John Dolva

In this image of the MC I'm trying to find the center line of the barrel, assuming that the bore is concentric. I've drawn a line from the front tip to the back where the outline of the barrel seems to me to indicate the centerline. When looking at the rear of the bolt(?) can it be said that the centerline as I suggest is correct? Or above/below? (some definitions for neophytes like myself: Cold clean bore The first shot from a rifle that has been cleaned, and not fired recently may go to a different point of impact, for the same point of aim than a rifle that has been fired recently. This first shot is referred to as a shot from a cold, clean, bore. Fouling Shot A shot fired in a clean rifle barrel to put the barrel into the normal slightly dirty state from which it is fired. Often, a rifle will shoot to a different point of aim with this shot as compared to the subsequent shots. Minute Of Angle Also called MOA. A unit of angle that is equal to one1/60 of one degree. Used to adjust sight angles to aim a firearm. At 100 yards one MOA is equal to very nearly 1 inch. Typical telescopic sights used for competition have adjustments (clicks) in one quarter MOA increments. In most situations a rifle must be able to shoot one minute of angle or less sized groups to be considered highly accurate.(Slang usage: "minute of pop can", "minute of deer", "minute of barn", or some other type of target. This implies a level of accuracy necessary to hit that particular target under "normal" conditions. It can be an approving comment as in "It's good enough for minute of deer." Or derogatory, as in "That gun can't shoot minute of barn.") Trajectory The path which a bullet takes from the muzzle of the barrel to it's initial point of rest. A bullet in flight does not fly straight to its target. In fact, the bullet begins dropping under the influence of gravity as soon as it leaves the barrel. To compensate for this, the firearm's sights are aligned to point the barrel upward and perhaps to one side or the other to compensate for the wind. This causes the bullet to arc upward relative to the line of sight within the sighting system, then downward under the influence of gravity to its point of impact. The sights are adjusted in elevation and windage to change it's angle with the barrel to make the bullet point of impact coincide with the point of aim. Windage The setting on the sights used to accommodate the wind or adjust for horizontal errors in the alignment of the sights with the bore of the firearm. Fouling Shot is interesting.)

Mark, while looking at copies of Time from, 61, 62, 63, I noticed quite a number of people jostling for position in the upcoming elections. Nixon was being pushed, he ended up staying out of the race for a number of years. Allegiances shifted, parties changed, Thurmond shifted to Goldwater over Johnsons Civil rights bill. The vaccuum created by the assassination saw a number of shifts. Prior to the assassination there were shifts in fortunes that I don't think I have seen a follow up on. I wonder if MacNamara might have felt a bit freed? I know in his Morris fog docu he is painted as an anguished soul, however some commentators see him at heart a nazi.

Mark; The "thicker" barrel at the chamber end serves multiple purposes. 1. Of course, this allows for the machining down of the breech end of the barrel for threads which thus allow the barrel to be screwed into the receiver/frame of the weapon, and still maintain barrel integrity. 2. The "chamber pressure" is greatest at the breech end where initial ignition of the propellant must create the chamber pressure necessary to begin to drive the bullet/projectile forward into the rifling of the weapon. Once the projectile begins movement, chamber and barrel pressure begin to decrease with the advancing movement of the projectile. Barrel thickness/outside diamater must also contain the functional co-efficient for adequate cooling of the metal between rounds fired at the maximum sustained rate of fire for the weapon. All of which is based upon the grade/type, strength, expansion, contraction, and heat dissipation capability of the specific steel utilized in manufacture. Tom ---------------------------- Tom: If I might add: When we finished the shooting of "JFK", Hargraves and I went over to Frederick, MD to once again visit with Harold Weisberg. He had a somewhat different version of the M/Carcano in his "Office", and this one didn't have a scope attached. After getting past his disagreements with Oliver Stone, I went into the fact that our movie armorer had to cut the very strong bolt spring in half, in order that Gary Oldman, Kostner, and Sanders might work the action rapidly. This seemed to astound him, and I looked at his wife -- seeking a response if we were over-taxing his waning energies -- but she nodded OK. I further explained to Harold that said mainspring is so strong that, with the action cocking upon opening the bolt [as opposed to the British SMLE Enfield, which cocks upon bolt closing, making it one of the fastest bolt actions made] causes the shoulder stock to be rotated out of the shoulder position. This Mauser type action, though much more fluid in the Wehrmacht's "Kar-98" in use throughout WWII, on rare occasions required use of the sling -- especially for 1,000 metre shots. The Japanese Arisaka "Meiji-38" used the "Mauser" straight shank [WWI issue] bolt, and it too would sometimes cause the weapon to be pulled from the shoulder. So, Harold said: "....What you are telling me is that LHO would have had to return the shoulder-stock back into his shoulder the first time he reloaded...and this would cause how much interval between shots...?" I told him that Stone had sent the whole crew down to the rifle range the first week in Dallas, where we fired live rounds in a dozen different models/brands of rifles and carbines. Everybody lost the shoulder seating upon "cranking", and this required more time to reacquire the target using the scope. So we switched to not using the scope, and instead used the "iron-sights" -- but, without a "PROPER" leather sling, shoulder seat was lost every time. Further, I explained that in order to aquire/re-aquire a target with the alleged LHO scope, the shooter's eye had to be within a half inch of the rear of the scope; thus due to heavy recoil: the shooter gets a "black eye" !! Moreover, I mentioned that when Stone had rented the "6th Floor Museum" for 3 hours of our use, I had pointed out to Bob Groden that: with the bottom of the window-sill just 7+ inches above the floor, that a shooter [with LHO's upper torso measurements] would have great difficulty "hunching-down" so as to shoot through the window -- which only opened to the half-way point. I further pointed out that the FBI re-enactment photos show that the man holding the rifle is practically a midget, which you can verify with comparative measurement of the M/Carcano versus his upper torso. BTW: A Silencer/Suppresor will leak smoke even after the first shot, due to an accumulation of gases within the tube, which acts to both give more accuracy & range [more burning of powder] and reduces the noise level. Rice Krispies !! Gerry ___________________________________ Gerry, right to the heart of the matter. Would one assume that Oswald was aware of this stock shift? Is it something that comes with experience with a particular gun. Does the habit of someone as stated in evidence 'buried the gun near walkers place to retrieve later' indicate a knowledge of guns. How delicate exactly are sights. How 'lucky' was the seemingly perfect head shot? Is the pipe in the way for a comfortable shot?

Mark, I worded this very poorly : " Also for clarification is the upwards slope of the bore in the barrel being sloped or is the bore in the barrel sloped?". I'm not suggesting a curve in the bore. Is the upward slope in the barrel because the barrel itself is mounted pointing upwards OR is the barrel level and the bore in the barrel on an angle? Or both? (on the MC). I agree, I find with the MC a left hander seems awkward. The other questions: Al, I take it you agree that a tilt as I described is unlikey? It seems to me that a slight tilt could cause a wide error as not only is the bullet not curving back into the line of sight, it also wouldn't rise as high? (sorry about all the questions, use of correct words will halp me to find out for myself, a good link would be good) Also could a look be had at these and comment (with pipe, angle, boxes etc on whether sufficient room is available, and whether if it is tight, would that mean a greater chance of tilting the rifle? (in the lower left pic I've estimated the location of the pipes behind the boxes. Does anyone have a picture that shows the floor with pipe locations?)

John, Mark has explained this as well as anyone can. My hat is off to him on not only his understanding of this, but his ability to explain it in layman's terms. Most rifles are factory sighted by bore sighting at 100 yds, which Mark is explaining on barrel tilt that makes the factory adjustment of rise and fall in elevation through initial trajectory gain and loss. Optical sights are sighting generally at 200 meters (if available) in a caliber consistent with the MC. This sighting is done with a level elevation target. In the feat of the supposed Oswald shot, he would have to take into account the formula of lack of gravitational pull from the optical sighting. If this was not figured into the shot, the bullet strike would be in the range of +12". The shooter would also have to be versed in leading and compensating a moving target at the speed of the limo at this range which would put it in the range of a +2 minute of angle and nearly as much in negative elevation. Al (remembering of course here we are talking about the MC as presented in evidence) Mark, Al, and Pat, thanks. That gives me key words and concepts to go on. Not sure I understand exactly. But using the right words helps. Al, I take it you agree that a tilt as I described is unlikey? It seems to me that a slight tilt could cause a wide error as not only is the bullet not curving back into the line of sight, it also wouldn't rise as high? Also for clarification is the upwards slope of the bore in the barrel being sloped or is the bor in the barrel sloped? (sorry about all the questions, use of correct words will halp me to find out for myself, a good link would be good) Also could a look be had at these and comment (with pipe, angle, boxes etc on whether sufficient room is available, and whether if it is tight, would that mean a greater chance of tilting the rifle? There has been speculation of a left handed shooter from this location. I'm not a shooter (except arcade) hence ignorance. Does a left handed shooter encounter different room problems? Would a tilt to the left be more likely (please look at the above pic to see what I mean re tilt) The very first pic up top shows a tilt to the left which I would assume a right handed shooter might do in a tight spot? (in the lower left pic I've estimated the location of the pipes behind the boxes. Does anyone have a picture that shows the floor with pipe locations?) .

Thank you, Pat. Yes good specs is what I'm after. Well as good as is available. I understand that at some point there were shims added to the scope and I'd like to know which good photos are the earliest. Also exact angle of scope/bore. As well the above post. In the second image the second rifle is tilted to the right so I'm suggesting that the drop will be off to the right. In other words a tilt could send a bullet sighted on Kennedy , into Connally.

Bill, Richard, I was living in freo when Bonds team won the cup, it was a very quiet one cafe' sleepy working class port back then,full of rajneeshies, hippies and italians. The cup changed all that and I headed east before the cup was held, it was turning into a 'noosa' (tourist joint up near gold coast, queensland) kind of place. Bond wasn't going to have it in freo in the beginning (or so he said to make some of his real estate further up the coast attractive). He's out and about now again, still bankrupt I think, though that wouldn't keep him down. Freo is still much as it was when the cup was held. The market's still the same. Papa's is gone across the road. (hmm, The Pink Panther, did you know Chopper et al? A friend of mine managed The Cauldron, but that might have been after your time.)

My contribution to the "Who killed J.F.K." topic: "My theory is still 'in the making' ... Motive : money, power, money Capitalism is a system that depends on imbalance in the form of diverse markets. It also depends on room to grow. Where this room to grow contracts it seeks new fields and failing that takes steps to creatre them. This takes the form of wars of commercial and military nature. Whole populations and industries are wiped out, rebuilt and reorganised. War is also an impetus for technology creation. Unequal markets and instability is important. (one can say that 'Japan and Germany won WWII'. Simlarly, perhaps, in time one may be able to say 'Russia won the cold war') The socialist revolutions of the 20th century, and the division of markets after WWII, were severely contracting the capitalist world. As such, winning the cold war was a must. Along came Kennedy. His voice of reason and peace was perhaps the greatest enemy of rampant capitalism. (I think it was a failure to recognise that he had an agressive anti-communist stance, just not a militaristic one, rather a war for hearts and minds by example, education and judicious funding.) Kennedys approach was a radical shift. He had been warned by Eisenhower and he set about to create alternative structures to turn the US away from the confrontations that may have resulted in the destruction of the entire world. Nuclear weapons was the new factor. Contrary to Reagan's and others statements, there are no friendly atomic bombs. However to people whom I would class as sociopaths, Kennedy was an obstruction in the quest for 'divide and rule'. Kennedy was into 'unite and live'. Hence he was prepared to seriously tackle issues such as civil rights. In this environment in southern of USA, these sociopaths found ready elements of fanatics to do their bidding. Means : hate, bigotry, strife These right wing elements in the south, the racist bigots, could easily be manipulated as their interests and those of the 'Bankers' coincided. Someone like Walker would have been well placed as the bridge to the actual assassins. Separate but allied in common purpose were agency and gocvernment elements prepared to participate in a coverup. Opportunity : a presidential visit to The heart of Texas, Dallas. The heart of Dallas, Dealey Plaza. Here conflict was right up front, thus the first layer of concealment already in place. Fertile ground for conspiracy to take any of a number of directions, just not in the right one. Capital. The population of Dallas in tight control of its Citizens Council and law enforcement. People, black and white, knew what it meant to step out of line. An area whos interests coincided with those of the 'Bankers' of the assassination. In a way here Oswald is unimportant. If it hadn't been him it would have been someone else. Similarly, Ruby was peripheral to this closed society, his non-local status combined with his Jewishness put him on the outer. He despearately wanted in. He was used and discarded. Others that in this way were manipulated were elements of agencies, (CIA, FBI and DPD) and anti Castro activists. I don't subscrire to the Mob scenario except insofar as individuals stood to gain finacially (itsa just business), perhaps elements of rightwing union structures, but then only where membership overlapped. The actual assassins were drawn from connections within the Dallas ruling bodies. These were likely KKK, fanatical white supremacists who had a warped view of black people, communists, catholics and Jews. they also had a secret society where members were very aware of the consequences of breaking ranks." A three tiered conspiracy? Top : Dispassionate practical, would never rat on self, Industry leaders? Middle : The tie, the middleman, aspirations of moving with the top, motivated by selfish needs, momney power. Walker? Lower : The assassins, Lumpen elements, motivated by base emotion, immediate gain. Belonging to secretive groups where betrayal means death. KKK?

