What’s the most important piece of new JFK assassination evidence?

I nominate a forgotten tape recording that surfaced a couple of years ago.

A recording of radio communications to and from Air Force One on November 22,1963, discovered in 2011, is among the most important new pieces of JFK evidence to emerge in recent years,

The tape, an edited excerpt from a longer recording, captures some of the communications of the leaders of U.S. national security agencies as they learned about the assassination of a sitting president.

I wrote about the importance of the Air Force One tape in the fall of 2013l:

“Audio engineer on the trail of a long-lost JFK tape” (JFK Facts, Nov. 6, 2013)

“Enhanced Air Force One tape captures top general’s response to JFK’s murder”  (JFK Facts, Oct. 19, 2013)

You can listen to it here.

Where was the Air Force One tape found?

This old-fashioned reel of analog tape surfaced at Philadelphia auction house in 2011. The recording was found in the estate of the family of Gen. Chester Clifton, a military aide to JFK. Clifton died in 1991. His children put the estate up for auction.

Bill Kelly, a JFK researcher, enlisted Primeau Forensics, a Michigan audio engineering firm, to produce a cleaned-up version of the tape.

When was the tape first made public?

Kelly’s presentation about the Air Force One tapes at the recent trailblazing JFK conference at Duquesne University convinced me of its importance.

I wrote about the significance of the Air Force One tapes in piece published in the Oct. 27, 2013, print edition of the Dallas Morning News.

The Detroit Free Press, USA Today, and CNN picked up on the story of the tapes.

Why is the Air Force One tape important?

“The government created these recordings,” audio engineer Ed Primeau told JFK Facts. “The editing shows that somebody made decisions about what they wanted the public to know and hear and what they didn’t want the public to know and hear.”

The tapes capture a fascinating and tragic moment in  American history.

Listen to the tape (parts 1,2 3, and 4) as cleaned up and transcribed by Bill Kelly and Ed Primeau with a running transcript and visuals from Primeau Productions.

Read Kelly’s summary of what we know about the missing portions of Air Force One tapes.

 

 

312 comments

  1. Dan says:

    An article in the Washingtonian magazine linked below states that in 1963 Air Force One (SAM 26000) could handle three radio conversations simultaneously, and that the radio operator was kept busy every minute of the 2 hour 12 minute flight from Dallas to Andrews AFB. This would support Bill Kelly’s statement that a lot of the transmissions are missing from the tapes so far available.

    Link: http://www.washingtonian.com/projects/JFK-AF1/layout2.html#story

  2. Robert Harper says:

    The discovery, by Rex Bradford I think,that 14 minutes of a taped conversation between LBJ and Hoover, was manually erased, ranks near this discovery. Unique among the tapes compiled – unexplained eraser – a transcript survives,but, like the “misssing” tapes and transcripts of AF1, we don’t know the whole of what was said. Each was recorded during a 24 hour period starting the afternoon of November 22, 1963. Bravo to Bill Kelly for his excellent work.

  3. Jonathan says:

    For me, the single most important factual discovery in the JFK case is the discovery by the ARRB in the late 1990s and the subsequent discovery late in the last decade by Peter Janney that the NPIC photographic facility in Washington, D.C. produced two different sets of briefing boards using two different versions of the Z-film on the weekend of the assassination.

    And the the fact that the two teams who prepared the photographs for the briefing boards were completely unaware of each other’s work.

    The second team, headed by Homer McMahon, worked with an unslit, 16-mm wide film straight from Hawkeye Works in Rochester, New York. McMahon, a renowned trick shot artist, testified to the ARRB that as he viewed his version of the Z-film, he observed six to eight shots hitting their mark, coming from at least three different directions.

    McMahon’s ARRB testimony together with some very useful annotations can be found at the “Reopen Kennedy Case” site under Bill Kelly’s collection of research materials.

    It’s quite clear from the ARRB testimony and the annotations (relating to Peter Janney’s discovery) that the CIA, perhaps with help from the Secret Service, produced a false version of the Z-film at its Hawkeye Works facility, the version that exists today; but even the false version could not fool the trained eye and intuitive mind of Homer McMahon.

    • Jonathon,

      Did you actually read the testimony of McMahon? Or are your going by Doug Horne’s characterization of it?
      . . . .
      “a Browny super 8mm camera”? (Zapruder used a Bell & Howell)
      […]
      HM: I think, I think I was told that to get the film from the individual, take it and get it processed, and come back, was a couple of days. I’m not sure. I’m not…I don’t really recall that.
      […]
      DH: So the color prints were the same size then as the inter negative?

      HM: I’m pretty sure we…

      DH: Contact? Without an enlarger?

      HM: …we contacted the 8 x 10 negatives that were exposed two up. And then they were cut apart and identified on the back, and I did not do that, the identification, I don’t think I did that, I might have.
      […]
      DH: By that you mean 40 times the original size?

      HM: 40 times the original half frame super double eight…or whatever it was,..
      […]
      DH: Do you recall the condition of this movie when you saw it, had it been slit or unslit?

      HM: I think it was unslit…the reason I…said that, and we might have slit it, but before we used it, but they were – I thought they were told that they didn’t want to slit the film,…and I don’t, I don’t think we slit it, I think we used it unslit in a 16 mm projector…
      . . . . .
      McMahon doesn’t seem sure of anything, but he “thinks” it happened that way. Well, it was 34 years later, so…

      If anyone wants to take this as gospel that is up to them.
      Not me, I don’t buy this as in anyway accurate, just hazy memories.

      Read it for ourself:
      http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2010/02/npic.html
      \\][//

    • “…but even the false version could not fool the trained eye and intuitive mind of Homer McMahon.”~Jonathan

      Homer McMahon: I have senile dementia…I can’t remember really anything. Most of my reflections are what I have recalled and remembered after the fact. In other words, I did it once, and then I recalled it, and remembered it. I don’t know how the mind works, but I do know I am not. I am a recovering drug addict and alcoholic. Do you know what a wet brain is? Well, you’re looking at one. I damn near died. And I’m not a competent witness because I don’t have accurate recall. I don’t have absolute recall.

      Jeremy Gunn: With regards to the other events that you talked about, what is your sense of how accurate your memory is of that?

      Homer McMahon: I just told you, I don’t have a full deck. I don’t know how (ha) I figured I am presenting anything here. This is not…at the time I did it I was not, I was not impaired, but I later became impaired. So whether you are talking to a reliable witness or not, that’s up for you to decide. (ha)
      \\][//

  4. TLR says:

    I’m sure there’s a non-sinister explanation for all of these missing tapes. I’m sure their motives are pure. 😉

  5. Brad Milch says:

    Not to be overlooked in this still developing story are locating & interviewing the pilots & load crew of the C-130 cargo plane that waited to fly President Kennedy’s parade car out of Love Field while Parkland doctors feverishly tried to save his life that most likely heard some or all of the AF-1 radio traffic broadcast 22 Nov 1963. Contacting them & their commanders they belonged to can help answer questions about the AF-1 audio tapes along with the exact state of damage to JFK’s parade car (was there a bullet hole in the windshield). Both researchers, TV media & the public can assist in locating that crew while globally countries that were within range of the broadcasted AF-1 transmissions that had the capability to receive, record or transcribe those signals can help the US locate an unedited version of the tapes that will help us all understand what happened & why portions of the broadcasts were sanitized before the public could hear & study them.

    This topic is an example of what separates Jeff Morley from his peers who either believe the Dallas police & the Federal Government solved the JFK murder 50 years ago & no further investigative efforts are needed or they have solved the case independently & no attention should be given to researchers with alternative views of the JFK ambush in Dallas. For them, the case is over, with Jeff Morley new information is possible & sought. For me, this is why I stick with Jeff Morley. He’s like Captain Kirk boldly searching new frontiers. With McAdams, Meyers, Von Pein, Reitzes & the rest of their ‘Oswald Did it’ peers the journey has ended long ago. With them the reader is at a dead end IMO.

  6. Thomas Joseph says:

    In the aftershock following the Snowden NSA electronic eavesdropping & data mining disclosures it’s not unreasonable to wonder if NSA has the complete AF-1 radio transmissions somewhere in its data mines any more than it’s unreasonable to wonder if NSA has every phone call Lee Oswald or LBJ ever made. Our government & law enforcement agencies spies on us. The problem is living long enough for the anticipated release of the information. The home bases AF-1 & 2 plus the c-130 cargo plane that airlifted JFK’s death car should have had the capability to record transmissions made by aircraft the day of the assassination. There is hope someone ‘in the loop’ has the information the public was denied & will follow Snowden’s courageous example & share the wealth with a concerned public.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      [Thomas Joseph:]

      “it’s not unreasonable to wonder if NSA has the complete AF-1 radio transmissions somewhere in its data mines any more than it’s unreasonable to wonder if NSA has every phone call Lee Oswald or LBJ ever made.”

      ===========================

      I am afraid that such feats were unreasonable at the time. Two of the resources used by the NSA:

      • Communication satellites

      • Fiber Optics

      did not exist at the time. If they wanted to spy somebody, they would place a small transmitter (with no storage capacity) in the target’s place and rent a hotel room nearby (or park a van) filled with equipment such as tape recorders.

      All that heavy production would be necessary to record ONE conversation.

      Another alternative was to place recording equipment, at the Bell phone company nearby, but there is a limited number of ports. That problem persists, today and was much worse then.

  7. Lanny says:

    Quoting from Jeff Morley’s October 26, 2013 article in the Dallas Morning News:

    “The available tapes capture 88 minutes of conversation. Kelly notes that the flight from Dallas to take JFK’s body back to Washington took almost four hours, or 240 minutes.

    “So it is virtually certain that there were other conversations to and from Air Force One that fateful day that were recorded but have never been heard. Even after 50 years, the real-time response of the Pentagon to the violent death of a commander in chief is not part of the public record.”

    ********************

    Air Force One departed Love Field for Washington, D. C. at 2:47 p.m. CST (3:47 EST) on November 22, 1963 and arrived Andrews Air Force Base 2 hours and 12 minutes later at 5:59 p.m. EST (4:59 CST).

    It appears from my own limited research that Bill Kelly enjoys a generally positive reputation among his research peers, but miscalculating the duration of a two hour flight with a single time zone change was most certainly NOT his finest hour.

    Anyone still searching for those “virtually certain” recorded but unheard conversations should be called home to dinner and given the bad news. “They aren’t out there.”

    • TLR says:

      Lanny, read Kelly’s own words, and maybe you’d like to retract your charge.

      http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2013/10/air-force-one-tapes-estimated-time.html

      “To estimate the amount of tape recordings that have not been released, the correct math is:

      Time from Love Field, Dallas to Andrews AFB, Maryland = Two hours, seventeen minutes.

      Number of radios “in continuous use” – according to AF1 radioman Master Sgt. Trimble = three.

      According to Doug Horne, the staff member of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) assigned to review the Air Force One tapes (From his book “Inside the ARRB, Vol. V., p1662): Trimble’s After Action Report: “I…had three phone patches goig simultaneously most of the time.”). According to the Esquire article, Trimble is still alive.

      Horne: “As an ARRB staff member I was very concerned with determining whether or not a significant ortion of time had been excised from the original recordings. Anyone concerned with the excise must begin with the flight time from Love Field to Andrews AFB: 2 hours and 17 minutes…..it is wise to take a conservative…which yields two hours times three radios…six hours of unedited voice conversations as the length of the unedited Air Force One tapes from November 22, 1963. Since the tapes at the Archives are a maximum of two hours in length, approximately four hours have been excised. It appears safe to say, then, that the amount of time edited out of the existing tapes is twice as long as the length of the information released by the LBJ Library. This is extremely disturbing.”

      Four hours is 240 minutes of tape is estimated to be missing.”

    • Photon says:

      If you claim that a flight is twice as long as it has been proven to be, why believe any conclusion based on that false time line?
      The point is that nothing of real substance related to the assassination is on these tapes- and much of the conversation is ground talk not directly involving SAm 26000. While fascinating historically, taken out of context they really do not rise to the level of breakthrough claimed on this blog.The “Washingtonian” article is much more enlightening about the flight itself.

      • TLR says:

        And if someone consistently misrepresents another person’s views, why should their analysis be taken seriously?

  8. Pat Speer says:

    The most important piece of new evidence to emerge in recent years is still unrecognized by most everyone following the case.

    On 1-21-00, the government released a report on tests conducted on CE 567, the nose of a bullet found on the driver’s seat of Kennedy’s limousine. It had long been observed that there was foreign material on this bullet fragment, and the HSCA had asked that tests be conducted on this material. These tests were not conducted, however, until after the uproar surrounding Oliver Stone’s film JFK brought the ARRB into existence. The results of these tests, initially reported on 9-16-98, were that 3 of the 4 pieces of foreign material found on CE 567 were human SKIN, and that the fourth was human tissue.

    http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/fragments/fragreport.html

    So where did this skin come from, you might ask? Well, the entrance wound on the back of Kennedy’s skull–whichever entrance location you prefer–was quite small in comparison to the large defect at the top of Kennedy’s skull.

    The autopsy protocol, we should remember, describes Kennedy’s large head wound as follows: “There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm in greatest diameter.”

    So it seems clear the skin derived from the large defect…

    Now, here’s where things get interesting. Medicolegal Investigation of Death, which is pretty much a Bible to Forensic Pathologists everywhere, addresses this issue of missing scalp as follows: “A point frequently ignored, or forgotten, in comparing entrance and exit wounds is that approximation of the edges of an entrance wound usually retains a small central defect, a missing area of skin. On the other hand, approximation of the edges of the exit re-establishes the skin’s integrity.”

    So, yep, that’s right. The “experts” tell us the large defect was an entrance wound. So why wasn’t this acknowledged by the HSCA Pathology Panel, you might ask?

    Well, actually, it was.

    The authors of Medicolegal Investigation of Death were Dr. Russell Fisher, of the Clark Panel, and Dr. Werner Spitz, of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. The HSCA pathology panel’s report was most certainly accommodating Spitz, then, when it critiqued the autopsy protocol’s description of missing scalp as follows: “It is probably misleading in the sense that it describes “an actual absence of skin and bone. The scalp was probably virtually all present, but torn and displaced…”

    So, there it is. The HSCA Pathology Panel KNEW the missing skin at the large defect meant the large defect was an entrance wound (or more probably, a wound of both entrance and exit) but chose to pretend the autopsy doctors were just too stupid realize that, yep, that big gaping hole of scalp and skull wasn’t really a big gaping hole of scalp and skull, just skull.

    They totally ignored that Dr. William Kemp Clark, the one Parkland doctor to closely inspect Kennedy’s head wound, shared the observations of the autopsists, and independently observed “There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue” in an 11-22-63 report written before the commencement of the autopsy. (Wasn’t this required reading?)

    And they also ignored that on 11-30-63, Secret Service agent Clint Hill, who’d climbed onto the back of Kennedy’s limo just after the fatal shot was fired, wrote a report in which he claimed: “As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President’s head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lieing in the seat.”

    Yeah, that’s right. This bone fragment, which had obviously originated from the large defect on the right side of Kennedy’s head, had hair on it. Well, that means scalp was missing at the large defect…

    The HSCA Pathology Panel was clearly blowing smoke…

    So, now let’s go back to what we were told on 1-14-00, that no one was ready to hear…

    CE 567, the crumpled bullet nose found in the front section of the limo, had patches of skin within its crumples. This strongly suggests, if not proves, that this bullet impacted at the large defect on Kennedy’s head, which in turn strongly suggests, if not proves, that Kennedy was struck in the skull by two separate bullets, which in turn strongly suggests, if not proves, there were two shooters firing on Kennedy on 11-22-63.

    This is not a CT theory. It’s what the top experts tell us. It’s what science tells us.

    I mean, what are the alternative explanations for this skin? John Orr, whose research was featured on a Fox Special last fall, firmly believes CE 567 is a fragment from a bullet that entered Kennedy’s back and exited his throat. But that’s just nonsense. The entrance hole on Kennedy’s back was tiny. The hole on the throat was even tinier… And, to make matters worse, the bullet creating these holes was almost certainly un-deformed and unlikely to collect skin as it passed through the body.

    (Dr. Vincent J.M. DiMaio, in his standard text Gunshot Wounds, observes that, of all the tissues likely to be found on a bullet, “Skin was the least commonly encountered.”)

    So, what, are we to believe this bullet exited Kennedy’s throat with some skin draped over its nose, and that this skin stayed on this super-sonic bullet as it crashed into the windshield frame?

    Or are we ready to acknowledge that this skin got on the bullet when the bullet crumpled on Kennedy’s skull…at the large defect?

    • Bill Pierce says:

      Pat Speer writes:
      “They totally ignored that Dr. William Kemp Clark, the one Parkland doctor to closely inspect Kennedy’s head wound, shared the observations of the autopsists, and independently observed “There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue” in an 11-22-63 report written before the commencement of the autopsy. (Wasn’t this required reading?)”

      Why not cite Clark’s entire comment?

      “[t]here was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region…(and) [t]here was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound” (CE 392:17WCH 3). In his handwritten statement . . . “[t]here was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region…(and) [m]uch of the posterior skull appeared gone at brief examination…” (CE392:17WCH 10)

      Here’s my theory.

      The Zapruder film is authentic. It shows a large wound on the right side of JFK’s skull. Mrs. Kennedy held this piece of skull and scalp in place and coagulants made it adhere by the time the limo reached Parkland. Blood-matted hair concealed the wound.

      Notwithstanding this large wound, the skull was extensively fractured and at least two sizeable pieces of skull bone were missing. During the frantic, jostling processes of transport and body removal at Parkland (and perhaps because of Mrs. Kennedy’s pressure to close the wound), the skull, in a sense, ‘collapsed’ along the fracture. This caused the posterior skull bones to “spring open”, as described by Dr. McClelland . . . and gave the appearance of missing posterior skull as described by Clark, above.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      YOu said this:

      <>

      Now, here’s where things get interesting. Medicolegal Investigation of Death, which is pretty much a Bible to Forensic Pathologists everywhere, addresses this issue of missing scalp as follows: “A point frequently ignored, or forgotten, in comparing entrance and exit wounds is that approximation of the edges of an entrance wound usually retains a small central defect, a missing area of skin. On the other hand, approximation of the edges of the exit re-establishes the skin’s integrity.”

      So, yep, that’s right. The “experts” tell us the large defect was an entrance wound.

      <>

      I don’t quite follow this line of reasoning. If you have a link that explains this rather than in here, I’d appreciate it.

      Thanks Pat.

      • Pat Speer says:

        The line of reasoning, Gerry, is simple. The forensic textbook written by the leading lights of the Clark Panel and HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel states that a head wound missing scalp and skull is an ENTRANCE, not an exit. The large defect on Kennedy’s head–no matter where you place it–was thereby an entrance (or perhaps entrance and exit), and not an exit for a bullet entering elsewhere.

        The fact that all the replies to my post
        tried to push some other point only underlines that this is the single most important fact to emerge over the years…that people still aren’t ready to deal with.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Hello Pat,

          Getting back to this.

          Not to doubt that the defect we see on the right side of JFK’s head is probably entrance and exit, wouldn’t an entrance wound on the back of the head (not his back or neck) be missing some tiny piece of scalp/skin and skull (about the diameter of a bullet) too?

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Just wanted again to ask & comment about CE 567.

          Isn’t the only logical reason (s) for this bullet nose to be found in the front seat, a result of a shot fired from behind JFK? I think it either went through Connally or it was another shot as described by Tink in the 2013 Lancer Conference (D. Wimp’s work on blurring and bellowing of the windshield by a shot around Z-326 IIRC).

          Each of the latter cases would not support a lone assassin scenario.

  9. Jonathan says:

    I’ve seen autopsy photos that appear to show massive amounts of blood and brain matter mixed in with hair on the top of JFK’s head. Which perhaps lend credence to what you argue.

    Questions:

    1) How if at all do you account for the considerable amount of cerebellar tissue observed on JFK’s gurney by the Dallas docs?

    2) Do you dismiss an orange-sized blow-out to the back of JFK’s skull?

    3) Do you dismiss an entry wound near JFK’s right ear?

    4) Do you dismiss David Mantik’s writings in which he maintains official X-rays of JFKs skull are fake because they show far too dense a rear skull?

    • Pat Speer says:

      While I incorporate the skin on the bullet nose into my theories on the assassination, it seems clear to me, that, whether or not my theories are right or wrong, the missing skin at the large defect and the skin on the bullet nose is a key to unlocking the truth about what happened.

      The HSCA Pathology Panel tried to avoid the problem of the missing skin, and most every prominent theorist has tried to avoid the implications of the skin on the bullet nose since the test results were announced in 2000. I fully believe a discussion of this skin may open things up.

      As to your questions, about my theories… 1) The statements of the Parkland doctors regarding cerebellar tissue haven’t stood the test of time, IMO. Most of them later withdrew their statements and said they’d been mistaken, while the most notable exception, McClelland, lacks credibility. 2) The orange-sized hole, IMO, was the hole on the back of the head at the end of the skull re-construction performed by Ed Stroble. In keeping with the practice of his fellow morticians, he reconstructed the skull in such a manner as to hide the large defect in a pillow. 3) In my analysis, there was a keyhole wound of both entrance and exit above the right ear. 4) Mantik, with whom I shared the stage at the Wecht conference, believes the x-rays are real, but that certain features have been added onto the original x-ray. I believe he is mistaken. This is discussed in chapter 18 of my free online book at patspeer.com.

    • Photon says:

      David Mantik is a Radiation Oncologist, not a radiologist. He is no more an expert on density of the rear skull estimated from x-rays than is your average internist, ie he is not credible on the issue.
      There was no cerebellar tissue on the gurney in Dallas; initial observations were in error-as I have previously documented to be a common ER occurrence. I doubt that General Surgeons in a rushed ER setting would be able to correctly identify macerated cerebellar tissue out of anatomical context anyway. The neurosurgeon present later walked back any comments on cerebellum as inaccurate and rushed.
      There is not a single forensic pathologist who has any knowledge of the case who has noted an orange size blowout to the back of the head or an entrance wound near JFK’s right ear. Where do you get information?
      Again, with no medical training you really are not capable of correctly interpreting the autopsy photos and x-rays, let alone reach conclusions based on your interpretations.

      • John Kirsch says:

        You write, in part, “… with no medical training you really are not capable of correctly interpreting the autopsy photos and x-rays, let alone reach conclusions based on your interpretations.”
        The implication, intentional or not, is that you do have medical training.
        But you have stated previously that you do not claim to be a medical expert.
        So what qualifies you to correctly interpret autopsy photos and x-rays?
        Is it your CPR training?
        What, in other words, is the basis for the authoritative-sounding statements you make on the medical evidence (and many other aspects of 11/22 as well)?
        Is it the “board-certified” pathologists you claim to know?

      • John McAdams says:

        It might be worth noting that Mantik thinks the Zapruder film is faked too.

        When somebody gets too carried away with “fakery,” that harms their credibility.

        • Jonathan says:

          John, too easy. Jeff Morley agrees with you. The Z-film was not faked, you believe.

          Let’s spar. You want to admit the Z-film into evidence in a trial.

          McACADAMS: I MOVE TO ADMIT THE ZAPRUDER FILM INTO EVIDENCE.

          DEFENSE: OBJECTION. (A) WHO FILMED THE FILM IN QUESTION; (B) WHERE WAS IT FILMED, (C) WHAT DOES IT DEPICT, (D) WHEN WAS IT FILMED, (D) HOW WAS IT FILMED?

          McACADAMS: IT WAS FILMED IN IN DEALEY PLAZA ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963 BY ABARAHAM ZAPRUDER ON A BELL AND HOWELL CAMERA.

          QUESTION: Is the Z-film consistent with other photographic records? Namely Altlgens6?

          McADAMS: crickets.

      • TLR says:

        “There was no cerebellar tissue on the gurney in Dallas; initial observations were in error-as I have previously documented to be a common ER occurrence. I doubt that General Surgeons in a rushed ER setting would be able to correctly identify macerated cerebellar tissue out of anatomical context anyway.”

        Were you there that day? And what are your medical qualifications?

        • Morley Upright says:

          Why would he have to be there and why would he need medical qualifications? Can I ask the same questions of conspiracy authors?.. this sounds only fair lol

      • Richard Brown says:

        Photon: “There was no cerebellar tissue on the gurney in Dallas.”

        Photon: “There is not a single forensic pathologist…who has noted an orange size blowout to the back of the head…Where do you get that information?”

        Photon’s disinformation about the alleged absence of cerebellar tissue is refuted by the contemporaneous medical reports and WC testimony of the physicians who were present in the Parkland ER. Dr. Carrico testified to the WC on 3/25/64 that “there was a 4-5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue.” (VI WCH 3). Dr. Carrico further testified that “there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissue both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura.” (VI WCH 6). Nuerosurgeon Dr. Kemp Clark, who made the most detailed examination of JFK’s head wound at Parkland, testified to the WC on 3/25/64 that there was a “large gaping wound in the right posterior part [of the head], with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed.” (VI WCH 20). Dr. Jenkins told the WC that part of the brain was herniated, averring that “I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound; there was part of the brain tissue, broken fragments of the brain tissue on the drapes of the cart on which the President lay.”(VI WCH 48). Dr. Jenkins also testified to the HSCA in the 1970s that a portion of the cerebellum was hanging out from the hole in the right rear of the head. Dr. McClelland testified to the ARRB on 8/27/95 that “the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted.***[Y]ou could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out.” (ARRB Dep., pp. 18-19). Dr. McClelland testified that the head wound was 7-8 cm. in diameter and was located mostly “in the occipital part of the skull.” (ARRB Dep., p. 28). As he observed the head wound for several minutes, “a fairly large portion of the cerebellum fell out of the skull. There was already some brain there, but during the tracheostomy more fell out and that was clearly cerebellum. I mean, there was no doubt about it.” (Id.). Dr. Paul Peters also testified to the ARRB, as he had to the WC, that, after Dr. Jenkins suggested they look at the head wound before opening the chest to massage the heart, he stepped around Dr. Baxter and “looked in the President’s head, and I reported to the Warren Commission that there was about a seven centimeter hole in the occipitoparietal area that there was obviously quite a bit of brain missing. Some brain was hanging down in the wound, and I thought the cerebellum had been injured.” (ARRB Dep., p. 30). Dr. Peters testified further that he looked at the pictures at the National Archives and saw that “the cerebellum was indeed injured” (ARRB Dep., p. 41), corroborating his earlier testimony. Dr. McClelland concurred that the brain falling out of the occipital hole was “clearly cerebellum. There’s no question about it.” (ARRB Dep., p. 43).

        Cerebellar tissue is easily discernible from cerebral tissue based upon its appearance, especially to trained physicians. These physicians did not mistake these differing types of brain tissue and their testimony and reports from 1963, 1964, and forward make this clear.

        As for the source of the description of the head wound as an orange sized blowout to the back of JFK’s head (which wound Photon thinks, contrary to the evidence, did not exist) one only has to look at the contemporaneous medical reports and testimony of the the Parkland physicians and nurses.

        Dr. Carrico testified to the WC that the head wound was a “large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area,” which he estimated to be 5-7 cm. in size, “more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue.” (VI WCH 6). Dr. Perry testified to the WC that there was a “large avulsive wound of the right parieto-occipital area in which both scalp and portions of the skull were absent.” (III WCH 372). Neurosurgeon Clark testified that there was a “large, gaping wound in the right posterior part.” (VI WCH 20). In accord were Parkland nurses, Clint Hill, FBI Agents Sibert and O’Neill, to name only a few others. Frames 335-337 of the Z Film also show this right rear blow out. There is no question, based upon contemporaneous expert medical testimony and medical reports, that there was an orange-sized blow out in the right rear of JFK’s head.

        Why didn’t government-retained forensic experts note this right rear hole in JFK’s head, as Photon correctly points out? Good question. It certainly wasn’t because it did not exist.

