David Josephs

Steve... how best to put this...

we're trying to pour water into a bucket that's been turned upside down. The initial splash can be impressive

but ain't none of that water is going to make its way into the bucket.

and it's a rare day and a rare talent getting buckets turned right side up.

Glad to be keeping the water flowing with you.

DJ

Kenneth... go back and look at my composite... look carefully at the shadows of the people compared to the shadow of the mike on the wall...

why aren't the shadows at the people's feet headed toward that wall instead of directly behind them...?

Flash?

pay close attention to this ensuing COMPLETE lack of conflict:

I'm with ya Glenn... one thing we do need to watch for though... the "Why would they..." & "it's just not possible that..." type of statements... the incredulous non-believer in human nature and the depravity of self preservation

-------

regarding your evidence blurb...

As a strong proponent for the analysis of the evidence, I'm wondering where the "authentication" part comes into your evidence statement.

Yes, fingerprints on the murder weapon is "real evidence" but if it is not authenticated it's not admitted as evidence or it is, with a caveat, that while "real", whether or not the evidence was part of the crime and not created at some later date has to be established. this is done thru authentication

Just saying it came from a certain place or certain person does not authenticate the evidence - real or otherwise...

I'm sorry if I sound preachy here... this case is chock full of real evidence, virtually none of it authentic... (In my journey the only authentic evidence I've seen is the jacket and shirt yet now that is even being called into question....

To be admissible, real evidence, like all evidence, must be relevant, material, and competent. Establishing these basic prerequisites, and any other special ones that may apply, is called laying a foundation. The relevance and materiality of real evidence are usually obvious. Its competence is established by showing that it really is what it is supposed to be. Proving that real or other evidence is what it purports to be is called authentication. Evid. Code § 1400; Fed. Rules Evid. 901.

Real evidence may be authenticated in three ways--by identification of a unique object, by identification of an object that has been made unique, and by establishing a chain of custody. You only have to be able to use one of these ways, though it is prudent to prepare to use an alternate method in case the court is not satisfied with the one you have chosen.

Funny thing though is all we can hope for is to expect authentication under the assumption that the evidence referred to by DVP would need to be accepted in a court of law to prove his guilt.

When it is understood that the evidence's authentication was completely destroyed the first night for hundred of items of evidence when they magically appeared in the FBI DC labs only to be returned to Dallas and taken again - as if for the first time.

David speaks of conflict between LN and CT... how about the conflict that almost 500 items of evidence have a fraudulent chain of possession... and that's not even getting to the photos, films and statements collected.

IMO, I think it's critical if understanding the evidence for what it is, is desired...

Kenneth...

I had not seen this before either, and probably for good reason. While I will look more deeply into the microphone in some images andnot in others... did you check out his other work?

He claims Gerald Posner is actually Carrot Top... that a Bush brother is Larry Harris JFK author... that JFK is Jimmy Carter based on the veins in his hands!

That Jim Reeves played Oswald in the faked movies.... he's got tons of these "famous actor who looks like the news story person" slides...

Jane Fonda is Nancy Pelosi?

He attempts to use junk science to claim that you can perform biometric measurements on the 2d representation of a 3d image without photogrammetry... which is not possible.

95% BS mixed with 5% truth can sound like truth to many... the microphone anomolie is worth a second look... yet I feel there is probably a realistic explanation for it....

We'll see... yet it sure does seem hard to argue that the mic should be there in the top right image

There's a line from a song which I use to explain DVP and those like him

You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know

So he has FAITH - which has no argument and no recourse... it's faith, which by definition is unnecessary to explain, justify or rationalize since rational thought and faith are mutually exclusive.

Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing or a belief not based on proof.

DSL - could you give us an example of an Oswald activity related to the JFK assassination that is part of the plot itself yet not part of the cover-up?

In that one sentence you atrribute Oswald with direct involvement in the assassination, for how can he knowingly perform an assassination related activity without knowing the assassination is coming? And if all these activities are not performed knowingly we go back to your next point - who was handling/directing Oswald into performing assassination related, cover-up activities.