Vietnam post 36 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=43778

Could someone review and comment please? My understanding is that a rifles barrel is angled up slightly and the scope is zeroed so that when the bullet drops back to the scope line hopefully a strike is made. -is the barrel itself at an angle or is the bore drilled at an angle into the barrel. or both? If the rifle is tilted as per image, is my assumption that the zeroing is thrown out the window measurable by some pre-existing formula? How likely is this as a factor over the range? On a rifle with a scope that according to reports needed to be shimmied has this been discussed? Can anyone provide links? Also from someone with expertise what would be the correct terminologies to use in discussing/researching this?

As have most. First, review the testimony of Dr. Humes when the coat of JFK was introduced into evidence. At this time, the coat had attached to it a "note'. I like to call it a "Note from Mom", actually it was my Grandma who I used to get to write those phoney notes to skip school in order to not miss the first hunting day of squirrel season; deer season; turkey season; watermelon season; whatever. The "Note" is now also one of those items which has been found missing from the National Archives. Nevertheless, the testimony of Dr. Humes will reveal the second hole, located just below the edge of the collar, in the coat of JFK. And, this hole penetrates the collar as well as the liner at an oblique tangent. It is the hole created by the third/last/final shot as the bullet passed through the slightly raised collar, exited and struck JFK at the edge of the hairline, with the back of the neck in virtually the horizontal position. Thereafter to continue on an approximately 12-degree downward angle into the skull of JFK approximately 2cm right and slightly above the EOP. Which by the way created the elongated entry wound into the skull of JFK. Thereafter, read Frazier's comments on the second hole and then we will will get down to the "real story" of the spectrographic examination of the clothing of JFK. NOT the hearsay evidence of "notes from mom" and what Frazier thought and reported. Tom <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hello again, Mr. Purvis. I'd like to present to you a debate that took place between a fellow collaborator from Col. L. Fletcher Prouty's site and Dr. Kenneth Rahn, during the summer of 2001. I would like to hear your comments on it, if you would be so kind to go through it for me. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Terry Mauro ******************************************************************** Chris (9/1/01 5:35 am) Reply <http://pub78.ezboard.com/ffletcherproutyfrm1.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=14.topic> Debating Assassination educator Ken Rahn Hi Everybody, I've been busy this summer but have still had time to participate in various arenas of the JFK case and thought I would share my correspondances with a Dr. Ken Rahn, who I mentioned before in the old forum as teaching a course on the JFK Assassination at the University of Rhode Island. He teaches this course as part of a "critical thinking" model in which his students are funneled toward a "LHO-could-have-easily-done-it-alone" conclusion. He has a website supporting his course located here: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html <http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html> Instead of an in-depth review, it appears to me that Dr. Rahn and his alleged critical thinking review was as biased as anyone's based on what was shown in the "further thoughts" section of his course outline: 1. There is overwhelming physical evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. 2. There is an overwhelming absence of evidence that anyone else was involved. 3. No other credible suspects, general or named, have emerged after 37 years of intensive investigation. Thus the exceedingly strong working hypothesis must be that Lee Harvey Oswald did it alone. The logical and procedural errors of the critics and conspiracists are so clear and obvious that further discussion of conspiracy is no longer justified without solid new evidence. Given that no conspiracy has emerged in 37 years, there is no reason to expect the present situation to change (although it could at any time). Therefore the era of national soul-searching and angst that followed the JFK assassination and the distrust of the government it created were unnecessary and hurtful. The spotlight should have been turned inward on the critics rather than outward on the government. Recognizing these things, we are now ready to write the simple, clear, and true history of the assassination. Re: karws.gso.uri.edu/PSC404/...ughts.html <http://karws.gso.uri.edu/PSC404/Spring2001/Further_thoughts.html> Obviously, when the "teacher" puts statements like that into a course outline, the direction of that course has already been determined. As such, the students in the class already know what is necessary...though not necessarily correct...to obtain a good grade. Challenging a tenured professor's stated opinion would hardly help achieve a good mark, and most students understand that. Others attempting to debate aspects of the assassination might also feel intimidated, confronted by the prestige of his professional standing. I believe we should hold our educators to high standards in their methodology. They influence many potential leaders and are looked up to by the masses of the populace. As such, they must be totally objective, something apparently lost in this case. Anything less than complete integrity risks creating and perpetuating a false history. And so, I decide to engage our esteemed Dr. Rahn in an evidence debate to see just how strongly he could hold up to a lowly alaskan wilderness guide in support of his university course objectives. ******************************************************************* Following is our email debate: 6/6/01 (9:25pm) Hi Mr. Rahn, My name is Chris Dolmar and I'm writing to you from the far south coast of Alaska. After studying the JFK event since about 15 when I saw a bootlegged copy of the Zapruder film shown on an early Geraldo Rivera tv show, I have personally come to the conclusion that the evidence surrounding CE 139 indicates that NOBODY, much less LHO could have performed the shooting skills required to accomplish the assassination as presented by the WC to the American people. WHAT THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY ACTUALLY SHOWED: 1. The 2 sheriff's deputies who found a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD, and a highly decorated deputy who saw it before it was taken from the floor. 2. ALL identified it as a "7.65mm Mauser". Subsequent documents and affidavits filed by these deputies continued to identify it that way. (Commission Exhibit Decker 5323) 3. CIA documents still identified it as a "Mauser", 4 days later. One of the officers, decorated deputy sheriff, Roger Craig, continued to insist that this identification was correct, even after his testimony before the Commission. He maintained that the gun he saw had the word "MAUSER" stamped on the barrel. 4. Craig also told researchers that his WC testimony had been altered in 14 different places by WC counsel David Belin so that it appears "bland" in the 26 volumes. 5. Another of the deputies in question, Constable Seymour Weitzman, had also sold rifles while working for many years, in a sporting goods store and therefore, had a vast amount of experience in both handling and identifying them. 6. Police officers are trained to properly observe and notate evidence. In fact, their observations are more readily accepted in a court of law than those of most other witnesses. 7. The Warren Commission Report attempts to slide past this "problem" with the weapon by saying that the deputies only had a "glance" at the weapon. 8. The tape recording of a news broadcast of November 22, 1963 on Dallas radio station K-BOX said: "Sheriff's deputies identify the rifle as a seven point sixty- five Mauser, a German-made Army rifle with a telescopic sight. It had one shell in the chamber. Three spent shells were found nearby." (CE 304) 9. Additionally, in his book, "On the Trail of the Assassins", Jim Garrison claims to have viewed a Dallas TV newsreel from that day which he claims showed a police officer bringing another rifle down the fire escape from the roof. Five separate documents with descriptions of the rifle originally found on the 6th floor were missing from the FBI files on the Presidential assassination when presented to the WC. Those documents were: 1) DPD Lt. Carl Day's dictated memorandum on the weapon 2) Day's description to FBI S.A. Bardwell Odum 3) Odum's subsequent description, which was broadcast over FBI radio 4) Constable Weitzman's original report to the FBI 5) DPD Detective C.N. Dhority's written report. The legal "chain of possession" of CE 139 was never properly established. The officers who found a gun should have either marked it for identification purposes immediately, or watched as the detective who removed it did so. Neither identification procedure took place at the scene. It appears that this was finally done some six hours later, at DPD Headquarters, after the weapon found had passed through countless other hands, and had allegedly laid in the evidence room for several hours. What chain of possession that existed after that was again broken when the rifle was taken to FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C., by FBI Special Agent Vincent Drain on the night of November 22nd, unaccompanied by any officer of the DPD. In 1963, even though threatening the President was a federal crime, the assassination of a President was not. It was merely an all too common, local murder. This meant that the FBI had no jurisdiction, whatsoever in the case. If the weapon needed to be sent to an FBI lab for analysis, it needed to be accompanied by a Dallas Police officer to maintain the legal "chain of possession". The reasons behind this continuous improper handling of such vital evidence, in such a high profile case, by highly trained local and federal officers are very suspicious. This type of handling would have been questionable enough for the weapon to have been excluded from the evidence in any trial of LHO. How fortunate they were that there was no trial. Despite all the controversy over the initial "misidentification" of the rifle, at no time did the WC show CE 139 to any of the Dallas law enforcement officers who found it and ask them, point blank, if CE 139 was the weapon that they had found. What they showed them were photographs, but not the weapon itself. Not one of those Dallas witnesses could positively state that the weapon in the photos was the weapon that they had found. Even today, you and I still can only see photographs of this infamous weapon at the National Archives. We cannot see nor measure the weapon itself. The paper bag found on the 6th floor showed no signs of any gunpowder residue nor any gun oil, and contained no verifiable fingerprints (a partial palm print that had some characteristics similar to Oswald's palm print was found. However, there were too few similarities for a legal match), according to the FBI examination conducted of it. The package's size was also too small to have contained CE 139, unless the rifle was broken down. (CE 1304) Next, when broken down, the weapon contained a number of sharp-edged parts which, logically, should have made some scratches, or tears in the paper, had it been in there. Not only were there no scratches or tears, they wasn't a single crease which the FBI could match to any part of CE 139. Basically, we find that there was no physical evidence that any gun had ever been inside the bag found on the 6th floor and alleged by the WC to have carried CE 139 from Irving, Texas to the TSBD that day. If the rifle was broken down for transport, its accuracy would have suffered further without the ability to be sighted-in after re-assembly . Military experts stated that a minimum of 10 shots would have been required, adjusting the scope after each, to re-sight any rifle for accurate shooting. Both Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle, the only people to have seen it, testified that the package LHO had in Frazier's car was no more than 26" in length, yet the longest part of CE 139, even when broken down was 34.8". (CE 1303) Frazier further testified that when Oswald laid the package in the back seat of the car, it took up less than half of the length of the seat. The back seat's total length was 62". Frazier also testified that when they arrived at work, Oswald took the package out of the back seat and, holding one end in the palm of his hand, tucked the other end under his arm. For the package Frazier saw to have contained CE 139, even broken down, would have required Oswald to have an arm length of over 36". Rather amazing for a man of 5' 9". (2 WCH 210-245) We see, therefore, that there was also absolutely no testimony corroborating the WCR conclusion about how Oswald allegedly got the rifle into the depository, either. How and why then was this conclusion drawn? While the Warren Commission Report used as evidence an FBI document (Dallas 89-43) which says that the FBI laboratory found the materials used to construct the paper bag entered into evidence to be consistent with materials found at the TSBD, and could have been constructed from them, researcher Livingstone in his book, "High Treason", shows another copy of that same said document which states that the materials were not similar. While there is no way to categorically determine which is the correct copy, there would appear to be no logical reason for the FBI to have revised the report to deny the similarities, then enter the incorrect one into evidence. However, if my belief that they altered evidence is correct, then changing the report from NOT SIMILAR, to SIMILAR, fits in quite nicely with that scenario. FBI tests of CE 139`s accuracy showed that the rifle was: 1) inaccurate from 15 yards (CE 549), 2) carrying a scope that was mounted for a left-handed shooter (CE 2560); [LHO was right-handed], and 3) unable to be sighted in, using the scope, without the installation of 2 metal shims, which were not present when the rifle arrived for testing, nor notated in any previous description of CE 139 (3 WCH Pg 440-445). Nothing resembling a shim was found at the TSBD, Oswald's room in Oak Cliff, or on his person, when arrested. During efforts, supervised by the FBI, to duplicate the shooting accuracy allegedly achieved, no FBI, military, or civilian (National Rifle Association) expert was ever able to match the concluded performance, while using CE 139 in the condition it was found, within the time frame established, and under conditions similar to those faced by a shooter crouched in the 6th floor window of the TSBD. These re-creations took place on November 27, 1963, March 16, 1964, and March 27, 1964. None of these attempts were made under circumstances that came even remotely close to the difficulties and pressures that would have been encountered by a gunman in that 6th floor window, and still they all failed to duplicate the feats attributed to Oswald. Later efforts, sponsored by the HSCA Firearms Panel, were successful in hitting three stationary targets, within the time frames. However, they used a different rifle, albeit a similar Mannlicher-Carcano and fired using open-sights, instead of the scope, and again, from a different position, angle, and under different circumstances than would have been encountered by LHO, or anyone else, crouched in the 6th floor window of the TSBD.(3 WCH 390-430) In addition, the HSCA testimony of Firearms Panel member Monty Lutz shows his opinion of the scope: Mr. LUTZ: This is a four-power Ordinance Optics telescopic sight with a crosshair reticle. Mr. MCDONALD: Would you, in your opinion, classify it as an accurate scope? Mr. LUTZ: The accuracy is fairly undependable, as far as once getting the rifle sighted in, and it is very cheaply made, the scope itself has a crosshair reticle that is subject to movement, or being capable of being dislodged from dropping, from impact, or a very sharp recoil. So, the accuracy would be somewhat questionable for this particular type of a scope. (HSCA Vol 1, pg 449) Why the HSCA experts did not use the real exhibit is another valid question that has never been answered. Perhaps, it was because the original examination by the FBI in 1963-1964 showed that CE 139 was inaccurate at 15 yards, or someone involved knew the shooting could not be duplicated using that weapon. Former HSCA Firearms Panel member Lutz, an expert rifleman himself, later confirmed these failures. He stated, in a 1986 mock Oswald trial sponsored by the BBC, that to his knowledge, no one had ever duplicated LHO's alleged shooting feats, using CE 139 in the condition it was found. Also, in this regard, Craig Roberts, a Marine Corps sniper with combat experience in Vietnam, professional law enforcement officer, and world-class rifleman, states in his book, "Kill Zone", that even using his precise equipment loaded with matched rounds, he could not have equaled the shooting process assumed by the Warren Commission to have taken place. It is very hard to disregard such statements by an expert who has actually looked out on Elm St from the "sniper's window". Mr. Roberts is not the only expert to feel this way. In fact, efforts to duplicate the shooting expertise were attempted by agencies within the governments of Cuba, Israel, and the USSR. All reached the same conclusion: The shooting, as outlined by the Warren Commission, was virtually impossible! The time frames required were established by the FBI after the review and calculation of time between shots shown on the Zapruder film, also taking into consideration the time required to operate CE 139, and the view from the 6th floor. The HSCA findings concluded that only if Oswald had fired using open sights, could he have fired 3 shots accurately within the WCR time frames. No possible scenario that included any additional gunmen was ever considered, meaning all shots must have come from that rifle and during the designated time frames. DPD searches of Oswald's room in Oak Cliff, and his family's residence in Irving, failed to unearth any additional ammunition, or any cleaning supplies normally associated with the operation of a rifle. In fact, additional checks by agents of the Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, failed to find any evidence that either LHO, or Alec Hidell, had ever purchased any ammunition for the rifle, either. Yet, an FBI memorandum described the rifle, when presented to them, as being in "...a well-oiled condition...". Additional ammunition would have been needed to practice, and that same FBI memorandum, signed by Director J.Edgar Hoover himself, noted that an examination of the firing pin showed that "numerous" shots had been fired through CE 139. (CE 2974) Also, the three experts who first test-fired the rifle showed concern that the firing pin might break because it was rusted. (3 WCH 444) Ammunition isn't purchased one bullet at a time. The minimum would be a box of twenty. It would be inconsistent with the way LHO allegedly purchased the weapon for him to hide the purchase of the ammunition. And, rusted firing pins are not what one would consider suitable for a rifle being used in such a high profile political assassination...what if it broke on the first shot? FBI searches of every gun range in the greater Dallas-Fort Worth area failed to come up with even a single shell casing that could be matched to CE 139. In all, literally millions of used casings were reviewed, and 13,000 possible Mannlicher-Carcano casings were recovered and compared. None ballistically matched CE 139. This lack of physical evidence came despite the testimony of several witnesses who told stories of a man, allegedly LHO, practicing at various ranges with a high-powered rifle, and being very visible doing so...in some cases going out of his way to draw attention to himself. The fact is, that the FBI could find absolutely no physical evidence which showed that LHO had ever purchased ammunition, or practiced firing CE 139. Yet again, in spite of this lack of evidence, not only did the WCR conclude that he had, but they also concluded that he became so good at shooting that he could make shots that documented experts could not. The length of CE 139 and the length of the rifle depicted in the ad allegedly used to order it, from the February, 1963 issue of American Rifleman Magazine, are significantly different. The weapon depicted in that ad, a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm Italian Carbine, model # C20-T750, is 36" long, assembled. This is the weapon reportedly shipped, on March 20, 1963 to: A. Hidell PO Box 2915 Dallas, Texas The length of CE 139 is 40.2" assembled and it is model # C20-750. Representatives of Kleins were unable to adequately explain these differences. (CE 773) Also, the FBI records of the length of the rifle they tested show 3 different figures, none of which was 36". (NOTE: the author owns a Mannlicher-Carcano of the same model as CE 139. Its length is 40.2") Klein's was also able to state how it was paid for (postal money order), when it was deposited, AND they were able to produce both the envelope it was received in, and the stamp used to mail the order to them! While the serial number of CE 139---C2766---was the same as that of the weapon shipped by Kleins to A. Hidell, the FBI discovered that, due to the manufacturing techniques used by Italy during World War II, this serial number was not necessarily unique to only one such weapon. In fact, it is possible that as many as 5 different rifles could have had the serial number C2766. The FBI eventually traced another Carcano, serial number C2766, to Canada. In addition, Scottish researcher, and friend Bill MacDowall, has done significant research in this area and has traced the rifle mailed by Kleins to A. Hidell, all the way back to its manufacture. He has found evidence that ALL identifying markings were supposedly removed prior to Kleins purchase of the weapon. Bill has written an extensive paper on this weapon and has made it available to be posted exclusively on this site. While evidence showed that the rifle from Kleins was shipped to the post office box of LHO, no one knows for sure who actually took possession of it, on its arrival. For Oswald to have received it, the Dallas Post Office would have needed to violate Postal Regulations since it was addressed to "Hidell", and it was Oswald's PO box. Amazingly, the FBI was able to track this weapon to the retailer (Kleins) even before S.A. Vince Drain actually took possession of it at 11:30 PM, that first night. This is truly amazing since, as late as 9:00 PM on the night of November 22nd, Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade, was still calling it a "Mauser", and other than the serial number, there was nothing to go on to search for its owner. That serial number was only worthwhile if the FBI knew the manufacturer, and in this case even that would not have been enough, since more than one Mannlicher-Carcano had that serial number. Yet, by 11:00 PM, government agents were already at Kleins to look up the purchase and shipping orders, despite the fact that the retailer would have been next-to-last on the possession time-line. Few of the eyewitnesses who testified that they saw a gun firing, from the 6th floor window of the TSBD, described anything similar to CE 139. Several felt that the weapon was an automatic rifle because of the speed of the firing, and those few witnesses who testified as to seeing a scope mounted on the rifle they saw, did not see the rifle actually being fired. There is no notation, anywhere within the twenty-six volumes of evidence that either, the DPD or FBI, ever tested CE 139 to see if it had been fired recently... they simply assumed that it had been fired that day. This, despite the fact that no one testified to smelling gunpowder, in or around, the "sniper's nest", and with no notations that forensic examinations of the boxes, showed any traces of gunpowder residue. Documents concerning what was recovered from the 6th floor all state that one live round was in the chamber when the rifle was found. One live round was also turned over to the FBI. The problems with this are generally overlooked. They are: 1) None of the witnesses who testified as to seeing the shots fired, spoke of seeing the shooter eject a round after the fatal head shot, thus meaning a spent cartridge, not a live round should have been in the chamber. 2) If the shooter did eject the fired round, why would he do it after moving away from the window? 3) And if he did so, why were all 3 casings allegedly recovered together? If it was LHO who did this, we must factor in the additional delay that ejecting the final spent round, for reasons unknown, would have on his ability to wipe the gun clean of prints, hide it, and still be on the first floor no more than 90 seconds after firing the fatal shot. Do you have any opinions, input, feedback, or any other comments relating to these issues concerning CE 139 as I have expressed them? Thanks for your time. Sincerely, Chris Dolmar ***************************************************************** Rahn's response: 6/11/01 (11:03am) Dear Chris, Thanks for your note. I just returned from two weeks of traveling and found it last night. I do indeed have much to say about your views, but I don't know when I will get time enough. Basically, you are emphasizing the apparent negatives and avoiding all the positive physical evidence that shows that the assassination was an easily doable feat. I urge you to take more time on the sites maintained by John McAdams and me. More later, but I don't know quite when. Best regards, Ken Rahn Kenneth A. Rahn Center for Atmospheric Chemistry Studies Graduate School of Oceanography University of Rhode Island Narragansett, RI 02882-1197, USA ***************************************************************** My 2nd email to Rahn: 6/28/01 (2:14am) Hello Mr. Rahn, No doubt you are a busy man as I am, but I thought I would maintain our correspondance regarding CE 139. I think as was outlined in my initial email to you, that the ability of THE WEAPON itself, is in serious question as to whether it (CE 139) could have been remotely mechanically capable of accomplishing the accuracy attributed to it by the SBT & WC, the shooting skills of the alleged assassin, notwithstanding. The only way the assassination "could have been an easily doable feat", as you stated to me previously, is if LHO had acted like the Lone Gunman that the WC portrays him as, and taken the Best Percentage shot he had - which was a straight away, dead-on, head shot at Kennedy - as the limousine was traveling down Houston Street - almost straight at him - before it took the dog-leg left turn onto Elm Street. But, being that LHO was, allegedly, using a rifle (CE 139) which the FBI determined was: 1. INACCURATE at 15 yards. 2. Had a scope mounted for a LEFT-handed shooter (LHO was a RIGHT-handed shooter). 3. And, was missing 2 metal shims that further compromised its accuracy. 4. That LHO, the lone gunman, STILL passed up "The Perfect Shot" on Houston Street, for a tree-filtered, going-away, MUCH lower-percentage shot, on Elm Street? 