In pursuit of one's own tale...

[Ray Mitcham]

Mr. Lifton,

I believe you are confusing the "controversy" over Altgen 6 with the more-recent discussion on this very forum on the "Oswald Leaving the TSBD" thread. It's pretty much accepted that Oswald is NOT seen in Altgens 6. But there are other films that show another man in the corner BEHIND Lovelady, who is not visible in Altgens 6, who may--or may not--be Oswald.

Check out the "Oswald Leaving the TSBD" thread and educate yourself on the issue. You may or may not believe it's Oswald back in the corner. But it's also not Lovelady, who IS the man seen in Altgens 6.

Mark,

Yes, I am aware of that thread, primarily because I am interested in the Darnell film, and because those exhibits show Officer Baker running towards the building and the steps into the building, while the focus of everyone else appears to be "down the street."

Many people are unaware that although Baker came up with an explanation that he ran into the building because he saw pigeons flying off the roof, that was not his "first day" explanation; in the very first draft of his statement, he said something to the effect (this is from memory) that he "thought" the shots came from an upstairs window, and that was his "explanation."

As to the image over on the left hand side, I realize there's an image there--and yes, I have looked at it--but its very indistinct, and certainly not of the quality necessary to make an identification. I notice that most of the posts on that thread do not cite the image in isolation, but rather as part of a wider argument using a process of elimination as to who it might be at that particular location.

It has always been my belief that if Oswald was downstairs anywhere on those steps (or near it) at the time, other employees would have mentioned seeing him there. There are no such reports. The only such "early" reports concern him being (possibly) in a nearby storage room, a minute or two following the shooting; and those reports are (historically and legally) far more important (and potent). As I recall, they were not properly followed up by the FBI investigation (or the Warren Commission, for that matter).

DSL

5/14/15 - 4 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

An obvious explanation for all the interest "down the street" while Baker or some other policeman is running towards the TSBD front door: that's where JFK's limo was when the shots rang out and people hit the ground and others started yelling or screaming. Due to the confusing acoustics of Dealy Plaza, most who realized that Kennedy had been shot (or shot at) would have naturally assumed that the shooter was down there somewhere, too.

--Tommy

Sorry, Tommy, but the shots rang out after the limo had passed the TSBD.

[Greg Burnham]

[...] Unfortunately, I'm going out on a limb here and saying that the human mind works in such a way that we think we need to understand the details before we can fully appreciate the "why" and the "what it means" part. Most of us are simply responding to the way that our schools taught us to think. Remember math class? Getting the right answer wasn't sufficient; we had to show that we understood the details that led to the answer.

That's MY theory as to why we are still bogged down by the details, and can't see the big picture clearly.

Mark,

I think you've identified the problem. I like your math class analogy. It is a perfect symptom of the failure of our educational system. Back when we were grammar school students there were no calculators, Google, cell phones, etc., from which we could have cheated to get the answer. Yet they forced us to learn "long division" thoroughly, show our work, only to then teach us "short division" immediately thereafter. Learning long division was and is completely unnecessary. It added no value other than to teach us how not to solve division problems--as if we would have stumbled upon such a cumbersome method on our own!

Imagine moving into a new house and one of your neighbors rings your doorbell to welcome you to the neighborhood. Say he invites you over for a beer. Not yet knowing which house he lives in, you ask him how to get there. He proceeds to give you these directions:

"When you leave your house go to the sidewalk and turn right. Go to the first corner and turn right. Walk one bock to the next corner and turn right again. Walk one block and turn right again. Go to the very next corner and turn right again. Then walk down the street. My house is the one you come to just before you get back to your own."

It's true. You can get there that way. But it's like long division. A waste of time.

He could have just said:

"I'm your next door neighbor on the left side as you face the street."

Or, he could have given you directions:

"Walk out of your house and go to the sidewalk. Turn left and I'm the first house you come to on the left side."

That's like short division.

Unlike when we were kids growing up, today I see a need for a student to prove his or her answer did not originate from the clandestine use of a calculator or other electronic method of cheating. However, there are methods of doing fairly complex mathematical calculations "within one's head" and without writing anything down. What to do with the student who possesses such gifts? What to do with these methods if they turn out not to be "gifts" but rather "better and more efficient" means to the same end and can be learned?

Indeed, I would find any teacher incompetent who penalizes a student for "getting the correct answer" on the basis that the student employed an alternate method to the one being taught! In my view, so long as that method is reliable and, in some cases, may even be more efficient than the method being taught, the student's alternate method should be applauded rather than stifled.

