David Josephs

Thanks Jim... Curious then... Shields has little corroboration going for him.... Were you thinking of someone else seeing Oswald dropped off... like the PRIMARY SOURCE, and saying so at some other time? I also find it interesting that Piper I think says that none of the men were in the domino room eating that day, 11/22, even though the parade was not for a while These men also BARELY MAKE IT to their spots in time for the limo to pass... on the 5th rather than 6th floor... even though they'd be working on the 6th after the parade and would have an even BETTER VIEW.... You would think if any of these men were in on it, they would have corroborated Shields in their testimony and create even more "guilt" for Oswald. But they don't. DJ

CL... you continue to blow smoke for as long as you like.... ==== I'd ask the moderators to simply abide by the rules of the forum... and keep this person from infecting each and every thread he visits with do nothing, go nowhere posts without even the HINT of validity or, if you prefer, allow him to do his thing and drive those actually INTERESTED IN JFK, away. He's been doing it for years now. THIS is the man you let run rampant, like a mad dog, all over your forum. "Its entertainment, pure and simple"

Thanks David... now a question for you... Is what I'm proposing possible and more probable... than traveling mattes and replacing backgrounds? The plate touch ups make sense as only a handful of frames, after the alteration, would be necessary to retouch. 48fps as the limo finishes its WIDE turn onto Elm and on thru till at least z385 in the extant film. Removal of 3/4 of the frames in key areas... no need for mattes as the backgrounds will still match just fine Refilming the altered "master" at 16fps yet with enough frames to run smoothly at 18.3fps Sproket areas are correct the 132 to 133 "splice" works just fine... Some of the frames that did not get removed are "damaged" 157, 208-212, 341, etc... on the new original I will continue to contend that the "viewings" of the zfilm on Friday was not as forthright as we would be led to believe... but that's another discussion I'd like to have with you Cheers David... and thanks for helping on these threads... I value your opinions very much and hope you can help me finalize my evolving theory on how/when it was done. DJ

David J : I think we both agree that there’s all kinds of things wrong with “the bag evidence,” but your idea of what is wrong and mine diverge sharply. First of all, you cannot—or at least should not (in my opinion)-- cite things that are wrong with “the bag as evidence” in the afternoon and then extrapolate back to the morning, and claim that Linnie Mae Randle and Frazier were not valid witnesses in claiming that Oswald brought a package to work on 11/22/63. I don’t see the logic in that, at all. Not valid witnesses? On the basis of what? Sure, the bag looks ridiculous that the two DPD detectives carried out of the building. I agree. But does that mean that Oswald did not carry a bag work that day? There we part ways. Also: I think you underestimate the importance of Oswald’s behaving deceptively. We both agree Oswald did not carry his lunch to work. (So certainly, his "lunch" is not what was in the bag). You have pointed out that a witness told the HSCA that Oswald said the package contained a venetian blind. Which is obviously false, but maybe he did say that. Well, here’s another account. There’s a witness I learned of some ten or fifteen years ago who encountered Oswald on a TSBD elevator that morning, and Oswald was carrying a long package. What’s that? Asked the witness. A fishing pole, replied Oswald. So it was “curtain rods,” in the car; later a venetian blind; and a I’m aware of a witness to whom Oswald said: “fishing pole.” I want to repeat what I said earlier on this threat: you are free to repeatedly assert that Oswald did not carry a bag in the car. You are free to assert that the authorities simply pressured Randle and Frazier to say what they did. But there is no good evidence to believe any of that—and repeatedly asserting it does not make it so. Yet you keep repeatedly asserting it as if it were a fact. Also, in your latest post, you say: “No reliable corroboration that Oswald even came to the Randle house at all...” So: Are you now asserting that Frazier didn’t drive Oswald to work on 11/22/63? (If not, please explain). Let me remind you again of what Linnie Mae Randle said in her 11/22 affidavit: "I saw Lee walk up my driveway carrying a long brown package. I saw him put it in Wesley's car." Here is Frazier’s sworn affidavit: "Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2 feet long. I asked Lee what was in the sack and he said "curtain rods" and I remembered what he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods." etc. No, I don't think these witnesses were pressured into telling a completely fictional account. There is plenty of evidence that Oswald carried “a package” to work, and he told different things to different people as to what was in the package. DSL 4/15/13; 6:30 PM PDT Los Angeles, California DSL - the only evidence that a bag ever existed in Oswald's possession comes from these two. Does ANYONE have Oswald carrying a bag while in the TSBD? Does anyone see him retreive a bag?, pull lunch from a bag? throw away a bag? Oswald denies bringing ANY BAG to work.. Please David.. PLEASE post any evidence you have that connects Oswald to ANY bag once Wesley finishes telling his "parking" story.... And yet there is plenty of evidence to suggest the story was a complete fabrication... polygraphs are not "conclusive"... especially in 1963. If it was that strong it would have been added as evidence against Oswald. It was not. The only other person who can corroborate Lee coming to the Randle's was Wesley's mother... Have you ever spoken to her David? My comment about Oswald not going to the Randle's... HOW do you jump to "So: Are you now asserting that Frazier didn’t drive Oswald to work on 11/22/63? (If not, please explain)." This is the conclusion you reach?? On every other trip to Dallas, on MONDAY MORNINGS, Wesley goes by and picks Oswald up. On MONDAY MORNINGs Oswald has with him a lunch bag. What I am saying is the pattern didn't change... Wesley does the same thing... yet after a couple hours of "discussion" at the DPD, Wesley and his sister tell a different story. The BAG has to get from the garage to the TSBD... how else could it get there David? Mr. BALL - Do you remember whether or not when Oswald came back with you on any Monday morning or any weekend did he pack his lunch? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did. Mr. BALL - He did? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me (on MONDAY MORNINGS ONLY), I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day. Mr. BALL - But every other day he brought a lunch? Mr. FRAZIER - Right, when he rode with me. Representative FORD - When he would go with you on Monday, on any Monday, was this the same procedure for getting to, getting in contact with you? Mr. FRAZIER - You mean coming in there and looking through the window? Representative FORD - Yes. Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it wasn't. I say, that is the first time he had ever done that. I say. most times I would usually call him, you know, I was already out in the car fixing to go out the driveway there, and, you know, around to pick him up if he hadn't come down but most times, once in a while I picked him up at the house and another time he was already coming down the sidewalk to the house when I was fixing to pick him up and I usually picked him up around the corner there. But THIS TIME... WITH A RIFLE IN HIS HANDS Oswald decides to make himself noticed by as many people as possible... Marina doesn't see a package, Ruth, no package... No one sees Oswald waling down the street to the Randle's. The ONLY PEOPLE claiming to have seen this bag are Wesley and Linnie Mae. and based on all the evetns surrounding them YOU can't see how they could be lying about the incident? Marina, the night before, was "giving him the silent treatment" which caused him to go to sleep early, 9pm, while she and Ruth stayed up past 11pm. You suppose OSWALD made his lunch for MONDAY MORNINGS or Marina? (fwiw, Marina's testimony is a mess as we both know. She doesn't hear him leave yet tells us he may have had a small bag with him... Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether he rode with Wesley Frazier that morning? Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know. I didn't hear him leave. Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see a paper bag or cover for the rifle at the Paine's residence or garage? Mrs. OSWALD. No. Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see a bag at any time? Mrs. OSWALD. No. Mr. RANKIN. Where did your husband have his lunch? Did he take a sandwich to the depository, or did he go home to his rooming house for lunch? Do you know? Mrs. OSWALD. He usually took sandwiches to lunch. But I don't know whether he would go home or not. ..... Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether your husband carried any package with him when he left the house on November 22nd? Mrs. OSWALD. I think that he had a package with his lunch. But a small package. Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether he had any package like a rifle in some container? Mrs. OSWALD. No. I well aware of what OTHER PEOPLE CLAIM Oswald said about the bag - there will never be a shortage of people who will tell you what Oswald said to them.... But as I showed... Edward Shields tells quite a story - without any corroboration from the men he is talking about. Do you NOT believe Dougherty? Do you have any IDEA where Oswald put this bag when he gets to work? Whether anyone sees him with a bag at lunchtime? Whether anyone sees him take a bag from the first to second floor? Mr. BELIN. So you don't feel he came in the domino room before 8 o'clock? Mr. GIVENS. No, sir; not that morning he didn't. Mr. JARMAN - About 5 minutes after 8. Mr. BALL - Was Oswald there when you got there? Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Where did you see him the first time? Mr. JARMAN - Well, he was on the first floor filling orders. David... there are few if any FACTS related to these events. That I claim there was no Frazier/Randle bag (along with a handful of other) does not make it a FACT... only a THEORY for what occurred based on the evidence available. This THEORY takes nothing from you having a conversation about the bag you believe he brought with him... yet all you have to prove he brought it is the word of Wesley and Linnie... those who saw Oswald tell us he did not have a bag when he entered and by 8:05am he was already with a clipboard filling orders. These are the same people who supposedly saw Oswald being dropped off by Wesley before he goes and parks.... at least according to Shields. How he supposedly handled the bag, how Linnie sees him do anything with it and the car... and the changes in the descriptions of the bag over time, suggests to me that there is something very wrong with their stories... there never having been a bag explains quite a lot and fits the sinister nature of the "evidence" in this case. DJ You think there is any possbility Oswald didn't even go home that evening? That Marina and Ruth ALSO told lies in order to get the rifle from where they THOUGHT it was to the TSBD.... after the work you;ve done to expose the extreme limits the conspirators went to that day and in subsequent years... is this possibility any stranger sounding than "the body was NOT in the casket when they pulled up to Bethesda" ??? All I ask is for the same open mind to possibilities that you expected when you wrote your book.

