Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jim Glover

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jim Glover

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

5,180 profile views
  1. Thanks Joseph, I have an offer to Publish my book on this and like I said your articles in the nation was the reason my Dad began to believe what I was set-up to see about the case before during and after Dallas.
  2. Good Point I didn't even consider the light from the lower window. Just to show how the dirty windows play with decreasing the light I notice that when the bottom windows are Pulled up so that there are two dirty windows to block light it looks like no transparency at all like at first i thought the upper windows had plywood or paper behind them.
  3. That's OK, then there is more to Dallas than the good things you have researched and uncovered. Maybe you haven't heard of my duo Jim and Jean and Phil Ochs so I usually start with a good study by William Kelly. You might find some interesting stuff about Bush here too. Phil Ochs at Dealey Plaza? https://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2013/05/phil-ochs-at-dealey-plaza.html
  4. OK Thanks, Did you ever wonder why he would be picked to get the oral message along with Bush? I have my own theory because I reported to the FBI in 91 and again last may that I was set up by a Domestic CIA group to go on a Chartered Hootenanny tour of the South when the Tour managers wanted me to go because they knew me and My ROTC roommate, Phil Ochs, were investigating the Plot. My Dad who was Gus Hall's Lieutenant CPUSA, finally believed my story when he read your article in the Nation. So, I saw Hoover on the extra Chartered bus I was earlier forced onto. The Bus Picked him up at the Houston Airport along with the Bushes, other operatives, two Dallas cops with an Oswald look-alike in custody and late that night after Hoover and the Bushes got off, the Oswald double was shotgunned. Saturday, the Remaining of the Tour, Strangers and myself left for the trip back to LA. Two men with earpieces and talking on there radios were sitting in front of me and I thought I might be a dead man. So I asked the one near the window, "who shot President Kennedy" and he said as he pointed to the front of the bus where I saw Hoover and Bush sitting together the day before, "Hoover said it was a test that went bad, and it wasn't the Cubans". I asked him if he was FBI and he said no, he was with NASA. Now I assumed the other agent sitting with him was also NASA or pretending but now I wonder if it makes sense to speculate the quiet one was Capt. Edwards of the DIA. One reporter told me during an interview about the Folk Music Movie, Inside Llewelyn Davis, "So you are the only one who knows where Hoover was on that day" If that was a question, I say yes.
  5. Joseph, I am glad I found you here. Did you ever talk to DIA Captain Edwards (real name?) about the Hoover Memo and do you know if he is still around? Thanks, Jim
  6. Well Chris, it could be the difference between direct sunlight on the faces of the workers and the shadow of their faces on their necks while the face in the window does not have direct un-obstructed sunlight on the face behind the dirty window as that light is diffused and darkened greatly by the dirty window diffusing contrast without the direct sunlight on the faces of the workers. I do see a shadow of the pain on the bottom of the nose of the Oswald looking figure going down over the chin and then widening as the neck would be farther away from the window than the face. I also notice on our face in the window there is just very slightly more light on the west side (sunny side of the neck). Also there is a sliver of bright direct sunlight on the west side of the neck of the guy in the window on our left. So, You are looking at two different lighting situations and positions as the guys are kneeling and have no dirty window in the way to diffuse the light... less contrast. Two different lighting environments give different lighting effects in my estimation. I would see your point if there was no closed dirty window but then we wouldn't be trying to figure this out.
  7. " No Problem David. I don't see why the face in the middle of the window frame is suspicious or the fact that a face close to the dirty window would be barely seen because a face reflects more light than the clothes especially if the face is close to the window as it appears to me the face is looking down. The face was hard to make out until it was pointed out fairly recently (over 50 years). It would be nice if a body with clothes on reflected more light but I don't believe the photographer even noticed the face and nobody has it seems for all these years. It is OK with me about suspicion in this case.
