(05-27-2013 07:18 PM)Rhatkinson Wrote:  Two points:

1. I absolutely agree with Dave (for what that is worth!)

2. Jim, you know that I have the UTMOST admiration for you and your knowledge, but there is no more reputable evidence that Oswald didn't fire all 3 shots at JFK than there is that Booth survived the Garrett farm barn fire. Major historical events invite conspiracy theories (e.g., Lincoln, JFK, 9/11) but each of these - I believe - are based upon the idea that something SO monumental could not have happened without a grand governmental/powerful interest involvement. When, in truth, there is simply evil and mistaken devotion in this world.

Oswald fired 3 shots at JFK. The first missed, hit sidewalk and sprayed witnesses, the second went through his neck and into Connelly, the third took his head off. MANY witnesses saw/heard Oswald fire 3 shots, just as many witnesses saw Booth jump to the stage and flee after shooting Lincoln.

Heath

ps - Jim is still the best, although mistaken in this one area.

I invite anyone who doubts the Oswald murder of JFK to read "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner and then present a logical argument to the contrary. It is most impossible.

There also Dr. Lattimer's excellent book on this.

Who is the best author on this? Posner or Bugliosi? Has anyone read O'Reilly's book yet (says she with bated breath)?

This is off subject, but I never really followed the JFK assassination story much except as a teenager. How does Jim Bishop's "the Day Kennedy was Shot" and William Manchester's "Death of a President" rank?

(05-28-2013 09:01 AM)Gene C Wrote:  This is off subject, but I never really followed the JFK assassination story much except as a teenager. How does Jim Bishop's "the Day Kennedy was Shot" and William Manchester's "Death of a President" rank?

Gene, Jim Bishop's book is AMAZING and very much worth your time. Laurie, I read O'Reilly's book and thought it was very good to be honest. It has some of the same "insinuations" that his Booth book did so I would imagine there are some factual issues just as it was in that book. Still, it was a good read. If you are choosing between the two, by all means get Bishop's book. It is truly one of the best historical books that I have ever read.

One eerie connection to Lincoln's assassination in Bishop's book was a story that he relayed of speaking with JFK in the summer of 1963 about Bishop's "The Day Lincoln was Shot" which JFK had read and enjoyed so much that he invited Bishop to do a "behind the scenes" book of his presidency. Kennedy and Bishop discussed Lincoln's assassination and JFK noted that he agreed with Lincoln that if a man was willing to forfeit his life to assassinate the president, then there was nothing anyone could do to stop him. 4 months later, those words proved very much true.

The difference between Bishop and Manchester's books are that Manchester was the "officially blessed" book of the Kennedy family, while Bishop's was not. Jackie and RFK had a falling out with Bishop over his book because they wanted it edited to omit any faults or critiques of JFK. Bishop was originally the "chosen" author (since he had already started work on his behind the scenes book when JFK was killed) but, as I mentioned, fell out with the family, so he was shut out from any further family cooperation half way through his book and they instead turned to Manchester. Both are good, but in my view, Bishop's is a masterpiece. His chapter about the returning of JFK's body to the White House that night is very moving. It reminds me of James Swanson's chapter in "Bloody Crimes" of the scene at the Petersen house.

Heath

(05-28-2013 08:39 AM)Laurie Verge Wrote:  Who is the best author on this? Posner or Bugliosi? Has anyone read O'Reilly's book yet (says she with bated breath)?

Thats a tough one Laurie. I'd start with Posner's book, which gets right to the point. Bugliosi's is excellent too, but it is the size of a phone book!! Bugliosi also took the opening of his 'Reclaiming History' and had it published seperatly as 'Four Days In November'. It is a gripping, minute-by-minute account of JFK assassination. Worth reading, trust me.

O'Reilly's book?? I haven't made an effort to read 'Killing Lincoln' yet, so that should tell you how interested I am in his JFK book......

(05-27-2013 07:18 PM)Rhatkinson Wrote:  Two points:

1. I absolutely agree with Dave (for what that is worth!)

2. Jim, you know that I have the UTMOST admiration for you and your knowledge, but there is no more reputable evidence that Oswald didn't fire all 3 shots at JFK than there is that Booth survived the Garrett farm barn fire. Major historical events invite conspiracy theories (e.g., Lincoln, JFK, 9/11) but each of these - I believe - are based upon the idea that something SO monumental could not have happened without a grand governmental/powerful interest involvement. When, in truth, there is simply evil and mistaken devotion in this world.

Oswald fired 3 shots at JFK. The first missed, hit sidewalk and sprayed witnesses, the second went through his neck and into Connelly, the third took his head off. MANY witnesses saw/heard Oswald fire 3 shots, just as many witnesses saw Booth jump to the stage and flee after shooting Lincoln.

Heath

ps - Jim is still the best, although mistaken in this one area.

I invite anyone who doubts the Oswald murder of JFK to read "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner and then present a logical argument to the contrary. It is most impossible.

Heath, I agree with you entirely, Oswald fired three shots. There is no doubt in my mind on that issue. However motive. There are more directions from "lone nut', to "mafia" to "military industrial complex". The old Oswald was a patsy holds more water than the JWB lived another life routine. I'm saying that the Lincoln Assassination, for the most part, is pretty well understood by the intelligensia (sp?) of the group here as a Confederate abduction plot that went kinda haywire, with a rogue operative. There are still alot of loose ends on JFK.

