Flip de Mey’s take on Oswald’s rifle

I find this a plausible theory.

“‘There were indeed shots fired from the sniper’s nest and they were more than likely fired with the Carcano….”

Source: Lee Harvey Oswald was INNOCENT but his gun WAS used to assassinate JFK, claims | Daily Mail Online

229 comments

  1. This is very possible. I talked with the nurse who found CE399 and she, alive today, drew for me a bullet that looked very similar to CE399.

    If one believes that Oswald was a pre-selected CIA/LBJ patsy for the JFK assassination, it is easy to believe that Oswald was set up and his gun was used for some of the behind Kennedy shooting, while the snipers on the Grassy Knoll did the real damage with a shot into JFK’s throat from the front and a head kill shot to JFK’s right temple. With JFK and Connally both being shot in the back with separate bullets and probably separate guns.

    The CIA people who overthrew Guatemala in 1954, and who were behind the Bay of Pigs, were the ones who murdered JFK in 1963 and Lyndon Johnson was in this plot up to his eyeballs.

    Oswald’s physical body description, found in CIA and FBI files, was immediately broadcast 5 times within one hour over Dallas police radio: preselected CIA patsy for the JFK assassination. Read State Secrets by Bill Simpich.

    These kind of Machiavellians are the same kind who would steal and use a patsy’s gun to do the shooting.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      Hi Robert:

      Since -according to the media-

      https://www.texastribune.org/2016/03/02/newly-elected-gop-chair-texas-capitol/

      you seem to be obsess…, err, I mean, focused on people’s sexual orientation, do you give any credence to the versions that have Lee, Ferrie, Shaw, etc. (even Ruby!) engaging in intimate activities?

      Bonus question: Who is Nick Bryant (a nom de plume?) and why it his page linked to your name?

      • Nick Bryant is the author of the Franklin Scandal, a book that is worthy of a Pulitzer Prize and which nailed down the story of a 1980’s homosexual pedophile ring that was catering to high level Republicans (providing boys to them).

        The Franklin pedophile ring was quite similar to the Jeffrey Epstein ring of pedophilia except that Epstein’s perversion was abusing very young girls.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      I hate to break it to you, Robert, but CE 399 was not found by a female nurse. It was supposedly found on an empty gurney by a male orderly named Tomlinson.

      Neither he nor Parkland Hospital Chief of Security, OP Wright, who Tomlinson turned CE 399 over to, ever identified CE 399 as a round nosed bullet similar in appearance to CE 399. In fact, OP Wright ID’ed the bullet found as a bullet with a pointed or “spitzer” nose.

      I’m quite disturbed that you do not know this, Robert.

      • No, actually, it was found by John Connally’s personal nurse. She is alive today and a key witness in the JFK assassination. She found CE 399 and turned it into the authorities.

        There is a lot about JFK research you do not know.

        I have been trying to get this former nurse to come forward and be interviewed on video. She has twice received death threats at various times, decades ago, and is still hesitant to speak.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          So, the Tomlinson/O.P. Wright story is a fabrication, then?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          You sound quite sure of yourself on this matter, Robert. Perhaps you would like to share with us the evidence to back up your claim.

          • I have asked her many times to do an oral history or speak at a JFK conference. I am friends with one of her friends.

            She is in her late 70’s and of sound mind.

            She is unwilling to come forward although she has spoken to a lunch group of 100 of her friends before.

            She lives in Texas and is alive and well as far as I know.

            She was John Connally’s personal nurse at Parkland. She found CE399.

            The death threats from decades ago have spooked her.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Prudhomme and Morrow,
            Y’all are talking about two different bullets. CE399, “The Pristine Bullet”, SUPPOSEDLY fell off a long unattended stretcher by elevators. It was an obvious plant (I say put there by the one and only Jack Ruby during his sojourns around Parkland) found by Darrell Tomlinson and given to O. P. Wright. Originally, it was the wrong bullet to frame LHO, a pointy-nosed slug in the 30-30 caliber range, which, curiously, is very close to 7.65 mm, as in 7.65 Mauser. Wrong stretcher and everything (the stretcher of a little boy). Poor hapless Jack Ruby.

            The OTHER bullet, picked up by Connally’s first nurse, the great AUDREY M. BELL, in the trauma room, fell off JBC’s stretcher right while he was on it, when they were undressing him. Even the governor heard it, said it sounded like a wedding band hitting the floor. Ms. Bell picked it up and put it in a small 2″ by 3″ manila envelope like they used to put a few pills in. She initialed it and gave it to a Texas State Highway patrolman, Bobby Nolan. He never looked at the bullet or even felt it through the envelope to get an idea how much of a slug it was. BN was under extreme orders to give it only to Will Fritz, which he did. No easy task.

            This second bullet, like so much of the evidence, has completely disappeared. The envelope, or a close facsimile, is still in the National Archives. There are problems with the initials on it.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Second sentence should read: CE399, “The Pristine Bullet”, SUPPOSEDLY fell off…

            Of course, it really didn’t.

    • James Howells says:

      Probably LBJ’s hit man, since they found a partial print of his up there.

      • Ramon F Herrera says:

        James:

        Due respect, but it is not easy to imagine a more absurd theory than having Mac Wallace in Dallas.

        See my 2 comments to Roger Stone here:

        http://jfkfacts.org/why-roger-stones-jfk-book-cant-be-dismissed/#comment-651365

        Imagine if you will, that the CIA determines the elimination of North Korea’s Kim Jong-un to be imperative to national security. Obama decides that the non-assassination rule must be violated. When informed that they have the perfect agents (somebody who works in the palace, perhaps in the kitchen), Obama replies:

        “Not to worry! I’ll ask Michelle (or Rahm Emanuel, or David Axelrod)to do this!”

      • Ramon F Herrera says:

        LBJ was in very hot, about to boil water. The Kennedys -who were not angels, politically- were preparing a bloodless coup of their own. Two of the country’s main magazines, Newsweek and LIFE, were preparing damning cover page articles indirectly against LBJ, to be published with the perfect timing: after the return from the Texas trip. The objective of the attack was not only to place somebody else in the 1964 ticket, but to kill Johnson politically.

        [Contemporaneous note: Similar deals were offered to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. It matters not whether the threat is explicit or implicit (a writing on the wall). The strategy works: Both ladies resigned their positions.]

        The first time I heard about this deleterious but ghastly article, I quickly dismissed it. However, when I learned that the source is none other than Jack & Jackie’s closest non-relative friend, Ben Bradlee, I became a believer.

        https://www.amazon.com/Good-Life-Ben-Bradlee-ebook/dp/B004QWZ5TO/ref=sr_1_2

        The LIFE magazine hit piece was another story altogether. While Bradlee was an ally as loyal as you can get, the people in LIFE hated Kennedy, but still went ahead with a similar article. Bobby Baker was the apparent target.

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

        “Kennedy had died on a Friday. Bradlee claims that the journal’s main article about the Bobby Baker scandal and its links with Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson had already been printed: “Fridays are the beginning of the end of a week in the life of a news magazine. The covers have long since been printed, waiting for the rest of the book. All the features – the back of the book-have been edited and typeset. The leads of the news sections are being written, edited, rewritten, and rewritten again. The printed cover of the impending scandal involving Bobby Baker, LBJ’s protégé, was scrapped. The entire magazine went out the window and we began all over again.”

        http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbradleeB.htm

      • Ramon F Herrera says:

        RFK Was Working with LIFE magazine to “Take Down” LBJ in November of 1963 “A former editor of LIFE magazine has just provided explosive information, in November of 2009, that indicates the Attorney General of the United States, Robert F. Kennedy, was working with LIFE in November of 1963 to bring down Vice President Lyndon Johnson and ruin his political career, so that his brother, President Kennedy, could replace LBJ as his running mate in 1964. I include this information in my blog because it confirms a central thesis of my book, which is that LBJ willingly participated in a large domestic conspiracy to assassinate JFK in order to avoid his own political ruin. I do not view LBJ as the mastermind of any assassination plot, but I do view him as a crucial “enabler,” whose cooperation was essential to both covering up the assassination, and to enacting the policy changes desired by the assassination cabal within the national security establishment. “Earlier this month, James Wagenvoord (who in 1963 was the 27 year old Editorial business manager and an assistant to LIFE magazine’s Executive Editor) contacted John Simkin, who runs the website Education Forum, with the following revelation. According to Wagenvoord, “Beginning in late summer 1963 the magazine, based upon information fed from Bobby Kennedy and the Justice Department, had been developing a major newsbreak piece concerning Johnson and Bobby Baker. On publication Johnson would have been finished and off the ’64 ticket (reason the material was fed to us) and would probably have been facing prison time. At the time LIFE magazine was arguably the most important general news source in the U.S. The top management of Time, Inc. was closely allied with the USA’s various intelligence agencies and we were used…by the Kennedy Justice Department as a conduit to the public…The LBJ/Baker piece was in the final editing stages and was scheduled to break in the issue of the magazine due out the week of November 24 (the magazine would have made it to the newsstands on Nov. 26th or 27th). It had been prepared in relative secrecy by a small special editorial team. On Kennedy’s death research files and all numbered copies of the nearly print-ready draft were gathered up by my boss (he had been the top editor on the team) and shredded. The issue that was to expose LBJ instead featured the Zapruder film. Based upon our success in syndicating the Zapruder film I became Chief of Time/LIFE editorial services and remained in that job until 1968.”

        http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14966

    • Gary Aguilar, says:

      Robert,

      That a nurse, and not Tomlinson, found CE 399 will be news to the world. The bona fides of 399 are in serious doubt.

      See: http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

  2. Ronnie Wayne says:

    I’ve thought for years some one shot from the 6th floor, most likely not Oswald. Shot’s to distract back, up and to the right, away from the front, not necessarily at the limo. Maybe a shard from one hitting a curb nicked James Tague’s cheek.

    I’ve stood pretty much exactly where Howard Brennan stood a little before 12:30 on 11/22/63. If you look up at “the” window it’s hard to tell what you might see as it’s closed and there is no one in it. But from that perspective it’s hard to believe one could perceive the detail of a face in a glance and identify it later. Try it yourself the next time your in Dealy Plaza.
    You might tell if someone was white or black, maybe latino. Maybe long hair or a beard, heavy set vs thin.
    Remember it was a passing glance, not a stare at anything out of the ordinary. In addition whoever was in there was in the shadows, not clearly illuminated. Last, other witnesses observed two men.

  3. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Oswald’s Rifle? Says who? No proof he ever picked it up as required by the U S Postal Service.
    Same with the pistol or it was provided by the DPD, being the most popular police pistol in the USA at the time (I recently read, McBride?).
    I also read recently somewhere that Senator Byrd’s office might have ordered it as part of an investigation into gun trafficking. With reports of Ruby involved in gun running it makes one wonder about the big picture.

    • No proof he ever picked it up as required by the U S Postal Service.

      And no “proof” would be expected. If a large parcel came in, a notice was put in the box. Anybody who presented the notice could get the package.

      The rifle was mailed to Oswald’s PO box. Three pieces of writing on the order sent to Klein’s Sporting Goods were in Oswald’s handwriting.

      • >>No proof he ever picked it up as required by the U S Postal Service.<<

        "And no “proof” would be expected"~John McAdams

        So there it is, there is no proof. We are in agreement here.
        \\][//

        • theNewDanger says:

          Stop confusing that man with facts. Expecting proof is unfair when we already have a factless story written for us to espouse and profess.

          • Since it was Oswald’s post office box, and his handwriting on three pieces of material sent to Klein’s Sporting Goods, it’s you folks who need to prove he did not pick it up.

            It’s also clear it ended up his his possession. The Backyard Photos show a gouge on the forestock of the rifle that perfectly matches one on the rifle recovered in the Depository.

            The rifle recovered in the Depository has the exact serial number as the rifle Klein’s shipped to “Alec Hidell.”

            Demanding “proof” that cannot possibly exist is a dishonest strategy.

          • paulf says:

            So there we have it. McAdams says demanding proof is unfair. Verdict first, trial later. Funny, I think that was in a book I read once…..

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            John

            The “gouge in the forestock” seen in the BYP rifle and the rifle found on the 6th floor proves absolutely nothing.

            Of course, the conspirators are going to leave the rifle used in the BYP’s on the 6th floor to frame Oswald. It would be patently stupid of them not to use the same rifle.

            BTW, I can’t seem to see a scope on the rifle in the BYP’s. What gives?

          • theNewDanger says:

            John McAdams
            July 8, 2016 at 7:23 pm
            Since it was Oswald’s post office box, and his handwriting on three pieces of material sent to Klein’s Sporting Goods, it’s you folks who need to prove he did not pick it up.

            It’s also clear it ended up his his possession. The Backyard Photos show a gouge on the forestock of the rifle that perfectly matches one on the rifle recovered in the Depository.

            The rifle recovered in the Depository has the exact serial number as the rifle Klein’s shipped to “Alec Hidell.”

            Demanding “proof” that cannot possibly exist is a dishonest strategy.

            You pursue that dishonest strategy in nearly every one of your bullshit demands. Bitching about “proof” is rich of you. Nothing you’ve stated proves (nor have you ever proven) that Oswald fired that weapon at JFK on 11/22/1963.

          • Of course, the conspirators are going to leave the rifle used in the BYP’s on the 6th floor to frame Oswald. It would be patently stupid of them not to use the same rifle.

            Sure, if you make enough assumptions, and involve an elaborate enough conspiracy, you can get Oswald off the hook.

            But the more of that sort of thing you have to do, the more implausible your theory becomes.

            BTW, I can’t seem to see a scope on the rifle in the BYP’s. What gives?

            You have no access to the best quality photographic material.

            See:

            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=958&relPageId=94

          • McAdams says demanding proof is unfair. Verdict first, trial later. Funny, I think that was in a book I read once…..

            An odd statement, coming from a conspiracist.

            For you folks, mere suspicion is enough to declare the CIA, or the FBI, or the Mafia, or LBJ guilty.

            The evidence is very strong. Oswald ordered the rifle. Oswald ended up with the rifle.

            But you want to conclude that somebody besides Oswald picked up the rifle at the post office.

            Would a video of Oswald at the post office window satisfy you?

            I think that whatever is offered, you will always be demanding something further.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            John

            How ironic, accusing me of making assumptions to get Oswald “off the hook”, when the entire WC case is circumstantial evidence and based on assumptions.

            Seriously, John, the fact that the rifle in the BYP’s and the rifle in evidence both have a gouge in the forestock merely proves the conspirators were smart enough to use the same rifle in both phases of the frame up. Nothing more.

            BTW, I stand corrected on the rifle in the BYP’s having a scope on it.

            http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/jfk-assassination-50-years#slide=1

            This much clearer version of a BYP clearly shows the scope; even such small details as the windage knob on the side of the scope tube.

          • David Regan says:

            McAdams needs to brush up on Commission Exhibit 2585; final paragraph on page 4. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2585.pdf

            FBI: “A. Hidell” could not receive mail at Dallas Box 2915

  4. CE399? There is no proof that the Parkland Bullet was CE399.

    The chain of custody is nil. There is no proof of ANY Carcano bullets being fired in Dealey Plaza in 11/22/1963.

    We have 100% denial by the four men who examined the bullet that Tomlinson found, that it was CE399. Unlike many other issues related to the case, this one is not a tough call. It seems that J. Edgar Hoover agreed, because in recordings of telephone conversations between him and LBJ, he suggested that Connally was wounded because he came between the President and an assassin, and that if Connally had not come between them, JFK would have taken his bullet.
    http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

    \\][//

  5. GM says:

    I think it was Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that was found in the sixth floor of the TSBD. It probably was used in the shooting. I am not sure that it was the only rifle used in the assassination of JFK. I am also not convinced Oswald was in the sniper’s nest, and it is not clear to me how his rifle ended up in the book depository (given the confusion and dispute over the length of the paper bag Oswald brought with him to work on the 22nd). I agree with de Mey that Brennan was a unreliable witness, given his location at the time of the assassination. Therefore, it appears to me that Flip de Mey has made a reasonable deduction of at least some of the events on the day, but of course it is very difficult to conclusively prove all of this.

