A panel of experts will talk about the secrecy that surrounds still records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 at a media briefing on Thursday, March 20 at 11 am. The briefing will take place at the Mott House, 122 Maryland Ave NE, across from the Supreme Court.
(This event, originally scheduled for Monday, was postponed because of snow.)
The panelists include:Attorney Dan Alcorn will talk about the current state of the JFK Records Act, the 1992 law requiring government agencies to make public all assassination-related records.
Journalist Jefferson Morley will talk about what is known about JFK records that are still held by the CIA, NSA, and Defense Department, as well as plans for litigation to force disclosure.
Audio expert Ed Primeau will give a videotaped presentation of his analysis of a recently discovered recording of communications to and from the Air Force One presidential jet on November 22, 1963.
I think the Air Force One tape is “the most important piece of JFK evidence to emerge in recent years.”
The event is open to news reporters, bloggers, and congressional staff.
The briefing is sponsored by JFK Facts, Committee for an Open Archive, Assassination Archive and Research Center, and the Mary Ferrell Foundation.
jeffc: “Everywhere they turn, they have to get more and more people to lie and get involved in a cover-up.”
That is not at all what was required; in fact I do not believe the people in this particular scenario (the rifle, the money order, the hand over) had a clue that they were involved, with perhaps the exception of one or two individuals.
The essential ingredient in the success of the assassination and the cover up was legerdemain. Sleight of hand. It continues today, and is being propagated on this site.
Regarding the money order, the shipment and receipt of the rifle: human error was not only anticipated but counted upon because masters at manipulation knew fully how to frame any detail in the aftermath during the investigation, and there would be details. There would be questions just as there are from an audience adulating the skills of a master magician. We encounter that now. But every trail of “evidence’ that did not indict Oswald could be ‘explained away’ by human error as is being done in this exchange, and every trail of evidence that could be cited as ‘proof’ against Oswald has its own particular dynamic …. fifty years later.
It didn’t matter if someone handed over a rifle to someone other than Oswald, it didn’t matter if the money order was cashed or a date/station stamp was obscure … all that mattered was the assurance that confusion would ensue. The Warren Commission would take over and solidify the confusion. And over time, the evidence – tracking that money order, who signed for a rifle – becomes a side show to the point that years later books will be written, websites will be established with the intention of ‘sorting this out.’
This phenomenon was and is nothing more than a perpetuation of the magic trick. The question now should be who was/were the magician(s), and who continues to serve the illusion.
Jeff,
Congratulations. You’ve got a great site to which I and others contribute. Congratulations. I can’t imagine what it is to sustain such a website.
You allow all to come here. Which is great. If I had an open door, I’d not screen visitors or monitor their comments. Otherwise it might appear to some visitors I was playing favorites.
What pressure? Please give a single example where Robert Oswald was pressured to do or say anything that he did not believe.
He has always carried the burden of being the brother of JFK’s assassin with dignity; why drag him into your conspiracy tangents?
No one is dragging Robert into “conspiracy tangents,” in spite of your attempt to cement that interpretation. Key elements of Robert’s relationship with Lee have been recorded; Robert’s vulnerability in the aftermath of Lee being accused and then being murdered in the midst of tens of law enforcement officers is indisputable. Robert would have recognized the dangers involved to remaining family members. You are foolish if you believe that all interactions between Robert and the authorities are in the public record or that you alone are privy to them.
Jean states, “The camera, which was found among Oswald’s possessions …”
Jonathan states, “The camera to which you refer, the Imperial Reflex, was turned over to the FBI in February 1964 by Robert Oswald. That’s a fact. Robert told the FBI he had found the camera in the Paine house in December 1963. That’s beyond belief.”
The temptation to pick and choose what one includes in an argument is great, and often the tactic is applied strategically. On this forum, I see no benefit in that practice if we are here in a genuine effort to reconsider all of the available facts, discrepancies, contradictions and omissions included. This appears to have been a significant omission relating to the backyard photos. Only Jean Davison can speak to the rationale behind such an omission. The photograph and camera inevitably beg the question of Ruth and Michael Paine’s role in the Oswald’s lives … a question that merits a fresh debate focused on circumstantial facts relating to the conspiracy.
Sadly, Oswald was objectified very early on; given that damage has already been done and rather than continue to use him as an object to deflect from the conspiracy, let us now seriously consider him – with open minds – as an object that proves there was a conspiracy.
The notion that the HSCA authenticated ANY photos is absurd.
The HSCA was not a judicial body and therefore could not authenticate anything. Period.
Furthermore, law aside, one of the backyard photos, the DeMorenschild copy produced in the 1970s, couldn’t have been taken with the cheap, inferior Imperial Reflex. It was of way too high a quality.
The extant autopsy photos not only were not matched to the Navy camera that took the autopsy photos; but also are at odds with what Humes himself told the ARRB. The extant autopsy photos show a completely intact back of the head. Humes testified to the ARRB that a couple square centimeters of both bone and scalp were missing from the back of JFK’s head, right and lateral to the external occipital protuberance.
That notion’s very convenient for you, since Oswald is dead and no judicial body will ever deal with the issue.
But the same scientists who authenticated the photos for the HSCA would have testified in court.
You really ought to read the authentication.
John, you are not a lawyer. You pretend to offer legal advice here. I say, stop. You have a degree in political science. That is not a law degree.
Quit claiming your “legal advice” has any relevance to the case.
I say, stop.
You are not an historian. In fact, the issue is history, and your legal claims (which usually simply aren’t true) are irrelevant.
So you would not lend any credence to the “verdict” in Bugliosi’s mock trial of Oswald, I assume? At least we agree on something.
Other experts can disagree with those for the HSCA on the backyard photos just as they can with HSCA’s acoustical experts.
What about Jim Marrs’ claim (he pointed this out at Lancer) that the head is identically positioned in various poses which is odd for different photo shoots. I believe he superimposed Oswald’s heads in different poses and they match perfectly, which is highly unlikely.
One the best resources regarding photographic evidence IMO.
http://www.jfkstudies.org/intro.html
Oops. That’s not the one I thought it was. The link to the “Faked” video does not work. The site I’ve easily found before also showed the facial overlays. This site tells some of the info.
http://www.pimall.com/nais/news/backyard.html
Interesting that I found the overlay info easily in the past but now multiple wording combinations quickly bring up links to 2 macadams articles and one by vonpein.
The House Select Committee tried overlaying the heads, and they each showed different facial expressions.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=958&relPageId=214
Look . . . you really, really need to look at some things other than Jim Marrs and Jack White.
I have been looking at as many reports as I can find about the assassination for several years.One of the more believable witness’es seems to have been Roger Craig with the Sheriff’s office, and he was paired with Boone on the 6th floor when he found the rifle.He stated that he was no more than 6 to 8 inches from the rifle when it was lifted out from the boxes, and he said stamped right on the barrel was 7.65 Mauser. This was what prompted the first news reports of the rifle being a 7.65 Mauser. Then looking at some of the still photo’s as the rifle is being lifted from between the boxes, a second rifle is seen laying below the Mauser. Craig goes on to say that when he found the snipers nest, ” there were 3 hulls lying in a row, no more than an inch apart and all pointing the same direction.”
Then viewing the recent video of the case against LBJ, there was one unidentified finger print on the snipers nest boxes that had LHO’s palm prints.So the investigators that were filming the video sent the unidentified finger print to a certified laten print examinor who compared them to Mac Wallace,one of LBJ’s long time Mechanic that fixed things for LBJ, and eleminated people that stood in LBJ’s way; even to the point of murdering one of LBJ’s former associates that he thought was going to cause him trouble. So Malcom Wallace murdered the guy at a golf shop, and was arrested and tried and found guilty of the murder. But LBJ hired him his own attorny and took a room at a nearby hotel during the trial and had runners to keep LBJ informed of all aspects of Wallaces trial. And when the jury found Wallace Guilty and reccommended a 50 year sentense ; the judge presiding at the murder trial threw out the sentense and gave Wallace a 5 year suspended sentense for first degree murder.
The finger print expert that compared the print found in the snipers nest on 11-22-63 was Nathan Darby, who was able to match the print to Mac Wallaces left little finger with a 34 point match. Ask any prosicutor if he’d be able to get a conviction with a 34 point matching print, and their reply will be; ” A 34 point match would be a slam dunk for a guilty verdict “. Since the print in question had been in the archives for 35 years without it being compared. Mac Wallace was killed in a single car accident in 1972 .After finding the match, Darby sent the print to the DPD, but since they’d forwarded all their assassination evidence to the FBI two days after the assassination. The DPD forwarded theprint and the print card to the FBI which kept it for 18 months before saying they couldn’t find any match.This is the same FBI that missed finding the Palm print on the MC rifle, nor any print of LHO, and returned it to the DPD which found it on the stock of the MC rifle. Uh DUH..
I’m just waiting for John McAdams or Photon to somehow try to debunk the Mac Wallace fingerprint fact.
Guys? Your comments?
At last November’s Lancer conference, I believe Joan Mellen spoke about having the fingerprint analyzed independently, and that conclusion being that it wasn’t Mac Wallace’s fingerprint (IIRC).
It seems Glen Sample has (sort of) backed off of this claim.
http://home.earthlink.net/~sixthfloor/update5.htm
It certainly is a fact, and I’m glad you brought his name into this, JSA. I think Mac Wallace looks pretty good to have been on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting, and someone whose fingerprint was right there in the vicinity of the sniper’s nest had to at least be INVOLVED in the assassination, perhaps even as a shooter. LBJ’s Edward Clark/Mac Wallace duo was right in the middle of what happened to the POTUS on Nov. 22, 1963.
Let me address some of the factoids here:
Uh, no . . .
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm
That’s his 1974 story.
In 1968, he was telling an entirely different story.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
You actually find it plausible that conspirators would plant hulls this way? Rather than just tossing them down and letting them bounce around, as they would if ejected from a bolt action rifle?
Day had completely lifted the print, from the barrel under the stock.
He told the an FBI agent on November 22 that he had done so.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/Day_palmprint.gif
So the Oliver Stone scene of conspirators pressing the MC into Oswald’s dead hand is nonsense.
At least three people saw the hulls lined up close together.
Day doesn’t say he lifted the print, he says he intended to. But he never did, even though he had ample time to do so and the DPD was eager for any evidence against their prisoner. The FBI lab, which received the rifle hours later, did not see any indication that the rifle had been processed for fingerprints and they were not directed to look for a print in the location Day allegedly saw it.
It has been established that Oswald’s corpse was fingerprinted. It’s not an “Oliver Stone” scene.
Post the citations. They don’t show what you are claiming they do.
And you haven’t dealt with the question: “Why in the world would any conspirators do that?”
And you know that how? He said he did, and several cops who were around the Identification Bureau that weekend say they saw it. See First Day Evidence.
So why are you asserting that?
Right. Ink was found on his fingers.
Which is not what you would do if you wanted to fake a latent print.
Regarding the 3 shells James Tague disagreed. In his book LBJ and the Kennedy Killing pages 276-279 you see why. In 1968 his friend reporter Jimmy Kerr told him there were only 2 shells found on 11/22, a 3rd was added Monday for official photographs. Further Fritz picked them up almost immediately and put them in his pocket, putting them back down later for an evidence crew then pocketing them again. WC exhibit 511 shows only 2 shells circled as the same picture does in Jesse Currys book.
Further, WC Council Belin recalled Lt. Day who recanted his 3 shell statement and admitted he only found 2 (Barry Crush, Impossible, the Case Against LHO, Mr. Krush offers 25K to anyone who can prove this wrong).
Last,the copy of the original Texas Department of Public Safety evidence sheet in both books lists 2 spent shells.
For some reason the WC version has been altered to show 3.
I know I said last, but the 3rd shell now in evidence does not show the chambering markings on the other 2 have and it is dented to the point it could not have been fired in the Manlicher that afternoon.
Cpt Fritz moved the shells and the crime scene photos of same do not show them as originally found.
The FBI report you provided clearly says – “He stated at this time, however, he had not had time to photograph or lift this print.” Otherwise, where is the photo or the print? The DPD was desperate for any evidence through the entire weekend – where is it?
Late Friday night the rifle was sent to the FBI lab in Washington. Why wasn’t the lab informed about this print? They knew nothing about it, and stated categorically that they saw no trace of previous processing on the rifle.
So a reporter friend told Tague that, huh?
Was the reporter there? How did he know?
And you know that how?
Of course, CE 511, from another view, shows three hulls circled.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1134&relPageId=247
Why did you fail to mention that?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/round.htm
Good heavens! Where did you get that?
Day said there were three:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/day1.htm
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. DAY. I went to the northeast corner–southeast corner of the building, and first made photographs of the three hulls.
Mr. McCLOY. What floor was this?
Mr. DAY. On the sixth floor. I took photographs of the three hulls as they were found before they were moved.
Fritz kept one aside, but there were always three.
As for “chambering marks,” you are going to need to supply a citation.
Frazier said he didn’t look for such, since they would not connect the hulls to the particular rifle:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=16645
As for the “could not have been fired in the Mannlicher-Carcano: the MC often dents hulls when ejecting them.
See the following from the HSCA firearms panel:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/firearms_hsca.htm#155
“Starting in Volume one on page 250, Mr. Krusch has found Warren Commission in Volume IV (4), on pages staring 254, given by Lt. Day of the Dallas Police on April 22, 1964, that three cartridge shells found and marked by Lt. Day is a lie.
…Belin who had taken Lt. Day’s testimony, recalled Lt. Day, and Lt. Day recanted his three shells found and admitted he only found two shells” P. 278.
Roll your eyes and laugh now. Kerr was a reporter for the National Enquirer who PO’d Tague with an article then became a trusted friend. “You could usually find Jimmy hanging around Sheriff Bill Decker’s office…had alot of inside information”
And your evidence for this is?
Day produced it, and you can find it in the Warren Commission volumes.
At the time he talked to that FBI guy he had not lifted the print.
This disproves the claim of conspiracists that the rifle was pressed into Oswald’s dead hand on Monday to produce the print.
According to Day, he did tell Vince Drain (FBI guy who collected the evidence to take to DC) about the print. Drain apparently was not paying a lot of attention.
John McA: “Fritz kept one aside, but there were always three.”
I’m sorry? Can you explain this?
Why is Day’s comment from his own book gospel now? Using the same argument by LATs, it is less credible.
Did he in fact say so from the outset? To the WC? (Which begs the question, if he did, why did the WCR say otherwise as the story goes?)
You mentioned that Jean Davidson found an FBI document mentioning Day’s comment that he lifted a print before he handed over the MC to the FBI. Is that document from 1963/64?
(I question the Dallas Police and FBI btw).
C’mon John, the print mentioned by Day to Pinkston was almost certainly the trigger guard print or prints. it is clear from Pinkston’s statement that Day had just started working on the rifle. He dealt with the trigger guard first.
if he’d told Pinkston about the palm print, after all, why wouldn’t he have told him about the trigger guard print?
Hi Pat,
I don’t understand why you say it’s “clear from Pinkston’s statement that Day had just starting working on the rifle.” The document says Day told him “he had processed the rifle and had been successful in raising a partial print, that he’d left the rifle at his lab and intended to return immediately “to try to photograph and lift this latent print.”
IOW, he’d already “processed” the rifle and left it at the lab.
I think he’s talking about the palm print because, first, Pinkston uses the singular “a print,” just as Day does in his testimony only when referring to the palm print, not the partial prints on the trigger guard, which Day always refers to as “two” or with the plural “prints.”
Also, Day testified that when he saw these partials at the TSBD he noticed that the metal surface they were on was “rather rough.” When he got to the lab, he worked on those prints but they were still “rather unclear.” And, “Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them.” He said he then found the palm print at the lab.
Some time after he left the rifle there he talked to Pinkston and spoke of *a* print he planned to photograph *and lift*. IMO, this fits the palm print and not the partials on the trigger guard.
The book First Day Evidence gives details about who saw the palm print in the police lab, but I don’t have a copy handy.
This is what makes me knock my head against the wall. Warren defenders will scrutinize and reject any piece of evidence that doesn’t align perfectly with the official tale, particularly on grounds of professional qualification to comment. All disputing eyewitnesses are “unreliable” and “not credible.” Then one of them will say something like, “At least two people saw him from the sixth floor.” You can easily destroy nearly every word of that sentence, separately. A “witness” with bad eyesight, apparently shown to be looking in another direction, is a qualified witness as long as he points to Oswald. A large host of police officers are not. Those who saw two men, wearing different colors, are not. Those who saw Oswald in other, non-incriminating places, are not. Intellectual hypocrisy of apocalyptic proportions. The true purpose, of course, is get our eyes off the real issues and into petty squabbles–and the effort of protests like this one.
“The true purpose, of course, is get our eyes off the real issues and into petty squabbles–and the effort of protests like this one.”
Well put. That’s why I think historians need to establish a factual line the same way scientists do. The Warren Commission was a POLITICAL body and not a non-partisan body interested in finding facts wherever they lay. Its purpose was to erase any uncertainty about other possible shooters or collaborators in the assassination of President Kennedy, and to do so quickly, before the 1964 national elections. People who asked questions or who knew something that ran counter to the official version were either ridiculed, ignored, or in some cases, rubbed out.
