Jump to content
The Education Forum

Greg Doudna

Members
  • Content Count

    118
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Greg Doudna

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Johnny Carson was to me a "zero" in that he had all that audience, all that media presence, the most-watched late-night program in America, and he used it for nothing but cotton-candy laughs. He never took up a just cause, never made a social statement, never took a stand of conscience, never sought to get people to think about something that required a little thought below the level of surface humor, never sought to use his celebrity the way some celebrities do, in which they use their "celebrity capital" in the service of some worthy cause of their choice that they believe in, to try to make a difference in the world in some better way to the best of their ability. He was good at getting laughs, end of story. He was not nasty or damaging in his public persona (most of the time; Garrison excepted according to reports here, I did not see). But Carson was just a net zero, a waste of potential. My opinion. On the John Barbour film on Garrison, mixed feelings. The fundamental cognitive dissonance to me is Garrison took down the Warren Commission report, made the connection of the JFK assassination and foreign policy direction, brought the Zapruder film to public access and attention, and developed a number of leads. He also showed considerable courage, basically declaring war on the CIA. Those are the positives. But then the negatives: it came at the cost of a prosecution and attempted ruination of the life of a man innocent of the assassination of JFK, Clay Shaw. Is it necessary to defend a prosecution which should never have happened of a man innocent of anything to do with the assassination of JFK, in order to have the Warren Commission questioned? That is the ethical dilemma. It is also what those out for Garrison's blood used largely successfully to discredit Garrison. Some specific comments: -- the basic contradiction: "Lee Harvey Oswald ... had nothing to do with the assassination" (at 41:08-40, with emphasis, and repeated several times by Garrison in the documentary). But Clay Shaw was charged by Garrison: "did willfully and unlawfully conspire with ... Lee Harvey Oswald ... and others ... to murder John F. Kennedy". -- the witness, Perry Russo, is credible to the extent of establishing David Ferrie ranting about Kennedy should be killed, but that's about it. Russo's identification of Oswald as present was clearly mistaken, and the mistake on the Oswald identification calls into question Russo's identification of Clay Shaw as present as well. Even on Ferrie was there a criminal case on the basis of Russo's testimony beyond establishing that Ferrie hated Kennedy and advocated killing him? Russo said there were plans discussed--at a party, with non-insider, non-conspirator Russo able to move freely and overhear? ... plausibility issues, lack-of-corroboration issues. Talk of hating and wanting to kill Kennedy probably happened at many parties in the South. That is not enough to take into court and get a criminal conviction for doing the assassination. -- That Clay Shaw lied under oath re CIA history is true, but irrelevant to the charge for which he was under trial: of being in a criminal conspiracy with Oswald and others to assassinate JFK. -- It can be established with confidence that Dean Andrews was not contacted by Clay Shaw with a request to provide legal counsel for Oswald (that was almost certainly Clem Sehrt, which is also why Dean Andrews refused to violate a confidence and say who it really was: Clem Sehrt, Mob/Marcello, old friend and legal help to Marguerite Oswald; Clem Sehrt who later told a friend he had been called by Marguerite seeking legal counsel for her son Lee after the assassination; Marguerite who also later said that she had called Clem Sehrt seeking a lawyer for Lee after the assassination); also the Airport VIP Lounge signature of "Clay Bertrand" at a time when Clay Shaw was present collapses. -- No other leads, of the anti-Castro Cubans, or JM/Wave in Florida, or organized crime elements, or the known compartments in CIA involved with Oswald and the disinformation attempting to tie Oswald to Castro, and so forth--none of these leads go to Clay Shaw. Clay Shaw just had nothing to do with anything (related to the JFK assassination). And there is the strong impression that many of Garrison's own staff, including the honest ones, knew it. -- the film shows a photo at 1:26:20f and says, without caveat or qualification, that it shows David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, and Lee Harvey Oswald in the same living room at a social gathering. But the face said to be Oswald is too dark to see clearly in the film. So I looked up that photo, and the face is not that of Oswald at all! But a viewer of the film who does not do their own fact-checking (and how many do?) will be left with that lodged in their memory as if Oswald in that photo with Clay Shaw is a fact. -- Unlike Clay Shaw, David Ferrie was a person of interest in the JFK assassination in Garrison's sights but of course Ferrie died untimely. I remember as a 13-year old newspaper carrier in Ohio reading first of the Garrison sensational charges in the news, then of Ferrie's suspicious death, and thinking "whoah!" But Garrison never pursued the Ferrie lead in the most obvious direction--toward Marcello, crime boss of New Orleans and Dallas. That was one thing Garrison had in common with the FBI and the Warren Commission. I was surprised when I first discovered Marcello does not even appear in the Warren Commission report index, as if he did not exist. Garrison apparently did not think Marcello was much involved in significant organized crime--similar to J. Edgar Hoover on that issue. Maybe as a public official in the heart of Marcello's turf that may have been a healthy policy for Garrison, I don't know. So in the end Garrison seems to merit a mixed report. I think if I were on the Clay Shaw jury I would have agreed with what apparently was the sentiment of most of the jurors polled after the trial: they were convinced by the part about there was a conspiracy beyond what the Warren Commission said, but they were not convinced by the evidence shown that Clay Shaw should be convicted of having been involved in it. There is a systems criticism of the legal system in which prosecutors feel pressure, if a crime is unsolved, to get a conviction, any conviction, and close the case. That is good for prosecutors' statistics but it also results in some wrongful convictions. I wonder if that prosecutors' mentality may have been a contributing factor in Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw.
