JFK Stood Against Tyranny

“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

John F. Kennedy

Last year I posted an article on the where the JFK assassination has led us to this day in history. In other words, a downward spiral from our Constitutional Republic to a police state. Since then, not much has changed my view and in fact, has gotten much worse. With President Obama's recent signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in the closing days of 2011, otherwise known as the “Indefinite Detention Act,” which allows the President to detain any American citizen indefinitely without due process, the legal foundation of a toleration state is now upon us and codified into law. It's a scary, shocking and disturbing development, one has been slowly building since the Patriot act was signed into law shorty after the 9-11 attacks. It shows that the people in government that run our country no longer believe in the Constitution, the rule of law, or liberty. They are all, in effect, a gang of traitors. They are more fearful of an American armed with a loaded firearm and a knowledge of the Constitution than they are of any supposed terrorist attack.

I guess a government is only as good as those people in office that will obey the law.

John Kennedy, are you looking at us from a celestial abode and seeing these developments? Your loss in reining in the various Kingdoms of the CIA, the Pentagon and other enemies of the Republic, is our loss as well. Your death let them seal their grip over the reins of power so the Presidents that serve now are mere puppets.

Recently I saw the movie, Elizabeth, The Golden Age. Cate Blanchett reprises her role of the Virgin Queen. In one agonizing part, after uncovering the plot by her sister Mary, Queen of Scots to have her assassinated, she has to sign the death warrant for Mary's execution. She struggles with her conscience and finally her chief advisor tells her she has to sign it as Mary violated the law with her act of conspiracy and treason. Elizabeth responds testily that laws are for the common folk, not for people of her ilk. The "Devine right of Kings" vivid in her mind, playing a major and deciding role in her thinking. It wasn't a display of hubris. This is how these people think.

How fitting this is for Kings of the 21st century! They still think this way. The laws apply to us, not them. Notice how elected officials do just about anything they want and are rarely brought to justice. Congressmen and woman commit acts of insider trading and it's of little legal consequence to them. Attorney General Eric Holder lies to Congress and life goes on. Anybody remember Congressman Charles Rangel of New York? Found cheating on his taxes and all he gets is a congressional slap on the wrist and he's still there, his jovial self once again. A doctor on the Coast to Coast AM show talked of how he tried to get an appointment to see his congresswoman, Barbara Boxer, and was told she no longer takes appointments with constituents. Apparently being a public servant is no longer in her job description.

It's quite obvious that the people of the United States are being conditioned to life in a police state. It has just happened. In a recent article it was reported here in my home state of Florida in the town of Leesburg, agents from the DHS drive up, surround and enter a Social Security office (LINK). One agent stood out front, sporting a flack jacket and sub-machine gun and randomly checks the IDs of people going in and out of the Social Security office. And the people there submitted. Just like the people of Germany easily submitted to Hitler.

They later said it was a training exercise. Then why not warn the public of this? The elderly people entering the building had no idea what was going on. And besides that, how many terrorists lurk around Social Security offices anyway? The idea of armed Federal agents showing up checking identification in this manner is ridiculous and unnecessarily intimidating. Either they are playing security theater or else they are out to condition the public to get used to being treated as slaves in a police state.

As I stated earlier, the Feds are not afraid of terrorism as they are afraid of YOU. We've got more guns than them. And they know it.

An informed population scares them too. Look at them constantly trying to implement an Internet kill switch. You would think in a time of national emergency the Internet would be the very thing you should keep in operation for the free flow of information. But no! The internet is the only thing they don't have any control over. It's probably the last thing standing because of the understanding that government controls so much of it (search: William Colby; operation mocking bird). Just think how things would be now if we were back in the 1960s with only three television networks and practically all radio stations playing mostly music and little talk. The cat is out of the bag.

And that is where the modern day pamphleteers, the bloggers, come in. They really hate us as we have no overseers. We are truly independent. Of course, they have ways to further slime us as in other forms of popular media. Such as the movie I saw over the weekend, Contagion. It's your standard virus outbreak movie with the customary, predictable plot lifted from an old Star Trek show. A mysterious virus erupts and the only person ahead of the curve is a blogger played by Jude Law. The heroes are all government doctors and researchers who come to the rescue with a vaccine at the last minute (remember Bones brewing up a batch on the Enterprise?).

