David Josephs

Agree 100% David... If anything... once the turn onto Elm was completed that limo should have done nothing but accelerate its way to the freeway.. There were no more crowds and nothing but danger in the bowl of DP... and for these trained men not to have realized this weeks in advance is absurd to even consider. When we look at Nix/Muchmoore Hill does not come close to the limo until well after z313... Try jumping off a moving vehicle at 5-7 mph and hit the ground running and catch another moving vehicle in less than 1 second... Greer is simply not doing his job here... and his testimony (ala analysis from Palmara) is wrought with CYA and plain out lying. Where did you get the idea that Greer slowed the limo for that reason? Did Greer say anything like that in his testimony or anywhere else? Is there anything in Secret Service protocols that would require him to do such a thing? Let me be brief, because this is not a very important point, and I'm doing this from memory, but. . .: A veteran JFK researcher recently pointed out to me that in the book The Kennedy Detail, the author actually advances the view that the President's limo slowed down sharply for the following reason: that Greer, upon hearing loud noises, thought he his vehicle might have suffered a blowout. Consequently, he then tapped on the brake pedal, slowing the car down, just to test to see if the car was "stable" (i.e., to determine whether he had had a blowout); then, and only after determining there had been no blowout, he then stepped on the gas, and sped away. FWIW: I find this explanation to be absurd and ridiculous, but that's what the book says. If time permits, or if someone wants to email me the exact quotes, I'll edit this post accordingly. But I find it amazing that, so many years after the fact, anyone would have the audacity to come up with such an "explanation". DSL 4/2/12; 4:50 AM PDT Los Angeles, CA

Maybe I missed the discussion about this... but Max Phillips' own report talks about a 4th print.. even though the official record shows something else... P 1199 "The official record shows that Zapruder went home late Friday night with his original film and with one of the three 'first day copies'—the other two 'first day copies' had been loaned to the Secret Service. Zapruder would never see them again." ....since the Secret Service had two copies and LIFE reportedly had the original—was the third of the three 'first day copies' made by Zapruder, thus proving that it did not go to New York on Saturday as Stolley incorrectly recalled in 1973. Doesn't this report suggest that there was no copy to view in Dallas other than the original, and why refer to it as a "master" as opposed to "the original"? The quality of the National Archives' photographic copy of this hand written report is so poor that many of its words cannot be made out in a scanned copy. Consequently, we have provided below a typed copy ] CD - 87 Folder 1 CO2 34030 11/22 9:55 To: Chief Rowley From: Max D. Phillips Subject: 8mm movie film showing President Kennedy being shot Enclosed is an 8mm movie film taken by Mr. A. Zapruder, 501 Elm St., Dallas Texas (RI8-6071) Mr.. Zapruder was photographing the President at the instant he was shot. According to Mr. Zapruder, the position of the assassin was behind Mr. Zapruder. Note: Disregard personel scenes shown on Mr. Zapruder’s film.. Mr. Zapruder is in custody of the "master" film. Two prints were given to SAIC Sorrels, this date. The third print is forwarded. Max D. Phillips Special Agent - PRS Bill...those are good questions FOR STARTERS. There are many others. For instance, you refer to B-1, B-2, and B-3...but there is ONE MISSING IN THAT SEQUENCE, according to the Kodak numbering sequence. Jack

Anyone past the 3rd grade can see that ONLY a shot from the right will push someone left... That a shot from behind... pushes someone forward and that a shot from the front, will push a person backward. Most will tell you a FMJ bullet would have gone clean thru and thru... no exploding skull The 6th floor TSBD window was almost in direct line with JFK... HE WAS LOOKING TO HIS LEFT... A shot from high and behind WILL NOT move him back and to the left... Will NOT push him to his left, Will NOT shoot brain matter all over Hargis and Martin will NOT push a skull piece back and to the left to land at Brehm's feet will NOT give the impression to altgens that matter came out the left side of his skull and finally will not give the MANY MANY people who were there, saw him get hit as well as the doctors prior to the government stealing the body the impression that he was shot anywhere but in the right temple... That you need a physicist to explain common sense is most puzzling... If this was any other shooting, right front would have been a conclusion not a cause for excuses and confusion

C'mon Tom No pix? Let's make it real simple... let's just name the ones who didn't "womanize" and assume that a man who was aggressive and excessive in most areas of life... ....can in no way run a country. The "evil" that was LBJ had nothing to do with understanding his sexual nature... the "evil" lay in the action. What amazes me is that there was an ounce of truth in anything Lucky said... Was there really only two tall, thin, glasses, drinker, womanizer, smoker, with a nose in the senate at that time? Milton Young http://history.nd.gov/ndhistory/politicrealign.html (edit: I am NOT accusing Milton... just yoking...)