    • Flip de Mey says:

      The main issue is the disassembling. Once the weapon is brought well adjusted into the TSBD it is reliable enough for the two shots within 5,5 seconds that actually hit JFK. We know quite sure that Oswald did NOT bring an assembled rifle into the TSBD. If he did, he did it in the days before, but then he had to have the rifle in his rooming house, which was not the case. And why then should he bring on 22 november that highly suspicious packet into the building, instead of clearly showing to anyone that he didn’t bring anything inside. Once you accept Oswald was framed, and ws not the shooter, it becomes plausible that the rifle came into the building well adjusted. And vice versa, if the rifle came in some way into the building well adjusted, it’s clear that Oswald was framed as the perpetrator. A lot is unknown (e.g. what was the paper bag about? How did the conspirators keep Oswald from watching the motorcade in full sight of a camera, where there other shooters on the Plaza,…) but some pieces of the puzzle seem to fit around a shot not by Oswald with the well-adjusted Carcano.

  6. David S says:

    Governor Connolly was shot in the back, correct? I have never seen a claim he was shot in the front.

    This, obviously, means that at least 1 shooter was behind the motorcade, possibly in the Texas SchoolBook Depository, possibly a different building.

    I say this without argument or implication.

    • Flip de Mey says:

      Indeed, at least 1 shooter was behind the motorcade. We know that for sure because (among other arguments) the dent in the chrome strip is at the inside of the limo, so there is no doubt the car was shot from behind. (The crack’s in the windshield were also caused on the inside). Kennedy’s backwound could only be from a bullet coming from behind, if the the wound at his neck-tie knot was an entrance wound, the bullet could never exit where his backwound was located. Also Tague could only be hit by a fragment from a bullet coming from behind the car. There is no doubt possible about the indisputable fact that bullets were fired from behind the car.

    • theNewDanger says:

      David S

      July 8, 2016 at 8:21 am

      Governor Connolly was shot in the back, correct? I have never seen a claim he was shot in the front.

      Potential proof of foreknowledge and verbal illustration of the presence of a frontal shooter by Hoover to LBJ:

      • theNewDanger says:

        http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/lbjlib/phone_calls/Nov_1963/html/LBJ-Nov-1963_0240a.htm

        (Tom S. note: theNewDanger, this site’s (JFKfacts.org) anti-spam measures screen each pending comment. The process disables coded image links.

        I displayed the image above via this coding,
        img src=”http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/lbjlib/phone_calls/Nov_1963/pages/LBJ-Nov-1963_0240a.gif”>

        I omitted the < symbol before img so you could view the coding. Otherwise, the image would be displayed twice. I went to the page at the link you provided and right clicked (windows mouse) on the transcript image to obtain the image's web address. In the future, if you format an image as in my example, I will restore whatever coding change the anti-spam measures have inflicted. IOW, I will attempt to do what I have done here.)

  7. Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

    DPD Detective Roger CRAIG,DPD Constable Seymour WEITZMAN, and Deputy Sheriff E.L. BOONE reported a 7.65m Mauser hidden by boxes near the back stairs of the 6th floor at TSBD, but CE139 is a 40.2″ Mannlicher Carcano short rifle. David Josephs has clearly demonstrated that it’s not even the rifle taken by Lt. Day out of the building as evidence. See http://www.ctka.net/2016/JosephsRifle.pdf

    To cap it all, the WC reported that LHO ordered by mail a 36″ Mannlicher Carcano carbine rifle, and the HSCA discovered that Klein’s Sporting Goods placed scopes on the carbine, not on the short rifle.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      Arnaldo:

      Here’s Roger Craig, giving declarations, in video:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocZAiIgQ9jI
      Fast Forward to Minute 29:17′

      • Oh, my.

        You folks are really slow picking up on Craig.

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

        Craig changed his story on the rifle. To the Los Angeles Free Press in 1968, he said he did not know the make of the rifle, but that a Mauser was found on the roof.

        http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg

        Tom Alyea filmed the recovery of the rifle. It’s a Mannlicher Carcano.

        http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day1.jpg

        http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day2.jpg

        Isn’t it long overdue to drop this factoid?

        • Tom S. says:

          Isn’t it long overdue to drop this factoid?

          Many favor Craig’s early claims despite his later variations and contradictions because they are impressed with his claims.
          They insist that others representing government meet a different evidentiary standard. A favorite claim is that Craig was unable
          to “find work.” Mary Ferrell said her husband hired Craig and found that Craig was uninterested in performing work. Willard E. Robertson hired Craig, but Craig soon quit the job. Craig supposedly made an enemy of Bill Decker and his department, but that department hired Craig’s son as a deputy and later asked for his resignation related to a morals charge. Craig’s autopsy results
          conflict with suspicions of those impressed with his early claims, despite all this from Craig’s daughter.:
          http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3556&p=149896

          Watching FBI director Comey pressed in the Emergency Hearing yesterday by republican congressional reps. demanding to know what to say to their constituents in their gerrymandered, conservative, predominantly rural districts who have been conditioned by talk radio and 23 years of other anti-Clinton memes, only to be foiled again, influenced me to compare their insular belief system to those impressed with the claims and ordeals of Roger Craig.

          Neither mindset considers the problem of their insularity or that their beliefs make them appear on the fringe to the rest of us. Attacking Clinton and advocating for the veracity of Craig sets back those presenting such opinions because such opinions are unreasonable, considering the entirety of the evidence. If you cannot prove it past “feeling it” who are you actually presenting to,aside from others who already feel similarly to you? If it is controversial and you offer no proof substantiating your beliefs, why present them if you’ve assessed the terrain you are operating in? This is JFKfacts.org, and although many commentors may disagree, I would like to keep it that way, a place presenting, emphasizing, and discussing the facts.

          • jeffc says:

            The best sources to establish the presence of a Mauser on the 6th floor were DPD Weitzman’s Nov 23 affidavit and the report and testimony from DPD Boone. Questioning Craig’s veracity on this issue does not “debunk” this event. The most interesting thing Roger Craig had to say was his witnessing Oswald getting into a vehicle outside the TSBD after the shooting.

            This thread could now turn into a lengthy rehashing of all the issues regarding the finding of the rifle and its alleged provenance, whereby all the same arguments which have been stated already numerous times over will be restated again. This seems to conform to the predictions of Vince Salandria re: the time-wasting intentions of certain interested parties. Perhaps it would be useful to establish specific threads on these specific topics and, as a moderator, intervene when the conversation veers and direct it to the appropriate thread.

          • The most interesting thing Roger Craig had to say was his witnessing Oswald getting into a vehicle outside the TSBD after the shooting.

            At a time when Oswald is known to have been either on Cecil McWatter’s bus, or getting into a cab at the Greyhound station.

            This seems to conform to the predictions of Vince Salandria re: the time-wasting intentions of certain interested parties.

            Somehow, debunking silly conspiracy factoids is always “time wasting.”

            The real waste of time is you folks repeating them.

            BTW, Salandria was the crazy guy who wanted Garrison to arrest Michael and Ruth Paine.

          • demanding to know what to say to their constituents in their gerrymandered, conservative, predominantly rural districts who have been conditioned by talk radio and 23 years of other anti-Clinton memes, only to be foiled again,

            Interesting that a leftist like you, who is happy to call FBI and CIA bureaucrats liars, won’t accept that Hillary lied.

            Comey made it clear she did.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “The best sources to establish the presence of a Mauser on the 6th floor were DPD Weitzman’s Nov 23 affidavit and the report and testimony from DPD Boone.”

            How can that be, when Weitzman and Boone testified they were mistaken — the rifle looked like a Mauser, but it wasn’t.

            I think the best evidence is the Alyea film and news photos showing Day carrying the rifle outside the building. They definitely show an M-C:
            http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-d6T0kemJOf0/UtgW0iOqHEI/AAAAAAAAxrA/jMSK5YuNXGg/s1600/Frame-From-Tom-Alyea-Film-1.jpg

            http://i60.tinypic.com/2hcgthx.jpg

            Do you think these pictures were faked?

          • Bogmanoc says:

            I thought lying to the FBI was a crime in itself, Professor. Strange they didn’t prosecute. Guess they’re in the bag for Hillary.

          • Tom S. says:

            I did not want to respond to this here, (planned to consider this topic for next Tuesday’s “Comment of the week”) but let us deal in facts and recent precedent, instead of right wing political diatribe, also considering that the theater that is foisted on us is actually democrats propping up right wing hypocrisy because when all is said and done, controlling politics are of right wing hypocrisy. There are not opposing “sides” by the look of the process and judging by the results…..

            Republican admins appoint no democrats to cabinet level or other high level positions. Bush appointed DOD secretary Robert Gates
            was kept on by Obama andrepublican James Comey was appointed to a ten year term as FBI director….

            http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-fbi-idUSKCN0ZN1LS
            Politics | Thu Jul 7, 2016 11:27am EDT
            FBI director says Clinton did not lie, break law in email handling

            http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/james-comey-clinton-not-lie-fbi-225212
            Comey: Clinton did not lie to the FBI – POLITICO

            FBI director: Clinton did not lie to FBI – CNN Video – CNN.com
            http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/07/07/james-comey-testimony-hillary-clinton-bts.cnn
            Video for comey did not lie to fbi
            ▶ 1:56
            http://www.cnn.com/…/james-comey-testimony-hillary-clinton-bts.c…CNN
            2 days ago
            FBI Director James Comey says there is no basis to conclude that Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI concerning …

            Published March 30, 2011
            …….
            At the previous date set for sentencing, on March 14, the court gave Bloch one last shot to brief his way out of the hole he dug for himself and ordered a tight briefing schedule therefore. Bloch filed his Motion for Reconsideration on March 14, The government filed their response, again colluding with Bloch, on March 17, and Bloch filed his reply on March 23.

            Late yesterday afternoon, Judge Deborah Robinson ruled on Bloch’s latest attempt to get out of the mandatory incarceration sentence he pled guilty to, and entered her order denying his motion. The court fairly well blasted Bloch’s whining attempt to withdraw and, by extension, the continued Continue reading → https://www.emptywheel.net/tag/judge-deborah-robinson/

            http://www.examiner.com/article/disgraced-former-head-of-osc-scott-bloch-caught-another-charade
            Disgraced former head of OSC Scott Bloch caught in another charade (Photos)
            March 27, 2013
            …….
            Undeterred by criminal charges and federal investigations, Bloch applied for and was granted a law license. The staff of a DC court claimed that it was all just a mistake, as they supposedly didn’t notice that Bloch was the subject of a federal criminal investigation by the FBI. Aided and abetted by government prosecutors and a federal judge, Bloch managed to withdraw his first guilty plea. In spite of being sentenced to prison, he didn’t spend a single day behind bars and wanted the public to pay for his legal defense. Under the threat of litigation, Bloch attempted to force the removal of this author’s articles about him from the Internet.

            Continued……..

          • Tom S. says:

            Part II (Dr. McAdams earned a PhD, a political scientist, but with information filters set for maximum indignation, only sometimes. )

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/former-federal-official-sentenced-to-probation-and-a-day-in-jail/2013/06/24/435d0de8-dd02-11e2-9218-bc2ac7cd44e2_story.html
            Former federal official sentenced to probation with a day in jail
            By Ann E. Marimow June 24, 2013
            ……..
            Prosecutors then filed a new misdemeanor charge, and Bloch pleaded guilty in February to destroying government property.

            In May, Wilkins delayed sentencing because he said attorneys on both sides had not given him sufficient information about Bloch’s conduct…..
            ….the government agreed with the legal analysis of Bloch’s attorney in determining the appropriate sentencing guidelines.
            …………
            Wilkins disagreed. The judge said he was troubled by Bloch’s answers to congressional investigators and considered his conduct relevant in determining a sentence.

            http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2ampj5lyj/district-of-columbia-district-court/usa-v-bloch/
            USA v. BLOCH
            ….6. PLEA AGREEMENT as to SCOTT J. BLOCH (tcb) (Entered: 02/12/2013)

            http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-email-comey.html?_r=0
            F.B.I. Director James Comey Recommends No Charges for Hillary Clinton on Email
            By MARK LANDLER and ERIC LICHTBLAUJULY 5, 2016
            ….n the Petraeus case, the F.B.I. recommended a felony indictment, but the Justice Department allowed him to plead to a misdemeanor…….

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-david-petraeus-avoided-felony-charges-and-possible-prison-time/2016/01/25/d77628dc-bfab-11e5-83d4-42e3bceea902_story.html
            How David Petraeus avoided felony charges and possible prison time
            By Adam Goldman January 25, 2016
            The presentation included felony charges: lying to the FBI and violating a section of the Espionage Act. A conviction on either carried potentially years in prison.

            They were also considering bringing the same charges against Petraeus’s biographer and former mistress, Paula Broadwell.

            The government would never file those charges. Not everyone at Justice shared the prosecutors’ confidence, and lawyers for Petraeus and Broadwell separately pushed back hard, saying they would fight and beat the charges being considered. Moreover, with its mix of sex and government secrets, a trial promised to be an uncomfortably tawdry affair, one some in the government — as well as defense lawyers — preferred to avoid….

            http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article82460877.html
            June 8, 2016 8:20 AM
            FBI found hundreds of classified files on Petraeus biographer Broadwell’s computer

            Newly released document sheds light on probe into Charlotte author’s relationship with then-CIA Director Petraeus
            Revelations include email conversations between the two over classified records
            Affidavit says Broadwell denied receiving documents from her former lover

            http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/09/413131014/luminaries-across-political-spectrum-filed-support-letters-for-gen-petraeus
            Luminaries Across Political Spectrum Filed Support Letters For Gen. Petraeus
            June 9, 2015 12:23 PM ET
            When a judge was considering whether to send retired Gen. David Petraeus to jail over his unauthorized disclosure of classified information, he received letters of support from more than two dozen luminaries of different political stripes.

            Republican lawmakers such as Sen. Lindsey Graham joined Democratic ones such as Sen. Diane Feinstein in asking U.S. Magistrate Judge David C. Keesler to keep Petraeus out of jail.

            ….people writing the letters told Keesler that Petraeus still had much to give…..

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            John:

            Your words:

            “Interesting that a leftist like you, who is happy to call FBI and CIA bureaucrats liars, won’t accept that Hillary lied.

            Comey made it clear she did.”

            It’s funny, John, but I asked you about Hillary and Jerry Ford last week on this very forum. Surprisingly, you said nothing in return. Let me ask again.

            Hillary lied about Benghazi. Despite what the FBI or any other government agency will say, she lied.

            However, Jerry Ford, while PRESIDENT, withheld 86 pages—yes, 86 pages, of information from a committee’s findings that he had formed. In other words, he LIED. He should have been impeached. He was not.

            So, before you start to go nuts on Hillary for lying, please remember that Gerald Ford also lied. How much time did Ford spend in jail for his lying? Oh, that’s right. None. NO ONE in Washington EVER spends any time in prison for lying.

            I hope as you rail against Hillary as the election nears, you will not forget what Ford did. (You could also throw Reagan in there as well, for the Iran-Contra affair.)

            You wouldn’t want to appear hypocritical, would you?

          • However, Jerry Ford, while PRESIDENT, withheld 86 pages—yes, 86 pages, of information from a committee’s findings that he had formed. In other words, he LIED. He should have been impeached. He was not.

            Words mean what they mean, not what you want them to mean.

            Withholding information is not lying. Everybody agrees that some information, some times, should be withheld.

            It’s fine to disagree with a particular withholding of information. Say it showed bad judgment. Say the ulterior motive was to cover some bureaucrat’s ass.

            Say officials are excessively secretive.

            But lying is different.

            Calling something a lie which is not a lie is itself a lie.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            John,

            I am sorry, but I am not going to let your answer go. “Withholding” information is a FELONY. It is a LIE of OMISSION. I am sure you have heard of a “lie of omission.” I don’t care how you slice it, Ford’s White House engaged in ILLEGAL acts, criminal acts, and, as you are well aware, NO ONE in his office ever served a minute in prison for these “withholdings.” Of course, you know that is the case. It is repeated throughout the history of these United States.

