Is Marina Oswald a credible witness?

A reader writes:

“In light of your recent post on Marina, I wonder what you personally make of her as a key figure and witness against her husband?”

Lee and Marina Oswald leaving the Soviet Union in May 1962.

The reader goes on:

“I’ve just re-read Sylvia Meagher, who demonstrated the inconsistencies in her testimony before the Warren Commission. I have seen her on TV ( and with her grown up girls) and read many articles in subsequent years in which Marina says Lee did not do the crime. And yet, some of the most damning circumstantial evidence came from Marina in 1963-4 — from the rifle to LHO’s alleged involvement in shooting at General Walker to the infamous back yard photos.

“Should we simply ignore or dismiss anything she has to say today? Should we ignore or dismiss what she had to say at the time? Is she credible, believable person when she speaks out from time to time, today?”

I spoke with Marina Oswald Porter on the phone some years ago and found her a cogent and thoughtful person. Her belief that her husband didn’t kill JFK deserves more respect and attention than it gets.

But that’s all I’m going to say. How would you answer this reader’s questions?

 

516 comments

  1. Paul M says:

    She could certainly be considered under duress as she probably feared being deported back to the Soviet Union. I haven’t heard her directly say what her mindset was during the Warren investigation. w
    She received a substantial amount of donations after Oswald was killed, so my reasoning is that she wanted to remain in the US. I think she would have been unsure of how the Soviets would regard her if she returned to the USSR.

    • Clarence Carlson says:

      I think “duress” is the key word here. She was the widow of a man accused of killing a president and was facing an uncertain future of raising her children without a father. Her contradictory and often confusing answers to questions reflect, in my opinion, her state of mind. As I recall the Warren commission at times didn’t quite know what to do with her testimony but was only too happy to use anything incriminating against Lee.

    • Marina Oswald in 1963, while surrounded by US intelligence, and while taking payments from oil men, with a baby and a toddler, no speaking good English, a terrified and a marionette doll for the LBJ-controlled government – NOT A CREDIBLE WITNESS. Marina was forced to do some spectacular lying in the early days.

      Marina Oswald, decades later, as the surveillance and control net gradually was loosened is a much more believable person, such as when she was interviewed by Jesse Ventura in 2010 for his TV show.

      Marina Oswald to Jesse Ventura in 2010:
      “Would you sacrifice your children for the truth?” – Marina Oswald to Jesse Ventura in 2010

      Marina was forced to lie to say nasty things about Oswald in the immediate wake of the JFK assassination.

      • Jean Davison says:

        QUOTE: “Would you sacrifice your children for the truth?” – Marina Oswald to Jesse Ventura in 2010

        Could anyone provide a link to a transcript of this interview? I’d like to see the context and can’t find it online.

        • Jesse Ventura’s True TV:
          Episode 5: JFK Assassination contained the Marina Oswald interview

          JFK Assassination Conspiracy – Jesse Ventura and his team tackle perhaps the most controversial murder conspiracy in modern times, which involved four subsequent presidents and still carries heavy ramifications 47 years later today. Never-before-aired confessions and documentation are included.

          (PESWiki; November 22, 2010)

        • SPUTNIK NEWS:
          And what did Oswald’s wife Marina tell you about her husband’s involvement in the assassination?

          JESSE VENTURA:

          Well, Marina, I spoke with her and she wouldn’t go on camera with me when I had my TV show, which I can understand why. She’s still very protective of her children. In fact, the biggest thing Marina said to me – she looked me right in the eye and she said – would you sacrifice your children for the truth? And I found that very interesting that she would make a statement to me like that, because she does have children. And Marina was always faced with deportation when the event occurred. She would go along with whatever they wanted to have happening. But today off the record, off camera she’s told me that she absolutely believes that Lee was a government agent and she does not believe that he acted alone in killing the President.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Thanks, Robert. So the quote is not from Marina herself, it’s what Jesse Ventura said she said. Even if it’s accurate there’s no context there to explain what she meant.

            I know that Marina has said that she now believes Oswald was innocent but she has also indicated that her opinion is based on what she’s picked up from conspiracy theorists, not on her personal knowledge.

            So far as I know she has never said that anyone told her what to say or that anything she told the WC or HSCA was a lie. I’ve read online that she told Ventura that she took the backyard photos, e.g. It’s her opinion that changed not the details of her testimony, so far as I know.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Jean Davison

            I believe Ventura accurately relayed what Marina told him.

            It’s not the first time that somebody has quoted Marina.

            The so called conspiracy theorists that she’s acquainted herself with include many respected researchers for the truth, and not just someone with a tin foil hat.

            Marina won’t commit perjury by saying that her testimony was a lie, or that she was coerced. Why would she want to start a new fight with the government?

            (BTW, I recall way back when Marina’s daughter appeared on the Tom Snyder show. She said if there was reasonable doubt in the O.J. trial, there was even more evidence to acquit her father.)

          • David Regan says:

            Marina’s “Nixon” story had all the
            earmarks of calculated perjury, since logic and all other evidence
            indicated that Oswald was not even in Dallas on April 23.

          • Vanessa says:

            Thanks David. Wasn’t it enough for the WC that Oswald supposedly tried to kill Walker and supposedly killed Tippit and JFK? No, they had to lump him with wanting to kill Nixon as well. Just bizarre…..and overkill (sorry about the pun).

          • David Regan says:

            It’s laughable the nonsense the WC tried to push with Marina’s statements, none of which would have been admissible evidence at trial.

            At the close of her first testimony before the Commission on Feb 3-4, 1964, she was asked repeatedly if, to her knowledge, Oswald had threatened violence to any other public figure. She repeatedly denied it.

            Two weeks later on Feb 22, 1964, she has a ‘belated recollection’ for the Commission, stating that on April 23, 1963 Oswald took a pistol and said he was going downtown to try and shoot the Vice President. She claimed to have locked Oswald in the bathroom for 3 hours, preventing him from leaving their home.

            Really? The bathroom door locked from the inside and Oswald had already been identified as a domestic tyrant who dominated his wife and beat her when he was so inclined. His supposed docility on April 23 was beyond belief.

          • Vanessa says:

            That’s significant about Marina’s changed WC testimony.

            What were the Commission thinking though? Wouldn’t Oswald’s supposed desire to shoot Nixon have cruelled his supposed motive for shooting Kennedy?

            Or were they on the road to ‘crazy Oswald shoots everyone and has no motive’ by then?

          • David Regan says:

            Tough to say, Vanessa. Perhaps our WC defenders can shed light on this, but it doesn’t end there.

            The FBI was deeply unimpressed by the ‘Nixon’ story. There were no witnesses and it’s credibility rested entirely upon Marina’s word. On top of that, there is conflicting testimony between Marina and Ruth Paine as to when Oswald left Dallas in April 1963 for New Orleans.

            In addition, both the FBI and the Secret Service had tried without success to establish_Oswald’s whereabouts during the two weeks following the Walker incident on April 10. They had been unable to find any evidence that he was in Dallas after April 12, when he cashed his last pay check from the Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall and
            applied for unemployment benefits at the Dallas office of the Texas Employment Commission.

            On March 18-19, 1964, Mrs. Paine appeared as a witness before the Commission. When the events of April, 1963 came into
            discussion, she volunteered the “recollection” that she and both
            Oswalds and their child shared a picnic in a Dallas park on April 20, 1963 and that, on April 24, she took Oswald’s baggage to a bus station for his departure for New Orleans that evening
            or the next morning.

            She said Marina went to stay at her home on that day, April 24, and remained there until she drove her to New Orleans on Nay 10, her husband having): found work there. She added that she, Mrs. Paine,
            went to San Antonio on April 26-28, leaving Marina at her home.

            In her testimony, Marina had mentioned no “picnic” with Mrs. Paine in April or any other time. She had not specified
            when her husband left for New Orleans.
            As with Marina’s “Nixon” story, there were no witnesses to Mrs. Paine’s “recollections.” But the Warren Commission accepted
            her statements without auestion. They had the effect of making Marina’s “April 23 incident plausible, at least to the
            extent that Oswald was now asserted to have been in Dallas then. No one on the Commission appeared to have been aware that, when interviewed right after the assassination (Nov. 27, 1963)
            by FBI agents Hosty and Odum, Hrs. Paine had told them that “she took Marina to her home” on April 11, 1963 – which was the day after the Walker attempt.

            The documents which have been reviewed indicate that Mrs. Paine told Agents Hosty and Odum the truth, but lied to
            the Warren Commission under oath.

          • Jean Davison says:

            David,

            The WC couldn’t ignore the Nixon incident because Marina told Robert about it and he told the WC and the FBI. The WR explanation starts at the bottom of this page:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=73611

            Marina told the HSCA that she realized that Oswald could have overpowered her if he had wanted to:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=38653

            Here’s what Marina said about why she wasn’t always truthful in the beginning:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=40637

            Who is your source for the supposed conflict about a picnic and the Oswalds’ whereabouts in April? John Armstrong would be my guess. Anyway, it’s wrong.

            According to Mary Ferrell’s chronology, Ruth and Marina were at a picnic on April 20 and the Halls visited the Oswalds on Neely St. the next day. The numbers in parentheses are WC volume and page numbers:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=40390&relPageId=197

          • Larry Schnapf says:

            Marina’s fears about deportation were the subject of a NYT story on 11/24/64. Marina’s testimony was the key to the government’s case. Without her testimony, the government had no case since she was the key link to the most damning evidence.

            I have always thought she faced a form of Sophia’s Choice. Protect her children by telling the government what wanted/needed from her or protect the reputation of her dead husband. What mother would have chosen the latter?

    • Larry Schnapf says:

      see an article in the NY Daily News shortly after she auctioned off the ring. the poor woman still lives in fear. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lee-harvey-oswald-widow-convinced-late-husband-not-kill-president-john-f-kennedy-report-article-1.1504711

  2. Neil says:

    Not credible

    Too many inconsistencies and contradictions in her various testimonies. She was either a liar or had a very bad memory.

    Her testimony only has value where there is corroboration.

  3. bogman says:

    I think like any person born and raised in the USSR, she gave the state what the state wanted to hear at the time.

  4. Frank says:

    I agree her credibility is ruined by her contradictions, but the big question is why did she do that to herself?

    She seems like a woman in charge to me. When she was married to Oswald her testimony indicates that while she did adopt the supportive role of mother and housekeeper, she was no wall flower. From her HSCA testimony she sounds assertive in her dealings with Oswald in both a passive aggressive way as well as being directly critical.

    Later in the nineties I think it is when she is in an interview with Tom Brokaw she shows poise and excellent situational awareness when Brokaw’s aggressive attack on her and a writer who appears with her in the interview is meant to disarm and discredit their (her) revised position on Oswald. The writer goes right off the deep end and storms off the set demanding that she follow him (was he trying to help Brokaw?) but she calmly sits tight and directly addresses Brokaw’s objections in a clear and cogent way. It seems like Brokaw was hoping the interview was over when the writer stormed off, but Marina took over very nicely.

    Therefore I think she was highly motivated to say what she said, and she was poised enough to hold a line that she felt served herself best. For example, for the HSCA testimony she is seemingly reminding herself by repeatedly stating she didn’t know English as she goes through her accounting of events, yet I believe there is someone (sorry I can’t cite the source) that heard her speak English in Russia. If so, it at least shows her capacities.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      The film JFK perhaps brought greater recognition and perhaps security for anyone who wanted to talk about the Kennedy Assassination but were afraid to do so beforehand (i.e., Marina Oswald, Dr. Charles Crenshaw, and the list goes on).

  5. I agree with the general tenor of the commentary here so far. As Clarence Carlson notes, “duress” is the key word here.

    I think anyone painting Marina in too harsh a light here would be an injustice. She was after all, barely more than a girl, a stranger in a strange land who barely spoke the language.

    I think anything the Warren Commission used from what Marina said would be inadmissible in a court of law, and that context must be adhered to in a fair judgment in this court of public opinion.

    As per later years when she matured, I think what she has to say is much more reliable and believable. She is a much more credible witness today than back when she was a virtual prisoner of the state.
    \\][//

  6. Larry Andrews says:

    I think overall her testimony is unreliable but you must remember that at times she was under stress and English is not her mother tongue. I am sure she was terrified of being deported immediately after the assassination and later her views were tainted by the many conspiracy buffs who approached her with crazy concepts.

    • “…later her views were tainted by the many conspiracy buffs who approached her with crazy concepts.”~Larry Andrews

      Crazy concepts? Such as there is no prosecutable evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald?
      \\][//

  7. Arnaldo M Fernandez says:

    Marina was a credible witness just after the assassination, but she became an unreliable one thereafter.
    Philip Shenon dared to quote from her WC testimony on the frontispiece of “A Cruel and Shocking Act,” about LHO telling her that he had been in Mexico City at both the Cuban and Soviet embassies, but Shenon overlooked that in her first interview with Secret Service she flatly said and repeated that LHO had ever told her about it, and that she had learned about did as the story was run on TV. John Armstrong refers that a week after she changed the story before the WC, Marina signed a contract with Tex-Italia Films for $132,500 in order to make a film that never was. The company was also fake.

  8. max says:

    I think if you are a conspiracy buff you might not want to think her credible when it comes to the back yard photos, to the General Walker assassination attempt, etc. She was very definite about taking those back yard photos whether in Russian or English. There was also a lot of evidence backing up her General Walker story. Why would she lie or make up stories concerning two important issues? If you say she wasn’t credible you might be suggesting she lied and was actually wanting to make Lee look guilty. Would she deliberately set up her husband? I think she originally told the truth and as years went by wanted to get as far away from the assassination issue as possible. She was also very definite about Lee’s admiration for Castro. This would also poke holes in some conspiracy theories. She actually poked holes in many conspiracy issues.

    • max,
      The backyard photo’s are clearly and provably fakes.

      Each photo in this series is the exact same cut-out of one photo of Oswald’s face. The head varies in size relation from one photo to the next. The shadows never change with the angle of the head.
      The spice mark at the chin is clearly visible.

      Marina never took these pictures.
      \\][//

      • I believe Marina when she told Jesse Ventura in 2010 that she took the backyard photos. Part of Oswald’s “sheepdipping” operation, pretend to be a commie while you are set up by US intelligence.

        • I don’t buy anything from Jesse Ventura. His programs are scripted and meant to “break” new information, whether it is true or not.

          I don’t care who says what, I can look at those photos and see the crop line myself. I believe my own yes.
          \\][//

        • Juneau says:

          Was Oswald telling the truth during his interro- gation – when shown the backyard photographs by Dallas Police Captain Will Fritz? Fritz told the Warren Commission(WR 608-09) Oswald said: “This is not a picture of me;it is my face, but my face has been superimposed-the rest of the picture is not me at all. I have never seen that picture before. I know all about photography. I’ve done a lot of photographic work myself… I will prove it is a fake. Now I don’t wish to answer anymore questions.”

          Oswald had in fact worked at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall a photoptics firm in Dallas. Dennis Ofstein was a co-worker of Oswald’s at the firm & told the Warren Commission that Oswald had introduced him to the term microdot ” I wasn’t familiar with it & he told that it was a method of taking a large area of a type of picture & reducing it… and placing it under a stamp.”

          Photographs from Jesse Curry’s book “JFK-Assassination File” taken of Oswalds’s possessions clearly show what appears to be a variety of photographic equipment & binoc-
          ulars.

          The Houston Post reported in a February 1992 article that “recently released documents from the Dallas Police Department include several photos of accused presidential killer Lee Harvey Oswald. One photo shows clear evidence of darkroom manipulation.”

          It is not difficult to believe that when Marina was confronted with the “evidence” of the rifle & the photographs presented by the Dallas Police, FBI, & the Warren Commission – she had but little choice to believe that her husband might just be guilty. With the passing of time & evidence forthcoming to possibly prove otherwise – one can also come to believe why she now thinks Lee was innocent & “a patsy” as he claimed.

        • “Interest in cinematography and special effects does not make you an expert in still photography, particularly the capabilities of 1963.”~Photon

          I am afraid you are mistaken Photon. I had not only and “interest in cinematography and special effects” – but worked in special effects professionally for close to 30 years, and have as much experience in still photography as well. The eye for doing such work is the same eye that can detect such work.

          How can you trust any experts when you have no such skill yourself Photon? Only by accepting the word of authority. There are other experts in this field who disagree with your experts, so don’t try to pretend there is no legitimate controversy here.
          \\][//

          • Photon says:

            What experts? The real experts, those with academic credentials, published works in recognized scientific journals, documented expertise in the subject don’t agree with your conclusion.
            What is the name of your alma mater? Do you have one?

          • “What is the name of your alma mater? Do you have one?”~Photon

            Life is my alma mater, a life of experience, study and research.

            What’s your real name Photon? What is YOUR alma mater? You want to hide behind anonymity here and act as inquisitor for the cult of intelligence. I don’t think you deserve to be taken seriously.
            \\][//

      • H.P. Albarelli Jr. says:

        That’s it? I was asking about actual expertise, as in schooling, OJT, forensic study, scientific analysis, and on and on… “spice mark at the chin”? and what generation photos were you looking at? and could you answer my question of the photo marina sold after the assassination?

        • Albarelli,
          Others have addressed the chain of evidence of the backyard photos. That is not my argument here. Mine is the actual photos themselves. I have already explained my analysis.

          As far as training, I have training in doing special effects and photo manipulation. As I just told Photon, when you understand such techniques, you can recognize them in the works of others.

          As I have said, the splice at the chin is obvious to the naked eye. It is not just under the chin, the splice is under the lower lip, cutting off Oswald’s narrow chin and showing the square chin of the stand-in
          These photos would have been created on enlargements, likely as large as 16×20 or larger. You already have a generation of contrast added right there.

          The splice being visible at the camera original size means that the work is totally amateur, even by 1963 standards. The other issues I described are just icing on the cake – the discrepancy of the shadows on the face with the rest of the photo. The variance in the size of the head to body. The contrast of shadow to dark on the face verses the contrast of shadow to dark in the rest of the photo.

          At this point, I am not concerned with yours nor Photon’s amateur commentary as per photography.
          \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Again, why would the crime of the century conspiracy enlist “total amateur ” photo forgers?
            Do you know that HSCA photo experts stated that the chin anomaly was a water spot from processing?

          • H.P. Albarelli Jr. says:

            Nor am I concerned with your amateur-based reasons as to why the Oswald photos are fakes. And you still can’t answer the question as to where Marina obtained her photo, or those that she destroyed with Oswald’s mother, Whitten. You a self-proclaimed “expert” on much, Willy, but seem to be lacking in true knowledge.

          • H.P. Albarelli Jr.,

            You are welcome to any opinions on me as you wish to hold. I am little concerned with them as said.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            “The splice being visible at the camera original size means that the work is totally amateur, even by 1963 standards.”

            When you spotted this “splice,” were you looking at a reproduction of the photo or at the original? Even a non-expert like me knows that makes a difference. Did you examine the grain in the negative of one of the BY photos as the HSCA photography panel did?

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=38811

            “The other issues I described are just icing on the cake – the discrepancy of the shadows on the face with the rest of the photo. The variance in the size of the head to body. The contrast of shadow to dark on the face verses the contrast of shadow to dark in the rest of the photo.”

            I think all these complaints were also addressed by the HSCA panel. In addition to the testimony in vol. II, there’s a BY photo discussion, about 75 pages, starting here:

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0074a.htm

    • Neil says:

      While it seems plausible that Marina told the truth about the Gen Walker shooting
      , she clearly lied about preventing Lee from shooting President Nixon.

      She also lied on several occasions about her knowledge of Lee using the “Alek Hidell” alias.

      Those are just two examples but there are several more, including the possibility that she pretended not to understand English during the assassination aftermath.

      Given her circumstances in the aftermath of the assassination, she may have lied to protect herself and her family. She was under a lot of pressure from the US govt and the Soviet govt wanted nothing to do with her.

      But her accounting of some events changed several times or were full of holes which makes the value of her testimony not worth much more than a grain of salt.

    • bogman says:

      She also said that anything good she knew about JFK came from her husband. Including when the couple was still in Russia.

      • Sammy says:

        Marina also went into detail about Lee’s great admiration for Fidel Castro. She was very definite about this. He wanted to put a picture of Castro in their home.

    • Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson ran the Police Forensic Science Laboratory Identification Bureau for 25 years. He was also an president of the Evidence Photographers International Council and a fellow of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers, the Royal Photographic Society and the Institute of Professional Investigators. Here is the interview he gave on the backyard rifle photos:

      INTERROGATOR. Mr. Thompson would these photographs be acceptable as evidence in a British court of law?

      Mr. THOMPSON. No. I have examined these photographs and have established without doubt that there is retouching on them and it is a basic principle with a forensic photographer that he would never, never retouch a photograph in any form of litigation.INTERROGATOR. What would happen in a British court of law if photographs like this were produced as evidence in a murder case?

      Mr. THOMPSON. If they were produced in a murder case then the defending counsel without doubt would have an expert examine them and if retouching was found on them then they would not be included in the evidence.

      INTERROGATOR. Are you saying that if photographs like this were produced in a British court of law in a case, they would be thrown out?

      Mr. THOMPSON. I do. Yes. They would be thrown out.

      INTERROGATOR. What leads you to feel that?

      Mr. THOMPSON. Well primarily the retouching is very very obvious in certain parts of the picture but more in particular in a perpendicular pillar here which should be a straight line. When one comes to a point, the subjects chin, one finds that there is a bulge in a line. Without doubt that shows this area between the head and the retoucher has just not been careful enough to maintain the retouching he should which is within the pillar in what should be a shadow area. Now that is photograph B. In photograph A we do bit see as a straight pillar, it is not as if the wood has a flaw at that point there. The flaw is created in photograph B due to the fact that the retouching has extended over onto the pillar.
      Read more at:
      http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/faulty.htm
      \\][//

      • Photon says:

        Of course you neglect to mention that Thompson retracted his opinion that they were fakes.
        Why?

        • Photon,
          Because I never read anywhere that Thompson retracted his opinion that they were fakes.

          Where is the retraction? If he has a good excuse as to why he is wrong it will be one thing. If not, it is well known how political and social pressures can bring folks to ‘get back in line’ with the official story.
          \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            I was just about to post this, so it may save Photon the trouble of looking it up. Malcolm Thomson deferred to the panel’s conclusions, noting that his earlier comments were based on examining copies rather than the original materials the panel examined.

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=78219

            There’s a long report in that volume giving the HSCA panel’s response to critics’ complaints about the BY photos.

          • Yes Jean, but we are again treated to but a portion of the “retraction” of Thompson:

            “Thompson did however, reserve his opinion that the chin was suspiciously different from the chin that he observed in the Dallas arrest photographs of Oswald. He also remained skeptical as to the ability of a computer to detect a photocopied composite photograph. (193)

            In my opinion this so-called “retraction” of Thompson, is in fact more a “deference” to the power of authority.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            What authority? He was a British subject!

          • “What authority? He was a British subject!” ~Photon

            Why the authority of the House Committee, of course.

            I do not assert that any sanctions would accrue directly. But were he to insist and refuse to acquiesce, his professional prestige could very well be damaged by unpleasant PR.

            You know Photon; the way the world really works.
            \\][//

          • Bob Zentrails says:

            The Moorman photo is most interesting to me, not because it shows or doesn’t show any obvious head wound, but rather the position of the two motorcycle policemen.

            The one to the left (and the photo shows just how FAR to the left he is) testified that he was sprayed with blood and brain matter so hard that he thought he had been shot, while the policeman on the right did not get hit with anything.

            Since there was no strong cross-wind that day, that’s pretty good evidence for a shot to the right temple from the front. It’s simple physics: conservation of momentum.

        • So Photon, Jean,

          Are you claiming that you grasp all the technical expositions of the techniques of Photogrammetry by these photo experts for the HSCA?
          \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Of course-why not? They have been confirmed by real experts repeatedly for nearly 40 years; new technology and computer imaging techniques have only amplified those conclusions.
            But it is understandable why this myth continues to be popular; it fits with an unfortunate pattern seen in the “research” community. If the evidence does not support a conspiracy viewpoint, it must be faked.
            Therefore, since the Zapruder film doesn’t show a BOH wound,it must be faked.
            Therefore, since the autopsy photos don’t show a BOH wound they must be faked.
            Therefore, if the pictures that Marina herself admitted taking show Oswald with the weapons used to murder two individuals,they must be faked.
            Therefore, if 3 board certified pathologists come to conclusions that support the Warren conclusions,they must have faked the autopsy.
            Therefore, if the radiographs support a shot from behind, they must be faked.
            Therefore, if Oswald’s actions are incriminating,he must be faked-by a double.
            Therefore, if Oswald’s handwrighting can be identified on incriminating documents, it must be faked.
            We have even had posters here claiming that since Oswald worked at a photo lab, maybe he had a hand in faking the photos.

          • Photn,

            What is all of this verbosity have to do with my simple question as to whether you grasp the technical method of Photogrammetry?

            You respond with “Of course-why not? They have been confirmed by real experts repeatedly for nearly 40 years…”

            “Why not?” because the subtext of this tells me that you do not in fact understand the methods photogrammetry, but are in fact simply relying on the “real experts” as you call them. An appeal to authority.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            What do you call it when you quote Malcolm Thomson and list his professional credentials? An “appeal to authority”?

          • “What do you call it when you quote Malcolm Thomson and list his professional credentials?” ~Jean

            I call it a counter argument Jean, I have already appealed to my own determination on this topic, You and Photon are the ones demanding authentication from cited “experts”.

            So what is your level of understanding on the methods of photogrammetry?
            \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Photon

            Glad to see you are finally making your accusations specific – that way we can answer them.

            In regards to the BoH wound not appearing in Zapruder – have you seen Robert Harris’ presentation on this? What do you see in frame 337?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXglIRrg3Kg

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFq_0aOfZRM

            I’m sure not even you can resist the soft-spoken logic of Mr Harris.

          • Photon says:

            Is the Moorman photo faked also? Where is the BOH wound there?

          • Vanessa says:

            See, even you can’t resist the charming Mr Harris.

            The Moorman photo was taken just before the headshot so there would have been no BoH wound at that time.

          • Photon says:

            No it wasn’t -it was taken between Z315 and Z316. The blood cloud is barely visible superior to JFK’s head.
            And there is no wound to the back of the head.
            Game.Set.Match.

          • Vanessa says:

            Not so fast, Andy Murray.

            Please see this link. It shows Mary Moorman taking her photo and the corresponding frame of Zapruder with JFK not yet shot in the head.

            http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread713461/pg1

          • Vanessa says:

            Here are some interviews by Mary Moorman stating when she says she took the photo. She says it was after the first shot and then she heard two more shots and saw JFK’s scalp fly up.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEavxZReo84

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X89bD5rDpBw

            And yes, you will have to watch all 4 parts of the second video…

          • Photon says:

            Jack White was the photographic “expert” the HSCA interviewed about his claims that the backyard photos were faked.
            Q. I have just one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is?
            A. No.

          • I have never cited Jack White Photon, Jack White is part of the Fetzer PR Group that Douglas Horne has hooked up with, who I consider deep moles of the national security state.

            You can pin that one on Vanessa, but not me.
            \\][//

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            The return of Photon!

            He shows up in one thread, then, magically he disappears, and then reappears to a different thread without answering any of the questions posed in the previous thread!

            Just to remind you, Photon, you asked me in the thread about Dr. McClelland if I believed that Oswald was in Mexico City. And then I replied that I don’t know because the CIA, the WORLD’S finest intelligence agency, released a picture of a man they said was Oswald, then later said their cameras were turned off, then said files had been destroyed as matter of “routine practice,” and then later told us they had NO idea who the man in the photo was. And then I asked YOU if you wanted to have an open and honest debate about the “facts” of this case. Magically, I did not hear from you again in that thread. Would you care to answer MY question about Oswald in Mexico City and the CIA “picture” of Oswald? Or, would you prefer to troll around the site and avoid any type of question that directly contradicts the official version we have been fed? (By a commission that was “hand-picked” by LBJ because their reputations were above question.)

          • Vanessa says:

            So Photon is that Advantage me or 6-0, 6-0, 6-0?

            I think the lack of response means it’s the latter.

            Would you like to revisit your comments on the BoH issue in Zapruder?

          • Vanessa says:

            Thanks Willy – but I am not a Fetzerite either nor have I mentioned Jack White.

            John Costella and Robert Harris I will admit to. Any comment on Robert Harris’s videos from you?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Photon (on the BOH wound in the Moorman photo)

            I’ve posted a good copy (if not enhanced or negative version) of Mary Moorman’s photo which shows a somewhat triangular defect at the back of JFK’s head. I will try to post it later when I have time.

          • Photon says:

            If you believe that the CIA is the world’s finest intelligence agency I can understand your confusion. The KGB was always better in counterintelligence than the CIA; they had several intelligence services that they completely controlled( eg, Bulgaria, Cuba, GDR,etc.) that gave them coordinated intelligence that was never available to the NATO countries, whose services were truly independent despite cooperation.
            The CIA wasn’t even the best Western intelligence service; many of its most important HUMINT assets were products of Allied services, the Penkovsky affair the most prominent. The Agency relied more on analysis of non-human based resources as they simply weren’t very good at obtaining information from traditional spies, but relied on electronic sources-and even that came from the CIA’s vastly bigger and more clandestine brother.
            The Agency simply made a mistake in identifying the heavy-set man in the photo as Oswald. What is so difficult with that?

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            I have no expertise in photogrammetry or in any other technical area, but I think I can understand what the HSCA experts wrote about the BY photos. They examined the originals, and your own expert acknowledged that this was an advantage. I don’t rely on just their verdict, though. There’s other evidence indicating the photos are genuine.

          • Photon says:

            Vanessa, your ignorance of the timing of the Moorman photo is right up there with Bob’s question about an open casket.
            The consensus of opinion since the day it was taken among both LN and CT experts has been that the picture was taken simultaneously with the headshot or tenths of seconds after. Even Gary above has to come up with imaginary findings in the photo to accommodate that fact.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Photon

            Here’s a link to a good copy of the Moorman photo. If you download it and zoom, you’ll see a somewhat triangular notch at the back of JFK’s head. I’ve seen a negative version and it stands out more.

            http://i58.tinypic.com/2qltp3b.jpg

          • “I have no expertise in photogrammetry or in any other technical area, but..”~Jean

            “But”? All of these “buts” are nothing but rhetorical scrabble to bluster over the original admission that you have “no expertise”.

            Just like Photon’s argumentum verbosium in this same thread.
            \\][//

          • The Moorman photo like the Z-film has Kennedy’s head in the deep shadow caused by the mid day sun. There is not enough detail to make out “the back of the head in any of these images.

            One need not guess what might lie within this deep shadow. There are other proofs of the wound in the Occipital-Parietal as an exit wound from a shot to the Temporal-Parietal.
            \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Photon

            Always so grumpy, what do you have for breakfast?

            I believe we are still waiting for you to provide some sources for your claims of private viewings of an open casket, are we not? Cough up, please.

            So the ‘consensus’ is that the photo was taken either at the time of the headshot or after. I’m sorry, but that is not a consensus. Does ‘at the time of the headshot’ mean before JFK has reacted to that shot or after?

            Mary Moorman is very clear in both interviews about when she took her photo. It was just after the first shot and before the head shot. She is not senile, she is not contradictory, she is credible. Of course, you could check her WC testimony on this issue but she is yet another of those witnesses in prime position just feet away from the limousine that the WC did not see fit to call.

            Even if it’s just Mary Moorman and me who agree on when she took her photo, I’m comfortable with that.

            I admit to being ignorant about many things Photon, will you admit even one? Here’s a hint, you just called Gerry, ‘Gary’…

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Gerry

            I would like to see that version of the Moorman photo but I get an extremely scary security warning when I try to access it. Where did you find it? Thanks.

          • Photon says:

            Vanessa, please quote one source that states the photo was taken before the head shot.
            Of course Moorman would see the effects of the shot before hearing it.
            It would have taken 0.25 seconds for the sound of the report to reach her after the bullet impacted JFK’s skull.

          • See: THE DAY KENNEDY WAS SHOT by Jim Bishop.

            Therein Bishop recounts members of the family viewing the open casket. Both Bobby, Ted, and Jackie, as well as Admiral George Burkley, I am fairly sure.
            \\][//

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Photon,

            That defect is not imaginary unless you want to ignore it. It is also consistent with the avulsion on the profile blow-up of frame Z-335 to Z-337

            As for the timing of the Moorman photograph, it has long been established even in McAdam’s newsgroup, that it follows frame 313.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            …or tenths of seconds after.

            See, if not simultaneous, even tenths of seconds after works to show that a bullet from the front would create the BOH defect sketched by Dr. McLelland and somewhat appearing in this enhanced or resolute Polaroid.

            http://i58.tinypic.com/2qltp3b.jpg

            Note: The above link is on a Tiny Pic page which should be safe to view. Click right on the photo to enlarge it.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Vanessa
            February 24, 2015 at 6:01 pm
            Hi Gerry

            I would like to see that version of the Moorman photo but I get an extremely scary security warning when I try to access it. Where did you find it? Thanks.

            Hello Vanessa,

            I’ve posted that Tiny Pic link again.

            http://i58.tinypic.com/2qltp3b.jpg

            It’s a safe website (there might be the odd AD pop-up which you can turn off).

            If you click on the image, it will enlarge.

            I think it’s my most resolute copy of the Moorman Polaroid, and includes even the thumb print that was on the original. I can’t recall where I downloaded it from.

            As an aside, the beauty of this copy is that it shows that behind the retaining wall and in front of the picket fence, you DON’T see one Gordon Arnold as he depicted himself in TMWKK (thereby debunking his story or being an inconsistency that’s not reconciled).

          • Gerry Simone says:

            One source that supports that the Moorman photo was taken AFTER the fatal head shot

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Moorman#cite_note-Bugliosi43-3

            According to this Wiki page, the Moorman photo was taken 1/6 of a second after the fatal head shot.

            The source for this is none other than Vincent Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History, page 43.

            But as I said earlier, this was examined in a thread on McAdam’s newsgroup years ago. I didn’t believe it at first, but one can ascertain that it was after even by examining the relative positions of the police motorcycles with the view from the Zapruder film.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Willy Whitten
            February 24, 2015 at 2:09 pm
            The Moorman photo like the Z-film has Kennedy’s head in the deep shadow caused by the mid day sun. There is not enough detail to make out “the back of the head in any of these images.

