David Josephs

KD - Taking it a step further, for that bullet to match C2766's barrel, it was fired from C2766 at some point. When and where? The "bullet(s)" brought to Frazier could have been place-holders for the rifle that would arrive later, from which they could fire a shot and retrieve the bullet... although that does fell a bit too thought out at this point. CE399 would already have to be in Rowley's possession to insure a connection between the rifle, the shot and the man. C2766 was used to create this bullet in the weeks/months prior. Would C2766 have shown up in Vallee's arsonal? And if the bullet in Parkland was not ce399 as we know it, the bullet described either fell out of the men or their clothes... or it was wrongly planted. The SBT had not yet been created. If we agree a bullet existed at Parkland, we also must agree that bullet is gone. If that bullet was pointed as remembered it would suggest a 2nd shooter, the Castro-backed conspiracy... Phase 1 of Peter Scott's explanation. When that was so quickly changed to the Lone shooter... we see the remnants in the evidence of them removing the 2nd of who knows how many shooters... by removing the bullet evidence as well as the shot from the front evidence in the autopsy we cleanly and neatly have ALL the evidence pointing to our man Oswald. btw.. Chief Rowley with CE399 given to Todd for the FBI also has an 8mm "film" taken by Zapruder before anyone else in DC does. This is a full 20 hours before the NPIC has it Saturday with Dino B. and 2 days before SA Bill Smith delivers a 16mm version to the NPIC, again, but this time to Homer and team. If they would look us in the eye and tell us CE399 did what it did, what could be done to the film with 20 extra hours? Oh, The Evidence...

CE399 comes into existence when SS Chief Rowley hands Elmer Todd a bullet to be brought to the FBI Lab. In a couple of places the time CE399 is handed to Frazier APPEARS to be 7:30pm. Yet in the envelope signed by all the necessary players - after the evidence reaches the FBI I may add - it states Todd did not take possession of what would become CE399, now referred to as Q1, until 8:50pm, over an hour and 20 mins AFTER he delivers a bullet to the FBI. So CE399 "was" planted, just not at Parkland ...the bullet recovered and seen by Nurse Bell, Tomlinson, Wright and SA Johnson that evening was a pointed-nose bullet and only becomes CE399 when Todd leaves Rowley's office.

One more thing Paul Here is what Azcue and Duran actually said... "..was not the same man..." while Duran has him barely 5'4" and very skinny. Your "excuses" for them notwithstanding, that is not "really all there is to that"... and for you to think so and offer such a conclusion gives me an idea of the depth of your intent in finding the facts... as opposed to creating your own. ...."but he could be convinced he was wrong bu scientific evidence"... Gotta leave a little wiggle room.. lol

Ok Paul, here's your chance.... Please post the evidence offered in the Lopez report which corroborates the man who was shot by Ruby was in Mexico City over those 5 days. from my essays: The “Lopez Report”, an excellent reexamination of the WCR’s underplaying of the “Lee Oswald calling” Mexico trip focusing on the Embassy/Consulate visits and transcripts offers the following and little else related to evidence of Oswald’s travels into and out of Mexico. This is from page 3 of the introduction. problem being the WCR's establishment of the travel did NOT correctly inform us about any of it. Paul, if you don't know about what occurs at each of the Mexican bus stations once the investigation was set in motion, you're not looking. Ask yourself... why would the FBI go thru all that trouble to create fake evidence of his trip when it's the CIA who claims he was there? What possible reason could Hoover need to put Oswald on buses to and from Mexico City for those specific days? Where was he seen with 2 Cubans? Where does he claim he was for that week - for it certainly was not Mexico.. (hint: Odio) What do you supposed Hoover means here about "the false story re Oswald's trip to Mexico"? and again... if he KNOWS this, why does he not let the altered Frontera bus manifest stand as evidence and put the CIA on the defensive... they were always warring with each other. Fact is Paul, outside the phony CIA transcripts, there is simply no evidence which can be authenticated which puts Oswald in Mexico.. the evidence, in fact, proves the opposite. Finally, like so many other authors who have over-looked the FBI asset at Gobernacion.... do you know who I speak of and all he was involved with... or will you just take the FBI evidence of his trips at face value without knowing of its origins... Case in point: The Frontera manifest was altered within hours of the assassination to include Oswald's name. When it was found that Oswald could not reach the connecting buses necessary to get back to Dallas using this bus, it was dropped in the search for "better" evidence... it took the FBI thousands of pages of reports to hide the fact that Oswald did not go 1)by the way described in the WCR by the FBI and 2)that if he did go, the evidence offered to date does not support that conclusion. Finally, the FBI had a very extensive spy network grown during the SIS days of WWII. When the word went out to find Oswald, even Hoover's FBI asset at Gobernacion (11/8) had no evidence of his being there... while the CIA came to their own conclusions

