David Josephs

On 2/20/2017 at 5:03 AM, Ian Lloyd said:

Just for fun...

The top 2 are M. "Nick" McDonald's, bottom 2 are Oswald's:

 

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...

Quote

It's really a simple story. -PT

"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have succeeded in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core—Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone—into its present form of the most complex murder case, by far, in world history. Vincent Buglisoi

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. 

14 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

Yes -- Ron Lewis, who knew LHO in New Orleans during the summer of 1963 wrote in 1993 that he saw LHO with his rifle in New Orleans.  

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

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.

Just now, Paul Trejo said:

David,

You are misinterpreting the data.  By the numbers:

(1) Oswald ordered his rifle and pistol under an assumed name (Alek J. Hidell).   Authenticate that process for us Paul

(2) Ammunition in 1963 was readily available at Army Surplus stores in every major city.  Cheap.  Prove he ever was in physical contact with ammunition for that rifle

(3) Marina saw the rifle, but Ruth Paine never saw the rifle, nor even guessed that it existed.  And Marina's testimony is golden...  please don't tell me you're going to use her word as authenticated fact...  

(4) On the premise that LHO took his rifle to New Orleans with him, disassembled in one of his two army duffle bags, we only need to suppose that: (4.1) LHO did not let anybody else touch his duffle bags; and (4.2) Marina was so ashamed that LHO even bought weapons with his paltry income, that she never told anybody about them.Interesting assumption... Prove something though please.  Plus you completely skip over the week of March 25th...  or the reality that not a single report of the FBI or related agencies confirms this happened when it did... only after the fact.  PROVE something Paul...  the Money Order was found in 4 different places at 4 different times....

(5) Once LHO got to New Orleans, and asked his uncle Dutz to pick him up from the bus station, his uncle Dutz let LHO haul his own duffle bags and luggage.  This is what Dutz testified to the WC.  Again, LHO never let anybody else touch his duffle bags.  Nice anecdote...  proof please.

(6) There is nothing false about Ruth Paine's testimony that LHO bought two bus tickets -- one for himself and one for Marina -- and then returning one ticket.  Why would you think so?   Because the point was made that Oswald was leaving Marina and child behind when that was not the case.

(7) LHO did not let Marina have any money for anything.  Being a male-chauvanist control freak, if he ever gave Marina a single dollar for snacks it was a big event.  LHO bought two tickets -- one for himself to leave that day, and then one for Marina two take the bus some weeks later, after he would sent her a snail mail letter telling her that he had a job and a place to stay (because LHO could not afford a telephone at his Neeley Street address, or anyplace he stayed).  Citation for the "2 weeks later" (makes sense I just didn't see that reference when researching)  yet has nothing to do with proving the entire rifle process

(8) Ruth Paine felt sorry for Marina, because Marina was pregnant.  That's why Ruth offered: (8.1) to let Marina and Junie stay at her house with her own two children; (8.2) let LHO call Marina on her telephone; and (8.3) drive Marina to New Orleans herself.  not germane to this discussion and amazing to me that you know what's in people's thoughts...  ho DO you do that?

(9) Because of the generosity of Ruth Paine, LHO then took Marina's bus ticket and cashed it in, and gave Marina part of the refund money while she waited for LHO to call.   Also not germane to the topic.  Hey, I thought you said he NEVER gave her money...

(10) So, you see, LHO had his rifle with him at all times during his trip to New Orleans starting April 24th.  Not so much Paul.  
When did he leave work to pickup the rifle?
Where is the postcard the USPS would put in his PO Box for thew over-sized package?
How did he get the rifle from the PO to JCS and then to Neely that day?
Why is the only ammo suitable for that rifle from a CIA contract
 

Winchester Repeating Arms, of the US, manufactured 6.5x52 Carcano under a CIA (contract) during the early 50's. The intended use is not clear, but varies from being supplemental production for the Italian Military, use during the Greek civil-war, anti-communist efforts in Albania, etc. These rounds found their way into the surplus market in the early 1960's. The rounds supposedly used by Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate President John F. Kennedy were from this production.
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/ammo/history.html

If, somehow, you can prove he ordered, paid for and picked up the rifle with evidence that is not so easily shown to be fraudulent... Where is the evidence he ever fired that rifle, ever purchased ammo, a clip, or cleaning materials.  (https://kennedysandking.com/content/oswald-on-november-22-1963 this might help you)