Hang on there David/Daniel... Since there is no reliable measurement of the location of the hole on JFK, how can you say the jacket and shirt are so much higher...? "This wound is measured to be 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process." Scroll down for a look at the right acromion process http://www.aidmyrotatorcuff.com/rotator-cuff-information/rotator-cuff-and-shoulder-anatomy.php In WHICH DIRECTION 14cms from the acromion? There is a wound 1-2 inches off the spine and they use a landmark at the tip of the right shoulder and now the Mastoid process... and the other landmark is at the bottom of the MOVEABLE skull... There is NO WAY to determine where that wound was from this description... when the measuremenat needed to be from one of the Cervical vertebrae down and then a number of cms over. In fact... if you measure straight down from the acromion you are still on the arm... STRAIGHT to the left, then go UP to the Mastoid and measure down? Are you willing to state that holes were put into the jacket and shirt BEFORE there was any wound on JFK (who had the clothes?) and then this information is relayed to the autopsy room where a hole is made prior to Sibert/O'Neill coming back in at 8:15... Maybe you are suggesting this was one fo the things they did on AF-1 to JFK? Is that more likely than a non-transiting wound from which a bullet is removed and disappeared?

This shows the limo going thru the open space looking North toward the TSBD In both films the front/middle/rear of the limo passes trhu that open space... In one (Martin) we see Rose run along side the center of the limo as it passes While in the other (Bell)... no Rose... What up?

It is surprising that after all this time there are still those who can ask straight faced: "where are the proofs of this enormous carpet bombing?" That after spending time on this forum assumably with eyes open and reading for comprehension... that you can ask such uninformed questions.... like "where are the bullets" and "who saw the assassins" I've never minded LNers who come to the table with some knowledge of the situation and the ability to form a coherent sentence in support of the WCR... But you are an embarassment to anyone who taken the time to read ANYTHING about the assassiantion. Try something Glenn... show a picture of CE399 to a bunch of 15 year olds and then tell them what it was supposed to have done to two men and a number of bones... then show them the CE next to it illustrating what happened when the test bullet went ONLY thru a wrist.... Ask them if the conclusion that CE399 did what the WCR says it did makes any sense... Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say that I have, from the firecracker report and the two other shots that I know, those were three shots. But, Mr. Specter, if President Kennedy had from all reports four wounds, Governor Connally three, there have got to be more than three shots, gentlemen. Senator COOPER. What is that answer? What did he say? Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat that, Mr. Kellerman? Mr. KELLERMAN. President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots. As the line goes... Sir - "you are not going to learn what you DONT want to know" and with questions like those that I find you repeating ad nauseum... it is way too obvious that there is absolutley NOTHING you want to know about this case beyond what you THINK. LNer research at its best... Greg - very well put as usual. Instead of challenging the CT theories, be nice if a LNer would defend his version of the event by AUTHENTICATING the evidence used to convict... DJ I'm surprised you didn't title the thread "Treason". "Eight to ten shots fired, provably so!" Let me ask you Mr Fetzer, where are the proofs of this enormous carpet bombing? How many of the witnesses on the Dealey Plaza that day would agree to you assessment? And where, Mr Fetzer, did this flurry of bullets end up? You have not, and cannot answer these simple questions, as you are not interested in researcing and/or listening. And why is it that no one beside yourself saw all these snipers come in - or leave - the assassination Plaza? If you you have ever answered these questions, I've missed it. And I would have to apologize. Now, the question of "Treason". I've seen all kinds of "experts" over the years, having it "right" - or having it "wrong". A few of those I have the highest regard for. Including the "Treason" guys; Reitzes, Dale Mayers, Gus Russo and and others. Next: Josiah Thompson. You've made this very clear over the last couple of decades. In that debate I have one advice if you don't mind - shut your mouth and open your ears for a second? Greg Burnham? What's your thoughts? Mr Fetzer? My thoughts? Well, for starters, I wonder why you are even in this debate? There seems to be no motivation for you to continue posting about a subject in which you have no genuine interest, no level of expertise, and no desire to become educated. Second, I don't concern myself with certain specifics about the case because they are not important and/or they may well be unknowable at this stage. For instance, without more reliable forensic evidence I cannot determine how many shots were fired. In my view, the assassins fired "as many shots as it took" to get the job done. If the number of shots that they fired had not been sufficient to accomplish their goal, then there would have been as many more fired as was needed to reach their ends. Having said that, it remains true that the evidence supports a scenario in which more than 3 shots were fired. It does not support a scenarion in which the number of shots fired were limited to just 3. Third, I have no "conspiracy theory" to explain the events in Dallas. However, I do know that the "official theory" cannot possibly be true. Therefore, it follows that a conspiracy to assassinate the president and a conspiracy to obstruct justice were and are both in play.