If Oswald had nothing to do with shooting JFK, ALL activities which he performs that get related to the conspiracy are part of the cover-up setup prior to the action.

Could we not list a batch of activities that Vallee performed in the weeks, months leading up to early November which would have been incorporated into THAT cover-up for the same conspiracy but were not directly assassiantion related until he is killed?

David - It's obvious you have the time to address questions - just not this one?

You make this sweeping statement about the evidence

"Any activity (or "overt act") of Oswald that is directly related to the plot to kill Kennedy that ante-dates 11/22/63 is not part of the cover-up, but part of the plot itself (or, more accurately, part of the camouflage designed to mislead future investigation)."

yet do not provide any examples... so again.

DSL - could you give us an example of an Oswald activity related to the JFK assassination that is part of the plot itself yet not part of the cover-up?

Thanks

DJ

Kenneth... in my article I will show that 4 PMO's were "found" within the evidence offered...

One of them in Kansas City in fact.

I hope the article will change how people see the evidence and the FBI/SS's creation of it along with their reports which wind up contradicting themselves.

I introduce a new term... "closed loop corroboration" whereby the evidence corroborates itself, as long as no other evidence related to but outside the closed loop is examined.

When looking at the different items of evidence, look to see if that which is offered to make it appear the evidence is authentic is an example of how it is ALWAYS done or just specific to the item of evidence being corroborated...

The best example? There were 99 other rifles in that shipment in Feb 1963 and Klein's was selling this in one version or another from Feb 1962 to Nov 1963 as C20-T750 (although the "T" was dropped later April 1963)

Have we ever seen any one of these other 99 rifles. Ever. Anywhere? Not a single soul in the entire US bought or has one of these rifles? There is no record of any other C20-T750 rifle sold to anyone, ever?

You wont believe what happened to the "remaining inventory" at Klein's on Nov 25th.

The rifle story had been done up pretty good. I think I've added enough back story to show HOW the items of evidence came to be and why they cannot be trusted.

DJ

Why Dave? Cause like all the other evidence, it's not authentic. When you prove any of it to be so, the conversation can continue

Thanks David... I knew if anyone had that info it would be you...

Maybe you can help explain something then... The FBI and SS both knew the order date was the 12th and that Klein's stamped the 13th at the top of the order blank.

March 20th is when they shipped the rifle. Was this just Curry's generality or do you think he was told the 20th by the FBI/SS... ?

Thanks again for the assist - if nothing else you have one of the best collections of video and ability to recall what's on them around...

Now if I could only appeal to you to use them for good instead of evil...

I'm not sure how discussions evolve around to these things. There was NO 'order date', there was no 'ship date' These are creations of the conspirators, that has been proven so many times where all the 'created info' came from. this just feeds the nutters goals.

Yet Kenneth, there was physical evidence offered which had dates and times and descriptions.

Them being "creations of the conspirators" is true yet I am not sure the "where they came from" part has been flushed out as I will be offering next week on CTKA.

For example, was the ORDER BLANK of which we are talking created from scratch or a repurpose of a real order for a C20-T750?

Was the Money Order created from scratch or repurposed, altered from the real one with that real #?

We are definitely seeing things the same way... All I am saying is that "according to the evidence offered" March 20 was the ship date, March 13th was the day Klein's rec'd the order and deposited the PMO and MArch 12 is the cancellation date on the envelope, all supposedly in the FBI's hands by 6am DC time on Nov 23rd.

Someone called DPD Curry to tell him this date. Who, when and why did they get it wrong? or did Curry?

At this point it is my belief all we have left in the evidence is the ability to reconstruct the conspiracy. Any talk of WCR conclusions being accurate or reflective of the situation does not even enter the conversation. The LNer is left with having to find a way to authenticate incriminating evidence that can't be.

The conversation has to change.... CTs don't need to prove his innocence and shouldn't try. LNers need to prove guilt.

Anything else is tap dancing around the issues and denying the core fundementals of the law - innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

For example, if he orders the rifle from Kleins--and I certainly believe he did--then he is purchasing, for about $20, the rifle that will (falsely) be alleged to be the murder weapon. The rifle that will end up --in this case--in the National Archives as the murder weapon.