What I think we need now is some sort of Truth and Reconciliation Inquiry or Airing of What We Know, based on the experience of South Africans in the 1990s. It’s time to end the decades-long denial of politically corrupt leaders allied with powerful intelligence and military, getting away with bullets when ballots don’t give them what they want. At a time when Snowden’s revelations show the iron fist under the velvet glove of intelligence bureaucracy power being abused, it shouldn’t be that difficult to make the connection to abuse of intelligence agency power related to the still secret JFK era files — and we should all demand that they be released to the taxpayers who fund these agencies. It’s our history. We paid for it. We should be able to read it, and see it. It’s our country which our ancestors died to preserve as a free nation—not a KGB secret police state—-but the USA, land of the free.
Photon and John Mcadams,
I respect that you have responded to my list of points suggesting difficulty tying Oswald to the alleged murder weapon.
I now invite you to respond to the big point I assert: It is not possible to tie Oswald to the alleged murder weapon beyond reasonable doubt. To place this weapon in his hands on the 6th floor of the TSBD on 11-22-63, beyond reasonable doubt. You know Jesse Curry said no one had done it.
Photon and John, you both maintain Oswald could have gotten the rifle from the P.O. Box. Could have is not good enough. It’s a break in the chain of custody (one of many).
Convince me of your position. I’m flexible and open-minded.
At least two people saw him shooting it from the Sixth Floor.
No, they saw a man holding a gun. One of the witnesses said that there was another man standing behind the man with a gun in the window. There most definitely WAS a shooter from the TSBD. The first shots came from behind the car, as did the final, fifth shot, according to the acoustical evidence. The fifth shot was CE-399, mostly pristine, because it missed, only hitting grass and dirt. Again, you can read about this in “Hear No Evil”.
While we’re suddenly crediting eyewitnesses, and rightly so, how about others, like Lee Bowers, who saw two men take up position behind the fence on the knoll moments before the assassination, or those who saw smoke from behind the fence?
Or are we cherry picking our eyewitnesses? As SNL’s Church Lady might say:
“How CONVENIENT!”
He saw two men who were not together, and he didn’t see them doing anything suspicious.
One of them remained around after the shooting. Bowers could not say about the other one, since his clothing blended in with the foliage.
He also told the attorney for the WC, Mr. Ball, that he heard “two shots “very close together.” The WC left out some of Bowers’ account, which Mark Lane got in this interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u95GuRjwLis
The Warren Commission ignored many witnesses who thought shots came from the grassy knoll. They were selective in what they reported. The facts are that shots came from both the front and behind the limousine, most shots coming from behind, as the dictabelt recording impulses show, which Donald Thomas explains quite carefully in his book, “Hear No Evil.”
Funny that Lee Bowers, never called as a Warren Commission witness, drove into a wall, call it an abutment, shortly after the JFK assassination.
Rubbed out by accident. In funny circumstances.
Problem for you John is this: You’ve got to get everything here correct. I’ve got to get only one thing incorrect.
JSA,
I note that you have changed the subject, and haven’t contested my account of what Bowers said.
He did testify to the WC.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/bowers.htm
As for “rubbed out:”
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bowers.txt
McAdams,
I didn’t change the subject. I merely pointed out that, in addition to a forced inquiry by the WC, Bowers also testified to Mark Lane, and was given (by Lane) more freedom to elaborate on exactly what he saw. He also told both Lane and the WC attorney (Ball) that he heard the last two shots very close together, too close to be from just one bolt action Manlicher Carcano rifle.
How is the above changing the subject? We’re talking about what Lee Bowers witnessed, and reported seeing and hearing.
But Bowers didn’t back off his WC testimony that the two men were not together, and Bowers didn’t see them doing anything suspicious, and that at least one of them remained around after the shooting.
The only thing conspiratorial that Lane got not in the WC testimony was “flash of light.”
But no muzzle flash would be visible in broad daylight, especially if the rifle was aimed directly away from the witness.
Um–Bowers also told both interviewers that he heard the last two shots close together. Too close to be from just one rifle. This matches the police audio record, BTW. Have you read Thomas’ book?
That’s a very incomplete interpretation of all that is known of what he said on the subject. He reportedly told his preacher he had not told officials everything he’d seen. His friend who investigated the accident he died in, a Texas Dpartment of Public Safety Officer concluded he was run off the road from witness testimony and paint streaks on the car in particular. What of his turning up missing from work, family, friends for 1 or 2 days then showing up with a missing finger and refusing to discuss it?
All of your claims are discussed here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bowers.txt
“From behind the fence” is an interpretation, not a fact. It’s true Holland said the smoke “drifted out,” but that might have been his inference.
Some witnesses said “smoke,” but another said “smoke or steam,” and two others said “motorcycle exhaust.”
Okay, playing by those rigid rules, we need to be consistent. The people who saw a man (one saw two men) standing in the sixth floor window of the TSBD just prior to JFK being assassinated, INTERPRETED that they could have seen Lee H. Oswald. They weren’t certain beyond reasonable doubt. Witness testimony can be used to assist in studying a crime, but it is not 100% reliable at all times. It’s subject to human error. So I take the grassy knoll witness reports, along with the TSBD witness reports, as part of a huge collection body. I don’t eliminate witness testimony that doesn’t fit a politically-correct or fixed theory. For example, I can’t tell you for sure that Lee Oswald DID NOT fire a rifle. I honestly don’t know, because there isn’t enough proof. I can say with a fairly high degree of certainty however that there were shots fired from at least two separate locations: the TSBD and the grassy knoll area. How do I know this? By reading the acoustics evidence that Donald Thomas so carefully lays out in his book, “Hear No Evil.” He lays out his case very cautiously and scientifically, just as climate scientists do when they report on ice sheet reduction, glacial retreat, and acidification levels in the oceans linked to man’s carbon emissions.
Well of course it could have been Lee Oswald, since no witness testimony puts him anywhere else.
But in reality, it’s circumstantial evidence that puts him in the window.
In reality, if one is being honest, we can’t place Oswald in the sixth floor window, nor can we say with certainty that he was NOT in the sixth floor window. He could have been there but there just isn’t enough evidence, and what with the sloppy and unprofessional handling of the crime scene by Dallas cops was, we may never know with certainty.
Here’s a good link which goes into some detail about Oswald and the sixth floor window sightings:
http://22november1963.org.uk/who-saw-oswald-in-the-sixth-floor-window
“From behind the fence” is an interpretation, not a fact.
Baloney. It’s a present sense impression in the law of evidence. It comes in as evidence subject to the usual vetting rules. You don’t get to make the rules of evidence, hard as you try.
It’s true Holland said the smoke “drifted out,” but that might have been his inference.
John, do you know that inference means a conclusion based on observation? If Holland said the “smoke drifted out”, he wasn’t making an inference. He was stating a direct observation, not a conclusion based on an observation. Such a conclusion would be that the smoke came from a rifle shot.
Holland didn’t make any inference. He stated what he saw.
I’m afraid you simply don’t know that. It’s something you are assuming.
How do you explain that when Oliver Stone made the movie “JFK,” he could not find a rifle that would emit as much smoke as he needed, and had a special effects man blow smoke from a bellows?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/scenes.htm
Scroll down to “smoke on the Knoll.”
Sure thing, of course they could ID the rifle poking through the window as being Oswald’s alleged Mannlicher Carcano 6.5 …
No witnesses could reliably ID either Oswald or the MC in any window of the TSBD. And certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. Their eyewitness testimony would have been torn to shreds by a competent defense attorney. If you believe otherwise, then it’s clear you’ve been nowhere near a law school.
At least two people saw him shooting it from the Sixth Floor.
Really?
Photon, 21 cops heard shots coming from the direction of the grassy knoll.
How do you place faith in two eyewitnesses, one of whom was vision impaired, staring upward at a somewhat extreme angle and the two testimonies do not necessarily align.
You state ‘they saw him ….’ They saw someone and later came to the conclusion that it was their opinion it must have been Oswald. Let’s get the facts in line here … The police arrested Oswald for the murder: which eye witness did they rely on to issue the APB? Brennan, the other witness, someone within the depository?
Not exactly.
Howard Brennan couldn’t tell if the rifle had a scope, and didn’t confirm LHO in a line-up until after he was interrogated or interviewed by the FBI (The HSCA later confirmed that they withheld info from the WC so I guess that speaks to their credibility).
Amos Euins didn’t I.D. Oswald and his other remarks question whether it was a bolt action rifle or if other shots were involved.
http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessmap/euins.htm
Who were the other witnesses over and above two?
Well, if I may, Lillian Mooneyham perhaps? She alleges she saw someone 4-5 minutes after the shooting standing back from the 6th floor window. That might be too long a time period but even if you cut that time in half, it precludes LHO.
But all you have is that some conspirator “could have” picked it up.
Whoever picked it up had to have access to Oswald’s PO box. So if you want to claim it was a conspirator, it had to be a confederate of Oswald’s. But why would you want to posit that with no evidence?
Go with the simple explanation: Oswald ordered the rifle. He ended up with it in his possession. Therefore, by far the most likely thing is that he picked it up.
There’s no evidence that any rifle was picked up from the P.O. Box in the first place. The required and routine paperwork that should have been generated for this transaction was never produced by the Dallas Post Office. Oswald was already under surveillance by the Post Office because he was subscribing to leftist magazines. So aside from the required forms, how does he receive a five foot box from Klein’s without anyone reporting this, or even remembering it?
Other than the fact that it ended up in Oswald’s possession.
The Backyard Photos show the rifle, and it has a ding on the forestock that exactly matches the rifle recovered in the Depository, which has the same serial number as the rifle Klein’s sent Oswald.
A notice of the arrival of the package was put in his box. He took it to the window and was given the package.
As for “required forms:” Jean Davison has debunked this, which is a Mark Lane piece of disinformation.
The backyard photos are sketchy to say the least and can’t be considered proof of anything. As John Armstrong, among others, has shown – the tracing of the rifle (CE2766) from importation to pick up from the P.O. Box should be a simple routine procedure, and yet is impossible because the paperwork is either non-existent or is compromised. Postal form 2162 was required for all firearms shipped through the mail, and anyone picking the package up in Dallas would have had to sign the form, and the form should have been held by the Dallas post office for several years. This form does not exist. There is no proof that this rifle was shipped to Dallas from Klein’s and no proof that the rifle was picked up by anyone.
Jean has already debunked this. The requirement for this form only applied to handguns.
As for the backyard photos being “sketchy:” have you bothered to read the authentication by the HSCA?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
Science trumps conspiracy nitpicking and factoids.
John Armstrong reports that Klein’s had their copy of 2162 for thousands of rifles that they shipped. The paperwork problems for the CE2766 are myriad, multi-faceted, and appear at every single step of what should be a simple and straight-forward paper trail.
The backyard photos have experts claiming their authenticity and experts who detect forgery. There are no negatives. “New” versions showed up years later. The camera which took the photos was not among Oswald’s possessions. Initially, Marina did not recall taking the photos and then couldn’t work the camera. Etc. Again – the problems with this evidence are myriad.
jeffc,
John Armstrong is wrong about Form 2162 and many other things, unfortunately.
Receipts were required on handguns, not rifles:
http://books.google.com/books?id=QCE7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA51&dq=%22post+office%22+OR+postal+form+2162&hl=en&sa=X&ei=R-A0U4qtDufZ2wXE3YDABQ&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22post%20office%22%20OR%20postal%20form%202162&f=false
Scroll down a bit on that page to this statement: “Receipts for delivery shall be taken on Form 2162, ‘Delivery Receipt, Firearms,’ on all mailings **covered by this section.**” [my emphasis]
Next scroll up slightly to page 50 to see that “this section” is “Concealable Firearms.” It explains there that concealable firearms could be mailed only to military officers, lawmen, etc., who had to file affidavits. Gun manufacturers or dealers had to file a statement (Form 1508).
Again, form 2162 is discussed in the section “Concealable Firearms,” which doesn’t apply to Oswald’s M-C.
This misreading of the regulations (a quote out of context) started as far back as 1966 and has been repeated by numerous authors ever since then.
There was one negative of the backyard photos. The camera, which was found among Oswald’s possessions, matched the photos according to the HSCA’s photographic panel, which also concluded that the rifle in those pictures was the very same rifle found in the TSBD:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=69123
Jean D thank you again for the clarifications.
The myriad problems with connecting Oswald to the specific rifle remain. It’s interesting that the HSCA panel seems to make the connection based solely on the backyard photos. Which remain sketchy to say the least. Michael Paine said he was shown a backyard photo on Friday night (Nov 22). Oswald was shown a backyard photo at around noon on Saturday (Nov 23). But the photos were not officially found until later in the afternoon. The camera which matched the negative wasn’t found for almost 3 months – after the Paine’s home had been thoroughly searched multiple times.
Ultimately, what the critics are pointing out is: what is presented as a simple open and shut case is anything but, and that there are multiple and myriad inconsistencies with every single aspect of the presentation. Every single aspect. Researchers have made mistakes – as you have shown – but the overwhelming paucity of the official conclusions remain.
jeffc,
My point is that the sources you and others here cite are unreliable. Why trust anything they say without checking it first? The amount of misinformation on this subject in print and online is mindboggling. IMO every reader should be a skeptic and say “show me the evidence.”
The HSCA didn’t rely on the BY photos alone to establish ownership of the rifle (last 3 paragraphs here):
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=800&relPageId=83
Did Armstrong say the camera wasn’t found for almost 3 months? If so, he’s wrong again. One of the policemen who searched the garage on 11/23/63 told the FBI he saw a box camera there but didn’t consider it to be “of evidentiary value.” That’s understandable, imo, if the BY photos hadn’t been found yet. About three weeks later Robert came to retrieve the rest of the Oswalds’ belongings, including the camera.
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58951&relPageId=29
Does it really make sense that the police would ask Oswald about a photo before it was found? Many of the “inconsistencies” are like that one — they don’t add up to anything plausible.
Let’s be honest – this case is complex and mistakes and misreadings are common across the board. The postal regulations, for example, are mindnumbing, and the narrow focus of the regulation was apparent only as I was told where to look and what to look for. Armstrong’s analysis of the paper trail of the rifle does not depend on his misreading of this regulation, it is a detail added onto many other details. If you are suggesting that Armstrong is thereby an unreliable narrator, well that is a standard which would impeach nearly everything written about this case. For example, the HSCA’s recap of the evidence tying Oswald to the rifle is flush with omission.
It is agreed that Robert Oswald handed over the Imperial Reflex in February 1964. The idea that on the day of the assassination the searching police officers, finding this camera in a box containing Oswald’s possessions would not hold it to be of “evidentiary value” is bizarre and this claim should be viewed skeptically, particularly since it was offered at the same time the camera appeared in February. Jim DiEugenio writes perceptively about the shell game played with Oswald’s alleged cameras discovered in the Paine’s garage in Destiny Betrayed.
Captain Fritz’s typed notes of his interrogations states that he “talked to Oswald about the different places he had lived in Dallas in an effort to find where he was living when the picture was made of his holding a rifle…” This particular session is identified by Fritz as beginning at 12:35 PM on Saturday Nov 23.
jeffc,
Of the other problems with the rifle’s paperwork that Armstrong talks about, which one is most important and/or best documented, in your opinion?
Fritz said that he wasn’t certain at which interrogation he asked every question. Bookhout’s FBI report says that Oswald was asked about the BY photo at a session starting at 6:35pm Saturday:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946&relPageId=64
I agree that the HSCA didn’t mention all the evidence tying Oswald to the M-C, but maybe I missed your point.
Do you have any evidence that this is true, other than the assertions of John Armstrong? The original money order was recovered, and the writing on it was Oswald’s.
You mean like Jack “I don’t know what photogrammetry is” White? You can’t find any real experts with any real credentials in photo analysis who say they are faked.
No, the negative for 133-B exists.
Right, 133-C which showed the exact same things as 133-A and 133-B.
Right. His brother had it. So what? It’s the camera that took the photos.
The money order cleared through the backing system, since it was recovered from the Postal Center in DC.
What Armstrong thought was the postal district was almost certainly the number of the cancelling machine. David von Pein actually found some postmark wonks who confirmed this.
And Marina’s faulty memory proves nothing. She insists to this day that she took the photos.
The rifle: Researcher Gil Jesus summarizes many of the issues at his website:
http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/rifle.htm
Most important: impossible to track a MC rifle serial #C2766 from importation to Klein’s (although it should have been straightforward). The money order was never deposited in a financial institution. Missing documents from Dallas post office.
Captain Fritz in his typed notes specifies that at 12:35 PM on Saturday Oswald was questioned about his residences in Dallas, in hopes of identifying the location “where he was living when the picture was made of his holding a rifle.” No mention that Oswald was shown the photo at that time, or told of the photo. It seems Oswald was confronted with the photo later, as noted by Bookout. But, according to Fritz, the DPD knew of the photo(s) at least several hours before they were “found”. Michael Paine states in testimony to the Warren Commission that he was shown a backyard photo on the Friday night.
Macadams asserts: “You can’t find any real experts with any real credentials in photo analysis who say they are faked.”
Several real experts with real credentials have said exactly that, as acknowledged in the HSCA report. Where this debate has led is this: Photo experts acknowledge that fakery might not be detectable. The HSCA panel did extensive testing and believe the photos are consistent with being unaltered. Analysis reveals that certain markings on the negatives establish that the photo or the alteration was created with the Imperial Reflex camera which appeared in Robert Oswald’s possession, in a box which was handed to him by Ruth Paine. That camera also was responsible for other photos taken of the Oswald family. Who actually owned the camera has not been established. The HSCA panel also determined that an exact match could not be determined between the firearms in evidence and the firearms in the photos.