  2. David--you speak as if the only two alternatives are it was Oswald or an imposter--why? If the Sports Drome person had claimed to be named Oswald, or if he had done anything to distinctively identify himself as Oswald, or given any sign to anyone of wanting to be identified as Oswald, even in retrospect, that would be a different matter. Then one would be looking at either/or "Oswald or impersonator". But since none of those factors are the case in any of the Sports Drome claims, why is not a third alternative on your map for consideration: somebody who was neither Oswald nor an imposter, just misidentified? Why the desire to leap for X-Files' explanations when routine and mundane explanations are just simpler? You're familiar with how CIA in Mexico City sent up a picture of what it said was a photo of Oswald in Mexico City. You've seen the photo, and of course it is not Oswald. FBI showed that photo to Marguerite Oswald, who promptly and firmly identified it as Jack Ruby, whom she had just seen on television. Do you consider that evidence that the man in that photo was an imposter impersonating Jack Ruby in Mexico City? Or that there was an elaborate impersonation project operated by CIA of multiple Jack Rubys? Of course not. It was not Jack Ruby nor was it anyone pretending to be Jack Ruby, even though the man in the photo has a similar body type and thinning black hair on top. Marguerite was simply mistaken. No X-Files impersonations of Jack Ruby, etc. required. There was no one scripting Marguerite to say that behind the scenes, no creation of a legend, no two Jack Ruby theories, etc and etc. She just got it wrong, nothing more complicated than that. So I am afraid you and I may not be quite seeing the same world in some ways, even while looking at the same data. I finished your Part 3 of the Mexico City series. It seems the argument is proposing large-scale fabrications of material evidences and false witness testimonies throughout the course of the Oswald Mexico City trip which are quite elaborate and complicated, combined with a starting premise of the Warren Commission argument that the Silvia Odio Oswald visit is incompatible with an Oswald trip to Mexico City on timeline grounds. You insist the Silvia Odio visit occurred where Warren Commission fixed it, on Thu Sept 26 or Fri Sept 27, instead of as Silvia Odio later told Gaeton Fonzi, that she all along did not know the exact day of the week for sure and had told the FBI that but the Warren Commission had sort of decided her uncertainty for her on that detail. A Silvia Odio visit on Wed Sept 25 leaves 5.5 hours of timeline before the Houston bus leaves at 2:35 am later than night, adequate time for the 3.5 hour driving time needed for Dallas to Houston of the Oswald whom Silvia Odio last saw ca. 9 pm that evening leaving in a car with two other men. Of course that is not evidence that Oswald did go to Houston that evening. But it removes the linchpin premise claim of WC and your argument that it is excluded because impossible. But speaking of the Mexico City trip, I would like to ask you two questions: (1) The CIA photo of "Oswald" in Mexico City--the one that is not a photo of Oswald (the one Marguerite mistakenly thought was a photo of Ruby)--do you think that was a photo of whoever was claiming to be Oswald at the Cuban consulate and Soviet embassy in Mexico City? and (2) As you reconstruct the many witnesses' testimony being fabricated to support the Oswald Mexico city impersonations, do you include Oswald himself as one of those witnesses fabricating testimony falsely putting himself in Mexico City, i.e. witting to the impersonation of himself as you see it? I refer to a handwritten document purporting to be written by Oswald which refers to himself as having gone to the Cuban consulate in Mexico City. 100% of handwriting experts say that is genuine Oswald handwriting. Do you think that was forged, against 100% of expert testimony? I'm a little concerned that this is going in directions of just arbitrary and implausibly large-scale fabrications of evidence for not soundly justified reasons. If it is genuine Oswald handwriting (and Oswald is aware of what he wrote in that handwritten document), would that mean Oswald was cooperating in fabricating the story of his impersonator for that trip? But if Oswald was being scripted to cooperate in his own impersonation, might it not be simpler to just have Oswald do the impersonation personally, i.e. go to Mexico City and be his own impersonator himself? 🙂 I appreciate your good cheer David, thanks--
  3. Well the top right photo and the middle two on the bottom row show slicked-back hair, removing that objection. Does the 2nd photo from left of the second row/=top left photo show hair on the chest just above the top button of his shirt? Perhaps there is no actual negative objection from physical description after all. As for association of de Torres and Diaz-Garcia otherwise, the only thing I can find is both are said to be involved with the Trafficante crime organization (de Torres according to this informant report at p. 2: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/180-10097-10488.pdf). This 1975 document, p. 12, cites a CIA 201 file on Diaz-Garcia with CIA denying it ever used Diaz-Garcia "operationally", but says CIA was in contact with him but decided to end contact with him in September 1963 (hmm): http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/NARA-Nov9-2017/104-10103-10183.pdf. This from a previous forum discussion of Diaz: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/8257-did-herminio-diaz-garcia-really-die-in-1966/.