            It allows you the chance to “trumpet the evidence” when you know that all of the evidence will never see the light of day.

            Ask yourself, John. If Ford withheld information from his own committee, how can you be sure he did not do the same thing on the WO? Of course, you will say that there is no way Ford would do that because he was “an honorable man.” However, as you are well aware, once you “withhold information” one time, your credibility is destroyed. Of course, credibility was never a concern of the WO.

            By the way, the question still stands. Are you going to cut Hillary the same slack that you give Ford? I mean, Hillary was simply “withholding information” I am certain that her withholding of information was identical to Ford’s.

          • Brian Joseph says:

            “Attacking Clinton and advocating for the veracity of Craig sets back those presenting such opinions because such opinions are unreasonable, considering the entirety of the evidence.”

            I think it’s unreasonable to paint two entirely different things as if they are examples of the same type of mind set. They aren’t. I don’t think that Craig is very credible. I also think that Ms.Clinton is a war hawk. She supported the war in Iraq. She advocated for and very strongly supported the invasion of Libya.

            I’m not a conservative but I’m also not a liberal. I am not a member of nor do I support either of the Thing One and Thing Two political parties. I find it interesting that those who see themselves as “blue” lump all oppostion and those they disagree with into the “red” group while those who see themselves as “red” see all opposition as “blue.”

            Equating those who believe Craig was credible with those who criticize Ms. Clinton is red/blue thinking. When there are only two crayons everything gets colored red or blue.

            You may be right, there may be lots of people that have been conditioned by conservative talk show hosts. What have you been conditioned by?

          • I am sorry, but I am not going to let your answer go. “Withholding” information is a FELONY. It is a LIE of OMISSION.

            Words don’t get to mean whatever you want them to mean. A lie is an untruth. Withholding information is another matter.

            When military secrets are withheld, is that a “lie.”

            Ask yourself, John. If Ford withheld information from his own committee, how can you be sure he did not do the same thing on the WO?

            What could he withhold? He wasn’t an investigator. His job, and that of the other commissioners, was to evaluate evidence other people produced.

            I mean, Hillary was simply “withholding information”

            No, she actually asserted several things that were untrue.

            I know you hate Ford. But that obsession doesn’t help you understand anything about the assassination.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            John,

            I understand the assassination perfectly. I also understand hypocrisy. Do you?

            You tout the HSCA and its confirmation of most of the WO’s “findings.” However, the man who lead the HSCA has stated—on record—that the CIA lied to the HSCA and the country and prevented a full and thorough investigation. Here are his comments again:

            “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.”

            And here is the key part again:

            “What the Agency did not give us none but those involved in the Agency can know for sure. I do not believe any denial offered by the Agency on any point. The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, you may reject all of his testimony.”

            You tout over and over that the HSCA confirmed this and confirmed that, but you fail to admit that the SAME HSCA that you trump tells everyone the “full truth will never be known.”

            That is hypocritical of you, John. What you also fail to tell first time visitors to this site is that the same HSCA that you tout over and over again said the JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy. I know, you will discredit the acoustics evidence. But, in the very next sentence you will tell folks that the HSCA experts “confirmed the gun shot wound” or whatever the hell piece of evidence that you believe needs trumpeting.

            I understand the assassination and the “investigation.” And, I also know full well, as Mr. Blakey declares, the “full truth will never be known.” You can hide behind your “evidence,” because as Mr. Blakey tells us the chance to get the full truth has long passed.

          • You tout the HSCA and its confirmation of most of the WO’s “findings.” However, the man who lead the HSCA has stated—on record—that the CIA lied to the HSCA

            The CIA had nothing to do with the ballistics, or the photo evidence, or the medical evidence, or the fingerprint evidence.

            All those are terribly inconvenient for you, aren’t they?

            As for the plots against Castro: The Church Committee had “outed” those before there was any HSCA.

            https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/ir/pdf/ChurchIR_3B_Cuba.pdf

            So you can huff and puff all you want, you can’t discredit the forensics work of the HSCA by bitching about Joannides or the DRE or Blakey.

            You still have to face the fact that the Backyard Photos are authentic, the autopsy photos and x-rays are authentic, they show Kennedy hit by two shots from behind, CE 399 and two fragments from the limo match Oswald’s rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons, the spent cartridges at the Tippit murder scene match Oswald’s revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons, etc.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            John:

            Your words:

            “All those are terribly inconvenient for you, aren’t they?”

            Nope. Nothing is terribly inconvenient for me about the assassination, except your hypocrisy.

            Your words:

            “All those are terribly inconvenient for you, aren’t they?”

            Not as inconvenient as the CIA’s lying is for you. I notice, per your usual pattern, that you refuse to discuss anything to do with the lying that surrounds the “investigation.” And there are numerous examples of lying and liars. You have been shown those repeatedly.

            And, as usual, you resort to words like “huffing” and “puffing” and “bitching.” Pathetic. Why won’t you discuss the fact the “official investigation” was deeply flawed, and according to the very HSCA that you praise and praise, the chance at the full and complete truth will never be known?

            Why won’t you address the simple question put before you with resorting to your usual ad hominem and the other crap you use? Here it is again:

            How can you, on one hand, sing the greatness of the HSCA and its work, but fail to recognize or even admit that the HEAD of the same HSCA that you revert back to again and again, has stated on record that the chance to know the FULL truth will never be known?

            Maybe this time you will answer the question straight up?

            BTW—how can you be so sure of the autopsy findings? After all, Humes was incompetent and he destroyed—his words—the original notes. That used to be a felony. When asked if he transferred all of his information, Humes replied, “I think so.”

            I am glad you can rest easy with the words, “I think so.”

            Read this for some help:

            ” After that, Gunn turned to the official autopsy photographs, the ones that are kept in the National Archives. Humes had never handled them before; the Warren Commission had never shown them to him. In fact, when Humes testified before the Warren Commission, he complained that the artist who drew the schematics he was using for his testimony was not allowed to see the photos.

            When Humes did get a close look at the pictures — in his Review Board deposition — he said he found it hard to tell what was what in the pictures.

            In fact, Gunn says, it’s hard for anyone to tell what’s what in the pictures, especially such important details as how many bullet wounds there are, and whether they are entry wounds or exit wounds.”

            Oh yes, John, rock solid “evidence.”

          • How can you, on one hand, sing the greatness of the HSCA and its work, but fail to recognize or even admit that the HEAD of the same HSCA that you revert back to again and again, has stated on record that the chance to know the FULL truth will never be known?

            Blakey has never said the scientific findings of the Forensic Pathology Panel, the Photographic Evidence Panel, the Firearms Panel, or the handwriting experts are in any way suspect.

            His beef is when the CIA, not his scientific experts.

            After that, Gunn turned to the official autopsy photographs, the ones that are kept in the National Archives. Humes had never handled them before; the Warren Commission had never shown them to him.

            Humes had seen the autopsy materials many times:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=595#relPageId=1

            https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=594#relPageId=1

            You can look up the HSCA interview yourself.

            Did you get that quote from Horne? If so, you should know better.

            When Humes did get a close look at the pictures — in his Review Board deposition — he said he found it hard to tell what was what in the pictures.

            You buffs want to call Humes incompetent, when it’s convenient, but all of a sudden now he’s the expert and the top forensic pathologists and radiologists in the country who worked for the HSCA are irrelevant.

        • Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

          Alyea filmed a Mannlicher Carcano short rifle, with sight, although Klein´s wasn´t selling such a combination, while the mail transaction involved a bit shorter carbine, which Klein´s used to sell with sight.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Arnaldo,

            On the Kleins ads, please read my post of July 8 4:llpm just below yours.

    • Jean Davison says:

      Guys, if you can’t get past the “Mauser” myth at this late date, I wonder if you’ll ever figure it out.

      “To cap it all, the WC reported that LHO ordered by mail a 36″ Mannlicher Carcano carbine rifle, and the HSCA discovered that Klein’s Sporting Goods placed scopes on the carbine, not on the short rifle.”

      This “mystery” was explained long ago. Around the time LHO ordered the 36″ version Kleins began substituting a 40″ version under the same catalog number. Its ads show that scopes were mounted on both (despite what a Kleins worker may’ve told the HSCA 15 years later).

      Check the two ads on the left side of this page — same catalog number, different lengths, both with scopes:

      https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1301&bih=574&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=carcano+ads+oswald&oq=carcano+ads+oswald&gs_l=img.3…839102.846754.0.848543.30.23.0.0.0.0.547.4181.0j9j3j0j3j1.16.0….0…1c.1.64.img..14.7.2512…0j0i30j0i5i30j0i24j0i10j0i8i30.qZJPvTMRa9Y

      • “Check the two ads on the left side of this page — same catalog number, different lengths, both with scopes”~Jean Davison

        So you are proposing that Kleins sent Oswald a Carcano with a scope attached, even though he allegedly paid for the rifle in the original ad? This assertion is of course pure conjecture on your part.

        Further, how does this prove that Oswald actually received the rifle? This is the original issue.

        • Jean Davison says:

          “So you are proposing that Kleins sent Oswald a Carcano with a scope attached, even though he allegedly paid for the rifle in the original ad? This assertion is of course pure conjecture on your part.”

          Excuse me? The Kleins order, shipping form, and money order were all for the rifle with a scope as shown in the ad and sent to his P.O. Box. Is it your conjecture that someone else picked it up?…it was returned to Klein’s?…it melted like your flechette?

          • “Is it your conjecture that someone else picked it up?…it was returned to Klein’s?…it melted like your flechette?”~Jean Davison

            It is my assertion that Postal Inspector Harry Holmes, who had the motive, the means, and the opportunity, that both ordered and received both of the weapons in question.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Right. Another bizarre theory with no evidence to support it.

          • David Regan says:

            The FBI determined that “A. Hidell” could not receive mail at Dallas Box 2915.

            Lee Harvey Oswald’s P.O. Box https://youtu.be/Efy1azO4ZHA

          • Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

            The WC was in such a trouble that an irrelevant page from the November, 1963 issue of Field and Stream was entered into the record. It did carry an ad for the 40 inch rifle, but the magazine the WC decided LHO ordered the rifle from was the February 1963 issue of American Rifleman. (See Armstrong, p. 477, WC Vol. 20, p. 174)

          • Jean Davison says:

            “The FBI determined that “A. Hidell” could not receive mail at Dallas Box 2915.”

            The FBI “determined” no such thing.

          • Jean Davison says onJuly 9, 2016 at 4:19 pm
            “Right. Another bizarre theory with no evidence to support it.”

            In a situation such as the JFK case, wherein much of the evidence is withheld on the phony excuse of “National Security”, the strong circumstantial evidence is very viable.

            Harry Holmes is a valid suspect in the matter of setting Oswald up as a patsy. Holmes had the means, the opportunity, the MO, and the motive is easy to extrapolate from there.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            What “strong circumstantial evidence”? Cite it, please.

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, according to CE 2585; page 4 they certainly did. The only name associated with this box was Oswald, no Hidell or any other person for that matter.

          • ‘ . . . an irrelevant page from the November, 1963 issue of Field and Stream was entered into the record. It did carry an ad for the 40 inch rifle, but the magazine the WC decided LHO ordered the rifle from was the February 1963 issue of American Rifleman. (See Armstrong, p. 477, WC Vol. 20, p. 174)’ — Arnoldo Fernandez

            I’m curious whether or not the same ad ran in both magazines. It’s not unusual for a company to place the same ad in a number of publications, but Field & Stream happened to be published by Holt, Rinehart and Co., and their small board of directors included John Dabney Murchison – son of Clint Murchison of Dallas – and Nathan Twinning, former Chairman of the JCS 1957-1960. Perhaps the WC got lazy and grabbed the first magazine they had direct access to thru their close network of peers and friends?

          • “The FBI determined that “A. Hidell” could not receive mail at Dallas Box 2915.”

            The FBI “determined” no such thing.

            Nonsense. In the first place, it’s not known who was listed as able to receive mail.

            But in the second place, it doesn’t matter. If a package arrived, a notice was put in the box. Whoever brought the notice to the window got the package, since they clearly had access to the box.

            See the testimony of Harry Holmes.

            To believe otherwise is to believe that any time anybody wanted to pick up a package, the clerk dug through the files to see who was allowed to have it.

          • O R D E R I N G T H E R I F L E
            by Martha Moyer

            The Warren Commission officially described the weapon reportedly used by Lee Harvey Oswald to
            assassinate President John F. Kennedy on November 22, l963
            The rifle…was a bolt-action, clip-fed, military rifle, 40.2 inches long and 8 pounds in weight. Inscribed on
            the rifle were various markings, including the words “CAL. 6.5,” “MADE ITALY,” “TERNI,” [the city of the
            manufacturer: the Royal Arms factory] and “ROCCA” [the manufacturer of the bolt cocking piece]; the numerals
            “1940” and “40” [the year of manufacture]; [and] the serial number C2766…. The Rifle bore a very inexpensive
            Japanese four-power sight, stamped, “4 X 18 COATED,” “ORDINANCE OPTICS INC.,” “HOLLYWOOD
            CALIFORNIA….” (1):….

            http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf

          • David Regan says:

            You mean FBI informant Harry Holmes? In his testimony, Holmes also produced one of the classic remarks in the whole of this case. When asked by Belin if he had seen anyone run across the railroad track, he replied: “No. I saw nothing suspicious and I am a trained suspicioner”.

            Professor, are you saying then that CE 2585 is nonsense? Perhaps the FBI was, yet again, simply confused?

          • You mean FBI informant Harry Holmes?

            Yes, only an evil scum U.S. Postal Inspector would even think of talking to the FBI.

            So I guess you think nobody got a package and the Dallas post office until the clerk had check the files on who was allowed to get mail.

          • David Regan says:

            What I believe is irrelevant. I’m just hoping yourself or Jean can address this:

            12. CLAIM: The Post Office Box in Dallas to which Oswald had the rifle mailed was kept under both his name and that of ‘A. Hidell .” Page 111 .

            INVESTIGATION: 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. This box was obtained by Oswald on October 9, 1962, and relinquished by him on May 14, 1963.” — Warren Commission, XXV: CE 2585, FBI Report dated June 3, 1964

          • INVESTIGATION: 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. This box was obtained by Oswald on October 9, 1962, and relinquished by him on May 14, 1963.” — Warren Commission, XXV: CE 2585, FBI Report dated June 3, 1964

            In fact, the part of the application which listed the people eligible to obtain mail was discarded by the post office when Oswald closed the box.

            Buffs usually make a huge deal of this.

            Are you now saying it was not destroyed, but was obtained and did not list “Hidell?”

            But in fact, anybody who showed up at the window with the slip saying that a package had arrived was given the package.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Not everything in a FBI document is necessarily accurate, David. The FBI couldn’t “document” whose name was listed because that section of the application wasn’t kept after the P.O. Box was closed in May, as described in the next to last paragraph here:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946&relPageId=594&search=“box_2915”

            WC critics seem to assume that any contradiction in the record is meaningful or important, yet they usually fail to explain what it’s supposed to mean. Does it make sense that Oswald (or anyone, for that matter) would order a package that he wouldn’t be able to receive? Obviously *someone* picked up this shipment from Klein’s since the rifle shipped wound up in the TSBD.

            The simplest (and most likely) explanation imo is that Oswald put Hidell’s name on this application just as he did when he rented his next P.O. Box in New Orleans in June:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1134#relPageId=723&tab=page

          • Jean Davison says:

            Concerning the FBI document, David, I can see how this mistake could’ve happened. If the agent didn’t know that all sections of the application weren’t retained, he would’ve seen only one name on the application — Oswald’s, listed as the person renting the box:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1134#relPageId=705&tab=page

            But this isn’t the same as the section listing other names that’s part of the New Orleans application.