 

(11) The "Soviet Branch of the CIA"?  What nonsense.   Paul, it is better to keep quite and be thought a fool then post what you do and remove all doubt.
In addition, a memo from James Angleton's CIA mole hunting unit, the CI/SIG -- which stands for Counterintelligence Special Investigations Group -- has surfaced in these files with handwriting on it which gives the name of a CIA Domestic Contact Division employee -- a name which appears to be one 'Andy' Anderson -- as a CIA contact for Harvey Oswald. This document -- which, like the SR 6 document, was in a "soft file" meaning it was not in the original Oswald 201 file -- confirms the recollections of other Clandestine Services employees that Andy Anderson did in fact debrief Oswald. Don Deneselya, who worked in the Russian Branch, Foreign Documents Division, Office of Contacts [OO/  FDD ,  USSR ] read  Anderson 's debrief in 1962. The very branch chief in the Domestic Contacts Division who would have overseen incoming debriefs like  Anderson 's confirms that his branch recovered the debriefing from the field office that had it.

id the CIA, contrary to decades of denials, debrief Oswald? The new release of files pursuant to the Records Act strengthens the evidentiary base for the proposition that the CIA did in fact debrief Oswald. Of particular note is the fact that the Chief of the CIA's Soviet Realities Branch -- in the Soviet Russia Division of the Directorate of Plans -- wanted to lay on interviews of Oswald at the time of the re-defector's return to the US in the Summer of 1962 -- a fact he recorded in a memorandum for the record three days after the assassination.

(12) According to FBI agent James Hosty, he asked to re-open the FBI case file on LHO in March 1963, after LHO took out a subscription for The Worker newspaper from New York City.  This was dumb, according to FBI HQ, because countless people took out such subscriptions, and the FBI was not about to track them all. Another incredibly lackluster statement showing yet again the shallow level of your understanding...  well done.

(13) It wasn't until LHO personally requested for the FBI to make a report of his FPCC-related arrest in New Orleans that the FBI finally re-opened the Oswald file. PAUL, stay on topic... we are talking about c-2766/CE139 - a rifle supposedly in Oswald's possession.  Concentrate!

(14) So, the FBI was not tracking LHO's every little move an piece of mail in March 1963.  That's not what I posted Paul...  If you want to argue that the FBI/CIA/ONI/INS/USPS was not watching the Russian defector at this time by referring to FBI reports with "LEE HARVEY OSWALD" as the subject.. you don't seem to understand the point here.

(15) James Hosty had the right to randomly select Soviet citizens in the USA in his area, and he selected Marina Oswald.  He went to go visit the Oswald's at their Elsbeth address, and they were not there.  The landlord kicked them out because they were fighting all the time, making a racket and breaking glass.  The Oswald's never talked to their neighbors -- and Marina could not speak English anyway.  The neighbors only assumed LHO was drinking -- since that is the normal scene where there is continual fighting in a home.  There is no plot there.  Says you.  And like the current POTUS, nothing you seem to say ever makes any sense or is backed by anything in Reality.  You are no where near a "source" for information at face value.  "Marina could not speak English anyway"...  Maybe Paul you should consider reading something other than your own work?

(16) It wasn't LHO that James Hosty went to visit in March, 1963, but Marina.  A package delivered to Alek J. Hidell did not hit the FBI radar until after the JFK assassination.  

Yet again Paul, you go off on some rant yet never get around to addressing the issue at hand.   Are you really trying to tell this community that the US intelligence community remained completely unaware that Oswald had weapons despite the paper trail offered to support its existence?  Between Sept 24 and Oct 31 the FBI was either feigning panic by not knowing where Oswald was all this time or covering for the fact that Oswald was doing FBI work in Dallas at Odio's... IMHO.  

In the FBI's Oswald HQ Folder #1 there are 120 pages of reports prior to August 1963.  As they move to Neely a protected identity informant confirms the evidence of their living there.

You saying the FBI then simply stopped bothering with the Oswalds in the same month the Oswald Project supposedly begins...   Paul... time to take stock and figure out if you want to be forever known for your complete lack of credibility before you fire back.  We need supporting evidence or at least a coherent argument that livers in reality...   and no, I won't be baited into a conversation with you.  You remain, along with a select few, a distraction here.  So enjoy "America" while it's still somewhat free and do/post/say whatever you like....  I'm not willing to engage ...

