• Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Jeff Carter

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jeff Carter

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. Considering Michael Paine as informant of some kind relies on the veracity of the claim by Buddy Walthers that files with information on Cuban sympathizers were found at the Paine home. Those files would provide the unspoken context of Paine’s activity at Luby’s Restaurant in the Spring of 1963. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59614#relPageId=36&tab=page During his Warren Commission testimony, Paine would refer to his inclination to “sense the pulse of various groups in the Dallas area.” http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=38#relPageId=420&tab=page Ruth Paine was also apparently an informant of some kind in the 1980s. The deMohrenschildt’s apparently did not know the Paine’s before the Magnolia Oil party in February 1963, when Ruth Paine met Marina. The host of the party was Everett Glover, who made the invitations. Ruth Paine would soon be persistently offering Marina the opportunity to separate from Lee. Jeanne deMohrenschildt would speak of a similar project to separate the Oswalds, prospectively for several months within the White Russian community, through the autumn of 1962. Also that autumn, George deMohrenschildt was trying to find Lee work in industrial security, and initiated the brief separations which did occur. I don’t think the Paine’s had connection or interest in the Walker/Banister milieu, but suspect person(s) with such connection were the link taking the Paines to the Oswalds. Ruth Paine enabled a separation just as Oswald was initiating his FPCC activity.
  2. The files were probably Michael Paine's. The Warren Commission questioned him about reports he was chatting up SMU students about Cuba. Paine conceded he did this. Paine's WC testimony indicates he was an informant of some kind. In my opinion, the answer to "we both know who is responsible" is the person or persons who brought the Paines to the Oswalds in the first place. I believe such person(s) to have links to the Walker milieu and the Banister milieu.
  3. hi Paul thanks for taking time to read the article. Just to clarify: I believe Michael Paine's 1993 claim that he had been shown a backyard photo by Oswald in April 1963 severely compromises his WC testimony based on Paine's painstaking detail in describing handling the blanket later alleged to have held the assassination rifle and presuming it instead held camping equipment. The backyard photos portray a figure not just holding but rather brandishing and exhibiting leftist political literature and firearms, which in the context of conservative America (Dallas) in 1963 is a provocative gesture which Michael Paine would have presumably been savvy to. That he would not have informed his wife about this, or suspected more than camping equipment when handling the blanket some months later is hard to believe.
  4. Paul Trejo - “when the radio news mentioned the TSBD, bells in Michael's head went off.” hi Paul, Having read through the testimonies of both Paines, I must say that my impressions and conclusions are quite different from yours. In my opinion, you tend to take things at face value and so bypass important context. Specific to the phone call, Michael Paine’s testimony to the Warren Commission does not really imply that “bells went off”, rather he agrees that his first impression was that Oswald was not involved. He also claims the 1 PM phone call to Ruth occurred before he heard the TSBD mentioned on the radio, although what would then motivate bringing up Oswald (as reported to the FBI after review) is unknown. Michael Paine’s account of monitoring the immediate aftermath of the shooting at Bell helicopter differs somewhat from what Frank Krystinik would say. But between the two accounts, and because Oswald was mentioned in the phone call, it seems that the TSBD had been mentioned on the radio, Krystinik was suspicious of Oswald, and MP decided to check in with Ruth. Why either Paine would assume Oswald “was involved” based solely on the location is hard to fathom. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=38#relPageId=433&tab=page
  5. Irving Police captain Paul Barger was assigned to the Southwestern States Telephone Company in Irving, and it was there he developed the information about the phone call. “He said he felt sure the information he furnished SA LISH had come from some telephone company sources, but he was still unable to identify the individual who related it to him, and he was unable to recall whether it was related in person, or by a telephone call.” http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10730#relPageId=91&tab=page The phone records gathered by the FBI concern the Paine home, not Bell Helicopter. Although not explicitly determined, it appears the tap was on the Paine home phone and the records (or recordings) of the tap were held at the telephone company.
  6. I discussed the Nov 22 1 PM phone call in Part 5 of my Backyard Photo series. I’ll link it because the footnotes lead to primary documentation of this event: https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-part-5 The Warren Commission, via counsel Liebeler, deliberately made the call appear to be a rumour, and so it was disappeared from the record until the mid-70s when Bernard Fensterwald came across the declassified Gemberling FBI report which identifies the source of information about the call as Confidential Informant Dallas T-4. Irving Police Captain Paul Barger, who initially uncovered the information, made contradicting statements in 1964 and 1976 designed to deflect the source of the information away from the likely wiretap. This tap may have been installed at the phone company rather than in the Paine home. The focus of the tap may have been Marina Oswald rather than the Paines. The issue neither Paine has accounted for is why did Oswald, in their minds, figure in the shooting which had occurred only 30 minutes earlier? This has not been clarified because neither was interviewed by the HSCA (despite the controversy sparked by Fensterwald), or later by the ARRB. (I agree that if the Paines had pre-knowledge of the assassination they would not have made this call). It’s likely that the explanation is simply that the call was immediately preceded by an exchange between Michael Paine and Frank Krystinik, after the initial identification of the TSBD, during which Krystinik urged Paine to contact the FBI re: Oswald. Krystinik had been introduced to Oswald, by Michael Paine, on October 25 when the three men attended an ACLU meeting, and had been offended by Oswald’s “Marxist” viewpoints. This simple explanation was not pursued or developed, it seems, to protect FBI sources and methods plus the uncomfortable acknowledgment, or emphasis, that the Oswalds were in the radar all along. Which underlines the official cover-up.
