• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JFK's assassination: your thoughts

What's your current belief about this?

  • Probably just Oswald acting alone

    Votes: 189 88.3%
  • Probably the Mafia

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • Probably the CIA

    Votes: 5 2.3%
  • Mixed feelings/not sure

    Votes: 8 3.7%
  • other (desc)

    Votes: 11 5.1%

  • Total voters
    214
There would have been lots of explosives in Vietnam when that bomb went off- from WWII French and Japanese leftovers, and the munitions left by the French during their little colonial war. Extracting the explosive from an artillery shell is not that difficult, especially once you have the fuze off.

Additionally, explosives kill through 2 means:

A. Over pressure - meaning the pressure exerted on the victim solely by the shockwave of the explosion;
B. Fragmentation - meaning the little (or not so little) pieces of metal, plastic, wood or whatever material is used in the casing that fly at you at high speeds to cut you up.

Plastic explosives are explosives that can be shaped by the user to a desired shape prior to use.

Not to mention that explosive residue on an overpressure victim's body could be tested for the chemical components, but the basic building blocks of explosives are all the same.

The binder is different from let's say commercial dynamite of the era (sawdust) to HE from an unexploded aerial bomb, (TNT mixed with ammonium nitrate powder - Amatol) but the binders in explosive material are largely consumed in the detonation and it would take something along the lines of the FBI forensic explosives lab to determine the difference, and the FBI wasn't involved in incident investigation between indig. parties in VN.
 
Nothing debunked, this is one person's opinion. No facts just conjectures...

Which differs from the opinion's based on conjecture put forth by CT hawkers how exactly?

Insistence that the WC somehow fouled up or covered up something in not investigating the LHO/ASC connection must either dismiss or ignore the facts of what the WC was charged with - investigating the murder of JFK. Following up leads to places where the suspect never set foot isn't going to be on the investigative priority list.
 
Essentially, what the Warren Commission did was show that:

a. What type of weapon killed JFK - done;
b. Did the apprehended suspect have such a weapon - done;
c. Was the recovered weapon the murder weapon - done;
d. Did the suspect have opportunity to have made the shots - done;
e. Did the suspect have motive - done;
f. Is there any evidence to to suggest that there was someone else there to do the shooting - no;
g. Is there any credible evidence that there was anyone else involved in the shooting - no; and
h. Is there any credible evidence that the suspect had received assistance prior to the commission of the crime - no.

As the WC answered these questions satisfactorally - I'm satisfied.
 
I notice you pretty much exclusively cite a single book.

That's the problem with so many of these JFK conspiracy theories. They're formulated as, "I read a couple sensational books on the JFK assassination, and now I'm so much smarter than anyone else." When you have to plow through that to get the proponent to actually think about what he's claiming, it takes forever.
 
That's the problem with so many of these JFK conspiracy theories. They're formulated as, "I read a couple sensational books on the JFK assassination, and now I'm so much smarter than anyone else."
I don't think you're being fair in your assumption. Perhaps they just listen to the audiobook versions.
 
Since it was obviously part of a very learned strategy of gaining academic bona fides that bespeaks a method and practice beyond the maladjusted loser your side is painting Oswald as being. This is a highly functioning, highly intelligent operator we're seeing here who then requires further investigation.

I asked this before, but it was ignored.

Is there something about being highly intelligent that keeps a person from also being a maladjusted loser?

The world is full of highly intelligent maladjusted losers.
 
You haven't provided anything of the sort. You're dodging. The record holds true at 100%.

No. Showing that your claims have as their premise a bunch of made-up nonsense that you cannot substantiate is not "dodging." You want us to take your unfounded premises at face value. That's not now debate works, and it's certainly not how truth works.

Deniers can't answer how Oswald know of the obscure Swiss CIA-connected Albert Schweitzer College.

No, we just don't accept your author's speculation that it was "obscure" and "CIA-connected." You want us to "explain" your conclusion within the narrow confines of the premises you foist. That is the classic straw man.

Since it was obviously part of a very learned strategy of gaining academic bona fides that bespeaks a method and practice beyond the maladjusted loser your side is painting Oswald as being.

No, you're the one painting him as a simplistic caricature. You're the one say "he's this, so he can't also be that." You provide no justification for that characterization other than your say-so.

What's very obvious here is that you can't answer how Oswald knew about Schweitzer College.