  4. Physical description of "Angel" from Fonzi, The Last Investigation (p. 111). From Annie: "the shorter, heavyset one had dark, shiny, hair combed back, and 'looked Mexican'." Silvia: "[Silvia] described him as her sister did, 'looking more Mexican than anything else.'" It is a little puzzling what "looking Mexican" means, but in thinking about that and class language it may have included a connotation of darker skin color (compare at the end below), perhaps some sense of closer to Native American look, less Spanish-European-white? Mrs. Odio. ... And the other one was short, very Mexican looking. Have you ever seen a short Mexican with lots of thick hair and a lot of hair on his chest? Mr. Liebeler. So there was a shorter one and a tall one, and the shorter one was rather husky? [...] Mr. Liebeler. And the shorter man was about how tall, would you say? Was he taller or shorter than Oswald? Mrs. Odio. Shorter than Oswald. Mr. Liebeler. About how much, could you guess? Mrs. Odio. Five feet seven, something like that. Mr. Liebeler. So he could have been 2 or 3 inches shorter than Oswald? Mrs. Odio. That's right. Mr. Liebeler. He weighed about how much, would you say? Mrs. Odio. 170 pounds, something like that, because he was short, but he was stocky, and he was the one that had the strange complexion. Mrs. Liebeler. Was it pock marked, would you say? Mrs. Odio. No; it was like it wasn't, because he was, oh, it was like he had been in the sun for a long time. From photos turned up on search engines (there seem to be issues with some misidentified photos) Herminio Diaz Garcia seems to agree in height and weight and darker skin color in general agreement with the physical description of "Angel" up to this point. But in addition to no known evidence otherwise of actual association of de Torres and Diaz, Silvia Odio said "Angel" had a hairy chest, but photos do not seem to show Herminio Diaz Garcia with a hairy chest. And second, "Angel" had "dark, shiny hair combed back", but photos of Diaz seem to show him with "Afro" hair. These seem to me to weigh negatively against Diaz being the correct identification.
  5. Well David you are right Malcom Price does SAY Sept. 26 followed by the turkey shoot a couple of weeks later, but isn't that a simple matter of he is just confused on the date? All other witnesses have that turkey shoot in November, including Malcom Price himself later in his same testimony. Mr. Liebeler: And 2 weeks later would have been the 12th of October, and the Sunday following would be the 13th of October; is that right? Mr. Price: Yes, somewhere around there. They had a turkey shoot and I went down to participate in a turkey shoot ... [...] Mr. Liebeler: When was the next time you saw him, the third time? Mr. Price: Well, I don't remember just exactly when it was, but it was--it could be anywhere from 1 to 3 weeks later--I don't remember exactly, but it was on a Sunday, Sunday was the only time I went down there after that in a good while. [...] Mr. Liebeler: Let's see if we can establish the date of he last time that you saw this man at the rifle range. Do you recall that the President was assassinated on Friday, November 22? Can you tell us approximately how long prior to the assassination this time was that you saw the man? Mr. Price: The last time I saw him was a week before Thanksgiving; Sunday before. Mr. Liebeler: The Sunday before Thanksgiving--that's the last time you saw him at a rifle range? Mr. Price: That's the last time that I was down at the rifle range--the last time I swent there until after, oh, a month or so after the assassination. Mr. Liebeler: You mean it was the Sunday immediately preceding Thanksgiving? Mr. Price: That's right; I was down there for the turkey shoot we had. Mr. Liebeler: You saw him at the rifle range that day? Mr. Price. Yes. Mr. Liebeler: Well, the last Sunday before Thanksgiving was after the assassination. Mr. Price: It was after? Mr. Liebeler: Yes; and you saw this man at the rifle range, you saw Oswald at the rifle range after the assassination? Mr. Price: I believe I did, because that twas the last time that I went down there. Mr. Liebeler: And the time you saw him the last time and looked through the scrope was the last time you were down at the rifle range? Mr.Price: Yes; that was the last day I was down there. Mr. Liebeler: What makes you say it was the Sunday preceding Thanksgiving, are you sure about that? Mr. Price: Well, I'm not exactly positive but it was getting close to Thanksgiving because I was trying to get a turkey. Mr. Liebeler: Do you remember whether you saw him after the assassination? Mr. Price: No. Mr. Liebeler: You are not sure one way or the other? Mr. Price: I know I haven't seen him after the assassination, but it was before this assassination--I was down there the last time and I was thinking it was a week before Thanksgiving, but anyhow, it was before the assassination, the Sunday before, but they were holding a turkey shoot. Mr. Liebeler: The Sunday before the assassination would have been the 17th--that would have been two Sundays before Thanksgiving. Mr. Price: Well, it might be right--that's been so long ago--I'm not sure about the dates, I don't remember dates too well. [...] Mr. Price: Well, I try to help all I can. I don't remember dates too well--it's been quite some time. Are you sure it was Oswald at the Sports Dome sightings? The man witnesses thought had looked like Oswald there drove his own car, had a different kind of rifle than Oswald with a modified stock and a leather gun case, had a pair of binoculars with him, was a skilled accurate shooter, and the sightings took place at times that Ruth Paine testified that Oswald, who had no car nor access to one, was with her and Marina at her house in Irving those entire weekends and could not have been at the Sports Dome location for those periods of time. Mrs. Slack at the Sports Dome said the man had fuller and more hair than photos of Oswald. The man at the Sports Dome never claimed to be Oswald nor is there any reason to suppose he was impersonating anyone. There are proven cases of people who mistakenly thought they saw Oswald but actually saw Jack Ruby's employee Larry Crafard: Don Stuart and the electronics store; Mary Lawrence at the Lucas B & B Restaurant. Are you confident it was really Oswald at the Sports Dome instead of a mistaken identification? I think the Sports Dome were mistaken identifications of someone who resembled Oswald but was not him. From a certain angle Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida, was the spitting image of my brother. We had a lot of fun over that because it was so striking. These things happen. As for why the man at the Sports Dome never talked much to any of the others there or socialized, and never was seen showing up shooting there again after the assassination, I don't know if that is very odd but it does seem a little odd ... Larry Crafard split town in a hurry immediately after the assassination for unknown reason, just before his boss Ruby killed Oswald ... is it possible that was Larry Crafard at the Sports Dome? But hard to know at this point.