Furthermore, there was a FBI asset in the Gobernacion who handled/created/altered virtually all the evidence. He's not mentioned in any book on Mexico that I've seen to date since virtually all work on the subject deals with the 5 days he was supposedly there rather than the evidence which attempts to prove he traveled to and from. Add to this the fact the FBI dropped physical evidence of Oswald's travel when it was learned that one Arturo Bosch of the Mexican president's staff changed the manifest for the Frontera bus line. Until Hoover admits the evidence is altered, it serves as THE evidence of that leg of the trip... Sorry, but Marina's husband was not in Mexico.

This is from the 6 part series at I did on Oswald not traveling to Mexico as described by the FBI over thousands of pages https://kennedysandking.com/content/mexico-city-part-1 There is so much more to this trip than Marina's ongoing lying about it. The FBI's story doesn't hold water.... besides, he was with Odio and the 2 Cubans while he was supposed to be in Mexico... That and the fact Alverado, the young Nicaraguan who tells the lie about the $6500 and the red headed negro, was a CIA asset - mostly likely brought in by Phillips... but you'd have to get deep into the docs to find all this... or read my work... ---------- As we’ve learned, so much of what Marina tells us is shrouded in conflict. Yet as times and testimony change we can always count on her supporting the desired facts, even if she sounds terribly foolish doing so. Prior to Ruth arriving, from early September though the 23rd, Marina’s “husband” is not working yet is also not home every day reading as Marina claims. Between the Unemployment Office, the library and Ryder’s Coffee shop, he was busy. We finally learn about Oswald’s plans for Mexico from Marina in her testimony: WCR testimony: Mrs. OSWALD. Nothing. And it is at that time that I wrote a letter to Mrs. Paine telling her that Lee was out of work, and they invited me to come and stay with her. And when I left her, I knew that Lee would go to Mexico City. But, of course, I didn't tell Mrs. Paine about it. Mr. RANKIN. Had he discussed with you the idea of going to Mexico City? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. Mr. RANKIN. When did he first discuss that? Mrs. OSWALD. I think it was in August. HSCA testimony: Mr. McDONALD - When did you first learn of his planned trip to Mexico City? When did you first know about that? Mrs. PORTER - Shortly before I left for Dallas with Ruth Paine. Mr. McDONALD - How did you learn of this? Mrs. PORTER - He told me about his plans to go to Mexico City and to visit the Cuban Embassy over there. ….. Mr. RANKIN When your husband talked about going to Mexico City, did he say where he was going to go there, who he would visit? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. He said that he would go to the Soviet Embassy and to the Cuban Embassy and would do everything he could in order to get to Cuba. The purpose of the visit as recorded and expressed by Chief of Mexico Station Win Scott was to get himself and his family to Odessa. Cuba originally did not have anything to do with the evidence of the man calling himself Oswald. ….. Mr. RANKIN. Did you learn that he had a tourist card to go to Mexico? Mrs. OSWALD. No. Mr. RANKIN. If he had such a card, you didn't know it then? Mrs. OSWALD. No ….. And as usual, the FIRST STORY offered, which usually conflicted with the desired story, had to be changed or be supported by some rational explanation for the change: Mr. RANKIN. When you were asked before about the trip to Mexico (CE1781 & 1792), you did not say that you knew anything about it. Do you want to explain to the Commission how that happened? Mrs. OSWALD. Most of these questions were put to me by the FBI. I do not like them too much. I didn't want to be too sincere with them. Though I was quite sincere and answered most of their questions. They questioned me a great deal, and I was very tired of them, and I thought that, well, whether I knew about it or didn't know about it didn't change matters at all, it didn't help anything, because the fact that Lee had been there was already known, and whether or not I knew about it didn't make any difference. Marina describing her husband going to Mexico is fraught with problems and contradictions. So much so that a reading of each subsequent questioning on the subject appears as if she is reading from a prepared script regardless of the question. It was CUBA-CUBA-CUBA all the time, when actually there is little if any evidence anywhere else in this case to support Oswald’s desire to be in Cuba. Q. Did Lee tell you why he wanted to go to Mexico? A. He was disappointed in Latin America so he wants to go and try Cuba. Q. Why did he choose Mexico? A. He told me he was going to take the bus. (sic) (This bit of testimony is the reference used by the Warren Commission to determine Oswald had taken a bus from New Orleans) One has to wonder what occurred to change Marina’s account of Mexico between November 28 & 29, 1963 and Feb 3, 1964 when she began giving the “adjusted” account of her knowledge about her husband’s Mexico Trip… CE1781: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0209b.htm And the SS interview Nov 29th: “She was asked whether she had any knowledge of Lee's trips to Mexico or Washington, D.C. She replied in the negative. She was asked whether she or Lee had any cameras and she replied that Lee bought one camera in Russia and a second one in the United States . She said one was a small camera and the other was a box camera. She added that she was not proficient with operating any Cameras and she never had an opportunity to do so.” http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0220b.htm (“never had an opportunity to work the camera” requires yet another back-peddling recant when the infamous Backyard photos come up) "Never had the opportunity to do so" ?? Yet she claims she held a camera to her face and took from 1-4 photos... she barely remembers it yet to take a photo with that camera, Marina needed to view the following. Can we really believe she forgets the process of taking amazingly clear, crisp images with this cheap box camera? No, Marina never established any credibility... this is one of the easiest examples to illustrate.... DJ

