Denis Pointing

And does that rule also apply to Oswald then Peter, as in when he said the only package he took into the TSBD that morning was his lunch? Tell me, did they make 24inch plus subs that size back then?

Denis,

The reason why Oswald's route to the Tippit murder scene is important is because courageous citizen researchers like Harold Weisberg and Sylvia Meagher proved it was impossible for him to be there. I don't care about Gary Mack's ridiculous attempt to buttress a long discredited theory- every witness Oswald supposedly encountered along his fantastic post-assassination journey was completely uncredible, and every one of his alleged movements make no sense, regardless of what his role that day was. The fact remains that no one-not the Warren Commission, not Dale Myers and not Gary Mack-can offer a single shred of evidence to show what time Oswald left the TSBD after the shooting. They all just follow the official story that he left at 12:33. There is nothing to corroborate this- not even a laughable witness like Markham or Whaley. I asked Dale Myers about this on another forum years ago, and he responded by demanding I buy his book and then left the forum in a huff.

The best evidence for Oswald's whereabouts after the assassination are the handful of unconnected witness reports of him running from the TSBD and entering a Rambler. These witnesses all told the same basic story, and presumably would not have had the comedic quality of those Oswald allegedly encountered along the fairy tale-like flight postulated by the Warren Commission. Unfortunately, this promising lead was never investigated, much like nothing else about this crime was ever investigated, so what happened from that point until he was apprehended at the Texas Theater is unknown. What logic tells us, however, is that no one- neither fleeing lone nut assassin nor unwitting conspirator nor innocent patsy- walks a distance from the scene of the crime, then takes a bus back towards it, then hails a cab again away from it, and tells the hilarious driver to drop him off past his rooming house, so he can waste more time walking back to it. As Fidel Castro once said, "that does not happen even in your worst American movies."

So 12 witnesses identified Oswald as the killer of Tippit? Hmm. Are you including Warren Reynolds, who initially couldn't identify Oswald but changed his mind after he was shot and subsequently recovered? How about Domingo Benavides, who had a similar change of perspective when his brother Eddy was shot and killed? Are you aware of the circumstances of the lineups under which witnesses "identified" Oswald? William Whaley's testimony is entertaining in several respects, but his somewhat unwitting description of the way the lineups were conducted, and Oswald's loud and angry protests about that, provide a pretty clear picture of what was going on. I would hope that anyone concerned about civil liberties would dismiss any "identification" obtained under such circumstances as totally dubious.

As is the case with the assassination of JFK, none of the "evidence" against Oswald in the murder of Tippit would even have been able to be introduced in an honest court of law, on chain of possession issues alone. Oswald shot no one on November 22, 1963.

Yes Don, but for every expert who can "prove" it impossible for Oswald to be at the scene there's a counter expert who can "prove" it was possible for Oswald to be there. Which is partly the reason why I maintain that debating hypothetical routes is a wast of time. As, to a large extent is discussing whether or not a particular witness is reliable or not, this is purely subjective, if an individual is already convinced Oswald was completely innocent then of course ANY witness testimony which contradicts that belief must be unreliable or lies. And of course this works vice versa. Personally, I find it inconceivable all 12 witnesses were mistaken, lying or terrorized into making false testimony.

I also completely disagree with you when you question the chain of possession. Below is PART of a post I wrote some time back together with some links, I belive it proves the chain of possession concerning the shells the Davies girls found and handed over (NOT the Poe shell) was well established. If your interested and would like to read the compleate post or the whole thread here's the link: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry159170

------------------------------------------------------------------------

.... below are three links to the sworn testimony of officers Brown, Dhority and Barnes. All three swore under oath that they marked the shells found at the Tippit murder scene.

If Oswald had gone to trial and those casings produced as evidence for those officers to identify, the chain of possession would have passed the criteria and they would have been accepted as admissible evidence......

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/dhority1.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brown_c.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/barnes.htm

And, Denis, since you are 95% confident that Oswald shot Tippit at 10th and Patton, which direction was he walking. If he was walking towards Tippit, how did he get there? If he was walking in the same direciton as Tippit, why didn't all the people who were behind him - see him pass them a few seconds earlier?

