Pass or fail? The Warren Commission report reviewed 50 years later

Warren CommisionOn the upcoming 50th anniversary of the publication of Warren Commission report in September 1964, not one but two conferences in the Washington DC area will take a close look at the report and its account of JFK’s assassination, which most Americans do not believe is accurate.

The  Assassinations Archives Research Center is sponsoring, “The Warren Report and the JFK Assassination: A Half Century of Significant Disclosures” at the Bethesda Hyatt, in Bethesda, Maryland on September 25-28.

Many noted authorities have committed to speak at the conference, including Russ Baker;  Prof. G. Robert Blakey; Jim D’Eugenio; Marie Fonzi; Robert Groden; Dan Hardway, JD; Prof. David Kaiser; Prof. Joan Mellen; Prof. John Newman; Dr. Randolph Robertson; Prof. Peter Dale Scott; Dr. Wayne Smith; Tony Summers;  Dr. Donald Thomas; Prof. Ernst Titovets, MD, PhD; Lamar Waldron, Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, MD, JD, and yours truly.

I will be speaking about the Warren Commission’s role in the ascendancy of what Bob Woodward calls “the secret world” of the national security agencies.

The JFK Historical Group is sponsoring “The Warren Report 50 Years Later: A Critical Examination,” at the Crowne Plaza East Hotel in Alexandria, Virginia.

Ed Tatro, Doug Horne, Phil Nelson, Russ Baker, Gary Powers Jr., Peter Janney, James Wagenvoord (former Life magazine editor and current whistleblower), Rick Russo, (a key Nigel Turner consultant), and Gerald McKnight are among those that have agreed to give presentations.

The organizers of both conferences erred, I think, in not joining forces and holding one conference. As the historical record of Kennedy’s assassination grows more complete, we need consensus, not conflict, about the shortcomings of the official investigation.

That said, I think both conferences will be worthwhile. I hope to hear the presentations of Wagenvoord and Horne.

213 comments

  1. GM says:

    Jeff, is there a chance that these conferences will be filmed, and later shown on here (for people who cannot attend etc)?

  2. I think it’s great that these conferences are going to be happening. I look forward to reading the reports on them, and commenting.

  3. Arnaldo M Fernandez says:

    Just a couple of remarks from Jim DiEugenio:

    1. About the only fact it got right is that Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement of the Dallas Police Headquarters. The Commission could not miss that since it was captured live on television.
    2. To cite what is missing from the Warren Report would take almost another 26 volumes of evidence.
    3. The Commission was doomed from the start. As a criminal investigation, as a prosecutor’s case, and as a fact finding inquiry. The Commission, in all regards, was like the Leaning Tower of Pisa: structurally unsound at its base.
    3. The record of evidence manipulation by the Commission and its agents is so voluminous as to be book length. The bias against Oswald was actively implemented by the Warren Commission. To the point that it accepted altered exhibits, allowed testimony to be censored and screened, and deep-sixed important testimony and evidence it did not want to entertain.
    4. The Warren Commission misrepresented its own evidence.
    There is actually internal documentary evidence to prove this point. In late April of 1964, staff administrator Norman Redlich wrote a memo to Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin. Discovered by researcher David Josephs, it is a startling letter. Redlich wrote: “As our investigation now stands, however, we have not shown that these events could possibly have occurred in the manner suggested (…) I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service are totally incorrect, and if left uncorrected will present a completely misleading picture.”

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Yes the WC failed the nation, but let’s not forget that the WCR left us many clues about a conspiracy with its own imperfections in the form of omissions, selectivity, inconsistencies or contradictions.

      BTW, do you have a link to the whole text of that Redlich memo please?

      P.S. Unfortunately, I can’t attend that ARRC conference but also look forward to any reports, etc.

      • Vanessa Loney says:

        I agree Gerry. I also think the bits it did get right in particular, the work the WC did on documenting Oswald’s income and the lack of explanation for some of it was really invaluable.

    • Arnaldo, I believe Johnson appointed the Warren Commission mainly to clear his own name as being involved in the assassination. That memo written by Katzenbach which stated that the public must be convinced Oswald was the real assassin…..that set the stage for the goal of the WC, and things went downhill from there.

    • “As our investigation now stands, however, we have not shown that these events could possibly have occurred in the manner suggested (…) I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service are totally incorrect, and if left uncorrected will present a completely misleading picture.”

      Josephs has taken this entirely out of context.

      That memo has been on my website about forever, and here it is in context.

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

      Here is the first paragraph:

      The purpose of this memorandum is to explain the reasons why certain members of the staff feel that it is important to take certain on-site photographs in connection with the location of the approximate points at which the three bullets struck the occupants of the Presidential limousine.

      The issue was the shooting sequence in Dealey Plaza, and the memo is urging that studies be done there.

      As for:

      reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect

      This referred to the claims of both agencies for a “three shot three hit” shooting sequence.

      The staff was beginning to see that this didn’t work.

      So what you have posted is a classic example of a buff ripping something out of context to mislead people. Read the entire memo, and you will see that.

      • Pat Speer says:

        Yikes! I have to agree with John M on this one. The Redlich memo, when taken in context, is not nearly as damaging (for the Warren Commission) as it seems. I’ve had it up on my website for years as well.

        It is, however, quite damaging to the FBI and Secret Service. They had both re-constructed the shooting, and had both come to the conclusion there were three shots and three hits, with the head shot 30 feet or more further down the road than would have been obvious to a 12-year old, should one have been allowed to study the films. It is to the commission’s credit that they tried to correct this.

        It is to their shame, however, that they failed to investigate how the FBI and SS could come to such an obviously bogus conclusion…which just so happened to stretch out the shooting scenario, and made the one-shooter solution pushed by both agencies more likely.

        • It is, however, quite damaging to the FBI and Secret Service.

          Are you suggesting they had some conspiratorial intent?

          Or was it simply that they didn’t study the Zapruder film in the depth that they should?

          The WC studied it quite a lot:

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

          Conspiracists, of course, always look for some conspiratorial intent.

          I, where government is concerned, am inclined to see mere incompetence. The same sort of incompetence was see from government all the time.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Incompetence but also a cover-up sir.

            That cover-up may have been the result of any of these reasons or combination thereof:

            1. National security due to ‘known unknowns’.

            2. Incompetence.

            3. Negligence.

            4. Choosing path of least resistance (Oswald as scapegoat).

            5. Non-cooperation of agencies influenced by their executive heads who weren’t keen about JFK.

          • Frank says:

            The government was incredibly competent in compartmentalizing the events Doug Horne and Dino Brugioni discuss regarding the processing of the Zapruder film on Saturday and Sunday following the assassination. That operation was apparently the very model of competence and efficiency. World class even.

            Competency and the lack of it often crops up as a matter of convenience. One good reason for the government never being too good at anything they do in the public realm is to always have the incompetency sandbag available. Incompetency becomes a form of competency, for those requiring an excuse for something that is not easily explained.

          • Pat Speer says:

            On 11-27-63, SS agent Howlett, using the Z-film, concluded that the distance from the sniper’s nest to Kennedy at the time of the first shot and head shot were 170 feet and 260 feet, respectively.

            Evidently, someone decided this 90 foot difference was a problem. Perhaps they felt this didn’t leave Oswald enough time to get off three shots. On 12-5 the SS went back and did it again. This time they concluded the first shot came at 184 feet, the second (which hit Connally) at 242 feet, and the third at 294 feet. The distance covered from first to last was now 110 feet.

            This still wasn’t good enough for the FBI, however. On 1-20-64, the FBI provided the Warren Commission with the results of their own month-long analysis of the shooting, based upon the Zapruder film AND Nix film. They concluded that the first shot was fired from a distance of 167 feet, the second (which hit Connally) from a distance of 262 feet, and the third from a distance of 307 feet. The distance from first to last was now 140 feet.

            The WC’s re-enactment, of course, proved the head shot was back where Howlett had placed it, at around 265 feet.

            This wasn’t just a math problem, either. The FBI created exhibits placing the Connally shot when the limo is out in front of Zapruder, and the head shot when the limo is way past Zapruder.

            Just assuming they were incompetent doesn’t cut it, I’m afraid. There is no way someone could study the Z film and Nix film and come away believing Connally was hit where Kennedy was shot in the head, and that Kennedy wasn’t hit until the limo was down by the steps. This has led some, including the late Tom Purvis, to conclude the FBI was studying a DIFFERENT Z-film than the one we now know.

            I suspect different. I suspect the FBI lied. And you should, too. After all, if they were so INCREDIBLY incompetent that they could study the films and conclude Connally was shot in front of the Newmans, and Kennedy was shot down by the steps, then they were too incompetent to be tasked with investigating the President’s murder, and ALL their tests are suspect.

          • then they were too incompetent to be tasked with investigating the President’s murder, and ALL their tests are suspect.

            No, the tests they were used to doing (firearms, questioned documents, fingerprints, etc.) they were pretty good at. In fact very good.

            I doubt they had any experience examining movie film of a shooting.

            There quite simply were a lot of things that were not noticed early on about the Z film.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            I doubt they had any experience examining movie film of a shooting.

            Professor, wasn’t SSA Shaneyfelt their photographic expert?

      • jeffc says:

        The second paragraph of the Redlich memo reads

        *Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President by the third and fatal bullet. The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building.*

        The Redlich memo indicates the Commission in late April is uncertain as to the shot sequence, but conclusive that it was *one person* located in a 6th floor window of the TSBD. The cart seems to be ahead of the horse here – particularly since official reports of FBI and Secret Service have been deemed incorrect.

        • The Redlich memo indicates the Commission in late April is uncertain as to the shot sequence, but conclusive that it was *one person* located in a 6th floor window of the TSBD.

          That’s your spin.

          Redlich is saying that (to paraphrase) “if we are going to say that one person shot Kennedy, we need to do some studies in Dealey Plaza to show that’s possible.”

          Don’t you folks believe that the entire WC staff was involved in a “coverup?” If so, why is Redlich asking for studies that might show that one shooter couldn’t do the deed?

          The memo actually is evidence of an honest inquiry.

          • jeffc says:

            The Warren Commission’s staff were lawyers and thereby trained professionally to be precise with language. Therefore it is not spin to note that Redlich makes a distinction – the shot sequence has a presumed conclusion, meaning that it is yet to be confirmed, but the single assassin on 6th floor “will” be concluded in the Report, meaning that it is definite.

            It is spin to say this indicates the WC was just making an honest effort to get the facts straight, just as it is spin to say the memo proves the WC were ass-covering conspiracy facilitators. The record of internal memoranda, of which this is just one, shows that the WC always had a pre-determined conclusion that one shooter fired from one specific place.

          • It is spin to say this indicates the WC was just making an honest effort to get the facts straight,

            Then why would Redlich be calling for the tests? Those tests could have, in principle, undermined the single assassin conclusion.

            The record of internal memoranda, of which this is just one, shows that the WC always had a pre-determined conclusion that one shooter fired from one specific place.

            That’s what the evidence indicated. And after 50 years, it’s still what it indicates.

            Your complaint starts with the assumption that there was good evidence of a conspiracy, and that the WC ignored it.

            But if that’s not true, your comment holds no water. In other words, you are assuming what you want to prove.

            If you start with conspiratorial assumptions, of course you can reach a conspiratorial conclusion.

          • Paulf says:

            John, he is saying in effect that they needed to generate a set of facts to fit the predetermined conclusion.

            And somehow you find that a completely acceptable way to run an investigation.

            Taken in a vacuum, that might not be so damning, but there are hundreds of data points that indicate that the priority of the WC was to back a conclusion that would produce the least amount of discomfort for officials in charge.

          • but there are hundreds of data points that indicate that the priority of the WC was to back a conclusion that would produce the least amount of discomfort for officials in charge.

            In fact, what you are describing is “hundreds of data points” pointing to Oswald as the shooter, and no reliable information indicating anybody else was involved.

          • Paulf says:

            John, I see you couldn’t rebut the plain fact that to the WC conclusions were made before the evidence was found. That in itself is incredibly damning.

            “If we’re going to present the Oswald lone gunman theory, we’d better be able to demonstrate some evidence for that.” Ya’ think? Maybe the right way to investigate is to see where the evidence leads and then decide who did it.

            As to the hundreds of data points, I still have yet to hear a single one that provides any real evidence that Oswald was the shooter. He sorta maybe owned a similar gun that sorta maybe was the one that did the shooting and he was found nearby sorta maybe in position to have actually done the shot. He sorta maybe was fleeing and sorta maybe shot Tippet (which would not be evidence he did anything to JFK).

          • R. Andrew Kiel says:

            Again Mr. McAdams you cherry pick what you want – Dr. Joseph Dolce the head of the US Army’s Wound Ballistics stated that based on his tests FOR THE Warren Commission that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the single bullet theory to be correct. Did you throw out this piece of evidence?

            He stated very CLEARLY that the bullets that hit hit Mr. Connally in the rib & the wrist would never haver emerged as a near pristine bullet. Did you throw out this evidence?

            Dr. Shaw who operated on Connally agreed with Dolce – the x-rays show more fragments in his chest & wrist that could not have come from a near pristine bullet 399. Did you throw out this piece of evidence?

            The Warren Commission reported that its members were confused about even the POSSIBILITY of the single bullet theory as a result of the autopsy doctors stating that the wound in the back did not go any deeper than than the depth of a fingernail. Did you throw out this piece of evidence?

            All of this evidence (and much more) should lead an OBJECTIVE researcher to doubt the veracity of the single-bullet THEORY.

          • John, I see you couldn’t rebut the plain fact that to the WC conclusions were made before the evidence was found. That in itself is incredibly damning.

            Most of the damning evidence against Oswald was found within 24 hours of the assassination.

            And note that the Redlich memo says that “presumably” the report will state that all the bullets were fired by one person on the sixth floor of the Depository.

            You can spin this all you want, but that was an honest assessment of how “our investigation now stands” (Redlich’s phrase).

            You are trying to spin a request for tests of the Commission’s working hypothesis as somehow part of a coverup.

            But had they not examined the issue with tests in Dealey Plaza, buffs would be screaming bloody murder about that.

          • jeffc says:

            “And note that the Redlich memo says that “presumably” the report will state that all the bullets were fired by one person on the sixth floor of the Depository.”

            The extant quote says the report “presumably will state that the President was hit by the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President by the third and fatal bullet. The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building.*

            It’s pretty clear: presumption on the shooting sequence, but certainty as to one assassin in one location. There is no spin involved in pointing this out.

      • Frank says:

        “The staff was beginning to see that this didn’t work.”

        Didn’t work for what agenda?

        • Bogman says:

          Exactly.

          As far as I’ve been able to discern, Hoover’s FBI never walked back from its “three shots, three hits” scenario. They also did their level best to ignore Tague, the bystander who was injured slightly in the shooting.

          Someone even went to the trouble of patching the curb near Tague where a bullet left its mark. An amazing bit of public works attention to detail or more likely Hoover’s clumsy attempt at literally covering up inconvenient evidence of another shooter. The WC was forced to cut the piece of curb and have it sent to Washington. No evidence of a copper-jacketed bullet was found in the mark. But the lone gunman theory remained.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Thank you Professor for the explanation. I’ll look at your link too, but I suppose there’s even a clue that Redlich was speaking about a work in progress of the WC when he says in his opening comment ‘as our investigation now stands’.

        As for taking things out of context, I’ve seen this happen on both sides of the debate.

      • Not at all. But par for the course for the professor.

        That memo is dated late in April. So here we are five months after the first WC meeting and they still do not have the slightest idea of how the shooting occurred.

        And they actually say the FBi and SS are wrong!

        McAdams backs this and somehow he implies that the SBT is correct.

        In other words, because the WC needed it, he agrees with them.

        yawn.

        • So here we are five months after the first WC meeting and they still do not have the slightest idea of how the shooting occurred.

          No, they know that the evidence supports three shots from the Depository.

          And they actually say the FBi and SS are wrong!

          Right, they have figured out that the three-shot three-hit sequence (from those agencies) doesn’t work. Or at least have begun to question it.

          That’s the context here.

          They have concluded this on the basis of rather intensive study of the Zapruder film.

          The paper trail is here:

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

          • The three shot, three hit scheme does not work, but the Magic Bullet does?

            Professor you refuse to see the point don’t you?

            Redlich did not want to admit the evidence does not fit what happened.

            They therefore are going to change what happened.

            And that is no big deal for you.

          • The three shot, three hit scheme does not work, but the Magic Bullet does?