Thanks Paul... But I have to disagree with your assessment of the film not already being sold as of Monday the 25th.... Why do you keep saying it was not - since there was yet another offer and another added contract on the 25th? "Print media rights" were sold on 11/23... We do not know what "soon after the assassiantion" means in terms of when Rather and DeLoach see a film. Dan Rather describes the puch forward part of the image, just neglects to include the "and then back and to the left" falling part.... by the 25th the film was already altered and the MEDIA was telling us exactly what they were expected and TOLD to tell us.... the "master" . Please be specific with your "contemporaneous evidence" As I read thru the links you provided... I find these are ALL 2nd and 3rd hand accounts... Not a single person you quoted sat and watched the film... these are all filtered descriptions "What you're assuming as definitive is, in essence, CIA limited hang-out, introduced to the HSCA in the mid-1970s, and elaborated upon by an elderly group of Agency loyalists before Doug Horne and the ARRB two decades after that. The purpose of this limited hang-out was to portray the Agency as essentially passive-reactive. The real deceit, we are to believe, was being conducted elsewhere, at Kodak, by a person (or persons) unknown." Paul... can you stick to what YOU'RE ASSUMING and leave me to explain what I am.... If this is your theory, fine. Explain it, defend it, whatever... but please don't attribute it to what Im assuming.. k? My purpose is to carefully follow each of the films, their viewings, the comments related to them and FIND where the weakest links are.... I have yet to incorporate a film that was already shot as I have yet to see evidence of such. There is little supporting evidence that 0183 was in Zapruder's possession Friday night... and I'm still working thru the rest... I had hoped your links would lead to FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS of what was seen on the film as we got from Schwartz and Breneman - yet Schwartz does not NOTICE a limo stop and Breneman is only quoted related to debris exiting the back of the head... Now, while these accounts do describe images that are NOT on the extant film... they also do not include proof that the other aspects of the film, the removal of large chunks for the turn and the limo stop, are actually there. The following line about the cut from 0132 to 0133 proves they are talking about the altered film. Please explain your POV regarding the "Other Films" comment... Thanks Paul DJ "It opens as the Kennedy motorcade rounds the corner from Houston Street and turns into Elm Street. Then it picks up the President’s car and follows it down toward the underpass. Suddenly, in the film, Kennedy is seen to jerk. It is the first shot. (DJ: This film has the turn already removed) Mrs. Kennedy turns, puts her arms around him. A second later, the second shot. The President’s head becomes a blur on the film, lunged forward and up. The second bullet has torn into the back of his head. He rolls towards Mrs. Kennedy and disappears from sight. Mrs. Kennedy lurches onto the flat trunk deck of the Presidential car as a Secret Service man races to their aid. She is on her hands and knees. She reaches for him. He leaps up on the bumper. She pulls him up on the bumper or he pushes her back as the film ends. Other films show the car never stopped, but raced to the Parkland Memorial Hospital with Mrs. Kennedy cradling the President" "OTHER FILMS" show the car never stopped...? so which films DO show the limo stopping? The Z film? It is never clear in your quote.