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

Bill, I've never really been interested in all the hypothetical debates concerning Oswald's route to the murder scene, its always seemed a rather pointless exercise IMO, whats importaint is that its been shown, by independent researchers from both camps, that Oswald could indeed make the journey inside the time frame, I belive it was Gary Mack that showed if LHO followed a certain route (which bad memory stops me from quoting) he actually had 3/4 minutes to spare.

As for the actual shooting, I'm sure your more than aware there are at least 12 eyewitness which identified LHO. The ballistics are also very convincing, not so much the bullets, but certainly the shell casings found and handed over by the Davies sisters. These were positively proven to have been fired from Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other revolvers. That is to say the weapon that was found in Oswald's possession when arrested at the theater. And yes, I am aware of the claims that the revolver was planted on LHO but I dont see a scrap of evidence nor sensible argument to support that claim. Perhaps you have one ? Denis.

No, Denis, I don't have a logical explanation, though I would think that if Oswald walked passed those 12 people who later identified him as a cop killer would have said they saw him walk past them.

I don't really have any problem with Oswald killing Tippit, I just don't understand why the ballistics, which you are so positive of, didn't really match, and those witnesses who saw him, didn't see him walking past them earlier.

Thanks for getting back to me on this, as I thought you might have something more convincing.

And you certainly don't have anything to suggest that Oswald, even if he did kill Tippit, was the Sixth Floor Sniper?

Bill Kelly

No Bill, nothing new I'm afraid, but with a ballistic report such as this (see below) is anything new really needed? Whether you accept the conclusion's of the report or not you cant deny it is VERY convincing and unless we start adding even more people to the (already) long list of possible conspirators, inc private citizens, forensic experts, ballistic experts and yet even more members of the DPD, then the ballistic report must be accurate. I belive I'm right in saying that the report IN ITSELF has never been challenged, only unsubstantiated claims and allegations of evidence tampering.

And as for no one noticing Oswald as he walked to the scene, well frankly I would be surprised if anyone had noticed him, I must have walked or drove past at least 100 plus people today yet if asked I would be unable to describe or identify any one of them. Sad fact of life Bill, folk pay very little attention to other folk.

Finally, I never said I did "have anything" to suggest Oswald was the sixth floor shooter, furthermore I have never claimed that he was.

For me Bill, the big question is not, DID Oswald kill Tippit but WHY did he kill him, I've never been convinced they just met by chance. The evidence would seem to suggest Tippit was searching for Oswald even before a description went out.

---------------------------------------------------------------- Ballistic report.

When Oswald was arrested six live cartridges were found in the revolver. Three were Western .38 Specials, loaded with copper-coated lead bullets, and three were Remington-Peters .38 Specials, loaded with lead bullets. Five additional live cartridges were found in Oswald's pocket, all of which were Western .38 Specials, loaded with copper-coated bullets. The Western and Remington-Peters .88 Special cartridges are virtually identical--the copper coating on the Western bullets is not a full jacket, but only a gilding metal, put on principally for sales appeal.

Four expended cartridge cases were found near the site of the Tippit killing. Two of these cartridge cases were Remington-Peters .38 Specials and two were Western .38 Specials. Based on a comparison with test cartridge cases fired in the V510210 revolver, the four cartridge cases were identified as having been fired in the V510210 revolver.

Revolver Bullets

Four bullets were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit. In Nicol's opinion one of the four bullets could be positively identified with test bullets fired from V510210 revolver, and the other three could have been fired from that revolver. In Cunningham's opinion all four bullets could have been fired from the V510210 revolver, but none could be positively identified to the revolver --that is, in his opinion the bullets bore the revolver's rifling characteristics, but no conclusion could be drawn on the basis of microscopic characteristics. Cunningham did not conclude that the bullets had not been fired from the revolver, since he found that consecutive bullets fired in the revolver by the FBI could not even be identified with each other under the microscope. The apparent reasons for this was that while the revolver had been rechambered for a .38 Special cartridge, it had not been rebarreled for a .38 Special bullet. The barrel was therefore slightly oversized for a .38 Special bullet, which has a smaller diameter than a .38 S. & W. bullet. This would cause the passage of a .38 Special bullet through the barrel to be erratic, resulting in inconsistent microscopic markings.