            Yes, the Single Bullet Theory does.

            If you disagree, explain what your scenario is.

            If you are even willing to do that, I bet it will involve an easy dozen lying witnesses, faked autopsy photos and x-rays, lying investigators bought off by the CIA, forged documents, and so on.

          • Victor says:

            Mr. McAdams,
            In view of your trite disparagement of the notion that the government systematically culled and edited evidence in the autopsy in order to implicate only a sole shooter to the rear, a knowledgeable person ought to pose the following questions:
            1. You were a Poly Sci major and I expect that you have merely a high school grasp of science. When you were at the University of Alabama did you follow any college-level science courses? If so, what were they? On that basis, should a reader consider you qualified to comment on scientific aspects of the case?
            2. Dr. David Mantik, a physicist with a supplemental medical degree, had the good sense to test the veracity of the x-ray evidence with various means available to him, including both an optical densitometer as well as his own eyes. He accumulated evidence of fraud in several specific areas of the cranial x-rays, including grossly (x1000) exaggerated opacity in the occiput and equally aphysical characteristics associated with the truncated 6.5mm cylindrical image lodged against Kennedy’s skull table, which not astoundingly remained unnoticed by all of the autopsy attendants when they were tasked to pore over Kennedy’s head in search of metal fragments. One of Mantik’s observations is perhaps the most compelling because it is so easily understood: one of the x-rays that the government purports to be an original has a clear ‘T’ inscription, yet undisturbed emulsion lies on both sides of the film, certain proof that the x-ray is a copy. How do you explain Mantik’s work to your Marquette students, and how do you refute it? Has anyone who has had access to the autopsy materials come forward to dispute Mantik’s measurements and observations? Can you not recruit a person with the proper professional credentials to duplicate Mantik’s measurements and comment on the accuracy of his observations?
            3. The lateral skull X-rays show virtually no brain in the frontal skull. However, the brain photographs show almost no missing brain. Which should we believe?
            4. Dr. Ebersole was the only diagnostic radiologist at the autopsy. But he described (not only to Mantik but to others too) a large occipital defect—even though he was tasked with the reading of the skull x-rays that night! So, should we believe this expert that there was a large occipital defect?
            5. Here are three other experts: Humes, Boswell, and Finck. All three reported that missing skull bone included the occiput. So should we believe them? These three characters also said that the famous “red spot” was not the entry wound! Should we believe them?
            6. Eight Bethesda physicians reported an occipital defect. Were they all wrong? Even if their statements contravene the extant autopsy evidence, does not Mantik’s impeachment of that fraudulent evidence allow these witnesses’ observations to be accurate rather than mistaken?
            7. Ditto Parkland. Eight Parkland physicians reported seeing cerebellum, usually describing it as damaged. Were they all wrong? In particular, McClelland observed as cerebellum fell out of the large occipital hole (while he watched). Was he wrong, too? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q1lYifmUXA)
            8. Have you ever videotaped your college lectures on this subject so the readership can see exactly what explanations and representation of the autopsy evidence your Marquette pupils are paying you for?

          • Victor,

            You are just citing standard conspiracy talking points.

            I’ve dealt with many of them (and the real evidence) here:

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

            I’ll note just one thing: all the real experts (which does not include Mantik) who have examined the autopsy photos and x-rays say they are genuine, and this after rigorous tests.

            As for your witnesses: you are not looking at their original, unselected and unspun testimony. You are looking at the highly selected and highly spun versions in conspiracy books.

            To get the blown out occipital bone you want, you need faked autopsy photos, faked x-rays, a faked Zapruder film, and faked Nix and Muchmore films.

            In addition, all the Dealey Plaza head wound witnesses were mistaken or lying.

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

            So go ahead. Drink the Kool-Aid. Say everything is faked.

          • Photon says:

            Well, it is pretty apparent that Victor doesn’t have much of a grasp of Science, or Mathematics for that matter.Eight Bethesda physicians described an occipital wound ? I hate to break this to you, but there weren’t ‘t eight physicians in the room, let alone eight from Bethesda. I have read the autopsy report it it is clear where the wounds were- in relationship to conventional anatomical landmarks.
            Dr. Mantik would probably object to your description of him having a supplemental medical degree. However, he has never described the accuracy of his densitometry method nor any of the specifics, including how he did it during a limited examination of the films at the National Archives. I do not believe that he has ever published any of his densitometry data in a bona fide peer-reviewed medical journal. The real measure of his work is if any board-certified Radiologist has confirmed his findings or reproduced his measurement methods. That is a standard practice in medical research. As Dr. Mantik is NOT a board-certified Radiologist I take his conclusions with a grain of salt-and educated skepticism .
            ” The lateral skull x-rays show virtually no brain in the frontal skull.” Are you claiming to be a Radiologist,too? Actually the lateral films do not show that; obviously you have never seen real radiographs and have no idea of how to interpret them.
            Can you name the eight Parkland physicians who saw cerebellum , and the qualifications they had to make an accurate identification of cerebellar tissue? The only one really qualified to identify cerebellum was Dr. Clark , who admitted that he did only a limited head exam and later walked back his initial belief that he saw the cerebellum.
            Victor, why didn’t you know that Dr. Mantik isn’t a Radiologist?
            Why didn’t you know how many physicians were actually in attendance at the autopsy?

          • Victor says:

            @ Mr. McAdams,

            I note that you’ve allowed the question of your own credentialed competence to evaluate scientific arguments, much less to induct Marquette students into this art in a graded academic setting, to slide by without rebuttal.

            Given that I’ve invoked three aspects of David Mantik’s observations of fraud and human fabrication (to wit: the aphysically opaque occipital patch; the aphysical 6.5 mm notched cylinder which was never noticed by the medcial personnel in the autopsy chamber; the intact emulsion over the ‘T’-shaped scribe lines on the lateral x-ray) in the extant autopsy evidence at the National Archives, you respond by pointing the reader to a general page on your website. Could you facilitate the JFKFacts readership’s appreciation of your reply by directing us with specific html links to each of the three issues at hand?

            The most easily understood of David Mantik’s observations impeaching the extant autopsy evidence in the National Archives is remarkably easy to understand: intact emulsion exists over the image of a scribing that necessarily must have disturbed emulsion if the x-ray is the original rather than a copy. This proof requires no scientific background to appreciate- this simple fraud-detection skill could be taught to third graders and they could apply it with unfailing accuracy. Do either of you know of any individual who has access to the original materials in the National Archives who disputes Mantik’s observation? If you know of no individual who publicly contradicts Mantik’s prima facie observation that at least one of the extant x-rays is not an original although it is purported to be, how do you present this issue to your Marquette students?

            @ Photon
            You’ve read the autopsy report. Do you concur with its placement of the entry wound over that of, say, the subsequent government reviews, all of which concluded that the Bethesda pathology team misplaced the wound by 10 cm? Do you personally find such a discrepancy between official conclusions to be curious, perhaps even disturbing, in the instance of the violent removal of an American President at the height of the Cold War?

            Regarding the ability to visually distinguish cerebellum, is this not Anatomy and Physiology 101? If I were to consult a textbook used in a first year nursing curriculum, wouldn’t that tell me all that I need to know about the distinguishing characteristics of cerebellum? Do you have any reason to believe that the Parkland doctors didn’t deserve their degrees because they failed to master even the rudiments of their metier?

            If you call into question the validity of the optical densitometer as a scientific instrument, could you provide citations to scientific literature which justify your scepticism?

            Could you please list, completely, those autopsy attendants with medical degrees who are known to you? We’ll see if your list tallies with mine.

            BTW, Victor is hardly innumerate or scientifically illiterate, having followed courses in Schroedinger et al. at the graduate level- he understands Second Quantization and thinks he comprehends what a Photon truly is. In glancing over the claims of remarkably wide-ranging, multi-disciplinary expertise in various comments that Photon has made in various posts on this website, Victor often wonders whether Photon represents a syndicate masquerading as an individual, or whether Photon himself/herself has academic credentials that approximate in breadth and depth those of Dr. Mantik. Clarification would be appreciated- it would be interesting to for Photon to establish for the readership the nature of his/her academic credentials by listing degrees by discipline, even if Photon wishes to retain anonymity by omitting the names of the institutions and the dates of conferral.

          • Do either of you know of any individual who has access to the original materials in the National Archives who disputes Mantik’s observation?

            You are assuming that Mantik’s claims are to be assumed true until proven wrong.

            It doesn’t work that way. Given his lack of credentials, and his failure to subject his work to peer review, one has to go with the people who had real credentials: the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel.

            The fact that Mantik believes in Zapruder film fakery also harms his credibility.

          • Photon says:

            First off, the autopsy report does not misplace the entrance wounds by 10 cm; the wounds are described in relation to well established anatomic landmarks- that is standard anatomical pathology practice.
            You fall back on the usual conspiracy tactic of expecting a critic to prove that an observation or technique is not genuine without ever giving proof that the observation or technique was proven valid in the first place. Dr. Mantik has never described what his technique is, nor what he actually did with the films that he examined at the National Archives.
            ” If you call into question the validity of the optic densitometer as a scientific instrument , could you provide citations to the scientific literature which justify your criticism? ” As there ARE NO articles in the peer-reviewed medical literature describing Dr. Mantik’s technique, instruments or documented accuracy of his findings your question goes to the heart of the problem- Dr. Mantik has never published any data in a reputable medical journal confirming any of his conclusions. As he is not a Radiologist the level of expertise that you credit him with is not justified by either board certification or evidence of completing a residency program credentialed by the American Board of Radiology. I asked you if any real expert in this matter (that is a board certified radiologist ) has ever confirmed any of Dr. Mantik’s opinions in regard to the x-rays. Your silence is deafening.
            As far as identifying cerebellar tissue, most physicians dissect the brain in Gross Anatomy and Neurobiology courses. Some with interest may take Neuropathology courses. In virtually all of these courses the specimens examined are FIXED tissue in anatomic context. Their appearance is significantly different from that seen in a living person. In the situation of a traumatized head wound with macerated tissue,coagulated blood, disrupted dura,fragmented skull and obscuring hair an accurate identification of cerebellar tissue would be extremely difficult- even assuming that a complete,extensive examination was done. As even Dr. Clark mentioned that his exam was only cursory and that accurate description of the wound would happened at post mortem, your assumption that identification of cerebellar tissue would be easy is simply not true.
            I frankly do not know what Schroedinger has to do with this topic, unless you are trying to drop names to impress the uninformed. I don’t see what wave characteristics of quantum mechanics have to do with autopsy procedures. I never liked differential equations anyway.

          • Victor says:

            @ Mr. McAdams
            Lets see here. You’re a man with no credentials in science or medicine who somehow believes that he has standing to pass judgment on the scientific and medical expertise of a man with 8+ years more physics education and 4 years more medical education than you. Do you expect readers of this forum to agree with your verdict that David Mantik is not an expert in his field?
            Your lack of credential aside, Dr. Mantik makes an easily understood observation about the lack of emulsion
            over the scribing necessarily indicating that the x-ray in question has been copied, with all that that implies about the validity of his densitometry observations. If Mantik has fraudulently declared intact emulsion, such a claim is trivially refuted by observation, Mantik would be revealed as a charlatan, and possibly even invalidate his medical license. If Mantik’s observations could be refuted, that certainly would have happened. As you well know, that hasn’t happened. I am therefore certain that Mantik’s troubling observations are unimpeachable. I also surmise that you doggedly refuse to bring them to the attention of your Marquette students because they would see the hazards of drinking your flavor of Kool-Aid, to borrow your hackneyed phrase.

          • Photon says:

            Actually they are impeachable because they have never been reproduced And no, he is not an expert in the field of Radiology.
            He is not a radiologist.

          • Victor says:

            @ Photon
            Dr. Mantik has observed multiple indices of fraud in his unprecedented inquiries into the veracity of the autopsy evidence deposited into the National Archives. He required none of his medical or physics background to make one of his bedrock observations: the emulsion is intact on the lateral x-ray where the ‘T’-shaped scribing is located. As I wrote before, if he has lied about this, his lie could be trivially refuted by anybody with access to the National Archives. (If you yourself have the requisite standing to gain admission to the collection, you could do so yourself.) The fact that nobody has refuted his observations comes from the fact that it can’t be refuted: at least the lateral x-ray is a copy, with all that that says about the validity of his correlary observations about the manufacture of the 6.5mm cylinder and the manufacture of the aphysically opaque patch in occiput.
            Regarding the specifics of his optical densitometric studies, you will find that information in Appendix 10 of Mantik’s review of John McAdams’ presumptuous book How to Think About Conspiracy, available here: http://www.ctka.net/reviews/McAdams_Mantik.html
            Photon, were you able to draw up a list of names of M.D.s in the morgue at Bethesda or do I have to help you.
            Photon, if I misunderstand the nature of the Parkland treatment physicians’ contemporary notes on the skull wound they say, can you direct me to a source where they are collated? I’m certain that it would be a fascinating read.
            Finally, Photon, you accused me of being mathmatically and scientifically ignorant. When I demonstrate that I am not by citing graduate-level acquaintance with the scientific principle which serves as the origin of your pseudonym, you then have the gall to accuse me of showing off.

          • Photon says:

            Appendix 10 makes no mention of how Dr. Mantik obtained his densitometry data during his National Archives visit, nor does it describe in any way what instrumentation is used to come up with the claimed measurements. It makes no mention of anybody else performing the same technique.
            If your standard for believing his emulsion nonsense is because no expert has refuted it, may I submit that no radiologist has ever been asked to review his claim. I doubt that few if any radiologists have any interest in his claim ; the fact that he has not submitted either the densitometry data nor the emulsion claim to peer-reviewed medical review would cause real experts to dismiss his claims-if any had any interest in or knowledge of his work.
            Exactly how many physicians on your list were present for the COMPLETE autopsy? Aside from the 3 pathologists involved with the autopsy it is not clear who saw what or how long they were in the morgue-several have been quoted as saying that they were ” coming and going” or performing tasks for the principle autopsy physicians.
            Do you actually have a degree in anything? I have already posted that I have two.

        • bogman says:

          Hoover’s FBI also never officially backed away from its three-shots, three-hits theory as far as I’ve seen.

          The top law enforcement agency in the country didn’t back the single bullet theory.

        • The WC certainly did “need” the single-bullet theory. When James Tague’s account of being hit by a bullet fragment finally came out, the news forced the WC to get desperate and look silly with their theory.

          • Actually, no. The most sensible explanation for the Tague wound was (and remains) a fragment from the head shot.

            Hoover suggested this in a letter to the WC, and Tink Thompson reached that conclusion in Six Seconds in Dallas.

            It was actually the timing issue in the Zapruder film that pointed to a single bullet hitting both Kennedy and Connally.

            As for “looking silly:” give me a non-silly alternative to the SBT.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Actually NO John. Any shot from the 6th floor that would have even ricochet from the curb and hit Tague would have been 30-40 feet over JFK’s head. Researched, documented elsewhere. Read more.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ John McAdams

            The WC only said it ‘might’ be a fragment from the head shot. They didn’t conclude it was.

            Tink did not embrace the possibility that the richocheting fragment that caused the Tague wound was from the head shot (show me otherwise please).

            It’s unlikely that it did since:
            a)there were heavier fragments In the car,

            b)it would have to fly over the windshield and raised sun visors

            c)it would take a lot of force for it to fly 260 feet to Tague to ricochet or chip the curb, and

            d) how could it fly to the left if you insist that the bullet fragmented upon entry and exited on the right side of Kennedy’s head?

            The Zapruder film does not point to the SBT because the WC needed the ‘delayed reaction’ excuse.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Paul,

            It’s a myth that Tague’s story forced the WC to adopt the SBT. The newspaper article about Tague didn’t appear until June 5, 1964:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=1014944

            This photo of Specter demonstrating the SBT was taken May 24, the day of the FBI re-enactment:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=139910

            Caption for the photo, CE 903:
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=749255

            And besides, the WR said Tague’s injury may’ve come from either a fragment of the missed shot *OR* a head-shot fragment (as Josiah Thompson also proposed), so it didn’t need a SBT to explain his injury.

          • Tink did not embrace the possibility that the ricocheting fragment that caused the Tague wound was from the head shot (show me otherwise please).

            Here is the map from Six Seconds in Dallas that makes precisely that point.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/tague4.gif

            See page 230.

          • Any shot from the 6th floor that would have even ricochet from the curb and hit Tague would have been 30-40 feet over JFK’s head.

            The issue is not a direct shot from the TSBD, but rather a fragment from the head shot.