The film, by the 25th, was no longer the original.... Rather could be saying anything he likes... and I have listened to his words a number of times now... "immensely detailed" ?? only in the fact that he repeats a number of times how the shots came from the TSBD 6th floor... If you have links or access to these "print descriptions" I would love to see them... All I've ever seen are 2nd hand reports of what was said... not the actual statements themselves Regarding the thought that a Zfilm already existed in some form, AHEAD of time is interesting and possible for sure. I have not given that enough thought though so I wont comment at this point. I am currently looking more deeply at Sorrels.. As he ultimately has 2 copies of the film in his possession AND was with Zapruder, Schwartz and McCormick. Horne states he had to leave KODAK when he hears about Oswald and Tippit this is after he has gone to Parkland, back to the TSBD for some reason* spoke with Brennen& Euins as well as takes them to the sheriff dept runs into and talks to MERCER yet dismisses her story and THEN runs into McCormick who takes him to Zapruder who in turn all go to KODAK and THEN Sorrels hears about Tippit, leaves KODAK and heads to Fritz (all this before 2pm) Any idea which FBI agent would have called the FBI between 1:40 and 2pm with info on the "suspect"? *Mr. STERN - Why did you designate the Book Depository? Mr. SORRELS - Because I wanted to get there and get something going in establishing who the people were that were in that vicinity. And upon arrival at the Book Store, we pulled up on the side, and I went in the back door. Mr. STERN - Just a minute. Had you heard any mention of the Book Depository on police broadcasts as you drove to the hospital? Mr. SORRELS - No; I never heard anything. Mr. STERN - And, at this point, you were not certain that the shots came from the Book Depository? Mr. SORRELS - No; I didn't know at that time At that time, I made a phone call to my office, because I had not been in contact with them since we had departed from Love Field. I was informed that an FBI agent had called the office and said that Captain Fritz of the Homicide Bureau had been trying to get in touch with me, that he had a suspect in custody. Mr. STERN - About what time was that? Mr. SORRELS - That would be fairly close to 2 o'clock, I imagine. Mr. STERN - About an hour after you had returned---- Mr. SORRELS - Yes. I would say that it was at least that long--maybe a little bit longer

Thanks for your thoughts Paul... The only "pre-planned" fake I can understand would be shot from the same pedastal to be used to mix in with the actual film... you will have to explain further what you mean by "Hastily withdrawn and recast" Zapruder stating "I told them I was going to get the whole view"... COULD be to his family and be benign... but could also be a slip of the tongue. Remembering the public only sees individual frames and hears the comments... all that was needed were a few people keeping their mouths shut about what they saw those first couple days But if the original was actually seen, and we cannot dismiss the slowing or stopped limo from it NOT being portrayed as such in the extant film... or the real bones and debris that DID leave JFK's right rear... or the subsequent reactions by the agents in the follow-up car, the comments of Chaney and Hargis... the quicker than normal head turns/physcial reactions in the Zfilm... the Nix/Muchmore films' treatment of Hill's movements, the real impossibility of Hill catching a moving vehicle in two steps, etc... etc.... then the original was altered and a new original created using a single continuous roll that would now have the correct markings of an original... I simply find it amazing that there has not been more done to more deeply question these first viewers of the film. And how easy some researchers accepted that Schwartz did not notice the limo stopping during his repetitive viewings... Suggests to ME that like so much in this case, the testimony of those related to the film is simply not reliable or accurate... the FORWARD MOVEMENT was imo, added to the comments to add to the confusion.