Take care
DJ

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

On 2/14/2017 at 4:25 PM, Michael Clark said:

Thank very much David!

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.

On 2/14/2017 at 12:15 PM, Joe Bauer said:

Did Marina actually testify to writing "Hunter Of Fascists Ha Ha Ha" on the photo mentioned?  No she actually testified to NOT writing it but also not remembering very well.. IOW "the FBI had not yet told me what to say"

I just can't figure her trying to be funny, even derisively, about such talk from her husband.

And who wouldn't be asking their husband why he would want her to take extremely provocative pictures of him with two guns and those Russian newspapers?

Maybe she did.  Wonder what he told her in response.  Joe, She did not take the BYPs.  Not a single one of them.  There is, in fact, quite a bit of skepticism that the Oswald's ever lived at Neely to begin with...  At Neely they only had one small child

 

Oswald told Will Fritz ( when he was claiming the BYP were faked ) that he ( Oswald ) knew a lot about photography.  

Was he exaggerating his level of knowledge and skills in this area?

If you look at the list of inventory items taken from Oswald you'll find quite a lot of photographic equipment.  When searching in New Orleans he was looking for a photography job...  Amazingly, he was hired at Jagger-Chiles-Stovall who was doing photograhic work for the DoD

 

Or does anyone know whether Oswald was into photography ( even recreational ) in the military or during his stay in Russia?

Or did Oswald think he learned enough at S and Jaggers to claim this expertise?

Here is a list of some of the photographic equipment, among other things.

 

 

 

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. 

On 2/13/2017 at 4:43 PM, Michael Clark said:

Bump, I know Jack White has passed. I am searching the forum for the Photo Analysis expert opinions on the backyard photos.

Cheers, Mike

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

Quote

Thanks, Micah. That version of the photo (above) goes a long way toward debunking the crazy theory in which many conspiracy theorists postulate the notion that a large "black patch" was inserted over JFK's head in the photo to artificially cover up virtually all of the right-rear quadrant of Kennedy's head (to cover up the alleged huge hole that supposedly existed in that part of his head).

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...

1 hour ago, Bill Miller said:

That is not Lovelady in the image you previously posted. Lovelady as clearly seen in the Hughes film and in Altgens photo shows him on the west side of the stairs - down and to the right of Frazier. (see below)

 

I found this interesting when Frazier was asked if he went anywhere after hearing the shots being fired .... and Buell mentioned that a Police Officer could have came past him and he not seen it because of the way he was turned and with he talking to someone. Have wonder if that someone  was the Prayer-Man. And while Frazier said he stayed there for several minutes - he mentioned Shelley and Lovelady leaving the stairs .................

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.
Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody after that come into the Building while you were there?
Mr. FRAZIER - You mean somebody other that didn't work there?
Mr. BALL - A police officer.
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I stood there a few minutes, you know, and some people who worked there; you know normally started to go back into the Building because a lot of us didn't eat our lunch, and so we stared back into the Building and it wasn't but just a few minutes that there were a lot of police officers and so forth all over the Building there.
Mr. BALL - Then you went back into the Building, did you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - And before you went back into the Building no police officer came up the steps and into the building?
Mr. FRAZIER - Not that I know. They could walk by the way and I was standing there talking to somebody else and didn't see it.

 

Later Mr. Ball asked a question that you touched on in your previous response.

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.

We know where Lovelady was standing during the parade before JFK turned onto Elm Street and during the shooting as Billy is seen in the Hughes film and in Altgen's photo by the west wall.

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?

2 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

If you are talking about the area within the red outline, then absolutely!  You outlined several steps that are visible before someone bumped up the contrast and hid them while creating an illusion someone was standing there.

 

 

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....

I'd also like to know how your conclusions can be presented with so much certainty.

"That was the plan" suggests you were privy to the planning of the assassination, otherwise how would you know the "plan" ??

I agree, the WC did everything they could to keep it at 3 shots...  yet that still does not put a shooter in the TSBD...

In fact, based on acoustics, explain how our three men on the 5th floor are not deaf with ringing ears after 3 such explosions only 10-15 feet from their heads...
Norman could hear the bolt and the shells? Please.

There is no compelling evidence beyond Euins that any shots were fired from the SE window.  SW, maybe.

Thanks George...