5. Why did LHO pass on the EASY Houston Street shot? 6. - and let's not debate the difficulty of the Houston & Elm Street shots: a. The Houston Street shot would have been, BY FAR, the EASIEST shot for ANY shooter in the, alleged, "sniper's nest" of the TSBD~especially a "lone nut assassin", who (in his mind) would have known that ONLY HE would have a chance to kill the president. b. Knowing that as a lone assassin, in your opinion, Mr. Rahn, why didn't LHO take the high percentage, easy shot on Houston Street? Sincerely, Chris Dolmar ************************************************************ Rahn's response: 6/28/01 (5:28am) Chris, I cannot pretend to get inside Oswald's head. I can only say that the shot on Houston Street has a couple of obvious disadvantages: The Secret Service agents would be looking right at him. And, Gov. Connally would have blocked much of Kennedy's body. I think I also heard something about the metallic "rollbar" blocking something as well, but I can't really remember. I believe you are overstating the inaccuracy of the rifle. But, your arguments are made moot by the fact that each of the two bullets recovered was traceable ballistically to that rifle, to the exclusion of all others. We also know that the bullets were not planted, because fragments from JFK's brain and Connally's wrist matched the larger fragments chemically. In general, I think that it is an error to start asking "Why?", too soon. First, we settle what happened, and only then do we worry about why. Ken Rahn ****************************************************************** My Followup email to Rahn: 8/25/01/ (2:53pm) Hello Mr. Rahn, It's been a couple of months since we corresponded. This is the biggest push of the year, business-wise, for me and thus my infrequent exchanges. I thought I would continue our correspondance regarding some of the issues you last mentioned. You said: " But your arguments are made moot by the fact that each of the two bullets recovered was traceable ballistically to that rifle to the exclusion of all others." From what I can ascertain, allegedly, no human matter of any kind was found on CE 399 despite the necessary assumption that it had caused numerous wounds, nor was it recovered from either victim's body. It, therefore, could not be scientifically linked to either, Kennedy or Connally. In fact, in what appears to be an effort to hide this, the WC leads FBI S.A. Robert Frazier through contradictory testimony about CE 399. (WCH 3, Pgs 228-244) He finally states, however, that even under microscopic examination, no blood nor human tissue was found. No striation marks (tiny scratches) were found by the FBI on the bulbous, undamaged nose of CE 399, despite allegedly going through JFK's jacket, shirt, possibly nicking his tie, JBC?s jacket, shirt, shirt, jacket, jacket, shirt, shirt, jacket and pants. Striation marks, around the nose, are common even when bullets are fired only into cotton for ballistic comparison purposes. Because of this, CE 399 cannot scientifically be determined to have gone through either man's clothes, much less both. No traces of copper were found on JFK's tie. This is very inconsistent with the copper traces found in the other clothes and/or wounds of both men. CE 399 is copper jacketed. If traces of copper were found on JFK's suit (entrance), and in JBC's wounds (entrance and exit), logic would dictate that there should be traces on the tie (JFK exit), IF they were caused by the same bullet, or even the same type of bullet. In addition: The testimony of every one of the autopsy doctors and the physician who treated Connally at Parkland, stated that none of them could believe that CE 399 could have caused all the wounds because of its "pristine" condition and because too much metal was removed or remained in the victims. Their testimony on this point was unequivocal. (2 WCH 374-375, 382; 4 WCH 109, 113-114) Dr. Shaw's testimony about the wound in JBC's thigh (4 WCH 109-135) is extremely important yet, almost always overlooked. For the SBT theory to hold up, the wound to Connally must have been made by the complete bullet (CE 399) which later "fell out". The wound must therefore show these characteristics. Shaw's testimony, while ambiguous on this point, appears to describe the wound as being made by a fragment, not a complete bullet. CE 399 is not a fragment, and the largest fragment that could have come from it would have been no more than 3 grains, hardly large enough to cause a treatable wound. Additionally, Dr. Shaw has told researcher Livingstone that the thigh wound was indeed caused by a fragment, larger than 5 grains. The Parkland Hospital report on Connally (CE 392), appears to corroborate this point, and Dr. Shaw again identified the thigh wound as being made by a fragment in the NOVA documentary, "Who Killed President Kennedy?". This seriously undermines the theory that CE 399 fell out of JBC's leg while he was on the stretcher, and that CE 399 caused all his wounds. In addition, fragments too large to have come from CE 399 show up in X-rays of Connally. Parkland nurse, Audrey Bell, described these fragments as, "Anywhere from 3-4 millimeters in length by a couple of millimeters wide." (Dallas Morning News interview, 4/1/77) Finally, Dr. Charles Gregory, who worked on Connally, testified (6 WCH 122-123) that he saw multiple fragments that were large enough for him to determine their color. Darrel Tomlinson, the Parkland hospital employee who recovered the bullet from a stretcher in the hall of the emergency room, required much cross-examination by Commission counsel Arlen Specter before he would say that it was even possible that the stretcher in question was the one that carried John Connally. His initial, and vigorously maintained testimony was that the bullet he found came from a stretcher that had not been used by either, Connally or Kennedy (6 WCH 130-134). He has stood by that contention ever since. (NOVA, November 15, 198?) Neither Tomlinson, O.P. Wright, Secret Service Agent Richard Johnsen, nor Secret Service Chief J.J. Rowley, the first four people to handle the bullet found on the stretcher, could later identify CE 399 as that bullet, leaving open the possibility that another bullet was originally found and CE 399, a ballistic match to CE 139, was substituted to implicate LHO. This would have been possible, since many hours passed before the proper chain of possession was established. (CE 2011) But you fail to backup your statement, "We also know that the bullets were not planted, because fragments from JFK's brain and Connally's wrist matched the larger fragments chemically.", with any available supporting source references concerning this issue. CE 567 and CE 569---Two bullet fragments, one from the front of a bullet, the other from the rear of a bullet. They were supposedly found, on the night of November 22-23, 1963, inside the President's limousine while it was being searched at the White House Garage. Secret Service agents, allegedly, found both of these fragments on the floor, near the front seat. Each fragment was ballistically linked to CE 139, the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.--- However, I find NO source references concerning this evidence anywhere that they could be linked, in any fashion, to any of the other fragments removed from either victim, nor could they be scientifically linked to either victim. Please list official source references for me to review concerning this issue. So, as can be seen, there is NO SUPPORTING TESTIMONY, and NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, to support the KEY WCR conclusion that: "All the evidence indicated that the bullet found on the Governor's stretcher could have caused all the wounds." I have spent some time browsing your website, Dr. Rahn, and I couldn't help but notice that at the bottom of your 1st page, you state: "My JFK course at the University of Rhode Island takes this academic approach. Each year it enlightens a significant fraction of the students who take it, often with striking results. That is also the goal of this web site - enlightenment though proper academic procedures. I welcome any and all reactions from readers, and will post them for all to see." When I went to view your "Reactions from Readers" link, I was disappointed to see the most recent exchange of messages was posted from Aug 30, 2000 -almost a year ago - and thought I would suggest you update your link to that page, perhaps starting with our exchange. I think visitors, to that particular link on your site, would enjoy seeing that debates over differences of opinions (and, on reaching critical-thinking conclusions) on issues surrounding this case, can be discussed in a courteous and respectful manner, even between a renowned university professor and a simple Alaskan wilderness guide, and judge for themselves which one of us is displaying true critical-thinking skills over the issues being debated. Thank you for taking time to debate these issues with me. Sincerely, Chris Dolmar ************************************************************ Rahn's last reply: 8/25/01 (8:00pm) Chris, Please understand that I didn't let, "Replies from Readers" go because I wanted to. It was a casualty of general workload, including preparing the big monograph on NAA, which was a huge undertaking but very important to the JFK case. Also, the kinds of messages you write, with many questions and weak premises, take hours to answer properly. I seldom have that amount of time to spare these days. Lastly, if you are implying that I am not thinking critically in my class and my writings, I am out of this discussion immediately. I will discuss things, but I will not be put under the gun. Ken Rahn ************************************************************ And my most recent reply to Rahn: 8/28/01 (5:03am) Good Morning Mr. Rahn, I just finished reading your reply to my last email to you. I did not mean to put you on the defensive, and had thought that according to your WORLD WIDE WEBSITE that you defined your course analysis of the JFK as an objective one. Oh yes, Dr. Rahn, I have spent a considerable amount of my leisure time examining your site, and have thus directed my own VERY OBJECTIVE queries to you regarding THE EVIDENCE in a courteous, albeit, professional manner, as you might review throughout our correspondances. Your last response does you no justice as far as confronting the issues I brought forth backed up with solid, supporting WC, and/or HSCA testimony and evidence. "weak premises"????? Are you accusing me of providing false source references to you concerning the issues we have been debating? Please elaborate and don't try to tell me it would take hours, as I drafted my email to you in less than one hour, referencing everything with which you've confronted me concerning the issues I've brought forth to you with WC, and/or HSCA recorded testimony/evidence. In most of my emails I have not asked questions, simply provided the FACTS. If I asked you for source references regarding your unsupported replying statements to me - you should have been able to reference them, and cut & pasted them into your reply emails to me in a matter of minutes. After all, you're an acknowledged expert on the case and happen to have the ENORMOUS RESPONSIBILITY of providing AN OBJECTIVE presentation of the assassination events to numerous generations of our impressionable youth, some of whom may one day become leaders in various fields in our country. I waded through your very dated, "Reactions From Readers", page and enjoyed it very much. But, am I willing to bet (and, to be honest with you, I'm not a wagering man) that OUR CORRESPONDENCES will never see the light of day on any "Reactions From Readers" page on your website because you CANNOT (and SO FAR REFUSE) to refute ANY of the issues I have confronted you with in an OBJECTIVE way that would do justice to your website statement: "I can state with surety, and will demonstrate in the coming months, that anyone in command of the core physical data, and the principles of critical thinking, can circumscribe the right answer to the assassination in a matter of minutes." BUT YOU TOLD ME it would take HOURS to answer my questions???? I didn't really pose many questions to you, JUST FACTS, that you for one reason or another, REFUSE to refute. WHY? For example, (from our last correspondance): "But you fail to backup your statement: 'We also know that the bullets were not planted, because fragments from JFK's brain and Connally's wrist matched the larger fragments, chemically.', with any available supporting source references concerning this issue." Is this an issue you can't support with any verifiable source references? C'mon DR. Rahn, you're an educator of this case - BACK IT UP, OR DON'T TELL ME my "premises" are "weak". When you take on the responsiblity of educating college students (WHO ARE PAYING YOU TO BE OBJECTIVE) then at least assume that responsibility, OBJECTIVELY, as you CLAIM you are. Your defensive attitude reeks of an official who thinks his "credentials" automatically enable him to preach his "gospels" in a manner that is unquestionable. Please, OBJECTIVELY, respond to my very ACCURATE source references concerning the FEW issues we have debated, in a professional manner, so that I may ponder ALL my "weak premises". Thank you for taking time to consider my statements. Sincerely, Chris Dolmar ************************************************************ From: Chris Dolmar To: Kenneth A. Rahn 8/28/01 (5:35am) Dear Dr. Rahn, I thought I would add a list of "objective" source references concerning various issues of this case for you to review. Although, they are manied and varied, as an objective historian of the case, they merit review. Sources and Notes: Oswald: Michael Benson, "Who's Who in the JFK Assassination" (New York: Citadel Press, 1993), pp. 124, 329-352; John M. Newman, "Oswald and the CIA" (Carroll & Graf, 1995) Paul Brancato, "Coup d'etat" illustrated card set (Forestville, California: Eclipse Enterprises, 1989), pp. 1, 7, 10. Although we often assume that most of the American public initially accepted the lonegunman scenario, some of the following source references show that this was not necessarily the case. Public doubt: Paul B. Sheatsley and Jacob J. Feldman, "The Kennedy Assassination and the American Public", National Opinion Research Center, [stanford University Press, 1965] (a large majority expressing doubt over Oswald's guilt). For sources of public opinion for the period Nov. 1963 through Feb. 1977, see: "Studies of Public Reactions," items 1673-1714, DeLloyd J. Guth and David R. Wrone, "The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: A Comprehensive Historical and Legal Bibliography, 1963-1979" [Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 198 pp. 174-177; hereafter cited as Guth and Wrone 174-177.] It's also interesting to note that on Sunday, Nov. 24, 1963, soon after Oswald had been shot, Gordon McClendon, owner of Dallas radio station KLIF, reported the following from Cleveland's Municipal Stadium, where 40,000 spectators were attending the Dallas Cowboys-Cleveland Browns football game: "People seem to think that the Dallas Police Department really had the wrong man, or that Oswald was being held for want of a better suspect...No one here that we've talked to -- taxi drivers, hotel employees, the various people we've had an opportunity to be around since we arrived here yesterday afternoon -- no one really thought that Oswald was the guilty party." ("The Fateful Hours: a Presentation of KLIF News in Dallas," Capitol Records, 1964; reissued on audiotape by KLIF, 1993.) For sources of public opinion just before and after the release of the Oliver Stone film; "JFK", see: Kenneth Auchincloss, "Twisted History," Newsweek Dec. 23, 1991, p. 46, and Ted Gest and Joseph Shapiro, "JFK: The Untold Story of the Warren Commission," U.S. News & World Report Aug. 17, 1992, p. 29. No "credible" evidence: Warren Commission Report (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964) p. 374; hereafter cited as R 374. Official doubt: Chairman Warren: William M. Blair, "Warren Commission Will Ask Mrs. Oswald to Identify Rifle Used in the Kennedy Assassination," New York Times Feb. 5, 1964, p. 19; Richard Bartholomew discussion with Clint Richmond, Mar. 5, 1997; Commissioners Russell, Cooper and Boggs: Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities, The Investigation of the Assassination of President Kennedy: Performance of the Intelligence Agencies [senate Report 94-755, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., 1976, Final Report, Book V] p. 80; cited in Bernard Fensterwald, "Coincidence or Conspiracy" (New York: Zebra Books, 1977) pp.74-75 (hereafter cited as Fensterwald 74-75); Edward Jay Epstein, "Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth" (New York: Viking, Jun. 1966) pp. 149-50, (Bantam, Oct. 1966) p. 122; see also Fensterwald 86, 91, 96, 99; Commissioner McCloy: Hearings Before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, vol. XI (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979) note 11 at p. 14; hereafter cited as 11 HH 14 n.11; see also Fensterwald 86; Griffin statements: Charles J. Sanders and Mark S. Zaid, "The Declassification of Dealey Plaza: After Thirty Years, A New Disclosure Law At Last May Help To Clarify the Facts of the Kennedy Assassination," South Texas Law Review, Vol. 34:407, Oct. 1993; later published in "The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992" (ARCA), The Fourth Decade, Special Edition, 1994, pp. 411-12 n.8; hereafter cited as Sanders and Zaid 411-12 n.8; President Johnson: Walter Cronkite interview, CBS News, broadcast on Apr. 25, 1975 (President Johnson's doubt); see also Fensterwald 76, 124; FBI policy: Warren Commission Hearings and Evidence (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964, v. V) p. 99 ; cited hereafter as 5H 99 (Hoover?s policy); see also Sanders and Zaid, p. 412 n.11. Evidence problems: Robert Sam Anson, "They've Killed the President!" (New York: Bantam, 1975) p. 356; hereafter cited as Anson 356; Peter Dale Scott, "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK" (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1993) pp. 58, 60-61, 69; hereafter cited as Scott 58, 60-61, 69; Walter F. Graf and Richard R. Bartholomew, "The Gun that Didn't Smoke" (Fair Play Magazine, Issue 19, November-December 1997); Karen Gullo, "No JFK Shirt Material on Bullets," Associated Press, January 21, 2000, (AP-NY-01-21-00 1120EST, www.wire.ap.org/); <http://www.wire.ap.org/);> Joe Backes, "Backes responds to NARA's blundered test report, and Gullo's AP piece" (self published critique, January 21, 2000, 19:32:42 EST); Charles E. O'Hara, "Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation" (Springfield, Ill.: Thomas Books, 1956, 1970, 2nd ed., 2nd printing) pp. 5-6, 30, 67, 69, 80, 197, 199, 438, 450, 493, 562, 575, 681, 684-85, 687; hereafter cited as O'Hara with page number(s). As if speaking to the crime-scene investigators of the JFK assassination, O'Hara wrote the following in a brief preface to his second edition: "On review, however, it would appear that insufficient attention had been given to the role of the investigator in establishing the innocence of persons falsely accused. It was thought that this aspect of investigation was too obvious to stress; that the continued insistence on objectivity and professionalism in the investigator's conduct should meet this requirement. After all, the process of establishing innocence is hardly separable from the task of detecting the guilty. One does not, that is to say, prove guilt by the method of exhaustion." (O'Hara vii) See also: Walt Brown, Ph.D.,"The People v. Lee Harvey Oswald" (Carroll & Graff, 1994). "Two Oswalds": John Armstrong, "Harvey and Lee," A lecture by John Armstrong, including text and documents; Introduction by Jim Hargrove (Self published, 199 100 pgs.; Deb Riechmann, "Tape: Call on JFK wasn't Oswald," Associated Press, Nov. 21, 1999, 1246EST; Joe Nick Patoski, "The Two Oswalds," Texas Monthly magazine, November 1998, pp. 135, 160. Conflicting single bullet theories: Warren Commission: Sanders and Zaid 410-12 n.8; House Committee: Guth and Wrone xxvii-xxx; American Bar Association: Gerald Posner, "Case Closed" (New York: Random House, 1993) p. 317, 326,-35, 474, 477, 478-79; hereafter cited as Posner with page number(s) (Posner's theory is taken from the American Bar Association Mock Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald prosecution single bullet theory. It was presented uncritically and without credit to the A.B.A. by Posner. The entire, unabridged transcript of the 1992 American Bar Association's two-day mock trial presentation: "The United States v. Lee Harvey Oswald" can be found in American Jurisprudence "Trials" Volume 56, published by Lawyers Cooperative Publishing). JFK and Vietnam: L. Fletcher Prouty, "JFK: The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy" (New York: Birch Lane Press, 1992); John M. Newman, "JFK and Vietnam: Deception, Intrigue and the Struggle for Power" (New York, NY, 1992), CIA - Oil industry & Wall Street connections: Darwin Payne, "Initiative in Energy: Dresser Industries, Inc. 1880-1978" (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979), Appendix C; Donald Gibson, "Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency" (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1994) The Assassination and Academic History: Michael L. Kurtz (is a Professor of History at Southeastern Louisiana University and has taught a course on the assassination for several decades), "Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination from a Historian?s Perspective"(University of Tennessee Press, 1993, 2nd ed); Kenneth A. Rahn, "The Academic JFK Assassination Website": karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html<http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html> which supports the University of Rhode Island's Political Science course: "The JFK Assassination." The Assassination in the Media: Dr. George Michael Evica produces a weekly half-hour radio program on the assassination and related matters, "Assassination Journal," which is broadcast by the University of Hartford's radio station WWUH. It is the Longest-Running Public Affairs Program in the United States. Live webcasts are broadcast every Tuesday from 12noon-12:30pm EST & repeated(sameday)from 8:30-9:00pm EST at: uhaweb.hartford.edu/WWUH/<http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/WWUH/> The program focuses mainly on the JFK assassination, but has covered coups, murders, and mysteries such as TWA 800, the Gulf War Syndrome, and the failed war on drugs. Dr. Evica is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Hartford, Connecticut. He has been interested in the JFK assassination from its inception. He is the author of one book, "And We Are All Mortal: New Evidence And Analysis In The Assassination Of John F. Kennedy," published in 1978 by the University of Hartford. For several years he was Editor of "Assassination Chronicles", published by JFK Lancer, Inc., in Dallas, Texas. During the last decade, he has published several articles and has lectured at many JFK conferences. Len Osanic, "Black Ops Radio", webcast live: Thurdays, 6pm PST / 9pm EST Call in... 1 604 525- 4167, see: www.astridmm.com/radio/blackmain.htm <http://www.astridmm.com/radio/blackmain.htm> Misc. Assassination-related topic sources: David G. Armstrong, "Where Was George?," Austin Chronicle, February 28, 1992, pp. 20-22; Richard Bartholomew, "Possible Discovery of an Automobile Used in the JFK Conspiracy" (self-published manuscript, 1993, p. 63; Fair Play Magazine, Issue 17, July-August 1997). Malcolm Wallace Fingerprint: John Kelin, "JFK Breakthrough?", (Fair Play Magazine, Issue 23, July-August 1999 ; "A. Nathan Darby's Affidavit" (Fair Play Magazine, Issue 24, September-October, 1999; Barr McClellan, "Mac Wallace Update: Statement Regarding Print Evidence" (Fair Play Magazine, Issue 28, May-June 1999). And finally, a couple of notes to conclude with: Let's consider that a bullet fired from the 6th floor window of TSBD entered the back of JFK's head and killed him. The building in question was horizontally located to the President's rear, while the 6th floor of that building was considerably, vertically above the President's head. Therefore, any such bullet must have entered the President's head from above and behind. That much is indisputable. No photographs of the President's injuries were published at the time, but the Warren Commission Report (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964) did provide drawings (which can also be found in James H. Fetzer's, Ph.D. [editor] "Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK", p 38, Catfeet Press, 199. Since these illustrations are published in the Warren Report, we must assume they are official and accurate portrayals of the President's injuries. The drawings of the head wound do therefore, appear to show a trajectory from above and behind, as the official account requires. In what I consider to be a solid study of the most basic evidence in this case by Stewart Galanor for his work "Cover-Up" (Kestrel Books, 199, he has juxtaposed the official WC drawing with frame 312 of the Zapruder film, which the WC itself regarded as the instant before the fatal head shot incident to frame 313, with the following result: when the images of the WC head wound drawing and Zapruder frame 312 are super-imposed over each other and the President's head is properly positioned, the WC's own drawing displays an upward rather than downward trajectory. If the official WC drawing of the injury to the head is correct, then the conjecture that the President's head wound was sustained from a hit from above and behind cannot be true. The Zapruder film itself confirms this. Let's also consider that the bullets that hit JFK & JBC were fired by LHO using a high-powered rifle, which the WC also identified as a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano. The President's death certificates, The Warren Report, articles published in the Journal of the AMA, as well as other sources state that the President was killed by wounds inflicted by high velocity missiles. (Some of these articles are reprinted in Fetzer's, "Assassination Science") The Mannlicher-Carcano is the only weapon that LHO is alleged to have used to kill the President, but the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon: its muzzle velocity of approximately 2000 fps indicates that it qualifies as a medium to low velocity weapon. This issue is especially noteworthy, because the extensive and severe damage sustained by JFK's skull and brain, could not possibly have been inflicted by a weapon of this kind. The ammunition that LHO is alleged to have used was standard full-metal jacketed military ammunition, one round which is supposed to have been found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, a photograph of which appears as CE 399. This kind of ammunition conforms to Geneva Convention standards for humane conduct of warfare and is not intended to maim but pass through the body leaving a fairly clean, small wound, as far as bullet wounds go. I In other words, this type of ammo does not explode on impact. Yet, if you examine the lateral cranial X-ray of the President's head, it reveals an obvious and definitive pepper-like display pattern of metallic debris which classically exhibits the effects of the impact of an exploding bullet, which could not have been caused by ammunition of the kind LHO was alleged to have used. The axis of the debris in the above mentioned X-ray also appears to be consistent with a shot entering the area of the right temple rather than the back of the head. Studies of this issue are found in Joseph N. Riley's, Ph.D. "The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries", The Third Decade (March 1993) pp 1-15, in David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. research on the X-rays published in James Fetzer's "Assassination Science"(199, in his comments on the recent deposition of James J. Humes, M.D., for the ARRB (Appendix G), and in his present study of the medical evidence. The major fatal trauma the President endured had to have been inflicted by one or more high velocity weapons. Any comments? Sincerely, Chris Dolmar ****************************************** <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1. This article is considerably more "long winded" than even I am. 2. I pay absolutely no attention to Col. Fletcher Prouty, considering my limited experience with "real" covert opns warriors such as Col. Bull Simons, as well as still having a very close personal friend (Full Colonel) serving in Special Operations Forces.*, to include many, many others, Pentagon Coffee makers "don't impress me much". *Dumb-A**, retired full Colonel, volunteered for re-activation and is now again serving in Iraq. 3. Bullets can and do continue to amaze persons with what they achieve in human injury. A review of "Every Bullet has it's Billet" will provide insight into this. And, the mv of approximately 2,360 fps is considered as medium to the lower range of high on the velocity scale if recalled correctly. As regards the Carcano, any serious researcher should know that it carries the name of the "Italian Mauser". It is in fact built on the Mauser design. 4. Ken Rahn is one of those "rigid" researchers who can not seem to see or grasp that we are dealing with humans. Physical Science may be exact, and as I have frequently informed him, the NAA is quite accurate. Still does not mean that the SBT is fact. Tom Tom, I don't want to distract from other things, but I wonder if you could point to a comprehensive description/discussion of the rifle and scope as it was when found, prior to any adjustments/testing?