            Read the posts you are replying to.

          • The Zapruder film does not point to the SBT because the WC needed the ‘delayed reaction’ excuse.

            There was no delayed reaction (although a delayed reaction is certainly possible in a gunshot case).

            Both Kennedy and Connally reacted immediately to a shot hitting them at Z-223.

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

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

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Jean Davison,

            So you’re saying that if James Tague never existed, that the WC would never have postulated a SBT or realize that a shot missed?

            The FBI’s original report concluded 3 shots, 3 hits (they did not consider a missed shot or James Tague).

            In fact, in your very own MMF link on page 5(33), the WC already knew about Tague from the FBI’s original report:

            JIM TAGUE has been interviewed previously in this investigation the results of which interview are reflected on page 31 of the report of Special Agent ROBERT P GEMBERLING dated December 23 1963.

            Also, it was the WC that FIRST proposed that Tague’s wound MIGHT have been the result of a head shot fragment (ricochet or curb chip).

            Tink examined that possibility but he did not embrace it (I have a copy of his book SSID, and I believe he questioned if a tiny fragment would have enough force to travel 260 feet away to chip the curb).

            As to your last comment, the WC DID NEED an SBT regardless of how Tague was wounded because the WC concluded that one shot missed, leaving one bullet to account for all the non-fatal wounds.

            (I won’t get into an exhaustive explanation as to why I reject the SBT here.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, is it a myth that Allen Dulles laid the ground work for the commission on December 16, 1963, that a lone assassin was responsible for President Kennedy’s murder? Set aside the minutiae you so ably argue … anyone on this site can get tripped up if they have not researched your context; lambs to the slaughter, nine times out of ten they will be.

            Pls have the courage and integrity, and act in good faith and cut to the heart of the debate about the Warren Commission and the ensuing report. The anniversary is imminent.

            WC member Allen Dulles defined the direction of the commission’s conclusion day one in a masterful stroke that only the grandmaster – with the private and personal backing of a century of corporate capitalism – could wield. Kennedy’s murder was but another move in the Great Game, preceded and followed by the murders of other global, democratically elected leaders. This is not complicated, unless of course we want to continue to debate for instance whether or not Oswald learned Russian at the Monterrey Institute; that gets complicated by design, and as Salandria admonished, “they will wear you down.”

            I am rereading “Oswald’s Game.” In fairness, I think it is an artful application of detail of the assassination; perhaps that is the reason you are indulged on this and other forums. However, I am finding the detail buried in a morass of little more than subjective theory.

            The weakness is an amateurish application of psychology to argue Oswald as a lone assassin. I believe, witting or not (and only you, Jean can provide a defense of my speculation), this was a piece of propaganda, full stop, designed to distract the public on the 20th anniversary of the assassination, courtesy of W.W. Norton, 500 Fifth Ave., NYC. (students of research into E. Howard Hunt will recognize the address.)

            Why have you not published anything since?

          • Jean, is it a myth that Allen Dulles laid the ground work for the commission on December 16, 1963, that a lone assassin was responsible for President Kennedy’s murder?

            Yes, it’s a myth.

            The evidence against Oswald was overwhelming, and was overwhelming within 24 hours of the assassination.

            On the evening of the assassination, Henry Wade said “there was no one else.”

            You can disagree with his assessment if you want, but it’s simply untrue that people thought there was a conspiracy until Dulles started pushing a lone assassin theory.

          • This is not complicated, unless of course we want to continue to debate for instance whether or not Oswald learned Russian at the Monterrey Institute; that gets complicated by design, and as Salandria admonished, “they will wear you down.”

            Your problem is that issues like that are all you have as conspiracy evidence.

            Could it be that you are beginning to note that people like Jean can blow your “conspiracy evidence” all to hell?

          • Stephen Roy says:

            Wow. Appointed to a commission on a presidential assassination, Dulles picked up a book about presidential assassinations and mentioned it (erroneously, in part) at one of their meetings. To you, that seems to be the grandmaster defining the WC’s conclusion.

            What are your background and agendas in this case?

          • Jean Davison says:

            Gerry,

            Yes, the FBI interviewed Tague but I was replying to Paul who said, “When James Tague’s account of being hit by a bullet fragment finally came out, the news” forced the WC’s hand. Tague’s account “came out” in June, I believe.

            The FBI’s original shooting scenario was based on the Sibert/O’Neill autopsy report that failed to mention the throat exit wound because Humes didn’t learn about it until the next day. Specter was informed by the FBI that the M-C bullet exiting the throat would’ve been traveling at sufficient speed to damage whatever it hit. As he explained in a Life magazine article, since no damage to the vehicle itself was found, his reasoning was that this bullet must have hit Connally.

            I don’t want to debate the SBT yet again, I’m just responding to what you wrote. However, if I were to ask everyone here for his alternative to the SBT, how many different versions do you think I’d get?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ John McAdams, 10-SEP-14 at 4:43 pm

            They both were not shot at Frame 223 – what other version of the SBT are you referring to?

            The WC thought the first shot did NOT probably miss, which occurs BEFORE 223.

            From Chapter 3 of the WCR, page 112 (my bold emphasis added):

            http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#missed

            Another photographer, Phillip L. Willis, snapped a picture at a time which he also asserts was simultaneous with the first shot. Analysis of his photograph revealed that it was taken at approximately frame 210 of the Zapruder film, which was the approximate time of the shot that probably hit the President and the Governor. If Willis accurately recalled that there were no previous shots, this would be strong evidence that the first shot did not miss.344

            Page 47 of the HSCA report states that Kennedy REACTED to a shot occurring at Frame 190 around Frame 200 – 10 frames later (my bold emphasis added).

            http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1a.html

            When coupled with the photographic evidence showing a reaction by President Kennedy beginning in the vicinity of frame 200, it appeared that he was first struck by a bullet at approximately frame 190.(6)

            I agree with the HSCA that Kennedy ALREADY began reacting to a shot much BEFORE he emerges from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.

            (I disagree with the WC’s SBT and the HSCA’s revised SBT in any event).

            If Kennedy begins manifesting a reaction at 200 like the HSCA says, why doesn’t Connally also react right out of the sign?

            Alternatively, if JFK was hit at 223 like you say (for argument’s sake), why don’t we see that lapel flip* at that instant when the bullet is travelling at least 1,700 fps?

            http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z223.jpg

            If they were struck at Z223, how can JFK show a reaction in Z224 (arms only but reaction in progress as confirmed in Z225 with his open mouth), especially if the minimum time suggested in your link is 2.1 Z frames?

            Sorry – I don’t believe in Reitzes’ spin or the Itek reference in your links because they don’t reconcile all the facts or questions.

            *(Incidentally, I don’t believe in the lapel flip as prima facie evidence of the SBT or a shot for a variety of reasons).

          • If they were struck at Z223, how can JFK show a reaction in Z224 (arms only but reaction in progress as confirmed in Z225

            No, Kennedy’s right hand continues to move downward between 224 and 225.

            Look at the video on the page.

            It’s really only at 226 that we see a reaction, as his hand begins to move upward.

          • Pls have the courage and integrity, and act in good faith and cut to the heart of the debate about the Warren Commission and the ensuing report. The anniversary is imminent.

            You have no standing to address a self-righteous lecture on good faith and integrity at Jean. Get off your high horse.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Jean Davison Sep 10/14 at 11:31 pm

            The FBI came to that conclusion because, IN PART, they didn’t take Tague’s story seriously (as per your MFF link), as they thought he was an opportunist.

            Tague’s story confounded their version (based on the Sibert/O’Neil Report as you pointed out).

            But the gist of my response to you is that the WC ALREADY KNEW about Tague from the FBI’s lab report prepared by SA Robert Gemberling dated December 23, 1963, as alluded to previously, in your MFF link.

            In fact, this letter proves that the WC received that report PRIOR TO Tague’s story gaining some notoriety in the local press as you argued.

            http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/H%20Disk/Hoch,%20Paul,%20Warren%20Commission%20Documents/Item%2001-10.pdf

            So Specter knew about this beforehand, and conceivable took that into account when he came up with his SBT.

          • jeffc says:

            The HSCA photographic panel’s assessment of the first shot striking Kennedy at Z190 is bolstered by witness testimony – at least five persons – who heard the shot and saw JFK slump a bit to his left. Jackie Kennedy said she turned towards her husband as he reacted to an external stimulus, and she has already made that turn when the limo emerges from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign in Zapruder film.

            The Siebert-O’Neill report describes the back wound as shallow and angled upwards. The Bethesda doctors knew before the autopsy began that Dallas doctors had done a tracheotomy incision over what was described as an entrance wound.

            Tague went to the press in June 1964 after it became apparent that the WC did not want to hear from him.

          • Michael Hogan says:

            John McAdams wrote:

            The evidence against Oswald was overwhelming, and was overwhelming within 24 hours of the assassination.

            On the evening of the assassination, Henry Wade said “there was no one else.”

            You can disagree with his assessment if you want, but it’s simply untrue that people thought there was a conspiracy until Dulles started pushing a lone assassin theory.

            According to gallup.com:

            “Americans were skeptical about the “lone gunman” theory almost immediately after Kennedy was killed. In a poll conducted Nov. 22-27, 1963, Gallup found that 29% of Americans believed one man was responsible for the shooting and 52% believed others were involved in a conspiracy.”

          • The HSCA photographic panel’s assessment of the first shot striking Kennedy at Z190 is bolstered by witness testimony – at least five persons – who heard the shot and saw JFK slump a bit to his left.

            But he’s not slumping to his left at Z-190, or any time soon thereafter. In fact, he appears unhit when he goes behind the Stemmons Freeway sign at Z-210.

            He’s not even slumping when he comes out at Z-225. Only later does he slump to his left.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            I agree with McAdams that JFK isn’t slumping to his left at Z190 or Z225.

          • jeffc says:

            The HSCA photographic panel determined that, observable in the Zapruder film, Kennedy was reacting to a severe external stimulus before the limousine disappears behind the sign. Observations from multiple witnesses bolster this conclusion and that this represented the first shot. The clincher, in my opinion, is that Jackie Kennedy has already turned to face her husband – which she said she did after the first shot – as the limousine comes out from behind the sign in the Z-film.

          • jeffc says:

            Pat Speer on the findings of the HSCA photo panel:

          • leslie sharp says:

            John McA,

            Jean Davison refers to Allen Dulles one single time in “Oswald’s Game” to wit, ‘. . . Warren Commission member Allen Dulles, who resigned as the agency’s [CIA] director in 1961 . . .’ (pg. 266/7)

            Peter Grose, in “Gentleman Spy: The Life of Allen Dulles” reports that Dulles bluntly told his executive assistant, John Earman, “I’ve been fired.” (pg. 534)

            Whether or not Davison was privy to that fact in the early ’80’s could I suppose be debated; if she was, why would that not be at least a footnote – if one is writing in good faith and integrity – that of course at the time there was concern that Dulles had been fired by Kennedy only months earlier. If she wasn’t aware of Dulles’ firing at the time she wrote Oswarld’s Game, wouldn’t Dulles still have warranted more than one mention when he had been involved in the BOP against Oswald’s alleged hero Fidel Castro, when he had lead the agency for years, and when he was one of the more high profile members of the Warren Commission whose report proved a foundation for the assertion that Oswald was a lone assassin?

          • According to gallup.com:

            What the public believed is irrelevant here.

            We are talking about policy makers.

            The conspiracy argument is that they believed there was a conspiracy and wanted it covered up.

            But if they didn’t believe in a conspiracy, they would see no need to cover up anything.

          • leslie sharp says:

            John McA: What precisely are you talking about?

            “According to gallup.com: What the public believed is irrelevant here. … We are talking about policy makers… The conspiracy argument is that they believed there was a conspiracy and wanted it covered up. … But if they didn’t believe in a conspiracy, they would see no need to cover up anything.”

            With all due respects, this is pure gibberish,

  4. Gerry Simone says:

    On a related note perhaps, is there any chance that Mark Sobel’s unreleased film The Commission, be shown on this site?

    I’d pay a reasonable fee (Mark didn’t want it to go straight to DVD, and preferred a sponsored, exclusive screening arrangement to better promote the film about the back room discussion of the WC).

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310906/

    • Bob Truitt says:

      Gerry, You must have been in the audience when Mark Sobel showed the film The Commission at the 2004 Warren Commission Conference that AARC (Assassination Archives & Research Center) sponsored? I was there also. I so hoped that The Commission had been released in 2013 for maximum exposure.

      • Pat Speer says:

        I saw Mark’s film at the 2004 Lancer Conference. He re-edited it over the next year or two, adding in new footage of the autopsy (with yours truly playing the body).

        He then began work on his film on the RFK shooting. I saw it at the 2008 COPA conference.

        They are both fine films. I know he had thoughts of packaging them together.

        I hope they see the light of day. If only on Netflix…

      • RJ says:

        I’d like to see it released and with more attention to it. I never realized this film had been done, it looks interesting.
        The Warren Commission could easily be dramatized as a series on HBO or Netflix and be done in a very compelling fashion. I’m guessing those kinds of projects just don’t get done anymore though…

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Actually Bob, I didn’t see it premier in Dallas or anywhere else.

        However, Mr. Sobel used to have a website with snippets. The actors are heavy weights, and I never knew about those unpublicized internal memos of the Commission until Sobel’s film.

        I was corresponding with him and urged him to present it at the Toronto International Film Festival, which has a documentary component (that’s were I saw The Fog of War and personally spoke to Errol Morris – tidbit, I asked him if McNamara felt there was a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy – Mr. Morris hummed and hawed after hesitating – and said “No, he doesn’t”. However, that pause spoke volumes.)

        A better film festival would be Toronto’s Hot Docs Festival (that’s where I saw JFK II and Virtual JFK).

        Ideally, Mr. Sobel was looking for a sponsor to host it at a permanent venue (even for a six month screening), to let the word spread through the audience.

        I hope, like Pat Speer says, that it sees the light of day.

  5. I’ll be there too…look forward to seeing you again Jeff!

  6. Jonathan says:

    Pass or Fail? Certainly a pass for LBJ. Earl Warren made sure of that.

    Certainly a fail in playing the hand dealt. And we don’t even know for sure what cards they saw.

  7. Ronnie Wayne says:

    In answer to the thread title not only no but Hell No to pass. Definition of Epic Failure. Virtually a Breach of Trust (buy the book and read it) of the People of the USA.
    Wow. Would love to be a fly on the wall at either conference, more especially the first but can not afford it. Would really like to hear what Mr. Blakey has to say. In comments and I believe statements I’ve read he seemed a little PO’d at being deceived by the CIA. Would someone ask if he still believes the mob was the driving force behind it all?
    Just from what I’ve read some good things have come from two conferences in dallas before.
    Which makes me wonder. Is anything going on there on 11/22 this year? I’ve read with the passing of John Judge there won’t be a COPA meeting this year. Debra Conway has health problems per Larry Hancock on the edu forum last I read (2 mo. ago) and there might not be a Lancer conference either.
    I was hoping to attend something there, for the first time, on the anniversary.

  8. Larry Schnapf says:

    If you measure the Warren Commission by its intent and purpose-to calm the nation down and move on with the work of the nation- it accomplished its goal and therefore gets a passing grade.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      True, at least in the short run, but its real or underlying intent may have been for it to lay the way for Johnson to escape scrutiny and get elected (as a wise political tactician, IIRC, LBJ expressed this concern at the outset, perhaps for entirely legitimate reasons, and therefore, set out to issue that executive order).

  9. BradR says:

    Probably an “incomplete”. They did not have all of the information due to FBI and CIA stonewalling, plus they had no knowledge of the Kennedy family links to underworld figures nor of the relationship between JFK and Judith Exner, who was also involved with Giancana. I doubt that they had any real knowledge of the ties that Oswald’s uncle had with Marcello.Plus, as stated above the WC had another mission-to calm down the nation.
    It did, for a while anyway.

  10. Larry Schnapf says:

    I agree it was short-term vision. Once John Kennedy was buried, those in power wanted to move on with governing. Given they had just a year ago been on the verge of a nuclear war, there was strong consensus to move on. Truth was not the goal but to put the unpleasantness behind them. It was not a path that future generations or historians would have preferred but to those in the political elite, it could probably be characterized as a “necessary coverup”.

  11. Larry Schnapf says:

    The book ‘A Cruel and Shocking Act” exposes the inner workings and machinations that went on within the Warren Commission. The actions of Redlich and others are there for the readers to make their own judgments. Some of the work product may be attributable to the incompetence that McAdams prefers to believe but much was a result of a pre-ordained conclusion.