            One need not guess what might lie within this deep shadow. There are other proofs of the wound in the Occipital-Parietal as an exit wound from a shot to the Temporal-Parietal.
            \\][//

            Check out the photo in this link. If you click on the photo, it will zoom in too.

            http://i58.tinypic.com/2qltp3b.jpg

            The contrast is great, and the deep shadows are significantly reduced.

            I will also try to dig up a negative of the Moorman photo which highlights that BOH defect (IOW, it can’t be a film artifact).

          • Photon says:

            Gerry, there is no wound in the back of the head, only shadows and the inherent lack of clarity so evident in pictures from Polaroid cameras of the time. Blowing up the photo reveals several things: #1- there is enough contrast to identify the left ear of JFK, no clear difference is seen between the left or right side of the back of the head.
            #2-there is no disruption of the scalp or hair visible where the supposed wound would be. #3-the right side of JFK ‘s head is clearly visible in silhouette. .The profile is completely straight without a hair out of place all of the way down to the suit coat-which is bunched up after all. That would be impossible with the massive exit wound claimed by to be at the back of the head. #4 any wound in the back of the head would creates variety of substances including bone,dura mater, brain and connective tissue and particularly liquid blood. All of these substances have different densities,physical states and appearances. It boils down to different reflective characteristics that would cause significant differences in contrast across the back of the head. But there are no significant differences in contrast at the back of JFK’s head in the Moorman photo.

          • “The contrast is great, and the deep shadows are significantly reduced.”~Gerry

            The deep shadows are not “significantly reduced”, the whole photo is simply lighter and faded, it adds nothing to nor reduces the contrast.
            \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Photon

            One source? You mean apart from the eyewitness who took the photo?

            Mary Moorman is very clear about this. She says she took the photo after the first shot but before the head shot. She saw JFK’s scalp fly up at that stage. What do you have to say about her evidence?

            You really need to stop relying on these secondary sources and go for the actual evidence, Photon. Didn’t you get Jean’s advice to us on this? 🙂

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Gerry

            Thanks for posting that link again. I really appreciate it. I think maybe my employers didn’t want me to see it. 🙂 As I can access it from home.

            It is a much better quality photo but I have to say I’m still not seeing a blow out at the back of JFK’s head. I do just see shadow, I’m afraid.

            How far did you have to enlarge it to see anything?

          • Photon – February 25, 2015 at 1:37 pm

            This photo is not clear enough to make out any of these details you count out in your post.
            \\][//

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Photon, Willy and Vanessa

            I will repeat my link again but I emphasize that you must click on it to enlarge it. At the top of the back of the head, you see an INDENTATION

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Photon, Willy and Vanessa

            I will provide a slightly different Tiny Pic link wherein you can enlarge the photo by clicking right on it. Alternatively, you can download it and zoom in on your desktop for a closer view.

            http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2qltp3b&s=8#.VO5mevnF98E

            Now, at the top of the back of the head, you see an INDENTATION. It may seem triangular, but that’s because the flap of the scalp on the right side of JFK’s head seems to be overlapping leftward a bit to give it that shape.

            I also include Don Roberdeau’s (I believe) picture-negative versions too here for emphasis.

            http://s452.photobucket.com/user/DRoberdeau/media/JFKmoormanINVERTED_040108.gif.html

            To editor, please delete the immediately preceding post which was incomplete, if any

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Willy Whitten
            February 25, 2015 at 4:24 pm
            “The contrast is great, and the deep shadows are significantly reduced.”~Gerry

            The deep shadows are not “significantly reduced”, the whole photo is simply lighter and faded, it adds nothing to nor reduces the contrast.
            \\][//

            This copy of the Moorman photo is the best I’ve seen because you can actually see with good clarity the area in front of the picket fence and behind the retaining wall, which are usually hidden in shadows.

            All other copies seem too dark or with inferior contrast.

            Not this one as you can see.

            By zooming, the indentation at the top of the BOH is discernible (even without zooming actually).

            It’s not a spot or speck. It’s an area encompassing parietal and perhaps a little occipital.

            Clear photo (enlarged):

            http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2qltp3b&s=8#.VO5qdvnF98F

            Inverted Shades (like a negative):

            http://s452.photobucket.com/user/DRoberdeau/media/JFKmoormanINVERTED_040108.gif.html

            Don’t tell me you can’t see something on top of the BOH that seems to be missing.

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Gerry

            Thanks again for re-posting those links.

            In that Don Roberdeau photo negative where he has indicated what seems to be brain matter aren’t those little white dots similar to what we see all over the Moorman photo? See the side of the limo it seems covered in little white dots, don’t you think?

            The top of JFK’s head just seems like it could be his hair being out of place as he is falling to his left.

            Isn’t the blow out that Mr Harris describes a cashew shaped object? If I’m looking for that I can’t find it. Is that what you are referring to or something higher up?

            The shadows on JFK’s head don’t look that unnatural to me as they seem to match the sunlight on his right shoulder.

            Sorry! I am trying really hard (even if only because I would not want to be in agreement with both Photon AND Willy). 🙂

          • Yes Gerry I do see it in the negative! I see that in the positive as well, but it doesn’t stand out like it does in that negative.

            That is the Occipital-Parietal, the exact location of the wound according to the photos and the witnesses.

            Great job Gerry.
            \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Gerry

            Okay, I’ve cottoned on now. You are referring to the McClelland etc BoH blowout. In which case there is definitely something there in the negative photo at the top rear of JFK”s head and it does match the witness testimony, Very interesting and very perplexing.

            Because Mary Moorman is very clear about when she took her photo and it was before the head shot. Is it possible JFK was shot twice in the head from the front? Once with a FMJ bullet and then with a frangible bullet? Do I even want to go there?

            I’m finding it hard to reconcile these two pieces of evidence.

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Willy

            Thanks for that info on the private viewing of the open casket. Looks like our mutual friend might have been right after all. 🙂

            From this newspaper article it seems some of the staff viewed the open casket as well as the family.

            http://herald-review.com/special-section/jfk/embalmer-also-connects-area-to-the-assassination/article_b4c2715c-55c6-11e3-a056-0019bb2963f4.html

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Thank you for finally seeing what I’m seeing.

            In that inverted shades photo, the BOH defect (guess in the area at or under the cowlick), it is highlighted with a square.

            I’m not concerned about those dots (you’d have to ask Mr. Roberdeau).

            You should also be able to see this in the regular photo (only the good copy as most other copies, it is too dark and not delineated).

            And yes Vanessa, roughly corresponding with Dr. McClelland’s BOH sketch of an EXIT wound.

            Check out this blow-up of Z-Frame 335 with a self-explanatory note.

            http://i62.tinypic.com/11vn09e.gif

            Then another of Z-Frame 337 without.

            http://i61.tinypic.com/243kh8l.jpg

            To me, the avulsion is clear in both. Perhaps, consistent with what we see in the Moorman photo.

            @ Vanessa,

            With respect to the comment by Moorman that she took her photo at the sound of the first shot, perhaps she’s mixed up.

            IIRC, the way the post-313 timing was established was comparing the position of the motorcyle cops that you see in the Moorman photo with a similar Z-frame (view from opposite side of course).

            If I have time over the weekend, I’ll try to find a thread on this or side-by-side comparisons.

          • leslie sharp says:

            photon,
            “The Agency simply made a mistake in identifying the heavy-set man in the photo as Oswald. What is so difficult with that?”

            Well, for starters, it appears that FBI Agent Odum was not aware that The Agency had identified the man in the photo as Oswald, albeit mistakenly. Can you explain? Did they (mistakenly) decide AFTER the 23rd that the photo was Oswald? Or if Odum had been advised by the CIA it was a photo of Oswald (he states the individual was “unknown”), why would he have gone to the Executive Inn to show Marina a photograph of her own husband? Seems like some wires have been crossed. Perhaps with your expertise – wherever it is derived – you can uncross them.

            Bardwell D. Odum affidavit:
            ‘On November 23, 1963, while acting officially in my capacity as a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, I obtained a photograph of an unknown individual, furnished to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by the Central Intelligence Agency, and proceeded to the Executive Inn, a motel, at Dallas, Texas, where Marina Oswald was staying.

            In view of the source of this picture, and, in order to remove all background data which might possibly have disclosed the location where the picture was taken, I trimmed off the background. The straight cuts made were more quickly done than a complete trimming of the silhouette and I considered them as effective for the desired purpose.

            I desired to show this photograph to Marina Oswald in an attempt to identify the individual portrayed in the photograph and to determine if he was an associate of Lee Harvey Oswald.’

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Gerry

            Thanks for pointing it out to me :). I’ve never seen that negative photo before – that is a very good find on your part.

            My computer here is really not wanting me to view those links at all. 🙂 I’ll try again tonight when I’m at home.

            Another thing that is puzzling me about these BoH defects – we seem to have evidence for two (although not seen or described by anyone as existing at the same time). Both are described as being on the right hand side of JFK’s head – one towards the top and one towards the bottom. Or is it just the one wound being looked at from different perspectives? I’ll have a proper look tonight.

            Re-Mary Moorman – she does not sound confused though and is adamant that she was not taking any photos after she heard that first gunshot. In the past, I would have just said that the contradictory witness testimony would be trumped by whatever was on the films or in the photos. But given the reasonable doubts there are around the zfilm I now give the witness testimony a lot more weight than I used to.

            I’d be interested to see any comparison information you can find. I take it you think the z-film is accurate and can be relied upon?

          • Vanessa says:

            Gone a bit quiet on this BoH wound photo issue, haven’t you, Photon?

            Willy and I have ‘fessed up about what we see on Gerry’s Roberdeau negative.

            What do you see there? Do you see a BoH exit wound consistent with McClelland’s and others descriptions?

          • Photon says:

            I am reminded about what people said about Percival Lowell’s maps of Mars that proved that the canals on Mars were the product of an intelligent being- but not on which end of the telescope that being was.
            There is no wound visible in the back of the head.The fact is that there is no variability in the contrast level seen at the back of the head in either the original photo or Robideau’s non-negative version of the photo. As I have stated a wound to this portion of the head would by necessity generate different contrast levels because of the different reflective properties of the biological material produced by the wound.
            People can see what they want in a photo that is not clear, taken with film and a camera not noted to give crystal clear images. This just seems to be another variation of the “badgeman” nonsense promoted by many ( not coincidentally from the same poor quality photograph) where people see something that simply isn’t there. Vanessa, for someone who claimed that the picture was taken before the head shot you seem to have had a rapid reversal based simply on the claim that the picture shows a BOH shot-despite no evidence that it does.

          • Photon says:

            Gerry, a few questions:
            Isn’t Robideau’s “negative” actually a computer-generated photo alteration produced by Tom Wilson of sewer shot fame? Didn’t he use a self-designed computer program that could “peel off” layers of contrast and also allow him to iidentify bullets in flight? Wasn’t his “technique” never replicated or explained? As the ” negative” became public over a decade ago why has this BOH wound seen by several on this blog only been discovered in the last week or so-and in direct reaction to my bringing up the Moorman photo showing no BOH wound.
            It appears that you have found your altered photo. Unfortunately it is Tom Wilson’s computer generated one.

          • Photon,

            This is the third time I have asked this;

            What were the photo’s of the cop in the poses of Oswald holding the same props all about?
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Willy, it is hard to comment about a phantom.
            What picture of a cop are you referring to?
            Can you give us a link to the alleged photo?
            A source for your information? A source confirmed to accurate?
            A date for the photo?
            A reason why Marina and Marguerite would not have recognized a template on Nov. 23 when they discussed the photos?
            Did Tom Wilson create that photo, too?

          • Photon says:

            Willy, are you seriously claiming that the B.G. Brown photo was a template for the back yard photos?

          • Photon,

            I ask you a question, but you do not have an adequate answer so you throw a bunch of questions back to obfuscate.

            Am I serious? You can bet your gold plated bronze booties bucko.
            \\][//

          • “Willy, are you seriously claiming that the B.G. Brown photo was a template for the back yard photos?”~Photon

            Yes, and you know damned well that this was not the photo that Marina and her mother were shown at the hotel the night they burned the photo.
            It was a photo of the phony “Oswald” taken in Mexico City.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Why don’t you ask the Dallas police department? Perhaps they were trying to investigate a murder case. Are you claiming that police departments never reproduce pictures obtained during an investigation?
            Of course this photo does not reproduce the shadows seen on the Oswald photo.
            It does not reproduce the foliage present in the Oswald photo.
            It includes more detail and more view of the structures present int he back yard.
            In essence, it could not be used as a template-at least not by someone who would wanted to forge a picture of Oswald.
            Please document your claim that Marina and Oswald’s mother were discussing the Mexico City picture. They never knew that picture existed until it was released weeks later. Why would they know of its existence on Nov. 23?

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Photon

            I just love the sound of a photon insult in the morning. Sounds like victory.

            There is clearly something there in the Roberdeau negative. Even you can see it. Just what it is and how it came to appear is something I’d be interested to hear Willy’s professional opinion on. Willy, would you be so gracious as to honour us with your expert views?

            If you’d read my posts carefully you’d see that I have not abandoned Mary Moorman’s testimony at all. In fact I’d invite you again to comment on it. She sounds pretty crystal clear to me that the photo she took was just after the first shot and before the head shot.

            But I’m trying to reconcile what I see on Roberdeau with what Mary Moorman says about when she took the photo as they seem to contradict each other.

    • Fearfaxer says:

      There is absolutely no concrete evidence backing up the claim that Lee Harvey Oswald shot at General Walker, and a great deal that makes it highly unlikely — for instance, the fact that Oswald lived a number of miles from Walker’s house, had neither a driver’s license nor an automobile, and would have to have either walked there and back while carrying a rifle, or taken a bus and/or taxi cab while transporting the rifle. Of course, it’s always possible a friend could have driven him, but then that makes a conspiracy in the Walker attempt, and if there was a conspiracy on that occasion . . . Lone Nut Buff’s Nightmare!

  9. Any item can be cherry picked. At the time of his death, Oswald was a suspect accused of murder. At best, in light of all the recent disclosures and investigations, the findings of the WC & HSCA can only be termed inconclusive. Either Oswald acted totally on his own or he was an active or passive member of a domestic or international conspiracy to murder JFK. Or he was innocent. If he was ‘sacrificed’ (after the fact) by LBJ in the name of national security, then Oswald’s guilt (at any level of participation) or innocence should be based on factual evidence and not speculation (& unopened CIA & FBI files) I would wager Marina Oswald has the basis for a civil suit against the government for denying due process to her husband. As for the issue of credibility: threaten to separate a young mother from her children, who know what she might say or how she might act under duress.

  10. Mariano says:

    Without doubt many observers of the WC report have an evolved understanding or view of events that is somewhat different from that held in the early years, based on the many more questions and new information that has surfaced since.
    I think Marina is entitled to review her thoughts and understanding of events with the benefit of retrospect.
    Many supporters of the WC are happy to use any of Marina’s testimony that purportedly supports the official line, yet disqualify her as a unreliable witness if she counters that line.
    In recent times she has not stepped back in explaining why she once held certain views and why some of her views might be inconsistent with some previous testimony. She articulates her words with far more clarity and confidence than was the case in the 60’s.
    If her most fervent views of events are found to be supported by facts then she as a witness cannot be dismissed entirely as unreliable.

  11. David Regan says:

    Commission members themselves found her testimony to be contradictory and untruthful on some levels.

    Regardless, none of her claims against her husband would have been admissible at trial.

  12. Larry Schnapf says:

    First of all, none of her testimony would have been admissible in court under the spousal immunity rule that was in effect at that time. without her testimony to authenticate the photos, that LHO owned the rifle and that he tried to shoot walker, the government’s case would have been seriously undermined.

    She was also quoted in a NY Times article that she felt the FBI had threatened she would get deported if she didnt “cooperate”. You can google the article. I have it but dont know how to post it here. Put yourself in her shoes. She can provide the testimony the gov wants to protect her children or testify truthfully to protect her dead husband but put her kids at risk. what choice would you make?

    and this ignores the inconsistencies of her testimony.

  13. I think the fact that Oswald gave one of the backyard photos to DeMorenschildt signed on the back in Oswald’s handwriting “Hunter of Fascists” is a good indication that Marina took the photos and that they have not been altered.

    • Have you never heard of forgery Randy?

      The backyard photos are obvious fakes, bad ones, amateur and easily detectable with the naked eye. The line across the top of his chin is blatant. The shadows on the face conflict with the shadows in the rest of the photograph.

      All one has to do is make multiple dupes of dupes, and the contrast build shows that crop line like it was drawn with a black marker.
      \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Hi Willy

        What literally screams fake to me about the photos is the severe list to starboard Oswald seems to have. Add to this the fact the camera is not being held level, throwing the whole back yard off level in the photos, and one wonders how Oswald could have remained erect while the photos were being taken. It was only made worse when a test photo was taken of a law enforcement officer at the same scene and holding a rifle and newspapers. He clearly had no trouble standing upright.

        I believe the people who created these photos would have been quite surprised at the capabilities of photo analysts, armed with computers, to intensely study these photos 50 years later.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Has his handwriting ever been analyzed on the Hunter of Facists bit? Who knows if LHO gave that picture to De Morenschild, or,if it was fake planted or given to him by whoever did create it?
      As far as the faking look at all you can find of researcher Jack White on this.

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

      http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/po-jfkwhite

      • Ronnie, there are other samples of “Oswald’s handwriting” that indicate that there was a talented handwriting forger involved in this case. The note to Marina supposedly claiming he was off to do something that might lead to him being caught and jailed, to do with the night he supposedly took that shot at Walker.
        The Mexican embassy having his photo and signature, etc.
        \\][//

      • Bill says:

        Yes. It was examined by the HSCA and came up as being clearly Oswald’s. Seek and you will find.

  14. Sammy says:

    As for the controversial backyard photos. Why would Marina go into detail about her memory of taking those photos? She found it odd that Lee was dressed in black and wanted little Junie to have one of the photos some day so she could see her daddy with his rifle, etc. Marina was upset about it. If she were simply protecting herself and her daughters, wanting to cooperate with the commission, all she had to say is that she took the pictures. She sounded very sincere to me, like a worried wife and mother.

    • “…like a worried wife and mother.”~Sammy

      Yea, worried enough to learn elaborate scripts fed to her by her handlers, who can conveniently embellish her “testimony” to fit their needs.

      Not only is Marina not a credible witness, but the Commission is not a credible inquiry.

      I know others disagree with this, and I consider those who buy the WC Report to be misguided or agenteur of the state.

      We have assessed enough of this situation here, that I think it is beyond reasonable doubt that the sole agenda of the Warren Commission was to find Oswald a lone gunman, and to bury or disregard any exculpatory evidence that ran counter to that agenda.
      \\][//

      • Sammy says:

        A very possible idea, Willy. Something to think about. I like the variety of ideas on this site. Could it also be possible that Lee might have tampered with the photos himself? A little crazy lateral thinking I know. But he did work in photography and when questioned, told those interrogating him that he knew about photography. Maybe he had an agenda of his own or was just doing some experimenting. Okay, beyond belief but possible.

  15. Photon says:

    It is quite instructive to see how so many accept the fiction of the backyard photos being faked..Real experts have found no evidence that they were; Oswald himself told her to destroy them while he was under arrest in Dallas.As for so many alteration claims, the mere fact that CT have to resort to such nonsense reveals how damaging the photos are to conspiracy theories. They show Lee Oswald with not just one, but two murder weapons. They cannot be explained away, so the true believers deny their existance.

    • Neil says:

      The altered photo theories are just a distraction.

      There are reasons to doubt the credibility of Marina Oswald without venturing into that rabbit hole…

      • “The altered photo theories are just a distraction.”~Neil

        res ipsa loquitur!

        But it is not a “theory” if you grasp that the thing itself speaks. If you can see with your own eyes what these photos show, no one is going to convince you.

        So just what is this a distraction from? You can either pick it up, or leave it lay. It is not a make or break issue as far as proving that the Warren Commission was a fixed operation with a predetermined outcome of a lone gunman.
        \\][//

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      My friend Photon,

      Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t one of the famous “backyard photos” found in the belongings of police officer Roscoe White when he passed away? If true, how is that explained—besides the usual “he was a police officer and he was just curious.” Care to comment?

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      My friend Photon,

      So, the CIA made a mistake in the crime of the century? That is your answer? A mistake? Please notice that I put the CIA as the world’s finest intelligence agency in quotes, because they are not, nor have they ever been an intelligency agency. What they are and what they always will be is an instrument of deception, destruction , overthrower of governments, and a few other things that history has recorded for those Americans that can behind the flag waving and actually discover the truth. Again, you pick and choose which part of the WC myth you want to uphold and which part to defend. If a person that does not believe the WC BS were to post a picture of an unidentified man and claim he was someone he was not, you would 50 reasons why this person could not be believed and therefore has to be “debunked.” The WC gets a free pass because they were honorable men and they would never lie to their country. Well, dear Photon, the CIA is a part of the government machinery that you hold so dear to your heart. The REAL truth about the picture of the man in Mexico City is that the CIA lied to the American public. They knew it was NOT Oswald, and they knew that most people would probably not investigate their BS story. You claim over and over on these threads about the government experts that have “investigated” the JFK case and ALL of the government experts are NEVER, EVER wrong. Well, the Mexico City Oswald is one case where the experts were WRONG. And they knew it. And your only explanation is that it was a mistake? Do members of the non-believing WC BS get the same free pass from YOU when they make a mistake? Most of your posts would indicate I they do not. Care to comment? Care to comment as to why Philips or Angleton made a rush visit to Mexico City to rob the safe and steal all of Winston Scott’s files after his unfortunate death? After all, they had only made a “mistake” and LHO was a “lone nut.” Look forward to hearing from you.

      • C. Riesmeyer says:

        Yes, Photon: thin beer, weak tea, either applies. You are generally a worthy if exasperating foil in these debates because your approach is so cocksure it forces those on the other side to sharpen their game. But in regard to this event — which happens to be a quite significant one — you say the CIA “simply made a mistake”? I dare say you’ve revealed a fairly rare, but hugely telling, chink in your armor.

      • Photon says:

        How about a fact to go along with the speech?
        The CIA ( and the FBI) blew it in monitoring a returned defector with Marxist tendencies.
        What ever cooperation those agencies did not give the Warren Commision was more of a CYA process than anything else.
        The CIA blew the intelligence story of the 20th Century.

        • Steve Stirlen says:

          My dear friend Photon,

          No! It can’t be! Please say it ain’t so! The government CANNOT make a mistake! YOU have said so on this thread and numerous threads on this website! EVERYONE that supports the WC conclusion is INFALLIBLE! They are not open to question or speculation or any type of second-guessing. Why, on this thread, ALL of the photographic experts hired by our government are the “Bill Gates” of their field. They are the BEST. To imply otherwise is blasphemy! It is the CT that must admit mistakes, be debunked, and absorb all the other garbage that gets hurled. Remember, dear Photon, this was the CRIME of the century, not someone speeding through a red light with a camera attached to the pole. There MUST be some other reason than a mistake! Oh, the ramifications! If the CIA released a photo of a man that was not Oswald, in NO way resembled Oswald, and has yet to tell the American people who the man really was, then just think of the other “mistakes” our government might have made! Oh, but wait! According to the LBJ, these men were the best and the brightest, the height of American greatness!

          Here is a “FACT” for you Photon. The CIA and the FBI were made up of men who had their own agendas and their predetermined conclusions about JFK’s murder. Here is another “FACT.” The WC was a sham foisted on the American people by one of the most corrupt and heinous politicians to EVER occupy the White House—LBJ. It was not, nor has it ever been, a true investigation. It was phony, and it was created by a group of men who selectively decided behind closed doors which witnesses that were called, and which witnesses would be ignored. It was Gerald Ford who “moved” the back wound up to the neck, because he said it would “clarify” things. If a CT had suggested something like that, YOU would have been howling at the moon. It was the WC’s Arlen Specter who gave us the SBT, even though the holes in JFK’s jacket and shirt do not come CLOSE to matching the “back of the neck wound.” Oh yeah, I forgot, JFK, according to Specter was waving at the crowd which caused his jacket to “ride up” on his back. It was the CIA who RUSHED to Mexico City after Winston Scott died and stole the materials out of his safe. That seems odd to me—a mistake you could say—when Oswald was a”lone nut.” Of course, there was the hard to explain incident of Hoover calling Johnson and admitting to a “little problem” we have down there. YOU want to talk FACTS, Photon? Then let us start by having an open and honest discussion. You see, for every “witness” and “expert” that you can produce, there is another just as qualified “expert” that can refute the other’s claim. YOU do not want an open and honest debate. YOU want to pick and choose who to zero in on, and who to sanctify. YOUR CIA LIED TO YOU AND EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN. Let me close this post with a comment by G. Robert Blakey—“I no longer believe ANYTHING the FBI or the CIA has to say about the Kennedy assassination.” That may not be his direct quote, but you get the gist. Now, you had better get the debunking and spin machine cranked up to full gear to find something to discredit Mr. Blakey.

          Oh, by the way, can you answer the two recent questions I have asked you: 1. Why did Roscoe White have a backyard photo in his possession, and why did Jesse Curry tell reporters in 1977 (I believe that was the year) that “no one has put that man in that window yet.”

          Hope to hear from you soon.

          • Photon says:

            Roscoe White obtained his copies of the Oswald pictures while on the Dallas police force, as he told his sister Linda-this is old news,Steve-I am surprised that you fell for the old CT fable of White being involved in any way with the assassination. Teaching elementary school social studies certainly doesn’t make you an expert on the CIA, the FBI or any aspect of how they fulfill their duties as designated by the duly elected government of the United States.
            If you don’t like the experts used by the Warren Commission, the HSCA, the Rockefeller Panel you certainly have the right to ignore their qualifications. But you need demonstrable proof from other experts to impeach their findings. In the case of the forensic pathology evidence you won’t find it-no real expert forensic pathologist that has reviewed the data save Cyril Wecht disagrees with the findings of the Warren Commision. After 50 years to me that is ironclad proof that the Commision’s conclusions were correct. When there is controversy, such as the acoustic evidence that led the HSCA astray, bona fide experts world recognized in their fields are my sources.
            When I see the CT arguments that expertise is almost always lacking- the CT ” experts” are usually people with no particular skill or knowledgein the fields they claim to be expert in. For instance, the CIA obcession common among the CT community. Virtually none of the participants on this blog have ever had any contact with an employee of the CIA, any knowledge of actual CIA operations, any understanding of the multiple tasks of the Agency. Instead, a cartoon , spy novel perception of the Agency drives almost all of the theories of CIA involvement in this matter-and actual evidence is nowhere to be found-or deemed necessary.
            Why Curry made the statement that he did 15 years after the crime is beyond me, particularly on Nov. 23 he told the press that they had their man and Oswald was it. Perhaps after 15 years of enduring questions about how the Dallas Police Dept. let an American President get assassinated despite the most stringent security in the city’s history had something to do with it. Perhaps the fact that despite Curry personally addressing the topic of Oswald’s security on national television his incompetent police force allowed a nobody to gain access to the most important prisoner in the history of the Dallas Police Dept. and fatally wound him in front of 100 million witnesses. Perhaps he was grabbing at any straw to rationalize the fact that the Dallas Police Department blew it twice-and he was the guy in charge.

          • leslie sharp says:

            “Virtually none of the participants on this blog have ever had any contact with an employee of the CIA, any knowledge of actual CIA operations, any understanding of the multiple tasks of the Agency.”

            You know that for a fact, photon? Then you must also know that anyone who has befriended an agent or a former agent would never be willing to prove to you what they know about how the agency operates. So you of course know you are on safe ground here, but yours is a foolhardy stunt my friend.

            “Perhaps the fact that despite Curry personally addressing the topic of Oswald’s security on national television his incompetent police force allowed a nobody to gain access to the most important prisoner in the history of the Dallas Police Dept. and fatally wound him in front of 100 million witnesses. Perhaps he was grabbing at any straw to rationalize the fact that the Dallas Police Department blew it twice-and he was the guy in charge.”

            ‘Perhaps and perhaps and grabbing at any straw.’ And you are grabbing at the straw of “Incompetence.” Instances of incompetence in a police force that is spread over years can be written off as human weakness, but incompetence concentrated in a 48 hour period involving the crime of the century is not weakness or ineptitude, it is blatant failure to perform a duty. The question is: was that failure deliberate?

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Photon

            I agree with Leslie. How DO you know who we all know? You may not be the only one with ‘interesting’ friends.

          • “Virtually none of the participants on this blog have ever had any contact with an employee of the CIA, any knowledge of actual CIA operations.” ~Photon

            That is a gross assumption to be sure. Just how can you be so sure of this?
            \\][//

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            My much more detailed post has not made it through yet, so let me re-visit two questions you have not answered:

            1. WhY did Philips or Angelton RUSH to Mexico City after Scott died and steal all of his documents from his safe? Remember, LHO was a “Lone nut.” If this was a slam dunk case, why can’t you and I see the contents of his safe? Don’t say national security because, remember LHO was a deranged loner.

            2. What about the back wound that does not match up to JFK’s jacket holes. Comments? And Gerald Ford moving the wound up for clarity?

            Maybe my longer post will make it through for you to answer.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            My dear friend Photon,

            Part 1 of three:

            1. It is nice to hear from you! I thought you would be trolling some other thread on this post and I would have to search to find you!

            2. It is MIDDLE SCHOOL. Been at the same school for 24 years. Had a wonderful career. Thanks for asking!

            3. I use my real name on this site, as do most people. I have nothing to hide. Do you, Photon? Or is it Paul May? Elvis?

            4. Can we discuss some more “facts?” Good!

            I asked a question about Roscoe White and the photo and I “fell” for it? Fell for what? You said he told his sister Linda that he wanted one. And in your mind, that is all that needs to be said. Correct? In other words, Linda and Roscoe are “good” witnesses. How about this? What if I took your stance and got the debunking machine up and running and dug up some dirt on Linda? Isn’t that what you do? Every witness I have asked you about has had a reason to be doubted. Not yours! Does it seem odd to you that ONLY Roscoe had the backyard photo? What about other members of the DPD? Why not Poe or Tippit? Does the fact that LHO and Roscoe might have been together in the Marines or sailed on a boat raise any issues with you? Let me guess, Roscoe wanted it as a keepsake for his scrapbook? What about Curry? Why didn’t he have one? You said the DPD blew it twice that weekend. I would say an officer on the force having one of the most famous photos in his possession would be a third. Have you heard of evidence? How about tainted evidence? How does the DPD let a photo of that importance out of its control?

            How about Mexico City? Why did Philips or Angleton RUSH to get to Mexico City to steal the documents form Scott’s safe after his tragic death? You say LHO was a “lone nut.” If that is the case, why would they need Scott’s materials? Please don’t use the tired old line of national security. Remember, LHO was a deranged loner. Why cannot you and I and the rest of America see the contents of Scott’s files and diary? Remember, the CIA has nothing to hide! LHO was hell bent on making a name for the history books. Period. No reason to hide a thing!

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            What about George Joannides? What did he have to hide? He was given the chance by the HSCA to help the investigation. He hid his role during that time. In fact G. Robert Blakey said the he “does believe ANYTHING that the CIA or FBI have to say about the JFK case. They lied to us at every turn.” Not the exact quote, but you get the gist. What did Joannides have to hide? It was an open and shut case, remember?

            You mention the “experts” that have been right for 50 years. Which experts would you be referencing? Humes? How about J. Edgar Hoover and his men? They were experts right? Like Frazier, the “bullet” and ballistics expert, correct? How about Sibert? Oh wait; you said he was a questionable witness because his testimony did not match the mountain of evidence that the WC had gathered. But didn’t Sibert work for the SAME group of experts that you use? Uh-oh. One of the FBI men is an expert, but another one is questionable? Both worked in the same agency? Better not tell Hoover!

            The bullet wound in Kennedy’s back? You know the one? The wound that did not match the holes in his jacket and shirt? The one that Gerald Ford moved up for “clarity.” Why, you would think that you would be mad because wounds don’t simply “move” after someone is deceased! But no, Gerald Ford is one of the good witnesses in this case. Case closed on that point!

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Here is another “fact.” When someone obtains a Master’s Degree in education and receives a 4.0 for his efforts, it usually implies that they can READ. Well, I can READ. And I can THINK. And I can DECIDE for myself. I do not need the help of politicians and other masters of deceit to help me know the TRUTH. So, yes, I teach middle school. But I also READ. I would be more than happy to send you photo of my personal library that contains around 500 books. I would also be glad to help you better understand the role of the CIA if you would like. Here are 4 books to get you started. 1. The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. Endless Enemies by Jonathon Kwitny. John Mitchell: The Strong Man by James Rosen. Family of Secrets by Russ Baker. Start with those 4, and then we can talk about the CIA and its “role” in world affairs.

            I would be happy to help you do what I teach my students to do every day: think critically. Search for the real truth, not the version that has been spoon-fed to us by a group of men with a different set of agendas than the democracy they were sworn to uphold. You know as well as I had JFK survived Dallas, LBJ would have been indicted, sentenced and imprisoned for his connection with Baker. The notion that his “commission” was out to discern the real truth about Dallas is disingenuous at best. To understand the JFK assassination, one must begin with the mind-set that the government did not want to know the truth. Once you start from that premise, then an open and honest discussion can begin.

            Hope to hear from you soon, my friend.

          • Photon says:

            How do you know that no other contemporary Dallas Police Officer didn’t have a copy of the same photograph?How do you know that Curry didn’t have a copy?
            Actually your ignorance about the CIA and security organizations is revealed in your statement about Angleton rushing to Mexico City to “steal” documents from his safe.Angleton was a personal friend of Scott and was the CIA representative to his funeral. It was also known that Scott kept sensitive information at his home and was planning on writing his memoirs; the standard practice in a similar case is for CIA employees to submit any and all information relating to CIA activities to the Agency for review before release. Angleton came to Scott’s house, met his wife and told her the situation ,was shown the safe and was given permission by her to remove the contents. As this took place in a foreign country the wife could have easily told Angleton to get lost. As for your 4 volume library of CIA information , I suggest that you supplement it with an original copy of “Decent Interval” by Frank Snepp, a CIA officer in Saigon in 1975. If you can.Perhaps you will find out what happens when CIA employees publish without clearance. It is SOP and has nothing to do with the assassination of JFK.
            Sorry that I stated that you were an elementary school teacher, but the inference would be the same if you taught at middle or high school in Kansas-you have no real knowledge of how the CIA works, nor have you ever had any exposure to an employee. I dare say that you have never served in the military, nor ever held a security clearance.
            If you really want to get your students thinking critically have them write essays explaining why Oswald was the only employee inside the TSBD during the assassination who took off and left the building unexcused before anybody in the building knew that JFK had even been shot.

