Here is an article from the Biloxi Daily Herald from April 29, 1967: The article says that "In accordance with the Louisiana Bar's wishes, Lane was forced not to comment on the current Garrison investigation," while at the hotel, but he had no problem telling the Biloxi Daily Herald that "David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, and Oswald were together at meetings in New Orleans to plan the assassination." He is just plain wrong about David Ferrie - he was not found with a sheet over his head. In 1992 Mark Lane wrote a new introduction to Rush to Judgment in which he wrote: "I never saw credible evidence which convinced me that he [Clay Shaw] had ever used the alias. [of Bertrand]" Mark Lane also wrote this: "In the film David Ferrie is questioned by Jim Garrison. Garrison is suspicious, but Ferrie denies any complicity in the murder. In the film Ferrie has a second meeting with Garrison at which members of his staff are also present. In an unforgettable scene, which becomes the linchpin of the film and establishes Shaw's guilt, the actor portraying Ferrie has a nervous breakdown before the eyes of the audience, confesses his own guilt and implicates Shaw in the murder as well. If you are not as yet convinced, Stone, in a rather heavy-handed scene, resorts to a flashback in which we actually see Shaw and Ferrie plotting the crime. It is impressive. It is conclusive. It is a fabrication." Why was Lane so certain in 1967 that Shaw was guilty? In fact, here is an excerpt from an interview from April 3, 1967 on WYES New Orleans: Update Lane had earlier made similar comments in New Orleans and there was some controversy: New Orleans Times-Picayune, April 2, 1967 Previous Relevant Posts on Mark Lane Mark Lane Offers to Introduce Jim Garrison to "Mr. Candy" Reverend Raymond Broshears Tells All to Stephen Jaffe and Mark Lane "I Know Who Killed JFK," Part Two Did RFK Tell Garrison that there were guns between him and the White House?

The website WhoWhatWhy has been running a series on Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. JFK Researcher Tracy Parnell has just published a terrific blog post examining their claims. Andrew Jackson has also done a great job debunking JFK Revisited on Quora. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on JFK Revisited "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Admiral Burkley and the HSCA Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, greatly misleads viewers on Admiral George Burkley and his interactions with the HSCA. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Admiral George Burkley and Conspiracy Theorists Oliver Stone's so-called documentary puts words in Burkley's mouth. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Autopsy Photographs of JFK, Part Two Did Saundra Spencer really develop a completely different set of autopsy photographs? "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Autopsy Photographs of JFK Oliver Stone's so-called documentary tries to make the case that a White House photographer took photos at the autopsy. The only problem is that there is no evidence he was actually there. Oliver Stone Pulls the Wool Over Joe Rogan's Eyes, Part Two Stone misspeaks on the Joe Rogan show about JFK's brain. Oliver Stone Pulls the Wool over Joe Rogan's Eyes Stone misspeaks on the Joe Rogan show and I present a challenge to conspiracy theorists. Jefferson Morley and "JFK Revisited" Tracy Parnell dissects Morley's article on JFK assassination documents and "JFK Revisited" "JFK Revisited" Misleads by Putting Words in Kennedy's Mouth, Part Two Did President Kennedy actually say that he was going to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind? "JFK Revisited" Misleads by Putting Words in Kennedy's Mouth... David Talbot claims that JFK told the French Ambassador that he was not in full control of his entire government. There is no evidence he ever said that. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Supposed CIA Support of the 1961 Coup Attempt in France Oliver Stone's so-called documentary claims the CIA supported the 1961 coup attempt against French President Charles de Gaulle in 1961. The only thing missing is evidence. Max Boot on Oliver Stone's Lies Max Boot: Oliver Stone just can't stop spreading lies about JFK's assassination. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Valery Giscard D'Estaing Did Gerald Ford really disclose to French President Valery Giscard D'Estaing that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy? Perhaps not. "JFK Revisited" Star Believes in a Massive COVID Conspiracy Robert Kennedy, Jr. believes in a massive conspiracy regarding Covid and the intelligence agencies. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Kennedy's Back Wound While Gerald Ford edited some language in the Warren Report, he did not change the location of the back wound. Autopsy photographs show exactly the location of the back wound. "JFK Revisited" alleges Oswald was "placed" Oliver Stone's so-called documentary alleges that Oswald was "moved" to Dallas and "placed" in the Texas School Book Depository. This is totally ridiculous. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Throat Wound The preponderance of the evidence indicates JFK's throat wound was one of exit. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Supposed Chicago Plot There is no evidence that there was actually a plot against JFK in Chicago. Was James Gochenaur a Credible Witness in "JFK Revisited"? Gochenaur's writings don't back up his allegations in JFK Revisited. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Guy Banister Oliver Stone's so-called documentary claims that Guy Banister gave Oswald a room at 544 Camp Street. The evidence does not support the allegation. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Brain, Again... Dr. Robert Kirschner's consultation with the ARRB explains a mystery in the documentary. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Weight of JFK's Brain JFK Revisited makes a big deal about the weight of JFK's brain and ignores a non-conspiratorial explanation. JFK Revisited Distorts John Stringer's Testimony Oliver Stone's so-called documentary makes it sound like the autopsy photographer said that he did not take the photos of JFK's brain that are in the current inventory, JFK Revisited Lays an Egg Oliver Stone took to Twitter last weekend to bemoan the fact that the mainstream press is ignoring his so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Oliver Stone with "JFK Revisited" Crucifies Clay Shaw Once Again There is something really obscene about Oliver Stone once again going after Clay Shaw. JFK Revisited Doesn't Tell the Whole Truth about John Connally You won't learn everything you need to know about Connally's position on the shots from Oliver Stone's so-called documentary. JFK Revisited Uses Marina Porter to Mislead Viewers Oliver Stone tries to make it seem like Marina Porter has denied taking the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Were the Oswald Backyard Photographs Faked? Oliver Stone once again raises the issue of the legitimacy of the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Was Clay Shaw the elusive Clay Bertrand? This post debunks every witness that ever claimed Shaw was Bertrand. Oliver Stone's Poverty of Imagination He cannot imagine any sort of non-conspiratorial explanations for any of the suspicious pieces of evidence in his film. Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA? No, Clay Shaw was not a "contract agent." Steve Roe Blog Posts on JFK Revisited JFK Revisited: Again, Caught Creating False Mysteries "Stone/DiEugenio hatch another Bogus Mystery with Sinister Strap/Sling Mounts on Oswald's Rifle" JFK Revisited: Tripping on the Stairs Oliver Stone claims that Oswald could not have been in the sniper's nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Steve Roe exposes Stone's mistakes. Oliver Stone doubles-down on the Looney Frontal Shot to the President In an interview on RT [Russia Today], Oliver Stone says that the throat wound might have been made by a flechette. Oliver Stone - Deceptive Filmmaker? Steve Roe presents some examples of Oliver Stone's 'creative' abilities. A Look at the "JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass" Film by Oliver Stone Oliver Stone distorts the testimony about Oswald's palmprint on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

On February 27, 1967, Perry Russo was injected with sodium pentothal and was then interviewed by Andrew Sciambra who was an Assistant D.A. on Garrison's staff. This session was not tape recorded and there is only a memo from Sciambra that tells us what happened. Here is Sciambra's memo about Russo's session: On January 29, 1971, Perry Russo visited Clay Shaw's lawyers for an interview. He discussed the session while he was injected with sodium pentothal. For several months I have repeated a question that Paul Hoch asked of Jim Garrison: "Among other things, I offered my $64 question about you: at the time you arrested Clay Shaw, what serious evidence did you have that he had in fact conspired with anyone to kill JFK? The answer is in the Sciambra's memo on the sodium pentothal interview (shown above). Russo's first hypnosis session came right after Shaw was arrested, and that was when the memory was firmly planted on the so-called assassination session at David Ferrie's apartment. So, all Garrison had was a half-hour interview with Perry Russo, under the influence of sodium pentothal, alleging that David Ferrie said to Clay Bertrand, "We are going to kill John F. Kennedy." Not a word from the so-called Clay Bertrand. And nothing about a party at Ferrie's apartment where Oswald and others supposedly discussed the assassination. The day after the sodium pentothal session, Garrison had Russo walk up to Clay Shaw's house in the guise of selling insurance. Russo then identified Shaw as Bertrand, and that was enough for Garrison to have Shaw arrested. Does that sound like serious evidence to you? Here's a letter to the editor from the Washington Post of March 27, 1967: Previous Relevant Blog Posts A Tape Recording of Perry Russo's Third Hypnosis Session You can read Andrew Sciambra's memorandum after interviewing Perry Russo in Baton Rouge, and a link to a recording of Russo's third hypnosis session. Perry Russo Admits Clay Shaw had "nothing to do with anything." A transcript of an April 1971 interview of Perry Russo by Clay Shaw's attorneys. Perry Russo Talks - in Baton Rouge, Part One Russo's initial story was different from the story in the courtroom. Perry Russo Talks - in Baton Rouge, Part Two James Phelan wrote a memo listing all the inconsistencies in Perry Russo's stories. Perry Russo Pays a Visit to Shaw's Lawyer... In January 1971, Russo told Shaw's attorneys that Clay Shaw was not at the supposed conspiracy meeting at David Ferrie's apartment. Lt. Edward O'Donnell Testifies about Perry Russo's Lie Detector Test... Jim Garrison had Perry Russo take a lie detector test. It did not go well. Perry Russo's First Lie Detector Test... When asked about Russo's lie detector test, Jim Garrison lied.