    I did a review that identified 44 errors or misstatements by the author. https://www.facebook.com/groups/337920816220010/permalink/733943653284389/

    If you can look past these mistakes or mischaracterizations of the evidence, its a good read even for those who disagree with the WC conclusions.

    • Your review almost entirely complains that Shenon didn’t mention a bunch of standard conspiracy talking points. Most of the ones you mention are factoids.

      You even accepted the “Mauser” testimony of Roger Craig!

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

      • Larry Schnapf says:

        there you go again characterizing things as “factoids” and “standard conspiracy talking points” which is your general dismissive approach to information that doesnt fit within your grand unifying theory of conspiracy and human behavior.

        The definition of factoid is: “trivial item of news or information. an assumption or speculation that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact.” Many of the so-called things you call “factoids” could have been used by a good lawyer individually or in the aggregate to establish the requisite reasonable doubt to prevent Oswald from being convicted. Thus, the omitted or misstated facts are trivial in nature or factoids as you like to call them.

        My point is that he either made misstatements of the record of evidence or chose to ignore factual evidence that and these errors took away from. It is pretty clear that Shenon was approached by Arlen Specter to write the book and perhaps this may be why some of the omissions occurred.

        I am not saying I “accept” the Craig evidence. Any discussion of the rifle needs to discuss the evidence pro and con.

        You seem to think that everyone who believes in a conspiracy is blinded by their emotions, suffer from flawed thinking or cannot accept that a president cannot be brought down by a lone, crazed gunman. I am not one of your so-called conspiracy nuts.

        • OK, let’s take one example from your essay:

          Shenon does not tell his readers that despite an exhaustive search, the FBI could not uncover any evidence that Oswald either bought bullets or clips for his rifle. FBI agents canvassed gun shops throughout Dallas. Only two gun shops sold the 6.5 mm ammo and both said they did not recall selling any ammo to Oswald.

          Why should he tell readers that? The FBI found two places were he could have bought the ammo, and the fact that nobody could actually remember Oswald buying ammo is of essentially zero significance.

          As for the clip, there was most certainly a clip in Oswald’s rifle when it was recovered, so he got it somewhere.

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid6.htm

          Then there is this:

          Contrary to Shenon’s assertion, no Oswald fingerprints were found on the rifle. A partial and latent (old) palm print was lifted by DPD Lieutenant Day on the portion of the rifle barrel that is exposed only when rifle was dissembled. Interestingly, the FBI lab was unable to lift any prints and it was only after the rifle was returned to Dallas and Oswald was in the morgue that the palm print magically appeared.

          No, it did not magically appear.

          On the day of the assassination, J.C. Day told an FBI agent that he had found a partial print that he was going to lift:

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/day_palmprint.gif

          He did so, and several Dallas cops who were around the Identification Bureau that weekend saw the print. See First Day Evidence.

          The WC had the FBI examine the print, and they confirmed it was taken from Oswald’s rifle.

          So should the WC (or Shenon) have taken seriously the Oliver Stone scenario where the rifle was pressed into Oswald’s dead hand on Monday morning?

          Your whole review is based on the assumption that a bunch of conspiracy talking points should have been taken seriously by Shenon. But that assumption isn’t valid.

          He was writing about the history of the Warren Commission, not dealing with every conspiracy talking point that decades of buffs have produced.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            As for Oswald’s dead hand, didn’t the funeral director say that after that visit by the FBI, Oswald’s hands were blackened with ink?

            Why did they visit the funeral home? To pay their respects?

          • Pat Speer says:

            Day spent most of the night of the assassination working on the trigger guard prints. It only makes sense, then, that he told Pinkston about the trigger guard prints.

            As far as First Day Evidence…Day testified that he told Curry and Fritz and Drain about the palm print. Drain denied being told about it, and Curry and Fritz were never asked about it. Day also said he failed to study the print enough to make an ID, and never got back to it before sending it to the FBI, while his “supporters” in First Day evidence have him, and they, making an ID on the first weekend. Hello… They LIED.

          • It only makes sense, then, that he told Pinkston about the trigger guard prints.

            Then why did he say “print” singular?

            In another post you said “prints” (plural) were plainly visible on the trigger guard.

            And Day told the FBI guy that he was going to “lift” the print. Did Day lift any trigger guard prints?

            I thought he only photographed them. Are you aware of any “lift” of those prints?

            They lied

            From my book (citing First Day Evidence):

            in fact several police officers—including Rusty Livingston, Peter Barnes, H. R. Williams, and Bobby Brown—were around the Dallas Police Identification Bureau before the FBI returned the rifle to Dallas, and testified they saw the print that Day claimed to have lifted.

            So I guess they were all liars, eh?

            Regardless of whether Day had fully matched the print to Oswald, the fact remains that the print he lifted is the print he lifted. And he had it over the weekend, before the rifle was returned by the FBI.

            Do you really buy the Oliver Stone scenario?

          • Drain denied being told about it,

            Drain was not paying much attention, since he was in a hurry to get the evidence to DC.

            So said Day, and Rusty Livingston confirms that.

            Day also said he failed to study the print enough to make an ID, and never got back to it before sending it to the FBI, while his “supporters” in First Day evidence have him, and they, making an ID on the first weekend. Hello… They LIED.

            No, the guys who saw it in the Identification Bureau said they made an ID, but they never said Day did.

            Read First Day Evidence.

            Their casual ID may not have much worth as evidence, but the fact that they saw the print proves that Day had lifted it on November 22.

        • Let’s take some more examples from your essay:

          Shenon says Hoover was wrong when he told LBJ that the voice tape and picture taken of Oswald in Mexico City did not correspond to him. . . . Moreover, FBI staff that listened to the tape agreed that the voice was not Oswald’s.

          No, nobody in the FBI listened to any tape.

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clueless3.htm

          The HSCA debunked that in the 70s.

          The paraffin test applied to Oswald’s cheek failed to detect any gunpowder residue. While paraffin test may not reliably detect gunpowder, the absence of such evidence casts doubt that the evidence “conclusively demonstrate” that Oswald fired his rifle.

          The WC examined the issue of the paraffin tests, and concluded they proved nothing.

          And the standard forensics literature supports the WC, and not the buffs who claim that the tests exculpate Oswald.

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

          No Oswald fingerprints were found on the spent shells or the rifle clip.

          Nor was there any reason to expect that they would be, even if Oswald was the shooter.

          Finally, this cartridge had a dent on its lip that would have prevented fitting a bullet into the opening. Several researchers including Josiah Thompson have shown this dent could not have been by the shell striking the floor following ejection but probably from dry loading (i.e., only the shell is in the breech).

          The Carcano often dents cartridges as it ejects them. See the Firearms Panel of the HSCA:

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/firearms_hsca.htm#155

          There is some doubt about the shells that were found because the responding officers said they were from automatic and Oswald’s revolver was not an automatic pistol.

          But multiple witnesses saw the Tippit shooter fiddling with the gun to kick out spent shells. That could only be the case if it was a revolver.

          Moreover, the chain of evidence was broken (an officer at the scene initialed shells but there are no initials on the shells put into evidence).

          The officer thought he initialed the shells. You should not state as a fact that he did.

          And the chain of evidence was not broken. Poe (who could not ID his initials on the hulls) testified he gave them to Pete Barnes. Barnes said he got them from Poe, and Barnes put his initials on them and identified his initials when questioned.

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

          Buff books don’t mention that Poe recovered only two of the hulls. Others were recovered by G. M. Doughty and C. N. Dhority, and those respective officers put their initials on the hulls and IDed their initials.

          Shall I continue?

          You can’t fault Shenon for failing to embrace conspiracy book factoids.

          • The HSCA never debunked the Hoover memo on the tapes. That has been discussed ad nauseum here. The WC heard the tapes well after the assassination as did FBI agents and CIA officers. (Destiny Betrayed, second edition.p.358)

            Also, Day saying he lifted a print afterwards is just about worthless. Because he never said anything to Drain that night and there were no markings on the rifle for Latona. (Hurt Reasonable Doubt, pgs. 107-09) Drain wrecks Day here.

            As per the dent, Howard Donahue was explicit about this: the HSCA did not dent a shell like that one was. (DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 69)

            Poe said he marked the shells and so did Barnes. (Garrison, On the Trail of the Assaasins, p. 201)

            The paraffin test was used in court back then. But further, Hoover did more refined testing and it turned out the Carcano spit out lots of gunshot residue that was detectable. Guinn and Turner proved the same. (Reclaiming Parkland, pgs. 88-90) Even Redlich admitted after looking at the tests that there was no basis for concluding Oswald fired a rifle.

            Yep, continue John. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. Almost as easy as debunking Davison’s book.

          • The HSCA never debunked the Hoover memo on the tapes. That has been discussed ad nauseum here. The WC heard the tapes well after the assassination as did FBI agents and CIA officers. (Destiny Betrayed, second edition.p.358)

            You apparently haven’t read the HSCA, Jim.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=800&relPageId=279

            Also, Day saying he lifted a print afterwards is just about worthless. Because he never said anything to Drain that night and there were no markings on the rifle for Latona. (Hurt Reasonable Doubt, pgs. 107-09) Drain wrecks Day here.

            On the day of the assassination, J.C. Day told an FBI agent that he had found a partial print that he was going to lift:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/day_palmprint.gif

            He did so, and several Dallas cops who were around the Identification Bureau that weekend saw the print. See First Day Evidence.

            Day says that Drain was not paying attention when he told Drain there was a print. Why is it that you think the FBI guy is absolutely infallible here, when in any other context you would think they are lying scum.

            As per the dent, Howard Donahue was explicit about this: the HSCA did not dent a shell like that one was. (DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 69)

            Why should I believe Donahue, the fellow who thinks a Secret Service shot Kennedy?

            I’ll go with the HSCA.

            Poe said he marked the shells and so did Barnes. (Garrison, On the Trail of the Assaasins, p. 20

            Now you are quoting Garrison!

            Do you have any idea how often he lied in his book?

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

            Poe said he gave the hulls to Barnes, and Barnes said that was true. Barnes marked the hulls, and identified his marks in them when questioned. Which means the chain of custody was solid.

            And you have ignored the fact that two other hulls were recovered, one each by G. M. Doughty and C. N. Dhority. Those guys put their initials on the hulls and IDed their initials.

            The paraffin test was used in court back then.

            If it was used to convict anybody, that was an abuse, since it was known to produce many false positives, and false negatives.

            Even Redlich admitted after looking at the tests that there was no basis for concluding Oswald fired a rifle.

            That’s what I said. The WC said the test had no probative value.

            Standard forensics texts said the same thing.

            Yep, continue John. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. Almost as easy as debunking Davison’s book.

            You can’t debunk anything, Jim, by citing unreliable buff books. You think if something you find convenient is printed somewhere, it’s gospel truth.

            You don’t realize how unreliable conspiracy books, and witnesses like Gordon Novel, are.

          • Jean Davison says:

            These two pages of the HSCA’s Lopez report explain how the Hoover memo on tapes was debunked:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=68639

            In FBI communications written at the time, Hoover’s own agents were telling him he was wrong and that no tapes were sent to Dallas, only transcripts. These were three men directly involved, one who got the CIA material in Mexico, another who brought it to Dallas and the agent who received it there. If they didn’t know firsthand what happened, who would?

            If you believe you have evidence the WC or others later heard tapes, by all means please quote it here, instead of listing a page number. (Seems to me you’d want to shout it from the rooftops, no?)

            On the dented shell, Howard Donahue reportedly said:

            “Concerning the case with the damaged lip. Posner claims it could have held a projectile at that time.[…] There were no shells dented in that manner by the HSCA.”

            But Donahue misunderstood — no one claimed that the dented shell “held a projectile” or was fired in a dented condition. The HSCA firearms panel concluded that the dent occurred *during ejection*, after it had been fired.

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=45858

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=82&relPageId=381

            Why do you quote Garrison on whether Poe marked shells when we have Poe’s own testimony:

            >>
            Mr. BALL. Did you make a mark?
            Mr. POE. I can’t swear to it; no, sir.
            >>

            On 11/22 Lt. Day told FBI agent Nat Pinkston (who’d been present when the weapon was discovered) that he’d found a latent print on the rifle:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=693594

            When trying to shoot fish in a barrel, Jim, be careful not to shoot yourself in the foot. Just a thought.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            I agree with Jim. We’ve debated that tape issue before.

            Bottom line, J. Edgar Hoover did not retract both his verbal admission to LBJ, and neither his letter to Rowley. One would expect he would for evidence that is monumentally prejudicial to the lone assassin case.

            He also never specified where those tapes were heard (“we have the tape up here” or words to that effect)?

            The privileged communications of the FBI director trumps those of his underlings, who may have been told to back track on any existence of a tape or voice recognition. Perhaps this is why they were unaltered as they were not part of the public record at the time.

            Moreover, there’s no way that a mere transcript can translate to hearing or listening to an unrecognizable voice.

            Finally, the HSCA report said that suspect photos of a LHO at the embassy could not be accounted for.

          • The privileged communications of the FBI director trumps those of his underlings, who may have been told to back track on any existence of a tape or voice recognition.

            That is the standard conspiracy argument, isn’t it? Anybody who gives inconvenient testimony is a liar.

            How do you explain this memo, which Eldon Rudd brought from Mexico City to Dallas?

            http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/fbi/105-3702/124-10230-10430/html/124-10230-10430_0002a.htm

            Do you think the people in Mexico City would send up a memo saying “these tapes have been erased,” and at the same time send the tapes?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ John McAdams, September 3, 2014 @ 10:35 pm

            Not lie, deny or cover-up, as instructed or ordered by their superiors.

            The memos you cite may be a red-herring too, since that tape could’ve been sent elsewhere and heard by others, all in secrecy.

            (It is an undeniable fact that certain evidence was covered up or locked away).

  12. Avinash says:

    Ironically LBJ himself doubted the Warren Report.He stated that he never believed that Oswald acted alone.

  13. Bill Callahan says:

    The simplicity of the actual assassination is always overlooked by critics.

    First: Oswald, or whomever actually fired that weapon if it wasn’t him had a commanding view of the scene. I’m always amazed at the number of people who think the shots were difficult. The shooter was braced, concealed, and took his sweet time. At best, hitting Kennedy with the first shot AFTER he passed the snipers nest went wrong because Oswald/Shooter, was tracking him and the shot probably was deflected off of a tree that suddenly obscures the line-of-sight in that track-line. The 2nd and 3rd shots were unobscured and hit their target.

    Second: The Grassy Knoll. So much discussion about people behind the fence, photo interpretation of the Moorman Photo etc. The fact is that the technology of the day was OLD. Most would be surprised to learn that it was only 16 paces from JFK’s head to the Zapruder position on that pedestal. It was only 22 paces from Mary Moorman’s position to the image of the ‘Badgeman’ (please). Factually….if one were to actually stand in her position and a human being even attempted to hold a rifle, pistol, etc and peer over that fence they would appear to the NAKED EYE to be as large as Charlie Brown’s Great Pumpkin. In reality…you don’t need to interpret a photo from 1963’s technology. REALITY CHECK: IF a human being (or shooter) were to elevate upward to shoot at JFK from behind a fence that figure out take up 7 PICKETS! But to look at her photo you have to interpret. Nonsense. Pure hog-wash.

    Third: The retaining wall. Much has been made of the supposed shooter and his ‘weapon’. C’mon people. Those 3 gentlemen who were standing on those steps who took off up those steps even as the last shot was hitting, only had to cover 7 steps to be in the exact position of the supposed ‘Badge Man’. The saw no man on the ground…being questioned by a man with a gun with a scope. And there was certainly no conversation going on up there anyway between Mr. Arnold and ANYONE.

    What needs to be looked at ever more carefully is Tippits actions after JFK was killed in relation to Oswald killing him only 150 yards from Jack Ruby’s front door. Peace.

    • Jean Davison says:

      Bill,

      Although I certainly agree with most of what you say in your 3 points, Ruby’s apartment was not — NOT! — 150 yards from the Tippit murder scene. It was about 1/2 mile away, according to Google maps. About half that distance away in the same direction was a bus stop at Marsalis and Jefferson where he could’ve used the bus transfer the police found in his shirt pocket.