At this point we use what we have and make our best guesses...  

The thread though is related to z313 and whether or not another shot was indeed fired where they said it was in WCD298.

Does the acoustic analysis end with the two shots .7 seconds apart at z313? - of course it does since the station 4+96 shot was 40-50 frames down Elm and removed by the time the WCR was finished.

Shouldn't we also be hearing Chaney's motorcycle on the recording after he guns forward to tell the lead car what happened?  

Why isn't that noise or that visual recorded anywhere but in the testimonies of those who saw it happen: Chaney, Hargis, Curry, Sorrels, Decker...
or is it?

The acoustics also can only account for LOUD noises of shots...  This WWII rifle is virtually silent while being just as deadly... add now Mitch Werbel's involvement and the use of silenced weapons is truly not that far-fetched.

If the Zapruder film's frames are an accurate, unaltered representation of the event... one has to ask why Shaneyfelt moved the path south and then changed ce884 so that it completely misrepresents the film?

According to the Surveryor's notes, Shaneyfelt figured out where z168 and z171 were (incorrectly I might add considering these 3 frames are only separated by 9/10th of a foot) yet after he figures this out he does something amazing.  Luckily Robert WEST took some notes:

So what does this mean related to ce884 and zframes 161 and 166?  Well, originally ce884 stated that frame 168 lays where the new ce884 places z161.

168 becomes 161 and 171 becomes 166.  Pretty good trick! Now we'll see why Shaneyfelt moved the limo 1.1 feet to the south and why ce884 was changed

The corner of the limo at z166 is even with the County Records bldg corner with JFK's position noted

When I place the limo where Shaneyfelt put JFK for frame 171, the corner of the limo remains in line with the Records Bldg and JFK remains in line with Zapruder's line of sight.
Only problem is 171 is now prior to 166...

Here is a line art version of the above image.  Nothing offered in the evidence can assist with a recreation of the event...  in fact the evidence is offered in such a way as to make every attempt at reconstruction conflict with at least some part of the evidence.    

If the Zfilm is an accurate representation of what happened - the unanswered question remains, "Why change the permanent, accurate record instead of simply using it to explain what occurred?"

Answer - the altered film cannot be related to the event by the laws of physics and math that apply.  That's also why the evidence can claim the limo traveled at a constant 11.2 mph despite the same evidence showing the impossibly drastic changes in speed within the z161-z313 distance Shaneyfelt chose.

Reading Shaneyfelt's testimony is absolutely necessary to understanding what happened here...  that and the Redlich to Rankin memo from April 27 1964.

"substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions..."   

                We have not yet examined the assassination scene to determine

whether the assassin in fact could have shot the President prior to

frame 190.  We could locate the position on the ground which

corresponds to this frame and it would then be our intent to establish

by photography that the assassin would have fired the first shot at the

President prior to this point.  Our intention is not to establish the

point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the

hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole

assassin.

I'm not sure how you get that reply from what I offered...  

There were absolutely more than one shooter
If a shot was actually taken from the 6th floor SE corner - of which only Euins is a witness and even he is questionable - it most certainly was not with that Carcano.

Regarding a first shot hit...  If we accept the testimony and trust our eyes, a shot misses around z155..

The concern I raise has to do with that wide turn onto Elm and Shaneyfelt creating Position A despite nothing on the films or photos suggesting the limo ever passes thru that point.

If we look at Z133 and where POS A is - there is nothing offered to reconcile this conflict or the addition of this point beyond Shaneyfelt's bad explanation for it.
And then, when we learn that Shaneyfelt altered the path of the limo by moving it south 1.1 feet we also find - compliments of Chris Davidson's work - that Position A relates to a point the actual path and Shaneyfelt's path diverge... to only meet up again at Z313.

As I ask in my essay on WCD298 - other than Altgens and Hudson, what evidence supports the placement of a shot down by the GK stairs?
Certainly not the films or photos...  while Altgens claims the headshot occurs directly in front of him

Mr. ALTGENS - Because I didn't see who fired it. After the Presidential car moved a little past me, I took another picture--now, just let me back up here--I was prepared to make a picture at the very instant the President was shot. I had refocused to 15 feet because I wanted a good closeup of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and that's why I know that it would be right at 15 feet, because I had prefocused in that area, and I had my camera almost to my eye when it happened and that's as far as I got with my camera.
Because, you see, even up to that time I didn't know that the President had been shot previously. I still thought up until that time that all I heard was fireworks and that they were giving some sort of celebration to the President by popping these fireworks. It stunned me so at what I saw that I failed to do my duty and make the picture that I was hoping to make.