(05-27-2013 08:38 AM)william l. richter Wrote:  After writing 4 volumes in three titles based on the Come Retribution thesis, I must confess that I agree with your unnamed esteemed historian. One needs but to study the Radical Republicans and Stanton's own lack of character to get a gut reaction that he was behind it. One day I looked at all my work and said loud to myself, "this is all BS, Stanton did it." I have believed that since 1960 despite all the evidence that point other ways.

Admittedly this will probably get me in trouble, but I will say something nice about Robert Mills' book. Mills has taken a lot of grief over the years. But I actually think he brings up some interesting questions. Basically he seems to think Booth couldn't have pulled the thing off so easily without help from above (Stanton, etc.). He feels Stanton thought Booth was going to kidnap Lincoln. Stanton decided to let it happen as he felt Booth's plan would have failed. The attempt at kidnapping the president would have turned public opinion against the South, and allowed for Stanton's harsh plans for the South after the war. Stanton was as shocked as anyone when Booth shot the president rather than kidnapping him. In the process of explaining his theory Mills asks a whole series of questions, some of which seem legitimate to me. I do not agree with Mills' overall theory, but I do compliment him on his inquisitive nature. Even those of us who do not agree with Bill R. must admit there are many unanswered questions on how things really went down on April 14.

Jim G. says, "I'm saying that the Lincoln Assassination, for the most part, is pretty well understood by the intelligensia (sp?) of the group here as a Confederate abduction plot that went kinda haywire, with a rogue operative." Jim's point is well-taken and seems to be the majority opinion here, but I don't think we should forget there are other possibilities, too.

In my opinion the chances that it was a Northern plot, while low (IMO), are not zero.

I like Mills, too, Roger. This will condemn your integrity forever! As Betty O would say, "HA!"

Here is an example of what (IMO) is a legitimate question brought up by Mills. He is discussing Stanton's refusal to let Eckert accompany President Lincoln to Ford's Theatre. Mills writes:

Given his obsessive concern about Presidential safety, Stanton's expected response should have been, "Mr. President, I am very gratified you've changed your mind about these threats to your life. By all means, take Major Eckert along with you tonight. He's not busy."

But Stanton refused, inexplicably. Moreover, his stated excuse for refusing proved to be an arrant falsehood! Eckert was nowhere near Stanton all night, and in fact, had nothing in particular to do.

Maybe this whole situation was innocuous as many historians argue. But, IMO, it's a legitimate question to ask. Eckert, himself, also turned down the president's request when Lincoln went to him and asked.

(05-29-2013 03:59 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  Here is an example of what (IMO) is a legitimate question brought up by Mills. He is discussing Stanton's refusal to let Eckert accompany President Lincoln to Ford's Theatre. Mills writes:

Given his obsessive concern about Presidential safety, Stanton's expected response should have been, "Mr. President, I am very gratified you've changed your mind about these threats to your life. By all means, take Major Eckert along with you tonight. He's not busy."

But Stanton refused, inexplicably. Moreover, his stated excuse for refusing proved to be an arrant falsehood! Eckert was nowhere near Stanton all night, and in fact, had nothing in particular to do.

Maybe this whole situation was innocuous as many historians argue. But, IMO, it's a legitimate question to ask. Eckert, himself, also turned down the president's request when Lincoln went to him and asked.

Mr. Norton, kind Sr, Do you have any questions in your mind, as to what went on, in the War Department, during the afternoon and evening of April 14, 1865, involving Lincoln - Eckert - and Stanton? I realize that you are quoteing "Mr. Mills", and his views, but what are your beliefs? Some time ago, I wrote "The Mystery of April 15, 1865, Lincoln - Eckert- Stanton". In it I offered every _What, When Where, Why, of the events of the day. If I did not convince you, and answer evey question, to solve that mystery, I need to rewrite the piece in more detail.

John,

Would you please consider posting that article? I would love to read it.

Heath

I would love to read it, too!! Is there a link to it?

That was a very interesting piece, John. I'm glad you shared that with me and yes - it should be posted here.

I'll second that. All in favor say yes.
"YES".
It's unanimous. We eagerly await your post John.

(was it ever in the Surratt Courier?)
I hope it has pictures.

(05-29-2013 08:54 PM)Gene C Wrote:  I'll second that. All in favor say yes.
"YES".
It's unanimous. We eagerly await your post John.

(was it ever in the Surratt Courier?)
I hope it has pictures.

Rhatkinson Post #41, Scldrgnfly Post #43, J Becket Post 43 and Gene C. The story I refered to was published (copyrighted) in the Surratt Courier in Vol XXXV No. 7 July 2010. It covers 4 pages. I want to ask our "Boss" if that is too much to post here (?) If not acceptable, can Laurie help? Lastly, I will copy and mail to anyone who asks. ALso, I invite your comments and criticism. If you question anything, let me know. If you disbelieve, tell me. PS No Pictures. (PS2. Thompson said that he was in Washington that day - I will find that story too.)