Daniel, Doesn't the shirt and jacket come into play here? His clothes were taken from him.. SS agents testify to seeing the bullet hit him in the back (yes, I know, but...) The difference in the location of the hole in jacket and shirt is the 1/8" as expected... When are you supposing they created all these holes to line up so well? Furthermore... my understanding of the 45-60 degrees is NOT the angle of the shot but the angles of the wound... If the bullet was traveling as slow as it would be to only penetrate shallow... it could have easily tumbled downward as it entered creating this perceived angle... Add Osbournes statement about the bullet and clothes coupled with the statment by the Gov't that he must have been "MISTAKEN" (as is with any bit of contraty evidence to the Oswald did it alone conclusion) and we have every reason to believe what happened was as Humes and Osbourne state... Shallow wound, bullet out due to external cardio, into his clothes.... THIS may have been ce399... yet due to what we know from Frazier: Mr. EISENBERG - Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it? Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way. Mr. EISENBERG - There was no blood or similar material on the bullet when you received it? Mr. FRAZIER - Not any which would interfere with the examination, no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just ,in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet. To me this is one of the most inexcusable declarations of stupidity in the testimony and proves that the bullet from Parkland was not the bullet Johnson gave to Rowley... but IS the one Rowley gave to Todd.... where did Rowley get CE399? Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which, for the record, is a bullet, and also for the record, it is a bullet which was found in the Parkland Hospital following the assassination. Are you familiar with this exhibit? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. This is a bullet which was delivered to me in the FBI laboratory on November 22, 1963 by Special Agent Elmer Todd of the FBI Washington Field Office. My copy of BE is in pieces but if David would chime in he would point the the following: Dr. Carrico did a munual examination of the back while Kennedy was lying down on his back to determine if there was any defect in the back. He didn't find any. Later, Humes called Perry and asked if he made any wounds in the back. Why would he do that? And finally, Clint Hill mentions an "opening" in the back -- strange wording for a bullet wound. This is all from memory. I am not experienced with gunshot wounds, but it is difficult to understand how a bullet traveling downwards form 45 to 60 degrees according to the FBI penetrated such a short distance, failing to violate the pleural cavity. And it is suspicious that Nurses Bowron and Henchcliff, and orderly Sanders, make no mention of the back wound, although they washed the body and should have seen it. I know in the 90s Bowron told of it to Harrison Livingston, but the value of that claim is of dubious value IMO. She had plenty of opportunity to spread the knowledge of the wound even before that time, and not a peep until over 30 years after the event. And to my knowledge Nurse Henchliff has gone on record as saying she never saw such a wound. I recall asking about this on Lancer and getting that response. I wish I remembered from whom that tidbit came from and when. Surely all of this was known to the authors of this new work; at the very least the wound is strange and cries out for explanation. I would have preferred to read their speculation on the matter, to see how they dealt with all of the above. Some have argued that it is speculation that the throat wound was enlarged, yet that did not prevent the authors from stepping into that mindfield. So why avoid the back wound issues? Still unhappy in Pasadena, Daniel

Allen... That is only assuming that there is anyone around to see them... They buried the MDW report so that there was nothing to contradict Humes here AND at the HSCA, yes? Since this is impossible given the official documents. Commander HUMES - The president's body was received at 25 minutes before 8, and the autopsy began at approximately 8 p.m. on that evening. You must include the fact that certain X-rays and other examinations were made before the actual beginning of the routine type autopsy examination HSCA: Mr. CORNWELL. Approximately what time of the day or night did the autopsy begin? Dr. HUMES. well, the President's body, as I recall, arrived about 7:30 or 7:35 the evening and after some preliminary examinations, about 8 or 8:15. Mr. CORNWELL. Just very briefly, in what order or sequence did you conduct the autopsy? Dr. HUMES. Well, the first thing we did was make many photographs which we knew would obviously be required for a wide variety of purposes, took basically whole body X-rays and then proceeded with the examination of the two wounds that we very shortly detected were present, starting with the wound in the head and proceeding to the wound in the back of the neck, upper thorax. Dr. HUMES. I was in the morgue from 7:30 in the evening until 5:30 in the morning. I never left the room. Okay, fair enough... the doctors did not physically wheel the casket out... then again... BY MR. GUNN: Q. Dr. Humes, when did you first see the body of President Kennedy? A. I didn't look at my watch, if I even had a watch on, but I would guess it was 6:45 or 7 o'clock, something like that, approximately. {I have to run but will pick this up again}

Thanks David Unless Humes was not in the autopsy room until after 8pm... he HAD to know... yet since he states when the body arrived and that he and Boswell along with everyone else in that room at that time. How are they taking xrays and photos when the body had yet to "officially" arrive? Mr. SPECTER - What time did the autopsy start approximately? Commander HUMES - The president's body was received at 25 minutes before 8, and the autopsy began at approximately 8 p.m. on that evening. You must include the fact that certain X-rays and other examinations were made before the actual beginning of the routine type autopsy examination. Commander HUMES - All right, sir. I might preface my remarks by stating that the President's body was received in our morgue in a closed casket. We opened the casket, Dr. Boswell and I, and the President's body was unclothed in the casket, was wrapped in a sheet labeled by the Parkland Hospital, but he was unclothed once the sheet was removed from his body so we do not have at that time any clothing. Commander HUMES - Some of these X-rays were taken before and some during the examination which, also maintains for the photographs, which were made as the need became apparent to make such. However, before the postmortem examination was begun, anterior, posterior and lateral X-rays of the head, and of the torso were made, and identification type photographs, I recall having been made of the full face of the late President. A photograph showing the massive head wound with the large defect that was associated with it. To my recollection all of these were made before the proceedings began. Several others, approximately 15 to 20 in number, were made in total before we finished the proceedings. Mr. SPECTER - Now were those X-rays or photographs or both when you referred to the total number? Commander HUMES - By the number I would say they are in number 15 to 20. There probably was ten or 12 X- ray films exposed in addition.