This is from the cover of the Berkeley Barb of September 15 - 21, 1967. Here is the excerpt from Jim Garrison's interview in the October 1967 issue of Playboy Magazine: Garrison claims that the man "simulating an epileptic fit" drew people away from the grassy knoll. But this man was on the west side of Houston street, so I am not sure how that was supposed to work. The man who had the seizure was Jerry Belknap. He was interviewed by the FBI: The FBI also spoke to Aubrey Rike who drove the ambulance: What Garrison probably meant to say in the Playboy interview is that police were diverted. Here is an excerpt from a letter from Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry: Garrison never gave up on this incident. He wrote in On the Trail of the Assassins: The incident involving the "epileptic" who had a seizure before the arrival of the President's motorcade aroused suspicion on several counts. First, it effectively made unavailable the ambulance that was on standby in case of injury to the President, which had to be used to take the epileptic man to Parkland Hospital. Second, the incident created a distraction and caused Dallas police officer Joe Smith to leave his post at the corner of the Depository, making it possible for men on the grassy knoll to move into position as the parade turned off Main onto Houston. Third, a number of witnesses who wrote to our office found it strange that the woman who was treating the epileptic until the ambulance picked him up -- he had bloodied his head slightly in falling -- and who had promptly appeared and identified herself as a nurse, was nevertheless dipping her handkerchief in the goldfish pond before wiping his head. Some of the correspondents described the epileptic as a Latin man wearing Army fatigues. Fourth, when our office followed up at Parkland Hospital, we found that once the ambulance arrived there the alleged epileptic walked off, refusing to be treated or to identify himself. Really? If not for Jerry Belknap, the gunmen on the grassy knoll could not have been moved into position? But Garrison went further. He had a lead on the identification of the man who had the epileptic fit: The appearance and reappearance of "dark-skinned," "Spanish-looking" or "Negro" men in the descriptions of the witnesses intrigued me. Not only was the man in the lair identified that way, but the "epileptic" observed in Dealey Plaza was described as a Latin man wearing Army green combat garb. That description reminded me of the anti-Castro Cuban exiles who were constantly traipsing through Guy Banister's office on their way to guerilla training on Lake Pontchartrain. And, the 'epileptic' man made an appearance in Oliver Stone's film, JFK: (page 7) DEALEY PLAZA - THAT DAY (NOV. 22, 1963) We see a massive overhead shot of the Plaza as it lay then. Credits conclude under shot -- and we have the subtitle "November 22, 1963." A young epileptic screams and suddenly collapses near the fountain in front of the Texas School Book Depository. He has a violent epileptic fit that attracts surrounding attention. Dallas policemen run over to him. We hear the siren of an ambulance roaring up. TIMECUT TO ambulance loading the epileptic man and taking off AMBULANCE VOICE: We are en route to Parkland. Later on in the film, Garrison gives his final summation: (Page 161) JIM: So what really happened that day? Let's just for a moment speculate, shall we? We have the epileptic seizure around 12:15 P.M. ... distracting the police, making it easier for the shooters to move into their places. The epileptic later vanished, never checking into the hospital. The A Team gets on the 6th floor of the Book Depository ... The book of the film cites Warren Commission Document 1245 -- the document shown above -- as a source for the claim that the 'epileptic' didn't check into the hospital. The document didn't quite say that. Jerry Belknap died in 1985 at 44. Update Dennis Moricet informs me that the picture used in the Berkeley Barb comes from the Amateur DCA/John Martin film.

Screen shot from JFK Revisited Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass alleges that there are autopsy photographs of JFK that have disappeared. Here is an excerpt from a transcript: (56:42) Dr. David Mantik: Saundra Spencer worked at the Anacostia facility, a Naval Photographic Center, which was quite separate from the Bethesda lab. And that weekend, she received film. Douglas Horne: The photographs that Saundra Spencer developed which never made it into the official record. The only evidence we have of them is her testimony. Saundra Spencer was visibly upset when she looked at the official autopsy photographs, because she said, "I developed pictures of him and his family for almost three years, and he never looked like this." She said, "he looks terrible in the photographs." Douglas Horne: She started to cry. Oliver Stone: In front of the Review Board? Douglas Horne: Yes, she started to cry in front of [ARRB General Counsel] Jeremy [Gunn] and I and the person from the Archives, and she said, "he did not look this bad in the photographs I developed on Sunday. He was very cleaned up, he was very respectable." And in one of the photographs she developed, there was a brain, an intact brain, sitting next to the body, the nude body of the President. Strange, first of all, that it's intact, because FBI agent Frank O'Neill told the Review Board that over half of the mass of the brain was missing. Screen shot from JFK Revisited Saundra Spencer was at the Naval Photographic Center at Anacostia from 1960 until six months after the assassination. She was in charge of the White House Photo Lab which was responsible for color still photography. She claimed that on November 23, 1963, a Federal agent went to the lab with film holders that she then developed. You can read her initial interview with the ARRB here. Her recollections were that the autopsy photographs showed no measuring devices; had no identification tags; and there were no instruments. She remembered that the body of Kennedy was "clean," and that there was "no blood and no gore" visible. She also believed the photographs showed "no damage to the right side of President Kennedy's head" and that "the top of the head was not visible in the photos." She also saw a circular wound in the front of Kennedy's neck, "about the size of person's thumb," and a wound in the back of Kennedy's head which she said was a "blown-out chunk," about 2 to 2.5 inches wide. This sounds like a very strange set of autopsy photographs. How on earth could she have seen a circular wound in President Kennedy's throat? Because by all accounts it had been obliterated by a tracheotomy. And autopsy photographs with "no blood and no gore"? The body was "clean"? Saundra Spencer was invited to come to Washington for a deposition. Spencer was asked about the agent who brought the film to the lab: Spencer is referred to Secret Service agent James K. Fox. Interestingly, Fox managed to make a bootleg copy of black and white photographs from JFK's autopsy. Those photographs are nothing like what is described by Spencer. Spencer remembers a very clean body: She also saw a brain next to the body: Spencer claimed to have seen a photograph showing the wound in Kennedy's throat: And perhaps the most important question of the day. Saundra Spencer looked at the photographs for about 10 to 15 seconds. And that was while she was stacking them after taking them off the drum. Now does this sound like an autopsy? A "reverent laid out arrangement." Spencer was then shown the actual autopsy photographs of JFK. They asked her to look again at Image 29: The body was pristine? Doesn't sound like an autopsy photograph. Spencer was then shown pictures of JFK's head: She seems to be describing the kind of pictures you would see at a funeral home rather than at an autopsy. Spencer is shown further images of Kennedy's head: Spencer's photographs apparently did not show Kennedy's tracheotomy: The photographs shown to Saundra Spencer were not the photographs she developed in 1963: Spencer then claims the photographs she developed were taken after reconstruction of the body. And the brain that she supposedly saw lying next to the body was not as damaged as the actual autopsy photographs. Is a less damaged brain consistent with the other claims made in JFK Revisited? After all, they claim the actual autopsy photograph of the brain is of a different brain because only the right hemisphere is disrupted. What to make of all this? Spencer's sequence of events is at odds with the Secret Service record. The autopsy film was developed on November 27, 1963 rather than one or two days after the assassination. Fox brought the film to the NPC with Robert Knudsen. Black and white negatives were developed and "color positives were made from the colored film." All processing was done by Lieutenant Vincent Madonia. By the time the ARRB talked to Madonia, he remembered very little. A few days later, additional black and photos were made by James Fox at the White House, He had to go back to the NPC to make color prints. They returned to the NPC on December 9, 1963, to made color prints from the internegatives they had made. Here is his HSCA interview: He mentions that "two women in drying room passed out when [the photos] came through." Was Saundra Spencer one of the women? The real issue regarding Saundra Spencer is memory. She made these allegations thirty-three years after the assassination. The ARRB discussed the issue of memory in its final report: Memories fade over time. A very important figure in the chain-of-custody on the autopsy materials, and the living person who perhaps more than any other would have been able to resolve some of the lingering questions related to the disposition of the original autopsy materials, is Robert Bouck of the Secret Service. At the time he was interviewed he was quite elderly and little able to remember the important details. Similarly, the records show that Carl Belcher, formerly of the Department of Justice, played an important role in preparing the inventory of autopsy records. He was, however, unable to identify or illuminate the records that, on their face, appear to have been written by him. Finally, a significant problem that is well known to trial lawyers, judges, and psychologists, is the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Witnesses frequently, and inaccurately, believe that they have a vivid recollection of events. Psychologists and scholars have long since demonstrated the serious unreliability of peoples’ recollections of what they hear and see. One illustration of this was an interview statement made by one of the treating physicians at Parkland. He explained that he was in Trauma Room Number 1 with the President. He recounted how he observed the First Lady wearing a white dress. Of course, she was wearing a pink suit, a fact known to most Americans. The inaccuracy of his recollection probably says little about the quality of the doctor’s memory, but it is revealing of how the memory works and how cautious one must be when attempting to evaluate eyewitness testimony. The deposition transcripts and other medical evidence that were released by the Review Board should be evaluated cautiously by the public. Often the witnesses contradict not only each other, but sometimes themselves. For events that transpired almost 35 years ago, all persons are likely to have failures of memory. It would be more prudent to weigh all of the evidence, with due concern for human error, rather than take single statements as “proof” for one theory or another Jeremy Gunn gave a speech at Stanford University in 1998. He mentioned the issues regarding the autopsy materials. But right after that Gunn said something interesting: One of the things that is crazy about the JFK assassination is that people come up and say all kinds of nutty things. The number of people who claim to be former CIA officers who were present in Dallas on November 22nd...you could fill a stadium with them. And what do you do when somebody says, `I was a CIA officer or somebody told me that they were a CIA officer and they were instructed to go to Dallas on Nov 22nd.' You know, that's possible. How do we find that out? And so we have chased down a lot of leads by that. By, we go to the CIA, we go through the filing system, we go through the record system and try to identify people. One thing that you end up believing, if nothing else, is that people are not reliable about what they say about what they have done in the past and what they saw and what they observed. In some case because they are just outright con people, not con men, but con people and sometimes they don't know or sometimes there is just a little bit of exaggeration of the story. Anyway we tried several different things on that. An interesting juxtaposition. One possibility, raised by Vincent Bugliosi, is that White House photographer Robert Knudsen took some post-reconstruction photographs, and that these were the photos that Saundra Spencer developed.