Not only the WCR analysis but especially the HSCA handwriting analysis. The most important items were copies of copies: The Money Order, The Klein's coupon, etc... The "experts" even warn us against such copies: (86) Photographic reproductions could only be compared visually with other photographic reproductions or with original documents. All conclusions based solely upon photographic reproductions are necessarily tentative and inconclusive, since they cannot reveal much about pen pressure and other dynamic qualities of handwriting. Further, they sometimes conceal, rather than reveal, evidence of tracings, alterations, erasures, or obliterated writing. (71) Five items of evidence were not examined in the original, but were copies . Photocopies have several limitations. They do not reproduce all the fine details in handwriting needed in making an examination and comparison. At best, they do not produce as sharp an image as a properly produced photograph, and they lack tonal gradations, a result of the contrasting process of reproduction . In addition, it is possible to incorporate or insert changes and alterations into copies . A method frequently used is to paste together parts of documents to make one fradulent document, which is then copied. If the first copy can pass inspection, it will be used ; if not, it will be reworked to eliminate all signs of alteration. This amended copy is then recopied for the finished product. This is usually referred to as the "cut and paste" method. (72) Document examiners only render a qualified or conditional opinion when working from copies. They stipulate that they have to examine the original before a definite opinion will be made

Thanks Ian... Just shows how easy it is to replicate handwriting...

Supposedly from the hand of the same person...

{sigh} Paul... I truly did not think your level of misinterpretation was possible. You are, without a doubt, for whom the lawyers wrote that report. How does this gullibility work for you in the rest of your life? You must already own a Brooklyn bridge or two and enough resort swampland in FL to start your own country. Your approach is worse than dealing with COINTELPRO, unless of course that's what you're doing here. Let's take a look Seems to me PT, you've been studying of late. IF you can, with a straight face, state you rely on the WCR and Marina's testimony for the bulk of your corroborating evidence, you simply have not been paying attention for something like 50 years. Sure looks to me like your posting takes on a very clear tone and position, and you are criticized for it each and every time you do it. Your inability to connect the dots behind your conclusions betrays a line of thinking which doesn't belong interfering with serious research being done here. It fails to dawn on you evidently that the result of your approach is to further discount the value of your repeatedly poor attempts at debate and authentication of evidence. The core of us understand what you're doing... for those who are newer to the situation, these are some of the tactics used to derail constructive discussion among serious researchers on internet forums. Y'all can decide for yourselves whether they are being used anywhere on these threads.... in the real world of today we call this creating Fake News... or alt.realities Didn't Bugliosi proceed under your conclusion offered here? Something about lying down with dogs comes to mind... Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION' Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt(trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator. 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. 13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact. 20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist 1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