A curiosity: am just watching Letterman interviewing Woody Harrelson talking about his life and a book he is part of called 'Go Further' reminds me of an earlier post of mine about Jack Cassady and a drive from the south to cali.. Cassidy was a driver of 'the Bus' of the 'Merry Paranksters'. The bus name was 'Further'. The Merry Paranksters and Grateful dead, Ginsberg and others were involved in LSD use (koolaid acid tests) and counter culture living to a large extent aimed at exploring reality by ODing by 'sensory exhaustion'. This was a time also of MKULTRA and legal acid. Guthrie, Keourac, Dylan, Ginsberg, Cassady, the beats, the hippies etc seems to have been a thing for the white youth to 'indulge' in. With Woody Harrelsons current life in Maui (solar power, grow your own, october fests and amsterdam) seems to be living a wealthy version of the Hobo..... Tramp?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO "A League of Their Own: A Look Inside the Christian Defense League By D. Boylan The United States during the 1950s experienced an unparalleled growth of extremist organizations from the John Birch Society on the right to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee on the left. The heating up of the Cold War, the Supreme Court's decision to end segregation in 1954, and the establishment of a Communist Cuba in 1959 spurred this growth. One of the lesser known but more influential right wing fringe organizations that were formed during this period was the Christian Defense League (CDL). The CDL managed to meld anti-communism, anti-Semitism, anti-Castro activities, and a hatred of the "liberal" policies of the Kennedy Administration into a cohesive whole. It is in this context that the CDL will be examined. The driving forces behind the rise of the CDL were Reverend Wesley A. Swift and Colonel William Potter Gale. It seemed inevitable that they would gravitate toward each other. Their religious beliefs were similar: both were adherents of what is now called Christian Identity, an updated version of the earlier British Israelite Movement that originated in the late nineteenth century. Christian Identity adherents believe that those of Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Nordic, or Aryan origin were the true Israelites, "the sons of Adam", and that those of Jewish origin were "the sons of Satan." The origin of the Christian Defense League is clouded. Some accounts credit its founding to the Reverend Swift, while Colonel Gale gives credit to Reverend San Jacinto Capt. Capt, a Baptist minister, was one of the early pioneers in the Identity Movement. Gale says "the idea of the Christian Defense League was entirely that of Reverend San Jacinto Capt. He proposed it to me [Col. Gale] who prepared the initial material in the form of a letter entitled, "The NAACP represents the negro; the ADL represents the Jews; who represents YOU — the white Christian?" " -------------------- "The first indication that the Swift/Gale complex was interested in more than preaching religion came from George Harding in April 1963 when he informed the FBI that he was being recruited to become part of an eight man team to assassinate three hundred public officials in high positions of government. According to WCD 39 and WCD 1107 "Harding claimed that the leaders in the group were Dr. Wesley Swift, James Shoup and others.... The second in command was a Colonel William Gale...who was supposed to have been the youngest intelligence officer under MCARTHUR (sic)." A related incident also occurred that April. Los Angeles physician Dr. Stanley Drennan approached Captain Robert K. Brown, who was also involved in anti-Castro activities during this period, stated that "while at Drennan's home, Drennan stated in general conversation that he could not do it, but what the organization needed was a group of young men to get rid of Kennedy and the Cabinet…Brown stated that he considered the remark crackpot; however …he gained the impression that Drennan had been propositioning him on this matter. Drennan, a member of the National States Rights Party and associate of William Gale." Drennan complained in a letter to Dean Clarence Manion, a prominent member of the John Birch Society, that on June 10, 1963 two Secret Service agents visited two of his friends at 7:30 am to inquire about his "patriotism, integrity, dependability, and emotional and mental stability. These people were twenty miles East of my dwelling while I was only two miles from where the President was riding in an open convertible sitting high on the back of the seat." The Secret Service and FBI generated another report in August 1963 by the arrest of Gale's associate George King, Jr. King was overheard discussing the possibility of assassinating the president and was later arrested that month for the sale of illegal firearms. A later FBI field report, CO2-26104 #6419, stated "King is extreme right wing, hates Jews, was arrested by ATF O'Neil for illegal possession of firearms. Emotionally unstable. Arrested 2-29-68 again. This time for CCU, John Bircher, Christian Def. League (sic), Am Nazi Party, Christian Defense League." There was yet another pre-assassination report (November 15, 1963) of a plot to assassinate "the President and other high-level officials" by a "militant group of the National States Rights Party." The FBI dismissed the report because they felt the subject was trying to make a deal because of pending criminal charges. This was not the well-documented November 9, 1963 report of Joseph A. Milteer's accurate prediction that Kennedy would be shot "from an office building with a high powered rifle." Milteer was also a member of the NSRP and ran for governor of Georgia on the Constitution Party ticket the same year that William Gale switched from the Constitution Party to the Republican Party to run for governor of California. Evidence suggests that Gale and Milteer were acquainted. Both attended the gathering of the Constitution Party in Indianapolis, Indiana during October 18-20, 1963. Also in attendance were notable right wing extremists General Pedro Del Valle, Curtis Dall of the Liberty Lobby, Colonel Arch Roberts who was the architect of General Edwin Walker's "Pro Blue" program in the military, Richard Cotten, editor of The Conservative Viewpoint, Jack Brown, Klan leader James Venable[28], and Kenneth Goff, Constitution Party Committee member and leader of the paramilitary group Soldiers of the Cross, a Minutemen affiliate. Goff wrote an article for The White Sentinel, that Oswald "called me, before a meeting in a Dallas hotel about a year ago (December 1962) he poured out his pro-Communist venom….His Red record was no secret to those fighting Communism in the Texas area.""