      This link shows 10th & Patton, the bus stop location, and in the lower right, S. Ewing St., where Ruby lived:

      https://www.google.com/maps/place/S+Marsalis+Ave+%26+E+Jefferson+Blvd,+Dallas,+TX+75203/@32.747178,-96.8156407,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x864e999788707b2b:0xdb3f0a57ca5ef9c9?hl=en

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Bill,

      1. Easy shot? Only a weapons engineer (Howard Donahue) could replicate his feat BUT on the 3rd attempt, and with a little practice operating the bolt. There was no half-open window and no trees. Plus that cheap, 4x scope had a small view. If the bullet hit a branch, why didn’t anyone notice anything falling to the ground (like leaves or bark or branch)? Someone would’ve heard or seen that, but didn’t. Don’t forget that the Western Cartridge Company ammo consisted of a ROUNDED bullet, which would not deflect off foliage as easily as a pointed missile.

      2. Badgeman is not a serious contender for the GK shooter (and hasn’t been for years). This next photo jives with Josiah Thompson’s photo analysis, and shows an object above the picket fence (not the retaining wall) which WASN’T there a short moment later.

      http://tinypic.com/r/r05x75/8

      3. If you’re talking about Gordon Arnold, that story hasn’t been taken too seriously by any researcher worth their salt.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      BTW Bill, the WC did not make a definitive conclusion as to which shot missed.

      The wide range of possibilities and the existence of conflicting testimony, when coupled with the impossibility of scientific verification, precludes a conclusive finding by the Commission as to which shot missed.

    • mitch says:

      Bill, I do agree that shots from that range at that sized target would not be “difficult”. On the other hand, no matter which entrance point on the back of the skull you accept, they’re both pretty perfectly placed on the center line – and on a moving target no less. That is difficult.

  14. Larry Schnapf says:

    ever try to follow a flying bird with binoculars? that’s what it would be like trying to fire at targeting moving away, at not insignificant decline along a curving road….much less with a faulty sight.

    Of course, despite a comprehensive investigation, the FBI was never able to determine where Oswald would have acquired his ammo. Only two shops in Dallas sold the 6.5mm (one of the shops, owned by Mason, essentially bought out the supply of the other), and both said they did not sell ammo to oswald. no fingerprints on the cartridges. follow the bullets. they dont lead to oswald

    • Bill Clarke says:

      Larry Schnapf August 29, 2014 at 12:54 am

      Right Larry. That is why I think he used the open sights.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Larry, I’d like to see a citation for that (not that I doubt you, but it’s a fact prejudicial to the prosecution’s case).

      • Larry Schnapf says:

        @Gerry- the FBI conducted a canvass of the retail gun shops in the Dallas-Fort Worth area in March 1964. It found only two shops that sold the Western Cartridge Company 6.5 ammunition. THis was discussed in a commission exhibit. im running down the CE#

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Thank you for that. You’d think that something as elementary as the origin of the ammo, that they’d have nailed Oswald on that (he was allegedly careless in his handling of other physical evidence).

          Too many things don’t add up to LHO as the shooter.

    • Bill Callahan says:

      Larry, Gerry, and Jean. I’m awaiting moderation on my response to your notes. Larry….it’s not quite as easily explained in your analogy of the bird/binocular thing. Oswald/shoot knew the direction the car was headed. It is/was nothing even remotely resembling some movement as random as a flapping bird in free-flight. Anyway…I hope they get my moderated comment up soon. I wrote it on the 30th.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Bill, Oswald’s marksmanship was questionable (during the Marines, his score and class deteriorated as time progressed). He was using a semi-automatic M1 Garand rifle, not a bolt action, ‘decommissioned’ Mannlicher-Carcano carbine. He was also shooting at a stationary target.

        Also, if Oswald fired upon General Walker, he couldn’t hit him there either.

        The Australian detective that resurrected the theory proposed by the book Mortal Error, felt that after combining Oswald’s questionable marksmanship and prior practice with the MC, coupled with the anxiety of shooting at the POTUS for the first time out of the TSBD, and given that Howard Donahue, a weapons engineer, only succeeded on his 3rd attempt, in matching the shooting feat postulated by the WC, he reasoned that it was UNLIKELY (if not impossible) for Oswald to have accomplished what was alleged.

        • Photon says:

          As if you would know about Marine marksmanship- or any aspect of U.S. Military service. You don’t forget how to shoot. But sometimes you don’t care how you shoot- particularly if want to get out of the Marines-as Oswald obviously did.
          His final scores had nothing to do with his marksmanship skills and everything to do with his attitude and motivation.
          So what does some unnamed ” Australian detective’s” opinion have to do with Oswald’s shooting skills? Did that detective ever shoot a rifle in a similar circumstance? Another example of a conspiracy buff grabbing at straws to avoid the fact that Oswald had an easy 88 yard shot that he made in 1 out of 3 attempts.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Not grabbing at straws, nor is it my humble opinion. The public record shows that his scores and rating decreased over time.

            I also know the difference between a M1 semi-automatic Garand and an old bolt-action rifle obtained from an army surplus store. Do you? Are you saying experience with one weapon is identical to a completely different kind? Apples and oranges.

            As for his attitude and motivation, are you now a mind reader?

            It’s not a matter of remembering HOW to shoot. The issue is if someone maintained their proficiency.

            Certainly Oswald’s proficiency with the Manlicher-Carcano is unfounded when (a) he never used one in the Marines,(b) he allegedly missed General Walker, and (c) he allegedly hit someone else’s target card at the range, prior to November 22, 1963.

            Unlike yourself, that Australian detective does have a name but you have to do your own research (I won’t do it for you).

            Hint: If you watched any of the 50th anniversary assassination documentaries, you would know who I’m talking about. It was his professional opinion from his cumulative experience as a successful lawman, as well as his knowledge of Howard Donahue’s expertise and own experience with the Manlicher-Carcano, that he doubts very much that Oswald could’ve pulled it off.

            BTW, your statement that “Oswald had an easy* 88 yard shot that he made in 1 out of 3 attempts” is categorically wrong since the President was not a stationary target.

            Is that your spin or just an amateurish mistake? (I think Bugliosi said that, lol).

            *”Easy” for Photon folks, but not to Oswald as he may have missed the first shot being his closest.

          • Photon says:

            So if Oswald didn’t use a Carcano in the Marines he wouldn’t be able to accurately shoot one? Even with months to practice after purchasing it? Yes I do know the difference between an M1 Garand and a bolt-action rifle. I own a Garand and a Mauser. Both shoot accurately out to several hundred yards; like most North American hunters ( including Oswald) I had much more experience firing bolt-action rifles before ever using a semi-automatic weapon. Did you know that it is possible to fire accurate rounds with a bolt-action rifle almost as fast as using a semi-automatic rifle? Your Canadian Army soldiers did that repeatedly with Enfields in WW II. It would appear that you have fired neither type of weapon.
            Can you give any example of any Marine without physical or mental incapacitation loosing their ability to shoot accurately within 5 years? Even Oswald’s final scores maintained his Marine rifle qualifications-without maximal effort. Those scores still reveal a proficiency more than adequate to execute the Dealey Plaza scenario. As to his motivation, didn’t he seek an early release from the U.S.M.C. to “take care of his mother”?
            It is curious that you can’t name your Australian detective source.So if I challenge your source it is my responsibility to prove that he exists and to prove that he is a firearms expert? Let me turn the tables-can you prove that Oswald never fired a bolt-action rifle prior to purchasing the Carcano? Can you prove that he was NOT proficient in its use prior to Nov. 22, 1963? By the way, what are the firearms requirements for Australian detectives? Do Australian detectives carry sidearms? Are they even armed at all?
            If you have any experience shooting and if you have been to the Sixth Floor Museum you would have seen how easy the shots actually were. When visiting Dealey and the TSBD I was struck by how distances were actually much less than implied in assassination literature and how close people like Zapruder and Oswald actually were to their targets.
            Yes it was an easy 88 yard shot. JFK wasn’t moving laterally; it was essentially shooting at a stationary target that was getting smaller. Oswald didn’t need to move the rifle at all from its supporting box during
            the entire firing sequence- perhaps that is why he never took a shot prior to the turn in front of the TSBD.
            I really don’t care if Howard Donahue could or could not reproduce the firing sequence because CBS, PBS and other companies HAVE been able to reproduce it and have publically aired programs demonstrating those results-with multiple shooters. The first CBS recreation is on YouTube-even based on assumptions that Oswald had less time to fire than he actually did several marksmen had no trouble making the shots.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Photon September 7, 2014 at 7:21 am

            I don’t think you could convince a jury Photon let alone question the opinion of Colin McLaren (that Aussie who’s a veteran police detective) who doubts Oswald could’ve pulled it off after examining the available evidence.

            I say this because you are equating two completely different weapons under different firing conditions and experience time frames separated by YEARS, and ignoring the evidence.

            No REAL experts could replicate what Oswald was alleged to have done ON HIS FIRST ATTEMPT.

            This is a far cry from saying he could do it just because he passes a test for the Marines on a good day or after two weeks of intensive training, with a semi-automatic rifle shooting at a stationary target without pressure.

            You are therefore overstating Oswald’s marksmanship, but the evidence shows otherwise.

            Maybe you expect people to believe that Oswald was extremely lucky? Or just have blind faith that he had to be the one because the Warren Commission said so.

            Sorry but that’s unrealistic.

            Henry Hurt also interviewed over 50 Marines who all agreed with Delgado that Oswald was a poor shot.

            http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/poor.htm

            The WC tests were based on stationary targets from a 30 foot tower.

            The CBS tests were better but also under ideal conditions (more than half were scratched due to failure of the weapon).

            You can read all about both tests too in the link above as well as this excellent summary of the entire CBS special:

            http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/1-hold/05-Reviews/05-05-TV/cbs-news.review

            At the end of the day, EXPERIMENTS prove beyond any question of a doubt that Oswald could not do what was alleged of him on that fateful day.

          • Photon says:

            Gerry, thank you for posting the Michael Griffith reference. As it prominently mentions Craig Roberts and his Carlos Hathcock lie you should have been aware that it can’t be reliable. Of course you didn’t mention that Griffith is a creationist who believes that Native Americans are descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel. His website has a hilarious article on how the human eye proves that evolution is not possible, while being totally ignorant of the fact that the nearly identical cephalopod eye is one of the best examples of convergent evolution.
            Just what EXPERIMENTS prove that Oswald was incapable of the Dealey Plaza shooting? The CBS recreation most certainly proved that multiple individuals with little if any experience with a Carcano could duplicate the shots in less time than Oswald had. What are you going to believe- some uncredentialed “expert” or your lying eyes? Your notion of what evidence is credible is pretty thin. Again, your comments about Oswald’s rifle performance in the U.S. Marines is revealing about your astounding lack of knowledge about the U.S.M.C. and military training and culture. It is hard to take you seriously when you think that an Australian detective with no evidence of any particular expertise in rifles or military firearms training would be a valid source about what Lee Oswald was capable of.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Photon, September 8, 2014 at 3:28 am

            Michael Griffith’s articles are well researched and speak for themselves, and his personal religious beliefs are totally irrelevant. You’re desperate if you have to rely on ad hominem attacks.

            50 Marines’ opinion of Oswald as a poor shot means more than your blanket praise of the USMC.

            You continue to ignore the fact those involved in the CBS tests were genuine EXPERTS, unlike Oswald, and who had some practice just beforehand and not firing from cramped quarters or through an obstructing tree.

            You also ignore and fail to evaluate those tests which show that none of these experts scored 2 out of 3 hits (with the 3rd shot being the head shot) on their first try.

            Evidently, your bias prevents you from accepting this fact, but I have faith in the reasonable person off the street.

            As for Colin McLaren, I’ll take a police detective’s opinion who has solved many crimes over yours* any day.

            *Who are you Photon? Why can you not come out into the light of day?

          • But which shot did he make, Photon? (That is, if he was up there at all). I’m saying, let’s say he hit JFK with that 88 ft. shot. JFK was hit more than once. Other shots came at him, too. 1 out of 3 attempts means 2 others came from different weapons than that of LHO.

        • Jean Davison says:

          Gerry,

          Exactly what was “the shooting feat postulated by the Warren Commission,” according to your source?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Jean,

            The time span of ALL shots per the WC was given as two ranges, 4.8 to 5.6 seconds, and 7.1 to 7.9 seconds, depending on which shot missed, and based on a minimum firing time of 2.3 seconds.

            http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#timespan

            However, it was unlikely that the first shot missed since (i) the President was closest and, (ii) that the entire limousine wasn’t ALSO struck.

            Therefore, Oswald allegedly must’ve been able to fire 3 shots in under 6 seconds when the limo was not obscured by the oak tree (clear after Z-frame 210 to the finale at Z-frame 313).

            In the CBS re-enactment, no expert hit 2 out of 3 times on their first attempt, and only Howard Donahue hit at least the target twice out of 3 shots, BUT on his THIRD attempt.

            http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/poor.htm

            http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/howlong.htm

          • However, it was unlikely that the first shot missed since (i) the President was closest and, (ii) that the entire limousine wasn’t ALSO struck.

            You are ignoring the fact that there is a lot of testimony that a missed first shot hit the pavement.

            And also that John Connally’s actions (whipping his read around to the right in the Z 160s) suggest a shot a little earlier than that.

            His testimony was that he heard a shot and turned to his right.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Gerry,

            The WC didn’t conclude that a first-shot miss was “unlikely” — that’s your source’s conclusion.

            Connally and Jackie testified they turned to their right after hearing an initial noise/shot. The HSCA noticed that Connally’s head jerked quickly to the right at Z162, just before Jackie also turned right:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=78071

            That’s good evidence for a first-shot miss and total firing time of c. 7.8 seconds.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ John and Jean, September 7, 2014 at 3:49 pm and 6:46 pm

            From the WCR (my bold emphasis added):

            http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-3.html#missed

            On the other hand, the greatest cause for doubt that the first shot missed is the improbability that the same marksman who twice hit a moving target would be so inaccurate on the first and closest of his shots as to miss completely, not only the target, but the large automobile.

            Tague believed he was wounded by the SECOND shot.

            (I think there was an/were earlier shot(s) too, but couldn’t all be from the TSBD, if any.)

          • Jean Davison says:

            Gerry,

            Griffith reached his own conclusion about which shot missed, but the WC didn’t reach one:

            >>
            The wide range of possibilities and the existence of conflicting testimony, when coupled with the impossibility of scientific verification, precludes a conclusive finding by the Commission as to which shot missed.
            >>

            The actual “shooting feat” postulated by the Warren Commission is stated on page 117 in your link:

            >>>
            […] the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants, and that the three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds.
            >>>

            So the WC’s feat is 2 out of 3 hits at under 100 yards in anywhere from c. “4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds.”

            Many people could duplicate that.

            Opting for the shorter time means you’d have to ignore the evidence for an early first shot that’s been cited here.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Jean Davison, September 8, 2014 at 11:44 pm

            Jean, several authors will say that the WC leaned on a second shot miss.

            This is because of the IMPROBABILITY

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Jean Davison, September 8, 2014 at 11:44 pm

            Perhaps like Oswald, I fired this reply too soon, lol

            Jean, several authors will say that the WC LEANED on a second shot miss.

            I submit this is a reasonable interpretation of the WCR by reading between the lines.

            This is because of the IMPROBABILITY of a first shot miss, as acknowledged by the WC, of not hitting any occupant or the entire limousine at the closest distance from the sniper’s nest.

            The range you gave of 4.8 to excess of 7 seconds is incorrect.

            It is EITHER 4.8-5.6 seconds OR 7.1 to 7.9 depending on which shot missed.

            What is the likelihood of the longer range?

            The WC answered this for us as I’ve stated.

            (It is important to note that the WC did not want to make a final conclusion that they knew was untenable, so they allowed for TWO scenarios).

          • Jean Davison says:

            Gerry,

            I’m sorry, but you’re still relaying Mr. Griffith’s spin, not the “shooting feat purported by the WC.” The WR gave arguments for and against each of the 3 shots being the one that missed, but it reached no conclusion about which one actually missed. Therefore, it could reach no conclusion about the total time of the shooting.

            Griffith mentions the “improbability” argument against a first-shot miss that the WR listed — but arguments *for* a first-shot miss were also given, on pp. 111-112:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946&relPageId=135

            Connally’s testimony is especially important because his early reaction to a missed first shot is visible on the Z film.

            It’s simply misleading for writers to continually claim that the WC’s version of Oswald’s “feat” was 3 shots fired in 6 seconds or less, when that’s not at all what the WR said.