So this "model" of learning has not served us well. It has limited us to a paradigm that tends to exclude the underlying substance. It is more concerned with appearance than it is with function.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Thomas Graves]

Mr. Lifton,

I believe you are confusing the "controversy" over Altgen 6 with the more-recent discussion on this very forum on the "Oswald Leaving the TSBD" thread. It's pretty much accepted that Oswald is NOT seen in Altgens 6. But there are other films that show another man in the corner BEHIND Lovelady, who is not visible in Altgens 6, who may--or may not--be Oswald.

Check out the "Oswald Leaving the TSBD" thread and educate yourself on the issue. You may or may not believe it's Oswald back in the corner. But it's also not Lovelady, who IS the man seen in Altgens 6.

Mark,

Yes, I am aware of that thread, primarily because I am interested in the Darnell film, and because those exhibits show Officer Baker running towards the building and the steps into the building, while the focus of everyone else appears to be "down the street."

Many people are unaware that although Baker came up with an explanation that he ran into the building because he saw pigeons flying off the roof, that was not his "first day" explanation; in the very first draft of his statement, he said something to the effect (this is from memory) that he "thought" the shots came from an upstairs window, and that was his "explanation."

As to the image over on the left hand side, I realize there's an image there--and yes, I have looked at it--but its very indistinct, and certainly not of the quality necessary to make an identification. I notice that most of the posts on that thread do not cite the image in isolation, but rather as part of a wider argument using a process of elimination as to who it might be at that particular location.

It has always been my belief that if Oswald was downstairs anywhere on those steps (or near it) at the time, other employees would have mentioned seeing him there. There are no such reports. The only such "early" reports concern him being (possibly) in a nearby storage room, a minute or two following the shooting; and those reports are (historically and legally) far more important (and potent). As I recall, they were not properly followed up by the FBI investigation (or the Warren Commission, for that matter).

DSL

5/14/15 - 4 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

An obvious explanation for all the interest "down the street" while Baker or some other policeman is running towards the TSBD front door: that's where JFK's limo was when the shots rang out and people hit the ground and others started yelling or screaming. Due to the confusing acoustics of Dealy Plaza, most who realized that Kennedy had been shot (or shot at) would have naturally assumed that the shooter was down there somewhere, too.

--Tommy

Sorry, Tommy, but the shots rang out after the limo had passed the TSBD.

Correct, Ray.

DSL pointed out that most people near the TSBD were interested in what was going on down on Elm Street (and the Grassy Knoll area) right after the shots rang out, and the fact that Officer Baker was apparently more concerned that the sniper might be inside the TSBD kinda sticks out like a sore thumb. Why was Baker practically the only person whose actions, as caught on film, suggest that he somehow "knew" that the shots had come from inside the TSBD or perhaps its roof?

I personally can't see how a bunch of pigeons' leaving the roof of the TSBD, as Baker claimed, would have suggested to him that the shots had been fired from that building, to the exclusion of all of the other nearby buildings. Did Dealey Plaza's pigeons only hang out on the roof of the TSBD, or did some of them hang out on the roof of the DalTex Building or any of the other nearby buildings? If so, didn't those also take off upon hearing / "feeling" the gunshots, or were they so totally laid back and so nonplussed by the "far away" gunshots that they continued to do whatever pigeons do on rooftops?

In other words, why only the TSBD?

Did Jack Dougherty put some bread crumbs up there every lunchtime, and therefore most or all of the Dealey Plaza pigeons happened to be there at 12:30 pm on 11/22/63?

Or was Baker's unspoken assumption correct -- pigeons only suddenly leave those buildings that gunshots are fired from inside of?

Maybe we need some input by a big city pigeon behaviorist here.

--Tommy

Edited May 16, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[David Lifton]

[ Deleted to save space]

Mark,

Yes, I am aware of that thread, primarily because I am interested in the Darnell film, and because those exhibits show Officer Baker running towards the building and the steps into the building, while the focus of everyone else appears to be "down the street."

Many people are unaware that although Baker came up with an explanation that he ran into the building because he saw pigeons flying off the roof, that was not his "first day" explanation; in the very first draft of his statement, he said something to the effect (this is from memory) that he "thought" the shots came from an upstairs window, and that was his "explanation."

As to the image over on the left hand side, I realize there's an image there--and yes, I have looked at it--but its very indistinct, and certainly not of the quality necessary to make an identification. I notice that most of the posts on that thread do not cite the image in isolation, but rather as part of a wider argument using a process of elimination as to who it might be at that particular location.

It has always been my belief that if Oswald was downstairs anywhere on those steps (or near it) at the time, other employees would have mentioned seeing him there. There are no such reports. The only such "early" reports concern him being (possibly) in a nearby storage room, a minute or two following the shooting; and those reports are (historically and legally) far more important (and potent). As I recall, they were not properly followed up by the FBI investigation (or the Warren Commission, for that matter).