  10. Jordan says:

    Aside from what may or may not have been performed by staff at Collins Radio, and given that it appears to have been on HF voice channels, some of the traffic may very well have been handled or monitored at minimum by AFMARS, or Army MARS…

  11. Preston Newe says:

    Those who do not see the significance of Doug Horne’s analysis of the Clifton version of the AF-1 tapes are invited to read what Mr. Horne has to say here at Greg Burnham’s new website:

    http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-af1-tapes-and-subsequent-events-at-andrews-afb-on-november-22-1963-what-was-supposed-to-happen-vs-what-did-happen/

    What’s glaringly missing in Horne’s analysis is information on the C-130 cargo plane that airlifted JFK’s death car out of Dallas; when it left Love Field & when it arrived at Andrews AFB. It needs to be cleared of suspicion JFK’s body was on it & surgical procedures were performed on the ambushed President while on it. At this point suspicion of such cannot be ruled out. As Brad stated in comments above, the search for unedited AF-1 tapes invites a search for the military personnel connected with the C-130 ‘JFK death car’ cargo plane. Active & former military people know all too well how the military uses what assets it has immediately available in any given emergency situation where there is no script & someone in higher authority is calling the shots.

    • Photon says:

      So Jackie Kennedy was in on the Conspiracy? Because she never left the body until LBJ was sworn in-on AF1; Godfrey McHugh was with the body during that ceremony.
      These body switching fables are simply ridiculous.

      • Preston Newe says:

        You either haven’t read Doug Horne’s essay posted at Greg Burnham’s website or didn’t comprehend what you read. Mr. Horne informs his readers Jackie ‘freshened up’ for 20 minutes. This is the time frame Horne believes JFK’s body was removed from his coffin without Jackie’s knowledge. Read the essay before you criticize the information contained within. What may seem ridiculous to a person that wasn’t present may have seemed just fine to persons committing criminal acts. You & Mr. Horne do share one common element: neither of you were present on AF-1.

        • John McAdams says:

          Body snatching is a bad theory, on several counts.

          David Wrone (a conspiracist, by the way) had debunked it.

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wrone.htm

          Also, the Lifton timing doesn’t work out:

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm

        • Morley Upright says:

          To more credible, please post the names and statements of the people on board who were informed that Jackie was “freshening up for twenty minutes”

          Thanks.

        • “Mr. Horne informs his readers Jackie ‘freshened up’ for 20 minutes. This is the time frame Horne believes JFK’s body was removed from his coffin without Jackie’s knowledge.”~Preston Newe

          First let me say that I have read enough of Horne’s rhetoric to say that his reliance on hearsay is unreasonably heavy. This and his reliance on his own conjecture to fill in the gaps of hearsay, makes for speculative fiction; in my opinion.

          What is NOT opinion in this matter is that Admiral Burkley wrote an affidavit, declaring that, he had “remained in the ambulance with the President’s body in the casket and also on the plane; the casket was neither opened or disturbed in any way.” And also that, “There was no difference in the nature of the wounds” seen in Dallas compared to those seen in the morgue.[January 1978, HSCA 380]
          \\][//

      • Brad Milch says:

        Photon:

        Your comments seem to indicate you have not absorbed what Doug Horne is stating in his online essay. If that assessment is incorrect, the proper way to disagree with Mr. Horne is in the form of a rebuttal posted online. State what you don’t agree with & why. I’ll read it.

        • Brad Milch,

          If I may, I would like to respond to your request to Photon. First of all I want to make it clear that I do not agree with Photon on the larger issue of whether there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. In that I am certain that there was a conspiracy at the highest levels of the military industrial complex.

          Now speaking to Horne and his hypothesis on the forging of the Zapruder film, I have a rather long article + commentary on this issue at:

          https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/
          \\][//

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Who said that a body was ‘switched’?

        (I can believe temporarily removed for secret examination under the guise of ‘national security’).

  12. Charles Beyer says:

    All aircraft that landed at love field 22 Nov 1963 need to be scrutinized as possible airlift vehicles for the body of President Kennedy, not just AF-1, AF-2 & the C-130 death car cargo plane. Military aircraft are constantly in the air at any given time & can be ordered to land at any runway. Nearby air bases such as Carlswell could also have ordered a flight to land at Love Field. Documentation such actions might produce on paper or in radio transmissions may not have been turned over to the ARRB by the military. The people that flew the aircraft know their story but locating them & getting them to talk to the public may not be an easy task, especially if fear of retaliation is evident for them after 50 years. Researchers will also be challenged to explain where & what scenario occurred that separated JFK’s body from his wife & how it was transported to any given aircraft without discovery.

    Regardless of the aircraft & the un-interviewed crews, many feel Bill Kelly & Doug Horne have found the Achilles Heel to the government’s explanation for the murder of President Kennedy. The sensitivity of this find can be found here in the comments section where an obvious attempt to steer the topic away from the AF-1 audio tapes, the C-130 death car cargo transport plane & Doug Horne’s stunning analysis of one version of them is staring Jeff Morley’s readers in the face. That in itself is motivation to concentrate on this topic because it leads to a conclusion to the puzzle on 22 Nov 1963.

  13. JKLamper says:

    I would like to see Jeff Morley’s explanation of this remark in the Dallas Morning News piece: “Kelly notes that the flight from Dallas to take JFK’s body back to Washington took almost four hours, or 240 minutes.”

    • Bill Kelly says:

      The flight only took two hours but if there were two or three radios going at once, as Doug Horne estimates – there should be four to six hours of recordings when we have only two hours.

  14. Hans Trayne says:

    In an effort to reach out globally via the long arms of the Internet & alert people involved on 22 November 1963 with the Liberty relay station, the flights of AF-1, AF-2, the ‘phantom’ C-130, Andrews Air Force Base, General Lemay & any others that picked up the radio transmissions or recorded them to inform them that Jeff Morley, Bill Kelly, Ed Primeau, Greg Burnham & several other JFK researchers would be interested in their stories, I put together a short video focusing on the ‘phantom’ C-130 crew & passengers here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOy3BwMSRds

    The invitation to contact Jeff Morley was extended to family, relatives, friends & former commanders. I believe within that elite group the actual unedited AF-1 tapes will be found, along with the recollections of people that heard the transmissions in real time.

    Some see a red flag in the close relationship between LeMay & the Collins contractor he helped but some of the people involved outlived LeMay. Whatever has been hidden or destroyed I believe will be found within the living witnesses.

    • Hans Trayne says:

      I failed to offer a salute & hat tip to JFK researcher Vince Palamera. It was Vince who found much of the information on the C-130 crew & its passengers & 1st posted it online in 1999 at a competing website. Mr. Palamera actually made contact with at least one of the persons onboard the ‘phantom’ C-130. That person subsequently refused to talk to Vince. I’ll include Mr. Palamera’s name on the list of interested JFK researchers persons with info can trust & contact when I update the YouTube video’s page this weekend.

      The information about the Andrews AFB logbook that shows no entries for the C-130 arriving 22-23 November 1963 came straight from Bill Kelly’s blog from 2013. My sincerest apologies to both researchers for failing to give credit where it was due. Thank you to Vince Palamera for extending the global reach effort via his website. Hopefully persons involved in some way or another will open up to investigative journalist Jeff Morley & share their stories with him privately.

  15. The newly released AF 1 transcript is an important piece of new evidence. First, it shows the ARRB did not have a real investigatory arm after Anne Buttimer left. Second, it shows that someone did not want all the information on the tapes public. Third, the new info is quite intriguing about LeMay coming into Washington from, I think, Canada.

    The reason seems to be Kennedy’s death. If so, this seems to corroborate with Paul O’Connor saying LeMay was at Bethesda that night.

    But its hard to find just center on one piece of evidence that has surfaced since Stone’s film. Since there has been a ton of new stuff that has surfaced since then that alters the database of evidence in this case. That is why Destiny Betrayed was about 95% rewritten with new information.

    Just to name a few others I think are key: the Chicago Plot, the declassified testimony of Delphine Roberts and the Clinton-Jackson witnesses,the Lopez Report, Jeremy Gunn’s new inquiry into the autopsy, the destruction of the NAA test (Blakey’s lynchpin), John Hunt’s sensational discoveries about the falsification of the record about CE 399, the new evidence questioning whether or not Oswald ever picked up CE 139 or the handgun, the incriminating files on Jim Angleton and Anne Goodpasture etc. I mean there are waves of this stuff. So its hard to choose, at least for me.

    A documentary prepared from this new material would be quite powerful for the public. Especially in light of what they have been given for the last two decades by the nets and cable.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      With respect to your mention of John Hunt’s sensational discoveries about the falsification of the record about CE 399, is this mentioned in your book or has it been covered elsewhere on this site?

      Barry Krusch has touched on the dubious evidence trail involving the exhibits for shells, and I’ve read about the improper or questionable chain of custody for CE 399, but I’d like to know more about this falsification that you raise.

      Thank you Jim and/or Jeff.

  16. M. Ellis says:

    Doug Horne’s work on the brain examinations gets my vote right now.

    I’m also following the work of a Canadian, Robert Prudhomme, who has studied the ballistics of
    the Mannlicher-Carcano rounds and found a small but potentially fatal arithmetic error in the FBI’s
    report to the WC.

    If he’s right, it eliminates the possibility of the MC Carcano being used to kill Kennedy.
    It would change everything. And it would do it using the FBI’s own evidence given to the WC.

    His conclusions need to be tested, verified. But I think it is worth watching.

    https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?13292-FBI-Evidence-Proves-Oswald-s-Ammunition-was-not-Capable-of-Sufficient-Accuracy-to-Kill-JFK#.U2MjutoaySM

  17. By the way, one should add here the discoveries about Oswald are also very important. By writers like John Newman, Bill Davy, and Armstrong. I tried to incorporate this into my two chapters on Oswald in Destiny Betrayed. The attention given to the man by the FBI and CIA is very intriguing. As are his associations with various elements in New Orleans and Ruth and Michael Paine in Dallas. The Paines emerge from this new work as suspicious characters themselves.

    I should add here, although some of this is new, some of it was in the HSCA volumes. Including the fact that the CIA did not open a 201 file on Oswald until a year after his defection. A point Helms could not explain in his appearance before the HSCA.

    But one of the many problems with Jean Davison’s book Oswald’s Game is this: she does not acknowledge that fact. In fact, when you read her book, go ahead and look at all the references to the HSCA volumes on Oswald or the HSCA references to the CIA files. I guess since that stuff was not in Marina and Lee, Jean did not think it was important. Yet it is. Yet, Davison’s book could really have been written in say 1970. Which is why its so obsolete today. With what we know about Oswald’s files and the roles of Angleton, Hosty, Goodpasture and Phillips with them, her book is a quasi-museum piece.

    I wonder, does she acknowledge any of this is important to the Oswald case today? Would she change anything in light of these new discoveries? Or does she think the fact that Angleton had control over all of Oswald’s files at CIA HQ rather unimportant. Or the fact that Otepka’s request about Oswald being a real or fake defector being forwarded to Angleton, maybe that was not really important either?

    • James DiEugenio,

      I have taken this up with a specific question to Jean about one of the authors she sites as interviewing Oswald in Russia, who was then later to be found compromised by the fact that she became an asset of CIA.

      This info was available from the ARRB, but as you say, Jean seems to have no interest in addendum in correcting her old irrelevant information.
      \\][//

  18. Bob Prudhomme says:

    I am flattered that Mr. Ellis considers my work worthy of posting on other forums.

    As I have stated so many times on the DPF, the FBI’s firearms expert, SA Robert A. Frazier, made so many mistakes in his testimony to the Warren Commission in 1964, I am almost believing he had a guilty conscience, and wanted us to see through the charade that was the coverup.

    I am currently writing a thread at the DPF, with the aid of a Mr. Drew Phipps of Texas, that takes a very critical look at the ballistic evidence Mr. Frazier gave to the WC, following test firings of C2766.

    It should prove to be a lot of fun, and the reader should come away with a whole new perspective on just how remarkably easy it was for the FBI to fool the American public. As far as I know, and I have been known to be wrong before, no JFK researcher has looked at the assassination from this perspective before.

    See you at the Deep Politics Forum.

    • Jonathan says:

      Many, many thanks for your work.

      I think Frazier told the truth when McCloy asked him if there was metal fouling in the barrel, and Frazier said he hadn’t checked for that. McCloy should have asked the obvious question, why didn’t you check the barrel?

      But of course Frazier had already provided the reason he hadn’t checked the barrel. It was badly corroded (rusted) as of the morning after the assassination, which means it hadn’t been fired at JFK.

  19. BrotherBruce says:

    The answer is clear: Philip Nelson’s new book; “LBJ, Mastermind of the JFK Assassination”.

  20. BrotherBruce says:

    Philip Nelson’s new book; “LBJ, Mastermind of the JFK Assassination”. Probably the best new evidence in the Kennedy assassination. The author ties together the evidence proving that only Lyndon Johnson had the means, motive and opportunity to mastermind the murder of President Kennedy. There were a lot of individuals and groups who wanted Kennedy removed but only “the man next in line” to become President was able to skipper the grisly task. No single group could have pulled off the assassination. Without LBJ on board to cover up the murder and reassure participants that he’d take care of “cleaning up” – no one would have been crazy enough to kill Kennedy on their own. Once the spooks, the Chiefs, the mob, the Cubans, the Texans etc. realized that the VP (the next Prez) was “on-board” it was lights out for poor brave Jack. Watch JFK’s speech at American University if you want to understand the absolute, gut-wrenching fear and hatred that this peace loving President instilled in all the flag-waving, bomb loving, war mongers (the Fortunate Sons, CCR) that the Post WWII era had produced and placed in positions of power. Read Caro’s full bio of LBJ. Get the feel of Johnson’s personality; his obsessions, what made him tick; the utter nastiness and single minded goal that motivated him. Once you’ve come to understand Lyndon – the missing pieces of the Kennedy assassination will also fall into place. You’ve got to do a lot of reading. Investigate Ambassador Joe Kennedy, the atmosphere during Ike’s administration that allowed the CIA to grow out of control, Hoover’s motivations. Listen to some speeches and interviews of historians, politicians and authors on youtube. The answers are out there. It’s taken me half a century to uncover them. If you care enough – you’ll find them too.

    • Robert McCabe says:

      Mark Lane’s book Plausible Denial is a great read with regard to that horrific day in Dallas as when he points out that President Truman considered giving Plausible Denial to the CIA as the greatest mistake he ever made.

  21. Eddy says:

    The most important new evidence (AARB, so not that new) and the least complex to understand was the release of the Parkland medical testimony, and the release of the Bethesda testimony. The timing of this was crucial to the cover-up, as there aren’t enough interested, impartial parties left to highlight its significance. You can’t read the testimony, understand reasons for the now transparent lies in the testimony, and conclude that there wasn’t a large hole in the back of Kennedy’s head. Even Dr perry, cited as a defender of the headwound myth, is revealed as an unwilling participant in the cover-up.
    The general public are not aware, because of the delay in the revealing of this fundamental fact, how significant it is. Looking back, I marvel at the effort needed to suppress this information, but its all public now.

    • “You can’t read the testimony, understand reasons for the now transparent lies in the testimony, and conclude that there wasn’t a large hole in the back of Kennedy’s head.”~Eddy

      The problem here is the vague language, “the back of the head”.
      This is what causes this particular carousel to keep going round’n’round. “The Occipital-Parietal” is the precise medical phrase used by every single doctor at Parkland. The wounds in both the photos and X-rays show this wound in the Occipital-Parietal!
      This misinterpretation of “the back of the head” to mean the Occipital-Protrusion is the cause of all the misrepresentation and confusion in this matter.

      The entry wound was at the right Temperal-Parietal. A hit from a bullet travelling at super-sonic speed. Such a shot will bring a sonic shock-wave behind the bullet as it travels through the brain. This literally explodes the tissues, purees and displaces it outward.
      The over-pressure taking place inside a closed container, the skull, is fragmented – not as per bullet trajectory, but as a radial blast caused by the shock wave.
      This particular hit was tangential, entering the right temporal area at an angle causing a trough through the right hemesphere, thus the explosive damage blew the brain material upward and slightly to the left.
      These results are seen clearly in the photos and X-rays from the autopsy.
      \\][//

  22. Allen Lowe says:

    I am not quite so impressed by the restoration work done on those sound clips of the tape; I’ve done the same kind of work for about 25 years, and the strange fading in and out and occasional gurgling indicates he has used destructive noise reduction, altering the wave form – which you never do, in the hopes that a next generation of tools will take you further – because once you have done this kind of work – which digitally alters the wave form – it can never be brought back. This is a major mistake in doing this kind of work –

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      [Allen:]

      “I am not quite so impressed by the restoration work done on those sound clips of the tape”

      =============================

      Allen: I have also been wondering about the tools used by Primeau Productions.

      http://www.primeauproductions.com/

      As you know, the technological progress in this area (sound processing and speech recognition) is almost dizzying. Notice below the spectrogram corresponding to the first seconds of the restored audio. We can clearly see that some artificial (too perfect and rectangular to be natural) regions were excised.

      http://patriot.net/~ramon/jfk/Air-Force-One-Restored-Sound-Clip.png

      As you properly indicated, once some sound fragments have been removed, they cannot be put back. That said, I am sure that the original material is out there, so other folks, like you and me can take a crack at it, with the advantage point provided by newer tools which are being made available to the general public.

  23. Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

    Following the [conspiracy] fact that no wound into JFK was sectioned and the WC abstained from bringing up the question, Jim DiEugenio found that:
    1. Jim Garrison did bring it up and Pierre Finck testified that a military ordered Dr. Hume not to dissect the wounds
    2. Autopsy’s eyewitness Paul O’Connor told DiEugenio that General Curtis LeMay was there smoking a cigar
    As the Air Force One tapes finally reveal that LeMay was in route from Michigan to Washington in the evening of November 22, 1963, the question is: Why General LeMay had to be at the JFK autopsy that night?

  24. The most important “new” evidence is that Gen. Joseph J. Cappucci, head of Air Force counterintelligence, who was very close to Hoover, was telling his close friends in 1969 that Lyndon Johnson murdered JFK. The source for this is Jan Amos of Dallas, TX. She was the wife of the golden boy of Cappucci, Lt. Col. William Henry Amos.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVIaxNX3WRU

  25. D. E. Mitchell says:

    There are several significant discoveries made recently with regard to the murder of the 35th President.
    One was the discovery of by Leroy Blevins Sr. of the shooters in the turret behind Mr.Zapruder (who appear to me to be two of the three “tramps”found in the RR yard). Second (and the most important)the”man between the sprocket holes;” up top the county Bldg.
    Third. The anomolies regarding the Zapruder Film(s) at the “Hawkeyeworks” facility.Lastly: upon closer examination of photos taken in the Plaza of the people in them, ALL the CIA associates and contracters associated with CIA’s WAVE Station. We could go on and on, but it is almost redundant at this stage. DM.

    • Photon says:

      Blevins as a source? The guy who claims that 10-13 shots were fired?
      Please identify even one CIA employee identified as being in Dealey Plaza.
      This is nothing but unsubstantiated claims by individuals with no independent expert verification .

      • Photon, you want one CIA employee who was identified at Dealey Plaza? How about Gen. Edward Lansdale, a protégé of Allen Dulles and longtime CIA who was identified by two of his peers Col. Fletcher Prouty and Gen. Victor Krulak as present 5 feet west of the Texas School Book Depository Building.

        Web Link: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/USO/appD.html

        And Lansdale was not just any CIA operative; he was a long, notorious and highly influential and active one at that.

        Btw, Lansdale’s presence at TSBD is an indictment of military, Air Force as well as the CIA in the JFK assassination.

        • Photon says:

          Lansdale wasn’t in Dealey Plaza.
          As for General Krulak’s many talents I don’t consider that he was capable of x-ray vision, which is what he would have needed to identify the individual’s face in the photos Prouty sent him.
          As for Prouty, his suspicions ( he admitted) were generated when reports he read in a New Zealand newspaper were dated such that he concluded that there was forewarning of the assassination.He completely forgot about the International Date Line- pretty bad for an expert in intelligence.
          What would you claim about the veracity of an individual who claimed that he personally flew Chou-En-Li to Terehan?
          A guy who claimed that the JCS had foreknowledge of the Jonestown massacre and that it was a large government operation?
          A guy who claimed that Roosevelt was poisoned by Churchill?
          A guy who thought that the Bay of Pigs operation was named for George Bush’s oil company?
          A guy who claimed that petroleum isn’t a fossil fuel?
          You folks love to claim that this fabulist was some kind of expert on everything, when the facts are that he was a character who loved publicity and would say outrageous and unsupported things for that publicity.
          Again, the CTer reluctance to ask the simple questions that shred the narrative.

          • “He completely forgot about the International Date Line- pretty bad for an expert in intelligence.”~Photon

            What utter tripe Photon, Prouty was surprised by all the info on Oswald in that NZ newspaper that on the very day of the assassination. And we have gone over that issue here, and how there was a central source that had the same story printed all over the world. He did NOT think the paper was printed BEFORE the assassination.
            . . .
            How do you know Prouty did not fly Chou-En-Li to Terehan? He was a VIP pilot in that era.
            . . .
            There is a lot of evidence the Jonestown massacre was a large government operation, and Congressman Ryan’s murder there led to a deep investigation by citizen researchers, who found links to US Intelligence and IG Farben involvement.
            . . .
            Prouty claimed there was some evidence that Roosevelt was poisoned by Churchill, and he revealed what that was. He did not claim he was convinced of this.
            . . .
            There is a whole school of thought that challenges petroleum as a fossil fuel. Prouty is hardly alone in this, or the challenges to “global warming”.
            . . .
            As far as Landsdale, both Prouty and Krulak knew the man intimately for decades. Landsdale did have a distinctive shape to his head, and posture, the twisted wrist, and his style of hair and dress.
            . . .
            Prouty was widely learned on a great many topics. He was curious and autodidactic. He did not shy from controversy, and he did not go along to get along. He was just the kind of person, that people like you love to hate. He represents everything you don’t understand, and are afraid to understand, because your small little world view might be shattered should you finally discover the truth of one or some of these things. So you rely on Court Historians for reinforcement, to tell you over and again the myths you grew up with.
            You are in essence a shrink-wrapped prefab sprout.
            \\][//

          • jeffc says:

            Krulak identified Lansdale through detail such as a stooped posture and a class ring. The ID is intriguing, but cannot be certified 100% because the man’s face cannot be seen. However, the ID cannot be simply ruled out and Krulak’s confirmation lends considerable weight.

            Prouty was not confused by an International Date Line – he was at breakfast when news of the shooting broke and several hours later picked up the local paper as it hit the streets. His point always was that the edition – published within 5-6 hours of the assassination -already carried a front page detailed wire service story describing the biography of the “arrested man”, and that the immediate focus, within hours, on Oswald was suspicious. It remains suspicious.

            Prouty never claimed to fly Chou-En-Lai anywhere. He always talked about flying a delegation of Chinese officials designated by Chiang Kai-Shek to Teheran in 1944, where they attended a major post-war planning conference, during which decisions were made concerning Indo-China. His point always was that there was very little confirmation in official histories of the presence of the Chinese delegation.

            Serous journalists such as Jim Hougan (“Secret Life of Jim Jones” The Lobster, 2003) have published disturbing information on Jonestown, and so your pat dismissal is groundless.

            Prouty never claimed that “Roosevelt was poisoned by Churchill”. He repeated a claim attributed to Stalin – and not to necessarily endorse the claim but to contextualize Stalin’s response to the quickly developing Cold War. This is a false John McAdams talking point.

            And so on…

          • Justin Hall says:

            Interesting you bring up Lansdale in Dealey Plaza. I’m looking for the original Altgens photo for some research I’m doing. Anyone know where they’re located these days?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Great post jeffc. Prouty’s website is still the best source I know of about John McAdams, and his factoids.

          • Eddy says:

            Thank you for your always important comments Photon. I asked you on another JFK facts thread a question. You may have missed it. I would dearly love you to answer, as it is very relevant to a thread on New Evidence:

            What is the official line on the assassination in 2015? Is it still ‘lone nut, no conspiracy’, ‘conspiracy by unknowns/commies, cover up necessary to prevent war’, ‘rogue CIA elements, cover up to maintain National confidence/security’.

            You represent an official viewpoint but the official viewpoint is fractured (On-going New Evidence of this comes to light pretty regularly). Please could you confirm what the 2015 consensus official viewpoint is in your judgment.

          • Photon says:

            If you want to see a fabulist in action go to Prouty’s interview about the U2 on YouTube. He talks a good game, but only if you are not informed about the U2 and Powers’ flight. I noted at least 3 glaring errors the supposedly knowledgable Prouty made that no real expert on the flight would have said.
            He makes stuff up.If he lied here,why believe anything he says.He didn’t even know about the landing gear.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Lansdale wasn’t in Dealey Plaza.

            Then it must be his double. :-O

      • D. E. Mitchell says:

        Well “photon,” I trust my “faser” is “locked on to your comments.I learned a long time ago, that even the village idiot has somthing to contribute. for example: you and your friends are standing on some trian tracks, arguing about the “BIG EVENT,” and Forrest Gump says to you guys,”hey, i’m Forrest, Forest Gump. There’s a train commmmming down those t-tracks..” I have no doubt that you and your friends would be “too smart” to pay any attention! Not because the trains engineer is blowing his whistle furiously,but because “Forrest” wasn’t worth listening to…”besides…your breath smells like cigarettes!!”

      • thenewdanger says:

        Blevins is way off on most of his off-camera assertions (as he is no rifleman that would understand why the shooting from the TSBD does not align in any way with the wounds to JFK or Connolly), but the shot hitting JFK in the back of the head at frame 229 is concrete (this is also one frame after Connolly is struck in the wrist). It is undeniable that JFK is shot in the back of the head at frame 229, but not even a sniper (Oswald barely earned marksman) could have re-sighted a side-mounted scope of a Mannlicher-Carcano 3 times in less than 6-8 seconds for each shot to make those parabolic trajectory shots that would have required 22-32 inches of aiming above and to the left of a moving target positioned below for each shot (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21636). That type of precision might be the work of a sniper given more time, but not a marksman like Oswald in less than 8 seconds, and especially not from that position where it is claimed he shot from. The space given to work in the “sniper’s nest”, the nature of the bolt action Mannlicher-Carcano, and the angle Oswald would have to of been aiming all would have been incongruent with maintaining a “zero” on the target and also would not have allowed for such a wide miss that caused the injury to James Tague … all of this within 6-8 seconds.

        There was definitely more than one shooter and this was a deep state event of massively varying magnitudes targeting the seizure of power that JFK could not be allowed to wield over that deep state. That “power” killed Lincoln after he printed interest-free greenbacks, and it continues today to target the sovereignty of nations and any concentration of financial strength building up outside of the round tables whose wealth, via central banking secured by income taxes, is built on the work of well-paid domestic and foreign chief economists aka economic hitmen. They live among us pushing for common core, one world currency, weakened encryption, wars on US-generated terrorism, and anything else as pretexts to serves their supranational corporate economic and geopolitical dominance under the veil of democracy and ‘merica.

  26. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Just my humble opinion but I think Robert Blakey’s statements are some of the most important evidence in recent years. As head of the HSCA they should be considered as such. That he admits He and his Committee were deceived by the CIA is History.

  27. MDG says:

    RFK JR’s saying to Charlie Rose in the last year RFK didnt believe WC. RFK thought it was rogue CIA and/or Cuban Exiles.

    It is too bad RFK decided to run for President feeling the way he did.

    He was Attorney General…….didnt he think it was a bit irregular for wounds not to be dissected when a murder has been committed. We can only imagine what RFK thought when he was told the Military were in charge of the Autopsy.

    Also Air Force One Tapes & revelations in Shenon book about doubts of staff lawyers and others about conclusions of WC.

  28. Justin Hall says:

    The work of Doug Horne is the most important assimilation of evidence in the history of this case. Anyone who sits through his six hour video presentation should feel the same way.

    • “Anyone who sits through his six hour video presentation should feel the same way.”~Justin Hall

      I sat through it, and I certainly do NOT feel the same way. I think Horne is a charlatan, blending fact with fiction, and in the process leading the research in circles. The information he gives that is factual is already well known. The “new” information is built of innuendo supposition and rhetorical verbosity.

      This presentation is more like a sermon at a revival tent. His delivery is patterned in the same hypnotic tones as neurolinguistics and faith healers.

      I think Horne is a plant from one of the Intelligence services.
      \\][//

      • Justin Hall says:

        Willy: Not because you disagree but because of how you use the English language, I think YOU are a plant. Care to give any specifics in place of personal attacks, or are you just going to carry on with this weird poetry?

