If Oswald shot JFK, here’s when he decided to do it

The responses to my last question, “When did Lee Harvey Oswald decide to shoot President Kennedy?” have converged on a consensus: November 19, 1963.

Jean Davison: “Oswald couldn’t have made the specific plans to shoot JFK until after the motorcade route was announced on November 19, when the opportunity fell into his lap. He must have decided sometime between then and Thursday morning (21st) when he asked Frazier for a ride to Irving where his rifle was kept.”

Norman Mailer: “Oswald has come, by now [November 19], to a serious decision. It is still preliminary to his final determination, but he has decided to take his rifle to the School Book Depository on Friday, November 22. All week, the talk at work has been concerned with President Kennedy’s visit. The route has been published in the newspapers. The official motorcade will pass by the Texas School Book Depository on Elm Street. Our man, who has spent half his life reading books and now works in a place that ships out textbooks to the children and college youth of America, may be preparing to engage in an act that some huge majority of the people who read books devotedly would be ready to condemn.” (Oswald’s Tale p. 663)  (H/T John)

Photon: “The day that he discovered that the JFK’s motorcade was going to go past the TSBD.”

Vincent Bugliosi:  “…The mundane exercise of learning to drive and looking forward to one day having a driving license speaks loudly for the proposition that Oswald’s intent to murder the president was formed somewhat on the spur of the moment not long before the day of the assassination, and as a necessary corollary and concomitant to this, against the proposition that a group like the CIA or organized crime conspired with Oswald to have him kill Kennedy for them.”

“Other things Oswald did during the month leading up to the assassination clearly represented a person in the normal, humdrum rhythm of life, not someone preparing, with others, to murder the president of the United States.” (Reclaiming History, p.1445) (H/T Bill Kelly)

 

 

180 comments

  1. Thomas says:

    Except being impersonated in Mexico City a month earlier is not part of a mundane, humdrum life.

    Someone was monitoring Oswald. Someone was aware he worked on the motorcade route. Opportunity presented itself. As a pawn in a greater plan, Oswald would be going about his “normal” life unaware of exactly how this would play out.

  2. Maybe Nov. 19 is the date when Oswald gets the final “dress rehearsal” by Mac Wallace(LBJ’s hitman) or perhaps someone else.

  3. Neil says:

    Lee Harvey Oswald is America’s “Fill in the blank” assassin

    To conclude without any doubt that he acted alone, one must fill in a number of blanks by making assumptions

    If JFK’s assassination was a crime of opportunity and Oswald left few if any clues about when he decided to shoot JFK or why, the only logical assumption is that he decided to do it some time after the parade route was published.

  4. Jonathan says:

    Oswald makes the decision to try to kill JFK on 19 November 1963, because he learns JFK’s motorcade will pass by the TSBD, where he works.

    He does not immediately obtain his rifle, clean it, align the scope. No. He waits until the morning of 22 November to sneak the rifle out from its blanket wrapping, disassemble the rifle, and put the disassembled parts in a paper bag he has constructed.

    Fast forward. It’s 12:29 a.m. Dallas time. JFK’s limo is rounding the corner from Main onto Houston. Oswald coolly watches the limo approach the TSBD and turn onto Elm Street. He scrunches down to aim his rifle over the live oak that blocks much of the view. He fires once. Then twice in quick succession.

    Now to escape….

    That’s the Official Story. Omitting a few details. Such as, he leaves no fingerprints the FBI can detect on the rifle, which FBI firearm expert Robert Frazier doesn’t bother to check for recent firing because it’s so corroded.

    But no matter. He has executed a hastily formed, poor plan very well. Las Vegas odds makers might not have given his plan much chance of success, but the Warren Commission unblinkingly finds “persuasive evidence” he killed the president, wounded JBC, and wounded James Tague in six seconds. Leaving behind irrefutable evidence of his evil intent.

    The book on which this synopsis is based is found in the fiction section of any major book store.

    • B Kamp says:

      ”The book on which this synopsis is based is found in the fiction section of any major book store.”

      Hahahahaha, so true, thanks for the laugh!

  5. Clarence Carlson says:

    It sounds like the tail wagging the dog: since Oswald did it then he must have decided to do it on November 19th. When one looks at the trail of past presidential assassins Oswald seems to stand out as a rare bird. As noted, he was impersonated in Mexico according to the FBI. He has, of all things, a 201 file at the CI branch of the CIA, with access only on a need-to-know basis. He became very fluent in Russian seemly out of the blue. He defected to Russia in the middle of the cold war, then supposedly came back with no significant debriefing. His backround is just too weird to write off as a lone nut who woke up one morning and decided to kill a president. I don’t think his hands are completely clean either, but I’ll keep on open mind on this.

    • Fearfaxer says:

      I would add to that the following: He got an early hardship discharge from the Marines by making the fradulent claim that he was needed to take care of his injured mother(whom neither he nor his older brothers could tolerate), spent just a couple of days at her home, then took off on the trip that led him to the USSR. Yet aside from having his discharge changed to “Dishonorable,” he suffered no consequences for what has to be considered an act of desertion. There’s also the little matter of his proclamation in the US Embassy in Moscow, in front of State Department officials, that he was willing to share information he’d learned while in the Marines with the Soviets.

  6. bogman says:

    Many things don’t add up with Oswald as lone assassin from what we know:

    o the “leaving all his money” business is completely false. they were using the wallet on the dresser as the family piggy bank to save up for their own apartment

    o there was no “normal” schedule when Oswald visited the Paines — he changed that up at least two other times in the weeks leading to the assassination

    o If Oswald brought the gun, where did he hide it? His co-worker said he walked in empty-handed.

    o If Oswald brought the gun, how did he get it to the 6th floor during normal business hours with absolutely no one witnessing it

    o If Oswald brought the gun, when and where did he assemble it? Hard to believe it was in the few minutes after his co-worker left the 6th floor and 10 minutes before the procession was scheduled to arrive. That’s cutting it pretty close for a committed assassin.

    o If Oswald wanted to go down in history, why did he look pissed when a reporter informed him he actually had been charged with shooting the president.

    And on and on. Nothing adds up with this guy as lone assassin.

  7. Bill says:

    Related to this: if Oswald shot JFK, why did he fire when the target was moving away? Obviously, if there was crossfire, this makes sense. But if acting alone, why wait before turning the corner? Second thoughts? Slower reactions? Confusion to buy time?

    Curious what others think.

    • Bill says:

      Why wait until the car turned the corner? Well…the obvious reason is best shown in the movies and photos of the day. Most people don’t really understand that, as in 1963 and now as a matter of fact, the TSBD is THE LAST BUILDING of any size that JFK’s car would have gone past. It was…prarie after driving past it (especially in 1963). But, back to the obvious: Robert Hughes film shows how dangerous a sniper position would be if he were to stick a rifle out of that window. When you entered Dealey Plaza (then and now) you’re eyes are drawn to the macabre color of that building…and with a couple of Dozen Law Enforcement, DPD, and SSA all looking at the same thing…no way would Oswald stick his rifle out that window. Actually…in the Robert Hughes film you CAN see movement in the 6th floor window as the car passes. A ‘shape’ moves from High to low (standing to kneeling) as if to preparing to shoot.

      Also….to shoot at JFK as the car approached, aside of the view of every agent there, if there should be a non-fatal shot….you only would have the one chance b/c the car now had 3 possible escape routes (straight, left, right). By letting it pass the President would be going more or less DIRECTLY away from the window slightly declining as it went down the slope of Elm Street (which is much more steep than most understand).

      So…to let the car pass was the best on could hope for if inclined to shoot at JFK IF he was trying to escape. What messes up Oswald’s plan was that first shot may have been off because, as he hurried to track the car through his 4x scope…he pulled his trigger just as a branch crossed between the target and the barrel of the rifle (yes..my opinion..but it explains the shot that missed) and the fact that people described the first shot as sounding different than the subsequent shots.

      In fact…I still feel that some of the wounds in Connally’s back/wrist may have been caused by fragments of the head shot exiting jfk’s skull.

    • I think that by shooting at JFK before the limo turned the corner, LHO(or the other shooter(s)on the 6th floor) might have hit Kellerman, since he was in front of Connally, who was in front of JFK. Hitting Secret Serviceman Kellerman wasn’t part of the plan.

  8. Rick Geyer says:

    Thomas’ post hits the nail on the head. Oswald’s appearance in MC in September provides the key to any serious debate about conspiracy. Even Hoover admitted that someone was impersonating Oswald, not just in MC, but according to his own June, 1960 FBI memo citing that someone was using Oswald’s birth certificate while the “real” LHO was in the USSR. There is no explanation for this other than the obvious fact that LHO or someone impersonating him was being used by one or several US intelligence agencies and had been since his days in the USMC. The Mexico City episode is the real Rosetta Stone of the assassination, not the Tippit murder.

  9. SJK says:

    Well, that was worth waiting for. A great start to the New Year.

  10. David Regan says:

    Oswald’s Ex-Captain Takes Aim at Single-Shooter Theory – Los Angeles Times http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-21/local/me-59498_1_oswald-s-marksmanship via @latimes

  11. If Oswald didn’t decide to kill JFK until Nov. 19 – and did it alone – then how were a dozen people able to express foreknowledge of the event before it happened?

    John Martino, Garrett Underhill, Jose Rivera, Richard Case Nagell, Rose Cheramie, Eugene Dinkin, Milteer and others predicted the assassination would occur – how did they know?

    “Foreknowledge cannot be obtained from spirits but from those who know the sotuation.” – Sun Tzu

    JFKCountercoup.blogspot.com.Foreknowledge-and-the-assassination.html

    • Stephen Roy says:

      Have you considered the possibility that none of them really did have foreknowledge?

      • “Milteer and others predicted the assassination would occur..”
        ~ Bill Kelly

        “Have you considered the possibility that none of them really did have foreknowledge?”Stephen Roy

        Milteer was recorded speaking about the plot to kill Kennedy in Maimi before the assassination.
        https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Transcript_of_Milteer-Somersett_Tape
        \\][//

        • Photon says:

          Maybe I’m missing something.I thought that JFK was killed in Dallas, not Miami.
          Or perhaps every individual who had a beef with JFK and wanted him removed had to be a member of the conspiracy. Or maybe the private rankings of a nut suffice as evidence that said nut actually had the capability to pursue an assassination attempt.How come you left out Jeanne Dixon , who embellished her resume by claiming to have predicted JFK’s death?
          The problem with these claims is that they have been accepted by CT believers not based on evidence that they actually occurred, but on claims ( poorly substantiated if substantiated at all) made by other CT researchers. For instance, where is the real evidence that Cheramie ever made the claim that she supposedly made- before the assassination? Where is the evidence that independently actually supported any of her claims,real or invented? Who vouched for the individual who supposedly said that she made the claims? Who would ever entrust a mental patient who had been committed to institutional care with anything of import, particularly a conspiracy so grand and effective that 50 years later there is absolutely no physical evidence of its existance ?
          The fact is that since 1840 every President that had been elected in a year ending in a zero died in office. Does that mean that a grand conspiracy was driven by statistical compulsion to remove Presidents ? Or does it mean that sheer coincidence can explain what seems to be an unexplainable event?
          When you believe that the unconfirmed statements of a certified mental patient are sufficient to support your theory in the face of document physical evidence ! Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate your theory.

          • Yes – I have considered all of the possibilities – and evaluated each one carefully – confirmed what they had to say and each had a specific association that would allow them to have access to information about a plot – one that did not originate in Dallas, New Orleans, Havana or Moscow – but Washington DC

            As for specific examples – the sources of Rose Cheramie’s expressions of foreknowledge are a Louisiana State Trooper, nurse and doctor – and is well documented, as is the accused assassins’ association with the same hospital.

            Charamie’s association was with Cuban mobsters, Nagell with Army Intel., Dinkin with codes and ciphers, Underhill with Pentagon analysts – were they all really crazy?

            Mental patients may not be reliable witnesses but they are sources of truthful info and apparently real good assassins.