There were indeed three negatives but two of them are missing and disappeared while in possession of the DPD. Before misplacing the negatives, the Dallas police created their own prints, including one photo that never made it to the Warren Commission and only appeared in the 1970s.
Personally, while I can form no opinion of the veracity of the BYP, I believe they are a sketchy item, in that they cannot be taken at face value. It is very possible that one or more of these photos were in the hands of the DPD on Friday, and, if so, they likely came into DPD possession by means other than being found in the Paines’ garage. Michael Paine, beginning in the early 1990s, started to say that Oswald showed him a backyard photo in the spring of 1963 – a very interesting claim as it opens a whole set of intrigue between the Paines and the Oswalds.
jeffc,
I have two complaints about conspiracy writers — they don’t seem to leave room for human error and they never explain what all the “problems” they see actually add up to.
If the rifle was never paid for, why did Klein’s ship it? Do you think they didn’t? Or did someone else pick it up? IOW, please show how these discrepancies fit together into a plausible story.
Inspector Kelley’s account of the 12:35 interview shows that Fritz made a mistake in his report (which he explained weren’t based on notes he’d taken at the time):
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946&relPageId=652
Kelley indicates that Fritz asked about Oswald’s residences not to find out where the photos were taken but to find out where his belongings were. After the 12:35 interview a search warrant was issued and the photos were found. Oswald was asked about them later, as Bookhout said. (Your sources didn’t mention Kelley or Bookhout, I suppose?)
What’s the story with the camera, if it didn’t belong to Oswald? Or with the rifle’s paperwork? No one has put these discrepancies together into a plausible story because they are meaningless, imo, not clues to “what really happened.”
The HSCA panel did conclude that the rifle in the BY photos is “the one that was found” in the depository, the same one that’s in the National Archives. (First paragraph here):
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=800&relPageId=86
IMO, Michael Paine’s 30-year-old memory of when he first saw the BY photo shows the wisdom of Mark Twain’s quip, “The older I get the more clearly I remember things that never happened.”
Jean, at what point do you say “there are too many mistakes”. This thread has reviewed the “sniper’s nest” – replete with errors in documenting the scene and confusion over what was found; the mail order rifle story – replete with missing paperwork, an uncashed money order, no witnesses (and no indication of anyone trying to locate witnesses at, say, the Dallas Post Office); and the backyard photos – changing testimony, missed evidence, alleged confusion on behalf of the lead investigator, and so on. These are three topics out of dozens, most of which feature “human error” in abundance.
re: Inspector Kelley’s account: Fritz, in his notes and in his WC testimony, described a specific intent at the 12:35 interrogation: to talk about Oswald’s Dallas area residences to determine where the BY photo was taken. Kelley’s account says the intent was to merely find out where Oswald lived so they could access his belongings. But they already knew where Oswald lived and had already thoroughly searched his belongings. Kelley suggests that they were furnished with the Paines address as result of this interrogation, but they had known the Paines address for at least 22 hours by that point.
A February 1964 FBI memo advises that a reporter from the Washington Evening Star saw a backyard photo in the hand of a DPD officer on Friday night or Saturday morning. So that’s three people on the record independently saying the same thing:
the backyard photos were in possession of the DPD well before they were officially “found”.
The HSCA photo panel, as the FBI in 1963, states that the photos are not clear enough to establish conclusively particular markings by which to match the rifle in evidence. So why they arrive at that conclusion anyway I do not know.
The discrepancies are meaningless only if you fully accept the Official Narrative. Otherwise, as noted by virtually everyone looking closely into this matter, it is apparent that the Narrative itself is built largely on discrepancies, problematic circumstantial evidence and phantoms. Is there a plausible story which accounts for the discrepancies? Yes – Oswald was framed as the patsy in a conspiracy to remove JFK from the presidency,
Michael Paine’s memory issue: his statement re: Oswald showed him a backyard photo in Spring 1963 was featured in at least two programs produced by the news departments of two major networks (CBS / ABC). A simple fact check would have revealed that in the Official Story, the Paines are presented as entirely unaware that Oswald had a rifle. If Michael Paine was shown a backyard photo by Oswald, his testimony that he surmised the alleged rifle blanket contained “camping equipment” appears strained. So there is a credibility issue here as well, and unlike the self-published John Armstrong, these networks have massive resources available to double-check their information.
jeffc,
Kelley didn’t say that Fritz was trying to determine where Oswald lived, but rather “to ascertain where the bulk of Oswald’s belongings were located.” The garage was not “thoroughly searched” on Friday. They didn’t have a search warrant yet. (See Adamcik’s testimony, e.g.)
When Fritz testified about the 12;35 interview he said:
>>
Mr. FRITZ. There is a lot of questioning in our mind about the time of this middle day questioning here. We checked it over and over and we can’t be sure about the time and I don’t want to go on record as not knowing whether this time is correct because it might not be.
Mr. BALL. You mean 12:35?
Mr. FRITZ. 12:35.
Mr. BALL. But you do know this conversation—-
Mr. FRITZ. I do know we talked to him a number of times all along, and these questions and answers are right, but the times may be off.
>>
Fritz should’ve taken notes or recorded the interview, but he apparently felt Oswald might talk more freely if he didn’t.
This case has many, many “discrepancies” because there are (if I remember correctly) at least a million pages of testimony and documents that have been closely examined by JFK researchers for years, and because all of the hundreds, maybe thousands, of witnesses and investigators were fallible. There are also fewer “mistakes” than CTs may think, since many of them have been explained.
CTs don’t like the “official narrative,” but where is their alternative narrative that explains these discrepancies? If the discrepancies aren’t meaningless, what do they mean? Nobody has explained that. Simply saying “Oswald was framed” is no explanation at all — it’s an assertion, not a narrative.
HOW was he framed? By planting an M-C with no clip that was not paid for and not fired (according to Gil Jesus)? By planting a Mauser and three shells “all in a row,” one of which supposedly couldn’t have been fired because it was dented? And so on and on. There’s no alternative narrative to explain all these things. Were the plotters complete morons or what?
IMO it’s plausible that Paine and the reporter misremembered when they first saw a BY photo. Memory errors like that are common. CBS and ABC had no way to determine whether Paine’s memory was accurate or not. It’s not plausible to me that the police got the photos “early” and then everybody lied about it.
Could you please quote the HSCA saying the BY photos weren’t clear enough to establish that it was the same M-C, because that’s not what I find:
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=958&relPageId=95
Supposedly the money order didn’t have a required stamp on the back to show it had been cashed. But how do we know that it looks any different from any other money order in Klein’s records?
Fritz’s testimony to which you refer seems to be confusing a later interrogation (after 6 PM when Oswald was confronted with the backyard photos) with the one taken at 12:35. Fritz’s typed notes make clear that at 12:35 he was interested in Oswald’s former residences in the context of the backyard photos (not shown to Oswald).
Michael Paine said that he was shown a backyard photo on Friday night and that he identified the Neely St house from them. Fritz’s notes regarding 12:35 interrogation mention that he had been informed of the Neely Street location by Michael Paine. Michael Paine only questioned by DPD on Friday.
Kelley may or may not have known Fritz’s intentions during the interrogation, but the notion that they were still trying to determine where Oswald’s belongings were is incorrect. At 12:35 PM on November 23 most of Oswald’s possessions – from N Beckley and from Ruth Paine’s – were already at the FBI lab in Washington. Chief Curry to the Warren Commission: “Around midnight of Friday we agreed to let the FBI have all the evidence…” Two lists of evidence taken from the Paine’s garage: Stovall Exhibit A (Friday) and Stovall Exhibit B (Saturday). FBI report by Vincent Drain (11/26/63) describes the flights carrying the evidence.
HSCA on ID of rifle in backyard photo. see the backyard photo report (HSCA Vol 6 p140 paragraph 358). Referring to the work by FBI’s Shaneyfelt in 1964 it is stated that the rifle is “probably” the rifle discovered at TSBD. “Although he found a notch in the stock of the rifle that appeared faintly on the rifle in the backyard photographs, he did not find enough peculiarities to state categorically that the rifles were identical.” Gil Jesus’ essay identifies different mountings for the sling.
John Armstrong cites testimony by Robert Wilmouth from the First National Bank in Chicago who explained for the Warren Commission the routine procedure for money orders received from Klein’s – involving four endorsement stamps and ending at the US Postal Service’s money order processing centre in Kansas City. The Hidell money order has no endorsement stamps and was found at the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, VA.
How was Oswald framed? Three items – rifle found on 6th floor, shell casings found on 6th floor, Hidell ID found in wallet at Tippit crime scene. Narratives? “Harvey and Lee” covers the Oswald narrative, and while the overall thesis is controversial the depth of the detail is outstanding. Bill Simpich’s work (i.e. “State Secret” available on the Mary Ferrell website) covers the “motive and opportunity” narrative. Gerald McKnight’s “Breach of Trust” follows the coverup narrative. Check them out.
jeffc,
Thanks for those references and for always being civil even though we disagree.
Concerning the money order, the only document I could find on Wilmouth was this one, which says nothing about endorsement stamps. Did Armstrong cite something else?
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10408&relPageId=199
On the next page someone from the Chicago bank says that although some money orders went to Kansas City, most would’ve gone to Washington DC. Couldn’t this explain the reference to Alexandria, VA?
The HSCA mentioned Shaneyfelt’s WC testimony in a section on the history of the BY photos (preceding page), but the HSCA panel reached a different conclusion: the rifle in the BY photos was the same one recovered.
I understand your point about the Stovall exhibits. A lot of things were taken from the Paine house on 11/22, and there are conflicts in testimony. What I don’t understand is, if the BY photos turned up on Friday, why not just say so? They searched on Friday, so what’s the point of lying about when they were found?
Listing the rifle, shells and Hidell ID isn’t a narrative showing how Oswald could’ve been framed, it’s just a list.
The backyard photos were taken almost eight months before the assassination with a camera used for family photos. What’s the story there? Were “they” really working on framing Oswald that early?
Finding discrepancies in a record this huge is easy. A narrative of how a frame-up might have been carried out is apparently impossible.
Wilmouth – Armstrong is working from same FBI report to establish the four stops of the money order – with endorsement stamps implied at each location as routine practice.
Here’s the thing: Postmaster Harry Holmes was Dallas FBI informant T-2. Informant T-2 reported fairly often on the activity of Lee Oswald, such as his subscriptions to leftist magazines. In April 1963, informant T-2 reports that Oswald has written to the Fair Play For Cuba Committee and summarizes the contents of the letter. So Holmes was interested in Oswald to the extent of opening his mail and reading it. But we are supposed to believe that several weeks earlier he would pay no attention as a five foot long box from the nations #1 mail retailer of firearms was delivered to Oswald’s PO box with a different addressee name. Nowhere is there any paperwork generated mentioning this delivery or mentioning A Hidell. This is completely baffling and this fact alone should raise suspicion about this whole episode.
I cannot find the HSCA photo panel explanation of why they believe a definite match between rifle in photo and rifle in evidence. Can you provide link? thx.
“if the BY photos turned up on Friday, why not just say so?”
Exactly.We will never know. But to believe they were found as stated in the official story requires one to believe that three persons independently were mistaken about the same thing. A reasonable speculation: a backyard photo was handed to the DPD on the Friday from a source which later could not be revealed – therefore the discovery of two more photos on Saturday afternoon became, officially, the single discovery. There’s even a candidate for the Friday photo -the BYP which was discovered with the estate of Roscoe White in the 1970s with the until then unseen third pose. It has been a mystery why this third photo was withheld from the record by the DPD.
I am willing to understand the backyard photos as genuine (as opposed to a forgery), but I cannot accept that Marina took the photos. She clearly did not know how the camera worked (it was held at waist level rather than at eye level). I suspect the pictures, if genuine, were taken by an unidentified party and therefore the true context of the pictures is unknown. I suspect the Imperial Reflex camera was not owned by Oswald, but by a person known to the Oswalds who was in proximity to them in March/April 1963.
jeffc,
So Wilmouth *assumed* the money order should have four stamps because he *assumed* that would be “routine practice.” IOW, there is zero evidence that the money order wasn’t cashed, even though this is stated as fact all over the Internet.
Harry Holmes may have been designated as informant T-2 after the assassination, but these numbers weren’t exclusive — there were other “T-2s”. Hosty testified that he found out that Oswald had written the FPCC from the FBI’s NYC office, which may have had an informant inside the FPCC itself, someone who simply read the letter when it arrived. I think the P.O. may have kept track of who was writing to various so-called “subversive” groups, but I don’t think anyone was opening Oswald’s mail in Dallas.
No receipts were required by the P.O. for rifles, and being Dallas, probably a lot of hunting weapons were handled by clerks there without a second thought. According to Holmes, the postal clerks would’ve put a card in the box and handed the package to whoever came to the window and told them the number of the box he got the card from. (VI,528) No paperwork was required. (If anyone reading this has a P.O. Box and picks up packages there, I’d be interested in knowing what the procedure is these days.)
The HSCA conclusion that the BY photos show the recovered rifle starts with the last paragraph here:
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive
/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=800&relPageId=85
There was a distinctive “gouge” on the stock seen in better copies than Shaneyfelt had.
Re:
“… to believe they were found as stated in the official story requires one to believe that three persons independently were mistaken about the same thing.”
Michael Paine said Friday instead of Saturday, but Fritz never claimed the photos were found on 11/22 — he repeatedly stressed that he couldn’t be sure at which session he asked which question. Who is the third person (I’ve forgotten)?
I don’t think it makes sense that a plotter would risk exposure by handing over a BY photo when two would be found the next day. These are the same people who supposedly fouled up the Klein’s paperwork they supposedly forged? Everywhere they turn, they have to get more and more people to lie and get involved in a coverup.
The DPD’s Studebaker said that he made copies of the BY photos for his fellow officers, apparently including Roscoe White. Stovall had a copy of the same pose as White’s, according to the HSCA, which examined all three photos. Complain about the professionalism of the Dallas P.O. and police, if you like, but that doesn’t show a conspiracy.
Marina destroyed a fourth rifle photo pose on 11/22 after showing it to Marguerite, according to both women. How many years later did Marina not recall how to use the camera?
Wilmouth doesn’t assume anything. He states for the record that the normal path for a money order after it has been “cashed” consists of four stops. Each of those stops should be documented by an endorsement stamp. That is common practice, although John Armstrong uses some of Oswald’s cashed paychecks for a visual example of the endorsement stamps. If you want to posit that any kind of stamp or mark is not common practice for money orders – go ahead but I think the burden of proof is on you.
Hosty’s September 10 1963 FBI report on Oswald is the source of the information from Informant T-2, who is specifically identified as “Dallas confidential informant” and, as you can see, knew the content of the communication.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10412&relPageId=3
Thanks for link from HSCA. This jumped out at me: *Because this mark was considered to be a unique random pattern (i.e., caused by wear and tear through use), it was considered sufficient…” It is my understanding that the Mannlicher-Carcano rifles were surplus, reconditioned before sale, but not “used”. At time of the alleged BY photos, Oswald is determined to have had the rifle for about a couple of weeks. How does a visible mark caused by “wear and tear” appear after two weeks? Maybe there was a unique flaw, but isn’t part of the reconditioning process supposed to smooth such flaws out so the rifle could be sold as new? Just saying…
The third person who saw a backyard photo before they were officially found was Jerry O’Leary,Jr – a Washington Evening Star reporter. That the Dallas police were in possession of a backyard photo with a third unique pose and did not furnish it to the FBI or the Warren Commission goes somewhat beyond unprofessionalism and the HSCA panel should have made inquiry as to why this happened.
Marina Oswald revealed that she was clueless as to the camera during one of her Warren Commission appearances, so that was a year or so after the alleged BYP photo session.
jeffc,
Correction: Yesterday I meant to say that *John Armstrong* (not banker Wilmouth) assumed that the money order should have four stamps as endorsements. Sorry about that.
jeffc,
Armstrong claims that Belin and Waldman of Klein’s knew that the money order “had never been deposited or cashed,” and yet in the only document he cited, bank official Wilmouth says the large deposit from Klein’s “was processed by the bank on March 16,” and that the money order in question “was sent to the Federal Reserve Bank” the same day.
So Belin and Waldman covered this up, according to Armstrong. And Wilmouth lied, too? Armstrong says the FBI and WC “knowingly created the hoax” that Oswald bought the rifle from Klein’s.
So the plotters forge the Klein’s paperwork and foul it up. Then they leave this fraudulent “uncashed” M.O. in the record for everybody to see. How does that make any sense?
You’re right that a Hosty report lists two “Dallas informants,” but one of them reported when LHO was living in Fort Worth not Dallas, and Hosty testified that both reports actually came from the NYC FBI office.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10412&relPageId=3
On the M-C, I don’t think “surplus” necessarily means “unused.” Oswald’s M-C showed wear on the firing pin, if I remember correctly. I haven’t looked at the Klein’s ad lately, but I don’t think it was advertised as “unused” or “new.”
So far as I know, the reporter you mention would’ve been the “second” person who recalled seeing a BY photo on Friday. A recollection isn’t necessarily accurate.
I believe that Marina didn’t indicate that she was unfamiliar with how the camera worked until the HSCA.
John Armstrong discusses the many issues surrounding the mail order rifle story on pages 437-484 of his book “Harvey and Lee”. He wonders if the mail order purchase of a rifle from Kleins ever happened in the first place, and also if Kleins had a 40 inch MC rifle with serial #2766 in March 1963 in the first place. I have yet to see a substantive rebuttal to his information. There is no endorsement stamp on the money order, and there should be one from First national Bank and there should be one from Federal Reserve Bank.