          • So why are there photo’s of cops in the Oswald’s backyard in the same poses and props as these alleged photos of Oswald?

            The most rational explanation is that these pics of the cops are templates, directions for a forger to use in creating the infamous “Backyard Photos”
            \\][//

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Part 1:

            Hello Photon/Paul May/ Elvis

            1.How have you been my friend? It is nice to hear from you! Hope all is well.

            2.It is Missouri, not Kansas. Kansas has Sam Brownback; Missouri is too smart to elect him.

            3.It is not a 4-volume library: I said to START with those 4. I actually have close to 100 that would help you. I am worried about you LN, reading what is ACTUALLY written does not seem to be your strong suit.

            4.YOUR ignorance of the CIA was revealed when YOU said that the CIA made a “mistake” when it released the non-Oswald photo in Mexico City and then tried to pass it off as “evidence.” YOUR ignorance was further revealed when you refused to answer the question about why Hoover felt he had to place a phone call to Johnson “about the problem in Mexico City.” Remember, according to you, LHO was a “lone nut.” What possible problem could there be with a “lone nut” wandering around Mexico City with other nuts that were in the city at the same time?

            5.Why would it be a problem for Scott to write a memoir? Remember, LHO was a “deranged loner.” Remember, there was NO conspiracy. There was NO one else involved at all. Why would a memoir about a “lone nut” wandering around Mexico City cause the CIA any concern, except if Scott were going to reveal that LHO liked Coca-Cola over Pepsi?

            6.You quote ONE book I should read about the inner workings of the CIA. I can give you 100 times that number. Could you give me ONE more title that can help me understand the “real” workings of the CIA?

            7.Have you heard of the United Fruit Company? Will you look up their past and then get back to me about the inner workings of the CIA?

            Look forward to you actually ANSWERING the questions I have asked in Part 1. I will ask the same questions you have refused to answer in Part 2. Please don’t disappear, as I am hoping you can help continue my education into the workings of the US government in 1963.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Part 2:

            Dear Photon/Paul May/Elvis:

            1. No, I do not work for the CIA or any agency related to the government that deals with what they call “national security” or “intelligence.” There is a simple explanation. I try to live a moral and honest life. I do not believe because I was fortunate enough to be born in America that I have the right to overthrow governments and assassinate leaders of other countries to protect the business interests of certain American companies that can afford to but dirty politicians that are willing to do that very thing. Please read information related to John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles and Prescott Bush if you would like to learn the TRUTH.

            2. By the way, what is your moral leaning? Do you believe that ALL people are created equal? Or do you believe that because we are Americans we are somehow “morally superior?”

            3. You mention that I am not an expert on the CIA or FBI. What are YOUR credentials? Why don’t you give us some background so that I can determine if you actually have ANY validity on anything that you write on the website. Care to share where your EXCLUSIVE knowledge about the CIA has been obtained?

            4. Nope, I have never served in the military. Have you? I can tell you why I have not volunteered. Let’s take the Vietnam War. It started as a lie—the Gulf of Tonkin. Young men who did not have the means or desire to attend college fought in it. What a PERFECT way to select a military force! If you are rich or connected, picture George W. Bush, you can serve in a “champagne unit.” If not, welcome to the jungles of Southeast Asia to help LBJ’s buddies get mega-rich! You know, General Dynamics or Bechtel, etc. Sounds fair to me! Sounds like democracy to me! I will possibly die in a war that started out as a lie, against an “enemy” that never was an enemy, all to make the rich much, much richer. Nope, I believe I am too smart to die so politicians can help themselves get richer and their buddies achieve mega-wealth. How about you, Photon? Would you be willing to die for a lie?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Part 3

            Dear Photon/Paul May/ Elvis:

            How about you and TRY to answer the questions that I ask? I know that you are going to put the “debunking” machine on the super-spin cycle, but your insights help me understand how the LN allow the government to continue to deceive the American people in 2015.

            1. You mention the HSCA and its “experts.” I know you think they have credentials that NO one else can hope to have. What about G. Robert Blakey, the HEAD of the HSCA, who said—and you can look it up for yourself—that he “no longer has any faith in the info from the CIA. They lied to us at every turn.” How am you or I to have ANY faith in an investigation where one of the investigative arms is deemed to by LYING by the vey head of that committee? So if the FBI or the CIA gives information from its “experts,” I am supposed to swallow their findings when the HEAD of the committee says he has NO faith in their information? Really? Can you explain Blakey’s comments—be careful, the debunking machine may throw a bearing to help with the spin you are going to have to create.

            2. What about George Joannides? He was given to HSCA by the CIA to help with the investigation and he “forgot” to mention that HE was in charge of information related to the assassination. I am sure it slipped his mind. Remember, LHO was a “lone nut” and a “deranged loner.” Why didn’t Joannides reveal that he was a key member in the CIA and he would give them what they wanted to know about Oswald and what the CIA knew about him? Please don’t hide behind “national security,” because, remember, LHO was a “lone nut” and there was NO conspiracy. One would think that the CIA would want to give all relevant information to the committee to clear its good name. Yet, that did not happen. Why would that be the case, Photon?

            3. What about Gerald Ford moving the back wound to a neck wound for the sake of “clarity?” If the CT had suggested that, you would have been foaming at the mouth. The holes in JFK’s jacket do not line up with the neck wound as Ford has suggested. So, are we going to use the Specter “JFK’s jacket was bunched up due to waving, or are we going to go with the photographs that were taken at Bethesda are more accurate even though Saundra Spencer stated that the existing photos are not the ones she developed” excuse?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Dear Photon/Paul May/Elvis,

            Finally, if you want me to have my students write essays about LHO leaving the TSBD to develop their critical thinking skills, you are first going to have to convince me how the CIA photo of “Oswald” in Mexico City was a “mistake” and why Jesse Curry said that “no one has put that man in that building yet.” Because if you think I am going to make my kids swallow any BS put forth by the WC without exposing them to the inconsistencies of the government’s version of what happened on 11-22-63, then your photon laser has somehow switched from the “stun” setting to the “let’s create some more idiots for the US government” setting.

          • Photon says:

            Thanks , Steve. You have confirmed our information.

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Photon

            Steve, I think you might have got an actual apology in there from Photon (a bit half-a*sed admittedly but still I believe it’s a first on here!)

            “If you really want to get your students thinking critically have them write essays explaining why Oswald was the only employee inside the TSBD during the assassination who took off and left the building unexcused before anybody in the building knew that JFK had even been shot”.

            Not this canard again. Haven’t we dealt with this elsewhere?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            That’s it? No more dialogue between you and I? If this is the end, I wish you the best of luck!

            Steve

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            If you mean that my information helps you realize that the WC is so full of holes that the actual truth of what happened to JFK will never be known, it has been my pleasure to lend you my time. Good luck to you.

            Steve

          • John says:

            Steve, while I appreciate the levity, with all due respect, please do not besmirch Elvis Presley’s memory by placing him in such company.

            In fact, if you ever visit Graceland, you can see that one of the last books Elvis was reading before he died was the Warren Commission Report. It was on his desk. Elvis’ friends and family have stated over the years that he was obsessed with JFK’s assassination and didn’t believe the Warren Report.

            I would also suggest that until “photon” or “Mother May’s” son sprouts enough backbone to reveal his true name and qualifications, as he demands from others that he should just be ignored as a Wannabe. Having periodically joisted with “photon” I can say this with certainty, you should fact check everything he purports as I and others have found most of his contentions made of nothing more than vapor and the product of a vivid imagination.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            John,

            My apologies to you. You are most correct. One should never take the King’s name in vain. I was able to visit Graceland last Christmas—it was a gift from my lovely wife— and it was a dream come true! No offense meant and I will be more careful in the future.

            Steve

        • “Teaching elementary school social studies certainly doesn’t make you an expert on the CIA, the FBI or any aspect of how they fulfill their duties as designated by the duly elected government of the United States.” ~Photon

          So there you have it Mr. Stirlen, you have to be part of the Cult of Intelligence to “understand” their “duties”.

          This “duly elected” nonsense has been shown to be a farce for decades. This doublespeak by Photon is classic spook-talk, and one does NOT have to be a spook to understand it. It is a pretense of elitist snobs, prevaricators of statism, and government by secrecy.
          \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Steve, I hope that you are not teaching history. The Vietnam war did not start in the Gulf of Tonkin. What evidence do you have that Joannides had even heard of Oswald before Nov. 22, 1963?
            The reason that I suggested Snepp’s book apparently went completely over your head, as it had to do more with the policies of CIA employees publishing without clearance than the substance of the book itself. Those policies in part explained why the contents of his safe were recovered-not stolen.
            I am sorry that you have never felt obligated to join the service.For many it is an educational experience that often runs contrary to the perceptions that folks that have never served often have.

        • Vanessa says:

          Hi Steve

          You have just been subjected to what I think of as a ‘classic photon’. We’ve all been subjected to it at one time or another.

          The classic photon is, once you have argued him to a standstill he does not concede you have made your point or acknowledge any doubts may have been raised about his own position. No, he simply melts away into the ether only to reappear fresh as a daisy arguing exactly the same point on another thread as though you have never exchanged a word.

          I believe this may be a well known CIA torture technique.

          Keep fighting the good fight.

          • Photon says:

            Vanessa, I did respond to Mr. Stirlen’s potpourri of claims and factoids.
            You will have to take it up with the moderator why it was not posted.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            I never said the Vietnam War STARTED in the Gulf of Tonkin. What I did say was the LBJ used the Gulf of Tonkin incident to lie to the Congress and the people of the US to begin the war in the Vietnam.

            I will continue to teach history for as long as I wish. I have the credentials to show you that I EARNED that right.

            As far as me serving in the services, I explained my reasoning. YOU have said NOTHING about your vast service—if you served at all. In fact, you don’t even the courage to use your REAL name on this site. For all anyone knows, you could be sitting in a Starbucks somewhere, giving people the idea that you actually have ANY insight into this case. Well, you have read the WC, so you do recognize BS, or have at least been exposed to it.

            Care to have a real discussion? Or, do you wish to sit behind a fake name and fake credentials and take shots at people in the lobby of a Starbucks?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Vanessa,

            As long as there are people like you on this site, I will fight on! People like you give me hope for this country of ours! Well done!

            Steve

          • Vanessa says:

            Okay – I will then.

            Any chance you will water down your comments to Steve about his students essay writing topics? Specifically that Oswald was the only one who left the TSBD after the President had been shot etc? I’m happy to post the link to the discussion we had about that, if you would like?

          • Vanessa says:

            Thanks for those kind words Steve.

            FWIW I think Photon’s obnoxious tactics are deliberately aimed to intimidate and put people off. He will work out the most offensive thing to say to someone and then say it. I wouldn’t take them personally at all if I were you.

            Some posters even say he is a paid-up disinformation agent for the CIA. (Not me of course, I would never say anything like that). I, for one, hope that he is being paid by the Agency for all the good work he does for them on here. In fact, I’d be happy to petition the Agency on his behalf for a pay rise, if necessary, just to make sure he is being properly compensated. How about it Photon?

            Btw, Steve, next time he starts being objectionable about your educational qualifications why don’t you ask him if he has any postgrad quals to speak of. I believe the answer is ‘no’.

            Personally, I don’t think people’s quals make any difference to their ability to recognise the truth but Photon obviously does and he hammers us with that all the time. Some accountability from him, for a change, would be nice.

            Of course there is always the possibility that he really is that rude and snobbish in real life…..but nah, I think he’s really a teddy bear. 🙂

          • Vanessa says:

            PS Steve, I should point out I’m not American. My apologies if I gave that impression. Though I did live there from 1992 – 1996 in Washington DC and obviously love the country and the people.

          • Photon says:

            At least Prince George’s County,anyway Vanessa? You know, the Ginter house in Beltsville ?
            Still interested in Sci-Fi?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Vanessa,

            Welcome to America! Thank you for taking the time to help in this struggle. Your time and energy are GREATLY appreciated by this American as we try—most likely in vain—to restore the democracy this country was supposed to have been dedicated to.

            People like Photon don’t bother me. You are probably right—he probably is a nice guy. I started looking at the Kennedy assassination in 1979, when I was 17. I took my first trip to Dallas 3 years later in 82. I usually don’t get into the point by point argument with people, because the facts of this case have been so twisted and torn apart by the very people who we trusted to do the right thing. Think about this. Where else but in America do we choose a “committee” to investigate the death of a president with politicians/bureaucrats? It is much like allowing prisoners to run a parole board. The WC from the beginning was a sham committee formed by a sham president. If they wanted a true investigation, LBJ would have chosen people from ALL fields of American life, much like a jury is chosen.

            Welcome, and I hope one day you are able to re-visit the USA. Thank you for your help.

            Steve

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Photon 🙂

            Okay, strictly speaking I should have said Washington DC metro area. Same same, really. 🙂

            The Ginter house? Have I been there? You will have to tell me.

            I believe they prefer to be called SF fans these days. My husband was the SF fan not me and he even doesn’t believe there was a JFK conspiracy! (can you believe that!?)

            Lots of interesting things on the web, aren’t there, Albury? How are your dogs going these days? Labs are your preferred breed aren’t they?

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Steve – thanks for the welcome and kind words.

            Glad to hear that about Photon not bothering you. His tactics are designed to shut us up and shut us down. 🙂

            I have been back to the USA since, on a trip to Colorado. Been all around the US -fantastic scenery everywhere. I might even make it to one of the JFK conferences one of these days.

            Cheers.

        • Bogman says:

          That’s even harder to believe than the WR…

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Bogman – which bit is harder to believe than the WR? It’s a very long thread. 🙂

      • I think Photon’s ramble about the CIA not being so good at “Intelligence” is telling. The Agency was not aimed at intelligence as per its original charter, it was aimed at covert activities, clandestine warfare, dirty tricks and deceit.
        “Intelligence” was just a cover for these other activities.

        Much the same with FBI, which was really more of a Gestapo geared to crush dissent than anything else.

        The National Security State is security from internal dissent. Now that it has become a panoptic maximum security state, all of this is more obvious than it has ever been.

        The uber-strategy of “Full Spectrum Dominance” couldn’t be more clear; that term is just a euphemism for ‘Totalitarian’.
        \\][//

        • Bob Zentrails says:

          “I think Photon’s ramble about the CIA not being so good at “Intelligence” is telling. The Agency was not aimed at intelligence as per its original charter, it was aimed at covert activities, clandestine warfare, dirty tricks and deceit.
          “Intelligence” was just a cover for these other activities.

          Much the same with FBI, which was really more of a Gestapo geared to crush dissent than anything else.”

          Gestapo is pretty good way to describe the CIA, which was founded by both Allen Dulles (essentially a reboot of the WWII era OSS) and (secretly via Operation Paperclip) Reinhardt Gehlen (planner of Operation Barbarossa) head of Hitler’s Eastern Front military intelligence. Gehlen was very, very good at his job.

          It’s beyond doubt that the CIA has been directly obstructing any inquiry into the JFK assassination, from the event all the way to today. It’s not hard to figure out why.

          And they are really, really good at disinformation, which I think is the real source of many, if not most, of the obviously wacky theories.

          And they were founded to spy on and sabotage the former Soviet Union, so is it credible that they were not REAL interested in LHO?

    • Bob Zentrails says:

      “They show Lee Oswald with not just one, but two murder weapons. They cannot be explained away, so the true believers deny their existance.”

      Not really. LHO was caught with a revolver, so nobody “denies” that. However, it was never proven to be a “murder weapon.”

      The rifle that may or may not have been found in the TSBD matched the ballistics of the magic bullet, which proves nothing, IMO, due to the lack of credible chain of custody issues with the magic bullet, and the strange circumstances under which it was “found.” (And that nitrate tests of LHO’s cheeks showed conclusively that he did not fire a rifle that day.)

      So, even if it is a given that the photo shows “two murder weapons” it in no way proves that LHO was the murderer as you are implying, just that a Texan owned a rifle and a revolver (who would have thought!!).

      What do you mean by “true believer?” – doesn’t that describe you?

      I “truly believe” that LHO’s actions during and after the assassination most peculiar, but that’s about all I’m sure about. I don’t believe the WC’s (or HSCA’s) conclusions explain LHO’s strange behavior in the least.

      Sure wish they had asked Marina about that.

      • leslie sharp says:

        Bob Zentrails, A very sound argument.

        If every Texan or indeed Southerner in the 1960’s had been suspect in the assassination based on photographs of them holding a rifle, the Warren Commission would still be in session. The photos prove absolutely nothing unless the rifle can be tied to a murder beyond a reasonable doubt. If that rifle was the murder weapon, there is no reason for this site let alone the millions of hours spent deliberating the facts.

        It is interesting that FBI Agent Bardwell “Hart” Odum appears in two highly significant scenarios during the first 48 hours following the assassination. Regardless of how murky the history might be Bardwell was somehow involved with the bullet on the stretcher at Parkland AND he appeared at the Executive Inn on the 23rd to present Marina Oswald with a photograph that some say was the Mystery Man in Mexico City, and Marguerita identified as Jack Ruby. Odum was very busy indeed. How did he get the assignment to go see Marina when he had also been tracking the magic bullet? That’s spreading an agent very thin indeed.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Uhm, CT = someone who calls into question the official version to come up with an alternate version.

      As for that backyard photo, Jim Marrs gave a simple presentation at Lancer which was pretty convincing.

  16. Avinash says:

    Her testimony was given through an interpreter.It is possible that the interpreter translated some things wrong,perhaps even on purpose.

  17. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Photon
    February 19, 2015 at 12:27 pm
    Just a bit of logic. If someone had altered the photos and invested so much time and energy into the alteration, why would they leave a “crop line” that could be identified by an amateur?

    ———————————————————————-

    In 2015, anyone can purchase the appropriate software for his computer and become an expert photo analyst. In 2015, none of us trust the governments anymore, let alone each other.

    In 1963, computers for analyzing photos hadn’t even been dreamed of yet, and most citizens trusted their government explicitly. The people that fabricated the back yard photos did a sloppy job because a) they were limited by the primitive technology of the time and b) for the above reasons, they likely felt confident no one would ever make a close examination of their work. I believe this last sentence applies to the majority of the coverup, most of which is sloppy, thrown together work.

    • I have done “special effects” photography both still and moving pictures for most of my adult life. While it was a skill that took much knowledge and practice in the days before digital technology, it is much easier today for a layman to achieve reasonable success, especially in a still photograph. Photoshop is the premier software for this type of photo manipulation, and can be used for both creation and analysis of images.

      One would use tools such as “Curves” to fine the lightest spot and darkest spot on a photo. The median between the two can be found for what is the original light/dark relationship of a photograph. If a photograph has excess contrast, it is a dupe that has not been corrected by the use of these tools (now in the digital realm).

      As the backyard photos are analog, the process for analysis would be to find a contrast between an area and another as to the light/dark relationship.

      One can see this by the naked eye if one has both analog and digital experience. Oswalds face has a contrast indicative of a shot taken in very bright lit noon day sun – deep shadows under the nose falling strait downward. The remainder of the photo shows the sun substantially forward of the figure, casting a shadow falling behind it.

      As mentioned before, the face is the same picture pasted on different body poses, even when the head is tilted the same shadow falls directly under the nose. each has the exact same expression and lighting. It is also noted that the head is larger in comparison to the body in the shot with the angled head.

      There is more to this, but these particular points should suffice for this comment.
      \\][//

  18. Arnaldo M Fernandez says:

    The backyards photos are fake just because there is no proof whatsoever that LHO ordered or received the rifle.
    On the evening of the assassination, two workers of the National Photo Labs, Robert and Patricia Hester, saw an FBI agent with some backyard photos, before they were found in Ruth Paine’s garage. That same evening Michael Paine and reporter Jeremiah O’Leary saw one backyard photo at Dallas Police Headquarters. Life Magazine acquired its photo from an unknown Dallas Police officer. May be Roscoe White? His widow found another backyard photo among his possessions. The Dallas Police found other backyard photos in 1991.
    Marina took the photos with the notorious Imperial Reflex camera, but she did not identified it as LHO’s when she was first shown it. Moreover, she firstly described a different camera as the one used by her to take the backyard photos. The Imperial Reflex camera appeared on February 14, 1964, when Robert Oswald gave it to the FBI and Marina finally identified it. Where did he get it? From Ruth Paine, although the camera wasn’t found when DPD thoroughly searched her house and garage.

    • Jim says:

      Is there a good source that sums up the entire backyard photos situation? In Shenon’s book I read that Marina burned photos in the motel. Don’t think I’ve read that before. Good lord, just how many backyard phots were there?

      • Jean Davison says:

        Oswald’s mother Marguerite testified that when she was at the Paine house on 11/22, Marina showed her a photo.

        QUOTE:
        She said, “Mamma, I show you.” She opened the closet, and in the closet was a lot of books and papers. And she came out with a picture — a picture of Lee, with a gun.
        [….]
        And it says “To my daughter, June.” I said, “The police,” meaning that if the police got that, they would use that against my son, which would be a natural way to think.
        She says, “You take, Mamma.”‘
        “Yes, Mamma, you take.”
        I said, “No, Marina. Put back in the book.” So she put the picture back in the book. Which book it was, I do not know.
        So the next day, when we are at the [jail] on Saturday-[….] She puts her shoe down, she says, “Mamma, picture.” She had the picture folded up in her shoe.

        […. Later when they went to a hotel]

        While there, Marina–there is an ashtray on the dressing table. And Marina comes with bits of paper, and puts them in the ashtray and strikes a match to it. And this is the picture of the gun that Marina tore up into bits of paper, and struck a match to it.
        Now, that didn’t burn completely, because it was heavy–not cardboard–what is the name for it–a photographic picture. So the match didn’t take it completely.
        Mr. RANKIN. Had you said anything to her about burning it before that?
        Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir. The last time I had seen the picture was in Marina’s shoe when she was trying to tell me that the picture was in her shoe. I state here now that Marina meant for me to have that picture, from the very beginning, in Mrs. Paine’s home. She said–I testified before “Mamma, you keep picture.”
        And then she showed it to me in the courthouse [jail]. And when I refused it, then she decided to get rid of the picture.
        She tore up the picture and struck a match to it. Then I took it and flushed it down the toilet.

        http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/2_10_64_AM.htm

        Marina told the same story about one of the backyard photos that Oswald had signed “to Junie from Papa” so that “someday she may remember me,” taking it to the jail in her shoe, and then getting rid of it.

        How do those of you who think the BY photos are fakes account for Marguerite’s testimony?

        • leslie sharp says:

          […. Later when they went to a hotel]

          This is classic. The inference is that Marina and Marguerite ‘went to a hotel’ when in fact they were “taken” from the Adolphus Hotel in downtown Dallas to the Executive Inn, Precinct 3, Garland, TX by representatives Allen Grant and Thomas Thompson of Luce-owned Life Magazine, the news operation that in the last few hours had initiated historic negotiations spearheaded by Dick Stolley for the purchase of the Z Film; that same private enterprise (Time-Life) was intent on capturing photographs for material gain.

          There is suggestion that the DPD was present at the motel but would Jean Davison defend the carelessness of Dallas law enforcement having endorsed let alone approved a private enterprise be allowed to ‘take charge’ of the Oswald family?

          Marguerite’s testimony attests that she soon realized they were “on their own” except for the monetary value they represented to Life Magazine. She also speaks to her personal history with Peter Gregory – key figure from the moment Lee and Marina arrived from the Soviet Union to Ft. Worth.
          Jean Davison has introduced a kettle of fish …. not the photograph that Marina burned in the ashtray which can hardly be introduced as evidence … but the photograph Marguerite was asked to identify through a crack in the door at the motel by FBI Agent Bardwell aka Hart Odum … a foto that leads directly to the conundrum, who exactly was that Mystery Man photographed in Mexico City and how did FBI agent Odum have it by the evening of November 23; and why did Marguerite think it looked like Jack Ruby if it didn’t? Jean, I have read the affidavits; they are not convincing.

          One can easily recognize the spunk of Marguerite as a mother bear, regardless of her failures. She stood valiantly between Odum and Marina. The assessment of Oswald’s mother advanced by books including “Oswald’s Game” should be reconsidered very carefully.

          WC Testimony: Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, sir; Mr. Hart Odum is an FBI agent. And I said, “No, we are going to see Lee.” We were all eating breakfast when he came in. said, “No, we have been promised to see Lee. She is not going with you.”

          “Marguerite Oswald: “No, sir. I think by now you know my temperament, gentlemen. I would not insult my son and ask him if he shot at President Kennedy. Why? Because I myself heard him say, “I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it.”
So, that was enough for me, I would not ask that question.”

          [Marguerite Oswald] “I didn’t realize the danger actually Marina and I were in. I sensed we were alone. And there I was with a Russian girl. And I didn’t want anybody to know who we were, because I knew my son had been picked up.”

          • Jean Davison says:

            Leslie,

            I asked, “How do those of you who think the BY photos are fakes account for Marguerite’s testimony?”

            Going to a hotel with the Life magazine representatives was Marguerite’s idea, as explained in the link I posted. Marguerite said that at the Paine house she’d wanted to be paid for an interview. The Life reporters told her they couldn’t give her a fee but that they “would pay our expenses while in Dallas, and our food and expenses, hotel accommodation.”
            Marguerite said, “During the night, I had decided I was going to take up their offer, because I would be besieged by reporters and everything. So why not go with the Life representatives, and let them pay my room and board and my daughter-in-law’s.”

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/2_10_64_AM.htm

            I believe Marguerite’s story about the photo Marina showed her on 11/22 is evidence that the BY photos are genuine. Anyone care to disagree?

          • “Anyone care to disagree?”~Jean

            Yes,
            The photograph that allegedly Marina burned in the ashtray can hardly be introduced as evidence.
            Just testimony from two frightened and confused women under duress.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Anyone care to disagree?”~Jean

            WILLY:
            “Yes,
            The photograph that allegedly Marina burned in the ashtray can hardly be introduced as evidence.
            Just testimony from two frightened and confused women under duress.”
            UNQUOTE

            Who said the burned photo was evidence? Not me. Marguerite’s testimony about the photo that corroborates Marina’s similar account — that’s the evidence.

            So you think Oswald’s own mother lied about seeing this photo and helping Marina get rid of it?

            Well, that’s your only out, isn’t it? It can’t be true or “the BY photos are fake” theory is toast.

            Anytime the evidence contradicts a conspiracy theory, that’s how it goes. “It’s fake.” “It was planted.”
            “They lied.”

            Using that system one can explain away anything. (But not really.)

          • leslie sharp says:

            “Going to a hotel with the Life magazine representatives was Marguerite’s idea, as I explained …”

            Ah contraire Jean, and this is another example of obfuscating,

            Mrs. OSWALD. Yes–all right.
            Now, so the next morning the two representatives of the Life Magazine, Mr. Allen Grant and Mr. Tommy Thompson come by at 9 o’clock with a woman, Russian interpreter, a doctor somebody. I have not been able to find this woman. I have called the universities, thinking that she was a language teacher, and I–maybe you have her name. But she is very, very important to our story. And I do want to locate her, if possible. DURING THE NIGHT, I HAD DECIDED I WAS GOING TO TAKE UP THEIR OFFER,
            (emphasis mine) because I would be besieged by reporters and everything. So why not go with the Life representatives, and let them pay my room and board and my daughter-in-law’s. They came by at 9 o’clock, without calling, WITH THIS RUSSIAN INTERPRETER . . . (emphasis mine.)

            Did you ever attempt to determine who this Life Magazine Russian interpreter was? Has anyone located her to ascertain her version of events?

            The photo in Marina’s shoe that according to Marguerite was a picture of Lee holding a rifle crosswise in both hands above his head is a non starter and you know it. The photo does not exist. Admittedly the event argues the question ‘why did Marina stuff one photo in her show and not the other(s?)’ As I posted on another thread, if the WC followed up on every photo of a person in Texas or the South holding a rifle, they would still be in session. The photos prove nothing unless the rifle can be tied to a crime. We would not be here if that had been done convincingly beyond reasonable doubt.

            Why do you argue that Marguerite was a credible witness when it relates to this burned photo, yet you refuse to acknowledge her testimony during which she stated quite clearly that she heard her son insist, “I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it?”

            As I argued in another comment that did not pass muster, you have a skill for ferreting out facts that disguises an aversion to debate those facts in context. Let’s discuss the various strings of events that take into consideration the fullness of your detail while at the same time addresses the challenges to the conclusions you draw. Compartmentalizing facts does not advance the truth.

          • David Hazan says:

            Leslie….

            I just put on all the hats I own so that I can take them off one by one for your masterful rebuttal above. So darn well done! Thank you.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Leslie,

            If anyone is “obfuscating,” I think it is you. You suggest I should have mentioned a Russian interpreter. Why? What did the interpreter do or say that seems suspicious to you?

            The Life representatives brought this interpreter with them, presumably so they could try to interview Marina. I don’t know why Marguerite thought she was important. Do you?

            This particular rifle photo had been kept in June’s baby book, according to Marina, because Oswald had signed it as a keepsake for his daughter. The other photos were in the garage, I think, in a duffel bag. I don’t know whether she knew they were there or not.

            QUOTE:
            Why do you argue that Marguerite was a credible witness when it relates to this burned photo, yet you refuse to acknowledge her testimony during which she stated quite clearly that she heard her son insist, “I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it?”
            UNQUOTE

            We’ve all heard Oswald claim he didn’t do it. Marguerite reported she heard the same thing. I’m sure she did, but so what?

            Odum had the Mystery Man photo the FBI had received from the CIA in Mexico and brought to Dallas the first night. It’s CE 237:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=138306

            I don’t mind discussing the *facts* with anyone who is civil.

          • Photon says:

            Hilarious. Oswald’s own mother confirms the existance of the photos less than 24 hours after the assassination and the CT folks still can’t accept them as genuine.
            As an aside from the photographic expert opinions, doesn’t this illustrate how illogical it is to push a false narrative with pseudoexperts, misinformation and conclusions based on that information when the fact is that the two people closest to Oswald knew they existed and were incriminating-or potentially lucrative?

          • Photon, Jean,

            Explain the photos of the cops in the backyard assuming the same poses and using the same props.

            I asked this once already but it ended up high in the thread.

            What could have been the purpose of these photos? To prove the Oswalds’ had a backyard?
            \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            Leslie,
            “I don’t know why Marguerite thought she was important. Do you?”

            It is clear from her testimony that Marguerite had begun to surmise everything was important; her son had been gunned down in front of a dozen law enforcement officers. She expressed a clear distrust for Ruth Paine, suspected her son might have been an agent for some shadowy entity, questioned Marina’s behavior, was confused about Peter Gregory; fundamentally she felt alone and frightened. I think she questioned the presence of the Russian interpreter as just one more instance of curiously convenient timing. I am suspicious of Time Life’s access to key witnesses in the murder and this interpreter facilitated that. Who located her for the Life guys . . . Patsy Swank who was responsible for connecting Stolley with the Z Film?

            “The other photos were in the garage, I think, in a duffel bag. I don’t know whether she knew they were there or not.”

            If Marina had shot all of the photos including the one in her shoe, why didn’t she go in search for the others? Don’t you think she would have said to Marguerite “there are others.” And how easy would it have been for them to have never mentioned the photo and the shoe and the ashtray? In fact, why did they?

            “ . . . but so what?”
            Are you serious …. But So What?? First of all, under our criminal justice system Oswald was presumed innocent until proven guilty; he was stating he did not kill the president -which defies the motive many have assigned him. If you choose to discount his statement because you found him guilty without benefit of a fair trial before his peers, albeit posthumously, then therein lies the fundamental incivility in this debate.

            Again, why was Odum assigned to two distinct areas of the investigation in a 24-hour period? A magic bullet and a CIA generated photograph. Was the FBI shorthanded, or was this extreme compartmentalization?

          • leslie sharp says:

            I failed to acknowledge the ongoing controversy that Odum insists he never had the bullet in his possession:

            Bill Simpich writes:

            “Many years after Thompson’s interview with Wright, a FBI memo was found which said that both Wright and Tomlinson thought that the bullet in evidence “appeared to be” the same one that they had seen on November 22.

            Thompson and his colleague Gary Aguilar sought out the memo’s author, FBI agent Bardwell Odum, and interviewed him about this contradictory evidence in 2002. Incredibly, Odum said that he never had possession of the magic bullet. Odum added that even though it was highly unlikely that he forgot such a significant event, the established procedure was to write up a report about something that important. No such memo has been found in the Archives, despite numerous searches. The use of Odum’s identity is another astonishing piece of fabricated evidence.”

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            QUOTE:
            Explain the photos of the cops in the backyard assuming the same poses and using the same props….What could have been the purpose of these photos? To prove the Oswalds’ had a backyard?
            UNQUOTE

            The purpose may have been to establish that the photos were in fact taken in the Oswalds’ backyard.

            The reenactment couldn’t have been used to create the BY photos because they were taken in a different season with different shadows. Look at the height of the bush and how the foliage has changed.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/2/22/Photo_hsca_ex_180.jpg

            http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338417/m1/1/

          • “If Marina had shot all of the photos including the one in her shoe, why didn’t she go in search for the others? Don’t you think she would have said to Marguerite “there are others.” And how easy would it have been for them to have never mentioned the photo and the shoe and the ashtray? In fact, why did they?”~Leslie

            We in fact, do not even know if this photo that was burned was a “backyard photo”, if it was one of the supposed sequence of shots. So how is it assumed this is part of a larger group of photo’s said to be found in Ruth Paine’s garage? And yes if Marina knew about other photos, why didn’t she mention it to her mother?
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Leslie,

            “Marguerite […] expressed a clear distrust for Ruth Paine, suspected her son might have been an agent for some shadowy entity, questioned Marina’s behavior, was confused about Peter Gregory…”

            Sure, Marguerite was suspicious of a lot of people. She was a conspiracy theorist. That doesn’t mean I have to believe Oswald didn’t do it just because she said so.

            “I think she questioned the presence of the Russian interpreter as just one more instance of curiously convenient timing.”