            As for the coincidences – they occur in all events – and I believe in coincidences – but I also know that conspiracies occur too – and not everyone is a part of them – and you don’t have to be crazy to concoct one.

            It’s not me who should reevaluate my theory – it is the Coincedentalists who should consider the more rational and likely truth.

          • “The problem with these claims is that they have been accepted by CT believers not based on evidence that they actually occurred, but on claims..”~Photon

            The problem with your claim above is that there is an audio tape of Milteer that is in fact verifiable evidence of a plot in the works to assassinate JFK. The opportunity did not arise in Miami, the Chicago trip was cancelled, the event was finally completed in Dallas.

            Is this use of the initials “CT” meant to demean Photon? Is it a slur like your still unsubstantiated claim that Sherry Fiester is not a bonafide crime scene investigator?
            \\][//

          • Photon, I am bringing this to your attention here because you seem to be avoiding my question as to your supposedly proving that Sherry Fiester has the certification and qualifications she claims.

            I found your comments to that effect on this thread:
            https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/what-you-should-know-about-the-warren-commission-report-is-that/

            Your complaint seems to rest on the fact that she would not engage you after your commentary. My complaint is hereto the very same complaint to you. I have asked you to comment on this multiple times and you simply ignore me. Is this hypocrisy on your part or are you just totally distracted?

            Address this issue Photon, it has been more than two week since I confronted you on this.
            \\][//

          • jeffc says:

            re: Rose Cherami
            Cherami was discovered, thrown from a vehicle, shortly before the assassination outside of Eunice Louisiana, Local paper Eunice Today featured an article in November 2012 about the Cherami case, with local recollections that agents from the FBI were in Eunice within days of the assassination removing documents mentioning Cherami from the police station and the local hospital. Why would the FBI do this if there was nothing to the story, or the story was just made up in 1967 as some LN theorists contend?

            The Eunice Today article is reprinted at the Education Forum here:
            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1600&page=3

        • Stephen Roy says:

          Yeah, but the tape does not predict the Dallas assassination.

          • Stephen Roy says:

            Reply to Bill:
            With the exception of the Milteer tape, which does not predict a Dallas assassination, there is no contemporaneous (pre-assassination) documentation of such foreknowledge, as opposed to claims made after the assassination.

            I, too, have looked deeply into some of these cases, and the evidence is squishier than it seems.

          • David Regan says:

            Stephen, the context of the Milteer tape centers around a threat to JFK when he visited Miami on 11/18/63. Police files show that they had made the Secret Service aware of this threat in advance of the visit.

            It was revealed for the first time in Nov 2013, that police knew of a second Miami threat to JFK: Exclusive: JFK Death Threat Note From Nov. 1963 In Miami Revealed For 1st Time « CBS Miami http://cbsloc.al/1CqtqJf

            Not to mention known threats against JFK in Chicago on 11/2/63, which the Secret Service blatantly destroyed all their files on.

          • “Yeah, but the tape does not predict the Dallas assassination.”~Stephen Roy

            However it does predict the scenario that played out in Dallas; that of an assassin firing from the window of a tall building.

            There are also photos of a person in the crowd that could very well be Milteer himself.
            \\][//

      • David Regan says:

        That would be a big coincidence, Stephen. Following file shows that in early November, U.S. Army Pfc Eugene Dinkin made public claims that “they” were plotting against JFK and “something” would happen in Texas: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/cia/russholmes/104-10438/104-10438-10145/html/104-10438-10145_0001a.htm

        Police File Confirms Secret Service Knew of Plot to Kill JFK http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1994/Police-File-Confirms-Secret-Service-Knew-of-Plot-to-Kill-JFK/id-c8530acce9d05cde8e4a79842f1e1edb

        Secret Service – Chicago Plots: https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10490&relPageId=363

    • Jean Davison says:

      Kenneth O’Donnell testified that JFK had discussed the possibility of assassination on the day he died:

      “… he said that if anybody really wanted to shoot the President of the United States, it was not a very difficult job–all one had to do was get a high building some day with a telescopic rifle, and there was nothing anybody could do to defend against such an attempt on the President’s life.”

      https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=41&relPageId=466

      • Neil says:

        Perhaps it was accurate because Kennedy knew the details of the Chicago plot

      • David Regan says:

        JFK knew he was heading to “nut country”. His musings were eerily similar to Joseph Milteer’s

        O’Donnell and Powers admitted to Tip O’Neill they heard shots from the grassy knoll: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/L%20Disk/Lane%20Mark/Lane%20Mark%206-80/Item%2010.pdf

        • Jean Davison says:

          This was evidently not a sudden premonition, since O’Donnell said he had discussed the possibility before. Starting at the bottom of this page:

          https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=41&relPageId=465

          Every President gets threats. The Secret Service got several hundred reports of threats against JFK that year, according to the HSCA.

          • David Regan says:

            Of course they do, Jean. Are you insinuating that all these threats come from lone nuts?

            It’s also very convenient how duing the ARRB tenure, the Secret Service blatantly destroyed their protection detail records for the fall of 1963 when many of these threats were coming in.

            History has shown us that aside from this case, three Presidential assassins showed clear motive and committed their deeds in the open and at close range with no chance of escape, as did six would-be assassins.

            JFK had also envisioned a different scenario on the morning of Nov 22nd:

            This morning, Mr. Kennedy could not get the subject off his mind. He reminded Jackie of their harried, late night arrival at their Fort Worth hotel the previous night, when hundreds of strangers had surrounded them. “You know,” he told her, “last night would have been a hell of a night to assassinate a president. There was the rain, and the night, and we were all getting jostled. Suppose a man had a pistol in a briefcase and melted away into the crowd.”

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, a convenient method of justifying the lax preparations for Kennedy’s trip into Dallas … bury serious threats including those of a conspiratorial nature in a numbers game; plant the seeds of a threat in Miami and Chicago knowing that Dallas was the intended site … perfect conditions, societal, political and practical to include the triangular kill zone. With so many threats, certain authorities could argue that it was logical to have some Secret Service stand down at Love Field; after all according to film footage it was by then apparent “Dallas loved Mr. Kennedy.”

            Jean, would you address specifically the footage that indicates the frustration of at least one of the Secret Service agents when admonished to “stand down” as the motorcade left Love Field?

          • David Regan says:

            Very lax indeed Leslie, considering the SS had knowledge of threats in Chicago and Miami only days before.

            Not to mention late night debauchery in Fort Worth and later destruction of files in the face of the ARRB. It was disgraceful.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Here’s Clint Hill explaining the
            shrugging agent, about one minute in:

            http://www.c-span.org/video/?c3997797/secret-service-confusion-love-field-explained

          • David Regan says:

            Here is Hill’s decription of JFK’s fatal wound to the WC: “The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car”.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, the C-Span segment/Clint Hill’s version of events at Love Field does not remotely explain the extent of Agent Lawton’s gestures. Watching the footage objectively, do you argue that Lawton was indicating “bon voyage, I’m outta here?” Would that have required two additional distinct shrugs to send the collegial message, ‘it’s your baby’ to his fellow agents? Can you refer to any prior instance when SS agents used similar body language to launch highly intense motorcades? Clint Hill may have been an honorable servant of the United States Secret Service but I suggest that his recollection of Love Field/11.22.63 can be compared to the adjusted recollection of the doctors present in ER/ Parkland.

            Do you know the name of the SS agent that assumed the right hand position of security on the limo – opposite Clint Hill on the left – as they proceeded to downtown Dallas?

          • “Do you know the name of the SS agent that assumed the right hand position of security on the limo – opposite Clint Hill on the left – as they proceeded to downtown Dallas?”Jean Davison

            What are you talking about Jean? Clint Hill was NOT on the left hand position on the limo. He was on the follow up car, which is obviously not his proper designated “security position”.
            \\][//

  12. Matt says:

    For me, Oswald’s astonishingly unusual life and motivations are fascinating. Here’s what I think happened to him, in the following speculative post. Please tell me whether you agree or have got evidence to suggest I’m barking up the wrong tree.

    Personally, I think Oswald was set up. I believe he was an idealistic youth who wanted to get to the USSR and joined the marines to get away from his mother and see the world, hoping to acquire the skills sought-after by the Russians. Someone in intelligence gave him the Russian language training for him to be a ‘false defector,’ and Oswald probably went along with it to get to the USSR. Once there, he reneged on his side of the bargain and threatened to give away secrets. This would have enraged his handlers back in the States.

    Oswald was given safe passage back in order to get revenge on him for passing on radar secrets; with his unusual background and lack of funds, he was perfect to manipulate. By providing him with a low-level informant role operating both in pro and anti-Castro activities in places such as New Orleans, it would be easy for his intelligence handlers to exploit his pro-Castro image. Oswald, disillusioned with life in the USSR but wishing to go to Cuba, would have been happy to go along with this charade, especially as he needed money to get by. Unbeknownst to him, he was being set up for a fall, evidenced by the deception in Mexico City.

    Therefore, Oswald did not choose to kill Kennedy, but paid the price both for idealism and a penchant for spy games.

  13. David Regan says:

    Oswald and Atta: Erratic, Protected, and Seeking Attention
    http://bit.ly/13wkh5J

    • David Regan,
      Thanks for the link. I have found much of the work of Kevin Ryan to be of very high quality, especially his pieces of the ‘who dunnit’ aspect of things.
      I think this one in particular on the profile of two patsies is quite compelling.
      So we both seem to be in agreement with the basic thesis of Matt’s post previous to yours.
      \\][//

  14. Lawrence Schnapf says:

    and let’s see, where to hide the dissassembled rifle during the morning where no one would find it since he would be filling orders from various floors in the morning. and then there were the guys laying the new floor on the 6th floor and moving boxes around. where to hide it in an area that wouldnt be disturbed. Oh and it was raining in the morning with all the windows closed until around 11 am. what a great plan!

  15. Jeremy Faust says:

    I do not believe right-handed Lee Oswald shot JFK with the MC found by Deputy Eugene Boone in the TSBD. The weapon had a left-handed shooter’s scope mounted on it. If the weapon was used by a left-handed shooter using such a scope, working the bolt with the left hand (to recycle the weapon after each shot)would present a hindrance to rapid fire IMHO. A right-handed shooter would not have had a left-handed scope mounted on his weapon of choice.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Please tell me how you would have mounted a scope on a 6.5mm Carcano for a right handed shooter.

      • John R says:

        Bob,where can I find out for sure if Oswald was right or left handed? Where can I find out if the scope was off-set to the right or the left? How does this factor into the murder?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          John R

          I was asking Jeremy a rather loaded question. There is no such thing as a scope being set up for a right or left handed person. It’s like the trick of sending the apprentice for a “left handed screwdriver”.

          The scope on the 6.5mm Carcano was mounted on the left side of the receiver, for the simple fact that the bolt handle on this rifle would interfere with a scope mounted in the normal fashion above the receiver. Plus, the Carcano must be loaded with a six shot clip, and, once again, the scope would be in the way if mounted normally.

          No one in their right mind would ever side mount a scope on a rifle unless they absolutely had to. It is uncomfortable to use, and makes it extremely difficult to sight the rifle in. Plus, once the scope and rifle are sighted in, it will only be accurate laterally for the precise distance it is sighted in for.

          This last concept may be confusing, but is actually easy to explain. Let us say the line of sight of the scope is offset from the centre of the barrel by 1.5 inches, and the rifle is sighted in to be accurate at 100 yards. This means the line of sight, through the scope, and the path of the bullet are on converging courses that will cross at 100 yards. At 50 yards, therefore, this rifle will miss its target by .75 inch to the left. At 200 yards, this rifle will miss its target by 1.5 inches to the right. OTOH, a scope mounted directly above the barrel or receiver will place a bullet on the same path as the line of sight through the scope and, while still affected by bullet drop, the rifle will be accurate laterally out to infinity.