  8. It seems if this article is true, at least Kodak knew that film is destroyed by xrays and radiation. https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/kodak-had-weapons-grade-uranium-in-their-basement-6a6c15d5677f?source=email-b388f9c27a62-1558438049575-digest.reader------2-58------------------d9cdd377_8f38_45dd_9efd_05d021f080ff-1&sectionName=top
  9. To me the figure in the original and all the others seems to be looking down and more of the head is seen on the East side of the face probably because the photo was taken a little to the East of the corner as we can see the fire escape. But the Mug shot of Oswald is a straight on photo so they do not match entirely for me but the resemblance is too striking for me to believe with certainty to be only dirty windows when it appears the shadow of the pane frame is seen on the face and down, a much bigger shadow than from any other window frame as it would on something behind the dirty window. Also I wonder why the face in the West window with or without enhancement is so unclear when that window was open at the time. Was this from the so called "un-cropped" version? I suppose that would have been in the negative destroyed by too much radiation during the House Committee on Assassination hearings. Why would anyone expose a negative to radiation or ex-rays?
  10. OK David you think it is "Superimposed" on a blob or Fake? I doubt that without proof of Who Faked it, When, How and Why because you are in a sense describing a crime. So who are the criminals, Tom Dillard? Does he have a record of being a criminal or trying to frame Oswald? And since the dirty windows make the figure hardly noticeable why did it take so many decades for the figure to even be noticed until the public had the computer tools to examine it closely? Seems like a lot of work which I am not convinced it was even possible in 1963 by that night when Tom Dillard printed his Photo or that he even knew that the coup would be using Oswald as the "Lone Nut" by that night after he got back from Parkland. Also seems unlikely just because of the risk if exposed to the Paper and Tom Dillard. So is Tom Dillard a bad guy or his newspaper bad guys for faking the photo and exhibit for what purpose, if It wasn't used to prove it was Oswald at anytime even today? If you think it was Faked? Convince me. For me it is more likely for reasons I have given that it is Oswald or a look-alike, more then the crime of destroying and falsifying evidence. I see no purpose for what you think without evidence of how, who, when and why the risk was taken with no purpose since it was never even noticed. Like I explained, even if it could be proved it is Oswald that does not prove he was the "Lone Nut Shooter in the Sniper Window" during a crossfire ambush with the cover-up being the Coup. If you have proof or evidence with motive of your accusations I would want to hear it. So where was Oswald... who can even prove that? One thing has changed in this discussion. At first the figure was just a shape of the dirt on the dirty window. But now, another crime. So, this relatively new discovery has challenged most researchers who have invested years without Oswald's whereabouts proved so far. I think I understand yours and other's suspicion of another crime of Falsifying Evidence and that's OK by me. I can't prove it is Oswald or his Look-alike but I find it very compelling to be so. You have a good question: "If that's a face in the window in this version, are the eyes canted more toward the figure's right than in the Oswald version, as if the head is cocked downward to that side?" He does appear to be looking down and If Oswald told Capt. Fritz he was out front with Bill Shelly, by looking down he could possibly see Shelly who testified he was out on that island away from the steps. How would he know where Shelly was if he did not see him? There is no proof about much in this case. We have our beliefs about it after 55 years of killing, confusion, fear, decoys and cover-ups. Nothing we do or say will bring back JFK, Lee or the many people killed and hurt about this manufactured mystery. One thing Oswald said to a reporter in the Hallway, "Of course I was in the building... I work there!" He could have cracked the case at trial if allowed to defend himself but Ruby made sure that would not be. Thanks David for noticing the figure appears to be looking down. Happy Spring! .
  11. Thanks Denis, Bad Idea to give anyone an important negative. This seems to be a pattern. I don't use Blevin's enhancements. The Commission Exhibit was printed more than a decade before the negative was ruined by someone at HSCA. And it does not show anyone in the "snipers window".