Regardles of what Hosty would later tell the Warren Commission, in September 1963 he penned an FBI memo referring to “Dallas confidential informant T-2” who has been identified as postmaster Harry Holmes. On April 21, 1963 T-2 passes along information which could have only been derived from the contents of the letter sent by Oswald to FPCC. Oswald mailed the letter on April 19, not enough time for the letter to have been delivered to NYC and read by the informant inside the FPCC NYC office.
One of the Klein’s ads says “shows only slight use”, but I suppose people can and will argue over what that means…
I count at least three persons seeing a BY photo before they are “officially” found – Paine, O’Leary, and Fritz – although we don’t have Fritz saying he “saw” a photo, he knows of a photo and knows of its content. Again, I don’t know how three men could be independently mistaken about the same thing.
Jeffc,
A possible explanation finally occurred to me: the money order doesn’t have bank stamps because it wasn’t deposited as an individual item. As Wilmouth said, Klein’s deposit was actually $13,827.96, which included this small money order and many others. (Another document says the Federal Reserve Bank received over 130,000 money orders daily.) Armstrong presented no evidence that the m.o. should have been stamped; he assumed that this was routine practice.
Jeff, I don’t agree that Armstrong hasn’t been refuted. He assumed that Klein’s kept “thousands” of 2162 forms for rifles, which is untrue. The forms were intended for “concealable weapons.” He and others assume that the number “12” on the postmark indicates a postal zone, but it instead refers to the number of the letter stamping machine, according to P.O. history buffs who responded to David Van Pein’s questions.
Doesn’t this explanation really make more sense than believing that “they” framed Oswald with an uncashed money order mailed from the wrong postal zone?
This is why I and other LNs often ask for a frame-up narrative — because the implied story involves so many people doing wacky things like framing someone with a rifle that wasn’t paid for.
Last, could you please tell me how it was established that Holmes was informant T-2? I see that claim online but I can’t find where it comes from. If you don’t happen to know that, that’s fine.
Reply to Jean Davison:
You cite the HSCA as authority here. As do John McAdams and other Warren defenders.
The HSCA Report stands for nothing as a matter of law. Please be honest about this.
It is a one-sided, non-truth-tested government report. Not a truth-tested judicial opinion.
The HSCA like the Warren Commission was governed by politics and dominated by the CIA.
Blakey admits it.
Give it up, Jean. This is JFK Facts. Not JFK maybe.
Jonathan,
I don’t cite the HSCA itself as an authority. I cite its firearms panel on weapons issues because its members seem well-qualified to give an opinion. Here are their names and backgrounds:
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=39369
Who do *you* cite on firearms questions? “Please be honest about this.”
Many of the questions posed by the HSCA to its expert firearms panel could not be answered conclusively by the panel. So what weight can be attached to the panel’s conclusions that would have any possible evidentiary value in a court of law? None at all.
Jean,
I don’t and don’t need to “cite” firearms experts. Oswald is innocent as a matter of law. In the post-mortem “case against him,” in which defenders of the Warren Report assume the posture of accusers and accordingly bear the burden of proof, I find satisfactory proof lacking that
— C.E. 399 was the bullet delivered by O.P. Wright to S.S. Agent Johnsen;
— Oswald ever possessed the Mannlicher-Carcano alleged to be the murder weapon;
— the Mannlicher-Carcano in question was used to wound JFK, JBC, and James Tague;
— Oswald fired the bullets recovered from J.D. Tippit’s body;
— Oswald fired any firearm on 11-22-63.
I’d be happy to declare “Case Closed” but there are far too many unanswered questions, as to which hypotheses, assertions, and speculation won’t suffice.
I’m curious who among the HSCA panel members shifted the assessment of the rifle from Shaneyfelt’s “could not state categorically the rifles were identical” to “sufficient to warrant positive I.D.?”
HSCA Vol. VI (358) 3)
“The rifle in the backyard photo is PROBABLY the rifle found in the Texas School Book Depository …. (Shaneyfelt) did NOT find enough peculiarities to state categorically that the rifles were identical”
HSCA Final Report Current Section: 3 pg. 55 (LHO owned the rifle …
“… it was considered SUFFICIENT to warrant the making of a positive identification.”
Reply to John McAdams comment on April 7 at 1:10 p.m.:
Because you are an acknowledged expert in the JFK case, I’m going to ask whether you mean this or mistakenly wrote this:
“Right, 133-C which showed the exact same things as 133-A and 133-B.”
This statement is factually FALSE.
C.E. 133-C shows the Oswald character’s shadow running up the fence behind him. C.E. 133-A and C.E. 133-B do not show the Oswald character’s shadow running up the fence.
It would be one thing if the Oswald character were standing closer to the fence in 133-C than in 133-A and 133-B. But his distance from the fence appears equal in 133-B and 133-C.
In any event, I don’t have the burden of proof here.
You’ve asserted 133-C shows the same things as 133-A and 133-B. That’s not true. Or isn’t as black and white as you assert.
I mean there is nothing of substance in 133-C that is not in 133-A and 133-B.
Same Oswald, same rifle, same communist newspapers.
Whether he was standing a bit closer or further from the fence is irrelevant.
John, the point is, no one can establish chain of custody for the rifle. Chain of custody means documentary record, not guesswork. Absent showing of chain of custody for the rifle, a defense objection of “Irrelevant your honor” precludes admitting the rifle into evidence in a prosecution of Oswald. Meaning Oswald walks. But of course he didn’t get that chance.
Chain of custody is only relevant after a weapon has been recovered by law enforcement.
People are convicted all the time for using weapons when the cops could not prove where they got the weapon. The only thing relevant is whether the suspect had the weapon and could have committed the crime.
John,
You write:
“Chain of custody is only relevant after a weapon has been recovered by law enforcement.”
Ok. Some weapon(s) was (were) recovered by the DPD. You’ve got the BURDEN OF PROOF. Please tie any of them to Oswald by CLEAR, CONVINCING PROOF.
You write:
“People are convicted all the time for using weapons when the cops could not prove where they got the weapon. The only thing relevant is whether the suspect had the weapon and could have committed the crime.”
This statement is irrelevant to the JFK case. You, as prosecutor, must show beyond a reasonable doubt how Oswald fired his alleged rifle and alleged pistol on 11-22-63.
The Fact is no one has ever put that gun in Oswalds hands. No one at the Post Office remembered giving it to him and the evidence to support such that should be there never has been. The debunked man with bad eyesight looking the other way was too far away to ID a gun if he had 20-20 vision and was staring at “the” window. The negative paraffin test? The latent hand print that wasn’t there, then it was there, then it wasn’t there?
All factoids I guess.
Yes, mostly.
If you think anybody other than Oswald picked up the gun, you might explain why. It was his post office box, and he ordered it. His handwriting was on the documents, including an money order the original of which was recovered from the Postal Center in DC.
If the “man with bad eyesight” was Brennan, his eyesight was just fine on November 22. He later has a sandblasting accident which harmed his eyes.
He was also “looking the other way” in early frames of the Zapruder film, but he’s not visible in the later frames, which is when he said he saw Oswald.
The negative paraffin test proves nothing, according to standard forensics texts.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm
The palm print was most certainly there. Check the book First Day Evidence for the names of cops who saw the print in the Identification Bureau on the weeking (before conspiracists think the rifle was put onto Oswald’s cold dead hand.
Further, Jean Davison discovered an FBI document about J.C. Day telling an FBI agent on the 22nd that he had discovered a latent print, and was going to lift it.
So you managed to pack a lot of factoids into just one comment!
http://22november1963.org.uk/who-saw-oswald-in-the-sixth-floor-window
http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/rifle.htm
While all of this link is very informative in relation to this thread pay particularly close attention to the Purchase of the Rifle and Receiving of the Rifle sections.
Generally your statement is correct.
In this case, we have an allegation that Oswald was framed which can inject reasonable doubt.
It’s been said that the length of the rifle ordered from Klein’s is longer than the MC found in the TSBD.
Such discrepancies as well as other questions around the mail order itself is relevant to the issue of Oswald as a patsy.
Therefore, this case is distinguishable from a typical murder case where the origins of a weapon and it’s possession prior to a crime are not relevant.
Nothing is going to convince you, but he ordered the rifle from Klein’s Sporting Goods. He is pictured with the rifle in the Backyard Photos.
A distinctive mark on the forestock matches the gun now in the Archives, which has the same serial number as the one shipped by Kleins, and the one now in the Archives.
He had the gun in the Paine garage, and it had disappeared on the day of the assassination.
His palm print on on the gun.
It’s astonishing that you folks will blame this or that person as a conspirator on such flimsy evidence, but you dismiss all of this evidence against Oswald.
It’s not difficult to imitate Oswald’s writing on a brief order form.
@ John McAdams: If Brennan’s eyesight was so good that he could identify Lee Harvey Oswald at the SN, why couldn’t he answer if the rifle had a scope or not?
Reply to Jean Davison: You write
“The camera, which was found among Oswald’s possessions,….”
The camera to which you refer, the Imperial Reflex, was turned over to the FBI in February 1964 by Robert Oswald. That’s a fact. Robert told the FBI he had found the camera in the Paine house in December 1963. That’s beyond belief.
The DPD had searched the Paine garage, where Oswald’s belongings were stored, exhaustively following the assassination. It’s beyond belief the DPD would have missed the camera in its searches but that Ruth Paine or Robert Oswald would have found it sometime later.
Marina at first disavowed knowledge of the camera. Of course, she proved to be pliable.
There’s no proof, none, the camera produced by Robert Oswald belonged to Lee Oswald. Proof is lacking. Utterly. Needless to say, there’s no way the camera gets admitted into evidence in a murder trial of Oswald.
One might assert it’s “evidence” for historical purposes. So was Piltdown Man.
But the camera was matched to the Backyard Photos to the exclusion of all other cameras.
Oh, I know! All the experts who authenticated the photos for the HSCA were liars.
It’s odd that you folks will portray the DPD as a bunch of bumbling clods when convenient, but won’t admit that they might not have recovered the camera from the Paine’s
Remember: the Oswald possessions and the Paine possessions were mixed up at the Paine house.
“But the camera was matched to the Backyard Photos to the exclusion of all other cameras.”
Three comments. (1) Many who have examined the backyard photos consider them fakes and plants. We all know that. (2) To which backyard photos do you refer? The Roscoe White photos? The DPD cut-out photo? (3) Your statement only means the camera took certain photos. It does not mean Oswald owned the camera.
“Oh, I know! All the experts who authenticated the photos for the HSCA were liars.”
Two comments. (1) Your words, not mine. (2) The HSCA didn’t authenticate one photo as a matter of law.
“It’s odd that you folks will portray the DPD as a bunch of bumbling clods when convenient, but won’t admit that they might not have recovered the camera from the Paine’s”
Say again?
“Remember: the Oswald possessions and the Paine possessions were mixed up at the Paine house.”
Details please.
Leslie,
Why do you persist in misstating what I say? Why do you keep asking why I’m here, when I’ve explained that several times? No, I’m not defending the “official historical record” or the “official” anything. I don’t give a flip about what’s “official.” I’m defending what I believe to be the truth. Ultimately, I post here for what is probably the same reason most people do: Because I want to, and because I can.
Naturally, you don’t believe that, because you’re not debating me, you’re debating a caricature with unsavory motives that your suspicion has conjured up for you. That particular “Jean Davison” is a figment of your imagination.
I don’t owe you any explanations, Leslie.
>>>If you and I cannot establish common goals, how can – or better still – why would we continue to engage?<<<<
Excellent. I agree. I see no reason to continue engaging, either.
Jonathan,
On Robert and the camera, please see my last post to jeffc today.
There will never be a murder trial for Oswald, so what would have been admitted is irrelevant and a guessing game, imo. However, both Marina and Robert, who had the camera while LHO was in Russia, ID-ed it as his.
In addition, the HSCA’s photographic panel examined some of the Oswalds’ family photos and found that they too had been taken with the Imperial Reflex. See the footnote here:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=78203
Jean, you state: “There will never be a murder trial for Oswald, so what would have been admitted is irrelevant and a guessing game, imo”
Meaning you are not here to consider new facts, debate discrepancies and contradictions or expose omissions because in your opinion it is all irrelevant anyway, there will be no trial? Please correct me if I am misinterpreting your comment. Otherwise, what is the point of your participation on this forum? This is not personal, it is a matter of principle as defined: b (1) : a rule or code of conduct
You, Leslie, are the one who keeps harping on a “trial.”
But that’s irrelevant. This is history, and historical standards of judgment apply.
As for considering new evidence: what do you have? Most of what I’ve seen on this thread is old factoids. Which is why Jean can so easily make mincemeat out of them.
“There will never be a murder trial for Oswald, so what would have been admitted is irrelevant….”
FALSE. You are correct about the trial. You are incorrect about what would have been admitted.
Here’s why. You adhere to the notion Oswald did it all alone. Oswald was never found guilty of killing JFK or Tippit. Yet you pretend he did it, which is the same as assigning guilt.
Oswald is innocent as a matter of law. You want to prosecute him here, feel free to do so. But you’ve got the burden of proof. And that means nailing him with stuff that would be admissible into evidence by a court.
” the HSCA’s photographic panel examined some of the Oswalds’ family photos and found that they too had been taken with the Imperial Reflex”
Important information, but on its own it does not establish that the Imperial Reflex was “Oswald’s camera” as the HSCA claims. It does establish that the camera in question was in the proximity of the Oswald family at some point in time. (Is that the Neely St house in figure IV-30 (p 160) ?) This is another common issue – jumping to conclusions.
Here’s an example: let’s assume the backyard photos are indeed authentic. But does the Warren Commission’s claim as to the photo’s origin and context hold up? Not really – Marina Oswald testifies that she took the photos, but her testimony is a tangle of contradictions and she did not know how to even use the camera in question. So, assuming they are authentic, what to make of the backyard photos if Marina did not take them?
Also at play is the overall narrative: assuming they are authentic, what one sees in the photos is markedly different depending if you understand Oswald as a frustrated loser or as an informant/provocateur.
John McA, Establishing the historical record is not the equivalent of pursuing a cold case murder investigation.
We are operating at cross purposes if your intention here is to put a nail in the coffin that houses the official record of the assassination; if that is the new mission statement of jfkfacts, with a tweak here and there, that should be made very clear.
My understanding is that Jeff Morley is challenging researchers to tease out lost information, distorted information, yet to be exposed information, not propagandize for either Oswald’s guilt or allegations of a conspiracy behind the assassination.
Facts indicate the allegations against Oswald are not solid, legally. Many here have presented contradictions, discrepancies and omissions that support a significant challenge to the official record.
Shouting “evidence” repeatedly at the ill informed may intimidate, but Oswald’s guilt has yet to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The greatest concern of anyone paying attention to this investigation is any attempt on this particular forum to further hijack the history of the Kennedy assassination.
Why are you participating on this forum, unimpeded and certainly not torpedoed by Jeff Morley, and yet serious authors, journalist and researchers that have built the solid foundation of proof of conspiracy have chosen to disengage.
I am wondering if we will soon see a merger of McAdams’ database with the maryferrell.foundation. And following that, will history teach that “the CIA messed up.”
Jonathan,
Of course Oswald is “innocent as a matter of law.” So is John Wilkes Booth. Before you say Booth shot Lincoln, do you need to establish chain of custody on his pistol?
O.J. Simpson was acquitted and therefore legally “innocent” forever, even though he surely killed two people, imo. I don’t need a court to tell me that, I can look at the evidence myself. Same thing with Oswald.
Leslie,
When I said, “There will never be a murder trial for Oswald, so what would have been admitted is irrelevant and a guessing game, imo,” that’s what I meant. I meant what I said, not your wildly inaccurate paraphrase.
Then so is Hitler.
Jean: “There will never be a murder trial for Oswald, so what would have been admitted is irrelevant and a guessing game imo”
Leslie: “Meaning you are not here to consider new facts, debate discrepancies and contradictions or expose omissions because in your opinion it is all irrelevant anyway, there will be no trial?”
Please explain how my paraphrasing is wildly inaccurate? I note the “there will never be a trial” has begun to appear in John McAdams’ arguments as well.
Leslie,
I think that debating what would or wouldn’t have been admissible at Oswald’s trial is pointless. Who knows how a judge in 1964 Dallas would’ve ruled, and what difference does it make now?
Saying that this isn’t a courtroom or a trial simply means that everything is on the table, including any issue or piece of evidence anyone wants to bring up, if the moderators allow it.
So when you interpret my statement this way: “Meaning you are not here to consider new facts, debate discrepancies and contradictions or expose omissions because in your opinion it is all irrelevant anyway, there will be no trial?”
I’m saying pretty much the opposite.
>>I note the “there will never be a trial” has begun to appear in John McAdams’ arguments as well<<
Give your suspicion a rest, Ms. Sharp. It needs one.
Jean, I think the framework of this debate, at least the one in which you and I are directly engaged, should be established. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be saying that your reason for participating in the ongoing debate over the years has been to establish the credibility of the existing “official historical record,” flawed as it might be.
Wouldn’t it be better, to earn the full faith of the American public, to challenge the primary errors in both the Warren Commission Report and that of the HSCA – particularly in light of what we now know occurred during the latter investigation – head on? To earn that faith, you cannot simply apologize that the reports were not sufficient to endure scrutiny, you must dissect the reports in some methodical fashion and proceed without bias toward Oswald’s guilt. Proceed with an open mind just as a jury would be directed to do.