Thanks David.... I will go look it up. That still strikes me as an awful long time to be "lost" or lead around... and the main quesiton of this thread that you can help us on... Do you know the landing and taking off of military aircraft, specifically helicopters, from Andrews starting around 5:30 until they leave for Bethesda? Were any of the helicopters flanked by protection? I would be curious as well about your thoughts on a post I've made in a couple of places now.... Sibert and O'Neill tell us that THEY helped Kellerman and Greer move the casket into the anteroom... at 7:17 When pressed, the FBI cannot say exactly who else helped, if anyone... We also know that the MDW carries the casket into the morgue at 8pm Whether you believe Boyijean also delivered a casket or not is immaterial to this theory... what is important is that his men were stationed all around the hospital, including at the morgue entrance. Those that wheeled/carried a casket back to the ambulance had to have been a very select group, They could not be the 6:35 marines who reported they carried the casket (yet those that carried it were only a small portion of the entire detail who served as security all eve) or it could not be those who helped the SS/FBI men - if any unless they were told it was empty and broken, and was to be taken away... and they did NOT witness the arrival at 8pm 2 events... the removal of the casket with JFK in it - yet for those witnessing this it is simply the removal of the damaged casket - and the arrival again at 8pm Boyijean's report states the men took coffee and chow breaks at frequent intervals as the eve worn on... If that is the case, the ONLY men who could have moved the casket back and NOT be asked about it are the men in the autopsy room from the delivery of the casket at 7:17 My theory: Wheeling the broken casket away is witnessed by one set of Boyijean's guards and is a non issue to them and to their report. A different set of guards who had been posted earlier in a diff part of the hospital is brought over to relieve these men and witnesses the 8pm delivery of said casket and would be none the wiser while their buddies are chowing down. Humes, Kellerman, Greer and/or Boswell move the casket with JFK from the morgue to the ambulance under the guise of removing the broken casket with a new one on the way shortly before 8pm, there is a swap in security personnel when cleared of these personnel, and a new detail standing guard, the MDW brings in the casket now with JFK inside, while the guilty parties of Kellerman, Greer, Humes and Boswell wait and watch. Only a small handful of Boyijean's men could suspect... yet they were not there to observe and report which casket was moved where and when unless THEY moved it. Boyijean himself may have been upstairs guarding the VIP's and not seen any of the activity as he reports the rest of the evening as "relatively quiet"... DJ You ask: "and finally, there is that pesky time thing again... what in the world where these boys doing from just before 7pm at the front of the hospital until 8pm when they finally carried in the casket... while Kellerman runs to the morgue immediately after arrival & Sibert, O'Neill and Greer bring it in 45 mins earlier....." Please see Chapter 16 of Best Evidence. I interviewed all members of the MDW casket. And what they experienced is all spelled out in great detail there. An admiral (Admiral Galloway) drove the ambulance with the Dallas casket away; then engaged in some kind of evasive maneuvers. So the MDW team "lost" the ambulance. Some higher up told them that they had followed "the wrong ambulance. . the decoy." It took some 45 minutes before they re-connected with the "correct" ambulance, the one with the Dallas casket, and which now had the body inside. Coast Guardsman Barnum's report--which I obtained, and quote from--is very illuminating. It was written in December, 1963, and records all the shenanigans, in considerable detail. DSL 3/25/12; 2 AM PDT

Thanks Bernice Was looking for air protection.. helicopters and such... so that one landing and leaving from the front right would not be overly obvious

Allen... That their report was a CYA for the 1+ hour they were at the grounds yet not in the presence of the body, brilliant. I will be re-reading Stringer's testimonies as well... yet without a coherent theory on getting JFK from table to casket to ambulance before the MDW pull up after roaming around a while... So our FBI men also did not witness the removal of said casket back out of the morgue... A theory: Those that wheeled/carried a casket back to the ambulance had to have been a very select group, they could not be the 6:35 marines who carried the casket (yet those that carried it were only a small portion of the entire detail) or those who helped the SS/FBI men unless they were told it was empty and broken, and was to be taken away... and according to the vagueness of our FBI's memory, are we sure that anyone wheeled the empty casket into the anteroom other than these four men? Boyijean's marines stayed posted around the morgue for the remainder of the night... so unless he omitted it, they did not move a casket from the morgue to the ambulance... If that is the case, the ONLY men who could have moved the casket back and NOT be asked about it are the men in the autopsy room prior to 8pm. Wheeling the broken casket away, or whatever was going on might have been witnessed by one of Boyijean's men... unless relieved for a chow break as he says, and they did the move very close to 8pm. while there was a swap in "security" personnel. In fact just prior to the chow swap... the casket is removed as broken to be dumped... and is witnessed by one set of guards as a non issue A different set of guards who may have been posted earlier in a diff part of the hospital is brought over and witnesses the 8pm delivery of said casket and would be none the wiser while their buddies are chowing down Humes, Kellerman, Greer and Boswell move the casket with JFK from the morgue to the ambulance DJ

Wondering aloud... The president had just been assassinated on domestic soil... was there any military muscle escorting the new PRES and others from Andrews thru DC? All I remember was a naval ambulance and a limo or two... Then a helicopter lands with the MDW... If there were other aircraft escorting LBJ's copter,other copters, it would be easier to get JFK's body off the front and airborne quickly... where the skies buzzing with aircraft? Were the copters already waiting for the pres party? or did they land not soon after, making alot of noise? Page 6 section b-2 of the AFTER report tells us that the only route that was prepared to be secured at the time of the arrival of the ambulance at the front of the hospital was from the helipad to the morgue... the info that the body was coming by ambulance didn't get to Bethesda? At that point it was Dennis David's group that had already offloaded a casket from a black vehicle. While the MDW lands in the front where the ambulance pulls up... and finally, there is that pesky time thing again... what in the world where these boys doing from just before 7pm at the front of the hospital until 8pm when they finally carried in the casket... while Kellerman runs to the morgue immediately after arrival & Sibert, O'Neill and Greer bring it in 45 mins earlier...