Based on the number of grooves, groove widths, groove spacing, and knurling on the four recovered bullets, three were copper-coated lead bullets of Western-Winchester manufacture (Western and Winchester are divisions of the same company), and the fourth was a lead bullet of Remington-Peters manufacture. This contrasts with the four recovered cartridge cases, which consisted of two Remington-Peters and two Westerns. There are several possible explanations for this variance: (1) the killer fired five cartridges, three of which were Western-Winchester and two of which were Remington-Peters; one Remington-Peters bullet missed Tippit; and a Western-Winchester cartridge case and the Remington-Peters bullet that missed were simply not found. (2) The killer fired only four cartridges, three

of which were Western-Winchester and one of which was Remington-Peters; prior to the shooting the killer had an expended Remington-Peters cartridge case in his revolver, which was ejected with the three Western- Winchester and one Remington-Peters cases; and one of the Western-Winchester cases was not found. (3) The killer was using hand-loaded ammunition, that is, ammunition which is made with used cartridge cases to save money; thus he might have loaded one make of bullet into another make of cartridge case. This third possibility is extremely unlikely, because when a cartridge is fired the cartridge case expands, and before it can be reused it must be resized. There was, however, no evidence that any of the four recovered cartridge cases had been resized.

And, Denis, since you are 95% confident that Oswald shot Tippit at 10th and Patton, which direction was he walking. If he was walking towards Tippit, how did he get there? If he was walking in the same direciton as Tippit, why didn't all the people who were behind him - see him pass them a few seconds earlier?

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

Bill, I've never really been interested in all the hypothetical debates concerning Oswald's route to the murder scene, its always seemed a rather pointless exercise IMO, whats importaint is that its been shown, by independent researchers from both camps, that Oswald could indeed make the journey inside the time frame, I belive it was Gary Mack that showed if LHO followed a certain route (which bad memory stops me from quoting) he actually had 3/4 minutes to spare.

As for the actual shooting, I'm sure your more than aware there are at least 12 eyewitness which identified LHO. The ballistics are also very convincing, not so much the bullets, but certainly the shell casings found and handed over by the Davies sisters. These were positively proven to have been fired from Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other revolvers. That is to say the weapon that was found in Oswald's possession when arrested at the theater. And yes, I am aware of the claims that the revolver was planted on LHO but I dont see a scrap of evidence nor sensible argument to support that claim. Perhaps you have one ? Denis.

Duke, some good points as usual, it wont surprise you to learn I dont agree with most of them (I think you know my stand on Tippit) but excellent points to consider none the less.

Since you disagree with "most" of my "good points as usual," which one(s) and why?

• Hank Norman and Junior Jarman did not go upstairs until after the motorcade was announced as being on Main Street at or after 12:22 or 12:26; and/or
  
• Bonnie Ray Williams went to the fifth floor after Hank and Junior had already arrived there; and/or
  
• That means BRW was on the sixth floor until 12:25 to 12:28; and/or
  
• Jack Dougherty was standing "ten feet west of the west elevator" at the time of the shooting and thereafter; and/or
  
• Jack likely did hear the three men running across the fifth floor after the shooting; and/or
  
• Jack was standing directly in the path Oswald would have had to have taken if he'd come down from the sixth floor; and/or
  
• Jack didn't see Oswald pass within a couple of feet of him, ergo either
  • Jack was not where he claimed to be (and if so, where was he?); or
    
  • Oswald did not pass Jack; and/or
    

  [*]The freight elevator was a likely means of escape by whoever did do the shooting if Oswald didn't?

Clearly, you have reasons why you disagree ...?

Duke, please go back and read the thread, you'll see that the post I was disagreeing with was #93, which is solely concerned with the Tippit murder. It has nothing what so ever to do with Hank Norman, Junior Jarman, Bonnie Ray Williams nor Jack Dougherty etc.

It was great to see so many members at the Dealey Plaza UK Conference at Canterbury at the weekend.

Did anyone take any photos? It'd be nice to see some posted on the forum.

This entire thread it nothing but a provocation. I suggest it be deleted. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=166036

I would say the provocation came from Drago's initial post "Greetings from the DPF" with the obviously sarcastic words "Best to Andy and Evan" or was Drago just being friendly? lol

Also, why is it that you "freedom fighters" and "truth seekers" are always so keen to delete, ban and censor everything? And Peter, as you feel so strongly that the EF is acting, not only unfairly but also lying and being deliberately deceitful, then surly you can only do what any highly principled person such as yourself would do...resign.