Hey there Bill... While it may be someone else, it may also actually be Lovelady. The image is too soft to tell, yet that bent left arm, which appears the same in the other images, the shiny high forehead, his position at the entrance... There has been a fairly strong effort to ID everyone on those stairs in a search for who that person behind this Lovelady-like image was. Who else might it be? or even possibly be? Mr. BALL - When you stood out on the front looking at the parade, where was Shelley standing and where was Lovelady standing with reference to you? Mr. FRAZIER - Well, see, I was standing, like I say, one step down from the top, and Mr. Shelley was standing, you know, back from the top step and over toward the side of the wall there. See, he was standing right over there, and then Billy was a couple of steps down from me over toward more the wall also. Mr. BALL - And Mr. Shelley was still standing there? Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Mr. BALL - And also Billy Lovelady? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - The three of you didn't go any place? Mr. FRAZIER - I believe Billy and them walked down toward that direction but I didn't. I just stood where I was. I hadn't moved at all. I just don't see how he can be on the steps in this film and have come in the back door after having gone to the RR yard... We see Baker run by the 2 walking men we just don't seem to have a clear idea of timing for all this. Shelley corroborates the walking off to the RR yard... who else might that be? Mr. BALL - Then you came back. How long did you stay around the railroad tracks? Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, just a minute, maybe minute and a half. Mr. BALL - Then what did you do? Mr. LOVELADY - Came back right through that part where Mr. Campbell, Mr. Truly, and Mr. Shelley park their cars and I came back inside the building. Mr. BALL - And enter from the rear? Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir; sure did.

Paul, as you were told back in Oct 2014 by others, there is nothing for you to offer in the way of corroboration for any of his story... If I have to choose between you and Mr. Stephen Roy who I've read for years... you'd need to actually offer authenticated evidence for what you post for me to consider your POV over Mr. Roy's studies/conclusions of the case. Funny thing is anyone wanting to see how you work and how you present corroborating data will get a kick out of the linked thread... maybe change your presentation style to include supporting data instead of sending others on wild goose chases due to your creating alt.facts.are.lies with no basis in reality.