And if there is any villain in the story, apart from the virus, it's the blogger! He is eventually shown to be a liar and fraud and gets arrested for what I guess is insider trading for a drug that he promotes on his web site. Of course, in our modern age only vaccines are real medicine anyway. But I’m sure you get the drift here. The blogger is just a kook outsider conspiracy theorist, that in the end doesn't know what he is talking about. When the blogger announces he's a writer, he is promptly shot down by a government doctor played by Laurence Fishburne. The good doctor dismisses him of that notion. Of course, this the same view the mainstream media has of bloggers and independent internet writers in general. (Probably the government too though they do enjoy reading blogs. Enough agencies show up to read this one.)

So the media war on bloggers continues as the tyranny of the State uses more subtle means to propagandize the public and attack its critics.

Would John F. Kennedy has signed a draconian piece of legislation as the NDAA? Of course not. Unlike this current crowd of criminals, JFK believed in liberty. It should be noted other Presidents have signed NDAA when it comes up for renewal. This one however, was different when they added on the extra powers for the President to arrest anybody he wanted, citizens or non-citizens both here and anywhere in the world, and order a “hit” on them without the Constitutional guarantees of due process. Ironically, President Obama said at first he would never sign it with these added stipulations, while at the same time, he had his lawyers go to Congress and ask for such powers behind the public’s back. This President possesses a deceitful character and should not be trusted by anyone.

The basic rule in the coming days ahead is to know your Constitutional rights and stand your ground. You will be tested.

Further Reading

One of the first people arrested under the Patriot Act was a Michael Galardi, a Los Vegas strip club owner. LINK

Another early arrest on the under the Patriot Act was Susan Lindauer’s. Read about her ordeal HERE.

Audio: Black Op Radio’s Len Osanic interviews Susan Lindauer, Show #560. LINK

REAL DEAL - Jim Fetzer Podcasts

Lots of excellent interviews by Dr. James Fetzer with researchers on every major conspiracy topic. From JFK to 9/11. Some great info here! Also, all interviews can be downloaded as MP3s and are free.

Start listening at this LINK.

Podcast #1, Ozzie, Get Your Gun!

New for 2012--podcasting. Posted here is the link to my first one.

The podcast is about Lee Oswald and his obtaining the Mannlicher-Carcano and the anomalies surrounding this event.

To listen, right-click the link and download the MP3 file to your computer. Feel free to share this file anywhere you like online or forward to your friends.

File size: 13.7 megs.

Download, HERE.

Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero

Every so often I post a notice on good articles to be found elsewhere. Here is one by Jim DiEugenio at Consortium News called, “Why Mr. Hardball Found JFK Elusive.” A very good and concise review about Chris Matthews book, Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero.

As stated in the opening:

“For weeks, Chris Matthews has been flogging his book, Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero, driving it up the ranks of best-seller lists, but the biography is as superficial and clueless as the MSNBC pundit often is, missing Kennedy’s true complexity, writes James DiEugenio.”

A great read, not to be missed.

Find it HERE.

Ozzie In A Box

One of the troubles with the Warren Report is that is so politicized much of it borders on mythology. Just reading it makes me wonder at their conclusions and after looking some of the compiled evidence in the 26 volumes it is apparent that much of the evidence collected contradicts the final report.

Some of this falls on the heads of the lawyers. Many JFK researchers have much criticism to bestow on members of the legal profession for their machinations conducted for the Warren Commission. However, I've known quite a number of lawyers and one in particular, the late James B. Clayton was a friend and mentor of mine. From Mr. Clayton I learned a great deal about lawyers and how they think and operate. Mr. Clayton told me many things. Once he said to me, "Always know the answer before you ask the question." Indeed, that is how one catches someone in a lie. It is in effect, the laying of a trap. It is the thinking of the moves ahead as in a game of chess. But one must know one's adversary well to succeed.

It seems to me a fundamental job of any attorney is to protect the interests of the client. Since they are in that mode, fundamental truths are not a priority. None of the staff lawyers working for the Warren Commission cared a wit about the truth. They couldn't possibly have. Not with all the scheming they had to do to hatch the fiction of a gunman acting alone. And the long gunman comes to us from another lawyer, John Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI. At this juncture, it becomes enshrined as the central myth of the inquest. In this instance, they were protecting the prestige of the government of the United States This becomes an endless cycle displayed repeatedly in every investigation that follows each major event from the Kennedy assassination, to the Oklahoma City bombing, to attacks of September 11, 2001 and everything that happens in-between.