Mr. LIEBELER - You also testified that you were standing perhaps no more than 15 feet away when the President was hit in the head and that you are absolutely certain that there were no shots fired after the President was hit in the head?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; that's correct.

So we have an amazing conflict here.   While TIME/LIFE, SS & FBI all place a "third" shot by the 2nd yellow curb and not the first which is near Moorman, this "third" shot location obviously shows JFK already hit in the head...    For some reason Altgens tries to support the TSBD as the source of the shots yet the rest of his testimony conflicts with the film, just not the survey's done between Nov 26 and Feb 7.

The Dec 5th results become WCD298.  The Feb 7 results get revisited in May when Eisenberg and gang rewrite history.  Thing is we can't get away from West's surveys... 

Question is Chicken or the Egg... Was this surveyed point provided by those overseeing the surveys or are they independently derived by WEST.  The other sketches made by Shaneyfelt/Specter/Frasier all show that "last" shot down by Altgens and the 2nd yellow curb.   

Was this an actual shot?  or simply a way to allow for 3 shots and 3 hits per the Dec 9th FBI report WCD1 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10402#relPageId=8&tab=page  JFK hit by #'s 1 and 3, JC by #2... and this was the conclusion until May/June 1964 when the Silly Bullet Theory was created after shots at the top of Elm and bottom of Elm are removed to accomodate the 3 = 3 conclusions of the FBI.

Micah, 

I'd suggest not getting too hung up on "shot #1, #2, etc...  By most accounts there were well more than 3 shots fired and 3 shots hitting their mark.

George's jiggle analysis reference neglects the simple things such as the distance from DAL-TEX 2nd floor to JFK at 156...  and then to completely miss everything?

George makes some decent points yet a bullet lodged in his back from 157 thru the sign without a single sign of its effect convinces me that Hickey and Willis are reacting to a missed shot, just as the witnesses said they saw something hit the concrete at that time.  Zapruder's angle did not include Dal-Tex's fire escape or those windows.

George, does this look like a man who's been shot?

Now let's look at an actual "cause and effect".   As JFK emerges he is hit in the back and is seen being pushed forward and then slightly up with the raising of his arms.  This is definitely a reaction to being shot regardless of jiggle, ear-witnesses or anything else.  

Most understand that he is hit in the throat as he disappears behind the sign which has caused his hands to clinch.  

Quote

4. The Warren Commission did not receive any frames before frame Z-173. So they analyzed the Zapruder film not knowing anything about the first shot. A later version shows Kennedy arching his back in response to being shot in the back. The version quickly dissappeared from the internet.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0050b.htm is CE888 which depicts Z161 so right off there's a bit of conflict with your conclusion.  Shaneyfelt and Specter did their best to remove everything prior to 161:

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is an album that I prepared of black and white photographs made of the majority of the frames in the Zapruder film---- 
Mr. SPECTER. Starting with what frame number? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Starting with frame 171, going through frame 334. 
Mr. SPECTER. And why did you start with frame 171? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the frame that the slides start from. This was an arbitrary frame number that was decided on as being far enough back to include the area that we wanted to study. 
------
Mr. SPECTER. What was the starting position of the car at the most easterly position on Elm Street, immediately after turning off Houston Street? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The first position we established that morning was frame 161. 
Mr. SPECTER. Was there not a position established prior in sequence to frame 161, specifically that designated as position A? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was actually established later. But the first one to be actually located was 161. And we went back later and positioned point A. 
Mr. SPECTER. Well, let's start with the position which is the most easterly point on Elm Street, which I believe would be position A, would it not? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. 
Mr. SPECTER. Have you a photographic exhibit depicting that position? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; in each of the positions that we established, we used, insofar as possible, the Zapruder pictures to establish the position, or we established it from the window, and made photographs from the position Mr. Zapruder was standing in. 
Mr. SPECTER. This chart has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 886.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This shows the photograph that was made from the point where Zapruder was standing looking toward the car, and is a point that we have designated as position A because it is in a position that did not appear on the Zapruder film.  The Zapruder film does not start until the car gets farther down Elm Street. 