DSL

5/14/15 - 4 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

An obvious explanation for all the interest "down the street" while Baker or some other policeman is running towards the TSBD front door: that's where JFK's limo was when the shots rang out and people hit the ground and others started yelling or screaming. Due to the confusing acoustics of Dealy Plaza, most who realized that Kennedy had been shot (or shot at) would have naturally assumed that the shooter was down there somewhere, too.

--Tommy

Sorry, Tommy, but the shots rang out after the limo had passed the TSBD.

Correct, Ray.

DSL pointed out that most people near the TSBD were interested in what was going on down on Elm Street (and the Grassy Knoll area) right after the shots rang out, and the fact that Officer Baker was apparently more concerned that the sniper might be inside the TSBD kinda sticks out like a sore thumb. Why was Baker practically the only person whose actions, as caught on film, suggest that he somehow "knew" that the shots had come from inside the TSBD or perhaps its roof?

I personally can't see how a bunch of pigeons' leaving the roof of the TSBD, as Baker claimed, would have suggested to him that the shots had been fired from that building, to the exclusion of all of the other nearby buildings. Did Dealey Plaza's pigeons only hang out on the roof of the TSBD, or did some of them hang out on the roof of the DalTex Building or any of the other nearby buildings? If so, didn't those also take off upon hearing / "feeling" the gunshots, or were they so totally laid back and so nonplussed by the "far away" gunshots that they continued to do whatever pigeons do on rooftops?

In other words, why only the TSBD?

Did Jack Dougherty put some bread crumbs up there every lunchtime, and therefore most or all of the Dealey Plaza pigeons happened to be there at 12:30 pm on 11/22/63?

Or was Baker's unspoken assumption correct -- pigeons only suddenly leave those buildings that gunshots are fired from inside of?

Maybe we need some input by a big city pigeon behaviorist here.

--Tommy

For those following this particular issue: keep in mind that in his original handwritten statement, Baker mentioned nothing about pigeons. Nada. He simply stated that he ran to the building because he "thought" or "believed" the shots came from there.

At some point in the next 12-24 hours, someone must have had a talk with him and made it clear that his original statement was insufficient, and lacked any semblance of containing "probable cause" to justify what he did. So when interviewed just hours later, his later statement contained the "pigeon" story.

Had this been a more in-depth (or more perceptive) investigation, a good attorney would have pursued this change, put Baker under oath and asked for an explanation --indeed, demanded an explanation--as to why his original statement was worded as it was, and just what it was that caused him to come up with the "I saw pigeons flying" explanation.

If/when time permits, I will return to this post and insert the exact quote from Baker's original statement so anyone can see Baker's switch from his original statement to the "I saw pigeons" story.

DSL

5/17/15 - 1:20 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited May 17, 2015 by David Lifton

[Ron Ecker]

deleted

Edited May 17, 2015 by Ron Ecker

[Ray Mitcham]

As I have said in previous posts, if pigeons were on the roof of the TSBD, they would have flown away no matter where the shots came from, not just from the building under them.

Having chased pigeons many times, many years ago, these dumb birds fly off at any loud noise, from wherever. Any cop with a normal degree of intelligence would realise that.

As David says, the statement sounds totally made up to cover the real reason for entrance to the TSBD by Baker.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

You are still attempting to persuade the unpersuadable that there was a conspiracy by virtue of a proper interpretation of the physical evidence.

No, Greg, I'm trying to persuade as to the root facts of the case. LN and CT is a false dichotomy.

Those who obstinately cling to the lone nut position have long had sufficient evidence, physical and otherwise, to become enlightened.

Those "CTs"who obstinately cling to the T1 back wound have long had sufficient evidence, physical and otherwise, to become enlightened.

All the major conferences in the past two years indicates that the universe of the enlightened -- within the JFK Assassination Critical Community -- is small.

What happened to the bullets causing the wounds in JFK's back and throat?

I think SilentGen/Boomer types don't do high strangeness -- pre-autopsy surgery? high tech dissolving bullets? -- and so the T3 back wound is marginalized because few researchers are comfortable "going there."

Your endless quest to persuade others to appreciate what it is fails to address what it means.

Means Fidel Castro woke up on 11/22/63 with JFK's head in his bed, wised up and started doing his drug-smuggling business with George H. W. Bush/Thomas Devine.

Means after WW2 there was a "Holocaust by another means" with the heroin plague in American inner cities.

There are only fan blades spinning on the distant horizon, Don Quixote. What you're missing is the significance of the electricity they produce beneath the surface.

Your critique may apply to others, not me.