          I believe Oswald was right handed, but would want to verify this before I swore to it. The Carcano bolt action rifle is most definitely set up for a right handed person, and is very awkward for a left handed shooter (watch the sniper in “Saving Private Ryan” for an example of this). Left handed bolt action rifles are not very common, but are made by many companies.

          I believe the shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD would have been easier for a left handed shooter, given the configuration of the window and where JFK was but, operation speed of the bolt action Carcano would have suffered with a left handed shooter.

          • John R says:

            Wouldn’t the Marines have taken note of whether he was right or left-handed? I honestly can’t remember if the Navy ever asked me that question.

        • In the Wax Museum in Washington, there was a waxed image of LHO shooting from the sniper’s nest. The image had him as being right-handed.

          • Anonymous Contributor says:

            The Wax Museum in Washington may have Oswald shooting from the sniper’s nest, but the Sixth-Floor Museum’s depiction is more realistic, at least according to Bill Hicks:

            “They have the window set up to look exactly like it did on that day. And it’s really accurate, you know. ‘Cause Oswald’s not in it.”

    • That makes me wonder if Mac “fingerprint on the box” Wallace was a southpaw shooter.

  16. The fact that Marina rejected Lee on November 21 is, in my view, a key event that allowed Lee Oswald’s plan of attempting to assassinate President Kennedy to go forward uninterrupted.

    When Lee went to Ruth Paine’s house in Irving on November 21st, he had, of course, already been thinking about shooting the President with his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. We can know he had thoughts of shooting JFK as early as Thursday morning, November 21 when he made up his lie to Buell Wesley Frazier about the nonexistent “curtain rods”.

    So Marina’s rejection on the night of the 21st was certainly not an overriding motive of Lee’s in his decision to take his gun to work the next day and shoot the President of the United States. Obviously, he must have had a **motive** for wanting to kill the President even before riding to Irving with Wesley Frazier on Thursday afternoon. And the proof of that fact rests in the provable “curtain rods” lie he told Frazier on Thursday morning. So Lee Oswald had a motive for shooting the President even before he saw his wife on November 21, although we will never know for sure what that motive was.

    But Lee Harvey’s assassination plan was not yet finalized in his mind or fixed in stone as late as Thursday night. If Marina had responded differently to Lee’s request to get an apartment in Dallas right away, I think history would have been different on November 22, and John F. Kennedy would very likely have lived to make his speech at the Trade Mart that day.

    http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/01/lee-harvey-oswalds-decision-to-shoot-jfk.html

    • leslie sharp says:

      David von Pein, would you venture a discussion about hunting season in November in Texas? Have you ever been a fly on the wall during discussion of rifles, scopes, ammo and prime locations for the best hunting in the early fall? It is a rite of passage, subtle, nuanced and I might add, powerful on a visceral level. Warren Caster and Roy Truly were engaged in just such a ritual on Wednesday, November 20th in the Texas School Book Depository. Testimony indicates that young Oswald was present. Why was he present? He was a new employee, he was essentially a day laborer while Caster was a junior executive for a major client of the depository business, and Truly was several degrees removed from Oswald as his boss.

      • Leslie, there’s no way that any reasonable person who has examined the evidence can possibly work their way around the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald LIED repeatedly about important issues surrounding the “brown paper package”, his rifle, his revolver, the backyard photographs, etc.

        Tell us, Leslie, WHY does an innocent “patsy” need to lie this much?….

        http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/liar-oswald-part-1.html

        Lee Oswald’s LIES, plus the physical evidence, hang Mr. Oswald. And no amount of “conspiracy spin” can possibly change that fact.

        And that doesn’t even begin to factor in the Walker murder attempt. Oswald was, in essence, a political assassin seven months before Dallas. That’s a very important thing to know….don’t you think?

        • David Regan says:

          DVP, citing your own blog as a source of proof of Oswald’s guilt is hardly convincing.

          Hoover and LBJ knew, the case against Oswald was circumstantial at best, which presented issues for getting a conviction at trial.

          “This man in Dallas. We, of course, charged him with the murder of the President. The evidence that they have at the present time is not very, very strong. … The case as it stands now isn’t strong enough to be able to get a conviction”.
          http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=807

        • leslie sharp says:

          David, I can assume then that you don’t want to discuss hunting season?

          Had Oswald not been arrested on November 22, 1963, do you think the Walker case would still be an open investigation as we speak? How aggressively do you think the DPD pursued it over those 7 months?

        • Paulf says:

          Dvp:

          Why would a politically motivated assassin try to kill a right-wing general and a leftist president? Did his politics change as often as his clothes?

          And you claim Oswald’s motivation to kill Kennedy was because he was sad his wife was divorcing him. Who did he break up with before he decided to shoot Walker? His cat?

          Your own clams are blatantly contradictory, but even worse, lack any factual basis.

          • Read my previous post on this matter, Paul. I specifically said it was my belief that Oswald had a motive BEFORE Marina rejected him three times on Nov. 21. So the MOTIVE was certainly not his triple rejection by Marina on 11/21.

            His motive can never be known. We all know that. Why fight that basic truth? But the fact is (based on several pieces of evidence) that Oswald did take a potshot at Walker.

            And the additional fact (based on tons of evidence) indicates he also killed JFK.

            And Walker and Kennedy were both ANTI-Castro, weren’t they, Paul? That’s a good tie-in right there for Oswald wanting to shoot both men. And it makes perfect sense, given Oswald’s strong pro-Castro stance.

            LHO’s August ’63 radio appearances provide listeners with a good look inside Oswald’s brain in the months leading up to Nov. 22. And if what I’m hearing from Oswald in these two WDSU-Radio interviews is a person only POSING as a politically-charged left-winger who very much admired Fidel Castro, then Lee Harvey Oswald deserved the Academy Award ——> http://Oswald-On-The-Radio.blogspot.com

          • Paulf says:

            David:

            Kennedy and Walker were equally anti-Castro? Seriously? While all this was going on, the anti-Castro people (with whom Oswald was associating), hated Kennedy with a passion. Kennedy was upsetting the right wing because he was trying to make peace with Castro.

            Again, nothing you say has any factual basis, or makes the slightest bit of sense.

        • David Regan says:

          DVP, are you able to provide evidence that Oswald took a shot at Walker other than links from your own blogsite?

  17. David Regan says:

    Interesting to note there were varying accounts of the planned motorcade route that week by the Dallas newspapers.

    On November 16th, the Dallas Times Herald reported that while the route had not yet been determined, “the presidential party apparently will loop through the downtown area, probably on Main Street”
    http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=171443

    On November 19th, the Dallas Morning Star and the Dallas Times-Herald published printed descriptions of the motorcade route that accurately described the turn onto Houston and then Elm St.
    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dmntue.gif
    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dthtue.gif

    On November 20th, the Dallas Morning News carried another description of the route, saying the motorcade “will travel on Mockingbird Lane, Lemmon Avenue, Turtle Creek Boulevard, Cedar Springs, Harwood, Main and Stemmons Freeway,” with mention of the Houston-to-Elm stretch omitted.
    http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=171446

    On November 22nd, the motorcade route appeared on the front page of the Dallas Morning News with a map showing the route as taking Main Street down to Stemmons Freeway, avoiding the cut-over to Elm.
    “Whitewash”, Harold Weisberg p. 23.

    On November 22nd, the Dallas Morning Star published a plan of the route which led on Main Street and showed no turn onto Houston and then Elm Street.
    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dmntot.gif

    So, we have the Dallas Morning News offering motorcade route plans on November 20 and 22, with no mention of the turn through Dealey Plaza. On top of that, the Dallas Morning Star publishes a motorcade route that contradicts what they published on November 19th.

    Traffic Patrolman Joe Marshall Smith initially testified to the Warren Commission that he knew nothing that would have prevented the motorcade from going directly down Main Street and on to the Stemmons Freeway, but then admitted that a big car from Main Street might have difficulty in making the turn onto the Stemmons Freeway because of the concrete barrier between Elm Street and Main Street.
    http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol7/page538.php

    There is no proof Oswald was aware in advance of the motorcade route:

    According to co-worker James Jarman, on the morning of November 22nd, Oswald “asked me what were the people gathering around the corner for, and I told him that the President was supposed to pass that morning, and he asked me did I know which way he was coming, and I told him, yes; he probably come down Main and turn on Houston and then back again on Elm.”
    http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=39&relPageId=209
    http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=144412

    When asked by the Warren Commission if she had seen her husband checking the newspapers for the motorcade route leading up to November 22nd, Marina Oswald said that she hadn’t.
    http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=15085

  18. Boy oh Boy – In response to DVP above I’d have to say Obama beware – every jilted husband is a potential assassin – and could take out his female frustrations on the Prez –

    • Bill Pierce says:

      Indeed, Bill . . . did you know that the rock and roll masterpiece “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction” was a clear warning that sexually frustrated musician Mick Jagger intended to assassinate Prime Minister Harold Wilson? Lucky for Wilson, Mick’s “losing streak” ended just in time. No, seriously.

    • But, Bill, not everybody who fought with their wives had attempted to kill another human being seven months previously. And not every bitter spouse had pro-Castro politics swirling through his brain. And not every man who quarreled with the Mrs. hated America and its “representatives”.

      But it’s better for the CTers if they forever ignore all of those above factors, especially the Walker shooting attempt, lest it make sweet Lee look too much like what he really was—a person who wouldn’t hesitate to aim a rifle at the head of a political figure.

      And we’d *never* want to believe something like that about Lee H. Oswald, would we William?

      • “But it’s better for the CTers if they forever ignore all of those above factors, especially the Walker shooting attempt, lest it make sweet Lee look too much like what he really was—a person who wouldn’t hesitate to aim a rifle at the head of a political figure.”~David Von Pein

        There is no proof that could stand up in a court of law that Oswald took a shot a Walker. In fact there is no proof that anyone took a shot at Walker, only his own story, which could certainly be a fabrication in the on-going setting up of the patsy.

        Why did the license plate get cut out of the photo of the 57 Chevy? Can you prove Oswald actually took that picture?
        \\][//

      • David Regan says:

        DVP, got any witnesses who saw Oswald at Walker’s residence? Or anyone see him bury his rifle nearby and return to collect in within a couple of days? How did he get his rifle there and back, given he didn’t drive?

        Walter Kirk Coleman, who witnessed two men at the scene of the crime, running into two cars and speeding away, gave detailed descriptions of the men and their cars. After the Kennedy assassination, Coleman was shown photographs of Oswald. He denied that Oswald resembled either of the men he had seen. In any case, Oswald could not drive.
        http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=144240
        http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=144000

        The bullet recovered from Walker’s house was too severely deformed to allow a conclusive analysis of its pattern of grooves. A spectrographic examination by Henry Heilberger of the FBI laboratory found that the lead alloy in the bullet was different from that of bullet fragments found in President Kennedy’s car.
        http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=757763
        http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/f/f3/Photo_naraevid_CE573-1.jpg
        http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/a9/Photo_naraevid_CE573-2.jpg

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          David

          I highly recommend you go to this link to learn some interesting facts about the so called Walker bullet.
          https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?13331-How-a-Popular-Misconception-Gave-Away-a-Lie-by-the-FBI
          It is interesting to note that the two members of the DPD investigating the Walker shooting described the mangled bullet as being “steel jacketed”. Of course, the bullet in evidence is jacketed in a copper alloy, with a distinctly copper colour.

        • JH 777 says:

          “DVP, got any witnesses who saw Oswald at Walker’s residence? Or anyone see him bury his rifle nearby and return to collect in within a couple of days? How did he get his rifle there and back, given he didn’t drive?”

          This is the typical response from a person who ignores obvious facts and that is that Lee Oswald attempted to shoot Edwin Walker. You ignore established evidence of his involvemnet in this crime by asking questions which have not got obvious answers while at the same time the evidence CLEARY SHOWS his undoubted involvement in this crime. Why ignore the established evidence. ?
          Why not take a look at the established evidence ?

