David Josephs

Here are some other photos you can use as well. I tried to size the two images in th gif to the mouth and still the ears cannot match, and if I try to match the ears, the rest doesn't match. Not definitive by any means... just food for thought. As there only being a small handful of evidence - as the UK site suggests - is a terrible understatement of fact. One of the greatest being his time in the Phillipines. Unit Diaries put him there, His CO Donovan puts him there.. yet the DoD tries to claim he never left Atsugi while his medical records all have him receiving treatment in Atsugi. Donovan admits to being forgetful during his WCR testimony and then we learn he was FBI from 1953-56. Also included is the DoD declaration that he never went to Taiwan. and the Unit Diary showing he not only went, but returned as well.. ooops. Please don't insult those of us who have actually taken the time to research the evidence to state all this is based on some photographic interpretation and hearsay. This is only the tip of an iceberg I'm sure you are not prepared to take on but for one bite here and there. When you can address ALL the evidence, not just what you believe to be low hanging fruit that you can attack, we can begin a real discourse on the topic. So how about start with this. Prove the evidence does not support two men, both named Lee Oswald with one in Atsugi and the other in the Philippines at the same time. Thanks

A colorized version to help differentiate between people...

All valid points Steve.... I just have found that approaching this logically usually leads in the wrong direction...

Sandy, I posted this not because of the repeating of the Baker story but of Bookout's telling of the Shelley part of the story. Oswald eating lunch outside with Shelley happening well after the assassination and the supposed Baker encounter creates a timeline that allows Oswald and Shelley to be back out on the landing about 6-10 minutes after the shooting. I am 100% convinced the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter never happened. Just look at how the WC handles the Baker Affidavit in his testimony. If their story is true then his affidavit is a lie. I've made the point before that without the lunchroom added, the person coming down the stairs 1-2 flights higher up is much closer to the sniper's nest area as well as the rifle's resting place by these stairs on the 6th floor. The description is even fairly close. If this was Oswald, why change the story during testimony? If this was not Oswald, who works at the TSBD fitting that description and was not out front? I do not believe that Baker is scatterbrained and completely neglected to write his affidavit, the SAME DAY, telling the same story as his testimony would so many months later. There must have been a reason to swap one story for the other and the ID of the person on the stairs is possibly our answer. As for rendering moot the statement that he was out front with Shelley - what does the Baker encounter have to do with that? Your timeline fits better with Oswald meeting up with Shelley after he returns with Lovelady and goes out front (if that's what he did) I don't want to derail the thread with Baker discussions when we are talking about Shelley and Lovelady. One must think though, did the whole thing hinge on Oswald staying inside for those 30 seconds or would there be contingency plans for all possibilities? I for one believe in their contingency planning which is why there were so many "SS imposters" in DP... they were the clean-up crew to get photos and films. I come to learn on a side note that Jaggers-Chile-Stovall was only blocks from DP and had photographic alteration equipment that no other companies in the area had... if photos needed fixing quickly (Altgens 6 comes to mind) JCS could do it and quickly. Food for thought...

Sandy, Bookout describes Oswald's interrogation responses like this: It suggests that Shelley was the source for Oswald leaving for Home. But it also plays a little havoc with the timeline you've offered. Also wondering why "SHELLEY" is almost removed, twice. Can Shelley telling the truth work with this? - this is the only interrogation report that mentions this - I believe.

Looking thru the entire list I found another steno with MM initials... There were MANY officers from Traffic involved that day... just another possibility TRAFFIC DIVISION Mullican, Madge, Stenographer-Secretary 6 (on a side note I believe this Sorrells is related to our Sorrells....Sorrells, Eunice, (Chief's) Secretary 8 and the only office staff at a level 8)