  6. No David, I did mean Wednesday August 28, 1963 for Oswald in Austin (for reasons explained). The way LHO could get from Silvia Odio's in Dallas to Houston the night of Wed. Sept 25 has nothing whatever to do with any bus schedules. All the talk about bus schedules to Houston that Oswald never took is entirely irrelevant to anything. That Marina said she thought Oswald had left New Orleans by bus is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Oswald arrived to Silvia Odio's place in Dallas in a car driven from New Orleans (according to what Silvia Odio was told by her visitors, whose physical appearance of greasy hair and unshaven noticed by Silvia agreed with their claim to have just arrived from New Orleans). Then Silvia Odio sees Oswald leaving her place in the same car driven by others. That is what is relevant. On reports of Oswald at the Sports Drome on Sept 28, are you sure about that? According to this FBI report of an interview of Malcom Price, the Sports Drome firing range did not open for business until October 26: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95643&relPageId=65&search=Malcom_Price. If the Sports Drome was not open for business until Oct 26, then it does not seem very likely Oswald would have been shooting there a month before it was open. None of the FBI interviews concerning the claims of Sports Drome sightings occur before Oct 26 that I can see. Surely some mistake?
  7. Hi David Josephs--I have only read Parts I and II so far of your Mexico City series but thought I would offer this comment so far. It seems the method in arguing that Oswald did not go to Mexico City relies in part on arguments from chronological impossibility, citing the Silvia Odio visit as well as witness reports in Austin. The Silvia Odio visit is not a chronological impossibility at all for Oswald to get from Silvia Odio's place in Dallas to Houston by 2:35 am the night of Wed. Sept 25, by being driven there. I showed that in the "Identity of 'Leopoldo'" thread. On Austin, there are witness accounts of Oswald in Austin from Dannelly at the Selective Service office, and Stella Norman at the Trek Cafe, both of which read as credible to me. However that cannot have occurred Wed Sept 25 consistent with the Silvia Odio visit and then Oswald to Houston that night, and in addition Stella Norman said the one weekday her Oswald encounter could not have occurred was a Wednesday since Wednesday was always her day off. Mrs. Dannelly on the other hand remembered very specifically that Oswald had visited the Selective Service office on a Wednesday, since she was paid every other Wednesday and she remembered the day Oswald was there had been one of her paydays. From digging through the documents on the Mary Ferrell site the solution is recognizing errors in date reconstructions which produce illusory contradictions that are not necessary. Neither Dannelly nor Stella Norman were certain of the date, remembering only their respective specific but seemingly-contradictory Wednesday linkages. But although Stella Norman claimed she always had Wednesdays off, the FBI interviewed her employer who checked his records and said while that was normally true she had been paid for working Wednesday Aug 28 (seven days that week). As for Dannelly, Wed. Aug. 28 was one of her biweekly Wednesday paydays. Since that date works for both of these witnesses, since Sept. 25 is excluded, and since both of these witnesses appear credible, I say Oswald was in Austin Aug 28. LHO has relevant Austin address information in his address book related to that trip; LHO was engaged with New Orleans attorney Dean "my records of Oswald were lost in a burglary" Andrews about his Selective Service case in that time frame; and the case is known to have been on Oswald's mind, so it is not implausible that he would go to Austin in person about his case. Therefore neither the Dannelly and Stella Norman Austin witness accounts, no more than the Silvia Odio visit in Dallas, provide argument establishing negatively that Oswald did not go from Dallas to Houston the night of Sept. 25. I realize you have other arguments that Oswald did not go to Mexico City; I only mean here to show these ones are removed.