          • David Regan says:

            I’ve asked you before, JH, but you keep avoiding the issue. If you have convincing evidence of Oswald’s guilt for the Walker attempt, feel free to share it for us all to see and comment.

        • Jean Davison says:

          David,

          Check your second link for witness Coleman, right side of the page:

          http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=144000

          According to Coleman’s own time estimate both men in the church parking lot were too far from the sniper’s location to have been a shooter. Coleman got to the fence quicker than they could’ve gotten to their cars.

          Marina has said that Oswald told her he’d picked a night when something was going on at the church so that the activity would serve as a kind of cover for his getaway. And it *still* provides cover for him, how about that!

          • David Regan says:

            Oh Jean,

            How did Oswald get the MC rifle across Dallas, bury it after the attempt on Walker, and return some days later to retrieve it without anyone seeing him. Perhaps he walked carrying it in a paper bag? I think not.

            Robert Surrey, an associate of General Walker, reported that he had seen two men acting suspiciously outside Walker’s house two days before the shooting. Neither man resembled Oswald
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=17256

            Edwin Walker tried to petition the House Select Committee on Assassinations, “The bullet before your select committee called the Walker bullet is not the Walker bullet. It is not the bullet that was fired at me and taken out of my house by the Dallas City Police on April 10, 1963. The bullet you have was not gotten from me or taken out of my house by anyone at anytime.” In a subsequent letter to the Attorney General he wrote, “I saw the hunk of lead, picked up by a policeman in my house, and I took it from him and I inspected it carefully.”
            http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/f/f3/Photo_naraevid_CE573-1.jpg
            http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/a9/Photo_naraevid_CE573-2.jpg
            http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/f/f3/Photo_naraevid_CE573-1.jpg
            http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/a9/Photo_naraevid_CE573-2.jpg

            What other ‘evidence’ to you have for us?

          • “Marina has said that Oswald told her he’d picked a night when something was going on at the church so that the activity would serve as a kind of cover for his getaway.”~Jean Davison

            Or Marina was coached to say that Oswald told her that by the people handling her at the time. She was being coerced and fearful of deportation – in other words under duress by the subornation of perjury, by what can clearly be called her interrogators and captors.
            \\][//

          • David Regan says:

            One of the Commission’s attorneys, Norman Redlich, wrote in a memo to J. Lee Rankin that “neither you nor I have any desire to smear the reputation of any individual. We cannot ignore, however, that Marina Oswald has repeatedly lied to the [Secret] Service, the FBI, and this Commission on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world” (HSCA Report, appendix vol.11, p.126). How about that!

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=39732

          • Jean Davison says:

            How many conspiracy books have told you that Walter Kirk Coleman witnessed two men at the scene of the crime getting into their cars, implying that this somehow exonerates Oswald? Quite a few, right?

            Now consider this, if you will. How many of these sources have told you about the report saying they were too far away to
            have fired the shot? Any?

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, how did Oswald get across Dallas with the MC and what did he do with it after the alleged incident?

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, can you direct your attention to these questions? Being the prosecution, you should be able to prove these points:

            – Who picked up the MC at the Dallas PO Box?

            – Where did LHO get his ammunition?

            – According to Marina, Oswald took a bus with rifle to Walker’s house. Did the WC produce witnesses who saw him en route or when returning later to retrieve the buried weapon?

            – How do you explain a spectrographic examination by Henry Heilberger of the FBI laboratory finding that the lead alloy in the Walker bullet was different from that of bullet fragments found in President Kennedy’s car?

            – James Cadigan tested wrapping paper from Jaggers-Chiles-Stovell and Riley Coffee Co and were the same as paper at TSBD. However, he was not able to match any of these to Exhibit 142.

          • Jean Davison says:

            David,

            I’ve noticed that whenever I point out that the sources you’re using are misleading you, instead of responding to that you ask another series of questions. You’re not alone, though, because conspiracy theorists have been doing this for years.

            The questions asked of “WC defenders” are usually typical “Dream Team” style questions. (Where did O.J. get his knife? Why didn’t anyone see him on the way to Nicole’s house?)

            Would you and other Oswald defenders here please answer a question or two from me, for a change?

            Do you think it was just a coincidence that Oswald brought a 27-inch paper bag to work cupped in his right palm on the same day a longer paper bag with his right palm print on it was brought out of the TSBD?

            Anybody?

          • David Regan says:

            Well Jean, avoiding direct questions is something yourself and other WC defenders (albeit not many of you) certainly partake in. Between the paper bag episode and the Walker shooting, I’ve posted many links from Mary Ferrell’s site that, contrary to what you claim, are misleading, that pose valid questions and inconsistencies to your case. You also have avoided pointed questions that you have no proof for and are crucial to the case against Oswald.

            You keep making reference to the OJ ‘Dream Team’ scenario, which in reality, has no resemblance to this case whatsoever in terms of an abundance of circumstancial evidence, fabrication of evidence (ie-the ‘gunsack’), conflicting testimony and witness tampering.

            I noticed you never addressed my question to you concerning the mysterious package addressed to Lee Oswald, found in the Irving Post Office on 12/4/63, that just happened to contain a paper bag. Shall we discuss that?

          • David Regan says:

            Jean,

            Regardless of what Marina claimed Lee told her, it is hearsay. And we all know her opinion on his alleged guilt today.

            This FBI ‘reenactment’ on Coleman was just another blatant example of attempting to downplay what the witness observed and manipulation of testimony in this case.

            After hearing a shot, Coleman immediately ran from his first floor bedroom and looked over a stockade fence into the church parking lot that adjoined Walker’s property. He saw two men getting into two cars and leaving the parking lot.

            On 6/3/64, he was able to describe the men he saw and the cars to FBI agents Barrett and Lee. (CE 2958)

            Coleman told the FBI neither man he saw resembled Oswald.
            FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 186
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=60410&relPageId=119
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=60410&relPageId=120

            In order to establish how good a look Coleman got of these two men, the FBI found it necessary to determine how long it took for Coleman to get to the fence. To do so, the agents measured the distance and timed Coleman in a re-enactment. The FBI found that the distance from the door of Coleman’s house to the stockade fence was 14 feet and it took Coleman a grand total of 2 seconds to get there. The FBI needed to shorten Coleman’s response time in order to show that the two men he saw couldn’t have been involved in the shooting.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=60410&relPageId=121

            The FBI measured from the alley entrance to the Walker property to the alley entrance of the church parking lot at 35 feet. It measured the distance of where Coleman said the 1950 Ford was to the alley entrance of the church parking lot at 45 feet. That’s a distance of 80 feet, far too long for someone to have traveled in a time of 2 seconds. Likewise, they measured the distance from the 1958 Chevrolet to the alley entrance of the church parking lot at 21 feet, for a total of 56 feet, again, an impossible distance to travel in 2 seconds.

            On its face, the FBI report would seem to prove that the two men Coleman saw had nothing to do with the shooting, because their positions when he saw them, at 80 feet and 56 feet from the Walker property, could not have been traveled in the two seconds the FBI said it took for Coleman to get to the fence.

          • David Regan says:

            The FBI had Coleman in “a doorway which leads from his bedroom to the outside of the house”.

            In fact, in the original Dallas Police report, Coleman’s account was quite different. In this account, Coleman was “in the back room” (not a doorway). He “ran out back” and saw a man getting into the Ford who had “long black hair” and “took off in a hurry”.
            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0030a.htm

            Coleman’s position at the time he heard the shot is crucial in determining whether or not either or both men in the church parking lot should be considered suspects in the shooting. If Coleman was in the doorway of the house and viewed the men in the lot no later than two seconds after the shot (which is unlikely), they must be discounted as suspects. But if Coleman was in his bedroom and had to run out the back of the house, and it took him 8-10 seconds to get to the fence, it’s very likely that a running man would have traveled 80 feet or less in that time.

            Interesting to note on page 1 of the FBI report, individual #1 was “hurrying toward the driver’s side” of the ’50 Ford and by the third paragraph of the last page the same individual was “walking towards” the same car.

            Unsatisfied with the Dallas Police’s investigation into the shooting, General Walker hired a private investigator and he himself interviewed witnesses. He accused the Commission and FBI of blocking his access to Coleman:

            “…as far as I am concerned, our efforts are practically blocked. I would like to see at least a capability of my counsel being able to talk to these witnesses freely and that you or the FBI give a release on them with respect to being able to discuss it as it involves me.”

            (11 H 416)

            General WALKER. ….. I was told by others that tried to get to him that he has been advised and wasn’t talking, and that he had been advised not to talk.
            Mr. LIEBELER. When was that, General Walker, do you remember?
            General WALKER. Oh, it’s been at least 3 or 4 months ago.
            Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know who told him he wasn’t supposed to talk to anybody?
            General WALKER. No; I don’t. It is my understanding some law enforcement agency in some echelon.

            (11 H 417)

            General WALKER. ……people would like to shut up anybody that knows anything about this case. People right here in Dallas.

            (11 H 419)

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        David
        Speaking of facts, is it not true the investigating officers described the mangled bullet found at the Walker residence as being “steel jacketed”?

  19. alan says:

    A bit of a tangent here but I have never heard anyone comment on the fact Oswald had the Alex Hiddel ID and that he was known as Alex in the USSR. I dont know if that is important but I have never seen anyone comment on it.

  20. Rick G. says:

    I’ll refer back to my earlier post. The impersonations of LHO in Mexico City less than two months before the assassination and Hoover’s concern about someone using LHO’s birth certificate in 1960 render much of this “when did he decide to shoot JFK” moot. He was being manipulated by US intelligence from Atsugi to Dallas. Case Closed. (Insert sarcasm)

  21. Bill says:

    I think that Oswald was the assassin of JFK and that he was part of a larger plot. I think that Oswald and Jack Ruby were involved in the assassination. In fact, I feel that Ruby was his ‘ride’ in many instances. This scenario would also explain how Oswald was able to get from his apartment to Gen. Walker’s home a few month’s earlier (while toting a rifle). Anyway…..Ruby’s story doesn’t make sense for that day…and Oswald’s exit…to take a Bus away just baffles the imagination. It also would explain why Oswald, within 1/2 hour of the shooting was making his way toward Jack Ruby’s front door (of all places)…and it would also explain the unique actions of Officer Tippit. Fwiw…

  22. Kennedy63 says:

    Oswald shot JFK. Oswald shot at General Walker. Oswald was pro-Castro. Oswald hated the United States. Oswald fought with his wife. Oswald lied about his identity and other things. Hoover lied. The DPD lied. Dallas DA Wade lied. Sheriff Decker lied. Chief Curry lied. Fritz lied. Johnson lied. CIA lied. Secret Service lied. Patrolman investigating certain aspects of Oswald’s movements and other witnesses in contact with him and could vouch for Oswald as alibi witnesses altered witness accounts as well as their own. Earl Warren refused Ruby safe passage to Washington, D.C. to tell what he knew. Some of the autopsy material seems tainted and incomplete. I think the weight of the evidence in JFK stacks up against the ESTABLISHMENT as having more to hide, than did Oswald. Oswald didn’t “decide” to kill JFK because he didn’t kill anyone on 11-22-63. The whole sordid “lone assassin myth” is a creation by media propagandists vested with foisting this big lie upon the American public “to satisfy them that Oswald was the ‘real assassin’ and that he has no confederates at large.” (Ass’t US Atty Gen. Katzenbach).

  23. Bob Prudhomme says:

    David Regan
    January 18, 2015 at 11:06 pm
    Check my links above, Bob. FBI HQ was unable to positively match the Walker bullet to Oswald’s rifle or fragments found in the Presidential car. The HSCA Report, Volume XI, pp 296 states makes note of a 30.06 round.

    —————————————————————

    Hi Dave

    Yes, I read the link you posted regarding the steel jacketed .30-06 bullet. I find it maddening, though, that this is all the HSCA provided. You don’t happen to know if they provided any info on how they came by this knowledge, do you? If proven, this and the DPD report ID’ing the bullet as steel jacketed should have been enough to exonerate Oswald of the Walker shooting, and to show the FBI for the liars they were. CE 573, indeed!