            The Life reporters brought along a translator to interview a woman who spoke little English and you call that
            “curiously convenient”? Why?

            You ask, “If Marina had shot all of the photos including the one in her shoe, why didn’t she go in search for the others?”

            Almost any JFK question beginning “Why didn’t he/she…?” is a pointless question, since it calls for speculation — unless you think I can read minds. But okay, I will guess. Marina said that Oswald had destroyed some of his Walker material,including a notebook he’d kept before the shooting. Marina may not have known he’d kept the other photos. (No, I can’t prove that, I’m speculating.)

            “And how easy would it have been for them to have never mentioned the photo and the shoe and the ashtray? In fact, why did they?”

            Again, calling for speculation. Are you suggesting they did something wrong by revealing this?

            QUOTE: “ . . . but so what?”
            Are you serious …. But So What?? First of all, under our criminal justice system Oswald was presumed innocent until proven guilty; he was stating he did not kill the president -which defies the motive many have assigned him.”

            No, it doesn’t.

            “If you choose to discount his statement because you found him guilty without benefit of a fair trial before his peers, albeit posthumously, then therein lies the fundamental incivility in this debate.”

            And yet you never seem to afford the same rights to the numerous people you consider suspicious: the Russian translator, Patsy Swank (whoever that is), the Life crew, Roy Truly, and many others. Have any of the people you’ve named on this site ever had a fair trial? Is there even any evidence against them? For instance, have any of them ever been connected to a murder weapon? Oswald has rights, they don’t?

            “Again, why was Odum assigned to two distinct areas of the investigation in a 24-hour period?”

            How should I know? Can you show that this was unusual in the days immediately following the assassination?

        • H.P. Albarelli Jr. says:

          Thank you, Jean. I appreciate it when you so expertly dismantle some of these fragile theories. You have far more patience than I.

          • Jean,

            Your explanation that they were to prove the Oswald’s had a backyard it less than convincing.

            That they would send these physical pieces of evidence to the backyard and pose with them simply to prove that the Oswald’s indeed had a backyard is less than a convincing argument. All they would have to do is take pictures of the backyard.

            You have not answered what the necessity was for the posing with these props.
            ___________________
            \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            I notice the cops in the reenactment weren’t leaning over like there was a 50 mph cross wind blowing. Why did “Oswald” have such a lean to him?

            Or am I making “fragile” assumptions here, Mr Albarelli?

          • leslie sharp says:

            Bob, have you ever attempted to recreate the stance Oswald holds in that photo? I tried. It’s quite complicated, the weight of the hip vs. the angle or list starboard as you say. Even if one takes the several minutes required to replicate his position, I dare say no one would ever assume it spontaneously including Lee Oswald.

          • H.P. Albarelli Jr. says:

            Seems more like a fragile question, Bob. But thanks for asking.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            “Your explanation that they were to prove the Oswald’s had a backyard it less than convincing.”

            That’s not what I said.

            Did you notice that the shadows and foliage in the backyard photo with the policeman doesn’t match the Oswald BY photos?

            It turns out that the reenactment photos were included in the WC exhibits. Fritz testified that his crime lab took the photos in late November.

            WC exhibits:
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1134&relPageId=523

            fritz:
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=34&relPageId=249

            QUOTE:
            Mr. BALL. In the meantime you had gone out to Neely Street, hadn’t you, to try to determine whether or not this was the place for the rifle?
            Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; we didn’t find that out until some time later.
            Mr. BALL. You didn’t?
            Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; we had heard of the Neely Street address but we didn’t know that that was the place where the picture was taken. But later on, Mr. Sorrels and some of the Secret Service men called me and they had found out, I believe from Marina, that that is where the picture was made and they called me and asked me to go with them and we made some other pictures out there to show the place.
            UNQUOTE

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, in the past I think you have noted that following specific conversations on this site can get complicated. If you are interested in continuing our discussion related to Marguerite and Agent Odlum, I have posted my responses further down in this thread.

  19. Larry Schnapf says:

    I believe the contrast that Willy referred to only appears in the duplicate photos and not the original but I defer to Willy as he is the photo expert.

    Im sure Marina knew how to embellish if needed to protect her childrem. Her concerns about being deported were published in the 11/24/64 NYT.

    Regardless of the speculation about whether the photos are real or were faked, they would likely have been inadmissible since only Marina could have authenticated them and she would have been precluded from testifying against her husband. Without the pictures and her Walker testimony, the government’s case would have collapsed like a house of cards. hence the need to ensure there was no trial.

  20. David Regan says:

    At 6:00 PM on the 22nd, hours after the tapes assured there was no conspiracy, District Attorney Henry Wade said that “preliminary reports indicated more than one person was involved in the shooting” Sources • Dallas Morning News, November 23, 1963

    Marina Oswald told the Warren Commission that, on November 23rd, a day after the tapes assured there was no conspiracy, “One of the men came by and said, ‘I am sorry that we are going to be delayed in letting you see Lee,… we have picked up another suspect.'”
    http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=15161

  21. Larry Schnapf says:

    The Howard Willen’s book discusses how Rankin was ill-prepared for Marina’s first dep. Junior counsel who had done all the hard work were not allowed to question her at direction of Warren. Lots of questions that werent asked and lots of answers that were not fully pursued.

  22. GM says:

    I don’t think Marina Oswald was a credible witness, but then again neither was her husband, or people such as David Phillips and George Joannides. However, more to the point, we still don’t know why they were not.

  23. Gerry Simone says:

    Two things:

    1. Marina was influenced if not intimidated or coerced by the FBI.

    2. She faced possible deportation.

    This would affect her testimony.

    (If Howard Brennan can be excused for not picking Oswald in a line-up for that imaginary threat claimed by him, then Marina’s contradictions in light of the fears raised above are acceptable & not prejudicial).

  24. Bill says:

    About the shadows in the ‘Backyard’ photographs. Over the years I have always wondered about the shadows and the issues surrounding these photos. So, two years ago I went over to the house where they were taken.

    First. It is actually amazing to see that the building and, more importantly, the backyard was EXACTLY as it was when those pictures were taken. In fact, except for a need for painting and the remodeling of the house(s) in the background…the place remains unchanged.

    Anway….climbed over the fence and entered the property through the small alleyway to the right of the house. We jumped over the fence and my buddy went to assume the position of Oswald. A small problem occurred because the HD Camera was unfamiliar to me. So, the ‘Oswald’ buddy became impatient and began to take a step toward me just as the camera clicked his photo.

    Guess what? It shows how a many can appear to be ‘standing’ at an impossible angle when, in fact, all the camera snapped was the shifting of weight a person would make as he began to move toward the camera.

    Now folks: Isn’t it likely that Marina Oswald, who may have been unfamiliar with winding the camera, or with snapping the shutter, had a bit of difficulty with the camera which led Oswald to begin to step toward it when it went off?

    Most importantly…..the position of the body in the original…and in my HD recreation (accidentally) are identical.

    Simply a case of the great fascist hunter becoming upset with his wife and then getting his picture snapped as he responded to her clumsiness.

    Case Closed.

    • Bill says:

      And Marina’s own testimony to the WC, which I had not read until now, demonstrates that she had no idea of how to operate that camera. Done deal.

      • JohnR says:

        …and his head stayed the same size in all the pictures because…Marina was an awful photographer?

        • Bill says:

          John. I think you missed the point of my comment completely. I do not understand the biting commentary. I mentioned that the issue was often made that Oswald could not have been standing in the position because a human being would fall over if trying to pose like that. Got it??

          So, look at the pants that Oswald is wearing. I am referring specifically to the photo with Oswald holding the papers in front of his sternum and the rifle in his left hand. How do you get a man to stand like that?

          Well….you can’t. He must be moving. Try a little photographer’s trick here lad. Look at the photo upside down. You’ll see that Oswald was beginning to step toward the Camera and in doing so, shifted his weight. So…while we call it a pose…it was really not. It was Oswald stepping toward his wife (who couldn’t figure out how to get the camera to work.).

          This is just basic human movement which was substantiated by his wife…which is turn was made into the entire ‘forgery argument.

          Ps…Oswald’s head is not the same size in any of the photos at all. Why? Well, for starters he is actually not is the same spot PRECISELY, and neither is the camera that Marina is shooting him with.

          • JohnR says:

            My disagreement with you stems not from a lack of understanding. I understand perfectly. I am by no means an expert in photography, but if Oswald is not in the same position “precisely” in all the photos, then why is his head “precisely” the same size in all the photos? mr. Prudhomme and Mr. Whitten have asked you to post your photo. Why won’t you?

      • Publish your photograph Bill. Until then this is just a story from an unknown party.
        \\][//

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Yes, Bill, we would love to see your photo. And you are saying Lee grew impatient three times and three times he stepped toward the camera just as she snapped the shutter?? My my, such coincidences!

          • Max says:

            For Lee to be so impatient would not be so hard to believe actually. According to Marina neither were in a good mood. Marina didn’t know how to operate the camera but more important she hesitated in taking the pictures and thought him a little crazy with his black clothes, rifle etc. Still Lee insisted. We know how they could get on each other’s nerves. Plus he probably processed those photos himself and could have made some mistakes or experimented a bit.

          • Max,
            Your comment reads as though it is written as the author of a novel with an understanding the character’s inner thoughts.
            \\][//

          • Bill says:

            Bob. No. I am not stating that at all. My my. Such an overstatement of what I did say. Peace. Do the same I mentioned to the others. Peace.

        • Bill says:

          Will. Much of what I wrote to John I say to you. You do not need to see me stepping to understand the mechanics at work here do you??? Tell you what. Get your significant other to snap a photo of yourself as you assume the Oswald Position JUST BEFORE HE MOVES TOWARD MARINA….and then instruct you significant other to take her photos (or better yet, a slo-mo movie) as you take a single step toward the camera leading with your left leg).

          You will see just what I am alluding to. So, get out and do some research. You never know what you will find. Also, as I said, my photo is not the issue, it was the ‘POSE’. We all know that the photo I have spoken about depicts Oswald in a position no human can POSE in. So, remove the obvious and look at what he was doing. Getting upset and walking toward his wife……who must have been mortified that her husband was outside with guns in the first place. So, to toss it right back at you. Don’t just sit there and make no attempt to resolve the riddle. Get off you butt and do the experiment or quiet down. Peace.

          • Bill,
            Is all that to say you don’t really have such a photograph?
            That is all I asked, can you produce this photo on the web?
            Any of us can imagine any of the things you propose.
            If you made such a photo, make it available.
            \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            In other words, there is a strong possibility you may not have taken any photos at all, or even gone to the back yard where the photos of “Oswald” were taken.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      So the analogy is if Marina can’t use a camera and you can’t use a camera, then if Marina is possibly not a credible witness then we are to believe your fairytale? Case Closed? ROFL.

      • Sammy says:

        Has anyone ever come up with the idea that Oswald might have developed these photos himself? He was really into photography and wanting to know all about it. Is it possible he tampered with them himself? Just an idea.

      • Max says:

        No, I wasn’t thinking like the author of a novel. I was taking what Marina said seriously. When all is said and done, they were both human, not puppets of the government. Put yourself in their place. Give Marina a chance. She has stuck with her story even after her daughters were grown.

        • Max says:

          Didn’t mean to sound like an author of a novel, getting into my character’s role. Actually I was agreeing with Bill and thought what he said about the photos plausible. It just seemed like what was possibly going on since Marina didn’t know how to use the camera and wasn’t happy with Lee at the moment, black clothes, guns and all. Guess I should have mentioned I was agreeing with Bill.

      • Sammy says:

        Yes, I did sound that way and I apologize. Should have used quotes. Was a little lazy.

      • Bill says:

        Sorry Ronnie. Bad day on the job for you??? The issue is that Marina actually did something that would have been used to debunk the forgery issue in good time. What she did, without even understanding the significance of it my cackling-friend, was snap a photo of her husband in motion that later on…..dopes like you would seize upon to cry “FORGERY” because you failed to understand the mechanics of one of Newton’s E Laws of Gravity. Think about this for a while. Maybe take a year or two. More? This photo will involve some solid understanding of two of them. I don’t believe you will be able to even resolve the challenge let alone apply them to reality or image analysis.

        PS Ronnie….Nobody really ever Rolls On The Floor Laughing. But you may be special. And for that I allow you some slack. Peace.

  25. Bob Prudhomme says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgNF-sPW8YI

    Above is a link to an interview with Mary Moorman about the famous Polaroid she took of the JFK assassination. She discusses the taking of the photo in the first couple of minutes of the interview. She clearly states the first shot she heard was simultaneous with the taking of the Polaroid, and that she heard two more shots after this.

    • Vanessa says:

      Thanks Bob. She’s very clear about it, isn’t she. I wonder why the WC wouldn’t have welcomed her testimony? The only thing that pops out is that it could have thrown doubts on Zapruder, maybe? Any thoughts?

    • Vanessa says:

      Actually Bob, I’m now thinking that the reason that Mary Moorman would have been a problematic witness for the WC was that she says unequivocally that JFK was hit by the first shot. The WC was reluctant to say which of the shots in the sequence missed as it gave them timing problems and single-bullet theory problems.

      http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/timing.htm

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        They would have difficulty with a lot of the witnesses who were right at the location of the final shot. This is from the 22/11/63 affidavit of Emmett Hudson, an assassination witness who was standing on the concrete steps of the pergola:

        “At the same time the President’s car was directly in front of us, I heard a shot and I saw the President fall over in the seat.”

        Hudson later testified to the WC that he was looking directly at JFK when the President was struck in the head by the second shot, and that a third shot followed this head shot.

        • Vanessa says:

          Hi Bob

          Thanks for that information and your views :). So putting all this information together, are you saying that the FBI may have got it right in their report and the z-film is inaccurate? Can I ask you where you think the shots occurred and in what sequence?

          Harold Norman also said the first shot hit JFK and he slumped. In Gerry’s Roberdeau photo JFK does seem to be slumping to the left. Whereas, I’m not sure that I would describe JFK’s arm-lifting reaction at z frames 224/225 as a ‘slump’. In my view, he doesn’t really slump in the zfilm until after the head shot at z313 which I’ve always thought of as the third and final shot. So maybe what we are seeing in Moorman is the first shot and slump that many witnesses described rather than the head shot??

          I find Mary Moorman’s interviews quite compelling.

          Thanks for your views.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Hi Vanessa

            Did you look at the Photobucket link I posted about five posts back? These photos are part of the FBI’s report to the WC, in January of 1964, that became Warren Commission Document 298.

            If you believe in three shots from the SN, this photo shows the first shot at roughly the same location as the WC decided, the second shot at the z313 location shown in the Z film and the third shot (also the head shot) way down by the concrete steps to the pergola. Were the FBI watching a different Z film than you and I have seen, in order to come to this conclusion?

            P.S.

            If you look closely at the larger photo, you can see the FBI has all three shots originating from the 7th floor of the TSBD, instead of the 6th floor, where Oswald was supposed to have been. Honest “mistake”, or did a shot from the 6th floor not have a high enough trajectory to clear all of the obstacles?

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Bob

            Yes, I did. That FBI report is very interesting – thanks for directing my attention to it. I usually steer clear of trajectory issues as I’ve no expertise whatsoever in the field.

            It also struck me that it sounds like the FBI were watching a different film to the one we see. Their repeat use the of the word ‘sweeping’ to describe the turn of the limo onto Elm St sticks out. It is pretty much the only adjective in this dry as dust report. They mention that Zapruder doesn’t start filming until after the turn onto Elm St. The other films they mention are Nix which doesn’t show the turn and Hughes which I’d argue doesn’t clearly show a ‘sweeping’ turn. So, how do they know that there was a sweeping turn if none of the films they cite shows that? The only film we have heard about that shows a sweeping turn onto Elm St is the original unaltered Zapruder film.

            The other thing that stands out to me in this scale model is the complete lack of motorcycle policemen around the limo and the SS agents on the backup car. Would their presence have also interfered with the posited trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD?

            That 7th floor trajectory is a good pick up on your part. How did this report even get annexed to the WCR in the first place?It completely contradicts their conclusions.

          • “z313 location shown in the Z film and the third shot (also the head shot) way down by the concrete steps to the pergola. Were the FBI watching a different Z film than you and I have seen, in order to come to this conclusion?”~Bob Prudhomme

            That IS where the shot took place according to the Z-film Bob. The same one we see today. There is no “different Z film than you and I have seen”.
            See the trajectory on the plat of Dealey as analyzed by Fiester:

            https://enemyofthetruth.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/dealey3a.jpg?w=700
            \\][//

          • Bob,
            in all of the imagery we have, the front of the limo did not reach parallel with the steps until Hill had finally latched onto the limo. This is several seconds AFTER the head shot.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkJltN832PY
            Just add the Moorman photo to this bunch and you have the head shot moment.
            \\][//

    • Mary Moorman says she is pretty sure she stepped back onto the curb. So she was NOT in the street. And the Z-film shows she had stepped back far enough to be on the grass just before the curb.
      And the limo slowed down “almost to a stop”.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgNF-sPW8YI#t=820

      Those claiming that she was in the street have her testimony that she stepped back. They have the visual evidence in the Z-film that she had stepped back far enough that she is actually on the grass just in front of the curb. What more do they want???
      \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Never said a word about Moorman being on the street or on the grass, Willy. We were discussing when she heard three shots, two of which she claims were after the Polaroid was taken.

        • You may have never said a word about that Bob, but Vanessa is convinced Moorman was in the street and that this proves the Z-film is not the original film. That is why she keeps nudging everybody with this idea.
          \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Now Willy, I have not said anything about where Mary Moorman was standing – that is a whole other discussion and we already have a lot going on in this thread.

            I am only claiming that her testimony is very clear about the timing of the photo and the headshot. I find that and the photo negative very intriguing – to say the least.

      • “The car never did stop. It was proceeding along in a slow pace and I stepped out in the curb area and made another picture as the Secret Service man stepped upon the rear step of the Presidential car and went to Mrs. Kennedy’s aid and then after that I immediately crossed the street and once again I was looking to see if I could find anything in this area of Elm and Houston Streets that would suggest to me where the shot came from.”~Altgens to Liebeler – WC testimony
        \\][//

  26. Fearfaxer says:

    “The purpose may have been to establish that the photos were in fact taken in the Oswalds’ backyard.”

    Once again, a Lone Nut Buff postulates a supposition about something suspicious and insists that it is the correct explanation that totally supports the Lone Nut Theory. Why do you need to take photos there to prove it was indeed the place the backyard photos were taken? And if you do decide you need to take photos, why do you need to have someone stand in the spot where Oswald would have stood? And if you decide it is necessary to have someone stand there, why on earth must that person be holding a rifle and striking as best he can the pose Oswald takes in those pictures? Why has no one involved with producing these copycat photos ever explained what was going on?

    As it happens, I’m an agnostic on the subject of these photos — I neither believe them fake nor genuine. I can easily imagine that Oswald might have posed for them as a bit of fun. At the same time, there is something weird about them. They just LOOK weird, and I’ve never heard a convincing explanation as to why, if they’re genuine, they appear as they do. The perspective is remarkably flat, Oswald’s head looks as if it’s been jammed uncomfortably down into his neck, and as someone else has noted in this comment thread, he’s angled in one of them as if he’s afflicted by Leaning Tower of Pisa Disease. Did he have special hinges inserted in his ankles that allow him to stand like that without losing his balance?

    These photos are suspicious. They were suspicious when they first surfaced over 50 years ago, and the passage of years and the uncovering of other things about them have, if anything, made them even more so.

    • Jean Davison says:

      Fearfaxer,

      I wrote:
      “The purpose may have been to establish that the photos were in fact taken in the Oswalds’ backyard.”

      You replied:
      “Once again, a Lone Nut Buff postulates a supposition about something suspicious and insists that it is the correct explanation that totally supports the Lone Nut Theory.”

      But I didn’t “insist” that my explanation is correct. That’s why I said “may.” The only thing I’m sure of is that the re-enactment photo couldn’t have been used as a template to insert Oswald into, because the backgrounds don’t match.

      “As it happens, I’m an agnostic on the subject of these photos — I neither believe them fake nor genuine. I can easily imagine that Oswald might have posed for them as a bit of fun. At the same time, there is something weird about them. They just LOOK weird, and I’ve never heard a convincing explanation as to why, if they’re genuine, they appear as they do.”

      It seems that CTs often decide what to believe based on “how it looks to me.” But as the old saying goes, looks can be deceiving. I recently ran across this 4-minute video by a digital forensics prof who talked about why, even though the shadows in one of the BY photos may look weird to us, they really aren’t:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sB248rDNM0

      • Of course I have seen this guys work before Jean,

        He is essentially saying “Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?”

        So Jean, again; have you built a 3D model in a computer and done this analysis yourself?
        \\][//

      • Fearfaxer says:

        “But I didn’t ‘insist’ that my explanation is correct. That’s why I said ‘may.”

        To say that you aren’t insisting that’s a very likely explanation is extremely disingenuous. Have you ever done any research into this matter other than thinking about it idly? Have you ever tried to discover who produced those backyard recreation photos, and why?

        As to your nonsense about “CTs often decide what to believe based on ‘how it looks to me,'” I’m saying quite openly and frankly that I cannot make up my mind about the photos alleged to be of Oswald, or those others with a different person apparently mimicking his pose. In other words, I have not made a decision as to their being genuine or their being evidence of forgery, so your statement is completely inaccurate with regards to me. By the way, why shouldn’t people make decisions based on how things look? Sight is one of the senses with which we make sense of our world, and if something strikes us as being off, it’s time to properly investigate.

        Spout hot air, then smear with the “Conspiracy Theorist” tar brush, typical Lone Nut Buff behavior.

        • Jean Davison says:

          Fearfaxer:

          QUOTE:
          (Me) “But I didn’t ‘insist’ that my explanation is correct. That’s why I said ‘may.”

          (You) To say that you aren’t insisting that’s a very likely explanation is extremely disingenuous.
          UNQUOTE

          This is what I said:
          “The purpose may have been to establish that the photos were in fact taken in the Oswalds’ backyard.”

          Where did I “insist that’s a very likely explanation”? Could you quote it, please? Is that something I wrote or something you read into it?

          • Jean,

            Do you know the definition of “intimate”?

            You “may” or “may” not insist, but you intimate that this is a reasonable explanation.

            It is not reasonable due to all the factors we have brought up “intimating” that such an elaborate reconstruction using an officer posing the same way, with props that should be left in a safe storage, and not handled for trifling uses; needs more of an explanation than they wanted to prove the Oswald’s had this backyard’.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            “…such an elaborate reconstruction using an officer posing the same way, with props that should be left in a safe storage, and not handled for trifling uses; needs more of an explanation than they wanted to prove the Oswald’s had this backyard.”

            No, not “to prove the Oswalds had this backyard” but possibly “to establish that the photos were in fact taken in the Oswalds’ backyard.” IOW, a re-enactment showing where the photos were taken. I’ve posted police captain Fritz’s explanation. Did you happen to read that?

            Your own implied explanation doesn’t work. The police photo couldn’t have been used as a template for the Oswald photos because it was obviously taken months later — the growth in the plants shows that. This is obvious if you toggle between the two:

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0262a.htm

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0262b.htm

            Also, Willy, the props the policeman is holding aren’t Oswald’s actual newspapers and rifle. Look more closely. Those are stand-ins too.

          • It still doesn’t make any sense to me Jean.

            It is unfathomable why the cops would carry a rifle into the back yard and pose with it – any rifle, possibly the actual Mauser that was really found in the so-called “snipers nest”

            These cops hereby prove that a person can stand in this particular backyard and hold a rifle… splendid. Yup I’m convinced now, a person can hold a gun outside while pictures are taken.

            Did you learn something special from their meaningless burlesque Jean?
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            “It still doesn’t make any sense to me Jean.”

            I don’t understand your bewilderment. If we had no photos of the Neely St. backyard
            how would we know where they were taken? Would you take Marina’s word for it?

            The re-enactment photos are listed among the Dallas police records that are online.

            The police photos couldn’t have been used to create the BY photos because the backgrounds are different. If you disagree with that, please explain.

          • “I don’t understand your bewilderment. If we had no photos of the Neely St. backyard
            how would we know where they were taken?”~Jean

            Suspicion is not “bewilderment”. There is no rational reason to have a police officer pose with a rifle, to prove that back yard was there and what the layout of it was from that angle.
            However there are photos of officers assuming the same poses as the so-called Oswald pictures. No rational reasons for such theatrics.

            Not the same season of what year? Oswald was being maneuvered into positions, being impersonated, being set up for quite a long time. Those pictures could have been taken months before – even before Lee and Marina knew they were ever going to live there.
            By the way, plants grow, get cut back, grow again…it is proof of nothing, the appearance of some plant in the background.
            \\][//

          • ‘He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.’
            ~George Orwell
            \\][//

    • Bill says:

      Fearfax. I must be the lone nut guy too then. I appreciate that. Thank you. However….your view on being an agnostic and mine are actually very similar. I just happened to go to the scene and had a photo taken that seemed to show that a human being could attain the same exact position of Oswald (with the newspapers at his sternum and the gun in his left hand) and not be falling over.

      I think you may have missed the point of my comments. The CT’ers looked at those photos and hung their hats on them being Forgery because ‘nobody can stand in position with most of their weight on the other side of the midline’. This comment would be true IF OSWALD WAS ACTUALLY trying to stand still. But he wasn’t. He had posed and then had grown frustrated at his wife’s (Marina) inability to snap a photo and stepped right at her.

      Coincidentally, this is what she said he did. He grew impatient with her. And her testimony before the controversy has been overlooked by the CT’ers. Why? Well. It does not allow for this assassin to be just totally cooked.

      So….it turns out that Marina was telling the truth about Oswald’s poses that day…and it also demonstrate that those who still want to say that this photo was a fraud (because it defies gravity) (Ronnie take note) would be proven wrong because Oswald had begun move as the shutter snapped.

      This is the only way to have this pose captured. It also is the backed up by Marina’s Testimony.

      So, we have a guy who was actually in the photos, in his backyard, bitching out his wife because she couldn’t take a pose fast enough for him. Then, when the jig is up, the claims about Forgery begin.

      Not the case. Peace.

  27. More on the Moorman photo turned into a negative of the positive Polaroid print.

    It is a digitally enhanced item to be sure. But I doubt if the person who did this work used some system he-or-she developed. There are quite a few enhancement/smoothing algorithms available on the market. These are based on bicubic extrapolation of tones in the rest of the image.

    One thing is evident to me however, once the area of the blowout is pointed out in the neg imagage, it can be readily seen in the positive. It is just knowing where to look.

    It simply cannot be a coincidence that this spot is exactly in the occipital-parietal area described in the testimony of all the witnesses to it. It in fact is the same spot shown in the autopsy photos, and jibes with the X-rays as well. It also agrees with the ballistics as described by CSI Fiester, and the trajectory of cavitation, and fragmenting of the bone of the skull.
    \\][//

    • Vanessa says:

      Thanks for posting this Willy.

      Can I ask you, how many shots did Sherry Feister think came from the front?

    • Photon says:

      Then you do not know the source of the print. It is a Tom Wilson concoction , pure and simple.
      And you have been had with an altered photograph.

      • “It is a Tom Wilson concoction , pure and simple.”~Photon

        Where is your proof of this assertion Photon?
        \\][//

        • Photon says:

          I will give you the source when you post your proof for the allegation that Marguerite and Marina were discussing the CIA Mexico City photo and not the BY photos.
          Just kidding! Why don’t you ask Gerry, who has disappeared since I revealed that the photo is an alteration. Don Roberdeau certainly didn’t create it.

      • Steve Stirlen says:

        Photon,

        Have any of the LN ever been “had” by the conclusions of the WC, or any of the other government “investigations?” You know, like the role of George Joannides/David Atlee Philips/CIA in the whole affair? Just curious?

        • Photon says:

          Give one piece of confirmed,accurate evidence proving that Joannides even knew who Lee Oswald was prior to Nov. 22,1963. And even if you could produce that evidence how in what way could that be extrapolated to prove that the CIA had any contact with Oswald? Remember, keeping tabs on suspected communist sympathizers who had defected to the U.S.S.R. Was the FBI’s responsibility.

          • Now Photon, you are taking this opportunity to grab onto another subject, when in fact you do not have proof of who did the work on the Moorman photo…

            And now you want us to come up with the prime answer about Joannides, which you know full well is one of the deepest mysteries of all and most deeply hidden by your CIA.

            You also fail to mention ‘the photograph Marguerite was asked to identify through a crack in the door at the motel by FBI Agent Bardwell aka Hart Odum … a photo that leads directly to the conundrum, who exactly was that Mystery Man photographed in Mexico City and how did FBI agent Odum have it by the evening of November 23.'(*Leslie Sharp -February 24, 2015 at 10:39 pm?)

            Very clever, in that spook fashion you carry about so confidently.
            It doesn’t work for me…I doubt if it works for very many others here. Maybe your spooky comrades.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Got any proof?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            The following quote is from Robert Blakey. Please explain what he meant when you have the chance.

            “CIA clearly did lie about the case. For example, Helms lied about the case. The CIA appear to have been not cooperative, to have put out false photographs of Oswald, to have claimed they had no photographs of Oswald. There were many cases where they seem to have tried to cover their tracks.”

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            Here is yet one more quote from Mr. Blakey. Remember, he headed one of the commissions that you say gave us all the “experts.” Any explanation as to why he would say this?

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

          • Photon,
            Watch this and see about the revelations of how the CIA would manipulate both 201 Files and Flash Files, to create a false backstory:

            Rex Bradford on the Church Committee

            ZR Rifle docs; “Never mention word ‘assassination’ — “cover planning forged 201 files and documents complete with backdating should be prepared”

            http://www.c-span.org/video/?315655-2/kennedy-assassination-conspiracy-theories-rex-bradford
            \\][//

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            After reading the Blakey interview, can you PLEASE explain how you or I are to have ANY faith in the findings having anything to do with the CIA? How can ANYONE use ANYTHING from the CIA and discuss it intelligently? Therefore, the gist of what I have been saying to you remains the same. You and McAdams and all of the other LN quote “experts,” but how do you know they are non-biased experts after reading what Blakey wrote? Any one can be an “expert” if you are paid enough, or influenced enough. To be a non-biased “expert” is a different animal altogether.

            Care to comment?

          • David Regan says:

            In December of 1960, the CIA’s Special Investigations Group (SIG) opened a file on Lee Harvey Oswald. The SIG division was only tasked with investigating current CIA agents who were potential security risks.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=112083&relPageId=2
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=38449&relPageId=4
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1435&relPageId=21

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            Care to comment as to your use of the word “expert’ when referring to the government investigations and their conclusions after reading what Blakey had to say?

            Does Blakey qualify as an expert?

          • Photon says:

            David your claim that SIG was only tasked with investigating current CIA agents is simply untrue-and the documents that you quote have nothing to do with that claim.
            Steve, do you think that Blakey is infallible? You seem to have forgotten Blakey’s 1993 interview, where he stated that as a prosecutor he felt that the case against Oswald was an open-and-shut case and had had his victim been someone else beside the President he would have been tried, convicted and forgotten in 3 days.
            His perception of the CIA has never changed his opinion that Oswald was the lone assassin; why do you neglect to mention that fact?

          • David Regan says:

            Photon, according to the HSCA, a former CIA employee, who had worked in the Soviet branch, advised the committee that he had personally seen a report from a CIA field office which had “interviewed a former Marine who had worked at the Minsk radio plant following his defection to the U.S.S.R.” The employee believed this may have been Oswald.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=69276

          • Photon says:

            Same source ( next page): “A review by the committee of the documents in the volumes on the Minsk radio plant, however, failed to locate any such contact report .”
            So you accept an unsubstantiated heresay claim with no names and no specifics as genuine-despite absolutely nothing else to support it? Why did you neglect to mention that the SIG’s tasks included keeping tabs on defectors?

          • David Regan says:

            The following shows how modest SIG functions were upon it’s creation in 1955, compared to a later staff write-up in 1973: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/cia/ddo_ci/pdf/104-10301-10011.pdf

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            Here is yet one more nugget from Mr. Blakey in his 2003 interview:

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

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

            I am now in that camp.”

            Care to comment on this quote?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            If you go back and read some of my earlier posts to you, I have admitted to you that I do not know what really happened in Dallas. I also have said that I can even accept that LHO might have fired shots that day. I am OPEN to both sides of the debate. I fully admit that Blakey said he believes LHO was the shooter. He called it an open and shut case I believe. What I have asked of you—repeatedly—is how am I supposed to believe in ANYTHING that the government tells me when the lead investigator tells everyone that HE does not BELIEVE a SINGLE thing that the CIA told him during the investigation. If they lied to a man who could have put their members in prison, then how do you or I know what is TRUTH? Dulles, Angleton, Philips, Helms were LIARS. End of story.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            This is a quote from Gary Savage about the palm print found on the gun.

            “The lift of the palm print from the rifle by Lieutenant Day has sparked controversy over the years due to what has been labeled an “interrupted chain of evidence.” This misunderstanding developed from the FBI’s intrusion into the Dallas police investigation on the night of the assassination. The rifle was taken away from Lieutenant Day by the FBI before he had completed his analysis of it. At that time, the FBI did not receive the palm print just developed by Lieutenant Day. The print evidence stayed in the Crime Lab Office, and only the rifle was taken by FBI Agent Drain.”

            You have said the DPD “blew it” twice that weekend. So, how can we believe this is truth? How do we believe ANYTHING coming from J. Edgar Hoover when he determined that LHO was GUILTY that weekend?

            Remember, when I asked you about Jesse Curry and his statement 15 years after the fact? Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Curry had a chance to sit back and re-analyze all of the new information and disinformation from the CIA and FBI as it was brought to light, and re-examined his position. Could that be a possibility?