Do not shift the burden of proof. You are the one claiming he can't possibly have known about it unless he was led to it by the CIA. And since you can't prove that, you're trying to saddle your critics with the burden to prove otherwise by affirmative counterclaim.

And since the Commission couldn't find any advertizement to explain it away we can assume ASC didn't advertize.

That's your assumption. Do not ask us to accept it. It is your further assumption that Oswald cannot have known about the college by any way other than advertising.

The college was highly CIA networked since it had a big time CIA player, Brundage, on its board.

No. Styling Brundage as a "CIA player" is your assumption. The journey from "having a CIA player" on its board to being "highly CIA networked" is your inference.

I think we all know how Oswald knew about it.

No, "we all" do not know that. Stop trying to pretend your critics should just believe you.

You're simply begging the question over and over again. You are copying a well-worn conspiracy theory line of reasoning from someone else's work, probably the only book you've read on the subject. The well-worn speculation and rhetoric doesn't suddenly become clearer or more persuasive simply because you just found it and deployed it.

Oswald had knowledge enough of U-2 flights and codes etc to be a problem.

Speculation.

At the time the US had just developed a high altitude radar by which to track the U-2 that would be of interest to the Soviets who had no such technology.

Factually incorrect, and speculatively connects Oswald to a speculated Soviet interest.

Oswald could very easily have carried...

Speculation, copied from a single source.
 
JB, I can't remember the last time I had this much fun with a CT hawker.

No matter how many times you make the assertion that LHO could have only known about ASC through CIA connections, you can not make your square CT peg fit in the round hole of reality.

No evidence exists that LHO was induced or encouraged by anyone to make an application to or attend ASC. My explanation based on LHO's established pattern of grandiose statements doesn't have evidence either, but a reasonable explanation taking into account normal human behavior has a better chance of being correct than "he could have only known..." and off to the CIA Hollywood fantasy land races because of the simple reason that if the CIA or any other director of LHO's action wanted him to go, and had a reason to have him there, he would have been there.

Not to mention that directing him to a CIA institution (which your base assertion doesn't establish) is piss-poor tradecraft.

The CIA actually has a long (going back to the OSS, or what some folks called back in the day Oh So Social) time affiliation with the Ivy League universities and academia in general, although I am certain nobody would mistake LHO for a Yalie, it's reasonable (again that word that scares CT hawkers so deeply) to believe that the agency had assets that could dummy up a educational legend for LHO if he was an asset and needed such, and it's also worth noting that at the time it would probably be easier for the sovs to get info from ASC as opposed to some community college in Resume Speed Iowa, from proximity if nothing else.

Your last assertion above I've noted in another post, but if you believe that the investigation of murder involving a firearm wouldn't spend a significant amount of investigative effort in establishing that the firearm in question was the murder weapon and attempting to determine how the weapon came to be in the suspect's possession, there is a comprehension problem at work on your part that may be too serious to overcome - the reason ASC wasn't investigated to your satisfaction is that in the scope of the investigation, finding out how LHO knew the name of a place he never set foot in wasn't an investigative priority compared to the who, what, when, where that the WC was dealing with.




This is just speechifying filibuster. Don't bother wasting my time with it. After all is said and done you have failed to account for how Oswald knew about Albert Schweitzer College. You have a real problem with this because the Commission otherwise went to extreme lengths to verify sources for Oswald's doings. They couldn't produce anything on how Oswald knew about the CIA college that major CIA player, Percival Brundage, sat on the board of.

What you've failed to answer is how, if ASC didn't advertize, did Oswald learn about it? You've got it exactly backwards and the reality here is if you think a person who is being accused of being an undercover CIA operative, who somehow comes up with the name of an obscure CIA-connected Swiss college without explanation, is something that doesn't warrant an answer it is YOU who has failed to meet the bar, not me. You show unaccountable disinterest in what demands an answer.

You're way behind. CIA's use of missionary fronts is well-known. CIA agent Ruth Paine who put Marina up in her house was a member of such an organization in Central America. World Vision was run by Hinckley's father and was a recruitment front for CIA during the Contra wars.

Don't bother. After you're done with your evasive filibuster what we are left with is you have no explanation for the damningly-incriminating fact Oswald had no means of knowing about Schweitzer College on the other side of the world in Japan yet somehow found out about it and applied in classic counterintelligence agent style.

You can't not come up with an answer for that like you and the Warren Report.
 
There was no way to tell if it was plastique by looking at the injuries. Not to mention (as you've already been shown) plastique was readily available to the VC via captured munitions.