From this, what we were told of Lee Oswald, the man, is fundamentally a myth.

Such as Oswald not being to drive a car. This is probably one of the most easiest of things to prove about him. Check out pictures of Lee Oswald's hair. It was closely cropped. Professionally cut. And where did he go? To Shasteen's barbershop in Irving, Texas. He was seen driving up in a station wagon similar to the one belonging to Ruth Paine (Armstrong pp. 581-582). Cliff Shasteen recalls having numerous conversations with Oswald and said he was fond of showing up at the shop often, sometimes every couple of weeks. For some mysterious reason, he liked to have his hair looking freshly trimmed.

Cliff Shasteen related this information to FBI agent Barnwell Odom (the same FBI SA involved with the controversy over the acquiring of the stretcher bullet, CE-399). Agent Odom told Shasteen how that just didn't fit in with what they knew.

Of course agent Odom can't have Oswald driving as it raises a host of other questions. Such as, where did he learn to drive? Does he have a driver's license? If Shasteen is seeing Oswald driving up in Ruth Paine's car then she is lying when she tells the FBI and the WC that she was giving Oswald driving instructions shortly before the assassination. This all starts taking place in the August. Oswald already knows how to drive. (It should also be noted here that Shasteen was not the only witness--so were the other barbers that worked in the shop.)

The next stop is the Sports Dome rifle range. There, employee Malcom Price sees Oswald driving up in a 1940's model Ford automobile at dusk in October of 1963 to have his rifle sighted (Armstrong p. 736). Oswald is seen multiple times arriving at the Sports Dome and he always seen by witnesses driving there. This raises the question of where did Oswald get the automobile? Since he didn’t own one, who would loan him a car?

Mixed into this is the famous incident of Lee Oswald showing up at the Downtown Lincoln-Mercury dealership to test drive a red Mercury Comet. He is remembered by the manager and two salesmen. One salesmen in particular, Albert Guy Bogard remembers his Oswald encounter vividly because he was the passenger in the car that Oswald test drove way to fast, 70 mph on a wet freeway. Oswald says he'll be back with $3500 to buy a car and never returns. Even Warren Commission cheerleader Vincent Bugliosi believes this happened and he is no fan of anything controversial in the case (Bugliosi, pp. 1030-1035).

Speaking of the driver's license, one witness claims to have seen it. That witness is Edward A. Brand, owner of an insurance company. He claims that Oswald came to his company on or around November 8, to inquire about car insurance and since he didn't own a car, Brand would not provide further information. He said that Oswald presented his driver's license in this encounter. Oddly it listed "Lee" as a surname. It should be pointed out that Oswald used a reversed name “O. H. Lee” for renting at the rooming house. This mixing up of Oswald's names is also used on many government documents relating to him (Ventura, Russell, p. 35).

The FBI classified Brand's account and it wasn't declassified till 1995 (Armstrong p. 756). Meanwhile, Bugliosi in his End Notes (#1035) says this cannot be true since Oswald had no license (lame rejoinder Vince). If that is true, then why did the FBI classify this information for 31 years? Because this old dog can still hunt!

So there you have it. A side of Lee Oswald's life that the government doesn't want the public to know. It's all out there. It's amazing the audacity these people to take the witness testimony to this fact, publish much of it in the 26 volumes of collected evidence, and then publish a report that says Oswald could not drive a car. Then have their shills call anybody a conspiracy nut for looking up the testimony of the contrary witnesses and read the other side of the story.

It's all part of the mythology that the government built for their case. Lee Oswald is the lone gunman so he has to be a loner. As many have pointed out, what loner has a wife and kids? As Jim Garrison remarked, not only was Oswald not the lone gunman he was never alone. Indeed.

Sources

Bugliosi, Vincent, Reclaiming History and End Notes; Armstrong, John, Harvey and Lee; Ventura Jesse, with Russell, Dick, American Conspiracies

JFK Act Oversight Hearings Petition

Please sign on to influence Rep. Darrel Issa (R. CA) Chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee to hold hearings on the JFK Records Act which hasn’t been done in years. Many records are still withheld from the public and are yet to be released.

