Jump to content


Spartacus

Houston Street/Elm Street


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#16 Don Jeffries

Don Jeffries

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,121 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Writing fiction and nonfiction. My first published work, the 2007 sci-fi/fantasy novel "The Unreals," has been acclaimed by the likes of "Night at the Museum" screenwriter and "Reno 911" actor Robert Ben Garant and multi-award winning author and former Harvard Professor Alexander Theroux. A second edition is in the works. My nonfiction book "Hidden History: An Expose of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover-Ups in American Politics," was released in November 2014 by Skyhorse Publishing.

Posted 09 March 2007 - 05:58 AM

Ramsay wrote: The Commission's verdict was a lie, a deception, baloney - and insulting baloney at that. They didn't even do a good job on the deception. The politicians, the military and the intelligence services had been getting away with so much since 1945, had the major media so totally co-opted into the Cold War crusade against the Soviet Union, they didn't think it would matter that the Commission's report was nonsense: they thought the schmucks would buy whatever was served up to them.

T. Folsom: I hate to spoil the party but could you be a little more specific? Could you explain the following troubling pieces of evidence that I'm having a little trouble with:

1. What did Oswald take to work in the brown paper package that he claimed contained "curtain rods?" And, when you state what he took, please explain what happened to it.

Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Linnie Mae Randle are the source for the "curtain rod" story. Oswald supposedly hotly denied this during his unrecorded interrogation sessions. TSBD employee Jack Dougherty was the only known person to see Oswald arrive at work on the morning of November 22, 1963. He testified that Oswald wasn't carrying any package with him. As for the brown paper bag itself, and what happened to it, I suggest you read Ian Griggs's excellent article "The Brown Paper Bag That Never Was." If you search for it, it should be available somewhere online. Bottom line- there is no real evidence for this story.

2. Who did Howard Brennan see with a rifle in the SE corner window moments before and during the assassination? Why did he later say it was Oswald if he feared revealing such information might jeopardize his life? And an important second point, WHO did Oswald's co-workers hear firing a bolt-action rifle directly above their heads at the time of the assassination? Remember, they identified it as a bolt-action rifle even before the rifle was found. Pretty lucky guess, huh?

You are really reaching for the bottom of the barrel when you cite Howard Brennan's testimony. Not only did Brennan not identify Oswald until after he'd seen his picture on television (thereby making his identification worthless), there is good reason to doubt whether Brennan ever even viewed Oswald in a lineup. Sorry to be monotonous, but Ian Griggs covered this in another article. Not sure if you can find that online.

3. Why did Oswald flee the building within two minutes of the shooting? Why not stay and complete his work day like the other employees did?

There is no evidence to indicate when Oswald left the TSBD. The Warren Commission just picked 12:33 p.m., because it had to have him leave by then in order for their ridiculous, impossible timeline to work. There were several other employees "missing" from the TSBD after the shooting. This is another dated bit of inaccurate information, which sprung from Will Fritz's contention that Oswald was the "only employee missing" from a post-assassination roll-call. In fact, it was later acknowledged that there was never any such "roll-call," and Oswald wouldn't have been the only one missing if there had been one. Charles Givens and Danny Arce, to name just a few, were not there because they'd been arrested. You are dealing with dated and distorted information.

4. Why didn't Oswald wait for the bus across the street from the TSBD at the corner of Houston and Elm instead of running seven blocks to catch the same bus?

Because, in all probability, he didn't take any bus. Imho, he ran to a station wagon shortly after the assassination, and who knows what happened after that, until he was apprehended in the Texas Theater. Roger Craig and at least 2 other disparate witnesses all reported seeing this. On the other hand, Oswald's absurd, walk one way/take a bus the other way/get off and take a cab back again in the other direction journey has only a series of completely uncredible witnesses (McWhorters, Bledsoe, Whaley, Markham, etc.) to verify it.

5. Why did Oswald ask the cab driver to drop him off three blocks beyond his boarding house rather than just drop him off at his boarding house after the assassination?

Again, you're asking a good question, but probably for the wrong reason. Oswald's alleged actions after the assassination make no sense at all, no matter who or what he was. Therefore, I for one do not accept any of them at face value.

6. Why didn't Oswald sit and watch the coverage of the assassination at his boarding house when he arrived there? Oswald was very politically aware and interested in current events - why rush in, grab a revolver, and rush to a movie for which he was already late?

7. Why would Oswald shoot and kill Officer Tippit if he were an innocent man wrongly accused of a crime he did not commit?

Most of us who have researched this case for many years do not believe Oswald killed Tippit or anyone else.

8. Why would Oswald duck into the Texas Theater, risking arrest for not paying admission, if he were innocent? Remember, Oswald had over $12 on him at the time of his arrest--more than enough to pay for admission.

9. When Oswald was approached in the Texas Theater and asked to stand up by a police officer, tell me why Oswald wouldn't naturally assume it was for sneaking into the movie theater without paying admission? Why would he jump up, yell, "This is it!" Strike the policeman and then attempt to shoot Officer McDonald? All for sneaking into the movie theater? (Careful with this explanation.)

You're again assuming that everything about this arrest story is accurate. The Dallas police did not exactly distinguish themselves on November 22, 1963. I don't necessarily accept anything that they claim occurred in the theater as the truth.