(see Endnote 428 in Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy): And since Knudsen's family said he was extremely close to JFK and took his death very hard, it makes sense that he might have wanted to take photos of the president when Kennedy once again approximated the handsome, dynamic leader he once knew, and that could only have been after the embalming process. I am not saying that is what happened, only that it is a possibility -- an innocent explanation that escapes the producers of JFK Revisited. In their zeal to 'prove' that there are additional autopsy materials that have been kept secret, the writers and producers of JFK Revisited continue to ignore the issue of memory. And Saundra Spencer's supposed autopsy photographs themselves are at odds with their interpretations of the wounds of President Kennedy. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on JFK Revisited "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Autopsy Photographs of JFK Oliver Stone's so-called documentary tries to make the case that a White House photographer took photos at the autopsy. The only problem is that there is no evidence he was actually there. Oliver Stone Pulls the Wool Over Joe Rogan's Eyes, Part Two Stone misspeaks on the Joe Rogan show about JFK's brain. Oliver Stone Pulls the Wool over Joe Rogan's Eyes Stone misspeaks on the Joe Rogan show and I present a challenge to conspiracy theorists. Jefferson Morley and "JFK Revisited" Tracy Parnell dissects Morley's article on JFK assassination documents and "JFK Revisited" "JFK Revisited" Misleads by Putting Words in Kennedy's Mouth, Part Two Did President Kennedy actually say that he was going to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind? "JFK Revisited" Misleads by Putting Words in Kennedy's Mouth... David Talbot claims that JFK told the French Ambassador that he was not in full control of his entire government. There is no evidence he ever said that. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Supposed CIA Support of the 1961 Coup Attempt in France Oliver Stone's so-called documentary claims the CIA supported the 1961 coup attempt against French President Charles de Gaulle in 1961. The only thing missing is evidence. Max Boot on Oliver Stone's Lies Max Boot: Oliver Stone just can't stop spreading lies about JFK's assassination. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Valery Giscard D'Estaing Did Gerald Ford really disclose to French President Valery Giscard D'Estaing that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy? Perhaps not. "JFK Revisited" Star Believes in a Massive COVID Conspiracy Robert Kennedy, Jr. believes in a massive conspiracy regarding Covid and the intelligence agencies. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Kennedy's Back Wound While Gerald Ford edited some language in the Warren Report, he did not change the location of the back wound. Autopsy photographs show exactly the location of the back wound. "JFK Revisited" alleges Oswald was "placed" Oliver Stone's so-called documentary alleges that Oswald was "moved" to Dallas and "placed" in the Texas School Book Depository. This is totally ridiculous. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Throat Wound The preponderance of the evidence indicates JFK's throat wound was one of exit. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Supposed Chicago Plot There is no evidence that there was actually a plot against JFK in Chicago. Was James Gochenaur a Credible Witness in "JFK Revisited"? Gochenaur's writings don't back up his allegations in JFK Revisited. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Guy Banister Oliver Stone's so-called documentary claims that Guy Banister gave Oswald a room at 544 Camp Street. The evidence does not support the allegation. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Brain, Again... Dr. Robert Kirschner's consultation with the ARRB explains a mystery in the documentary. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Weight of JFK's Brain JFK Revisited makes a big deal about the weight of JFK's brain and ignores a non-conspiratorial explanation. JFK Revisited Distorts John Stringer's Testimony Oliver Stone's so-called documentary makes it sound like the autopsy photographer said that he did not take the photos of JFK's brain that are in the current inventory, JFK Revisited Lays an Egg Oliver Stone took to Twitter last weekend to bemoan the fact that the mainstream press is ignoring his so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Oliver Stone with "JFK Revisited" Crucifies Clay Shaw Once Again There is something really obscene about Oliver Stone once again going after Clay Shaw. JFK Revisited Doesn't Tell the Whole Truth about John Connally You won't learn everything you need to know about Connally's position on the shots from Oliver Stone's so-called documentary. JFK Revisited Uses Marina Porter to Mislead Viewers Oliver Stone tries to make it seem like Marina Porter has denied taking the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Were the Oswald Backyard Photographs Faked? Oliver Stone once again raises the issue of the legitimacy of the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Was Clay Shaw the elusive Clay Bertrand? This post debunks every witness that ever claimed Shaw was Bertrand. Oliver Stone's Poverty of Imagination He cannot imagine any sort of non-conspiratorial explanations for any of the suspicious pieces of evidence in his film. Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA? No, Clay Shaw was not a "contract agent." Steve Roe Blog Posts on JFK Revisited JFK Revisited: Again, Caught Creating False Mysteries "Stone/DiEugenio hatch another Bogus Mystery with Sinister Strap/Sling Mounts on Oswald's Rifle" JFK Revisited: Tripping on the Stairs Oliver Stone claims that Oswald could not have been in the sniper's nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Steve Roe exposes Stone's mistakes. Oliver Stone doubles-down on the Looney Frontal Shot to the President In an interview on RT [Russia Today], Oliver Stone says that the throat wound might have been made by a flechette. Oliver Stone - Deceptive Filmmaker? Steve Roe presents some examples of Oliver Stone's 'creative' abilities. A Look at the "JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass" Film by Oliver Stone Oliver Stone distorts the testimony about Oswald's palmprint on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

James DiEugenio wrote a review of Patricia Lambert's excellent book, False Witness, in the May-June 1999 issue of Probe Magazine. A large part of his review covers Kerry Thornley, the ex-Marine buddy of Oswald who Garrison believed was the second Oswald. DiEugenio intimated that Thornley had intelligence connections: " ... there is the apparent element of protection of Thornley when he became a hot item in New Orleans in 1968. For instance, according to Mort Sahl, Thornley insisted on meeting Sciambra at a curious location for one of their interviews: NASA. Sciambra recalled thinking as he entered the place that if someone like Thornley could command access to such a place then Garrison really didn't have a snowball's chance in Hades." James DiEugenio repeated the story in Destiny Betrayed (page 190). His source was a conversation with Mike Willman "who was friends with Sahl at the time." Although in this article, DiEugenio claims the source was a letter. So, the story doesn't even come directly from Sahl, who was a thorn in Thornley's side: In addition to the Reid/Weisberg tag team, other members of Garrison's unofficial staff - or the "Irregulars" as they became known -- included assassination researcher Mark Lane (author of one of the first books to challenge the Warren Commission Report, Rush to Judgment) and political satirist Mort Sahl. As Robert Wilson Anton recalled: "Mort Sahl got off on this Kennedy assassination conspiracy train ... and his comedy got less and less funny, and Kerry Thornley frequently appeared in Mort Sahl's monologues. And he's just throw charges around ... Mort Sahl was more of a hassle to Kerry than Garrison was." (page 80 in Adam Gorightly's Caught in the Crossfire: Kerry Thornley, Lee Oswald and the Garrison Investigation) I have gone through all of my Thornley documents, and I can only find one reference to a Thornley=Sciambra interview and that was in the District Attorney's office: Thornley lived in Tampa, Florida at the time. I don't believe there was a NASA facility in Tampa - after all, most of NASA's operations were in Cape Canaveral (two and half hours away) or in Houston. There was another connection to NASA. Oswald worked for Reily Coffee in New Orleans for a couple of months in the summer of 1963. He was fired from that job. A number of his co-workers left for jobs with NASA, Boeing and Chrysler. Garrison was suspicious and he wrote a memo: Similarly, the fact that a number of potential witnesses subsequently found their way to jobs with defense industries does not necessarily mean that those particular industries were involved. It does indicate a degree of probability that the jobs were obtained for them by individuals or agencies having a strong influence upon the industries concerned. Like his hero, Jim Garrison, James DiEugenio also wrote about employees leaving Reily Coffee: (page 157 of Destiny Betrayed) But also consider this: There were a number of Reily's employees who left after Oswald's departure for a peculiar destination. Oswald's superiors, Alfred Claude and Emmett Barbee, both left in July to work for NASA in eastern New Orleans. Two of Oswald's co-workers, John Branyon and Dante Marachini, were also later hired by NASA. Oswald himself told Alba he expected to be picked up by NASA. Garrison suspected that they were moved out so as not to talk about Oswald's offbeat work habits. If this is so then it would suggest that, like Ochsner, Reily's company had intelligence connections. This was certified by a declassified document confirming that the company was of interest to CIA dating back from 1949. Further, it appears to have been assigned a contact number. Here is that CIA memo: It doesn't sound like much to me. The #EE-334 is probably a security check of some sort, rather than a "contact number." But there was a better explanation for why so many people at Reily Coffee were moving to work at NASA, Chrysler and Boeing: Lots of good paying jobs. Better paying jobs than Reily Coffee.

Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, misleads viewers on JFK autopsy photographs -- making it appear that a White House photographer took additional pictures that are not in the record. Robert Knudsen shown in screen shot from JFK Revisited Here is an excerpt from a transcript: (54:27) Whoopi Goldberg: Doesn't this all lead to the question, if Stringer did not take these photographs, then who did? Whoopi Goldberg: Robert Knudsen was a Navy photographer who was detailed to the White House in 1958. If you read his obituaries in the New York Times and the Washington Post, you will see that he is credited with photographing Kennedy's autopsy. Except officially, he was not. Douglas Horne: Robert Knudsen was not interviewed by the Warren Commission. So they finally found Robert Knudsen in 1978 and to its credit, the House Select Committee did a deposition. To their discredit, they never published it, they buried it, for fifty years. And it got released in 1993 and I know why they buried it. Because everything he told them about autopsy photography contradicted what they thought they knew in the official record. Dr. David Mantik: After his death in 1989, his wife was interviewed by the Assassinations Records and Review Board: Jeremy Gunn: And did he describe for you the wounds that he saw? Mrs. Knudsen: He told me his whole top of his head was just ... gone. Dr. David Mantik: He told her that one photograph in particular, presumably the back of the head, had been severely altered. Jeremy Gunn: Where was the wound covered? Knudsen's son: Someone had drawn in hair, covering up the wound. Jeremy Gunn: In one sense, probably worth saying, that what you are saying is very different from what the United States government has said for a long time, and why didn't you say something to somebody? Mrs. Knudsen: You have to remember that he was a Navy man and he had Top Secret clearance. It was a way of life. You don't go around blabbing. He worked at the White House and he stayed because he never opened his mouth. Douglas Horne: John Stringer is still the autopsy photographer of record. I think they both took pictures, and I personally think that many of John Stringer's pictures never made it in to the official collection, and a lot of the ones we are looking at are Robert Knudsen's pictures. This segment follows a segment discussing the deposition of John Stringer. in which they also mislead viewers by claiming Stringer denied taking autopsy photographs of JFK's brain. In fact, he told the ARRB that all of the photographs of the autopsy were authentic. Here is a link to Robert Knudsen's deposition before the HSCA. He told the HSCA that he processed autopsy photographs at the Naval Photographic Center. He said that he did "see the images" but that he did not study them. Knudsen was reticent about talking about what he had seen because of his secrecy agreements with the Secret Service. The HSCA called Bob Goff, a legal counsel to speak to Knudsen: Knudsen told the HSCA that he remembered a picture with metal probes going in and out through the wounds in the neck. He was then shown the autopsy photographs and was asked for his opinion. A few minutes later: Knudsen had a vague recollection of a photo with metal probes. Purdy probed for more information: Knudsen then says it was only a negative, and not a print: Knudsen's memory is not the greatest. Purdy suggests that perhaps he saw an artifact: The truth is that Knudsen only glanced at the negatives: Robert Knudsen did not testify that he had taken any autopsy photographs. And he also authenticated the existing autopsy photographs. His only concern was his memory of one negative that showed a probe through JFK's body. Douglas Horne makes the allegation that the HSCA "buried" Knudsen's deposition. But all unpublished HSCA documents were sealed after the investigation because the House did not pass a bill to declassify its material. Knudsen's deposition is hardly earth-shattering and I can certainly understand why it was not included in the HSCA volumes of evidence. In 1996, the ARRB met with Robert Knudsen's wife, Gloria, and then two days later met with her and two of her four children. Robert and Gloria Knudsen in a screen shot from JFK Revisited She told the ARRB that just before the Dallas trip, Knudsen got a metal splinter in his eye and had to recuperate instead of going to Texas. Did that perhaps affect his vision when he was developing the autopsy photographs? In her interview with the ARRB, Mrs. Knudsen wondered whether he would be able to work on the day of the funeral. Mrs. Knudsen told the ARRB that "her husband had participated in another investigation into the assassination which she thought the public knew nothing about." This would have taken place in 1988. She promised to bring "the letter which invited him to appear in this forum" but that letter never turned up. When the ARRB met with Mrs. Knudsen and her two children, they said that Knudsen not only photographed the autopsy, but that he "was the only one to do so." We know this is not true. Knudsen is not on the list of people who attended the autopsy prepared by FBI agents O'Neil and Sibert: To my knowledge, no one outside the family said that Knudsen attended the autopsy. The family remembered that Knudsen talked about metal probes being inserted in Kennedy's body. This is consistent with his deposition, except that the family believed he took the photographs. After Knudsen appeared before the HSCA, his family claimed that he told them that 4 or 5 of the photographs "did not represent what he saw or took that night, and that one of the photographs he viewed had been altered." As indicated in JFK Revisited, his son Bob claimed that his father "told him that 'hair had been drawn in' on one photo to conceal a missing portion of the top-back of President Kennedy's head." The problem here is that the HSCA conducted comprehensive tests to authenticate the autopsy X-rays and photographs. Knudsen's family also elaborated on his supposed visit with an inquiry in 1988. But there was no official investigation in 1988. Might they be referring to a buff conference held in Pittsburgh to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the assassination? Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 18, 1988 Somehow assassination buff Dr. Randy Robertson got into the action. He called Douglas Horne of the ARRB and told him that he should talk to Joe O'Donnell, another White House photographer, who could possibly corroborate the allegations that Knudsen took autopsy photographs. You can read the ARRB report regarding O'Donnell here. He had worked for the United States Information Agency in 1963. He told the ARRB that Knudsen showed him autopsy photos on two occasions. On the first occasion, he saw a photograph that showed a hole in the back of Kennedy's head the size of a grapefruit. Another photo showed a hole in JFK's forehead above the right eye. A few days later he was shown a photograph that showed no hole in the back of the head. He said he never discussed with Knudsen the discrepancy in the photos. But was O'Donnell a credible witness? Definitely not. He also remembered showing the Zapruder film to Jackie Kennedy, and then altering the film: The ARRB noted that "O'Donnell's memory was uneven. He sometimes had trouble remembering the names of Presidents. He also gave a different timing on his viewing of the two different showings of post-mortem photographs (i.e., both events within a month or so of the assassination) from his first interview (in which he said both viewings occurred within a week or so of the assassination). Dr. Robertson called Mrs. Knudsen, who was upset when he told her he doubted that Knudsen photographed