[Kenneth Drew]

Greg, I just listened to the 44 min tape and listened again to some parts of it. It comes very near to the way I feel about the assassination. Too many people want to argue the 'details' of the assassination and to overlook the big picture. The big picture is that JFK was killed that day for a reason. Whoever was behind it had reasons, maybe several, to do it. In their minds it solved a lot of problems. One being, that it cured 'peace'. It meant almost assuredly that there would be war. But then the responses, as above for DVP, as an example, is an attempt to argue 'details'. Details which are not important. Just look at DVP's language, for example, 'Oswald's rifle', 'SBT', '3 shots', 'bullet came out of his throat', etc. He speaks of these as if they are 'facts'. Oswald's rifle? There is no proof that LHO had a rifle. Besides there were at least three rifles involved. One that Hidell ordered, a different one than the one found at the TSBD, and the Mauser that was found at the TSBD. He speaks of the WCR as if it is 'truth'. All of that is a smoke screen. None of it matters. The result of what happened is that JFK was killed and the world changed that day, much to the better for many of those that were involved in creating his death. They argue about whether LHO was capable of the 3 shots. It doesn't matter, there is absolutely zero evidence that he fired any shots that day. There is, however, more evidence that h e did not fire a shot that day. Clearly the evidence of the information that was shared to the cabinet members that were on the flight to Japan indicate that the preparer of the data already knew of the details of the planned assassination.

DVP makes several claims that both JEH and LBJ mispoke while carrying on recorded conversations, many times. Why is it that the things they 'mispoke' about are the things that now seem to be revealed as the truth. One bullet hit Connally that would have hit JFK if Connally had not been between the shooter and JFK?.

So yes, there is evidence that the shooters were CIA, French assassins, Cuban exiles, Mafia, but what does it matter, it is clear that there were many more than one and that many more than 3 shots were fired. It is clear that the Secret service and FBI were involved. It is clear that LBJ, at a minimum, knew about it and most likely it was his plan that was carried out that day. He certainly was the major beneficiary of the events of the day.

So the Anguish, yes, that one person wanted so much for the world, peaceful coexistence, that just did not fit with the plans of too many that wanted many more benefits that they would not get if JFK remained in office. The world is very likely a much different world today than it might have been. I've attempted to make comments related to your presentation without veering too far off course.

[Kenneth Drew]

I apologize if I'm reading too much into your comments, David, but I think the probability some of the evidence was fabricated or mis-represented to the commission fails to absolve them of guilt. The evidence is quite clear, IMO, that Earl Warren, at the very least, knew he was whitewashing a very dark day.

From patspeer.com, chapter 3c:

The Warren "No-No"s

One needn't be a believer in conspiracies to see that the Warren Commission's investigation was not all that it was cracked up to be--a tireless investigation performed by dedicated men whose only client was the truth, blah blah blah.

[deleting. . to save space. . . ]

(your ending. . .). . .

The Chief Justice, who was, by his own admission, roped into serving as chairman of the commission by President Johnson through the prospect of nuclear war, refused to allow important evidence to be viewed, refused to allow important witnesses to be called, cut off investigations into controversial areas, agreed to keep the testimony before the commission from the public, tried to keep the commission's internal files from the public, and ultimately asked the national archives to help hide some of the evidence available to the commission from the public until a decent interval had passed in which the commission and its friends in the media could sell the commission's conclusions.

Now if that ain't a whitewash, then what the heck is?

Pat:

This investigation of Kennedy’s assassination is akin to a game with many innings.

As you well know, unraveling this thing is like peeling off the layers of an onion, because there were a multiplicity of investigations.

To describe the opening innings of this “game”, which has gone on for some 50 years, and going back on the time-line to the very beginning--and I am referring here to November 22, 1963 and in the next few days, weeks, and (let's say) two months, we have:

a) the initial media reporting (on 11/22/63 and in the days, weeks, and months thereafter)

b ) the Dallas Police Department investigation

c) The Dallas Sheriff’s investigation

d) The FBI investigation—with its initial December 9, 1963 Summary Report

(and then its January 12, 1964 Summary Report)

e) The Secret Service Report (CD 3, of the Warren Commission)

f) The Warren Commission investigation, which commenced—for all practical purposes—in late December 1963, and then really was underway by January 1964.

Yes, I’m perfectly well aware that the Warren Commission investigation had serious deficiencies (as you enumerated)—no doubt about that. But that doesn’t address the issue I have raised: the importance of autopsy fraud in creating a “false reality” –in real time, starting on the evening of the assassination, and then going forward in time.