So Euins is mistaken? Mr. EUINS. And then as I looked up there, you know, he fired another shot, you know, as I was looking. So I got behind this fountain thing right in there, at this point B. Mr. SPECTER. At point B, on 365? Mr. EUINS. I got behind there. And then I watched, he did fire again. Then he started looking down towards my way, and then he fired again. Mr. SPECTER. The question I have for you now is where were you when he fired on that fourth time. Mr. EUINS. I was still behind point B. Mr. SPECTER. You were still at point B when he fired the fourth time? Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir. Then he pulled the gun back in the window. Mr. SPECTER. Did you see him pull the gun back in the window after the fourth shot? Mr. EUINS. Yes; he just come back like this. Mr. SPECTER. Did you watch what he did after that? Mr. EUINS. No, sir; because after he had pulled it back in the window, I ran this way, and went across the tracks. Worrell? Mr. SPECTER - Did you look up and see the rifle between the first and the second shots? Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir. And saw the firing on the second and then before he could get a shot I was - I took in everything but especially the car, The President's car, and saw him slumping, and I looked up again and turned around and started running and saw it fire a third time, and then -- Mr. SPECTER - When did you see it fire a third time, when you looked up, the time you just described? Mr. WORRELL - When I was, I did it all in one motion, I looked up, turned around and ran, pivoted. Mr. SPECTER - What did you hear, if anything, after that? Mr. WORRELL - Just a lot of commotion, everybody was screaming and saying "duck." Mr. SPECTER - After the third shot, did you hear a fourth shot? Mr. WORRELL - Oh, yes. Just as I got to the corner of Exhibit 360, I heard the fourth shot. Mr. SPECTER - Well, did these four shots come close together or how would you describe the timing in general on those? Mr. WORRELL - Succession. Mr. SPECTER - Were they very fast? Mr. WORRELL - They were right in succession. Yet on the other side of the coin we have info that tells us the rifle, the MC, was NOT set up to shoot effectively from right or left handed shooters Doesn't this suggest a shooter yet a different rifle? Plus, since they have no idea what the corner really looked like at the time of the shots... the angle from the rifle wouldn't change that much though... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1352 The rifle as depicted, based upon the bolt sleeve/safety, cocking cam, and firing pin nut, is clearly an Italian made Mannlicher Carcano rifle, serial #C2766. There is no evidence of any other identifiers, inspectors/proof marks on the rifle as depicted. (3) There is however, some proof marks on the barrel just forward of the receiver ring that exist in some photos but are either missing or altered in others which is what raises the issue of forgery. Also, in at least one photo I've examined there are clearly cuts in the barrel itself at the point where it joins to the receiver ring that are consistent with a toothed wrench having been applied to remove or tighten the barrel. There appears to be a gas-vent hole on the receiver ring just behind the serial number that I find somewhat remarkable due to the fact that it is a feature not always present on a Carcano rifle. (It should be noted at this point that there is at least one assertion that this feature is a tapped, threaded, set-screw hole designed to secure to rifle barrel to the receiver, and another assertion that this feature is simply a deep set proof-mark; assertions that I soundly reject and frankly, consider absurd as there also appears to be a pattern of discoloration just above this gas-vent indicative of gas-propellant blow-by.) This is significant as the presence of this gas-vent indicates the rifle was built to accommodate a left- handed shooter. Noteworthy is the fact that due to the gas port on the left side of receiver ring, firing this rifle from the right shoulder would be quite hazardous, exposing the shooter to hot propellant gas in the event of any gas blow-by, and/or cartridge failure and primer rupture which are fairly common to old leaky, sloppy bolt action rifles.[/b] Also, in evidence regarding this gas-vent is the presence of a slight defect and discoloration near the top of the receiver ring indicative of excessive breech pressure or a sloppy bolt action. The presence of the left leaning off-set rifle scope would render left handed firing highly impractical as would attempting to use the iron sights be from the right handed position if it becomes necessary to "Lead" a moving object coming from the left across the field of fire

I hear you Robert.... and I agree to an extent... I believe you place too much "top of mind importance" to the cover up of JFK... If the dog craps on the carpet and you beat the snot out of the dog... he's going to think twice about doing it again... The CFR and its power has already beaten the snot out of anyone seriously attempting to bring to light, in Historical Context, the assassination... It's not like they have to fake their influence either... these are the "status quo" boys to the world and "the new world order" to each other... Robert... are you really expecting the King's court to tell him he's naked - to his face?