David... I will have to disagree with you that I have not provided support for their NOT being a bag... There is simply no reliable evidence that the bag was ever in Frazier's car... (Wesley and Randle's word AFTER hours of questions and BEFORE the AFFIDAVITS) No reliable corroboration that Oswald even came to the Randle house at all... (why not get an affidavit from Wesley's mother who he says asks "who was at the window"... and is told "Lee" - yet no one corroborates THAT story either...) No one at the Paine residence can support the BAG either coming TO the house or LEAVING it - with or without a rifle There is no bag with Oswald as he is seen eating lunch... (Wesley tells us he did NOT take lunch that day) Finally... unless you know of some special type of grocery bags, the bag they describe does not sound "standard" as one would find at the Paine house to put his lunch in... The BAG on the 6th floor is NEVER shown on the 6th floor - only the small lunch bag of Williams The BAG in Monty's hands cannot be the one Wesley or Randle describes... that's a given... so THAT BAG must have been created at some point. BILL RANDLE is involved in a very interesting way... (which may be the reason for the CYA) No one at the TSBD testifies to seeing Oswald carrying a 2 foot bag* *Edward Shields tells us that his friends: Williams, Jarman, Norman, Givens (who is incorrectly identified as GIBBONS in his HSCA testimony) told him that Owald was dropped of near the building... that he, Shields did not see Oswald walking up... yet he also stated that he THOUGHT Oswald rode with Frazier every day... yet we know this was only on Monday morning's and Friday nights... He also says that THEY SAID Oswald was carrying a long package... Yet when we get to the OFFICIAL RECORD... how would these men know no to include this sighting? That Oswald HAD to get out of the car with Welsey according to Wesley... AND that Oswald did NOT take his lunch that day... yet not one of these men give any indication that Shield's testimony is correct. JIM - does your sourcing of this lead provide any better corroboration? Mr. BALL - Do you remember whether or not when Oswald came back with you on any Monday morning or any weekend did he pack his lunch? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did. Mr. BALL - He did? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When he rode with me, I say he always brought lunch except that one day on November 22 he didn't bring his lunch that day. Mr. BALL - But every other day he brought a lunch? Mr. FRAZIER - Right, when he rode with me. (Note: Oswald only rode with Wesley Monday mornings and Fridays... on all other days he stayed in Oak Cliff and did his own lunch thing... on Monday's, coming from the Paines, maybe his wife made his lunch... according to Welsey, the bag contained curtain rods as told to him by Oswald - yet another bit of bag evidence that is completely uncorroborated) Mr. BALL - Now on November 22, what time did you get to work? Mr. JARMAN - About 5 minutes after 8. Mr. BALL - Was Oswald there when you got there? Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Where did you see him the first time? Mr. JARMAN - Well, he was on the first floor filling orders. Mr. BALL. Did you see Lee Oswald when you got to work? Mr. NORMAN. No; I don't recall seeing him when I got to work. Mr. BALL. Did you remember seeing him at any time that morning? Mr. NORMAN. Yes; around about 10 or 10:15, somewhere in the neighborhood of that. (Norman is asked, in his HSCA testimony, if he remembers anyone asking Wesley "something about where his rider was..." ... Norman replies, "No, I don't remember anybody") Mr. BALL. Now, this morning, did you see Oswald on the floor at any time? Mr. WILLIAMS. This morning of November 22d? Mr. BALL. 22d. Mr. WILLIAMS. The morning of November 22d Oswald was on the floor. The only time I saw him that morning was a little after eight, after I had started working. As usual, he was walking around with a clipboard in his hands, I believe he was. Mr. BALL. That is on the first floor? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. He had a clipboard in his hand. Mr. BALL. That is the only time you saw him that morning? Mr. WILLIAMS. That is the only time I saw him that morning. I saw him again between 11:30 and maybe 10 until 12:00. Mr. BELIN. Friday; that is the day the President came by. Mr. GIVENS. Yes, I saw him that day. Mr. BELIN. Where did you see him first? Mr. GIVENS. Well, I first saw him on the first floor. Mr BELIN. About what time was that? Mr. GIVENS. Well, about 8:30. So all we really have regarding Shields is that HE CLAIMS that one of his group (Williams, Arce, Norman, Jarman, Givens - he specifically names JARMAN) told him, "he let him out at the building" yet not one of these men retells that portion of the story, in fact, they all state they did not see him until in the TSBD... any of these men in the domino room at the time could have easily seen Oswald let off, come up the stairs and into the back door... YET... not a single one says so... "They (Shield's source) asked him (Oswald) what it (the long package) was and he told us it was a venetian blind he was going to have cleaned" -Shields. (note - Montgomery's oral history states he had a VENETIAN BLIND inthe bag which was holding it up"): From GMACK: The Museum never got an oral history from Sawyer, unfortunately, but here’s what L.D. Montgomery said on 11-25-2002 L.D.: It must just have been a little… it seems like that paper, seems like it was a little stiff paper. I’m trying to think and trying to remember. Was there anything in it? Gary: That was my next question. L.D.: That’s what I was thinking. Was there a little piece of that white Venetian blind that was in there? That might’ve been what was holding it up. Because you know, he told ‘em that was a Venetian blind, but he had the rifle in there. But he may have had a little piece of that… you know, a long piece of that Venetian blind in there. That’s what I was thinking. Maybe that’s what it was that was in there, and that’s why it held that up. Gary: You don’t remember looking inside? L.D.: (nodding) Oh yeah, I remember looking inside. That’s why I was thinking. I was thinking that I remembered now that there was a piece of that in there. Uh-huh. Mr. BALL - Did you see Oswald come to work that morning? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes---when he first come into the door. Mr. BALL - When he came in the door? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes. Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes. Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of. Mr. BALL - About what time of day was that? Mr. DOUGHERTY - That was 8 o'clock.

Mr. LIEBELER - Now, I've got a list of them here that I want to ask you about--picture 207 and turn on over to this picture. It appears that a sign starts to come in the picture--there was a sign in the picture. ZAPRUDER - Yes; there were signs there also and trees and-somehow--I told them I was going to get the whole view and I must have. Now... who do you suppose ABETOLD HE WAS GOING TO GET THE WHOLE VIEW... ??

point: ALL films including the alleged in-camera Zapruder film original/3 alleged copies of the alleged original when removed from the film processor were in 16mm format (2ea. 8mm film strips together, side-by-side) until split, thus creating individual 8mm films. #0183 (original), #0185 (dupe), #0186(dupe), #0187(dupe) Yes David... understood If all three and original are slit... which 16mm film is the FBI watching at KODAK saturday morning? (this too could ba a mistake yet Phil Chamberlain remembers them using a 16mm machine since it allowed for stop/go and forward/backward movements of the film and THIS was a 16mm machine...) I assume creating the 16mm Homer version for Sunday eve is just as easy from 8mm slit or 16mm unslit "master" films ?? Personally, I believe that 0184 and its story are too easily accepted and dismissed.... especially given the recap of where the films are by Philips in his letter to Rowley. Sorrells cant have 2 films, Zap have master + copy AND a copy goes to Rowley from Max... 0186 was given to Kelly by Sorrells and THIS is supposedly the film seen by the FBI... if this too was 8mm... (and I think sliting the film was very important if the 48fps section actually happened.. to keep the two different speeds, seperated) add that 0185 and 0187 are not visible on these copies (in addition to all the other inconsistencies) and I firmly believe 0184 is part of the mix. My biggest question/concern at this point is why those that saw the film prior to it leaving Dallas both on Friday and Saturday talk about 1) violent FORWARD movement of JFK's head 2) YET... depris coming out the BACK RIGHT of his head... - no mention of debris falling forward onto the limo occupants OR the violent movment backward prior to this debris shooting our the back No mention of being pushed backward - only debris... we know JFK was facing SW at the time... and his body was turned to the SW... At the sound of the BANG! startled onlookers, unless directly to the side, would see him falling FORWARD, especially if the backward movement was actually much slower than we see and speeds up after removal of frames... "Pitching forward" "Head moved sharply forward", "move forward with considerable violence" (Rather) "head suddenly whips to the left" Schwartz One of these witnesses, Schwartz, tells us that ne simply did not notice the limo stopping - even though he supposedly viewed the film over a dozen times ??!? Rather, in his broadcast states "the car never stopped, it never paused"... yet this is on 11/25 and Trask states he sees the film THAT DAY... Rather and DeLoach saw the FORWARD movement when they saw the film "shortly after the assassination" DeLoach restates this after seeing the film the FOLLOWING weekend... (must be the altered film or a different aspect of the film being described) Either they are lying to cover for a frontal shot... they are overstating the forward movement - or referring to a different point in the film... or they saw the altered film... Where/when does Rather see the film on Friday? DJ