Without autopsy fraud, there is no factual or legal basis for the arrest of Oswald, or the false perception that he was “the assassin.” Yes, I know those events occurred before the body was actually altered (or before that alteration was completed, anyway, and then codified in writing in the form of a false autopsy report), but it was the alteration and the subsequent creation of the false autopsy report that provided a semblance of authenticity (i.e., of factual and legal validity) to the sniper's nest evidence found within an hour of JFK's murder. Lawyers have a "term of art" which describes the connection (or legal nexus) to which I am referring: the sniper's nest evidence (without a valid autopsy) is arguably "irrelevant"; but with a valid autopsy, it becomes "relevant."

Now moving forward (in time) approximately one week. . .

I have little doubt that (on November 29, 1963, when he accepted the WC appointment) it was made clear to Earl Warren—when his arm was twisted (by LBJ) and he accepted the job of being chairman of the Commission—that there was some “other reality” lurking beneath the surface. That's what many JFK researchers--myself included--have called the "World War 3 cover story." No doubt Lyndon Johnson scared the wits out of Warren by talking of the possibility of a nuclear war with 40 million dead in the first hour if he (Warren) didn't (a) accept the job and (b ) didn't tread carefully. And no doubt, either deliberately or otherwise, that awareness resulted in a Chief Justice who was very likely aware that there were "other issues" that better be left un-investigated and untouched--i.e., in short, behavior that resulted in a seriously flawed investigation.

But. . .so what?

That doesn’t change the basic point I was making: that the covert alteration of Kennedy’s body—the removal of bullets and the alteration of wounds—fundamentally changed the story of how he died (compared to the true story that would have emerged had an honest autopsy been conducted immediately after Kennedy was pronounced dead).

By comparison: If you affix a “calendar date” to each of the flaws you have cited, none of that compares—in importance—with the falsification of the autopsy results; and the creation—starting the night of Kennedy’s death, and certainly extending to the point where the “final” autopsy report was sent to the Warren Commission (on December 20, 1963) --of a false reality about what actually occurred in Dealey Plaza, a false reality that can be traced back to false "medical facts" ascertained at this thoroughly tainted autopsy proceeding.

Your list of Warren Commission “no no’s” only adds to the problem of a blue ribbon legal investigation which –unbeknownst to those conducting it—was based on a false autopsy report containing false medical facts and false conclusions which then resulted in a false (and fraudulent) linkage to a phony sniper’s nest.

So. . .please note: I don’t dispute your list of “no no’s”. I’m simply attempting to put it all in context. I'm asserting that your list is completely secondary to the primary issue at hand, and the one that I am emphasizing of being of primary importance: the mechanics of a deception that unfolded in real time starting that night at the Bethesda morgue with ancillary activities at the FBI Laboratory, where "incoming bullets" (and bullet fragments) were ballistically "matched" to "K-1", a rifle that had nothing to do with the actual shooting.

That's where the investigation went off the rails. That's when there was a substitution of artifacts for real facts.

To understand what happened in this country on November 22, 1963, you have to start with the way this deception functioned, and the manner in which the major media carried the story in the first 24-48 hours—i.e., the “Oswald did it, and did it alone” story; and not be mislead by focusing on the "other problems" (which you have noted, and that developed days, weeks, and months later). All of that provides additional circumstantial evidence that "something's rotten in Denmark," but it does not address the primary issue or provide the key to the case.

Anyone who has analyzed a complex problem and uses a time-line to follow the sequence of events can immediately see what I am talking about: the power of a deception that unfolded in real time, and which then led to major false reporting about "what happened," reporting which was then (seemingly) backed up by a false autopsy report, a report which (normally) would be something that lawyers would routinely rely upon, and which they routinely refer to as the "best evidence."

So. . this is not about "no no's". Those are, by comparison, blemishes. Some serious no doubt, but still blemishes nonetheless.

IMHO: those blemishes--legal blemishes or deficiencies if you will--are merely perturbations when considered in the context of the major (and immediate) consequences of autopsy fraud. Its that which is the core of the problem.

I do not deny the instances of "whitewash" that you have described; I'm simply saying that all of that is distinctly different from the "core of the problem." And it is that "core" that is at the heart of the deception that occurred on November 22, 1963 which resulted in "Oswald's rifle" being viewed as "the murder weapon". Recognizing that falsehood--that false nexus--is what legally invalidates the major conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.

If you compare the Warren Commission Report to a house with some half dozen rooms (corresponding to the different chapters of the Warren Report), it is a house without a proper legal foundation because the President's body was altered.

The reason I believe Oswald is innocent and did not murder President Kennedy is not that I believe he was a nice man of good character who admired the President (all of which is true), but because I am positive that the President's body was altered as part of a plan to falsify the autopsy and create the false appearance that Oswald was guilty.

