Gerry Simone

I would agree, more or less, what you wrote here. Tippit could simply have been sacrificed to pin the blame on Oswald and make him more susceptible to police brutality and execution. Maybe Tippit's failure to get Oswald earlier meant he would pay for that with his life? Your point 9.2 could be true since we know that LBJ and Hoover knew about someone impersonating Oswald in Mexico City and felt that there might have been some funny business going on. I think there's also a memo by Hoover where he scratches a note indicating his doubt about info coming from the CIA (or expressed to one of his agents). I see what you mean by the "lone nut" scenario concocted later. There was always a fall guy with accomplices which turned out to be Oswald in Dallas, but the "lone nut" scenario would quell concerns about starting WWIII. Ergo the botched conspiracy that resulted in lingering questions about the autopsy, the SBT, etc. etc. I still think there was a rogue CIA cell involved with possible help from the Radical Right (financing) and the Mob (enter Jack Ruby).

Yes, I've read about the other wallet and automatic shells found at the Tippit scene, yet they had Oswald's wallet at the police station when they were holding or interrogating him. I think there's enough circumstantial evidence to suggest a frame-up and an impersonator. Poor Oswald. He didn't stand a chance against the forces of evil at play then.

Scary thought. Just wondering if LBJ and the WC really knew that Oswald was purported to be a Communist and not take the bait about foreign enemies behind the assassination, or if they thought he could've been directed by Cuba or the Soviets but that they did not want to encourage WWIII and concluded lone misfit instead. The former would mean they are tacit colluders if not accessories. The latter is more of a national security cover-up.

Not if it exposes the real shooter in the sniper's nest to prevent him from getting away so that they pin it on Oswald.

In other words, Oswald was framed knowing that the investigative or intelligence agencies at the institutional level could not dig deeper because of a) past dealings by those agencies with Oswald and b ) Oswald's possible intelligence ties, forcing both of them to cover their ass? What about also framing Oswald because they might dupe everyone ELSE into thinking Castro or the Soviets were behind it too, thereby drumming up support for a military response?

Hello David, Maybe the plan all along was for only rear shooterS getting JFK, but when they had to rely on a frontal shooter, then it complicated things and the cover-up apparatus went into overdrive.

Your sound theory about the Tippit murder IS based on circumstantial evidence.

Paul, the way you just described their relationship is how Wesley (that's what they called him back then) described it to us in November 2015. Now in another thread in this forum for which I got involved (can't recall which one but it also was about Oswald), it forced me to see that DVD again, about 2 weeks ago. But I remembered Frazier saying that he only knew Oswald for a short time i.e., from the time Oswald recently started working there IIRC. Maybe just over a month or two. He said Oswald kept to himself. He also said Oswald used a vocabulary that was more extensive than everybody else, and when he used a word that his co-workers didn't understand, they just picked up a dictionary from the stock (lol) and looked up the word. Oswald actually told Frazier that he liked him and that he treated him (Oswald) differently, with respect. I think Frazier had seniority so Oswald was sort of his underling. An interesting thing that Frazier said was that they were trying to pin the assassination on HIM too. But he held his ground against those detectives. As for the brown paper bag, he repeated that he didn't have a very good look at it but that it didn't seen unusual or heavy. I'm going to watch that DVD for a second time now. BTW, I was at Lancer in 2016 and the Newmans spoke. Have that DVD too.

You're the best. Thanks. I use Tiny Pic but I registered an account there (1st time now to preserve uploaded pics longer) so that your uploaded photos are secure until you delete them yourself. Not sure if you have a registered account at Photobucket but it might be a good idea.

"Swept". Yes. I like that adjective. Even Frazier looks bigger in the Darnell film frame.

Bill, I wish I could see the photos you posted.

All fair comments Paul, although I still feel that Prayer Man's hairline resembles Oswald's. I do agree that Fritz and possibly others may have compared notes so to speak. I will have to re-watch my DVD of Frazier's presentation (he attended with his son and said they were going to put out a book the following spring of 2016 IIRC, but no book is out yet AFAIK). The audience at Lancer were hoping that he'd make some grand revelation (at least I was) about Oswald's presence out in front, but he only said that he saw Oswald come out later from around Houston street (as if LHO walked from the rear along the north side of the TSBD). Nobody in the audience discussed Prayer Man but I didn't know much or anything about Prayer Man back in November 2015. Here's a pic of Frazier from the conference (apologies for blurry pic):

Hello Lance, Evidence used against Oswald would probably NOT be admitted at a trial (i.e., lack of chain of possession for CE 399 as one example but Barry Krusch is more exhaustive in his 3 volume series Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald), due to those same rules of evidence you allude to. The intent of Conspiracy Theorists in this case (I believe the late John Judge called himself a Conspiracy Realist; I also say that conspiracy is not merely a theory but a serious and strong allegation) is NOT to sow confusion, but to call the evidence or facts into question, which is what defense lawyers are supposed to do. If that causes confusion, then we have reasonable doubt because the guilt of the accused cannot be established beyond the legal threshold. It is also proper to criticize the WC and its conclusions from not having an adversarial setting* because without it, you cannot conclude that Oswald is guilty when this case is a murder trial. *P.S. Walter E. Craig was the President of the ABA who was appointed by the WC to participate and advise whether the proceedings "conformed to the basic principles of American justice" but apparently, that was just a symbolic gesture in that whole public relations exercise called the Warren Commission.