            Besides, it’s unlikely that the post office checked these applications every time someone came to the window with a notice saying they had a package.

          • But this isn’t the same as the section listing other names that’s part of the New Orleans application.

            And of course, the New Orleans post office did retain the part listing people authorized to get mail, and it did list “A. Hidell.”

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Roger Craig was a deputy sheriff, not a detective in the DPD.

  8. Bob Prudhomme says:

    If Oswald’s alleged rifle, a 6.5mm Carcano M91/38 short rifle with a 21 inch barrel, was fired at JFK’s limo from the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD, it could not have been before James Altgens took his famous Altgens 6 photo at the same moment frame z255 of the Zapruder film was exposed.

    If you look at the onlookers on the north side of Elm St. in Altgens 6, there is not one single startle reaction to be seen on their faces, despite the allegation by the WC that two shots have been fired toward their location; one of them over five seconds before the Altgens 6 photo was taken. At the sidewalk, roughly 60-70 feet from the Sniper’s Nest, the muzzle blast from the 6.5mm Carcano M91/38 would have still easily been 135 decibels, if not more. Considering that the threshold for pain for human ears is 120 decibels, and that 130 decibels is 10x louder than 120 decibels, the lack of startle reactions on the onlookers’ faces is a bit of a mystery, as startle reactions to loud muzzle blasts are instantaneous and involuntary.

    When Oswald’s alleged rifle was tested for the HSCA, the technicians doing the testing observed the muzzle blast from C2766 to be very loud, and they could not see how anyone could possibly mistake the muzzle blast from this rifle for a “firecracker”.

    I do not believe C2766 was fired from the Sniper’s Nest on 22/11/63.

    • Jean Davison says:

      “If you look at the onlookers on the north side of Elm St. in Altgens 6, there is not one single startle reaction to be seen on their faces, despite the allegation by the WC that two shots have been fired toward their location….”

      And yet you can see two Secret Service men on the running board looking back just as they said they did after hearing a shot, and Hill looking toward JFK, just as *he* said he did after hearing a shot.

      http://scribblguy.50megs.com/altgens.jpg

      Consider the noise of the crowd, the four motorcycles near the limo and the others behind them.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Sorry, Jean, the two SS agents on the running boards of the Queen Mary were closer to the motorcycles than the onlookers on the sidewalk, so your logic is somewhat backwards. Following your line of thinking, the crowd should have been looking around, not the two SS agents.

        At most, the noise of the crowd and the motorcade would have been 80-90 decibels; 100 decibels tops. At 135 decibels, the muzzle blast of the Carcano would have been 1,000-10,000 times louder than this, and would have been unmistakable.

        The likely reason the two SS agents, and no one else, are looking around is that a shot from a silenced rifle has just missed their heads on its way to an impact with JFK’s back, 5.75 inches below his collar, and they have heard the supersonic “crack” of this bullet breaking the sound barrier as it passed by them. This “crack” would not likely be as disturbing or as noticeable to those further away on the sidewalk.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          P.S.

          No one is disputing whether or not the SS heard a rifle shot. The matter in dispute is where it came from, and whether or not the rifle that fired it was suppressed (silenced).

  9. “I do not believe C2766 was fired from the Sniper’s Nest on 22/11/63.”
    ~Bob Prudhomme

    Nor do I. Look at these photo’s very closely:

    https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQb0C0UZsWTFP3-J0o6e8j4WDY6QTZsenp4aWDOA0-WgJDtc7F1MQ

    \\][//

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Hi Willy

      Yes, I have seen this before. It is a very interesting comparison photo, and the possibility of three different M91/38’s (or M38’s) having different lengths of butt stocks is very real. Why anyone would be so inept as to claim three different rifles are all C2766 is beyond me, though.

      The reason these rifles could have different lengths of butt stocks is that armies recognise the fact that not all of their soldiers are equal in size, and that the lengths of their arms will differ as well. Therefore, butt stocks were made in different lengths to accommodate this. For example, when the Canadian Army was still issuing the .303 Lee Enfield as an infantry weapon, the butt stock came in three lengths plus a “bantam” length for exceptionally small men. I would imagine the Italian army would be no different.

      • Your commentary makes sense Mr Prudhomme, but all three of these rifles are presented in different places as the rifle alledged to have been Oswald’s. They are NOT simply three different Carcanos; C2766.

        \\][//

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Yes, I know this, Willy. As I said, I am amazed that such a well planned conspiracy could allow such a silly and obvious mistake such as this.

  10. ed connor says:

    The Ballistics panel of the HSCA found that exhibit #399 (the “magic bullet”), as well as exhibit #569 (the base of a 6.5 mm bullet found on the floor of the Lincoln)showed 4 lands and 4 grooves, with a right twist, and matched these bullets and fragments to the Mannlicher Carcano found on the 6th floor.
    Exhibit #567 (the nose of a 6.5 bullet) showed 4 lands and 4 grooves, but the twist could not be determined.
    The panel determined that all 3 bullets/fragments were probably fired from the Mannlicher Carcano rifle found on the 6th floor.

    For once, I agree with Professor McAdams. The bullets/fragments recovered were probably fired from the rifle recovered on the 6th floor.

    • “For once, I agree with Professor McAdams. The bullets/fragments recovered were probably fired from the rifle recovered on the 6th floor.”~ed connor

      But was that rifle actually fired from the 6th floor?
      And is there any proof whatsoever that it was fired by Oswald?
      \\][//

      • ed connor says:

        There is the eyewitness statement of Mr. Brennan, who claims he saw a man firing a rifle from the 6th floor window. He did not identify LHO in a police lineup after the fact.
        So, yes, Willy, there is proof of a rifle being fired from the 6th floor, but no proof of who fired it.

        • “There is the eyewitness statement of Mr. Brennan”
          ~ed connor

          And there is photographic evidence showing Brennan was not in a position to see anything of that 6th floor window.

          Even if Brennan could have seen what he is unlikely to have, it is not evidence that the rifle allegedly fired from that window was a Carcano – let alone the Carcano alleged to be Oswald’s.
          \\][//

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Ed
      It couldn’t possibly be another 6.5 mm Carcano somewhere besides the 6th floor, which also had four lands and grooves in its riflings??

      • ed connor says:

        No, it couldn’t be another 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano.
        According to the ballistics experts for the WC and the HSCA, all rifles of the same make and model as the M/C would display the same rifling (4 lands, 4 grooves, right twist).
        But microscopic markings on the barrel, firing pin and bolt face of each rifle would give it unique markings that could be matched to bullets and casings, to the exclusion of any other rifle.
        The experts found such a match with #399 and #569, meaning they were fired from the M/C found on the 6th floor.
        #567 was determined to be from the same rifle, but not necessarily part of #569, meaning there could be 3 separate bullets/fragments from 3 separate shots from the same M/C rifle recovered in the Lincoln or at Parkland.
        The round fired at General Walker earlier in 1963 was too badly deformed to allow a match to Oswald’s rifle or any other. The bullet/fragment needs to be in adequate condition to display the unique microscopic characteristics used to determine a match.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Ed

          The ballistics expert for the FBI, SA Robert A. Frazier, testified to the WC and stated a number of things that were not true. Would you like me to list them for you?

          Now, let’s take a look at what you said, and see how silly it is.

          “But microscopic markings on the barrel, firing pin and bolt face of each rifle would give it unique markings that could be matched to bullets and casings, to the exclusion of any other rifle.”

          Are you trying to tell us the investigators were able to match the bullets found in the car to the brass casings found on the 6th floor? Are you sure tou want to say this?

          Do you think it just remotely possible that, once the bullet leaves the brass casing, travelling down the barrel might obliterate any matching markings the casing may have left on the bullet?

          Therefore, if it is not possible to match a bullet to a casing, all the evidence you speak of is useless in tying the bullets to C2766, except for the rifling grooves on the bullet. An empty casing found beside C2766 is only evidence of a round being fired, possibly not even on the same day.

          The bullet recovered from the Walker shooting was described by DPD detectives as being steel jacketed. Do you know what North American rifle fired steel jacketed bullets?

          • Are you trying to tell us the investigators were able to match the bullets found in the car to the brass casings found on the 6th floor?

            Frazier didn’t say that.

            You are distorting his testimony.

          • ed connor says:

            Bob, I do not pretend any expertise in ballistics. In fact, my practice is primarily civil, and I have never performed direct or cross examination on a ballistics expert.
            My criminal colleagues tell me that each firearm bears microscopic markings which can be compared to a test-fired round from that firearm, often (but not always) allowing a “match” of the test round and the bullet recovered at the scene. The casings would bear the distinctive markings from the firing pin, but I don’t know whether a casing can be matched to a bullet.
            I gather that you have extensive knowledge in this area. Perhaps you can provide some links regarding this subject.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            John

            Frazier might not have stated that he matched the bullets found in the car to the brass casings found on the 6th floor, but your friend Ed is most definitely attempting to imply this.

            Would you guys care to hear all of the things SA Robert A. Frazier told to the WC that were not true?

            PS

            I don’t have to distort Frazier’s testimony. He did a good enough job of distorting his own testimony all on his own.

          • Would you guys care to hear all of the things SA Robert A. Frazier told to the WC that were not true?

            Give it a shot. You struck out the first time, so let’s see if you can do any better.

            Of course, you have to deal with the fact that all his ballistic determinations were confirmed by the Firearms Panel of the HSCA.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Oh thank you for playing along, John. This is going to be fun.

            BTW, I’m having difficulty recalling when I “struck out”.

          • ed connor says:

            Bob you “struck out” by begging the question of whether the bullets recovered after the assassination (#399, # 566 and # 569) could be matched to their Western Cartridge Co. shells, found on the 6th floor.
            I did not assert that the shells could be matched to the bullets/fragments which were recovered, and neither did FBI ballistics expert Robert Frazier.
            What I said (and what he said) is that the bullets could be matched to the 6th floor rifle (#139), as could the shells, to the exclusion of all other rifles.
            If the bullets can be matched to the rifle, and the shells can be matched to the rifle, it seems likely that the person firing at JFK with that rifle ejected those shells. Yes, as you say, the shells could have been planted from a prior firing of the rifle, but what would be the point?
            BTW, the lead article for this thread, “Flip deMey’s Take,” agrees that the shots were fired from the M/C rifle.
            You DO believe in firearms identification, don’t you?
            A lot of murderers are doing time because ballistics evidence connected their weapons to bullets found in their victims. Or are they all wrongfully convicted?

          • Martin Hay wrote:

            “Holmes and other inspectors at the Dallas General Post Office (GPO) were well aware of Oswald long before the assassination and had informed the FBI about Oswald receiving “subversive materials.” On April 21, 1963, Holmes himself advised FBI Special Agent James Hosty that Oswald had been in contact with the Fair Play For Cuba Committee. (CD11, Report of SA Hosty, 9/10/63) And this in itself gives us further reason to doubt that Oswald had ever received the rifle.

            Is it reasonable to believe that Postal Inspectors felt it was important to report that Oswald was receiving subversive materials and literature written in Russian, but did not feel it was worth informing the bureau that an alleged communist had ordered a rifle?”
            \\][//

          • BTW, I’m having difficulty recalling when I “struck out”.

            You said:

            Are you trying to tell us the investigators were able to match the bullets found in the car to the brass casings found on the 6th floor? Are you sure tou want to say this?

            In fact, Frazier was saying no such thing.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Well, let’s see now, Ed. About the only bullet, out of the three you mentioned, that was in intact enough condition for analysis by microscope and comparison to the barrel of the rifle C2766 would be CE 399, the pristine bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland Hospital, and no one seems to believe the story about that bullet shattering Connally’s radius bone and remaining in such nice condition.

            The same goes for the bullet recovered from the Walker shooting. Not only was it too mangled for microscopic comparison to the interior of C2766’s barrel, it was also identified by detectives in a Dallas Police Dept. “General Offense Report” as being a steel jacketed bullet.

            http://whokilledjfk.net/images/Walker5.jpg

            As everyone knows, the Western Cartridge Co. 6.5mm Carcano bullets allegedly fired by Oswald were “copper” jacketed (actually a form of brass) and there is simply no way anyone could confuse these for steel jacketed bullets.

            However, it is possible, in some cases, to confuse steel jacketed bullets for copper jacketed bullets, and one such particular case has been looking American servicemen in the eye for almost 100 years.

            The majority of the 30-06 ammunition made for the 30-06 Springfield rifles and the M1 Garand (also 30-06) during WWI and WWII appeared to be copper jacketed but was, in fact, steel jacketed. In a rather unusual manufacturing process, a layer of steel was bonded between two layers of brass, and the jacketing material was made from this.

            The inner layer of steel in the 30-06 bullet jacket would only be revealed if the bullet was severely mangled, as was the case with the bullet recovered from the Walker residence.

            This likely explains why General Edwin Walker himself adamantly maintained CE 573, the bullet allegedly recovered from the Walker residence, was not the bullet he recalled seeing recovered.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Willy, Mr. Hay has just about always been spot on in his comments. Just in support of your quote of him.
            A point in relation to Holmes I think needs to be made which you, Bob and many others are probably well aware of is one many may not realize. That is of his place of employment. Across the street(s), three of them in Dealy Plaza, from the Texas School Book Depository.
            The Post Office Annex if I am correct also was where Oswald’s last Post Office Box was located. I think I’ve also read the FBI and/or Secret Service had an office there. The front parking lot, facing the TSBD near the Railroad Tracks is where a Sherry Fister shooter would have shot from. Somewhere there is the story of a man who collected mail from local businesses in Oak Cliff and delivered it there who reported I believe three Latinos excitedly leaving this Annex a few minutes after the Assassination. Then you have A J Weberman documenting the arrest of three tramps climbing on a grain car stopped by Lee Bowers at 2:00 between the Anex and Union Station (also, Reunion Tower now).

            I’ll send documentation to Jeff/the website tomorrow on the last part. It was on another website but has since been deleted for some reason. It’s about the only documented thing from Webermen’s website or “book”.

            My point is this aspect has never really been investigated or discussed.

          • ed connor says:

            Bob, you are incorrect that “the only bullet “intact enough” for microscopic examination was #399″(the magic bullet).

            Robert Frazier testified before the W/C that 1/4 of #567’s surface was available for examination, and that 1/3 of #569’s surface was available. He testified that 1/5 to 1/6 of the total surface was sufficient to make a positive identification. He testified that #399, #567 and #569 were all positively matched to the 6th floor rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons.
            In 1978 Andrew Newquist testified to the HSCA that all three bullets/fragments were similarly matched to the M/C, and confirmed Frazier’s conclusions.
            marryferrell.org, Warren Commission Hearings, Vol.III, p. 429 to 436.
            marryferrell.org. HSCA Report. Vol.1, p. 470-471.
            Do you have opposing opinions from recognized firearms identification experts? Please provide cites. My mind is open.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Ed

            Robert A. Frazier stated a lot of things in his testimony that were not only provably inaccurate, they bordered on being outright lies. Please be patient and, in the next few days, I will demonstrate these “mistakes” for all to see.

            In the meantime, think about this, if you will. Assuming Frazier was correct, and only 1/5th to 1/6th of a bullet’s surface was needed to match a bullet to a rifle’s barrel, and assuming Frazier actually did these microscopic studies, his stating that CE 399 plus the useable portions of CE 567 and CE 569 all matched to the barrel of C2766 places the FBI in a bit of a dilemma.

            There is a lot of evidence that maintains CE 399 could not possibly be the bullet that caused all of the wounds in JFK and John Connally. Also, there is evidence that the bullet Tomlinson handed over to OP Wright was not a round nosed bullet, as is loaded into 6.5mm Carcano cartridges but, rather, a pointed bullet similar to what is loaded into military 30-06 cartridges.

            If CE 399 was planted on that stretcher, it is very likely it was not fired from the 6th floor, despite the possibility it was fired from C2766 at some other time and location than Dealey Plaza.

            Once the possibility of the FBI lying about CE 399 is established, can we believe them about CE 567 and CE 569?