deleted

deleted -

From what we've been able to find it appears that only 2 copies have the 6pm correction: In Box 15 of the DPD Archives Box 15, Folder# 1, Item# 111. and Box 5 file 3 item #3 Yet as you say Steve, these changes did not make ce2003 or CD81. I did the same exercise as Alistair. "4th" is written over to make it "3rd" On pages 10 and 11 there are also changes trying to keep the # of interviews correct. A 3rd interview occurs Sat the 23rd at 12:35. a 4th interview happens at 6pm (does this actually happen?) while a 5th interview at 9:30 am is changed to 4th. The other problem is they missed a significant change.. At the end of the first paragraph on page 10 "He is placed back in jail at 1:10 PM" Changing 12:35 to 6 pm on page 9, then reiterating 6 pm on page 10 forgets that he was placed back in jail. The page 9 6 pm is a CYA for the photograph statement since the train of thought is completed regarding the 12:35-1:10 pm interview at the top of page 10. Can't "bring him back in" if he never left.... Steve - your question, "what good would it accomplish" ie to change draft versions after the final has been produced.... The time conflict was just never recognized. Could these changes have been made in preparation for Fritz's book? (edit - Fritz didn't write one... did he)

Well done everyone... Imagine the horror on Fritz's face when he realizes he asked AND SHOWED Oswald these prints before the evidence shows they were available to him. And for certain 133-C existed at this time since Det Brown is placed in that exact pose 13 years before it becomes public. Rose will testify to seeing 1 print with 2 negatives... and then proceeds to forget the photo and ultimately lose one of these negatives... 1 negative to create 3 images.... Steve - if there was no Sat evening lineup... Mr. BALL. Now, you say you sat in on the interrogation of Oswald later that day? Mr. ROSE. On Saturday evening--that Saturday evening. Mr. BALL. What time? Mr. ROSE. I don't remember--it was late--it seemed like it was around 9 or 10 o'clock, I don't remember. Mr. BALL. Who was present? Mr. ROSE. Well, Captain Fritz, Detective Sims, and myself--I don't remember--there was an FBI agent and a Secret Service agent there, but I don't remember their names. what's Rose here talking about?, he goes on to describe the showing of the BYP to Oswald? Mr. BALL. That this took place in Captain Fritz' office? Mr. ROSE. In Captain Fritz' office--yes. Well, the occasion was--I got back to the office and I took this small picture of Oswald holding the rifle, and left the rest of them with the Captain and I took one up to the I.D. bureau and had them to make me an enlargement of it, and they made an almost 8" by 10" enlargement of this picture and I brought it back to the captain and Oswald was brought in and the captain showed him this picture, and Oswald apparently got pretty upset when he saw the picture and at first he said, "Well, that's just a fake, because somebody has superimposed my face on that picture." Then, the captain said, "Well, is that you face on the picture?" And he said, "I won't even admit that. That is not even my face." I remember that part of it distinctly. I remember him volunteering some information about when he was in Russia. I read some work on the Altgens 6 timeline suggesting that Jaggers, which was central to AP/City Hall and DMN and where Oswald worked, had the most advanced photographic manipulation equipment in the US and was set up specifically to make changes to images and create new negatives. food for thought.

Thank Alistair! That's the trouble with lies, a few little mistakes in the retelling of them makes them stand out like a sore thumb. I'm convinced those images the photos that is, were already at the DPD. After the fact we learn from the CSSS reports that no photos were brought in when if they had actually found negatives and matching photos they would have kept them together on a single CSSS form. I believe it is Stovall who claims that these were included in the BLUE SUITCASE as "Misc photos and maps" yet when the FBI's HOSTY recaps what was in that suitcase, the lists do not even come clse to each other... 200 circulars? Anyway, the ONLY reference to evidence that calls out found PHOTOS is that reference. I personally believe Rose/Stovall brought the negatives with them. Steve - you make a great point about the jacket for a line up that never happens but DOES happen at 2:15. Makes sense that the 12:35pm interview which lasts a while would include this comment...as they transition to this line-up. makes perfect sense - yes? Regarding Klein's and Waldman... I did quite a bit of work published at ctka on the Rifle evidence*. I found that there exists both a report stating the film was given to DOLAN of the FBI, signed only by Dolan... and another 2 pages earlier with all 3 FBI agents who investigated at Kleins, signing that WALDMAN kept the film in his own safe (last attachment). The other document reports Waldman making a comment about the Dodd committee "on his back". I'd theorize that the connection of Dodd's committee and Kleins and the FBI is well more than a coincidence. Waldman could only have been the right guy from Kleins to subpeona if they needed to stay away from the truth. Michael Scibor was also at Kleins that night with Waldman. The most unique night in his life with his assisting the FBI catch the killer of POTUS and he "was very uncooperative and evasive". ?? Add in the US Postal Inspector Holmes whose story of that day conflicts with virtually every bit of evidence and yet again we have a corner of the conspiracy which is FUBAR.... ... enough of that, Happy Holiday and New Years to everyone... healthy happy New Year. DJ * https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/pdf/JosephsRiflePart1.pdf