I have become aware that I may have named the 'some more coincidences' topic incorrectly. A few posts on other topics indicates to me that perhaps members are assuming correctly , based on a proper definition of the term 'coincidence theory', that the definition given below is the one that motivates me in this case. However, I am not motivated in this way at all. http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Coincidence+theory "Funnily enough it is complicated by me being a self proclaimed skeptic with a somewhat acidic bent, which by the definition below The term coincidence theory is used by skeptics who claim that people who dismiss claims of conspiracies are relying on too many coincidences. Skeptics argue that coincidence theory explains a complex or controversial historical event by oversimplifying the fallacy of the single cause, also known as joint effect or causal oversimplification, is a logical fallacy of causation that occurs when it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes. Such theories, they claim, hold any suspicious loose ends or mysteries not explained by the theory to be the result of coincidence. Coincidence literally describes two or more events or entities occupying the same point in space or time, but colloquially means two or more events or entities possessing unexpected parallels, such as thinking about someone and then receiving an unexpected phone call from that person, when it is clear that there is no ordinary causal connection. Accordingly, skeptics (especially those who value explanations based on conspiracies), argue that coincidence theory is often disseminated by means of propaganda. Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation aimed at serving an agenda. At its root, the denotation of propaganda is 'to propagate (actively spread) a philosophy or point of view'. The most common use of the term (historically) is in political contexts; in particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments or political groups. ..... especially when the theory is created by or in support of social or economic interests which have the means for effective media manipulation The process of media manipulation is the way in which individuals or groups use various tricks in dealing with the media in order to create an image of their side of an argument that is most favorable to the receiver. Such tricks are based on the use of logical fallacies and propaganda techniques, and are often used by suppressing information or points of view by crowding them out, by inducing other people or groups of people to stop listening to certain arguments, or simply by drawing their attention elsewhere. -Such theories, they claim, are often employed by parties in order to offer a plausible alternative explanation for a historical event that told otherwise would damage that party's credibility Credibility is the believability of a statement, action, or source, and the ability of the observer to believe the above. -Common terms include cred, street cred, and indie credibility. The last of which is crucial for an independent band to be critically well received. For example, many critics, such as Stephen Thomas Erlewine in his lengthy review, decried Liz Phair's loss of credibility after the release of her eponymous album, featuring co-production and co-songwriting by teenpop producers The Matrix as well as indie-credible Pete Yorn and Michael Penn. - or public image Public relations (PR) is the means and industry of influencing public opinion towards an organization and its products or services. Public relations clients include political parties, ruling or otherwise. PR is distinct from advertising as it is generally not aimed at selling a particular product from a particular business, and, for further comparison, propaganda, sometimes carried out for political purposes by governments. - , or would establish that party's guilt Guilt is a word describing many concepts related to a negative emotion or condition caused by actions which are, or are believed to be, morally wrong. In psychology and ordinary language, guilt is simply a negative affective state in which one experiences regret at having done something one believes one should not have done. - A crime in a broad sense is an act that violates a political or moral law. In the narrow sense, a crime is a violation of the criminal law. For example, most traffic violations or breaches of contract are not crimes in a legal sense. (disambiguation). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -A scandal is a widely publicized incident involving allegations of wrong-doing, disgrace, or moral outrage. A scandal may be based on reality, or the product of false allegations, or a mixture of both. -Coincidence theories, according to skeptics, are often calculated to exploit the perceived gullibility and ignorance. -Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, or a willful lack of desire to improve the efficiency, merit, effectiveness or usefulness of one's actions. Ignorance is also a "state of being ignorant" or unaware/uninformed. Ex: In debate class Bill lost the debate because he was ignorant in that subject. (not knowing). - Communication is the process of information usually via a common system of symbols. "Communication studies" is the academic discipline focused on communication forms, processes and meanings, including speech, interpersonal and organizational communication. "Mass communication" is a more specialized academic discipline focused on the institutions, practice and effects of journalism, broadcasting, advertising, public relations and related mediated communication directed at a large, undifferentiated or segmented audience. - They can make use of many propaganda tactics Tactics is the collective name for methods of winning a small-scale conflict, performing an optimization, etc. This applies specifically to warfare, but also to economics, trade, games and a host of other fields such as negotiation. Tactics and strategy are often confused. Tactics are the actual means used to gain a goal. Strategy is the overall plan. Critics of the skeptical approach argue the term "coincidence theory" is employed by "conspiracy theorists" as a way to justify a conspiracisy. "Conspiracism" is a term used by some political writers, such as Chip Berlet, Michael Kelly, and Frank P. Mintz, to refer to adherents of conspiracy theories and their perceived beliefs. The term suggests characterizations of paranoia and irrationality. According to Frank P. Mintz, conspiracism denotes: "belief in the primacy of conspiracies in the unfolding of history approach to explaining historic events. The term coincidence theory is a pun A pun (also known as paronomasia) -is a figure of speech which consists of a deliberate confusion of similar words or phrases for rhetorical effect, whether humorous or serious. A pun can rely on the assumed equivalency of multiple similar words (homonymy), of different shades of meaning of one word (polysemy), or of a literal meaning with a metaphor. - "Conspiracy theory conspiracy theory is a theory that claims an event or series of events is the result of secret manipulations by two or more individuals or an organization, rather than the result of a single perpetrator or natural occurrence, or that there is a conspiracy to cover up the true story by the government or media. - " which skeptics argue is a pejorative A word or phrase is a pejorative (occasionally misspelled perjorative) if it expresses contempt or disapproval. The adjective pejorative is synonymous with derogatory and dyslogistic (noun: dyslogism) (antonyms: meliorative, eulogistic, noun eulogism)." OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Coincidence definition: co·in·ci·dence (k-ns-dns, -dns) n. 1. The state or fact of occupying the same relative position or area in space. 2. A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been planned or arranged. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO The way I see this is that for reasons perhaps not so clear, a large slab of history is simply ignored. The various posts on causes behind the assassination almost all never mention 'civil rights', and if it is mentioned it is usually dismissed with one or two stock sentences which are easily refuted, or credibly cast into doubt. This seems to me a situation that needs to be rebalanced in order to have a full understanding of the 50s 60s period which is essential in understanding the assassination. I've taken it upon myself to address this imbalance. Should anyone credibly dissuade me from persuing this I would happily drop it. Until then I will continue. The 'some more coincidences' topic is a place where I log anything I come across that seem to address the issue. Over time names and events repeat themselves. Previously unknown events appear. The interesting thing to me is that through this oblique approach to the assassination I am coming up with a similar set of characters as others have, the difference being using a different set of sources. This to me is sufficient grounds for taking this seriously. Once I can think of a more appropriate name I will summarise and shift the topic into that heading.