  12. My possible explanation ~ Why would Oswald be standing in front of a window near the "Snipers nest" moments after the ambush crossfire? If he is a patsy why not show the world if anyone had a camera, '"Why would I be showing myself in plain site unless I was just a patsy?" (How would he have known the Photo would be so hard to make out?). Maybe nobody on that floor was supposed to hit anyone and Lee as a patsy was forced to go along to save his family as Judyth Baker wrote. So in court he could say "that is me (if someone saw him there or took a photo) and there were others up there watching me". (A few witnesses saw other men on the 6th floor). If he was left on his own somewhere in the building or in the entrance could the plotters risk Lee who may have alerted the authorities about the plot in Chicago a few weeks earlier take the risk of Lee doing it again by running out ahead of the motorcade with a warning? The photos that show him or his look-alike out clearly are enhanced or photo shopped, not the original Commission Exhibit. The original negative seems to have disappeared. So, if he was a patsy and being watched and lived to tell his side, the photo does not prove he shot anyone so maybe someone who knew about the plot made sure the negative was missing. So was Lee a Patsy? Why was the Patsy killed by Ruby who asked an FBI informant to come watch the fireworks with him from a few blocks away. If he lived he could have cracked the case and his photo or being seen in the window would make sense with the rest of his story (I didn't shoot anyone!). Those who were up there could have told him there was a bad guy who was impersonating him who they wanted to catch and was going to kill Kennedy maybe for Castro and we have information He will be acting with your ID. So maybe Lee was trapped or wanted to help if he was told by handlers "This is a test or trap to catch the bad guys". Now I was also set-up (now workin' on my book, Born To Spy) And was told the day after by a couple of agents on Saturday near Point Blank Texas after the double Oswald was Shotgunned Friday night at the Pines Motel, Sam Houston National Forest where men were celebrating from the moment I arrived after dark. Later I was told not to go outside because there was a man with a shotgun going to shoot the guy who shot President Kennedy. The place got quiet after the shots (I'll bet he had a Hell of a story too). So one of the agents told me Saturday late afternoon that Hoover told them on Friday it was a Test that went Bad. By the way Hoover got on the extra Chartered Bus at the Air Port in Houston I was forced onto earlier that then picked up Hoover, the Bushes, and other operatives. I reported this to authorities in 91 and again last May. Witnesses saw Hoover in Texas including late Thursday Night. I haven't read one report where Hoover was seen in DC on Friday and Hoover leaves out completely where he was and what he did on Friday in his WC report until he gets the story straight on the Phone that night with LBJ. Yes, Summers reports Hoover called RFK immediately after the shots were fired told RFK he was getting more Information and will call back. Hoover never called back Why? Why did he call in the first place if he thought he had no Jurisdiction in the case. Did he think RFK did not have a TV? And where was Hoover when he called? And why are all his phone logs of the months before and after missing from the FBI Vault? I have a good idea and from first hand knowledge, this is My Possible explanation. And whoever the figure was who can say he wasn't in the same place during the shooting? Phil Ochs was right, Hoover was The Bad Guy.
  13. I agree David Healy, I could be wrong but I read recently that the original negative was lost somehow by a congressional investigation. One of our friends here has asked for the negative from the Paper in Dallas that published it. If someone could ask Tom Dillard, if alive, that would be great. And if someone could ask Wesley Frazier who he thinks Prayer Man is that might help with more puzzles of the case for us. Thanks!
  14. OK Keyvan, I wonder what the Photographer Dillard would say to his Photo being manipulated. He printed it when he got back from the Hospital so where would he get a negative of Oswald and If he had time to do what you think why would he or someone put in a photo of Oswald that is so faint nobody saw it? http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/dillard.htm
  15. David, Nice work. I always thought for years Prayer Man could be Lee. I never realized until you showed the last Photo that his friend and ride to work Tall, Wesley, is right there looking at him. Does that make out his friend a bad guy? Since the photo without enhancement and overlay is too fuzzy to be sure I am not ready to condemn someone on a possibility but you still might be fairly certain. This case has hurt too many innocent people already. But it is possible Prayer man is Lee, if alive in court that would be reasonable doubt. Yet I am not convinced because nobody there said Lee was there. Wesley defended Lee against pressure more than any witness saying the regular grocery bag did not contain a rifle and I found his rented room did need new curtain rods because the old ones were badly bent out of shape. I can send the photoos sometime but have to go now. Thanks for your work.
  • Create New...