            The degree to which the oak tree would’ve blocked the view has been exaggerated. The FBI agent who took reenactment photos through Oswald’s scope said that he could track the position of the passengers even under the tree. Black-and-white photos here:

            http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/WindowViews/sniperview5.JPG

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Jean Davison, Sep 10/14 at 4:48 pm

            It is not Michael Griffith’s spin.

            He quotes the Warren Commission which used the adjective “improbability” and the phrase “greatest cast for doubt” when speaking of a first shot miss.

            I read those other reasons you cite on pages 111 and 112 for a 1st shot miss, but the WC carries on philosophically and then tries to rationalize those possibilities away or discount them.

            EG: Wilis’ testimony and photo at Frame 210 (per the WC, approximate time that bullet probably hit both men) is ‘strong evidence’ that the first shot did not miss. Then the WC introduces the concept of a ‘delayed reaction’ for Connally to justify a shot at 210.

            If you read further, they say that a 2nd shot miss is consistent with the elapsed time of two shots, and supported by many witnesses.

            Finally, they acknowledge that the majority of witnesses claim that the head shot is the concluding event.

            Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, this leaves the second shot as the likely candidate for a miss.

            This not spin but a reasonable interpretation.

            As for your photos or video, none of them actually show the cross-hairs tracking a target through the oak tree.

            (This is not to say that an earlier shot taken from somewhere other than the TSBD, such as the Dal-Tex building or County Records Building, didn’t miss either, which is more likely the case, but for the benefit of lone assassin proponents, we will keep our blinders on for the purpose of this particular discussion)

  15. Larry Schnapf says:

    @Gerry- check out CE#2694 (which is also CD#778). The relevant pages start at page 62 of volume 26. This document also runs down some of the rumors of Oswald being seen practicing with his rifle.

  16. Bill Callahan says:

    Jean….if I may use the same writing style as you for a moment. The distance from the spot where Tippit fell to Jack Ruby’s Apartment was not, of course, only 150 yards. I actually use that figure to make people ‘check it out’ for themselves. It was really only 550 yards. To put that in perspective for the layman, that is the distance of a Par 5 on a PGA Golf Course. Better yet, it is the distance of 1 lap around a simple Track & Field PLUS one turn. It was not-NOT- the 1/2 mile you mention. If you use the distance calculator on Google EARTH you’ll come up with the number by connecting the points. Keep in mind that there is a school in place now that was not there in 1963. That distance takes about 3 and 1/2 minutes to walk.

  17. Bill Callahan says:

    Gerry. I view the 3 shots as separate actions. The first shot, through the tree limbs, COULD have easily been deflected by a branch/limb suddenly appearing between Kennedy and the Shooter. That 4x scope didn’t allow for a lot of space between center-scope and periphery. So, in tracking JFK, the shooter had this minimal clear image and possibly never had a very clear PROLONGED view of his target. So, without knowing or planning it, a branch or limb deflects the first shot. I don’t know what your point is when you make mention of ‘no half open window and no limbs’?? Yes there were. As to why nobody heard or saw any branch limb fall…well…aside from Applause, Motorcycles revving up, car tires turning, people yelling, wind noises, and general excitement along with a SURPRISE…let alone the fact that the tree that blocked the sniper’s nest was BEHIND EVERYONE’s point of interest at that moment is hardly noteworthy. Also, if ‘windage’ can impact a bullets path on a long shot…my view is that a shall branch or limb can certainly impact a shorter one.

    • BradR says:

      Wouldn’t it be easier just to assume that somebody else besides Oswald was shooting? If Oswald was shooting at all?

      • Bill Callahan says:

        Brad: I think that possibility, and ONLY that possibility, is the correct alternative to the actual shooting of Kennedy. The only problem is that, at the end of the day, it was Oswald’s palm-print located on the gun in a place where (if pressed for time and hurrying to exit the building) he couldn’t wipe it clean. Yet, we’re still left with the fibers from Oswald’s shirt being found on the stock, the small hole in hit shirt (proven to be what Oswald had worn to work) as seen by Mrs. Bledsoe, an ex-landlady on the Bus leaving the area.

        A lot has been made of Oswald’s ability to hit a target. No was to prove or disprove any points on it. It is what it is I guess. I guess I can argue it both ways in this regard: So, Oswald was a poor shot. That explains the first shot missing. I could argue that (but I’m not). Heck, even the last shot, just caught Kennedy high on the skullcap (near his cowlick area…according to autopsy photo of skull entrance wound). So, is that evidence of an ‘all-most’ miss? Maybe???

        So, at the end of the day, all we have is Oswald’s gun, his palm-print on it, and his leaving the job and suddenly appearing only 500+ yards from Ruby’s front door. Ok, maybe more if we factor in the backyard photos of the weapons he himself carried that day (he admitted to the handgun).

      • That’s my assumption, Brad.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      I doubt Oswald (let’s assume here) would shoot into the tree when he knew in advance that it was there. He would’ve anticipated that it would block his view and the target, and avoid it.

      Therefore, he would know to shoot before it and after it.

      He did not shoot when the President was on Houston with a clear view, perhaps because he preferred the cover of firing from behind, especially with other buildings to the rear of the limo.

      So I can see him trying both before the oak tree, and then re-targeting after the oak tree, which would give him 2.4 seconds to re-acquire and focus. (I doubt he would blindly follow the limo with his scope through the foliage of the Oak tree).

      Regardless of background noise (assuming it would conceal the sound of a bullet smacking into a hard oak), people heard shots, and if a tree limb was struck, it or bark or some part of it, would’ve fallen to the ground, and an association made, but we have no witnesses describing such an event.

      • Bill Callahan says:

        Hi Gerry. I think my thesis is being misunderstood on the first shot. I’m not stating that Oswald was shooting through the tree ‘intentionally’. It’s my theory that, as Oswald/shooter tracked the Limo down Elm and squeezed off his first shot the ‘target’,, JFK, had a branch, or even the light signal post, suddenly appear. Actually…last fall there was a bit of speculation, including a bit of video/photographic evidence that just such a deflection may have occurred. To me however, it doesn’t matter if the first shot hit a branch, or the traffic light. My only thesis is that when looking down the 4x scope you see a target….what you do not see are things that can suddenly pop into the center from the periphery (that you did not count on). We call it…’poop happens’ today.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          I doubt he hit a lamp post or traffic signal. Everyone would hear that loud ‘ding’. Also, when I saw Max Holland’s documentary, the scope’s cross-hairs in his re-enactment were BELOW the traffic signal light assembly (so how could Oswald hit it?).

          As for that tree, Oswald had to have known it was there. It’s not unreasonable for him to check the view through the scope before the President’s motorcade arrived to get a feel for the target. I just can’t see him having an ‘oh shit’ moment.

          • Bill Callahan says:

            Hi Gerry. I’m not saying that he hit a traffic light post…or a tree. All I’m starting is that there exists the ‘more probable’ possibility that something like this occurred to deflect the first shot. There will NEVER be any real, concrete way to prove Oswald actually hit a signal post/tree at all. Right? It’s only POSSIBLE and, in light of any other explanation for that miss, I feel it fits the reality of that specific shot (1st). LOL at the ‘Oh shit’ moment. But, as we all know….every time we think we have something ‘down-pat’, ‘something else’ tosses us a curve. I respect you input on the subject yet, at the end of the day, I think Oswald was just tracking the President as he moved past him and, due to the 4x small scope, AND THE CLOSENESS TREE BRANCHES-as compared to the President, being further away, he simply fired and the bullet skipped on off a branch.

            Just keep in mind that the tree, back in 1963 was about 35 feet away from Oswald’s window. Kennedy’s Limo was about 120 feet at the approximate time of the ‘probable’ first shot. I just submit that it stands to reason that a branch/limb would literally jump into view out of nowhere where it could deflect a bullet. I think this fits. Again though Gerry….with the motorcycles Revving, people clapping, street noise, etc…they may have heard nothing but the loud report of the first shot and not necessarily any dings at all.

      • jeffc says:

        Stressing the big picture: Dealey Plaza was an ideal ambush zone, perfect for a triangulation of fire scenario which assures success. The stretch where the shooting occurred was in the center of the perfect triangulation scenario. The two almost 90 degree turns ahead of the shooting zone slowed the motorcade dangerously, particularly in light of surrounding buildings, the knoll area and the overpasses. The route violated Secret Service protocol in numerous ways and yet was somehow selected by professionals who knew better. Trying to determine if a purported assassin would or would not have fired into a tree clouds a clearer perspective – that normal and routine security procedures would never have allowed the motorcade into that area in the first place. And yet they did.

        • Bill Callahan says:

          Hello Jeff. It turned into an ideal ambush zone for sure. I see you’re mentioning the triangulation scenario and that’s fine. Yet, there is no solid evidence of anything of the like in Dealey Plaza.

          The turns were a necessary part of that trip as the only way to get to the destination was to turn Right on Houston and then Left onto Elm w/o having to slow the car and ‘jump the curb’ to get to the Trade Mart. Jeff…almost the entire event was a dangerous activity. The crowds were massive, close, etc. Everyone knows that guns are a daily part of life in Texas/West. However, the route WAS discussed at all levels and the norm was in practice (for 1963 society).

          • jeffc says:

            Kennedy was hit when his vehicle was in the epicentre of a perfect triangulation scenario. That may have been a coincidence, but even so it should have raised red flags to an honest investigation. There was indication of shots from the front – eyewitness accounts in the immediate aftermath said as much, the entrance wound in the throat, Kennedy’s movement backwards at the fatal shot as seen in the Z-film.

            As trained security professionals, the Secret Service needed to recognize the unique problematic issues related to bringing the motorcade through Dealey Plaza – assuming it was unavoidable – and call for extra measures. At the very least, the SS men in the follow up vehicle should have been out and alongside the president’s limo during the dramatic slowdown around the turns. Cooperation from other entities was non-existent: Dallas police were specifically told not to assist in motorcade security, and an army intelligence unit had been told to stand down.

          • Stephen Roy says:

            There are a lot of misperceptions in those two paragraphs.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Regardless of the legitimacy of going down Elm to avoid jumping a median or curb to get to the Trade Mart, it certainly was a dangerous departure from protocol.

            As it turned out, it WAS a perfect triangular kill zone.

            With the route publicized in advance, the conspirators knew and prepared themselves ahead of time.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Then again, there was a fourth shot as ascertained by our Government.

  18. Bill Callahan says:

    Gerry…I forgot to mention. That figure is, in my view, a combination of blowing branch and the corner of a building in the distance. A human figure, even from my own 1:1 photographs, would take up much more space along that wall. The image in the photo is, of all things, just a coincidence.

  19. Bill Callahan says:

    Larry. The central difference between following a bird through binoculars…and JFK’s Limo is this: A bird’s flight is random. JFK’s auto was headed down a street that you would have a commanding view of. Birds tend to zig and zag. JFK’s Limo was moving at a relatively slow speed…almost directly away from the window.

    I almost wish that everyone who is interested in this sad event would take the time to actually visit Dealey Plaza. The area is so small and, while it may look like such a tiny window when looking back up toward it from photos. When seeing it in full-blown life makes one re-think the shooting.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Birds can fly in a straight line too, but let’s say for argument’s sake that it isn’t a good analogy.

      If it was an easy shot like you say, why did Howard Donahue, weapons engineer, only replicate the feat alleged for Oswald, on his 3rd attempt and with a little practice and refinements to the Manlicher-Carcano?

      How could Oswald miss General Walker who was a stationary target without trees obscuring the view, if he was that good of a shot?

      How could Oswald hit someone else’s target at a firing range, as that (incriminating) story goes, if he was a good shot?

      • Bill Callahan says:

        Hi Gerry. Ok…birds ruled out. ;).

        The only problem I see with the Howard Donahue shooting experiment is this: Maybe he had a bad day?? Others, especially some of those who tried to replicate the track of the bullets/shots on various TV shows (Discovery, History, etc) have done it (and done it easily).

        General Walker: Well….don’t forget Oswald essentially admitted to his own wife he shot at walker…who was only saved by a widow sill (which it is possible he never even saw). Keep in mind that the scope needs to be adjusted or what we call ‘dialed in’ in most cases. For example, if you’re too close to the ‘target’ you can look through a scope and see the target in the middle of the scope…yet…because you are that close you may not see a small thing like a window sill…or a branch between the barrel and the target (as you see only the target and not what is in front of the barrel). If you had a rifle in your room right now, for instance, you can look through the scope and sight a clock on a wall (or bird on a wire) and never see that the barrel is actually being blocked from a clear shot b/c you are looking out a scope (that you pointed out earlier btw…would not allow much in the way for peripheral viewing because you’re looking in the center).

        • Gerry Simone says:

          According to Michael T. Griffith’s research paper on this, Howard Donahue was the only one who did it. Even Howard Donahue made this claim in his book Mortal Error.

          • Here are the actual results from the CBS tests.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ngarchive/CBStests.pdf

            Several shooters did it, especially if we allow 8.4 seconds. And further, they were apparently told to try to do it in 5.6 seconds.

            A cranky bolt on the exemplar rifle used invalidated a lot of the tests.

            Oswald’s rifle may have had a less cranky bolt, or perhaps his practice cycling it gave him an advantage.

          • Bill Callahan says:

            Gerry….I’d rather kill myself in the middle of Dealey Plaza than read even the prologue of Mortal Error.

          • Here are the actual results from the CBS tests.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ngarchive/CBStests.pdf

            Several shooters did it, especially if we allow 8.4 seconds. And further, they were apparently told to try to do it in 5.6 seconds.

            A cranky bolt on the exemplar rifle used invalidated a lot of the tests.

            Oswald’s rifle may have had a less cranky bolt, or maybe his practice cycling it gave him an advantage.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ John McAdams,

            Thank you for this list.

            It still doesn’t look good (eg. the first shooter misses the head shot).

            To allow them greater than 5.6 seconds means you must rely on a wild first shot miss, which is ridiculous.

            Michael Griffith explains it better in this article which also considers early shots and reaction times of the witnesses and or occupants.

            http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/howlong.htm

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Bill Callahan,

            Whether you like the book Mortal Error or not, McAdams’ posted list of test results proves Donahue’s claim.

  20. Bill Callahan says:

    Larry….’no fingerprints’. When should there have been? Oswald had wiped the gun clean, except for the palm print under the stock/barrel. That, and the fibers taken from the gun, in conjunction with what people said Oswald wore to work that day matching it to him…make him a pretty good suspect. His actions don’t clear him. If anyone else were to shoot at a President…they’d be sure to pre-load and wipe the ammo too. That really does make sense. Just as the bird analogy you mention makes sense for a sudden branch interrupting his tracking of the limo. There is a plan…then ‘thing’s that one can’t foresee.

    • You don’t have to posit that Oswald wiped the gun clean to explain the lack of fingerprints.

      In reality, it’s not that common to find prints on a gun that some offender handled.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid4.htm

      • Bill Callahan says:

        John. Actually, I do feel I’d have to posit that Oswald wiped the gun. That ‘..it’s not THAT common to find prints on a gun that some offender handled…’ isn’t the issue. I was not writing of common(s)….I was addressing the issue that Oswald’s palm-print was on the weapon and, regardless of whether he fired it that day or not, it was his print. Well, that and the fact that the rest of it was clean (where exposed) lends itself to being wiped. That all. I’m not really interested in what factors are common/uncommon in print evidence. I’m just interested in Oswald’s prints on that gun. Actually, I find it interesting in itself that the gun was so clean on the outward areas (where one would tend to wipe it down) but can easily see how, in the heat/timeframe of hustling to get out, you can’t wipe the broken-down sections of it.

    • bogman says:

      Did all that but dumb enough to carry the alias he allegedly purchased the rifle with? Doesn’t make sense.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        It makes sense if he was working undercover but didn’t expect to be framed or pursued by the police as a suspect.

      • Bill Callahan says:

        The handwriting on that alone puts Oswald into number 1 contender position. The handwriting on the ID was proven to be Oswald’s. It was the same handwriting on his mailbox that the gun was shipped to. It was the same handwriting on his forwarding address card, his job application, his service records, his handgun purchase…and every other writing sample that was found.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      From Faulty Evidence: Problems With The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald

      http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/faulty.htm

      And then there are the shirt fibers that were found on the Carcano. The fibers were reportedly found in the crevice between the rifle’s butt plate and its wooden stock. The Commission noted that these fibers were found to match the shirt that Oswald was wearing when he was arrested at the Texas Theater. However, it appears that Oswald was NOT wearing that shirt at the Book Depository. Many researchers believe the Dallas police rubbed the butt of the Carcano against the shirt Oswald was wearing at the theater. Apparently, the police did not realize that he had changed his clothing at his apartment after the shooting. Not a single fiber from the shirt that Oswald wore to work was found on the Italian rifle, nor were any fibers from his T-shirt found in the rifle.