I never considered the girth of the Prayer Man to eliminate him as Oswald since a blurry image may stretch a body but when I look at the images (credit FB Oswald page or Bart Kamp's website) I've attached for comparison , I can't help to think that it's Oswald (and it's not Lovelady), and BWF is to PM's left. (Incidentally, BWF never said that LHO was next to him but was he asked? Counsel for the WC were selective in their questioning. I saw BWF speak at the Lancer Conference in 2015. He said that Oswald came from around the back of the TSBD along it's north side to the front.) As far as Fritz' late-arriving notes, not sure if that alone constitutes a chain of evidence problem (like CE 399!), but it sure seems like the issue with those notes is that very little was recorded or omitted (if not destroyed) from the interrogation.

Well, Gerry, I am trying to be as objective as possible, and I see no guilt whatsoever in Michael Paine's statement. 1. The questions were worded so that he could easily deny them. 2. I note first that Michael Paine didn't make any point regarding November the 22nd or the 23rd. It was taken as an everyday slip of the tongue, and Michael quickly knew which phone conversation that Liebeler meant, and Michael promptly referred to the correct phone conversation. 3. Secondly, the implication by Liebeler was that Michael Paine knew the names and identities of the JFK killers. A careful and unbiased reading of Michael's words in that 11/22/1963 phone call does not suggest that Michael Paine knew the NAMES of the killers. So Michael could honestly, under oath, deny that he knew their NAMES. 4. Notice that Michael Paine didn't deny the phone call -- or even the wording. It was only this implication that he knew the NAMES of the killers that he denied. As Michael told Ruth on 11/22/1963 -- and as Ruth Paine told me on or about 11/22/2015 -- Michael and Ruth Paine both had in their minds the very real, very fresh and very shocking publications circulating in Dallas that day: The WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK handbill The WELCOME TO DALLAS, MISTER KENNEDY black-bordered ad in the Dallas Morning News. Those two publications shocked most or perhaps all liberal-minded young people in Dallas that day. The hatred in those publications still shines through, 53 years later. This was uppermost in their minds. This is what Michael meant, and Ruth understood, when he said, "We both know who did it." It makes perfect sense to me. It is mainly those CTers who are "certain" that the CIA-did-it who loudly accuse Michael and Ruth Paine of lying to cover up for the CIA. That's ludicrous, in my opinion. It's making stuff up. The truth is simple and straight-forward. Any normal person would have said the same thing in Dallas on 11/22/1963. Furthermore, as Dr. Jeff Caufield has shown, the people who created those two scurrilous documents were indeed the same people who assassinated JFK. (See his book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).) So the intuition of Michael and Ruth Paine was spot on. They just didn't know the names of the plotters. Regards, --Paul Trejo 1. Indeed Liebeler worded his question so that the call of November 22nd could be avoided, denied and omitted. 2. Michael Paine lied about that phone call (regardless of the date) by vaguely recalling that it was a DIFFERENT report that was made elsewhere in the country (where would he have heard about it in the first place?!). He never acknowledged it as being his own. 3. A careful and unbiased reading shows that Liebeler did NOT ask who the killerS were, just who was 'responsible' - and Michael Paine was not responsive. He only says he doesn't know who the assassin is. It was only later that he denies having made the "we know who is responsible remark". 4. If we are to believe Ruth Paine's after-the-fact explanation, then why didn't Michael Paine say so at the time (that it was the Birchers, etc.)? Instead, he lied having no knowledge of that remark. This was no slip of the tongue error. Both Michael Paine and Liebeler are tippy-toeing around the truth. I can show those Commission Documents and the WC transcript to other readers and I'm sure that they will smell a rat. In short, the comments that he "felt sure Lee Harvey Oswald had killed the President" and that "We both know who is responsible" are NOT mutually-exclusive. If you concede the latter (as Ruth Paine has, much after-the fact), then you cannot deny the former because they were both heard by the operator/confidential informant, and reported to the FBI who wrote those reports. The WC deposition avoids the embarrassing truth that two people knew about the alleged assassin Oswald before it was publicized and that others were possibly involved. I'm sorry but this makes the Paines highly suspect (and another example of the WC whitewash).

Bart, I have an ardent supporter of the Prayer Man as Oswald on my FB (Alek Hiddell from the U.K.). To me, it seems like Oswald too. Lovelady is to our right of Prayer Man, maybe one step below (forgive my vague recollection now). (No way that's a lady - anyone should be able to tell by his head, short hair, receding hairline, yadda yadda).