          • David Regan says:

            Former CIA accountant, James Wilcott, told the House Select Committee on Assassinations that shortly after the assassination he was advised by a case officer and several CIA employees that Oswald was a CIA agent who had received financial disbursements under an assigned code name. He testified that he gave the information little credence and therefore never attempted to confirm it.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=69266

            According to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, on November 22nd, Lieutenant Colonel Robert E. Jones contacted the FBI offices in San Antonio and Dallas and gave detailed information concerning Oswald and A. J. Hidell, Oswald’s alleged alias. This information suggested the existence of a military intelligence file on Oswald and raised the possibility that he had intelligence associations of some kind.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=800&relPageId=251

            The House Select Committee on Assassinations learned that the Department of Defense destroyed Oswald’s military intelligence file and was unable to provide any information as to who destroyed the file, when it was destroyed, or what was contained within the file. The committee found the destruction of the Oswald file extremely troublesome, especially when viewed in light of the Department of Defense’s failure to make this file available to the Warren Commission.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=800&relPageId=253

          • Photon says:

            As I recall virtually everybody thought that Oswald was guilty that weekend, including Curry. Please give us one quote from Curry stating that he did not believe Oswald was the sole shooter.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            This comes from Curry’s own book. Will be delivered in 2 parts.

            When Jesse Curry retired as police chief of Dallas, Texas, he wrote a book called “JFK Assassination File.” In a 1969 interview for the Dallas Morning News around the time of publication, Curry stated,

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            2nd half of Curry’s response from his book:

            “We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
            Nobody’s yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.” [1]

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            I believe his book was published in 69.

          • Photon says:

            Steve, you fall into the CT habit of only reporting that part of the story that you want to hear. Curry’s news conference was in relation to promoting his book.
            Why don’t you post what Curry REALLY believed? Specifically, have you seen Jeff Meek’s interview of Curry posted on YouTube? If you get away from the leading questions and factual mistakes presented by Meek, you get the perception that Curry really didn’t support much of the conspiracy viewpoint.
            At 0:42 after Curry expressed some concern aout the Warren handling of DeMohranschildt he was asked ” Any other reservations that you had ( about the Warren report) that you could think of?” His answer: ” Not particularly.”
            At 7:42: Q: ” Do you think that Oswald would have been convicted if he went to trial?” A: ” Yeah, I think so.”
            So much for the implied claim that Curry didn’t think that Oswald was the lone gunman.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            Wait a minute. You are falling into the LN trap of deciphering what an expert said AND what the LN thought an expert really meant. You state that Mr. Meeks asked leading wuestions of Mr. Curry. Is that true, or YOUR opinion? What makes a question “leading?” (On a side note, please see Arlen Specter’s questioning of Darell Tomlinson and the finding of the magic bullet if you would like to really see what you are describing.). So, Mr. Curry, if he is to be believed—remember YOU said the DPD “blew it” twice that weekend, wrote in HIS own book that he could not place LHO in that building and then goes on to say he had NO trouble with the WC? How the hell does that make ANY sense to anyone with a rational mind? He writes that the VERY man who the WC “convicted” could not be found doing what the WC said he was doing? And this was to sell books? Huh? And I am supposed to believe what? And whom? Because I have shown you that Blakey said the CIA lied on EVERYTHING related to this case AND I have shown you that the DPD chief said we can’t put LHO in the building, and your response is that Blakey might not be infallible and that Curry wanted to sell books? And that is “proof” of the LN theory that I should put faith in? Huh?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            This may surprise you. I was/am not a big fan of either Kennedy. Their dad was a bootlegger and a womanizer. JFK and RFK were serial womanizers and JFK used the mob to get himself elected. Hardly what one would call role models. I have no idea about what JFK would have done in Vietnam had he lived. The documentation is not clear as to his true goal. I know what his people have said.
            However, I KNOW this. He was 1,000 times better than the crap that has followed him. LBJ, Reagan, Bush Senior, and W should have shared the same fate as Nixon. Of course, only if you consider lying to the Congress and the American people a problem. Ford was Nixon’s lapdog. Carter was not qualified and Clinton was more interested in running after women than running the country. My point is that this country has suffered ENOUGH! And, my opinion only, the downfall started on 11-22-63. It probably began well before that with the Dulles brothers and their brand of democracy, but when LBJ took office, my goodness we have suffered. I would like to think before I die, SOMEONE will take office and clean this mess up. Of course, if pigs could fly…

          • Photon says:

            Steve, RFK was not a womanizer.
            If you can’t accept what Curry said years after his press conference(when he was promoting a book) why claim that his 1969 statements are significant? Even if Curry didn’t think that physical evidence was present to prove that Oswald was on the Sixth Floor with a rifle, he did believe that enough other evidence was present to convict Oswald.
            Curry in some respects was another victim of the assassination. He left the Dallas Police Dept. 3 years later for ” health reasons” although obviously his failure to protect the President and more incredibly Oswald certainly was a factor .

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            Please read the quote below and give me your take, please.

            “As recently as 1998, the agency still disavowed any knowledge of Joannides’s actions in Miami. John Tunheim, now a federal judge in Minneapolis, chaired the federal Assassination Records Review Board, which between 1994 and 1998 opened more than four million pages of long-secret documents — including a thin file on Joannides. Yet even then the CIA was claiming that no one in the agency had had any contact with the DRE throughout 1963. The Joannides story, Tunheim says today, “shows that the CIA wasn’t interested in the truth about the assassination.”

          • Photon says:

            Why are you changing the subject, Steve? I thought that you were trying to prove that Curry didn’t believe that Oswald shot JFK, when the evidence that you chose to ignore obviously proves that he did.
            Why bring up Tunheim? Why are you ignoring the rest of the story again-namely that Tunheim has publically stated that he believes that Oswald was the lone assassin?
            When you start ignoring inconvenient facts your arguments tend to lose credibility among the informed.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            Here are SEVERAL things for you to consider:

            1. A couple of my posts to you have not made it through. What can I do? I play by the rules as they are set forth.

            2. I have asked you several point blank questions. YOU have NO answers. What can I do?

            3. For example, why don’t you tell us YOUR name and YOUR credentials? No, you prefer to send indications that you are a high-ranking member of SOME organization. You know, “thank you Steve for confirming our information.” And “Vanessa how are things in D.C?” Are you trying to intimidate us, or pretend you are something you are not?

            4. LET ME VERY CLEAR ON THIS POINT: neither you or I know the facts of this case. We know one side from a group of men thought at one time to be “honorable.” THAT idea has been demolished.

            5. What I have tried to do is to ask YOU how you can be sure of ANYTHING about this case. I have given you several CONCRETE examples where people DIRECTLY involved in the case have indicated LYING. YOU have no answers. Why is that?

            6. Blakey said the CIA lied about EVERYTHING. Your answer? Blakey might not be infallible. What does that mean? You have no examples to prove what you say. Here is an idea. Blakey COULD be telling the truth. The CIA could have been full of LIARS.

            7. Give me ONE example where Blakey made a mistake?

            8. I ask you about Curry. You say he was trying to “sell books.” I think the real point is he has NO credibility. If he were in a court of law, and he had to reconcile his statement of not being able to place LHO in the building with the fact that he has no problem with the WC, he sure would have a TON of explaining to do. Perjury anyone?

            9. I mentioned Sibert. You said he was not a credible witness. But EVERYBODY else in the FBI is an “expert.” Double standard?

            10. And the topper. The CIA non-photo of Oswald in Mexico City. You said it was a “mistake.” You are full of it, and you know it. It was no mistake. It was a LIE, and you know it. Period. It was a pattern of deceit that started BEFORE 11-22-63 and continues to this day.

            11. If a CT makes a “mistake” then the words kook, loon, and goofy come out in force. If a LN uses the word mistake, it is said to be a “clarification.”

            12. Care to answer the questions put to YOU this morning?

            13. We will NEVER know the true facts of this case. That time has LONG passed. It ended with the presentation with the piece of trash known as the WC. LBJ and his cronies got one over on America. Shame on us for believing anything that joke had to say.

            Steve

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            One more for you. This one courtesy of Mr. Jefferson Morley, the man who owns THIS site.

            Compare O’Reilly’s after-dinner yarn to:

            –the bland perjury of deputy CIA director Richard Helms;

            –the deceptive evasions of counterintelligence chief James Angleton;

            –the slithery perjury of Cuba operations chief David Phillips;

            –the felonious stonewalling of Miami branch chief George Joannides.

            And I won’t get started on the dissembling of current CIA officials who continue to conceal more than 1,100 assassination-related records on bogus grounds of “national security.”

            Care to respond to his view of the CIA?

  28. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Hi Vanessa

    I am currently constructing a very basic wooden model of the front of the TSBD and Elm St., using the survey plats of Robert West, the Dallas County Surveyor who did most of the survey work for the FBI. After several long debates on other forums, I grew frustrated and decided the only way to settle things was to build a mockup of Dealey Plaza and place a model of the limo and a model of the followup car at various locations on my Elm “Street” and, using a laser pointer, establish whether or not the base of JFK’s head would even be visible to a shooter on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

    With the six foot tall SS agent Jack ready standing almost a foot off the ground, on the forward end of the followup car’s starboard running board, there is a very good chance a shooter on the 6th floor of the TSBD did not have a clear shot at JFK at z313, or down by the concrete steps where the FBI decided the fatal head shot occurred.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      http://s1233.photobucket.com/user/dhjosephs/media/fbithreeshots-1pastz313-smaller_zps136daffd.jpg.html

      A better photo of the FBI’s WCD 298, showing the three shots/ three hits they originally came up with. Notice, again, the FBI placement of the fatal head shot down by the concrete steps, and not back at z313 where the Zapruder film shows it to be.

      • Bob,

        Look at the Moorman photo. She is at an angle just behind the limo. Across the street from that POV are the steps coming down from the pavilion. The film scenes accompanying this photo you reference are from the Nix film, and the Muchmore film taken from the other side of the street from Zapruder’s position, and further back from Moorman’s position.

        So you do not have any frames from the Z-film represented in this particular photo.
        You have 2 from Nix, 1 from Muchmore, and the B&W from Moorman.

        I am not trying to aggravate you Bob, I’m just trying to keep things straight here.
        \\][//

    • Vanessa says:

      Hi Bob

      I, for one, would be very interested to hear the results of your study once it’s done.

      The other interesting thing about the FBI model photos is that nowhere do they show the perspective from the 6th floor window.

      That is a very good point about Ready – I think your study will be fascinating. Can I be cheeky and ask, how long until you finish it?

  29. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Willy

    The z313 head shot location seen in the Zapruder film is nowhere near the concrete steps. The site depicting the head shot, in the FBI’s WCD 298, is at least 40 feet further down Elm St., almost adjacent to the concrete steps.

    Are you honestly unable to see the difference?

    • Bob,
      The point I am trying to make is that a stretch Lincoln limousine is a very long car. I would estimate that from the front bumper back to Kennedy is some 10 to 12 ft. You need to calculate where JFK is in these photo’s, not where the nose of the limo is.

      Also the steps and the people on them appear much closer in the Moorman photo than they actually are.

      Exploring How Focal Length Affects Images

      http://photography.tutsplus.com/tutorials/exploring-how-focal-length-affects-images–photo-6508
      \\][//

    • “Are you honestly unable to see the difference?”

      Bob, why are we arguing over where the FBI claims the shot comes from, (the rear)? It did not come from the rear. So all of this is moot as far as our concerns go. The head shot is at Z-313. What does it matter where and when the FBI is claiming the shot took place? They are attempting to prove the shots came from book depository. Don’t we reject this proposition?
      \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Willy

        The point I am trying to make is that the line of sight trajectory from the 6th floor Sniper’s Nest to JFK’s head is, according to the WC, 265 feet at the z313 location.

        However, the z313 site is nowhere near the concrete steps to the pergola, no matter how long a Lincoln limousine is. In WCD 298, the FBI claim the line of sight trajectory from the 6th floor Sniper’s Nest to JFK’s head is 307 feet.

        This is a difference of 42 feet, and both measurements are to the back of JFK’s head, thus placing the entire limo 42 feet further down the street.

        Once again, which version of the Zapruder film were the FBI viewing?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          I don’t know how to make this any clearer to you. In Jan. 1964, the FBI presented a report, designated WCD 298, in which they placed the head shot 42 feet further down Elm St. than the z313 location. Does no one have a problem with this?

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Bob

            I think it is absolutely astonishing that the WC has allowed a report by one its prime investigating arms, the FBI, (that completely contradicts the WC’s own conclusions) to be published at all!

            Maybe there was some pushback from the FBI on just how far they were prepared to go with bending the truth?

            Photon, what do you have to say about this report?

          • It should be reminded that the Warren Commission’s addendum throughout the 26 volumes is overflowing with contradictions.

            This Jan. 1964 FBI report WCD 298, was just one of a penumbra internal contradictions.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Name one.

        • Bob, as I point out in a post above. The head shot at Z-313 was long – several seconds – before the limo reached parallel with the steps. By that time Hill had reached the back of the limo and got a handhold.

          So the head-shot did not take place close to the steps, but further back.

          Do I have a problem with where the FBI placed the head-shot? Yes of course I do. I think it is more bogus dribble by the FBI. It is their report that is fraudulent, not the Z-film.
          \\][//

        • Bob, I am not the one taking the FBI measurements as fact that can be held as true – you are. They are counting distances from the book depository building, which have nothing to do with the reality of where the shots that hit Kennedy came from.

          The FBI isn’t seeing “another version of the Z-film”, they are making the story fit the official narrative.
          Again Z-313 is long before the front limo reached the steps on the knoll. As I point out Hill had reached the car by then.
          \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Willy, I like you and I like a lot of the things you write. However, we just don’t seem to be communicating here.

            Okay, for argument sake, let’s say the Zapruder film has not been altered, and the last shot struck JFK in the head at precisely the z313 location. The film would be incontestable evidence of this event occurring at exactly this location, given there were other films and photographs that could place all of the witnesses visible in z313.

            Two burning questions come to my mind. Why would the FBI move the final shot 42 feet further down Elm St. to the concrete steps? Second, how did the FBI think they could possibly get away with this fabrication, given that the Zapruder film would so obviously contradict them? Was it never intended that the public ever see the Zapruder film?

          • Bob, I like you too, and we agree on quite a few things, and I agree with this too:

            “we just don’t seem to be communicating here.”

            I will answer your two burning questions with my one burning question:

            How could the FBI, or any involved think they could possibly get away the whole thing?

            It’s obvious, they lied and bullied their way through the whole thing.

            How could they possibly think they could get away with such an absurd and physically impossible proposition as “the Magic Bullet Theory” for example?

            Now you have the answer here when you say:

            “..let’s say the Zapruder film has not been altered, and the last shot struck JFK in the head at precisely the z313 location. The film would be incontestable evidence of this event occurring at exactly this location, given there were other films and photographs that could place all of the witnesses visible in z313.”

            The film IS incontestable evidence. There ARE other films and photographs that place all of the witnesses visible in z313.

            The central point here is that the FBI was using a nonexistent origin as the point to measure the shots from. Like the whole story, the so-called “snipers nest” is a fantasy stage.

            The shots to JFK’s throat and head came from the front as is proven by forensic analysis.

            Even the shots from the rear do not align with the TBDB, and likely came from the Dal-Tex Bldg.
            \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Willy

            I like you too (and Bob). (Although I’m sure you don’t like me at all, you are not the only one from JFKFacts that feels that way. But I am not always so objectionable, I promise).

            I agree with you that there are a lot of contradictory bits of evidence in the WC. A lot of the report makes no sense at all.

            But I also agree with Bob that this FBI report is especially significant. The FBI (the most respected law enforcement agency in the country) were the main investigative arm of the Commission. If they were going to obfuscate evidence why didn’t they make it match the actual conclusions of the WC? Instead of producing something that throws instant doubt on the conclusions and from a very credible source, at that. This is extraordinary in my view.

            If you have the time and inclination, I have a question for you. Did Feister have the throat shot (which I agree there is good evidence for coming from the front) exiting JFK at all? If so, at what point?

        • Well Bob,

          We seem to have had a communication breakdown. I think I understand what you are saying, and see that you don’t understand what I am saying.

          Of course from the other side of the table, you think you understand me, but I am missing what you mean.

          I’ll just let it be then.
          \\][//

        • David Hazan says:

          “..which version of the Z film were the FBI viewing?” _ Bob

          There is a bit of a logic problem with this statement and the implied conclusion that there must have been multiple versions of Z film.

          FBI lies! They do it today, they did it yesterday, and they were doing in the 60s.

          FBI obfuscates! FBI deceives and misleads! And they do it so well… Whether their motives are dutiful and constitutional, or dark and sinister, it is their job to do so…. Because their recruitment tagline is “FBI… We Always Lie, And That’s The Truth”

          So far, I have not seen a successful demonstration or other evidence proving Z film is altered in its timeline and frame sequence… Until then, odds are FBI has told a 42 foot lie on the day they told the lie, and probably then replaced that lie with new ones and weave a curtain of lies in front of your eyes.

          Oh waitait.. Did I mention that FBI lies? all the time…

          • Yes David,

            The final and inescapable point here is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to create forged “in camera original” of the Zapruder film.

            The preeminent expert on film stock, film making machinery, Roland Zavada; as well as the preeminent expert on special effects cinematography have made the case that the Z-film could not possibly have been a forgery.

            One more time I cite:

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

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Willy and David

            Of course, while the Zapruder film is incontestable about establishing where the limo and witnesses were, in comparison to other films and photos, is it incontestable about establishing at what exact moment the head shot occurred? For instance, the Mary Moorman photo has long been displayed as a photo taken at the exact moment the fatal third shot was fired yet, in a 2013 interview, Ms. Moorman stated this was the first shot she heard, and it was followed by two more shots. The photo itself is of little help, as it shows no “explosion” either.

            Where does this leave us, then?

          • Vanessa says:

            Totally agree, Bob.

          • “Where does this leave us, then?”~Bob

            With a very confused old woman.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            It leaves us with the unreliability of ” ear witness testimony” -something simply unacceptable to many CT believers.

          • David Hazan says:

            “Where does this leave us, then?” – Bob

            I suspect exactly where we need to be kept… On a fractal squirrel wheel, going in interlocking circles.

            Please correct me if I have misinterpreted the general premise of the problem you have framed:

            1. There were THREE gunshots
            2. Moorman photo shows HEAD SHOT
            3. She says that was the FIRST shot and she heard two more after that
            4. Therefore, we can’t account for the NECK shot on Z film, or the 42 foot discrepancy.

            It’d be one thing if any two of these assumptions were 100% reliable. We could then scrutinize the third…. But, although in widely varying degrees, they are All suspect:

            1. Were there really three gunshots?
            2. Does it, really…?
            3. Is her memory or perception of what happened accurate? Or honest?

            There are people on these pages, and all over the Internet, still fervently defending three-bullets-by-LOH… And these people are argued with and treated with respect, and are considered “experts”. (Or expert “buffs”)

            So, that leaves us in square one. And that is exactly how conspiracies remain unproven to any honest researcher’s satisfaction. Not because we can’t tell what happened, but because we are required to PROVE it while people like Photon help spin our wheel with mindbendingly disingenuous and purposely provoking comments like the one right above this one, about CTs and ears…

            Sorry to say, Bob… This wheel is not going anywhere…

  30. leslie sharp says:

    Jean,

    JD “Sure, Marguerite was suspicious of a lot of people. She was a conspiracy theorist. That doesn’t mean I have to believe Oswald didn’t do it just because she said so.”

    LS You don’t have to believe anything, but cavalier assessments suggest a low opinion of the significance of interpersonal relationships. This was Lee’s mother. She was there, you weren’t.

    JD “The Life reporters brought along a translator to interview a woman who spoke little English and you call that “curiously convenient”? Why?”

    LS No, they needed to interview a woman whose first language was Russian … why do you change the emphasis from a ‘Russian translator’ to someone who could interview a ‘woman who spoke little English?’ The Russian speaking community in Dallas/Ft. Worth was very tight. I am asking if someone within the community referred the Life guys to this woman, and if so who?

    JD “Almost any JFK question beginning “Why didn’t he/she…?” is a pointless question, since it calls for speculation — unless you think I can read minds. But okay, I will guess. Marina said that Oswald had destroyed some of his Walker material,including a notebook he’d kept before the shooting. Marina may not have known he’d kept the other photos. (No, I can’t prove that, I’m speculating.)”

    LS You have had no difficulty in reading the mind of young Lee Oswald in your various speculations of his short life and motive to assassinate a president. (example: he became a Marxist after being handed a pamphlet about the Rosenburgs?) Why do you now hesitate to read Marina’s mind? Do you think the photo in the ashtray was one in a series? and why would Marina and Marguerite decide to divulge the existence?

    JD “’And how easy would it have been for them to have never mentioned the photo and the shoe and the ashtray? In fact, why did they?’ Again, calling for speculation. Are you suggesting they did something wrong by revealing this?”

    LS How did you extrapolate that? I didn’t suggest there was anything “wrong” with divulging the incident; I am asking how you would explain why they felt comfortable doing so.

    • leslie sharp says:

      (cont.)

      JD QUOTE: “ . . . but so what?”
      Are you serious …. But So What?? First of all, under our criminal justice system Oswald was presumed innocent until proven guilty; he was stating he did not kill the president -which defies the motive many have assigned him.” “No, it doesn’t.”

      LS Please explain.

      JD “And yet you never seem to afford the same rights to the numerous people you consider suspicious: the Russian translator, Patsy Swank (whoever that is), the Life crew, Roy Truly, and many others. Have any of the people you’ve named on this site ever had a fair trial? Is there even any evidence against them? For instance, have any of them ever been connected to a murder weapon? Oswald has rights, they don’t?”

      LS I anticipated this response. Arguments that challenge the credibility of allegations against Oswald are not accusations of guilt of others. They introduce possible explanations for the discrepancies, the gaps and the misinformation in the investigation. For instance, the cover up was facilitated immediately and Life Magazine – witting or not – was a major vehicle for that operation. Patsy Swank, a fine newswoman in her own right, was nonetheless married to a leading architect of the Dallas power structure including Sid Richardson. She was miraculously informed that Abraham Zapruder had filmed the assassination, and as luck would have it immediately located Dick Stolley on the West Coast and set the ball rolling. How many other films were made that day that Patsy didn’t pursue? Why the Zapruder film?

      JD “’Again, why was Odum assigned to two distinct areas of the investigation in a 24-hour period?’ How should I know? Can you show that this was unusual in the days immediately following the assassination?”

      LS According to testimony, there were 40 agents assigned to the HQ in Dallas. How did Odum find himself in key locations; the 6th Floor, Parkland (controversial but your own David vonPein insists he was at Parkland with that magic bullet), the Paine’s house (known by the Paines as “Bob”), and the Executive Inn with a photo from MC CIA in those early hours; what were the other 39 agents doing?

      • Jean Davison says:

        (cont.)
        QUOTE:

        JD: “ . . . but so what?”
        LS: Are you serious …. But So What?? First of all, under our criminal justice system Oswald was presumed innocent until proven guilty; he was stating he did not kill the president -which defies the motive many have assigned him.” “No, it doesn’t.”

        LS Please explain.
        UNQUOTE

        Before I do, would you tell me precisely what you mean by “the motive many have assigned him” to make sure we’re talking about the same thing?

        QUOTE:
        JD “And yet you never seem to afford the same rights to the numerous people you consider suspicious: the Russian translator, Patsy Swank (whoever that is), the Life crew, Roy Truly, and many others. Have any of the people you’ve named on this site ever had a fair trial? Is there even any evidence against them? For instance, have any of them ever been connected to a murder weapon? Oswald has rights, they don’t?”

        LS I anticipated this response. Arguments that challenge the credibility of allegations against Oswald are not accusations of guilt of others.
        UNQUOTE

        Of course they aren’t! That’s not what I meant, not even close. You say, “under our criminal justice system Oswald was presumed innocent until proven guilty.” What about the presumption of innocence for all the people you’ve suggested were somehow involved? You seem to have a double standard. None of your suspects have been convicted of anything either.

        Oswald will always be legally innocent of murder, like O.J. Simpson and John Wilkes Booth. We can judge their guilt or innocence for ourselves based on the evidence on record.

        LS: They introduce possible explanations for the discrepancies, the gaps and the misinformation in the investigation. For instance, the cover up was facilitated immediately and Life Magazine – witting or not – was a major vehicle for that operation. Patsy Swank, a fine newswoman in her own right, was nonetheless married to a leading architect of the Dallas power structure including Sid Richardson. She was miraculously informed that Abraham Zapruder had filmed the assassination, and as luck would have it immediately located Dick Stolley on the West Coast and set the ball rolling. How many other films were made that day that Patsy didn’t pursue? Why the Zapruder film?
        UNQUOTE

        You don’t know how Patsy Swank found out about the Z film. Neither do I. What makes you think she’d heard about other films? And what evidence do you have that she or the numerous others you’ve named actually did anything wrong?

        QUOTE:
        LS According to testimony, there were 40 agents assigned to the HQ in Dallas. How did Odum find himself in key locations; the 6th Floor, Parkland (controversial but your own David vonPein insists he was at Parkland with that magic bullet), the Paine’s house (known by the Paines as “Bob”), and the Executive Inn with a photo from MC CIA in those early hours; what were the other 39 agents doing?
        UNQUOTE

        Again, can you show that Odum’s activities were unusual in the days immediately following the assassination? What’s wrong with sending an FBI agent to several “key locations”? What is it that you suspect about Odum, anyway? I don’t see the point of your question, sorry.

    • Jean Davison says:

      Leslie,

      QUOTE:
      JD “Sure, Marguerite was suspicious of a lot of people…. That doesn’t mean I have to believe Oswald didn’t do it just because she said so.”

      LS You don’t have to believe anything, but cavalier assessments suggest a low opinion of the significance of interpersonal relationships. This was Lee’s mother. She was there, you weren’t.
      UNQUOTE

      I’m afraid I don’t follow your reasoning. Marguerite saw very little of Oswald during 1963. Even if she’d “been there” every day, why should I give any weight to her saying she’d heard Oswald say he didn’t do it?

      QUOTE:
      JD “The Life reporters brought along a translator to interview a woman who spoke little English and you call that “curiously convenient”? Why?”

      LS No, they needed to interview a woman whose first language was Russian … why do you change the emphasis from a ‘Russian translator’ to someone who could interview a ‘woman who spoke little English?’
      UNQUOTE

      I didn’t “change the emphasis.” Good grief. Is there anyone here who doesn’t know that Marina spoke Russian? They brought a RUSSIAN translator because she spoke RUSSIAN. Is that better?

      QUOTE:
      LS: The Russian speaking community in Dallas/Ft. Worth was very tight. I am asking if someone within the community referred the Life guys to this woman, and if so who?
      UNQUOTE

      Who knows? What are you suggesting, that the Russian community was up to something?

      QUOTE:
      JD “Almost any JFK question beginning “Why didn’t he/she…?” is a pointless question, since it calls for speculation — unless you think I can read minds….

      LS You have had no difficulty in reading the mind of young Lee Oswald in your various speculations of his short life and motive to assassinate a president. (example: he became a Marxist after being handed a pamphlet about the Rosenburgs?)
      UNQUOTE

      That wasn’t speculation, Ms. Sharp. Oswald told a reporter in Moscow that he first got interested in Marxism through reading a “Save the Rosenbergs” pamphlet. I tried to base any speculation on things that Oswald said or did or on other evidence, not on reading his mind.

      QUOTE:
      JD “’And how easy would it have been for them to have never mentioned the photo and the shoe and the ashtray? In fact, why did they?’ Again, calling for speculation. Are you suggesting they did something wrong by revealing this?”

      LS How did you extrapolate that? I didn’t suggest there was anything “wrong” with divulging the incident; I am asking how you would explain why they felt comfortable doing so.
      UNQUOTE

      I don’t even know that “they felt comfortable doing so.” I’m puzzled by the question. Why do *you* think Marguerite revealed this? (I think she was the first to do so before Marina, though I could be wrong about that.) What is your point?

      • gemini says:

        I kind of have a problem with any testimony given by LHO’s mother. The brothers had a real problem with her and admitted they did what they could to leave home, like join the Marines early. Robert testified that she was a terrible mother for LHO. LHO was upset when she turned up at the jail with Marina, saying something like, “Did you have to bring her with you”. People who knew them said she had a problem with the truth.

        • gemini says:

          What I meant to say is that those who knew them commented that she was in denial about LHO. She even tended to blame Marina for the marital problems. I guess it is always difficult for a mother.

          • leslie sharp says:

            gemini, spoken like a true twin. Seriously and with respect, mothers fail their children all of the time. The argument is that regardless of Marguerite’s failures, in spite of her sons’ anger at her, she knew ‘Lee’ better than anyone else did, and intuitively she believed him when he said “I didn’t do it.” Robert’s version of events should be brought under the microscope … after all, he was a brother and brothers have as significant and deeply suppressed familial issues as mothers and sons … think of Cain and Abel.

      • leslie sharp says:

        Jean, Would you mind if we narrow this to three pertinent issues?
        I.
        You indicated you couldn’t read anyone’s mind, and I responded that I thought you had attempted to do so. You responded that you tried to base any speculation on things that Oswald said or did or on other evidence, not on reading his mind.

        However, you state in the introduction of your book: “The argument that Oswald was the tool of a high-level conspiracy does seem plausible, until one tries to fit it into the context these theorists always leave out – “the personality and background of Lee Harvey Oswald,” the individual.”

        There is no greater mind reading exercise than the pseudoscience of psychoanalysis. You analyzed his personality (got inside his head in other words) and then used presumptions as adhesive to connect certain events and facts that would align to support your hypothesis; I suggest that any facts that didn’t fit into the ‘context of your theory’ were either omitted or obscured. I think you have made a similar assessment of ‘dot connecting.’

        Other examples of mind reading. This first one you will have to take up with John McAdams – if he has misinterpreted your meaning or embellished your writing:
        (emphasis mine in single quotes)

        “Jean Davison, in the 1983 book Oswald’s Game, ‘suggests Oswald could have read’ in The Militant — the Socialist Workers’ newspaper which he subscribed to — of Castro’s suspicions of US — sponsored assassination attempts against him by the US, and acted in retaliation. Oswald would show Castro what a great revolutionary he missed out on.”

        From your book:
        “Oswald’s remark that he didn’t agree with Castro’s particular wording ‘suggests he may have’ instead agreed with the substance. But he went on to blame the State Department and the CIA, and this too ‘may have reflected his attitude’ toward John Kennedy . . . .

        “But among the potential readers was Lee Harvey Oswald, a ‘disturbed’ young radical who had been following the local papers looking for a way to help Castro. With his taste for violence and his subjective interpretation of everything he read, Castro’s warning ‘may indeed have seemed like’ the king’s outcry against Becket ….

        The reason for pointing out these examples is to establish that you like many are compelled to read minds when the facts don’t completely align; after all, you weren’t there. It is a process and not necessarily a flawed one unless one takes the higher ground that they deal in facts only. I asked that you share your subjective opinion as to why Marina didn’t retrieve all of the photos, and from there why would they divulge the existence of one. Rather than insisting you can’t read minds, a different approach might have been “the two women ‘may have been frightened that the photograph in Marina’s shoe would implicate Lee in a murder when in fact at least one of them believed him when he said “I didn’t do it.”’

        • leslie sharp says:

          Jean,
          II.
          What is your opinion as to why FBI Agent Bardwell (Bob) Hart Odum was not called to testify before the Warren Commission? I find no evidence that he was; all I find is his affidavit related to the CIA photograph of someone in Mexico City.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean
            III.
            Lee Oswald’s motive was the primary theme of your book as I understand it. The Warren Commission offered arguments for means and opportunity but they failed to crystallize motive. You came along on the twentieth anniversary and offered a solution to the question of motive. Do you continue to stand by your original work, and if so would you offer a short paragraph in summation and defense of what you believe to have been Oswald’s motive to assassinate John Kennedy?

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, I see that you didn’t reply to this.

            “Do you continue to stand by your original work, and if so would you offer a short paragraph in summation and defense of what you believe to have been Oswald’s motive to assassinate John Kennedy?”

            Would be please offer a summation of what you believe to have been Oswald’s motive? I don’t need footnotes or links, just your own words.

        • Leslie Sharp makes a masterfully rational argument above. The psychological profile that Jean offers is a flat, pat, and shallow reconstruction that is not tempered with any reasonable amount of uncertainty. An exercise in rote thinking.
          Our subjective views are not objective views until we drop every bias that we can ferret out of our consciousness. At least to recognize and acknowledge such biases.
          \\][//

          • gemini says:

            Am just now reading, “Oswald’s Game”, by Davison. Have noted that several other authors researching Oswald’s personality, character, belief system etc. reached pretty much the same conclusion Davison did. I tend to believe it very important to understand LHO or get into his head a bit. We need to see which better suits him……being a patsy for someone or something outside of himself or making it as a lone gunman. To know LHO is vital in this assassination issue. I tend to think him a stronger person than often depicted. But this is just an opinion.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Willy Whitten, Your contribution is invaluable.

            pa·tri·ot/ˈpātrēət/
            noun
            a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors.

          • “I tend to believe it very important to understand LHO or get into his head a bit.” ~gemini

            I think it is a bogus argument, an attempt to create out of whole cloth, a “motive”, that is simply nonexistent — but for this amateur psychological rhetoric from Warren Commission cultists.

            The clearest and most obvious motive was held by the military industrial complex that was being threatened with peace, by Kennedy. They had the motive, the means, and opportunity.

            This is and has been blatantly obvious for half a century.
            \\][//

          • gemini says:

            Willy hi
            I definitely agree with you about the military industrial complex being threatened with peace, by Kennedy. Yes, a motive. Would they take such drastic action?
            Still I think it important to know people.

        • Jean Davison says:

          Leslie,

          QUOTE:
          Jean, Would you mind if we narrow this to three pertinent issues?
          I.
          You indicated you couldn’t read anyone’s mind, and I responded that I thought you had attempted to do so. You responded that you tried to base any speculation on things that Oswald said or did or on other evidence, not on reading his mind.
          However, you state in the introduction of your book: [….]
          UNQUOTE

          You aren’t “narrowing” the issues we were discussing. You’re changing the subject.

          I’ve already told you that I based any speculation about Oswald (including possible motives) on things he said or did or on other evidence. I call that “making an inference” whether right or wrong, not “reading his mind.”

          I responded to your two March 1 posts to me in detail point by point. Do you have a reply to my specific arguments in those posts? Apparently not.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, of course I have a reply, point by point in 1300+ words; that does not include the words I deleted from our original exchange. I will be happy to post the entire response if you allege I am somehow backing away from one single detail. I am not, I can assure you.

            I had hoped you would recognize that at issue were three fundamental areas of concern that manifested in the scenes we were dissecting. Apparently you are not willing to shift from compartmentalization of facts to arguing the broader context in a far more productive process of determining their significance. This requires a convergance of linear and lateral thinking.