  29. MDG says:

    It is possible JFK’s wounds were dissected at a Secret Autopsy before the Official Autopsy at Bethseda. We do hear on the Air Force One Tapes that the body “was choppered over”.

    Unfortunately, if that indeed happened it would be a State Secret.

    The Kennedy Family were entitled to that by law. But perhaps it remained a State Secret for over 50 years.

    There were signs of possible Soviet & possible Cuban connections to Oswald and no one wanted to start WW3 over it. Also more than one shooter and therefore a conspiracy.

    It was evident within an hour of the murder Oswald was going to be an easy way out for Johnson& Hoover & the Military.

  30. gerry campeau says:

    For me the passage of time has given us the most important piece of new JFK assassination evidence. WE now know who where the liars, what was their agenda and with the passage of time we even know the next President of USA Bush or Clinton.

  31. Bill says:

    There is NO most importance JFK ‘evidence’ to surface during the last 5 years. What is ‘surfacing’ are new theory, speculation, and distortion of evidence already collected. During the next decade maybe their will be new advances in DNA sciences that will be able to help solve the 2nd shot/first miss discussion (but I’m satisfied that the 1st shot was deflected by a limb or malfunction of a cartridge itself).

    Hopefully, someday in the not-too-distant-future, Dr. Robert Blakey will get his answer from Dr. Baden about how he learned that JFK’s family/friends returned to the grave on November 25/26 to return the brain to the vault. Other than that…the WC did the best it could to a. Solve the assassination (albeit while protecting CIA duplicity in trying to kill Castro) and b. Protect innocent people who were ‘connected by coincidence’ to the shooting.

    Peace out.

    • b. Protect innocent people who were ‘connected by coincidence’ to the shooting.~Bill

      I am sorry but this statement is so bereft of any specific substance that I have no idea what you might mean by ‘connected by coincidence’, or just who the “innocent people” were that were being “protected”.

      Beyond that, I think that it has been fairly established that the Warren Commission had a direct mandate to find Lee Harvey Oswald to be the sole assassin, and that such a finding was made despite all of the evidence to the contrary.
      \\][//

  32. MDG says:

    WC did not do the best they could do. They lied.

    It was an easy way out for Johnson, Hoover & the Military.

    This is the judgement of history.

    I agree WC had a mandate to find Oswald to be the lone assassin of JFK.

    After Lincoln’s Assasination, several conspirators were tried in a court of law and hung. The crime was punished.

  33. theNewDanger says:

    I’m new to learning about the working over of the non-studious citizens by the banking powers who operate in the shadows while partisan politicians operate paradoxically against us. The following seem important to me in debunking the Warren Report:

    • The shot to the back of JFK’s head at frame 229. This is best showing by viewing frames 227-233 in pictorial and slow-motion video sequence. You will need to watch from the moment that the limo comes from behind the sign to just after Connolly is hit in the wrist, but focus on the back of JFK’s head for those aforementioned frames. JFK is ALREADY moving to grab at his chest or neck when the limo emerges from behind the freeway sign BEFORE Connolly’s wrist is hit. Just as Connolly is hit in the wrist AFTER the limo emerges, JFK is tapped in the back of the head, which is what causes him to briefly lunge up and forward immediately begin to slump forward – THAT was the kill shot. That shot breached and hairline-fractured JFK’s skull, which explains how the shot from the right or front-right caused the “exploding” head wound a few frames later by a second (and potentially third) shot to the head. Had a second shot hit JFK in the back of the head before the shot from the right/front-right, there would have been a more gore-y scene with an exit wound to JFK’s face, as the first shot likely caused the frontal and orbit fractures that that quack Dr. Boswell copped out of explaining further in his Commission testimony.

    • There is a reflection captured in the Z-film of a member of the assassination team shooting from under lamp posts apparently located on the roof of the County Court Records building.

    • Connolly was hit in the back AFTER the exploding head shot.

    Leroy Blevins, Sr. is the source for most of this information, while I have added some of my own emphasis and commentary.

    • theNewDanger says:

      However, I disagree with Blevins on the following points:

      • theNewDanger says:

        1. Blevins claims the dent in the top of the windshield’s chrome was caused by a bullet that exited JFK’s throat. No trajectory above ground explains that shot except a shot taken at street level. Even disregarding the WC-ignored accounts of Parkland ER physicians who see many entry wounds in patients in Dallas, Blevins would still have to explain the physics for how a shot from a likely elevated position would enter JFK’s back, ‘exit’ his throat with no dampening or wild oscillation of an exiting missile that would likely have struck many different types of tissue, sinew, and possibly bone, and still maintain enough velocity while ASCENDING to strike the chrome of the windshield with enough force to change its form as seen from a distance in the Zapruder film. That’s what Blevins believes caused the dent to the chrome. I believe a shot was fired that caused that dent, but, in my own wild opinion ;), the bullet that caused that dent in the chrome did not enter and exit any one’s throat that day. I believe it was a missed shot from a the 2nd floor of the Dal-Tex aimed at JFK’s head that missed just after JFK was first hit in the throat, an injury whose frontal impact would cause one to crouch more so than cause one to move upward and forward abruptly like a shot to the back of the head as seen in frame 229. That slightest of crouching reactions (likely just beginning to occur as the limo emerged from behind the freeway sign before the first head shot) to what I believe was a frontal throat shot is what may have caused one of the shooters to miss his mark at the head shot resulting in denting the chrome. That miss left another shooter to have to make the shot from a higher trajectory as I believe all the shooters knew who were taking which shots and who were taking contingency shots in the case of misses. This was no wild turkey shoot. I’m reminded of the Kill Bill Vol. 1 movie when the Sheriff states “You can tell by the cleanliness of the carnage.” Everyone in the car would have been wounded or killed if this was a wild fire-at-will situation. Each shot was a coordinated shot with a purpose and each shot that was designed to hit was accompanied with a back-up plan should the target be missed.

      • theNewDanger says:

        2. Blevins’ claims JFK was not hit from the front right. So, from where did the “exploding’ shot originate? According to Blevins, the shot came from the side in the pergola area behind Zapruder. If JFK was hit from the side, any shooters from the right side, again KNOWING JFK was already hit in the head (i.e. that any shot would open his head), would have risked a clear through-and-through shot that would have hit Jacqueline Kennedy and/or she would have been submerged in brain and blood, not just sprayed a little bit and stained on her dress.

      • theNewDanger says:

        3. Blevins’ claims the Zapruder film was not altered. The number of more severe jolts throughout an otherwise very jittery SLOW MOTION film indicates a significant number of removed frames. That constitutes “alteration”, in my opinion, even if you don’t believe there were any further imaging tricks that took place at HAWKEYEWORKS to alter frames remaining in the extant Zapruder film.

        • I am assuming you are new to this blog, so I will offer you some advice as per the Zapruder film. If you are going to have an opinion on it I suggest you learn something of film emulsion chemistry, movie making machinery, and the techniques of special effects cinematography.
          As a retired special effects artist, with more than a dozen blockbuster films in my resume’, I would like to introduce you to this page from my blog, where you will find the premier expert on Kodak films and movie making machinery of all kinds, Rolland Zavada, explaining in great detail why it is impossible to create a Kodachrome II counterfeit of the Zapruder film:
          https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/
          \\][//

          • theNewDanger says:

            Does any if what you’ve stated above prevent REMOVAL of frames?

          • “Does any if what you’ve stated above prevent REMOVAL of frames?”~theNewDanger

            It prevents an UNDETECTABLE REMOVAL of frames.

            It prevents a reproduction to Kodachrome II film of any alterations made to the original film.

            It is suggested that you actually read what Roland Zavada explains as put forth in the article.
            \\][//

      • theNewDanger says:

        4. Blevins’ makes an odd claim that Oswald was in charge of part of the plot on behalf of the KGB when Oswald was the one who was allowed unfettered travel across multiple borders from the US as a ‘defector’ and re-entered the US with a foreign wife with no hassle to either of them and WITH THE AID of the Department of State and remuneration by the FBI – this sequence speaks less about Oswald and/or the KGB and more about Hoover and Angleton’s Mafia-like operative roles in managing and sheep dipping their stable of American and Cuban patsies. The Oswald who was shot and killed on live television was not the only Oswald witnesses over the years have stated they knew with that same name occupying the same roles he “officially” held. There was at least one other Oswald who witnesses came across in Moscow. I’d like to see more proof to support this claim before I could consider it, but it seems far-fetched at this time.

      • theNewDanger says:

        Nevertheless, thanks to his eye-opening find in frame 229 and of the shooter on the roof of the County Court Records building, I do believe Leroy Blevins, Sr. has offered a significant contribution to understanding a deliberate cover-up by the Warren Commission in its contrived synopsis of the assassination.

        • Wow, you certainly threw a load of opinion out there!

          A NewDanger to whom? I think that is a fair question to ask.
          \\][//

          • theNewDanger says:

            A load of opinion … nearly all the “official” story’s conclusions are opinon. There have been entire books of opinion written such as the Warren Report. My “load of opinion” is benign compared to that cancer-causing virus.

            A NewDanger to whom? It’s a phrase …

  34. Bill says:

    Willy. There you go again. Right?

    Ok. I’ll explain. In many MANY local, state, and federal investigations there are people who are questioned by authorities. Some of these people may only know the ‘accused’ by circumstance or the unhappy coincidence of being involved in a bus ride, or whatever coincidence bought them together. The authorities, in order to protect those who are mentioned by name and who are only guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, often keep these people out of the official investigative report.

    The main reason for this is often to protect, that’s right willy, to protect people who were unwittingly connected to a event, or may be accused of being part of an event, by someone who may have an axe to grind and implicate them in a heinous crime or event (in this case the JFK Assassination).

    Police reports are full of information that may have no relationship to a particular crime and, if the names of some of the people were released some of these people may be subject to vigilante justice. Dr. Samuel Mudd is a name that I can think of at this time. Perhaps you should look it up and not sit back like you rule over this forum.

    Peace.

    • Don’t patronize me with your generalizations that anyone over the age of nine would know Bill.

      You keep making claims here that have been decisively dealt with. and expect to be taken seriously by those of us who know this case inside and out.

      If you want to deal with generalizations and quips, which is all you have offered yet, but for that opinion of Oswald that is the result of a frame up by illegitimate authority, then there you have it back in kind.
      \\][//

      • Bill says:

        Willy….Please don’t feign indignation with your nonsense. I don’t suppose for a second that ‘anyone over the age of nice would know’. Apparently, from reading your initial reply you took umbrage with my comment on ‘protection’.

        Apparently you are the exception to your own rule.

        I only offer what you dish out. Do you like it? I think not.

        As for the last part of your diatribe, let me just resort to the facts as they stand and have stood for the last 50+ years:

        LHO was seen carrying his package into the SBD on the day of the shooting. He did not leave with it (and coincidentally a make shift package was found on the 6th floor).

        LHO’s prints were found on the rifle and the bag.

        LHO’s palm print was located on a box that was placed in a certain position that would be appropriate for a sniper to use in attempting to shoot a rifle from that window.

        A man was seen in that window.

        A movement was seen on the Hughes Film which depicted that Limo crossing directly under the the window the rifle was fired from.

        Workmen heard three shots and recognized that a gun was being fired from directly above their heads

        People in the motorcade (Jackson et-al) saw a rile being fired and then removed/withdrawn back into the window.

        Oswald’s rifle order was in his own handwriting and was verified by examine multiple samples of this handwriting at different stages of his young life.

        The rifle was sent to a Post Office Address attributed to his handwriting (again..many samples).

        The PO Box was cancelled and even that cancellation order was in his own hand.

        Oswald’s own wife verified the entire PO Box issue.

        Oswald’s wife took the backyard photos.

        and on and on and on. Right down to Oswald lying about where he was when the shot was fired.

      • “I only offer what you dish out. Do you like it? I think not.
        As for the last part of your diatribe, let me just resort to the facts as they stand and have stood for the last 50+ years”
        ~Bill

        Oh no! To the contrary I really like it when you post all of those certain and verified “proofs” – that have in fact been utterly destroyed by the participants on these pages that you disparagingly refer to as “CTers”.

        Thus the term ‘Warren Commission Cult’ is coined as a fair moniker for your team.
        As they say in fencing; ‘On Guard’!
        \\][//

      • Tom Calarco says:

        Willy:

        I’m new here. I’ve been reading Horne’s opus. I’m no film expert, but I believe he makes a convincing argument for at the very least that there were frames deleted. That seems well within the capabilities of the photo experts in 1963.

        For one, Willy, so many people have said that the limousine came to a complete stop but this is not shown in the extant film. I have also seen illustrations that compare photos and the film that show bystanders positioned differently and distortions of perspective in the film making it evident that there was more than just deletion of frames. Heck, Willy, you have the CIA photo expert who first worked on the film telling the ARRB that the film he worked on was different than the one that was released to the public. And not only that but another CIA photo image employee did similar type work on the film the next day. Obviously, this second employee worked on the altered version.

        Such testimony by people at the scene of events is to me far more convincing than some photo expert’s theory about why it is authentic, especially when (I believe) he is covering up for the company (Kodak) he worked for.

        And can you tell me why the CIA needed to work on the film? I’m sure Life Magazine’s photo staff certainly could’ve handled the job.

        Of course, there is an obvious answer to why the CIA had it. To make sure no one saw what actually happened.

  35. Bill says:

    MDG.

    Really? The only real fault of the WC their eating the pablum the FBI and the CIA fed to them in their attempt to keep connections to plots to kill Castro out of it. Face it. The FBI, CIA, and the SS. had much more on LHO and his nonsense than they wanted to have hung on their walls.

    Sadly, since the 3 were not communicating (much like the NSA before 9-11) little piss-ants like Oswald were able to pull off the assassination simply by being in the right place, with the right mentality, at just the right time.

    6th Floor. 1 Gun. Purchased by MO with an alias LHO had used before, with handwriting linked to him through 3 different sources from multiple periods of his own life. With an Alias his wife spoke about afterward. Containing his palm print, with his ‘curtain rod’ package nearby. Among 3 spent shells..and on and on.

    Sorry. Peace.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Was that the bag that Wesley Frazier and his sister said was, at most, 27 inches long?

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Bob I can’t resist. You mean the curtain rods inside the bag tucked under his arm pit and cupped in his hand?
        But you well know that’s not long enough for even a disassembled long or short version of the Carcano found but not the same as what was ordered.
        I thought the bag story was discredited years ago but don’t remember where I read this.

      • Bill says:

        Yeah….that one. I’m not sure of the ability of Frazier or his sister to identify the length of a package. I’m glad you’re willing to hang your hat on this ‘fact’. Oh boy.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      How did that money order get from Dallas to Chicago and deposited in the bank by Klien’s in the 1963 mail in a day’s time? Especially since Oswald was working when it was mailed across town? Who did pick up the rifle at the post office? Where is the required postal form for picking up a firearm, supposed to have been kept on file for what two years. And on and on.
      BTW, have you heard? Jack Ruby really DID have MOB connections!

      • Photon says:

        Obviously you have no recollection of AirMail.
        You can put this ” required postal form” nonsense to bed with the other CT falsehoods. Please post any reliable source that confirms such a form existed- for RIFLES.
        There were reasons why the mail order purchase of firearms became severely restricted after 1964- many related to the institutional lack of documentation associated with purchases such as Oswald’s.

        • Oh yea!!! “Airmail” wow, how clever Photon.
          Yea I used Airmail lots of times. I could get a letter to someone by the next day…with a lot of luck.
          But I never experienced getting a letter off, and a reply within a single day… and YOU?

          So Oswald, who was at work, got an airmail letter off, and it arrived on the same day, and then the check in that letter, was sent – by airmail of course, and arrived at the bank, on the same day! Yup the US Post Office was practically magical as soon as the Wright Bros proved their point … ain’t technology a wunnerful thing?
          \\][//

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Willy,

            Photon has a different postal service that you and I enjoy!

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Technicality Willie but it was a Postal Money Order. A numbered one. From a series the rest of which were not used until late 1964. “It was never cashed, deposited or went through the Federal Reserve system”.(see the link I provided in a post earlier). It was found late on 11/22 by a National Archives employee (Not a Postal employee!) in a Arlington Virginia Postal Facility. Not the Kansas city postal facility where unpaid Dallas money orders were stored.
            Your right about Air Mail. It was certainly not UPS/FedEx guaranteed next day delivery (much less by 10:30 or noon, even at a premium).

        • Steve Stirlen says:

          Photon,

          PLEASE put to rest for all of us that the CIA and the FBI and the DPD did a thorough and accurate and complete investigation of the murder of the most powerful man in the free world by providing us with a reliable explanation why authors such as Shenon and Warren investigators like Slawson have said—all within the last year—that the CIA and the FBI withheld, suppressed, distorted, and misled the investigation at every turn? Why don’t you answer that most FUNDAMENTAL question FIRST, and then we can have an honest discussion about JFK’s murder? Surely, Photon, you remember honesty? That little thing that Helms and Hoover and Curry did NOT understand or hope to provide the American people.

          • Photon says:

            The honest answer is that the CIA and FBI knew more about Oswald than they volunteered, but not as much as they should have; they never recognized him as a potentially dangerous individual.Considering that he had never exhibited any known acts of violence that doesn’t seem inappropriate, although with 20/20 hindsight it can be criticized as negligence.
            In addition, the CIA was striving to protect sensitive intelligence sources, such as the surveillance techniques at the Cuban Embassy.How do you think they got that intelligence? Somebody at the Embassy had access to conversations that took place there; as soon as this info came out that individual was compromised and that conduit for information ceased..

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            As much as I appreciate your first-ever candid response, I will help you AGAIN in regards to the CIA, FBI, and the DPD. All three organizations were led by men that were LIARS. They LIED in 63, and they continued to LIE until they died, or were fired, or retired. You are being disingenious when you say that they knew much more than they volunteered. They volunteered NOTHING! Let me repeat what you and I have already discussed. Hoover was ONLY able to keep his job because he kept secret pictures and files and transcripts of power players in his “files.” It was NOT because he was an exceptional lawman. He knew how to play the game, and he played it well. He was a fraud when he started, and he remained a fraud until he died. Imagine being able to keep your job ONLY because you had illegally obtained pictures of people having sex! Quite a resume, wouldn’t you say?

            Helms knew Whitten was going to try and actually investigate JFK’s murder. So, he replaced him with a drunken bozo, Angleton. Angleton was then able to stonewall and lie to your beloved WC, because he knew Helms would cover anything and everything with the BOGUS “national security” ruse. Helms SHOULD have been in jail for perjury, You know that as well as I. The reason he wasn’t is because Earl Warren lacked the courage and the guts to do a proper shakedown of everyone involved. He simply believed on “ggod faith” that these two agencies would “do the right thing.”

            Curry? Even you can’t defend his actions. Oh, wait, he was trying “to sell books.” Isn’t that what you accuse every person who disagrees with your beloved WR of doing? I believe that to be hypocritical of you.

            Please continue to spout all of the “facts” that the FBI gave us. And continue to point to the “evidence” the CIA released to the WC. However, and you know this, they were run by LIARS. If you wish to believe a LIAR, that is your right as an American. The truth will eventually come out, but it won’t be in our lifetime. But you can rest easy knowing that you helped create a government that continues to function on lies.

          • Photon says:

            Exactly WHAT did the FBI, the CIA and the DPD lie about? Please be specific about what aspect of the JFK assassination these institutions lied about.You keep making these blanket statements without any supporting evidence.it is entirely understandable that the Federal agencies wanted to keep confidential operations under wraps-and functioning. The very productive Mexico City source of intelligence was sacrificed once the investigation started to trace Oswald’s activities there.That was truly a heavy price to pay merely to find out that Oswald wanted to go to Cuba.And what specifically did the DPD lie about? They went overboard trying to assist the press-to the point of letting a murder suspect have a press conference and letting cameras and the networks cover Oswald’s transfer to the county jail.Obviously they thought that cooperating with the press might keep them from asking how they failed to protect the President.You don’t aid and support a conspiracy by hanging out your dirty linen
            I don’t understand how you can’t see that clearly incompetent actions rarely have sinister overtones. That seems a common trait among the CT community. Sometimes somebody just f—- up-a prime example being Agent Hosty., who ignored Oswald’s threat.

          • Paulf says:

            Photon trusts the credibility of James Jesus Angleton, the man who gave away an untold number of secrets to Communist traitor Kim Philby, causing the death of dozens or hundreds of agents and Soviet moles.

            Yeah, the same Angleton who did untold damage to national security and died telling people he was going to his grave with secrets. A drunken lout who thought he was above the law.

            But photon thinks that man and his confederates just made an honest mistake. Unbelievable.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            I have given you multiple examples of lying and destruction of evidence and failure to provide the WC all the information that it asked for during its “investigation.” I have given you Blakey, Gunn, Shenon, Slawson, and Morley. You NEVER answer anything directly. You ask everyone on this site to give you a credible source, but in return you will not answer any question without flipping and flopping and “quoting” your beloved WC.

            Here is one for you. David Slawson, on this site, said the WC did the best it could with the information it received. He continues to say that he now knows he was naive and that the CIA withheld information that would have changed his outlook. He further says that he now believes LHO was not the “lone wolf” that the WC once believed. How do YOU explain why an actual member of your beloved WC would make those statements? Care to actually answer that question directly?

            If you do answer that one, then we can proceed to Morley and his book, and from there we can talk about MC and the evidence that was destroyed, changed, not given, manipulated, etc.

            Care to have a real discussion?

          • “Exactly WHAT did the FBI, the CIA and the DPD lie about?”~Photon

            The biggest lie of them all, ‘The Magic Bullet’

            The chain of custody for CE399 is simply nonexistent.
            And Yes, Hoover’s initials are on official docs claiming CE399 is authentic. He is nailed red-handed.
            http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html
            \\][//

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            Even your reference to agent Hosty is more than likely a LIE. It all depends on whom you believe. You see, Photon, when you base your “facts” on information obtained from LIARS, you have to make the tricky choice of which LIAR you are going to “believe.” Here is a quote from Shenon’s book A Cruel and Shocking Act. Maybe you will respond to this series of quotes DIRECTLY, instead of your usual waffling.

            Pages 211-212:

            ” The national security case file on Oswald, opened after he returned from Russia in 1962, had actually been closed by another FBI agent in Texas; that agent thought Oswald posed no obvious threat. It was Hosty who had reopened the file.”

            According to you, Photon, Hosty f—– up. That sure does not sound like a Hosty f—– to me. It sounds like to me an INCOMPETENT FBI. Remind me, Photon, who was in charge of the FBI in 63? Oh, yes, I remember, J. Edgar “I have my job because I have a picture of you having sex with someone other than your wife” Hoover.

            Page 212:

            ” He sensed, almost from the start, that FBI headquarters was determined to end the investigation quickly—with Oswald identified as the sole assassin—whatever the facts. THERE WAS NO EAGERNESS TO SEARCH FOR A POSSIBLE FOREIGN CONSPIRACY, which made Hosty suspect that something was being hidden from him. “I didn’t know what was going obj back in Washington,” he said. “But , SOMETHING WAS AFOOT.”

            Now, Photon, do you believe Hosty, who might be trying to cover his ass? Or, do you believe Hoover, who was incompetent and trying to cover the bureau’s ass?

            Photon, care to answer or address Hosty’s comments? Or do you wish to avoid the issue and ask me AGAIN to give you specific examples? Because I CANNOT give you any more SPECIFIC example than the direct quotes of the man who was responsible for LHO before the assassination.

            Your turn.

          • Photon says:

            A lot of innuendo , but nothing specific.
            Give me one example of a demonstrable lie told by the CIA or FBI in this case.Just one.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            Nope. I am not going to play your game anymore unless and until YOU answer my questions about what Hosty said about his own employer, the vaunted FBI. I am not going to give YOU one more example UNTIL you provide the same courtesy that you demand of everyone on this site. You tell me who YOU think is doing the better job of covering its ass—Hosty or Hoover. When YOU do that, then I will provide you MORE examples of lies.

            As it stands right now, Helms, Hoover, and Curry were either liars, incompetent, or BOTH.

            You answer my questions for a change, and then I will answer yours.

            Care to have a real discussion about JFK’s murder?

          • Photon says:

            Who lied?
            About what?
            When?
            If you can’t produce a single example I can understand why you don’t want to “play the game”.
            You have fallen in the CVer habit of making claims that you can’t substantiate.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            How about this truthfulness about Mr. Helms:

            “Little wonder, once the immediate Agency problems caused by the assassination going askew, especially in Mexico City, were resolved by Angleton, that Helms was its liaison with the Warren Commission. Assured that neither Commissioner Dulles nor Ford would question anything about Agency activities, Helms volunteered nothing, as he had previously done with DCI McCone, about its mind control programs, its use of Oswald and Mafiosos, and Harvey’s and FitzGerald’s independent efforts to assassinate Castro, much less what he had contributed.”

            Does that quote not say that Helms was the liaison between the CIA and your beloved WC, and that he “volunteered NOTHING?”

            Didn’t Helms later say—I believe it was in Shenon’s book—that the CIA gave the WC “everything it asked for?”

            Of course, all of this depends on your definition of the word “liar.”

            Your turn.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            Then there is little nugget from Mr. Morley, the man who gives us ALL a voice in JFK’s murder. (Whether or not you wish to ask him for “one example” where the CIA lied is up to YOU!)

            ‘At least five undercover officers reporting directly or indirectly to Helms (David Phillips, Win Scott, Ann Goodpasture, John Whitten, Bill Hood, and Tom Karameesines) knew about the travels, politics, and contacts of a young man named Lee Oswald before President Kenned was killed.
            .
            The proof of their knowledge is found in this CIA cable about Oswald, dated October 10, 1963. Six weeks later, the man whom they were writing about allegedly killed the president of the United States.
            Helms and his colleagues concealed their knowledge of Oswald from investigators. Instead of losing his job, he served another decade. He died in October 2002.”

            Pardon me for asking, dear Photon, but doesn’t the phrase “concealed their knowledge of Oswald from investigators” mean that Helms and his “buddies” LIED to the WC about Oswald. Isn’t that the word I am wanting to use? LIARS?

            Again, your turn.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            I have ANOTHER little nugget for you. This comes from Mr. Blakey. As you are well aware, Mr. Blakey has FAR more knowledge and insight into this case than you or I. Care to explain what he is saying? Here is his quote:

            “I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known.

            Significantly, the Warren Commission’s conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.

            We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency.

            Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story.

            I am now in that camp.”

            Anyone interested in pursuing this story further should consult the reporting by Jefferson Morley of the Washington Post. See, e.g., Jefferson Morley, “Revelation 19.63″ Miami New Times (April 2001).

            Gee, Photon, here is another highly credible source—an expert—as you call them, saying, on record, that the CIA LIED in this case. I wonder how Blakey’s statement fits into Photon’s Paradox?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            Speaking of a paradox, it REALLY must be troubling, irksome, disconcerting, and frightening to realize that the WR, the report that you place absolute faith and hope in, was written by politicians using information given to them by two agencies that may have provided, what do you think a good number might be—30%—of what they actually knew about LHO? You see, old friend, when you base your “facts” on the words of LIARS, you are forced to decide what is truth and what is a lie. Of course, you can stick your head in the sand and hope for the best, but I prefer to look at an issue objectively. For example, if Al Capone wanted to give me advice on how to be a good neighbor, I would probably be a tad skeptical. Likewise, if an agency that has overthrown foreign governments in the recent past tells me that they are telling all they know about an assassination of this magnitude, I would, again, be a tad skeptical.

            Believing liars does place one into a terrible paradox, doesn’t it Photon?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            Here is another nugget from Shenon’s book that will show YOU about the CIA and its lying about this case. Maybe this one will be the one that helps you understand how lying happens?

            Page 547:

            “From other declassified CIA files, we know, FOR CERTAIN, another secret that Angleton would have been eager to keep: that his elite counterintelligence staff had kept an eye on Oswald—illegally—as far back as 1959, four years before the assassination. THIS WAS A FULL YEAR BEFORE THE DATE THE CIA GAVE TO THE WARREN COMMISSION FOR THE AGENCY’S FIRST FILES ON OSWALD”

            Gee, Photon, refresh my memory, when you tell someone a date and that date is wrong BY A YEAR, does that not indicate that you are LYING? I am pretty sure that does qualify as lying, but I curious as to your take on this quote.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          I remember a house in the country with two mail boxes. One about 3-4′ high. The other on about a 12′ pole specifically labeled for “Air Mail”.
          It was Postal Form 2162 as noted in this article.

          http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html

          • Photon says:

            Postal form 2162 refers only to CONCEALABLE firearms.You have been had.
            I requested a reputable source-John Armstrong is a two Oswald conspiracy advocate with no credibility outside of the CT community.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Can you provide a source? I did a web search and didn’t find it. I’d like to see it and read the instructions. I know form 1508 is for gun dealers. But I’ve read Postal Regulation 846.53a required “delivery receipts had to be filled out for firearms shipped through the mail”.
            Another interesting discussion on the subject from a few years back.