Enough people have offered their view related to Oswald NOT ordering or ever having C2766 in his possession.

The paper I will be submitting to Jim next week will prove once and for all that the FBI and Secret Service, along with the US postal Inspection Services and their Records departments falsified each and every record related to the shipment of that rifle after it arrives at Harborside in Oct 1960.

They created what I'm calling a closed-loop corroboration. Evidence which proves itself (VC836=C2766) yet requires that no other evidence related to these processes be seen (not a single one of the other 99 rifles is accounted for anywhere, ever.)

DSL - do you know what happened to the inventory Waldman claims they removed and did not sell? Have you ever seen reference to any other one of those 99 rifles - I know if I had one with one of those 99 serial numbers and it was a 40" FC rifle - I could prove what the FBI claims Klein's did - substituted the FC for the TS

In the paper I will show:

That the FBi both takes and leaves the Microfilm at Klein's

That the 10 packing slips are provided to the FBI by both Waldman in March and Feldsott in Nov

That the PMO was found at least 3 times in 3 different places on the 23rd.

That the HSCA handwritting examination and conclusions of these items is poor speculation at best, a complete lie at worst

That the serial number on a rifle is by no means a "unique identifier" and can easily be changed or added to without knowing it was done

In my first "The Evidence IS the Conspiracy" article I show how the retreiving of the rifle as part of the plan is simply not possible or believeable given the conclusion at which the FBI arrived.

Any activity (or "overt act") of Oswald that is directly related to the plot to kill Kennedy that ante-dates 11/22/63 is not part of the cover-up, but part of the plot itself (or, more accurately, part of the camouflage designed to mislead future investigation).

DSL - could you give us an example of an Oswald activity related to the JFK assassination that is part of the plot itself yet not part of the cover-up?

In that one sentence you atrribute Oswald with direct involvement in the assassination, for how can he knowingly perform an assassination related activity without knowing the assassination is coming? And if all these activities are not performed knowingly we go back to your next point - who was handling/directing Oswald into performing assassination related, cover-up activities.

If Oswald had nothing to do with shooting JFK, ALL activities which he performs that get related to the conspiracy are part of the cover-up setup prior to the action.

Could we not list a batch of activities that Vallee performed in the weeks, months leading up to early November which would have been incorporated into THAT cover-up for the same conspiracy but were not directly assassiantion related until he is killed?

Yes, the Warren Commission lied (for our own good, they said). Yes, Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy of a larger conspiracy. But after those two facts, the Harvey & Lee theory goes wild with half-truths and skullduggery fiction, IMHO.

When "IMHO" becomes - "after I read the book, followed the sources and learned a thing or two about the evidence involved" you can be taken seriously..

Until then you remain grouped with the others who think that reading a few paragraphs and the reviews of others who also did not read the book or do the work to understand what happened...

Ascribing the FBI to a merry band of idiots who just happen to stumble across evidence which only incriminated Oswald and were honest and truthful in their securing and relaying of all the evidence is naive and pedantic at best. Hoover was calculating and extremely controlling. If evidence was needed which said a certain thing, it was found - regardless - or simply written that way while the lie of it was dealt with later.

Furthermore, belief that there exists evidence which desribes what happened in DP that day, and it's just sitting there waiting for the light of day is unbelieveably optomistic. If you've noticed, the information that makes its way piecemeal to the world, including the ARRB, has all shown what happened in the conspiracy. There was more than enough info released thru the ARRB about the conspiracy in DP and Bethesda to try and reconstruct what happened, but it's not evidence of what happened itself, only how it was covered up.

H&L is a detailed account of how the FBI manipulated evidence from consideration which repeatedly illustrated the existance of both these men... they simply could not get to all of it - so they marginalize that which they couldn't and buried the rest. Why else would Blakey need to ask the DoD about the conflicts in their records and in turn the DoD lying about what happened?

(f) No direct or indirect relationship between Lee Harvey

Oswald and Jack Ruby has been discovered by the Commission,

nor has it been able to find any credible evidence that either knew

the other, although a thorough investigation was made of the

many rumors and speculations of such a relationship

The Secret Service also concluded that Oswald had no connection to 544 Camp.