So here we are again at Position A.  A location NOT filmed yet somehow identified as:

Mr. SPECTER. So that would be the first position where the marksman could focus in on the circled point where the point of entry on the President was marked? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. 
Mr. SPECTER. Could the marksman then have taken a shot at the President at any prior position and have struck him with the point of entry on that spot, on the base of the President's neck? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. I don't quite understand the question. 
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any prior position, that is a position before position A, where the marksman from the sixth floor could have fired the weapon and have struck the President at the known point of entry at the base of the back of his neck? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; because as the car moves back, you lose sight of the chalk mark on the back of his coat. 

Does this look to you as 1) the JFK stand-in would disappear under the tree? or 2) that you can't roll that limo back a few feet and still hit the stand-in in the back?

AND 3) since the limo supposedly did not travel along that path (see ce875 for a photo ever 25 feet - from station to station as derived by West's survey plat) why bother including it for any reason other than the fact it very well may have happened and is one of the reasons the turn onto Elm was removed/altered

Mr. TRULY. That is right.
And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn. 
Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as he curved--as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb? 
Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop, to pull over to the left.
If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little section here. 
Mr. BELIN. All right.

Quote

Of course no one actually saw a shot,

Yet they saw the result of the missed z157 shot.  

Just after President Kennedy’s limousine passed the front steps of the TSBD, five witnesses saw a bullet strike the pavement on Elm Street near the right rear of the limousine. Witnesses saw this bullet kick up concrete toward the car (Weisberg 187-189; cf. Posner 324; Moore 198).

Again George, there is evidence offered of the SS seeing him hit in the back well after the turn onto Elm.  What evidence do you offer to support his being hit in the back and then showing not a single reaction or impairment as a result of that shot...  

Here are both the 2nd and 3rd floor windows enhanced from Altgens.  I see people in those windows so there being the source of a shot or shots is compelling.
And as you say, the sound described is a street level sound so the 2nd floor makes sense.  Yet the initial response from Humes is that the bullet angled severely downward upon entry suggesting a higher angle than Dal-Tex 2nd Floor.

SS SA Bennett:  At this point I heard what_sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder.

Now we can't be 100% sure this isn't a CYA gesture since Bennet is in the left rear of the Queen Mary (facing the car) and appears to be blocked by everyone on that side of the vehicle.  IDK.

What I do know is I'd need a bit more evidence that something actually occurred other than a camera jiggle from the man with vertigo being held in place by someone else...

The evidence has to be complimentary for your conclusion, and so far I've only seen you talk about what people heard, rather than what they saw.

But this is a good thread...  I like your thinking, just need a bit more to hang a hat upon...

DJ

On 2/7/2017 at 5:43 PM, George Sawtelle said:

Micah

I´m glad you mentioned him smiling after being hit in the back. I´m going to use that to prove my point.

Some people say they heard a backfire. Some people say they heard a firecracker. Some say a gunshot. Anyway there was heard a loud noise. Those in the parade near the limo look to their left as if looking for the origen of the loud noise. Yet Kennedy continues to wave and smile. He doesn´t even flinch.

Something is not right. What do you think Micah?

 

George - you'd think the "He doesn't even flinch" line you posted would prove to you that he was not hit with that shot, especially in the neck.  But let's take a different approach for your throat shot...

Compare the throat wound evidence with JFK fully dressed.  

Mr. SPECTER - What did you note, if anything, with respect to the tie, Mr. Frazier? 
Mr. FRAZIER - When the tie was examined by me in the laboratory I noted that the neck portion had been cut from one side of the knot. However, the knot remained in apparently its original condition. The only damage to the tie other than the fact that it had been cut, was a crease or nick in the left side of the tie when you consider the tie as being worn on a body. As you view the front of the tie it would be on the right side. This nick would be located in a corresponding area to the area in the shirt collar just below the button. 

Mr. SPECTER - Is the nick consistent with an exiting path? 
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, yes. 

The nick exposes the white inner lining of the tie...  obviously Frasier wants to insure that SBT is not challenged by his conclusions related to this tie.  Yet if the bullet is coming from behind the tie, one wonders how it only nicks the front...

The point here being there is much more to this "first shot" than your conclusion for which there is no evidence...  then again George, what can you offer us to support your conclusion as opposed to the evidence which shows this shot missed and was fired from behind..