            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17511

          • Photon says:

            You ( and many CTers) have brought this subject up-the least you could do is get your facts straight. You claim that Form 2162 covers all firearms.
            Prove it. Not with conspiracy sources nor the Education Forum, but real evidence.Until You can prove that this entire 2162 claim is a myth,just like the Hathcock myth, just like the inaccurate and inadequate Carcano myth,just like the Beverly Oliver myth,or the Judy Baker myth or the Adele Edisen myth.
            Why do CTers have to resort to myths and made-up stories to bolster their case?

          • sammy says:

            Somewhere on this site Jean Davison covered this issue and gave a source. Oswald’s rifle required no delivery receipt. Remember reading it and checking. Just can’t find it now.

          • Jean Davison says:

            These old postal regulations say that Form 2162 “delivery receipts, firearms” were required for “all mailings covered by this section.” Scroll up to the preceding page (50) to see that “this section” is “125.5 Concealable firearms”:

            https://books.google.com/books?id=QCE7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA51&dq=%22form+2162%22+firearms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J7JLVY7AG4LvggThxIH4CA&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22form%202162%22%20firearms&f=false

            The 2162 form would have been required for a handgun but not for Oswald’s rifle.

            Armstrong also claims, “this letter [to Klein’s] was picked up by a mail carrier sometime after 10:30 am in zone 12, delivered to the post office in zone 7.” This is apparently based on nothing but his assumptions about what the numbers on the postmark mean. According to David von Pein’s research, Armstrong is wrong about this, too — the “12” was not a postal zone but a machine at the same P.O. where Oswald bought the money order, and 10:30 was the time the envelope was processed:

            http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html

          • jeffc says:

            The problems establishing Oswald’s possession of the alleged murder weapon are myriad, as John Armstrong and others have demonstrated. So while clarifying the language of postal regulations helps understand procedure, it does not mitigate the fact that there is no evidence in the record to show Oswald’s receipt of the rifle. The Official Story simply assumes his possession. Likewise, clarifying Dallas postal markings helps understand procedure, but we are still faced with Oswald’s work record which shows him busy throughout the morning in question (and not making a 22 block round trip to the post office).

            Similarly, air mail or not, it is not just that the order letter arrived in Chicago from Dallas the next day – it’s that the order was received and processed at Klein’s in less than a day. The postal money order was never cashed. Klein’s microfilmed records went missing while in possession of the FBI. A 36″ rifle was ordered, but the rifle found at the TSBD was larger. An MC rifle with the correct serial # was sold to Klein’s in June 1962, not February 1963 as claimed by the FBI. And so on…

            Photon can rail against “myths” and “made-up stories” all he wants, but the one important glaring fact here is that the official investigations could never establish proof that Oswald was ever in possession of the alleged murder weapon.

          • David Regan says:

            Lee Oswald could not have had C2766 delivered to him. He could not have received a rifle that was mailed to “A. Hidell” at PO Box 2915 because that name was not on the authorized list of recipients. WC Exhibit No. 2585, page 4 shows that the WC had the PO Box application.

            This document is unequivocal proof from the FBI that the only authorized mail recipient at 2915 was Lee Oswald. Claim 12 on the bottom left of the left facing page. There, in the FBI’s own words is the damning evidence.

            “Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an ‘A. Hidell’, would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas…”
            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/wh25_ce_2585.pdf

            The Warren Commission lied through its teeth in order to make Lee Oswald the guilty party in any way it could. This is just one more example of many, but it’s blatant. The WC stated in its report: “It is not known whether the application for post office box 2915 listed ‘A. Hidell’ as a person entitled to receive mail at this box.”

            It WAS known, and their own evidence shows that they knew it. There is nothing ambiguous about the FBI wording. It clearly states that only Lee and no one else could receive mail there. Coupled with the fact that no postal employee ever remembered delivering a package of any sort to the PO Box, let alone one large enough to contain a rifle, it conclusively shows that the entire FBI story of the rifle was a fabrication.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Jeff,

            There certainly *is* evidence that Oswald received the rifle. There’s just no evidence of it that you will accept.

            The record that you say shows Oswald busy at work when the rifle was picked up was a time sheet filled out by Oswald himself. He didn’t have to make a round trip to the P.O. if he picked up the package before or after work.

            “The postal money order was never cashed” according to who? Armstrong, right? If it wasn’t cashed, did Klein’s ship the rifle anyway for free? What’s the story there, please? Researchers have pointed out many anomalies in the record but never explain what they think happened. IMO, if these anomalies are meaningful they should reveal a narrative that makes sense. (These don’t.)

            The different rifle lengths is another anomaly that doesn’t add up to anything. The serial number of the rifle shipped is the same as the one found in the TSBD.

            Oswald responded to a February 1963 ad for a 36″ M-C, but after February Klein’s M-C ads were for a 40″ model with the very same catalog number, price, and photo. Evidently Klein’s considered the 36″ and 40″ models as interchangeable. Again, if that’s not right, what’s the alternate explanation? Did someone find and substitute a rifle of a different length with the same serial number? What would be the point of that?

            Here are sample Klein’s ads:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/kleins_ads.jpg

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Thank You Jean Davison! I think the link you provided clarifies some things.

            https://books.google.com/books?id=QCE7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA51&dq=%22form+2162%22+firearms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J7JLVY7AG4LvggThxIH4CA&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22form%202162%22%20firearms&f=false

            Page 50, Section 125.5 concerns Concealable Firearms, (A) When Mailable.
            Pg. 51 continues (D) Identification of Addressee. Postmaster at the office of delivery shall require addressee …to call at the Post Office and establish identification to the satisfaction of the Post Master. The parcel may then be delivered after the addressee signs a receipt which shall be filed by the Postmaster for not less than three years. Receipts for delivery shall be taken on FORM 2162, “Delivery Receipts. Firearms”.
            Manufacturers an dealers were exempt.
            SO, 2162 applied to Oswald’s pistol, but was never requested.
            However, section (H) on the same page confuses the issue. “Non Mailable Firearms”. Pistols, revolvers…capable of being concealed on the person, addressed to persons other than the persons other than those indicated in section A (Military, FBI) are NON MAILABLE and shall not be received or carried in the mails.
            So, it was illegal to mail a pistol or revolver to anyone other than the Military or FBI?
            If you skip through page 52 and Switchblades and Motor Vehicle master keys to page 53 you find:
            125.9 “Notice of Delivery of Rifles, Shotguns and other mailable firearms.”
            (C) Recording and disclosure of deliveries. The Postmaster of the addressee of any such parcel shall make in triplicate a record of FORM 3767. Notice of Delivery of Firearms, of the name and address of the addressee of such parcel. One copy of this record shall be supplied to the chief law enforcement officer for the community specified in the parcel address. The third copy shall be furnished to the Postal Inspector when and requested by such service. Postmasters are also authorized to disclose these records of firearm deliveries to any Federal or State law enforcement agency upon request therefore.
            So it was 2162 for the pistol and 3761 for the rifle, both required to be kept on file.
            Thanks again Jean.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Jean, are you lost? Oswald missed time at work supposedly to get the Postal Money Order to Order it, not to pick it up.

          • Jean Davison says:

            David,

            “WC Exhibit No. 2585, page 4 shows that the WC had the PO Box application.
            This document is unequivocal proof from the FBI that the only authorized mail recipient at 2915 was Lee Oswald.”

            The FBI surely isn’t infallible, so I wouldn’t consider a statement by someone from the FBI proof. Regardless, according to Postal Inspector Holmes it would’ve made no difference whether Hidell’s name was listed or not because anyone who could open the box and retrieve the notice could go to the window and claim a package:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=41&relPageId=538&search=holmes_AND bin AND package

            On the current USPS box application it’s stated explicitly that being able to open the box may be taken as “valid evidence” that that person is authorized to receive mail.

            The FBI document said, “Our investigation has revealed” that Hidell’s name wasn’t listed. It sounds as if the FBI asked someone at the P.O., since it doesn’t say “His application shows….” According to Holmes that part of his 1962 application was discarded when the box was closed and it’s not in the record.

            Again assuming that no one unlisted could claim a package, if Hidell wasn’t named this would mean that NO ONE could pick it up, not just Oswald. The rifle wasn’t returned to Klein’s. So what happened, then? Somehow it got to the TSBD, didn’t it?

          • “Again assuming that no one unlisted could claim a package, if Hidell wasn’t named this would mean that NO ONE could pick it up, not just Oswald. The rifle wasn’t returned to Klein’s. So what happened, then? Somehow it got to the TSBD, didn’t it?”~Jean Davison

            Did that rifle get into the TSBD Jean? It is ‘assuming’ a lot to propose that it did.
            We have been pointing this out for a long time here Jean, you just worked yourself into your own corner on this issue.

            Oswald ever having possession of that rifle is an ever dwindling possibility the more one looks into this.

            So I think the idea that the rifle was a plant in a staged “lair” becomes the most plausible answer to the puzzle we are piecing together.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Ronnie, May 9 & 10

            “Oswald missed time at work supposedly to get the Postal Money Order to Order it, not to pick it up.”

            Okay, my mistake, but all of Oswald’s time sheets were produced by Oswald, including the day he ordered the rifle:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1139#relPageId=637&tab=page

            Google maps says it was a half mile from the P.O. to his workplace, an 11-minute walk.

            Oswald wasn’t eligible to receive a handgun through the P.O. His S&W was shipped Railway Express. The other regulation you mention, “125.9 “Notice of Delivery of Rifles, Shotguns and other mailable firearms,” wasn’t added until 1968. Look for the date at the very end of that section. The Form 2162 regulation dated back to 1961/2, as noted at the end of that earlier section.

          • Have you already forgotten this Jean:

            “Again assuming that no one unlisted could claim a package, if Hidell wasn’t named this would mean that NO ONE could pick it up, not just Oswald. The rifle wasn’t returned to Klein’s. So what happened, then? Somehow it got to the TSBD, didn’t it?”~Jean Davison

            So the point of you last post is moot.
            \\][//

          • jeffc says:

            Here is Oswald’s time sheet from March 12 – the day he was said to have purchased and mailed the money order (before 10:30 AM).

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1139#relPageId=637&tab=page

            What stands out here is that he is not just punching a clock in and out – he is doing specific piece work which required the time expended to be noted for billing purposes. On the morning in question Oswald does nine jobs between 8 AM and 12:15. None of these jobs takes him longer than 40 minutes. Unless Oswald lied and claimed work he didn’t do, it is difficult to imagine how he managed to sneak away for a 22-minute round trip plus time to purchase the M.O. and mail it (why wouldn’t he just wait until his lunch break?).

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Unless Oswald lied and claimed work he didn’t do, it is difficult to imagine how he managed to sneak away for a 22-minute round trip plus time to purchase the M.O. and mail it (why wouldn’t he just wait until his lunch break?).”

            Jeff, I don’t understand why you say “round trip.” As I understand it, the P.O. opened at 8 a.m. If so, Oswald could’ve gone to the P.O. before work, getting there early enough to be first in line, buy the money order and mail his letter, then walk to work (1/2 mile). I think he could’ve fudged 20 minutes or so on his time sheets.

            I consider this the most likely explanation primarily because no one has ever provided a plausible alternative explanation for the evidence that exists. If the WC narrative is wrong, what did happen? Did someone else order and pick up the rifle, forge the BY photos, get Marina to lead cops to the empty blanket in the garage, etc.?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Jean:

            I would like your help with this issue, as you and others have far more knowledge about this than I do. If Oswald had a P.O. box, and he did order the rifle through the mail, exactly how did he pick up the rifle from the post office? I guess here is the bigger question. If Oswald had to pick up the rifle during business hours, wouldn’t there be a Dallas postal worker who would be on record somewhere saying something to the effect that, yes, the man who allegedly shot JFK was in this post office and I handed him a large package that could have accommodated a rifle. Is there such a person on the official record as saying something similar? Any evidence you could provide would be most helpful to me.

          • jeffc says:

            Okay, Jean. According to Oswald’s time sheet, he worked on the first job of the day from 8AM to 8:25. According to your proposal, that would be the only job he would have to somehow fudge. Would he be able to do it? – i.e. get job #1 finished alongside the subsequent jobs, or even not be detected as late and fudging his time sheet (upper right corner of time sheet it says: “Time shown hereon MUST agree with clock register”). Corresponding questions: why would Oswald take that risk (late for work, presenting incorrect time sheet)? Why wouldn’t he just do it on his lunch break or on weekend? Lining up early at the post office suggests some kind of urgency, but – accepting Official Story’s timeline – he doesn’t attempt to shoot Walker for a couple of weeks after receipt of rifle. If he was in such a hurry why didn’t he simply go to a local sporting goods store and buy a rifle there?

            The reason there is still an argument about these things is because the original investigation was woefully inadequate. Dallas Postmaster Harry Holmes claimed that the discovery of the order letter at Klein’s allowed him to find the money order stub in Dallas and the number on that stub allowed for the discovery of the money order itself in Washington. The Dallas stub should have allowed investigators to determine exactly when it was purchased. Needless to say, the Dallas stub is not in the record and never was in the record. Holmes never produced it. John Armstrong believes the serial number on the money order is not sequential, based on Oswald’s previous money order purchases. The Dallas paperwork would have established the facts on the Dallas end, but it was not produced. The money order found in Washington has the initial of the post office employee who handled the purchase, but this employee was never identified or questioned – the official story says simply no one knows who handled this transaction.

            The Official Story is not the “most likely explanation”, certainly regarding the mail order rifle, because every step of this transaction should have a clear and unambiguous paper trail, but the official record is a mess of missing records, uncashed money orders, and conflicting timelines. Other than Marina, not a single person ever saw Oswald with a rifle in 1963. Marina’s statements are hopelessly contradictory and ever-changing and are therefore unreliable.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Hello, Steve,

            How realistic is it to expect workers in a large P.O. to remember a package they handed to someone eight months earlier? Not very, imo. I’m not sure what you mean by “how did he pick it up”? He usually used the city buses.

            But again I ask anyone here, if Oswald didn’t pick up the package, what is the alternative scenario?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Jean,

            No, I don’t mean how he got the alleged rifle home. You don’t think that someone in the Dallas PO would remember handing a large package to LHO, once they saw his picture plastered all over the media for supposedly shooting JFK? Furthermore, I am curious as to why no one from the WC or an investigator did not visit this PO and ask questions. Maybe that did occur and I just don’t know that they did, which is why I asked for your help. However, it seems to me that, at the very least, someone from the WC would have taken the investigation a step further and actually visited the PO. To me, it speaks to a general lack of thoroughness on the part of the WC. I appreciate your response on this matter.

          • “But again I ask anyone here, if Oswald didn’t pick up the package, what is the alternative scenario?”~Jean Davison

            An Intelligence service picked up the gun[s] on grounds of “national security”. They are the only ones who could have picked up the gun, considering it was not mailed to “Lee Harvey Oswald”

            And it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Oswald had an ID under the Hidell name. The wallet with that ID in it was a plant at the Tippit shooting – as has been gone through here extensively.

            Every anomaly in this case is more plausibly explained by Oswald being set up as a patsy.
            These are the only words we can trust as Oswald actually saying while in custody, the words said on camera or tape recorded by he media at the jail.

            There was no contemporaneous recording of his interrogation, no notes – nothing.

            As “the authorities” have become the prime suspect in this case, due to all of the contrivances involved, I refuse to take anything alleged to have been said by Oswald during that interrogation by the interrogators as factual.
            \\][//

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Willy,

            I think you are spot-on with this post. Curry and Fritz were either horribly incompetent, or involved in some type of conspiracy, or both. The fact that Fritz took NO notes while LHO was in custody is either horribly stupid, deceitful or worse. How either one kept their job after that weekend is a testament to the complete and utter breakdown of holding anyone accountable for doing the bare minimum of what is asked of a public servant.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Jeff,

            “John Armstrong believes the serial number on the money order is not sequential, based on Oswald’s previous money order purchases.”

            But Armstrong also believes that Form 2162 was required for a rifle, among other things that I know are wrong. So why should I care what he believes?

            “The money order found in Washington has the initial of the post office employee who handled the purchase….”

            On Oswald’s money order I see what looks like “jm” and “D-19,” but the latter is an FBI exhibit number, I’m pretty sure. How do you know that the M.O. was initialed by a P.O. worker and not someone in the FBI? Here’s the money order:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1134#relPageId=703&tab=page

            “Other than Marina, not a single person ever saw Oswald with a rifle in 1963.”

            Jeanne de Mohrenschildt testified that she saw a rifle in the Oswald’s apartment when Marina opened a closet door. And then there’s the de Mohrenschildt copy of a BY photo with Oswald’s signature on the back (HSCA). All fake/forged and everybody’s lying?

            “The Official Story is not the ‘most likely explanation’, certainly regarding the mail order rifle, because every step of this transaction should have a clear and unambiguous paper trail, but the official record is a mess of missing records, uncashed money orders, and conflicting timelines.”

            To expect a huge record like this one to be entirely “clear and unambiguous” is unrealistic, imo. And again, what is your explanation for this evidence? Is it believable that Klein’s would ship a rifle if the M.O. wasn’t cashed? Or maybe your source is wrong and it *was* cashed?

            I know that the WC is the most reasonable explanation because it’s the only one that has been offered in 50 years. Criticizing the WC explanation isn’t an alternative scenario.

            I’ve recently been reading online about something called “anomaly hunting,” which is said to be a common feature of conspiracy theories. As one writer put it, conspiracy theorists “work from the false premise that if there weren’t a cover-up, then no such anomalies should be apparent. Apparent anomalies, however, are everywhere. If you look you will find them.” (He wasn’t talking specifically about the JFK assassination, but CTs in general.)

            A sign that the JFK anomalies aren’t significant is that the “plotters” who are conjured up seem to be all-powerful (they pop up everywhere, planting or forging evidence wherever it’s needed) and yet at the same time they are incredibly stupid (trying to frame someone with an uncashed money order, for instance). It seems to me that when anomalies are actually clues, they should tell a coherent story.

          • leslie sharp says:

            There are many who study facts, not anomalies, that lead them to believe that Kennedy was not assassinated by a lone assassin, and from there, a conspiracy began to emerge. For instance, Jack Ruby murdered Lee Harvey Oswald while Oswald was surrounded by Dallas law enforcement. Jack Ruby strolled into the restricted area without the slightest challenge. Once Oswald was dead, the investigation took on another quality: he was not innocent until proven guilty, he was the assassin and the Warren Commission was established to convince the American public of that single fact. Anomalies aside, the WC was a kangaroo court.

            Can any defender of the WC provide examples of an investigator, a lawyer for the commission, or a member himself who acted as devil’s advocate at the very least, let alone served as defense for the accused?

          • “Is it believable that Klein’s would ship a rifle if the M.O. wasn’t cashed? Or maybe your source is wrong and it *was* cashed?”~Jean Davison

            No it is not believable that Klein’s would ship a rifle if the M.O. wasn’t cashed. That is why it is unbelievable that Oswald received that rifle.

            The procedures for the cashing of a money order are standard and the stamps and cancellations on the document are standard as well. Such things stand as “proof of purchase”, there are no such stamps on the M.O. – There is no original documentation for the whole chain of procedure there. The FBI claims it lost all the microfilms, and the original records themselves that the microfilms were of are no longer in existence.

            There is not a valid piece of evidence in the whole case — AGAIN.
            \\][//

          • jeffc says:

            Jean: “Armstrong also believes that Form 2162 was required for a rifle… So why should I care what he believes?”
            The postal regulations are written in dense bureaucratic language. The qualifier which you have identified appears many paragraphs before specifying Form 2162’s terms. I am glad the record is clarified, but coming down hard on people for missing the earlier qualifier seems a bit harsh. John Armstrong’s argument does not rely on, or collapse because of Form 2162. It is one of many details.

            You have been suggesting that certain authors should be considered “unreliable” because of apparent mistakes they have made, but the mistakes you highlight never undermine the author’s overall arguments – they are often just corroborating detail. When will you apply your unreliability test to the Lone Nut canon? The HSCA Final Report, the Posner book, and the Bugliosi book all use the now discredited Neutron Activation Analysis to support their conclusions – not as one detail among many, but as central bedrock evidence which singularly establishes “case closed”.

            Not to mention the Warren Commission. You argue: “To expect a huge record like this one to be entirely ‘clear and unambiguous’ is unrealistic” I agree, but I note you do not allow such slack to authors with a contrary view. The Warren Report’s own conclusions were belied by the Commission’s own published Exhibits.

            The postal employee initial on the mail order can be seen in the lower right hand corner, between the word “MUTILATE” and the date stamp. As it stands, the Official Record shows that Oswald was at work the entire morning in question, and also that Oswald presumably purchased and mailed a money order to Kleins that morning too. That’s a contradiction that the FBI and Commission do not approach at all. Should this have gone to trial, the timecard would have served as an alibi against the presumed purchase of the murder weapon. That’s not just an anomaly, particularly since this is one of the more crucial pieces of evidence in the whole case.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy, May 16:

            “No it is not believable that Klein’s would ship a rifle if the M.O. wasn’t cashed.”

            Willy, May 14:

            “An Intelligence service picked up the gun[s] on grounds of ‘national security’.”

            So they picked up a gun that wasn’t shipped?

          • “An Intelligence service picked up the gun[s] on grounds of ‘national security’.”

            “So they picked up a gun that wasn’t shipped?”
            ~Jean Davison

            The first possibility I posited is overcome by the second and more likely probability.
            \\][//

          • David Regan says:

            “To expect a huge record like this one to be entirely “clear and unambiguous” is unrealistic, imo.” — Jean Davison

            Would it not be realistic to expect a blue ribbon commission to conduct itself with nothing but complete transparency and integrity? For people to continue to mollycoddle a dysfunctional investigation and report that has never succeeded in securing public opinion, is beyond me, given everything that is now known.

          • Jean Davison says:

            David,

            “Would it not be realistic to expect a blue ribbon commission to conduct itself with nothing but complete transparency and integrity?”

            The “anomaly hunting” I mentioned has nothing to do with anyone’s opinion about the WC. The more thorough any investigation is, the more anomalies are likely to turn up.

  36. Robert Paul says:

    Best new evidence? The possible alteration of the Z film. Such an act would be proof positive of a massive cover up, not just to protect bureaucratic butts or state secrets, but a crucial disguise for the actual number of shots and/or shooters, directional source, their timing, and finale.

    If Z-film frames were removed or altered, anywhere in its journey, then a preconceived conspiracy (to murder – not just to cover up) at the highest level, had to exist. To me, that could be the hard evidence that has the highest probably of definably answering the lone gunman question. “Follow the frames” should be a serious researcher’s mantra. From that, everything else could flow.

    • “If Z-film frames were removed or altered..”~Robert Paul

      That is a big “if” however. The question would then arise, is it possible to remove or alter frames from a Kodachrome II film and produce an undetectable counterfeit?

      According to Roland Zavada it is simply impossible. Who was Roland Zavada? He was the premier expert on film chemistry and movie making machinery of the era of film. He was the head of the development of the film stock, Kodachrome II.
      Although I have given this link many times here, it seems a necessity to give it out yet again:
      https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/
      \\][//

      • Robert Paul says:

        Dear Willy – I don’t question Mr. Zavada’s credentials, they are substantial. I’m familiar with and respect his conclusions. However, you seem intelligent enough to know that “experts” have varied opinions on just about everything. I believe that, given enough time and expertise, just about anything can be done with film, especially when in the hands of the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) – a branch of the CIA. It’s a FACT that the Z film was in that Center within 24 hours after November 22, 1963. Why was it flown there immediately after the assassination? Certainly not for its development as that was completed in Dallas. What was (or not done) by the NPIC remains an interesting area for serious researchers to examine.

        I don’t believe alteration is “impossible” as Mr. Zavada has stated. History proves that using the word “impossible” has made many smart people look dumb.

        • “..you seem intelligent enough to know that “experts” have varied opinions on just about everything.” ~Robert Paul

          Yes indeed, and some are correct while others are mistaken. In determining which is which, it is not a matter of “belief” it is a matter of actual knowledge of the processes themselves.
          . . . .
          ” just about anything can be done with film, especially when in the hands of the National Photographic Interpretation Center.” ~Robert Paul

          This is hyperbole, there are limits to anything. These limits are clearly laid out by both Zavada and Raymond fielding. These are physical realities as true as you cannot breath water.
          . . . .
          “It’s a FACT that the Z film was in that Center within 24 hours after November 22, 1963.”~Robert Paul

          It is not a FACT, that the original extant (in camera) film was delivered to the center. It is an assertion made by Doug Horne, and is disputed by many others.
          It is much more plausible that the first day copies of the Z-film, known to be in possession of the Secret Service are the ones that were at the NPIC to be used for making the briefing boards.

          All of this being said Mr Paul, you are certainly entitled to your own personal opinion. I will just say that in my opinion you have been grossly misinformed.
          \\][//

          • Robert Paul says:

            Willy – I’m keeping an open mind on this issue and respectively ask that you do the same. Thank you.

            You didn’t answer my question. Why was the Z film (original or otherwise) flown to the NPCI? What was the reason for that? Was it simply to make briefing boards? Was the NPCI Director mistaken when he said that he and others worked all night with the original Z film? He also said that the same film was then taken from his team by the SS. Where did it go from there? Do we know?

            If we don’t know, then the possibility of tampering exists. With all due respect for Mr. Zavada, I doubt that he would be privy to, or familiar with, the high level of film resources the CIA had its disposal. Zavada did not have a need to know about the CIA’s assets or expertise in this area – did he?

            Look at the CIA’s Hughes Glomar Explorer mission. Scientists in the Soviet Union and US said that task was “impossible” to perform. Regardless, the CIA prevailed. The science and methodology of film alteration pale in comparison.

          • “Why was the Z film (original or otherwise) flown to the NPCI? What was the reason for that? Was it simply to make briefing boards?”~Robert Paul

            Yes, and no one from either team claimed to have made a movie – but only copied still frames to use for the briefing boards.
            . . . .
            “Was the NPCI Director mistaken when he said that he and others worked all night with the original Z film?”~Ibid

            In my opinion, yes. I see no reason for them to even consider whether the film was the original or not, they had a job to perform and worked with the materials they were brought.
            Remember no one was asked about any of this until years later – no controversy at the time, why would they be concerned with such details?
            . . . .
            “He also said that the same film was then taken from his team by the SS. Where did it go from there? Do we know?”~Ibid

            They were the SS copies, that they took them back seems natural enough. I can only assume they went into SS evidence lockers.
            . . . .
            “With all due respect for Mr. Zavada, I doubt that he would be privy to, or familiar with, the high level of film resources the CIA had its disposal.”

            With all due respect for you and all concerned I don’t think you or anyone can define what “level of film resources the CIA had its disposal,” and whether it is accurate that, as you claim “the science and methodology of film alteration pale in comparison.”
            \\][//

          • Horne claims that the Z-film was altered at Hawkeyworks, not at the National Photographic Interpretation Center. If this is so, how is it that Brugioni saw “the original Z-film” that was different than what we see today? Horne claims that the films went to Hawkeyworks first. Horne does not infer or charge Brugioni or the Sunday team at NPIC were involved with the “alterations” – so neither team would have ever seen what we are told was an unaltered copy of the Z-film.

            Doesn’t the reasoning here breakdown rather blatantly?
            \\][//

          • Homer McMahon: “I have senile dementia…I can’t remember really anything. Most of my reflections are what I have recalled and remembered after the fact. In other words, I did it once, and then I recalled it, and remembered it. I don’t know how the mind works, but I do know I am not. I am a recovering drug addict and alcoholic. Do you know what a wet brain is? Well, you’re looking at one. I damn near died. And I’m not a competent witness because I don’t have accurate recall. I don’t have absolute recall.”