My pleasure Michael. Before any of the conclusion questions can be addressed... please ask which evidence brings us to this conclusion and whether it can stand up to the light of day. Last one, I promise.... On Sept 24 '63 Ruth leaves with Marina and kids from the Magazine address in New Orleans. The car had been loaded and Ozzie is seen with 2 small pieces of luggage leaving the Magazine address. He supposedly goes to Mexico. The next we know of the Carcano rifle, it is supposedly in the Paine garage wrapped in a blanket with a piece of string Mr. JENNER - Was there a rifle packed in the back of the car? Mrs. PAINE - No. Mr. JENNER - You didn't see any kind of weapon? Mrs. PAINE - No. Mr. JENNER - Firearm, rifle, pistol, or otherwise? Mrs. PAINE - No; I saw nothing of that nature. Mr. JENNER - Did you drive them to your home? Mrs. PAINE - Yes. Mr. JENNER - Were the materials and things in your station wagon unpacked and placed in your home? Mrs. PAINE - Yes; immediately. Mr. JENNER - Did you see that being done, were you present? Mrs. PAINE - I helped do it; yes. Mr. JENNER - Did you see any weapon on that occasion? Mrs. PAINE - No. Mr. JENNER - Whether a rifle, pistol or-- Mrs. PAINE - No. Mr. JENNER - Or any covering, any package, that looked as though it might have a weapon, pistol, or firearm? Mrs. PAINE - No. ========== Representative BOGGS - Did you see the rifle that he had in the room in your home? Mrs. PAINE - In the garage, no. Representative BOGGS - In the garage, you never saw one? Mrs. PAINE - I never saw that rifle at all until the police showed it to me in the station on the 22d of November. Mr. LIEBELER - Now yesterday, we asked you about an incident or spoke to you about an incident that happened in September of 1963 when you went into your garage to use some tools, your garage in Irving, Tex. Would you tell us about that? Mr. PAINE - I don't remember whether the date was September. I remember that was the date they came back from New Orleans and I do remember that my wife asked me to unpack some of their heavy things from their car. I only recall unpacking duffelbags but any other package, that was the heaviest thing there and they were easy also. Mr. LIEBELER - You must have moved the duffelbags from the station wagon into the garage? Mr. PAINE - That is right. I unpacked whatever was remaining in the station wagon to the garage. ==== Mr. LIEBELER - Did it occur to you at that time that there was a rifle in the package? Mr. PAINE - That did not occur to me. ====== Mr. LIEBELER - I am going to unwrap the package with the rifle which was wrapped in the blanket, and I want to ask you if you had ever seen this rifle, Commission Exhibit 139, before? Mr. PAINE - Not to my--the first time I saw a rifle, I didn't realize that he had a rifle. I thought, I knew he liked rifles because he spoke fondly of them in the Soviet Union although he regretted that he couldn't own a rifle, and I supposed that he still didn't have one so I didn't see a rifle until the night of the 22d when Marina was shown a rifle in an adjoining cubicle glass between us. and the cherry on top.... Fritz claims the 12:35 Sat interrogation of Oswald where he asks about the LIFE BYP happened at 6pm. Except, the night before, we have Michael commenting on the location of the Back Yard Photos, almost 18 hours before they are found: I did a fairly in-depth look at the BYPs and the related cameras https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/pdf/JosephsBYP.pdf which starts: The story of “The Rifle” seems to always lead back to the Backyard photos discovered on Nov 23rd by the team of DPD GUS ROSE, DPD JIM STOVALL, DPD JOHN ADAMCIK, DEPUTY SHERIFF BUDDY WALTHERS, DPD HENRY MOORE AND IRVING DETECTIVE JOHN MCCABE; this after the DPD searches the Paine residence and garage on the afternoon of 11/22. Mr. LIEBELER - Did the FBI or any other investigatory agency of the Government ever show you a picture of the rifle that was supposed to have been used to assassinate the President? Mr. PAINE - They asked me at first, the first night of the assassination if I could locate, identify the place where Lee was standing when he was holding this rifle and some, the picture on the cover of Life. Mr. LIEBELER - Were you able to? Mr. PAINE - I identified the place by the fine clapboard structure of the house. Mr. LIEBELER - By the what? Mr. PAINE - By the small clapboard structure, the house has an unusually small clapboard. Mr. LIEBELER - What did you identify the place as being? Mr. PAINE - The Neely Street address. He didn't drive a car, so to have them over for dinner I had to go over and pick them up. Attached shows the "touch-ups" LIFE did to the image next to a simple visual analysis of the Dartmouth professor's work who evidently can't line up a computer model to match the human he is attempting to prove is real in those images