    • David Regan says:

      The WC’s two main pieces of evidence were (1) the testimony of Marina Oswald, who told the Commission that LHO had told her he was the shooter and (2) the bullet which allegedly matched up with the rifle found at the TSBD.

      Obviously, Marina’s testimony was all over the place to such an extend that WC lawyers even called her a liar. About the bullet, the Warren Commission wrote (page 562 of their report) that it was severly mutilated and had the “rifling characteristics of the C2766 rifle”. They go on to say that the bullet could have been fired from the C2766 rifle but that FBI expert Frazier could not identify the bullet as having been fired or not fired from that rifle. So, no positive conclusive identification.

      In a letter dated July 21, 1964 (CE 1997) the FBI writes that two private investigators had developed a former Walker employee named William Duff as a suspect for the shooting. In DPD police reports dated April 10, 1963 and October 4, 1963 (CE 2001) the bullet is described as “steel jacket”. According to the HSCA the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle could not have fired the “Walker bullet” (6 HSCA 296) as it fired 6.5 mm ammunition, copper jacket, while the Walker bullet was a steel jacket 30.06.

      Add to this that General Walker and his lawyer in 1979 wrote to the FBI and HSCA that the bullet they called “the Walker bullet” was a substitute for the real bullet recovered at his home after the shooting.

      So, where is the evidence that LHO did indeed shoot at the Walker home and used the rifle found at the TSBD?

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Hi David

        Here is a link to some lengthy work I have done regarding the evidence FBI SA Robert A. Frazier gave to the Warren Commission regarding CE 573, the supposed Walker Bullet in evidence.

        https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?13331-How-a-Popular-Misconception-Gave-Away-a-Lie-by-the-FBI#.VMJqRkfF9e8

        I think you’ll find this material quite interesting. As far as I know, no one else has spotted these rather outrageous mistakes on the part of the FBI.

        • Bob Prudhomme,
          I find your work on the bullets more than merely interesting, I find it utterly compelling. Thank you for all of your hard work on this issue.

          Now that we have eliminated the Carcano, the ballistics is wide open to the modern analysis I have been speaking to as per CSI Fiester.
          \\][//

        • And, incredibly!, ALL other firearms experts made the exact same “mistake” Frazier did regarding the Carcano ammunition. Right, Bob?

          As Oswald would say — That’s ridiculous.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            David

            What other firearms experts testified to the Warren Commission about the assassination rifle?

      • Jean Davison says:

        David,

        “Add to this that General Walker and his lawyer in 1979 wrote to the FBI and HSCA that the bullet they called ‘the Walker bullet’ was a substitute for the real bullet recovered at his home after the shooting.”

        Once again your sources have yanked something out of context. Walker’s letter says, “The bullet used and pictured on the TV, by the US Senate G. Robert Blakey Committee on Assassinations is a ridiculous substitute for a bullet completely mutilated by such obstruction baring [sic] no resemblance to an unfired bullet in shape or form.”

        In other words, Walker mistakenly thought the HSCA had substituted a bullet that looked “unfired” for the mangled original.

        You can find this by searching (Control + F) for “unfired” in this PDF:

        http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Walker%20Shooting/Item%2005.pdf

        I want you to know that I’m not attacking you or anyone else here, David, I’m attacking the secondary JFK sources that have fed tons of this kind of tripe to the public for years.

        • David Regan says:

          Jean,

          I appreciate what you’re saying and by no means do I take anything posted on this site personally. I think healthy debate is good!

          But now in terms of the Walker letter to the HSCA. There are still many problems with the WC case against Oswald as the shooter:

          – the Walker bullet 30.06 ‘steel jacket’ and could not be matched or have been fired by C2766
          http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=39400

          – Robert Surrey, reported seeing two men acting suspiciously outside Walker’s house two days before the shooting. Neither man resembled Oswald.
          http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=17256

          – the testimony and reenactment of Coleman is in discussion on another thread

          – Marina Oswald’s claim that Lee took a bus to Walker’s house with C2766, buried it after fleeing the scene and returned days later to retrieve the rifle. (highly unlikely and could not proven; no witnesses to these actions)

          – the ‘Walker note’ made no mention of the Walker attempt and contained seven sets of fingerprints, none of which belonged to Lee or Marina http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=759909

          – Ruth Paine’s home had been searched thoroughly on 11/22/63 and the day after, yet no mention of the note is made in the FBI inventory of items http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=694195

        • Pat Speer says:

          There is no “in other words” Jean. Walker insisted that it wasn’t the same bullet. Period. You can claim he was mistaken, and may very well be right, But that doesn’t change the historical fact that Walker believed the bullet claimed as the Walker bullet was not the bullet recovered from his home.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Pat, certainly it’s historical fact that Walker said that the bullet he saw on TV was not the original bullet. I don’t dispute that, and there’s no “in other words” about that. I’m disputing whether he was right.

            If he’d gone to the Archives, examined the bullet there and made the same statement it would carry more weight, but he’s referring to a bullet he saw on TV that he thought was the “Walker bullet.” Does his description sound like the Walker bullet to you? “…a ridiculous substitute for a bullet completely mangled….bearing no resemblance to any unfired bullet in shape or form.”

            https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/a9/Photo_naraevid_CE573-2.jpg

        • Jean, there are several letters from Walker, and one from his attorney, and finally one Robert L. Keuch, Special Counsel to the Attorney General, to Director of Federal Bureau of Investigation – DATE:JUN 21 1973:
          “I would appreciate any information which
          can be provided that would enable me to prov*
          a response to General Walker’s counsel.”
          . . . . . . . . . .The earlier letters from Walker:
          “The bullet used and pictured on the TV, byA116 US Senate
          Robert Blakey Committee on Assassinations is a ridiculous substitute
          -for a bullet completely mutilated by such obstruction”–February 12, 1979

          “I have received no repy to my letter of Feb.12, 1979,
          with one enclosure , the mailogram to G. Robert Blakey heading
          the Select Committe on Assassinations. House of Representatives .”– Apri1,24, 1979
          . . . . . . .
          Now Jean, what we have here is that the question has not been resolved. The last communication from Keuch to the FBI on the matter is all there is here. What’s missing is the resolution. Do you know what that resolution was? As it stands, Walkers allegations of the bullet said to be on record cannot be the bullet fired at him.
          So it still remains for you to explain how you think this adds to your argument.
          \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            “The last communication from Keuch to the FBI on the matter is all there is here. What’s missing is the resolution. Do you know what that resolution was?”

            To my surprise, I found the FBI’s reply just by searching for “Keuch AND Walker” here (3 pages):

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10040&relPageId=9

          • “To my surprise, I found the FBI’s reply just by searching for “Keuch AND Walker” here (3 pages):”
            ~Jean Davison

            But Jean, this doesn’t clear up anything at all!
            It merely reiterates the FBI story we already know.
            This ends up a circular argument from the authorities. They are obviously simply refusing to withdraw that bullet from the record regardless of Walker’s denial that it is the bullet he saw.
            \\][//

        • Addendum to my last post to Jean;
          You say, “In other words, Walker mistakenly thought the HSCA had substituted a bullet that looked “unfired” for the mangled original.”

          My question is where is the document explaining that, “Walker mistakenly thought the HSCA had substituted a bullet..”? I see no such response in the documents you have thus far offered.
          \\][//

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Jean

          I don’t know if you read Walkers letter a bit too hastily or not, but the rest of the letter, following the sentence you quoted, shows that Walker did not believe the bullet he saw was unmutilated. In fact, the truth is quite the opposite of what you say.

          “The Dallas City Police Department will verify that the bullet
          fired at Walker, 9 pm, April 10, 1963, passed through the center wood
          cross strip of the outer screen, through the wood frames of both panes
          of the window—upper and lower, to include the copper weather strip
          between and through an inside masonry wall reinforced with solid tin
          and metal lathing, vintage 1926, to fall spent below the exit hole •
          in the mortar blown from the wall.’
          The bullet used and pictured on the TV, byA116 US Senate G.
          Robert Blakey Committee on Assassinations is a ridiculous substitute
          -for a bullet completely mutilated by such obstruction, baring no
          resemblance to any unfired bullet in shape or form. I
          saw the hunk of lead, picked up by a ‘policeman in my house,
          and I took it from him and I inspected it carefully. There is no
          mistake. There has been a substitution for the bullet fired by
          Oswald and taken out of my house.’
          Lt is requested that you withdraw the substituted bullet from
          all records and files pertaining to the assassination of John F.’
          Kennedy and the attempted assassination of Walker, and that you
          assure the security of the withdrawn bullet for future comparisons.
          I desire to be informed of’your actions.”

          General Edwin Walker, a veteran of combat, described the bullet found in his home as “a hunk of lead”. Is this how someone would describe an unfired bullet?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Jean

            I just read both of our posts again, and I see there is still some confusion.

            Here is the part of Walker’s letter you quoted:

            “The bullet used and pictured on the TV, by the US Senate G. Robert Blakey Committee on Assassinations is a ridiculous substitute for a bullet completely mutilated by such obstruction baring [sic] no resemblance to an unfired bullet in shape or form.”

            How do you equate this to Gen. Walker believing he saw G. Robert Blakey displaying an unmutilated bullet on TV? All Walker is saying is that the bullet Walker saw in his home was so badly mutilated, it bore no resemblance at all to an unfired bullet, while CE 573, the Walker bullet held in evidence by the Warren Commission, is still quite recognizable as a bullet.

            Besides, didn’t the Dallas Police, in two separate reports, describe the Walker bullet as steel jacketed? CE 573 is most definitely jacketed in a copper alloy.

          • David Regan says:

            Oswald did not shoot at Walker, period. The Walker bullet was a 30.06 steel jacket, nor could it be matched to C2766.

            When asked by the Warren Commission about an interview given to a German journalist on the morning of Nov 23rd, Edwin Walker said “I had no way of knowing that Oswald attacked me. I still don’t. And I am not very prone to say in fact he did. In fact, I have always claimed he did not”
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=20436

          • Jean Davison says:

            David,

            “According to the HSCA the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle could not have fired the ‘Walker bullet’ (6 HSCA 296) as it fired 6.5 mm ammunition, copper jacket, while the Walker bullet was a steel jacket 30.06.”

            That’s not “according to the HSCA,” it’s according to conspiracy theorist Robert Groden:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=958

            The HSCA actually found that the bullet
            “had characteristics similar to” M-C bullets and that a neutron activation analysis “confirmed that it was probably a M-C bullet.”

            Bottom of this page:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=800&relPageId=90

          • Jean Davison,

            This is the the full sentence from that HSCA page:
            “In addition, neutron activation analysis of this fragment confirmed that it was PROBABLY a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet” (136)

            The terms “confirmed” and “probable” in a sentence is simply saying “yes” and “maybe” at the same time. Obviously weasel wording there.
            Further where is the detail of what this analysis discovered about the materials of this could be-maybe Carcano bullet?

            “Maybe yes,, maybe no, but certainly maybe.”
            What do you draw from my metaphor here?
            \\][//

          • Jean , here is the detail unmentioned in your HSCA source page:

            Spectrographic evidence that CE 573 was not the same ammunition fired at JFK

            The following FBI memo discusses a March 1964 meeting between Melvin Eisenberg of the Warren Commission staff and FBI spectrographic experts Henry Heiberger and John Gallagher. One of the topics of their discussion was the results of the FBI’s spectrographic tests comparing the Walker bullet and the bullet fragments found in the President’s limousine.

            Heiberger was the one who conducted the tests.
            His conclusion was that “the lead alloy of the bullet recovered from the attempted shooting of General Walker was different from the lead alloy of a large bullet fragment recovered from the car in which President Kennedy was shot.”

            http://www.giljesus.com/Walker/bullet.htm
            \\][//

          • David Regan says:

            Jean,

            Groden’s assertion is supported by police reports citing a 30.06 steel jacket bullet.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=768957
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=333529

            I am not a litigator, but I don’t believe “probably a MC bullet” would cut if for the prosecution in a court of law.