            Jeremy Gunn: “With regards to the other events that you talked about, what is your sense of how accurate your memory is of that?”

            Homer McMahon: “I just told you, I don’t have a full deck. I don’t know how (ha) I figured I am presenting anything here. This is not…at the time I did it I was not, I was not impaired, but I later became impaired. So whether you are talking to a reliable witness or not, that’s up for you to decide. (ha)”
            . . . .
            ARRB Interview with Homer McMahon:
            http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2010/02/npic.html
            \\][//

  37. MDG says:

    I just feel things would make a lot more sense if more was known about Oswald’s Intelligence connections.

    We have come a long way since 63 when the general public knew little.

    A big round of applause is due to Morley, Shenon, Simpich, Peter Dale Scott & others for their very fine work regarding Oswald and U S Intelligence.

    One can see U S Intelligence Interests were primairily being protected in 63. It was less important to give a fuller & more understandable story to the people who elected President John F. Kennedy.

    It is a difficult Truth to accept.

    One wonders if perhaps the whole truth can be known someday .

    We must never forget a cruel and shocking act was committed followed by a huge Cover Up.

    Excuse me but it is hard for we CTs to overlook all the confusing detail.

    This story also has a lot to do with Cuba. More than we ever thought. Was Oswald used/and or did he slip.through hands of US Intelligence.

    Thank you to all for your work pointing us in what I feel is the right direction.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      I think one or two of those you mentioned might add John Newman and his “Oswald and the CIA”regarding Oswalds intelligence connections. I read it from a library but wish I had a copy for reference. If i remember right it’s well documented/sourced.

  38. Bill says:

    And lastly about Oswald: I suppose nobody finds it interesting that he poses with his rifle in the backyard photos, then denies he owns one, then denies the entire PO BOX story, then buttons up on the A. Hidell Card….lol.

    The only real mystery left to solve in this case is the lie that Oswald promulgated when he was seen exiting the building. He claimed to have left work because their was a lot of excitement and that he didn’t think that there would be any work in the afternoon (or words similar).

    Yet, the obvious but unasked question would be: How do you know Mr. Oswald? You didn’t see the parade and you were stopped an questioned by DPD Officer Baker, on the second floor about 1 minute after the shooting. Yet, you were seen exiting the building by the secretary of the building by no later than 12:33 pm (or two minutes after being stopped and held briefly by Baker).

    So…Mr. Oswald: Why did you think there would be no more work that day????? Oh…..obvious answer: ‘Cuz I shot him’.

    • Photon says:

      Bill I have been waiting for an answer to this question for two years.
      For all of the forensic evidence that CTers ignore or claim is faked, I have yet to get a credible answer as to why he left the TSBD when nobody in the building even knew that JFK was wounded, let alone fatally-except the assassin, who saw the results through the 4x scope.
      The only logical answer is that he was the shooter.It is simple .It is definitive . And it cannot be refuted.

      • Fearfaxer says:

        There are plenty of WC skeptics, myself among them, who believe Oswald was mixed up in the assassination, but there’s no proof that he fired that rifle, and if he did, no proof that he was the only shooter. And assuming he was mixed up in it, there’s the question of whether his participation was witting or not. And BTW, all over Dallas that day offices closed and people went home very early because their bosses realized nobody was going to be able to do any work — most of them were too upset to concentrate on business themselves.

        As to the following:

        “The only logical answer is that he was the shooter.It is simple .It is definitive . And it cannot be refuted.”

        That’s got more hot air than a late August Dallas afternoon. “It cannot be refuted,” indeed. IT CANNOT BE PROVED!!! No one ever has. “No one has ever been able to put him (Oswald) in the Texas School Book Depository with a rifle in his hand.” That was said by former Dallas Police Chief Jessie Currie in 1969. Now that cannot be refuted!

      • Steve Stirlen says:

        Photon:

        That is perfectly okay. It only took Curry 6 years to figure out that LHO did not even have a gun in the TSBD. Oswald must have been one nutty, uneducated, deranged loner to figure out he shot and killed the president in the 8 seconds the WC claims the shooting needed, especially when it took a dullard like Curry 6 years to figure out LHO might not have been the shooter!

      • JSA says:

        Really Photon?

        It’s entirely plausible that Oswald, as an intelligence asset recruited to play a “need to know” limited role was doing what was asked of him, and that was to meet up with someone at a specific rendezvous point after the shots were fired. Given that Oswald himself said that he was a “patsy” (but was murdered before he could go to trial) you cannot PROVE that this wasn’t what happened. No, you can’t. Don’t try to throw me your Warren Commission crap, because it’s as believable as a Vladimir Putin report.

      • leslie sharp says:

        “The only logical answer is that he was the shooter.It is simple .It is definitive . And it cannot be refuted.”

        photon, so you are arguing that because

        A. Oswald left the building

        B. if he left the building he must have known that Kennedy had been murdered

        and

        C. ergo Oswald was the shooter?

        I think a first grader could refute your argument.

      • leslie sharp says:

        photon, following your line of deduction, could it not be argued that:

        A. Allen Dulles was fired from the Central Intelligence Agency by the murder victim, John F. Kennedy for his decisions related to Cuba.

        B. Dulles, member of the Warren Commission along with John Jay McCloy, determined that a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy.

        C. John McCloy’s brother-in-law Lewis Douglas was an investor/board member of Empire Trust, financiers of United Fruit Company whose legal counsel rested with Warren Commission member Allen Dulles’ law firm Sullivan Cromwell; United Fruit was ousted from Cuba by Fidel Castro; Empire Trust executive Jack Crichton was responsible for the 488th Military Intelligence Detachment involved in [security] arrangements for the president’s visit to Dallas.

        Ergo, some or all of these players functioning as rabid capitalists opposed to John Kennedy’s policies had reason to sponsor, facilitate and/or cover up the conspiracy to assassinate the president, in contrast to the alleged rabid Marxist/sniper Lee Harvey Oswald. Speaking of motivation of course.

        Can anyone tie Dulles, McCloy, Crichton et al to a Mannlicher Carcano or a hand gun related to events in Dallas on 11.22.63? No.

        Ironic, huh?

        • Photon says:

          Why not take the next step,Leslie? Did Joe Kennedy own United Fruit stock?
          Joe Kennedy and the Kennedy fortune were heavily invested in the Cuban Coca-Cola franchise and lost a fortune when it was nationalized. JFK donated his Presidential salary as he was supported by the Kennedy fortune.
          Ethel Skakel Kennedy’s family was even more heavily invested in Cuba than Joe was-and took significant hits when Castro nationalized Great Lakes Carbon’s investments. So by your logic Joe and Ethel had more incentive to get rid of JFK than these “rabid capitalists”- why don’t you add them to the grand conspiracy?

          • leslie sharp says:

            photon, my point precisely.

            How does this circumstantial evidence including the Shankel / Kennedy investments in Cuba weigh against your allegation that because an employee of TSBD (who had allegedly been in Mexico City seeking to travel to Cuba) left the depository building earlier than others employed in the building, he must surely have been the assassin? It works both ways photon. Even a first grader would recognize that.

            Do you know if counterparts of Warren Caster in their respective publishing houses were required to clock in and out of 411 Elm? Do you know their names? Do you know if Roy Truly could account for every person who had access to the building the morning of 11.22.63, or did he only roll call the employees he was responsible for? I doubt seriously he kept tabs on his paying customers i.e. the execs of MacMillan, Scott Forsman, et al.

          • Photon says:

            Leslie, it has been 3 days since you made your first grader comment. You have still not addressed Photon’s Paradox-the fact that Lee Oswald was the only individual in the TSBD who fled the scene of a crime before anybody even knew thabt a crime was committed.
            Nobody else has come up with any explanation- not in 3 days, not in two years. If it is so easy to refute, why hasn’t anybody done it?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Photon, don’t leave out Nixon who was heavily invested in Cuba at the time of Castro’s takeover. He then became the White House point man on what became the Bay of Pigs as VP. Where Angels Tread Lightly, John Newman, pgs. 62-63.

          • “You have still not addressed Photon’s Paradox-the fact that Lee Oswald was the only individual in the TSBD who fled the scene of a crime before anybody even knew thabt a crime was committed.”
            ~Photon

            This chest thumping is hilarious Photon. You use the term “fled” when many people did not remain in the building after shots were fired.
            Either they all “fled” or they all simply did not return to work after an extraordinary event.
            What you do not have is one scintilla of proof that Oswald fired those shots – nothing. Even your circumstantial evidence has broken down.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Name one person who left the building or the area before 12:40 who was not accounted for.

          • leslie sharp says:

            “Most of the other TSBD employees worked for book publishers on the 3rd and 4th floors and had different bosses. Their whereabouts weren’t established until they gave sworn statements.
”

            Does anyone but me recognize the hierarchical subtext in this.

            Where is the list of the “book publishers” and “the bosses” of said publishers to determine if these bosses were asked for sworn statements?

          • Jean Davison says:

            Leslie,

            “Where is the list of the “book publishers” and “the bosses” of said publishers to determine if these bosses were asked for sworn statements?”

            As I’ve said before, everyone known to be present at the TSBD on 11/22/63 gave a statement, over 70 in all. It’s CE 1381:

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0331b.htm

          • leslie sharp says:

            These sworn statements are rife with possibilities, but for this debate the operative word is “known,” and I recognize Jean Davison is reasonable enough to use the qualifier. 1) It is plausible that at least one person present in the building was not among those 70 who were willing to give statements. 2) It is possible that at least one of those 70 did not tell the (whole) truth. That’s a lot of people for none of them to have seen or heard more than has been established on record. 3) Most of these sworn statements appear to have been taken in the Spring of 1964, almost six months after the experience on 11.22.63. Given frequent assertions on this site that memory is compromised over time, can it be guaranteed that the recall of these people was accurate, that they remembered detail? Could some of that detail significantly alter the conclusions? Were they questioned immediately, and if not, why not? If Oswald had been afforded a trial, that surely would have been on his defense attorney’s list.

            The purpose here is to “canvass all possibilities” before guessing that Oswald was the assailant because no one else has been identified. In essence, independent researchers have attempted and continue to do the job the Warren Commission failed to do.

            For instance, a number of the publishing houses with sales and storage facilities located at 411 Elm wielded power beyond their capacity to write the history of our nation and promulgate a system that was fast eroding the ‘government of the people;’ their boards were packed with present and former military brass and industry leaders who enjoyed the fruits of defense contracts in the lead up to the escalation of the war in Vietnam. This is the context in which the TSBD business itself, at 411 Elm, the scene of the crime, should be of interest. Any one of the managers in charge of an office in the building could be implicated – all it took was opening a door – based solely on their political/ideological persuasion and motivation to remove John Kennedy from office and send the message “We Have Taken Charge.”

          • leslie sharp says:

            A sampling of sworn statements of individuals involved in the TSBD:

            “I did not see LEE HARVEY OSWALD at the time the President was shot and did not know him as an employee at the building.” … Virginia R. Barnes

            “I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963. I did not see anyone in the Texas School Book Depository building on the morning of November 22, 1963, who was a stranger.” …. Doris Fay Burns

            “I definitely did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at that time . . . I have had occasion to view photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald . . . I did not observe any strangers in the Texas School Book Depository building on the morning of November 22, 1963: … Ochus Virgil Campbell

            “I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at this time and to my knowledge have never seen Lee Harvey Oswald . . . I did not see any strangers in the Texas School Book Depository.” … Edna Case

            “I do not recall seeing Lee Harvey Oswald at any time before or subsequent to the assassination of the president, nor do I recall observing any strangers in the building on the morning of November 22, 1963.” …. J.C. Cason

            A distinct pattern: to a person they addressed the question of Lee Harvey Oswald, and 4 out of 5 stated specifically they had not seen a stranger in the building. The WC was not in investigative mode, it was building a case against Oswald. It is obvious that investigators were well aware from the outset that a stranger might have been in the building; 5 months later they set about to extract statements for the record diffusing the question. Did they ever pursue the possibility in earnest, or did they shut down the investigation sometime between the time Roy Truly identified Oswald’s absence, his providing authorities with Ruth Paine’s address, and the arrest of Oswald at 1:46. If Oswald was not arraigned for the assassination until the early hours of the 23rd, was law enforcement pursuing any suspects other than him between 12:30 and midnight the 22nd? The cursory detainment of Frazier does not qualify; he was not a ‘stranger’ in the building, and in fact he was merely being implicated with Oswald.

            Had Oswald not been the prime focus of the commission (beginning December 18 when Allen Dulles provided commission members with an innocuous little booklet analyzing previous presidential assassinations), and in fact the only focus, might at least a handful of these people have given careful consideration to the events inside the building – recollection of a shadow, a noise, a movement that could have surfaced during more intense, unbiased questioning?

            Contrary to investigative protocol, these statements were not spontaneously composed; in fact when read in sequence, the content is repetitive.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Leslie,

            “A distinct pattern: to a person they addressed the question of Lee Harvey Oswald, and 4 out of 5 stated specifically they had not seen a stranger in the building. The WC was not in investigative mode, it was building a case against Oswald.”

            Read the cover letter, Leslie. Rankin asked the FBI to interview everyone and ask 6 specific questions, e.g., where were you at the time of the shooting, who were you with, did you see Oswald at that time, did you see any strangers in Depository.

            Building a case? Someone might have said, yes, I saw Oswald at 12:30. He was with me.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Yes that was apparent Jean, but I’m not clear why you are repeating my argument back to me. The reason the individuals answered specific questions is because they were asked specific questions, and they were asked specific question …. why? You argue it is because Rankin said it was all he wanted to know. This constructs a box, a safe haven, and failing to debate outside the WC box has the appearance of avoidance. The salient question in this exchange was whether or not unknown person or persons were inside the building when the shots were fired. Following that, simply because no one saw a ‘stranger’ is not proof one did not exist. A trained sniper for example has a skill set to include stealth movements.

            Facetious remarks are an attempt to reduce the significance of the fact that these individuals were not asked for their complete recollection but rather to limit their statements to areas that served the case against Oswald. The deeper pattern here is in the deplorable tactics of the WC. They were focused on Oswald alone from day one; the nod to a single question about a ‘stranger’ was to create the appearance of a balanced investigation for the record. They were building a case against the boy (Roy Truly’s very own term); they were not seeking any evidence that might lead them in another direction. A defence attorney would have a hey day. The WC took a page from the very systems America is said to abhor.

          • ed connor says:

            LHO was not the only one in the TSBD who knew a shooting had occurred.
            Officer Marrion entered the building within 90 seconds and found Roy Truly. They both began a search of the building.
            They found LHO on the second floor, where Truly may have said “Lee, the president has been shot!”
            On the first floor LHO encountered a female clerk who told him, “Oh my land, the president has been shot!”
            -Washington Post, 12/1/63, available at Mary Ferrell, doc# 104398, p.443.

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Photon

            Here’s 12 people who left the building and the area and weren’t accounted for.

            Here’s the link
            http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=7612.45;wap2

            Jack Charles Cason – President of School Book Depository – left building at 12:10 p.m. and went home (22H 640)
            Gloria Jean Holt – clerk at TSBD – does not return after shooting. (19H 526 & 22H 652)
            Sharon Simmons Nelson, Secretary, does not return after shooting. (Ibid)
            Bonnie Richey, Secretary, does not return after the shooting. (22H 671)
            Carolyn Arnold does not return after shooting. (22H 635)
            Mrs. Donald Baker, Clerk, does not return after shooting. (22H 635)
            Judy Marie Johnson does not return after shooting. (22H 256)
            Ms. Stella Mae Jacob does not return after shooting. (22H 665)
            Virginia H. Burnum – McGraw-Hill employee, does not return after shooting. (22H 636)
            Vida Lee Whately – Clerk, does not return after shooting. (22H 680)
            Warren Caster, ate lunch in Denton. (22H 641 & 26H 738)
            Spaudlin “Pud” Jones, eating lunch at Blue Front with Herbert. (22H 658)

        • leslie sharp says:

          Abductive Reasoning:
          The American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) first introduced the term as “guessing”.[7]

          “One morning you enter the kitchen to find a plate and cup on the table, with breadcrumbs and a pat of butter on it, and surrounded by a jar of jam, a pack of sugar, and an empty carton of milk. You conclude that one of your house-mates got up at night to make him- or herself a midnight snack and was too tired to clear the table. This, you think, best explains the scene you are facing. To be sure, it might be that someone burgled the house and took the time to have a bite while on the job, or a house-mate might have arranged the things on the table without having a midnight snack but just to make you believe that someone had a midnight snack. But these hypotheses strike you as providing much more contrived explanations of the data than the one you infer to.”
          http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/

          “Going with the best explanation” is a controversial topic in law so I’m surprised the argument is used repeatedly on this site by those defending the Warren Commission Report.

          {One} very popular definition . . . abductive reasoning to be ‘inference to the best explanation.” This view has been criticized . . . on the grounds that it mixes together the process of generating and evaluating hypotheses. If we say we have the “best” explanation, we must have some criterion for judging which is best, and we must also be assured we have CANVASSED ALL POSSIBILITIES . . .
          http://www.academia.edu/8411762/Abductive_Reasoning_in_Law_Taxonomy_and_Inference_to_the_Best_Explanation

          Can you say in good faith you have spent any significant time and effort in canvassing all possibilities, photon?

          • Photon says:

            Yes. In view of the fact that nobody in two years has come up with a satisfactory answer to Photon’s Paradox even when resorting to incorrect claims it appears that I am not alone.
            The Paradox stands.

          • leslie sharp says:

            photon, with respects because I want to avoid your particular rabbit warren, can you elaborate on your “Paradox,” and in fact define how precisely it is one. I’ve yet to identify a definition of the term paradox that matches “Oswald left the building, no one else left the building, therefore Oswald assassinated the President of the United States.” I do know what defines a bowl of spaghetti.

          • “I’ve yet to identify a definition of the term paradox that matches “Oswald left the building, no one else left the building, therefore Oswald assassinated the President of the United States.”
            ~leslie sharp

            The reason Leslie hasn’t found such a definition for “paradox” is because that is not a proper definition for the argument made by Photon. The proper definition of that argument is a “Non Sequitur”. That is, the conclusion reached “does not follow” in any rational way from the proposition thus made.

            The argument made by Photon is doubly absurd in that it is not true that “no one else left the building”. So there is a premise here by Photon that is not only ‘non sequitur’, but it is based on a false assertion of the facts.

            These threads have a tendency to become discussions, not of the topic of the thread, but of the disingenuous nature of Photon’s argumentation. This is clearly Photon’s strategy here. To disrupt the discussion and center the attention upon his/herself.

            This has become a complete waste of time as Photon has proven to be glaringly duplicitous.
            \\][//

          • theNewDanger says:

            Many TSBD employees went home for the day and/or did not return to work due to the assassination, including the president of the government’s southern propaganda book fulfillment center, the TSBD, American Legion head Jack Charles Cason, who left just prior to the assassination at 12:10. Gloria Holt, Stella Jacob, and other clerks and secretaries are also ON RECORD as LEAVING the TSBD after the shooting and not returning to work. Following the “logic” of your pretentious paradox, there are more suspects to question. Think the FBI is gonna get on that? There is no paradox. There is only evidence you and McAdams REFUSE to include with your callous, selective culling in support of the WC Report. YOUR “paradox” does not stand as it does not EXIST!

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Gloria Holt, Stella Jacob, and other clerks and secretaries are also ON RECORD as LEAVING the TSBD after the shooting and not returning to work. Following the “logic” of your pretentious paradox, there are more suspects to question.”

            Holt and Jacob left the TSBD before the shooting, not after.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317&search=%22gloria_holt%22#relPageId=682&tab=page

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317&relPageId=685&search=“stella_jacob”

          • theNewDanger says:

            @Jean Davison

            I stand corrected on Holt and Jacob. Thanks for your direct, respectful approach without tacking on any agitation.

          • theNewDanger says:

            What do you make of the “The Myth of the Depository Roll Call” section from Mark Bridger’s “Dealey Plaza Echo”? http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=118224#relPageId=45&tab=page

            I am not satisfied that what the DPD conducted was a strict roll call where one is reading names off from a list of known employees that would have led to a more honest pursuit of Oswald at a movie theater for not paying for a movie ticket but oddly paying for popcorn. Instead, this “roll call” that revealed Oswald was missing seemed to be more of a drawn out, loose questioning of random TSBD employees who were in the TSBD. Truly talked to DPD once to say all were accounted for but then a little later to say that Oswald had left, as if he was the only one who wasn’t there. There were multiple TSBD employees who were locked out after it had been sealed off. Why aren’t their persons identified as unaccounted for in the TSBD? DPD even documented people in their “roll call” who where in the TSBD who were NOT TSBD employees. This all seems so bizarre.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Thanks for your reply on the two witnesses, TheNewDanger.

            “What do you make of the “The Myth of the Depository Roll Call” section from Mark Bridger’s “Dealey Plaza Echo”? http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=118224#relPageId=45&tab=page

            I’m afraid I think it’s about as far from the known facts as it’s possible to get. Very misleading, like many other JFK articles online.

            The WC didn’t claim that there was a strict roll call. Truly just happened to notice that Oswald wasn’t there. He didn’t report Oswald missing until at least 1:22, according to the WR, second paragraph here:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946&search=%22there_he+sits%22#relPageId=180&tab=page

            By the time Fritz returned to the police department to ask his men to go to Irving to look for Oswald, Oswald was already there, under arrest.

            If you don’t know why police went to the theater (it wasn’t because Oswald didn’t buy a ticket or because Truly gave his name to Fritz), you could read the testimony of Johnny Brewer, Julia Postal and other witnesses here:
            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm

            The other TSBD bosses may not have reported anyone missing because they knew who had left their offices to go outside before the motorcade arrived.

      • Vanessa says:

        But surely Photon you have not forgotten our discussion about just this issue a few short months back? Well, my feelings are hurt. You may be a paid-up disinformation agent for the CIA (allegedly) but I thought you were at least a gentleman.

        If you don’t recall that discussion let me remind you of a few salient points. Harold Norman most certainly knew the President was wounded by gunshots as he said in his WC testimony. He and his 2 co-workers Billie Rae Williams and Junior Jarman then discussed the fact that the President was shot at and immediately left the TSBD. Others in the building that day that heard shots including Jack Dougherty left the building to see what had happened. Williams was not present at the TSBD workers roll-call in the minutes after the assassination. No-one queried his absence only Oswald’s. No-one started a huge search for Williams as they did for Oswald. Why is that Photon?

        Oswald stated that after talking to his supervisor Bill Shelley he thought no more work would be done that day so he left the building.

        So, yes it can be refuted – it already has been by you and me. And if you persist in this nonsense (yes, I said that) I will take the time to find the link to our previous discussion and post it.

        • Photon says:

          Norman testified that he never saw JFK hit-only that he appeared to slump after the first shot-the shot that missed.
          Jarman testified that he never saw JFK hit.He also stated that the men left the TSBD between 2:00 and 2:30.
          No huge search for Williams started because he was still at the TSBD.Immediately after the shooting he gave a statement and was identified to police by Brennan as one of the three men he saw on the floor below the shooter.
          Shelley testified that he never saw Oswald after 12:00 noon. He also testified that he never told anybody to go home.
          You don’t help your case by making inaccurate claims that are contradicted by documented facts-unless you are claiming that Jarman,Norman and Shelley were liars.
          I am not sure what comment that you are upset about.

          • Vanessa says:

            Hello Photon

            I found that link to our earlier discussion on this and will post it again here – just in case you missed it on the other thread.

            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/resource/crowdsourcing-jfk-dieugenio-on-the-mysterious-david-ferrie/#comments

            I think if you walk through Norman’s testimony you will see he clearly connects the shot with the President slumping over and that Ball agrees with this interpretation by his follow up question. The first shot didn’t miss. As confirmed by the witnesses closest to the limousine Mary Moorman, Abraham Zapruder and Clint Hill.

            Norman, Jarman and Williams all testified that at the time of the shooting they all ran to the west window to see what was going on in the railroad yards and then ran downstairs and out of the building. They didn’t run upstairs to see what all that racket up there was about.

            Okay, my mistake on Williams. I actually meant Givens, apologies for that I was having a bad day.

            Shelley claims he didn’t see or speak to Oswald after 12:00pm. According to the WC Oswald was in the sniper’s nest from about 11.50 – 12.33pm. So how did Oswald know that Shelley was out in front at the time of the assassination? That is the “Vanessa Paradox” that you have to answer…………. 

            Of course I would NEVER claim any of the witnesses to the WC lied, Photon. And nobody needs to do that because they contradict each other’s testimony (and even their own testimony!) to such an extent that it cannot be relied upon.

            It’s possible I was being a bit sarcastic about the hurt feelings. But you do seem to be strangely forgetful of some of the beautifully argued points that have been made by conspiracy realists on here.

        • Jean Davison says:

          Hi Vanessa,

          Williams and others went outside immediately after the shooting but they returned to the building before it was sealed off. Williams was present at the “line-up” of Truly’s crew.

          QUOTE:
          Mr. McCLOY. Do you know whether or not anybody got out of the building before the police could get there? Did any of your friends or the people you were working with, did you hear whether any of them had left the building before the building was closed?
          Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; I heard Mr. Truly-he said that-he mentioned that-he said, “Where is Lee?”
          UNQUOTE

          Truly didn’t report Oswald missing right away so by the time the police knew his name he had already been arrested for the Tippit murder. No one was looking for Oswald before that.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Vanessa, do we know if there was a sign in sheet for the management level executives whose companies had offices in the depository building? If so, do we know if Truly’s role call included them and/or their visitors?

          • “Truly didn’t report Oswald missing right away so by the time the police knew his name he had already been arrested for the Tippit murder. No one was looking for Oswald before that.” Jean Davison

            What do you mean”Truly didn’t report Oswald missing right away”?

            How is it that Oswald is “missing” and anyone else who didn’t come back into the building are not counted as “missing”?

            I am sorry Jean, but I see this type of verbiage as nothing but rhetorical trickery.
            \\][//

          • David Regan says:

            In his testimony to the Warren Commission, School Book Depository supervisor Roy Truly is asked if he made a check of the employees after the shooting and he responds, “No, no; not complete. No, I just saw the group of the employees over there on the floor and I noticed this boy [Oswald] wasn’t with them. With no thought in my mind except that I had seen him a short time before in the building, I noticed he wasn’t there.” http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol7/page382.php
            http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page229.php

            None of the 73 statements of School Book Depository employees (including the one signed by Roy Truly) mention a roll-call.

          • Jean Davison says:

            David,

            I agree with what you’re saying here:

            “In his testimony to the Warren Commission, School Book Depository supervisor Roy Truly is asked if he made a check of the employees after the shooting and he responds, “No, no; not complete. No, I just saw the group of the employees over there on the floor and I noticed this boy [Oswald] wasn’t with them. With no thought in my mind except that I had seen him a short time before in the building, I noticed he wasn’t there.” http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol7/page382.php
            http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page229.php

            There was no “roll call” of all TSBD workers and the WC didn’t claim there was. Truly had only 15 warehouse workers. Most of the other TSBD employees worked for book publishers on the 3rd and 4th floors and had different bosses. Their whereabouts weren’t established until they gave sworn statements.

            Truly had nothing to do with Oswald’s arrest, which happened because Johnny Brewer saw him “ducking the cops” near the Texas Theater.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean Davison writes: “Truly didn’t report Oswald missing right away so by the time the police knew his name he had already been arrested for the Tippit murder. No one was looking for Oswald before that . . . ” and “Truly had nothing to do with Oswald’s arrest, which happened because Johnny Brewer saw him “ducking the cops” near the Texas Theater.”

            Is this to suggest that the Tippit shooting was the sole reason that in the middle of a city wide man hunt for the murderer of President John F. Kennedy, a posse of Dallas police in police cars descended upon the Texas Theatre miles away from Dealey Plaza because someone was acting suspicious in front of a shoe store and then went inside the movie house without paying? Did someone at DPD HQ say, “okay all you guys, let’s get out there and help find who murdered President Kennedy on our watch . . . but not YOU guys – all you guys go on over to Oak Cliff and check out this suspicious character who was in front of that shoe store and is now in the theatre and he didn’t even buy a ticket.”