Thank you for that John. Highly enlightening. Much of my website concerns resistance to tyrannical governments. In fact, I have spent much of my life researching this area of history. My views on the subject mirror those above. It is true that individual Christians have often played an important role in this resistance. However, just as many atheists took part in this resistance. You can see this by studying the biographies of these people who resisted racial prejudice in Germany, Europe and the United States. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERresistance.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWresistance.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FRresist.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivilrights.htm When you study government led racial discrimination in places like Germany, South Africa and the United States, one of the things that strikes you is the way the established Church supports this persecution. When Christians do resist they do it as individuals or as part of a non-conformist tradition. In the cases of South Africa and the United States, so-called Christians were at the forefront of this persecution. The reason for this is that Christian belief is highly adaptable. In all cases, it has adapted to political, economic and cultural factors and has therefore become part of the dominant ideology. Although I have a great deal of admiration for individual Christians, I have no respect for the established Church. The history of the 20th century reveals that Christianity is part of the problem and not the solution. Over the last few years the established Church in Europe (but not the United States) has made an attempt to stand up for the poor and oppressed. However, it is far too late. It failed when it mattered in Germany, South Africa and the United States. The sad fact is that most Christians are more like Tim Gratz than Martin Luther King. John, I think it's important, as you do, to recognise that the term 'christians' includes a wide range of people and groupings. Of course first there is christ himself, and his word and action from the bible. Then there is a long history of churches and splintergroups. there have been periods of time when exteremely radical groups flourished and were stomped out by an often corrupt papacy. In Germany there were many groups as well. William Donovan (OSS, Nuremburg) left a huge set of volumes of transcripts, documents, photo's etc when he died. They stayed on his shelves until recognised and donated to the Cornell Law library. " When Donovan left Germany, he took the documents, had them bound in blue leather and installed them in his Manhattan law office, later called Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine. The collection remained there long after Donovan died in 1959. When the firm closed in 1998, its partners sought a new home for the volumes. One young lawyer, Jonathan Rauchway (Cornell '93), a young associate at Donovan, Leisure, and former summer associate of Henry Korn, informed Korn about the availability of Donovan's papers. Henry Korn, B.A. '68, and his wife, Ellen Schaum Korn, B.S. '68, acquired the collection, and generously donated it to the Cornell Law Library, to enhance its considerable international human rights holdings." Amongst them is a large (40 mb PDF file) available that discusses this issue(1945). I haven't read it all. But it seems that depending on which groups of christians one looks at there was serious opposition to Hitler as early as early 20s. Hitler and his party also had a policy towards christianity that seemed to be tempered only by conventional sympathies. The long term objective seemed to end up with a final solution here as well. groups of christians were relocated, marginalised and dispossessed. There was a section of society that sought to reconcile their faith with Nazism, and the German Christian church seems to have done this. Not unlike the Methodists in South USA blessing KKK rallies. This does not reflect on christ, but on man. There is also a large document on a psychological profile on Hitler produced before the end of the war that predicted as a possibility his suicide. His animosity towards any other than worship of man is clear through his writings and speech. (There is also a transcript of an interview with the imprisoned Goering. He clearly lays the reason for defeat at the feet of the defenders of Stalingrad. He states that if Hitler had not attacked Russia, the development of the jet engine and other technological advances could have been speeded up.)