Bill, if memory serves me correctly you actually posted on the Tippit thread, you had a question about one of the Davies girls, if I remember correctly. And yes, 100% is a bit strong isn't it, I'm gonna change that to 95%...my wife must have told me at least 50 million times to stop exaggerating.

Duke, some good points as usual, it wont surprise you to learn I dont agree with most of them (I think you know my stand on Tippit) but excellent points to consider none the less. Forgive me if I dont address them here as I dont want to hijack Bill's post.

Denis, Don't worry about hijacking my post, as long as you stick to Oswald's guilt or innocence.

What is it with Tippit? What's your stand there?

BK

Bill, Duke and I must have exchanged....oh, god knows how many post's between us on the Tippit slaying just a few weeks back. So I wont get into all that again if you dont mind. Suffice it to say that IMO the evidence against Oswald for that murder is 100% positive. Sorry mate.

As for his role in the assassination, I think they intended the assassination to be discovered to be a conspiracy from the git-go, and that whatever happened, whereever he was, whoever he was with, it didn't really matter, as long as JFK died before leaving Dealey Plaza, and the rifle was discovered, implicating Oswald.

As far as "controlling" Oswald, I don't think it was necessary, as they intended to blame him for providing the rifle, and they only really had to know where he worked - as detailed in Hosty's note, DeMohrenschildt's reports to J. Waton Moore, and Mrs. Paine's reports to FBI and whoever else she reported to.

that particular morning to carry a long thin package to work surly? Thanks.

Duke, some good points as usual, it wont surprise you to learn I dont agree with most of them (I think you know my stand on Tippit) but excellent points to consider none the less. Forgive me if I dont address them here as I dont want to hijack Bill's post.

Baker could have shot him ih the TSBD except he had no idea if there were any witnesses. The hunt through downtown didn't work, in the theatre there were a scattering of patrons who would have followed the cops every move, the riflebutt blow to the temple didn't work, and once in custody he had to have had at least a semblance of protection. So, before he got out of their hands, the interview was stalled till the killer was in place and he was then escorted to his death, with the whole world witnessing.

"Look ma, I washed for supper..." (saving private ryan)

John, surly the police had more than a reasonable excuse to shoot down Oswald in the theater if that had been their intention/mission, he did try to shoot an officer there. You seem to implicate the whole DPD.

Jason, do you not see that by applying your own logic it is now you that could be accused of propaganda. How do we not know that your "mission" here isn't to sow discord and mistrust? Are you employing Macchiavelian techniques to "divide and conquer"? Are you a disinfo agent? No Jason, I dont really belive that, I'm just demonstrating how unproductive, even destructive throwing wild outlandish accusations can be.

I believe that this is a FIRST. Finally Denis says something that I agree with.

Jack

HA HA, nice one Jack..mayby some day I will be able to return the compliment.

Jason, do you not see that by applying your own logic it is now you that could be accused of propaganda. How do we not know that your "mission" here isn't to sow discord and mistrust? Are you employing Macchiavelian techniques to "divide and conquer"? Are you a disinfo agent? No Jason, I dont really belive that, I'm just demonstrating how unproductive, even destructive throwing wild outlandish accusations can be.

.

A lonely, frustrated man sat in his cell after world war I and reached an epiphany. He was so impressed by the effective use of American and British propoganda during world war I, he would later come to perfect it and use it with devastating results. He wrote...

"Propoganda works on the general public from the standpoint of an idea and makes them ripe for the victory of this idea" - Adolph Hitler

Fellow members of this and other forums, I propose that the great Fetzer/Thompson debate regarding the authenticity of the Zapruder Film was specifically created, effectively delivered and continues to be promoted for the sole purpose of polarizing allegiances and controlling behavior with regards to the JFK research community. In other words, I believe that this entire affair has been specifically engineered for nefarious purposes specifically aimed at creating dissention and turmoil within the community itself. If this sounds overly "conspiratorial" in nature then consider this...

"400 million is spent per year (by the American government alone) to employ 8,000 people to create propoganda..." (Praxteinis & Aronson p. 4)

That's well over 45 people per U.S. state alone dedicated towards the dissemination of propoganda alone. Consider Fetzer and Thompson in and of themselves. You are all aware of their differences now consider their similarities. That takes a little time but they're there. With regards to propoganda and public belief, in our case the research community, it's been written that propoganda is more effective when the message is delivered by "a higher degree of perceived authority". WHO would those individuals be?