            With full respect for police officers killed in the line of duty, it happens, and at the risk of being accused of valuing one life over another, I question why a significant number of Dallas law enforcement was focused on the Tippet shooting within an hour of the assassination of the leader of the free world? Can anyone explain why? Did the Oak Cliff address have anything to do with that commitment of resources?

          • leslie sharp says:

            The following are six instances of reference to an “Irving” address during the questioning of Roy Truly by George Ball and John J. McCloy. Oak Cliff is never mentioned.

            A skeptic might wonder if they doth all protest too much. Why didn’t Truly and or Ball begin to refer to ‘his address’ after first establishing the Paine’s Irving address rather than repeating “Irving?” I posit they were cognizant that it could and most likely should be charged that someone mentioned Oswald’s address in Oak Cliff long before investigators visited the Irving address of Ruth Paine. And that was why the posse went to the Texas Theatre, not to arrest a person who was acting weird in front of a shoe store, but in pursuit of an alleged assassin – or in my world – The Patsy.

            Mr. BALL. . . . you advised Captain Fritz of the name of Lee Oswald and his address in IRVING?

            Mr. TRULY. . . . and had Mr. Akin pull the application of the boy so I could get–quickly get his address in IRVING . . .

            BALL. . . . you at that time had in your possession there the address of Lee Oswald in IRVING?

            Mr. TRULY. My purpose in going there was to inform Captain Fritz that this boy was missing and give him his telephone number, and his IRVING address, . . .

            Mr. TRULY. I told him that we had a man missing—I told him what his name was and his IRVING address . . .

            Mr. TRULY.. Immediately, after I called to the warehouse and got his name and address in IRVING . . .

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            “How is it that Oswald is “missing” and anyone else who didn’t come back into the building are not counted as “missing”?”

            QUOTE:
            Mr. TRULY. When I noticed this boy was missing, I told Chief Lumpkin that “We have a man here that’s missing.” I said, “It may not mean anything, but he isn’t here.”[….]
            Mr. BALL. Was he the only man missing?
            Mr. TRULY. The only one I noticed at that time. Now, I think there was one or two more, possibly Charles Givens, but I had seen [Givens] out in front walking up the street just before the firing of the gun.
            Mr. BALL. But walking which way?
            Mr. TRULY. The last time I saw him, he was walking across Houston Street, east on Elm [i.e., away from the TSBD]
            Mr. BALL. Did you make a check of your employees afterwards?
            Mr. TRULY. No, no; not complete. No, I just saw the group of the employees over there on the floor and I noticed this boy wasn’t with them. With no thought in my mind except that I had seen him a short time before in the building, I noticed he wasn’t there.
            UNQUOTE

            Truly had seen Oswald near the back stairs on the second floor c. 90 after the shooting. Now he was gone.

            “I am sorry Jean, but I see this type of verbiage as nothing but rhetorical trickery.”

            Truly said he was missing. Take it up with him.

          • “Truly said he was missing. Take it up with him.”
            ~Jean Davison

            You have your reasoning backward Jean,
            Truly considers Oswald as “missing” only after he has spoken with Captain Fritz, which means it is after Oswald has become a suspect, not before.
            It is not Oswald being a suspect BECAUSE he is “missing” from the TBDB, it is the other way around.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Leslie,

            “…Is this to suggest that the Tippit shooting was the sole reason that in the middle of a city wide man hunt for the murderer of President John F. Kennedy, a posse of Dallas police in police cars descended upon the Texas Theatre miles away from Dealey Plaza because someone was acting suspicious in front of a shoe store and then went inside the movie house without paying?”

            What “city-wide manhunt”? There was none because in the first 45 minutes the police had no leads. Their search of the TSBD and railroad cars turned up no one; apparently the shooter had fled. A very general description was broadcast. Then a policeman was shot in a nearby neighborhood. It wasn’t a stretch to think there might be a connection.

            The police followed up on several tips about where the Tippit suspect might be (in a library, e.g.) before Julia Postal called to tell them about a man who, it turned out, fit the broadcast description and seemed to be ducking the police.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Leslie,

            “The following are six instances of reference to an “Irving” address during the questioning of Roy Truly by George Ball and John J. McCloy. Oak Cliff is never mentioned.”

            Since Truly didn’t know Oswald’s Oak Cliff address, why should it be mentioned?

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            “You have your reasoning backward Jean,
            Truly considers Oswald as “missing” only after he has spoken with Captain Fritz,
            which means it is after Oswald has become a suspect, not before.
            It is not Oswald being a suspect BECAUSE he is “missing” from the TBDB, it is the other way around.”

            I have no idea what you mean, sorry. Truly went to Fritz after he noticed Oswald wasn’t there.

          • Vanessa says:

            Dear Leslie, sorry I missed this. I’ve been a bit pre-occupied of late. That is a very good question which I do not have the answer to. If there is a list I haven’t heard about it.

            But the idea that Truly could have accounted for everyone in the building and their visitors in that brief time period is highly unlikely, if not impossible, without such a list.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, Perhaps my statement was too oblique. The fact is they found it necessary to state six timest that the address Truly had was the one in Irving (emphasizing he did not have the Oak Cliff address). Why was it necessary to hammer that fact? Were they concerned that some might wonder whether or not it was Truly who sent the police to Oak Cliff, triggering the chain of events there? If 50 years later we are able to contemplate this, don’t you think the investigators and lawyers were cognizant of the possibilities?

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, The APB describing some one carrying a rifle was issued just after 12:43. Are you suggesting that there was no immediate hunt for the assassin beyond Dealey and the tracks in play within minutes of that APB? And if there wasn’t, can you defend the delay? If there wasn’t a city wide manhunt for the assassin, why was there such a large contingent of police sent to the Texas Theatre?

            “It wasn’t a stretch to think there might be a connection.”

            This is the first glimpse I’ve read from those who defend the Warren Commission that it is quite plausible that the police went to the theatre suspecting that the Tippit murder and the assassination were connected. Why is this such a delicate area of the investigation?

          • “I have no idea what you mean, sorry. Truly went to Fritz after he noticed Oswald wasn’t there.” ~Jean Davison

            What we are dealing with here Jean, is the fact that unless everyone else who was not back in the building after the shooting is considered an “escapee” it is a fraudulent argument to single out Oswald. It only makes sense to single out Oswald for some parallel reason, as what you are claiming to be suspicious behavior, is behavior that Oswald was far from alone in exhibiting.

            You have not established that everybody employed by the TBDB was present EXCEPT for Oswald, and cannot because, as you know full well, no roll-call was taken.

            Now, if you come back and say ‘But there ARE other parallel reasons to suspect Oswald, such as blablabla; let me point out to you that this would simply be another indication of how duplicitous your argumentation is.
            \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Jean

            My apologies for not getting back to you earlier. You are right it was Givens not Williams who was also not present at the line up. Apologies I keep getting their names confused.

            Truly clearly says in his WC testimony that he saw Givens on the street after the shooting and before he knew of the Tippit shooting.

            Truly also clearly says that he immediately told Fritz of Oswald’s absence and that was also before he knew of Tippit’s shooting. Fritz then sends the police after Oswald.

            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/truly2.htm

            So Truly sees Givens after the shooting of the President walking away from the TSBD. Givens is then not present at the TSBD roll call of employees and does not come back to the building.

            Truly reacts to this by immediately getting Oswald’s address and telling Fritz he’s absent.

            Why didn’t Truly do the same for Givens as he did for Oswald? Truly has two employees in the same situation – both missing from the roll call and both of whom he has seen just minutes earlier. But it is Oswald who gets the police sent after him. Why?

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, in August 1969 the LAPD failed to make a connection between the Tate-Labianca murders despite glaringly obvious similarities of the murder scenes.

            Was there something more obvious to cause DPD to the Texas Theatre? If so, I fail to see it in Postal and Brewer’s testimony.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Vanessa,

            No, Truly saw Givens walking away from the building BEFORE the shooting and he didn’t give Fritz Oswald’s name until c. 1:22 or later, not “immediately.” Fritz didn’t send the police after Oswald (2nd paragraph here):

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946&search=%22there_he+sits%22#relPageId=180&tab=page

            Givens was outside during the motorcade and Truly knew that.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Leslie,

            Police were on the lookout for a “slender white male, about thirty, 5’10,” 165 pounds,” but I wouldn’t call that a “manhunt.” No one was looking for Oswald or anyone else specifically.

            “…why was there such a large contingent of police sent to the Texas Theatre?”

            Many who were listening to the police radio heard that a suspect had been seen going into the theater, and went there.

            QUOTE:
            “It wasn’t a stretch to think there might be a connection.”

            This is the first glimpse I’ve read from those who defend the Warren Commission that it is quite plausible that the police went to the theatre suspecting that the Tippit murder and the assassination were connected. Why is this such a delicate area of the investigation?”

            UNQUOTE

            It’s not “delicate.” Read the DPD radio transcript. As I’ve said before, someone asked the dispatcher: “Is there any indication that it has any connection with this other shooting?” And the dispatcher replied, “Well, the descriptions on the suspect are similar and it is possible.”

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes3.htm

            As I recall, the TV anchors also commented that there might be a connection between the two shootings.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Vanessa, thanks. I agree that it is impossible to guarantee that every person in the building was accounted for; the possibility of visitors in the building is reasonable as evidenced by Warren Caster’s testimony that a colleague had considered joining him on the day to view the motorcade but Caster had plans to travel to North Texas State.

            The sworn statements of individuals said to have been in the building cannot be considered as proof of anything as the statements were prompted and limited. That is not a thorough investigation, it is a whitewash.

            The possibility of a sniper making his way into and out of the building is not remote, it is highly conceivable regardless of the testimony of only a handful of people who said they saw no one going out the back. And if said individual had a similar appearance to Oswald, that too would add to the confusion of the well-intentioned testimony of some and account for “Oswald’s” presence in the lunchroom.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, finally we are inching toward full acknowledgment that Oswald was arrested on suspicion of assassinating the president. In the past the insistence has been “the police went to the Texas Theatre because of the Tippit shooting, full stop.” We are establishing the likelihood that just after 1:46 pm, the search for an assassin had been called off, essentially. Is there evidence that any serious investigation other than the second phase – securing evidence to tie Oswald to the rifle – was underway that afternoon or the following day, or even the morning of the 24th? That would be significant data to produce: just how serious was law enforcement about pursuing the possibility they did NOT have their man.

            If Captain Will Fritz suspected Oswald was also the assassin Kennedy (according to his testimony), based on Truly’s identification that Oswald was not in the depository building after 12:40’ish, then why didn’t Fritz take notes in that initial interrogation? It is inconceivable that the lead interrogator questioning the possible assassin of the president of the United States did not recognize the significance of what he was doing, inconceivable. And further it was inexcusable. He did not even make notes of the times he was in the depository, and he did not initial the rifle found on the 6th floor. He could not even recall whether or not he carried the rifle from the building. This suggests to me he was NOT leaving a paper trail for himself. His testimony is riddled with “you’ll have to check with X to get a positive answer on that.” (paraphrasing)

            He belongs on the list of possible facilitators establishing Oswald as the patsy within two hours of the assassination. The question is whether or not he was a witting accomplice in the cover up.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Leslie,

            “Jean, finally we are inching toward full acknowledgment that Oswald was arrested on suspicion of assassinating the president. In the past the insistence has been “the police went to the Texas Theatre because of the Tippit shooting, full stop.”

            No, the WR said “the police radio had noted the similarity in the descriptions of the suspects” in the two shootings.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946&search=brewer#relPageId=32&tab=page

            “Is there evidence that any serious investigation other than the second phase – securing evidence to tie Oswald to the rifle – was underway that afternoon or the following day, or even the morning of the 24th?”

            What significant leads do you see that the police failed to pursue? The evidence they got kept pointing to one person.

            Criticizing Fritz for not taking notes will never change the fact that he did not take notes.

            “[Fritz] belongs on the list of possible facilitators establishing Oswald as the patsy within two hours of the assassination. The question is whether or not he was a witting accomplice in the cover up.”

            Your list of possible facilitators must be enormous by now.

            Within two hours of the assassination Oswald had been arrested with a murder weapon in his hand. But everyone’s a suspect except Oswald, right??

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Jean

            I don’t think Truly is that definitive about not seeing Givens after the shooting. See his testimony. Truly has seen Givens before the shooting walking down the street. Truly thinks he has also seen Givens at some time after the shooting when he ‘came back to the front of the building’ although he ‘can’t answer for sure whether he came in the building’.

            Mr. BALL. Where is the last place you saw Givens?
            Mr. TRULY. The last place I remember seeing Givens was in the middle of
            the crossing, in the middle of Houston Street.
            Mr. BALL. Walking in which direction?
            Mr. TRULY. Walking east.
            Mr. BALL. Walking east on the north side of Elm?
            Mr. TRULY. North side of Elm-he had not completely crossed the street-
            Houston Street.
            Mr. BALL. Now, did Givens come back to the building later?
            Mr. TRULY. I didn’t see him-later on he did.
            Mr. BALL. When-how much later?
            Mr. TRULY. Much later-I suppose- I don’t know his actions during that day.
            Mr. BALL. Did he come back to the building?
            Mr. TRULY. No.
            Mr. BALL. After the shooting?
            Mr. TRULY. I can’t say- I think he came back to the front of the building-
            I can’t answer for sure whether he came in the building-I know he was at the
            police station later on.
            Mr. BALL. I think that’s all right now.

            Apologies Jean perhaps I worded that wrong I meant that as soon as Truly was told by Shelley that Oswald was missing from the roll-call and before he knew about Tippit he immediately rang the warehouse to get his address and then told Fritz.

            Mr. BALL. You have no exact memory as to the time you discovered he (Oswald) was
            not there?
            Mr. TRULY, So, sir : I didn’t believe after thinking things over-it was over in
            15 or 20 minutes after the shots were fired, but after retracing my trip to the
            roof and the time delay and back, I would have to say that it was farther along
            in the day than I had believed, so it could have been 1 or 1:05 or something
            like that.
            Mr. BALL. Before you discovered Oswald wasn’t there?
            Mr. TRULY. That’s right, and at such time that you have information of the
            officers taking the names of the workers in the warehouse over in and around
            the wrapping tables, it was at such time that I noticed that this boy wasn’t
            among the other workers.
            Mr. BALL. You remember you had seen him on the second floor, didn’t you?
            Mr. TRULY. That’s right.
            Mr. BALL. That’s when you were with Officer Baker?
            Mr. TRULY. That’s right.
            Mr. BALL. Now, you heard that Tippit had been shot, didn’t you?
            Mr. TRULY. Not after-until after I had told Chief Lumpkin and Captain
            Fritz and come back down to the first floor, then I learned that he had been
            shot. The first I learned of it–there was a young officer ran in the front door
            and told another officer, possibly a lieutenant, that there was an officer shot in Oak Cliff and that was all I knew at that time. I did not know that they had
            captured Oswald then. Later on a newspaper reporter told me.

            So Truly has seen Givens twice, once before the shooting and once after and Givens is absent from the roll-call. The same as Oswald. But Givens does not get the same treatment as Oswald. Why?

          • leslie sharp says:

            “The evidence they got . . . “

            They had no evidence for at least several hours that could possibly, circumstantially tie Oswald to the assassination. They had a name – Truly to Fritz, they had an address in Irving, they had a rifle that had not yet been traced, they had a description of someone 30 lbs. heavier than Oswald, they had a .30-30 rifle tied to that person. How did the evidence keep pointing to one person in the first 90 minutes?

            Does the police force wait until they get leads to search for assassin(s) who were so brazen they would shoot the president of the United States in broad daylight in front of hundreds of people? Law enforcement stands around and says, well, until we get a lead I guess we’ll just hang out around the scene of the crime, not speculate that the perpetrator might have fled out the back door and down any number of routes and initiate a manhunt, not immediately detain every person in the immediate vicinity to question what they saw, to ask if they saw anyone get into a vehicle, and if so to pursue the vehicle? You know, police work.

            I note that Inspector HJ Sawyer who was responsible for the first description did not get the name of the witness (presumably this was Howard Leslie Brennan), and he says that when he heard about an officer shooting in Oak Cliff he sent a half dozen of his officers (who were apparently in and around the TSBD) to the scene. He says that he then hung around police headquarters until about 4pm, went home, and took the weekend off as scheduled. He didn’t hear about Ruby shooting Oswald until late the afternoon of November 24th. This is a man who spoke to the first ‘eye witness’ and he was not involved in the subsequent investigation.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean (continued)

            “Criticizing Fritz for not taking notes will never change the fact that he did not take notes.”

            Lacking curiosity about why a 20+ year veteran law enforcement officer chose to not take notes during the first search of the TSBD, to not record the timing of the search, to not initialize the rifle upon discovery, to not recall whether or not he carried that rifle from the crime scene, and to not take notes during the initial interrogation of the suspect in the crime of the century will never change the fact that Captain Fritz’ actions were highly irregular and therefore suspect.

            “Your list of possible facilitators must be enormous by now.”

            In fact the list has narrowed: FBI Agent Bardwell Odum (present at the Texas Theatre, why?), Captain Will Fritz, and SS/FBI Liaison Orrin Bartlett sit firmly in the limelight for now. Even if some choose to give Captain Fritz the benefit of the doubt, his testimony suggests that he knew he had not followed procedure, and when the flaws in the case against Oswald began to emerge he didn’t speak out.

            “Within two hours of the assassination Oswald had been arrested with a murder weapon in his hand.”

            That is a conflation. Oswald was (allegedly) arrested with a pistol, for the murder of a police officer. The alleged assassin’s weapon was a rifle. How were these connected at 1:46 pm? You can’t have it both ways, Jean. The weapons weren’t connected at that time, and wouldn’t be for hours because there was a big mess back at the crime scene in Dealey. Connally had been shot as well. And there was this bullet at Parkland.

            A wise investigator said recently, “after the first shot, the rest of the operation was completely unpredictable.” Compartmentalization and confusion began to play significant roles in the set up of Oswald; sadly they persist today.

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Leslie

            Warren Caster himself was absent from the round up of employees.

            I agree that a sniper could still have got in and out of the building unnoticed (and even have been another TSBD employee apart from Oswald). Baker distinctly recalled seeing a man in a tan jacket descending the TSBD stairs as he ascended them. This was after Baker had the (supposed) 2nd floor lunchroom encounter with Oswald. This person has never been identified by any of the investigations.

            Given the contradictory testimony of Jarman, Norman and Williams it’s also possible that there was no-one in the ‘sniper’s nest’ at all that day.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Jean:

            “Criticizing Fritz for not taking notes will never change the fact that he did not take notes.”

            Jean, I find this statement troubling on several layers. You are correct, criticizing Fritz will never change the fact that he was incompetent. However, for you, and I respect your opinion, it does not place a seed of doubt in your mind about the investigation by the DPD as a whole. You claim over and over again on this site that you are comfortable with the evidence as it exists. However, we have a man in a position of incredible authority FAILING to do the most basic part of his job. Investigating a suspect AND taking copious notes while doing so. It does not bother you, at least you have never said so that I have read. At the very least, it should make you wonder how much of the “evidence” collected by the DPD was actually collected, how it was collected, and how much suffered the “Fritz” treatment? “Oops, I forgot to do the most BASIC part of my job, but it is okay, the rest of the department did a crack job!” I am sorry, but that line of thinking DOES NOT reassure me.

            If you look at the WR and the WC as a whole, you will find a glaring weakness that was not EVER addressed by anyone. NO ONE was ever held accountable for the multiple screw-ups that led to that fateful day. The only ONE who was held accountable was JFK. He gave it all that day. Not ONE other government official was EVER held accountable. Hoover kept his job, Rowley kept his job. Helms, Angleton, and the rest of the bozo staff were allowed to keep their jobs. Why? If we are to believe the LN side, it was a MASSIVE intelligence failure at ALL levels that allowed a deranged, lone nut to shoot the president with a 20.00 rifle. So, Jean, if the government and Johnson were REALLY serious about “finding the truth wherever it were to lead,” why was there not a MASSIVE firing that would reassure the public that Johnson was serious about the murder of a president in broad daylight?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Jean:

            The refusal to fire ANYONE responsible for this monumental disaster leads one to believe that the government only cares about the status quo. I believe, and this is only an opinion, the WC COULD HAVE gained much greater credibility IF it said these people, because of their complete and utter incompetence WILL BE fired: Rowley, Hoover, Helms, Angleton, Curry, Fritz, etc. Don’t tell me that Johnson did not have that power. He could have made sweeping changes, which would have led most of America to believe that this was indeed a serious offense that needed drastic action. (Of course, Johnson would have not remained in amy office had JFK lived, but that is another story.) But no, people kept their jobs, the status quo was maintained and the charade continues to this day. Please read Shenon’s book on 9/11 and Wright’s book on 9/11. Failure after failure is mentioned, 3,000 innocent people lost their lives, wars started by liars began, and the cycle repeats itself all over. Was anyone in power held accountable? Nope! Everyone passed the buck, Bush retained his power, the CIA and the FBI were allowed to continue to operate—as ineffectually as ever and without any change whatsoever. As long as government agencies operate without impunity, this pattern will continue until you and I are long passed. And, again, this is only my opinion, it all began with the SHAM of the WC and the WR.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, I have lifted the section of the excellent essay “The Hidden Government Group” by Professor Peter Dale Scott that relates to the description of Oswald; obviously anyone interested will want to read Scott’s entire article to understand the context.

            http://www.voltairenet.org/article187504.html

            (Prof. Scott) “I conclude that when we look at the conduct of the two men we know to have been parts of the COG emergency communications network in Dallas, we see patterns of sinister behavior that also involved others, or what we may call conspiratorial behavior. These concatenated efforts to implicate Oswald in a phase-one conspiracy narrative lead me to propose a hypothesis for which I have neither evidence nor an alternative explanation: namely, that someone on the WHCA network may have been the source for the important unexplained description on the Dallas Police tapes of a suspect who had exactly the false height and weight (5 feet 10 inches, 165 pounds) recorded for Oswald in his FBI and CIA files.08

            Note that there are no other known sources ascribing this specific height and weight to Oswald. For example, when he was arrested and charged in Dallas that same day, Oswald was recorded as having a height of 5’9 ½ inches, and a weight of 131 pounds. [22] The first reference to Oswald as 5’10”, 165 pounds, was that offered by Oswald’s mother Marguerite to FBI Agent Fain in May 1960, when Oswald himself was absent in Russia. [23]

            The DPD officer contributing the description on the Police Channel was Inspector Herbert Sawyer, who allegedly had heard it from someone outside the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) whom he could not identify or describe. [24] The Warren Report said categorically that his source was Howard Brennan (WR 5), and that on the evening of November 22, Brennan “identified Oswald as the person in the lineup who bore the closest resemblance to the man in the window but he said that he was unable to make a positive identification” (WR 145). But there are many reasons to doubt this, starting with conflicts in Brennan’s own testimony (as Anthony Summers reported in Conspiracy, pp. 109-10) . And Ian Griggs has made a strong case that Brennan never saw Oswald in a line-up that evening. (There are police records placing Oswald in three line-ups that day, and corroborating witness reports of them; but there is no evidence whatever that Brennan attended any of the three.) [25]”

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Jean:

            “Within two hours of the assassination Oswald had been arrested with a murder weapon in his hand. But everyone’s a suspect except Oswald, right?”

            The basic question for me—and I would guess a LARGE number of Americans—is HOW do we know which person or investigator to believe. Once your credibility is strained, or you have outright lied, or you are incompetent, where does one turn for the truth? You base the entire case on the findings of the WR, when the people who wrote the report now say—on this site—that information was withheld. Add to that the 96% error rate for the FBI’s fiber analysis, and where does that leave us? Curry waits years to say LHO never had a gun, Fritz never did his job regarding the handling of Oswald, the CIA lied about Oswald in Mexico City, the FBI knew about Oswald days before Dallas and did nothing. I am supposed to have confidence in ANYTHING related to this case? One has to wonder, at least I do, did the authorities EVEN look at anyone else on 11-22, or at any other time after that day? How can you say for sure? Oswald is “fleeing” the city, but he stops at his boarding house, picks up his revolver, shoots Tippit, and UNLOADS his revolver, BUT he is “fleeing?” Speaking of Tippit, he is a honorable police officer, however on the day of the assassination he is near the Texas Theatre, again depending on whom you believe. Why? Now we know that he had a mistress and a child with this woman that was not disclosed by the WC. No one, except for Brennan, can ID Oswald as the shooter, and he is hardly credible at best. Oswald is a “crack” who,” but the first and easiest shot misses EVERYTHING, except for a bystander 300 yards or feet away? The “magic bullet” is a mystery all to itself. So, while I can accept that Oswald could have been the shooter, how do I know for sure? Whose word do I accept? Curry? Fritz? Day? Hoover? All of these men FAILED spectacularly that day, either through incompetence or outright lying. You have faith in them, which I respect, but I have NONE. Why didn’t Johnson ask for an INDEPENDENT body—completely removed from the reaches of the government to conduct this investigation? Why was that not considered? Why do politicians investigate politicians?

            So why Oswald WAS a suspect, how can you SAY for certain that ANYONE else was EVEN considered? It appears to me, based on the 50 books that I have read, that no REAL effort was made to follow any other lead. I do not have the number of witnesses that were actually interviewed by the WC, but I almost certain that the people outside of the TSBD and Dealey Plaza were only interviewed if they could solidify Oswald as the assassin.

            Your thoughts are always welcome.

          • Jean Davison says:

            I think you’re misreading Truly’s testimony, Vanessa. He didn’t say he’d seen Givens twice before he noticed Oswald was gone. Look at the starred parts please:

            Mr. BALL. Now, did Givens come back to the building later?
            Mr. TRULY. **I didn’t see him-later on he did.**
            Mr. BALL. When-how much later?
            Mr. TRULY. Much later- **I suppose- I don’t know his actions during that day.***
            Mr. BALL. Did he come back to the building?
            Mr. TRULY. No.
            Mr. BALL. After the shooting?
            Mr. TRULY. **I can’t say- I think he came back to the front of the building-
            I can’t answer for sure whether he came in the building-I know he was at the
            police station later on.**

            The police had brought Givens in to give a statement after he returned to the building to pick up his jacket in mid-afternoon. Truly could assume that Givens had returned because he was there at the DPD. At the time of the shooting Givens was with two friends who confirmed his alibi.

            “….Givens is absent from the roll-call. The same as Oswald. But Givens does not get the same treatment as Oswald. Why?”

            As I said, because at the time he noticed Oswald was gone Truly had last seen Givens walking away from the building — unlike Oswald, whom he’d last seen near the back stairs.

            Although Truly didn’t say so, those stairs would’ve been the shooter’s only escape route if he came downstairs immediately after the shooting.

            Do CT authors find that suspicious? No, they think it’s suspicious that Truly didn’t mention Givens.

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Jean

            I agree, Truly’s testimony is unclear but he seems to be saying that he saw Givens in front of the building after the shooting but is not sure whether he’s seen Givens inside the building. If he hasn’t seen Givens at all why doesn’t he just say ‘no’ he didn’t see him?

            Truly: “I think he came back to the front of the building. I can’t answer for sure whether he was in the building”.

            Actually Givens confirms that he did go straight back to the TSBD after the shooting so it’s conceivable that is when Truly saw him.

            It was only much later that Givens went to get his coat from the building and then was detained by the DPD.

            Mr. BELIN. How many shots did you hear?
            Mr. GIVENS. Three.
            Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you heard them?
            Mr. GNENS. Well, we broke and ran down that,way, and by the time we got to
            the corner down there of Houston and Elm, everybody was running, going
            toward the underpass over there by the railroad tracks.
            And we asked-I asked someone–some white fellow there, “What happened?”
            And he said, “Somebody shot the President.” Like that. So I stood there
            for a while, and I went over to try to get to the building after they found out
            the shots came from there, and when I went over to try to get back in the
            officer at the door would’nt let me in.
            Mr. BELIN. Did you tell him you worked there?
            Mr. GIVENS. Yes; but he still wouldn’t let me in. He told me he wouldn’t
            let no one in.
            Mr. BELIN. This was the front of Elm Street?
            Mr. GIVENS. Yes. So I goes back over to the parking lot and I wait until I
            seen Junior.
            Mr. BELIN. This was the front of Elm Street?
            Mr. GIVENS. Yes. So I goes back over to the parking lot and I wait until I
            seen Junior.
            Mr. BELIN.. Is that Jarman?
            Mr. GIVENS. Yes. They were on their way home, and they told me that they
            let them all go home for the evening, and I said, “I’d better go back and get my
            hat and coat.”
            So I started over there to pick up my hat and coat, and Officer Dawson saw
            me and he called me and asked me was my name Charles Givens, and I said,
            “Yes.”
            And he said, “We want you to go downtown and make a statement.”
            And he puts me in the car and takes me down to the city hall and I made
            a statement to Will Fritz down there.