Robert... You post as if the CFR was created RECENTLY to deal with JFK... The fact of the matter is the CFR had been around in other forms for a lot longer... That the members of this Council intersect with all of the attacks JFK was about to wage on the "elite" is no big stretch... and once it is understood what the purpose of the CFR was, and what Morgan and friends did thru the council... it is again, no big stretch that this group promotes Oswald the Lone Nut. If anyone reading this post has not yet read "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" I believe you are missing out on a basis for understanding why we are where we are today. Unless one understrands Colonel House and WHY a central bank was so important and HOW it was accomplished... maybe those questioning a conspiracy will learn a thing or two... http://www.kamron.com/none_dare_call_it_conspiracy.htm "At the end of the war of 1914, it became clear that the organization of this system [the Round Table Group] had to be greatly extended. Once again the task was entrusted to Lionel Curtis who established, in England and each dominion, a front organization to the existing Round Table Group. This front organization, called the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had as its nucleus in each area the existing submerged Round Table Group. In New York it was known as the Council on Foreign Relations, and was a front for J. P. Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group. The American organizers were dominated by the large number of Morgan 'experts,' … who had gone to the Paris Peace Conference and there became close friends with the similar group of English 'experts' which had been recruited by the Milner group. In fact, the original plans for the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Council on Foreign Relations [C.F.R.] were drawn up in Paris… Joseph Kraft (C.F.R.), however, tells us in Harper's of July 1958, that the chief agent in the formal founding of the Council on Foreign Relations was "Colonel" House, supported by such proteg6s as Walter Lippmann, John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles and Christian Herter. It was House who acted as host for the Round Table Group, both English and American, at the key meeting of May 19, 1919, in the Majestic Hotel, Paris, which committed the conspiracy to creation of the C.F.R. Although Quigley stresses the importance of Morgan men at the creation of the organization known as the Council on Foreign Relations, this organization's own materials and "Colonel" House's own memoirs reveal his function as midwife at the birth of the C.F.R.

That's a very good point David... why in the world would the "LBJ Boys" be going over the limo ("his car")... and are we referring to the SS agents that switched over to LBJ or some other group of "boys"? Digest - I'll have to call you again after the, ah, body. However, I'm sure the, ah, Volunteer boys will go over his car and so forth. We will need [garbled] and several others. David... listen to the sentence ending with "body"... the word "body" is not spoken as the end of a sentence.... and then we need to add an "ah, however, ...." Sounds to me like there is a bit more of that statement missing... "after the, ah, body"... WHAT? is moved to a different casket? "We will need (HIS) and several others"... (to go over the limo) From a little earlier "Yes, we are having (garbled) before we take off Jerry..." (garbled) sounds like "one, ...everyone here to have it done" as in we are making sure no one is with the casket during the swearing in ceremony? I know... but just cause you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't really out there.... Cheers DJ DSL - in one of the Andrews photos it seems there is a vehicle and a number of people standing just to the left front of AF-1 - have you attached any meaning to this?

Thanks again Chris... math doesn't lie, yet it does allow you to do some interesting things as well as make some serious blunders if there are relationships in the numbers that occur naturally.... I don't see that happeneing here... when you repeatedly arrive at the same conclusions with different approaches yet using the same math... kinda hard to refute.... but I'm sure Cl and HB will keep trying... Not sure you addressed how the zfilm might have been filmed at 24fps when 16(18) and 48fps are the only options... I'd like your thoughts on that Furthermore... looking at Bell and Martin something immediately becomes apparent... There's no Rosemary running along the limo in Bell. In Martin she is seen running along side between the front and rear wheels of the limo as it passes In Bell, we can see both front and rear wheels pass thru the frame and no Rosemary... What am I missing?