10. Why would Oswald lie about owning a rifle if it was clear that the weapon in question couldn't have been the one to shoot the President? If the rifle was, as Ramsay claimed, a "clapped-out, dirt-cheap, bargain-bin, piece-of-shit, surplus rifle with inaccurate sights." If ANY of Ramsay's claims were even marginally accurate, wouldn't Oswald have gladly admitted to owning the rifle, knowing full well it could never be linked to the assassination? Why lie about a rifle that was incapable of committing the crime?

Boy, this is very old and basic stuff. Some of us don't believe Oswald did own the rifle. It was traced to him via a post office box registered to his supposed alias A. Hidell. Again, you're asking a good question, but for the wrong reason. Of course, it makes little sense for an aspiring assassin to order his guns through an easily traceable post office box, when he could have anonymously obtained a much better weapon on any street corner. There are lots of problems with this rifle; I suggest you read one of the classic works on the assassination, which will answer all of these basic questions more thoroughly. "Accessories After The Fact" by Sylvia Meagher is one of the best ones. It should still be available at your local public library.

I have about fifty more questions, but to avoid overload I will stop at these ten. After you have responded to these innocent queries, we will discuss each of your answers in greater detail.

Good luck.



#17 Chris Brown

Chris Brown

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool England
  • Interests:Member Leaswe Golf Club<br />Supporter &amp; season ticket holder-Liverpool Football Club<br />(The most successful football club in the UK)

Posted 09 March 2007 - 11:36 AM

2. Oswald may have realized that the gentle slow down Elm towards the triple underpass would offer him a much longer time to fire off the necessary number of shots he believed would be necessary to hit the President.

3. Oswald may have felt that witnesses on Houston and the corner of Main may have had a perfect view of him firing directly into their faces as they followed the motorcade towards Elm and Houston.

4. Oswald may have been a couple of seconds late in picking up the President in the car. Remember there were six people in the limo and Oswald may have needed 10 seconds or so to insure he was aiming at the correct individual.

5. Oswald may have waited for no other reason than he preferred an unobstructed rear shot than a frontal shot.

But most importantly, we simply don't know. There could be a valid reason or a ridiculous reason.
[/quote]

Unlike most of your fellow believers you imply the LH Oswald just may have been cool, calm and collected in your 5 points.
However in acting alone he risks being caught in the act in his place of work. As he has no 'minder'

#18 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 02:51 PM

Ramsay wrote: The Commission's verdict was a lie, a deception, baloney - and insulting baloney at that. They didn't even do a good job on the deception. The politicians, the military and the intelligence services had been getting away with so much since 1945, had the major media so totally co-opted into the Cold War crusade against the Soviet Union, they didn't think it would matter that the Commission's report was nonsense: they thought the schmucks would buy whatever was served up to them.

T. Folsom: I hate to spoil the party but could you be a little more specific? Could you explain the following troubling pieces of evidence that I'm having a little trouble with:

1. What did Oswald take to work in the brown paper package that he claimed contained "curtain rods?" And, when you state what he took, please explain what happened to it.

2. Who did Howard Brennan see with a rifle in the SE corner window moments before and during the assassination? Why did he later say it was Oswald if he feared revealing such information might jeopardize his life? And an important second point, WHO did Oswald's co-workers hear firing a bolt-action rifle directly above their heads at the time of the assassination? Remember, they identified it as a bolt-action rifle even before the rifle was found. Pretty lucky guess, huh?

3. Why did Oswald flee the building within two minutes of the shooting? Why not stay and complete his work day like the other employees did?

4. Why didn't Oswald wait for the bus across the street from the TSBD at the corner of Houston and Elm instead of running seven blocks to catch the same bus?

5. Why did Oswald ask the cab driver to drop him off three blocks beyond his boarding house rather than just drop him off at his boarding house after the assassination?

6. Why didn't Oswald sit and watch the coverage of the assassination at his boarding house when he arrived there? Oswald was very politically aware and interested in current events - why rush in, grab a revolver, and rush to a movie for which he was already late?

7. Why would Oswald shoot and kill Officer Tippit if he were an innocent man wrongly accused of a crime he did not commit?

8. Why would Oswald duck into the Texas Theater, risking arrest for not paying admission, if he were innocent? Remember, Oswald had over $12 on him at the time of his arrest--more than enough to pay for admission.

9. When Oswald was approached in the Texas Theater and asked to stand up by a police officer, tell me why Oswald wouldn't naturally assume it was for sneaking into the movie theater without paying admission? Why would he jump up, yell, "This is it!" Strike the policeman and then attempt to shoot Officer McDonald? All for sneaking into the movie theater? (Careful with this explanation.)

10. Why would Oswald lie about owning a rifle if it was clear that the weapon in question couldn't have been the one to shoot the President? If the rifle was, as Ramsay claimed, a "clapped-out, dirt-cheap, bargain-bin, piece-of-shit, surplus rifle with inaccurate sights." If ANY of Ramsay's claims were even marginally accurate, wouldn't Oswald have gladly admitted to owning the rifle, knowing full well it could never be linked to the assassination? Why lie about a rifle that was incapable of committing the crime?

I have about fifty more questions, but to avoid overload I will stop at these ten. After you have responded to these innocent queries, we will discuss each of your answers in greater detail.