Until Authenticated, nothing in evidence can be accepted at face value... and in fact, in the black is white world, it usually is 180 degrees from what reality actually was...

Well done Mark...

The encounter that Fritz says "our investigation shows" he was in the lunchroom and not on the stairs (as was written in Baker's affidavit) is complete crap - the lunchroom encounter never happened that way and the WC testimony of Baker and the backflips done to stay away from that affidavit is classic.

One needs to examine why putting Oswald 2 flights up, coming down the stairs at the time of the encounter is WORSE than putting him farther away in the lunchroom.

"The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket" - is not the same as a 130lb 24 year old drinking a coke in the lunchroom. The transition from one story to the other is one of the greatest Evidence IS the Conspiracy examples we have...

Who could this have been that Truly and Baker could NOT state it was Oswald while pushing his location farther from the 6th floor window?

With regards to the opinion of "Holmes the inspector" being reliable for anything but the lies he created/corroborated to incriminate Oswald, it is obvious the opinion remains in line with the belief that the FBI was honest and the SS truthful in all their JFK dealings and reports... It's sad when we see researchers believing the word of men like Holmes... some simply can't see the forest for the trees.

Pat, you are 100% correct. We cannot rely on Holmes for anything but to illuminate the conspiracy. It was under his watch that the Postal Money order was "created" to associate the rifle with Oswald and then he tells a whopper of a story as to how it really happened.

Problem being that his name does not come up in ANY SS or FBI reports describing what went down.. Which in themselves are contradictory.

Here is every mention of his affidavit which directly contradicts his testimony

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. I had occasion to see him in the homicide office later that evening after we got through with Parkland Hospital and then Love Field and we went back to the City Hall and I went up there and made this affidavit.
Representative BOGGS -After he had been arrested?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.

Mr. BAKER - I never did have a chance to see him in the lineup. I saw him when I went to give the affidavit, the statement that I saw him down there, of the actions of myself and Mr. Truly as we went into the building and on up what we are discussing now.
(At this point Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.)
Mr. BELIN - Officer Baker
Mr. DULLES - I didn't get clearly in mind, I am trying to check up, as to whether you saw Oswald maybe in the same costume later in the day. Did you see Oswald later in the day of November 22d?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. DULLES - Under what circumstances? Don't go into detail, I just want to tie up these two situations.
Mr. BAKER - As I was in the homicide office there writing this, giving this affidavit, I got hung in one of those little small offices back there, while the Secret Service took Mr. Oswald in there and questioned him and I couldn't get out by him while they were questioning him, and I did get to see him at that time.
Mr. DULLES - You saw him for a moment at that time?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Officer Baker, you then left the second floor lunchroom with Mr. Truly, is that correct?
Mr. BAKER - That is right, sir.
Mr. BELIN - How long did you stay in the lunchroom after Truly identified this person as being an employee?
Mr. BAKER - Just momentarily. As he said, "Yes, he works here," I turned and went on up the stairs.

David...

As we remain cordial and cooperative can you please look at these two FBI reports related to the Klein's Microfilm..

Which one is telling us what happened? They are both dated the same, both numbered the same, and while Dolan is one of three reporting Agents in the first, he is alone in the second.

This is the FBI at work on the Evidence. So based on this, were was the microfilm when the FBI left that morning?

This is from CD7 page 187, 188, & 189. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=194&tab=page

And just so we are not mistaken... here is a blowup of page two of the first report describing where the film was when they left

When and if you ever get around to asking a real question instead of posting what you THINK I am "admitting" or not

we can proceed.

"I'm going to take your latest as an admission you know I am right but would prefer to protect your theory at all costs.", believe it or not is you making assumptions again that have no basis in fact.

You know, like the rest of your work.

I've been to ROKC, I know exactly what a "disgrace" looks like as does anyone else who'se ever been there and left covered in muck.

So, Mr. Kettle, before you call everything around you black... look in the mirror.

Thanks David... I knew if anyone had that info it would be you...

Maybe you can help explain something then... The FBI and SS both knew the order date was the 12th and that Klein's stamped the 13th at the top of the order blank.