I too believe the end game is the historical record, but I believe first things first: this debate should pursue the cold case murder investigation as if the suspect(s) are still living or that the case cannot be closed until the murder(ers) have been identified (deceased or not) for the record. Refer yes, to solid facts established in the reports, but those that have not stood the test of time? I propose they be tossed, not used as comparison or frame of reference, toss them – including testimony that can be deemed manipulated. I would begin with analyzing former Gentleman Spy Allen Dulle’s behavior during the first meeting of the WC held on December 16, 2013, just 24 days after the assassination and 22 days after Oswald’s murder.
To that end, the rules of a murder investigation and an ensuing trial would apply. Had the Warren Commission followed those rules, we would not be here today. If you and I cannot establish common goals, how can – or better still – why would we continue to engage?
Two replies to John McAdams:
PARAFFIN TEST: The important residue marker in a paraffin test for a gunshot is the nitrate (NO3) ion. REASON: Black powder, which is the propellant in a classic cartridge, is made of three substances in a typical ratio of 75:15:10 by weight: potassium nitrate [KNO3] + powdered charcoal [C] + sulfur [S].
Barium [Ba] and Antimony [Sb] compounds are not and never have been used in the manufacture of black powder. It is possible antimony trisulfide [Sb2S3] has been used as a component of some cartridge primers.
If s paraffin test makes use of the chemical diphenylamine or diphenylbenzidine, it will cause nitrate residue on the paraffin to turn blue. Diphenylamine tends to eradicate Ba residue and have no effect on Sb residue. But no matter, the key residue is the nitrate residue.
The DPD paraffin tests showed negative nitrate residue on Oswald’s right cheek and positive nitrate residue on both hands, heavier on the palms than on the backs of the hands (contrary to what one would expect for a pistol firing).
These are facts.
Subsequent tests by the FBI and Victor Guinn danced around several issues but never contradicted the DPD tests.
The Warren Commission declared the DPD paraffin test unreliable because the diphenylamine used in the test interfered with Ba detection. As one who is deeply (and I mean deeply) experienced in the manufacture and use of black powder, I know the Warren Commission pulled a deception when it said the paraffin test is unreliable. It’s perfectly reliable for nitrate residue, which is central to black powder.
THE ENDORSEMENT TRAIL ON THE MONEY ORDER: The only endorsement on the back of the money order is Klein’s. It says “Pay to the Order of the First National Bank of Chicago”. There are NO further endorsements. This means — assuming the money order was in fact deposited by Klein’s in the FNB of Chicago — the money order went nowhere further. Nowhere.
The only way a negotiable instrument such as money or is transferred (“negotiated”) is by means of endorsement. Tis is not an assertion. It’s Article III of the Uniform Commercial Code (and its predecessor, the Negotiable Instruments Law).
This money order in fact was never deposited by Klein’s into FNB of Chicago. Why? because if it had been, FNB of Chicago would have paid Klein’s and then been out of pocket the amount its payment to Klein’s. FNB would never have collected this amount from another federal reserve bank in its food chain; it would have taken a hit. FNB and its auditors would never, ever allow this to happen. Never.
John, I’ve just responded to you with a fairly good amount of factual detail. I ask your comments be in like kind.
If the paraffin test was so great, why was the first cheek test the Dallas police department ever did done on Lee Oswald?
Why isn’t it done to any extent in this country today?
What test has 100% accuracy- particularly one that has never been done by the tester himself?
How often do you get a false pregnancy test- a test much more accurate than the paraffin tests you seem to think are infallible?
What is your proof that a bolt-action rifle will ALWAYS leave a nitrate residue on the shooter’s cheek?
Again, I ask a legal question- how many trials in the 1960s had paraffin evidence introduced in court?
And yet the authorities had sufficient cause or reason to perform it in the first place.
Maybe sometimes it IS reliable?
However, when the results don’t confirm what they expect or desire, the WC apologists resort to the unreliability defense.
Photon,
You ask questions not pertinent to the paraffin tests performed by the DPD on Oswald. Clean cheek, messy hands. Indication, not proof, he did not fire a rifle.
“What is your proof that a bolt-action rifle will ALWAYS leave a nitrate residue on the shooter’s cheek?”
In 1964, Dr. Vincent Guinn wrote with respect to the Mannlicher-Carcanno, the weapon left “detectable gunshot residues on BOTH HANDS AND BOTH CHEEKS of persons firing this rifle.” You can find Guinn’s complete report if you do a little research.
From my book:
Can you post a single reference aside from Guinn that confirms that a Carcano will always leave residue on the shooter’s cheek? Not factoids, real ballistic evidence.
Can you explain how a test never done by the Dallas PD and never calibrated by anybody on that force could ever be considered to be accurate in the first place?
Can you post a single example of of paraffin test results being used in a trial?
These are not difficult requests. But if you can’t answer them your hypothesis goes down the drain. There is virtually no test in science that is 100% accurate.
“These are not difficult requests. But if you can’t answer them your hypothesis goes down the drain.”
Who made you the arbiter of reason and logic? Your requests are irrelevant to the tests performed on Oswald, which found nitrates on the hands and an absence of nitrate residue on his right cheek. Those are facts. HINT: If you want to make an argument contra these facts, maintain they are irrelevant, and then tell us why.
“There is virtually no test in science that is 100% accurate.” That’s an amazing statement, given that every experiment is a test. Having been trained as an electrical engineer and having taken lots of physics, chemistry, and lab courses, I’m puzzled at your assertion. It runs counter to the scientific method I learned.
Can’t do it.
If the paraffin test is such an obscure procedure, why is DPD Chief Curry asked by reporters on Saturday 23rd specifically about the results of a paraffin test? Why are the “positive” results of a paraffin test being trumpeted on CBS, NBC, UPI etc? Answer: it wasn’t an obscure procedure, and was fairly commonly practiced at the time. It wasn’t meant to be used in a trial. It wasn’t a test that needed to be “calibrated”.
The Dallas Police were something less than an outstanding police force in 1963. In the JFK case alone one is confronted with imprecision, failure to follow routine procedure, memory lapses, uncertainty, affidavits with obviously incorrect information, and so on. That they weren’t on top of procedures such as a paraffin test is unsurprising.
Hoover had the FBI work with Guinn to try in vain to first establish residue on the cheek sample with more intensive testing, and when that failed to try and establish that the MC rifle might not leave residue – which also failed. Why would the FBI conduct those tests if the whole procedure is obscure and inaccurate? They wouldn’t. And – like the ballistics tests done by Dolce – the FBI work on nitrate residue disappears from the record and the Warren Commission presents a weaker rationalization.
Not according to standard forensics books.
You need to read this:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm
It was recovered from the Post Office center in Washington, DC.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=41&relPageId=305
So it obviously was redeemed.
John,
When it comes to money orders, a form of negotiable instrument, I don’t need to read anything you cite. I had a course in law school called “Commercial Paper” that dealt in-depth with all types of negotiable instruments and bank deposits.
Money orders and other negotiable instruments are PAID, not redeemed. A party seeking payment endorses the instrument and transfers it to a payee in return for payment.
Klein’s apparently endorsed and transferred to FNB seeking payment. There’s no record, assuming FNB Chicago paid Klein’s, that FNB Chicago received payment from any other financial institution. Because FNB Chicago did not endorse the money order. Etc.
Those are just facts and law.
Excellent legal points which neither Photon nor John can refute. All negotiable financial instruments must be cleared centrally and payments properly reconciled, or the banking system would break down. That the normal banking process did not occur in the case of LHO’s postal money order payable to Klein’s, is very revealing. Other researchers have written elsewhere that the CIA was known to deal in obscure, hard-to- trace weapons such as the MC.
Would like to interject again that while this debate is very interesting a conspiracy to murder JFK does not live or die with whether or not Oswald was a shooter. Oswald might have been a shooter with accomplices or maybe even a lone shooter but there are still other anomalies and suspicions in this case that cannot be ignored.
The JFK case must be viewed not only in microcosm but also in a Gestalt way. The whole is more than the sum of the parts. There are so many questions and anomalies that when they are put together (including the issues being raised here) they don’t add up to the official version.
Thomas, astute and in line with Vince Salandria’s argument presented decades ago. For the reasons you have presented, I for one monitored the degree of focus that I gave to the Oswald aspect for years. Eventually, I realized that Oswald as archetype is in some respects The Gestalt; everything converges with him…. the Soviet/US arms race, nuclear weapons, Cuba, Mexico/Latin America, shadow mercenaries, shadow government, shadow intel, Americanism, White Russians, post-war Nazism, industrialism and industrial espionage, military run amuck, religiosity, racism, fanaticism in every disguise. Perhaps that was precisely the role he was intended to play. He was objectified, manipulated, and he was set up … so he must not be ignored yet he should never have become the center.
Thanks Leslie. I agree that Oswald is at the epicenter but exonerating him is not our responsibility. There are three possibilities: he didn’t shoot at all, he was one of several shooters, and he was a lone shooter. Regardless of which of the three it turns out to be there is still evidence of a conspiracy with Oswald implicated for reasons authorities wanted to distort and hide badly enough to murder him and proceed to major cover ups. My inclination in this case is to proceed down other conspiratorial roads focusing on “who” and “why” (behind the scenes) and not “how” (as in details of whether Oswald shot or not) which leads to media distractions about the magic bullet, grassy knoll, etc that has become a three-ring circus often leading nowhere and worse it has led to a logically fallacious dichotomy: that if Oswald was shooting he was a lone shooter and he’s a lone nut and case closed vs if Oswald was not shooting he was framed and there was a conspiracy.
Thomas, the three-ring circus was and is a component of the cover-up. I think a concerted effort to uncover who had the skill to organize the circus is critical to resolving the case. I’ve long thought that only a magician, and I’m quite serious about this, could develop the entire scenario soup to nuts. I have several suspects in mind. I respect your admonition to look for the third way. Exposing the Who and Why is the task at hand; the How has been and continues to be (on this site) a somewhat clever distraction, deliberate sleight of hand, but a judge and jury must hear the how as well. It is up to us to manage to find equivalent space for the conversation and/or debate over the Who and Why; right now we are losing that battle at least on this site. We are either focused on Oswald or we are focused on ballistics and forensics. I suggest that relates directly to the skill sets the latter in particular attracts; it is a fascinating topic were it not being misused.
No.
The Alyea film was broadcast on WFAA-TV at about 3:30 p.m. Given that it has to be thrown out of a Depository window to a colleague of Alyea’s, gotten back to WFAA and developed, that’s about the right timing.
The video of the whole WFAA coverage that afternoon exists, and shows the same Alyea film that we see today.
Can you link to the film that includes the scene I am describing; Fritz (my mistake, I thought that it was Day) is lifting and passing a rifle about shoulder high or above in a hand off to a recipient. I’ve viewed the Alyea film, and I have yet to find that scene again.
The film, if it was re-staged at any time including during the original hours of Alyea’s efforts, is a public relations stunt in my view. I’ve spent decades in the pr industry so perhaps I’m biased, but these mechanisms are designed to affect the psyche of the general public – this one says the DPD was “on it” and no one need worry, the weapon has been found, the crime is almost solved. From that moment, arguments in defense of Oswald in the public mind required an intense commitment by patriotic Americans.
The footage can be seen in the “Sniper’s Nest” episode of Len Osanic’s series, at approx the 6 minute mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_qOFqDdhpo
Jeffc, Thank You! This is close, but it does not show the scene I recall viewing. This footage is still poorly lit and still a bit grainy. The scene in question is involves the man in the white hat passing the rifle, holding it high – a bit above his own shoulder – to someone else and they pass it back to him or someone nearby. The footage is very clear, black and white film, and Fritz appears in almost full/left profile. Is it possible that this footage has been spliced.
John, your comment does not address the re-staging; it is irrelevant whether or not ‘the film was thrown out of a window.’ And the fact that this “shows the same Alyea film that we see today” means absolutely nothing.
Not to mention the fact that there are no photos or footage of the sniper’s nest of book boxes as originally arranged. The various configurations were staged afterwards according to whatever arrangement the police thought was “correct” – again, another piece of highly discreditable DPD “evidence”, were it ever to be introduced in court.
Jean, Somewhere on the net there is a video of a re-enactment of the original search for the weapon and/or any other evidence among the boxes on the Sixth Floor. The timing appeared to be hours or at most a day or so after the assassination. The characters are the same as those in the Aliyea film. So far I haven’t been able to relocate it; it may have been removed from the net.
The Aliyea film that was recorded in the immediate aftermath of the assassination is grainy and poorly lit; the interview that followed (NBC?) suggests that Aliyea’s bosses or those anxious for the footage were very disappointed.
Evidently the event was restaged and another video was made. It is strange that a crime scene would be so contaminated in the immediate aftermath, AND how unprofessional/insensitive for authorities to participate in the crude display. Authorities (sheriff, DPD,) and news people are seen wandering around the 6th Floor; a rifle is being handed back and forth – held shoulder high for emphasis or drama.
Crimes scenes are sacrosanct. Where is the chain of custody of the rifle? Who is ensuring that the crime scene is not being contaminated? It is a parade that mocks the legal and justice system.
Are you familiar with this video and or the incident?
So what is your point?
Photon, I don’t mean to be flippant, but if you don’t understand the possible implications, nothing I say will convince you that re-staging the discovery of evidence would only be appropriate weeks or months later, and for purposes that are still not clear. When the date of this reenactment is determined, my query will either be valid or a waste of time, except as it pertains to why it took place at all.
Leslie,
Portions of the Alyea film were shown on Dallas TV the same day, as soon as they could be processed. Maybe you saw clips from it you hadn’t seen before and thought it was a different film? Some copies of it are better than others.
Jean, that’s possible, but my recollection is that the voice over specifically stated that it was a re-staging, re-enactment. I’ve reviewed various clips of the Alyea film and do not see the scene where a rifle is being passed from I believe it must have been Day – the tallest man in the space, wearing a western hat. He lifts the rifle above his shoulders and hands it to someone and then I believe he or someone else receives it in a similar fashion. It is highly orchestrated. What is curious is that the move is unnecessary given that the recipient is within arms reach of the taller man; that move supports my recollection that the audio stated ‘this is a re-enactment.’ Why else hold the rifle high. If you can lead me toward a clip of the Alyea film that includes that scenario, I would appreciate it.
Excuse me for jumping in here, but some clarification of Alyea’s footage is in order. He has said that the footage of the MC rifle being lifted from the boxes was staged for the camera after its apparent discovery. Supporting that, in the extant footage, the rifle is clearly lifted and handed to Fritz two distinct times. (FWIW I think the evidence suggests that both a Mauser and the Carcano were found)
The photographic evidence of the alleged crime scene produced by the DPD was terrible. Fritz already handled the shell casings before photographs were taken, as seen in another shot filmed by Alyea. No photos of the alleged sniper’s nest. And no photo of the paper bag allegedly used to bring to rifle to the TSBD.
You need to supply a citation of any “recreating” of the rifle being recovered.
Alyea claimed that Fritz picked up the hulls, but I’m not aware that he has any footage of that. Alyea seems to have first claimed this in the 1980s.
It’s pretty implausible, since Fritz was telling other officers to “hold the scene secure.”
Finally, you need to supply some evidence of a Muuser being recovered besides Weitzman (who admitted he only glanced at it) and Craig (who changed his story).
Here is an earlier version of Craig’s story:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm#mauser
I cannot right now find the citation of Tom Alyea saying that the footage of the rifle being lifted from the boxes was staged – however, in the extant footage there are two separate shots, with a camera position switch, showing the same event – Day lifting the rifle and handing it to Fritz – which confirms that the “discovery of the rifle” was recreated at least once.
Both Alyea and DPD officer Luke Mooney described Fritz picking up the casings (Mooney to the Warren Commission) (link provided in answer to Leslie below)
Alyea claimed to have filmed a close up of the casings in Fritz’s hand, but this footage does not exist. However, as you point out, Alyea’s footage was broadcast in raw form on WFAA almost immediately after it was processed, and it is extremely unlikely any footage could have been censored so quickly. (It is possible that Alyea’s camera had already run out of film when he took this shot).
Weitzman signed an affidavit the following day (Nov 23) which clearly states that he discovered a Mauser. Alyea has said that he didn’t recall Weitzman being anywhere near the site of the MC discovery, so Weitzman’s Mauser was found elsewhere in the vicinity.
jeffc,
Concerning the idea that a Mauser was found “elsewhere in the vicinity”…
Weitzman’s affidavit refers to just one weapon, a bolt-action rifle found by Deputy Boone in the NW corner of the 6th floor between some boxes near the stairway.
http://s790.photobucket.com/user/JFKassassination/media/SeymourWeitzmanaffidavit.jpg.html
On YouTube Roger Craig also describes Boone’s discovery in the NW corner near the stairs, then tells how Day pulled the rifle out and handed it to Fritz, who held it up. IOW, he’s describing what the Alyea film shows, except that he claims this weapon was stamped with the word Mauser. The film calls him a liar by showing that this rifle is actually an M-C. Craig and Weitzman can be seen at about 1:50 and 2:55 on this clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WQr4y1j4Gw
No witness I’m aware of has ever said that TWO rifles were found on the 6th floor, certainly not two found by Boone near the stairway in the NW corner.
Weitzman said it was a Mauser because that’s what he thought it was, but he was wrong, as he acknowledged 50 years ago.
The two rifles are very similar:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TINpTkwt9_I/AAAAAAAAFP4/0edTl-snHVk/s1600/Mauser-Carcano%20Comparisons.jpg
Jean D – I appreciate your evidence-based outlook. Weitzman may well have been mistaken on the affidavit the next day, surprising as that may be.