Good luck.




Praise Allah!

Just as all hope of sensibility appeared to be gone, someone has demonstrated a logic which by far exceeds that of the normal squirrels who run through the trees, or the rabbits who are lost in their holes.

This subject matter has been beaten completely to death and yet the illogical aspects, not unlike the Hydra, regenerates itself each time that the head is removed.

ANYONE who claims that the "incoming" shot as the Presidential Limo approached the TSDB along Houston St, was the "best" shot, does not know what they are speaking of.

1. Initial line-of-sight to JFK was almost completely blocked by JBC, and with the forward movement of the car this would have required a "lead" on target which would require an aiming point at some point on JBC in order to clear the top of his head and strike the head of JFK who was only approximately 3-inches higher in elevation than was JBC.

2. With no true means in which to measure the forward speed of the vehicle, it would have been virtually impossible to estimate the lead on target in sighting.

3. And, even when the target approached closer to the TSDB, the downwrd angle of fire was progressively increasing, which would have created a difficult shot under the best of conditions.

4. Had a "first" shot actually have been taken when JFK came fully into view, the Presidential Limo would have shortly thereafter have gone behind/under the limbs of the Live Oak tree which is directly in front of the TSDB, thus causing the shooter to lose sight of target, have to await the target exiting from the obscurring tree limbs, and also have created additional time for reaction by the US Secret Service.

5. Had the shooter fired as the limo approached, the sound of the rifle would have been directly into the face of the US Secret Service, as well as all others, and it is most unlikely that the sound of the rifle would not have been immediately recognized, along with the location of the firing position.


Despite what anyone may attempt to feed one in regards to the sixth floor window of the TSDB, it represented the absolute "BEST" in shooting positions, and in that regards it demonstrates a knowledge which should have far exceeded what LHO would have known about shooting/firing positions.

1. It offered the possiblility of two shooting possibilities. Had the US Secret Service actually been riding on the back bumper of the Presidential Limo, then the line of sight/line of fire as the vehicle went down Elm St., would have been blocked.
Thus, this position offered the "alternative" that one could take the more difficult "approaching" shot in event the Elm St. shot would have been blocked by SS Agents on the bumper of the Presidential Limo.

2. Irrelevant as to whether one had to take the more difficult "approaching" shot, or the much better "going away" shot as the Presidential Limo went down Elm St, either would still have been a shot in which the shooter did not have to track the target laterally while the target travelled in a limousine at an unestimatable rate of speed.
(tracking a horizontal walking targer may be somewhat easy, tracking a horizontal target moving in a limosine is not!)

3. The Presidential Limo/target would have to slow it's forward speed considerably in order to make the turn from Houston St. onto Elm St. Thus making the target even easier to acquire.

4. As the target moved down Elm St., it was moving in almost a straight line away from the shooting position, thus making tracking far easier, as well as the fact that the target was now travelling into the trajectory of the bullet.
Thus, even a headshot aim would have, at minimum, assured either a neck or upper back hit on target.

5. The "high" firing position insured that the target would not be blocked from view by either spectators along the street; motorcycle police escorts along side of the Presidential Limousine; or any other extenuating condition which one can not account for.

6. The "rearward" firing position almost insured that the firing position would not be immediately recognized and located by those in the Presidential Limo, as well as the SS Agents in the follow-up car.
And, until such time as we genetically breed SS Agents whose ears point backwards, this will continue to be the case.
Merely the reverse of the "doppler effect".

7. Although not likely by intentional design as part of any plan, the limbs of the live oak tree provided a "baffle" effect to the sound waves of the rifle, which disrupted the sound and again made firing position difficult to locate.

8. The mere aspect of firing from a higher/above position makes it difficult to initially locate the source of the sound of the shot. And, the gustier the winds against the face of a building, the more the updraft of these winds disrupts the sound of shooting.

9. The sixth floor provided a variety of actual firing positions, and someone most certainly should have checked on and reported on the potential of any stacked boxs which may have been located at the SouthWest window of the TSDB, where the shooter/LHO(?) was observed by witnesses at the time that Bonnie Ray Williams was observed in the window from which the shots were fired.


Mr. BALL. Did you see Oswald on the sixth floor that morning?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I am not sure. I think I saw him once messing around with some cartons or something, back over the east side of the building. But he wasn't in the window that they said he shot the President from. He was more on the east side of the elevator,
I think, messing around with cartons, because he always just messed around, kicking cartons around


Mr. WILLIAMS. I went back up to the sixth floor.
Mr. BALL. Why did you go to the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time everybody was talking like they was going to watch from the sixth floor. I think Billy Lovelady said he wanted to watch from up there. And also my friend; this Spanish boy, by the name of Danny Arce, we had agreed at first to come back up to the sixth floor. So I thought everybody was going to be on the sixth floor.
Mr. BALL. Did anybody go back?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Nobody came back up. So I just left.