David, Of course I would. But we're still back to square one as the discussion circled around the WC. The WC were not accomplices in this deed, other than possibly indirectly. If, in my view, this was to be agreed upon, maybe then things could move one step forward. IF.... again? If my grandmother had balls she'd be my grandfather... but she doesn't, will never and IF is worthless... We cannot agree on it cause it aint true. The Commissioners where chosen specifically because they could be counted upon as accomplices - what you seem to be saying is that you are not sure whether they... to the man, had any foreknowledge of the assassiantion... if that is so (if again) are you saying if they did not have this knowledge that they could not ever be considered part of "this deed" or part of the conspiracy? Glenn, do you think that RFK, who KNEW there was more to it than Oswald, would be considered an accomplice because he didn't yell "Bullsh!t" at the top of his lungs and not stop until he exposed the entire thing? There are those who would say his and Jackie's and the rest of the Kennedy's acceptance of the coup without a real fight mirrors the US public's acceptance and condoned the conspiracy - indirectly. That story after story is related about how those who KNEW something was wrong didn't say... and those that did, conveniently disappear. Yet those on the inside, on the WC, could change testimony, move the location of wound in the permanent record, discuss an autopsy that no longer exists, etc.... and not be held accountable. If there was no conspiracy, why did the Secret Service BREAK THE LAW and TAKE the body from Dallas? No POTUS or SS agent is above the law... You may wish to read a little Salandria and/or Schotz... Conspiracy is already proven by the actions of the US gov't and the DPD... not to mention the FBI's excuse for an investigation. Even the HSCA, who - post Sprague and saddled with Blakey - STILL found it impossible not to have considered a conspiracy during the investigation of the case.... 2nd Watergate law of American Politics - NEVER believe anything until its been OFFICIALLY denied.... C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that president John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once simply defined conspiracy as "a partnership in criminal purposes."(1) That definition is adequate. Nevertheless, it may be helpful to set out a more precise definition. If two or more individuals agreed to take action to kill President Kennedy, and at least one of them took action in furtherance of the plan, and it resulted in President Kennedy's death. The President would have been assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee recognizes, of course, that while the word "conspiracy" technically denotes only a "partnership in criminal purposes," it also, in fact, connotes widely varying meanings to many people, and its use has vastly differing societal implications depending upon the sophistication, extent and ultimate purpose of the partnership. For example, a conspiracy to assassinate a President might be a complex plot orchestrated by foreign political powers; it might be the scheme of a group of American citizens dissatisfied with particular governmental policies; it also might be the plan of two largely isolated individuals with no readily discernible motive. Conspiracies may easily range, therefore, from those with important implications for social or governmental institutions to those with no major societal significance. As the evidence concerning the probability that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a "conspiracy" is analyzed, these various connotations of the word "conspiracy" and distinctions between them ought to be constantly borne in mind. Here, as elsewhere, words must be used carefully. lest people be misled.1 A conspiracy cannot be said to have existed in Dealey Plaza unless evidence exists front which, in Justice Holmes' words, a "partnership in criminal purposes" may be inferred. The Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President was, for example, largely based on its findings of the absence of evidence of significant association (2) between Oswald and other possible conspirators and no physical evidence of conspiracy.(3) The Commission reasoned, quite rightly, that in the absence of association or physical evidence, there was no conspiracy. Even without physical evidence of conspiracy at the scene of the assassination, there would, of course, be a conspiracy if others assisted Oswald in his efforts. Accordingly, an examination of Oswald's associates is necessary. The Warren Commission recognized that a first premise in a finding of conspiracy may be a finding of association. Because the Commission did not find any significant Oswald associates, it was not compelled to face the difficult questions posed by such a finding. More than association is required to establish conspiracy. There must be at least knowing assistance or a manifestation of agreement to the criminal purpose by the associate. It is important to realize, too, that the term "associate" may connote widely varying meanings to different people. A person's associate may be his next door neighbor and vacation companion, or it may be an individual he has met only once for the purpose of discussing a contract for a murder. The Warren Commission examined Oswald's past and concluded he was essentially a loner.4 It reasoned, therefore, that since Oswald had no significant associations with persons who could have been involved with him in the assassination, there could not have been a conspiracy.(5) Ruby and Oswald, and other possible groups or organizations With respect to Jack Ruby,2 the Warren Commission similarly found no significant associations, either between Ruby and Oswald or between Ruby and others who might have been conspirators with him.(8) In particular, it found no connections between Ruby and organized crime, and it reasoned that absent such associations, there was no conspiracy to kill Oswald or the President.9 The committee conducted a three-pronged investigation of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. On the basis of extensive scientific analysis and an analysis of the testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses, the committee found there was a high probability that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy. Second, the committee explored Oswald's and Ruby's contacts for any evidence of significant associations. Unlike the Warren Commission, it found certain of these contacts to be of investigative significance. The Commission apparently had looked for evidence of conspiratorial association. Finding none on the face of the associations it investigated, it did not go further. The committee, however. conducted a wider ranging investigation. Notwithstanding the possibility of a benign reason for contact between Oswald or Ruby and one of their associates, the committee examined the very fact of the contact to see if it contained investigative significance. Unlike the Warren Commission, the committee took a close look at the associates to determine whether conspiratorial activity in the assassination could have been possible, given what the committee could learn about the associates, and whether the apparent nature of the contact should, therefore, be examined more closely.3 Third, the committee examined groups, political organizations, national governments and so on that might have had the motive, opportunity and means to assassinate the President. The committee, therefore, directly introduced the hypothesis of conspiracy and investigated it with reference to known facts to determine if it had any bearing on the assassination. The committee examined a series of major groups or organizations that have been alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President. If any of these groups or organizations, as a group, had been involved in the assassination, the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy would have been one of major significance. As will be detailed in succeeding sections of this report, the committee did not find sufficient evidence that any of these groups or organizations were involved in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Accordingly, the committee concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro Cuban groups, and the national syndicate of organized crime were not involved in the assassination. Further, the committee found that the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination. DJ: 2nd Watergate law of American Politics - NEVER believe anything until its been OFFICIALLY denied... Based on the evidence available to it, the committee could not preclude the possibility that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups or the national syndicate of organized crime were involved in the assassination. There was insufficient evidence, however, to support a finding that any individual members were involved. The ramifications of a conspiracy involving such individuals would be significant, although of perhaps less import than would be the case if a group itself, the national syndicate, for example, had been involved. The committee recognized that a finding that two gunmen fired simultaneously at the President did not, by itself, establish that there was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. It is theoretically possible that the gunmen were acting independently, each totally unaware of the other. It was the committee's opinion, however, that such a theoretical possibility is extremely remote. The more logical and probable inference to be drawn from two gunmen firing at the same person at the same time and in the same place is that they were acting in concert, that is, as a result of a conspiracy. The Findings: The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established, it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy. The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy was premised on four factors: 1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent weight. 2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable. 3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more limited conspiracy could not be ruled out. 4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact, fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly stated, in expressing its finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy." Further Conclusions: The photographic and other scientific evidence available to the committee was insufficient to permit the committee to answer these questions In addition, the committee's other investigative efforts did not develop evidence from which Oswald's conspirator or conspirators could be firmly identified. It is possible, of course, that the extent of the conspiracy was so limited that it involved only Oswald and the second gunman. The committee was not able to reach such a conclusion, for it would have been based on speculation, not evidence. Aspects of the investigation did suggest that the conspiracy may have been relatively limited, but to state with precision exactly how small was not possible. Other aspects of the committee's investigation did suggest, however, that while the conspiracy may not have involved a major group, it may not have been limited to only two people. These aspects of the committee's investigation are discussed elsewhere. If the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy was limited to Oswald and a second gunman, its main societal significance may be in the realization that agencies of the U.S. Government inadequately investigated the possibility of such a conspiracy. In terms of its implications for government and society, an assassination as a consequence of a conspiracy composed solely of Oswald and a small number of persons, possibly only one, and possibly a person akin to Oswald in temperament and ideology, would not have been fundamentally different from an assassination by Oswald alone.