the autopsy. She then called associates of her husband's to see if they could verify that he took pictures at the autopsy: In addition, one of the Navy people told her that they did recall a photo showing the back of Kennedy's head to be "blown out." She would not say who this was. Towards the end of her interview, Mrs. Knudsen said that "the first 6 pages of the transcript" of his HSCA deposition "did not sound like her husband." She felt he would not have signed a deposition with several spelling mistakes. The rest of the transcript did sound like her husband. A few months later, Jeremy Gunn called Mrs. Knudsen and asked if he had any more leads. She promised to call back, but she never did. Douglas Horne said in JFK Revisited that many of John Stringer's photos did not make it into the collection and that some of the photographs are those taken by Robert Knudsen. I see no basis for this conclusion. Stringer told the ARRB that he took the photographs and that they are authentic; and Knudsen told the HSCA that he did not take photographs. In their zeal to prove that something is amiss with the autopsy materials, JFK Revisited ignores the issue of memory. And they do not share with viewers what the ARRB said about memory. In an upcoming post, I will examine the transcript of the meeting between the ARRB and the Knudsen family. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on JFK Revisited Oliver Stone Pulls the Wool Over Joe Rogan's Eyes, Part Two Stone misspeaks on the Joe Rogan show about JFK's brain. Oliver Stone Pulls the Wool over Joe Rogan's Eyes Stone misspeaks on the Joe Rogan show and I present a challenge to conspiracy theorists. Jefferson Morley and "JFK Revisited" Tracy Parnell dissects Morley's article on JFK assassination documents and "JFK Revisited" "JFK Revisited" Misleads by Putting Words in Kennedy's Mouth, Part Two Did President Kennedy actually say that he was going to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind? "JFK Revisited" Misleads by Putting Words in Kennedy's Mouth... David Talbot claims that JFK told the French Ambassador that he was not in full control of his entire government. There is no evidence he ever said that. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Supposed CIA Support of the 1961 Coup Attempt in France Oliver Stone's so-called documentary claims the CIA supported the 1961 coup attempt against French President Charles de Gaulle in 1961. The only thing missing is evidence. Max Boot on Oliver Stone's Lies Max Boot: Oliver Stone just can't stop spreading lies about JFK's assassination. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Valery Giscard D'Estaing Did Gerald Ford really disclose to French President Valery Giscard D'Estaing that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy? Perhaps not. "JFK Revisited" Star Believes in a Massive COVID Conspiracy Robert Kennedy, Jr. believes in a massive conspiracy regarding Covid and the intelligence agencies. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Kennedy's Back Wound While Gerald Ford edited some language in the Warren Report, he did not change the location of the back wound. Autopsy photographs show exactly the location of the back wound. "JFK Revisited" alleges Oswald was "placed" Oliver Stone's so-called documentary alleges that Oswald was "moved" to Dallas and "placed" in the Texas School Book Depository. This is totally ridiculous. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Throat Wound The preponderance of the evidence indicates JFK's throat wound was one of exit. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Supposed Chicago Plot There is no evidence that there was actually a plot against JFK in Chicago. Was James Gochenaur a Credible Witness in "JFK Revisited"? Gochenaur's writings don't back up his allegations in JFK Revisited. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Guy Banister Oliver Stone's so-called documentary claims that Guy Banister gave Oswald a room at 544 Camp Street. The evidence does not support the allegation. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Brain, Again... Dr. Robert Kirschner's consultation with the ARRB explains a mystery in the documentary. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Weight of JFK's Brain JFK Revisited makes a big deal about the weight of JFK's brain and ignores a non-conspiratorial explanation. JFK Revisited Distorts John Stringer's Testimony Oliver Stone's so-called documentary makes it sound like the autopsy photographer said that he did not take the photos of JFK's brain that are in the current inventory, JFK Revisited Lays an Egg Oliver Stone took to Twitter last weekend to bemoan the fact that the mainstream press is ignoring his so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Oliver Stone with "JFK Revisited" Crucifies Clay Shaw Once Again There is something really obscene about Oliver Stone once again going after Clay Shaw. JFK Revisited Doesn't Tell the Whole Truth about John Connally You won't learn everything you need to know about Connally's position on the shots from Oliver Stone's so-called documentary. JFK Revisited Uses Marina Porter to Mislead Viewers Oliver Stone tries to make it seem like Marina Porter has denied taking the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Were the Oswald Backyard Photographs Faked? Oliver Stone once again raises the issue of the legitimacy of the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Was Clay Shaw the elusive Clay Bertrand? This post debunks every witness that ever claimed Shaw was Bertrand. Oliver Stone's Poverty of Imagination He cannot imagine any sort of non-conspiratorial explanations for any of the suspicious pieces of evidence in his film. Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA? No, Clay Shaw was not a "contract agent." Steve Roe Blog Posts on JFK Revisited JFK Revisited: Again, Caught Creating False Mysteries "Stone/DiEugenio hatch another Bogus Mystery with Sinister Strap/Sling Mounts on Oswald's Rifle" JFK Revisited: Tripping on the Stairs Oliver Stone claims that Oswald could not have been in the sniper's nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Steve Roe exposes Stone's mistakes. Oliver Stone doubles-down on the Looney Frontal Shot to the President In an interview on RT [Russia Today], Oliver Stone says that the throat wound might have been made by a flechette. Oliver Stone - Deceptive Filmmaker? Steve Roe presents some examples of Oliver Stone's 'creative' abilities. A Look at the "JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass" Film by Oliver Stone Oliver Stone distorts the testimony about Oswald's palmprint on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

Mancuso's Restaurant was on the corner of Camp Street and Lafayette Street in New Orleans. Above the restaurant was Guy Banister's office. Both Jack Martin and David Lewis claim they saw Oswald in Mancuso's with either Sergio Arcacha Smith or Carlos Quiroga in 1963. That is the Post Office building next door to Mancuso's. On the left (A) is 544 Camp Street; on the right (B) is 531 Lafayette Street - the entrance for Banister's office; and (C) on the second floor, Room 6, was Sergio Arcacha Smith's office. Here is a statement from David Chandler who was a reporter who was very close to Garrison at the beginning of the investigation. He was there when David Lewis gave a statement: Of course, Oswald was not in New Orleans in 1962. Lewis would later amend his statement to 1963. Here is a memo not often mentioned by conspiracy theorists: Previous Relevant Blog Posts Was the New Orleans Post Office a CIA Front? The large building right next door to Camp & Lafayette was the old Post Office. Garrison believed that it was a CIA front.