  8. Some final thoughts from reading Gaeton Fonzi's The Last Investigation (2016 edition, first published 1993): -- how very scary it must have been for Silvia Odio and her sister Annie. When they saw Oswald on the news following the JFK assassination they were terrified, resolved that neither of them must ever speak of it. But they confided in their sister Sarita, who confided in a close friend who promised to keep it confidential and only told one or two of her closest friends and next thing they knew the FBI came calling. Silvia Odio gave her testimony to the Warren Commission and the WC said she was deluded and Oswald could not have been at her door. The WC's evidence for this was a bogus timeline argument, in which WC explained that it would be difficult for Oswald to get from Dallas to Houston, a 3.5 hour drive, by car the evening of Wed. Sept. 25 after being at Silvia Odio's door and be at a Houston bus station by 2:35 am that night, and also make a brief long-distance telephone call of a few minutes' duration to Houston at some point that evening, because, WC explained: "Therefore, it appeared that Oswald's presence in New Orleans until sometime between 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. on September 25 was quite firmly established [OK, yes] ... the only time not strictly accounted for during the period that Mrs. Odio thought Oswald might have visited her is the span between the morning of September 25 and 2:35 a.m. on September 26 [OK, yes] ... Automobile travel in the time available, though perhaps possible, would have been difficult [why?] ... It thus appeared that the evidence was persuasive that Oswald was not in Dallas on September 25, and, therefore, that he was not in that city at the time Mrs. Odio said she saw him." Oswald was not driving when he arrived in a car to Silvia Odio's, with Leopoldo explaining to Silvia that the three had just driven direct from New Orleans, and Oswald was not driving when Silvia saw the three leave her apartment in the same car "on a trip" (destination not said). But that was WC's explanation of why their investigation found it "persuasive" that a 3-1/2 hour drive from there to Houston between 9 pm and 2:35 am did not happen: "it would have been difficult". Such a pivotal point to WC's finding, WC's basis for excluding Silvia Odio's testimony as of any further interest, with that as the explanation! My favorite television program was "Colombo". What would Columbo have said to that? I have driven from east Texas to Houston myself. I did not find it difficult. -- then came HSCA in the 1970s, and Fonzi, the honest dogged investigator, tells of the machinations and politics of HSCA, and like a great pall over everything, CIA covering up and obstructing. Blakey comes in and, like a good team player in the name of effectiveness, cooperates with CIA so that Congress and CIA can share in the process of investigating the JFK assassination while not investigating actions of CIA. Fonzi went to a lot of work to gain Silvia Odio's confidence that this time would be different and to be willing to testify again, and HSCA called Silvia Odio to testify and arrangements were made, but at the last minute there is pressure from above and Silvia Odio is told she is not wanted to come to Washington, D.C. to testify, citing some unrelated reason of a scheduling problem, while Fonzi is placated with a promise that her story will be told well in narrative form in HSCA's report so not to worry, it would effectively be the same; then at the hearing Silvia's narrative is not read out so that news reporters would report on it, but citing lack of time, is simply stipulated put into the record without reading it aloud and moved on, meaning it did not become a news story by the covering press. The appearance of purposeful downplaying of Silvia Odio's witness account by both WC and CIA-pressured/cooperating Blakey of HSCA. Blakey taking HSCA to a Mob-did-it conclusion, not necessarily wrong as a half-truth, but the notion (the implication of Blakey's conclusion the way Blakey framed it) that Mob bosses would on their own in consultation with one another decide to hit a sitting president and declare war on the entire US Government bringing down the wrath of God on themselves, makes no sense at all; they simply could not be that irrational. Blakey pursued the Mob angle while overseeing steering HSCA investigators such as Fonzi from CIA angles. -- It is established on the basis of Fonzi's book (assuming Fonzi's 1993 edition has the same as the 2016 edition) that the de Torres identity of "Leopoldo" originated from Fonzi 1993, not from Gerry Hemming's or Angel Murgado's or Joan Mellen's later endorsements of it, all in their various ways attempting to discredit Silvia Odio's testimony even while not contesting that de Torres was "Leopoldo", likely professional disinformation with Joan Mellen unwitting purveyor of it even though Mellen meant well. Is there professional (as distinguished from free-lance) disinformation in the case of the JFK assassination which does NOT go back to CIA? -- Fonzi tells Silvia Odio's story of meeting "Leopoldo", "Angelo", and Oswald, giving physical descriptions except for the most striking feature of physical description for Leopoldo remembered by Silvia Odio: the unusual forehead and hairline. A male pattern baldness in which one side of the forehead hairline goes "way back" more than the other could fit many men, but it is a striking match to de Torres photographs--Fonzi leaves that out of his book, just as he refers to de Torres by the pseudonym "Carlos" and not by real name in that book. -- The way the JFK assassination chewed up innocent people. Silvia Odio did not seek publicity, told the truth, lived in fear. She did not ask for it, but through an accident of history encountered the ones driving Oswald to Houston on the first leg of the Mexico City trip whatever that was about, and through another accident of history that which Silvia and her sisters intended never to be publicly disclosed because of fear, came to attention and was "investigated" and dismissed on the most transparently flimsy grounds. So went the investigations into the assassination of an American president who threatened structural change in good directions for America.
  9. Cliff, the final "bang-bang" that so many witnesses heard corresponds to the two greatest blurs in Zapruder at Z313 and Z331, according to the studies. Those are 1.0 second apart and shots one second apart will be heard and remembered as distinct shots by most people, in agreement with the witnesses who heard a final "bang-bang". Those final two blurs/shots at Z313 and Z330 are the JFK head shot at Z313 and a good argument for the Connally hit at Z330. Where in Zapruder are you putting the shot Bennett says he heard at the time he saw JFK's back, just before Z313? It is possible to have a blur in Zapruder not caused by a shot, but not possible to have a shot without a blur in Zapruder. Single witnesses can be fallible but this science must be prior. I may have erred in thinking five shots instead of three or four. Either or both of Z152-158 and Z227 I believe could arguably be eliminated as shots without violation of visual evidence in Zapruder, and would be in better agreement with the large number of witness reports hearing three ending with two close together, "bang-bang". I agree Bennett refers to three shots but Bennett himself spoke of his first as a "fire cracker" sound without calling it a shot (even though we know it was a shot and we call it a shot); Bennet's second shot heard he calls "a shot", and Bennett's third shot heard he calls "a second shot" in his early statements. I was quoting Bennett's terminology, minor point, doesn't matter. I think Bennett must have looked at JFK very close before the head shot of Z313, saw the tear in JFK's jacket already there, immediately heard two shots--"bang-bang" as he saw JFK's head blown apart, and associated in his mind the first of that "bang-bang" with having caused the hit to JFK's back, and the second of that "bang-bang" with the JFK head hit, even though that was slightly mistaken on the order of a fraction of a second or a second in time. BLURS IN ZAPRUDER FILM Relative magnitude of blur episode Designation of blur episode Shown by Frames showing blur onset (beginning to maximum) Largest A1 Alvarez 312-318 Hartmann 313-318 Scott 313-314 A2 Alvarez 330-334 Hartmann 331-332 Scott 331-333 2d largest B Alvarez 189-195 Hartmann 191-197 Scott 193-194 3rd largest 1 C Alvarez 220-228 Hartmann 227 Scott 226-228 4th largest 1 D Hartman 158-1598 Scott 158-160 5th largest E Alvarez 291-2938 Hartmann 290-291 Scott 290-292 1 About equal.