Mr. BALL. Facing on what street?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Facing Elm Street.
Mr. McCLOY. What floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Sixth floor.
Mr. DULLES. You ate your lunch on the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. And you were all alone?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you sit on while you ate your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. First of all, I remember there was some boxes behind me. I just kind of leaned back on the boxes first. Then I began to get a little impatient, because there wasn't anyone coming up. So I decided to move to a two-wheeler.
Mr. BALL. A two-wheeler truck, you mean?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. I remember sitting on this two-wheeler. By that time, I was through, and I got up and I just left then.
Mr. DULLES. How much of the room could you see as you finished your lunch there? Was your view obstructed by boxes of books, or could you see a good bit of the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time I couldn't see too much of the sixth floor, because the books at the time were stacked so high. I could see only in the path that I was standing--as I remember, I could not possibly see anything to the east side of the building. But just one aisle, the aisle I was standing in I could see just about to the west side of the building. So far as seeing to the east and behind me, I could only see down the aisle behind me and the aisle to the west of me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. ROWLAND - We were discussing, as I stated, the different security precautions, I mean it was a very important person who was coming and we were aware of the policemen around everywhere, and especially in positions where they would be able to watch crowds. We talked momentarily of the incidents with Mr. Stevenson, and the one before that with Mr. Johnson, and this being in mind we were more or less security conscious. We looked and at that time I noticed on the sixth floor of the building that there was a man back from the window, not hanging out the window.
He was standing and holding a rifle, This appeared to me to be a fairly high-powered rifle because of the scope and the relative proportion of the scope to the rifle, you can tell about what type of rifle it is. You can tell it isn't a .22, you know, and we thought momentarily that maybe we should tell someone but then the thought came to us that it is a security agent.
We had seen in the movies before where they have security men up in windows and places like that with rifles to watch the crowds, and we brushed it aside as that, at that time, and thought nothing else about it until after the event happened.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, by referring to the photograph on this Commission Exhibit No. 356, will you point to the window where you observed this man?
Mr. ROWLAND - This was very odd. There were this picture was not taken immediately after that, I don't think, because there were several windows, there are pairs of windows, and there were several pairs where both windows were open fully and in each pair there was one or more persons hanging out the window.
Yet this was on the west corner of the building, the sixth floor, the first floor--second floor down from the top, the first was the arched, the larger windows, not the arch, but the larger windows, and this was the only pair of windows where both windows were completely open and no one was hanging out the windows, or next to the window.


Representative FORD - And as you looked at the window subsequently did you ever see anything else in the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; not in that window, and I looked back every few seconds, 30 seconds, maybe twice a minute, occasionally trying to find him so I could point him out to my wife.
Something I would like to note is that the window that I have been told the shots were actually fired from, I did not see that, there was someone hanging out that window at that time.
Representative FORD - At what time was that?
Mr. ROWLAND - At the time I saw the man in the other window, I saw this man hanging out the window first. It was a colored man, I think.
Representative FORD - Is this the same window where you saw the man standing with the rifle?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; this was the one on the east end of the building, the one that they said the shots were fired from.
Representative FORD - I am not clear on this now. The window that you saw the man that you describe was on what end of the building?
Mr. ROWLAND - The west, southwest corner.
Representative FORD - And the man you saw hanging out from the window was at what corner?
Mr. ROWLAND - The east, southeast corner.
Representative FORD - Southeast corner. On the same floor?
Mr. ROWLAND - On the same floor.
Representative FORD - When did you notice him?
Mr. ROWLAND - This was before I noticed the other man with the rifle.
Representative FORD - I see. This was before you saw the man in the window with the rifle?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes. My wife and I were both looking and making remarks that the people were hanging out the windows I think the majority of them were colored people, some of them were hanging out the windows to their waist, such as this. We made several remarks to this fact, and then she started watching the colored boy, and I continued to look, and then I saw the man with the rifle.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So!

From the testimony of Bonnie Ray Williams, we learn that he was initially sitting in the vicinity of the "Snipers Window", and was in fact observed there by Arnold Rowland, who also saw the shooter standing at the opposite end of the building, on the same floor, just prior to the Presidential Motorcade coming into view.

Thus, whoever the shooter was, he actually had the ability for a dual firing position, one which provided shooting sight up Houston St. or down Elm St., and a second location in which he was observed standing, which was located on the opposite end of the TSDB and which gave the advantage of a shot on Elm St., or even over onto Main St. if absolutely necessary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The actual shooting position was, for all practical purposes, the absolutely ideal location for shooting, and took into consideration several variables as well as offering at least two separate firing positions.

All of which should have been above the level of target acquisition training which LHO, as known, was ever exposed to.

#19 Lee Forman

Lee Forman

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 09 March 2007 - 03:21 PM

Praise Allah!

Just as all hope of sensibility appeared to be gone, someone has demonstrated a logic which by far exceeds that of the normal squirrels who run through the trees, or the rabbits who are lost in their holes.

Tom, that someone FYI who hid behind a false name, when he runs his own board. Personally I was never very impressed with much of what T. Folsom / Clint Bradford and what he had to say. Even on his own board.

- lee

> So far you have refused to disclose your full identity.

Instead of answering the inquiry, you attack the message.

I have completely disclosed my identity. Can -I- ask for the names of these alleged photographic experts without being personally attacked?

Clint Bradford



#20 Charles Black

Charles Black

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:History<br />Sports<br />Fishing<br />Shooting

Posted 09 March 2007 - 03:31 PM

My opinion for why LHO didn't take the "easy" approach shot is the same reason that he took "NO" Elm Street shot.