That's just foolish. The VietNamese medical examiner said there was no metal shrapnel and the injuries were so bad that it had to be plastique because plastique was the only thing powerful enough to cause that forensic pattern.

You're in contempt of the fact Captain Scott admitted it was CIA plastique.
 
This is just speechifying filibuster. Don't bother wasting my time with it.

No one forces you to read or post here. However, they do require you to be civil while you're posting here. Tone it down, please.

After all is said and done you have failed to account for how Oswald knew about Albert Schweitzer College.

Nonsense. You have said he can only have learned about it via the CIA. It is an argument from silence, and you may not shift the burden of proof simply because you choose to argue speciously.

What you've failed to answer is how, if ASC didn't advertize, did Oswald learn about it?

No obligation exists to counter-argue against speculation with an affirmative claim. Do not shift the burden of proof.

Don't bother. After you're done with your evasive filibuster what we are left with is you have no explanation for the damningly-incriminating fact Oswald had no means of knowing about Schweitzer College...

Bluster, bluster, bluster. You simply don't like that you have the burden of proof that Oswald applied to ASC due to the CIA, as you claim. You are desperately trying to connect Oswald to the CIA on this point, and an argument from silence will not suffice.
 
That's just foolish. The VietNamese medical examiner said there was no metal shrapnel and the injuries were so bad that it had to be plastique because plastique was the only thing powerful enough to cause that forensic pattern.

You're in contempt of the fact Captain Scott admitted it was CIA plastique.

Then the ME had no idea what he was talking about.

Proximity, explosive quantity and explosive type are determining factors in overpressure injuries, and no ME on the face of the earth is going to be able to determine HE type by simple examination of the overpressure injury.

To make it simple, the overpressure injuries caused by a given quantity of explosive (name your poison) can be duplicated by a smaller quantity of higher energy HE, or can be duplicated by closer proximty to less powerful explosives.
 
This is just speechifying filibuster. Don't bother wasting my time with it. After all is said and done you have failed to account for how Oswald knew about Albert Schweitzer College. You have a real problem with this because the Commission otherwise went to extreme lengths to verify sources for Oswald's doings. They couldn't produce anything on how Oswald knew about the CIA college that major CIA player, Percival Brundage, sat on the board of.

What you've failed to answer is how, if ASC didn't advertize, did Oswald learn about it? You've got it exactly backwards and the reality here is if you think a person who is being accused of being an undercover CIA operative, who somehow comes up with the name of an obscure CIA-connected Swiss college without explanation, is something that doesn't warrant an answer it is YOU who has failed to meet the bar, not me. You show unaccountable disinterest in what demands an answer.

You're way behind. CIA's use of missionary fronts is well-known. CIA agent Ruth Paine who put Marina up in her house was a member of such an organization in Central America. World Vision was run by Hinckley's father and was a recruitment front for CIA during the Contra wars.

Don't bother. After you're done with your evasive filibuster what we are left with is you have no explanation for the damningly-incriminating fact Oswald had no means of knowing about Schweitzer College on the other side of the world in Japan yet somehow found out about it and applied in classic counterintelligence agent style.

You can't not come up with an answer for that like you and the Warren Report.

You've failed to prove that the ASC has any significance beyond your own imagination.

Second bolded -you might want to be careful wrt CA and the Contras.

Google Christic Institute Lawsuit and observe the failure of a more recent gaggle of CT "investigators."

Funny how the CT hawkers fall flat on their collective asses when they get their day in court.
 
Funny how the CT hawkers fall flat on their collective asses when they get their day in court.

If Jetblast's pseudo-legal ramblings aren't enough evidence, it's clear by reading many of these theories and claims that conspiracy theorists really don't know much about the law or especially how proof works -- in or out of a courtroom.

The overriding sin seems to be the firm faith that if the "official story" can be discredited or doubted for any reason, then the conspiracy theory should hold by default. None of them seems to understand what affirmative claims and affirmative proof entail.
 
Before you get into more of a tizzy about LHO and the theory that Angleton had anything to do with him, better to read up on a fella by the name of Clare Petty and his CIA career. And LHO had socialist/communist beliefs since he was a kid, and unless you want to assert the LHO was part of some secret CIA "I was a teenage commie" op, the assertion that LHO was run as some sort of double agent is more Hollywood fantasy.