"The higher degree of perceived authority that disseminates the message, the more likely the message is to be believed and internalized".

Consider WHEN this debate began and WHERE it originated over WHICH idea and WHO was involved. It matters little whether or not the message is right or wrong when it comes to propoganda. What matters is what the BEHAVIORAL reaction is of the recipients. If the intent of the debate was to polarize sides and cause stringent allegiances to one or the other, you can see clearly this has worked. The debate however has focused efforts by those caught in it's wake. Once the message was internalized by the recipients or became an idea to rally behind, members of the forums in a sense, became propogandists themselves.

Ad hominem attack, glittering generalities, black and white arguments are other methods of propoganda. Can you see their use around the Fetzer/Thompson debate?

There is the possibility that Fetzer and Thompson are propogandists themselves and that they are working in tandem along with select other individuals to polarize the research community. I've considered this on numerous occassions by watching the timing and location of the arguments. I'd encourage others to do the same. Part of an effective propoganda campain is "argumentum ad populum" or using sources to "appeal to the people". At that point, once the masses have been reached, the creation of chaos and unworkable relationships is solidified by "consensus gentium" or agreement of the clans. Here, it's not whether or not the Z-film is authentic for agents engaging in propoganda, it's that clans and all the behavior and beliefs of clanship have in common been effectively formed. If it's to far of a stretch to believe Fetzer and Thompson working this together then consider that they needn't be. Consider this old adage which might be just as effective...

"The enemy of your enemy is a friend. Introduce them together whenever you can". This scenario would have known polar opposites brought together over a singular issue in which it is known by the propogandist the two perceived authorities would clash over with effective results.

When you find yourself embroiled in this battle again and again over the years (consider how long this has been going on and WHEN it typically fires up again) I think it's important to take a step back from this and ask yourself if you are MEANT to engage in a debate that seems quite deliberately manufactured to have a myriad of outcomes and sub arguments.

Jason

Just what we need...another nut!!

With all the talk about the elevators, how come we haven't seen one photo, ever, of either of the elevators?

And there was an eleveator for people right by the front door that went up to fourth or fifth floor.

Could the Sixth Floor Shooter have taken the stairs down a few flights then took the other elevator?

BK

Bill, the link below has some interesting pics, no elevators I'm afraid but plenty of shots of the stairwell and lunchroom etc, dont know if your already familiar with them. Bill, I cant seem to find a clear plan of the TSBD can you tell me if the vestibule door opened outwards or inwards. If I'm looking at the right pic it appears to open outwards, is that correct? Thanks.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/...Depository_-_p1

Could these frames possibly be from the "other film"? It looks like it was shot to the right and higher than the Zap film. Where did these come from?

Kathy C

Kathy, I'm kinda guessing that if either Stone or Groden had possession of the "alternate" Zapruder film they just may have mentioned it by now. Wadda you think?

For your information, I did not enter into this case yesterday. A demonstration about the assassination came around to my university in the mid 70's, after the Zapruder Film was "released." Since that time I have read extensively on the subject. My favorite author is Newman. I found JKF and Vietnam very informative and have believed Lansdale was involved since reading that. Newman’s latest book linking Oswald to the CIA and explaining the “virus” that was planted before the assassination to ensure cooperation in the cover-up is mind boggling material.

Regarding the backyard photos;

Is that your case? That Marina says they are real?

You are going to have to do better than that Denis. That means less than nothing. Please either offer something else in defense of the pictures or stop wasting our time.

Regarding the scenario in the building at the time of the shooting;

You are just going to have to face the fact that Oswald simply could not have been in position to fire shots at the time Kennedy was killed.

You don't understand this. Alright. Care to share why he should not be eliminated as a shooter?

Can you or cant you answer the damn question, well? Give me an intelligent explanation and I'll stop wasting your precious time. Oh, never mind, just forget it, this is like trying to debate with a Jehovah's witness.

Oswald never thought of killing President Kennedy and he did not. The pictures are incriminating and the point was that no one would take incriminating pictures of themselves. Get it now?

You say they look odd yet you can not get yourself to believe that they are not just odd, but rather fake and were used to frame Oswald.

This is a common mindset in deniers but I have faith in you Denis; you can do it; that is gather a moment of independent thought and see these pictures are not only odd, but are in fact most likely fake and were used to frame the man. This isn't the only piece of non-evidence that points to the framing of Oswald, so this possibility didn't just arrive on the scene yesterday.