Thanks Gene... As I read thru Horne's chapter on the Zfilm I am finding where my thoughts differ from his... I agree with so much yet there are some glaring inconsistencies in some of the key comments. He only gives the 48fps possibility a page and admits that filmiung this way would make much of the alteration process easier... The key areas of concentration for me then is the validity of those who saw ANY film on friday or sat morn... there are a few comments from these people in Horne's book... yet the depth of their Q&A is not fully revealed. and a better 0184 explanation... as I believe there was a 4th copy in the mix starting that afternoon at Kodak/Jamieson There is no denying the two NPIC events... no denying the Sun 16mm original comes from Rochester... and an 8mm arrives Sat... that Z has the "master" and 1 first day copy is a matter of faith, not evidence... and I simply cannot believe the original is shown sat morn... meanwhile the FBI is viewing a 16mm film sat morn at Kodak... which is supposedly 0186... (as they simply have no idea where 0185 or 0187 are) Again, thanks for the kind words as I am getting encouragement from a number of people... once we drop the pretense that the documentation available is an accurate representation of the chain of evidence and that ANYTHING is possible... one must look at it from a planning perspective.... If Z was really connected and influenced to AID the conspiracy for the pure cash of it - (which as one reads more about Abe, that seems all he cared about from the first second) anything becomes possible.. DJ

One last time David... and please, reread the bold text in my other replies to you... I've said the same thing now three times.... That I add in other supporting evidence for WHY I believe so is intended to HELP you understand my position. THERE WAS NO BAG IN OSWALD'S POSSESSION OR IN FRAZIER'S CAR, They were told what was needed and the BAG was incorporated into their statements.. THEY LIED in order to assist the DPD/FBI... as a result they were left alone. David - is it REALLY a surprise that some witnesses lied to aid the DPD and/or keep themselves out of trouble... Does it not make sense that if the Frazier polygraph was so "conclusive" that they wouldn't include a detailed report of said polygraph as evidence in support of our man Wesley, as opposed to , "Trust us, he told the truth". or the actual polygraph transcripts themselves? We come to find the actual polygraph test was dubious at best... Lewis never produced a report... it lasted less than 50 minutes, and in that Stovall report you speak of the test "showed conclusively" he told the truth... we both know that those tests were NEVER considered "conclusive"... only "indicative" of either truthfulness or not... Here is the last page of the Stoval report http://www.history-m...Vol21_0313b.htm Greg Parker posted a very good examination of their questioning and the entire Randle/Frazier situation... it is very complete and provides more than enough "reasonable doubt" in a case riddled with doubt, that the BAG part of their story was a fabrication... you know, mix in a little truth with the lies... . http://reopenkennedy...and-bill-randle Sorry David... there was no bag... and I'm as sure of that as you are of Boyijean's report or Dennis David's testimony...

DJ: I cannot follow your answer. At all. (Perhaps some text is missing?) Could you please simply address the question I asked? If Oswald did not carry a bag to work (putting aside the issue of its exact length), then how do you explain the testimony of Frazier, and his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, whose accounts make it perfectly clear that he did? DSL 4/11/13; 10 pm PDT Los Angeles, California Sorry DSL, I must have gotten lost in my tangent.... I made my edit/add in bold... but I had thought you'd get the sense of my answer with the rest of the post... They, like Bledsoe, Brennen, Whaley and others told the DPD/FBI what they needed to hear... Can you offer any witness testimony that supports Oswald's guilt that rings true to you? I am very interested in your opinion on that.... Their story related to the bag makes no sense if it was anything other than the rifle... the way they describe it, there was something long and solid in that bag... there really is no other inference to be made... The lengths are all approximates... although Randle claims she measured it after she had folded it up to how he was supposedly carrying it.... after being shown ce364 http://www.history-m...Vol16_0492b.htm She is shown a replica of the bag and USING THAT is asked to reproduce what she saw... NOT that the bag was only 28.5" in length... but that the 42" bag was folded down... she simply over folded the relica given her... Wesley's "just over 2 feet" was again, an approximation of a non-existent bag... and was easily brushed aside... once the "ACTUAL" bag was now in evidence... Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches. Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time. Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before? Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir. David... two caskets, three entries... a package with yet another paper bag and bizarre address label was mailed to Oswald... and you have trouble with there being a paper bag made at some point to implicate Oswald? That the Chain of Possession of said bag is - yet again - dubious at best.... and yet this bag is supposed to have contained the stock, the barrel, the clip, 4 rounds... is not wrapped in anything within the bag and leaves no traces, no rips, tears, oil, scuffs etc that would suggest this bag (made that afternoon) ever had rifle parts in it... no one looks inside (unless we believe Johnson) Day does not process the inside and finds no prints outside... it is wisked away that evening by Drain with most if not all the critical evidence. That there was a bag in that corner at any time (ie: was the bag described and drawn into the SE corner the same as the bag Monty is carrying? was it created before and planted there (if so why no photos?) or created after and taken by MONTY).. is the question that needs follow-up... Day's report, written January 8, 1964 makes no mention of a clip or a paper Bag... yet is incredibly detailed regarding the hulls and rifle... he also let's slip that Day returns with the Crime Scene team including Hicks... (as ALYEA STATES) at about 3pm and stays for hours.... he does not return to his desk until 7pm - do you know when the MONTY photos were taken? http://jfk.ci.dallas...26/2616-001.gif http://jfk.ci.dallas...26/2616-002.gif To conclude... Welsey and his sister lied... both of their handwritten statements are unsigned and undated... His states his mother made a comment about Lee, and then he leaves to join Oswald... HERS states she watches Oswald walk up, opens the garage door and sees him place the bag in the car... this does not occur according to his statements... to me the evolution of their statements to conform with the official story is obvious... their stories dont work with each other or any of the evidence presented by anyone outside of he and his sister. Any ideas on why Wesley's mother was not questioned - why she is not asked what he was carrying or what he was wearing? about 7:15 AM, me, my mother, and my two little neices [sic] were at the table, and my sister was at the sink. My mother looked up and said, "Who is that looking in the window?" I looked up and said, "That's Lee." I got up and finished getting ready and got my lunch and went to the door and met Lee on the car port. We then walked to my car, it was parked backed up at the side of the car port. Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under. I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods and the FBI report on Linnie Mae: RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.