      • Apparently, the police did not realize that he had changed his clothing at his apartment after the shooting.

        What’s the evidence of that?

        “Oswald said so” is not very compelling. Do you have anything better?

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Professor, if I was taking your course, this would be my homework assignment.

          I’ll check Mr. Griffith’s paper for a source, or elsewhere, and get back to you on this thread.

          (It might make sense that Oswald did change his shirt if he didn’t want to be readily recognized as the employee that left the TSBD).

          • Bill Callahan says:

            Jerry. From Griffith’s paper.

            ‘Let’s assume the gunman was Oswald, who was at the very most a mediocre shot. It would have taken Oswald at least 1 second, and quite possibly 2 seconds, to reacquire Kennedy’s upper body as it reemerged from beneath the tree. As mentioned, when I say “reacquire,” I’m talking about spotting the target’s general location and then drawing aim on it. Let’s say it took “Oswald” only 1 second to spot and aim at Kennedy’s head or upper back. One second is 18 frames, so now he’s only got 4.6 seconds left, and he hasn’t squeezed the trigger for his second shot yet. OK, so he pulls the Carcano’s trigger, which had an odd pull to it. But never mind that–he squeezes the trigger, since he couldn’t just jerk it down, for that would have thrown off his aim. Let’s say it took him only half a second to squeeze the trigger, which is rather fast. Anyway, so now he has used up 27 of his 103 frames, and he’s only just now gotten off his “second” shot. He’s got one more shot to get off; his target is moving; and he has 76 frames left, or right around 4 seconds, give or take a few milliseconds. Unlike his first post-tree shot, this time he has to take his eye off the scope, because he has to work the Carcano’s difficult bolt, which means he has to reacquire the target all over again. He also has to carefully squeeze the trigger again. Could he have done this in only 4 seconds? Could he, in 4 seconds, have (1) taken his eye off the scope, (2) reworked the difficult bolt, (3) put his eye back on the scope, (4) reacquired the target, and then (5) carefully squeezed the trigger so as to ensure a dead-eye hit on Kennedy’s skull? Possibly, but not very likely.’

          • Bill Callahan says:

            Follow up on Giffith’s paper:

            1. Oswald need not have taken his eye off the scope at all.
            2. Yes the bolt worked. It was a WW2 era weapon..but it did work.
            3. Well, seeing as how there is no proof Oswald took his eye off the scope in the first place we needn’t discuss this premise then.
            4. Again…there is no proof he took his eye off the scope so why is this an issue??

            Ok…so far on Griffith all we’ve done is mention that the first 4 events of his premise are CONJECTURE, not GOSPEL. And,

            5. Well…IF he didn’t do any of what Griffith stipulated in his paper does this mean that the answer to #5 is YES??

            Actually, Mr. Griffith is technically incorrect in this regard. There was a photo which actually showed the partial ‘cone’ of an entry into JFK’s skull very high up near the cowlick area, as in this bullet did not hit center at all. It did, in fact, almost miss Kennedy entirely. In my view this glancing shot to JFK (313) is visible in the ejection of material forward.

            It is what it is as far as timing. It’s just not as close as Griffith paints it. 3 shots. 5.6 seconds (just be sure we’re starting the clock at the first shot).

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Here’s an exchange on a NG citing witnesses who saw Oswald wear a different shirt before his arrest.

          https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.conspiracy.jfk/xMGPzd1C-AY

          This link to the JFKAssassination Forum posts a comment that Officer Marrion Baker said LHO was wearing a different shirt than his arrest shirt.

          http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=469.0;wap2

          This Ed Forum thread talks about the shirt fiber issue Main point is that the reddish-brown shirt that Oswald says he changed out of at his rooming house was found by the authorities there. What he claimed did exist.

          http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18218

          Pat Speer’s detailed analysis with sources cited (mentions Frazier and Baker noticed a different shirt):

          http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4b%3A%22theso-calledevidence%22

          Here’s a later portion of Michael Griffith’s article that I did not previously post, that elaborates on this issue (not footnoted but he includes a bibliography).

          The Commission claimed that Oswald did not change shirts after the shooting. However, the evidence indicates that he did in fact change his clothing at the boarding house following the assassination. Oswald stated during his interrogation that he wore a long-sleeved shirt and gray pants to work, and that he changed clothes after he arrived home. The interviewing agent said Oswald described the shirt as “reddish.” A brown, long-sleeved shirt and gray pants were found in Oswald’s apartment by the Dallas police after the shooting.

          Additionally, four of the five witnesses who saw a man in the sixth-floor window said the man was wearing a “light-colored” regular shirt or jacket; the remaining witness said it was either a T-shirt or a regular shirt. This does not even come close to matching the description of the brown, rust-colored shirt that Oswald wore to work that day. Oswald was seen in that rust-colored shirt less than ninety seconds after the shooting.

          • So you are saying he was wearing CE 150 when arrested?

            https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/Oswald-s-Shirt-Worn-at-the-Time-of-His-Arrest

            . . . but left a different shirt that he had changed out of at in his room?

            What is the evidence of that? I don’t have time to read through all those tedious threads, and witness impressions of what his shirt looked like don’t count.

            Give me some hard evidence.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            No such thing as ‘hard evidence’ in the legal lexicon.

            Some witnesses are better than others. (Don’t dismiss ALL witnesses because there are a few bad apples, like Bledsoe and Whaley).

            The first link recounts the testimony of witnesses who saw Oswald wear something other than CE150 at the TSBD or after he just leaves work.

            This is an easy to read blog too.

            http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.ca/2012/10/oswalds-escape-from-tsbd.html

          • No such thing as ‘hard evidence’ in the legal lexicon.

            There is in real historical inquiry.

            I looked briefly at the link, and all I see is witnesses whose descriptions are said to conflict with the shirt Oswald was arrested in.

            But that sort of evidence is weak. Witnesses are all over the place in how they describe clothing, even when they have demonstrably seen the same clothing on the same person.

            Check out the varying descriptions of the jacket the fleeing Tippit shooter was wearing, for example.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ John McAdams,

            There is in real historical inquiry.

            Sorry but this is a criminal cold case, and the rules of evidence apply that recognize the primacy of witness testimony, which is even necessary to authenticate physical or real evidence.

            The term ‘hard evidence’ is an imprecise term used by lone assassin proponents to dismiss witnesses or circumstantial evidence that they reject.

          • Sorry but this is a criminal cold case, and the rules of evidence apply that recognize the primacy of witness testimony,

            This is nonsense. Witness testimony is the least reliable evidence. Psychologists know that, lawyers know that, the Innocence Project knows that.

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

            But buffs apparently don’t.

            You have looked only at carefully selected testimony in conspiracy books and on conspiracy websites.

            If you looked at a lot of unselected sources, you would see that people who demonstrably saw the same thing give accounts that are all over the place.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ John McAdams, September 9, 2014 at 8:03 pm

            If witness testimony is unreliable as you say, why do YOU cite them when you need to defend a first missed shot?

          • Bill Callahan says:

            Gerry. From Griffith’s paper: ‘Could he, in 4 seconds, have (1) taken his eye off the scope, (2) reworked the difficult bolt, (3) put his eye back on the scope, (4) reacquired the target, and then (5) carefully squeezed the trigger so as to ensure a dead-eye hit on Kennedy’s skull? Possibly, but not very likely.’

            Am I the only one who takes issue with what Griffith SUPPOSES happened to debunk the timeline issue???? Ok, I’ll debunk Griffith’s assumptions in order:

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Here’s a neat summary citing various sources including Pat Speer.

          There were credibility issues with witnesses claiming Oswald wore the same shirt as the arrest shirt.

          http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.ca/2012/09/was-lee-harvey-oswald-guilty-part-2.html

          • Bill Callahan says:

            But Gerry….That people could confuse two brown shirts shouldn’t be such a big deal. That they saw him wearing a shirt like that, complete with holes is the issue. Should it surprise anyone that the Arrest Shirt was confused with the TSBD shirt? I don’t think so. The shirt that Oswald was wearing at the time of the Assassination of JFK had the same holes as described by Bledsoe. She may have been a bit involved in her dementia…but she still makes the point.

            The shirt did have the same characteristics as the fiber on the stock.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Bill Callahan

            This article destroys Bledsoe’s credibility as an eyewitness:

            http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.ca/2012/10/oswalds-escape-from-tsbd.html

        • Gerry Simone says:

          And another informative exchange with sources cited or duplicated, that the arrest shirt wasn’t worn by Oswald at the TSBD.

          https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?10739-Oswald-was-NOT-wearing-the-same-clothes-before-and-after-going-back-to-Beckley#.VAohGvldV8E

          • I note that Sims found the bus transfer in Oswald’s shirt pocket.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=41&relPageId=183

            You know, the transfer Oswald got from McWatters.

            So did he change shirts, but then transfer the (now useless) bus transfer to the new shirt?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ John McAdams September 6, 2014 at 11:14 am

            I’ve read about two explanations from the links I provided earlier:

            i) transfer was planted because it was not crinkled or torn after Oswald was arrested and manhandled and losing some shirt buttons in the process (a pristine bus transfer?).

            ii) Oswald could have transferred the bus transfer to the new shirt because it was not yet expired.

          • Bill Callahan says:

            Gerry,
            Mrs. Bledsoe: She was having her own issues (possibly A. Dementia) MUST be given credit on the shirt issue. During his first interview on November 22nd, Oswald told Captain Fritz that he had arrived at N. Beckley and changed his trousers. The following day he told Fritz he had changed both his trousers and shirt. Oswald described his dirty clothes as being a reddish colored, long sleeved shirt with a button down collar and grey colored trousers. He indicated that he placed these clothes in the lower drawer of his dresser (FBI memo of James Bookout). One “brown shirt with button down collar” and “one pair of grey trousers” were found at Oswald’s N. Beckley address by Dallas Detective Fay M. Turner. Both articles of clothing were inventoried by Dallas Police and listed as “1 brown shirt with button-down collar and 1 pair grey trousers and other miscellaneous men’s clothing” (WC — Turner Exhibit No 1). It would appear that Oswald had changed shirts.

          • Bill Callahan says:

            Last part of Bledsoe:
            The bus transfer, given to him by McWatters and placed it into the left pocket of the brown shirt, was found by Det. Sims at 4:05 pm. When Bledsoe was shown the brown shirt worn by Oswald when arrested she first said “No, no, that is not the shirt”. Then she asked if the shirt had a ragged elbow. When she saw the hole in the right elbow she said “yes, yes, this is the shirt”, believing it to be the shirt Oswald wore on McWatters bus. But Oswald had changed shirts. He left the brown shirt with the “button down collar”, worn by him on McWatters bus, in the dresser at N. Beckley. He changed into another brown shirt, worn by him when arrested, which was shown to Bledsoe for identification. Mary Bledsoe had simply identified the wrong brown shirt. Someone needs to check to see if the shirt picked up and inventoried by Dallas Police is in the National Archives and if it has holes in the elbows, as described by Bledsoe.

    • Pat Speer says:

      No one wiped the gun clean! Have you ever looked at the trigger guard? Prints aplenty. Strangely, however, they were only linked to Oswald by a questionable authority whose conclusions were rejected by the FBI’s experts and who did so by combining a bunch of pictures together.

  21. Bill Callahan says:

    More on Bledsoe: The grey pants, remembered by Bledsoe and Jones from the bus and by cab driver William Whaley, were also found at N. Beckley — exactly where Oswald had told Fritz he had placed them. They were inventoried by Dallas Police Detective Fay M. Turner. The grey jacket worn by Oswald the morning of November 22, as remembered by Linnie Mae Randle and Wesley Frazier, may have been found by the Dallas Police at the TSBD. They found a heavy, blue colored, “Sir Jac” brand jacket at the TSBD. This jacket was never claimed by anyone (FBI #226) .

    That others have tried to belittle her credibility, due to her dementia, still must come to grips with the fact that SHE HAD IT RIGHT….even to the point, if I may add, when Oswald himself kept it from the police (On Nov 22 questioning) that he had changed his shirt. He actually changed his own story to tell them he changed both pants and shirt on Saturday.

    You can’t have it both ways. This lady was correct in identifying that Oswald had worn a shirt that nobody knew he wore (at 4:05 pm) before anyone else.

    • Pat Speer says:

      Bill, you’re wrong about Bledsoe. She is one of the worst witnesses imaginable.

      I discuss her statements and testimony in great detail in chapter 4 at patspeer.com. As far as Oswald “changing his story” there is no proof he changed his story, and no reason to believe he changed his story. There is no evidence he was asked about changing his shirt. He volunteered that he changed his pants, and that was put in the notes. And then the next day, they asked him about his shirt, and that was put in the notes. Only it was too late…the fibers to the shirt he put on AFTER the shooting had already been planted on the rifle!

      From patspeer.com, chapter 4:

      Stombaugh, continued: “These I removed and put on a glass microscope slide…because this little group of fibers—little tuft of fibers, appeared to be fresh. The fibers on the rest of the gun were either adhering to a greasy, oily deposit or jammed into a crevice and were very dirty and apparently very old…the other fibers I cleaned up, removed the grease and examined them but they were of no value. They were pretty well fragmented…They all appeared old…in excess of a month or two months.” Returning to the “tuft,” Stombaugh explained: “this was just a small tuft. They were adhering to the gun on a small jagged edge. In other words the gun had caught on a piece of fabric and pulled the fibers loose. They were clean, they had good color to them, there was no grease on them and they were not fragmented. They looked as if they had just been picked up. They were folded very neatly down in the crevice…they were adhering to the edge rather tightly…it had the jagged edge sticking up and the fibers were folded around it and resting in the crevice…I believe when the fingerprint man dusted it he probably ran his brush along the metal portion here…Of the butt plate, and at the time the brush folded these down into the crevice…Because of the presence of fingerprint powder being down in and through the crevice here. It looked as if it had been dusted with a brush. You could make out the bristlemarks of the brush itself.” Stombaugh had thereby testified that the fibers found in the butt plate crevice did not end up there on their own, and were apparently folded down in there only AFTER Day had dusted the butt plate.

      When asked what it would take for someone to loosen the threads from the jagged edge, he responded “Well, I would imagine if one took a brush and started brushing pretty hard these would have worked loose and come out…They were adhering to the jagged edge…they were adhering pretty tightly to the gun. I believe through ordinary handling of the gun eventually they would have worked loose and fallen off…I had to take a pair of tweezers and work them out…And after I had the fibers lifted up which could have been the original position they were in, then I had to pull them off. They were wrapped around rather snugly to the sharp edge.” Later, when asked if the rifle should have had fibers from the blanket, he replied “No, because the gun was dusted for fingerprints and any fibers that were loosely adhering to it could have been dusted off. The only reason, I feel , that these fibers remained on the butt plate is because they were pulled from the fabric by the jagged edge and adhered to the gun and then the fingerprint examiner with his brush, I feel, when brushing and dusting this plate, stroked them down into that crevice where they couldn’t be knocked off. In time these fibers would undoubtedly have become dislodged and fallen off the gun” (4H56-88).

      • Only it was too late…the fibers to the shirt he put on AFTER the shooting had already been planted on the rifle!

        And your evidence that he put on a different shirt after the shooting?

        Why was the bus transfer McWatters gave him found in the shirt he had on when arrested?

        Frankly, you are beginning to sound like Fetzer with all this evidence fakery stuff.

        • Bill Callahan says:

          John. Oswald stated he changed is trousers at his boarding house. Then, the next day, he claimed he had also changed his shirt as well and told the police which drawer to check. It would make sense, if one were trying to get away with a crime to change both as a matter of logic and reason. I mention M. Bledsoe because she was someone who knew Oswald, ID’s a reddish shirt with a tear on the bus ride, and it fit that he had the right color pants. I agree that ID’ing a color, from similar colors is a matter of subjectivity. What I feel IS IMPORTANT, is that she says Oswald was on a BUS. She isn’t as crazy as they say all of the time. Her dementia made life difficult for her…but, in totality, it adds up: Time of Bus Ride. Color of shirt. Hole in shirt. If she were to be correct on ONE thing. Nice guess. But on ALL THREE.