            Especially, given the bullet recovered from Walker’s house was too severely deformed to allow a conclusive analysis of its pattern of grooves. A spectrographic examination by Henry Heilberger of the FBI found that the lead alloy in the bullet was different from that of bullet fragments found in President Kennedy’s car
            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58228&relPageId=56

            Spectrographic evidence that CE 573 was not the same ammunition fired at JFK.

            CE 2001, page 39
            “There were not sufficient markings to reach a positive conclusion although similarities were present”.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1140&relPageId=57

          • David Regan says:

            The WC was aware that many of Marina Oswald’s statements were contradictory and unreliable. One of the Commission’s attorneys, Norman Redlich, wrote in a memo to J. Lee Rankin that “neither you nor I have any desire to smear the reputation of any individual. We cannot ignore, however, that Marina Oswald has repeatedly lied to the Secret Service, the FBI, and this Commission on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world”
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=39732

            Redlich expanded on this when testifying before the HSCA: “She may not have told the truth in connection with the attempted killing of General Walker. … I gave to Mr Rankin a lengthy document. … I indicated the testimony that she had given, the instances where it was in conflict”
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=39733

            The Commission’s conclusion that Oswald had fired at Walker was based on:

            1. an undated note which made no mention of the Walker attempt

            2. photographs of Walker’s home allegedly found among Oswald’s possessions

            3. the testimony of ballistic experts who could not identify the recovered bullet as having come from the Depository rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons

            4. the testimony of Marina Oswald who admitted that she repeatedly lied to the FBI.

      • Jean Davison says:

        David, (Jan. 22)

        The WR listed four pieces of evidence, not two:

        http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946&relPageId=207

        How would you guys explain the photographs of Walker’s house found among his possessions that were taken with Oswald’s camera from the alley where the sniper stood? Because of construction going on in the background they could be dated to early March, a few days before Oswald ordered his rifle. Another photo showed railroad tracks near Walker’s house, where Marina said he’d told her he’d buried the rifle.

        Someone please explain these photos.

        • David Regan says:

          Jean, my Jan 24 post above makes note of the four, non-conclusive points for the WC case in the Walker shooting.

          Photos and notes can be easily planted, whereas as ballistics that don’t match and witness tetimony not so much. Two of the four detectives searching Paine’s house did not recall seeing the photos.

          Marina claimed Lee buried his rifle near the scene, but also claimed he took public transit to Walker’s house. Are we expected to believe this with no witnesses? The WC certainly saw through Marina’s deceptions in her testimony (see above post)

          As for the photos. On 11/22 the Dallas police confiscated what they said was a Minox camera and later sent to the FBI. The FBI claimed what they received was a Minox light meter. Documents indicate the DPD found a camera. The FBI claims there was no camera in the complete inventory of items that the DPD gave them, but there was a Minox light meter, so do we assume the Dallas police mistook the light meter for a camera? Michael Paine later revealed that he owned, and remained in possession of, a Minox camera.

          • Jean Davison says:

            David,

            “Photos are easily planted” doesn’t begin to explain it. They were taken with Oswald’s camera before the shooting. One of them was taken from the sniper’s position showing the back of Walker’s house.

            So how was that done? Somebody took photos with Oswald’s camera to frame him for a crime that hadn’t happened yet?

          • “So how was that done? Somebody took photos with Oswald’s camera to frame him for a crime that hadn’t happened yet?”~Jean Davison

            Certainly Jean, that is the way a plot to frame a patsy works! Everything to establish the guilt of the pawn in the game is created beforehand. Why do you think this is remarkable in any way?
            Why would you presume that these people would just play it by ear? Conspiracies don’t work that way, that is why they are called conspiracy – breathing together, planning together. These are the facts to the ways that conspiracies actually come together. This is not “theory”. The theory involves sorting through such details as to what would have been needed as “evidence” beforehand.
            And this modus operandi is quite apparent in the sequence of events in this case.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            So you think that in March 1963 plotters knew they’d have an opportunity to frame Oswald for Kennedy’s murder in Dallas in November? Did they already know the parade route and where Oswald would be working?

          • “Did they already know the parade route and where Oswald would be working?”~Jean

            The Payne’s helped get Oswald the job at the Book Depository. That is one of the first points to cause suspicion of these people who are certainly well connected with the military and intelligence communities.
            Dallas in a pretty obvious selection for Kennedy’s campaign for second term. The Trade Mart is another obvious place for a speech in Dallas. And the route to the Trade Mart from Love Field is another natural in this sequence. As this is a conspiracy reaching the very top of the military industrial complex, manipulating Kennedy into the crossfire zone of Dealey Plaza is in no way implausible.
            Manipulating the patsy into position is a piece of cake in comparison.
            \\][//

  24. David Regan says:

    Whatever Happened To Marina Oswald? http://bit.ly/1CZAPzo via @keranews

    • Marina does not believe Lee assassinated Kennedy. Brokaw is obviously badgering her in this interview and blowing hot air about Posner’s propaganda in her face.

      You also see her eyes flash when he mentions her taking those pictures of Oswald with the rifle in the backyard. She obviously was going to dispute that and Brokaw noticed this and rolled past that distracting her from saying anything further on that point.
      When he says “you took a picture of him with that rifle” is the first time she says “no, no”…
      \\][//

      • David Regan says:

        Marina has long ago recanted on statements she initially made back in 1963 and has tried to clear his name ever since.

        • David Regan says:

          On the 25th anniversary of President Kennedy’s death, she appeared on TV and changed her original story, insisting there had never been any solid evidence to convict her husband of the crime.

          • Jean Davison says:

            So far as I know, Marina has changed her opinion but has never retracted any part of her testimony.

            After reading and talking to conspiracy authors she now believes that her husband didn’t do it. That’s her right. But the last I heard she still says that Oswald shot at Walker, that she took the backyard photos, and so on. Do you believe Marina when she continues to say that even though she now believes he’s innocent?

            I suspect that the answer is “no” and that Oswald defenders here will now rationalize some reason why she’d lie about her innocent husband. So go ahead…

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, no doubt it must be disconcerting for WC defenders to see Marina, Washington insiders and the public not buying the lone assassin theory.

            From what I have seen, you haven’t posted anything conclusive to prove his guilt on on the Walker shooting.

            Marina claimed in a 1990 Hard Copy interview that Lee “adored Kennedy” and felt great sadness at the death of baby Patrick in August 1963.

            Robert Oswald told the WC that he overheard the FBI threaten to deport Marina Oswald if she did not cooperate with them. “They were implying that if she did not cooperate with the FBI agent there, that this would perhaps–I say, again, I am implying–in so many words, that they would perhaps deport her from the United States and back to Russia.”
            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh1/html/WC_Vol1_0211b.htm

            It appears Marina was doubting her husband’s guilt in the days following the assassination.

            According to an FBI interview report from 11/27/63, Marina repeatedly stated that she did not want to be questioned. She was advised that if she wanted to stay in the country she should cooperate with the government and told that if she did they might also provide her assistance in finding a place to live and in supporting her two children.

            She also expressed doubt her husband killed the President saying “No, I feel he did not do it because he never spoke against President Kennedy at any time”.
            http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1780.pdf

          • David Regan says:

            November Days 1963 – Marina Oswald Porter on Oprah 1996. http://novemberdays1963.tumblr.com/post/37177099041/marina-oswald-porter-on-oprah-1996

          • Jean Davison says:

            David,

            Again, you’re moving on to another issue instead of sticking to this point. Marina didn’t “change her original story,” she changed her *opinion*. And that doesn’t bother me at all. Opinion is not evidence, no matter whose opinion it is.

            As I recall, Marina also said in the 1990 Hard Copy interview that her husband shot at Walker. Do you think she’s lying?

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, did you interview Marina when researching for your book? Perhaps someone should ask her now about the Walker shooting.

          • “So far as I know, Marina has changed her opinion but has never retracted any part of her testimony.”~Jean Davison

            Explain to us Jean, how does one “retract testimony” in your view? Are you expecting such retractions to be presented to the Bar? Would Marina have to file suit in someway?

            It seems odd that you would insist on such official measures in this instance, as you and your comrades feel fully justified in pronouncing the accused guilty by simple literary and other media means.
            \\][//

        • leslie sharp says:

          Jean, want to discuss Marina’s whereabouts during the first 48 hours of the assassination? Under whose authority was she being moved around by private interests and private citizens?

        • David Regan says:

          Oswald had a real habit of keeping incriminating evidence. Walker “stalking” photos, a Walker related note to Marina, back yard photos with weapons. IMO, it is all a little too convenient that Oswald kept building an evidence trail against himself – yet was pretty sophisticated in using PO boxes, aliases, fake ID etc.

          • Photon says:

            He wasn’t too bright.
            He was dumb enough to carry a picture ID with the same name he used to purchase the Carcano-the same first name he used in Minsk.
            He couldn’t hold a job.
            He couldn’t support his family.
            He had no marketable skills.
            He seems have been incapable of planning ahead beyond a few days.
            He was a failure at everything he did
            The simplest explanation for Oswald building an evidence trail against himself is that he actually committed the deed
            How sophisticated could he have been if he got arrested less than 2 hours after the assassination- for a crime thought by the arresting officers to be totally unrelated to the assassination?
            Maybe he wanted to get caught.

          • David Regan says:

            He wanted to get caught without being recognized for his evil deeds?

            Keep regurgitating that myth, Photon. For Oswald to have been not “too bright”, he certainly was adept enough to have gotten away with so much without being detected (ie – the Walker attempt, making the ‘gunsack’, firing from the SN and fleeing, creating false ID, acquiring the MC rifle and ammunition, and cover the 9/10 of a mile from his boarding house to Tenth & Patton).

            Your description of Oswald is the proganda spewed by WC defenders for over 50 years and the public isn’t buying.

          • Photon says:

            How intellectually challenging is it to make a sack out of wrapping paper?
            Creating a false ID? Did you ever attend a high school in the U.S. during the 1970’s when the drinking age dropped to 18?
            Acquiring the M-C and ammunition? Do you have difficulty completing mail order forms or sending a letter? When I was a kid we were sending mail orders and box tops almost every month for free gifts-even in the second grade. Buying a box of ammo in 1963 was easier than buying a carton of cigarettes .
            The fact is that Oswald got caught in less than 2 hours-and had to tell his wife to destroy incriminating evidence, evidence that tied him to the murder weapon.Not too swift.
            Did he want to get caught? Who knows? I threw that out because.it is a plausible explanation for his actions and apprehension . Personally I think that he got caught so rapidly because he never thought that he would need a getaway, because he either thought #1-he would have been unsuccessful or #2 he would not survive an assassination attempt.
            His actions after the assassination were simply dumb from any perspective.

          • leslie sharp says:

            photon:
            “He couldn’t hold a job.
            He couldn’t support his family.
            He had no marketable skills.
            He seems have been incapable of planning ahead beyond a few days.
            He was a failure at everything he did”

            He was between the ages of 22 and 24 years old! You cannot rationally assign those attributes as proof Oswald was an assassin; millions his age shared them.

            ‘ . . . for a crime thought by the arresting officers to be totally unrelated to the assassination?’

            Provide convincing evidence the army of law enforcement that arrived en masse at the Texas Theatre was there solely to pursue a “suspect” in the murder of an officer? At that point he was nothing other than a young guy who had been acting suspiciously (allegedly) in front of a show store. You want to have it both ways; you argue the DPD was NOT pursuing the assassin, but they were pursuing a suspicious acting person near the vicinity of the report of “officer down” … in the midst of a huge manhunt for the assassin of the president of the United States. The number of law enforcement arriving at the Texas Theatre insists they were in pursuit of both.

            ‘Maybe he wanted to get caught.’

            So that he could announce to the whole world his political loyalties and vehemently denounce President Kennedy?