DSL

5/12/15 – 11:55 p.m. PDT

Edited, 5/13/15, 5:04 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Excellent comments David. And of course, of other prime importance, who had the ability to arrange the changes to the autopsy, the alterations to the body? Once it is recognized that the body was altered, the entire work product of the WC is worthless. It created the 'Oswald's rifle", the SBT. They didn't come from the 'evidence' but from the creation of the WC.

[Kenneth Drew]

Without autopsy fraud, there is no factual or legal basis for the arrest of Oswald, or the false perception that he was “the assassin.” Yes, I know those events occurred before the body was actually altered (or before that alteration was completed, anyway, and codified in writing in the form of a false autopsy report) but it was the alteration and the subsequent creation of the false autopsy report that gave them a semblance of factual and legal validity.

Whoa, hang on there Kemosabe. The body alteration and the false autopsy report gave "them" a semblance of factual and legal validity?

Who's them?

The ones who claim to have found LHO's rifle on the 6th floor?

The ones who claim to have found LHO's palmprint?

The ones who claim to have found an eyewitness who placed LHO in the alleged sniper window?

The ones who claim to have seen LHO shoot Tippit?

I can understand you wanting to inflate your own importance by overstating the super-coolness of the body alteration theory. But no, Dave. Your statement is silly. Rigged or not, there was plenty of legal and factual validity to LHO's arrest. Seeing as how he was probably on the front steps of the building at the time of the shooting, all of this evidence would have most likely been tossed eventually. But at the moment of arrest, frozen in time, there was validity to the action.

MV

May 13, 2015

7:57 AM PDT

Santa Monica, California

Well Mark, good questions, which I will point out that you failed to answer.

"Who's them?

The ones who claim to have found LHO's rifle on the 6th floor?

The ones who claim to have found LHO's palmprint?

The ones who claim to have found an eyewitness who placed LHO in the alleged sniper window?

The ones who claim to have seen LHO shoot Tippit?"

claiming to have found a rifle is substantially different from 'actually' finding a rifle. We all know the 'first' rifle found was the Mauser. Who 'claimed' to have found that?

'claimed' to have 'found' a palmprint? Chuckle. It was even found on the correct rifle.

'claimed' to place LHO in sniper window? No one.

'claimed' to see LHO shoot Tippit? No one identified him. no one described what he was wearing. He wasn't even in the vicinity. So claiming is all that was going on. That was all WC generation and make believe.

[Kenneth Drew]

Without autopsy fraud, there is no factual or legal basis for the arrest of Oswald, or the false perception that he was “the assassin.” Yes, I know those events occurred before the body was actually altered (or before that alteration was completed, anyway, and codified in writing in the form of a false autopsy report) but it was the alteration and the subsequent creation of the false autopsy report that gave them a semblance of factual and legal validity.

Whoa, hang on there Kemosabe. The body alteration and the false autopsy report gave "them" a semblance of factual and legal validity?

Who's them?

The ones who claim to have found LHO's rifle on the 6th floor?

The ones who claim to have found LHO's palmprint?

The ones who claim to have found an eyewitness who placed LHO in the alleged sniper window?

The ones who claim to have seen LHO shoot Tippit?

I can understand you wanting to inflate your own importance by overstating the super-coolness of the body alteration theory. But no, Dave. Your statement is silly. Rigged or not, there was plenty of legal and factual validity to LHO's arrest. Seeing as how he was probably on the front steps of the building at the time of the shooting, all of this evidence would have most likely been tossed eventually. But at the moment of arrest, frozen in time, there was validity to the action.

MV

May 13, 2015

7:57 AM PDT

Santa Monica, California

Mark,

You ask “who’s them”?

To clarify, I have reworded that paragraph—written rather hurriedly, and very late at night—and perhaps you will now understand the point I was making.

With regard to those who made the various discoveries of “the evidence” on the sixth floor, I do not now maintain (and never have said or implied) that the ordinary officers at the lower levels of the Dallas Police Department ‘food chain’ --ordinary uniformed officers in the patrol division--were involved in any plot.

I don’t believe that today, and never did. However, its important to understand the dividing line between those who are the deceivers, and those who are deceived.

The chief exception I would make to the above statement pertains to the clique of motorcycle officers who rode escort to the presidential limousine; but that is a separate topic.

What I have believed—and maintained for decades (see Best Evidence)—is that in a scheme in which the autopsy was falsified (the purpose being in effect to “change the diagram of the shooting,”) then the investigation at the Texas School Book Depository (and the “discovery” of the sniper’s nest) more or less resembles a scavenger hunt designed by those who engineered this deception.