You can see pictures of Steve Wilson on James Richard's Photo Archive. See for example: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PHOTOinterpen14.htm I'm still toying with the idea of using 3d models to recreate faces. This attempt is using the downward looking face of steve wilson and wrapping it on a downlooking 3d model and turning it and doing a bot of fiddling. (could gerry perhaps comment?) Also is an other photo of Wilson available.

Owen, I found your contribution well put together and very readable. It covers information I'm not overly familiar with. I have, as a result of hte video 'The Garrison Tapes' and the movie JFK a sympathetic view of Garrison. I'm open to being shown wrong as well as having these attacks on him refuted. (One little bit of advise, Don't bit on the personal attacks, they discredit the attackers in their own words. It is unnecessary. Please continue.) EDIT:: oops, I note you must have posted simultaneously and I see my advice is unnecessary, good on you.

Of course the fact that the one issue that people were regularly being assassinated for in the USA in the late 50s and early 60s, civil rights. Plus the fact that some of the direct connection to these assorted theories, such as Bannister, Walker, HL Hunt, the FBI, Byrd, and others, also have documented links to the anti segregation actions. Plus the fact that Walker held a deep contempt and resentment to the two Kennedys. Plus the fact that Kennedy was assassinated in the heart of the south. Plus the fact that main players instinctively thought 'civil rights'. Plus the fact that Walker led an armed insurrection against the Kennedy government aided by former FBI agents and other Law officers. Plus the fact that one of the people who profited by this was General Walker to the tune of millions of dollars. And to my mind, most telling : Plus the fact that it is one of the only real issues of the times consistently ignored from within a few months of the assassination until today, the diversion of attention being LED by the JBS, Dan Smoot and General Walker. The reserch community willingly herded away by judicious leaks, stories, books, media reports, etc. Of course this is all just circumstantial, unimportant and... er well.?? Un fashionable? The good thing about it is that nowhere as much attention has lately been spent in disfiguring this information as that spent on the cuba, mafia, lone nut etc etc, and with the surge in interest and release of bodies of evidence such as the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission files (within which are documents linking bannister, Eastland, Walker FBI and others.) now is the time to revisit this side of things.

This Bill is now passed. The civil rights angle has a potential tool here in accessing documents and questioning people. A Civil Rights Icon Thousands Gather at the Capitol to Remember a Hero (October 31, 2005) Kenneth Dickerman for The New York Times With the deaths this year of other major figures from a movement that once galvanized a mass following over issues like the right to vote, segregated lunch counters and a seat in the front of the bus, some say that not enough has been done to share that history with the young or to shape future leaders to carry on the cause. That movement has been replaced, in large part, by more dispersed struggles over issues like housing and employment, health care and incarceration. "In the absence of dogs and hoses there is no immediate, obvious enemy before us, so it's harder to mobilize a sense of outrage," said Senator Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is the only black member of the United States Senate. "Rosa Parks did not just sit down on her own initiative. She was part of a movement." The reflection on the earlier civil rights movement and the next phase, if there is to be one, is occurring at an extraordinary time. Hurricane Katrina exposed fault lines of race and class in America. The case of Emmett Till, the black teenager who was killed in the Mississippi Delta in 1955 supposedly for whistling at a white woman, has been reopened. Edgar Ray Killen, a former Klansman, was convicted in the 1964 killings of three civil rights workers in Philadelphia, Miss. Just last weekend, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice focused international attention on the civil rights struggle when she took Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, on a visit to the Birmingham, Ala., church where four black girls died in a bombing 42 years ago. Ms. Rice used the visit to link the civil rights struggle there to an international quest for democracy. And last month, the Senate approved a measure that would create a Justice Department office to investigate and prosecute unsolved killings from the civil rights era. "I do think there is a movement building," said Malika Sanders, 32, president of the 21st Century Youth Leadership Movement with headquarters near Selma, Ala., which trains young people to be human rights workers. "If you look from California to Wyoming and from Maine to the furthermost tip of Alabama, you find people working on human rights issues," Ms. Sanders said. "It's a major challenge to this generation to put forth a vision that makes connections between those issues." The echoes of the past come as many of the figures and chroniclers of the early fight are dying, leaving behind a black population with a median age of 30 - many born after the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in Memphis in 1968 and after legal barriers to voting, public accommodations and education were toppled. "We are at a crossroads," said Representative John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who is a former associate of Dr. King's. "We can either go forward or stand still." "It seems every other day we are losing somebody and we have not done enough to inform, to educate another cadre of leaders," said Mr. Lewis, who once led the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. "I am thinking not only of the death of Rosa Parks but of Constance Baker Motley, Vivian Malone Jones, C. DeLores Tucker." Ms. Motley was a politician and lawyer who defended civil rights workers, and became the first black female judge on the federal bench. Ms. Jones was the first black graduate of the University of Alabama, and Ms. Tucker marched with Dr. King and founded the National Political Congress of Black Women. Since the beginning of the year, other prominent leaders in the civil rights movement have died, including John H. Johnson, the founder and publisher of Ebony and Jet magazines; Ossie Davis, the actor and activist who eulogized Malcolm X; and Arthur A. Fletcher, known as the father of affirmative action. It was the recent death of Mrs. Parks, though, that reawakened the desire to reflect, say some leaders from her era and young leaders of grass-roots organizations across the country. While many struggles continue, they do not approach the drama of the march on Washington in 1963 when Dr. King gave his "I Have a Dream" speech or of Montgomery, Ala., in 1955, when Mrs. Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white man, setting off the bus boycott that brought Dr. King to national prominence. "A lot of people are gone," said Julian Bond, chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "You lose that witness, that personal testimony." Mr. Bond was once one of the Young Turks of the movement. "Civil rights today has to fight the false belief that all those problems were solved in the Martin Luther King era," he said.

Just a thought on this. With regards to origins of education philosophy or method. In our modern consumer society it is of interest to structures (companies, revenue dependent gov. departments etc) that money circulates. 1. One story a friend of mine told me about a stay in Japan teaching English has intigued me for some time. She told me that after three years or so as a matter of course house hold goods are put out on the kerb for rubbish removal, perfectly functioning VCR's TV's etc are thrown away in order to make room for the latest. 2. How many people can focus for longer than say the time between ads on telly, or at a stretch, with interruptions for longer than say a movie? Particularly if whatever is presented is 'boring'? The person who is chasing the latest feel connected product (movie, shoe, news topic) and is trained to focus on shorter and sherter time grabs plus throw in a bit of dumbing down education. Presto : the perfect consumer? Is it possible to look back and see an origin in fractured education that correlates with a rise of modern consumer society?