Of course you are David... well aware... I include them for those that aren't. I believe, in order to save themselves from being implicated, arrested, and all the nasties that come with the DPD, FBI etc... little Wesley and his sister and the 30.06 and the car rides for the assassin and the conversations could make things look very bad for them and the family... Dougherty may be slow but he knows if something is or is not in someone's hands as they walk by... especially a 4 foot paper bag that amazingly stretches from his palm to his armpit... or from his outstretched hand and not quite reach the ground as Linnie Mae tells us.... he says he's sure like 25 times ... So you want to imagine this bag was just over 2 feet long and was his lunch... a bounty hanging down to the ground as he walked... that Oswald actually uttered the words "curtain rods"... why DID he go home thursday night... that question seems much more relevant than how big was the bag... it was as big as they made it, so it would fit a rifle... TWICE. plus a "replica".... Isn't the lunch on the 6th floor where the weapon, hulls and nest are, and who left it there not 15 minutes before the limo comes by (when he was originally scehduled to pass the window) more relevant than the bag they created on the spot cause how else could Oswald get the rifle there? He'd be dead soon anyway... Those two belong with Brennen, Bledsoe, Whaley, and a host of others that said what was expected of them...and walked away alive... just like the legion that said what was planned for them to say.. leave the cluesthat needed leaving and finally those that stuck to their stories.... in the face of it all... not for fame or glory but usually great hardships or worse David... the people who lied to get thru... survive and reinforce the lie Few who don't, do.... thanks. DJ

He supposedly was talking into his mike... yet there is evidence that these radios were not operational... that he could not have spoken to Lawson... But I hope that answers the question. Mr. SPECTER. As you are positioning yourself in the witness chair, your right hand is up with the finger at the ear level as if clutching from the right of the head; would that be an accurate description of the position you pictured there? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes. Good. There was enough for me to verify that the man was hit. So, in the same motion I come right back and grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, "Let's get out of here; we are hit," and grabbed the mike and I said, "Lawson, this is Kellerman,"--this is Lawson, who is in the front car. "We are hit; get us to the hospital immediately." Now, in the seconds that I talked just now, a flurry of shells come into the car. I then looked back and this time Mr. Hill, who was riding on the left front bumper of our followup car, was on the back trunk of that car; the President was sideways down into. the back seat

Well KC... there's only a small handful of people able to answer that question... You might PM them directly... but I've not heard them described as having sound... which, if they did, would be one of the first things to mention... one would think. DJ