Your McAdams script isn't working. Investigators spoke to real communists in America. They said that all real communists attended their meetings and showed ideological interest in communism. Those real communists said Oswald never attended any communist functions or meetings. An agent provocateur told Banister there was a guy out on the street handing out Fair Play For Cuba leaflets. Banister told that agent "Don't worry, he's one of ours." (referring to Oswald) Don't bother presenting that lying McAdams stuff. By the way, the Russians said Oswald avoided their communist meetings also.




"Expensive spy bar?" is that where all the drinks are shaken, not stirred?




Yes, this is documented. Let your trolling level of response to it be duly noted. You have dodged a point that is backed by fact. Thank you.




Point of fact. When the CIA recruits US military personnel, they don't do it at the bar or the whorehouse, they do it in an office on base, and aptitude tests are given and contracts are signed, and the service member either is sent out TDY (Temporary Duty, bet you haven't heard of that one) to work for the agency, or they finish their enlistments and go to work.




The bar was a place where CIA recruited and conducted covert doings in Atsugi. You're in contempt of known records of CIA activities and methods. In any case your honest government form answer dodge conspicuously makes no effort to answer the true facts that Oswald's fellow marines testified to this. Oswald was hanging out in places far above his lone nut pay-scale and with persons that were known to be associated with CIA. Your attempt at playing dumb is a waste of my time. The facts will bear me out as far as that bar. CIA records show that the Queen Bee was a major KGB spying operation using attractive prostitutes.



CT hawkers fantasy ^^^^ LHO knew dick about U2's other than they had wings, flew and they took photos in flight. Like I said earlier, half-assed Article 15 prone PFC's don't know much about anything other than standing watch and policing the area.




Oswald was probably using his radar knowledge as a ruse to gain entry to the USSR for other unknown spying reasons. He had enough unanswered questions about him at Atsugi like the Queen Bee to make him more than the lowly private you are desperately trying to make him despite the facts.

In his book 'Atsugi Assassins' fellow Marine Jensen said he saw Oswald at an MK-ULTRA training camp. We are well through the looking glass with Oswald. In the end you fail to answer the point that Oswald didn't need to know "dick" about U-2's or radars as long as he carried a microfilm of valuable radar information. Paymaster Wilcott said he regularly gave Oswald CIA paychecks.



And the CIA "travel agent" "debriefed" LHO how exactly?



All you need to know is they lied about it. The sending of a covert CIA operator posing as a travel assistance agent is classic of counterintelligence operations not wanting to expose a live operator.



Since you have yet to prove that LHO was an asset for the agency, the words above have no bearing on reality.




Military analyst John Newman already proved it. Read his book 'Oswald And The CIA'. Newman found CIA witnesses who saw Oswald's file on the undercover agent stack at CIA HQ. Newman also proved by file routing codes that Angleton guided Oswald's files safely past 201 file flagging that would have triggered monitoring. You are so far behind on this that you really have no place taking the attitude you do since you're embarrassing yourself.

Otto Otepka worked for the State Department. When he demanded Oswald's files he suddenly found himself being forced into a career change. When he resisted and got Oswald's files anyway his safe was broken in to and the files stolen. Otepka then had career problems. Lovely people you guys so sincerely and honestly back.




The CIA/FBI knew who LHO was, and that's pretty much the extent of their involvement with him pre-Dallas.



You bet they did.




The only people that seem to believe Garrison was anything other than a local joke in NOLA are the after-the-fact JFK CT hawkers and that well known intellectual, Oliver Stone, who managed to make a successful movie out of Garrison's fantasy.




James DiEugenio has pretty much exonerated Garrison and proven him correct in his book 'Destiny Betrayed'. Most of what you write is so far off it isn't worth answering. Clay Shaw was a CIA agent all the way back to his working with Angleton and British Intelligence in Italy in WWII. He was on the board of the CIA front Permindex Corporation that later got kicked-out of Italy because the Italian government could not figure out where it got its funds from (CIA). The low mocking quality of your input vs the real facts is noted.





Garrison did not interfere with local Mafia operations during his tenure as DA, and the source of the "Tomato salesman" line was an FBI agent in NOLA, but when Garrison was interviewed by the House Select Committee in '78, this is what he said:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jim-hsca.htm




Your McAdams denial fodder doesn't answer the point that Garrison was on to the right people in Shaw and the diversion to Marcello was regressive. Garrison had fingered hot players in Shaw, Ferrie, and the Cuban exiles who were all deeply involved in the CIA underground that assassinated JFK.