          • Also, there is evidence that the bullet Tomlinson handed over to OP Wright was not a round nosed bullet, as is loaded into 6.5mm Carcano cartridges but, rather, a pointed bullet similar to what is loaded into military 30-06 cartridges.

            In fact, Wright said the bullet (CE 399) “looked like” the bullet he had recovered.

            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=430

          • There is a lot of evidence that maintains CE 399 could not possibly be the bullet that caused all of the wounds in JFK and John Connally.

            Only in the minds of conspiracists.

            How many bullets do you think hit Kennedy’s torso and Connally?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            The three Latino’s leaving the parking lot of the annex were in a hurry, that’s why the witness noticed them. If I remember right they came close to causing a wreck in the description I remember. I did not imagine this, can anyone help here on the name of the witness I mention or where I saw it, most likely in a book?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Twas a busy day at work. I did not send in the article on the second set of tramps.
            I’ve been going to for quite some time but figure Jeff and Tom would consider it unworthy compared to Joannides/Harvey/Morales Et al. I don’t know any other way to link it without exposing my email and I don’t want a thousand of them from anybody.
            Like I said the important content has been deleted from the website.
            In addition, the only copy I printed of the original I marked up, underlining and highlighting.
            Wish I’d made a second clear copy.

          • ED Connor,

            What would your opinion be as far as the applicability of this ruling to the Parkland Bullet chain of evidence problem:

            http://federalevidence.com/blog/2010/june/fre-901-chain-custody-review-weight-vs-admissibility

            \\][//

          • This likely explains why General Edwin Walker himself adamantly maintained CE 573, the bullet allegedly recovered from the Walker residence, was not the bullet he recalled seeing recovered.

            Please provide a primary source for this.

            This has come up before, and IIRC, Jean has pointed out that Walker was apparently looking at CE399 when he made that pronouncement. And indeed, CE399 was not shot a Walker!

  11. Stephen Dale says:

    I’ve pointed this out before. Where was Oswald?. Standing next to the CIA shooter? Hiding in a bathroom? He could have gone down to the plaza and stood next to a cop so he would have an alibi. Would the CIA
    trust Oswald to be part of the plot? Don’t know if I would trust a sociopath.

    • “Would the CIA trust Oswald to be part of the plot?Don’t know if I would trust a sociopath.”~Stephen Dale

      So Mr Dale, what proof do you have that Oswald was a sociopath?

      “Where was Oswald?”~Stephen Dale

      At the time of the shooting Oswald was having lunch in the Domino Room, on the first floor of TSBD.

      Keep in mind that there simply is no proof that reaches the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”, that Oswald is guilty of murdering anybody.

      Everything is conjecture on that point, nothing is determined. [hilum trifle]

      You have the choice of using your own mind or continuing to make appeals to fraudulent authority.
      \\][//

      • Stephen Dale says:

        He beat his wife, he lied constantly, he would not take responsibility for his behavior with people, he tried to assassinate Walker. That just begins to cover it. There is absolutely no proof that he was in the domino room.

        • “He beat his wife, he lied constantly, he would not take responsibility for his behavior with people, he tried to assassinate Walker.”~Stephen Dale

          There is no proof whatsoever of what you have just asserted.
          \\][//

          • Stephen Dale says:

            There is plenty of proof. What are you trying to prove. That facts don’t matter?

          • “There is plenty of proof. What are you trying to prove. That facts don’t matter?”~Stephen Dale

            No Stephen, I am pointing out that you haven’t backed up your assertions with any facts.
            \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Hard thing to decide, Stephen, unless you provide us with some actual facts, and not just opinions.

        • Brian Joseph says:

          As horrible as beating one’s wife is it does not make the person a sociopath. The vast majority of people who do not take responsibility for their behavior with people are also not sociopaths. There isn’t any 100% solid proof that Oswald tried to assasinate Walker. Maybe he did but there isn’t any solid proof and there are lots of questions. Did he take a bus to the location? Did he walk there? Seems he would have attracted some attention carrying a rifle.

          • Stephen Dale says:

            Oswald had photos of Walker’s house. It could be assumed that he bought his rifle and handgun when he decided to assassinate Walker.
            Also left a note for wife in case he was arrested or didn’t come back. I also think that an argument could be made that he ordered the weapons by mail because he didn’t care if they would be traced back to him as I think he expected to be in Cuba with walker dead. I worked with disturbed people all my life. Oswald had psychological problems. If you don’t like sociopath substitute any of the personality disorders. He used people close to him and felt no guilt.

        • David Regan says:

          Stephen, I’d love to see your point-by-point proof that it was in fact LHO who took the pot-shot at Walker.

        • Peter says:

          Yes, he beat his wife and had shortcomings as a husband but if you are going to go into his character why not provide a balanced view and also mention how he was a devoted father.

          Why not talk about how he used to do the housework including washing and ironing the babies diapers or how he used to feed his daughter June and how he cried when she got sick. According to Wesley Frazier a big smile would come on his face as they talked about his new born baby Rachel.

          He also found time to not only play with his kids but also Ruth Paine’s boy Chris which she appreciated. As Oswald sat in jail after being charged with the murder of the President and a police officer, his thoughts were still with his kids as he told Marina to buy a new pair of shoes for June.

          Unfortunately this side of Oswald doesn’t fit with how the authorities wanted to portray him to the public. Almost immediately after the assassination, there was a concerted effort by the FBI to falsely paint Oswald in a poor light. This ranged from his time in the marines to his work ethic.

          Certainly Oswald lied and he even indulged in subterfuge but maybe he had a reason for this behaviour. As Senator Richard Schweiker said “he had the fingerprints of intelligence all over him”. Who knows.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            You touch on a couple of valid points but e.g. “ironing the baby’s diapers” is a bit out there.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Stephen

      And your diagnosis of Oswald as a “sociopath” is based on……..?

      • Stephen Dale says:

        Look. There is a massive amount of info showing that Oswald had emotiomal/psychiatric problems throughout his life. By ignoring this you are weakening whatever arguments you have about conspiracies. He was not your normal guy.

        • Bogman says:

          There’s even stronger circumstantial evidence he was mixed up in govt spook games.

          Know any “normal guy” who confronts CIA assets which is covered by news media and speaks to the FBI upon request all in one day?

          • Jean Davison says:

            Oswald wasn’t the average guy. How many Texas teenagers in the 1950s claimed to be Marxists and tried to join the Socialist Party?

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137&search=socialist_party#relPageId=45&tab=page

          • Stephen Dale says:

            I think he imagined that he was working for Castro. Thus his behavior toward anti-Castro
            groups and FBI. Jean Davison book brilliantly discusses this theory.

          • “I think he imagined that he was working for Castro. Thus his behavior toward anti-Castro
            groups and FBI. Jean Davison book brilliantly discusses this theory.”~Stephen Dale

            Jean Davison’s book is pseudoscientific hogwash.

            Jean hasn’t the training in psychology to make such assertions as to Oswald’s psychological conditions.

            ‘Oswald’s Game’ is a biased slur and defamation of Lee Harvey Oswald by a literary hack.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Jean Davison
            July 10, 2016 at 10:01 am

            “Oswald wasn’t the average guy. How many Texas teenagers in the 1950s claimed to be Marxists and tried to join the Socialist Party?”

            I lived in Texas in the 1950s. Calling yourself a commie would have got you a sever whipping.

            Can we all at least agree that Oswald was a malcontent?

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          No he was your “normal” guy, but what is normal?
          No father figure. Moved around. Older step brother and brother go into the military asap, as does he.
          A dedicated follower of “I Led Three Lives”.
          Susceptible to recruitment for lower level intelligence use by Naval Intelligence ONI/CIA?
          Yeah, speculation. With some backing I can’t link or quote tonight.
          Sorry Tom.

        • David Regan says:

          Stephen, I think you’ve been drinking the McAdams kool-aid a little too long. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/motives.htm

          The WC failed miserably at trying to speculate on Oswald’s motives.

          • Stephen Dale says:

            Motive was that he did it so Kennedy would not succeed in killing Castro. WC never really looked into this.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            And you can link us to a statement by Oswald where he stated he killed JFK to protect Castro?

          • David Regan says:

            Are you able to share any links or documents that support this theory? You do realize Castro does not believe Oswald was the assassin.

          • Stephen Dale says:

            David- I subscribe to the work by Gus Russo, Brian Latell and Philip Shenon. There is plenty of documentation in these books. Our best double agent heard Castro say that he knew Oswald had made threats against JFK in the Cuban Embassy. Hoover downplayed this to WC as he did with other Cuban leads.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Lots of people have emotional/psychiatric problems, Stephen. That still is not any kind of proof they have killed or plan to kill the President.

          • Stephen Dale says:

            Motive was that he did it so Kennedy would not succeed in killing Castro. WC never really looked into this.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      “Would the CIA trust Oswald to be part of the plot?
      ==================
      I gather that CIA plotters are not in that habit of asking permission to (or trusting) the chicken that they are about to kill and eat, either.

      Additionally, if he knew what was going to happen and didn’t want to be implicated, a simple call in sick would have sufficed.

      • Brian Joseph says:

        Maybe he thought that something else was going to happen.

        • I think that Oswald, like Connally, assumed the assassination would take place at the Trademart.

          “My god! They’re going to kill us all!!” ~Connally

          That is why both were surprised when the gunfire rang out in Dealey Plaza.
          \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Willy

            I’ve always marvelled at the odd comment made by Gov. John Connally who, many people do not know, just happened to be LBJ’s campaign manager at one point in time.

            “My God, they’re going to kill us all!”

            I don’t know about the rest of you but, if I was in a limo a couple of seconds after an unexpected shot went off, I’d be more inclined to say something along the lines of “What the @#$% was that?” or words to that effect.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Me too Bob. Especially the “they’re”, as in foreknowledge of they as opposed to a lone nut, “all”, as in they’re just supposed to kill the President.

  12. jeffc says:

    Regarding the Flip De Mey article:

    Information presented as new or original has been broached previously. Walt Brown, for example, has long discussed Brennan’s seating position in the Plaza and the WC’s incorrect description of it. That the Mannlicher-Carcano may have been used in the shooting has also been discussed or theorized, but the notion the rifle was responsible for all the shots has been thoroughly criticized.

    What is new and interesting is that De Mey managed to obtain photos from the estate of Cecil Kirk. Kirk was with the FBI before he joined the Washington DC Metropolitan Force, and Kirk did investigatory work for both the Warren Commission and the HSCA. With the HSCA, Kirk was prominent in the Photographic Panel and directed the investigation into the Backyard Photos. The HSCA panel concluded that a mark or defect matched the rifle found on the 6th floor with the rifle seen in the Backyard Photos, whereas previously the FBI, reporting to the WC, determined the mark was too indistinct to be conclusive. The HSCA Report never stipulated how they came to their conclusion, and the photo that was apparently in Kirk’s possession was not published in that Report.

    If they are authentic, the Backyard Photos can be said to associate Oswald with the rifle found (planted) on the 6th floor, but they can do little more than that because the context of the photos are not known. Kirk’s efforts on the HSCA panel investigating them focussed all efforts on a forensic analysis of the photos, while accepting at face value several Warren Commission myths – including that Marina Oswald took the photos. In his Report, Kirk made several deceptive claims and used lawyerly phrasing to bypass the weaknesses in the Commission’s narrative. Kirk’s panel also did not demonstrate any curiosity as to the sudden appearance of a third backyard photo.

    • jeffc says:

      I have now noticed the HSCA Report does briefly discuss the mark or defect and their differing conclusion from the FBI’s 1964 opinion that it was not sufficient to ID a match – it occurs in another section apart from the discussion of the BYP (HSCA Report Vol VI p 88 http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=958#relPageId=94&tab=page). Both the HSCA and the FBI were working from the same material (photos and physical rifle). The HSCA’s “forensic photographic specialist” (not specified whether it is Cecil Kirk or Calvin McCamy, but probably Kirk) simply arrived at a different opinion than that published by the FBI in the WC. The FBI held that the defect was not “sufficiently unique”, while Kirk held that it was. The high-resolution photographs De Mey obtained from the Kirk estate do not conclusively establish a match or a correction of the FBI, because the difference in opinion is based on the “uniqueness” of the defect as opposed to whether the defect exists or not.

    • Flip de Mey says:

      Hi Jeff, I certainly do not broach that all the information in my book is new, how could it be after 50 years. If that impression is left, it’s due to the publisher’s promotion text. Anyway, what I do think is new is the attempt to present a tight case for Oswald’s innocence based upon indisputable facts. I try to also mention the strongest arguments of the believers, and so I have to mention Brennan and his position, whether this is “new” or already mentioned by Walt. I give the whole set of problems with Brennan’s testimony, and his position is just one of the elements.
      I believe the backyard picks are genuine, for reasons explained in the book, but you are right that the W.C. was not curious about the strange way the pictures came into the chain of evidence, or whether they would be allowed in court in a criminal case against Oswald.

  13. Jordan says:

    Has there been an explanation as to why the Alyea film shows a rifle with NO CLIP, then later at least one photo shows a clip in the rifle…?

  14. David Regan says:

    America’s Hideous Past & Sinister Future: https://youtu.be/wMHb_RbAQu4

  15. Bob Prudhomme says:

    The problem with Roger Craig’s story is that he says he read “7.65 MAUSER” stamped on the barrel of the rifle found on the 6th floor.

    The only Mauser that looks similar to the 6.5mm Carcano M91/38 short rifle is the 7.65mm Argentine Mauser Model 1891 carbine, seen below:

    http://www.shootingtimes.com/files/2010/09/st_1891-argentine-carbine_a.jpg

    The similarity is that both of these bolt action military rifles have a distinctive protruding box magazine, not seen in any other Argentine or German Mauser. It is easy to see how one could confuse the two rifles.

    The problem with Craig’s story is that no Model 1891 Argentine Mauser ever had the calibre of the rifle stamped anywhere on it; barrel or otherwise.

    http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/argentine_mauser_f1.jpg

    http://www.gunsandtreasures.com/long-guns-antique/006-2.jpg

  16. Eddy says:

    From the information provided in the Daily Mail article I don’t think we get much further. Of interest to me are the number of witnesses that can be found to support Prayerman being Oswald and how the Prayerman theory and de Meys’ are coincident. We really do need to see the best possible versions of the Prayerman pictures.

    • Tom S. says:

      Of interest to me are the number of witnesses that can be found to support Prayerman being Oswald…

      Of interest to me would be your presentation of even one witness (and quotes of their testimony) established to be standing on the TSBD steps who testified to observing Oswald present in that location as the presidential motorcade approached and then passed by.

      Otherwise, what are you saying that counters the list of witnesses who testified to not observing Oswald on the TSBD steps; Shelley, Frazier, and Lovelady to include just a few? Three years of speculation, and what is the actual result? Waiting for better film evidence is certainly an often resorted to argument, but neither the waiting nor Fritz’s notes explain your enthusiasm, considering the existing testimony record and how little influence the back yard photo evidence has had on public opinion.

      It seems reasonable to gauge increasing influence by the reaction of those not already inclined to agree with you. Do you even consider
      Frazier’s record of testimony to be a problem, or do you simply speculate that he’s lied all of his adult life because he has been intimidated? How persuasive is a suspicion such as that, presented to those not already inclined to agree with you?

      • Eddy says:

        “what are you saying that counters the list of witnesses who testified to not observing Oswald on the TSBD steps” – Tom. That list is worthless. Do you mean a list of people who confidently stated ‘Oswald was not on the steps’? or a list of people who turned back at the relevant time and observed that there was in fact a person in the top corner of the steps, but it was not Oswald?

        Oswald appears to have given an alibi that he was ‘out front’ at the relevant time. Other statements appear to suggest his presence on the first floor or nearby.

        It seems to be you Tom who is inclined away from Prayerman, evidenced by your insistence the theory relies on Frazier lying. I have yet to see an argument that successfully refutes Prayerman. Please direct me to one.