When an officer searching the northwest corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD sees the butt of a rifle protruding from amongst some cartons and says (in effect) “Hey, over here! I found it!”, he is not in any way involved in a conspiracy. He’s simply doing his job.

Personal Motive?

Your statement attempting to attribute to me a personal motive (“to inflate your own importance”) by writing the post I did is silly and way off point. Oswald’s apprehension at the Texas Theater is arguably legitimate since police were looking for a suspect who ran away from the Tippit murder scene, but –if you know the record—then you should be aware that Oswald was not charged with the crime of JFK's murder until 11:26 p.m. (12:26 p.m. Eastern time), after the FBI agents had left the Bethesda morgue and the autopsy was essentially completed, and after Humes had already articulated—in front of them—his original “conclusions” about the autopsy: that JFK was struck twice from behind. (I stress this point in Best Evidence).

Perhaps you are unaware of the time sequence, but these details are critical in understanding the chronology of the unfolding sequence of events and the public statements by the Dallas Police Chief that Oswald’s rifle was identified as the murder weapon.

The Time Sequence (re the "ballistic match" between alleged murder weapon and retrieved bullets)

Specifically: By Saturday morning, 11/23, in the early a.m., the stretcher bullet from Parkland and the two large fragments found in the presidential limo had arrived at the FBI Laboratory and—when the rifle arrived—would be tested for a ballistic match. Based on the FBI Laboratory Report dated November 23, 1963, he match between the K-1 ("rifle. .with telescope sight Serial No. C2766") and Q 1 (“bullet from stretcher”) and Q2 (“bullet fragment from front seat cushion”) and Q3 (“bullet fragment from beside front seat”) was the basis for the identification of “Oswald’s rifle” as the murder weapon in this case.

Also: it was that same FBI Laboratory Report—dated November 23, 1963 (and available in the Dallas Police File and published in the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission)—that was couriered from the FBI Lab (in Washington) to “Mr. Jesse E. Curry, Chief of Police, Dallas, Texas” and which forms the heart of the Government’s ballistic “case against Oswald”. It was that FBI Laboratory report which was the basis for Chief Curry’s statements, the day after the assassination, that the FBI Lab had established that the rifle found on the sixth floor (“of the building where Oswald worked” –my quotes) –a rifle which had been “traced” to Oswald because it had been mail-ordered to his Post Office box the previous March—was the murder weapon.

An Incorrect Belief About Oswald’s Whereabouts. . .

Undoubtedly the most bizarre part of your post is your statement that Oswald “was probably on the front steps of the building at the time of the shooting.”

Is that what you believe today, in 2015?

I hope you are aware that this has been thoroughly analyzed, dissected and refuted decades ago.

Yes, there is a resemblance between the “man in the doorway” and Oswald, and back in the mid-sixties, I used to wonder about that. But then came my work --as "researcher"--on the film Executive Action in 1973.

1973: Executive Action (and the discovery of film footage showing Oswald and Lovelady in the same fame)

As researcher on Executive Action (see the film credits), I ordered whatever films were available from the major New York City film libraries. One day, watching the footage of Oswald’s arrival at the DPD under police escort, I was rather astonished to see Oswald being marched right past Billy Lovelady, who was seated in one of the rooms at the DPD. I called over other members of the production team—notably, Ivan Dryer, the film editor—and we all watched the footage. Clearly, the shirts both men were wearing were similar; and there was even a similarity when photographed from this or that angle, but Oswald and Lovelady were two different people; and they were certainly not “twins.”

I made arrangements to make 35mm slides of those frames, and subsequently showed them to senior members of the HSCA staff in January 1977. (See the memos presently available at NARA). Robert Groden was then tasked—among other things—with following up.

He flew to Colorado, photographed Billy Lovelady in the shirt he was actually wearing that day (not the striped shirt which was an FBI mistake); questioned him, etc.--and it was established beyond any doubt that the man in the doorway was Lovelady.

I am not citing the above to ‘inflate” myself, Mark. I am citing the above to establish that you are dead wrong if your beliefs about the Kennedy assassination include the mistaken idea that Oswald was standing on the steps of the TSBD as the motorcade passed by the building.

That is a completely untrue proposition, but no doubt will linger on as an urban legend, and be subscribed to by those who are unfamiliar with the finer details of the evidence of this case, and perhaps are looking for a "simple explanation" to justify their belief in Oswald's innocence.

Oswald may well have been telling the truth when he denied "shooting anybody" (I personally believe he was), but the surest way to lose credibility --imho--is to base that belief on the notion that he was "standing in the doorway" at the time of the president's murder.