Any proof that Hurt lied? any proof that Hurt was CIA (Hint: he wasn't)
Any provable (not assertion as evidence) evidence that Oswald actually made the call? I know all about the crumpled up note pulled from the wastebasket, but again, assertion does not equal evidence.




Yes, the telephone operators said it was an out-going call that FBI prevented. A note was found in the trash can that had Hurt's number written in it. A sure sign you've gotten something right is deniers immediately ask for proof. You're just in contempt of the evidence. All you offer is bombast considering the tone you adapt while offering such weak excuses.




Newman writes like a man with a paper *******. As a historian he may have expertise, as an intelligence office wonk, he knows the file system. His opinion as expressed in his book is best described as a classic example of conclusion jumping.




CIA defamation methods. When someone really nails you like Newman attack him at the petty level personally. You are obviously struggling with what he proved and can't really come up with any credible answer for it. At least McAdams thought of a new word besides factoid when denying Newman's proof. There's no doubt Oswald's files were covertly routed in order to avoid flagging.



Back to ASC again? JB, I get it, you have an "advertise" fetish, but for you to prevail on this point you'd need to prove that the name "ASC" did not appear in print in any other context than an "advertizment."




A ballsy reversal. All you are really saying here is you can't provide any journal, newspaper, or source Oswald would have access to that made him aware of ASC. But you snared yourself in your own deceit here because you need to explain how exactly Oswald got application forms for that college? The Warren Commission avoided this not because it was minutia but because thorough analysis would have shown there were no such articles or references. You are trying to hide behind the fact that 50 friggin years of research has not uncovered a single article or literature mentioning Albert Schweitzer College despite all the incredibly prolific research that has been done on the assassination. Nope, you're still coming up empty.





Do you know that the French dropped aerial bombs on the VM the whole time they were in Indochina prior to losing their lease in '54, and some of those aerial bombs were duds...and the VM did then exactly what the VC did later, sweat out the E with hot water (when available) and by hand if not, and as I stated before, the E or anyone else can not determine HE type by injuries alone, and the VC absolutely had plastic type explosives going back to before '54.




What is it about Captain Scott admitting it was CIA plastique do you not understand? You shoot yourself in the foot because any borrowed high explosive would require a metal container that would make shrapnel. Very weak stuff you offer. Time wasting, disingenuous excuses.

Rubbish. The Viet Cong were not about to incur the Buddhists against them in such a way. You are dodging the admitted context that CIA tried to set-up Diem as being responsible in order to divide the Buddhists against him. Running after your dishonest entries is a waste of time. I'd bet a thorough analysis would show the Viet Cong had no such plastique in Hue at the time.





Again, you're wrong.

The VC had everything that the SVN had through diversion or theft, and bulk explosives of several types from material scavenged from dud ordnance.

Links might be useful for discussion if you wish to provide them




Scott said the CIA was the only group with that plastique at the time.

You're making-up offhand stuff that doesn't answer the true facts.


You are deluding yourself that the proven context of this wasn't CIA trying to set-up Diem as having shot artillery at the Buddhists. Your disingenuous excuse-making becomes apparent if you include the full context you so conveniently ignore. The Viet Cong wanted to bring the Buddhists against them for what reason again?


It isn't working BStrong.
 
Last edited:
Your McAdams script isn't working.

Oh, please. Every conspiracy theorist ignores the rebuttals by handwaving accusations that his critics are merely following MacAdams or someone else. Deal with the actual arguments, not where you think they came from. Don't assume your critics don't think for themselves, as you don't.

Meanwhile you explicitly rely on Garrison -- someone not considered reliable by anyone except a few of the very fringy authors.
 
"It isn't working BStrong."

Actually, it is working quite nicely as far as I'm concerned.

You continue to dig the hole I'm pointing you towards without hesitation, and I like that in a CT hawker.

The more you ignore basic explosive chemistry 101, established in the real world facts (CIA recruiting at a Japanese whorehouse? didn't I see that in Goldmember?) and refuse to even begin to demonstrate that you know the difference between fact and fiction, this is a very enjoyable excercise.

I will admit that debate isn't possible with you, but that's par for the course in CT world.

All in all, it's very entertaining to watch someone twist in the logical wind when they don't know they've failed to meet even the lowest standards for informed debate.

I'm starting to believe that you may be a CIA plant to make CT hawkers look bad...
 