  17. Bogman says:

    As far as the common refrain that they matched the bullet fragments to the Carcano found in the TSBD, I got some questions:

    o How did they match ‘fragments’ to the rifle? I thought they had to match the grooves on a bullet that it makes as comes out of the barrel. How do you match fragments to that?

    o If we’re talking CE399, I think Willy has successfully proved reasonable doubt on that front through the crap chain of custody

    o If we’re talking the spent shells, those could have been planted from shooting the rifle from an earlier time.

    o If we’re talking matching the lead content from the batch of bullets, think that method has been found unreliable.

    Again, just trying to understand the ‘exclusion to all other guns’ claim.

    • “o If we’re talking matching the lead content from the batch of bullets, think that method has been found unreliable.”~Bogman

      “Vincent Guinn Was Mistaken
      Two articles by metallurgists and statisticians pointed out flaws with Vincent Guinn’s methodology and his conclusions:
      Erik Randich and Patrick M. Grant, ‘Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives,’ Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol.51 no.4 (July 2006), pp.717–28 (also available at http://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/337848.pdf [PDF; 1 MB])
      Cliff Spiegelman, William A. Tobin, William D. James, Simon J. Sheather, Stuart Wexler and D. Max Roundhill, ‘Chemical and Forensic Analysis of JFK Assassination Bullet Lots: Is a Second Shooter Possible?’, The Annals of Applied Statistics, vol.1 no.2 (2007), pp.287–301 (available at http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.2150 [PDF; 239 KB])
      As the second article pointed out:
      Random matches to assassination fragments of bullets from the same box are not as rare as Dr Guinn testified. Most importantly, our studies and analyses of individual bullet compositions, bullet lead source compositions and compositional mixtures in packaged retail boxes show that Dr Guinn’s statements about the uniqueness of individual bullets from the brand of bullets believed to be used in the assassination are seriously flawed.(Spiegelman et al, op. cit., p. 289)
      The authors purchased boxes from two separate lots of Mannlicher Carcano bullets:
      We then analyzed 10 bullets from each box. The measurement approach was similar to that used by Dr Guinn except that we used more appropriate standards, a known quality control procedure, and analyzed physical samples having a known geometry. One of the bullets analyzed matched an assassination fragment. We also found that many bullets in the same box have matching antimony and silver levels; this discovery is contrary to Dr Guinn’s testimony that based on these two elements virtually every bullet of this type is unique.”

      http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-neutron-activation-analysis

      \\][//

  18. MDG says:

    “Harry Holmes is a valid suspect in the matter of setting Oswald up as a patsy. Holmes had the means, the opportunity, the MO, and the motive is easy to extrapolate from there”.
    W. Whitten, July 10

    It is very interesting that Dallas Postal Inspector Harry Holmes participated in the last interrogation of LHO.

    He also took some known notes of LHO’s last interrogation.

    And it goes without saying the rifle and the post office box were integral ”in the setting up of Oswald as the Patsy”.

    http://www.jfklancer.com/Holmes.htm

    http://jfkcountercoup2.blogspot.ca/2013/07/interrogations-of-oswald.html

    He as well watched the events of 11/22/63in Dealey Plaza through ” binoculars” from his fifth floor office in the Terminal Annex Building according to his Warren Commission testimony.

    Some have referred to Holmes office as a “possible command centre”.

    Harry Holmes was also an FBI informant in Dallas.

    It is very difficult to know what happened on 11/22/63 because of the vast Coverup, and the WCR which was mainly an Omission.

    The preponderance of Evidence is telling us though things were definitely not as we were told back in 63.

    Mauser or Carcano, the flechette, the umbrella, the walkie talkie, the binoculars, the three tramps are just tips of the iceberg , and they are all trying to tell us something.

    Attempts were also made on the life of Harry Holmes more than once.

    Lets face it.

    The WCR did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that LHO killed JFK, and that Oswald was a lone nut.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      I’ve read at least a little about everything you mention except the threats on Holmes life. Can you provide a link or elaborate on why you mention it?

  19. MDG says:

    Ronnie Wayne……………It was mentioned in W. Whitten’s comment of July 10.

    There are two links in my July 10 comment.

    I think it is interesting because it is theorectically possible all the gun and wrapper “evidence”in the TSBD was planted.

    It has also been suggested by W. Whitten that Holmes would be “a person of interest” regarding all the post office evidence against LHO which was brought forth later.

    We know alot of people were drawn into the Coverup after the Assassination.

    Perhaps Harrry Holmes was drawn into the Coverup after the Event.

    Holmes is also the only person who “admitted” to the Warren Commission he watched the Presidential Motorcade using “binoculars” from his office overlooking Dealey Plaza.

    The discussion on this thread about is gun evidence found in the TSBD.

    I find it interesting to follow the discussion about the gun evidence on this thread but it is irrelevant if Oswald was the Patsy.

    The preponderance of evidence after fifty years is heading in the direction of Lee Harvey Oswald fired no shots on 11/22/63.

    • R. Andrew Kiel says:

      Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone was on the 6th floor when the rifle was found – this exchange is taken under oath from “The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald” (Showtime 1986):

      Q. So far as you’re concerned, at the time, that gun was, that you saw in the stacks, was a Mauser isn’t that a fact?
      Boone. At that point in time, yes sir.
      Q. It wasn’t until a certain gun in the possession of the FBI suddenly turned out to be a Mannlicher, that it changed from a Mauser to a Mannlicher. Isn’t that true?
      Boone. I would say that’s an accurate statement.
      Q. And isn’t it true, that you, Officer Boone, were never able to identify the rifle you found at the Texas School Book Depository as the one that that was later shown to you as being involved in the assassination. Isn’t that true?
      Boone. That is correct.

      That is a very powerful admission that Lone-Nutters can’t deny!

      Newsman Tom Alyea came into the Book Depository with the first officers and filmed the initial search. From the History Channel program “Caught on Film”. Alyea related that they first searched the 4th, 6th, & 7th floors & found nothing – no “sniper’s nest” on the first search of the 6th floor – very interesting.

      They went back to the 6th floor & found the rifle & the “sniper’s nest” – the photos & films prove it is almost impossible to miss the “sniper’s nest” during the first search of the 6th floor.

      If the officers were responding to reports of a rifle or someone shooting from that window – would not the officers have found the “sniper’s nest” the first time – if it was really there?

      Even more strange is the fact Alyea related that on Saturday morning November 23 – he witnessed all but a minute or two of his film of the COMPLETE search of the 4th, 6th, & 7th floors destroyed & thrown into the trash. What would the complete film have shown?

      • That is a very powerful admission that Lone-Nutters can’t deny!

        Alyea’s 16 mm. film shows a Mannlicher-Carcano, something you buffs can’t deny.

        • R. Andrew Kiel says:

          You consistently avoid what you can’t answer McBuff – from my post you avoided these questions:

          If officers believed that shots came from the 6th floor – then why was no “sniper’s nest” found on the first search of the 6th floor?

          Why was the film of the initial search of the 4th,6th, & 7th floors destroyed?

          Why do you have no response to Eugene Boone’s statement that the gun found on the 6th floor is not the one that the FBI later produced?

        • Jordan says:

          Whatever it shows, it shows a rifle without a clip…..

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Hi Jordan

            You asked about the clip earlier and I meant to post something but forgot to do it. You raise a good point and your question deserves an answer.

            The “en bloc” clip for the 6.5mm Carcano was designed for one time use, and was meant to be discarded as soon as it was empty of cartridges. Ammunition was delivered to soldiers in batches of eighteen (three loaded clips of six cartridges).

            As you may know, the Carcano en bloc clip is designed to fall out of the bottom of the Carcano box magazine as soon as the last cartridge in the clip is chambered into the rifle. So, if C2766 really was found with its last cartridge in the chamber, the clip should have been somewhere on the 6th floor.

            The 6.5mm Carcano ammunition allegedly owned by Oswald was not Italian military surplus ammo. This ammunition was manufactured in the USA by the Western Cartridge Co. and, in American tradition, packed twenty cartridges to a box, with no clips provided. Carcano owners have always had to supply their own clips and, of course, tend to re-use them.

            The more times a Carcano clip is used, the more it gets spread open; to the point it does not easily fall out of the magazine, as it should. In the case of C2766, a clip can be seen partially protruding out of the magazine as the rifle is carted to DPD headquarters.

            Debate has long raged over experiments conducted with Carcano clips. Some researchers maintain that, once a clip is spread so far it will not fall out of the magazine, as it should, it is also spread so far it will not hold onto the cartridges properly, and the rifle will jam when the shooter attempts to chamber a cartridge.

      • Jean Davison says:

        The exchange you’ve quoted from the Showtime trial has Oswald’s “defense lawyer” Gerry Spence asking Boone about the rifle. That’s only half of the story. On redirect, Bugliosi asked:

        Q. Mr. Boone, did the FBI ever show you a rifle which they said was the rifle found on the sixth floor?

        A. Yes, sir.

        Q. And what did you say when you looked at the rifle?

        A. It appears to be the rifle that I saw on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository.

        Q. But didn’t you just tell Mr. Spence that you could not identify it?

        A. I could not identify it positively because I did not have an identifying mark on the weapon.

        Q. Okay. But it appeared to be the same weapon?

        A. It appeared to be the same weapon.
        UNQUOTE

        https://books.google.com/books?id=JYkixPmsY2QC&pg=PA381&lpg=PA381&dq=%22mauser%22+boone+bugliosi&source=bl&ots=-FJ82TpRrS&sig=vJkMNA1NYMy3RY0j8TamO8EEMYY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjB6IOR1PjNAhULyGMKHUH1CQkQ6AEILDAC#v=onepage&q=%22mauser%22%20boone%20bugliosi&amp;

        There was no reason for Boone to mark the weapon since he never touched it. He left it in place for Lt. Day to retrieve. Day scratched his name in the stock of the rifle.

        Deputy Luke Mooney was one of the first officers to enter the building. He didn’t notice the sniper’s nest at first and had to squeeze between stacks of boxes before seeing the empty shells on the floor.

        http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/mooney1.htm

        • R. Andrew Kiel says:

          It “APPEARED” to be the same weapon is not very convincing when you consider Boone’s statements that the weapon shown to him by the FBI was not the same one found on the 6th floor.

          If you were on a jury – which response would be more convincing – especially if you watched it & heard the audio version from Showtime?

          What do you think Jean?

          • Jean Davison says:

            “It “APPEARED” to be the same weapon is not very convincing when you consider Boone’s statements that the weapon shown to him by the FBI was not the same one found on the 6th floor.”

            He didn’t say it was not the same one, Andrew. Read it again. He said that as far as he was concerned “at that point in time,” it was a Mauser. That was his opinion at the time. This is the same thing he said in his testimony:

            “Mr. BALL – There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this rifle as a Mauser that day?

            Mr. BOONE – Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought it was 7.65 Mauser.”

            The Mauser was fairly well-known in this country in 1963. The M-C was not.

            http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-e0iBuymjGDQ/VM2B3CjKd-I/AAAAAAABC_c/epx0vaMP6dw/s1600/Mauser-Carcano-Comparison.jpg

            Since the two rifles looked a lot alike it was a natural mistake, but the 11/22 photos and film prove that it was a Carcano.

          • “Since the two rifles looked a lot alike it was a natural mistake, but the 11/22 photos and film prove that it was a Carcano.”Jean Davison

            But according to Alyea, all of that “evidence” was compromised before the photographs were taken.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Jean Davison
            July 17, 2016 at 3:06 pm

            “Mr. BALL – There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this rifle as a Mauser that day?”

            “Mr. BOONE – Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought it was 7.65 Mauser.”

            “The Mauser was fairly well-known in this country in 1963. The M-C was not.”

            I think this really answers the question. He saw a foreign rifle and assumed it was a Mauser since that was probably the only foreign rifle he was familiar with. Not very exciting but often the correct answer isn’t I think.

            After WWII and through the 1950s and early 1960s there was a cottage industry in converting military surplus rifles to sporting rifles for hunting. The Mauser was far and beyond the most desired rifle to convert, it’s action in demand even today. So anyone with some knowledge of rifles had heard of the Mauser. No one but a real gun nut would be familiar with the Carcano until the assassination.

            “http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-e0iBuymjGDQ/VM2B3CjKd-I/AAAAAAABC_c/epx0vaMP6dw/s1600/Mauser-Carcano-Comparison.jpg”

            “Since the two rifles looked a lot alike it was a natural mistake, but the 11/22 photos and film prove that it was a Carcano.”

          • To resurrect an unresolved debate, we should recall that FBI Special Agent Bardwell Odum was instrumental in the transportation of said rifle from the TSBD to police headquarters, and in fact he broadcast the description that became the ‘official’ version, did he not? Odum then rushed to the Texas Theatre to witness the arrest of LHO; some time later, Odum interviewed Helen Markham related to the murder of JD Tippit in Oak Cliff. “Johnny”, or more accurately “Special Agent Bard” on the spot?

          • Without benefit of documents that might or might not be available via FOIA, the following is inconclusive but I argue it is reasonable to speculate about the significance:

            Bardwell Odum’s youngest brother Arthur Milton Odum was a foreign service officer posted in Maracaibo, Venezuela from Oct. 1962 – Sept. 1963. The precise date of the discovery of the arms cache that captured Kennedy’s keen interest on the eve of his trip to Texas is somewhat clouded in reports, but it’s reasonable to speculate that Arthur Odum was in a position to have known about the discovery, regardless of whether he was informed just as he was preparing to leave Maracaibo or on his immediate return to Washington DC. As author Stephen Rabe has pointed out, the revelation of the discovery was sitting on Kennedy’s desk when he left for Texas. https://books.google.com/books?id=hVhuAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=stephen+rabe+venezuela+arms&source=bl&ots=beu11_uw1j&sig=JML7griffByikivsBPeLt_–eOQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin6MGryu7LAhVhsoMKHecQCN0Q6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=stephen%20rabe%20venezuela%20arms&f=false

            Arthur, Bardwell’s brother remained with the Foreign Service when he left Maracaibo in September of ’63, living in the DC area for two years (wedged in his bio is a post in London but the dates are not specific) and he was then posted to Moscow in 1967 at the time Llewelyn Thompson, former US Ambassador to Russia returned as ambassador under Johnson. Thompson had been US Ambassador to Russia when Marina Oswald was granted a visa and was allowed to enter the US. Thompson’s WC testimony is packed with tension, imv, including his insistence that Marina’s visa was highly unusual. One of the attorneys for the WC argues that her pregnancy would have been a mitigating factor in the Soviets’ decision to allow her to leave to which Thompson defers, – my interpretation is that he does so reluctantly. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/thomps_l.htm

            According to a US State Department notice, Arthur Odum was in the Navy from ’56 – ‘58 and graduated from the University of Texas, Austin in 1960 and joined the US Foreign Service.
            https://books.google.com/books?id=bz9XAAAAMAAJ
            United States. Dept. of State, ‎United States. Foreign Service, ‎United States. International Cooperation Administration – 1971 – ‎Snippet view – ‎More editions
            … GS- 14 supvr atty-ad 1/67, asst chief Dom Opers Div, Ppt Off 1/67, GS- 15 2/70. (w— Mary Obert). Odum, Arthur Milton-b Tex 12/13/36, m. U Tex BA 60. US Navy 56-58 overseas. STATE Dept R-8 2/62, O-8 5/62. Maracaibo 10/62, O-7 9/63.

            When he left Moscow and the FSO, Arthur Odum returned to Dallas where his brothers, Bardwell and William T. (an architect) were living. The fourth Odum brother was Dr. Harold G., a well-known Presbyterian minister living in San Angelo, Tx who’s obit emphasizes his visit to Moscow, perhaps related to Arthur’s posting?

          • (cont.)
            Is the coincidence of Bardwell Odum’s brother Arthur, a foreign service officer under the auspices of the State Department based in Macacaibo, Venezuela, a location named in a document that was sitting on Kennedy’s desk as he left for Texas, not fascinating given the fact that Arthur’s brother Bardwell was involved on the periphery of the investigation into gun running related to the Kennedy assassination investigation?