Considering we know that no SS agents were in the TSBD at this time either they are reassigning someone to the SS who they do not want to name, someone NOT SS pretended to be with credentials via Holt's story, or there really was a SS agent there... again, it seems to me that anyone who could cause a problem later had their name conveniently forgotten and by officers who appear to know the names of just about everyone else. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=631&tab=page https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29104#relPageId=9&tab=page Both of these state the time for the 3rd interview as 12:35pm so if these are the corrected version they dropped the 6pm 3rd interview time... OR those with the corrections were done well after the fact. Fritz's notes reflect a 6:35pm time as I posted yet I feel that the 11:25 scratched out would have been to account for the hour before he was questioned again. Do you know if anything is recorded for what happened between 11:30 and 12:30 on Saturday?

Indeed Robin... And that camera speed.... http://shikan.org/bjones/Moviecam/Keystone-K32/k-32_p7.html Her camera, like Zapruder's and Towner's and Nix's ran at either 12 or 16 frames per second or at slo-mo speeds of 24 and 48 fps. Like Zapruder the FBI changed the speed of the camera so it would appear as if more frames are taken and thereby speeding up the amount of time actually elapsed. NPIC did a 16 fps analysis on Zapruder that weekend as well. Shaneyfelt's testimony does not contradict Muchmore's statement about not taking assassination images, Dulles: You think she did? Shaneyfelt: On the film there are pictures And although the FBI's Gauthier delivers WCD298 to the Commissioners on January 20th which specifically identifies WCD298 as a complete & accurate representation of what happened, the FBI's Shaneyfelt will be involved with 6 more surveys resulting in the movement and/or replacement of every single measurement from the first 3 surveys. With regards to January 27, the FBI performs another survey (Dec 2,3,4 was for the SS even though it becomes the backbone for the FBI's WCD298) on February 7, 1964. Shaneyfelt being involved in "analysis" of this data only 1 week later and only 1 week prior to them doing another survey is very revealing to me. Especially since WEST's 2/7 notes arrive at the same conclusion as the 12/5 SS Dec survey... final shot at elevation 416.83 at station 4+95, not 4+65. All the Muchmore JFK frames determine is that the head shot happens exactly where everyone says it does... and in less time than any man can work the bolt and fire again, another shot 30 feet down Elm hits a target as the limo is speeding away. The problem we have... if 4+95 was not really a shot... where can the FBI put a 3rd shot and still keep the Boom.....Boom..Boom sequence... surely not up at 156 where many believe a shot was fired. Overarching concern for the FBI was how to turn the reality of 4-8 shots into 3 and only 3? Initially they had 3 shot locations: 423.07, 418.35 & 416.83 - until ce884. All are street level elevations where 1' vertical = 18.3' horizontal. Since it takes over 2 seconds to work the Carcano (37 frames) there MUST also be at least a 2 foot vertical change in JFK's location. yet we only have 418.35 - 416.83 = 1.52 feet 1.52 * 18.3 = 28 frames = 2 shooters so the third shot goes away, shot #2 becomes shot #3, shot #1 move up Elm 12 feet and becomes the SBT at frame 207 (with JC reacting after 224 a second later) and NO SHOTS before adjusted z207. Which Shots Missed? The ones taken by a second or third shooter down by the foot of the GK stairs and the ones at the top of Elm accounting for the splices at 156/157 and 207-212.