Why would I not be surprised that you are not convinced that Oswald was not the 6th Floor shooter when you can not even see the photos are fake?

Peter, I really think its you that needs to "gather a moment of independent thought" a few members post under the title "WHY OSWALD IS INNOCENT" and you swallow it hook line and sinker, search the site Peter and you'll be amazed how many other members have "solved" the case and "proved" Oswald's innocents. I know eventually we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one Peter but before we do perhaps you could answer my question, educate me if you will and explain why Marina, even now a CT, still claims to have taken those backyard photos. Simple, yes?

relax Denise.... when the time comes and Miller finally gets past 1st base (which means posting something, anything worthwhile) and I expect that sometime in the next 10 years), or at least demonstrate a working knowledge of cameras, lenses, focalplanes, film stock and speed -- he might get someplace.

You'd think he'd just buy a B&H414 Producers double 8mm camera, get a few roles of film and spend an afternoon in Dealey Plaza shooting a bit of film.... but NOOOOOOO, he's going to put lurkers through a harrowing experience of viewing 50 new .gif animations, another 5000 posts <sigh>. Simply run some raw film 24 ASA through the camera, find out what we found out years ago... Any of you lone nut's ever wonder why Zapruders camera wasn't made available to Roland Zavada during his investigation, I bnet you didn't even know that did ya, Denise?

Hey, if you can convince Wild Bill Miller to do the above, you can play Wild Bill's production assistant for the day, a Marilyn Sitzman stand-in (complete with pedestal) if you will.....

Carry on!

Dave, you must realize by now that Bill Miller and Craig Lamson are making you look more and more ridiculous every time they post. Even I'm beginning to pity you. Do yourself a favour and stay at ALT CONSPIRACY for a few days, at least over there you are allowed to do what you really excel at...insult and swear at people. LOL

The skillset are a pair of eyes and the common sense to know that nobody would have these pictures taken of themselves.

Considering that it has been proven here that Oswald was NOT the sixth floor shooter, why are you even bothering with this issue?

I presume you mean "nobody would have these pictures taken of themselves" if they intended to kill a president but has it occurred to you that maybe Oswald had not even thought of killing Kennedy when those photos were taken?

As for your belief that its "been proven here that Oswald was NOT the sixth floor shooter" well I'm not so easily convinced, although I do envy your faith.

You asked earlier if the photos looked fake. I admit they certainly look odd, even unnatural but if you really want to see some odd/unnatural poses then maybe you should take a look at my wedding album. I'm sorry Peter but you need far more than "a pair of eyes and common sense" to prove those photos are fakes.

Marina Oswald's testimony portrayed her husband in a terrible light, and is full of inconsistiencies and obvious lies. She is the sole source for Oswald taking a shot at General Walker, for instance. Those I call "neo-cons" now accept this as true, for no logical reason. Then there is her totally absurd story of keeping Oswald locked in the bathroom so he couldn't take a shot at Nixon. Her testimony is laughable. The fact that she claims to believe in conspiracy now, but still clings to the backyard photos cover story, and has never retracted even the most ridiculous parts of her testimony, destroys any credibility she has, imho.

Bill, I'm glad you're commenting on this thread. Would you please re-post some of the fine arguments you made in the past for the backyard photos being faked. Thanks.

I'm sorry Don but I'm just not prepared to dismiss Marina Oswald's testimony because you find it to be "obvious lies" and "totally absurd". If you have any proof to back that up I may change my mind but if it's just your opinion then, whilst I'll respect it, I dont agree with it. Below is a letter written by Marina, its quite self explanatory. If after reading it you still belive Marina would not have admitted lying in former testimony because she was afraid or intimidated, if that had indeed been the case, then.....well lets just say you're a hard man to convince.

Marina Oswald Porter, letter to John Tunheim (19th April, 1996)

I am writing to you regarding the release of still classified documents related to the assassination of President Kennedy and to my former husband, Lee Harvey Oswald.