The book depository was used only to set up the PATSY. We must remember also that it was not anticipated that there would be "no return fire" from Secret Service and Police. A gunman firng on the "approach" would have been looking not only at JFK but at a follow up vehicle of armed agents and the potential of return fire from automatic rifles.

These shooters did not have the mentality of "suicide bombers".....they were no doubt professionals that were getting paid to do a job. I suppose that they all wanted an opportunity to spend their earnings.

Elm Street was used, certainly not because it offered agood shot from the TSBD. As a matter of shot, I don't feel that the angle from the "sniper's lair" was given anymore consideration other than..... "Well, this won't work, except for diversionary noise" !

The problem that stumps most researchers, is that there were enough shooters (some who I personally believe to have been very close to the President, in the Elm St. throng, with sound supressed, well concealed handguns), that the President was NOT going to leave alive. The President was going to be KILLED ! He could have been killed from several good vantage points well before he even approached Elm Street. One of the reasons that Elm Street was chosen, was the probability of shooter escape !

I feel that there were three reasons Elm Street was chosen. 1) The Patsy was there 2) Escape of the assassins (there was so much supplementary gunfire and explosions that the SS and police were so confused that they did not return one shot) 3) the throng of people were spread in so may directions, as was diversionary gunfire and noises, that there was not one spot to center their attention on.

Without a visible gun in hand, every person there was a possible assassin. It was so designed that enough confusion was created that escape was deemed certain to most of the participating and stand by shooters.

The creation of confusion was as instrumental in the operation's success, as the creation of confusion has been instrumental in a 43 year cover up of the act.

Charlie Black

#21 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,161 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 March 2007 - 04:56 PM

Another reason not to take the frontal shot before the turn is the target car would then have three excape options, including drive straight ahead and out of the kill zone.

After the turn, there is no escape route.

BK

#22 Jim Root

Jim Root

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 937 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 09 March 2007 - 09:47 PM

From a topic I started "Motorcade Route"

Route of Death

Speculating about how the motorcade route was selected has intrigued me for years.

It seems obvious to me that the route chosen would have been a major decision for any potential conspirators to have considered while finalizing their plans to carry out an assassination of the President in Dallas. It is my belief that but for this single decision (the actual motorcade route) the events of November 22, 1963 would not have happened (at least would not have happened in the manner and sequence that they did in fact occur).

Could the results of the route planning have pre-determined the outcome? If so a conspiracy would exist only if the conspirators would have the pre-determined outcome in their minds while the planning was taking shape.

First: Was information available to potential conspirators that could have influenced the route planning?

With the work of Jefferson Morley and John Newman we have learned that at least one note sent by FBI agent James Hosty about the doings of Lee Harvey Oswald in the months preceding the assassination was forwarded to the office of Richard Helms within days after being sent. Although Hosty’s November 4th note, which provided the crucial information about where Oswald was working (TSBD) was never given a Warren Commission Exhibit number we can logically assume that this Hosty note made it to the same office as his previous note (one which Morley and Newman were able to track).

The planning for the motorcade was not completed until days after the Hosty note was sent and possibly not until the information about where Oswald was working was in the hands of Richard Helms, the CIA and perhaps others who would have access to this information for whatever potential reasons that we may speculate upon.

Second: Looking at a map of the motorcade approach (Commission Exhibit No. 2113) I noticed several interesting facts:

1. The turn from Houston to Elm is approx. 135 degrees rather than the normal 90 degree left hand turn.
2. If one wished to enter the Stemmons Freeway from Commerce St. (from either direction) one would be routed to Elm via Lamar not Houston (four blocks before Houston).
3. Lamar offers access to the Stemmons Freeway via Continental Ave. without the security risk of the Triple Underpass.
4. According to Commission Exhibit No. 2113 access to Elm could have been gained by a right turn then left onto Elm via anyone of these roads: Lamar, Austin, Market or Record.
5. The Houston to Elm route provides a view of both the approach (along Houston) of the motorcade and (after the 135 degree turn) the departure of the motorcade from a person (or sniper) on the upper floors of the TSBD Building
6. The (approx.) 135 degree turn onto Elm requires the motorcade to slow considerably to accomplish this turn.
7. Once the turn onto Elm is accomplished there is no escape route for the Presidential Limousine until after it has passed below the Triple Underpass and entered the Stemmons Freeway.
8. Any shot fired while the motorcade was approaching Elm from Houston would have allowed two possible escape routes for the Presidential Limousine(continuing down Houston or turning right onto Elm (instead of left) making this shot a less favorable shot decision for a person in the TSBD Building.
9. The only building on the complete motorcade route that has a view of both the approach of the motorcade and then views its departure is the TSBD.
10. “If” conspirators existed who wanted to give Lee Harvey Oswald the most favorable opportunity possible to assassinate the President they could not have selected a better motorcade route.
11. Information was available to any potential conspirators (via the Hosty note) of where Oswald was working.
11. As I have demonstrated there were alternative routes, which from a security approach, were safer to access the Stemmons Freeway, from Main St. (via Lamar would not have subjected the President to the threat that the Triple Underpass provided) and there were alternative ways to access Elm (rather than negotiating a 135 degree turn in front of the TSBD) rather than from Houston (Record, Market, Austin or Lamar).