Interesting thoughts Steve... I am still amazed how every single change removes a problem for the conspirators and makes Oswald look more guilty. This is the page - draft p9 which claims Oswald was returned to his cell at 11:33 am with another interview starting at 12:35. This must be a revised page, still rough draft, that places him back in his cell at 1:10pm on the 23rd. Yet his notes tell yet a different story. Note #2 on the below composited page states: 2nd interview 23rd Present 10:35-11:34 So what do you suppose happens between 11:35 and 1:10 that Fritz first recalls a 3rd interview at 12:35 pm which needs to be changed to 6:00 pm while 11:35 is changed to 1:10... when does Fritz recall the photo (negatives) did not arrive at DPD until around 4pm? This is Box 1 Folder 15 where the archives say the rest of the "typed draft" Steve, do we know where the final report is? 8. Statement typed, by J. W. Fritz. Page 12 of typed draft of the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald. See box 01 for other pages of this draft, (Original), date unknown. 00001011 1 page 03 18 008 1011-001.gif 1. Interrogation, by an unknown author. Typed rough draft with handwritten corrections pertaining to the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald, (Original), date unknown. 12 pages 00000412 01 15 001 0412-001.gif 0412-002.gif 0412-003.gif 0412-004.gif 0412-005.gif 0412-006.gif 0412-007.gif 0412-008.gif 0412-009.gif 0412-010.gif 0412-011.gif 0412-012.gif The other thing to notice is the notes say "6:35" not 6 pm like the correction states, but 6:35 from what was originally "12:35". Only a slight coincidence here... now let's look at the note itself. 11:25? Since we have little history for these documents, changing 11:25 to 6:35 on this page doesn't seem to be to difficult a task. Wouldn't we expect to see "11:25 am" on the 1st draft? So one wonders where the 12:35 pm time comes from. Your next point #2 about Hosty... Wasn't it Hosty who told Levelle about Oswald and in turn got sent to Siberia by Hoover? Wasn't Hosty in charge of keeping tabs on "them" the Oswalds? #3 then ... I've read that the ATF men would be considered Secret Service men to many who they showed ID and they were the first ones on the scene in addition to DPD and the Sheriffs (who were told not to help at all, so one wonders why Boone and Montgomery are in such a rush taking care of assassination related investigation AND were involved with the finding of the rifle and shells...) Then we also have the potential impostors in DP on the conspiracy side maybe there to insure chaos. Mr. BELIN - Was anyone around in the back when you got there? Mr. HARKNESS - There were some Secret Service agents there. I didn't get them identified. They told me they were Secret Service. "...[FBI Agent James] Hosty told the [House] Select Committee that at the time of the assassination 'Frank' Ellsworth...had indicated that he had been in the grassy knoll area and for some reason identified himself as a Secret Service Agent.' 8 Ellsworth, deposed by the Committee, denied Hosty's allegation. We know, however, that he was in the immediate area.9 Interestingly, he and seven other ATF agents were among the first law enforcement personnel of any description to reach the sixth floor of the TSBD. If Ellsworth was in the vicinity, it remains to be asked how Hosty knew about it. (Peter Dale Scott, "Deep Politics," pg. 274) "In 1963, if you would have asked me if I was a Secret Service agent, I most likely would have answered yes-our roles overlapped that much." (Frank Ellsworth to author Gus Russo in 1994, "Live By The Sword," pg. 473)