Sure seems like Lovelady

Tom, I believe there was one which Marge also mentioned with Oswald holding the rifle above his head. I think it's in her testimony, not Marina's. Mr. RANKIN. In regard to the photograph, I will show you some photographs. Maybe you can tell me whether they are the ones that you are referring to. Here is Commission's Exhibit 134. Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, that is not the picture. Mr. RANKIN. And 133, consists of two different pictures. Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, that is not the picture. He was holding the rifle and it said, "To my daughter, June, with love." He was holding the rifle up. Mr. RANKIN. By holding it up, you mean---- Mrs. OSWALD. Like this. Mr. RANKIN. Crosswise, with both hands on the rifle? Mrs. OSWALD. With both hands on the rifle. Mr. RANKIN. Above his head? Mrs. OSWALD. That is right. ===== While there, Marina--there is an ashtray on the dressing table. And Marina comes with hits of paper, and puts them in the ashtray and strikes a match to it. And this is the picture of the gun that Marina tore up into bits of paper, and struck a match to it. Now, that didn't burn completely, because it was heavy--not cardboard--what is the name for it--a photographic picture. So the match didn't take it completely. Mr. RANKIN. Had you said anything to her about burning it before that? Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir. The last time I had seen the picture was in Marina's shoe when she was trying to tell me that the picture was in her shoe. I state here now that Marina meant for me to have that picture, from the very beginning, in Mrs. Paine's home. She said--I testified before "Mamma, you keep picture." And then she showed it to me in the courthouse. And when I refused it, then she decided to get rid of the picture. She tore up the picture and struck a match to it. Then I took it and flushed it down the toilet. Mr. RANKIN. And what time was this? Mrs. OSWALD. This--now, just a minute, gentlemen, because this I know is very important to me and to you, too. We had been in the jail. This was an evening. Well, this, then, would be approximately 5:30 or 6 in the evening. Mr. RANKIN. What day? Mrs. OSWALD. On Saturday, November 23. Now, I flushed the torn bits and the half-burned thing down the commode. And nothing was said. There was nothing said.

Hang on a second everyone... We can't talk about Oswald with a rifle without SOME PROOF it was ever ordered-shipped-rec'd-post card notified-Ozzie down to the Dallas PO to pick up the postcard-present card to USPS staff for retrieval-complete any required documentation-WALK OUT THE USPS WITH A 5' RIFLE CARTON-get to work then to Neely from the Dallas Post Office on a weekday at the end of March-get the rifle out of the box-dispose of box-get from Neely to New Orleans on April 24, 1963 with a 41" Carcano, no ammo, no clip, no cleaning supplies (or did he leave it at Neely for Ruth and Marina to pick it up for him since Ruth had dropped them at the bus station and asked that Marina come stay with her*? - obviously not since there is no discussion of a rifle being loaded that day - her testimony, furthermore, is false in that Oswald had purchased tickets for he and Marina and had to return one ticket) So as you can see, for there to be a rifle in the closet at 214 Neely one has to make HUGE assumptions as to what happens to this rifle on each leg of the Oswald's journey. Once we leave Neely and TX on April 24th the famous New Orleans summer of Oswald and JVB begins within 2 weeks. (note, James Wilcott says the "Oswald project" begins in April 1963 under direction of the Soviet Branch of the CIA Oswald goes to live with Lillian Murret, the Lee Oswald's mother's sister. A simple question. the FBI had been watching the Oswalds. Postal Inspectors had been keeping the FBI informed about the type of mail Harvey was receiving. Can anyone tell me how the entire FBI and resources fails to record the ordering, shipping, delivery, pick-up, ownership and use of this rifle until Nov 22, 1963? Here is an FBI report dated March 25, 1963. And he was supposed to have picked up the rifle on March 27/28 or 29th. He had just ordered it and KLEINS was working with the FBI and was being investigated by the Dodd committee. Is it at all believable that the FBI and US Postal Inspectors had no idea until 11/22 that Lee Harvey Oswald had ordered not only a rifle but a hand gun as well! All we need do is ask REA for the paperwork related to his picking up the pistol... oh, sorry, there isn't any. Here's yet another report - Hosty - on 9/10/63. Point is the FBI, INS and a few other acronyms were watching Oswald and reporting his activities. You'd think the purchase of a rifle and pistol would at least be noted somewhere... as his portrait of a wife-beater is created... * Mrs. PAINE - No; the bus left in the evening We all drove back to the apartment after he had checked the baggage, and he helped load the baby things and things that Marina would need during the next few days into my car, and we emptied what was left there of the things that were in the apartment, and which belonged to them, and then drove, I drove with Marina and June and my two children back to my house, and he stayed at the apartment. He was scheduled to leave by bus, city bus, and an interstate bus that evening. Mr. JENNER - I take it then, Mrs. Paine, that your impression was that it was contemplated, when you arrived at the Oswalds that morning, that Mrs. Oswald, Marina, and her child June, and her husband, Lee, were contemplating going to New Orleans together that day? Mrs. PAINE - No. Mr. JENNER - Am I wrong? Mrs. PAINE - That is wrong. She was to have stayed in the apartment. Mr. JENNER - I see. Mrs. PAINE - And wait to hear from him. Mr. JENNER - Yes The following day (Wednesday, April 24) Ruth Paine drove to the Oswald's apartment in Oak Cliff (south Dallas). Oswald asked Ruth to drive him and his wife to the bus station and sa:id that he was going to New Orleans to look for work. Mrs. Paine recalled that he took two green duffel bags, a portable Russian-made radio, and some suitcases to the bus station.148 When they arrived at the bus station Oswald purchased tickets to New Orleans for himself and Marina. But after Ruth invited Marina to stay with her in Irving while her husband looked for a job in New Orleans, Oswald got a refund on her ticket.