Link HERE.

End Note Follies

To me, the most interesting part of Vincent Bugliosi's 1600-page Reclaiming History isn't in the reams of text but in the End Notes he has on the CD-ROM which accompanies the book. Some have said that this where where Bugliosi places the more difficult aspects of the Kennedy assassination in hope that the reader won't pay enough attention to go back there and look into what he has to say about it. Maybe so. I have a theory, and general feeling, that Bugliosi started out with the End Notes first and the rest of his book was fleshed out from them, or used as a guide for the various ghost writers he employed. Sometimes the End Notes offer additional information on a subject covered in the main text and in other places it's the same information with little elaboration. Or, even information that seems out of place such as the mini-bio on Che Guevara.

Never the less, Bugliosi's writing style is evident throughout the End Notes, filled with sarcasm, straw man arguments, vicious personal attacks on conspiracy oriented researchers and the hypocrisy of accusing others of what he routinely does, which mainly, is omitting facts to make his arguments work.

What follows is a look into some of Bugliosi’s commentary and theory in the End Notes and what lengths (i.e., skating on thin ice) he goes to in his defense of the Warren Commission.

A So Very Comprehensive Investigation
(End Notes, p.579, Note 1037)

"Because the Warren Commission’s investigation of the assassination was so very comprehensive, it even included a 'limited background investigation' of Officer J. D. Tippit and found nothing suspicious (CE 2985, 26 H 483–492)."

This of course is hilarious. The declarations that Bugliosi makes like this make wonder about the esteemed prosecutor's judgement. Or if he actually believes some this nonsense he comes up with.

The fact of the matter is, what the Warren Commission did was hardly what one would call a legitimate investigation. After all, they had no independent investors on staff and instead had to rely mainly on Hoover's FBI for the facts in the case. They were supplied with only the evidence that verified the lone gunman theory as espoused by Hoover, the early author of the lone assassin story and the man behind the curtain pulling the levers. So what the Commission did was an evaluation of what they were provided and the FBI did not provide them everything. Meanwhile, the staff lawyers established six major areas of inquiry and four were on Lee Oswald. The actual investigation of JFK's death was conducted by the FBI, with narrow latitudes (no conspiracy) and totally overseen by J. Edgar Hoover.

There many good books on the machinations of the Warren Commission and one of the best is Gerald McKnight’s Breach of Trust.

The Minox Camera
(End Notes, p.394, Note 793)

Lots of controversy surrounds this piece of evidence. In a nutshell: Dallas police discover a Minox camera in Oswald's belongings. It’s a popular tool among intelligence operatives. The FBI gets wind of it and asks the Dallas police detective to change the description of it from a camera to a light meter. He refuses. Later, the FBI will rename it a light meter anyway in their evidence inventory. It will remain so for many years.

As Bugliosi notes, researcher John Armstrong made a trip to the National Archives to examine and photograph Oswald's Minox camera. There, he found the camera was sealed up so it couldn't be opened and that there was no way of observing the Dallas Police officer that initialed it or examine the camera's serial number. Armstrong rightly thought this suspicious and as usual, Bugliosi does not. And instead of figuring out why this camera had obviously been tampered with, Bugliosi resorts to his tried and true method of mockery against John Armstrong, who admits owning a Minox camera and asking him, "By the way, John, where were you at 12:30 p.m. on November 22, 1963? What did you say, John? Tulsa, Oklahoma? Can you prove it?"

What an ass.

At least John Armstrong actually made the effort to travel to the National Archives and examine the thing and report what he found. Something Bugliosi obviously didn't bother with as he practices research from the confines of the California state border.

Also, the serial number for the camera is listed as 27259 by the FBI. However, a Minox Corporation spokesman said that only six digit serial numbers were used for cameras sold in the United States. It is not a valid number as spokesman Kurt Lohn said. Once again, Bugliosi does not comment on this discrepancy or seek to resolve the issue.

Howard Brennan's Oswald Standing And Shooting
(End Notes, p.531, Note 956)

Howard Brennan is one of those star witnesses that the lone nut crowd hang their hats on. Here is one of the few people that actually (or claimed to) see the rifle out the window. Brennan is not without controversy for not only his failure in being able to pick Oswald out of the line-up (claiming fears of personal safety) even after seeing him on TV, but one of his other claims is that he saw Oswald standing up while shooting. However, the window is so low to the floor that Oswald would have been shooting through the upper window glass if that were the case. This is of course, ridiculous. Bugliosi solves this by having Brennan's position on the ground looking up to the sixth floor giving him an altered perspective for a mistaken impression of a shooter standing at the window. How convenient.