Joe Rogan and Oliver Stone from their recent podcast. Here is an excerpt from their recent discussion: (10:32 in the YouTube video) Oliver Stone: They also, in the, in the matter of the autopsy, that the brain is intact. It was photographed as such. It was clean. The whole area was still there. Whereas it's impossible because the brain was seen, you see it spraying, spraying out in the car, in the Zapruder film. You see it, the nurse's, Audrey Bell is talking about it. It's the ... I can't remember the medical term, the whatever it's called, it's spilling out on the floor of Parkland ... Joe Rogan: Yeah. Oliver Stone: And when they weigh the brain as they do in an autopsy, it comes out normal. Joe Rogan: Well, not just normal but extra large, right? Oliver Stone: A little bit. Joe Rogan: Larger than average. Like it was ... Oliver Stone: It's impossible. And what's more important is, and this drives a stake, again through the heart of ... the photographer of the autopsy, John Stringer, the autopsy photographer, he's a straight guy, he's pro-Warren Commission, all that stuff. They, they bring him back, the ARRB brings him back and they, they show him the photos that we now have of ... that are in the National Archives, and he says, "I never photographed that." Joe Rogan: Right. Oliver Stone: He took an up view of the brain, he never took a basilar, you know from below, "I never photographed that." And that's very important. This is what happens when two people who don't know the case talk to each other. It's all sound bites, with errors thrown in along the way. I have covered the weight of JFK's brain here. Joe Rogan seems to assume that a weight substantially above average would mean that Kennedy's brain was "extra large." Neither of them seems to realize that there is a range of weights of male human brains. Here is a study of brain weights. The average weight of male brains, in Kennedy's age range, is 1,386 grams. If JFK was closer to the maximum, his brain might have weighed 1,600 grams. If he lost 15% of his brain in the assassination, that would have put the weight at 1,360. Fixing the brain in formalin would have added about 100 grams of weight. So, a weight of 1,500 grams, as measured at the autopsy and after formalin fixation, is not out of the ordinary. Another issue to be determined is the effect of the steroids Kennedy was taking for treatment of his Addison's disease. They might have also increased brain weight. In the podcast, Oliver Stone claims that John Stringer, the autopsy photographer, said "I never photographed that," when discussing JFK's brain with the ARRB. He never said that. In his first interview with the ARRB, Stringer was asked about the autopsy photographs that he saw in 1966: I discussed Stringer's deposition with the ARRB here. Once again, he confirmed to the ARRB that all of the autopsy photographs were authentic. You can read Stringer's deposition here. The plain fact of the matter is that John Stringer's memory wasn't the greatest. Just read his deposition and you will find many instances where he just could not remember. Stringer, like other witnesses, may have been aware enough to want to make an effort to avoid remembering things that did not happen. Stringer does not deny that that the brain photographs are of President Kennedy. It's just that there is no identification tag, and Stringer did not remember if identification tags were used at the time the brain was photographed. But to Oliver Stone and James DiEugenio, that is enough for them to reach another conclusion -- that a different brain was substituted, and this is the brain that was photographed. The reason this is so important to conspiracy theorists is that photographs of JFK's brain show the left hemisphere to be virtually intact. JFK Exhibit F-302: Drawing representing one of the brain photographs from JFK's post-mortem examination and held in the National Archives. Here is an excerpt from the supplementary report of the autopsy: Had Kennedy been shot from the grassy knoll that would not be the case. So, the only way to sustain a shot from the grassy knoll is to argue that there is something amiss with the photographs of JFK's brain. So, which is more likely? A lack of memory for minor details after 32 years, or finding another brain with injuries that mimicked a shot from behind? Jeremy Gunn, General Counsel of the ARRB, addressed the issue of memory in an address at Stanford University: The last thing I wanted to mention, just in terms of how we understand the evidence and how we deal with what we have is what I will call is the profound - underscore profound - unreliability of eyewitness testimony. You just cannot believe it. And I can tell you something else that is even worse than eyewitness testimony and that is 35 year old eyewitness testimony. I have taken the depositions of several people who were involved in phases of the Kennedy assassination, all the doctors who performed the autopsy of President Kennedy and people who witnessed various things and they are profoundly unreliable. There were two, the two, there were two FBI agents who were present at the autopsy. They basically, I will exaggerate this, they were with each other all night long and they came out and they wrote a report about what they had seen. I took the depositions of these two people, 35 years later. Their stories just were not the same story. Neither one of their stories moved in any direction to prove that anyone had done anything bad or good with... didn't witness it, their testimonies are different. So you are going to come up with two different sorts of stories. There is one doctor, this will be the conclusion of the eyewitness testimony, there is one doctor who was one of the treating physicians of President Kennedy at Parkland hospital whom I interviewed. And I asked him some questions and he said he remembered that day very, very vividly. He remembered being in the treating room with President Kennedy in Parkland Memorial Hospital. He remembered seeing Jackie Kennedy walk in. He had never seen her before and what a stunning moment that was for him and how traumatic it was. There was the President who had just died. There's his widow who was there with him. `That just burned in my memory', he said. `I remember Jackie being there in a white suit.' And I thought absolutely everyone in the United States knows that Jackie Kennedy was wearing a pink suit. This is the only guy in the United States who thinks that she was wearing a white suit. There are people who were never present at the autopsy, were never present in Bethesda, never saw Dallas ...everyone knows Jackie was wearing a pink suit. Here you have one of the treating physicians who remembers Jackie wearing a white suit. I assume he wasn't lying to me. I assume he wasn't trying to trick me and I assume he didn't have a second suit theory. None of that was true. But here he has this memory. And he described some other things about the autopsy, er, about the treatment of President Kennedy. Let's suppose that I think he's wrong on what he says about something that happened in the treatment room. What can I say? `This guy is so wrong he doesn't even remember what kind of suit Jackie Kennedy was wearing!' You can dismiss his testimony, just dismiss it. Or suppose that I think what he says happened at the treating room is was what I think happened too. His memory of the suit, that's not relevant. What is relevant is his professional skill as a doctor. He's not into fashion, he's into being in medicine, so I can trust what he is saying there. And that's one of the problems that you have with the Kennedy assassination. You have all this wealth of information and people pick and choose, and then they refute, they argue against one person, they can use an inconsistency that they have made, and you end up having all this confusion. The Assassination Records Review Board discussed the issues of memory in their final report: “Finally, a significant problem that is well known to trial lawyers, judges, and psychologists, is the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Witnesses frequently, and inaccurately, believe that they have a vivid recollection of events. Psychologists and scholars have long-since demonstrated the serious unreliability of peoples' recollections of what they hear and see. One illustration of this was an interview statement made by one of the treating physicians at Parkland. He explained that he was in Trauma Room Number 1 with the President. He recounted how he observed the First Lady wearing a white dress. Of course, she was wearing a pink suit, a fact known to most Americans. The inaccuracy of his recollection probably says little about the quality of the doctor's memory, but it is revealing of how the memory works and how cautious one must be when attempting to evaluate eyewitness testimony. The deposition transcripts and other medical evidence that were released by the Review Board should be evaluated cautiously by the public. Often the witnesses contradict not only each other, but sometimes themselves. For events that transpired almost 35 years ago, all persons are likely to have failures of memory. It would be more prudent to weigh all of the evidence, with due concern for human error, rather than take single statements as "proof" for one theory or another.” Previous Relevant Blog Posts on JFK Revisited Oliver Stone Pulls the Wool over Joe Rogan's Eyes Stone misspeaks on the Joe Rogan show and I present a challenge to conspiracy theorists. Jefferson Morley and "JFK Revisited" Tracy Parnell dissects Morley's article on JFK assassination documents and "JFK Revisited" "JFK Revisited" Misleads by Putting Words in Kennedy's Mouth, Part Two Did President Kennedy actually say that he was going to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind? "JFK Revisited" Misleads by Putting Words in Kennedy's Mouth... David Talbot claims that JFK told the French Ambassador that he was not in full control of his entire government. There is no evidence he ever said that. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Supposed CIA Support of the 1961 Coup Attempt in France Oliver Stone's so-called documentary claims the CIA supported the 1961 coup attempt against French President Charles de Gaulle in 1961. The only thing missing is evidence. Max Boot on Oliver Stone's Lies Max Boot: Oliver Stone just can't stop spreading lies about JFK's assassination. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Valery Giscard D'Estaing Did Gerald Ford really disclose to French President Valery Giscard D'Estaing that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy? Perhaps not. "JFK Revisited" Star Believes in a Massive COVID Conspiracy Robert Kennedy, Jr. believes in a massive conspiracy regarding Covid and the intelligence agencies. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Kennedy's Back Wound While Gerald Ford edited some language in the Warren Report, he did not change the location of the back wound. Autopsy photographs show exactly the location of the back wound. "JFK Revisited" alleges Oswald was "placed" Oliver Stone's so-called documentary alleges that Oswald was "moved" to Dallas and "placed" in the Texas School Book Depository. This is totally ridiculous. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Throat Wound The preponderance of the evidence indicates JFK's throat wound was one of exit. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Supposed Chicago Plot There is no evidence that there was actually a plot against JFK in Chicago. Was James Gochenaur a Credible Witness in "JFK Revisited"? Gochenaur's writings don't back up his allegations in JFK Revisited. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Guy Banister Oliver Stone's so-called documentary claims that Guy Banister gave Oswald a room at 544 Camp Street. The evidence does not support the allegation. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Brain, Again... Dr. Robert Kirschner's consultation with the ARRB explains a mystery in the documentary. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Weight of JFK's Brain JFK Revisited makes a big deal about the weight of JFK's brain and ignores a non-conspiratorial explanation. JFK Revisited Distorts John Stringer's Testimony Oliver Stone's so-called documentary makes it sound like the autopsy photographer said that he did not take the photos of JFK's brain that are in the current inventory, JFK Revisited Lays an Egg Oliver Stone took to Twitter last weekend to bemoan the fact that the mainstream press is ignoring his so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Oliver Stone with "JFK Revisited" Crucifies Clay Shaw Once Again There is something really obscene about Oliver Stone once again going after Clay Shaw. JFK Revisited Doesn't Tell the Whole Truth about John Connally You won't learn everything you need to know about Connally's position on the shots from Oliver Stone's so-called documentary. JFK Revisited Uses Marina Porter to Mislead Viewers Oliver Stone tries to make it seem like Marina Porter has denied taking the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Were the Oswald Backyard Photographs Faked? Oliver Stone once again raises the issue of the legitimacy of the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Was Clay Shaw the elusive Clay Bertrand? This post debunks every witness that ever claimed Shaw was Bertrand. Oliver Stone's Poverty of Imagination He cannot imagine any sort of non-conspiratorial explanations for any of the suspicious pieces of evidence in his film. Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA? No, Clay Shaw was not a "contract agent." Steve Roe Blog Posts on JFK Revisited JFK Revisited: Again, Caught Creating False Mysteries "Stone/DiEugenio hatch another Bogus Mystery with Sinister Strap/Sling Mounts on Oswald's Rifle" JFK Revisited: Tripping on the Stairs Oliver Stone claims that Oswald could not have been in the sniper's nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Steve Roe exposes Stone's mistakes. Oliver Stone doubles-down on the Looney Frontal Shot to the President In an interview on RT [Russia Today], Oliver Stone says that the throat wound might have been made by a flechette. Oliver Stone - Deceptive Filmmaker? Steve Roe presents some examples of Oliver Stone's 'creative' abilities. A Look at the "JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass" Film by Oliver Stone Oliver Stone distorts the testimony about Oswald's palmprint on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

I believe that I have come up with the answer to what actually happened at the Bolton Ford dealership in early 1961 in New Orleans. Bolton Ford 1960 Bolton Ford 1960. A staple of conspiracy theorists is the supposed impersonation of Lee Harvey Oswald at the Bolton Ford dealership in New Orleans in 1961. An anti-Castro group, Friends of Democratic Cuba, visited the dealership in 1961 wanting to buy trucks. Joseph Moore was the contact for the group, and he was accompanied by another person. Right above Moore's name on the quote form was the name 'Oswald.' Here is the order form: Here is the FBI report regarding the incident: Of course, Lee Harvey Oswald was in the Soviet Union, so it could not have been him. But was he impersonated? Jim Garrison looked into this incident in 1967. Oscar Deslatte not only refused to discuss this with Garrison, he also denied the incident happened. I would guess that he just didn't want to get involved with Garrison. His boss, Fred Sewell, went further than Deslatte in 1963 and said the 'Oswald" who came to the dealership used the name "Lee Oswald." What piqued Garrison's interest was not just the supposed impersonation, but the fact that Guy Banister was involved with Friends of Democratic Cuba. Here is a page from the organization's incorporation papers: Friends of Democratic Cuba did not last long. Here is how Jim Garrison described the discovery that Guy Banister was behind Friends of Democratic Cuba: (page 58 in his On the Trail of the Assassins) I pondered the implications of this staggering information. In the very month that John Kennedy was inaugurated, an intelligence project being run by Guy Banister was using the name "Oswald" in bidding for pickup trucks for apparent use in the Bay of Pigs invasion. Of course, we do not know what purpose the trucks were intended for. To determine the meaning of all of this, Garrison decided to brainstorm with his assistant Frank Klein. Here is an excerpt from On the Trail of the Assassins: (dialog from pages 59 - 60, reformatted for clarity) Garrison: You don't think Sewall [sic] and Deslatte were lying, do you? Klein: No. But the story doesn't make sense. Oswald was in Russia in January, 1961. He couldn't possibly have been at Bolton Ford. Garrison: Someone was playing Oswald's part. Klein: Playing Oswald's part? But why? Garrison: I don't know yet. But the important point is we now know that whoever was behind the assassination was inclined to have someone impersonate Lee Oswald. Klein: You're headed somewhere but I don't know your direction yet. Garrison shows Klein some job applications from the Warren Commission documents. Garrison: Notice anything odd? Klein: That's the wrong height. In every one of these applications, he's got the wrong height down. Garrison: Exactly. If they'll impersonate you in 1961, they'll impersonate you in 1963. Klein: But why would someone fill out these applications at all these places and continually put down the wrong height? Garrison: Because the impersonator was only five feet nine. Since he was interviewed in person, he had to put down his real height or close to it. Just because someone could imitate Oswald's handwriting perfectly doesn't mean he could stretch himself to Oswald's real height. Klein: You know, you haven't mentioned the most significant thing of all. Garrison: What's that? Klein: The time of the visit to Bolton Ford. Using Lee Oswald's name as early as January 1961. That was the month of Kennedy's inauguration. Garrison: You're asking me if I think the plan to eliminate John Kennedy had begun as early as January 1961. I would find that hard to believe. My answer would have to be no. Garrison understood that it is ridiculous to believe conspirators were plotting just when Kennedy was inaugurated (see Bugliosi's comment below). I have already covered Garrison's ridiculous obsession with Oswald's height here, here, and here. But Garrison goes on to say that he learned in 1977 that the CIA had prepared, after Kennedy's win in the 1960 election, a psychological profile of how Kennedy would react in certain circumstances. Nowadays I often think back to Frank's question about the implications of the 1961 impersonation of Oswald. And when I do, I wonder -- if I had known then about the C.I.A.'s remarkably early psychological profile of Kennedy -- whether my answer would have been the same. So, now Garrison is now saying that indeed people were plotting back in January 1961. Garrison made the supposed CIA report sound creepy. But here is a paragraph from William Corson's The Armies of Ignorance: (page 30) Ok, so the CIA wanted to know the best way to brief Kennedy. Hardly nefarious. The Bolton Ford story made the film JFK: (page 77 from JFK: The Documented Screenplay) BACK AT GARRISON'S HOME - (1967) SUSIE ... now it gets positively spooky. In January, 1961 -- in New Orleans, at the Bolton Ford Dealership -- when the Oswald we know is in Russia -- there is a man using the name "Oswald" to buy trucks for the Friends of Democratic Cuba. The salesman never saw him again, but guess who's on the articles of incorporation of the Friends of Democratic Cuba? Guy Banister. (reactions from the others) Banister, has someone using the name "Oswald" to buy the trucks. Hoover, at the FBI, writes a memo dated June, 1960, that there could be someone using Oswald's passport and identity. The film makes the illogical leap that Guy Banister was behind this impersonation of Oswald. James DiEugenio, in his book Destiny Betrayed, also discusses the Bolton Ford incident. With no evidence at all, he implicates David Ferrie: (page 110) To this day, no one knows for sure why Oswald's name was used, or how it was obtained. But a distinct possibility is that it likely came from Ferrie. For in 1961, in his letter to Eastern Air Lines requesting paid leave for Ferrie, Arcacha Smith had nothing but effusive praise for the intricate work Ferrie had done with his group of Cuban exiles. In the interest of completeness, here is the letter that Arcacha Smith sent to Captain Eddie Rickenbacker: And here is the reply from Eastern Airlines: How any of this implicates David Ferrie is beyond me. Vincent Bugliosi found this all to be quite silly: (pages 1,025 - 1,026 of Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy) Assuming this very shaky and questionable story were true, what possible relevance could it have to the assassination? Ask almost any conspiracy buff and he'll tell you it means that someone was impersonating Oswald in New Orleans in January of 1961, ultimately framing Oswald for Kennedy's murder. But let's walk this through. January 20, 1961, happened to be Kennedy's inauguration day. Even before Kennedy angered Castro and anti-Castro Cuban exiles at the Bay of Pigs, and before he failed to call his attorney general brother, Bobby, off the mob's back, and before the CIA and military-industrial complex feared that Kennedy might withdraw from Vietnam, indeed, before Kennedy had done anything at all that might cause anyone to want to kill him, a group of conspirators decided to murder him? And their brilliant plan was to frame a man who at the time was living in Russia—which means they would have no way of knowing if he'd ever return home and even be capable of being framed—and one way they decided to set Oswald up was to have one of two men who were thinking of buying trucks for their organization call himself "Oswald"? Really? Once again, is there no end to the silliness of the conspiracy theorists? Answer: No. And by the way, since those supposedly framing Oswald had to know that he was a Marxist who had defected to the Soviet Union, would it help their cause to have their Oswald impersonator acting like he was anti-Castro and hence anti-Communist? Just a thought. Assuming the Bolton Ford incident actually occurred, chances are it was just a coincidence (something conspiracy theorists refuse to acknowledge exists in life) that the man's name was Oswald. I believe that I have found the solution to the Bolton Ford question. When searching the web last week, I found this court case: This case presents a suit by Oswald A. Schulingkamp, the owner of Schulingkamp Motor Company, for damage to his property on North Claiborne Avenue in the City of New Orleans, which resulted from a fire on November 13, 1960. The fire originated in the adjacent building, leased and occupied by Bolton Ford, Inc., and spread from there to plaintiff's property. Named as defendants are Bolton Ford, Inc., and its insurer. Bolton Ford and Schulingkamp Motor Company were adjacent to each other. Perhaps the Friends of Democratic Cuba went to Schulingkamp first (perhaps Oswald Schulingkamp was a supporter), hoping that he could get them a good deal on some trucks. Schulingkamp then took them next door to Bolton. Someone there wrote “Oswald” because he was well known at Bolton, and/or because his last name was hard to spell. Oswald Schulingkamp's was a brother of Oliver Schulingkamp, who was a judge in New Orleans. Here is a picture that suggests a connection: (hat tip Steve Roe) New Orleans Times-Picayune, July 5, 1961 New Orleans Times-Picayune, December 12, 1965 There is no reason to assume that the name Oswald, on the Bolton Ford quote form, is a last name. Almost three years later, JFK is assassinated and Deslatte remembered the name Oswald from the quote form. His memory is hazy because the people from Friends of Democratic Cuba were only at Bolton Ford for a very short period. This bit from the FBI report on Deslatte offers another clue that supports Mr. Schulingkamp as the "Oswald." DESLATTE quoted him the price and advised that he would make a $75 profit on each truck. MOORE said that he thought they should get the trucks for no profit for his organization. MOORE then told him that he should change the name on the bid from MOORE to OSWALD, no first name given. The individual with MOORE then said that was his name and it should go on the form as he was the man with the money and would pay for the trucks, if they were purchased. Quite possibly, the trucks would have been purchased by Schulingkamp, who would then donate them to Friends of Democratic Cuba. The impersonation of Lee Harvey Oswald at Bolton Ford never made sense. Previous Relevant Blog Posts Exclusive: Jim Garrison Tells the HSCA that Kerry Thornley Impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald... A tape of Jim Garrison being interviewed by the HSCA. Who Exactly was the Man with a Scar? Jim Garrison believed it was important to find the man with a scar.