          • leslie sharp says:

            photon:
            P.S. can you define where else the DPD were being dispatched in pursuit of Kennedy’s assassin?

          • leslie sharp says:

            photon:
            “He couldn’t hold a job.
            He couldn’t support his family.
            He had no marketable skills.
            He seems have been incapable of planning ahead beyond a few days.
            He was a failure at everything he did”

            He was between the ages of 22 and 24 years old! You cannot rationally assign those attributes as proof Oswald was an assassin; millions his age shared them.

            ‘ . . . for a crime thought by the arresting officers to be totally unrelated to the assassination?’

            Provide convincing evidence the army of law enforcement that arrived en masse at the Texas Theatre was there solely to pursue a “suspect” in the murder of an officer? At that point he was nothing other than a young guy who had been acting suspiciously (allegedly) in front of a show store. You want to have it both ways; you argue the DPD was NOT pursuing the assassin, but they were pursuing a suspicious acting person near the vicinity of the report of “officer down” … in the midst of a huge manhunt for the assassin of the president of the United States. The number of law enforcement arriving at the Texas Theatre insists they were in pursuit of both.

            ‘Maybe he wanted to get caught.’

            So that he could announce to the whole world his political loyalties and vehemently denounce President Kennedy?

          • David Regan says:

            Photon, like the “shoddy piece of craftsmanship” that is the WCR, you are simply making airy speculation about Oswald’s movements and psychological profile that does not jive with evidence and witness testimony.

            Do you have proof he ever made the ‘gunsack’? No witnesses to corroborate that charge.

            Do you have proof he sent the money order for the rifle at a time when his presence at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall is confirmed?

            Where is the proof it was him who picked up the rifle at the Post Office Box or ever had bought ammunition or kept any stored?

            The WC was not able to produce any evidence to prove these key points.

          • ~How intellectually challenging is it to make a sack out of wrapping paper?”~Photon

            Apparently not very intellectually challenging at all! Even a couple of cops seem to have pulled it off.
            \\][//

          • John R says:

            Insulting a dead guy. Classy move, Photon.

      • Jean Davison says:

        Willy,

        “When [Brokaw] says “you took a picture of him with that rifle” is the first time she says “no, no”…”

        Watch it again. She’s talking about the ballistics tests that Brokaw also mentioned. She says, “No, you have been misinformed The ballistics tests did not prove anything at all.” (Of course that’s not true, she herself has been misinformed.)

        http://keranews.org/post/whatever-happened-marina-oswald

        Earlier in the interview she insisted that Oswald didn’t fire the shots “according to all the evidence I’ve read now.” IOW, she’s saying she believes that because of what she’s read, not through her own knowledge.

        “Retract” simply means to disavow, and so far as I know she has never disavowed or withdrawn any of the facts she testified to — the Walker attack, the rifle missing from the garage, taking the BY photos, etc. To my knowledge she’s also never claimed that anyone told her what to say or told her to lie. I think the fact that her story hasn’t changed is even more significant now that she’s so adamant that he was innocent.

        • David Regan says:

          Any statements Marina made about Lee to authorities in 1963/64, would never have been admitted at trial, had he lived.

          Under Texas law, “The husband and wife may, in all criminal actions, be witnesses for each other; but they shall in no case testify against each other except in a criminal prosecution for
          an offense committed by one against the other.”

          • Jean Davison says:

            This is not a trial, David. Conspiracy theorists like to act as though it is so they never have to explain how Oswald could possibly be innocent considering the circumstantial and physical evidence against him.

            Like, explain the bag with his palm print, his actions that day, the Walker photos taken with his camera, etc., etc. (“We don’t have to explain that, yada yada…”)

          • I say there Jean, quite an extraordinary charge!

            Our side of the isle has indeed brought up reams of evidence. that explain these issues. You may not like the explanations. That is your prerogative, but ignoring blatant indications of altering and manufacturing evidence in the hands of the authorities is not as “subjective” as you would like to pretend.

            Just the matter of the ordering of the rifle is clearly indicative of malfeasance, as all of the original documents simply disappeared while in custody of the FBI.

            The likelihood of the wallet with the Hidell ID being a plant is very strong.

            If you wish to dispense with theorizing on our side, then just stick to the facts on your side as well. It is my position that neither side can have much of a dialog without such conjecture of what the facts mean however.
            \\][//

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, of course this is a trial of public opinion. Lee Oswald was denied his day in court and his legal right to defend himself by the perpetrators of this act.

            Defenders of the WC have refused to discuss this case from a legal standpoint, for if they were to do so, it would show how weak and circumstantial the evidence against Oswald was, not to mention failure of following standard police procedures by members of the DPD, whether being for a sinister purpose or out of sheer ineptitude.

            However, with the declassification of documents in recent years, it is obvious the WC’s intent was not to examine the true facts, but to quell suspicions of conspiracy while “convincing the public Oswald was the real assassin”.

            Of course you want to keep this case from discussions in a legal forum, for it is most likely that Oswald would never have been convicted for reasons I am happy to discuss further.

          • Photon says:

            Exactly what proof do you have of any example of the authorities at any time ” altering or manufacturing evidence”?
            I could take some of these allegations more seriously if occasionally a fact confirming the position advocated could be produced. For instance, ” the likelihood of the wallet with the Hidell ID being a plant is very strong” Actually the likelihood is nonexistent -as is any evidence that it was a plant. Show us the real evidence instead of coming to a conclusion and then struggling to find anything to support a conclusion based not on facts but unsubstantiated opinion.

          • David Regan says:

            Photon – “Exactly what proof do you have of any example of the authorities at any time ” altering or manufacturing evidence”?

            Fact 1
            The Warren Commission made no mention of the existence of audio tapes in which a man identifying himself as Lee Oswald, but who was not Oswald, called the Soviet embassy in Mexico City in September of 1963 despite the fact that two staff members, William T. Coleman Jr. and W. David Slawson, had gone to Mexico City and listened to the recordings.
            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/cia_testimony/Goodpasture/html/Goodpasture_0148a.htm
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=83&relPageId=495
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=807&relPageId=2

            Fact 2
            Despite the Warren Commission’s declaration to thoroughly investigate rumors that Oswald was a paid FBI agent, none of the reporters that had published such stories, Lonnie Hudkins, Joe Goulden, Harold Feldman, were called as witnesses. Neither was Waggoner Carr, the Texas Attorney General that had bought the rumors to the Commission’s attention or Dallas Assistant District Attorney William Alexander who strongly advocated their validity.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1&relPageId=382
            http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix5.html

            Fact 3
            A memorandum from Albert Jenner to Warren Commission Counsel J. Lee Rankin on April 10th 1964 discussed a need to sanitize conflicting information about Lee Oswald by saying that “there are details … which will require material alteration and, in some instances, omission”
            http://harveyandlee.net/Ely.htm

            Fact 4
            J. C. Price told Mark Lane that he thought the shots had come from behind the fence and that he saw a man running away from there. The Dallas Police recorded that after the shots Price saw a man running towards the cars on the railroad siding but the FBI simply documented that Price “saw nothing pertinent”
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2mqluF_IwM
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=141260
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=328826

            Fact 5
            The report by James Sibert and Francis O’Neill, the two FBI agents who attended President Kennedy’s autopsy, contained several observations that contradicted the single–bullet theory. It was ignored by the Warren Commission and was kept out of the Hearings and Exhibits. The two FBI agents were not called as witnesses.
            http://22november1963.org.uk/warren-commission-jfk-assassination
            http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix5.html

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            “I say there Jean, quite an extraordinary charge!
            Our side of the isle has indeed brought up reams of evidence. that explain these issues…”

            No, your side has brought up reams of complaints about the WC case. You’ve never explained the evidence from a conspiracy point-of-view. After all these years, the WC narrative explaining what happened is the only one that exists.

          • “After all these years, the WC narrative explaining what happened is the only one that exists.”~Jean Davison

            Utter nonsense. It is in the nature of authority to present a unified consensus as an unqualified certainty.

            It is equally in the nature of open source intelligence by individual researchers to see a case from a variety of angles.

            You are arguing to the weakness of the authoritarian state as though it is a strength; that of forced synthetic consensus.

            We KNOW that the Warren Commission had a stated biased agenda to, “substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin”.

            Norman Redlich’s memo proves it is futile to try to hammer square pegs into round holes, as telltale splinters are left at the crime scene.
            \\][//

        • Jean, I am reposting this comment from another thread by Mariano – February 1, 2015 at 2:24 pm, which addresses in more detail the issues surrounding Oswald supposedly ordering the rifle:

          “In respect of the evidence submitted by the FBI to the WC re the purchase of the M-C rifle, there are many aspects of this evidence which prompt more questions.

          Despite having acquired original records from Crescent Firearms (the firearms importer), Fred Rupp (the gun conditioner), Lifschutz Freight (the transporter), and Kleins (retail merchant) of C2766, no original records were submitted to the WC, only photos of some of this evidence.

          The records provided by Crescent Firearms, and the micro film and bank records provided by Kleins disappeared in FBI hands. This is puzzling.

          Also, the alleged money order submitted by the FBI had a date stamp that is chronologically dubious. In addition to this, the money order has a serial number that came out later than the time LHO is alleged to have sent it. Further to that, the money order does not contain any evidence of having been endorsed as deposited into a bank, it has no bank stamp, and it has never been dated by a financial institution.

          Also, why is there no record of LHO having completed a 2162 postal form , which would have enabled him to collect the firearm?

          Further to that, the FBI could easily have proved if LHO had placed the money order by requesting a check by the First National Bank of Chicago for any such deposit. No such request for verification was made, even though the Vice President of the bank was interviewed 21.11.1963 by the FBI.

          The further you look into the FBI investigation of this evidence, the more anomalies you will find.

          It is very clear that the FBI was carrying out a cover up and fabrication exercise to implicate LHO as the alleged orderer, and owner of the alleged rifle.

          Where is the original proof of transaction and chronologies, of the said firearm, and the original records that prove identity of the alleged purchaser and collector of the firearm?
          This evidence is absent from the FBI submission of evidence, and as such absent from the WC record.”
          (\\][//)

          • David Regan says:

            There is no documented evidence or eyewitness account proving that anyone ever took possession in March of 1963 of a rifle that had been received at Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas.

            Postal form 6001, an Application for Domestic Money Order, has never been produced for the $21.45 money order used to purchase the rifle.
            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0188a.htm

            Warren Commission Exhibit No. 773, an enlargement of a microfilm reproduction of an order form for a rifle superimposed on an envelope mailed by Lee Harvey Oswald to Klein’s Sporting Goods in Chicago, had a postmarked time of 10:30 AM on March 12th 1963. The money order was stamped that it had also been purchased on March 12th meaning that Oswald had to have bought the money order, filled it out and mailed it between the time the Post Office opened at 8:00 and 10:30 AM. However, Oswald’s detailed work timesheet from Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall for that day shows him accounted for throughout that time.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            The rifle order records have been discussed in another thread already.

            Conspiracy theorists love anomalies but don’t seem to notice that they don’t add up to a rational story. The subtext of the rifle order “anomalies” is that the all-powerful, ever-present plotters were nevertheless so stupid they couldn’t even forge records right.

            “Also, why is there no record of LHO having completed a 2162 postal form, which would have enabled him to collect the firearm?”

            Question to all: How do you know Oswald was supposed to complete a 2162 postal form? Evidence for that is what?

          • “Conspiracy theorists love anomalies but don’t seem to notice that they don’t add up to a rational story. The subtext of the rifle order “anomalies” is that the all-powerful, ever-present plotters were nevertheless so stupid they couldn’t even forge records right.”~Jean Davison

            No one has ever charge that the plotters had the omnipotence of a Manichean Devil.
            You seem to admit that they made a blatantly obvious move by “loosing” the original documents on the crucial aspect of the ownership of the supposed murder weapon. But want to dissemble and distract with this rhetorical slipcraft: The very thing the Warren cultists accuse their opponents of with the constancy of a dripping faucet at 3 in the morning.
            \\][//

  25. David Regan says:

    Lee Harvey Oswald’s Carcano Rifle – Shooting It Today http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/lee-harvey-oswalds-carcano-rifle-shooting-it-today/ #gunsamerica

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      I read that article, David. Definite piece of disinfo. The Prvi Partizan bullets are undersized, too short and are a semi-spitzer round nose. These bullets are garbage, and there is no way the Carcano will shoot as well as this article claims with these bullets.