  10. Cliff Varnell, on the testimony of Glenn Bennett, I interpret his testimony a bit differently. This is my transcription of the photo of his handwritten statement of 5:30 pm Nov 22, 1963: "...The President's car, the motorcade, had been traveling for approximately 30 minutes enroute to the Trade-Mart, when we made a left hand turn and then a quick right. The President's auto moved down a slight grade and the crowd was very sparse. At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a fire cracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed fire cracker, looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder; a second shoot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head. I immediately hollered to Special Agent Hickey, seated in the same seat, to get the AR-15. I drew my revolver and looked to the rear and to the left <1119 to?> left, but was unable to see any one person that could have rendered this terrible tragedy. The President's auto immediately kicked into high gear and the follow-up car departed the scean. The President was taken to a nearby hospital and was rushed therein..." Clint Hill, in the same followup car, heard only two shots, with the first being a firecracker sound, the second being the Z313 head shot--parallel to Bennett. From Clint Hill's WC testimony: Mr. HILL. Well, as we came out of the curve, and began to straighten up, I was viewing the area which looked to be a park. There were people scattered throughout the entire park. And I heard a noise from my right rear, which to me seemed to be a firecracker. I immediately looked to my right and, in so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential limousine and I saw President Kennedy grab at himself and lurch forward and to the left. Mr. SPECTER. Why don't you just proceed, in narrative form, to tell us? Representative BOGGS. This was the first shot? Mr. HILL. This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped from the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object--it seemed to have some type of an echo. I put my right foot, I believe it was, on the left rear step of the automobile, and I had a hold of the handgrip with my hand, when the car lurched forward. I lost my footing and I had to run about three or four more steps before I could get back up in the car. So this parallelism: Clint Hill's #1 = firecracker. Bennett's #0 = firecracker Clint Hill looks at JFK, sees JFK "grab at himself and lurch forward and to the left". Bennett looks at JFK, sees "a shot [Bennet's #1] that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder". Clint Hill's #2 = Z313 head shot. Bennett's #2 = Z313 head shot. In this parallelism which agrees at the outset and at the end, the look at JFK in the middle may be two versions of the same thing, by the parallelism. The only difference is that Bennett claims he hears a shot at the time he looks at JFK, whereas Clint Hill does not claim to hear such a shot. Two versions in parallel tellings of two agents in the followup car. Bennett saw the wound (after it happened), and Clint Hill saw JFK's reaction to that wound, also after it happened. The only difference is Bennett's ambiguous "saw a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder" (one cannot "see" a shot but the sense could read as *"saw that a shot had hit...") becomes edited, in the typed version of his handwritten notes typed the next day, to "saw a shot hit the Boss..." I think Bennett's memory is incorrect on the point about hearing a shot at the moment he looked and saw the hole in the back of JFK's jacket. The evidence is an Altgens photo at Z255 shows Bennett still looking hard to the right, in agreement with a Willis photo at Z202 also showing Bennett looking hard to the right. In the Altgens photo one end of the rear view mirror is about at the position of Bennett's left ear in line of sight, and the hair of the agent sitting in front of Bennett blocks Bennet's nose in line of sight, but other than that there is a clear profile view of the left side of Bennett's face, with Bennett looking fully to the right. This means Bennett did not turn to look to see JFK until after Z255. But no shot occurred after Z255 until the head shot at Z313 (or two shots indistinguishable in sound at Z310/Z313 is permitted by the blurs if that is argued). It is certain there was no shot between Z255 and Z310 or 313, because there is no blur episode in those frames, and there cannot be the sound of a shot without a blur episode in Zapruder's handheld panning of the camera. In addition, Bennett's later iteration of testimony to HSCA (if the interviewer reports him accurately) drops the claim that he observed the creation of the hole in JFK's back as distinguished from seeing the mark in the back of JFK's suit jacket: "He then heard another noise and saw what appeared to be a nick in the back of President Kennedy's coat below the shoulder. He thought the President had been hit in the back ... he believes the first and second shots were close together and then a longer pause before the third shot ... he does not recall any agents reacting before the third shot." Bennett was one of the agents up into the early hours of the morning in Fort Worth at The Cellar the night before. Bennett wrote in his statement on that that he left The Cellar at 3 a.m. Like most of the agents who had been there, he reported that he had drunk only grapefruit juice, nothing alcoholic, at The Cellar. Bennett got to sleep some time after 3 a.m., then got up and reported for duty at 7:20 a.m. He could hardly have gotten more than three hours sleep at best with shower and breakfast. How would reporting to work protecting the president on only three hours sleep the night before affect not only reaction time but acuity and accuracy of memory? It would be something that an opposing attorney in a trial situation would surely bring out. Because a shot at the time Bennett looked and saw a tear created by a bullet in the back of JFK's suit is excluded by evidence (no blur episode), and because Bennett's reflexes were likely not in the best physical condition due to lack of sleep, I interpret Bennett's early claim to have heard a shot, and to have seen the actual moment of creation of the back wound, to be mistaken on Bennet's part. I think he looked at JFK when he said he did in his earliest handwritten account, saw the tear in JFK's jacket of the bullet hole in JFK's back, correctly interpreted it as caused by a shot, but did not see the creation of that wound to JFK's back. All of this is consistent with the back wound of JFK occurring at the shot at Z180-193.