Nothing debunked, this is one person's opinion. No facts just conjectures...
You seem to be confused. JetBlast is making the extraordinary claim ASC was a "CIA front." The burden is on him to provide at least some shred of evidence supporting his claim. The article I provided at least addresses why the CT came up with this myth. That's more than JB has been able to do in what 10-15 requests?

They couldn't produce anything on how Oswald knew about the CIA college that major CIA player, Percival Brundage, sat on the board of.
Other than your bald faced assertions of fact, do you have any actual evidence to support your claims?

Don't bother. After you're done with your evasive filibuster what we are left with is you have no explanation for the damningly-incriminating fact Oswald had no means of knowing about Schweitzer College on the other side of the world in Japan yet somehow found out about it and applied in classic counterintelligence agent style.
Claim of fact based on, what?

That's just foolish. The VietNamese medical examiner said there was no metal shrapnel and the injuries were so bad that it had to be plastique because plastique was the only thing powerful enough to cause that forensic pattern.
Complete garbage. Not the least bit true and obviously false after even the slightest reflection.

You're in contempt of the fact Captain Scott admitted it was CIA plastique.
Out of curiosity, does your magic book provide any sort of identifying information for this "Captain Scott?" You know, full name, unit, date of testimony, etc...?

Investigators spoke to real communists in America. They said that all real communists attended their meetings and showed ideological interest in communism. Those real communists said Oswald never attended any communist functions or meetings.
"No True Scottsman" fallacy.

The bar was a place where CIA recruited and conducted covert doings in Atsugi. You're in contempt of known records of CIA activities and methods.
Link to these "known records of CIA activities and methods?"

The facts will bear me out as far as that bar. CIA records show that the Queen Bee was a major KGB spying operation using attractive prostitutes.
Links to these "CIA records?"

Oswald was probably using his radar knowledge as a ruse to gain entry to the USSR for other unknown spying reasons.
Interesting you phrased this as an unknown, given your record of claims of fact.

In his book 'Atsugi Assassins' fellow Marine Jensen said he saw Oswald at an MK-ULTRA training camp.
Location of this "MK-ULTRA training camp?"

All you need to know is they lied about it. The sending of a covert CIA operator posing as a travel assistance agent is classic of counterintelligence operations not wanting to expose a live operator.
You know this, how?

What is it about Captain Scott admitting it was CIA plastique do you not understand? You shoot yourself in the foot because any borrowed high explosive would require a metal container that would make shrapnel.
You know this, how?

Rubbish. The Viet Cong were not about to incur the Buddhists against them in such a way.
You know this, how?

I'd bet a thorough analysis would show the Viet Cong had no such plastique in Hue at the time.
It's already been explained to you several times, the VC were perfectly capable of scavenging from unexploded US munitions.

Scott said the CIA was the only group with that plastique at the time.
Out of curiosity, could you tell me what you think you mean by "plastique" in the first place? Because the way you use it is very reminiscent of the way Truthers use "thermite."
 
Oh, please. Every conspiracy theorist ignores the rebuttals by handwaving accusations that his critics are merely following MacAdams or someone else. Deal with the actual arguments, not where you think they came from. Don't assume your critics don't think for themselves, as you don't.

Meanwhile you explicitly rely on Garrison -- someone not considered reliable by anyone except a few of the very fringy authors.

Garrison could absoluitely be relied on...to make a mess out of whatever he touched.

I recommend to folks interested in NOLA and the prevailing atmosphere during the 50's - 60's -70's to read "Mr. New Orleans" by Frenchy Brouillette. I got the book when it came out, made some calls, and Frenchy is indeed what he claims to be, a NOLA pimp and party dog that knew everyone in the mix. First things first, all pimps are born liars. Having said that, he did know all the players on the set for many years and was a well known local character. Some of what he writes (LHO, JFK, Jim Garrison) should be taken with a large dose of salt, except the fact that the cast of characters involved in all their doping, thieving, pimping and shooting never made it into court charged by Mr. Garrison.

One thing that Frenchy does reveal for possibly his first exposure in the JFK CT mix is the infamous Tex Cody, and also the McLaney brothers, Michael and William. If memory serves the McLaneys were already CT fodder, and in any case this is all nothing more than grist for the mill anyway, but again, I recomend the book for it's entertainment factor.

Just like JB's posts.

http://www.amazon.com/Mr-New-Orleans-Underworld-Legend/dp/1597776165
 

Back
Top Bottom