            Although Bard was never interviewed by the WC, he briefly appeared during Sylvia Odio’s testimony, stated he didn’t really remember her, and left within a few minutes. Was his presence meant to intimidate Odio? Wasn’t she privy to details of possible gun running? Didn’t she live within blocks of Ferenc Nagy who is alleged to have been involved in the gun-running investigation at the time of the assassination – in the neighborhood of White Rock Lake, Dallas (less than a mile from HL Hunt’s Mount Vernon)? Did the WC use the physical presence of Bardwell Odum to intimidate Sylvia during her testimony? Why wasn’t Odum called to testify and where was his brother Arthur Milton in the dynamic, given he must surely have been privy in the fall of 1963 to the intelligence of a large arms cache in Venezuela that captured Kennedy’s attention?

            “Mrs. ODIO. I started working initially the 15th of September, because it was too far away where I lived in Irving. I started the 15th of September, I am almost sure of the 15th or the 9th. Let me see what day was the 9th. It was a Monday. It was the 9th, sir, that I started working at National Chemsearch.
            (Special Agent Bardwell O. Odum of the Federal Bureau of Investigation entered the hearing room.)
            Mr. LIEBELER. This is Mr. Odum from the FBI. As a matter of fact, Mr. Odum was the man that interviewed you.
            Mrs. ODIO. I remember. He looked very familiar.
            Mr. ODIO. What is the name?
            Mrs. ODIO. Odio.
            [note: I argue this is a stenographer’s error. It is “MR. ODUM” stating ‘I interview so many people, not Odio]
            Mr. ODIO. I interview so many people, it slips my mind at the moment.
            (Agent Odum left the hearing room.)”

            When Bard’s brother Arthur Odum moved to Dallas following his tour in Moscow, he worked for security brokers McKinney & Rose and for R.W. Presspritch (what was his financial training?) – a firm headed by Kenneth Langone (who would become the uber-conservative business mogul who later founded HomeDepot). Presspritch was the firm that took Ross Perot’s Dallas-based EDS to IPO in the mid-‘60’s. Eventually Arthur Odum opened his own brokerage firm with an office at One Main Place in Dallas. (the significance of that address requires a new thread).
            (cont.)

          • (cont.)
            What prompted Arthur Odum, Bardwell’s brother, to move to Midland, TX? His wife, Dr. ‘Bitsy’ – an educator (now deceased) was raised in San Angelo, a stone’s throw from Midland and the hometown of Arthur and Bard’s brother Harold G. It could be as simple as that.

            All of this as background that leads to the second most fascinating aspect of Arthur Odum’s career outside his stint in Maracaibo, Venezuela at the height of the Venezuela/Cuba alliances and how it may or may not have bearing on the Kennedy investigation. In the early 2000’s Arthur is listed as director of Solgas Energy – an oil/energy concern that was caught up in a major political scandal in Nigeria in the last decade. Solgas was founded by major Republican donor Tom A. Russell of Tulsa OK,

            Thomas Russell: A former World War II paratrooper who founded an enormously successful natural gas equipment supply company in Oklahoma, Russell has been a steady GOP donor who has never dabbled in super PACs. He, too, has given the maximum $334,000 to the GOP’s central command.
            http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/republican-national-committee-megadonors-2016

            In 2002, Solgas negotiated a highly controversial 3.6 Billion dollar contract with the government of Nigeria to manage and develop the country’s steel industry in spite of having no record of experience let alone success in the field. Arthur Milton Odum is a signatory / representative of Solgas Energy on that contract.http://news.biafranigeriaworld.com/archive/ngguardian/2002/jun/03/article20.html

            President George W. Bush hosted Nigerian president Obasanjo within months of moving into the White House (May, 2001) and traveled to Abuja, the capitol of Nigeria in July of 2003 in a reciprocal visit with Obasanjo. (nice bookends regardless of coincidence?)

            President Obasanjo is rumored to have been close ‘friends’ with the CIA over the decades.
            https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/03/nig-m17.html

            Entwined with the Solgas Energy scandal is Russian entity, TPE; whether or not Arthur Odum had established let alone maintained Russian contacts from the late ‘60’s and was then instrumental in facilitating the introductions for the Nigerian contract is not yet determined: “ . . . chairman of SOLGAS Energy Nigeria Limited, Mr Tom Russel [sic] said at an interactive session with newsmen in Abuja recently that the company would raise about 12 billion dollars as revenue “within 10 years of operation.” He also said SOLGAS would liaise with the Russian company that built Ajaokuta to “achieve a harmonized technological approach to its operations.”

            Side note: another Nigerian drama related to the Bush family was Jeb’s role in a water pump scheme in the West African country that he promoted as “I am the son of the President of the United States” [George HW]http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/jeb-bush-david-eller-mwi-bush-el-nigeria

          • (cont.)
            Is it possible that Bard Odum and his brother Arthur Odum did not have a close relationship in 1963, let alone ever discuss high security issues, i.e. Bard’s involvement with the rifle found in the TSBD, the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald in the Texas Theatre, or his interviews of witnesses of the Tippit murder, compared to Arthur’s role with the State Department in a Maracaibo, Venezeuela in the months prior to the assassination the related to the discovery of a cache of arms and his subsequent stint with Llewelyn Thompson in Moscow who was the ultimate authority that granted Marina Oswald a visa? Of course it’s possible they were not communicating, but is there any reason to think so given either of their respectful obituaries. Is there any reason to believe that Arthur Odum’s move to Midland TX had anything to do with the Bush family connections and the oil industry? A huge leap, but it is one worth pursuing I think.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Andrew, how this thread has taken the course it has is beyond me. But in relation to Leslie’s latest posts… They should be saved/recorded elsewhere, maybe she should write a book.
            Odom look’s suspiciously like a on site tool of Hoover with foreknowledge. Which is confusing to me. I’ve never read much about the FBI being involved the set up/assassination itself. Only the cover up.
            By The Way, was Odom riding with reporter Hugh Aynesworth, also a Johnny on the spot? Or the DPD officer out of the I believe personnel office who could also be considered yet another Johnny on the Spot, but whose name I can’t remember at the moment. Help with the name anyone?

  20. Ronnie Wayne says:

    MDG, I can’t get the Lancer link to work. Nothing in the countercoup2 link mentions Holmes life being threatened though it is an excellent link. Ive read most of what it says elsewhere before but anyone not familiar with what we are talking about should read it. I re read all of Willy’s posts from the 10th and saw nothing either.
    I’ve thought for years Holmes was complicit in the coverup. He did what he was told willingly, but did screw up a bit from the official story in some of his testimony. It’s quite possible he unwittingly (?) took part in the set up regarding the rifle. Remember, Senator Byrd’s committee was investigating gun smuggling at the time in relation to Cuba.

  21. MDG says:

    Ronnie Wayne……………………………Here’s that Lancer link again re U S Postal Inspector Harry D Holmes of Dallas.

    http://www.jfklancer.com/Holmes.html

    Holmes was an important figure in the investigation into Oswald’s use of post office boxes.

    This which follows seems to suggest he would know what people were receiving in their boxes including Oswald prior to the Assassination.

    That’s something to think about.

    “Prior to the assassination, Holmes had already become an FBI informant. One of his functions was to keep the FBI (and, incidentally, the Secret Service) appraised of changes in the allocation of post office boxes in the Dallas area. This obviously brought Lee Harvey Oswald to his attention. …………………….Holmes had been allocated a Dallas Informant Number – T-7. ………………………………. close perusal of Commission Exhibit 1152 does prove the point. That exhibit is an FBI report which deals exclusively with information supplied by “Confidential Informant, Dallas T-7”. It contains many precise details which can only have been known to Harry D Holmes in his capacity as a Dallas Postal Inspector”.

    “Right from the beginning, he was active. In his testimony he said “I never quit. I didn’t get to bed for two days” and “I was doing all I could to help other agencies”. Indeed, within hours of the assassination, he was mounting his own private investigation. After learning from the FBI that an Italian rifle had been purchased by mail order from Klein’s of Chicago on 20th March 1963, Holmes tried unsuccessfully to locate a record of the money order used in the transaction. …………………Holmes seemed to take control of investigation into the issue of the money order used for the purchase of the rifle. Despite the fact that Oswald was by then in custody, he also arranged continuous surveillance on Oswald’s post office box, number 6225, at the Terminal Annex building”.

  22. Bob Prudhomme says:

    SA Robert A. Frazier, the FBI’s firearms expert, made many serious mistakes (accidental or deliberate, not sure which) in his testimony to the WC.

    Here is one of my favourites from Frazier’s WC testimony. As far as I know, I am the only person to have ever clued into this one, and I’ve been unable to generate any interest in it. In this excerpt, Frazier is discussing the mangled bullet recovered from the home of General Walker, how Frazier was able to measure that bullet, mathematically determine the bullet’s diameter as .267″ and establish from this that the bullet had to be a Western Cartridge Co. 6.5mm Carcano bullet.

    “Mr. EISENBERG – Can you describe the general rifling characteristics which you referred to?
    Mr. FRAZIER – Yes. They consist of impressions from four lands and grooves. The bullet is mutilated on a portion of its surface. However, it can be determined that there were four land impressions and four groove impressions originally on this bullet.
    The width of the land impression is 7/100ths of an inch, that is 0.07 inch–whereas the width of the groove impression is 0.13 inch, or 13/100ths of an inch.
    The bullet is flattened so that it was not possible to measure its diameter. However, by adding the land width to the groove width, and multiplying by the number of lands and grooves, you can determine the circumference of the bullet and mathematically determine its diameter, which in this case corresponds to 6.5 mm. ammunition, or approximately .267 inch.”

    So, remember the diagram I showed you of the barrel interior, showing the “lands and grooves” of the barrel’s riflings? Frazier took the bullet and found part of the circumference of the base to be intact. On this section, he was able to measure the width of one land impression and found it to be .070″ (1.778 mm) wide. He was also able to measure the width of one groove impression, and found it to be .130″ (3.302 mm). As there were four land impressions and four groove impressions, establishing the circumference was as simple as:

    4 x .070 + 4 x .130 = .800″ as the circumference of the bullet

    As you know, diameter equals circumference divided by pi (3.1416)

    This is what Frazier did and, being the genius he was, arrived at a diameter again of .267″. What a hero!

    However, if we do the math ourselves, we come up with a different number.

    .800 divided by 3.1416 = .2546473 or .255″ NOT .267″

    What a coincidence! This is almost precisely the bore diameter of a 6.5mm Carcano rifle. Now, was Frazier a seriously confused individual? Was he deliberately lying to the WC? Was he just too lazy to measure the lands and grooves, and instead, reverse engineered the number, mistakenly starting with the bore diameter (.256″) instead of the bullet diameter (.2677″)?

    Or was there something else going on here?

    Continued next post……

  23. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Continued….

    Here is another excerpt from Frazier’s WC testimony, in which he makes another error he was never called on:

    “Mr. EISENBERG – Well, no; not at this time.
    Can you explain the American equivalent to the 6.5 mm. caliber?
    Mr. FRAZIER – That is the same as .25 caliber. Such weapons in the United States as the .25-20 Winchester, .25-35, the .250 Savage, and the .257 Roberts, are all of the same barrel diameter, or approximately the same barrel diameter. So a decimal figure of .257 inch is the equivalent of 6.5 mm.”

    Mr. Frazier is conveying a very popular misconception, one that is totally wrong yet very widespread in the shooting world. How this guy ever got to be a firearms “expert” is beyond me, although I must admit there was a time I also believed this statement to be true.

    It is very confusing to look at the numerical designation of rifles, as they can be quite misleading. For example, you wouldn’t think that a rifle named the .250 Savage and one named the .257 Roberts would both shoot the same diameter of bullet, would you?

    Here is the explanation. The .25 calibre rifles all have a calibre (bore diameter) of .250″, unlike the 6.5mm rifles, which have a bore diameter of .256″. The groove diameter (also bullet diameter) of a .25 calibre rifle is .257″ (sound familiar?) while the groove and bullet diameter of a Carcano rifle is .2677″. Quite a difference, Mr. Frazier, and no, the 6.5mm rifles are NOT the equivalent of the .25 calibre rifles.

    That being said, was the bullet Frazier measured, from the Walker residence, fired from a .25 calibre rifle, and not a 6.5mm Carcano? It would certainly match the measurements in his testimony.

    • Bill Clarke says:

      Bob Prudhomme
      July 12, 2016 at 6:54 pm

      Continued….

      “Here is another excerpt from Frazier’s WC testimony, in which he makes another error he was never called on:”

      “Mr. EISENBERG – Well, no; not at this time.
      Can you explain the American equivalent to the 6.5 mm. caliber?
      Mr. FRAZIER – That is the same as .25 caliber. Such weapons in the United States as the .25-20 Winchester, .25-35, the .250 Savage, and the .257 Roberts, are all of the same barrel diameter, or approximately the same barrel diameter. So a decimal figure of .257 inch is the equivalent of 6.5 mm.”

      Man, he bombed this one. Hardly sounds like an expert.

      “Mr. Frazier is conveying a very popular misconception, one that is totally wrong yet very widespread in the shooting world. How this guy ever got to be a firearms “expert” is beyond me, although I must admit there was a time I also believed this statement to be true.”

      Yeah, I believed it too; when I was a kid.

      This from the Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading, 8th Edition, page 320; “Carcano rifles are built with a .257 bore and .268 grooves. The rifles are, by virtue of this, not generally accurate with conventional .264 6.5mm bullets. Hornady now produces a .267 160grain Round Nose bullet designed specifically for Carcano rifles. We have achieved excellent accuracy with this bullet”

      Dave Emary of Hornday had an excellent article on the Carcano. It is no longer on the net but I copied and pasted it to Word before it was removed. I’d be happy to send it to anyone interested. Note he didn’t use “the Oswald rifle” in his work but it is an excellent article.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Thank you for posting that, Bill.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Now the real question is, were the Western Cartridge Company 6.5mm cartridges loaded with .264″ diameter bullets, or .268″ diameter bullets?

        I’ll show you tomorrow what SA Robert A. Frazier had to say about this.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Ah, what the heck. Sleep is highly overrated. I stayed up a little later and dug up part of an old post of mine from another forum.

          As I said in my last post, the real question is whether Oswald’s alleged bullets were loaded with the proper .268″ diameter bullets, or the more common yet too narrow .264″ diameter bullets?

          Here is what SA Robert A. Frazier came up with. Once again, he was never called on this mistake.

          “Mr. EISENBERG – Yes; for the record, these cartridges were found on the sixth. floor of the School Book Depository Building. They were found near the south east corner window–that is, the easternmost window on the southern face of the sixth floor of that building.
          Mr. Frazier, are these cartridge cases which have just been admitted into evidence the same type of cartridge– from the same type of cartridge as you just examined, Commission Exhibit No. 141?
          Mr. FRAZIER – Yes; they are.
          Mr. EISENBERG – That is, 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano, manufactured by the Western Cartridge Co.?
          Mr. FRAZIER – Yes, sir.
          Mr. EISENBERG – You gave the weight of the bullet which is found in this type of cartridge. Could you give us a description of the contour of the bullet, and its length?
          Mr. FRAZIER – The bullet has parallel sides, with a round nose, is fully jacketed with a copper-alloy coating or metal jacket on the outside of a lead core. Its diameter is 6.65 millimeters. The length–possibly it would be better to put it in inches rather than millimeters The diameter is .267 inches, and a length of 1.185, or approximately 1.2 inches.

          Okay, now, Frazier, the great firearms expert, measured CE 399 and found it to be 6.65 mm in diameter or, as he testifies, “.267 inches”. The actual diameter of a real Carcano bullet is .2677″ and is normally rounded off to .268″.

          But, that is not the problem here. The problem here is that while Frazier may have measured the bullet and found it to be 6.65 mm, 6.65 mm does not equal .267″. If you go to this handy dandy conversion site http://www.onlineconversion.com/length_common.htm and use their calculator, you will see that 6.65 mm equals .2618″, not .267″. In other words, not only did Frazier like to stretch the truth, he was a bit on the lazy side as well. He measured the bullet diameter in millimetres but never did the conversion to inches. He likely read the measurement of .267″ in a text and assumed 6.65 mm would equal .267″.