To answer your rhetorical question, no, that article is not, in fact, the truth about Jim Garrison. I will now proceed to lay out why it is not the truth. I would like to start off by noting the author's contention that "ronically, it was not the CIA... which was responsible for the Kennedy assassination cover up." This strikes me as frankly bizarre. It was not the FBI or Lyndon Johnson who engineered the Oswald-in-Mexico-City deception, but our friends at the CIA. This should be kept in mind as we continue. I pass over the CIA's allegation that Jim Garrison was in contact with Johnny Roselli, which hardly deserves credence (Larry Hancock, who apparently has access to Joan Mellen's book, has stated in this thread that the story at first was that Garrison met with the CIA's own Robert Maheu and that Counter-Intelligence decieving Plans is perhaps not so unusual), to address the seemingly more credible but no less false allegations of mob ties. Garrison was not "the most loyal Mafia ally imaginable." I quote here from Bill Davy's book, Let Justice Be Done, pages 154-155, "One has only to look at the New Orleans Times-Picayune of the day [Note: during Jim Garrison's "war on French Quarter vice"] to see through this charge. Garrison gave the green light to padlocking at least four Marcello connected bars: The Flamingo, The Old French Opera House, The 500 Club and The Sho-Bar. In the case of the Flamingo, Garrison sought to close that bar down for a year and directed his Assistant D.A., Denis A. Barry, to prove in court that the owner, Frank Sinopoli, was only a front for Marcello." Additionally, Garrison did look into Mafia connections during his assassination probe. Davy quotes from a four page memo Jim Garrison wrote to his staff in December 1967, titled, "Organized Crime Aspects of the Assassination": "It cannot be denied, for example, that there is evidence which appears to indicate some involvement of individuals who seem to have organized crime connections. Furthermore, we cannot arbitrarily assume that, even if the militant right wing factor continues to develop effectively, involvement of organized crime elements may not be an additional factor as a product of joint interest." (Davy 155) In addition to this, why would Garrison go after Ferrie, who was tied in with Marcello? I could cite many more example of Garrison's lack of connection to the mob and Marcello specifically, but this should be enough. Next, the author implies that the only evidence that Garrison really had against Clay Shaw were the items seized from Clay Shaw's residence. This ignores the testimony of Perry Russo, Vernon Bundy, the Clinton Witnesses, Clay Shaw's booking card, and much else. Yes, Garrison did indeed state that he has great respect for the FBI, understandable as he had once worked for them, but this is not the full story. For instance, Garrison brought William Walter's information (which certainly doesn't make the FBI look good in regards to the assassination) to light in his appearance on the Johnny Carson show (this was rebroadcast on Black Op Radio and can be accessed at http://www.blackopradio.com/inc_archives2005.html, go down to show #214). This also ignores the concentrated efforts on the part of the FBI to subvert Garrison's investigation. As an example, Joan Mellen quotes from an FBI document wherein J. Edgar Hoover directs his field agents to "Give Garrison Nothing!" (this can be found on the front page of Joan Mellen's website, http://www.joanmellen.net). Of course, this hardly fits with the author's contention that Garrison conducted his investigation on behalf of the FBI for the purposes of obfuscation. For the second time in the article we find the author exonerating the CIA from blame. The author quotes Jim Garrison's statements regarding the lack of involvement of Lyndon Johnson, but leaves out the more famous part of those comments, namely, "[Who is] the one man who has profitted most from the assassination-your friendly president Lyndon Johnson." Garrison made this statement to show what sort of conclusions could be drawn since the files were sealed, which he was advocating opening. If Lyndon Johnson was actually guilty of JFK's murder, as the author contends, Jim Garrison's advocation of the opening of the files could hardly help him in any case. The author next quotes convict Miguel Torres regarding alleged criminality on Garrison's behalf. What the author of this little essay does not inform the reader is that after Torres made these allegations on NBC's fraudulent white paper, he refused to repeat these charges before the Orleans Parish Grand Jury. He was subsequently cited for contempt of court and had his prison sentence extended. His grand jury appearance can be read here: http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/garr...orres_0001a.htm. Garrison commented on him, as well as another giver of false testimony, John Cancler, in his famous Playboy interview as follows, "Of course, these two convicts have been used against my office in a variety of respects. Miguel Torres also claims I offered him a full pardon, a vacation in Florida and an ounce of heroin if he would testify that Clay Shaw had made homosexual overtures to him on the street. What on earth that would have established relevant to this case I still don't know, but that's his story. I think it was actually rather cheap of me to offer Torres only an ounce of heroin; that wouldn't have lasted out his vacation. A kilo would be more like it. After all, I'm not stingy. Torres' friend John Cancler, a burglar, has also charged that one of my investigators tried to induce him to burglarize Clay Shaw's house and plant false evidence there, but he refused because he would not have such a heinous sin on his conscience. I suppose that's why Cancler's prison nickname is 'John the Baptist.' I can assure you, if we ever wanted to burglarize Shaw's home --- which we never did --- John the Baptist would be the last man on earth we'd pick for the job. By the way, Mr. Cancler was called before the grand jury and asked if he had told the truth to NBC. He replied; 'I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer might incriminate me' --- and was promptly sentenced to six months in prison and a $500 fine for contempt of court" (http://www.jfklancer.com/Garrison2.html). Next under the author's cosshairs is Garrison's chief witness, Perry Raymond Russo. "Under repeated cross- examination," Russo did not "basically admitted the fact that he did not know anything about the Kennedy assassination" and that "he disseminated rehearsed lies." This can be easily verified by reading his trial testimony. The author makes it seem as though Russo was approached by Garrison to give false testimony when, in fact, Russo approached Garrison with his testimony first. As for the "demanding press that essentially exposed the fact that his testimony was not genuine," that was one James Phelan, an FBI informant [the documents are reproduced here: http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/media/phelan.htm]. Again, this undercuts the author's charge that the FBI was behind Garrison probe. As for Phelan's charges, Lisa Pease rebuts them at http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collect.../jfk/russo3.htm and http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collect.../jfk/russo4.htm. Davy and Jim DiEugenio also rebut these charges in their respective books, and soon Joan Mellen will do the same to an even greater extent, if her Taking Aim interview is anything to go on. Also of interest is this interview with Russo: http://www.redshift.com~damason/lhreport/articles/perry.html. As for the allegation that former CIA/NSA "newsman" Walter Sheridan trying to bribe Russo is "absurd", well, it really isn't. Russo made out an affidavit to this fact (as did many other witnesses, ie Fred Leeman and Marlene Mancuso, who Sheridan and his buddy Richard Townley attempted to bribe). Regarding William Gurvich, he was an infiltrator who pilfered many of Garrison's files and turned them over to the defense team (there were no discovery laws in La. at the time). He said he had no confidence in Garrison's investigation, despite many statements to the press to the contrary prior to his defection. Read his Grand Jury testimony for a laugh here http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/garr...rvich_0001a.htm and here http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/garr...vich2_0001a.htm. He is unable to substantiate any of his charges of illegal acts on Garrison's part.. An example: "Q: You don't know the names of the 2 members of the staff who did illegal acts that you were referring to in your telecast? A: I am sure I can think of them. Q: Well would you please think of them now and give us the names? A: Well, if you will continue I will think while you talk" (page 62 of the 1st transcript). Later, "Q: Did 2 members of Garrison's staff perform illegal acts on his orders? A: I don't remember - I am having trouble with that - Q: Do you know? Is the answer yes, no, or I don't know? A: I don't remember" (page 72 of the 1st transcript). And again, "Q: Give us one fact, you are supposed to be an investigator. You have not given us one single fact. I am trying to lay it on the line. You go around and say what all these people are saying - that is unimportant. I think every one of the Jury are thinking what I am telling you and I think I am speaking for all of them when I say you don't have nothing. You haven't given us one thing to go on. A: Well, they are entitled to their opinion and I am entitle to mine. Of course I did not expect you to act on this, but I thought they were serious things" (p. 86.1). Garrison did not charge RFK with being behind the assassination of his brother, but rather obstructing his investigation. This doesn't seem all that unlikely as Walter Sheridan was RFK's right hand man in his war against Hoffa. During Sheridan's all-out assault on Garrison's investigation, RFK vouched for his integrity. More on Sheridan and his NBC white paper can be found in "'Shoot Him Down' NBC, the CIA and Jim Garrison" by Bill Davy, which is a very condensed version of his chapter in Let Justice Be Done, minus the footnotes, on the media assault on Garrison (the link is here: http://www.abclies.net/nbc_cia.html). Particularly laughable is this passage, "On March 2nd, shortly after Garrison arrested Shaw, Attorney General Ramsey Clark indicated that Shaw had been investigated and cleared of any connection to the assassination. But on June 2nd, the Justice Department, obviously on the prodding of J. Edgar Hoover, indicated that Clay Shaw had never been investigated. In other words, despite the Warren Commission investigation, Justice Department Czar J. Edgar Hoover was giving Jim Garrison the official green light to "investigate" the Kennedy assassination." This is a half-truth at best. The unusual thing was that prior to Ramsey Clark's statement, officially Clay Shaw had never been investigated by the FBI (Clark did not say it was the Warren Commission who investigated Shaw, as the article falsely states). Ramsey Clark stated that not only had Clay Shaw been cleared by this investigation, but that, in fact, he and Clay Bertrand were one and the same (Clay Bertrand is the person who called attorney Dean Andrews to represent Oswald prior to his being shot by Ruby and who Garrison had charge with being an alias of Clay Shaw's). The Justice Department subsequently confirmed this. The New York Times of March 3, 1967: "A Justice Department official said tonight that his agency was convinced that Mr. Bertrand and Mr. Shaw were the same man, and that this was the basis for Mr. Clark's assertions this morning." Once it had been realized what kind of blunder had been made, it was retracted. Billy Davy, in his book, quotes from a memo by Cartha DeLoach to Clyde Tolson on March 2, 1967, "The AG then asked whether the FBI knew anything about Shaw. I told him Shaw's name had come up in our investigation in December, 1963 as a result of several parties furnishing information concerning Shaw." Hoover himself signed off on the memo as follows, "I hope a.g. isn't going to peddle this information we send him. H." (Davy 170) Well, this pretty much undercuts the article's assertions, doesn't it? In fact, it shows them to be the reverse. Number three man in the FBI Cartha DeLoach gave this information to Ramsey Clark. He recounted this to Clyde Tolson, Hoover's no. 2. Hoover, understanding what Cartha had done, hopes that Clark doesn't "peddle" the information he has recieved. When he did, he is made to recant, thus undercutting any help Clark's statements might have inadvertantly given Garrison. The intention of Clark's statements had been to help Shaw by clearing him, and the FBI had him withdraw them because they actually helped Garrison and violated the official history. Next, it is recounted how Garrison had made comments about possible "racketeering influences of our eight vacationing judges." The reader is not told that these comments came about because the judges refused to fund his organized crime investigations (Paris Flammonde, The Kennedy Conspiracy, page 9 - this is still a very good book with an immense amount of detail and information despite its age). Again, isn't Garrison supposed to be flacking for the mob? Subsequently he had his right to criticize the judges upheld in the Supreme Court. Does anything more really need to be said about this incident? As for the conflict between Garrison and Police Chief Giarrusso, Mellen notes in Black Op Radio #144 (not currently accessible) that Giarrusso was the one who actually took the bribes that the federal government brought Garrison to court over (and of which he was subsequently acquited). Despite their not being on good terms, Giarrusso investigated and cleared Garrison's Assistant D.A.'s of bribery charges brought against them and also cleared Officer Habighorst (who took Clay Shaw's booking card, wherein Shaw gave Clay Bertrand as an alias) of any misconduct (Paris Flammonde, The Kennedy Conspiracy, pages 245 and 298). Aaron Kohn. Aaron Kohn was brought before the Grand Jury to provide evidence that Garrison and Governor McKeithen were under the mob's influence, as he charged (he contended that the aforementioned stripper, Linda Brigette, was Marcello connected). I quote Davy here, "When one of the executives of Kohn's Crime Commission appeared before the Grand Jury, he admitted, 'No, we have nothing, we have no evidence to present before the Grand Jury'" (Davy 158). Kohn was not squashed by the Grand Jury, he simply didn't present any evidence, as Garrison said. Kohn subsequently resurfaced to make more unsubstantiated allegations of Garrison's mob connections after Garrison's probe was made public. As for perjury charges against Kerry Thornley, these were accurate. Thornley denied having any contact with Oswald while both were in New Orleans. As Jim DiEugenio and Bill Davy note, "Garrison had no less than eight witnesses who said they had seen Oswald and Thornley together in New Orleans in 1963. And some of them went beyond just noting the association between the two. Two of these witnesses, Bernard Goldsmith and Doris Dowell, both said that Thornley told them Oswald was not a communist. This is amazing since, as noted earlier, the Warren Commission featured Thornley as its key witness to Oswald's alleged commie sympathies" (http://www.webcom.com/ctka/pr599-lambert.html). Next, we come to a charge that is totally false. Garrison did not, ever, have a witness who claimed to be Julius Ceasar and wore a toga. This claim originates with Robert Sam Anson, who wrote that this alleged witness appeared in court and testified to that effect (Jim DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, page 370, note 101). Just take a look through the trial transcripts. You will find absolutely nothing like this. I repeat, this charge is a 100% fabrication. We are told of "psychiatric patients who offered hypnotically induced testimony." Garrison did not have witnesses who were psychiatric patients. The only witness who underwent hypnosis was Perry Russo, and he told Garrison's investigators his story before the hypnosis sessions. The hypnosis was to verify Russo's conscious recollections, one of the "independent verifying tests, including polygraph examination, truth serum and hypnosis," as Garrison stated in his Playboy interview. "We thought this would be hailed as an unprecedented step in jurisprudence; instead, the press turned around and hinted that we had drugged our witnesses or given them posthypnotic suggestions to testify falsely." Lastly, the author says that "when Garrison was arrested on bribery and tax evasion charges, he claimed that the American government had framed him because it did not want him to continue to investigate the assassination of John F. Kennedy." The reader is given only half the story. Garrison was acquitted and the Federal Government did, in fact, attempt to frame him. Peter Whitmey wrote a good, lengthy article about this scheme, "Pershing Gervais and the Attempt to Frame Jim Garrison" (it can be read here: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/W...ey/Gervais.html). So, in all, there is really nothing to the article but smoke and mirrors, falsehoods and half-truths. The article contains "factual assertions," as Tim Gratz puts it, only in that these charges were made against Garrison. That is, indeed, factual. What are not factual are the charges themselves and the way in which the author spins things, such as Ramsey Clark's comments to the press, which can only be described as deceptive. In addition, two blatantly false charges are made ("Julius Caesar" and alleged hypnotically induced testimony provided by psychiatric patients). The article is, indeed, "rubbish." I also note that I have independently come to the same conclusions as Dawn Meredith. So now it is two-to-two, and by your logic, I (and Dawn Meredith) know just as much about JFK's assassination as you and Thomas Purvis. Not that there is any scientific weight whatsoever to that contention. Owen, is it possible to review the evidence that Jim may have overlooked, discounted (if any) or valued according to his FBI sympathies sans those sympathies in order to see what he may have missed? A big ask of anyone, so what I mean is : does the evidence, transcripts etc exist as a 'body', accessible for review?

This is how I see it so far based on the film available to NFV grayscale. Subtracting duplicate frames. Between the 4 sharpest frames showing the 'smoke' is approximately 1.5 seconds when I assume a frame rate of 16. (does any one know reported rate? By looking at earlier frames and other photos I locate the end of fence at approximately red dot. According to lancer post the time since headshot is around 7-10 seconds? The smoke is almost stationary for 1.5 seconds (assuming as above) Prior study of wind indicates a wind that is stronger the greater the altitude. Plus a wind that moves roughly east. Given that the camera is moving towards the 'smoke', then if the smoke was significantly forward(towards camera) of the tree (as I would have assumed it to be if it came from the fence area and was blown along) then this camera movement should have shifted the location of the smoke on the frames in relation to the tree. This does not appear to be the case. This indicates the 'smoke' is close to the tree and fairly stationary which appears to defy wind. Considerations: the camera is moving so the perspective and location of objects shift continuously. (This is only my take on this. I'd like to see how Bill did it, I have respect for him, as well as Jack and others. In my experience it is entirely possible to view the same info in different ways, taking into account factors otherwise ignored,)

Based on image provided by Robin, I think the lovelady/oswald figure is visible in the towner film further back, moves/leans forward in the other pics.

Terry, I dunno, don't know how to read that one. I think Hoover started to involve the bureau when kids started sending him applications for membership to 'The Draft Dodgers Club' and inquiries for 'Hoover Tonic'. General Walker, his lawyer Brig. Gen. Watts and others jumped on the band wagon and alerted Hoover of this seditious rag. Other parents and fine outstanding citizen kids sent a lot of alerts re the editors and even AE Neuman being communists. For a lot it was all tounge and cheek, but for some it was as bad as playing 'sounds of music' backwards. (note, the FBI did conclude that A.E. Neuman was a fictional character, on the whole they just grinned and bore it I think. Apparently one agent wrote on a concerned parents letter a comment 'the kid probably blew his dad a raspberry'). (Possibly the fact that one of the owners of MAD was a jew had something to do with things? Walker seems to have been a bit rabid.) They (MAD) hit pretty hard at the JBS.

I have a question for citizens of USA, about regular life in Joe and Jane's suburbs, country town, at gatherings etc.. It's something of ointerest here in OZ because of some draconian laws being proposed here at moment + some of them in the past, such as rights of assembly, reasons and conditions of detention, shoot to kill etc. You have a tradition recognising value of revolt. Sure, this was a long time ago. And as far as I know it is now illegal to advocate government overthrow? And there are attempts to make flagburning illegal? Let alone voicing joke or otherwise re bumpin off the head honcho? Is voice constrained in society in general? Can Joe and Jane citizen, chat over the backfence about getting rid of bad gov without getting a file and attendant probs? Or have I watched too much telly? (I suppose if the answer truly was no then the answer would be for safety sake yes or vice versa. PS I was in washington a couple of years back when a big anti war demo was in full swing. Bush had just returned from visit to OZ. Lots of security etc. but generally people seemed free in expressing how they feel. I guess what I'm talking about is some lingering dominant McCarthyism?