            In essence I was addressing: 1) have ALL facts been placed in context free of bias, i.e. why did Marina and Marguerite acknowledge one photo had been destroyed if they knew that others existed? Why was the Z film the focal point within hours of the assassination? Why was Life magazine pivotal in the lives of key witnesses? 2) the failure of the Warren Commission … for example why didn’t they call Odum to testify when he had been at the TSBD, the Paines, allegedly present at the Texas Theatre, the Executive Inn, and most likely at Parkland Hospital yet the Warren Commission had no interest in Odum’s version of events? 3) the motive behind the assassiantion … Oswald said he didn’t do it, the Warren Commission could not crystallize motive, yet you argue that you know Oswald’s motive.

            I doubt after all these years someone with your experience in debating the assassinaton investigation needs to be spoon fed.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Leslie,

            “Jean, of course I have a reply, point by point in 1300+ words [….]”

            Okay, that’s fine. Neither of us is obligated to reply to anything.

            “I had hoped you would recognize that at issue were three fundamental areas of concern that manifested in the scenes we were dissecting. Apparently you are not willing to shift from compartmentalization of facts to arguing the broader context in a far more productive process of determining their significance….”

            Any “compartmentalization of facts” is your own doing since I replied specifically to what you wrote to me. Now you’d rather drop those issues and talk about something else.

            In your “3 fundamental areas of concern,” you once again are asking unanswerable questions that seem to be based on suspicion rather than on established facts. For instance, you ask, “why did Marina and Marguerite acknowledge one photo had been destroyed if they knew that others existed?”

            You haven’t established that they knew other photos still existed. And how should I know why Marina or Marguerite did or didn’t do something? Should I consult a crystal ball or in Marguerite’s case, a Ouija board? And how should I know why the WC didn’t call Odum? The WC took testimony from hundreds of witnesses:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=73907

            I suppose that if the WC called every conceivable witness the argument then would be that they should’ve focused on those that were the most important instead of taking a scattershot approach. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

          • I want to thank you for your gracious compliment earlier up in the thread here Leslie.

            While I am at it, I will admit my bias on this subject; I am convinced that the assassination of JFK was a coup d’etat. In all of these years of intense study on the subject nothing has been produced to change that conviction.

            We would likely be living in an entirely different world today were it not for the fascist takeover in 1963, a more peaceful world. Maybe a smarter one, had the plot been revealed before it was successfully carried out.
            \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            LS Assuming the moderators are okay with it, I will be posting my series of point by point responses to make sure you understand I am not avoiding anything.

            JD “Any “compartmentalization of facts” is your own doing since I replied specifically to what you wrote to me. Now you’d rather drop those issues and talk about something else.”

            LS Not at all Jean, I would rather you collect those details within their context and engage in a generalized debate about what those finer details suggest: in my opinion, a highly flawed and perhaps corrupt investigation in Dallas, the subsequent commission that produced a report full of contradictions and omissions, and a yet to be named and shunned cover up.

            JD “You once again are asking unanswerable questions that seem to be based on suspicion rather than on established facts.”
            LS How can my logical questions be construed as ‘suspicious,’ when the Warren Commission asked thousands of leading and suspicious questions? I cite the deM testimony as an example. They went fishing based on suspicion when the man had not been in Dallas for months leading up to the assassination; yet they failed to call an FBI agent who was on the ground in the first hours of the investigation. I am highly suspicious of their reasoning to fail to call Bardwell Odum. Was it because Hoover used him as a foil in the fiasco of the chain of custody of a magic bullet? Might Odum have testified under oath he had not been involved with a bullet from Parkland? Might he have had to explain why he and Hosty determined the CIA had sent a photo they didn’t recognize as Oswald, yet the photo circulated for years as if it was? Why was he stretched very thin in the first 48 hours while dozens of other agents do not even appear in records of the investigation?

            JD ”You haven’t established that they knew other photos still existed.”

            LS Don’t you argue that Marina took the BY photos?

            JD “Should I consult a crystal ball or in Marguerite’s case, a Ouija board?”

            LS Your disdain for Marguerite is transparent, and I suggest it clouds your judgment of her testimony. Can you reconcile these two statements:

            Jean: “So you think Oswald’s own mother lied about seeing this photo and helping Marina get rid of it?”
            Jean: “Sure, Marguerite was suspicious of a lot of people. She was a conspiracy theorist. That doesn’t mean I have to believe Oswald didn’t do it just because she said so.”

            JD “And how should I know why the WC didn’t call Odum? The WC took testimony from hundreds of witnesses . . . I suppose that if the WC called every conceivable witness. . .”

            LS You have repeated that argument elsewhere: it is a weak defense of the WC. Would you address specifically Agent Odum’s absence from the witness roster given my aforementioned observations? Defense and Prosecution would know that Odum was a highly significant witness.

  31. Sammy says:

    I read something written by James P Hosty Jr. in his book about his father, Assignment Oswald, which really surprised me about Marina. He said that when interviewed by Heitman and Bogaslov, she lied about knowing nothing about her husband’s trip to Mexico City. When she later testified under oath to the Warren Commission with a lawyer by her side, she admitted that she knew of his visit to Mexico City. When asked why she had lied earlier, she replied that she had wanted to make the FBI look bad. Perhaps she was capable of lying just for a little revenge. Maybe I was wrong in expecting her to always be credible. But she definitely was under a lot of pressure at that time.

  32. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Photon
    March 2, 2015 at 7:09 am
    It leaves us with the unreliability of ” ear witness testimony” -something simply unacceptable to many CT believers.

    —————————————————————–

    Heard it all before, photon. The only reliable ear witnesses are the ones who heard three shots from the TSBD, right?

    • Bob,

      As per Moorman’s comments in that interview;

      She said that she only heard 3 shots, and the first of these was as she snapped her photo.

      BUT:
      1. Kennedy had already been shot in the throat
      2. Kennedy had already been shot in the back
      3 Connally had already been shot in the back, and probably again in the right wrist.
      4. The head shot is clearly the last in this sequence – NOT the first.

      I think Moorman is wrong on those counts. But also I think she is wrong about the timing of her snapping the photo. I think it was more than a second after the shot hit. Because it does not show the “explosion” but does show the head shortly after as it has clearly collapsed in on itself – elongated with the tuft of hair lifted at the cowlick and still mist lightly in the air above it.
      \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Willy

        I have looked long and hard at the Moorman photo, as have many people, and cannot see evidence of the head collapsing in on itself, or of a mist hanging over the head. Quite frankly, I do not think JFK’s skull collapsed. The medical reports from Parkland indicate a large blowout on the right rear, and severe shattering of the skull bone adjacent to that, but certainly not a collapse of the skull.

        Have you ever studied the WC testimony of James Altgens?

        • By “collapse” Bob, I do not mean that it was totally “deflated” – but the rear wound was part of a trough running from the temple back and that was shattered and indented, as can be seen in the autopsy photos.
          A high powered rifle shoots a projectile at mach speed. The shock wave expands in the head, and fractures the skull in a cone-like expansion, then the skull implodes; action/reaction. Using these terms might appear to be saying something more visually exaggerated than what I really mean, which is that the head did take on a different shape. But not in the cartoon fashion that you seem to interpret in what I said.
          Let’s say the shape of the head, once rigid, is now more flaccid in appearance, like a boiled egg crushed and rolled in the hand before pealing the shell off.
          \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Willy

            What you are describing, by saying “the rear wound was part of a trough running from the temple back”, is a description of what is known as a “tangential” wound. Looking at the Moorman photo, it is quite obvious that the side of JFK’s head is almost 90° to a shooter on the Grassy Knoll. In order for a tangential strike to cut a trough from the temple to the rear of JFK’s head, JFK would have to be looking directly at the shooter.

            Quite simply put, the bullet went straight into JFK’s right temple, leaving a neat little 1/4 inch hole as described by mortician homas Robinson in his 1977 HSCA interview.

            The “explosion” from the right temple, seen at z313 of the Zapruder film, is just more smoke and mirrors from the Warren Commission.

          • a “tangential” wound. Looking at the Moorman photo, it is quite obvious that the side of JFK’s head is almost 90° to a shooter on the Grassy Knoll. In order for a tangential strike to cut a trough from the temple to the rear of JFK’s head, JFK would have to be looking directly at the shooter.”~Bob

            Kennedy was not shot from the Grassy Knoll Bob.
            He was shot from the front from near the overpass on the other side of the plaza near Commerce.
            https://enemyofthetruth.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/dealey3a.jpg?w=700
            \\][//

        • Bob,
          Yes, I have read the WC testimony of James Altgens.

          Mr. LIEBELER – You also testified that you were standing perhaps no more than 15 feet away when the President was hit in the head and that you are absolutely certain that there were no shots fired after the President was hit in the head?

          Mr. ALTGENS – Yes, sir; that’s correct.
          \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Precisely, Willy, yet the Z film shows Altgens nowhere near the head shot at z313. By the time the limo is abreast with Altgens, placing him 15 feet away from JFK, it is frame z351, and Jackie is already well on her way out to the trunk of the limo.

            Then we have Emmett Hudson, who testified to the WC that JFK was directly in front of him at the time of the head shot. Emmett Hudson was standing on the concrete steps to the pergola, almost directly across the street from James Altgens.

            But, as you say, Mary Moorman is just a confused old woman.

          • Bob,

            You are behind the curve on the ballistics.

            CSI Sherry Fiester has proven the head shot came from the front.
            http://enemyofthetruth.wordpress.com/
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Willy, you are behind the curve on the forensic pathology. Over 30 world renowned forensic pathologists that have reviewed the case have stated that JFK was only hit from behind.
            The body does not lie.
            Ever find proof of Fiester’s certification claim?
            Did you know that her sister ran the JFK Lancer conspiracy site?

          • Photon,

            You have questioned Fiester’s qualifications since before I joined in the discussions on this site.

            We’ve been through this before and your arguments have no merit.

            I am not going to the trouble of revisiting our conversations on this on other threads. You have no valid case against her expertise.

            She doesn’t need to prove her qualifications YOU need to prove yours.
            \\][//

          • Just out of curiosity Photon, who are these over “30 world renowned forensic pathologists” you say reviewed the case and found JFK was shot from behind?

            Certainly you aren’t including the doctors who performed the autopsy itself. They were not “forensic pathologists” they were ‘general pathologists’, and if you know anything at all about this topic you know there is a critical difference between the two fields.
            \\][//

          • “Ever find proof of Fiester’s certification claim?”~Photon

            Yes Photon, we have been through this before;

            Sherry Gutierrez Fiester, Detective Lieutenant – Forensics
            St. Charles Patish Sheriff’s Department
            August 1995 – October 1999 (4 years 3 months)
            In 1995 newly elected Sheriff Greg Champagne employed me to head his Forensic Unit. It was a wonderful opportunity to assist in the development of an investigative unit that would become regionally based and respected for their expertise.

            My duties included: Supervise overall operations for Forensic Unit, Evidence Division, and License and Permits Departments; Direct, supervise and coordinate forensic investigations and personnel in the field; Develop forensic standards, protocols, training manuals, policy and procedures for meeting national individual certifications; Maintain fiscal responsibility, develop budgets and maintain inventory for three departments without budget overages; Develop and maintain computerized records management system for case activity, sex offenders database and evidence retention; Inspect facilities for emergency readiness and compliance of OSHA regulations; And develop instructional materials and conducted educational programs on state and national levels.
            Prior:
            Detective Sargent – Forensics
            Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Department…etc

            https://www.linkedin.com/in/sherryfiester
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            And your source is what-her website.

          • Photon says:

            I will make it easy for you Willy.
            Post a quote from exactly one forensic pathologist ( aside from Wecht) who has reviewed the case and does not agree that JFK was struck by only two bullets from behind.
            How many autopsies has Fiester conducted- or even attended?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Well Photon that rules out anything from Humes as he was not a Forensic Pathologist.

          • Photon says:

            Not logical- present one forensic pathologist besides Wecht who does not agree with Humes conclusion

          • Photon, no my source on Fiester’s curriculum vitae is LinkedIn, the link is right there in the comment.
            . . .
            “I will make it easy for you Willy.
            Post a quote from exactly one forensic pathologist…”

            That is not an answer as to who the over “30 world renowned forensic pathologists” were Photon. It doesn’t make it easy on me or anyone else when you play the rhetorical dodge game Photon. It just shows that you are playing games here.
            \\][//

          • Fiester’s expertise speaks for itself.

            Note, one of her duties was:
            “Develop forensic standards, protocols, training manuals, policy and procedures for meeting national individual certifications.”

            It stands to reason that she herself would first of all be ‘meeting the national individual certifications’.

            But most importantly; as she leads you through the steps of her analysis, she explains the geometrics of blood spatter analysis, 3D Photogrammetry in determining trajectory, going forward to the physics of impact analysis of human tissues and bone. Added to this is her introduction of the benefits of fast speed filming, to see the real action & reaction dynamics at the point of impact.

            Her work is a tutorial primer in itself; as to the most up to date information and techniques of forensic crime scene analysis.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            You really want to double down on this, don’t Willy? for starters, the Rockefeller commission included 3 nationally recognized forensic pathologists, the Clark panel had 3 nationally recognized forensic pathologists and an expert in forensic radiology, the HSCA had 9 world renowned forensic pathologists who had completed tens of thousands of autopsies. Virtually all had extensive experience as legal Medical Examiners.
            Sherry Fiester doesn’t even have a degree. As to ” the most up to date information and techniques of forensic crime scene analysis” Fiester left her police job over 15 years ago and has posted no evidence that she has kept up any certification since-even if she had any to begin with. Her qualifications descriptions come from her own sources-it would be informative to see some independent corroboration .
            Don’t you find it unusual that no recognized expert in this field has supported Fiester’s conclusions?

          • “Don’t you find it unusual that no recognized expert in this field has supported Fiester’s conclusions?”~Photon

            What I find unusual is that no recognized expert in this field has supported anything one way or the other besides those participating in government run commissions.

            And I will triple down and say that I think every one of these so called “inquiries” had at its core mission to reiterate the agenda of the Warren Commission.

            You won’t accept anything without official government approval. I am suspicious of anything coming from serial liars such as these “Blue Ribbon Panels”.

            You are desperate to defame and degrade Fiester because she does have OBVIOUS expertise, and can explain these things clearly.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Willy, exactly what government-run commission was Dr. Peter Cummings a member of?
            Unlike Sherry Fiester he actually has proven credentials as an expert in forensic neuropathology .
            Her expertise is only obvious to those unaware of how little has been independently posted to confirm it. Even Cyril Wecht thinks that her claims are not correct. Why do you ?

          • Photon,

            Why do you state such easily detected bald faced lies?

            “As more information is extracted from official government files and new technology is utilized in analyzing the scientific aspects, Fiester’s fascinating, extensively researched book presents a powerful and cogent basis for repudiation of the official findings. A true literary dissection performed with a sharp analytical scalpel.”
            ~Cyril Wecht, MD. JD.

          • “..exactly what government-run commission was Dr. Peter Cummings a member of?”~Photon

            Dr. Peter Cummings on “Cold Case JFK,’’ a special episode of the PBS science show “Nova.”

            The government run commission is the propaganda arm of the government, The Public Relations Regime. Cummings is a sycophant for Authority. Just like you are dear Photon.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            But Wecht has publically stated that he does not agree with Fiester’s hypothesis . Dr. Cummings is a highly educated and respected forensic pathologist. It could be considered libel what you have stated here-making a derogatory claim with no evidence, simply because you don’t like what his well-documented expertise has led him to believe. Of course , this is an open forum where multiple opinions can be presented and debated. But how can you possibly compare an undocumented “expert” like Sherry Fiester with a world authority like Dr. Cummings?
            By the way, where is the ” expert” Dr. Fiester?

          • To paraphrase J. Rocket Squirrel to Bullwinkle the Moose:

            ‘Aw Photon, that trick never works…’
            \\][//

          • “But Wecht has publically stated that he does not agree with Fiester’s hypothesis.”~Photon

            Cite a source for that Photon.

            By the way, where is your “expert” Dr. Cummings?
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            I doubt that Dr. Cummings is even aware of this blog.
            On the other hand, Sherry Fiester has posted on it-until I started to raise a few questions.
            I can’t do all of your research for you Willy.if you can find a quote from Dr. Wecht endorsing Ms. Fiester’s shot from the front hypothesis ( and not the fact that she is a conspiracy theorist) let it fly.
            Why don’t you add up her total time on 2 police forces as she has posted and tell us how that amounts to ” over 30 years of experience”?

          • Blood Spatter

            “Backspatter is blood ejected from the entry wound and travels against the line of fire, back towards the shooter. Although forward and back spatter pattern display some common features, there are also dissimilarities.

            Studying forward and back spatter patterns created during a singular incident identifies those differences. By differentiating between forward and back spatter in shooting incidents, the identification of the direction of the origin of force is possible.” (James, 2005).
            ‘Essential Forensic Biology’ By Alan Gunn

            Principles of Bloodstain Pattern Analysis: Theory and Practice (Practical Aspects of Criminal & Forensic Investigations) Hardcover – May 26, 2005 by Stuart H. James (Author), Paul E. Kish (Author), T. Paulette Sutton (Author)
            \\][//

          • “I can’t do all of your research for you Willy.” ~Photon

            Hahaha…cute Photon!

            You obviously think you can bluff your way through these threads, making claims up out of whole cloth. Then having nothing to back it up when you are called on it, you stoop to the rhetorical drivel of this last comment you have made.

            I provided a quote by Wecht praising Fiester’s work already.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            But Wecht’s quote has nothing to do with her hypothesis .You can’t produce a quote of him agreeing with her because there isn’t one.
            Are you aware of the unreliability of blood spatter analysis and the total lack of uniformity in establishing competency in the field?

          • “But Wecht’s quote has nothing to do with her hypothesis.”~Photon

            What incredibly spurious nonsense Photon.

            Wecht’s praise for Fiester’s book is tantamount to praise for her findings, not her “hypothesis”.

            You don’t know the first thing about modern advances in blood spatter analysis. It is considered one of the primary techniques for establishing wound dynamics at a crime scene. It establishes on site trajectory, and impact dynamics; entry and exit fluid dynamics.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Doubling down again,Willy?
            Do you really want to go down the road of blood spatter unreliability and differences in interpretation?
            To begin with, Fiester’s interpretation of the spatter pattern is incorrect .
            Can’t find that Wecht quote, can you?

          • To begin with, Fiester’s interpretation of the spatter pattern is incorrect .”~Photon

            Okay fine, you explain exactly why Fiester’s interpretation of the spatter pattern is incorrect.
            \\][//

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            I noticed that you have not responded to my last two posts to you dated 3-5. You will find them above these posts. If you get a chance, I would like some answers from YOU. YOU demand answers from everyone else but YOU refuse to give any answers yourself. BTW—the word mistake does NOT pass as an answer. FYI—ALL of the “experts” that you ALWAYS mention? Are these “experts” independent experts in their fields, or are they part of the government team of “experts?” You know, hired by the FBI or CiA, which, as YOU are well aware of, NO ONE has ANY faith in the findings of these two branches. Even YOU said that the CIA made a “mistake” in the non-photo of Oswald. Even YOU don’t like one, Mr. Sibert. Or is the good ol’ LN “pick and choose” time?

            Care to tell us where these “experts” are employed? Or is that part of your “top-secret” knowledge that you are not willing or able or afraid to share?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            Let’s take on the government “experts”: Humes and Finck. Since the neck wound was never dissected—you can look up Finck’s explanation if you wish—how can ANYONE even begin to KNOW what really happened? If Humes or any other of the “experts” were worth their salt, they would have demanded to dissect ALL of the wounds. Instead Finck says that were told not to, but can’t “remember” who told them not to. I am pretty SURE that I would know who said that if I were doing an autopsy on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. I am also pretty SURE that I would put in my notes that I could not be sure of the angle or trajectory BECAUSE I was told NOT to dissect the wounds by __________________ (you may fill in the blank with any name you wish, Photon.) See, Photon, that is what MORAL and ETHICAL people do.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            Let’s take another are where “experts” have been used: autopsy photos. You say there are 30 experts who have sworn that the autopsy photos are genuine and prove the WC was right. How do you KNOW they are even looking at the right autopsy photos. Please read this quote written in connection with Saundra Spencer’s testimony in 1997:

            Saundra Kay Spencer developed photographs from the autopsy of President Kennedy on the weekend following the assassination. She worked at the Naval Photographic Center in Anacostia, in the “White House lab.” Her liaison to the White House was Robert Knudsen, and she worked with Vince Madonia. Ms. Spencer, never before interviewed in association with this case, was shown the autopsy photographs held in the National Archives. She told ARRB Chief Counsel Jeremy Gunn that those photographs were not the ones she developed, based both on the content of the pictures (hers were “clean” and unbloody) and the type of film used (color positives as opposed to color transparencies). She appears to have processed photos which were taken after cleanup of the body, but these photos are not to be found in the official record nor the public domain.

            Are you CERTAIN that your “experts” were even looking at JFK? Because Ms. Spencer is not so sure.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            Here is another one from Ms. Spencer:

            Saundra Kay Spencer was a technician at the Navy’s photographic laboratory in Washington. She developed the JFK autopsy photos on the weekend after Kennedy’s death. She kept her oath of secrecy for 34 years. When she spoke to the ARRB in 1997, Spencer displayed the efficiency of a career military woman. She was well prepared with a sharp memory for the details of her involvement in the amazing events of November 22-24, 1963. Her testimony, after reviewing all the JFK autopsy photographs in the National Archives, was unequivocal. “The views [of JFK’s body] we produced at the [Naval] Photographic Center are not included [in the current autopsy collection],” she said. “Between those photographs and the ones we did, there had to be some massive cosmetic things done to the President’s body.”

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            So, let me ask AGAIN. How do you KNOW what your “experts” were really looking at?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            Let me help YOU with the de-bunking of Ms. Spencer. She was out to make money! Oops, no books that I know of. She was a publicity seeker? Oops, she didn’t speak for 34 YEARS. Was not close enough to witness what she says she saw? Oops, she was in the room developing photos. She changed her story multiple times over the years! Oops, she did not tell her story for 34 YEARS.

            Photon, you will simply have to help me with this de-bunking stuff.

          • Photon says:

            Spencer was describing the post-restoration photographs that have never been released.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            Here is another one for you to consider when you mention the word expert. This is from T. Jeremey Gunn. Let me point out BEFORE you do that Mr. Gunn does not know what happened on 11-22-63. But this post MIGHT help you see why there ARE still questions 50 plus years later.

            Oswald’s trip to Mexico City a few weeks before the assassination also raises unanswered questions.

            “Mexico City in the 1960s was probably the spy capital of the Western Hemisphere,” Gunn says. Naturally, the CIA had operations watching all the embassies in Mexico, tapping their phones and photographing comings and goings.

            While he was there, Oswald attempted to obtain visas from the Cuban consulate and the Soviet embassy. In one taped conversation, Oswald — or someone saying he was Oswald — called the Soviet embassy.

            Then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover listened to the tape and told President Lyndon Johnson that it wasn’t Oswald’s voice.

            Whose voice was it? No one knows. The tape has disappeared.”

            According to YOU, what happened in MC was a “mistake.” Mr. Gunn does not seem to agree with you.

      • Just keep in mind Bob, in the Moorman photo, you are not looking at a straight on ‘Profile’ of Kennedy’s head. He is leaning toward the camera and you see more of the top of the head.
        Which means you see the shape of the head with the indentation caused in the right side.
        Look at your negative shot again. There you will notice that the head is more ‘football shaped” (again not that extreme) this is because of the trough and fracture running to the exit spot.
        Once you see this in negative, it is obvious in the positive.
        His head is not ’rounded’ like a normal skull. Remember the “filler” is now missing, almost half the brain was turned to mush.
        \\][//

      • Vanessa says:

        Hi Willy

        Don’t like Mary Moorman’s testimony as an old lady, huh? I have to say that is not very gentlemanly of you.

        So how about her testimony as a young lady on the day of the assassination then? Where she says exactly the same thing.

        And to boot adds that she thinks that she was in the line of fire – which would suggest a grassy knoll shooter rather than a TSBD one.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEavxZReo84

      • Sherry Fiester gives a very detailed analysis in the interview on this site. Again this is a brilliant and clear tutorial of the detailed steps of her analysis, complete with citations to other forensic studies:

        http://www.examiner.com/article/jfk-assassination-revisited-part-3-sherry-fiester-on-enemy-of-the-truth
        \\][//

    • Vanessa says:

      Hi Photon

      So if you don’t like Moorman’s earwitness testimony how about her eyewitness testimony? She clearly states she saw JFK’s scalp fly up and it was not as a result of the first shot but the shots she heard after that.

      Are you going to comment about that FBI report undermining the Commission’s findings? Bit of an own goal, don’t you think? What were the FBI thinking to make those claims about 3 shots, 3 hits?

  33. Bob Prudhomme says:

    David Hazan

    Everything you say is true but, that does not mean we should not continue to look for the weak spot in the government’s story. The only alternative is to admit defeat, and let the Big Lie stand.

    Have you ever read the testimony of James Altgens?

    • David Hazan says:

      I totally understand and sympathize with anyone who seeks to unravel the truth, and shoot down lies, BIG and small… But, having watched, read, participated in, and mainly observed many sincere attempts to expose lies, conspiracies, false flags and psyops, I have come to recognize how they get infiltrated and corrupted until they go in to a stagnant repeat pattern through a very well thought out, scientifically developed, very well organized and funded approach to build (and maintain) a maze of smoke and mirrors. And, after having observed so many operations, one can start recognizing the pattern within their deception, misdirection, misinformation, disinformation and distraction methods.

      As the Danish assassination researcher Ole Demmagard puts it very plainly, no matter how many times you have been fooled by a magician’s skillful illusion up to the point you figure out (or learn) how the trick is accomplished, once you know how it is done, you can never un-know it. Which means you can no longer avoid noticing the misdirection, the cover, and the reveal.

      So, I am by no means suggesting that we should let the big lie stand, but simply pointing out that the FORMAT in which the search for truth is being conducted is broken by design, and we are being herded to nowhere really fast by active gatekeepers and agents. So, if I were to suggest anything at all, it’d be to recognize the game and the players and their MO.

      And, at a personal level, I don’t need to know the “truth” in order to recognize a “lie”… And the proof is in the taste of the pudding that was served to us after the assassination… That tangy taste of cover up…

      • leslie sharp says:

        David Hazan, hats off to you now:

        “So, I am by no means suggesting that we should let the big lie stand, but simply pointing out that the FORMAT in which the search for truth is being conducted is broken by design, and we are being herded to nowhere really fast by active gatekeepers and agents. So, if I were to suggest anything at all, it’d be to recognize the game and the players and their MO.”

        That’s a hefty and justifiable burden on JFK related sites including jfkfacts; If the checks and balances aren’t maintained, if those of good faith don’t keep each other honest as well as confront the MO of gatekeepers and agents, a new generation of Americans will ask, “Who was that Kennedy guy, didn’t some nut case shoot him? and what about his brother, and who the heck was MLK Jr.?” The victors WILL write the history.

        you also say,

        “And, at a personal level, I don’t need to know the “truth” in order to recognize a “lie”… And the proof is in the taste of the pudding that was served to us after the assassination… That tangy taste of cover up…”

        I’ve not heard it expressed so succinctly, and you are so right – we don’t have to have all the answers in order to rebut the lies. That has been the distraction for fifty plus years. If we keep one another honest, we just might reinforce the buttress constructed by some very brave souls in the early days of this investigation.

        It isn’t resolved until it is completely resolved.” I’m paraphrasing and my apologies to the person that expressed the concept; I believe it was an attorney involved in the magic bullet debate.

    • David Hazan says:

      I forgot to reply…. Yes, I have read testimony of JA.

      Were you asking in relation to the shot sequence problem I outlined above?

      My conclusions are in line with those who speak of a massive conspiracy that day with the involvement of at least 20-30 players, watchmen, coordinators etc. in Dealey Plaza and surrounding buildings. (No, Photon, I don’t have any proof) So, I would say all testimony from any of these characters would be suspect. Especially if it is a testimony taken some eight months after the event.

      (I would strongly recommend reading (or listening to) Coup d’Etat in Slow Motion by Ole Demmagard, whom I mentioned above… Not necessarily to accept what he is saying as fact, but just to expand one’s scope of thinking about how such assassinations are carried out. The template he lays out will certainly open eyes to all of then other conspiracies that have ben perpetrated in the past fifty some years.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        David

        Although it seems the majority of witnesses in Dealey Plaza heard three shots that day, it seems the people at one end of Elm St. heard shots at a different time and place than those at the other end of Elm St.

        Any ideas as to what might explain this odd phenomenon? I have a few, and they involve the strange “firecracker” sound heard by many witnesses.

        • David Hazan says:

          More than three shots… More than one shooter… Fire crackers to confuse…

          But, regardless how many shots people said they heard, they all agreed on one thing: “One shot, then a slight pause, and then multiple shots in quick progression”

          My guess (not theory) would be that someone was tasked with firing the first shot, which served as a sign for the others to start a predetermined sequence of shots, with the help of one of the characters close to the car signing if there was a successful hit or not, and perhaps coordinating the shots as well. Some put forward the idea that the technology of the time was good enough to coordinate via radio, however, I believe that would have been a risky move on their part as it has a chance of being intercepted by someone.

          A parallel can be drawn with the RFK assassination, where Sirhan Sirhan had a gun with eight bullets, and he did fire some, but a total of 14 shots were fired in that room. And although RFK was facing Sirhan Srhan, he was shot from the back and his right side….

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            David Hazan

            A good theory, but not what I had in mind.

            Have you ever been beside a high powered rifle equipped with a suppressor while it was being fired?

          • David Hazan says:

            Well… I had Super Rifle jeans back in the day… Does that count?
            ;-}]

            No, Bob… I have never been beside any rifle while it was being fired. And, if all goes as planned, it’ll stay that way.

            Have you? What does it sound like?

  34. It should be obvious to anyone, that if Kennedy was shot in the right temple from the Grassy Knoll, it would have gone straight through his head blasting out the left temple, not the rear of the head.

    I think shots may have been fired from that area, but none could have hit.
    There also could have been cherry bombs set off as a diversionary tactic.
    The ballistics proves a front shot from the other side of the plaza near the underpass. A shot to the throat going through the windshield, and the shot to the head to the right temple. A tangential shot that never transverses the hemispheres of the brain.
    http://enemyofthetruth.wordpress.com/
    \\][//

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Willy

      Have you ever hunted deer with hollow point rifle bullets, and gone for head shots?

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Also, tangential shots tend to traverse the outside of the skull, not the interior of the skull.

        • Bob,

          It depends on how ‘grazing’ verses how ‘deep’ the angle of the shot is.

          The head in question here is specifically, Kennedy’s human skull, and the ballistic, and medical evidence attendant to that.
          \\][//

    • To get this straight on the Altgens photos, without referring to WC exhibit numbers which seem out of sequence, there are three pictures of concern.

      The first is the one of the limo approaching Altgens, where the book depository is seen in the background. He had stepped into the middle of the street for that one.

      The second one is the shot when the car was right next to him, with Jackie grabbing her hat and JFK smiling and waving. It was just after he clicked this picture that he heard the first shot, that sounded to him like a firecracker going off.

      When the limo had passed he was prepped to shoot another one, but froze as he was lifting the camera and saw JFK’s head explode.

      The third photo he took was just as Clint Hill had gotten aboard the limo farther down the street. So Altgens was further away for this picture

      If you paid attention to his WC testimony he explained how the settings on the camera were not so restrictive. If it was set to 20 feet, it would be in focus from 10 to 30 feet. And all the settings had that leeway. That is what he was trying to get through to Liebeler – he had set his camera for 30 feet for the last shot, but it had around 40+, and it was still a good shot – with Hill on trunk.
      \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Willy

        I do not believe Altgens took any photos between the Altgens 6 photo, with the TSBD steps in the background, and the photo of Clint Hill clinging to the back of the limo. The photo you speak of, with Jackie grabbing at her hat, was taken by Altgens as the limo turned off Main St. onto Houston St. Mr. Altgens then ran across the grassy area of Dealey Plaza to take more photos as the limo continued down Elm St.

        It was the Altgens 6 photo that Altgens testified he had pre-focused his camera to a distance of 30 feet for, plus or minus 10 feet either way. He also testified he heard the first shot at the moment he took this photo.

        P.S.

        You haven’t answered my question about hollow point rifle bullets.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Willy

          You are aware, I trust, that the Altgens 6 photo corresponds to frame z255 of the Zapruder film, and that none of the shots claimed by the WC are anywhere close to frame z255?

          • Altgens 6 cannot correspond to z255, the throat shot had already been fired as the limo was behind the sign. Kennedy is clutching his throat at this time. You can see Kennedy’s hands at his throat in Altgens 6. Z-255 is after the limo has passed the sign.
            So no shot was fired at z-255.

            I do think you are right about the sequence of the photographs, Jackie grabbing her hat was prior to A-6

            I don’t know what the WC numbering is on these photos, I assume that Altgens’ photos prior to the turn on Elm are counted, and I haven’t paid much attention to those. I am mainly concerned to the area of crossfire. Which seems to be A-6 forward. So if they are numbered in sequence A-7 would be Hill on the back of the Limo; which would be around z-92 to z-95.
            \\][//

          • ‘A-7 would be Hill on the back of the Limo; which would be around z-92 to z-95’

            Sorry I meant z-392 to a-395
            \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Bob

            Zapruder also claims he heard the first shot and saw the President slump to his left and then he heard two more shots. He even does a little demonstration of JFK’s slump to the left and it does look a bit like the slump in Mary Moorman’s photo.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5Mq82sATvE

            So we have both Moorman and Zapruder saying the first shot hit JFK and he slumped to the left. We can see this slump in Moorman. We don’t see it in Zapruder.

            I wonder if there are any other ‘slump to the left’ witnesses?

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Bob

            Just found another first shot and slump to the left witness. Clint Hill.

            Mr. HILL. We were running still 12 to 15 miles per hour, but in the curve I believe we slowed down maybe to 10, maybe to 9…Well, as we came out of the curve, and began to straighten up, I was viewing the area which looked to be a park. There were people scattered throughout the entire park. And I heard a noise from my right rear, which to me seemed to be a firecracker. I immediately looked to my right and, in so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential limousine and I saw President Kennedy grab at himself and lurch forward and to the left… I jumped from the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object–it seemed to have some type of an echo.