March 20th is when they shipped the rifle. Was this just Curry's generality or do you think he was told the 20th by the FBI/SS... ?

Thanks again for the assist - if nothing else you have one of the best collections of video and ability to recall what's on them around...

Now if I could only appeal to you to use them for good instead of evil...

I'm going to take your latest as an admission you know I am right but would prefer to protect your theory at all costs.

You would Greg. Knowing what the other person's intentions are comes with your faith in Radionics and Witchcraft...

You KNOW cause you can read minds, right mate?

Tell you what Greg... since you are so good at playing with yourself, how about you post both sides of the discussion and save us all some valuable time? I've been to ROKC and know from experience that's how your threads usually go... 50 posts by you and a few back slap posts by the minions...

Hoorah!!

Shouldn't you been working on that book already... or will it be another few years of "coming attractions" that are neither coming or attractions...

Perfect

Except the order was sent March 12th.

Klein's deposit is March 13

and only on the Order Blank do we see the date March 20, 1963.

We have no idea what day the rifle was supposedly picked up and transported home.

Does anyone have any proof that the date MARCH 20, 1963 was broadcast related to the rifle purchase date? I can't imagine them broadcasting THAT date this given the timeline and who had what info.

Only the FBI had access to that item of evidence until later in the afternoon on the 23rd when the SS arrives at Klein's.

I will continue looking yet some of you are very intuned with what was broadcast - if you could help out, I think we can prove here that Ruth knows something on the 23rd that no one could know...

But I'm not sure

DJ

ps... if you look at all the other days like the 19th and 21st which are filled with info, claiming she did not have the room to write "LHO - purchase of rifle" is a bit far-fetched...

Mr. JENNER - Now, I turn to March, and I direct your attention to the upper left-hand corner of that card, and it appears to me that in the upper left-hand corner are October 23, then a star, then "LHO" followed by the words "purchase of rifle." Would you explain those entries?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. This was written after.
Mr. JENNER - After?
Mrs. PAINE - This was written indeed after the assassination.
Mr. JENNER - All right.
Mrs. PAINE - I heard on the television that he had purchased a rifle.
Mr. JENNER - When?
Mrs. PAINE - I heard it on November 23.
Mr. JENNER - Yes.
Mrs. PAINE - And went back to the page for March, put a little star on March 20 as being a small square, I couldn't fit in all I wanted to say. I just put in a star and then referring it to the corner of the calendar.

Mr. JENNER - That is to the entry I have read?
Mrs. PAINE - Put the star saying "LHO purchase of rifle." Then I thought someone is going to wonder about that, I had better put down the date, and did, but it was a busy day, one of the most in my life and I was off by a month as to what day it was.
Mr. JENNER - That is you made the entry October?
Mrs. PAINE - October 23 instead of November.
Mr. JENNER - It should have been November 23?
Mrs. PAINE - It should have been November 23.
Mr. JENNER - And the entry of October 23, which should have been November 23, was an entry on your part indicating the date you wrote on the calendar the star followed by "LHO purchase of rifle" and likewise the date you made an entry?
Mrs. PAINE - On the 20th.
Mr. JENNER - This is the square having the date March 20?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Is that correct?
Mrs. PAINE - I might point out that I didn't know Lee had a middle name until I had occasion to fill out forms for Marina in Parkland Hospital.
Mr. JENNER - That is when you learned that his middle name was Harvey and his initial was H?
Mrs. PAINE - Right.

You'll love volume 2, David. I promise.

I'll love ripping it a new one

Great rebuttal. Tells me you got nada.

You being an expert on "NADA" ... I'm sure the work will be extraordinary...

and well done Tommy... Can always count on you for that elevated wit, and nose in the arsenal replies...

nice view for ya buddy?

You'll love volume 2, David. I promise.

I'll love ripping it a new one

"I even entertained Greg's arguments and felt he had made some good points - until I kept reading and looking at the source docs..."

