather as well as her cousin.
So Shaw knew this information early and author Joan Mellen, who knew Garrison personally since 1969, proved she was kept from awareness of those
relationships, IOW, never informed of them by Garrison.

Supporting citations available here,:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=2296.0

Thanks, Tom! The $6K definitely wasn’t chicken feed to me either, but the astigmatism lenses were going to be $2K and the surgeon couldn’t promise the Medicare lenses would improve me to better than about 20/200. An avid golfer, he convinced me by saying “Look, if you really want to see the ball, this is the way to go.” I assumed he had done hundreds of the light-adjustable procedures, but it turned out I was experiment #10.

I joined the Xerox corporate headquarters a year out of law school, after realizing I wasn’t cut out to be a first-year associate at a large firm, reporting to 28-year-old partners who thought they were gods. Joining with me was Charles, a Detroit night school graduate who had the thickest hillbilly accent you’ve ever heard. We all assumed he was a doofus until he proved to be BRILLIANT and rose through the ranks at an unbelievable pace. I left after five years because I got tired of being moved around, but Charles stayed and continued to rise.

I am no one’s idea of a typical lawyer. My dad was a brilliant but incorrigible alcoholic who held about 40 jobs throughout my childhood, from delivering chicken for Chicken Delight to editing a newspaper and hosting a TV show. Before law school, I had pumped gas, bottled Coca-Cola, branded calves, shoveled feed at a pig firm, sold golf equipment, written news releases and advertising copy and about 12 other short-term things. Perhaps as a result, I never regarded being a lawyer as any sort of priesthood – just another job. I tried to carve out niches where I could use my analytical and writing skills without all the other nonsense associated with "being a lawyer." I also always – always, always, always – made a conscious effort to place “having free time for the things that really interest me” above “earning the big bucks.”

Even my Belarusian wife, who is from an extremely humble background, is always saying “You could have been so famous and rich.” My very truthful reply is “I DIDN’T WANT to be famous and rich!!! I wanted to play golf and read about UFOs!”

When I and my late first wife bought the house in which I’ve now lived for 29 years, the realtor asked “Would you like to make an offer?” I said “At this price I’d be embarrassed to make an offer. I’ll just pay what they’re asking.” At the closing, the title officer astounded me by saying “The lender wants a handwritten statement as to why a lawyer would buy a house this cheap”- the fear being that it must be intended as a rental even though we’d already completed an affidavit saying it wasn’t. It took me years to prove to my blue-collar (and no-collar and even no-shirt) neighbors that I wasn’t one of those “uppity lawyer types.”

In short, I’m guessing that Lance and Mrs. Lance have way more in common with you and your wife than any hifalutin lawyer-type you might be picturing!  I hope Mrs. Tom is doing OK.

 So why doesn’t Clint Hill react to a Z150 of Z170 or a Z190 1sr shot?  John C .  argues the 1st shot missed JFK. OK so maybe since Clint  was keeping his eye on JFK and saw no movement of JFK.But  How Ciint and the other SS agents don’t hear this loud report of the rifle  fire seems improbable imo.

Or If a  Z190 shot which hits  JFK there would be some neurological response in just a 1/2 sec or less if Dans posted info is valid which would cause JFK to move earlier and thus Clint Hill seeing that earlier movement should have reacted quicker and in Altgens Z255 photo ,  One of Hills feet should be more off the running board at least.

AI-version:

Investigative journalist and assassination expert Gus Russo maintains that elements of the Cuban intelligence service (known as the G-2, or DGI) likely encouraged Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate President Kennedy in retaliation for continuous U.S. plots to overthrow or assassinate Fidel Castro.

Russo, along with other researchers, argues that Oswald—a fervent Castro supporter—traveled to Mexico City in September 1963 and made contact with Cuban diplomats and intelligence operatives. According to Russo's investigations (detailed in his book Live by the Sword), members of the Cuban regime were made aware of U.S. attempts to assassinate Castro, and they may have in turn accepted or encouraged Oswald’s offer to eliminate Kennedy.

Russo's research builds on declassified documents and interviews with Cuban defectors. For instance, a controversial 2006 documentary co-authored by Russo (Rendezvous with Death) further alleged that Cuban intelligence contracted Oswald to carry out the assassination.

---30---

I have watched the Rendezvous With Death documentary, and it is pretty good.

It is interesting to note that some lone-gunman theorists still cite Russo in their debates with conspiracy theorists, when in fact Russo posits a conspiracy. It's just that Russo's conspiracy has only one shooter, and the shooter is Oswald.

Russo is no longer active, at least as far as I can tell, but he did a great deal of valuable research for his book Live By the Sword.

An interesting follow-up to Russo's research is the 2015-2017 investigation done by former CIA officer Robert Baer and his team, which included former LAPD detective Adam Bercovici, former FBI profiler Steve Gomez, and former Special Forces Army Ranger Marty Skovlund. In 2017, the History Channel aired Baer's seven-part documentary titled JFK Declassified: Tracking Oswald.