Glenn - Yet that's not Hoover wrote.... it was NOT "nail this guy" at all.... at least not from Hoover initially. Would you say that Allen Dulles - who KNEW of the Castro assassination attempts and ongoing ZR- programs and decided to withhold that information from the WC that this does not constitute a conspiracy - at least on the part of this one WCC - to cover up some of the basic facts related to WHY JFK might be assassinated OTHER than a disgruntled Lone Nut? Even Hoover would not let that go... He KNEW something was up with Cuba but could not get the info Memorandum for Messers. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr, December 12, 1963 page 2 Conrad, Deloach, Evans, Rosen, Sullivan Mr. Rankin of the difficulty about the Department's desire to issue certain conclusions; that they wanted to issue a statement before the report went to the Commission with the conclusion Oswald was the assassin, no foreign or subversive elements involved, and Rubenstein and Oswald had no connection; that I flatly disagreed; they took it up with the White House and the President agreed with me that we should reach no conclusion; nevertheless the report does reach two conclusions in substance. I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man. As to Rubenstein, I said I did not want a statement about Rubenstein and Oswald; that we have no proof they were ever together. I stated Rubenstein is a shady character from the hoodlum element of Chicago, has a poor background, runs a nightclub in Dallas, and is what would be called a police buff; that the police officers in the precinct have been able to get food and liquor from him at any time they drop in; that while I think there was no connection between him and Oswald, I did not want the report to be 100% sure on that.

It obvious you don't care old man.... and asking you about photography is like asking a fish to teach bicycling.... you make a lot of noise and flop around alot... but nothing ever comes of it... Amazing how everyone is always wrong and only the great and powerful CL has the answers.... yet refuses to show any work for fear of being caught yet again. Keep on rocking it here CL... the break FROM YOU I am finally giving others on the internet has been greatly appreciated.... Nobody's interested in proving anything to you, nor conversing with you, or playing your silly little games... except to keep you busy and away from others. NOTE: you first must HAVE feelings for them to be hurt big man.... so please keep on defending the indefensible... cause who knows... maybe one day you will understand what this all means and stop thinking this is about the minutia related to photography The physical evidence in a joke, just like you... so you defending it is perfect....

Sorry there CL... Definitely not interested in discussing a conspiracy and the mechanics behind it with someone not intelligent enough to realize what happened. You pretend not to care about conspiracy yet fight against the mountain of proof with every breath... and when you are repeatedly put in your place... you start in on McAdams 101... ad hominem university I could care less about your opinions having to do with photography or the assassination... You don't know the material - plain and simple... and since you ONLY CARE about the photography you limit yourself to never understanding the context of the evidence, the provenance of the evidence or the authentication of same. Which is obvious with every one of your posts You're a one horse wonder Craig.... and since your approach to other people is so abrasive... no one gives a sh!t whether you're right or not about the one subject you care to weigh in on. So keep acting like the little yapping dog you are - and keep getting all worked up for not being listened to... Guess that's why you jump and down so much posting, "look at me! look at me!" while never actually saying anything... There are numerous forums with LNers that would eat your BS up in a second... and thank you for it. I've seen your posts there and seen the same reactions you get here... A chuckle, a shaking of the head and "bu-bye"..... Let's see - now why does this sound so familiar? In Internet slang, a xxxxx is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion

Keep spinning those wheels CL... The entertainment value is off the charts... I should Show YOU where Moorman was... what a hoot. CL - you have trouble grasping that this was a conspiracy... how do you expect to grasp anything in the REAL world... But please...keep posting... ROTFLMAO The cards and letters keep streaming in... slowing your interrupting other subjects, other threads, is working you're just gonna have to try harder to piss off as many people as you usually do in the course of a week... c'mon boy, JUMP...

Excellent stuff here Chris.... a question though... 24fps... my understanding is that the available speeds for THAT camera were 18 and 48 fps (slow mo) How do we get to 24fps other than halving slow-mo... or another camera? Camera Specifications Camera Maker: Bell & Howell. Model: 414PD Director Series Film Type: Double 8mm - 25ft or 50ft film roll Film Speeds: ASA 10 to ASA 40 Running Speed: Single frame, 16fps and 48fps (slow motion.) Lens: Bell & Howell Varamat f1.8 / 9-27mm - Power Zoom Mechanism: Spring Motor Lightmeter: Built-in Dual Electric-Eye. Non-reflex viewfinder (parallax corrected and coupled with zoom.) The camera zooms from telephoto to wide angle. It focuses from 6.0 feet to infinity. The camera has built in haze filters. The camera can adjust from f/1.8 to f/22 to accommodate all types of film.