@ Paul, Don't you think it's strange that Liebeler did not accurately refer to that call being on the 22nd, if not lied about the true date in his questioning? Or strange that Liebeler left out the part that the male caller "felt sure LHO had killed the President"? Don't you think it's odd that Michael Paine went along with Liebeler's line of questioning without correcting the time and day to November 22nd? How did Michael Paine (or whoever) know, or why did he say that he felt Oswald was the killer, when Oswald had not yet been arrested by the time of that long distance call to Ruth? Doesn't it strike you as suspicious that he would know beforehand? If Ruth admits to that remark about, "We both know who was responsible for the assassination", then Mr. Paine lied about the whole conversation, whether indirectly or by omission: Mr. LIEBELER - Now, there has been a report that on November 23, 1963, there was a telephone call between a man and a woman, between the numbers of your residence and the number of your office, in which the man was reported to have said in words or substance, "We both know who is responsible for the assassination." Have you been asked about this before? Mr. PAINE - I had heard that--I didn't know it was associated with our numbers. I had heard a report that some telephone operator had listened in on a conversation somewhere, I don't know where it was. I thought it was some other part of the country. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you talk to your wife on the telephone at any time during Saturday, November 23, on the telephone? Mr. PAINE - I was in the police station again, and I think I called her from there. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible? Mr. PAINE - And I don't know who the assassin is or was; no, so I did not. Mr. LIEBELER - You are positive in your recollection that you made no such remark? Mr. PAINE - Yes. As Bugliosi would say, such lies or omissions or avoidance of the issue at hand, could demonstrate "consciousness of guilt".

I looked through this entire thread for mention of a long distance call between Ruth and Michael Paine on November 22, 1963 but could not find any, so here it is. CD 206, CD 516 and document DL 100-10461 are reproduced in Barry Krusch's Appendices to his books, IMPOSSIBLE: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald, the link for which I will post here: http://www.krusch.com/jfk/Impossible_CaseAgainstLeeHarvey_Oswald_Appendices.pdf Read pages 9 to 15. In short, it seems that a collect call was presumably made by Michael Paine (from work) to Ruth Paine, which was overheard by the operator, who had reported the conversation to the FBI, which actually took place on November 22, 1963 at 1:00 pm CST.* The male caller felt sure Lee Harvey Oswald had killed the President but did not feel Oswald was responsible, and further stated, "WE both know who is responsible". (My emphasis on 'WE'). The information is based on an FBI report of a confidential informant and actual telephone records proving calls between Ruth Paine's home and Michael Paine's place of employment. If the above transcript is true, then it would seem that Michael and Ruth Paine had foreknowledge of the assassination, because as John Armstrong points out, "At 1:00 pm Harvey Oswald was changing clothes at 1026 N. Beckley and Roy Truly had not yet told DPD Captain Fritz that Oswald was missing from the building. Oswald would not be arrested for nearly an hour and his name was not known to the public.". This does not in of itself prove that the Paines were CIA agents, but perhaps it does worse - make them accessories to the murder of the President? *Initial document refers to a call on the 23rd but the unredacted document shows the 22nd. Liebeler questions Michael Paine about such a reported call on the 23rd, which Michael admits to hearing of such a report, but denies making any such statements or having knowledge of who the assassin "is or was". Armstrong suggests that this date change is obstruction of justice and colluding with a witness to falsify testimony, along with avoiding a perjury charge for Mr. Paine. P.S. I noted two typos. One in the DL 100-10461 document (Mrs. Michael Paine should be Mr. Michael Paine, as the context suggests), and another in Krusch's commentary on page 12 (CD 506 FBI report should be 206).

"Dangle" might make sense if Oswald was a fake defector, an agent provocateur (but it seems the Russians didn't buy it, or should I say swallow - pun intended).

This is what I'm talking about -- conflating the Kennedy Assassination with the Oswald Assassination. The "true resolution of the JFK murder" is assumed to be found in a study of the Oswald Assassination. The operating principle of intelligence tradecraft is compartmentalization of operations. JFK's killers had no connection to Oswald whatsoever. Oswald's killers were set in the frame up once the patsy survived to be captured, starting with Ruby. That's my take, at any rate... Oswald's "killers"? It was just Ruby, however, the HSCA found that he had significant connections to the Underworld (unlike what the WC said), which I believe was a COG in the whole conspiracy wheel. (My inaugural post here).

Born and raised and educated in Toronto. Aquarian. B.Comm & Finance degree from the University. Of Toronto. Later obtained professional accounting designation. Former public accountant, but career mostly in industry as Controller and Treasurer of Belmont Concrete Finishing, prominent concrete flatwork & low-rise contractor in Toronto. Interest in JFK assassination began in the late 70s but mostly in the 80s. My mentor was a Toronto researcher (the late Tony Centa) who was a friend of Penn Jones. He had a bootleg copy of the Z film, the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission originally owned by Allen Dulles, as well as a Mannlicher-Carcano similar to Oswald including 4x Japanese scope. Was visited by CIA agent after JFK movie. He used to do slideshow presentations including showing the Zapruder film on a film projector. Tony Centa passed away November 5, 2020. I've visited Dallas and New Orleans. Have attended JFK Lancer Conferences in person and virtually (in recent years due to the pandemic).