          Continued next post……

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Continued…..

          However, as there is no bullet on the planet that measures 6.65 mm in diameter, I compared the diameter of CE 399 in the photo to the Metric scale above it and found the diameter closer to 6.7 mm. Now, if we process that, we find that 6.7 mm = .263779″ or *SURPRISE!!!* .264″, the standard diameter of every 6.5mm bullet in the world except the Carcano, and exactly the bullet I suspected was loaded into the WCC ammunition.

          And there you have it, folks, right from the horse’s mouth. No theory, no conjecture, no wild imagination. Instead, we not only have the WC testimony of an FBI firearms expert that CE 399 was only .264″ (or less) in diameter, we have the picture to prove it, PLUS a Metric scale in that photo to confirm Frazier’s testimony. One of the WC commissioners, McCloy, later questioned Frazier about whether he was sure he came up with a measurement of 6.65 mm, and Frazier was quite adamant this was the figure. The photo, of course, confirms it. McCloy must have been intelligent enough to do the conversion from Metric to inches, and spotted Frazier’s error. It is strange he never mentioned anything.

          The search is over. The 6.5mm Carcano cartridges found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and made by the WCC were loaded with bullets that were too small in diameter for the rifle they were being fired from. Considering all of the other deficiencies I have pointed out, there is simply no way Oswald or the Carcano found on the 6th floor were part of the assassination of JFK.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        By the way, Bill, I’m not surprised you are the only one to comment on this post. I’m sure this information is well over the heads of the majority of the posters here. Small wonder the conspiracy came off as well as it did.

  24. David Regan says:

    Oswald got ‘very, very lucky,’ says Chicago gunsmith who mounted the scope on the rifle http://newsarchive.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news-226036.html

  25. Bob Prudhomme says:

    John McAdams
    July 12, 2016 at 10:10 pm
    Also, there is evidence that the bullet Tomlinson handed over to OP Wright was not a round nosed bullet, as is loaded into 6.5mm Carcano cartridges but, rather, a pointed bullet similar to what is loaded into military 30-06 cartridges.

    In fact, Wright said the bullet (CE 399) “looked like” the bullet he had recovered.

    http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=430

    ——————————————————————–

    John

    Know what is wrong with the doc you linked to? It states that Elmer Todd was showing this bullet, CE 399, to everyone, and he later denied ever seeing that bullet.

    Don’t you ever get tired of defending lies?

  26. Bob Prudhomme says:

    John McAdams
    July 12, 2016 at 10:13 pm
    There is a lot of evidence that maintains CE 399 could not possibly be the bullet that caused all of the wounds in JFK and John Connally.

    Only in the minds of conspiracists.

    How many bullets do you think hit Kennedy’s torso and Connally?

    ————————————————————–

    John

    No, not just in the minds of conspiracists. Some doctors, including Parkland surgeons, strongly felt CE 399 should have been much more deformed after shattering the radius bone in Connally’s forearm.

    • No, not just in the minds of conspiracists. Some doctors, including Parkland surgeons, strongly felt CE 399 should have been much more deformed after shattering the radius bone in Connally’s forearm.

      Surgeons are not experts in wound ballistics.

      Real experts in wound ballistics think differently.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/fackler.pdf

      But you evaded my question: how many bullets hit Connally, and Kennedy’s torso?

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Do you think surgeons in Dallas, Texas, the gunshot capitol of America, might not have recovered the odd bullet from a wound where the bullet had shattered a large bone? Seriously, John, don’t you think they would be more than qualified to make such a statement?

        • Seriously, John, don’t you think they would be more than qualified to make such a statement?

          No, they would not. That’s not their job.

          The following is from the JAMA, April 28, 1993, page 2058.

          CLINICIANS’ FORENSIC INTERPRETATIONS OF FATAL GUNSHOT WOUNDS OFTEN MISS THE MARK.

          The odds that a trauma specialist will correctly interpret certain fatal gunshot wound are no better than the flip of a coin, according to a recent study at a level 1 trauma center. The study, which looked at single, perforating (exiting) gunshot wounds and multiple gunshot wounds, found that trauma specialists made errors in 52% of the cases, either in differentiating the entrance and exit wound, or in determining the number of bullets that struck the victim.

          When a gunshot patient dies, the doctors leave. It’s not their job to dissect bullet tracks, determine entry and exit, and so on.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Maybe so, John, but a surgeon is not blind.

            If he sees the bullet in front of him, and the shattered bone it has produced, don’t you think he is going to make a connection between the two, despite the fact it’s “not his job”?

            If a gunshot victim does NOT die, the surgeon sticks around and, in the process of repairing the wound, gets a VERY good look at the wound track as well as the entry and exit wound.

            (just in case you’ve forgotten, John Connally survived the shooting)

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        I am evading questions? That’s all you and your buddies Jean and Photon do on this website is avoid questions (beside not posting links, and links to your own biased website don’t count). Pot? Kettle?

        • Jean Davison says:

          What question have I avoided, Bob?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            All we need now is Photon and we’ll have the whole gang here.

          • Jean Davison says:

            As you know or should know, Photon is not currently here. I hope he’ll be allowed back so he can respond.

            In the meantime, what question have I avoided, Bob?

          • Tom S. says:

            Jean,

            Photon has submitted no comment since I presented links to comments of Jeff and Peter, the latter requesting a working email address.
            I will immediately disclose any actual interruption in Photon’s ability to submit comments. Presently there is nothing preventing Photon
            from commenting, I am holding out faint hope an actual email address will accompany Photon’s comments.

          • Jean Davison says:

            It seems that after saying that all I do on this website is avoid questions Bob is currently avoiding *my* question (asked now for the third and last time): What question have I avoided, Bob?

            I’m not at all annoyed, by the way. I think it’s amusing.

        • I am evading questions?

          Yes you are.

          I asked you how many bullets you think hit Kennedy’s torso, and John Connally.

          You evaded that.

          And I think we both know why.

          If you don’t accept the Single Bullet Theory, you have to posit an absurd number of shots fired in Dealey Plaza that day.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            John McAdams

            We are attempting to have a serious discussion here, and you remind me of the little boy in the sandbox taunting the older children with meaningless insults.

          • ed connor says:

            No, Professor, I don’t think one needs to posit an absurd number of shots.
            One from behind, striking JFK in the upper back.
            Another, from behind, striking Connally below the right armpit and shattering his 5th rib and fracturing his wrist.
            A third, from behind, missing the Lincoln and wounding James Tague.
            And one more, from the front; a frangible bullet causing the fatal head wound.
            The first was #399, entering but not transversing the president’s chest, found on a stretcher at Parkland. The second, badly damaged by multiple bony impacts, found in fragments on the floor of the limousine.
            The third striking the curb near the triple underpass and never recovered.
            And the fourth disintegrating into metal fragments in the president’s brain, which has been missing for 53 years.
            May I anticipate your rebuttal?
            The neck wound, described as a wound of entry at Parkland and a wound of exit by Lattimer, et. al.. I doubt this was a bullet wound at all. There was no damage to the cervical vertebrae which would be necessary to explain the path of a shot from the rear. There was no bullet hole in the shirt or necktie. The Parkland doctors cut the shirt and tie away when they began treatment, as is normal emergency room protocol.
            I think the neck wound was probably due to glass or other shrapnel from the frontal shot. I think JFK’s reaction in 224 and thereafter was not to a neck wound, but to the thoracic wound he suffered before 224.
            There you have it: all shots, wounds and bullets accounted for.
            What say ye?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            I like your train of thought here, Ed, but let me offer a few suggestions.

            I agree with you on the frontal shot to the head being a frangible bullet but, why not the bullet entering JFK’s back being frangible as well? By frangible, I assume, of course, we are referring to a hollow point bullet with a core made from compressed metal powder, designed to disintegrate back into powder while travelling through soft tissue.

            I know the popular belief is that JFK’s back wound was so shallow, it did not even penetrate into the pleural cavity of the lung but, if you look at what this involves, the likelihood of a shallow back wound is almost nil.

            Considering the normal muzzle velocity of a 6.5mm Carcano M91/38 short rifle is about 2200 feet/second, and such a shallow wound would require a bullet travelling likely under 300 feet/second in order to make such a shallow penetration, how was the shooter even able to hit JFK with such a slow moving bullet?

            If I was at a range, and shooting a rifle with a similar muzzle velocity at a target 100 yards away, and the rifle was sighted in for 100 yards and I happened to chamber a defective cartridge that only gave the bullet a muzzle velocity of 300 fps, the bullet would not even make it to the target. (in actuality, it might not make it all the way down the barrel) The bullet would likely be seen kicking up dirt partway out to the target.

            What is far more likely to have occurred is a frangible bullet entered the top of JFK’s right lung and disintegrated into metal powder 3-4 inches into his lung.

            If you are interested, I can show you the medical evidence that shows JFK had a serious injury to his right lung, plus a condition known as a “tension pneumothorax”.

          • There was no bullet hole in the shirt or necktie.

            Untrue:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/collar.jpg

            As to the rest of your post: you have to use a bunch of silly contrivances to avoid obvious inferences. The tip of the right lung was bruised. That suggests the passage of a bullet.

            The transverse process of T1 was fractured. also suggesting the passage of a bullet.

            And over 90 percent of the earwitnesses heard three or fewer shots.

          • you remind me of the little boy in the sandbox taunting the older children with meaningless insults.

            You remind me of a petulant buff who has been cornered on the evidence and turns to insults.

            It’s obvious you can’t provide an answer to my question, so you turn abusive.

          • “The first was #399, entering but not transversing the president’s chest, found on a stretcher at Parkland.”~Ed Connor

            What is it that convinces you that CE399 was found at Parkland Ed?

            The first four people to handle the Parkland Bullet refused to ID it as the bullet now in evidence. Two of those four were Secret Service agents.

            The chain of evidence for CE399 is obliterated. It originated in the Washington DC FBI office, and has no history up to that point.

            Do you have any comments on this?
            \\][//

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Ed, in addition to what Willy points out about C399 you completely ignore Dr. Perry’s statement ON 11/22/63, 3x. He dealt with gunshot wounds on an almost daily basis, sometimes more than once in the same day.
            He knew what he was talking about.

          • ed connor says:

            The prosectors at Bethesda could only probe the thoracic back wound “to a fingerbreath,” and did not dissect the wound.
            When informed of the recovery of #399 at Parkland, they speculated that the bullet had penetrated a short distance and had fallen out onto the stretcher.
            Seems more likely than the bullet exiting JFK’s throat, which would not align with a fracture of the right tip of a thoracic spinous process.
            The defects to JFK’s shirt look more like scalpel cuts than bullet holes. They don’t untie your necktie in the ER; they cut it.

            And, Ronnie, if the neck wound was one of entry by a bullet, where’s the bullet? We know JFK sustained shrapnel wounds to the face, because Thomas Robinson, who embalmed the body at Gawler’s, told the HSCA that embalming fluid was leaking from 2 shrapnel wounds to the face. He repaired them with mortician’s wax.

      • R. Andrew Kiel says:

        Speaking of evading questions Mr. McAdams – you evaded my questions to you from my post this morning relating to the Alyea film & Eugene Boone statements. Can you try & answer them as best as you can & we can actually have an intelligent & reasonable exchange of ideas or not?

        • No, I did not.

          The best evidence is the Alyea film. Boone may have thought it was a Mauser, but it was not.

          Is that clear enough for you?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            The evidence is right because it is the evidence.

            Is that clear enough for you?

            🙂

          • R. Andrew Kiel says:

            No – it’s surely not an acceptable response to my questions.

            Sheriff Boone clearly stated (1986) that the rifle in the possession of the FBI was not the one that he witnessed being found on the 6th floor.

            In his Warren Commission testimony (1964) he admits that he probably made a mistake by identifying the rifle on the 6th floor as a Mauser.

            However – that does not clear up the fact that the rifle in the National Archives (1964-2016) is not the same rifle – Carcano or Mauser or whatever type that Boone initially saw.

            It is still not clear what rifle Boone identified as being found on the 6th floor the day of the assassination – that’s what he stated in 1986 & to this day an unanswered question that you & I both have not properly answered.

            You still did not address why the initial search by officers of the 4th, 6th, & 7th floors – who were supposedly alerted to shots by witnesses from the 6th floor window – failed to locate the “sniper’s nest” when they searched the 6th floor the first time.

            How could the officers – alerted to shots from the 6th floor window – not see the “sniper’s nest” when that is where they were rushing to search?

          • You still did not address why the initial search by officers of the 4th, 6th, & 7th floors – who were supposedly alerted to shots by witnesses from the 6th floor window – failed to locate the “sniper’s nest” when they searched the 6th floor the first time.

            You mean they rushed up to the top floor, thinking they might find the assassin still in the building? In fact, they said they thought the assassin might still be in the building.

            And then when they had time to search more thoroughly, Mooney found the Sniper’s Nest?

            And this is sinister?

            As for the rest, you are just begging the question. You admit Boone said he was mistaken.

            Why don’t you accept his word?

            And why don’t you accept what the Alyea film shows?

          • “How could the officers – alerted to shots from the 6th floor window – not see the “sniper’s nest” when that is where they were rushing to search?”~R. Andrew Kiel

            Well, it’s obvious! More time was needed for them to finish building their stage set, and planting the shells and rifle[s].

            Surely nobody still believes the BS that Oswald built his little nest, and fired a rifle he had never seen in his life before.

            As the shills say all the time ‘Hilarious!!’
            \\][//

          • Jordan says:

            If the Alyea film is the “best evidence”, why does it not show a clip in the rifle….?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Hi Jordan

            I responded to your first mention of the rifle clip in this thread, if you’d like to read my post.

          • “How could the officers – alerted to shots from the 6th floor window – not see the “sniper’s nest” when that is where they were rushing to search?”~R. Andrew Kiel

            In the first place, there was a lot of initial confusion as to where the shots originated. Not everybody immediately said “sixth floor.”

            In the second place, the shooter could have been anywhere in the Depository, not necessarily in the Sniper’s Nest.

  27. Bob Prudhomme says:

    It’s a shame you don’t own this forum, John. You could simply delete all of my comments, the way you delete dissenting comments on your forum.

  28. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Ed Connor said:

    “When informed of the recovery of #399 at Parkland, they speculated that the bullet had penetrated a short distance and had fallen out onto the stretcher.
    Seems more likely than the bullet exiting JFK’s throat, which would not align with a fracture of the right tip of a thoracic spinous process.”

    Please explain to me, Ed, in your own words, how a bullet with a normal muzzle velocity of just under 2200 feet per second could end up penetrating the flesh of JFK’s back less than an inch.

    Then explain to me how Humes could use a finger to probe a bullet wound made by a bullet that is just a hair over 1/4 inch in diameter, or roughly the diameter of a pencil eraser.

  29. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Jean Davison said:

    “The Mauser was fairly well-known in this country in 1963. The M-C was not.”

    Really, Jean? So let’s see, now, you’re also an expert on rifles as well, are you?

    For starters, it’s not a “Mannlicher Carcano”, it’s referred to as just a plain Carcano. The only thing tying it to a Mannlicher rifle is its clip, for which the Italians paid handsomely for the right to use.

    The name Mauser was well known in the USA, due to it being the main battle rifle of the German army in WWII, but this rifle was never referred to as a German Mauser. It was specifically referred to as a 7.65mm Mauser, which makes it an Argentine Mauser, and not a common rifle in the USA at all.

    Much more common would be the 6.5mm Carcano, of which thousands were brought into the USA as military surplus after WWII. This was largely due to the fact the Italians ceased production of the 6.5mm Carcano following WWII, and sold the vast majority of Carcanos as surplus.

    For that matter, the 6.5mm Carcano itself could be referred to as a Mauser, as the Italians designed this rifle around the popular Mauser bolt action.

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