  26. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Jean Davison
    January 24, 2015 at 3:41 pm
    David,

    “According to the HSCA the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle could not have fired the ‘Walker bullet’ (6 HSCA 296) as it fired 6.5 mm ammunition, copper jacket, while the Walker bullet was a steel jacket 30.06.”

    That’s not “according to the HSCA,” it’s according to conspiracy theorist Robert Groden:

    http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=958

    The HSCA actually found that the bullet
    “had characteristics similar to” M-C bullets and that a neutron activation analysis “confirmed that it was probably a M-C bullet.”

    Bottom of this page:

    http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=800&relPageId=90

    ——————————————————————-

    Two separate reports filed by officers of the Dallas Police Dept. describe the bullet as steel jacketed. General Edwin Walker clearly believed the bullet in evidence, CE 573, was not the bullet found in his home, which he referred to as a “hunk of lead”.

    Would you please address these issues, plus my last post directed to you?

    • Jean Davison says:

      Bob,

      “General Edwin Walker clearly believed the bullet in evidence, CE 573, was not the bullet found in his home, which he referred to as a “hunk of lead”.

      But we don’t know that the bullet he saw on TV was CE 573, we only know that he thought it was. Does his description of what he saw sound like CE573 to you?

      “a ridiculous substitute for a bullet completely mutilated by such obstruction baring [sic] no resemblance to an unfired bullet in shape or form.”

      Is that how you’d describe this bullet?

      https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/7/75/Photo_hsca_ex_289.jpg

      Imo, CE 573 isn’t a ridiculous substitute for a completely mutilated bullet, but CE399 is. Sometimes on TV the voice-over doesn’t match up with what’s shown on the screen.

      • Jean asks how would we describe this bullet [CE 573].

        As a layman, I would say this bullet is recognizable as a bullet with deformation of the nose that includes about half of the length of the original shape. Certainly this is not a pristine bullet that has not been fired, but it is not something I would expect to see after hitting hard brick and mortar. To me this looks like a forensic gelatin test, or fired into water.
        \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Sorry, Jean, I would say CE 573 is still quite recognizable as a bullet. You can clearly see the base of the bullet, the cannelure and the rifling marks.

        Add to this the two DPD reports of the bullet seen at the Walker residence being “steel jacketed” (CE 573 is jacketed in a copper coloured alloy) and I believe it was an obstruction of justice that Edwin Walker’s claims were so soundly ignored.

        • Jean Davison says:

          Willy and Bob,

          Walker didn’t use the phrase “recognizable as a bullet,” he specifically said “UNFIRED bullet.” The bullet recovered at his house bore no resemblance to an unfired bullet, but neither does CE573. He called the bullet he saw on TV a “ridiculous substitute” — like, maybe, the so-called but not really “pristine bullet”?

          The December 1963 FBI Lab’s analysis of the Walker bullet calls it mutilated and copper-jacketed:

          https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10040&relPageId=16

          A search of Google images for “steel-jacketed bullet” brings up many that have copper outer coatings:

          https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1138&bih=504&q=%22Steel-jacketed+bullet%22&oq=%22Steel-jacketed+bullet%22&gs_l=img.3…1376.11037.0.11375.25.17.1.7.0.0.212.2517.0j15j2.17.0.msedr…0…1ac.1.61.img..9.16.2305.iJIUosHz2RQ

          See also the “copper plated steel jacketed bullet” on this page:
          http://www.firearmsid.com/bullets/bullet1.htm

          • David Regan says:

            Regardless Jean, the bullet recovered from Walker’s house was too severely deformed to allow a conclusive analysis of its pattern of grooves. A spectrographic examination by Henry Heilberger of the FBI laboratory found that the lead alloy in the bullet was different from that of bullet fragments found in President Kennedy’s car
            http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/a9/Photo_naraevid_CE573-2.jpg
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58228&relPageId=56

            CE573 could not be positively matched to Oswald’s rifle (CE139) to the exclusion of all other weapons, while DPD reports indicated the bullet was a ‘steel-jacketed’ 30.06

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Nice try, Jean, but, you are not telling me anythiing I do not already know. Yes. most steel jacketed bullets have a light coating of another metal, such as brass, cupro-nickel or zinc, to prevent the steel jacket from rusting.

            While bringing this fact up is a nice diversionary move on your part, and has certainly distracted most of the readers here, it still does not answer any of the basic questions.

            1. What made the DPD officers come to the conclusion the bullet found at the Walker residence was steel jacketed, if this bullet was indeed a bullet manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company, and jacketed only in a copper alloy (brass) with a most definite copper colour, unless the bullet they saw was definitely a steel jacketed bullet?

            2. If the bullet was as badly mangled as we are told, would not the light coating of copper coloured brass be torn off, and the steel jacket exposed?

            3. How could anyone confuse CE 573 with a steel jacketed bullet?

          • Jean Davison says:

            David,

            See the last 3 paragraphs of the 12/63 FBI report link, which says the composition of the Walker and JFK bullets were “slightly different” but that this didn’t mean they were “two different types of bullets.” The composition didn’t have to be exactly the same, even in the same box of bullets.

            Because the bullets were similar in other respects, the HSCA’s firearms panel concluded that CE 573 was “probably” an M-C bullet.

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, again ‘probably’ is not conslusive enough. It’s about as strong as the ‘maybe, maybe not’ explanation for evidence of a rifle being in the paper bag.

  27. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Jean Davison
    January 29, 2015 at 11:21 pm
    David,

    “Photos are easily planted” doesn’t begin to explain it. They were taken with Oswald’s camera before the shooting. One of them was taken from the sniper’s position showing the back of Walker’s house.

    So how was that done? Somebody took photos with Oswald’s camera to frame him for a crime that hadn’t happened yet?

    —————————————————————–

    Just curious, Jean. How do you know the photo of the back of Walker’s house was taken before someone took a shot at Walker?

    • Jean Davison says:

      Bob,

      “Just curious, Jean. How do you know the photo of the back of Walker’s house was taken before someone took a shot at Walker?”

      Strange how CT books claim someone other than Oswald took the shot but don’t tell you about this. All the news that fits, they print.

      This photo of Walker’s house taken with Oswald’s camera shows a tall building under construction in the background:

      http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0014a.htm

      An FHA construction inspector had kept daily logs and found that the photo shows the point the construction had reached by early March:

      https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=143921

      Another photo (lower left) shows the future sniper’s view of Walker’s house including the window the bullet would go through:

      http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0015a.htm

      • As per Walker’s background as a “right-wing extremist” and having pretty much fascist views, why is it implausible to postulate that NOBODY took a shot at Walker?

        This is my view and I have held it for a long time. Who puts Walker at his desk in front of that window at the time the bullet was fired? Walker!

        He could have fired that bullet himself. Or one of his right-wing nutball confederates could have fired it while Walker was safely out of the room.

        Again, there is simply no conclusive proof of Oswald having any involvement in this.

        I think Walker was involved in the plot, and was involved in setting up the patsy.

        And lets face another fact straight on, the Payne’s had access to Oswald’s camera more surely than Oswald had access to the Payne’s “spy camera” – the story of which seems to be another classic bait and switch.

        I simply do not believe that Marina took photos of her husband holding a rifle in the backyard. Just like Lee said, someone pasted his face on someone else’s body. The shadow analysis and exact same face-shot for three separate photographs leave no doubt in my mind.
        \\][//

        • leslie sharp says:

          Further to General Walker’s politics and his whereabouts the evening of the assassination:

          According to Dick Russell’s account in “The Man Who Knew Too Much,” Walker received a phone call from Germany “sometime in the morning” {of the 23rd}. That would be any time between 6+am and 9+am on Saturday morning, Dallas time on the 23rd; according to Russell, Walker states “they woke me up. I didn’t know anything about Oswald shooting at me.” …”

          And yet we now have Jean Davison’s allegations that:

          “The idea that Oswald shot at Walker apparently originated not with a German newspaper but with reporters in Dallas. Curry was asked about the possibility at a news conference on Saturday, and a short article in the Dallas Morning News the same day was headlined “Officials Recall Sniper Shooting At Walker Home” and began: “Police Friday were not overlooking a possibility that President Kennedy’s assassin may have been the mystery sniper who shot at Maj. A. Walker last April…” (DMN, 11/23, p. 15)

          How could “Nationale Zeitung” have known about the possibility of Walker being the alleged target of Oswald based solely on a statement by Chief Curry when they had phoned Walker early morning of the 23rd? unless Jean is alleging that Curry appeared prior to 9am in Dallas, Nationale Zeitung read the newswire, and NZ immediately located General Walker, waking him up. Otherwise, there was a degree of communication between Dallas and Munich that we are not addressing.

          • leslie sharp says:

            (my comment references a previous exchange on this site.)

            A question for Jean: do you know the name of the DMN reporter that asked Curry about the Walker incident? How might he or she have made that leap? (it actually reeks of dot connecting doesn’t it?) The parties involved in the black border advertisement that the Dealey-owned paper saw fit to print also aligned with the radical right wing element in Dallas connected with Walker. Was Walker afforded plausible deniability … never told that the shooting was part of the ground work for the forthcoming set up of Oswald as patsy?

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Ah, yes, Jean, another FBI witness “statement”, written in the third person by an FBI agent and, of course, not signed, or likely ever seen, by the witness.

    • Jean Davison says:

      Correction: this is a better view of the building going up in the background:

      http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0014b.htm

  28. David Regan says:

    Curious to see what the consensus is on the “Dear Mr. Hunt” letter http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20File%20Adds%201-23-09%20Original/Oswald-Hunt%2011.pdf

    • Just a general point here; Experts in handwriting analysis, would make the most expert forgers of handwriting as well.

      The FBI, which has been implicated in this case as thoroughly as CIA, have experts in all the fields of “analysis” that would be available for creation as well.

      See: http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/k/kelly-evidence.html
      \\][//

      • Photon says:

        So the most expert authorities on art make the best art forgers? They are two different skills.
        But aside from blowing the pre-Nov.22, 1963 investigation of Oswald, exactly how has the FBI been ” implicated” in this case? Once Hoover found out that Oswald and his wife were under surveillance by the Dallas field office he was all over the map trying to make the Bureau look good, spouting inaccurate information and making unfounded conclusions and attempting to grab the investigation from the Dallas PD. If the FBI been involved in ANY way with the assassination none of those actions would have been necessary. Pure and simple the Bureau blew it when it came to follow-up on Oswald-and every action by John Edgar Hoover in relation to the assassination investigation was modulated by that failure.
        Please post any specific evidence of FBI forgery in this case-items,dates,names,etc.

        • “So the most expert authorities on art make the best art forgers? They are two different skills.”~Photon

          It depends on what you consider “expert authorities on art”. The only “authorities” I would consider “expert” on art would be artists themselves. And I say this as an artist myself.

          You say, “Once Hoover found out that Oswald and his wife were under surveillance by the Dallas field office he was all over the map trying to make the Bureau look good, spouting inaccurate information and making unfounded conclusions and attempting to grab the investigation from the Dallas PD.”

          I say that is one interpretation of what Hoover was up to, and would say that interpretation is as naive as others made by the commentator.
          \\][//

    • Photon says:

      So you have never heard of the Mitrokhin file!

  29. David Regan says:

    Well folks, we have another Warren Commission dissenter speaking out – David Slawson

    What the Warren Commission Didn’t Know – A member of the panel that investigated JFK’s death now worries he was a victim of a “massive cover-up.”
    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/warren-commission-jfk-investigators-114812.html#ixzz3QeTAQTI6

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.