  11. Matt Allison you are right, I just read much of Gaeton Fonzi's book, The Last Investigation, and I see what you mean and agree. It is definitely suggested, just not confirmed. Fonzi says his only justification to HSCA for investigating a circle of persons centered around Carlos (de Torres) in the late 1970s was because "There were two men in [Carlos's] operation who fit the description of 'Angel' and 'Leopoldo', the two men Silvia Odio said had visited her apartment in Dallas with Oswald" (p. 240). Fonzi directly says he had two particular men in mind, never names them, but they are in a circle of persons close to Carlos (de Torres). "Leopoldo" as a war name was not Silvia Odio's speculation but, according to Fonzi that is what Leopoldo himself said ("identified himself as 'Leopoldo', although he admitted he was giving her an alias or a 'war name'", p. 111). Fonzi tells of wanting to get photographs of Carlos (de Torres) and associates, and that he obtained cooperation from the Metro Dade Organized Crime squad to set up a surveillance van to take such photographs, but Blakey in Washington D.C. ordered Fonzi not to proceed with that (p. 241). Fonzi tells of Silvia Odio's deep continuing fear for the safety of herself and her children when he interviewed her, and his attempts to protect her from further abuse of the kind she received from the Warren Commission (pp. 115-116). That context offers a very simple explanation for why no identity of "Leopoldo" has been publicly confirmed from Fonzi or Silvia Odio. Carlos (de Torres) told of having been "in contact with Oswald", according to Fonzi's informant (p. 234). And de Torres matches the physical description given by Silvia for "Leopoldo". I think your comment has been the most valuable comment of this topic.
  12. This is a good point Paul and you are right. This means the argument I was following of Donald Thomas and Milicent Cranor of my second paragraph re Z313--has to be withdrawn in claiming Z313 blur onset proves the shooter of the bullet impacting at Z313 was very close by Zapruder, because of the reason you give. A Grassy Knoll position of the shooter of the shot impacting JFK's head at Z313 would still be true on other grounds, but not established from the argument from blur onset. I had not thought the movement of JFK's head forward just before Z313 represented a hit from a rear shot because, as I looked at Zapruder, I interpreted that as part of all of the occupants in the limousine moving forward slightly due to a momentary braking of the presidential limousine, not bringing it to a full stop (in the films, despite remembered as a full stop by some witnesses), but enough to move everyone forward, not just JFK. JFK's head goes forward a bit more than the other heads but that all are thrown forward as the limo was braked was the key point to me, and JFK's slightly greater head movement, differing in extent but not in kind from the others, I attributed to JFK's back brace restricting movement of the rest of his torso. That was my thinking, in discounting the forward JFK head movement just prior to Z313 as indicating a shot from the rear. But if that JFK forward head movement was from a shot from the rear hitting at say ca. Z310, sounds of shots only ca. 3 Zapruder frames apart, about 1/6 of a second--as would also be compatible with Zapruder--that surely would be indistinguishable from being heard as a single shot by nearly everyone. Also I assume 1/6 of a second would be too close together for blur analysis to be capable of distinguishing as distinct shots, since the startle response span of time is greater than that. If so, this would mean a six-shots theory instead of five, and this sixth shot at ca. Z310 would be where the rear occipital entrance occurred (if the arguments for inferring a rear entrance wound in the back of JFK's head are correct), leaving Z330 to be solely the Connally hit. It does not seem to me that a distinct shot hitting JFK in the rear of the head at Z310 is necessary from the evidence though it is possible.