You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know Tommy. Deal with the evidence presented, not your opinions. Not only talking about "looks" Tommy... there is much more evidence offered than some photos. Can you explain with evidence how an incoming 5'4" 115lb 7th grader in Sept 1952 becomes a 4'10" 90lb 9th grader by Aug 1953 Typographical errors? Shown some examples of your conclusion here Tommy... you saying so carries no weight at all. When there is corroboration for these memories they gain more and more weight regardless of the time involved. Again, this is you just listing things you can't understand - use some examples so those reading this can see how empty your attacks remain. Your limited understanding of Popov's Mole shines thru Tommy. Let me know when you've connected the FBI/CIA evidence for Oswald going to and coming from Mexico City with Popov's Mole hunt ala Simpich/Scott. The evidence of activities at the Mexico City consulates have nothing to do with where Harvey or Lee were at the time other than Phillip's asset Alvarado coming forth on Nov 23rd to tell his interesting story. Rebutting one discussion with statements about another is effective at changing the subject... and reveals how little you understand about Mexico City or H&L. I can appreciate you having an opinion Tommy, but then you hope one of your buddies comes along to present evidence to support your adopted position. Let's not deal with the photos at all... why would the DoD lie about where Harvey was when he was in Ping Tung? On Sept 16, 1958 "Oswald" is both in Ping Tung and at MACS-1 US-NAS NAVY 3835. 58-12.jpg is the 9/14 Diary showing Oswald leaving for Ping Tung Yet on Sept 20, 22, 23, & 29th he is seeing a doctor at MACS-1. We have Donovan and others confirming Oswald at Ping Tung along with the Unit Diaries. Your opinions notwithstanding Tommy, try a discussion WITHOUT your opinion. Use facts, or evidence agreed upon as factual to counter this specific H&L topic.. Please know that I really couldn't care about your opinion posts unless it's backed with something concrete. Stay on topic Tommy... we are discussion the EVIDENCE for H&L as I have provided with each post... there's more below for you to express your opinions... Can you offer anything that actually attempts to convince us you've studied the topic and have a clue about what you are arguing about... ... or just more opinions... ?

No doubt Robin's work is always top notch.... Just curious what you make of this statement by Muchmore claiming she "panicked after this (first) shot ran back to the office". How did she wind up getting such clear images of the shot at 313 - where a few frames prio the image goes from jumping all over the place to almost perfect? And does anyone else notice the frames where everything is in focus yet she is panning from right to left...? Doesn't that suggests the limo is stopped or barely moving... which in turn is the only way Hill can catch the limo in only a few steps... If both were moving at 11 mph the minute Hill hits the ground the Queen Mary would keep up with the limo and possibly even pass Hill. The limo at this point cannot be moving at more than 2-3 mph if at all. Some some food for thought when considering "Muchmore's" film evidence.

Bumping for DVP... Wondering when a third party surveyor's accurate data becomes the FBI/SS's "opinions" ?? WCD298 was designed to explain the assassination and understand the particulars "without having to be there" as Gauthier puts it... Wondering also why the FBI needed to make so many "adjustments" to these 3 accurate plats in order to come up with the impossible ce884 limo designations... Mr. GAUTHIER. Our data to build this were compiled on December 2, 3, and 4. It took about 5 weeks to prepare this exhibit in Washington. The attached images shows the 12/5 plat with shot #3 down by 5+00 as CE875 tells us, no photo was taken at 5+00 as this was the impact of the 3rd shot. It also shows the determination of the location for shot #1 10.2 feet further down Elm than what the WCR finally offers The distance from 207 to 208 in the original ce884 is 2.3 feet in a single frame x 18.3 fps = 42.09 feet per second = 28.7 mph. ce884 changes this to 210 bringing the speed down to 2.3/3 = .77 feet per frame x 18.3 = 14.03 feet per second = 9.57 mph yet there is no "210" on the WCR plat or legend while the location for 210 is exactly the same as the original 208. The surveyor was unaware of how the FBI changed the legend for ce884. Anyone reading how this revised legend gets into evidence can do little but shake their head... How can a survey made in May 1964 be the basis for a display of data in January, Dave? Mr. GAUTHIER. Our data to build this were compiled on December 2, 3, and 4. It took about 5 weeks to prepare this exhibit in Washington :::: Mr. SPECTER. Did you participate in the onsite tests made in Dallas? Mr. GAUTHIER. I did. Mr. SPECTER. Was a survey made of the scene used to record some of the results of that onsite testing? Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. And by whom was the survey made? Mr. GAUTHIER. The survey was made on May 24, 1964, by Robert H. West, county surveyor, a licensed State land surveyor, located at 160 County Courthouse, Dallas, Tex. Mr. SPECTER. Have you brought the tracing of that survey with you today? Mr. GAUTHIER. I have; yes. Mr. SPECTER. And have you brought a cardboard reproduction of that? Mr. GAUTHIER. A copy made from the tracing; yes. Mr. SPECTER. Would you produce the cardboard copy made from the tracing for the inspection of the Commission at this time, please? Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. Would you produce the tracing at this time, please? Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes; the tracing is wrapped, and sealed in this container. Mr. SPECTER. Without breaking the seal, I will ask you if the cardboard which has been set up here--may the record show it is a large cardboard. I will ask you for the dimensions in just a minute. Does the printing on the cardboard represent an exact duplication of the tracing which you have in your hand? Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes. And the new legend is slipped into the record - the FBI and Specter vouching for a copy of a tracing of a copy of an original sealed in a container and NEVER opened. Luckily thru Tom Purvis we have the original notes of the surveys done prior to May 1964 which shows the alteration and manipulation of evidence resulting in ce884 and a path down Elm which never happened as described. Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a schedule which I have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 884 and ask you what figures are contained thereon.(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 884 for identification.) Mr. GAUTHIER. This is a copy of a tabulation which appears on the plat map.It contains certain positions marked as frame numbers. It indicates elevations and a column dealing with angle of sight from the frame positions to the window and to a horizontal line. It also contains angels of sight the degree of sight and distances from these positions to a point on the top of the bridge, handrail height. Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, that concludes the description of the general setting. I would like to move now at this time for the admission into evidence of Exhibit No. 884, which completes all of the exhibits used heretofore. Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