          • Bill Callahan says:

            Anyway…We all know that no witness can provide all the evidence in all areas. Humans make mistakes and memories do change and fade. Case in Point here is Agent Hill. Over time he as stated that he actually made it to the Limo when the last shot hit JFK. At one point he mentioned that he had stumbled when the last shot struck JFK’s head. Factually….he was only at the front left tire of the Queen Mary when JFK was struck. I think people argue the obvious. In the end: Oswald…3 shots…alone in the Plaza…Killer of Tippit…all while hunting for Ruby. 😉

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Pat,

        I need clarification here.

        When I read Stombaugh’s account posted by you, it sounds like Day’s fingerprint dust brush folded those PRE-EXISTING fibers into the crevice, and that they didn’t come off from the brushing procedure because they were wrapped snugly around that jagged edge.

        IOW, those fibers were there BEFORE Day had dusted the plate, but not folded into the crevice yet.

        However, this doesn’t mean that the shirt fibers weren’t planted AFTER the SHOOTING.

        • Bill Callahan says:

          Gerry…second part debunking Griffith’s Paper:
          1. Oswald need not have taken his eye off the scope at all.
          2. Yes the bolt worked. It was a WW2 era weapon..but it did work.
          3. Well, seeing as how there is no proof Oswald took his eye off the scope in the first place we needn’t discuss this premise then.
          4. Again…there is no proof he took his eye off the scope so why is this an issue??

          Ok…so far on Griffith all we’ve done is mention that the first 4 events of his premise are CONJECTURE, not GOSPEL. And,

          5. Well…IF he didn’t do any of what Griffith stipulated in his paper does this mean that the answer to #5 is YES??

          Actually, Mr. Griffith is technically incorrect in this regard. There was a photo which actually showed the partial ‘cone’ of an entry into JFK’s skull very high up near the cowlick area, as in this bullet did not hit center at all. It did, in fact, almost miss Kennedy entirely. In my view this glancing shot to JFK (313) is visible in the ejection of material forward.

          It is what it is as far as timing. It’s just not as close as Griffith paints it. 3 shots. 5.6 seconds (just be sure we’re starting the clock at the first shot).

          • Gerry Simone says:

            How can you postulate from a revised BOH entrance wound that shifted 9 cm (nearly 4 inches) from the actual autopsy report and observations?

            I’m not sure what argument you’re making about the timing.

            No EXPERT got 2 hits out of 3 shots on their first attempt as Oswald was alleged to have done.

            This destroys any likelihood that Oswald was the best shot on the planet that day.

      • Bill Callahan says:

        Pat. Look, I read your Chapter 4. Upon looking it over I suddenly realized that you based a ton of what you wrote on Mr. Piper. Correct? He’s credible and Mary Bledsoe isn’t. Right?

        Read this carefully. It’s taken from your Chapter 4:

        Even more convincing, an 11-23-63 statement to Dallas Sheriff’s Dept. signed by Eddie Piper (19H499) states “Yesterday, at 12:00 noon, this fellow Lee says to me ‘I’m going up to eat’ and I went on to my lunch. I went to a front window on the first floor and ate my lunch. I went to the front window on the first floor and ate my lunch and waited to see the President’s parade go by. I saw the President pass and heard some shots and looked at the clock there and saw it was 12:25PM.”

        You give so much Credibility to Mr. Eddie Piper because he fits YOUR theory. If Mr. Piper is so correct, then he must have seen a different assassination. He stated that he saw the President pass and heard some shots and saw it was 12:25. One thing that we do know is this: The assassination happened at 12:30 on the button. Two photos of the building showing the motorcade exiting Dealey Plaza show the clock was at 12:30. I think it’s just another case of an individual revising history. Period.

  22. I couldn’t find a reply place above for when McAdams actually made like he had read the Redlich memo. But it is clear he has not.

    He tried to say that somehow Redlich was dismissing the chemical results because of the paraffin process.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    He completely upholds the process because he writes that you may make a case that Oswald fired a revolver that day. And he quotes the chemical traces to show why and how.

    But he says flatly there is no case for him firing a rifle.

    But further, to show just how slipshod McAdams is: they are not discussing the paraffin test but the NAA test! Why? Because when the paraffin results came back as they did–exculpatory of Oswald–Hoover went nuts. And he tried everything, including new techniques, to try and reverse those results. It did not work. Which is why they were classified for so long. In this section below, you will see how these documents write the story McAdams does not want you to hear.

    http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/paraffin_test.htm

    Like Tony Marsh, Gil is a longtime antagonist of the professor. Ignore what is said in ad hominem smears about him. Read the plentiful documents he uses which the professor does not.

    This relates to another point. When I went after his attack on Larry, he then said I used secondary sources. What he does not say is that both Hurt and Garrison source their arguments to primary sources. Does he really expect me to list footnotes? If he had read these books he would have known that.

    Finally, about secondary sources and hypocrisy: In the first part of my BOR debate with him, he tried to discredit Michael Kurtz’s book concerning the associations of Ferrie, Oswald, and Banister. He said somehow that Kurtz had taken this all back. I went back and looked at all the sources in preparation for the second part of the debate. McAdams, as if often the case, was wrong. Kurtz had done no such thing. When challenged McAdams revealed he got this info from an email poster on his forum! Talk about secondary sources, especially considering the agenda of the people on that site.

    This will be my last post here. Jeff and the crew had a nice idea, that somehow you could engage the other side. As I said elsewhere, that was dubious since, as I just showed again, McAdams does not deal in good faith. There is a reason he has the reputations he does.

    Adieu

    • In the first part of my BOR debate with him, he tried to discredit Michael Kurtz’s book concerning the associations of Ferrie, Oswald, and Banister. He said somehow that Kurtz had taken this all back. I went back and looked at all the sources in preparation for the second part of the debate. McAdams, as if often the case, was wrong. Kurtz had done no such thing.

      No, I said that Kurtz, in his first book (and in a journal article) . . .

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ngarchive/4231952.pdf

      Had cited Oswald and Banister together, but not identified himself as the source!

      Look at the article above. He cites “confidential interviews.”

      Then, it the second edition of his book, all of a sudden he is the witness that saw them together.

      He admitted that in an e-mail to a poster on alt.assassination.jfk, and it can easily be confirmed by looking at his writing.

    • But further, to show just how slipshod McAdams is: they are not discussing the paraffin test but the NAA test!

      But of course, that proved nothing either.

      Because when the paraffin results came back as they did–exculpatory of Oswald–Hoover went nuts.

      The paraffin test could not exculpate Oswald, or anybody else.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

      But then, if standard forensics texts say one thing, and buff books say something more convenient, then who cares about standard forensics texts.

      The FBI knew perfectly well that the paraffin test had no probative value. See the testimony of Cortland Cunningham at the link above.

    • Photon says:

      Jim , if the paraffin test was so accurate why was the first facial test that the Dallas Police Department ever did done on Oswald? Why would Hoover go “nuts” over a test that nobody trusted in the first place? Your reference clearly states that negative cheek results happen often after firing a closed system like that of the Carcano. Why beat a dead horse?
      Getting too hot to stay in the kitchen? As it seems that you can’t post anything valid to support your questionable claims , like Oswald attending the Monterey language school, or Bobby Kennedy hating Allen Dulles, or Dulles hiring Gordon Novel to disrupt the Garrison trial, or accusing honorable military medical officers of committing felonies ,etc your decision to leave this site is understandable.
      But I will miss your entertaining comments. Heck, I might even fight the Beltway traffic and drop down Wisconsin Ave. to take in your talk- if you take questions.

    • In the first part of my BOR debate with him, he tried to discredit Michael Kurtz’s book concerning the associations of Ferrie, Oswald, and Banister. He said somehow that Kurtz had taken this all back. I went back and looked at all the sources in preparation for the second part of the debate. McAdams, as if often the case, was wrong. Kurtz had done no such thing.

      No, I said that Kurtz, in his first book (and in a journal article) . . .

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ngarchive/4231952.pdf

      Had cited Oswald and Banister together, but not identified himself as the source!

      Look at the article above. He cites “confidential interviews.”

      Then, it the second edition of his book, all of a sudden he is the witness that saw them together.

      He admitted that in an e-mail to a poster on alt.assassination.jfk, and it can easily be confirmed by looking at his writing.

      You are always getting your facts mixed up.

    • But further, to show just how slipshod McAdams is: they are not discussing the paraffin test but the NAA test!

      But of course, that proved nothing either.

      Because when the paraffin results came back as they did–exculpatory of Oswald–Hoover went nuts.

      The paraffin test could not exculpate Oswald, or anybody else.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

      But then if buff books say something convenient, who cares about standard forensics texts.

      The FBI knew perfectly well that the paraffin test had no probative value. See the testimony of Cortland Cunningham at the link above.

  23. leslie sharp says:

    Stephen Roy:
    My agenda is to join others in shining the light on the cover up of the assassination, In my opinion, that began immediately after Kennedy’s murder. It would follow that the authors of the conspiracy to assassinate the president would be heavily invested in the cover up as a matter of self-preservation. I view them as bookends.

    Credible journalists assert that Allen Dulles was a skilled spymaster and strategist, otherwise why was he the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency for years? I argue that his business, government and personal history provides clues to the conspiracy and the cover up. I assert that beginning Dec. 16, 1963 during the earliest formal meeting, Dulles deliberately steered the conclusion of the Warren Commission. Had he also brought in a book on evidence in the conspiracy behind President Lincoln’s assassination along with the lone assassin essay he shared with members and staff, we would not be engaged in this particular exchange.

    Those who do not claim to be experts in any field are not obliged to provide a background. In this instance, your tone does not inspire a courteous response. I am a U.S. citizen with a broad agenda – the reclamation of the democracy that was overthrown on 11.22.63, and to that end I’ve chosen to devote the last twenty years to researching the Conspiracy & Cover Up of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I’m an amateur and make no claim or apology otherwise.

    • Stephen Roy says:

      I appreciate the clarification. Normal intellectual discourse includes the mutual courtesy of discussing or challenging a person’s IDEAS. It is not courteous (nor intellectually useful) to continually challenge another person’s MOTIVATIONS; The practice is usually seen as a backdoor attempt to cut off discussion of their ideas, and could be seen as anti-intellectual. I support your participation in the discussion, whatever your background and motivations. There is no degree in assassination research. I just think you fall back on attacking motivations too readily. People disagree sometimes. It doesn’t mean they are evil. There are some in this field who encourage such suspicions, but it accomplishes nothing. I want to arrive at the truth, just like you. Let’s hear your ideas.

      • leslie sharp says:

        Stephen Roy,
        Are you approaching this exercise with the intention of solving a cold case murder investigation or a desire to establish a consensus for the historical record?

        Until we establish those parameters, our exchange is surely a mute point. Whether or not you “respect” my ‘IDEAS’ is not of concern. If we were debating US foreign policy, economic or climate issues, then of course. But the Kennedy assassination was the murder in broad daylight of a democratically elected president with global repercussions. There is no vote involved. If this site was designed from the outset to achieve historical consensus, then I for one have been wasting my time

        Unfortunately in the dynamic of investigating the murder of John Kennedy, we are forced to deal with the messy issues of motive and agenda given the very nature of conspiracy as defined, “a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.” Doesn’t it make sense to you that the cover up has been and continues to be as significant as the act itself; and following that, might it be that there are those in our society still devoted to the cover up based on ideological agendae? Might they be using this site to promote that agenda?

        If you can elucidate a method of getting around the question of motive or agenda – a concept invoked in any criminal case – of those that perpetuate the ‘idea’ that LOH was a lone assassin, I am open; otherwise, I believe your response is somewhat insincere.

        “People disagree sometimes. It doesn’t mean they are evil.”

        I believe that any attempt to destroy the concept let alone interrupt the manifestation of democracy is inherently evil. Denying that Kennedy’s assassination was not a concentrated attempt toward that end skirts on the concept of evil in my books. It is a harsh term but I think robbing any individual of his or her right to freedom is profoundly immoral and malevolent. I don’t ‘disagree’ with those on this site that espouse a lie, I try and confront them at every opportunity.

  24. leslie sharp says:

    John McAdams:
    My challenge was directed to Jean Davison; my underlying issues are with “Oswald’s Game,” and how it played into the cover and the WCR; however as you are apparently designated spokesperson for her, I will reply, briefly.

    JMcA:
    “Yes, it’s a myth.
    The evidence against Oswald was overwhelming, and was overwhelming within 24 hours of the assassination.
    On the evening of the assassination, Henry Wade said “there was no one else.”
    You can disagree with his assessment if you want, but it’s simply untrue that people thought there was a conspiracy until Dulles started pushing a lone assassin theory.”

    I do not understand why you are answering another question, one I did not ask. Whether or not Henry Wade drew a conclusion within hours, as unprofessional as that was, was not my question, nor is the opinion of “people” whoever they are you are referring to. My question was whether or not Dulles influenced the commission members and staff in a particular direction from the outset.

    You have however introduced another aspect. How often did Allen Dulles and Henry Wade confer during the three plus weeks leading to the December 16 formal meeting of the commission? And why did they confer? If Wade was convinced that Oswald acted alone, why was the former Director of the CIA kept informed? And if he wasn’t, your veiled argument that Dulles took Henry Wade’s word before even looking at the evidence in depth, let alone interview witnesses, suggests to me that Dulles had an agenda from the outset and you know it.

    • How often did Allen Dulles and Henry Wade confer during the three plus weeks leading to the December 16 formal meeting of the commission?

      I’m not aware that they conferred at all.

      Are you actually claiming that nobody would think Oswald was the lone assassin unless Wade told them that?

      And the Commission would not think that unless Dulles told them?

      How often did Allen Dulles and Henry Wade confer during the three plus weeks leading to the December 16 formal meeting of the commission?

      Yes, you are assuming that nobody would have thought Oswald was the lone assassin unless Wade told them.

    • leslie sharp says:

      John, I did not assume anything. In response to my question as to whether or not Allen Dulles influenced the WC from the outset with his lone assassin propaganda, you introduced this bit of history:

      “On the evening of the assassination, Henry Wade said, “there was no one else.”

      And now you are countering with:

      “Are you actually claiming that nobody would think Oswald was the lone assassin unless Wade told them that?”

      Perhaps you are getting tripped up, and correct me if I am wrong, but you were the one that introduced Henry Wade’s knee jerk assessment in the context of my questions related to the Dulles presentation to the commission members and staff on Dec 16, 1963.

      Perhaps now you might go back to my original question:
      ”is it a myth that Allen Dulles laid the ground work for the commission on December 16, 1963, that a lone assassin was responsible for President Kennedy’s murder?”

      And further, pls answer my questions relating to how often Wade and Dulles might have conferred (and how frequently) in the 3 week period leading to the 16th Dec. meeting of the WC? I’m certain that within this milieu there was an incident involving Dallas attorney/SMU professor Robert G. Storey. Perhaps you can familiarize yourself with that episode and continue this exchange in good faith.

  25. Marie Fonzi says:

    Did you mention that Antonio Veciana will speak
    at the AARC conference?

  26. John McAdams-to your Sept 10 comment where you tell us that Henry Wade said “there was no one else”(meaning LHO was the only shooter), I need some evidence that Wade said that with absolutely no instruction from the Federal Government(LBJ or Hoover). All my readings show me that the FBI was right on top of the coverup as the shots were fired.

    • You want me to prove a negative? You prove the FBI had anything to do with that.

      Things you suspect are not assumed to be true until proven false.

      It’s true that Washington (but not the FBI) went ballistic at Alexander’s planned indictment of Oswald for killing Kennedy “in furtherance of a Communist conspiracy.”

      • “Things you suspect are not assumed to be true until proven false.”~John McAdams

        If the truth is held as a national security secret, and a mass of circumstantial evidence are what causes your suspicion, it is certainly absolutely rational to assume those holding the information from you are hiding something in their own self interest. In other words that they are covering up what you fell is the truth.
        \\][//

    • Stephen Roy says:

      How does one prove such a thing 50 years later? People don’t often write memos that something was NOT said. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the default presumption is that this is what Wade believed.

  27. John, in an earlier post-in which you didn’t allow for an immediate reply, you make mention of “an easy dozen lying witnesses” in trying to prove the existence of a conspiracy. Did the witnsses lie, or did the WC report lie for them? For instance, very little of Arnold Rowland’s testimony was reported by the WC-instead, the WC faked his answers. Rowland was the one, of course, who saw 2 gunmen in the 6th floor just before the shooting. The WC probably figured “Geez, this makes us look bad!”.

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