Mrs. PORTER. No, I don't. That is what I was discussing with my lawyer. We tried to find out if that was written by me. I mean as I told him, that my handwriting does change a few times a day. I do not write same way, you know, in the morning and maybe at night, so it is hard for me to claim even my own handwriting, but you have certain way of writing, habit of writing certain letters, so I know for sure that I could not, I do not write certain letter that way. So at first I thought it was maybe my handwriting, but after I examine it, I know it is not. Mr. McDONALD. Well, first of all, what does it say? Mrs. PORTER. "For hunter of fascist, ha, ha, ha." Mr. McDONALD. "Hunter of fascist"? Mrs. PORTER. Yes.

Hey there Michael... I've always felt that the photo of Det Brown and the famous cutout of Oswald prove the same thing. How would the DPD or anyone else know of the 133-C pose when that photo was not even known about until 1976? Furthermore, when one tries to replace Oswald into the image, standing the same way, the background doesn't work. You'll notice that the step on the stairs fits (upper left of Ossie image) but everything else is off kilter. As a back-up to this I quote Marina who was forced into remembering taking 2 photos, let alone having taken a third... and she recalls putting the camera to her face to see thru the viewfinder and snap a photo - as she testifies: This is the first time taking photos with a camera... Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the day that you took the picture of him with the rifle and the pistol?Mrs. OSWALD. I think that that was towards the end of February, possibly the beginning of March. I can't say exactly. Because I didn't attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures.I don't know how to take pictures. He gave me a camera and asked me someone should ask me how to photograph, I don't know. Mrs. OSWALD. Now I paid attention to it. A specialist would see it immediately, of course. But at that time I did not pay any attention at all. I saw just Lee. These details are of great significance for everybody, but for me at that time it didn't mean anything. At the time' that I was questioned, I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses. My POV is that she'd have to remember one of the most difficult cameras to work and get a clear, well-framed photo. This is what Marina would see taking just one of these photos, yet she supposedly took 3 and doesn't remember this camera's peculiar operation: Q. What did he tell you to do with the camera as far as taking the pictures? A. He just told me which button to push and I did. Q. Did you hold it up to your eye and look through the viewer to take the picture? A. Yes. Q. And after you took the picture what did you do after you took the first picture? A. I went into the house and did things I had to attend to. Q. How many pictures did you take? A. I think I took two. Q. When you took the first picture you held it up to your eye? A. Yes; that is what I recall. There are more reasons of course... but I think this is a realistic place to start

That "version" of the BOH photo was admittedly created by the way the doctors pulled and held the scalp over the open wound The impossible large black "sharpie" patch over JFK's head can be seen on the nth generation zframes... When the rest of the blacks on this frame behave as they should, yet the black over the right rear of JFK's head forms the shape of a square, colored directly onto the frame. This I believe is 323... As you can see in the large image, the square in no way matches the contours of JFK's head, and unlike the black around Jackie's face, cannot be "contrasted" away. If it were simply the shadow, it would behave like the Jackie shadows... it doesn't 'cause it can't. "Ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know..." Here's what it looks like on the film... like a black square hovering over the exit area...

OK Bill, So Lovelady makes his way across the landing? When does he move from the Eastern corner behind the man in blue as we see in the top frame capture... to the center of the stairway as the motorcade passes with PM seen in the recesses of the western corner... So, in Altgens, is he where we see him in the top image or further over to the west?