Thank you very much for saying that, jeffc.
If Craig committed suicide due to medication-induced depression, that doesn’t explain the prior shooting attempts on his life. No wonder the guy felt persecuted.
I’m afraid the only evidence we have of prior attempts on the life of Craig is his uncorroborated claims.
Jeff, I didn’t see this before responding to Jean and Photon. Thank you. A bit more clarification; was the scene of Fritz (I thought it was Day) lifting the rifle in the original Alyea film, or are you saying that they re-staged the find, albeit immediately following the discovery?
I continue to contend it was highly irregular given the crime scene was live (I believe is the term). The dramatic display was obnoxious, and it occurs to me that it was designed as a public relations tool … Dallas law enforcement has everything under control, the American public need not worry … we got our man.
Are there any videos, staged or not, of the DPD, the S.S., the military et al in their efforts prior to the assassination to protect the president to assure the American public they did their very best? Why does the discovery of a rifle trump those questions? In marketing and public relations one might call it a diversion.
The “discovery of the rifle” happens twice in Tom Alyea’s footage, so it was staged at least once.Day lifts the rifle and hands it to Fritz. Looking at the footage, it is most likely the two shots occurred one after the other at the same time.
The DPD’s handling of the so-called “sniper’s nest” is where everything gets really dicey. Both Alyea and Luke Mooney saw the shell casings laying on the floor closer together than the later crime scene photos show (and completely inconsistent with ejection from a rifle). They both saw Fritz pick them up. Researcher Allan Eaglesham discusses these issues, with help from Tom Alyea, in his excellent essay “The ‘Sniper’s Nest’: Incarnations and Implications” (see Ch 3.2)
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/SN/
Mooney’s testimony doesn’t really corroborate Alyea.
Mooney just says that Fritz picked up the hulls. He doesn’t say that Fritz picked them up to show Alyea and then threw them back down.
Fritz picking them up would not be any sort of mishandling evidence. Picking them up and then throwing them down before they were photographed in place would be.
Both Mooney and Alyea suggest that the position of the shells when originally found and the position when photgraphed were different, and that the shells, as originally found, were lying quite close to each other – inconsistent with being ejected from a rifle.
John McA. “It’s pretty implausible, since Fritz was telling other officers to “hold the scene secure.”
So we are in agreement that Fritz would have been responsible for making certain that the crime scene was not contaminated, and that would procedures to ensure that all evidence was held in close custody and handled as little as possible to avoid contamination. Why then would he be passing the rifle around shoulder high, evidently for the benefit of photographers, rather than quickly securing it, preserving any manner of evidence that might be obtained from it … not turning the scene into a circus. If the video that includes that scene is longer available on the internet, it is because it has been removed.
Since the Hidell ID in his wallet was mentioned, was it found in all three wallet’s?
I have enjoyed the discussion in this thread. I am a long time CT but I am especially delighted by the comments
of Photon and McAdams. They appear to be well versed in the study of the assassination while most of the other
Comments thrive in generalities with little EVIDENCE to support their position. I am greatly amused by one comment in one of these threads that the evidence is “overwhelming”! That is an absolutely foolhardy statement! If the evidence was “overwhelming” , either way, we would not be having this conversation. I have studied this assassination since 1968. I believe that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. I have been a lawyer for 34 years and a judge for the past 16 years. I think I know evidence when I see it. Haven’t seen much from the CT crowd in these threads. I guess that is why I have respect for the whipping Photon and McAdams is giving you guys. Wasn’t it Joe Friday who said: Just the facts M’am! We need to stick to them. Don’t spout evidence that you can not cite. Otherwise it is just an opinion and that will not solve this case!
LGR, your perspective is most interesting. I believe that what is “overwhelming” is the sheer number of discrepancies and contradictions in the facts alleged to connect Oswald to a rifle and the alleged lone act. I believe Jonathan has gone a long way in identifying them in the aggregate; any lay person is justified in challenging the repetition of Warren Report facts by the same individuals that persistently avoid addressing said discrepancies and contradictions.
The scope should be a good example. Will Photon abandon that debate, or will he consider Jonathan’s challenge that scopes are frequently set for specific use by a specific individual. (rhetorical question of you obviously) And a personal anecdote: my father was a long time hunter, and I know how specific the scope on his rifles were to his technique and purpose.
Could you comment directly on the list that Jonathan has presented and explain how any one of the items on his list would not be admissible in rebuttal (if that is the appropriate legal term)?
P.S. and by lay person I mean to infer ‘potential jury member.’
Leslie, I will make it easy.
Give us just one example of a gunsmith or manufacturer selling ” left handed scopes”.
Photon, you are attempting to distract from the pertinent question; scopes are mounted to specifications and the subtlest adjustment may well include those required by a left or right handed shooter. I think you’re hiding in semantics.
No ,I am asking you to confirm that ” left handed scopes” are sold or serviced. You can’t, because they don’t exist
Zeroing a scope has nothing to do with someone being left or right handed.Never has. Ask the Pronghorn hanging on my wall.
Photon, the dispute is in the terms: left handed shooters and left handed scopes. The Aberdeen gunsmith stated that it appeared the scope had been set for a “left-handed man.” He did not say that the rifle had been set with a left-handed scope.
LRG, you should look at the Commission Exhibits of test rounds fired which are more mutilated than CE 399 is (human cadavre wrists are softer than living bone, so this negates the diminished velocity argument too).
Also see my response to Photon about Dr. Joseph Dolce and John Hunt’s essay.
Also, the bullet tested in that documentary Beyond The Magic Bullet does LESS damage but is more deformed (for one thing, hitting two of the wrong and shorter ribs (#8 & #9) LATERALLY versus smashing 10CM LONGITUDINALLY through the longer 5th rib.
Does LESS damage despite hitting twice as many ribs? So if it hit 3 ribs it wouldn’t be damaged at all?
You failed to understand my point and spun it around.
It didn’t traverse as much simulated rib bone laterally as it actually did longitudinally.
The problem is that many of the “facts” in this case come from the local and federal authorities after different “facts” had already been given to the public. The ever-changing stories about Kennedy’s wounds between 11/22/1963 and the spring of 1964 is a good example. Statements leaked to the media by official sources during those months show a government painfully groping toward a way to explain JFK’s wounds being inflicted by one gunman from the rear, even if the “facts” had to be repeatedly changed.
What about the money Marina got from Tex-Italia Films for making a movie? More than $132 thousand were transferred to her, according to John Armstrong, but the company partners used fictitious names, failed to pay the rent for their business offices, and never did even a trailer about Oswald or Marina.
And by the way, dozens of bullets —same caliber and make as the “magic bullet”— were fired at Edgewood Arsenal, and the only ones looking like CE 399 afterwards were those fired into cotton wadding. The test bullet CE 856 was fired through the wrist of a human corpse and came out severely mutilated, while CE 399 supposedly caused multiple wounds in two men and was “found” almost unscathed.
But Commission Exhibit 399 was slowed down by passing through Kennedy’s torso, and then tumbling through Connally’s chest. If it hit any bone in Connally, it was rib, which is softer than other bones.
It was traveling somewhere in the range 1,100-1,300 fps when it hit the hard bone of Connally’s wrist.
Dr. Joseph Dolce says that they could not replicate the near pristine of CE399, even when fired at lower velocities (he says that in the documentary Reasonable Doubt: The Single Bullet Theory).
John Hunt deals with this issue in his essay Breakability: CE 399 and The Diminishing Velocity Theory.
I’d like to add that test shots through velocity screens and wrists of cadavers (therefore softer than live bone tissue) came out more deformed.
Arnaldo,
Did John Armstrong look at Marina’s bank records?
The test bullet CE856 wasn’t *supposed* to look like CE 399.
CE 856 was a pristine bullet fired directly into bone. At full speed its nose was flattened and the bone it hit was much more damaged than Connally’s wrist. This was an indication that CE 399 had gone through something else first, slowing it down. Because its speed was reduced, there was less damage to both CE399 and its target. (Something like a car hitting a wall — there would be more damage to both at a higher speed.)
CE 856 was explained in WC testimony:
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=40&relPageId=92
That many conspiracy sources don’t get this right is a clue that they don’t know what they’re talking about when it comes to ballistics — their view is apparently based on “this is how it looks to me, so that’s how it is.”
What about the various rifles found in the TSBD such as the Mauser 7.65 rifle and a 30.06 rifle, identified by DPD and announced publicly prior to the “switch” to the Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5?
There’s obviously a lot more to it than the WC Fairy Tale, the SBT, and whatever else they managed to cram in and still let Earl Warren have his summer holidays. But the Lone Nut Orthodoxy just keep thumbing through the WCR saying, hey, looks like everything was fully examined in 1964, nothing was overlooked, all material witnesses were interviewed, and nothing new has emerged that would change any of its conclusions during the past 50 years! That’s just willful blindness to the factual links and very suspicious circumstances that have emerged since 1964 (back when life was simple, people trusted their government not to lie to them, and 4 out of 5 doctors recommended your favorite brand of cigarettes).
Tom Alyea filmed the recovery of the rifle, and it’s a Mannlicher-Carcano.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day1.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day2.jpg
From my book:
As for “early reports,” were you aware that NBC reported that JFK was taken to the hospital in an ambulance, and CBS reported that he was taken to the hospital in a bus?
John, I addressed this to Jean Davison but it relates to your assertions: (apologies to Mr. Alyea for misspelling his name)
“Somewhere on the net there is a video of a re-enactment of the original search for the weapon and/or any other evidence among the boxes on the Sixth Floor. The timing appeared to be hours or at most a day or so after the assassination. The characters are the same as those in the Aliyea film. So far I haven’t been able to relocate it; it may have been removed from the net.
The Aliyea film that was recorded in the immediate aftermath of the assassination is grainy and poorly lit; the interview that followed (NBC?) suggests that Aliyea’s bosses or those anxious for the footage were very disappointed.
Evidently the event was restaged and another video was made. It is strange that a crime scene would be so contaminated in the immediate aftermath, AND how unprofessional/insensitive for authorities to participate in the crude display. Authorities (sheriff, DPD,) and news people are seen wandering around the 6th Floor; a rifle is being handed back and forth – held shoulder high for emphasis or drama.
Crimes scenes are sacrosanct. Where is the chain of custody of the rifle? Who is ensuring that the crime scene is not being contaminated? It is a parade that mocks the legal and justice system.
Are you familiar with this video and or the incident?”
I’m not familiar with any recreadion of the rifle recovery.
If there was, it’s irrelevant, since the Alyea film is of the original recovery of the rifle, and it shows the rifle to be a Mannlicher-Carcano.
J. McA. A finely constructed response. Yes Alyea filmed the original recovery of the rifle; if there was another version of the same event, another video shot in close succession, it is irrelevant because all that is significant is that the DPD uncovered a rifle. This is precisely the mind-numbing effect of damage control frequently instituted following a spectacular event. Where have we Americans experienced that before in more recent times?
My interest is in the alleged crime scene, the conditions under which a rifle along with other evidence was recovered, the flagrant disregard for procedures, the grandstanding at the expense of contaminating evidence, and the pandering to the press. As someone asked on another site last year, why didn’t Fritz march Alyea and the newsman with him out the door and lock it; why didn’t he confiscate the film until such time as a thorough inspection of the premises was concluded, tests were completed, witnesses were interviewed, a preliminary report was issued by higher authorities.
This was a public relations stunt that involved a (highly inappropriate and irregular) re-staging of the discovery; what is strange is that it backfires because it brings into question the earliest moments of the investigation in ways that could have been avoided; confusion and distortion was the order of the day.
Leslie,
You ask, “why didn’t Fritz march Alyea and the newsman with him out the door and lock it; why didn’t he confiscate the film until such time as a thorough inspection of the premises was concluded…[etc.].”
And if Fritz had done that, what would be hearing now?
“Coverup!” “They didn’t want anyone to see what they were doing!” “What did they have to hide?” And so on and so forth….
Arnaldo, why do you continue to beat a dead horse? Firing a 6.5 mm round directly into a wrist near the round’s maximal velocity had nothing to do with the real situation encountered with Connolly , where the round had passed through several layers of tissue and had shed 40-50% of its velocity. By the time it struck the wrist.
Rounds appropriately slowed when fired into a wrist have been shown to be more pristine tha # 399.
We seem to continue to have these futile cycles with the conspiracy crowd. From Jonathan’s obsession with the thoroughly debunked paraffin tests through the ” left hand scope” lie to the Edgewood Arsenal tests that did not simulate the actual bullet path the conspiracy crowd simply refuses to let go of factoids that are simply not true.
Photon, can you please define the “WE” in this sentence: “We seem to continue to have these futile cycles with the conspiracy crowd.” A manner of speech or a freudian slip?
Hello,
The plausibility of the SBT is undermined not only by the projectile’s near pristine condition, but even more so by the cartoonish flightpath it is alleged to have assumed, a ballistic ballet-cum-choreography of Nijinski and Diaghilev proportions.
Even were the SBT to be proven beyond cavil to be correct, the rational conclusion of conspiracy would still stand as many more than three gunshots were discharged in Dealey Plaza on that day.
Cheers,
JQP
Are you not aware that multiple photos and films of the motorcade show Connally well inboard of Kennedy, at a lower head height?
The Dave Powers film is just one of many sources:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_rDIHxL9oA
And that at the time the single bullet struck Connally had his torso rotated to the right?
John McAdams: I re-listened to the recording of the conversation (now being featured on Greg Burnham’s new site) between JE Hoover and President Johnson and unless I’m mistaken, they both said that (paraphrasing): “had John Connally not turned, that particular bullet would have hit Kennedy.”
Did I mishear them or were they under that mistaken impression prior to the issuance of the Warren Report?
I agree that there was probably one bullet that hit Kennedy and then went into Connally, leaving fragments on the floor of the limousine as well as fragments in Connally’s wrist and thigh. But there were at least FIVE SHOTS fired, according to Don Thomas, who carefully documents this in his book, “Hear No Evil.” The first shot hit the pavement behind the limousine, and a fragment of that bullet embedded in the back of JFK’s head, causing him to react like he had been stung, and saying his last words: “My God, I’ve been hit!”
The second shot, also fired from behind and this one most likely from the TSBD missed the car entirely. This shot was the one that hit the curb area near James Tague, a chip of concrete knocked off injuring his cheek. The third shot was the SBT, although NOT the pristine CE-399, which hit both JFK and John Connally. The fourth shot was the fatal shot, shot from the front of the car, from behind the picket fence when the car was approximately 230 feet west of the intersection of Elm and Houston, at the equivalent of Zapruder film frame 312. This shot took fragments of JFK’s head off which went up and behind, spraying one of the motorcycle cops with debris. The final, fifth shot came from behind, following the fourth shot just 7/10 of a second after the fourth shot. This final shot sailed over the limousine and went into the lawn on the other side of the street. The acoustics from H.B. McLain’s bike caught all five shots as impulses which could be traced to specific directions, according to Don Thomas. The acoustics have been challenged but Thomas shows how virtually every challenge has turned out to be BOGUS. He outlines the evidence very thoroughly in his book. I recommend everyone read it and keep an open mind to the single bullet theory, which I have changed my mind to, as being correct. It’s just not the way the Warren Commission said it happened.
You need to look at the totality of what Hoover told LBJ, and RFK and Rowley in the wake of the assassination.
Hoover was clueless about a lot of things.
Here are just a couple of examples:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clueless1.gif
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clueless.htm
John, Can you answer briefly who was feeding Hoover this early information, specifically relating to Connally making a turn that drew a bullet from Kennedy? According to the audio, LBJ seems to have been given the same information – whether or not previously from Hoover himself, or an entirely difference source is not clear. It seems that the stories were flying, doesn’t it. How are you now so certain (now meaning as recent as your last foray into searching for evidence – apparently that doesn’t happen very often) that the Warren Commission uncovered the truth, if these issues were surfacing for months after the assassination. Did they track down every discrepancy?
Dr. Joseph Dolce, the army’s chief wound ballistics consultant at Edgewood Arsenal, was not called to testify by the WC due to his opposite opinion about CE 399.
In fact, when asked on the documentary Reasonable Doubt: The Single Bullet Theory, he emphatically states that ‘even at lower velocities’, they could not replicate what CE 399 was alleged to have done, as their test bullets always showed more damage.
Read this article by John Hunt please.
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
Too bad others have, repeatedly.
Like who?
Even in that documentary Inside The Target Car, simulated heads moved away from the shooter.
Gerry,
Conspiracy sources often quote Dolce’s dissenting opinion, but he’s badly outnumbered by other ballistics experts like Martin Fackler, who wrote “Tests Prove that the ‘Pristine Bullet’ does not Support a JFK Assassination Conspiracy” for a wound ballistics journal in 1995. The text isn’t online (so far as I know) but the reference is here:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/wbr.htm
Fackler fired an M-C bullet through a human wrist at 1,100 fps and this was the result:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet1.jpg
Please note that a human cadavre wrist bone is softer than a live one.
Also, did Fackler’s test bullet first smash through 10 cm of a 5th rib bone as the Single Bullet Theory proposes?
Both Fackler and Lattimer did recreate the damage to CE 399.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet3.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet1.jpg
Those tests are fudged or based on a wrong premise.
Who said the bullet travelled sidways?
Dr. Shaw said the nature of Connally’s back wound could’ve been from a first strike of a tangential shot.