Here are some of the findings and discoveries made by Baer and his team:

-- Oswald received intelligence training and had some kind of connection with the U.S. Government after he left the Marines.

-- Oswald associated with anti-Castro Cubans and even trained with them in New Orleans. Oswald also associated with Cuban intelligence operatives.

-- The owner of Henry's Market, aka Henry's Bar, in New Orleans said Oswald came to the bar many times, and that the day after the assassination two Cubans came to the bar and told him Oswald was innocent and that Oswald had been framed.

-- Oswald's job at the Reilly Coffee Company in New Orleans was a "cover for action," that his job was a "front," a "cover." Oswald could have found a job much closer to his residence in New Orleans. Reilly's was across the street from the Crescent City Garage, which was used by federal agents as a kind of motor pool for their vehicles.

-- Adrian Alba, the owner of the Crescent City Garage, was telling the truth when he reported that he saw an FBI agent hand Oswald an envelope in front of the Reilly Coffee Company.

-- Silvia Odio told the truth when she reported that Oswald and two anti-Castro Cubans visited her residence in Dallas weeks before the assassination, and that one of the Cubans phoned her a few days later and told her that Oswald was an expert marksman and that Oswald had said that anti-Castro Cubans should have already killed JFK over the Bay of Bigs.

-- A Dallas police report noted that Oswald was seen visiting a house used by Alpha 66 members in Dallas. Alpha 66 was a violent anti-Castro and anti-JFK group. The house, located on Harlandale Avenue, was rented by Manuel Rodriguez Orcaberro, an Alpha 66 member who was known to be virulently anti-JFK.

-- Oswald was trying to reach the Harlandale house after the assassination. The bus transfer allegedly found on Oswald hours after he was arrested could have taken him to a point very close to the Harlandale house.

-- Oswald conspired with anti-Castro Cubans to kill JFK.

-- Oswald was the only shooter, but he was supported by Alpha 66 members and other anti-Castro Cubans. If Oswald had made it to the Harlandale house, Alpha 66 members would have helped him escape.

-- The Russians played no role in the assassination, and Oswald was not working for the Russians.

-- Castro was aware of the Alpha 66 plot to assassinate JFK but did nothing to stop it. He monitored it but did not intervene to prevent it.

Ghosts are mentioned in the forum title, so let's get with it here. No, I have never seen one.

"I don't believe in ghosts" is one of those inane statements people make all the time in an effort to seem intellectually superior. Actually, they reveal that they are uninformed dolts. Ghosts are a well-documented phenomenon that cannot be denied. "I don't believe ghosts are evidence of survival after death" would be an intellectually defensible statement, or even "I don't believe ghosts are a supernatural phenomenon."

Ghosts are often confused with apparitions. The classic ghost is a figure (usually human, but sometimes animal) that seems attached to a particular place, unaware of or uninterested in its surroundings, and repetitive in its actions. I have no real idea as to what a ghost is, but it seems to be more a "remnant" or "memory" of what was once a life than a fully-formed spectral representation of a life. My guess would be that this is what most ghosts are - i.e., some sort of electrical remnant or imprint, more like a video than a person.

There are, however, exceptions. Some that more closely fit the profile of ghosts than apparitions DO seem to have some level of awareness and DO interact, albeit in a minimal way, with their surroundings or observers. So there may be some sort of sliding scale of ghostliness.

One popular notion is that ghosts are "trapped" by past deeds or experiences and can be "freed" or "released" by psychic intervention. I doubt it, but maybe. (Ghost Hunter-type TV programs are ridiculous from top to bottom and not to be taken seriously. Dr. Payette has been a member of both the (British) Society for Psychical Research and the American Society for Psychical Research, so you can pretty much take what he says as Ghost Gospel.  )

Apparitions are a different story. They do not appear repetitively. They may be fully formed, indistinguishable from living persons. They may be observed by multiple persons, and their reflections may be seen in mirrors. Sometimes they deliver very meaningful messages and information. They are something entirely different, and the 100 or 1000 best cases (out of millions) would constitute compelling prima facie evidence of survival after death.

It is suspected that, real as apparitions may seem, they may involve some sort of telepathic link between the observer and the apparition. In some cases, the apparition is seen by one or more observers and not by others.

I've never seen an apparition either, unless you count my dog Dusty as described above. However, I did experience a couple of pretty convincing ADCs from my wife's relatives. "Why would they communicate with YOU and not with ME?" she pouted, since I wasn't particularly close to them. My best guess at an explanation was that some people are, for whatever reason, simply better "receivers" and the deceased make use of whomever they can reach.

One of the stories I heard personally was from Michelle, a longtime Mormon secretary in my office. She was upstairs in the middle of the afternoon, sitting on the bed, fully lucid and worrying about the baby she was carrying. Her late father-in-law, whom she had never met and knew only from photos, materialized at the foot of the bed, big as life, simply smiled and said "It'll be OK," and dematerialized in front of her eyes. Astonishing as this may sound, it wouldn't even make the cut of the 10,000 most impressive and well-documented cases.