Bill - maybe help me out here... Isn't Lovelady standing on the right side of the steps? Isn't that woman with the bushy hair down one step from ovelady the same in B&W as in color? Mr. FRAZIER - Well, see, I was standing, like I say, one step down from the top, and Mr. Shelley was standing, you know, back from the top step and over toward the side of the wall there. See, he was standing right over there, and then Billy was a couple of steps down from me over toward more the wall also. Mr. Shelley is the man in the suit behind Lovelady in Altgens... the way Wesley puts it, Lovelady was in the location below, a few steps down and over by the wall, yet in some images he is in the exact spot Wesley claims... I can't imagine how Lovelady gets to the West side of the entrance if he did all those things with Shelley... ??

One more thought on this is about three men hardly ever mentioned yet seemingly very important to the FBI and the ultimate report: Supervisors Rogge and Thompson and Mr. Malley of the General Investigative Division Mr. MALLEY. Mr. Belmont was in the same position that everyone else was in. He knew, I knew, that we had no actual jurisdiction. He did indicate to me that he had been in touch with Mr. Shanklin, who was the Special Agent in charge of Dallas, and that he would be back in touch with me as soon as there was more definite information available. That was about it for the time being. Later in the day, and I presume it must have been close to 3 o'clock, I was either told be(sic: by) telephone or asked to come down to Belmont's office, I cannot recall which, at which time he informed me that the General Investigative Division would be handling the assassination case of President Kennedy. Following that, and still not having many details to go on, I started lining up personnel that would be available on a round-the clock basis to handle whatever might develop. ------ Mr. MALLEY. In the General Investigative Division, I happened to be the No. 1 man, and as you heard, I was assigned to handle liaison with the, oh, you haven't heard yet, I was assigned to handle liaison with the Warren Commission. There was also a criminal section, whose section chief was James Hanley. An individual by the name of Henry Schutz was a unit chief, under which was bank robberies and a number of other rather important criminal investigations, and there were two individuals that did work quite a bit on this particular case, by the name of Richard Rogge and Fletcher Thompson*(see Appendix). Mr. MCDONALD. Mr. Malley, regarding Rogge and Thompson, you just said that they worked closely with you on the case. Mr. MALLEY. They did in the early stages. They were the two individuals who were sent to Dallas to write the first two memorandums that I told you about, and we also had a civil rights section, which was under a section chief by the name of Clement McGowan. Does that cover what you have? Mr. MCDONALD. That is fine, thank you. Mr. Malley, in the investigation of the assassination how did the various divisions participate in the case? First of all, which was the primary division to run the case, the assassination case, and who was in charge of that investigation? Mr. MALLEY. As far as the actual assassination is concerned, it was definitely in the General Investigative Division. When you say who is responsible, are you referring to what section it was being handled and what supervisor was primarily responsible? Mr. MCDONALD. Which person was primarily responsible at the top to begin with? Mr. MALLEY. Well, because of what happened when I got back from Dallas I would say that I had to be.

Martin... How about the obvious? J Lee Rankin with the help of Dulles and Ford. I don't think one needed to have far reaching vision to see which direction the wind was blowing. Rankin had to have been involved in the picking and choosing of evidence for presentation... he oversaw the lawyers and as Spartacus puts it, he worked with the FBI and CIA... Ford and Dulles... just sayin' "Following President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, Rankin was the unanimous choice of the Warren Commission to serve as general counsel in the inquiry that concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone in killing President Kennedy. He was credited with redrafting and editing the commission’s voluminous report into a work of polished prose. Subsequently, Rankin practiced law in New York City until the 1970s, working seven years as the New York City Corporation Counsel (1966-1972). " -wiki "In 1963 he became chief counsel for the Warren Commission. Apparently this was against the wishes of Earl Warren who wanted Warren Olney as chief counsel. Rankin's main role was to work with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency. Rankin appointed Norman Redlich as his special assistant. " http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKrankin.htm ...and it's our man Redlich who realizes that FBI WCD1 and SS WCD298 and ce585 are not telling the story that needed telling and so informs Rankin at the end of April. As a result, the misleading ce884 and ce875 are born while "the shot that missed" becomes one of the great charades of history.

Just doing his civic duty....