Also, even the WCR says that a test bullet fired through ballistic gelatin to simulate Kennedy’s neck was ‘straight and stable’.
In more recent documentaries, the test shot fired through a block of ballistic gelatin was far longer than Kennedy’s head to ‘force’ the tumble.
This is not scientific if it’s designed to duplicate an observation.
The HSCA FPP, which pointed out that Dr. Shaw, who described the wound, made no mention of undermining of the contralateral margin of the wound, or of an abrasion collar on one margin, either or both of which might indicate a bullet hitting from an acute angle.
@ Professor McAdams,
You said:
I defer to the best evidence – the 1st hand observations of Dr. Robert Shaw who said the bullet hitting Connally could’ve been a tangential shot.
In fact, ‘acute angle’ could describe that observation too (the FPP had no photographs of the wound as far as I know).
Dr. Shaw also said that it was more tangential than tumbling because of the angle of incidence of that bullet which corresponded to the angle of declination of the fifth rib which was neatly gouged out – something that a tumbling bullet or one on its side could not do (or unlikely to do).
Lastly, the Warren Commission Report says about a test by Edgewood Arsenal simulating a shot through JFK’s neck:
“A photograph of the path of the bullet traveling through the simulated neck showed that it proceeded in a straight line and was stable.”
Tumbling? I don’t think so.
I think we need to call this a “lone nutter factoid” – the belief that the slower a bullet is traveling, the more likely it can smash through bones and remain undamaged.
These lone-nutter factoids belong in the realm of the miraculous, like the jet effect and numerous other unbelievable occurrences.
That isn’t a factoid, it is a physical fact.
Obviously never took kinematics :F=ma.
WRT the Jet Effect, yes it works if you use a taped melon but not a human skull.
Has anyone ever seen it in combat? Do combat surgeons pull intact, near-pristine FMJ bullets out of bodies after they have shattered ribs? No. They remove fragments.
TLR,
Concerning “I think we need to call this a “lone nutter factoid” – the belief that the slower a bullet is traveling, the more likely it can smash through bones and remain undamaged,” that’s not what I said. Only within a certain range of speeds could this happen.
My sources are ballistics experts like Martin Fackler. Your source is…?
Read John Hunt’s article who points out that CE399 had enough velocity or energy to deform his correspondence to Sturdivan seemed to result in Sturdivan’s revision of his numbers to make his results fit).
The cover up alone suggests there’s more to the story than a “lone nut.” Even LBJ thought Oswald might have had help from “others” and that’s a startling admission from the man that set up the Warren Commission to quiet that kind of talk.
Here’s another thing that cannot be forgotten: Even if Oswald did it alone it may not make him a “lone nut.” It remains a mystery how much the CIA knew about Oswald and that he was given the opportunity to shoot at the president given his background and the knowledge the CIA and FBI had about him.
At that very least, as I see it, a conspiracy where Oswald is “overlooked” as a risk is perfect for plausible deniability. In that case he’d still have embarrassing things to say if he was previously entangled with the CIA and hence Ruby would still need to silence him.
That’s interesting considering the name A. Hidell apears on the purchase order and the money order sent was never cashed. Further Oswald denied having a second I.D. that said his name was Alex J. Hidell when they asked him who he was he replied your the police you figure it out!
Then why did he have a picture ID for Hidell on him when he was arrested? With Oswald’s picture?
Planted, I suppose.
Why didn’t Oswald have any Hidell ID on him when he was arrested in New Orleans? It kind of destroys the whole point of ordering weapons with an alias if you carry ID in that name around with you so the police can find it.
We hear of accounts for three (3) wallets (left at his suburban home, found or reported by the police at the Tippit murder scene, and then of course, at the police station where he was in their custody).
Planted? Maybe (well, I think CE 399 is a plant).
However, if not planted, and on his person, we can’t rule out that maybe Oswald was indeed an undercover agent on some mission to infiltrate a criminal or subversive element.
How you can go on claiming that there is no proof Oswald purchased the weapon is beyond me. What do you want- a video tape of him filling out the order form? Once you start making easily disproven claims like that your logic goes downhill.
“We’ll, its all over now”.
John Armstrong devotes a large section of his book to documenting, in detail, the likelihood that the paperwork tying Oswald to the guns was fabricated (probably by the FBI). It sounds preposterous until you actually read his arguments (and know something about the FBI’s long history of fabricating or destroying evidence).
http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/rifle.htm
Lay out the proof, Photon.
Start with the order form. Tell us all about it.
Next the postal money order allegedly used to pay for the rifle. The endorsements on the money order. Where the W.C. located the money order.
When and where the money order was mailed to Klein’s. When Klein’s allegedly received it.
The type of Carcanno Klein’s was selling to the public when it allegedly received the order in March 1963: 36-inch or 40(+)-inch.
The record showing whether Klein’s fitted the alleged murder weapon — a 40(+)-inch Carcanno — with a scope.
Why the scope on the alleged murder weapon was aligned for a left-handed shooter.
The paper trail showing Oswald received the rifle at the Dallas P.O., given the rifle was allegedly shipped to A. Hidell at a Dallas P.O. Box.
The record showing where Oswald bought ammunition and a clip for the rifle. He ordered neither from Klein’s.
The conflicting record as to where the rifle was found in the TSBD and whether it had a clip.
The paraffin tests on Oswald’s hands and cheeks.
The photographic inconsistencies as to the sling swivel locations.
The fingerprints found on the rifle by the FBI and by the DPD: when (on what date) and where.
Please let us have your factual response as to each of these matters so that we may begin a fruitful dialogue.
Every factoid you have written about the rifle purchase is addressed on page 119 of the Warren Report.
There is no such thing as a scope ” aligned for a left hand shooter”.
The paraffin tests were inaccurate as we have discussed repeatedly .
You neglect to mention that the Dallas Police Dept. first cheek paraffin test was done on LEE OSWALD.
The rifle was shipped to Oswald’s P.O. Box.
FBI handwriting analysis confirmed that Oswald filled out the order form and the Mail Order.
Mostly wrong, Photon. First, I present no “factoids” or “invented facts”. Merely issues as to which you largely do not respond.
Gunsmiths do align scopes for individual shooters. Do your research. But this is a small issue, so I’d say save your time unless you’re genuinely interested in scope alignment.
The paraffin test was negative for the cheek. You and John McAdams know what that means. If it had been positive, you’d be jamming it down everyone’s throat here.
The order was to be shipped to A. Hidell. It could not have been received at a Dallas P.O. Box under a different name.
Handwriting analysis: not done on the original order form but on a microfilm copy.
The money order was the original.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/jfk8/hand.htm
And the postal inspector told the WC that when a package arrived, a notice was put in the box. Whoever presented the notice got the package, since that person clearly had access to the box.
Jonathan,
The scope was in the only location it could’ve been, to the left of the bolt action. Here’s a photo of a similar M-C:
https://i1.ytimg.com/vi/qSWSgcuYqDo/hqdefault.jpg
The HSCA firearms panel’s brief explanation starts at the bottom of this page:
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=39381
I wonder, how many conspiracy sources have said that Oswald’s rifle had a “left-handed scope”?
Jean, if this issue originated with the statement made at Aberdeen, ” … that the scope on the assassination rifle “was installed as if for a left–handed man,” then you are distorting the argument by referring to “left-handed scope,” when the gunsmith in fact said “left-handed man.” There is certainly a difference as you well recognize.
Leslie,
Phrase it however you like–“left-handed scope” or “left-handed man.” I see no difference. Both are wrong. The scope was mounted in the only position it COULD be mounted on that weapon. Did you look at the links I posted?
The error originated with someone at Aberdeen, as you say. Years ago an author accepted the Aberdeen statement without checking and it has been repeated ever since then.
Jean, without checking what? Bring me up to speed if you will.
The essentials of this dispute can be distilled to the fact that an Aberdeen gunsmith stated that it appeared that a left-handed shooter had held that particular rifle. He did not say that there was a left-handed scope mounted on the rifle. There is a huge, highly significant difference and you cannot dismiss it.
I contend that left handed shooters, in fact all marksmen, require certain specifications albeit subtle be applied to their scopes regardless of where the scope MUST be mounted. There are still adjustments to be made. If you insist that the M-C scope was mounted the only way that it could be mounted, then why didn’t the expert at Aberdeen – presumably more experienced than you – state that clearly. It seems to me that he recognized some anomaly. Did the setting occur in Chicago? Or did someone adjust the scope as the date of the assassination drew nigh. Beyond that can you address the issue of ammunition for the M-C as referenced later by William Sharp – a man who the Warren Commission failed to see fit to call as witness. Mr. Sharp seems to be curious where anyone might have had access to the appropriate ammunition given that he did not ship any. Correct me if I’m wrong on this.
Jonathan,
It’s hard to deal with any of these things when you throw out such a long list of conspiracy talking points.
But just to deal with a sample:
Those tests had no probative value.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm
There is no doubt it was found in a pile of boxes in the northwest corner of the sixth floor, and it did have a clip:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid6.htm
There is no such thing as “aligned for left-handed shooter.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/firearms_hsca.htm#158
Oswald handwriting was on the money order, the coupon that was the order form, and the envelope sent to Kleins.
Given that this many of your talking points are wrong, you should begin to doubt the rest of them.
John, you’re very good at picking the low-hanging fruit “factoids,” but you never address the more serious criticisms and problems with the official story. Debunking the “nuts” (as Harold Weiberg called them) is easy. The better WC critics have done the same thing.
Are you agreeing that the other poster here posted “low hanging fruit” factoids?
But the factoids I debunked are mainstream conspiracy stuff, found in lots of conspiracy books.
John,
I invite you to frame a better response. You know what a negative paraffin test for the cheek meant in 1963. You say it had no “probative value.” Wrong, plain wrong. It would have been admissible into evidence in a trial of Oswald for murder, after the proper foundation was laid.
There is a conflicting record as to where the alleged murder weapon was found. An ATF agent claimed he found the rifle on the fourth or fifth floor.
The weapon found had a clip — you’re sure. I say you’re making an assertion and that the probability you’re correct is south of 0.5. The photographic record casts doubt on the proposition. The operating characteristics of the M-C cast doubt on the proposition. There’s no record of LHO having bought a clip (or M-C ammunition).
The money order was purchased at Post Office 1 and mailed over a mile farther away. It supposedly reached Klein’s the next day. The endorsement trail on the money order shows it was never negotiated through the banking system, as a normal postal money order would have been.
Too much doubt here, John. Can’t connect Oswald to the alleged murder weapon beyond a reasonable doubt. Only can connect him by leaps of faith.
The ATF agent Ellsworth apparently didn’t claim that the M-C was found on a lower floor until thirty years later, according to a footnote in “Oswald Talked,” but a DPD document says that Ellsworth was present on the sixth floor when the M-C was found (and filmed by Alyea):
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=142936
The clip can be seen starting to work its way out in photos of Day carrying the rifle away from the building. The HSCA and others have found that the clip sometimes doesn’t fall out immediately as its supposed to.
How can you be sure that the envelope to Klein’s was mailed over a mile away from the post office? IMO, David von Pein presented a much better explanation for the number 12 on the postmark:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19330
You think you can make that true by mere assertion?
You are quoting conspiracy books.
I’m citing standard forensics texts, written by experts who have no “dog in the hunt” where the JFK assassination is concerned.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm
And you know that how?
Oh! John Armstrong says so. You need something better than that.
I recall reading an article by Michael T. Griffith that Oswald’s post office box was under his actual name and not the alias, Alex J. Hiddell, which was the name used in the mail order purchase of the MC.
I can’t remember all the details in Griffith’s argument, but one question was how could LHO claim that parcel if the post office box owner’s name doesn’t match the addressee’s name?
“So you’d prefer to believe there was a conspiracy despite the fact that after decades of research there is no concrete, irrefutable evidence whatsoever that Oswald was part of any conspiracy? ”
Who in their right mind would “prefer” to believe a conspiracy was behind the assassination of President Kennedy? Why would that be preferable to the official version that Oswald acted alone? Are you suggesting that a majority of American citizens relish the possibility that the government in 1964 was not to be trusted? The undertow of your argument hints at a concern that there are subversives among those arguing Oswald’s innocence. Maybe that should be a separate topic?
Your argument can and should be turned on you (in the metaphorical sense); the success of the cover up is that after decades of research, you are convinced that there is no reason to suspect conspiracy. The fact that there is as you insist ‘no concrete, irrefutable evidence’ is testament to the success of that cover up. I anticipate you will argue that I’m kicking the can down the road, but as intellectually honest as you seem, you must surely know that any defense attorney worth their salt could obliterate the Warren REport.
When Oswald is posthumously exonerated, law enforcement authorities will be compelled to reopen the cold case of the murder of John Kennedy.
People who say there is no evidence of a conspiracy forget something-that is that the Warren Commission, through the efforts of the FBI, made sure that those who HAD evidence would not be heard or believed.
Oswald tried to kill himself in Russia only nut cases do that. Of course that’s a lie too our government concocted.
I was a conspiracy theorist since the 1970s when I use to listen to Mae Brussell but I grew up and saw the real sunshine after absolutely no evidence anyone other than Oswald killed The Police Officer and JFK. The case was pretty much cinched before 1964. I don’t know why I continue reading these sites… The CTs Crowd has absolutely nothing, every single piece of evidence that points to Oswald according to the CTs is false and they have to try to discredit every single piece because even if just one or two point to guilt they can’t have it. Basically I’ve come to the conclusion only people with OCD continue believing Oswald was set up. Oswald had absolutely no alibi and everything that happened according to the CTs was impossible. You’ve had 50 years…state your case…no more theories.
Mae Brussell?? Did you read any of the serious scholars on this case?
Your statement reads like the usual WC defender I’ve encountered on the internet: “I used to be a conspiracy buff before I saw the light and became a born-again lone nutter.” They can never really explain the process by which they made this regression after supposedly reading the best books on the subject (Meagher, Weisberg, Roffman, Fonzi, McKnight and others).
Every piece of evidence points to Oswald? Lol. Like that Magic Bullet that caused seven wounds yet is devoid of any biological matter or cloth fibres?
If you believe what you say, why don’t you take on Barry Krusch’s challenge and disprove his defense that a lot of the physical evidence would be inadmissible in a real criminal trial or be suspect to invite reasonable doubt? You might win $80,000 with no down side.
Reply to JG and Photon:
I’d have no problem buying Oswald-the-lone-nut did it all by himself, except the record just doesn’t convince that he did or that he was a nut.
The way Oswald responded to DPD questioning displayed a keen, focused mind experienced in interrogation. This according to Will Fritz. Hardly the marker of a nut.
Moreover, the facts pointing toward Oswald as the assassin are non
-existent. He cannot be tied to the alleged murder weapon or ammunition. He cannot be tied to Tippit’s murder. He never claimed responsibility for either JFK’s or Tippit’s murder.
The Warren Report creates a kind of presumption that Oswald did it all by himself. But any informed reasonable person knows the Warren Report is severely flawed, is not a judicial determination, and has not stood the test of time.
I could buy that all shots came from the rear by ignoring certain parts of the factual record. In fact, I believe the majority of shots did come from the rear. Just not from the crummy, rusted alleged murder weapon.
Me, too. I have no problem believing a nut could take a pot shot from an office window and kill a president. That this “nut” vehemently denied it, has the “fingerprints of intelligence” all over his background and the gov’t’s continuing cover-up of all the facts makes the official line circumspect.
Lord, take a look at Gaeton Fonzi’s timeline of events at the end of his “Last Investigation” book. There is just a TON of negative energy flowing from the right-wing anti-Castro community with enough strange CIA activities and mob connections to make the assassination by those forces almost seem inevitable, sad to say. The fact that Oswald or Ruby had ANY interaction with those elements — which they DID and the govt denied it for years — makes any suspicions even stronger.
One revelation for me in the book was that David Morales was head of “dirty tricks” for the CIA at the Cuban embassy. That makes his alleged confession even more credible to me. Add John Martino, Johnny Roselli, Loran Hall, etc. and you’ve got quite a cast of highly credible suspects from the anti-Castro crowd to consider as lower-level handlers of a plot.
BTW, I lose all faith in the WC starting with the second page when it claims JFK was shot from behind “in the neck.”
No matter how John McAdams plays it, there is NO WAY you can get me to believe that bullet hole is in the president’s “neck”. One quick look at the autopsy and clothing evidence clearly shows the shot is in the upper shoulder.
So right at the outset there is a deliberate obfuscation by the WC. Doesn’t prove conspiracy. But does prove a willingness to massage descriptions of the evidence to suit a pre-conceived notion, which means it was NOT a legitimate investigation.
bogman, you write:
“No matter how John McAdams plays it, there is NO WAY you can get me to believe that bullet hole is in the president’s “neck”. One quick look at the autopsy and clothing evidence clearly shows the shot is in the upper shoulder.”
In your statement you interpret the medical record, with which I don’t quibble.
An important issue on this website is raised by Photon. Whether anyone other than a forensic pathologist has a right to say a word about the medical record.
I believe Photon errs. Humes and Boswell were anatomic not forensic pathologists. Photon would but doesn’t have us believe their word counts for naught. Finck was a forensic pathologist, with some limitations. He hadn’t done a forensic autopsy in two years; and he was taking orders in the autopsy room from generals or admirals lost to history.
Fact is, autopsy photos and x-rays are missing from the official record. This according to Humes. And others.
Photon wants us to believe only forensic pathologists have the right to weigh in on the medical record.
I say to photon, we must therefore shut down any discussion of the Warren Report. It was constructed by lawyers. Only lawyers are competent to challenge it.