His highly accurate assessment of Oswald’s height at 5’10” is another matter.

Bugliosi ponders: “I don’t believe Brennan was asked this question but we can assume that he estimated Oswald’s height by extrapolation from what he could see of Oswald’s upper body.”

The subject of an early description of Oswald’s height is an ongoing controversy as the source of this information is confusing. Bugliosi is saying that Brennan could accurately judge Oswald's height by seeing him from the waist up–only. I don't see how this is even remotely possible or how Bugliosi could make such a claim and expect it to be taken seriously. If Oswald is leaning on the box at the window shooting, he’s not even going to be seen from the waist up–more like the shoulder up. So it’s impossible to make such a determination from Brennan’s viewing angle.

Typical of Bugliosi to give Brennan a pass. If he were a witness contradicting the official story, Bugliosi would tear him or her to shreds for getting off script, such as he did to Acquilla Clemons who he calls a "kook" twice, with no citation, once in main text and again in the End Notes (p.52, Note 78). (Clemons claimed to have seen two men involved in the Tippet slaying, where most witnesses see only one suspect.)

So here is a witness who said he saw Oswald shooting from the six floor of the TSBD, saw no flash or recoil, couldn’t ID Oswald from the police line-up then later changed his mind and said it really was Oswald when under oath to the Warren Commission. It’s funny to read Bugliosi’s explanations for witnesses as weak as Howard Brennan and what lengths he has flay about to work out the kinks.

Mr. Bugliosi, you make a fine contortionist if you ever took up the trade.

Judyth Vary Baker Character Assassination
(End Notes, p.539, Note 978)

Bugliosi saves some of his best (or worst) drive-by character assassination for Judyth Vary Baker. Baker's story of being Lee Oswald's lover in the summer of 1963 is not without controversy. She is one of those figures in JFK research that polarizes the community into camps of true believers and true disbelievers. I have given her a book Me and Lee, a good review here, as she does seem to have a good grasp of the JFK case, and seems to fill in a lot holes in the story of Oswald’s life in the summer of 1963. But even I have my doubts about some elements of her story. She claims to be involved with important events yet nobody documents her being there. One such event is the Oswald scuffle with anti Castro Cubans when he was handing out FPFC pamphlets. She claims to have been there on the street as a witness but nobody else reports this and the TV film footage does not reveal her. Her story is a long and convoluted tale that goes off into all kinds of tangents and Bugliosi does give a good accounting of the various winding threads.

The basic story is, Judyth, a whiz-kid science geek and Lee become star-crossed lovers and along the way Judyth becomes aware that Lee is an undercover agent (CIA and FBI) and gets wrapped up in a plot to assassinate the president. His goal according to Judyth is not to back out but to stay in and hopefully defeat the plot. He obviously fails and is framed as the patsy.

Her accounting of Lee Oswald makes him appear as a heroic figure, one seldom seen in the annals of JFK assassination research. Though it seems strange for this unsung hero to enter a movie theater with a loaded .38, resist arrest, assault a police officer, and attempt to shoot said police officer in the face.

Bugliosi can't help himself with her. He saves some of his best/worst invectives for driving his nails into her coffin. He starts out calling her, "Judyth Vary (as in very silly) Baker. " He further states, "Judyth’s story is so absurd that it is not worthy of citations to sources..." So unworthy he then precedes to ramble on for 21 paragraphs about her.

I think it is well established and she and Oswald both worked at the same time at William B. Reily and Company, Inc., a coffee company. But not for Bugliosi who doubts she worked there and says in this Note that she never establishes this face, and his gives as proof, no check stubs with her name on it. However, in her latest book, Me and Lee, she does feature a Reily coffee company W2 form with her name on it. So she is there as an employee the same time Oswald is.

Never the less, Bugliosi can't just disagree with somebody with a story to tell, and in this case, an off-script story from the one the Warren Report relates. No, he has to be as ugly as possible about it. In this Note, he ridicules Judyth Baker with the same relish a twisted mind does when pulling the wings off a fly.