Third: It is my belief that the conspirators could not have provided Lee Harvey Oswald with a better opportunity to assassinate the President.

Fourth: They (the conspirators) would have to have (a plausible reason to provide the Warren Commissioners) reason to believe that Oswald would take “the shot.”

Italics added

Jim Root

#23 Mark Knight

Mark Knight

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern Indiana, USA
  • Interests:1950's International trucks, Farmall tractors, 1946-47 Hudson automobiles, JFK assassination, pre-1980 rock 'n' roll...more later when I have time to think about it.

Posted 09 March 2007 - 10:30 PM

Folks, I think you're overlooking something important that Tom Purvis has pointed out. This level of planning required to pull off what appears to have been done from the TSBD was FAR over and above the level of training that Oswald could have acquired in the Marines...under ordinary circumstances.

This, then, begs the question...were the circumstances of Oswald's training over and above those a normal Marine might have received?

Also, Tom points out that the SW window of the sixth floor would have provided an alternative line of fire, had the SE window line of fire been blocked by SS agents on the bumper of the car, or whatever else. But it would've been impossible, IMHO, for a shooter in a prone or kneeling position in the SE window, to have moved to the SW window quickly enough for the SW window to have been effective, had the need to use it have arisen. Assuming this, then, would imply that there would HAD to have been TWO shooters on the sixth floor of the TSBD...which makes the case for conspiracy.

Thoughts?

Edited by Mark Knight, 09 March 2007 - 10:32 PM.


#24 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 09 March 2007 - 11:49 PM

Folks, I think you're overlooking something important that Tom Purvis has pointed out. This level of planning required to pull off what appears to have been done from the TSBD was FAR over and above the level of training that Oswald could have acquired in the Marines...under ordinary circumstances.

This, then, begs the question...were the circumstances of Oswald's training over and above those a normal Marine might have received?

Also, Tom points out that the SW window of the sixth floor would have provided an alternative line of fire, had the SE window line of fire been blocked by SS agents on the bumper of the car, or whatever else. But it would've been impossible, IMHO, for a shooter in a prone or kneeling position in the SE window, to have moved to the SW window quickly enough for the SW window to have been effective, had the need to use it have arisen. Assuming this, then, would imply that there would HAD to have been TWO shooters on the sixth floor of the TSBD...which makes the case for conspiracy.

Thoughts?



Selection of the shooting position was far and above what most who would even attend Sniper Schooling would receive. It incorporated all of those items which are of advantage to the shooter, to include alternative lanes for shooting as well as alternative shooting positions.

And although a shooter was observed in the West end of the building, this was at the same time that Bonnie Ray Williams was observed in the East end/shooters final position. Which would make it appear that the shooter took the West position due to Williams presence, and after Williams left, the shooter re-assumed the snipers nest which was constructed.

Nevertheless, we have a shooter(s) observed at each end of the building.

Unfortunately, the West side of the bldg has a considerably more cross-angle of fire which would require lateral tracking of the target, and were a hit to JFK have occurred from this position, then the left side of his head would have, in all probability been blown out as well.

It should also be pointed out that LHO was identified as having attempted to gain employment in other buildings along the motorcade route.
Yet, in the end, he secured the single most advantageous position along the motorcade route.
A position which placed him at the end of the parade route with few spectators, from an ideal firing position.

Nowhere in his service school training would LHO have secured this type of shooting position selection training.

The advantages of this firing position are what makes one also question the coincidence of the yellow stripes on the Elm St. curb which are located directly within the "Kill Zone" and directly in view from the sixth floor window of the TSDB.

#25 Jim Root

Jim Root

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 937 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 10 March 2007 - 01:57 AM

Thomas

You stated:

"Selection of the shooting position was far and above what most who would even attend Sniper Schooling would receive. It incorporated all of those items which are of advantage to the shooter, to include alternative lanes for shooting as well as alternative shooting positions."

I could not agree more. But I also have to state that Oswald's arrival in and selection of Helsinki, Finland as his avenue for entry into the Soviet Union exactly one day after the American Embassy in Helsinki dispatched a message that provided all the information necessary for Oswald to receive a Soviet Visa within 24 hours is, I believe, not a coincidence as well.

If we are talking conspiracy, which I know that I am, and if we are suggesting that someone like General Maxwell Taylor may have been involved, which I know I consider that as a possibility, then the movement of the motorcade past where Oswald was working is not the actions of Oswald setting up the snipers nest as much as it is the conspirators putting the target in front of the shooter (a big difference I believe).

If we are talking conspiracy then that would suggest that Oswald did not act alone. We therefore should and must not discount certain posibilities because we believe that HIS (Oswald's) training and HIS abilities preclude him from making certain selections (both Helsinki and the 6th floor window being two cases in point).

I will repeat my assertion if "someone" had a hand in determining the exact motorcade route that it is possible that that "someone" could be considered as a potential conspirator. Since Maxwell Taylor appointed Kennedy's military attache (who could have played a role in the logistics of Kennedy's trip) and since Taylor repeatedly used General Edwin Walker as his "go too" guy (who, the Warren Commission says Lee Harvey Oswald also attempted to assassinate) and since Taylor was also posititoned to know about Oswald's movements to Helsinki in 1959 and since Taylor was closely associated with John J. McCloy throughout both of their careers and since Taylor was in a "beef" with Kennedy over the Limited Test Ban Treaty (as was McCloy)we can, I believe, suggest that Taylor may have had a hand in creating the perfect "kill zone" for the President to travel through (which Taylor's military expertise would make him capable of doing).