Let's try and keep it simple... DSL... there was no bag made by Oswald, no bag taken from the TSBD to the Paines, and no bag taken from the Paines to the TSBD holding ANYTHING... There was no bag when Oswald came inthe back door, (how many "in other words" are needed?) Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did. Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time. Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands? Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir. no bag when Oswald was NOT on the 6th floor... just like the clip that materializes after the fact... in the possession of the DPD... whether there was a bag in the SE corner on the floor is "their word" - and can be believed or not as there is no physical proof that bag ever existed on the 6th floor. Oswald is set up as part of a conspiracy to kill JFK and y'all are arguing as to whether the man set up to do so brought a rifle he never owned or had in his possession in a bag he never made which was too small based on the people who claimed to have seen it to carry the rifle he never owned... and Monty's own partner helps catch Monty in his own lies AND let's us know that Studebaker's drawing is of the bag UNFOLDED.... Exactly how much MORE evidence is needed here for y'all to understand the bag was created and removed from the TSBD that same day... by the same people who planted the rifle, the shells and who killed JFK... Day takes the rifle with him... yet leaves this unphotographed "gun carrying case" behind.... as I posted before Hicks does not corroborate Day, and Studebaker does not know he supposedly gave it to a member of his own police department? Seems Mr. Montgomery knows who Studebaker was.... and the wonderful WC does not ask him how he comes to be in the possession of said bag out front of the TSBD... (if I remember correctly, this was HOURS after it was found and as ALYEA states, Day and others came BACK TO THE TSBD to recreate photos... what occurs in these interesting hours between say 1:30 and 4pm on 11/22??? Mr. BALL. You picked it up? Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for prints Mr. BELIN. All right, what is the fact as to whether or not the penned rectangle on RLS Deposition Exhibit G--does any portion of that rectangle represent the place where the paper was found, assuming that is the southeast corner? Mr. JOHNSON. It looks like somebody penned that in to show the sack was laying there. That would show it unfolded. (and watch the BELIN CYA kick in) Mr. BELIN. Well, what you would say then is that the penned portion is actually longer than the sack before it was unfolded, is that what you are saying? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. It shows to be here, if you are taking this as actual size. Mr. BELIN. Right. Of course, this is photographed at an angle and sometimes this can be inaccurate insofar as perspective. But would this penned in the approximate same distance from the south wall that you saw the sack? Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I couldn't say exact distance. All I know is my partner picked that up right out of that corner, and how far it was from the wall in either direction, I don't know. Mr. BELIN. Would it be somewhere in the location of where the penned in rectangle is on RLS Deposition Exhibit G? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; it would be in this corner, in the southeast corner of the building, and there were some pipes on that side. It would be in that corner--in the southeast corner of that building. Mr. BELIN. All right, is there anything else you can remember about that sack? Mr. JOHNSON. No; other than like I said, my partner picked it up and we unfolded it and it appeared to be about the same shape as a rifle case would be. In other words, we made the remark that that is what he probably brought it in. That is why, the reason we saved it. ALYEA: Only recently I saw a picture of Lt. Day with a news still cameraman on the 6th floor. Day was shown pointing to the location where the rifle was found. This was nearly 3:30 or after. It was my understanding that Day and Studebaker had taken the prints, rifle and homemade sack back to police headquarters. I personally would like to know what they were doing back at the scene unless it was to reconstruct shots they had failed to take during the primary investigation. But this evidence had been destroyed and they were forced to create their own version. The photo I have seen of the barricade wasn't even close. I have also seen recently a police photo of the assassin's lair taken from a high angle which indicates that it was shot before the barricade box arrangement was destroyed, but it did not show the barricade itself. This has no bearing on the case other than the public has never seen the original placement. . . Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; this is the record I made of the gun when I took it back office. Now, the gun did not leave my possession. Mr. BELIN. From the time it was found at the School Book Depository Building? Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I took the gun myself and retained possession, took it to the office where I dictated---- Mr. BELIN. What did you do with the bag after you found it and you put this writing on after you dusted it? Mr. DAY. I released it to the FBI agent. (this may refer to 11:45 and V. Drain) Mr. BELIN. Did you take it down to the station with you? Mr. DAY. I didn't take it with me. I left it with the men when I left. I left Detectives Hicks and Studebaker to bring this in with them when they brought other equipment in. Mr. BALL. Did you ever see a paper sack in the items that were taken from the Texas School Book Depository building? Mr. HICKS. Paper bag? Mr. BALL. Paper bag. Mr. HICKS. No, sir; I did not. It seems like there was some chicken bones or maybe a lunch; no, I believe that someone had gathered it up. Mr. BALL. Well, this was another type of bag made out of brown paper; did you ever see it? Mr. HICKS. No, sir; I don't believe I did. I don't recall it. Mr. BALL. I believe that's all, Mr. Hicks. Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was doubled - it was a piece of paper about this long and it was doubled over. Mr. BALL. How long was it, approximately? Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't know - I picked it up and dusted it and they took it down there and sent it to Washington and that's the last I have seen of it, and I don't know. Mr. BALL. Did you take a picture of it before you picked it up? Mr. STUDEBAKER. No. Mr. BALL. Does that sack show in any of the pictures you took? Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; it doesn't show in any of the pictures.

exactly.... like listening to Norm Crosby

Randle cannot even get her address correctly in her testimony... She also states she sees Oswald walk across WESTBROOK whcih is to the WEST of her yet the window in the kitchen looks out to the SOUTH... CE442-446 give you a good look. the Paine's were 5 houses down to the WEST... Mr. BALL. Mrs. Randle, where do you live? Mrs. RANDLE. 2438 Westfield, Irving, Tex. Mr. BALL. That was before you moved down the street to the corner of Westfield and Fifth Street? Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir. There is no “Westfield” in Irving… It is “Westbrook” and the house where she lived was addressed on Fifth street on the corner of WESTBROOK… How does one get their own address wrong? Mrs. RANDLE. I saw him as he crossed the street and come across my driveway to where Wesley had his car parked by the carport. Mr. BALL. What street did he cross to go over? Mrs. RANDLE. He crossed Westbrook. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0096a.htm The remaining exhibits are in the pages that follow and shows how little of Oswald Randle could have seen… the carport and driveway are on the west side of the house while the window is on the south. Her story is no better than his... and then there is that little part about CREATING the bag, and the fact there are many dissimilarities between the paper and the tape from the bag and what was in the TSBD... Unless someone can get: - the rifle into that garage - Oswald into the garage to break down the rifle at some point in time - Oswald MAKING the bag THAT WEEK while leaving only one fingerprint on it (and not being seen by the wrapper who never left his post) - Oswald into the garage to unwrap the rifle pieces or as a whole and THEN break it down - the parts into the bag and leave the bag "somewhere" to be retreived Friday morning... - Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it. How far is it from Oswald's hand to the ground with his hand at his side...? almost 3 feet?? - this package into the TSBD while making it appear to the one person who saw him that he had "NOTHING IN HIS HANDS" - it hidden somewhere in the TSBD - retrieved from it's spot without being noticed with enough time to reassemble it and get to the window by when oswald THINKS the limo would be passing - Oswald into the window at the right time - Oswald to leave this bag in plain sight in the corner where he supposedly shoots yet takes the time to hide the rifle - SOMEONE to actually pick up the bag, give it to Montgomery so those pictures are taken when NO ONE admits to doing so... In fact Day says the FBI took it, Hicks says he never saw the bag and Monty has no idea how he comes to have the bag in front of the TSBD... other than that... the Randle/Frasier bag story holds up just fine...