DSL

5/13/15 – 7 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

David, you said to Mark: "Oswald may well have been telling the truth when he denied "shooting anybody" (I personally believe he was), but the surest way to lose credibility --imho--is to base that belief on the notion that he was "standing in the doorway" at the time of the president's murder." First, I don't think it makes any difference where anyone 'thinks' LHO was when JFK was shot because it is quite clear that he didn't have anything to do with the shooting. But even more interesting to me is when you said:

"Specifically: By Saturday morning, 11/23, in the early a.m., the stretcher bullet from Parkland and the two large fragments found in the presidential limo had arrived at the FBI Laboratory and—when the rifle arrived—would be tested for a ballistic match. Based on the FBI Laboratory Report dated November 23, 1963, he match between the K-1 ("rifle. .with telescope sight Serial No. C2766") and Q 1 (“bullet from stretcher”) and Q2 (“bullet fragment from front seat cushion”) and Q3 (“bullet fragment from beside front seat”) was the basis for the identification of “Oswald’s rifle” as the murder weapon in this case.

Also: it was that same FBI Laboratory Report—dated November 23, 1963 (and available in the Dallas Police File and published in the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission)—that was couriered from the FBI Lab (in Washington) to “Mr. Jesse E. Curry, Chief of Police, Dallas, Texas” and which forms the heart of the Government’s ballistic “case against Oswald”. It was that FBI Laboratory report which was the basis for Chief Curry’s statements, the day after the assassination, that the FBI Lab had established that the rifle found on the sixth floor (“of the building where Oswald worked” –my quotes) –a rifle which had been “traced” to Oswald because it had been mail-ordered to his Post Office box the previous March—was the murder weapon."

What difference does it make that 'stretcher bullet and bullet fragments from seat' match a rifle that had nothing to do with the shooting of JFK? We know the rifle found in the TSBD was a Mauser, and we know that the C2766 rifle was the one bought to create a match with bullets to be used for the set up. It certainly has never been proven that LHO ever saw C2766. Being mailed to a mail box rented in his name does not establish proof that LHO ever saw the rifle. Then, of course, none of the bullets you mention has been related/tied to JFK's body in any way.

It remains a complete mystery why anyone would attempt to make the link you did with absolutely no evidence tying the bullets to the murder, or the rifle to Oswald or Oswald to the snipers nest. I will say, in my opinion, that all the discussion about whether Lovelady resembles Oswald is only about smoke screening. It has absolutely nothing to do with 'Who shot John'.

[Greg Burnham]

Greg, I just listened to the 44 min tape and listened again to some parts of it. It comes very near to the way I feel about the assassination. Too many people want to argue the 'details' of the assassination and to overlook the big picture. The big picture is that JFK was killed that day for a reason. Whoever was behind it had reasons, maybe several, to do it. In their minds it solved a lot of problems. One being, that it cured 'peace'. It meant almost assuredly that there would be war. But then the responses, as above for DVP, as an example, is an attempt to argue 'details'. Details which are not important. Just look at DVP's language, for example, 'Oswald's rifle', 'SBT', '3 shots', 'bullet came out of his throat', etc. He speaks of these as if they are 'facts'. Oswald's rifle? There is no proof that LHO had a rifle. Besides there were at least three rifles involved. One that Hidell ordered, a different one than the one found at the TSBD, and the Mauser that was found at the TSBD. He speaks of the WCR as if it is 'truth'. All of that is a smoke screen. None of it matters. The result of what happened is that JFK was killed and the world changed that day, much to the better for many of those that were involved in creating his death. They argue about whether LHO was capable of the 3 shots. It doesn't matter, there is absolutely zero evidence that he fired any shots that day. There is, however, more evidence that h e did not fire a shot that day. Clearly the evidence of the information that was shared to the cabinet members that were on the flight to Japan indicate that the preparer of the data already knew of the details of the planned assassination.

DVP makes several claims that both JEH and LBJ mispoke while carrying on recorded conversations, many times. Why is it that the things they 'mispoke' about are the things that now seem to be revealed as the truth. One bullet hit Connally that would have hit JFK if Connally had not been between the shooter and JFK?.

So yes, there is evidence that the shooters were CIA, French assassins, Cuban exiles, Mafia, but what does it matter, it is clear that there were many more than one and that many more than 3 shots were fired. It is clear that the Secret service and FBI were involved. It is clear that LBJ, at a minimum, knew about it and most likely it was his plan that was carried out that day. He certainly was the major beneficiary of the events of the day.

So the Anguish, yes, that one person wanted so much for the world, peaceful coexistence, that just did not fit with the plans of too many that wanted many more benefits that they would not get if JFK remained in office. The world is very likely a much different world today than it might have been. I've attempted to make comments related to your presentation without veering too far off course.

Thank you, Kenneth. Your comments were not off course at all.