            At the time of the roll call Truly did not know that Givens had a good alibi – all he knows is that he, like Oswald, is missing.

            It also seems possible that the last time Truly saw Givens was in front of the TSBD after the shooting. This should have put Givens in the same zone of ‘suspiciously missing but near the source of the shots’ as Oswald.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Leslie,

            “They had no evidence for at least several hours that could possibly, circumstantially tie Oswald to the assassination….How did the evidence keep pointing to one person in the first 90 minutes?”

            It didn’t, and that’s not what I said. I was responding to your question, “Is there evidence that any serious investigation ….was underway **that afternoon or the following day, or even the morning of the 24th**?”

            The evidence didn’t point to anyone in particular in the first 90 minutes.

            “Law enforcement stands around and says, well, until we get a lead I guess we’ll just hang out around the scene of the crime, not speculate that the perpetrator might have fled out the back door and down any number of routes and initiate a manhunt….”

            A manhunt for a “slender white male” of average height and weight? Actually, Tippit may have stopped Oswald because of that description.

            Instead of criticizing the police, the WC, and Everybody But Oswald for another half century, why don’t you guys explain at last how Oswald could have been framed and make up your minds about what you think DID happen, if he didn’t do it?

          • Jean Davison says:

            David,

            “Was there something more obvious to cause DPD to the Texas Theatre? If so, I fail to see it in Postal and Brewer’s testimony.”

            I’m not sure what you’re looking for. Police followed Tippit eyewitnesses’ statements about the direction the suspect headed in. The police searched several houses and a library in the area. Movie cashier Postal testified:

            QUOTE:
            So, well, I called the police, and he wanted to know why I thought it was their man, and I said, “Well, I didn’t know,” and he said, “Well, [if] it fits the description,” and …I said I hadn’t heard the description. All I know is, “This man is running from them for some reason.” And he wanted to know why, and told him because every time the sirens go by he would duck and he wanted to know …if he fits the description is what he says. I said, “Let me tell you what he looks like and you take it from there.”….
            UNQUOTE

            The police didn’t rush to the Texas Theater immediately, as some sources imply. Postal had to persuade them this was their suspect.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Let’s cut to the chase on Truly, Vanessa.

            “Mr. BALL. Now, you say that you knew that Givens was not there afterwards?
            Mr. TRULY. I knew he wasn’t there at the time of the shooting because I had seen him walk across the street–up the street.”

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Jean:

            “Instead of criticizing the police, the WC, and everybody but Oswald for another half century…”

            I, for one, have no doubt that Oswald was involved. The depth of his involvement I WILL NEVER know. I do not think any rational person would dispute that fact.

            However, when the chief of Homicide, Fritz, FAILS to do the very least of his job, in your mind he should NOT be criticized or questioned?

            When the chief of police, Curry, says years later that we never had any proof of LHO and the gun, in your mind he should not be criticized or questioned?

            When the Chairman of the WC refuses to bring Duran to Washington as asked by Slawson, he is not to be criticized or questioned?

            When the Chairman of the WC refuses to use the threat of indictment when he KNEW that people were possibly lying to him (CIA, FBI), he is not to be criticized or questioned?

            When the FBI has a note from Oswald threatening the FBI, and he is not placed on a dangerous list, the FBI is not to be criticized or questioned?

            When the lead pathologist destroys not one, but TWO sets of his draft notes, he is not to be criticized or questioned?

            When the DPD refuses to follow the basic rules of collecting evidence and establishing chain of control, they are not to be criticized or questioned?

            When leads are not followed, or simple phone calls are not made to investigate, these agencies are not to be criticized or questioned?

            When members of the Commission want to sign a letter of dissent and they are not allowed to in order to give the appearance of “unity,” that is not to be criticized or questioned.

            All I would like is a COMPLETE and THOROUGH investigation. That did not happen. It will never happen. If you want to say that LHO was the assassin, I can accept that fact. I CANNOT accept the shoddiness and the lack of detail this “blue ribbon” commission that stated very clearly that they “wanted to settle the dust” and follow the “truth wherever it may lead” gave to us as “truth.” There are SO many holes and gaps, so many witnesses that have changed their stories so many times, that the day of truth is long past.

            I still believe, and I know you will probably disagree, that Josiah Thompson and Slyvia Meagher wrote a FAR more thorough and thoughtful analysis than the WC did with FAR less resources and power available to them.

            The whole affair is sad. Sad beyond words.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, [why would law enforcement initiate] “A manhunt for a “slender white male” of average height and weight?”

            The argument appears now to be that no manhunt could possibly ensue with little more than a general description of “a slender white male of average height and weight,” yet previously you have emphasized the description of a 5’10” white male, weighing 165lbs as justification for the arrest of Oswald in the Texas Theatre because it was comparable to Postal’s description at the time: Dispatcher: “Well, the descriptions on the suspect are similar and it is possible.”

            Previously we have been talking about the specificity of that initial description, NOT ‘average height and weight’ as you have now introduced. As we both know, events unfolded at the theatre (in spite of the fact that Oswald was significantly lighter in weight – and an inch shorter) based on the initial description 5’10, “165 lbs. I will not debate the term “average height and weight” when we know what the exact description was.

            You have argued that description was the basis for the posse going to the theatre, because it matched Oswald and was justification for his arrest. Now, on the heels of my introduction of Professor Scott’s essay that addresses the precise description – 5’10” 165 lbs. – you have dropped those specifics and resorted to a sanitized description – and further argue it was not sufficient to initiate a manhunt.

            The “manhunt” – the only manhunt – was in play from approx. 12:43 and concluded at 1:46 based on the 5’10” 165 lbs description.’ A posse of law enforcement including FBI Agent Odum descended upon the theatre based on the dispatcher’s description, not in search of an ‘average height and weight’ white male.

            That specific description came from Inspector HJ Sawyer who (by deduction we are meant to believe) got from a man who would subsequently prove unsteady to say the least in his certitude that Oswald was the person he saw in the window.

            As Professor Scott has argued effectively, the description of a 165lb Oswald originated with Marguerite. Why would Brennan’s description match that specific weight when he only saw someone in the 6th floor window for a split second? The Oswald arrested in the Texas Theatre was 37 lbs. lighter. 17 lbs could be argued as an acceptable margin of error, but not over twice that figure. 40 lbs. heaver is an entirely different physique.

          • David Regan says:

            Among many other pre-assassination incidents, what conclusions can be drawn from the stories of Wayne January, Ralph Leon Yates and former US Air Force sergeant, Robert Vinson?

            The choreographers of these charades, the CIA, was not only setting up Lee Harvey Oswald to take the fall for their own assassination plot, but simultaneously setting up their arch-enemy, Nikita Khrushchev and his ally Fidel Castro as fall guys. IMHO

          • Jean Davison says:

            Steve,

            It wasn’t Fritz’s policy to take notes because he tried to get suspects to relax and talk freely. However, two FBI agents who were at the interrogation sessions took notes, and they and others present wrote up reports, pp. 612-636 here:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=636&tab=page

            While at the jail Oswald also talked to his mother, brother and wife, who all testified about what he told them, and he talked to reporters in the hall and at a brief news conference, as you know.

            You call it a “massive intelligence failure,” but the FBI and others had no way of knowing that Oswald was dangerous or a potential assassin of JFK.

            “You base the entire case on the findings of the WR, when the people who wrote the report now say—on this site—that information was withheld.”

            No, after looking at the evidence (testimony, documents, etc.) I ended up agreeing with the WR conclusion that Oswald was guilty, as did the HSCA.

            “So, while I can accept that Oswald could have been the shooter, how do I know for sure? Whose word do I accept?”

            You shouldn’t accept anybody’s word, imo. You should look at the evidence and try to determine the most plausible explanation.

          • Oswald is thoroughly alibied, covering the time period of the shootings in Dealey Plaza:

            Shortly after mid–day, Oswald went from the first floor to the second–floor lunch room.
            Oswald was there at about 12:15, when he was seen by Carolyn Arnold.

            Shortly afterwards, he went downstairs to the domino room, and saw James Jarman and Harold Norman at around 12:25.

            At about 12:31 he went back up to the second–floor lunch room to obtain a soft drink. At the entrance to the lunch room, Oswald encountered a police officer, Marrion Baker, and the building supervisor, Roy Truly.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Leslie,

            “(Quoting author Scott):
            These concatenated efforts to implicate Oswald in a phase-one conspiracy narrative lead me to propose a hypothesis for which I have neither evidence nor an alternative explanation: namely, that someone on the WHCA network may have been the source for the important unexplained description on the Dallas Police tapes of a suspect who had exactly the false height and weight (5 feet 10 inches, 165 pounds) recorded for Oswald in his FBI and CIA files…. when he was arrested and charged in Dallas that same day, Oswald was recorded as having a height of 5’9 ½ inches, and a weight of 131 pounds.”

            I respectfully disagree with Prof. Scott. I see this as an example of how conspiracy theories interpret anomalies as the work of conspirators who show up wherever needed and yet typically do stupid things, like trying to implicate Oswald with a general physical description that wasn’t even accurate.

            An actual plotter with a brain could’ve had somebody in the crowd, say a TSBD worker, tell police they recognized the man in the window as Oswald. But nooo…. these geniuses do things like plant a dented M-C shell “that couldn’t have been fired that day,” try to frame Oswald with a rifle he didn’t pay for and couldn’t have picked up and what’s more, was the wrong length and really a Mauser.

            “(There are police records placing Oswald in three line-ups that day, and corroborating witness reports of them; but there is no evidence whatever that Brennan attended any of the three.)”

            Not so. There’s testimony saying that a Secret Service agent named Patterson took Brennan to the same line-up the Davis sisters attended:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=34&relPageId=245&search=brennan_AND davis

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=34&relPageId=245&search=brennan_AND davis

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=41&relPageId=364&search=brennan_AND Patterson

            So far as I know there’s no DPD record of it, maybe because the SS brought him there or because he didn’t positively ID Oswald as the other witnesses did.

          • “It wasn’t Fritz’s policy to take notes because he tried to get suspects to relax and talk freely.”~Jean Davison

            This assertion is laughable and absurd.

            And then we are directed to a summation by the FBI that doesn’t contain one verbatim quote from Oswald, just a the agent’s assertions that “Oswald said”.

            It is bloody absurd to claim this was in any way a proper interrogation.

            And the meme of the “investigation as incompetence” is a modified limited hangout. It was obviously a frame up of the designated patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald.
            \\][//

          • The distinction between raw data and information is generally misunderstood. Data is not information until it is put in some particular context.
            Data sets must not only be put in context, but all other data in that context must be analyzed as a whole.
            \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Jean

            I’m very happy to cut to the chase on Truly.

            In his WC testimony Truly says the first sound he heard at the time of the shooting was like a ‘loud firecracker from west of the building’.

            100 yards west of the TSBD is the Grassy Knoll. Truly has last seen Givens walking westwards. He then hears gunfire from the west.

            Truly hasn’t seen Givens at the time of the shooting. (“I knew he wasn’t there at the time of the shooting because I had seen him walk across the street–up the street.”)

            So Truly has seen Givens walk in the direction from which he subsequently hears gunfire. He then sees Givens shortly after the assassination on front of the TSBD. Givens is then absent from the roll-call.

            Yet, within 30 – 40 minutes of the shooting Truly has completely ruled out Givens as a suspect in the shooting. That is very prescient of him.

            Remarkably prescient that he’d identified Oswald’s absence as suspicious but found Givens’ absence not worth a second thought.

            And even more amazing that Truly had managed to solve the crime of the century within 40 minutes.

            Oswald’s and Givens’ circumstances around the time of the shooting are not that dissimilar and yet Truly finds one suspicious and not the other.

            I do not see anything in Truly’s testimony to properly explain why he did not obtain Givens’ address and inform the police of his absence at the same time he did Oswald’s.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Vanessa,

            “100 yards west of the TSBD is the Grassy Knoll. Truly has last seen Givens walking westwards. He then hears gunfire from the west.”

            Wow, so you’re suggesting that Givens was a GK shooter? (Is there any evidence to support that? No, there isn’t.)

            Besides, Truly had last seen Givens walking EAST, away from the knoll not toward it.

            “Oswald’s and Givens’ circumstances around the time of the shooting are not that dissimilar and yet Truly finds one suspicious and not the other.”

            No, their circumstances are completely dissimilar. Givens was outside and had an alibi. He watched the motorcade with two friends at the corner of Main and Record. He came back to the building later. Oswald was inside, no one gave him an alibi, and he left the scene right away.

            Truly had seen Oswald near the back stairs c. 90 seconds after the shooting. And yet you and others are suspicious of … Givens and Truly, not Oswald. I find that simply amazing.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, A 34 to 44 lb. difference in body weight is hardly a minor discrepancy in any description, and it is disingenuous to suggest that mistaking a 130 lb. person for a 165-175lb. person is an anomaly.

            “He was a white man in his early 30s, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds.”
            — Howard L. Brennan; November 22, 1963

            It is curious that Inspector Sawyer did not advise dispatch that the eyewitness said he was 165 TO 175 pounds, but chose to limit the description to 165. (Also note, Brennan said he was “nice looking.” Are we to believe he could make out Oswald’s facial features from that distance in a matter of seconds?)

            Professor Scott is not using an anomaly to form his hypothesis: he is specifying an agency, the WHCA, may have been the source of the 165 lb. description, the same description of Oswald in FBI and CIA files. One has to wonder if the files speculated Oswald might be 175 lbs.

            It is the source of the description that is under examination. It is alleged that Inspector Sawyer initiated the dissemination of the description at approx. 12:43. His source is alleged to have been Howard Brennan although I’ve yet to find a document supporting that; Sawyer did not take Brennan’s statement, and in fact went off duty around 4pm on the 22nd and did not participate in the investigation the entire weekend in spite of having talked to an eyewitness who would later be paraded as credible and significant to the case against Oswald.

            I believe you have argued that this initial description warranted the rush by DPD to the Texas Theatre because it matched that which Postal provided. She says that she had not yet described the young man who entered the theatre when the police officer said to her, “well, it fits the description . . ”

            Postal testified: “So, well, I called the police, and he wanted to know why I thought it was their man, and I said, “Well, I didn’t know,” and he said, “Well, it fits the description,” and I have not—I said I hadn’t heard the description. All I know is, “This man is running from them for some reason.” And he wanted to know why, and told him because everytime the sirens go by he would duck and he wanted to know—-well, if he fits the description is what he says. I said, “Let me tell you what he looks like and you take it from there.”

            Another possible scenario. A 165 to 175 lb. white male, 5’10” tall may have indeed been sighted in the TSBD but that person was never pursued.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            “Shortly after mid–day, Oswald went from the first floor to the second–floor lunch room. Oswald was there at about 12:15, when he was seen by Carolyn Arnold.”

            That wasn’t Arnold’s original story. She came up with this version 15 years later. But other workers had lunch there that day and they didn’t see Oswald. Pauline Sanders, e.g., left the second floor lunchroom about 12:20:
            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317&relPageId=702&search=pauline_sanders

            “Shortly afterwards, he went downstairs to the domino room, and saw James Jarman and Harold Norman at around 12:25.”

            They didn’t see him there.

            Don’t you think it’s at all odd that a “JFK admirer” like Oswald was in the back of the building having lunch when the motorcade went by?

          • Vanessa says:

            Now Jean, you know very well I am not saying that Givens was a GK shooter (I mean, there wasn’t one, was there? :) )

            I am saying that 30 – 40 minutes after the shooting Truly did not know of Givens’ alibi or of Givens’ location at the time of the shooting. All he knows is that he has seen him outside crossing Houston St heading east before the shooting (yes, you are correct on that, my apologies). Givens is then missing from the roll call.

            Truly is convinced that the shots didn’t come from the TSBD.

            Truly: “And I told the officer (Baker) that I didn’t feel like the shots came from the building.
            I said, “I think we are wasting our time up here,” or words to that effect, “I don’t believe these shots came from the building.”

            Truly: “……. In fact, I was fooled so completely by the sound of–the direction of the shot, that I did not believe still did not believe maybe I could not force myself to believe, that the shots came from that building until I learned that they found the gun and the shells there. So I had no feeling whatever that they did come from there. I am sure that did not bring Oswald in my mind. But it was just the fact that they were trying to get people’s names.”

            Truly has seen Oswald 10 – 12 minutes before on the second floor lunch room where he has supposedly exonerated him as a suspect. That is partly because Truly believes the shots came from outside the building.

            He has seen Givens outside where he thinks the shots could have come from but is able to rule him out immediately as not ‘suspiciously missing’.

            How does Truly know that Givens couldn’t be any kind of suspect given the information he had at the time of the roll call?

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Jean

            I know your response here is for Willy but I will put my 2 cents in, if I may. Apologies to Willy and to you.

            “Shortly afterwards, he went downstairs to the domino room, and saw James Jarman and Harold Norman at round 12:25”.

            “They didn’t see him there”

            Jarman and Norman had exited the TSBD to stand on Elm St. They then re-entered the TSBD at 12.25 to get a better look at the President from the 5th floor.

            If Oswald is in the sniper’s nest from 11.50 am – 12.33 pm how does he know that Jarman and Norman were even in the building?

            Yes, it is odd that a person with an interest in politics and in JFK wouldn’t bother to take a few steps outside to see the President pass by.

            But we don’t need to ponder over that anymore because from the Weigman and Darnell films we now know that Oswald was in fact standing on the TSBD steps, possibly taking photos of the motorcade, as we might expect from a person with his interests.

            Please see this link on Ed Forum:

            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=e569c1c2ade4b008f6091356c6f99335&showtopic=20354

          • Jean Davison says:

            Vanessa,

            “How does Truly know that Givens couldn’t be any kind of suspect given the information he had at the time of the roll call?”

            Because by that time he knew the shots had come from the Depository. Police were already inside, searching the building.

            “Yes, it is odd that a person with an interest in politics and in JFK wouldn’t bother to take a few steps outside to see the President pass by.

            But we don’t need to ponder over that anymore because from the Weigman and Darnell films we now know that Oswald was in fact standing on the TSBD steps, possibly taking photos of the motorcade, as we might expect from a person with his interests.”

            Too bad Oswald didn’t know about that. As you know, that’s not what he said he was.

            “Reporter: Did you shoot the President?

            Oswald: I work in that building.

            Reporter: Were you in the building at the time?

            Oswald: Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir.”

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbR6vHXD1j0

          • Jean Davison says:

            Leslie,

            Somehow you’ve misunderstood me. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. The physical description that was broadcast was an average weight and height for a male, and no one rushed to the theater because of it. There must have been numerous young Dallas males who would fit that general description.

            Postal was suspicious of Oswald only because he appeared to be “running” from the cops. (She said she hadn’t heard the police description).

            Shoe salesman Johnny Brewer had followed Oswald to the theater because Oswald appeared to be “ducking the cops” when police cars went by. The police came for the same reason after Postal told them about it — PLUS, in addition, Oswald matched the general description of the Tippit shooter.

            “Professor Scott is not using an anomaly to form his hypothesis: he is specifying an agency, the WHCA, may have been the source of the 165 lb. description, the same description of Oswald in FBI and CIA files….”

            Why would anyone want to put out a very general, but inaccurate, description? Makes no sense. That was my point.

            CTs point to anomalies (oddities, things that “look funny”) in the record as though they are clues, but clues lead to a story that makes sense. These don’t. That indicates, imo, that they are meaningless “noise” or simply coincidences.

          • “The physical description that was broadcast was an average weight and height for a male” ~Jean Davison

            How stupid Jean, really … and you should know better; 5′ 10′ 165-lbs is the description of the “Mole flash-file” Angleton set up in Mexico City. as well as the weight and height Oswald’s mother gave the FBI while he was in Russia.

            So this description is far from simply being the “average weight and height for a male”
            \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            Leslie,

            I think better said, Jean, you have confused me because the officer that Postal spoke with said, “Well, it fits the description …” What description do you think he was talking about? She had not described Oswald. If you want to now argue that the DPD fled to the Texas Theatre because a young man was acting strangely, that’s one matter; but I believe you also stated previously it was logical for the police to suspect the man in Texas Theatre was Oswald because the 5’10” 165 lbs. description of the suspect in the assassination matched the description from the Texas Theatre. I don’t think you can have it both ways. Something is going on in the officer’s response to Postal and the subsequent rush to Texas Theatre.

            You have failed to explain how a 34 lb. difference in the descriptions can each be considered “average weight” 5/10” and 131 lbs. is not average and is in fact “slight, slim, (even) skinny” by any general standard. Resorting now to emphasis on a “general description” is disingenuous. Let’s both agree that a very specific description was issued by the DPD as early as 12:43, and it did not match the Oswald that worked in the building.

            “There must have been numerous young Dallas males who would fit that general description.”

            Then why was the description important? Obviously FBI Agent Bardwell Odum thought it significant enough to go to the theatre if that fact can be corroborated; oh wait, it can’t … because Odum never testified before the Warren Commission. . The 12:43 description either did or did not play into the scenario as it unfolded at the theatre.

            “Postal was suspicious of Oswald only because he appeared to be “running” from the cops. (She said she hadn’t heard the police description).”

            I know, I pointed that fact out to you.

            “PLUS, in addition, Oswald matched the general description of the Tippit shooter.”

            Did the description of the person seen at the scene of the Tippit murder weigh approx.165 lbs. OR did he weigh approx. 131 lbs.? To put this in perspective, if you weighed an additional 31 lbs., do you think anyone would describe you with the same adjectives? Would they say “slightly heavy” “average” or “slender?”

            “Why would anyone want to put out a very general, but inaccurate, description?”

            Jean, I reject your casual “why would ‘anyone,’” and I’ll narrow this down to why would “those who orchestrated the details of the assassination and the events of the immediate aftermath (which could not be predicted after the very first shot was fired)” put out an inaccurate description, The 165 lb. description that Swayer called in was the exact description held in CIA and FBI files. It did not match the Oswald working at the TSBD. I believe it was a colossal screw up but the orchestrators knew that key individuals within the DPD would clean things up as they went along. They had their eye on the end game – Oswald as patsy, and a cover up – and confusion and mayhem served the long range plan; after all, we’re here now arguing these details.

            re: Anomalies: Please explain how 34 lbs. discrepancy “looks funny” rather than being an indication of dated information OR two separate individuals? The story that makes sense is that the case against Oswald is so riddled with anomalies that he could not possibly have been the assassin of the president; ergo he was set up as a patsy and the villains were never pursued.

          • leslie sharp says:

            (re-post for word count)
            Jean,

            “Somehow you’ve misunderstood me . . .”

            I think better said, you have confused the issue because the officer that Postal spoke with said “Well, it fits the description …” What description is he talking about? She had not described Oswald. If you want to now argue that the DPD fled to the Texas Theatre because a young man was acting strangely, that’s one matter; but I believe you also stated previously it was logical for the police to suspect the man in Texas Theatre was Oswald because of the 5’10” 165 lbs. description of the suspect in the assassination matched the description from the Texas Theatre. Something is going on in the officer’s response to Postal and the subsequent rush to Texas Theatre.

            You have failed to explain how a 34 lb. difference in the descriptions can each be considered “average weight” 5/10” and 131 lbs. is not average and is in fact “slight, slim, (even) skinny” by any general standard. Let’s both agree that a very specific description was issued by the DPD as early as 12:43, and it did not match the Oswald that worked in the building.

            “ . . . numerous young Dallas males who would fit that general description.”

            Then why was the description important? Would FBI Agent Bardwell Odum go to the scene based on a description that would fit numerous your Dallas males? We’ll never know because Odum never testified before the Warren Commission. The 12:43 description either did or did not play into the scenario as it unfolded at the theatre.

            Did the description of the person seen at the scene of the Tippit murder weigh approx.165 lbs. OR did he weigh approx. 131 lbs.? If you weighed an additional 31 lbs., do you think anyone would describe you with the same adjectives? Would they say “slightly heavy” “average” or “slender?”

            Why would “those who orchestrated the details of the assassination and the events of the immediate aftermath (which could not be predicted after the very first shot was fired)” put out an inaccurate description, The 165 lb. description that Swayer called in was the exact description held by the CIA and FBI. It did not match the Oswald working at the TSBD. I believe it was a colossal screw up, but the orchestrators knew that key individuals within the DPD would clean things up as they went along. Confusion and mayhem served the long range cover up – after all, we’re here now arguing these details.

            Please explain how 34 lbs. discrepancy “looks funny” rather than being an indication of dated information OR two separate individuals? The story that makes sense is that the case against Oswald is so riddled with anomalies that he could not possibly have been the assassin of the president; ergo he was set up as a patsy and the villains were never pursued.

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Jean

            Truly clearly says he didn’t believe the shots came from the building until after the rifle had been found there.

            Truly: “In fact, I was fooled so completely by the sound of–the direction of the shot, that I did not believe, still did not believe, maybe I could not force myself to believe, that the shots came from that building until I learned that they found the gun and the shells there”.

            Truly had already noticed Oswald missing and gotten his address and gone to talk to Fritz before he knew the rifle had been found.

            Mr. Ball: Then, if the gun wasn’t found until after 1:10, you think it might have been as late as 1:05 or so before you discovered that Oswald wasn’t there?
            Mr. Truly: It could be–it could have been.
            Mr. Ball: You have no exact memory as to the time you discovered he was not there?
            Mr. Truly: No sir, I didn’t believe after thinking things over–it was over in 15 or 20 minutes after the shots were fired, but after retracing my trip to the roof and the time delay and back, I would have to say that it was farther along in the day than I had believed, so it could have been I or 1:05 or something like that.
            Mr. Ball: Before you discovered Oswald wasn’t there?
            Mr. Truly: That’s right, and at such time that you have information of the officers taking the names of the workers in the warehouse over in and around the wrapping tables, it was at such time that I noticed that this boy wasn’t among the other workers.

            So Jean, we are back to 2 missing employees. One was outside the building where Truly thinks the shots came from and one inside the building where he doesn’t believe the shots came from and who he has minutes earlier just exonerated as a suspect to Officer Baker.

            We still do not have an adequate explanation from Truly as to why he obtained Oswald’s address but not Givens.

            As we’ve discussed before regarding Prayer Man that is one piece of evidence and I think it’s open to interpretation.
            If you are really going to hang your hat on that statement then your side is going to be in a world of trouble when we finally get clearer pictures of the man in the Prayer Man position (standing behind Billy Lovelady on the TSBD steps).

            Because with each enhancement of Weigman and Darnell we are getting better images of this man and not only does he look more Oswald-like with each enhancement but perhaps, even more importantly he does not look UNLIKE Oswald at all. Which we should be expecting to see by now, shouldn’t we?

            Unless, of course, on that day we had 2 people standing next to each other on the TSBD steps (Billy Lovelady and Prayer Man) who both look like Lee Harvey Oswald.

            And that doesn’t seem very likely, does it.

      • Robert Paul says:

        Photon – That’s one of the worst conclusion that I’ve ever read. Surely you can do better that that.

      • Paul Turner says:

        Photon-maybe he was A shooter, but your argument doesn’t cancel out others joining him in this effort.

        • Photon says:

          Three shots. Jarman, Norman and Williams heard three shots fired directly above them-even having ceiling material falli on them and hearing the sounds of a bolt-action rifle ejecting shells.A man across the street identifying them as being directly below the shooter.
          Not ‘A’ shooter. ‘THE’ shooter.

          • John Rockmore says:

            Photon, is that the same Williams (Bonnie Ray Williams) who was on the sniper’s nest just two minutes before the shooting and then was neither shocked nor perplexed about the idea of a shooter from that window? And what was he doing from 12:00 till 12:28 on sniper’s nest?

          • David Regan says:

            And let’s not forget the motorcade was running behind schedule to pass through Dealey Plaza at 12:25, not 12:30.