Tracy Parnell is one of the top JFK assassination researchers out there. His blog is essential reading and I encourage everybody to bookmark his website. Tracy is an expert on Antonio Veciana and his story regarding Maurice Bishop. Recently the National Archives released 1,491 JFK assassination documents. Conspiracy theorist Jefferson Morley used the opportunity to mislead the public on the 'new' information in those files. Tracy Parnell dissects Morley's article and nothing is left standing. Even if there is a full release of files, there will always be some discrepancy in the records that will allow Morley and like-minded theorists to continue their pursuit. And if any of the records scheduled to be released in December of 2022 are withheld, you can plan to see Morley take his familiar place in the spotlight to protest this injustice, all the while promoting his books. But, in reality, a partial release would be the best-case scenario for Morley. It would allow him to say once again, “we just can’t say for sure what happened to JFK until all the records are released.” That is nonsense, of course, since the case against Oswald as a lone gunman has stood the test of time. And most journalists, historians and scientists (if not the general public) recognize that fact. I found Morley's attack on historian Alecia Long to be incredibly unseemly. Morley said the following: In a sustained attack on Stone in the Washington Post, professor Alecia Long argued that Garrison’s investigation was motivated by homophobia. Shaw was a closeted gay man and Garrison used his private life to smear him, she contends in a new book. Long’s unsubtle implication is that anyone who believes Kennedy was killed by his enemies is an ignorant bigot prone to QAnon-type fantasies. If Long thinks that Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Charles De Gaulle and Fidel Castro were deluded fabulists driven by homophobia, her argument is unconvincing, if not totally wrong. Long made no such "unsubtle implication." And, she never mentioned the homophobia of people like Truman, Johnson, de Gaulle or Castro. Instead, she clearly proved the homophobia of Jim Garrison and his so-called investigation into the JFK assassination. It's almost as if Morley has not read Alecia's book. I never get tired of promoting Alecia Long's excellent book. Please do me a favor and buy a copy immediately. It's that important. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on JFK Revisited "JFK Revisited" Misleads by Putting Words in Kennedy's Mouth, Part Two Did President Kennedy actually say that he was going to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind? "JFK Revisited" Misleads by Putting Words in Kennedy's Mouth... David Talbot claims that JFK told the French Ambassador that he was not in full control of his entire government. There is no evidence he ever said that. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Supposed CIA Support of the 1961 Coup Attempt in France Oliver Stone's so-called documentary claims the CIA supported the 1961 coup attempt against French President Charles de Gaulle in 1961. The only thing missing is evidence. Max Boot on Oliver Stone's Lies Max Boot: Oliver Stone just can't stop spreading lies about JFK's assassination. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Valery Giscard D'Estaing Did Gerald Ford really disclose to French President Valery Giscard D'Estaing that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy? Perhaps not. "JFK Revisited" Star Believes in a Massive COVID Conspiracy Robert Kennedy, Jr. believes in a massive conspiracy regarding Covid and the intelligence agencies. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Kennedy's Back Wound While Gerald Ford edited some language in the Warren Report, he did not change the location of the back wound. Autopsy photographs show exactly the location of the back wound. "JFK Revisited" alleges Oswald was "placed" Oliver Stone's so-called documentary alleges that Oswald was "moved" to Dallas and "placed" in the Texas School Book Depository. This is totally ridiculous. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Throat Wound The preponderance of the evidence indicates JFK's throat wound was one of exit. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Supposed Chicago Plot There is no evidence that there was actually a plot against JFK in Chicago. Was James Gochenaur a Credible Witness in "JFK Revisited"? Gochenaur's writings don't back up his allegations in JFK Revisited. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Guy Banister Oliver Stone's so-called documentary claims that Guy Banister gave Oswald a room at 544 Camp Street. The evidence does not support the allegation. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Brain, Again... Dr. Robert Kirschner's consultation with the ARRB explains a mystery in the documentary. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Weight of JFK's Brain JFK Revisited makes a big deal about the weight of JFK's brain and ignores a non-conspiratorial explanation. JFK Revisited Distorts John Stringer's Testimony Oliver Stone's so-called documentary makes it sound like the autopsy photographer said that he did not take the photos of JFK's brain that are in the current inventory, JFK Revisited Lays an Egg Oliver Stone took to Twitter last weekend to bemoan the fact that the mainstream press is ignoring his so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Oliver Stone with "JFK Revisited" Crucifies Clay Shaw Once Again There is something really obscene about Oliver Stone once again going after Clay Shaw. JFK Revisited Doesn't Tell the Whole Truth about John Connally You won't learn everything you need to know about Connally's position on the shots from Oliver Stone's so-called documentary. JFK Revisited Uses Marina Porter to Mislead Viewers Oliver Stone tries to make it seem like Marina Porter has denied taking the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Were the Oswald Backyard Photographs Faked? Oliver Stone once again raises the issue of the legitimacy of the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Was Clay Shaw the elusive Clay Bertrand? This post debunks every witness that ever claimed Shaw was Bertrand. Oliver Stone's Poverty of Imagination He cannot imagine any sort of non-conspiratorial explanations for any of the suspicious pieces of evidence in his film. Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA? No, Clay Shaw was not a "contract agent." Steve Roe Blog Posts on JFK Revisited JFK Revisited: Again, Caught Creating False Mysteries "Stone/DiEugenio hatch another Bogus Mystery with Sinister Strap/Sling Mounts on Oswald's Rifle" JFK Revisited: Tripping on the Stairs Oliver Stone claims that Oswald could not have been in the sniper's nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Steve Roe exposes Stone's mistakes. Oliver Stone doubles-down on the Looney Frontal Shot to the President In an interview on RT [Russia Today], Oliver Stone says that the throat wound might have been made by a flechette. Oliver Stone - Deceptive Filmmaker? Steve Roe presents some examples of Oliver Stone's 'creative' abilities. A Look at the "JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass" Film by Oliver Stone Oliver Stone distorts the testimony about Oswald's palmprint on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

Last year, Oliver Stone released a ridiculous, hagiographic documentary on Nursultan Nazarbayev, the former dictator of Kazakhstan. Nazarbayev ruled Kazakhstan with an iron fist for decades. This week further unrest hit Kazakhstan. The most encouraging aspect of the mass uprising in Kazakhstan this week isn’t that the hideously decrepit Soviet-era kleptocracy that runs the country is suddenly coming apart at the seams. Or that the riot police and soldiers who didn’t lay down their truncheons and join with the people were overpowered by the sheer physical force of tens of thousands of furious Kazakhs pouring into the streets of cities all across the country. And Vladimir Putin sent in paratrooper to help quell the unrest. Moscow said it would consult with Kazakhstan and allies on further measures to support the Kazakh authorities’ “counter-terrorist operation” and called the uprising a foreign-inspired attempt to undermine the country’s security by force. How long will it take for Oliver Stone to take the same line as the Kremlin? Previous Blog Posts and Links on Oliver Stone's Politics Is Oliver Stone Becoming a Lackey for China? Oliver Stone said the CIA may have injected cancer into Hugo Chavez's rectum... Oliver Stone Sides with Cuba's 'Repressive Dictatorship Two Views on Oliver Stone's Love Affair with Nazarbayev... Oliver Stone Fêtes Another Dictator Oliver Stone's Disgraceful Tribute to Hugo Chavez Is the director's latest film soft on Castro? Oliver Stone defends himself After Calling Russian Anti-LGBTQ Law ‘Sensible’ Hollywood Movie Director Oliver Stone praises Putin for Syria intervention on trip to Saudi Arabia Oliver Stone: Jewish Control of the Media is Preventing Free Holocaust Debate Oliver Stone's Latest Dictator Suckup Oliver Stone’s Latest Piece of Pro-Putin Propaganda May Be His Most Shameless Move Yet ‘The Putin Interviews’: Oliver Stone’s Wildly Irresponsible Love Letter to Vladimir Putin Has Oliver Stone Ever met a Dictator He Doesn't Admire? Oliver Stone's 'Empathy' for Hitler Iran's Fajr Film Festival grabs headlines with Oliver Stone