  13. The blur analysis of Zapruder is gold for the timing of shots, because it is based on an automatic startle response of the nervous system occurring practically instantaneously after hearing a loud noise such as a gunshot. When combined with the observed reactions of people in the Presidential limousine in the Zapruder frames and collated with eyewitness testimony, this is powerful. Five blur analysis studies have been published (Alvarez, Wyckoff, Hartmann, Scott, Stroscio), arriving in close agreement with each other such that the main results on this are essentially now "settled science". These blur episodes in Zapruder indicate five, not three, gunshots. Onsets of blur episodes: Z152-158; Z180-193; Z227; Z313; and Z330. A particularly interesting finding from the blur analysis concerns Z313, the head shot. JFK's head can be seen hit at Z313 with the spray of brain and bloody matter. But the blur episode begins at Z313. But that means that shot cannot have come from the TSBD, because if so the sound (the shock wave from the bullet breaking the sound barrier at the presidential limousine) would take longer to arrive to Zapruder and cause his startle response, than could be reflected in Z313. This has been calculated: if that shot had come from the TSBD as the Warren Commission said, the blurring could not have begun before Z314. However, the blurring is evident in Zapruder at Z313, inconsistent with TSBD but consistent with a shot fired from a shooter close behind Zapruder on the Grassy Knoll, which also was Zapruder's own impression of where that shot sounded like it came from. In other words, the blur analysis at Z313 is stand-alone evidence of more than one shooter and conspiracy (Cranor, "Neurology and Jiggle Analysis", http://the-puzzle-palace.com/files/jiggle.html). But working out the rest of the shots and correlating what is seen visually in Zapruder with the witness testimonies and with the blur analysis indicating the timings of shots, involves many issues of interpretation and disagreement. I have struggled to find a way to make sense of the role of Oswald; also why the blur analyses indicate five shots when most witnesses heard only three. Here is my attempt at a theory to account for these questions. Imagine Oswald is not trying to kill anyone but is the shooter of his rifle from the TSBD. It is possible to interpret the Walker shooting as something in which Oswald intended to take a shot at Walker but miss, anticipated getting arrested and charged with attempted murder (not first-degree murder). In the JFK visit to Dallas Oswald is simply hired to do the same thing again: his task is to take two shots and miss, leave TSBD and be helped with a promised flight to Cuba where he will seek asylum, but JFK would not actually be hurt. So Oswald's understanding. This would account for all of the incriminating evidence pointing to him as the shooter, it would account for his not watching the parade among other people with a clearer alibi; it accounts for his flight after the shooting. It removes his expertise with firearms as an issue since it takes little skill to miss two shots. It also explains why shots were missed, why his rifle was not fully loaded, and other seeming lack of preparation. The three shell cartridges, one crimped and already there in the rifle prior to shooting, is ejected, then two missed shots. It explains why LHO does not fire before the turn of the presidential motorcade onto Elm Street. It explains why a professional conspiracy to kill JFK would be using non-professional Oswald, with LHO's willing participation. The rifle would have been in the TSBD a little before Nov 22, not brought to the TSBD that morning. The strange behavior of LHO reported to be seeking other employment in the days preceding the assassination in tall buildings and dropping comments about how a president could get shot ... maybe even the curtain rods story ... are not necessarily urban legend nor impersonators nor inexplicable: they could be LHO intending to incriminate himself, but the plan was that JFK would not be shot and LHO would received assistance to escape to Cuba. But LHO was double-crossed, did not know JFK would be killed, realized he had been set up, and the rest is history. The point of this scenario is an attempt to give a better explanation for missed shots in the JFK shooting. Anyway with that preamble here is one possible analysis of the five shots indicated from the blur analysis: BLUR EPISODE ONSET/REACTIONS TO SHOTS #1, Z152-158. Oswald TSBD, intentional MISSED SHOT. the "firecracker" sound witnesses hear. Connally, startled, turns to see. #2, Z180-193. Just before disappearance behind the freeway sign. Another shooter (Dal-Tex building) with suppressor fires a bullet matched to Oswald's rifle. JFK is hit in the back and reacts. ("Beginning at Zapruder frame 194 the President assumed a posture that can best be described as a flinch which included bringing his arms in front of his body and shaking his head back and forth. According to Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, he also spat out the words, 'My God, I'm hit.' Because the Warren Commission claimed in contradiction to all medical expectations that the President was clutching at his throat wound, I feel compelled to point out that a person who has had his trachea perforated by a bullet is unlikely to be capable of coherent speech, and a person who has had severe blunt trauma of the spinal cord at the level of the neck is not likely to be capable of deliberate arm movement. Studies of gun shot wounds involving the vertebrae are uniform in reporting flaccid paralysis of the muscles innervated downstream from the trauma...What this means is that President Kennedy's visible reaction beginning at frame 194, about one sec after the shot detected at Z-175, could not have been a reaction to being shot through the neck." -- D. B. Thomas). #3, Z227. Oswald TSBD, second intentional MISSED SHOT. Connally rapid movements react to the sound of the shot, not to being hit. The "lapel flap" is not from a bullet, and Connally is not hit at this point (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/L Disk/Lattimer John Dr/Item 03.pdf; http://joliraja.com/lapelflip/lapelflaptd.htm). #4, Z313. shot from Grassy Knoll, head shot with frangible bullet at close range, the kill shot of JFK. #5, Z330. Another shot from the shooter of #2 with a bullet matching LHO's rifle. Connally is hit here. Either (a) JFK violently thrown left and backwards at Z313f moves him out of the way such that a bullet aimed at JFK misses JFK and hits Connally (in this case there is no JFK occipital entry wound or second JFK head shot, and the JFK throat wound returns to the early idea of being caused by some bone or shrapnel from the Z313 head shot, happening at Z313), or (b) a modified single bullet theory in which both JFK and Connally are hit with the same bullet entering at the rear occipital of JFK. In this way Oswald becomes a witting shooter, a patsy, and not a murderer of JFK, all at the same time; five shots are heard as three by most people; and a hit is carried out on JFK and blamed on Oswald.
  14. Thanks David Joseph for clarifying. Makes excellent sense to me. No I have not been there, almost did in my trip to interview John Curington but logistics didn't work. I attended a Bible college in east Texas for 2-1/2 years long ago, just 80 miles from Dallas and never got there then either. On Zapruder, this article by Josiah Thompson, actually a transcript of a presentation of Josiah Thompson in 1998, convinced me that Zapruder has probably not been altered, as distinguished from unconscionably concealed for a time from the public: http://www.jfklancer.com/thompZ.html. Josiah Thompson from the first generation of researchers is top tier to me. But I have ordered the Fetzer, ed., book on Zapruder that you recommended and will check the articles in it by Jack White and others when it arrives.
  15. David J., what is the point about the Grassy Knoll fence being "absurdly close"? Explain?
×
×
  • Create New...