Old topics never die they just need a new POV... I remember looking into the different shorthand styles - luckily here at the state we have many who were able to decipher it for me. Add now that Frasier gets ce399 at 7:30 from Elmer Todd yet Todd does not get ce399 from Rowley until 8:50pm and we begin to see how the FBI and SS worked together to create the lone nut story. ce399 was, imo, fired from the Carcano in DC... whether that night or well prior, probably prior since the FBI experts did not test to see if the Carcano was fired that day... I've done a few things on Kennedys and Kings (ctka.net) related to the rifle & BYP evidence... check them out if interested... DJ

Luckily we had someone befriend ROBERT WEST and get from him the notes related to the 3 surveys done prior to the WC which in turn was prompted by a memo from Redlich to Rankin on April 27, 1964... In each of these 3 surveys, shot #2 is found to have been in relatively the same spot based on vertical distances along the sloping Elm. The Survey Plat which is shown in ce585 still shows the location for 3 shots hitting a target on Elm. The final Survey done in May/June 1964 and related to ce884 is overlaid on ce585 showing the shots in relation to the yellow curbs. The first curb with Moorman & Hill, 2nd Curb by Altgens and 3rd curb near the manhole cover. Time/Life survey Nov 26th, SS/FBI Dec 2, 3, 4 creates WCD298 and ce875, February 7, 1964 FBI survey plat jives with other two regarding shot location for #2 at z313 4+65 and another shot when the bumper of the limo is over 4+96. The same FBI agents: Shaneyfelt, Gauthier, Frazier, Rogge and Thompson who were involved in the Dec and Feb reenactments concluding a shot down by the stairs are involved with the WC and their desire to find out what exactly happened - despite the FBI and SS agreeing with the information in WCD298. Maybe a reading of that memo would help clear things up? How is it that by April 27, 1964 the Warren Commission does not know if the FBI/SS described scenarios are even physically possible... what were the first three surveys about? and why does the final survey contradict their earlier work dramatically? C'mon Dave, this is direct evidence of the manipulation of evidence related to the shots, the zfilm and even Altgens' statements. Attached as well is a composite showing how badly these recreations were related to Altgens... April 27, 1964 MEMORANDUM TO: J. Lee Rankin FROM: Norman Redlich The purpose of this memorandum is to explain the reasons why certain members of the staff feel that it is important to take certain on-site photographs in connection with the location of the approximate points at which the three bullets struck the occupants of the Presidential limousine. Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President by the third and fatal bullet. The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building. As our investigation now stands, however, we have not shown that these events could possibly have occurred in the manner suggested above. All we have is a reasonable hypothesis which appears to be supported by the medical testimony but which has not been checked out against the physical facts at the scene of the assassination. Our examination of the Zapruder films shows that the fatal third shot struck the President at a point which we can locate with reasonable accuracy on the ground. We can do this because we know the exact frame (no. 313) in the film at which the third shot hit the President and we know the location of the photographer. By lining up fixed objects in the movie frame where this shot occurs we feel that we have determined the approximate location of this shot. This can be verified by a photo of the same spot from the point where Zapruder was standing. We have the testimony of Governor and Mrs. Connally that the Governor was hit with the second bullet at a point which we probably cannot fix with precision. We feel we have established, however, with the help of medical testimony, that the shot which hit the Governor did not come after frame 240 on the Zapruder film. The governor feels that it came around 230, which is certainly consistent with our observations of the film and with the doctor's testimony. Since the President was shot at frame 313, this would leave a time of at least 4 seconds between the two shots, certainly ample for even an inexperienced marksman. Prior to our last viewing of the films with Governor Connally we had assumed that the President was hit while he was concealed behind the sign which occurs between frames 215-225. We have expert testimony to the effect that a skilled marksman would require a minimum 2 seconds between shots with this rifle. Since the camera operates at 18 1/3 frames per second, there would have to be a minimum of 40 frames between shots. It is apparent, therefore, that if Governor Connally was even as late as frame 240, the President would have to have been hit no later than frame 190 and probably even earlier. 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 had always assumed that our final report would be accompanied by a surveyor's diagram which would indicate the approximate location of the three shots. We certainly cannot prepare such a diagram without establishing that we are describing an occurrence which is physically possible. Our failure to do this will, in my opinion, place this Report in jeopardy since it is a certainty that others will examine the Zapruder films and raise the same questions which have been raised by our examination of the films. If we do not attempt to answer these observable facts, others may answer them with facts which challenge our most basic assumptions, or with fanciful theories based on our unwillingness to test our assumptions by the investigatory methods available to us. I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely misleading picture. It may well be that this project should be undertaken by the FBI and Secret Service with our assistance instead of being done as a staff project. The important thing is that the project be undertaken expeditiously.