Like the Beauregard School records where you had no clue about how to read them... till finally after weeks of going around and around, you finally "got it" and vowed to take it to Armstrong. It's no surprise that you emerged from that discussion with your head firmly back in the sand on the issue. Armstrong, as with all cult leaders, can be very persuasive - as shown by his witness list who obediently parrot what he wants. Strange though, that you have never raised the issue of the Beauregard records again - which tells me you actually do agree with me, but are not game to say so.

"I went alot further." then the evidence allows.

Ultimately you were wrong about those records Greg, as you are wrong about most all things you've ever posted related to H&L...

Believe what you wish and insult whoever you want... you're a legend in your own mind.

Fair enough Tracy... again, appreciate the manner in which you go about this...

One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist... all depends on the POV.

Funny thing is I started this project on H&L and ultimately got with John to disprove the theory...

I even entertained Greg's arguments and felt he had made some good points - until I kept reading and looking at the source docs...

and found that like me, he only had a cursory understanding of the evidence yet did not go any further..

I went alot further. I don't have to agree (and don't) with every detail and every day in the timeline... some speculation was necessary since the sources were either gone or never there to begin with...

Speculation is also needed when we become aware that the evidence is not as it originally was - or there is no chain of evidence established AND the FBI or SS has their hands on it every step of the way.

I hope you don't equate JVB with John's attempt at bringin evidence he either found or tracked down to light in the context he does.

Much like Lifton not necessarily being correct about every detail and occurance does not change the core idea he presents... Bethesda injuries are not the same as Parkland injuries.

There were most definitely a variety of Oswalds leaving evidence around

There are most definitely conflicts in the 1952 thru 1963 records of this man...

I subscribe to the H&L explanation... others do not and I can respect them for not if they so choose and do so without being offensive about it.

Others attack the messenger and have no care at all what the subject is -

I've moved on to the Rifle and am finding the same level of evidence manipulation as I did in Mexico... Jim and Steve can carry the H&L torch and present counterpoint...

My next focus is 0184 and how the Zfilm Evidence IS the Conspiracy.... but I need to finish the Rifle and Pistol work first...

Take care Tracy... as you find more to contest H&L I'd be happy to see where it goes

DJ

David Josephs wrote:

I look forward to a well presented rebuttal to this evidence...

Not all of the "evidence" can be rebutted and I won't waste my time with some things. I cannot debunk Judyth Baker either-I can only show her inconsistent statements through the years and so on. I disagree however, that H&L is the best explanation until someone can debunk everything. You don't need an alternate universe to explain it. And you are already aware of the scientific facts H&L itself doesn't explain such as the exhumation and the handwriting evidence.

I was able to dubunk JVB easily,using her own supplied evidence... http://www.ctka.net/2015/JudythBaker-DJ.pdf

That's what we do Tracy... we take the EVIDENCE and debunk IT, we do not attack the person unless attacked first.

When I asked JVB to address some of the points in that essay, she shut me down and banned me from all her groups..

I can appreciate you disagree that H&L is the "best" explanation... but so far a few isolated attempts to discredit the work has not exactly been overwhelming. As to the exhumation... is was the man who Ruby killed... they were not digging him up to see if he was LEE but if he was a Russian spy... it's the same closed loop evidence trick the FBI used with the rifle. Compare the HARVEY records to the HARVEY records and all checks out. How he went from 5'11" to 5'9" is never addressed since you seem to agree that the USMC does not know how to measure a person's height or weight, know where their Marines are at any point in time and contradict themselves repeatedly as to where and when Oswald was here or there....

When you can address the DoD conflict and Oswald in Taiwan, maybe we'll get somewhere.

As for handwriting.. if you're going to pull out the HSCA I can shoot holes in that charade of a report all day long.

So instead of concentrating on the little things... address the BIG ones... Felde, Gorsky, Donovan, Palmer all put him places he could not have been if he was only one person... And still no one adequately addresses how Anna Lewis has Oswald in New Orleans in Feb 1962... when he does not get there until Apr 1963.

If you are willing to chalk up every one of these conflicts during his life since 1952 as "adminstrative mistakes" or "FBI ineptness" more power to ya Tracy. At some point Coincidence becomes suspicious... no?

If Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of shooting BOTH John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit, as so many Internet conspiracy theorists seem to believe he was, then why did Oswald act like a guilty person in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63?

If Oswald was GUILTY would he not have had to assemble the rifle after retrieving from wherever he put it earlier that day?

Would he not have had to be at the window at the right time ready to fire?

Would he not have had to leave the gun as he walked across the 6th floor unheard... walk down the steps, unseen, get to the mechanical door ahead of Truly who was ahead of Baker and have the door close behind him?

Would we have found were this lone nut bought his ammo and clip and when and where he made the bag he brought the rifle to the TSBD in the back of Wesley's car?

Would we find out that Ruth and Michael remember this rifle being transported to their home in Sept 1963 in the back of Ruth's wagon - since it was an innocent rifle at that point... for target shooting like boys do....

But the Paine's do NOT see this innocent rifle in a blanket in their garage or have any idea how it got there...

So Dave... while his behavior when surrounded by and grabbed by police may not meet your standards for "innocent until proven guilty"... for him to actually be GUILTY of something, there needs to be proof he did it, not the supposition of an armchair QB 50 years after the fact about how he looked or acted or the compilation of FBI junk evidence which cannot be traced beyond the FBI itself.

Asking your own "If..then." question is a set-up... St Thomas Aquinas can prove the existence of God if allowed to assert his own conditions and understandings...

In each of the 5 we find at some point a needed assumption in fact... yours is that if you act guilty you must be guilty, regardless of the actual evidence. with that assumption (much like Specter asking if an exit wound is an exit wound of Dr Perry) there is not arguing your argument.. but only to get you to understand that your argument is tainted from its inception.

Maybe instead of disproving his innocence, prove his guilt.

The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.

3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.

4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).

5. Therefore nothing can move itself.

6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.

7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.

8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.

2. Nothing exists prior to itself.

3. Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.

4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.

5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.

6. The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.

7. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.

2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.

3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.

4. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.

5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.

6. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.

7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.

8. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.

9. Therefore not every being is a contingent being.

10. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.

2. Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).

3. The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.

4. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

1. We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

2. Most natural things lack knowledge.

3. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.

4. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Some deep, dark, dangerous secret still exists. A secret Arlen Specter, for example, took willingly to his grave. I'd bet a substantial amount the deep, dark, dangerous secret, at its core, has little if anything to do with the central cast of suspicious characters.

you always inspire a reply Jon...

the federal (and many state) government which the people "elect" is not really in charge of the really big stuff.

JFK came along after 8 years of Republicans run amok and were ready for another 8 under Dick "I'm not a crook" Nixon

JFK said enough of this... we need to be bigger than this...

the "secret" is that 99% play along to get along and do not represent the core interests of the multitude of people they represent but only the interests of those to whom they are beholden.

The "secret" is that we COULD have created the world's finest example of a society which had the best schools, hospitals, day-care and opportunities to contribute for all involved... the lowest death rates, cleanest air and water... and on and on... and now we simply can't any longer.

Tragedy of the Commons... we plan and scheme and blah ditty blah Di dah...

Nicely done Brian... We would be remiss to even consider that these and many more layers were not envisioned as this was planned...

Although Hemming, to me at least, personifies JFK evidence... 95% bs with just enough truth to be believable, yet at the core simply not how it went down but how those who did it want history to remember it....

---

One area to ponder... JFK is killed in Chicago and Vallee = Oswald. Or it happens in Tampa and ??? = Vallee = Oswald

Or they miss in Dallas and it happens down the road... how does the planning for Patsies and layered cover stories account for a success?

(Oswald was involved in non-assassination stuff all along, would he just gone on being an infiltrator of groups and disrupt for the FBI)

I truly think we here mere mortals forget that there are those whose job it is 40, 50, 80 hours a week to plan and test the contingencies of these things, to rank to prospective outcomes and have plans for each of these... Nagell was under the impression JFK was going to be assassinated in mid Sept.

From Sept 17/18th (when Alvarado originally said Oswald was in Mexico) thru Nov 22 is mind boggling - How anyone can look at that period and the events and claim Oswald was a "Lone" anything isn't paying attention.