Lee Harvey Oswald's Mexico City travels present many official and public allegations and little conclusive verified evidence. A few have presented evolving ideas and some have chosen to believe former assertions despite the problematic evidence. Certain assertions have sought to make definite claims regarding Oswald without the necessary definite proof...
An enduring yet presently unproven claim is the assertion that Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby knew each other. Magician and ventriloquist Bill DeMar propagated among the first known assertions regarding connections between Oswald and Ruby. The Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewed DeMar and presented a photograph of Oswald, DeMar "said he believes this is the man he saw seated among the patrons of the Carousel Club 'one night last week'. DeMar advises he works seven nights each week and, therefore, is unable from his recollection to determine which particular night of the week he observed Oswald..."i DeMar's hazy recollections do not make for a compelling start...Read More
Feasibly second only to Lee Harvey Oswald, another person is asserted by some to be responsible for the death of President Kennedy. Some accuse President Lyndon Baines Johnson, based upon similar unproven hypotheses. They claim he is who most benefitted from the President's death; however, that is not true. Others did benefit more; for instance, J. Edgar Hoover received a lifetime appointment to the FBI's directorship from President Johnson. Johnson gained a looming shadow of accusation that has endured over five decades. His troubled one-term presidency is a paltry reward for such claimed actions...Read More
Perhaps no other alleged criminal rests mired amid such controversy as Lee Harvey Oswald and many facts despite their proven basis in evidence remain contended decades later. Allegations swirl often concealing the verifiable details regarding Oswald and some dismiss all primary evidence in favor of popular speculation. Yet unproven allegations from either side of the case are not compelling and deeper inspection may offer greater clarity...Read More
Allusions related to Luisa Calderon in the Kennedy case are still offered by a few as relevant. The incident and accompanying decades of speculation have fueled a feasible myth to develop. Some attached undue importance to unproven allegations that endure of a Communist plot without substantial evidence. The episode, despite its supporters, is what one prominent researcher refers to as a "mountain built out of a molehill"...Read More
The integrity of evidentiary contentions is based upon verifiable accuracy and correction of all mistakes. If the claims are repeated but not verified they remain merely unproven assertions. Yet claims are not compelling, evidence is. Claims, no matter who offers them, require substantial proof. Unbelievable assertions require substantial evidence. Mistakes uncorrected lead to future greater errors...Read More
In the course of decades, various unproven and doubtful ideas have dominated the discourse of the Kennedy assassination. Often a quick fix to the intractable problems of the case using faulty premises is offered. Instead of providing substantial evidence, theories and speculation dominate such ideas. However, in time the evidence always gains on them and forces greater scrutiny. Higher standards of discourse and evidence are required...Read More
Some claim an expansive list of deaths is related to the Kennedy assassination and this is in addition to the complex plot that often accompanies such claims. Yet would a successful plot include the need to eliminate so many? The nature of a successful assassination is to minimize the amount of people involved and those killed because each additional death beyond a handful would attract notice and opportunity for exposure. Thus, we are left to ponder why so many deaths are necessary for a successful plot?Read More
Official and public commentaries have attempted to fill many evidentiary gaps in the Kennedy assassination. Yet these attempts were not all based on rigorous inquiry and evidence. Perhaps a few sought a place in history, to profit, and generated their biased view of events via their own speculative presumptions. The worst of these possible are those attempting to create ideas of whole cloth with a veneer of actual evidence in attempts to gain credibility...Read More
A review of the "Real Deal" Podcast interview of Greg Burnham with James Fetzer
In the decades since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, some have asserted that multiple versions of important evidence exist. While this is possible in certain instances, serious questions remain without presented evidence and the ability for critical public review. Greg Burnham and James Fetzer discuss at length the asserted existence of an alternate film of the Kennedy assassination. Burnham claims to have viewed the "Other" film and believes it constitutes additional support for conspiracy...Read More
Did Lee Harvey Oswald make every appearance at the Communist aligned Cuban and Soviet Embassy in Mexico City? This long debated question has both inspired new evidentiary findings and generated untenable speculations. However, the speculation appears on both sides of this debate. Some have overlooked all the evidence and others have created unlikely constructs to explain the events. Considering some of the arguments in comparison to the primary evidence may narrow the field...Read More
A Rebuttal of the Oswald Innocence Campaign Member's Statement and its unproven claims.
The Oswald Innocence Campaign members base a grand claim by interpreting a single photograph and despite the people who have leant their name to such a cause, they lack supporting primary evidence. Seemingly, no room for contrary evidence and considerations is left and unless those who support this idea allow contrary views of evidence, this remains merely speculation. They have attached too much importance upon too little proof...Read More
A rebuttal of "JFK believe it or not: Oswald wasn't even a shooter!" by Richard Hooke w/ Dr. James Fetzer
"I have been invited to the Roxie Theater in San Francisco...and explain what Oliver Stone got right and wrong in his monumental film, "JFK". Most of the film is right..." (James Fetzer)
Incorrect, most of the film is speculation, because it is a film. It is not a primary source and it gets more wrong than right, contrary to Fetzer's opinions. This is not a problem because as a dramatization it is fictional, not a documentary. Yet those trying to legitimize its contentions ignore the many unproven claims in the film...