  7. A Jack W. Martin was identified as a possible suspect in JFK assassination before Oswald was apprehended. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=604&tab=page
  8. hi Paul Michael Paine’s claim, beginning in 1993, that Oswald showed him a backyard photo in April 1963 is best considered with healthy scepticism. For one thing, it calls into question key parts of his WC testimony, particularly his painstaking descriptions of handling the “rifle blanket” thinking it held camping equipment, and how he never suspected Oswald might own firearms. His description to the WC of meeting Oswald that April is very detailed as well - no BYP. Also, at least three BYP third poses were unearthed in the mid-70s, all from former Dallas PD. And there is no record of a BYP seen before the evening of the assassination, although the DeMohrenschildt copy may have been placed in the record album before then.
  9. I wonder when exactly the 1967 recreation was made. I am referring to the bush behind the figure - it looks like winter (or it is dead). There’s an obvious difference between the growth of the bush behind the Oswald figure in the original BYP, and that same bush in the DPD recreation dated to late November 1963. I don’t know anything about plants in the Dallas region, but a comparison between the growth of the two might help locate when the original BYP were taken (i.e. in the spring or in the summer). That HSCA panel applied photogrammetry science big time examining shadows and sun angles etc, but at the end of the day everyone had to admit that a skilled forger with good equipment could swap an Oswald face onto another’s body. That’s why the BYP had to be approached in terms of their provenance, and that’s where the HSCA came up short.
  10. The HSCA put a fair amount of resources into a photographic “authentication” panel which examined the backyard photos extensively (see HSCA Appendix VI), and yet they were unable to explain the third pose which appeared at the time of their deliberations. R.L. Studebaker, of the Dallas Police, was interviewed to supposedly clear this issue up. The Studebaker executive testimony, regarding handling of photographic evidence by the Dallas police, is now available online: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146602&search=Studebaker_October+5+1978#relPageId=2&tab=page Studebaker’s testimony leaves most of the important questions unanswered, and the HSCA left it at that. If the photos are authentic, as the HSCA’s panel suggests, then this third pose is confounding as there is no accounting for it in the developed story of how these photos came to be, and no accounting for how it ended up with the DPD shortly after the assassination. If the photos were faked, then the twelve year silence regarding the existence of this third version strongly suggests the provenance of the faked photos was known by, at least, the Dallas PD - and possibly Secret Service and FBI as well. The HSCA really dropped the ball on this one.
  11. hi David J It’s my understanding that the private Zapruder footage in the Z-film was returned to the family, while the motorcade sequence was sent to the Sixth Floor Museum, after its official validation. The head and tail leaders tabulated in the handwritten note from 1997 are typical presentation for an archival film. IMO, Zapruder kept his film initially because he articulated his property rights and was also cooperative. If the Zapruder camera was shifted from RUN to SLOW MOTION during the assassination sequence, the transition from 16fps to 48fps would not have been immediate but ramped (gradual). Any calculations using the Zapruder film to determine time-based measurements such as mph of vehicles are at best “ballpark”. Regardless, we both arrive at the same conclusion: the apparent shooting sequence cannot be reconciled with the lone nut three shots bolt action rifle paradigm.
  12. We are looking at the same data but with different reference frames. You and Chris D are seeing the plats etc through the frame of Z-film alteration, while I (and others) see them as attempts to in effect pound a square peg (shot sequence evidence seen in Z-film) through a round hole (three shots/one bolt action rifle). The clue I think most important is that the Secret Service were intent, at NPIC Brugioni event, to determine timings between perceived shots. They insisted even after Pearse told them it was a useless effort if they were trying to be accurate. So now the investigators are counting frames. It gets determined that the bolt action rifle needs minimum 2.8 seconds to operate (Frazier FBI says 4.6 seconds to fire two shots, add one second if moving target) which is understood as about 50 Z-frames (at original determination of 18fps). So this is how I understand all these original measurements- they were trying to create a shooting scenario which fit the characteristics of the found rifle. Does anyone see Connally first hit at Z-264, or even Z-242? These are among the scenarios being measured. A late shot beyond Z-312? Being considered because one can plausibly count the frames and say Oswald did it. How many of these surveys went down? I count three or four, which change the parameters every time.
  13. If there is anything "new", or at least developed in more detail than previously done, in my Part 2 essay - it is about the properties of the Zapruder spring-wound camera, and the implications regarding the "average" camera speed (18.3 fps). The section is called The Zapruder Camera Is Not A Clock. I expected a few questions on that topic. FWIW, I doubt those Bell & Howells ever ran at (approx) 16fps, they were closer to (approx) 18fps. But that has to be understood in terms of its "constantly varying operating speed."
  14. hi David you say "quite a lot can be done in 20 hours" a little too casually. NPIC and Hawkeye were working primarily with U2 / satellite input, not motion picture. If something was so obvious to know to remove relatively immediately, then wouldn't have the film just been seized in the first place, no copies made. 48 fps, as you have established, would allow for fairly seamless frame removal after the fact. Here's what makes me pause: at 16fps projection, the sequence would play back at a full 3 times slowed down (i.e. the approx 7 second shooting sequence would be 21 seconds). A fair amount of people saw the film Friday, and a number have discussed that experience, but I don't recall anyone who even hinted it played before them in slow motion, even though it would be one of the most obvious things.
  15. hi Chris I have to admit I find many of your posts rather cryptic. Did you have a chance to see the article, particularly the section on the Z-film not being a clock (spring-wound camera)?