Now it is Oswald the tool not Oswald the planner just as Oswald was, I believe, the tool that was sent to Russia to sabatoge the Paris Summit of June 1960 (something that McCloy also did not want to see happen).

Jim Root

#26 Thomas H. Purvis

Thomas H. Purvis

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,055 posts

Posted 10 March 2007 - 02:29 PM

Thomas

You stated:

"Selection of the shooting position was far and above what most who would even attend Sniper Schooling would receive. It incorporated all of those items which are of advantage to the shooter, to include alternative lanes for shooting as well as alternative shooting positions."

I could not agree more. But I also have to state that Oswald's arrival in and selection of Helsinki, Finland as his avenue for entry into the Soviet Union exactly one day after the American Embassy in Helsinki dispatched a message that provided all the information necessary for Oswald to receive a Soviet Visa within 24 hours is, I believe, not a coincidence as well.

If we are talking conspiracy, which I know that I am, and if we are suggesting that someone like General Maxwell Taylor may have been involved, which I know I consider that as a possibility, then the movement of the motorcade past where Oswald was working is not the actions of Oswald setting up the snipers nest as much as it is the conspirators putting the target in front of the shooter (a big difference I believe).

If we are talking conspiracy then that would suggest that Oswald did not act alone. We therefore should and must not discount certain posibilities because we believe that HIS (Oswald's) training and HIS abilities preclude him from making certain selections (both Helsinki and the 6th floor window being two cases in point).

I will repeat my assertion if "someone" had a hand in determining the exact motorcade route that it is possible that that "someone" could be considered as a potential conspirator. Since Maxwell Taylor appointed Kennedy's military attache (who could have played a role in the logistics of Kennedy's trip) and since Taylor repeatedly used General Edwin Walker as his "go too" guy (who, the Warren Commission says Lee Harvey Oswald also attempted to assassinate) and since Taylor was also posititoned to know about Oswald's movements to Helsinki in 1959 and since Taylor was closely associated with John J. McCloy throughout both of their careers and since Taylor was in a "beef" with Kennedy over the Limited Test Ban Treaty (as was McCloy)we can, I believe, suggest that Taylor may have had a hand in creating the perfect "kill zone" for the President to travel through (which Taylor's military expertise would make him capable of doing).

Now it is Oswald the tool not Oswald the planner just as Oswald was, I believe, the tool that was sent to Russia to sabatoge the Paris Summit of June 1960 (something that McCloy also did not want to see happen).

Jim Root



It is known as "unwitting accomplice".

RMN was an unwitting accomplice as those who booked his appearance in Dallas also dictated where JFK would luncheon.

The University in Dallas was an unwitting accomplice as they had initially offered JFK an Honorary Degree and the opportunity to speak there (bait), and then cancelled it at the last moment.
Thus allowing time for the motorcade through Dallas, when in fact there would have been no such motorcade had not the Honorary Degree and speech been cancelled.

Ruth Paine was an unwitting accomplice as she was instrumental in providing a place for LHO's wife & children to reside in order that LHO could carry out his task without interruption or hinderance from Marina.

George DeMohrenschildt was an unwitting accomplice as he was merely tasked to assist LHO in making certain associates throughout Dallas upon whom suspicion could also be thrown, and which would assist LHO along his mission.

Jack Ruby was an unwitting accomplice as he was, it would appear, brought into this to keep some sort of watch on LHO, for reasons which even Ruby was not fully aware.

And the list goes on and on.

Edited by Thomas H. Purvis, 10 March 2007 - 02:34 PM.


#27 Guest_Eugene B. Connolly_*

Guest_Eugene B. Connolly_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 March 2007 - 03:11 PM

John Simkin:


The obvious reason is that gunmen in more than one position were involved in the assassination. In other words, he had to wait until Elm Street so that a gunman in the Grassy Knoll area was in a position to hit his target. If the gunman on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository had opened fire when the car was in Houston Street, the reactions of William Greer, driving Kennedy’s car, would have been such that the gunman at the Grassy Knoll would have stood no chance of hitting his target.


Lee Harvey Oswald never shot anybody. He wasn't on the sixth floor where some of the shots are supposed to have come from.


The assassination of JFK was a very public execution.


There was no room for any mistakes.


Instead of assassination think execution.





EBC

Edited by Eugene B. Connolly, 10 March 2007 - 03:28 PM.


#28 Charles Black

Charles Black

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:History<br />Sports<br />Fishing<br />Shooting

Posted 10 March 2007 - 04:17 PM

I feel that we are grossly overcomplicating a very simple matter. When Oz was looking for employment, no one KNEW the exact motorcade route. There "may"
have been a person that KNEW that he could control that EXACT route. There may "also" have been Patsies at other locations in a contingency plan......to the best of my knowledge there has never been an important operation "without" a or several contingency plans.

As I mentioned in my prior post in this thread, there were TWO prime reasons that THIS location was selected.