Photon who is educated in medical treatment focuses on the medical end of the case. He or she knows outsiders can’t interpret x-rays satisfactorily.
To photon I say, lay your cards on the table. Assume you’ve got a blank slate. Tell us what happened. Rather than taking well-aimed pot shots, which suggest you have been prepped.
Not wishing to dog pile on anyone (my guess is that few will know what that phrase infers) but I too believe that Photon is being “prepped.” I was googling “jfkfacts kemp clark photon” earlier today to determine where Photon weighs in on Dr. Clark’s medical opinion only to come across comments from early 2013 made by a person using the name of Paul May. As many know, there is a suspicion that Photon and May are one and the same. I couldn’t attest to that, but I can say that the tone, the writing styles are similar. The only salient question is whether or not the possibility matters to Jeff Morley? Does it matter that this site is being used by those with less than honorable intentions, or is the plausible argument that jfkfacts wishes to provide a “level field for honest debate” and it matters not if the site is infiltrated.
Less than honorable intentions? Since when is seeking the truth anything but honorable ? I am only a simple worker in the vineyard of The Lord. I don’t have to be prepped by anybody when everything I post is easily found on the web by those interested enough to look.
What are you so afraid of?
Photon, concern should not be construed as fear. Honorable intentions in this instance refers to abiding by the goals of the site, and while you are not bound in the same way as those that run the site, you no doubt understand the position they are in to live up to expectations.
“We will fact-check news stories, blogs, YouTube videos, books, and movies about the JFK assassination with the goal of dispelling confusion and establishing an accurate historical record.”
Insulting and inflammatory remarks do little toward dispelling confusion and distract from the facts themselves; avoidance of inconsistencies and discrepancies and abandoning the topic mid-debate leaves any contribution to an accurate historical record in limbo.
Using ‘the web’ as sole source of information is in my view myopic, albeit convenient.
Jean, thats my point. In the WC summary pages, its claimed JFK was shot in the back of the neck. He obviously wasnt. In my opinion thjs falsehood is emblematic of their whole approach – dont include evidence that would put ANY doubt on the lone nut case they were making.
Bogman,
Here’s the summary quote again: “A bullet had entered the base of the back of the neck…”
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946&relPageId=27
Not expressed as precise as it could’ve been, but the person who wrote that had likely never seen the autopsy photos.
CTs don’t seem to realize that the WC had NO REASON to move the neck wound up to the neck and good reason not to.
A bullet entering that high and exiting below the Adam’s apple would have been traveling at a downward angle too steep to support the WC’s SBT. It would’ve exited too low to hit near Connally’s armpit. Check out the WC trajectory angle of c.18 degrees in these photos:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CtJ2F26fNOA/UomPNqu1_0I/AAAAAAAAw6Y/aHC_-1IjyXg/s1600/JFK-Back-Wound-001.jpg
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/croft.jpg
The Warren Commission Report said ““A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck and slightly to the right of his spine.”
In fact, it entered at the level of T1, which is perfectly consistent with the Single Bullet Theory.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ford.htm
John,
The Death Certificate signed by George Burkeley says the back bullet entered at T3.
This is best evidence for law purposes.
You know this. Why do you deny it?
Not sure how often death certificates are used for legal purposes when an autopsy is available. I don’t recall any of the death certificates that I have signed being a court document.
The best evidence is the autopsy photo, which shows the wound at T1.
It’s also the case that there was a fracture of the transverse process at T1, suggesting a bullet passed hear.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=39229
Every medical site I’ve seen says the neck BEGINS at C7. The WC could called it “the wound near the upper spine” but they chose the word “neck,” and I believe they used it for a reason.
Bogman,
The WR placed the wound where the autopsy report placed it — “approximately 5 1/2 inches” below the tip of the mastoid process, the bony point immediately behind the ear.” That’s not in the neck, unless maybe you’re a giraffe.
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=73512
“I’d have no problem buying Oswald-the-lone-nut did it all by himself, except the record just doesn’t convince that he did or that he was a nut.”
So you’d prefer to believe there was a conspiracy despite the fact that after decades of research there is no concrete, irrefutable evidence whatsoever that Oswald was part of any conspiracy? In your view, the official record is insufficient to convince you, but you find alternative explanations for Oswald’s behaviour, for which evidence is non-existent, more convincing?
“The way Oswald responded to DPD questioning displayed a keen, focused mind experienced in interrogation. This according to Will Fritz. Hardly the marker of a nut.”
So you extrapolate from observations by Fritz, citation and quotes please, that Oswald was not a lone nut? What are you criteria for what constitutes a lone nut? Do you have extensive or first hand knowledge of common behavioural responses to interrogation to use as a basis for comparison? Or is that single observation from Fritz sufficient? You’re setting the bar at different heights depending on what you’re claiming.
“Moreover, the facts pointing toward Oswald as the assassin are non
-existent. He cannot be tied to the alleged murder weapon or ammunition. He cannot be tied to Tippit’s murder. He never claimed responsibility for either JFK’s or Tippit’s murder.”
Aside from the fact that he purchased the weapons. As far as responsibility, how often do you think someone would admit to killing a policeman whilst in police custody? Seems unlikely.
“The Warren Report creates a kind of presumption that Oswald did it all by himself. But any informed reasonable person knows the Warren Report is severely flawed, is not a judicial determination, and has not stood the test of time.”
“creates a kind of presumption”? I think the words you’re looking for are “presents a case and attempts to demonstrate how”. Yes, it has flaws, no question. Claiming it’s not a judicial determination is irrelevant because Oswald was killed before the Commission began investigating. The obvious area of the WC you should be questioning is the impact and nature of the information withheld by the CIA amongst others.
I’m sorry to point this out, but in your comments about the Sunstein post you made a number of assertions without demonstrating you’d actually read or understood his paper. Responding to the Lego post some time back you made a completely incorrect claim about the seat heights of JFK and Connally. I find your claims unpersuasive because I’m not convinced you’re sufficiently rigorous or balanced in your analysis.
D. Olmens,
You write:
“So you’d prefer to believe there was a conspiracy despite the fact that after decades of research there is no concrete, irrefutable evidence whatsoever that Oswald was part of any conspiracy?”
Not true. I believe in a conspiracy because the record contains abundant indications that Oswald was set up as a patsy.
You write:
“Do you have extensive or first hand knowledge of common behavioural responses to interrogation to use as a basis for comparison? Or is that single observation from Fritz sufficient? You’re setting the bar at different heights depending on what you’re claiming.”
I was trained at Fort Huachucha, Arizona in 1970 as an army counter-intelligence officer, MOS 8666. Part of that training was in-depth instruction on interviewing and interrogations. I applied some of this training in Viet Nam.
You write:
“Aside from the fact that he purchased the weapons. As far as responsibility, how often do you think someone would admit to killing a policeman whilst in police custody? Seems unlikely.”
There is no proof Oswald purchased the alleged murder weapon (I believe you know this); and certainly Oswald did not admit to killing Tippit. You can quote nothing he said that constitutes a confession. Nothing.
As for Sunstein, whom I think is an awful person, you’re correct: I have not read his paper. As for the Lego construction and seat height, I admitted error.
Now, D. Olmens, that I’ve answered your challenges in a succinct way, tell all of here this: What do you believe to be the essential facts of JFK’s and Oswald’s murders? I can’t speak for Jeff obviously, but I suspect he’ll give you free rein to respond to my question?
The massive official cover-up can be and has been proven, which in turn establishes that the assassination was result of conspiracy. See, simply, Gerald McKnight “Breach Of Trust”.
Finding “concrete irrefutable evidence” was the responsibility of the FBI and the Dallas Police , who abdicated such responsibility by effectively ending their investigation after less than 24 hours whereby they named Oswald as the sole killer despite having no evidence to support such opinion.
Later investigations – such as by Garrison and the HSCA – established connections that tied Oswald to possible conspirators (i.e. 544 Camp Street / Oswald impersonated in Mexico City), but these investigations, as we now know, were infiltrated and disrupted by agents of the government.
You need to post some evidence on that.
And the unsourced claims of people like Fonzi and Turner don’t count.
Jim DiEugenio’s “Destiny Betrayed Second Edition” covers the Garrison investigation in great detail and includes information on the CIA’s extensive actionable interest in Garrison’s work. The book also identifies numerous persons working for Garrison who actually, on behest of government agencies, were reporting on his work to these agencies and stealing files from his office. Other government agencies worked to deny Garrison’s extradition requests (witnesses in other states).
Gaeton Fonzi, as you know, was actually working for the HSCA, so the information he reports can hardly be claimed as “unsourced”. The experiences of Dan Hardway and Ed Lopez – HSCA investigators – back up Fonzi with their own accounts of official obfuscation. Also Joannides – whose presence as a liaison broke a specific agreement negotiated by Blakey. And, of course, the CIA agent caught rifling through the safe where the autopsy materials were locked.
You are going to need to post some specifics here.
People like DiEugenio think that everybody who ever defected from the Garrison investigation was some sort of CIA spook.
He thinks that every journalist who was critical of Garrison was also a CIA spook.
Fonzi is been responsible for some rather wild and inaccurate assertions:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#fonzi
Further, we know what the CIA was doing about Garrison: spinning its wheels.
The documents are here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cia_garrison.htm
Great to see it rescheduled so quickly as to still be done in Sunshine Week. Hopefully it will be recorded on video and available here and you tube as mentioned above and maybe acknowledged by some MSM outlet(s). Rock on Jeff. FREETHEFILES.
I anticipate that an article will soon be posted noting another Sunshine Week Event: Friday, 3/21/14, screening in Washington, D.C. of: “JFK: A President Betrayed” at the Goethe Institute, doors open at 6pm, film/discussion 7pm-9:30pm – I hope you can attend! http://www.eventbrite.com/e/jfk-a-president-betrayed-videodiscussion-freeing-ciajfk-files-in-2014-tickets-10783416489
Sunshine Week
The relevance for opening up the JFK files are the events that are happening today. It is obvious that an agency like the CIA would like to operate in secret without public review or public accountability; operations can be implemented more swiftly without a committee to interfere and actions will not result in retribution, criminal or civil law suits, reparations, or public condemnation, if conducted covertly.
In theory, the CIA and others like it are subject to Congressional oversight.
However, one must ask: Is the lack of oversight is a result of dereliction or of incapability on the part of Congress. The problem with secret operations AND the lack of oversight are: that policies even if constructed in good faith can become out moded and not applicable to new situations and 2) an agency can be internally compromised by individuals who have agendas other than the best interests of the country in mind. E.G. Are the Cold War tactics of the CIA (coups and reliance on right wing criminal elements) still relevant? The almost universal condemnation of Putin by USA media outlets reflects a imodel described in Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent.” The problem with propaganda is that the creators of it begin thinking it sacrosanct and the public is kept in ignorance in believing it , so reality becomes an illusion
and smart decision making goes out the door. What’s the motive for continuing propaganda about a crime committed in 1963 instead of spelling out the truth?
The JFK assassination is a cold case. The results of the aftermath are an open case.
Who planned and executed the murder and why? Who caused Oswald to be implicated and how? What changes in the machinery of government occurred as a result of a co-ordinated cover up? The public has a right and a duty to know.
The Conspiracy Crowd will never accept anything other than our own government killed jfk and lied to the people. Reality is Oswald was a lone nut.
So please show us another lone nut assassin of a US President that was connected to so many governmental agencies and controversial figures in such strange ways as Oswald was.
He wasn’t connected in any way. 50 years have shown that. The whole purpose of Mr. Morley’s exercise is to find that willow-the-wisp that to this point simply doesn’t exist.
What a fantastic statement. Even if we ignore the CIA, FBI and military connections, George de Mohrenschildt alone – and his multitude of ties to all kinds of powerful people – is enough to make any reasonable person have serious questions.
Name one.
Photon – Name one what?
Photon (interesting name BTW) I think it’s time someone said this to you sir. You really need to go back and TRULY research the whole jfk story before you make statements like your last one. Simply saying he wasn’t associated in any way 50 years has shown that, is quite frankly demonstrates a complete lack of true research or it says that your only on here to deny anything claimed or proven regardless of facts.
What I think every one who decides to research jfks assassination should be doing is be open minded and let the evidence form they’re opinion as to what happened not brief claims like the one you just made.
Lastly there is OVERWHELMING evidence of LHO being involved with naval intel as well as the FBI .
Really. Name one confirmed association Oswald had with the FBI aside from threatening Hosty.
Oswald had no more ties to Nebraska Ave. than he had to Nebraska itself. I know that means nothing to you Brian H, but everything to those in the know.
Where is that OVERWHELMING evidence? How about ANY evidence.
Speaking of Nebraska Ave., sad to hear about American U today
Hey Photon, here’s one; Guy ‘he’s with us’ Bannister.
Thanks for proving my point. If you have to resort to fables there can’t be anything else available .
I’ve afraid that’s from Delphine Roberts, and she’s not on record as saying any such thing until she talked to Gus Russo.
John McAdams, you know very well that Delphine Roberts was interviewed by the HSCA and Anthony Summers in the late 70s. It’s not her fault she wasn’t interviewed by the Warren Commission.
I’m not aware that she told anybody in the 70s about the supposed Banister “he’s with us” comment.
If you think otherwise, kindly post a source.
Possible connection discussed here:
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/quote/allen-dulles-i-think-this-record-ought-to-be-destroyed/
(Maybe with other files declassified and/or released, we will know about other Oswald Connections. 50 years of non-disclosure should end now.)
The faith-based lone nutter crowd will never open their eyes to anything that runs in the face of their belief in the Warren Commission, forced through by LBJ and his cronies, and reinforced today by government agencies afraid of what the public will think if all of the files are ever released. Just look at what Snowden’s revelations have done to the NSA and you’ll see what I mean. Rather than go on childish “faith” let’s release all of the files and like grownups, be prepared to let the chips fall wherever they may.
Why do you have so much faith in the government? When was the last time they told you the straight truth about anything important?
And when I use the term “government” I’m including a lot of people technically outside the government – I really mean the entire power structure, including big business, Wall Street, the corporate media, etc. This country, like every other major power, is an oligarchy run by the few for the benefit of the few.
I think it would be pretty hard to shoot a moving target in the right side of the face from a location behind. It wasn’t as if JFK was directly in line with a TSBD at the time. You may say, “but the car wasn’t moving”…I say, “why”?
Looks like the CIA is going to disrupt this with its secret D.C. Shutdown Conspiracy device, AKA snow.
This Sunshine on JFK briefing is newsworthy and can it be uploaded to YouTube to get more coverage?
Will a transcript of the proceedings be available? I’d pay $$ for one.
Great work and kudos, Jeff.
I would like to know why Oswald’s tax records cannot be released and why the secrecy in the first place.
From whom was LHO receiving income that the WC did not want to disclose?
Tim
Marina can consent to the release of the tax records, which would be made by the IRS.
The Research community should reach out to Marina in a genuine and thoughtful way. She has shown signs in recent years, as has her daughter June, that she wants the truth and is now able and willing to tell the truth.
I agree that an effort by leading JFK researchers should be made to reach out to Marina for the purpose of allowing her to set the record straight for posterity and for her family’s sake (including Lee Harvey Oswald). There are many credible researchers of integrity, some of whom have interacted with Marina previously. How appropriate that she be offered a last chance to candidly tell her story in full via a book and/or series of interviews, without MSM filters, fear or reservation.
Who financed the alleged Mexico City trip? Philips, Joannides?
FREETHEFILES.
The LaFontaines got the tax records in the 1990s, when they were close to Marina (and influencing her).
The LaFontaines, however, have refused to release them or turn them over to the Archives.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/manipulate.txt
An a lot of tax information on Oswald (but not images of the returns) is here:
http://www.jfklancer.com/LHOtax.html
Thanks for the links, John. It’s odd, as Horne notes, that there is no record of a 1957 tax return, nor any earnings in Q3 of 1959 when Oswald was still in the Marines. Did the WC, HSCA or ARRB ever obtain source tax documents from the Marines with respect to his earnings while he was in the military?
I may be mistaken but wouldn’t Oswald, as a US citizen, have been legally required to file tax returns for ALL years in which he earned income from any sources worldwide, whether he was at the time a US resident or not?
I’m afraid I don’t know the answers to your questions (except that Oswald should have filed tax returns unless he owed no taxes).
Presumably, the LaFontaines still have those documents. They should release them.
Dave…a U.S. citizen is required to file tax forms while living overseas, if they surpass the minimum earnings requirement(including overseas earnings). This includes those who fall under “exempt” status per the IRS Form 2555 requirements.
So, since LHO’s citizenship wasn’t revoked he was obligated by law to file taxes like anyone else. If LHO spent over 333 days in one calendar year in Russia, he would qualify as Tax exempt for the year but MUST file his taxes under the 2555 form as well as the normal 1040 form to prove exemption.
Oswald was required by law to file taxes. If he didn’t…he violated U.S. tax laws. Had he not filed he would have received multiple notices from the IRS for amount due with interest penalties added. Did anyone find any such documents in the Oswald’s possessions? No.
If LHO filed his taxes…which I suspect he did, the only reason to withold them would be to hide evidence…of something. Think about it…Tax records have been our government’s greatest tool in arresting, threatening or manipulating people through our countries history. They also show employer records.
I agree that the “missing” 1957 return and 1959 Q3 earnings slips point to an effort by authorities to conceal that information for some reason. Also, the tax authorities do not normally assess the current tax year return without first requiring the taxpayer to file returns for any missing prior years.