Nice sentence there old man... did you remember to wipe the spittle from your screen as we can all see you frothing and cursing as you type away with your two chubby little index fingers... That's all you have? "Estimates" what a complete joke you are old man... lost in the woods yet again. Tell us how far off these ESTIMATES are then old man... let's see you PROVE they are estimates... or is this simply more BS you pull out your wrinkly old a$$.. Explain how z313 can be both 465 feet AND 495 feet from the same fixed point... This one point should be enough for you to STFU already.... Cant do it, cant understand it but sure can condemn it.... Old man... you're so lost it's become a running joke.... and I KNEW you couldn't help yourself from yet again posting AIR... nothing but you and your hot air... We see nothing in a single post of yours that constitutes a supporting reference... POST YOUR EVIDENCE old man... or just keep playing with your defeated three little inches...

You've done nothing but ASK and ADHOM while offering ZERO in support of any comment you've EVER made on this forum..... DVP and McAdams must send you cheery support emails with your stipend while telling you what a great job you're doing, stroke your little attack mongrel ego so you keep nipping at the heels of your superiors... that's all you amount to old man... a wanna be street mongrel hoping the humans let him play a while before being swatted away so you go bother someone else for a spell... All your accusing and insulting adds so much to your arguments, right old man? Can't state what you think or believe cause then you;d have to defend it... and you're just not knowledgeable enough to do so... So you do the SAME OLD TIRE THINKG over and over and over... and think you're saying something to someone... anyone... Do you not notice that you have no supporters on a single thread here... no one agrees with any of the BS you spew... everyone sees you for the old fool you remain.... Just look at every single one of your posts - just in this thread... you have yet to say ANYTHING related to the topic other than "everyone else is wrong" and "I'm the expert" Instead of referring to Zavada, use his reports to support your argument, just once old man... see if your own declarations and interpretations can stand up to ANYTHING.. You're just a chicken Sh!t old man with nothing better to do, and not enough intelligence to know better.... carry on, xxxxx... as it appears you just can't help yourself....

and that is the only misspelling of "angles" in the testimony... nice catch b.... DJ

So Chris, are all the data points (not including fixed landmarks) generated by the recreations exact matches for the actual points we see in the assassination films? A simple yes or no will do. ASKing questions yet again instead of answering them... or even trying... Are you so old and lost that you can't even FIND where the legend in question was discussed or why? You keep saying the same old BS over and over as if you believe it to be the truth... yet you really don't know do you CL? That this legend was created to EXPLAIN THE SHOOTING... using the films as refereence to position the activities AT THE CORRECT LOCATIONS... CE884 is the data being referred to... WCR Chapter 5 page 96... is where this legend is referred to.... and why. "The general location of the car was described and marked on maps by eyewitnesses as precisely as their observations and recollections permitted (261). MORE EXACT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY MOTION PICTURES TAKEN BY ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER, ORVILLE O. NIX AND MARY MUCHMORE, WHO WHERE SPECTATORS AT THE SCENE (262) 261. CE 347, 354, 699. 262. 5 H 137 (Leo J. Gauthler) ; CE884 ; see 5 H 138-165 (Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt). Gauthler is an FBI Inspector... The document is designed to be a LEGEND old man... which means it explains what is presented in the MAP in detail... as he explains... So what you keep saying is that the FBI provided a legend to explain the assassination that does anything but explain the assassination... what it shows is how the Zfilm cannot be used as a reliable source of information for once you apply the legend to the film and correlate what the legend says occurred, when and where, it CANNOT be applied to what the Zfilm shows... CE884 was accepted as the detailed explanation of where the limo was at each of the identified frames.... Except the data relates to a vehicle doing anything but smoothly traveling down Elm.... and in turn creates the math you have no chance at understanding... EVIDENCE old man... we deal here with EVIDENCE... all you do is whine and moan and press for answers that have nothing to do with the discussion... Here. the FBI tells you that CE884 IS the breakdown of the killing.... yet the same WCR tells us that the shot was at 4+95, not 4+65... the Zfilm does not show what this legend suggests... 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. (The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 884, was received in evidence.) Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, that completes the testimony of Inspector Gauthier.

I've defended it time and time again, there are HUGE threads both here and at Duncan's site with tons of my original work. Your search finger broken? Its really very simple. Speer says the bag seen outside the TSBD is a different size than the one in the archives. I say his work is whackjob and prove it. I'm just about to bomb his latest drivel back into the stone age. So tell us "larry", is he right? A simple yes or no will do. Why don't you go on record? Maybe I can turn you into a sheet of glass.... Craig, this is not about what you tell us you are doing to Pat's arguments... It's about the evidence. It's about what people said before they knew better not to say it You, sir windex, want to wage personal war against Mr Speer... not the evidence I presented you. The "bag" in those pictures requires : creation, transportation, concealment, use after breaking down the "rifle", transportation, concealment again, retrieval, folding and placing, and yet, while taking the time to hide the rifle leaves this homemade bag where it is never photographed... where it is given to the FBI, Hicks, and Studebaker when samples of paper is taken and "duplicate" bags are created yet it is finally photographed in the hands of Montgomery who admits to their being a "venetian blind" holding up the bag in those pix.. but not to how it is he holding this bag, or who gave it to him.. So Mr. Lamson... speaking of glass... you will forever be able to argue the conclusions and opinions of others... what you cant and dont address is the EVIDENCE. The source info..... you support the WCR/FBI conclusions, you are bound by their evidence... testimony from those there at the time. Whether I agree with Pat Speer does not change what was actually said, what physical evidence we must use and decide whether is authentic or fabricated... You're transparency screams, "look at me" craig... "I'm making you look over HERE while I dont address what was asked over THERE" you'd think one with such a big brain would be able to better conceal their tactics... So what will it be? You gonna just argue about what Mr. Speer has to say and proclaim yourself today's king of the hill, or could the focus be on the evidence.. and what IT says? I'll let Speer speak for himself ... The evidence will do the same...

Lammy, when do YOU ever say anything about what YOU conclude based on YOUR years at this? all you ever do is ASK... post an ANSWER and see if it holds any water... Defend YOUR postion.. if you even HAVE a postion... nevermind, I see that's not in your job description... In Internet slang, a xxxxx (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3]