Specifically, I am writing to ask about documents I have learned of from a recent book and from a story in the Washington Post by the authors of the same book (as well as other documents they have described to me). The book reviews Dallas police, FBI, and CIA files released since 1992, and places them in the context of previously known information. I would like to know what the Review Board is doing to obtain the following:

1. The Dallas field office and headquarters FBI reports on the arrests of Donnell D. Whitter and Lawrence R. Miller in Dallas on November 18, 1963 with a carload of stolen US army weapons. I believe that Lee Oswald was the FBI informant who made these arrests possible. I would also like to know what your board has done to obtain the reports of the US Marshal and the US Army on the same arrests, and the burglary these men were suspected of.

2. The records of the FBI interrogations of John Franklin Elrod, John Forrester Gedney and Harold Doyle (the latter men were previously known as two of the "three tramps") in the Dallas jail November 22-24, 1963. All of these men have stated that they were interrogated during that time by the FBI.

3. The official explanation of why the arrest records for Mr. Elrod, Mr. Gedney and Mr. Doyle, as well as for Daniel Wayne Douglas and Gus Abrams were placed "under federal seal" in the Dallas Police Records Division for 26 years as described by Dallas City Archives supervisor Laura McGhee to the FBI in 1992.

4. The full records of the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald, including his interrogation in the presence of John Franklin Elrod as described by Elrod in an FBI report dated August 11, 1964.

5. The reports of army intelligence agent Ed J. Coyle on his investigation of Captain George Nonte, John Thomas Masen, Donnell D. Whitter, Lawrence R. Miller, and/or Jack Ruby. I am also requesting that you obtain agent Coyle's reports as army liaison for presidential protection on November 22, 1963 (as described by Coyle's commanding officer Col. Robert Jones in sworn testimony to the House Select Committee on Assassinations). If the army does not immediately produce these documents, they should be required to produce agent Coyle to explain what happened to his reports.

6. Secret Service reports and tapes of that agency's investigation of Father Walter Machann and Silvia Odio in 1963-64.

7. Reports of the FBI investigation of Cuban exiles in Dallas, to include known but still classified documents on Fermin de Goicochea Sanchez, Father Walter Machann and the Dallas Diocese Catholic Cuban Relocation Committee. These would include informant files for Father Machann and/or reports of interviews of Father Machann by Dallas FBI agent W. Heitman.

8. The full particulars and original of the teletype received by Mr. William Walter in the New Orleans FBI office on the morning of November 17, 1963, warning of a possible assassination attempt on President Kennedy in Dallas. I now believe that my former husband met with the Dallas FBI on November 16, 1963, and provided informant information on which this teletype was based.

9. A full report of Lee Harvey Oswald's visit to the Dallas FBI office on November 16, 1963.

10. A full account of FBI agent James P. Hosty's claim (in his recent book, Assignment Oswald) that Lee Harvey Oswald knew of a planned "paramilitary invasion of Cuba" by "a group of right wing Cuban exiles in outlying areas of New Orleans." We now know that such an invasion was indeed planned by a Cuban group operating on CIA payroll in Miami, New Orleans, and Dallas - the same group infiltrated by Lee Oswald. We know this information only from documents

released since 1992, as described in the book I have mentioned. On what basis did agent Hosty believe Lee "had learned" of these plans, unless Lee himself told him this? I am therefore specifically requesting the release of the

informant report that Lee Oswald provided to agent Hosty and/or other FBI personnel on this intelligence information.

The time for the Review Board to obtain and release the most important documents related to the assassination of President Kennedy is running out. At the time of the assassination of this great president whom I loved, I was misled by the "evidence" presented to me by government authorities and I assisted in the conviction of Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin. From the new information now available, I am now convinced that he was an FBI informant and believe that he

did not kill President Kennedy. It is time for Americans to know their full history. On this day when I and all Americans are grieving for the victims of Oklahoma City, I am also thinking of my children and grandchildren, and of all American children, when I insist that your board give the highest priority to the release of the documents I have listed. This is the duty you were charged with by law. Anything else is unacceptable - not just to me, but to all patriotic Americans.

Excellent work Bill and so amazingly simple and logical when explained. Yourself, Craig and others are doing a real service debunking this nonsense. Thanks.

C,mon Dave, I gave you the cite....now you tell me WHY Marina STILL claims she took those photos...can you or cant you? Simple question even for you.

Denis ... you may as well be asking a rock to walk.

Yes, your right Bill. Healy doesn't seem to like answering straight forward questions does he. I think they confuse him. I notice he never replies when you ask if his sent a request to examine the Zapruder film yet. LOL