[Note: Currently Judyth Vary Baker has her own page and forum on Facebook. It’s basically queen Judyth holding court with her loving followers doting on her every word. I hate to say it but there is a preponderance of ignorance expressed by many of the posters there as well lack of maturity. Poor Martin Shackelford is trying to set the record straight and is being told, literally, to blow it “out of his ass.” It’s an uphill battle against an army of cultists and I don’t how he keeps it up. It’s like trying to herd cats. To his credit, he remains very civil. Keep up the good fight Martin!]

The Attack on Saundra Spencer's Credibility
(End Notes, pp. 264-268)

As Bugliosi states on p.268:
"We know she’s wrong when she says the photographs she saw show a 'blown-out chunk' in the center of the back of the president’s head. Why? Because apart from the observations of all three autopsy surgeons, the official autopsy photographs and X-rays conclusively, and without question, depict the body of President Kennedy at the time of the autopsy and show none of what Spencer described."

A strange response. Navy Photographic technician Saundra Spencer was responsible for processing the autopsy films. She said she saw a massive blow-out at the back of Kennedy's head in one of the processed images. However, the important point here, is that she is not the only witness to see this wound. In fact, it's one of the biggest, ongoing controversies in the annals of JFK assassination. Just about everybody that has close contact with John Kennedy's body saw the large rear head wound from all of the Parkland doctors and nurses, to the two FBI Special Agents, Sibert and O'Neil observing and taking notes, the two autopsy techs, Jenner and O'Conner, the many Dealey Plaza witnesses, to even the mortician who prepared Kennedy's body. And this is just a partial list of witnesses.

It comes down to this–the people with the responsibility to document the massive head wound, the three pathologists, Drs Humes, Boswell and Finck did not. This evokes a central mystery of the case. They were all military, so were they pressured to conform to the lone gunman theory early on? Some people think so. Basically, we are left with two camps of eminently qualified experts that don't agree. And frankly, there are more expert witnesses that saw the large wound to the back of Kennedy’s head than did not.

As far as autopsy photographs go, there is a lot monkey business going on there. Photographer John Stringer, when examining his photographs in the National Archives noted numerous problems. For example, he says the negatives he saw were not of the same brand-name film he used–which was Kodak. The film in the Archives is Ansco. Apparently, the negatives he was looking at are copies of the originals. And who would do that? My guess is the Kennedy family. After the autopsy they got their hands on all autopsy materials such as all film and tissue samples–yes the brain too. After negations, the returned back the films to the government as a deed gift but were allowed to keep the tissue samples I think they are the people who made the copies and have the originals locked away.

And on top of that, Stringer says there are photographs he took that are missing. Also, there other photographs he says he didn't take, such as the bottom of the brain. Who was the other photographer? At any rate, Stringer's experiences are just the beginning of the tampering of the photographic evidence in the case. Dr. David Mantik has a very good essay, "20 Conclusions After 9 Visits" where he uncovers the tampering of the X-ray films in the National Archives. Bugliosi has read it and knows what the implications are and does nothing about it. (Get the PDF HERE.)

Saundra Spencer is a highly credible witness to there being a large blow-out to the right rear of Kennedy's head. Bugliosi attempts to discredit her are weak and speaks of the desperate path he walks in defending the sloppy job that the Warren Commission did. Does he really believe what he writes?

Che Guevara Biography
(End Notes, p.998, Note 1345)
And what did the romanic communist revolutionary have to do with the JFK assassination? Answer: Absolutely nothing! This note is entitled "CIA’s attempt to murder Castro," though there is little written on that. Instead it ends up being a mini-biography of Che Guevara. This Bugliosi intellect works in mysterious ways that mere mortals can not begin to fathom.

For Now...
There are places where he doesn't expand on any knew information and repeats what is in the main text. Also, Bugliosi appears to have left the hard to suss out issues for the End Notes. Such as the controversy regarding Oswald's two wallets where he struggles with the issue and then concludes it was all a confusing mistake and the second wallet actually belonged to policemen Tippit. Or the lack of documentation for the bullet, the famous CE-399. Bugliosi thinks Special Agent Barnwell Odom simply forgot (a contention he denied to researchers when asked).

More End Notes follies coming. Stay tuned...