            We seem to have some triangulation confirmation of the first shot causing the slump to the left by witnesses who were very close to the limousine.

            So, if the first shot caused JFK to slump to the left. Does this mean that the first shot was from the right?

            And we don’t see this slump on Zapruder because it happened when the limousine was behind the freeway sign? Or because it’s been removed from Zapruder?

            Thanks for your views, Bob.

          • Bob, What would you call the position President Kennedy is in, in z-267 to z-312?
            \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Willy 🙂

            Okay, here’s my mea culpa. You are right from z292 – z213 Jackie and JFK are roughly in the right position for Moorman.

            This is when Jackie has her arm on (or near) the back of the seat and where JFK doesn’t have his elbows up. I was wrong about this, Willy. Yes, I was wrong.

            The JFK lean to the left is visible in Zapruder although not as dramatic as after the head shot.

            Having said that, I think this confirms that Moorman was taken just before the headshot. Because from z313 onwards both Jackie and JFK move from the positions in the Moorman photo and don’t return to that positioning at all.

          • Vanessa says:

            Oops. That should have been “from z292 – z312 they are in the Moorman position”.

        • “You haven’t answered my question about hollow point rifle bullets.”~Bob

          Your question about hollow point bullets concerned shooting deer. I have never shot an animal.
          My concern is with the ballistics of the shots in Dealey Plaza.
          Why are you convinced the shots from the front were frangible bullets?
          \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Quite simple, Willy. A deer’s skull is made of the same material as a human skull, and many parallels can be drawn between the two.

            You stated that a bullet entering JFK’s right temple, from the Grassy Knoll, should have gone straight through the head and blasted out the left temple. While this might occur with a full metal jacket bullet, it is not necessarily the case with expanding types of bullets, and is a very popular misconception, especially among JFK researchers.

            The first incorrect assumption you make is that a bullet entering a skull has to exit the other side of the skull. The second incorrect assumption you make is that said exiting bullet must exit at a location perfectly in line with the original path of the bullet. Nothing could be further from the truth, and until JFK researchers can overcome these misconceptions, we will forever be at the mercy of those spreading disinformation.

            Just for the moment, let’s discuss the simple hollow point rifle bullet, and its terminal ballistics in a head wound. As I have stated before, when these high velocity bullets strike a skull, they pass through the bone of the skull and leave an entrance wound no bigger than an FMJ or soft point bullet. Once in the brain, the cavity in the hollow point of the nose fills with semi-liquid brain matter. Due to the high velocity, the hydraulic pressure inside this nose cavity instantaneously elevates to an incredibly high pressure, exerting an enormous force that wants to push the nose cavity outwards and backwards, opening the nose of the bullet like a flower petal. Depending on the construction of the bullet, it may only open up to a mushroom shape, or it may tear the bullet apart right to its base, completely breaking the bullet down into many small fragments.

            When this occurs, the bullet is so spread out, it is required to push a very large amount of brain matter ahead of it. Inevitably, it cannot do this, and the bullet (or fragments thereof) comes to a halt inside of the skull cavity. HOWEVER, by doing so, it transfers ALL of its energy into an enormous pressure wave that seeks a way to escape. As the first rule of hydraulics is that pressure is equal in all directions, everything forward of a line drawn across the point the bullet halted is within this pressure zone, and a blowout, such as the one observed in the back of JFK’s head, can occur anywhere within this pressure zone.

            This may seem a little hard to follow but, I have shot a deer in the side of the head with a hollow point rifle bullet, on level ground, and seen the entire top of its head come off, 90° away from the path of the bullet. As I do not believe the bullet turned a sharp corner inside the deer’s skull, and as I found fragments of the copper jacket still in the skull, I think this proves my point, and quite ably explains how a fragmenting bullet fired from the Grassy Knoll could have caused a blowout in the right rear of JFK’s head.

          • Bob,

            As you may recall, we had this conversation when I was first attending your class on bullets, as per your hunting experiences. And I do understand what you have just outlined.

            However the actual forensic evidence of the trajectory indicates a tangential entry wound at the right temporal-parietal, by a missile – hollow-point, frangible, full metal jacket, or sabot combo of one of the previous types.

            Just the supersonic nature of the shockwave is going to produce the very over-pressures you describe for your hollow-point bullet, and produce the explosive effect seen in the assassination images.

            I submit that there are not enough fragments in the cloud “constellation” of dust size particles to account for a full bullet head, and that there would be more metallic debris, with larger fragments were that the case.

            I want to point out again that I am not in agreement with the so-called “McClellan drawing”. I think that the area blasted out was in the “Occipital-Parietal” as stated by all of the Parkland witnesses. And this is the reason the wound was visible with Kennedy’s head laying on the far occipital section of the head. The wound was higher up, and not in the occipital protrusion area of that (cartoonish) drawing. The whole upper right side of the head was blasted, from the plane of the ear back to the upper occipital.
            \\][//

  35. Bob Prudhomme says:

    P.S.

    A frangible bullet is one that disintegrates into a cloud of metal powder, inside the skull cavity, that has a similar devastating effect as a hollow point bullet. The lethal frangible bullets are a type of hollow point bullet, and the disintegration of the compressed metal powder core is achieved by the method I described occurs in a hollow point bullet.

    Just remember, an “exit” wound in a skull does not always mean the exit point of a bullet.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Just found this lovely photo, courtesy of the FBI, from their Jan. 1964 report to the Warren Commission that became Warren Commission Document 298. You know, the “three shots/ three hits – last shot down by the concrete steps” explanation that fell into obscurity once Specter came up with the Single Bullet Theory.

      https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6776&stc=1

      • Vanessa says:

        Thanks Bob – would love to see the photo but I think only members of Deep Politics can access it?? Is it arduous to become a member over there?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Vanessa

          Does the photo not come up when you click on the link? Strange.

          It is very simple to become a member of Deep Politics Forum, and they welcome new members there.

  36. Bill says:

    Go to Dealey Plaza and stand in the middle of Elm Street. You will see how tiny the area is. You will see how impossible it was for anyone to stick a gun over the top of the fence. Turn around and look at how close the 6th floor window is. Understand the distances that were involved. Zapruder 16 paces from the middle of Elm. Look at the last 2 seconds of the Dorman Film. Look at the Robert Hughes Film as JFK’s Limo Passes underneath the window. Check out the reaction of the Agents in the Altgens photo. Look at the location of JFK/Connolly at the Couch Photo z-160.

    Wake up. One guy. And he is dead.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Bill

      The Altgens 6 photo was taken about 3 seconds after the WC’s official explanation of the first “missed” shot, and right after the so called Silly Bullet Theory shot, and the two SS agents on the right side of the Queen Mary are the ONLY people in that photo showing any reaction at all! Don’t you find that a bit odd?

      I’ve been around rifles my whole life and, with the rifle supposedly pointing downwards from the 6th floor, almost everyone in that photo would have been ahead of the muzzle blast and the noise from that short barrelled, full cartridge Carcano would have been LOUD. Startle reactions from this type of unexpected noise are involuntary, and instantaneous. The reactions should be visible on all of the faces lining the street. Yet all we see are two SS agents looking behind them. Strange, eh? Almost as if a suppressed (silenced) shot from the lower floors of the Dal-Tex Building has just missed their heads on its way to JFK, and the mini sonic boom it made as it broke the sound barrier going by is only enough to startle them, and no one else.

      Otherwise, how do you explain the total lack of reaction on the faces of the bystanders?

      • Photon says:

        Have you ever been near the muzzle blast of a Carcano rifle?
        Have you ever heard in person the report of a Carcano rifle?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          No, but I have shot and stood close to a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer rifle with a short barrel while it was being fired. The two rifles shoot an almost identical bullet, and outside of the fact the 6.5mm M-S has a cartridge about 1 mm longer than the Carcano cartridge, the two cartridges are almost indistinguishable. In fact, it is possible to shoot a 6.5 Carcano cartridge in a 6.5 M-S rifle (as long as it is loaded with a .264 inch diameter bullet, and not the standard .268 inch diameter Carcano bullet) and fire this cartridge from the 6.5 M-S rifle. The bullet will fire from this rifle, and the brass cartridge will “grow” inside the 6.5 M-S chamber, and actually become an M-S cartridge.

          Next slur, please?

          • Photon says:

            So the answer is no.
            How could you possibly know that characteristics of how the Carcano sounds if you have never even seen one fired?

        • Photon,

          I am dying to hear what sort of funny little jokes you have in your script about Carcano rifles!!

          Are you going to wear a red wheeze while telling them?

          Some of your dialog on these pages remind my of Firesign Theater’s, “We’re All Bozo’s On This Bus”.
          \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Willy, Open Casket Bob has posted info all over this and other blogs about the firing characteristics of the Carcano despite never having fired one,held one or even seeing one aside from a picture. What makes him an expert on this subject? Or even knowledgable on the subject?
            He goes on and on about frangible and hollow point bullets, but has never fired nor seen the results of FMJ rounds like the one that hit JFK.

          • Jeff Harker says:

            I’m really tired of reading the totally contemptuous and hypocritical comments of this “Photon.” Here, it’s his derisive “open casket Bob” slur followed by his accusation of using tactics that he himself uses more than anyone else on the site. Pure hypocrisy. It’s a huge waste of time trying to follow threads on this website in order to learn truth about the JFK assassination. His kind of debate is unhelpful to the cause of truth. His latest comments are neither factual, engaging, or civil.

          • Here is another review of Sherry Fiester by William LeBlanc a Certified Forensic Crime Scene Investigator.

            “Readers will appreciate the author’s meticulous attention to detail in a book written in the language of the professional crime scene investigator, with each subject introduced in a manner to allow the reader complete understanding of the subject. With 233 citations supporting the information provided in Enemy of the Truth, Fiester provides many opportunities for confirmation of the research material presented.”~ LeBlanc and Phil Dragoo

            http://ctka.net/reviews/Enemy_Fiester_Review_LeBlanc_Dragoo.html
            \\][//

          • David Hazan says:

            Amen to that, Jeff Harker.

            Well said.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jeff Harker, you have probably noticed as well that photon usually introduces this tactic when he is painted into a corner; that, or he disappears. I believe that our host’s argument, and I agree in theory, is that photon’s presence stimulates the research; however his methods virtually negate his contribution. You make the argument very effectively.

          • Photon says:

            Sorry Leslie, some of us have more pressing issues than answering various questions on this blog-like shoveling out from a 6 inch dump and navigating I-95 in No.Va.
            Ok, let’s start with the reference to our Canadian friend Mr. Prudhomme . He has recently posted a question on this blog wondering if JFK had an “open casket” funeral. How could a serious researcher on this topic even ask a question like that? After all that he has posted here and on several other sites not to know even the basics?
            Willy, before you jump into Billy LeBlanc camp you should know that he is a personal friend of Fiester ( 17 years I believe) and a contributor to her sister’s website and CTKA-hardly an objective source. Besides, what are HIS qualifications? I thought that he was a crime scene technician for a parish PD close to Ms. Fiester’s PD. I would hardly call Phil Dragoo an expert in anything, but please enlighten us as to what makes him an expert on this subject. The fact is that the PBS NOVA program brought up some very serious questions about the validity and reproducibility of much of the crime scene techniques that Fiester and LeBlanc are supposed to be experts in. The problem with blood spatter analysis is that you can often find two recognized experts who can interpret the findings of a specific case and reach completely opposite conclusions. In addition, the qualifications to establish who is an actual expert have never been agreed to or standardized.
            If you cannot accept the forensic pathology results you will never be able to really understand this case. Those results have conclusively proven that all shots to hit JFK came from the rear. Any theory that postulates any other result is simply wrong and should be dismissed by any serious researcher out of hand. To ignore and reject the findings of multiple board-certified pathologists in this case is as irrational as rejecting the opinions of a cardiologist treating an acute myocardial infarction ,or a neurosurgeon deciding on the treatment of a brain tumor, or an infectious disease specialist treating AIDS.

          • William (Billy) LeBlanc
            Experience
            Instructor
            University of Arkansas
            December 2008 – Present (6 years 4 months)Criminal Justice Institute
            INSTRUCTOR OF FORENSIC CRIME SCENE COURSES FOR CRIME SCENE CERTIFICATION
            Member
            International Trainers and Teachers Association
            January 2007 – Present (8 years 3 months)
            Member
            Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction
            January 2005 – Present (10 years 3 months)
            Member
            Member
            International Association for Identification
            January 1999 – Present (16 years 3 months)
            Latent fingerprint examiner
            Footware Impression Examiner
            Crime Scene Investigator
            Bloodstain Pattern Examiner
            Board Of Directors/Certified Forensic Crime Scene Investigator
            International crime scene investigators association
            1998 – Present (17 years)
            RETIRED
            St Charles Parish Sheriff;s Office
            June 1994 – Present (20 years 10 months)St Rose,Louisiana
            member ICSIA, International Crime Scene Investigators Association
            1994 – Present (21 years)
            Board Member
            Eastern Space and Missle Center
            Cape Canaveral,Florida
            June 1989 – June 1994 (5 years 1 month)
            LE Enforcement Supervisor, SRT Leader, Controller, Launch Operation Supervisor,Electronic Surveillance Systems Specialist
            Police Officer
            Kenner Police Department
            June 1979 – June 1989 (10 years 1 month)Kenner,La
            Law Enforcement Duties.
            Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office
            Deputy Sheriff
            Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office
            January 1976 – June 1979 (3 years 6 months)
            Deputy Sheriff
            https://www.linkedin.com/pub/billy-leblanc/1a/576/695
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Well, here we go again.
            The requirements to be a member of the Association of Crime Scene Reconstruction: be a cop for three years and pay a fee.
            The requirements to be a member of the International Crime Scene Investigators Association: have an e-mail address and $25. You then mail your application to a private house in a residential neighborhood.The Association is run out of the Executive Director’s private business-which also seems to be associated with crime scene education opportunities.
            I have no idea what the International Trainers and Teachers Association is . Can you enlighten us?
            The problem with these CSI-type organizations aside from the IAI is that they tend to be nothing but resume-enhancing certificate generators with no recognized standards-as was documented in the PBS program on this topic that I have previously mentioned.
            What are the qualifications to be an instructor in the University of Arkansas’ Crimnal Justice Institute? Do you even have to physically be in Arkansas? I have noted that several other similar experts have listed this qualification even though they apparently never lived in Arkansas. Nor apparently do you need any academic degree to be an Instructor.So what is the nature of this position?

          • Photon says:

            I do note that the U of A CJI does offer a single online course for crime scene first responders in conjunction with the International Crime Scene Investigators Association-for free.There is no mention of Mr. LeBlanc’s contribution to this course-if any. The course has nothing to do with the techniques that are supposed to be Mr. LeBlanc’s area of expertise. But here is the kicker. You have stated that Mr. LeBlanc has been an Instructor with the CSI since December 2008. But the CSI clearly states that its courses were exclusively for Arkansas law enforcement officials. However, they began to offer courses for out-of-state officials in 2013, including online courses. If the program began in 2013, how could Mr. LeBlanc have possibly been an instructor for the previous four years?

          • “Well, here we go again.”~Photon

            No actually there you go again. You are in essence saying there is no such thing as crime scene investigation, that it is a bogus concept, that there are no protocols that are followed, that there is no training involved, that there are no tests for expertise before certification.

            The fact is that crime scene investigations are well established law enforcement procedures based on the physical sciences. It is an active and evolving science keeping pace with the advances in a technological society.

            Photon, your pretense at a genuine critique is your standard rhetorical nonsense that does not address a single detail of any procedures, or how the sequence of such procedures should be handled.

            It is obvious that you haven’t the slightest idea of what you are talking about; Which is nothing new here, as you play the same rhetorical game with every subject to come up on this forum.
            \\][//

          • Photon’s complaints about ‘crime scene investigation’ all arise from the fact that when the most up to date techniques of CSI are applied to the JFK Assassination, they prove that Kennedy was shot from the front and the rear; thus there were at least two shooters.

            This another indication in a long list of other evidence that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK.

            More importantly here for this forum is that the conspiracy to murder President Kennedy was followed by a concerted effort to conceal this truth. An effort that continues to this very day, and is represented by agents of this effort here on this very forum.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            “Frontline: The Real CSI” put out by PBS does indeed call these CSI techniques into question. The program clearly outlines how the certification system is virtually nonexistent ; an example of which was a graduate student with no experience in criminal investigation getting a certificate as a certified crime investigator..
            There isn’t a court room in this country where blood spatter analysis trumps the findings of an autopsy conducted by a forensic pathologist.

          • A “forensic pathologist” is no less a “forensic scientist” and no more or less fallible, than any other forensic discipline.

            Every form of human endeavor can be called into question and put to contention. The judicial system itself can be put to the very same arguments as are put to forensics.

            There is no such thing as infallibility in any human endeavor. Experts in every field disagree with one another.

            The interesting point I found in the Frontline documentary you offered is that Casey Anthony’s lawyer and the production company were in cahoots with one another with a payment of $200,000.00 for defense bills to pay for this trial, which like the OJ trial; was no longer simply a legal exercise but entertainment. In fact a form of entertainment now officially known as “Infotainment” a product of the Public Relations Regime.

            If you want to have a consistent argument Photon, you have to call into question every branch of science that is done by fallible human beings. As “science” seems to be our species’ sole domain, your radical dismissal of science itself is interesting, considering your usual ‘conservative’ opinions.
            \\][//

          • What does Chuck Denham’s conflict of interests charges have to do with this?

            The author of those studies was, John T. James PhD, and the information in them continues to be held in high esteem. Other studies come to similar conclusions, the medical community as a whole has acknowledged the problem.

            That problem is however a side issue to the issue we begin with, and that is the veracity of and the essential need of crime scene investigation for solving crimes.

            You have gone from attacking Sherry Fiester’s qualifications, to attacking those who support her’s qualifications, to attacking the very practice of crime scene investigation itself.
            You position becomes more preposterous with each argument you make.
            Crime Scene Investigation is based on verified scientific method, and backed by decades of scientific literature in its support.

            You are ignorant of this scientific literature because you are more interested in winning an argument than grasping the science of CSI. And your motive for this is clear and understood; it is because modern forensics proves Kennedy was struck by bullets fired from the front.
            \\][//

        • “Have you ever been near the muzzle blast of a Carcano rifle?”~Photon

          The question is irrelevant, a Carcano rifle was no the murder weapon in the JFK assassination. It is a myth, just like the so-called “snipers nest” in the book depository building – a staged set-up, and the rifle actually found/planted was a Mauser, not a Carcano.

          The entire official narrative is BS from top to bottom. Oswald was a patsy just like he said. He didn’t kill anybody that day. It is likely he never killed anybody his whole life, or even shot at someone.
          \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Is it irrelevant that you can’t address a single item that I posted in regard to your ” experts” qualifications?
            Is it irrelevant that I have been asking these questions for over a year and nobody is denying their authenticity ?

          • “Is it irrelevant that I have been asking these questions for over a year and nobody is denying their authenticity”~Photon

            I deny the authenticity of your questions, and have given a fuller explanation of why I do so, in my comment before this.

            “Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong”:

            That is the dilemma you present, and cannot answer yourself. So you are now invited to stand to consistency and denounce every “expert” you have brought forth in favor of any of your arguments here. This would include law enforcement, intelligence, medical, and any other field you have offered here.
            \\][//

          • The word forensic comes from the Latin forēnsis, meaning “of or before the forum.”

            So in modern application, ‘forensic’ means an argument before a court.

            Etymology:
            scientific (adj.)
            1580s, from Middle French scientifique, from Medieval Latin scientificus “pertaining to science,” from Latin scientia “knowledge” (see science) + -ficus “making” + facere “to make” (see factitious). Originally used to translate Greek epistemonikos “making knowledge” in Aristotle’s “Ethics.”

            Sciential (mid-15c., “based on knowledge,” from Latin scientialis) is the classical purists’ choice for an adjective based on science. Scientic (1540s) and scient (late 15c.) also have been used. First record of scientific revolution is from 1803; scientific method is from 1854; scientific notation is from 1961. Related: Scientifical; scientifically.
            _____________
            So “Forensic Science” is simply a ‘knowledgeable argument before the court’.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Willy, if you can’t see the difference between a medical specialty that has a decades long history and requires 12-14 years of accredited education with a standardized process of certification and that of a field where a graduate student with no background can purchase expert certification for a couple of hundred bucks there isn’t much that I can say to convince you .

          • “there isn’t much that I can say to convince you”
            ~Photon

            Not much? No, there is nothing you can say to convince me, because that is not my argument.

            If you have no crime scene investigation, all a coroner ends up with is a corpse. Nothing else is known about the circumstances of the case.
            . . .
            PBS Frontline, an apparatus of the Public Relations Regime, dealing with “Infotainment” disguised as analysis. It is a propaganda tool of the System, just like everything on mainstream television, radio and press.
            Note the sponsors of PBS – the Tax Exempt Foundations. Understanding the history of these organizations is essential in assessing the agenda performed by PBS, NPR, and other such official mouthpieces.
            ______________________
            It is my assertion that this PBS/Frontline special had one specific agenda and target; Dr. Cyril Wecht personally. Wecht has been one of the most articulate and successful spokesman on the conspiracy to kill JFK. Defaming Wecht is high priority for the System that killed Kennedy.
            \\][//

          • The 3rd Leading Cause of Death in the US are Doctors:
            http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/09/20/224507654/how-many-die-from-medical-mistakes-in-u-s-hospitals

            http://www.health-care-reform.net/causedeath.htm

            draxe.com/conventional-medicine-is-the-leading-cause-of-death/

            articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/…/doctors-death-part-one.aspx

            http://chriskresser.com/medical-care-is-the-3rd-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-us

            http://www.lef.org/magazine/2004/3/awsi_death/Page-01
            ____________________

            This fact is not due to “paper mills” or phony certification processes. These problems are due to doctors and a system that is just as Photon describes, years in leading medical schools, long hours of study, and grueling exams.

            I am hardly a stranger to mainstream medicine, I was married to a NICU Nurse Practitioner for 17 years. During this time most of our friends were in medical practice in one way or another.

            The “God Syndrome” is most obvious when you around these doctors, who have a supreme sense of self importance bordering on hubris.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            So what is the point of medical licensure ?
            I doubt that when your kidneys fail that you will want a plumber to address your issues.

          • “So what is the point of medical licensure ?”
            ~Photon

            You figure it out. Because that was not my point.
            My point is that these ‘Doctors’ are certified and licensed, bit they still are more damaging to society than the people in crime scene analysis that you are so adamantly opposed to.

            This point certainly does not fly over your head Photon. Your comeback is as always blatantly disingenuous.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            As an interesting aside,Willy your references are all based on an EDITORIAL in JAMA published 15 years ago, not on a statistical study by the author. The figures were based on 3 references that used estimates; the author in her editorial admitted that the estimates could be wrong. And yet the underinformed homeopathic community latched onto this single article ( not a study) and claims that the medical system is killing tens of thousands of people today.
            Willy, if the figures are accurate where are all of the malpractice cases that should be so easily won?

          • In 1999, the Institute of Medicine published the famous “To Err Is Human” report, which dropped a bombshell on the medical community by reporting that up to 98,000 people a year die because of mistakes in hospitals. The number was initially disputed, but is now widely accepted by doctors and hospital officials — and quoted ubiquitously in the media.

            In 2010, the Office of Inspector General for Health and Human Services said that bad hospital care contributed to the deaths of 180,000 patients in Medicare alone in a given year.

            Now comes a study in the current issue of the Journal of Patient Safety that says the numbers may be much higher — between 210,000 and 440,000 patients each year who go to the hospital for care suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death, the study says.

            http://journals.lww.com/journalpatientsafety/Fulltext/2013/09000/A_New,_Evidence_based_Estimate_of_Patient_Harms.2.aspx
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Hey Willy, before you hang your hat on the Journal of Patient Safety read this from NPR : http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/11/26/366618323/patient-safety-journal-finds-violations-tightening-standards-after-scandal

          • What do the corruption charges against Dr. Chuck Denham have to do with the articles written by
            John T. James, PhD?

            Nothing Photon, it is merely your attempt to smear doctor James with the same brush associated with Denham.

            See my more complete reply of March 10, 2015 at 6:16 pm
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Based totally on 4 studies that reviewed less than five thousand charts.
            James reviewed no charts personally. Nor could he – he is not a physician.

          • John T. James, Ph.D.
            Dr. James received his BA in Physics, Mathematics and Astronomy from the University of Kansas in 1968. He earned an MA in Astronomy from the University of Virginia in 1970, an MA in Chemistry from the University of Maryland College Park in 1977, and a PhD in Pathology from the Graduate School of the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore in 1982.
            \\][//

          • Photon,
            I do appreciate that Doctor John T. James is much too qualified for your purposes here. So sorry about that.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Dr. James is totally unqualified to make judgements on appropriate care procedures, surgery or medical decision-making.
            He is a toxicologist who has never done a physical examination in his life. His son died of a tragic heart arrhythmia brought on by exercise induced dehydration and hypokalemia . The care that his son received was reviewed by the State Board of Medical Examiners and was found to be appropriate. I do not believe that a malpractice suit was brought or a settlement was made in the case.
            Since then he has understandably felt that his son died because of a medical misadventure. The facts as stated do not support that conclusion. Do you have any evidence that any board-certified Internist or Cardiologist has supported Dr. James’ interpretation of the level of care his son received?

          • “Dr. James is totally unqualified to make judgements on appropriate care procedures, surgery or medical decision-making.”~Photon

            According to the ‘Doctor Photon Qualification Standards’.

            You have no qualification to disqualify Dr James. You are an expert in nothing but rhetorical gamesmanship. It is getting old, it is getting stale, it is a complete bore to deal with your nonsense Photon.

            As such, I will leave it to the candid world to decide if you have made a rational argument in the slightest sense of the word ‘rational’.

            I am not going to ply badminton with your dead bird anymore.
            \\][//

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            Do you think an autopsy done by a pathologist that involves bullets passing through a body AND not dissecting the path of the wounds left by the bullets so that direction and angle could be determined would constitute a quality or honest autopsy in your opinion? Could the results of that autopsy be used in a court of law in your opinion?

          • Photon says:

            It’s not my opinion ,Steve but the opinion of courts in this country for decades. It is rarely necessary to physically dissect out a bullet wound to detect its path. When it is done it is almost always to recover a missile for evidentiary purposes. There are non-invasive techniques that have been used for decades to evaluate wounds and their etiologies-apparently you are not aware of them, nor standard autopsy practice.
            Willy, do you know what a non-medical toxicologist is? Do you think that a chemist is qualified to render opinion on medical diagnoses, therapy and pharmacological intervention? Do you need to attend medical school to be a physician, or do you think that anyone called doctor is qualified to practice medicine and give medical advice?

          • Steve Stirlen,
            It should be pointed that the need for dissecting the throat and back wounds on Kennedy were for the very reasons that the missiles that caused such wounds were not found. That would be to recover a bullet for evidentiary purposes, would it not?

            It should also be kept in mind that a degree of, PhD in Pathology from the Graduate School of the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore in 1982, obviously makes one a Doctor of Medicine.
            \\][//

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            You mean a non-invasive technique like probing the wound with a finger? Because as you are well aware, that was done in JFK’s autopsy. It is in the 302 file that was written by Sibert and O’Neill. You know those two, correct? The ones who work for YOUR FBI. Mr. Sibert, as you recall, was said by YOU not to be an “objective” witness for reasons that you did not make clear even though he stood two feet away from JFK’s body. You remember the 302 file? The one that was hidden from view until Paul Hoch was able to unearth it from the pile. You remember Mr. Sibert, don’t you Photon? The one who said that the SBT was “magic” not medicine? He also said that Arlen Specter was a “damn liar.” I think his drawing also indicated a wound in the back of JFK’s head. I can post the 302 if you would like?

            Gee, Photon, every time you and I turn around, those words LIE or LIAR reappear time after time. And, remarkably, it is said by people that were ACTUALLY involved in some way in the case, not by someone sitting anonymously behind a keyboard typing the WC, version 2015.

          • Photon says:

            Willy, thanks for proving that you do not know the difference between an M.D. degree and a Ph.D. Thank you for also demonstrating that you do not know the difference between a Medical School and a Graduate School. I realize that you do not have an academic degree, but postgraduate and professional education and standards are quite well defined-if you can show me any Ph.D. who has obtained a state medical license without an M.D., D.O. or M.B.B.S. degree I would like to see it, as those are the only degrees to legally allow someone to be called a Doctor of Medicine.
            Steve, probing a wound with a finger would never be described as a non-invasive technique. Could you please post a quote where I have used the words ” lie” or ” liar”? Did Mr. Sibert disagree with Humes description of the back wound being 14 cm below the mastoid process, because that is exactly where he remembered it to be? Did Sibert base his objections to the SBT on his faulty belief that the back wound was caused by a missile that fell out of the body during cardiac massage?was Sibert an expert in wound ballistics that would lend credence to his opinion? Or maybe Sibert and O’Neill got so many things wrong in their report( as confirmed by other observations and individuals more intimately associated with the autopsy) that Specter did not consider them as reliable witnesses.

          • “Willy, thanks for proving that you do not know the difference between an M.D. degree and a Ph.D”
            ~Photon

            Sure I do Photon, a PhD is scientifically more qualified than an MD. More qualified for exactly the type of project that you claim Dr James has no qualifications for.
            Thank you Photon.
            \\][//

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            Photon, Photon, Photon! YOU must start reading my posts MORE carefully! I never said YOU used the words lie or liar! I said people who were far more involved with this case than you or I have used the words lie or liar describing the actions of some of the people that investigated this case. The ONLY time I would even come close to using those words in regards to you is when you stick to the word “mistake” in regards to the Oswald photo in Mexico City. Unlike you, I don’t pass judgements on people I know little or nothing about. I would never call someone “dense” as you did in relation to Mr. Gunn. Politicians such as LBJ, now that’s another story. There is enough information out there to CLEARLY paint a picture of a deceitful person.

            Having said that, COULD it also be that Specter did not call them before the WC because their testimony would blow holes in Specter’s fabrications? Once again, you pick and chose which witness(es) to give sainthood to such as Howard Brennan, and which ones to dismiss, such as Sibert. Personally, for myself, I will place greater credence on someone who was only 2 feet away from the president as opposed to a man standing 100 feet away and giving a half accurate description of LHO. But, in your eyes, Brennan is a saint, even though it has been clearly shown that Brennan’s description was not the FIRST one given of LHO. That person remains hidden from view. I wonder why?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            Just in case you ask:

            O’Neill and Sibert are adamant that the single-bullet theory is wrong. “That’s Arlen Specter’s theory,” O’Neill told me. It’s quite evident from my conversations with them that they have no respect for the one-time assistant counsel to the Warren Commission, now Senator from Pennsylvania. When I questioned Jim Sibert about the single-bullet theory and Arlen Specter, he went as far as to say, “What a liar. I feel he got his orders from above – how far above I don’t know.

            That darn word “liar” pops up AGAIN!

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            Just curious. If Specter did not deem them reliable witnesses and they had so many inaccuracies, why did they classify the 302? Why did it take CT to uncover its existence? Wouldn’t you want this document to show when the real “doctors” had their say in front of the WC so the entire commission could have them make comparisons and clarifications from the night of the autopsy?

      • Bill says:

        Bob. Regarding Altgens 6. I think you are incorrect when you say that the only people reacting to the assassination sounds are this two SS Agents on the Right side of the QM.

        To be more direct: EVERY Agent in the QM is most certainly reacting to the sounds of the first two shots and are captured in different moments reacting to that stimulus.

        Note: The QM had a staggering number of people in it. 10 in all.

        1. SA Samuel A. “Sam” Kinney: He was driving. In Algens 6. He is seen reacting to the shooting. He has his eyes glued onto the back of the car and Kennedy’s side in particular.

        2. ASAIC Emory P. Roberts (SSR)
        (SS WHCA code-Dusty): He can be seen staring into the limo with his mouth wide open as if speaking or caught in a shout.

        3. P. Kenneth “Ken” O’Donnell-Special Assistant to
        President (SS WHCA code-Wand): He is not visible in the photo.

        4. David F. Powers-Assistant to President
        *-private color movie (last sequence 12:25): He is reacting to the shooting in that he has moved/leaned over to his left to see around the head of Emory Roberts.

        5. SA George W. Hickey Jr.: Hickey has turned his head and is looking literally backwards to try to locate the shooter. This position is markedly different than the position he was in during the Willis photo as well.

        6. SA Glen A. Bennet: I can not make out his face face. from the location of the mirror of the Limo at this time in this photo.

        7. SA Clinton L. “Clint” Hill
        (SS WHCA code-Dazzle): Agent Hill has moved and changed his entire upper body position from the was he was at the time of the first shot to the moment of what we call the 2nd shot. His movements are more visible on the Zapruder film. In fact, from one of the other films, I think it was the Hughes Film, we can see that Mr. Hill has begun to get ready to spring off the running board because his standing more onto his left leg as he begins to push onto his right leg. He has also begun to lean into the direction he is going to soon run off to (Limo) shortly.

        8. SA William “Tim” McIntyre: He has also turned his head backwards and, if you look carefully at his feet and knee position, he had bent his left knee and is reacting to input as well. (He is the Agent Behind Hill) This position is markedly different than the position he was in during the Willis photo as well. This position is markedly different than the position he was in during the Willis photo as well.

        9. SA John D. “Jack” Ready Reacting to the shot. He also jumped off the Running board but, since the QM began to go right he returned to and only Hill kept going. In fact, you can see Ready’s feet on ground in one of the other assassination films. This position is markedly different than the position he was in during the Willis photo as well.

        10. SA Paul E. Landis
        (SS WHCA code-Debut) : Also reacted by turning to his right. This position is markedly different than the position he was in during the Willis photo as well.

        I would agree that the average lay person on the street would be very much surprised by a rifle shot. But these men are are Agents who have been around gun. They aren’t jumpy. Each did exactly what they said they did. Heard a noise and began to react to a sound from BEHIND THEM. The position of each, even from Willis last photo to the Altgens 6 photo is clearly demonstrating 2 things:

        1. Recognition of gunshots coming from behind them and the need to react to the Presidents exposed position.

        You only see two people reacting? Really?? Come on Bob. Really???? Take some time and look at the movements everyone in the Limo from Willis on down to Altgens.