I'm fairly sure it's just plain shorthand Alistair... and the corroboration is Michael being asked to ID the location Friday night... 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.

We know that the man in the shadows behind Lovelady in Altgens "may" be Shelley yet he is not longer over by the wall as Wesley claims. For Lovelady to be a few steps in front of Wesley and for him not to be in Altgens, then Welsey is stating that he is Prayerman... Even in Hughes with Lovelady a few steps in front of where PM would be seen, we ultimately get a photo fo Wesley and PM in the same frame, so PM could not have been Wesley, or Shelley, or Lovelady. While I am of the opinion that PM has a very good chance at being Oswald, usually we are treated to FBI back-peddling over things like this. The fact remains that not a soul even mistakenly mentions seeing Oswald, unless the questioning was done in such a way as to avoid that Q&A. "Did you see Oswald during the assassination?" was asked... With everyone watching JFK, of course no one sees Oswald during... yet there is also no instance of anyone mentioning Oswald on the steps - while in the same breath no one states they saw so-and-so as they came back into the TSBD... Mrs. Reid is our best example since she sees an Oswald look alike in a T-shirt Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether he had any shirt or jacket on over his T-shirt? Mrs. REID. He did not. He did not have any jacket on. Mr. LOVELADY - That's on the second floor; so, I started going to the domino room where I generally went in to set down and eat and nobody was there and I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, "Well, I'll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the steps," so I went out there. Mr. BALL - You ate your lunch on the steps? Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir. Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was. 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 - We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows the President's car going by. Now, take a look at that picture. Can you see your picture any place there? Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't, because I was back up in this more or less black area here. Mr. BALL - I see. Mr. FRAZIER - Because Billy, like I say, is two or three steps down in front of me. Mr. BALL - Do you recognize this fellow? Mr. FRAZIER - That is Billy, that is Billy Lovelady. Mr. BALL - Let's take a marker and make an arrow down that way. That mark is Billy Lovelady? Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Mr. BALL - That is where you told us you were standing a moment ago. Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

I have a question Bart.... From all the work done we continually see Lovelady in the middle of the stairs by the railing. Except in Hughes he appears to be standing just behind the blue shirted black man over in the corner... the angles are virtually identical. When does Lovelady make his way across, away from where he is in Hughes to get to where he is only a second or so later in Couch/Darnell? And would you say that PM is being these men at this time? Thanks DJ