1) Since the shooters were not "Kamikaze" pilots,
"probability of escape" would have been "one major concern" in their decision to participate in "the hit" ! Dealey Plaza offered a multitude of firing positions plus "a spread" from which many diversionary noises or shots could have been implemented to confuse and detract. Other than for possible noise detraction, the "snipers lair" was not a good potential firing position...poor shooting angle and difficulty of escape...but was used primarily for the framing of Oswald. It is important for the "hit men" to have realized that the SS was not going to open fire on the closely massed throngs of spectators. It was also realized that with so many people gathered, the fact that the assassins would have abandoned their weapons, and would easily have blended in with the crowds. The assassins most likely were NOT persons that would not "easily" blend in with the crowd. A SPY is not supposed to look like James Bond.... and a sexual predator would have little luck if he appeared NAKED and frothing at the mouth !

2) The chosen "kill zone" had the potential for assassins not only front and rear, but from 360 degrees.....also from above and below (sewer drains). There could have been "spectator assassins" with concealed & silenced handguns. There was the potential in Dealey Plaza to completely surround the President with assassins.
There would be "NO ESCAPE" for JFK.

In my opinion, Dealey was ideal and it contained "THE" ideal assassin !

I supose that THEY considered it a WIN / WIN location...and they apparently were correct !

Why do we always try to complicate situations? The most obvious solutions are usually correct, whether you are a seamstress or an astronaut.

Simplicity is usually THE key ingredient in any successful planning ! Since Columbus knew the world to be round, sailing West was bound to take him to "A" destination...even if he "discovered" his starting point.

Charlie Black

#29 Jim Root

Jim Root

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 937 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 10 March 2007 - 07:23 PM

Yes Charlie simplicity.

Using your Columbus sailing West thought "sailing West was bound to take him to "A" destination...even if he "discovered" his starting point."

If the conspirators knew where Oswald worked (which was known because Agent James Hosty had reported it and Hosty's information about Oswald was making it to the Office of Richard Helms, (Morley)), and if the conspirators had a reason to believe that Oswald had shot at Walker (please read my Serendipity post) and those same conspirators started monitoring Oswald's movements after that event (read the testemony of James Hosty) then the conspirators would have known that Oswald had a rifle, that Oswald was willing to kill and that Oswald had a reason (Oswald's speech at Spring Hill College where he displayed his discust for the failure of the Paris Summit (once again something that McCloy had wanted and the shoot down of the U-2 accomplished)). These same men (Taylor) had the ability to adjust the motorcade route to provide a snipers nest that was, as Thomas Purvis said, "far and above what most who would even attend Sniper Schooling would" be able to select. These same men would have the ability to control the "official" investigation of the crime (McCloy). These same men would be able to plant the evidence necessary to prove that Oswald was willing to take human life (Walker's "interview" with a German Newspaper that ran the story about Oswald attempt on Walker's life)

Simplicity. Put a man with a gun, who was willing to use it and had a reason to use it, in the perfect position to use it on a target that the conspirators wanted eliminated. The true assassins (the conspirator) created a situation where they did not even need to be at the scene and had perfect alibis (McCloy had a breakfast meeting with Eisenhower, Taylor was at the Pentagon meeting with NATO generals and Walker was on a plane to Shreveport, LA from where he would plant the story of Oswald shooting at him the previous April).

These same conspirators would have known that Oswald would attempt to call a man named John Hurt (a man who was known to McCloy, Taylor and Walker) and that knowledge of this man would motivate and bring into line the whole US Intelligence community (and perhaps the Soviets as well) to eliminate Oswald and participate in the coverup of who Oswald really was.

The Perfect Crime and the Perfect Escape for the true assassins! And over 40 years later we want to make it so much more complicated than it may have actually been.

Jim Root

Edited by Jim Root, 10 March 2007 - 07:31 PM.


#30 Charles Black

Charles Black

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:History<br />Sports<br />Fishing<br />Shooting

Posted 11 March 2007 - 05:07 PM

Hello Jim Root

Perhaps I am having a "brain fog" this morning, but I am unable to see thru your post well enough to determine what is your bottom line?

When you respond would you also clarify two points, which if you are stating what I think that you are, I am in disagreement with.

You stated in reference to Walker's interview, that this was proof "... Oswald was willing to take a human life". Do you believe that an attempt on Walker's life, if it were "truly such an attempt and not a publicity stunt", was actually carried out by Oswald ? In the same reference, do you feel that a "marksman" with the ability to make the shots in Dealey Plaza, would have...in the quiet of the night, with unlimited time to fire at a seated target, in a well lit room, have missed ?

The other point which I question is your statement
"...put a man with a gun who was willing to use it in the perfect position to use it..."

Are you stating that from a sniper / shooters point of view, that the so called "lair" was the perfect position to attempt an assassination? This positon was cramped, it forced the shooter against the wall, it provided a very limited time frame, a very difficult shooting angle and declination, and provided poor escape potential. What was pefect about this position ? This was "lunch time" ! Oswald could have had a firing position at ANY spot in Dealey Plaza, would not be absent from work, and also have had a much better pre-planned area to store/hide his weapon, and had a much better chance to escape.

These are the major points which lead me to believe that I must have "missed your point" !

I would appreciate your response.

Thanks
Charlie Black




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users