          • John Rockmore says:

            And where was “The” shooter from 12:00 till 12:28? Assuming that Bonnie Ray Williams was not part of the conspiracy and just happened to hang around the sniper’s nest for almost half an hour just before the assassination, then how did “The” shooter assemble his rifle and build up the sniper’s nest without being seen or heard by Williams? İs it really plausible that “The” shooter had everything ready by 12:00 and he just hid under the boxes for half an hour while Williams was there? And wasn’t Oswald seen and talked to by two employees on the 1st floor at 11:50 am and 12:00? These testimonies are on Warren Commission report and was not contested by anyone. So how come we can still think that “Oswald somehow did it” despite all this evidence?

          • Vanessa says:

            No, Photon. No, they didn’t. Jarman and Williams said that Norman told them the shots came from overhead. Norman then says in his WC testimony that it was the FBI that told him he’d said that the shots came from overhead because apparently he didn’t remember it happening that way (!).

      • Tom Calarco says:

        I’m new here, Photon. Can you explain why the government continues to suppress files and information related to the assassination?

        Sure stuff has gradually come out, especially with the ARRB mandate, but this was more than 30 years after the assassination, and now 50 years afterwards, there still is assassination-related documents that haven’t been released. In fact, the Secret Service destroyed some information about the Lincoln limousine just after they were informed about the ARRB mandate.

        So, tell me, what are they hiding if Oswald was truly the lone assassin? His peculiar sex fetishes or unusual bathroom habits? Maybe he was having an affair with Hoover. Maybe he used to be a domme and LBJ was his sissy. I know I’m being ridiculous, but so is anyone who claims there was no conspiracy and goes overboard in intellectualizing rationales and explanations to support the government’s position. I guess this is what disinformation specialists do, spend time on these message boards and try to lead people away from the truth.

        I guess you must be getting paid, then?

        • Ramon F Herrera says:

          [Tom Calarco:]

          “I know I’m being ridiculous”

          ========================

          Actually, Tom, the dialectical technique you just used is called sarcasm. Can also be seen as ‘reductio ad absurdum’. It is valid and can be very useful.

    • “So…Mr. Oswald: Why did you think there would be no more work that day????? Oh…..obvious answer: ‘Cuz I shot him’.”~Bill

      I think it is obvious, as it turned out througout the entire nation , that day, that the shooting of the President was such a huge event that businesses would shut, schools would be closed, etc.

      As soon as it was announced that the president had been shot in Texas, the high school I was in let school out for the rest of the day, and that was extended until after the funeral.

      This assumption by Bill is totally jejune, and the use of such a matter as a “Proof” of guilt is utterly absurd. And that is one of the reasons Photon is so taken by this idea, he will grasp at any straw to frame Oswald.
      \\][//

      • Photon says:

        “As soon as it was announced that the President had been shot”: the first nationwide bulliten announcing that shots had been fired at JFK’s motorcade in Dallas was at 12:37 CST. On ABC radio.Oswald had already left the building.
        At 12:48 CST CBS Broadcast Cronkite’s first bulliten. At that time Oswald was already in a taxi en route to his boarding house-an unusual expense for the impoverished Oswald.Why did he abandon the public transport system if he was just “going home”- particularly before any reports of JFK actually being wounded?
        The discussion here has nothing to do with the reaction after JFK’s death was announced. It has everything to do with Oswald’s actions before anybody but a handful of people knew JFK had been fatally shot.His actions prove that he was one of that handful.

        • “The discussion here has nothing to do with the reaction after JFK’s death was announced.”~Photon

          I watched the Cronkite announcement on TV because I was home, having been let out of school at the first announcement that Kennedy had been shot. I didn’t know he had been killed until then, just like everyone else in the country.

          Your argument here is just dumb.
          \\][//

        • David Regan says:

          How do you know it was Oswald in the cab, Photon?

          According to the WC, William Whaley picked up Oswald at 12:48pm in front of the Greyhound bus station at Elm and Murphy streets. Before they could leave, an elderly woman appeared and Oswald offered her the cab, but she said that the driver could call her one. Would you say that action is indicative of an assassin in flight?

          Also, according to William Whaley’s cab manifest for the 22nd, the fare he picked up at the Greyhound bus station was at 12:30 PM. If accurate that would make it impossible for it to be Oswald since the shots were fired at 12:30 but Whaley testified that “I didn’t use a watch, I just guess, in other words, all my trips are marked about 15 minutes each”. However, looking at other times on the same manifest shows that this is not the case. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1133#relPageId=999
          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/whaley1.htm

          In his testimony to the Warren Commission, cab driver William Whaley was asked about the contradiction of his testimony and his affidavit. In his affidavit he identified the third man in the police lineup but testified that he picked the 2nd man. “I signed that statement before they carried me down to see the lineup. I signed this statement, and then they carried me down to the lineup at 2:30 in the afternoon.” He added that, “I signed my name because they said that is what I said.” http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0220b.htm
          http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0221a.htm

          Needless to say, defense counsel would have had a field day with Mr. Whaley on the stand.

  39. MDG says:

    Victoria Adams “the girl on the stairs” in the TSBD testified to the WC she didnt see LOH descend the stairs from the SIXTH FLOOR after 12:30.

    She was a very important WITNESS. It cant be ignored.

    Adams and some others were looking at the motorcade from the FOURTH FLOOR landing. They all told this story to the WC.

    It is possible that LOH left the TSBD because he realized he was a PATSY.

    It is also possible LOH have shot some diversionary shots.

    IMO head shot & neck shot looked like they were shots from the front.

    • Paul Turner says:

      WC attorney David Belin told Adams in the midst of her testimony”I don’t believe a word you’re saying”. I bet he meant “You could be telling the truth, but our job is to hide the truth from anyone who implies Oswald didn’t do it”.

  40. Richard Brown says:

    There is no evidence that anyone saw LHO “exiting the building.” The evidence reveals that a TSBD secretary, Mrs. Robert Reid, saw Oswald on the second floor near her office area several minutes after the shooting. According to Mrs. Reid’s WC testimony, she had gone outside to watch the motorcade. She stood directly in front of the TSBD next to Roy Truly and William Shelley. After the shots were fired she told Truly that it sounded like the shots came from the TSBD. Truly said he thought the shots came from the grassy area near the railroad underpass. Despite her belief that someone from inside the TSBD had fired shots, she went back inside the building and walked up the front stairs to her office on the second floor. She saw Oswald walking very slowly through the area, holding a coke in his right hand. (III WCH 279). She told Oswald that the President had been shot. (III WCH 274). She apparently had no concern that Oswald may have been the shooter. Moments before Oswald had been confronted in the second floor lunchroom near a soda machine by Office Baker, with his gun drawn, and Roy Truly. After Truly vouched for Oswald as a building employee, they hurriedly ran off, continuing their building search. It would not be unreasonable for a TSBD employee like Oswald, knowing (from his encounter with Baker) that the police were searching the building for someone, and after being told by Mrs. Reid that the President had been shot, to conclude from these facts that it was likely that there would be no further work that Friday afternoon.

    In fact, as revealed by Warren Commission Exhibit 1381, a compilation of statements obtained by the FBI from all persons believed to have been in the TSBD on 11/22/63, many, if not most, of the people working in the building that day left the building early and did not return to it that day. A TSBD secretary, Carolyn Arnold, left the TSBD at 12:25 and “never returned to this building on that date.” Virginia H. Barnum tried to return to the building at 12:40 but could not get in, so she left work for the rest of the day. Doris Burns, an employee of Macmillan Co. on the 3rd Floor of the TSBD, left work at 2:30 and did not return that day. Gloria Calvery, an employee of Southwestern Publishing Co. on the 3rd Floor of the TSBD, left work at 1:30 and went home. Jane Berry, an employee of Scott-Forsman in the TSBD stated that, after the assassination, all Scott-Forsman employees were dismissed from work early that day at about 3:00 p.m. So, if Oswald believed, as he claimed, that there was likely to be no work after the assassination, his conclusion was essentially correct, as most of the building employees either left work early of their own accord or were allowed to leave work early that day.

    So, why did LHO leave work early that day? “The only logical answer is that he was the shooter.” Really? What about all the other building employees who also left work early or did not return after the shooting? Were they also “the shooter?”

    • Jean Davison says:

      Richard,

      “In fact, as revealed by Warren Commission Exhibit 1381, a compilation of statements obtained by the FBI from all persons believed to have been in the TSBD on 11/22/63, many, if not most, of the people working in the building that day left the building early and did not return to it that day…”

      Here’s what makes Oswald different from all the other workers: he was the only employee who had been inside the building when the shooting occurred who left before the building was sealed off. That is, he was the only worker who could have been the shooter who left the area almost immediately.

      Carolyn Arnold exited the building at 12:25, i.e., before the motorcade arrived. Like many others who went outside to see the President she was locked out when the building was sealed off a few minutes after the shooting and therefore couldn’t return to work. Everyone still inside at that time waited until their bosses or the police dismissed them.

      By the time Ms. Calvery left at 1 o’clock Oswald had already taken a bus and cab to Oak Cliff, by 2:30 he was at the police station under arrest for killing a cop and the Scott-Forsman workers were still at the Depository.

      CE1381 is here:
      http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=662&tab=page

      • David Regan says:

        In an interview with journalist Earl Golz in 1978, Carolyn Arnold said she saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom as she was on her way out of the depository to watch the presidential motorcade. She did not speak to him but recognized him clearly. She left the building at 12:25 PM (the actual time the motorcade was scheduled to pass through Dealey Plaza)http://22november1963.org.uk/carolyn-arnold-witness-oswald

      • “CTs point to anomalies (oddities, things that “look funny”) in the record as though they are clues, but clues lead to a story that makes sense. These don’t. That indicates, imo, that they are meaningless “noise” or simply coincidences.”~Jean Davison – May 28, 2015 at 10:17 am

        . . . . .
        “but clues lead to a story that makes sense”~Jean

        That’s right Jean, but you spin this backwards because the “things that look funny” are facts that don’t make sense as far as the official story, that is why they are called “anomalies” because they do not make sense with the official narrative. This is the reason apologists for the official narrative try to hand-wave these facts that don’t add up to the story told by the official narrative. This is why you fall back to Coincidence Theory and call it meaningless noise.

        And this is where your side runs into the hard wall of the science of statistics, wherein it is simply statistically impossible for so many coincidences to be true. This is why the Lone-Nut Theory is magical thinking; because it rejects the majority of data, or turns it backwards as you do with this very general concept of investigative philosophy. This is also why it is so overwhelmingly aggravating to read your rhetorical jitterbug nonsense.
        \\][//

    • Photon says:

      Arnold and Barnum weren’t in the building at the time of the assassination.Arnold left before the assassination, Barnum had left the building at 11:45 to lunch with her husband and did not return until 12:40, ten minutes after the assassination. Both were excused from work.
      The others you mention left well after it was reported that JFK had been shot or killed.
      Mrs Reid’s words to Oswald: ” Oh,the President has been been shot, but maybe they didn’t hit him”- nobody in the TSBD knew JFK’s condition at the time. She also said that it was unusual to see Oswald there and that he was already walking out the building. Why did Oswald have a Coke in his hand when he drank Dr. Pepper?
      Why when told that the President of the U.S. had possibly been shot did the political junkie Oswald just mumble a response and move on?

      • “Why did Oswald have a Coke in his hand when he drank Dr. Pepper?”~Photon

        The Dr. Pepper machine was out. “You can’t always get what you want – but if you try sometimes you just might find you get what you need.”

        “Why when told that the President of the U.S. had possibly been shot did the political junkie Oswald just mumble a response and move on?”~Photon

        Why do you ask mundane questions that could be answered in literally hundreds of different ways?

        Like, Oswald was used to drinking Dr Pepper, he ended up getting a Coke because his favorite brand was out. Coke is more carbonated than Dr Pepper, and just as he was told the president had been shot, he had to burp, so he shuffled away quickly as not to embarrass himself in front of a woman.
        \\][//

        • Photon says:

          Testimony of Bonnie Ray Williams: ” Mr. Ball: Before you went upstairs,did you get anything to drink? Mr. Williams : I got a small bottle of Dr.Pepper from the Dr. Pepper machine.”
          Willy, why make stuff up? By the way, the witnesses that saw Oswald with his Coke who actually looked at it noted that the bottle was full.
          It’s quite simple. Oswald couldn’t make it to the basement were the Dr. Pepper machine was located, but he was able reach the Coke machine in time to get a bottle and look natural.But he never drank it,apparently.

          • Of course it is totally impossible that Bonnie Ray Williams got the last bottle in Dr Pepper the machine.Lol
            The two machines weren’t that far apart Photon.
            Who knows if Oswald didn’t like some variety once in awhile?
            How can you make this into such a big deal?
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Willy, you made up the claim that the Dr. Pepper machine was empty.
            I presented documented proof that it wasn’t within an hour of the assassination -when virtually everybody in the TSBD was out watching the motorcade prior to lunch.
            Let’s carry this further.You think that Oswald ate lunch on the second floor lunchroom during the motorcade. What was he doing with a full bottle of Coke ( which he didn’t drink) after eating his lunch?

          • “Willy, you made up the claim that the Dr. Pepper machine was empty.”~Photon

            I’ll play your stupid game Photon, prove the Dr. Pepper machine wasn’t empty.
            It’s quite simple, yes it is, it is quite simple you are making a mountain out of a molehill; grasping at straws because Oswald was known to be downstairs so quickly after the shots were fired.
            You are running this into the ground because you have NOTHING to prove Oswald was in that window on the 6th floor or ever fired that rifle – and as it turns out he never had possession of that rifle – the whole story is bogus.
            \\][//

          • Let us dispense with this “Coke” v “Dr. Pepper” nonsense right now.

            I was a teenager in this era; 1963. The term “Coke” was popularly used to speak to ‘bottled soda pop’ in those days. It was the most popular brand of bottled cola at the time.

            So it is frankly absurd to claim that someone saying Oswald had a Coke in his hand necessarily meant that he actually had that specific brand of bottled pop.

            This is another of Photon’s molehill arguments that have zero bearing and make zero rational sense. It is much like him calling his non sequitur argument a “paradox; it’s simply BS.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            But you can’t answer it, even with a false statement claiming that the Dr. Pepper machine was empty.
            Oswald told the police that he left the TSBD because he thought that it was going to be closed for the rest of the day. He left before anybody else in the building knew that anybody was shot-I have documented that over and over, even in the face of false claims and inaccurate statements countered by documented testimony. There is not a single statement on record of anybody who worked at the TSBD claiming that they saw JFK or Connally wounded. The testimony even of people who are claimed to know JFK was hit is rife with questions like “what happened” and ” I don’t know”.
            So why was Oswald banging on the door of a bus ( not standing at bus stop) after a seven block walk within 8 minutes of the shooting? Why did he get off to take a cab when he was virtually broke-while people at the TSBD were still unsure of what had happened? And yet he THOUGHT that they were going to close down for the day.WHY?
            He knew. Nobody else did. Nobody else COULD know.

          • “But you can’t answer it”~Photon

            There is nothing to answer. All that can be done is to point out that your questions are delusional.

            You say:”even with a false statement claiming that the Dr. Pepper machine was empty.”

            You cannot prove the Dr. Pepper machine was NOT empty. So accusing me of making a false statement is absurd.

            You are expressing confirmation bias Photon. You are convinced Oswald is guilty, so every little thing you think you know he did is viewed by you as the acts only a guilty man would do. There could be hundreds of innocent interpretations for any of the things you point out. You imply desperation by using the term “banging on a bus door”, when there are very few other ways to get a driver’s attention if the doors have already shut…

            I am not going to play your game anymore and pick apart each absurdity you make point by point.

            I find you to be either foolish or disingenuous, and it is futile to argue with someone like you.
            \\][//

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Richard

      Ever wonder how Mrs. Reid got back upstairs so quickly?

  41. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Please consider. Baker mentioned nothing of the break room encounterin his DPD report on 11/22. Truly didn’t mention it until after discussions with the DPD and FBI. Did it happen? Another report speaks of Truly seeing Oswald in they front foyer as he and Baker went in. Oswald said he directed someone to the phone there at the time.
    Consider this also. Oswald left the TSBD because he figured out something was wrong, maybe he was being framed. He first went West away from the TSBD to a bus stalled in traffic. Then into a cab past his rooming house to go back change clothes and pick up his pistol. On to the Texas Theater to meet his contact. Not just a theory, but at least somewhat fact base.

  42. Robert Paul says:

    As others here have aptly stated, if LHO was part of a team, but not the shooter, then his handler could have told him that the plan had changed and he must leave the area – pronto. That’s just one of many possible scenarios for Oswald to leave the TSBD.

    Leaving the scene of a crime (along with numerous other employees), while curious, does not support Photon’s statement that, “The only logical answer is that he was the shooter. It is simple .It is definitive . And it cannot be refuted.”

    I’d hate to present that ludicrous logic and its self-contrived conclusion to a jury.

    • Photon says:

      If Oswald was a member of a team, not the shooter what was he doing in the TSBD in the first place-cheer leading?
      How could a “handler ” even reach him- there were no cell phones at the time, he didn’t have a walkie-talkie, he didn’t know semaphore.
      Look at the gyrations that you have to go through and the illogical assumptions that you accept just to deal with a simple problem-Oswald was already on a bus trying to leave the area before JFK even reached Parkland.Before anybody except a few witnesses knew that JFK was even wounded. But Oswald even hailed a cab and used some of his little remaining money to get away from Dealey Plaza. Why?
      We know that his alibi Skelley never saw him after 12 noon and told no one to go home. So why did Oswald lie about that?
      The obvious, most logical answer was that Oswald was fleeing the scene of a crime-before anybody who worked at the TSBD even knew that a crime had been committed .

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Who’s Skelly? I’ve been reading of Catherine Taaffe and June Cobb.
        As far as member of a team, not the shooter, why in the TSBD.
        Probably, as the patsy, maybe he cut off the electricity during the assassination so the elevators would be stuck on the fifth floor too until Truly and Baker started up.
        As it was a conspiracy it is likely Oswald was involved simply because of his presence, but not as a shooter. He was not qualified for that capacity in such an operation.
        Most likely he was in the TSBD because he was placed there by his CIA handler.

        • Photon says:

          William Shelley, not Skelley. Over aggressive spell check.
          Oswald claimed that he told him to go home.
          He stated that he never saw Oswald after 12 noon.
          Photon’s Paradox stands

          • Vanessa says:

            No, it doesn’t Photon – your paradox is kaput.

            If Shelley didn’t see Oswald after 12.00 and according to the WC Oswald was in the sniper’s nest from 11.50am – 12.33pm then how did Oswald know that Shelley was out in front (as per Fritz’s notes).

            The most reasonable explanation is that Oswald wasn’t in the sniper’s nest but somewhere else. Somewhere where he could see Shelley who was standing on the TSBD steps.

      • Robert Paul says:

        Photon – his handler(s) could have been anywhere in the building or on the street below. LOH himself could have realized that something substantial changed and decided to flee before the cops arrived in mass. My previous point is simple – his fleeing is not proof of his guilt as the shooter. I do agree with you that his behavior is odd and at (the very least) curious. I hope that you agree that curious behavior is not proof of guilt, maybe involvement, maybe even more that, but not something I’d describe as “definitive and non-refutable.” I know you’re smarter than that.

      • Tom Calarco says:

        Sure, the likelihood is that Oswald was in some way involved. That doesn’t mean he fired any shots. With all his associations and connections to intelligence and mob individuals, he likely knew what was going on. But doesn’t preclude him being made a patsy. In fact, the likelihood is that one of the team would be framed to cover up what actually happened, and he was that unlucky guy.

        Why are people still arguing was so plain as every morning when the sun rises and birds sing, and the fact is that our government killed the President elected by the people, and took away a piece of our democracy which has been continually eroding ever since?

  43. Eddy says:

    Is this the ‘the most important piece of new JFK assassination evidence?’

    “The honest answer is that the CIA and FBI knew more about Oswald than they volunteered, but not as much as they should have; they never recognized him as a potentially dangerous individual. Considering that he had never exhibited any known acts of violence that doesn’t seem inappropriate, although with 20/20 hindsight it can be criticized as negligence.
    In addition, the CIA was striving to protect sensitive intelligence sources, such as the surveillance techniques at the Cuban Embassy. How do you think they got that intelligence? Somebody at the Embassy had access to conversations that took place there; as soon as this info came out that individual was compromised and that conduit for information ceased.”
    Photon , May 6, 2015 at 7:55 pm ,JFK facts.

    So…. Reading a little between the lines, is this the official line in 2015:

    The CIA/FBI were potentially negligent in their analysis/surveillance of the ‘lone nut’ Oswald. The point at which this was known was immediately after Oswald was identified as the killer. . In addition the reason for the cover-up was the protection of intelligence sources, later compromised.

    As of 2015 this has not been formally admitted. An on-going cover-up is in place, at least involving the FBI/CIA

    There is now only one reason left for a cover-up; the only reason for an on-going cover-up is protection of the intelligence services from facing charges/vilification for negligence.

    I think it is entirely plausible that this is the current official line (although not for publication in the main-stream media) and I thank Photon for that.

    • “There is now only one reason left for a cover-up; the only reason for an on-going cover-up is protection of the intelligence services from facing charges/vilification for negligence.”~Eddy

      Seems so Eddy, a revetment, a modified limited hangout; “Whoops! We F’d up!!” It’s an old stand-by, old as the hills.
      \\][//

      • Eddy says:

        I find it a very interesting explanation in that you could say it matches the indisputable facts, but no more.

        If the Zapruder film is proven to be altered (I would say that is possible), if ‘prayer man’ is proven to be Oswald (also possible) and New Orleans/Mexico research moves forward (almost inevitable)the ‘official line’ might need amending again.

        • Robert Paul says:

          Eddy – thank you for mentioning the possibility of Z-film alteration. People can hair-split words, criticize authors, and mock speakers, but that contributes nothing to serious research.

          If the film was altered, and that possibility does exist, then that could be newly discovered evidence and a game changer. New and more intense Z film research may be productive, regardless of those who say that alteration is/was impossible. Only those with a dubious agenda would argue against additional examination.

          We’ll have more to report on this (fact based and unbiased), as we have some serious university based engineering departments working with the zeros and ones. So far, the numbers don’t add up, but it’s very complex and it’s far too early to draw any conclusions.

          • “New and more intense Z film research may be productive, regardless of those who say that alteration is/was impossible. Only those with a dubious agenda would argue against additional examination.”~Robert Paul

            I would like to say that I am not at all against intense Z film research. I am in fact all for it, as long as it actually addresses the real issues. As long as those who are doing this research actually know something about real film, and do not confine their attention of playing with computer simulations that have nothing to do with real world film; I refer to Healy and is utterly naive and misguided efforts.

            I will also point out that there are well known and infamous charlatans who have been involved in promoting this alteration hypothesis. The false arguments they have already made must be put in perspective as well.

            One more thing this old adage may be popular; “Anything Is Possible”__but is it True?

            I would assert that there are boundaries to what is and is not possible in the physical world. I will assert that taking a metaphysical and esoteric mindset, and approaching these issue from a theological perspective will lead you into the fantastical, to magical thinking.

            Lastly I will point out that Doug Horne keeps introducing what he calls new and exciting research, but is yet to provide the work he claimed was conclusive more than five years ago now. Where and who are these dozens of “Hollywood Experts” he claimed were on board with this so called “patch” on the back of Kennedy’s head?
            And where is the errata promised to Clint Bradford regarding Mantik’s Mistakes* in misrepresenting Palamara’s witness testimonies, acknowledged as far back as July 1998 by Mantik and Fetzer?
            I happen to know Fetzer is still promoting those known errors as true in 2014.

            *See: http://www.jfk-info.com/mantik-1.htm
            \\][//

    • Zephyr says:

      There’s really no one left in the intelligence services, today, who could be harmed by any aspersions cast on this or that agency.

      There is, however, a family name left whose current candidate for the US presidency could be harmed by revelations that his dad murdered a former sitting president.

      • Zephyr says:

        Well, I should’ve said it seems unlikely there would by anyone left in the intelligence services who would be harmed one way or the other by something an agency did 50 years ago, and that a coverup lasting for generations would be more likely to relate to interests that persist across generations. If “the CIA” was blurrily involved in a 1963 assassination plot, that’s barely newsworthy today, and many Americans thought that from day one–long before any JFK conspiracy tomes. Yet another story of rogue agents in the 1960s would hardly pose a threat to today’s agency. A specific CIA agent’s involvement, however, whose sons’ political careers could be damaged, is another matter. I personally found the recent spate of Johnson-did-it books a bit over the top, even though the evidence for his complicity is significant. I do think Johnson is complicit–I just don’t think he was top dog, and my bet is that this last-ditch effort to direct attention his way is purposeful and timely.

    • Tom Calarco says:

      All those who you allege f’d up are dead now, so why would the government still suppress information?

      It’s obviously much bigger than this.

      • Zephyr says:

        I think GHWB was integral to the assassination, and that that information would harm his son’s presidential run (and expose the family business to legal action).

  44. Robert Paul says:

    Dear Willy – I concur with your post today regarding the Z film. Personally speaking, I have no tolerance for charlatans or non-fact based analysis. Rest assured that the zeros and ones I referred to were not about computer animations. Glad you’re keeping an open mind (for now). :)

  45. So who but someone supercalifragilistic on ballistics would know the way to make tricky ballistics would be to put a 38 special cylinder on a 38 regular pistol so that the rifling in the barrel would be touch & go on the bullet head’s way out?

    I don’t think Ozzy was that hep about guns and ammo.
    \\][//

  46. “What is the most important piece of JFK assassination evidence to surface in the last 5 years”?

    Some of it is right on this thread in the commentary of the Warren Commission defenders; that is that the cover up is still being maintained by true believers in the nonsense asserted by Authority.
    \\][//

  47. Gerry Campeau says:

    What’s the most important piece of new JFK assassination evidence
    The refusal of JFKFACTS to Highlight and Analyze the Lies told by
    Col. Boris T Pash at Jan 7 1976 testimony to Church Committee and the Lies told by Col.Robert Ellis Jones testimony HSCA Apr. 20 1978
    https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1430&relPageId=10

    http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/unpub_testimony/Jones_4-20-78/html/jones_0001a.htm

  48. Bill says:

    Discussion about How Oswald knew Shelley was out front: Two pretty straight forward answers that not have been addressed of postulated upon.

    1. Since Oswald was in the 6th Floor window setting up his ‘nest’, he could have easily leaned out and see Mr. Shelley stand around out there as easily as others saw him standing up there.

    2. After descending the stairs and then seeing Baker and Truly on the 2nd Floor…he cut across the 2nd floor and exited the building, after learning from Mrs. Reid, that Kennedy had been shot at (his first knowledge of the shooting would have been from her…) by walking right out the front door where he simply saw Shelly standing out there looking around like everyone else.

    This is just common sense. Even Shelly states that he was out front for x period of time after the shooting. There was nobody concerned with people looking out those windows, Jarmin’s group, Elsie Dorman’s group, or…sadly, LHO sitting there waiting for his target to drive past.

    So how did he know Shelley was out front? Easy: He SAW him as he was going about his plan to kill JFK. Peace.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      One small problem, Bill. The steps of the TSBD are recessed into the front of the building. Looking down from the 6th floor, you might get a glimpse of the bottom step if you leaned far enough out the window.

      According to Shelley’s testimony, he and Lovelady remained on the steps for some time following the shots.

      If you could provide a photo showing Shelley on the bottom step, your theory might actually get somewhere.

  49. Jim Glover says:

    My new piece of evidence is my recent observation about the claim that the reason JFK’s head went back and to the left was because of the nerves in his spine being stimulated by a shot to the back of his head. Well, millions of people in war have been shot in the back of the head and the other day i saw a group of prisoners lined up on their knees and must have been a dozen or so and the were all shot in the back of their heads simultaneously and they all fell forward and not one had there head pushed back toward the bullet.

    I Think of all the people the Nazis shot, if it was true that a shot to the back of the head caused a brain to spine reaction than the way it would have been done would be to have them stand with their backs to the mass grave with the firing Squad shooting them from across the grave pits so that they would fall into the mass graves without anyone pushing the bodies in the graves. But the opposite is how it is done as the Nazis and other War Criminals did the evil deeds as efficiently as possible. So the victims are placed facing the grave and are shot in the back of the head and the body falls forward not backward. So the next time you hear them talk about the spinal reaction ask them if they ever witnessed this or is this only when JFK is shot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more