        Are you sure that you can see only 2 of those people reacting???. If that is true then go on back to the last photo in the Willis series and then compare them to the Altgens photo.

        Mini-Sonic Boom???? Only them?????? Hello Bob.

        As for the lack of surprise by the bystanders. They all described the sound of firecrackers didn’t they? They thought it was firecrackers ( including James Tague ) He was also in that direct line of fire and his recollection of it, as a layperson, was firecrackers. In the subsequent shots he began to react…just like everyone else did.

        My point: It is recognition of the event as being an assassination that caused ALL THE AGENTS TO REACT (not only two).

        The other bystanders were just that. shocked and unable to comprehend the obvious until it was way too involved (similar to the men on the stairs on the Knoll reacting and then suddenly realizing it was an assassination going on).

        FWIW: Clint Hill’s own recollection of the event is not matched by his own actions. He got only as far as the front wheel of the Limo when the last shot hit. People slow down events and speed them up on their own individual perspective. As you have I guess.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Bill

          Startle reactions on the face of people exposed to a loud and unexpected sound (in the case of Altgens 6 – two loud and unexpected sounds according to the WC) are very obvious, as are the responses they make with their bodies. Unlike you, I have seen people respond to unexpected rifle shots. The bystanders on Elm St. show no startle reaction whatsoever. There is simply no way that a 6.5mm rifle, pointed downward at the street and essentially located behind these people, has been fired 3 seconds before the Altgens photo was snapped.

          The “crack” of a suppressed supersonic bullet (I called it a mini-sonic boom but I can see that is just over your head) is like the “crack” of a bullwhip; startling if it is right beside your head but only noticeable 30 or 40 feet away. The other agents in the follow up car, plus the occupants of the limo, may have heard it but it was only close enough to Ready and the agent behind Ready to truly startle these two. Also, as it has gone by them, they are looking behind them for its origin; on the lower floors of the Dal-Tex Building. Hill and McIntyre, being removed several feet from the course of the bullet, only know a sharp noise has occurred somewhere to their right, and are looking in this direction.

          • Bill says:

            Bob. You are writing with a very wide brush sir. First, there were motorcycles EVERYWHERE. The are loud and with people applauding, running shouts to look here and there. A lot of sensory input to filter through.

            You seem to want to make a revisionist statement that there was not a sound and that the assassination happened in a church. Come on Bob. Give it up.

            Even a guy like James Tague, who himself was injured in the shooting, thought the first sound was a firecracker and HE WAS CLEARLY in line, more or less from the TSBD and over the top of the Limo.

            And, for whatever it is worth. You did said one thing about the lack of response of the Agents and now another when being faced with rebuttal information.

            Your fantasy world of mini-sonic booms is complete nonsense. You and I have ABSOLUTELY no way to determine what these agents were doing in the 2-3 seconds between the shots. I see you did not consult the willis film to compare it with the Zapruder Film for movements of Agents.

            You like to keep bringing up your theory. FYI. Hill has already testified that he heard a noise and as he began to turn to his right he happened to see the President move suddenly and that is why he stayed focused on him and did not complete his turn. And shame on you for alluding to ideas and movements being some part of your supersonic, mini-sonic, nonuse-sonic theory.

            Those agents testified that they heard a noise off to their left and did what you, I, or anybody else would do: Turn to is seeking to ID the location. Seeing how the street was full of spectators…..one would assume that they would scan the crowd…after the first….and try to sound locate at the second.

            After that event…all bets in trying to find the shooter were off because everyone’s attention was then redirected back at the President.

            Bob. You are correct about the mini-sonicboom being over my head. It is over my head because, apparently ‘crack’ is something used by others writing essays on JFK FACTS.

            One shooter. LHO. 3 Shots. Good Luck. Careful of Mini-sonic booms. Wow….

    • Bill,

      Do you or do you not have photo’s you took of Oswald’s backyard?
      If you do, you should be capable of publishing them on the web.

      For myself personally, I am not interested in anything you have to say until you prove your initial claims.
      \\][//

      • Bill says:

        Willy. You don’t have to be interested. Actually…lol…to tell me you are not interested is, in itself, contra-indicated by your point here. Peace.

        Follow the directions I gave you to prove/disprove the point I clearly outlined initially and in response.

        I do not need to be the ‘star’ of this thread. Any nitwit with a camera can understand how to walk and the simple ergonomics of shifting weight from a stand-still to one moving. Or not. I guess.

    • I don’t buy Photon’s assertions to expertise in the medical field, especially forensic pathology.

      I think Photon only has expertise as an accountant.

      In my opinion Photon is a transparent pretender.
      \\][//

      • Photon says:

        Just call me Tony Williams, Willy.
        I wish I was an accountant- mine just charged me a grand to do my taxes.

  37. Bob Prudhomme says:

    From Willy Whitten

    “Bob, in all of the imagery we have, the front of the limo did not reach parallel with the steps until Hill had finally latched onto the limo. This is several seconds AFTER the head shot.”

    You’d better read this excerpt from Clint Hill’s WC testimony, Willy:

    “Mr. HILL. This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped from the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object–it seemed to have some type of an echo. I put my right foot, I believe it was, on the left rear step of the automobile, and I had a hold of the handgrip with my hand, when the car lurched forward. I lost my footing and I had to run about three or four more steps before I could get back up in the car.”

    Sounds like Clint recalls things a little differently than you, Willy, and he was there. Just in case you think his memory suffered in the months leading up to his testifying to the WC, here is an excerpt from his report dated November 30, 1963:

    “The sound came from my right rear and I immediately moved my head in that direction. In so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential automobile and I saw the President hunch forward and then slump to his left. I jumped from the Follow-up car and ran toward the Presidential automobile. I heard a second firecracker type noise but it had a different sound– like the sound of shooting a revolver into something hard. I saw the President slump more toward his left.”

    Seems like things were happening pretty quickly there, at least according to Clint Hill, anyways. Where did you get this notion Hill didn’t make it to the limo until several seconds after the fatal head shot?

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Or maybe you think he ran along behind the limo for several seconds, before latching onto the handle?

      • Hill was running towards the limo before the head shot, he got close to it as the head shot occurred seemed to get a hand on the car and slipped, and had to hold on and run along being rather pulled along off balance and finally gets his left knee up on the trunk and his right foot up off the street by the time the rear of the limo is parallel with the steps. Just as they pass the steps he sort of kips-up and is on the limo. Just seconds for the whole sequence. I haven’t counted them.
        \\][//

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          “Bob, in all of the imagery we have, the front of the limo did not reach parallel with the steps until Hill had finally latched onto the limo. This is several seconds AFTER the head shot.”

          “Hill was running towards the limo before the head shot, he got close to it as the head shot occurred seemed to get a hand on the car and slipped, and had to hold on and run along being rather pulled along off balance and finally gets his left knee up on the trunk and his right foot up off the street by the time the rear of the limo is parallel with the steps. Just as they pass the steps he sort of kips-up and is on the limo. Just seconds for the whole sequence. I haven’t counted them.”

          Well, which one was it, Willy?

          • Both Bob,

            ‘Hill had finally latched onto the limo. This is several seconds AFTER the head shot.’

            This doesn’t conflict with the second description I gave you. Hill did not get a hold on the limo until after the head shot, just like I wrote in that sentence above.
            \\][//

          • Don’t forget the context of my first entry you quote. We were discussing where the limo was in relation to the steps. It did not come even with those steps until Hill was up on the limo.
            You were saying that the limo was up to those steps when the head shot occurred. That was the argument.

            The head shot occurred before the nose of the limo got to those steps. That has been what I have been saying here this whole time.
            \\][//

    • Bill says:

      “Where did you this notion that Hill didn’t make it to the limo until several seconds after the fatal head shot?”

      From almost all of the movies of the actually assassination and they, unlike a witness testimony, are unblinkingly cogent and clear. Hill is just WRONG on where he was and what he was in the middle of doing and…as you say: HE WAS THERE.

      Unfortunately for Hill…so too were the cameras.

      Peace.

  38. Bob Prudhomme says:

    “David Hazan

    No, Bob… I have never been beside any rifle while it was being fired. And, if all goes as planned, it’ll stay that way.

    Have you? What does it sound like?”

    Two distinct experiences – standing behind a high powered rifle being fired, and standing beside the same rifle, but ahead of the muzzle. the first is tolerable and the second will make you jump out of your skin, if unexpected, and your ears will ring for the next hour. Even the bystanders on the sidewalk, seen in Altgens 6, would have been close enough to experience involuntary, instantaneous startle reactions. These would have been plainly visible on their faces which, of course, they were not. I refuse to believe two bullets from a 6.5 Carcano have just been fired, and no one in this crowd is reacting. The testimony of Williams, Norman and Jarman, on the 5th floor and supposedly within 10 feet of the muzzle of the rifle, is highly suspect, too, as these three men were not experienced with rifles, and hearing three shots fired only 7 or 8 feet from their heads would have been a startling and memorable experience. However, they barely mention it.

    A high powered rifle fitted with a suppressor is another matter. As high powered rifle bullets are supersonic, or faster than the speed of sound (1035 fps), it is possible to completely eliminate the startling muzzle blast, but the bullet will still make a small sonic boom as it travels through the air. The sound it makes is a definite “crack” and can be likened to a firecracker. It would not be startling to people 30 feet from it, and it may take them several seconds to register it as unusual.

    However, within 3 or 4 feet of a person, it could be very startling, and cause a definite reaction. As an example, look at the two SS agents looking behind themselves in Altgens 6.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Dave

      Know what other advantages a suppressor offers the shooters, that might have been used to advantage in Dealey Plaza?

  39. David Hazan says:

    Photon,

    I think you owe your loving audience a bit of a profile description….

    Who are you? What are you? Why are you????

  40. Bob Prudhomme says:

    “How could you possibly know that characteristics of how the Carcano sounds if you have never even seen one fired?”

    A 6.5mm Carcano sounds just like a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer. Same calibre, same cartridge size, same gunpowder load, same muzzle velocity.

    Next slur, please?

  41. leslie sharp says:

    JD “Okay, that’s fine. Neither of us is obligated to reply to anything.”

    LS Assuming the moderators are okay with it, I will be posting my series of point by point responses to make sure you understand I am not avoiding anything.

    JD “Any “compartmentalization of facts” is your own doing since I replied specifically to what you wrote to me. Now you’d rather drop those issues and talk about something else.”

    LS Not at all Jean, I would rather you collect those details within their context and engage in a generalized debate about what those finer details suggest: in my opinion, a highly flawed and perhaps corrupt investigation in Dallas, the subsequent commission that produced a report full of contradictions and omissions, and a yet to be named and shunned cover up.

    JD “You once again are asking unanswerable questions that seem to be based on suspicion rather than on established facts.”

    LS How can my logical questions be construed as ‘suspicious,’ when the Warren Commission asked thousands of leading and suspicious questions? I cite the deM testimony as an example. They went fishing based on suspicion when the man had not been in Dallas for months leading up to the assassination; yet they failed to call an FBI agent who was on the ground in the first hours of the investigation. It makes no sense, and I am highly suspicious of their reasoning to fail to call Bardwell Odum. Was it because Hoover had used him as a foil in the fiasco of the chain of custody of a magic bullet? Might Odum have testified under oath that indeed he had not been involved with a bullet from Parkland? Might he also have had to explain why he and Hosty determined the CIA had sent a photo they didn’t recognize as Oswald, yet the photo circulated for years as if it was? Might he have had to explain why he was stretched very thin in the first 48 hours while dozens of other agents do not even appear in records of the investigation?

    JD “For instance, you ask, “why did Marina and Marguerite acknowledge one photo had been destroyed if they knew that others existed?” You haven’t established that they knew other photos still existed.”

    LS Don’t you argue that Marina took the BY photos?

    JD “And how should I know why Marina or Marguerite did or didn’t do something? Should I consult a crystal ball or in Marguerite’s case, a Ouija board?”

    LS Your disdain for Marguerite is transparent, and I suggest it clouds your judgment of her testimony. Can you reconcile these two statements:

    Jean: “So you think Oswald’s own mother lied about seeing this photo and helping Marina get rid of it?”

    Jean: “Sure, Marguerite was suspicious of a lot of people. She was a conspiracy theorist. That doesn’t mean I have to believe Oswald didn’t do it just because she said so.”

    JD “And how should I know why the WC didn’t call Odum? The WC took testimony from hundreds of witnesses . . . I suppose that if the WC called every conceivable witness. . .”

    LS You have repeated that argument on other occasions: I consider it a weak defense of the WC. Would you address specifically Agent Odum’s absence from the witness roster given my aforementioned observations? Odum was hardly a “conceivable” witness but rather a highly significant one.

    • Jean Davison says:

      Leslie,

      “Assuming the moderators are okay with it, I will be posting my series of point by point responses to make sure you understand I am not avoiding anything.”

      There’s no need for that, believe me. I can see that we aren’t communicating, we’re spinning our wheels.

      “… I would rather you collect those details within their context and engage in a generalized debate about what those finer details suggest: in my opinion, a highly flawed and perhaps corrupt investigation in Dallas, the subsequent commission that produced a report full of contradictions and omissions, and a yet to be named and shunned cover up.”

      You want a “generalized debate” about your opinion of the investigation/WC? I don’t agree with your opinion. What else is there to say?

      “How can my logical questions be construed as ‘suspicious,’ when the Warren Commission asked thousands of leading and suspicious questions?”

      I don’t agree that your questions are logical, including the one you just asked.

      “I cite the deM testimony as an example. They went fishing based on suspicion when the man had not been in Dallas for months leading up to the assassination”

      The WC didn’t accuse de Mohrenschildt of anything, unlike many of your CT colleagues, so I don’t see your point.

      “… yet they failed to call an FBI agent who was on the ground in the first hours of the investigation. It makes no sense, and I am highly suspicious of their reasoning to fail to call Bardwell Odum.”

      How do you know what “their reasoning” was? The WC didn’t call many agents on the ground, evidently relying on their written reports instead. How should I know why some were called, not others. Seriously, why would you expect me to know that?

      “Was it because Hoover had used him as a foil in the fiasco of the chain of custody of a magic bullet? Might Odum have testified under oath that indeed he had not been involved with a bullet from Parkland.

      You are speculating, Leslie. Questions about Odum and chain of custody didn’t come up until many years later.

      “Might he also have had to explain why he and Hosty determined the CIA had sent a photo they didn’t recognize as Oswald, yet the photo circulated for years as if it was?”

      No, the photo *wasn’t* circulated for years as Oswald. Shanklin told Hoover on 11/23 that the photo wasn’t LHO. Odum showed the photo to Marina and Marguerite to ask if they recognized the man as an ASSOCIATE of Oswald’s:

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

      “Might he have had to explain why he was stretched very thin in the first 48 hours while dozens of other agents do not even appear in records of the investigation?”

      Again, you haven’t established that Odum was “stretched very thin” or that his workload was more than anyone else’s in Dallas.

      QUOTE:
      JD “For instance, you ask, “why did Marina and Marguerite acknowledge one photo had been destroyed if they knew that others existed?” You haven’t established that they knew other photos still existed.”

      LS Don’t you argue that Marina took the BY photos?
      UNQUOTE

      Your question doesn’t follow. It’s not about whether Marina took them in April, it’s about whether she knew there were other copies still around in November.

      “Your disdain for Marguerite is transparent, and I suggest it clouds your judgment of her testimony.”

      My opinion of Marguerite has nothing to do with it. I don’t agree that Marguerite’s saying she heard her son declare he “didn’t do it” means anything. I don’t understand why YOU think it does.

      QUOTE:
      Can you reconcile these two statements:

      Jean: “So you think Oswald’s own mother lied about seeing this photo and helping Marina get rid of it?”

      Jean: “Sure, Marguerite was suspicious of a lot of people. She was a conspiracy theorist. That doesn’t mean I have to believe Oswald didn’t do it just because she said so.”
      UNQUOTE

      I don’t understand your question. What is there to reconcile? I’m talking about two different things.

      “Would you address specifically Agent Odum’s absence from the witness roster given my aforementioned observations? Odum was hardly a “conceivable” witness but rather a highly significant one.”

      “Highly significant” to you, in your opinion. I don’t know why he wasn’t called. How should I know? You haven’t presented a convincing (to me) argument that he should have been.

  42. Bob Prudhomme says:

    From Jeff Harker

    “I’m really tired of reading the totally contemptuous and hypocritical comments of this “Photon.”

    It is his job to discredit everything seen on this forum that does not support the WC’s original findings. If he cannot make logical arguments to defeat us, the next weapon on the list is to attack the poster with personal slurs.

    Your government is deeply concerned that the masses will one day see through the charade, and the man behind the curtain will be visible to all.

  43. Bill says:

    Will, Bob.

    I would suggest a better understanding of the issue of just where Clint Hill said her was….and WHERE HE WAS IN REALITY.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMdreKlLhJY and another copy:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqSEDtDk8gA

    Here is a very clear, good copy of the Muchmore Film. You can see the moment of the head shot at the 11 second mark in the first video, and at at the 42 second mark in the 2nd video.

    MOST IMPORTANTLY, Agent Hill’s own statement is clearly impeached because he is clearly only at the front left wheel-well when JFK is Killed.

    The point: Perceptions can be different even without the ravages of time blurring the lines. Clint Hill’s bravery in not in question. But his memory of it is.

    Peace.

    You guys are arguing points you have not even researched!

    • The first video URL you gave is the clearest I have seen of the Muchmoore film Bill, Yes, Hill is clearly still at the front left wheel of the Cadillac as the head shot is fired.
      Thanks for clearing that up for us!
      \\][//

    • Vanessa says:

      Hi Bill

      Thanks for posting those Muchmore videos. It looks to me as though JFK doesn’t move at all when he receives the headshot (in either film). This doesn’t seem to be consistent with what we see in Zapruder when he (famously) surges back and to the left.

      Any comments on that issue?

      • Bill says:

        Yes Vanessa I do have a comment on that. First. The film does show the President moving as the shot hits. It just shows it in almost the exact opposite of the Zapruder film viewpoint. It is actually very difficult for a film (due to emulsion or some other term that I don’t recall at this age) to pick up things moving directly toward it (similar to the human eye). In the Zapruder Film there is the entire movements that is unobscured. In the other film the President is visible only in a small segment with a lot of other motion going on. However…in the Nix and Zapruder film Kennedy reacts the same way. You get a better sense of motion on film, as in real life, when you look at an event that is not moving toward/away from you. Just the way it is.

      • Vanessa says:

        Hi Bill

        Thanks for responding. I didn’t know that about film and objects moving towards you. Because I have to say JFK does not seem to move much at all to my eyes. I’ll have another look.

        Willy, are you able to comment on that issue?

        [So am I now down to 2 who won’t talk to me? How about it you other two? You know who you are. 🙂 ]

        • Vanessa says:

          Hi Bill

          Well I’ve had another look and I have to say JFK does not really appear to move at all in Nix and Muchmore. I can see some movement from Jackie but not JFK.

          • Bill says:

            Vanessa. I’m not totally sure of when you say moved ‘much’ at all. To my viewing…JFK goes south in all three films. I think I mentioned with ‘film’ the objects show speed/clarity/movement when moving in any other direction(s) other than toward or away. But it is what it is. There is a youtube video that shows all three synchronized. It is certainly worth viewing and it will clear up the entire Hill location issue, the spot on Elm Issue, and the movement issue.

            Personally…I’m not sure what some are attempting to argue…but they are just wrong with who was where and when.

  44. leslie sharp says:

    The only one of us that is spinning is you Jean, and it’s not limited to wheels.

    JD “You want a “generalized debate” about your opinion of the investigation/WC?”

    I want to see if you are capable of a generalized debate centered on a set of facts placed in context, not my opinion of those facts and not your opinion of those facts, but how the facts themselves fit into a larger framework. If you are afraid to engage in that process, just say so.

    JD “Highly significant” to you, in your opinion. I don’t know why he wasn’t called. How should I know? You haven’t presented a convincing (to me) argument that he should have been.

    Do you know whether or not Hoover placed a report in the record that Odum was involved in the chain of custody of a magic bullet? If Odum had been involved, do you think that would be a highly significant factor in the Warren Commission investigation given that their ultimate conclusion hinged largely on that bullet? I am not asking you specifically to explain “why Odum wasn’t called,” but I am hoping to elicit from you an outrage that he wasn’t.

    JD “I don’t understand your question. What is there to reconcile?”

    I live in the Southwest and “I don’t understand your question” is a very popular mechanism used especially in the workplace when someone is insecure and worried about their job. I’ll rephrase the questions and see if you can grasp them: Do you believe Marguerite saw a photograph and participated in the destruction of that photograph? Do you also believe that Marguerite as Oswald’s mother was far more qualified to assess whether or not he was telling the truth when he said “I didn’t do it,” than you? You were not there, you never met the young man, and apparently from what I can determine from the comments you make on this site, you never once gave him the benefit of the doubt, ever. How comfortable are you with that, on a purely professional and ethical plain?

    • Jean Davison says:

      Leslie,

      “I want to see if you are capable of a generalized debate centered on a set of facts placed in context, not my opinion of those facts and not your opinion of those facts, but how the facts themselves fit into a larger framework. If you are afraid to engage in that process, just say so.”

      If I’m impatient with this discussion it’s because you don’t concentrate on facts. You instead talk mostly about your suspicions, your opinions.

      “Do you know whether or not Hoover placed a report in the record that Odum was involved in the chain of custody of a magic bullet? If Odum had been involved, do you think that would be a highly significant factor in the Warren Commission investigation given that their ultimate conclusion hinged largely on that bullet?”

      There’s a document saying that Odum showed the stretcher bullet to Wright and Tomlinson. Many years later, Odum denied doing so. In 1966 Tomlinson told researcher Ray Marcus that he was shown the bullet by a different FBI agent and that it “appeared to be” the same one he saw on 11/22. (There was no way for him to “positively” ID it, since he hadn’t marked it.)

      In any case, the bullet’s chain of custody is established through other testimony and records– for example, this note written by Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen, who got it from Wright:

      https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11491&relPageId=83

      “I am not asking you specifically to explain ‘why Odum wasn’t called,’ but I am hoping to elicit from you an outrage that he wasn’t.”

      Why would you want to elicit outrage from me? Sorry, no matter how hard you try, this isn’t about me. It’s “JFKfacts,” remember?

      “[….]Do you believe Marguerite saw a photograph and participated in the destruction of that photograph?”

      I see no reason to doubt it.

      “Do you also believe that Marguerite as Oswald’s mother was far more qualified to assess whether or not he was telling the truth when he said “I didn’t do it,” than you?”

      That’s probably the worst argument in support of Oswald’s innocence I’ve ever heard: “his mother said so.”

      “You were not there, you never met the young man, and apparently from what I can determine from the comments you make on this site, you never once gave him the benefit of the doubt, ever. How comfortable are you with that, on a purely professional and ethical plain?”

      I’m very comfortable with the conclusion I reached after studying the evidence for a long time. Once again your question is about me, not the JFK case.

      • Jean,

        This ‘Sergeant Friday’, “just the facts ma’am” projection you are giving is interesting.

        What are “facts”? Data is not fact until it is interpreted from a perspective of collected data. A single data point is meaningless until it is related to a collection of other data points for not only quantification but for qualification and weight and bearing.

        The concept of cold objectivity is a myth and rationale for dismissing one’s inherent biases. It is in confronting ones own bias that one learns what creates them. In a *Rankian psychological sense, what creates such biases are the neuroses that are spawned by the pressures to, and acquiescence to the pressures to conform.

        We have an epistemological divide in play between you and Leslie here. Leslie is not afraid of her creative, intuition, nor her individuality.

        See: Otto Rank;
        ‘Art and Artist: Creative Urge and Personality Development’
        \\][//

      • leslie sharp says:

        Jean. Huh? Are you suggesting Richard Johnsen’s initial statement establishes an official record of the chain of custody when he later failed to identify a bullet presented as the same one he handled on the 22nd? Where is the bullet Johnsen had in his possession on 11.22.63?

        This discussion is not focused on the bullet in spite of your attempts to lead it in that direction: the question is Odum’s absence from the list of witnesses called by the Warren Commission. His recollection establishes that the chain of custody was significantly compromised and the WC would have been confronted with that fact had they interviewed him. It matters not when he revealed the discrepancy. The WC conclusion hinged on the magic bullet but prior to the WC issuing their conclusion they did not see fit to talk to Odum who was named in an FBI document as having handled the bullet – doc dated June, 1964.

        Odum’s name was also on the affidavit indicating he participated in cropping a photo sent by the CIA from Mexico City to Dallas:

        From: “Reclaiming History” Vincent Bugliosi, pg 203/4

        “Shanklin proceeds to outline the assignments for the day … ….As the meeting ends, Bardwell Odum, a senior agent on the criminal squad, shows Hosty a surveillance photograph that had been flown up to Dallas in a two-seat navy jet fighter from Mexico City during the night. It was thought to be a photograph of Lee Oswald as he walked out of the Soviet embassy. Hosty takes one look and knows immediately that it isn’t Oswald. Odum asks if it might be an associate of Oswald’s.
        “Not so far as I know,” Hosty tells him.
        “Well, I’ve been ordered to show this to Oswald’s wife,” Odum says.
        “Bard,” Hosty replies, pointing to the background of the photograph, “you can’t show that photo to people outside the bureau. Look, you can see the doorway to the Soviet embassy.” Using a pair of scissors they crop out the doorway so no one will know where the photo was taken. They don’t want the Soviets to learn that the Soviet embassy in Mexico City is under photographic survelllance, something, however that the Soviets had to assume.

        https://books.google.com/books?id=q1VJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&dq=hosty+odum+cropped+photo+jfk&source=bl&ots=6AO6O-

        1) Can you possibly explain why Gordon Shanklin was not called to testify before the Warren Commission? 2) can you explain why it was James Hosty who recognized the backdrop of the photo as being the Russian Embassy and admonished Odum that they needed to crop the photo yet the CIA who was alleged to be in charge of the photo surveillance operation sent the photo in tact? 3) WHY was Hosty/the FBI saying ’They’ don’t want the Soviets to learn that the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City is under surveillance…. ? The way the paragraph is written, it’s difficult to know if this is a Bugliosi interpretation, a supposition, or if he knows for certain that Hosty and Odum and/or their bosses in the FBI “did not want the Soviets to learn . . .” Precisely whose operation was the photo surveillance in MC?

      • leslie sharp says:

        Jean, FBI Agent Hosty does not utter the name Odum in his WC testimony that I can find. And the following are two of only five references he makes to Shanklin (the previous three establishing Shanklin as Hosty’s boss).

        Mr. McCLOY. I noticed you mentioned Lieutenant Revill and Jackie Brian. There is another name mentioned bore, Gordon Shanklin.
        Mr. HOSTY. He is the agent in charge of the Dallas FBI Office.
        Mr. McCLOY. It doesn’t say so in this article, but it may be in this by implication. You said nothing or anything that is comparable to the alleged statement, “We have a suspect who is capable of the assassination of the President, but I never dreamed of it,” to your colleague Gordon Shanklin?
        Mr. HOSTY. No, sir.

        Please note McCloy’ sharp right turn:
        Mr. McCLOY. When you went to talk to Mrs. Paine, did you go over the premises then with her? Did she, for example, show you where Oswald is alleged to have kept the rifle in the garage?

        Had the commission been purely objective, earnest in their endeavor at all cost (shouldn’t McCloy have looked around to his fellow commission members and said, “hey, are we going to interview Shanklin?”), they would have contemplated the discrepancies they were encountering (or blatantly avoiding) and at least ask the question whether or not these facts suggested a conspiracy – an enemy within. The same can be said of your book and that of Norman Mailer. I’ve not tackled Bugliosi’s tome but I suspect given his publisher – whose editor opined ‘this will put a nail in the coffin of all conspiracy theories – he too failed to go down any uncomfortable trails. With all due respect, shame on the lot of you.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Jean, I keep forgetting to ask you about the FBI and Sylvia Odio. FBI Agents James Hosty and Bardwell Odum interviewed her in December, 1963. Then Odum appears ever so briefly during Odio’s testimony before Wesley J. Liebeler of the Warren Commission. Strange that Agent Odum was right there in the Post Office building in Dallas yet by all accounts he wasn’t asked to hang around and be officially interviewed by Asst. Counsel Liebeler; however, he appeared in the hearing room almost as if on cue and left just seconds later. The transcript reads as if he was signaled to come into the room, or would you argue his appearance was spontaneous?

          TESTIMONY OF SYLVIA ODIO

          The testimony of Sylvia Odio was taken at 9 a.m., on July 22, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President’s Commission.

          Mr. LIEBELER. Did you say that you also started working at a new job that same day?
          Mrs. ODIO. No, sir.
          Mr. LIEBELER. But you had been working on the day that you did move?
          Mrs. ODIO. I started working initially the 15th of September, because it was too far away where I lived in Irving. I started the 15th of September, I am almost sure of the 15th or the 9th. Let me see what day was the 9th. It was a Monday. It was the 9th, sir, that I started working at National Chemsearch.
          (Special Agent Bardwell O. Odum of the Federal Bureau of Investigation entered the hearing room.)
          Mr. LIEBELER. This is Mr. Odum from the FBI. As a matter of fact, Mr. Odum was the man that interviewed you.
          Mrs. ODIO. I remember. He looked very familiar.
          Mr. [ODIO]. What is the name?
          Mrs. ODIO. [Odio].
          [Mr.] ODIO. I interview so many people, it slips my mind at the moment.
          (Agent Odum left the hearing room.)

  45. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Bill

    You have a habit of writing very long posts that do not end up saying very much at all. However, let us concentrate on one small point.

    I don’t know if you or how many other readers here have had a lot of experience with rifles. If not, I should explain that the majority of the noise heard from a rifle is muzzle blast. This muzzle blast is loudest in a cone that spreads out forward from the muzzle of the rifle. Anyone standing behind this cone will hear a loud report BUT, anyone standing ahead of this cone will hear a deafening blast. As the rifle from the 6th floor would have been pointed downward, almost every bystander and the occupants of both limos would have been ahead of the rifle’s muzzle, and in the deafening zone. Loud motorcycles? Hardly. the motorcycles were going downhill on a 3.13° slope. Their throttles would have been backed off, and they would be coasting downhill.

    The basic problem still exists, and your type relies on the public’s overall inexperience with firearms to deal with it.

    The Altgens 6 photo was supposedly taken three seconds after the first shot was fired. There simply would not be ebough noise to mask the muzzle blast of that shot. If startle reactions are instantaneous and involuntary, why are the bystanders still smiling and clapping, as if nothing has happened?

    • “The Altgens 6 photo was supposedly taken three seconds after the first shot was fired. There simply would not be ebough noise to mask the muzzle blast of that shot. If startle reactions are instantaneous and involuntary, why are the bystanders still smiling and clapping, as if nothing has happened?”~Bob Prudhomme

      Because the shot did not come from the Texas Book Depository Building, but from the other end of Dealey Plaza, near the South end of the triple overpass.
      \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Willy

        At least one shot, and likely two shots, had to come from behind the limousine. A careful study of the medical report on the surgery performed on Connally’s chest shows a wound that followed the 5th rib as it travelled downward. If the shot had hit Connally from the front, it would have had to travel upwards, and this would have been impossible. JFK’s back wound could also only have come from the rear.

        • But Bob, the Altgens 6 photo was supposedly taken three seconds after the first shot was fired.

          That is the throat shot, from the front. We cannot assess the A-6 photo for any other but that first shot.
          After that shot, people were aware something was wrong, if they were paying any attention to Kennedy while he was struggling with his throat.
          \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            And just how do you know JFK was shot in the throat by the time the Altgens 6 photo was taken? Can you see the throat wound? Can you see blood on JFK’s shirt?

          • “And just how do you know JFK was shot in the throat by the time the Altgens 6 photo was taken?”~Bob Prudhomme

            Because there were no further shots until the limousine came from behind the sign and Kennedy was clutching his throat.
            \\][//

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Bob and Willy, You both have studied and have more expertise on this issue than I I’ve not studied the pictures in detail or other films, while I have seen many.
            From the Z-film though JFK does not grab his throat, but tries to. Before he can he is knocked slightly forward, starts to fall to the left into Jackie’s suddenly alerted arms. At this moment his head (and body) is blown back and to the left.
            Kellerman said a flurry of shots. Jean Hill said six.
            One from the front in the throat for JFK (South Knoll?). Another from the Dal-Tex building in the back (angle) for JFK, third thoracic vertebrae. Another hit Connaly, from the TSBD (angle). At least one head shot from the front right, grassy knoll/fence. Two for Connally?
            A second head shot for JFK?

    • Bill says:

      No Bob. I seem to only have an issue with your revisionist theory. All of the participants have stated that they felt, EVEN TAGUE, that they felt the noise was a ‘firecracker’. That is not a blast. ok???? Also, you have no evidence to demonstrate that the motorcycles were being down-throttled, and, OBVIOUSLY IF THEY WERE, then you could also have loud backfires as well (but interestingly you don’t allow for this to occur. I wonder why??).

      There are enough people responding to the shooting by still waving their hands, some beginning to duck, and even, as in the case of the men on the stairs, beginning to react to the shooting as the limo carrying JFK approaches the spot at z-313.

      You really want everything you can get Bob. As for Altgens 6:

      Why Bob…..you should learn to answer questions you already know the answer to:

      Why are they still smiling and clapping???? Simple: They are not reacting to the shots yet. Just as some of the Agents are (you know….the same one you wrote did nothing).

      No Ghosts Bob….just solid plain common sense. Agents trained to respond to shots do so. People unaware, like those who waved and then realized before other and covered up or ran, were doing so before those totally unaware of what was going down.

      Please…..you do a disservice with wild speculation.

  46. Paul Trejo says:

    Marina Oswald denied everything to the FBI and Secret Service when she was first placed under house-arrest and she was not under oath. Later, when she was settled in her own home, and she took the oath for the Warren Commission, she told the full truth.

    The trouble is about the Walker shooting, Marina was not an eye-witness. All she knew was hear-say from Lee Oswald, who told Marina lies continually. LHO never acted alone. LHO went to that shooting as a passenger in a car. LHO used somebody else’s rifle, and he never buried his rifle. Marina told what she knew honestly — but Lee had lied to her thoroughly.

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.