IYHO, no doubt. Here's the "opinion" of his brother Mr. JENNER - I show you an exhibit, a series of exhibits, first Commission Exhibit No. 281 and Exhibit No. 282 being some spread pages of an issue of Life magazine of February 21, 1964. I direct your attention first to the lower lefthand spread at .the bottom of the page. Do you recognize the area shown there? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - Do you see somebody in that picture that appears to be your brother? Mr. PIC - This one here with the arrow. Mr. JENNER - The one that has the printed arrow? Mr. PIC - That is correct, sir. Mr. JENNER - And you recognize that as your brother? Mr. PIC - Because they say so, sir. Mr. JENNER - Please, I don't want you to say-- Mr. PIC - No; I couldn't recognize that. Mr. JENNER - Because this magazine says that it is. Mr. PIC - No, sir; I couldn't recognize him from that picture. Mr. JENNER - You don't recognize anybody else in the picture after studying it that appears to be your brother? When I say your brother now, I am talking about Lee. Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that? Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 284 do you recognize anybody in that picture that appears to be Lee Oswald? Mr. PIC - No, sir. The image on the right is Oswald in Oct 6th grade. The boy at the zoo is taken 18 months later in Aug after his 7th grade in NYC. How does a 5'4" 115lb incoming 7th grader become a 4'10" 90lb kid 10 months later? Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 287 is two figures, taking them from top to bottom and in the lower right-hand corner, do you recognize those? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't. Mr. JENNER - Neither one of them? Mr. PIC - No, sir. The lower one appears to me to look like Robert rather than Lee. The upper one, unless they tell me that, I would never guess that that would be Lee, sir. Mr. JENNER - All right. Exhibit No. 288, there is ill the lower left-hand corner, there is a reproduction of a service card and a reproduction, also, of a photograph with the head of a man. Do you recognize that? Mr. PIC - That looks to me approximately how Lee Oswald looked when I seen him Thanksgiving 1962. Mr. JENNER - Directing your attention to Exhibit, Commission Exhibit No. 289, do you recognize any of the servicemen shown in that picture as your brother Lee? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I do not recognize them. Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 290, the lower left-hand corner there is a photograph of a young lady and a young man. Do you recognize either of those persons? Mr. PIC - He appears to me as Lee Harvey Oswald in 1962 when I seen him.

The photos of the Marines in uniform are taken less than 6 months apart The attached shows Oswald in images taken 1 week apart as well as the large necked Lee and the scrawny Harvey 10 months apart.

What many seem to forget is we are not talking about a single image or a single item of evidence. In the work I did on Mexico City I start with the Summer of 1963. If Tommy can address the multiple instances of Ruby and Lee being together in Dallas at the same time Harvey and Family is in New Orleans... have at it. Additionally, when John Ely was tasked with compiling Oswald's bio, his primary source up to March 20, 1964 was LIFE magazine as he mentions in the memo to Leibeler followed by his note to Jenner after reviewing the info. The fact the DoD claims he never actually went to Taiwan, Ping Tung while not only his Marine history puts him there but his CO at the time Donovan put him there. This is also where a fellow marine was shot. Oswald also appears on the Unit Diary for Ping Tung Oct 6, 1958. On the evening of October 4th Harvey Oswald was assigned to guard duty at Ping Tung. About midnight, Lieutenant Charles R. Rhodes (Lake City, SC) heard four or five rifle shots coming from the direction of the position that Oswald was guarding. He drew his .45 automatic and ran toward the clump of trees to see what had happened. Lieutenant Rhodes found (Harvey) Oswald slumped against a tree, visibly shaking and crying while holding his M-1 rifle across his lap. Oswald told Rhodes that hesaw men in the woods, challenged them, and then started shooting. Rhodes put his arm around Oswald's shoulder and slowly walked him back to his tent. Rhodes remembered, "He (Oswald) kept saying he just couldn't bear being on guard duty." Rhodes reported the incident to his commanding officer and Oswald was allegedly sent to Japan for "medical treatment" two days later (Oct 6) by military plane. 51 On October 6, Harvey Oswald and Peter Cassisi are listed on Marine Corps Unit Diary #158-58 at Ping-Tung (North Taiwan). (H&L-John Armstrong)