David Josephs

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

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...

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...

Greg B: No shots were fired from that window so it's a moot point.

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

My point is the Council on Foreign Relations inner circle - folks like Allen Dulles, John J. McCloy, Henry Kissinger, George Herbert Walker Bush - has for decades been US intelligence dominated.

The CIA (and LBJ) killed JFK. So the CIA, "US intelligence," has used the Council on Foreign Relations as an Operation Mockingbird Wurlitzer to cover up the JFK assassination.

It has been one of their top agenda items for 48 years.

Of course, it has been around since the teens.

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.

Volunteer = LBJ. Whose car are "the Volunteer boys" supposed to be going over, and why?

It's mentioned, suspiciously, in the next sentence after "the, ah, body." Why are the car and body associated in this line of thinking? Collection of evidence?

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,

Some more numbers for you:

Just in case you don't like my numbers, primarily the 3.16 sec span, here is a little more from Myers on 2 other films that were running while the limo was up near the TSBD corner.

(SEC-6) F.M. “Mark” Bell Film – Camera Frame Rate: 19.0 fps

The F.M. “Mark” Bell film consists of 14 sequences; 3 pre-assassination and 11 post assassination. The third sequence depicts the presidential limousine passing in front of the Texas School Book Depository after turning from Houston onto Elm Street, and was the only sequence used in this study. The third sequence encompasses frames numbered B001 through B060 and covers a time period of 3.16 seconds; beginning 14.69 seconds before the fatal head shot and ending 11.58 seconds before the head shot. The frame rate of the Bell camera, relative to Zapruder’s camera, was determined to be 19.0 frames-per-second. There are no camera stops or splices during the third sequence identified as Bell frames B001 through B060.

(SEC-7) John Martin, Jr., Film – Camera Frame Rate: 22.8 fps

The John Martin, Jr., film consists of 9 sequences; 6 pre-assassination and 3 post assassination. Sequence 1 depicts the lead motorcycles turning from Main Street onto Houston Street. Sequences 2 and 3 depict the lead vehicle driven by Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry turning from Main onto Houston Street. Sequences 4 and 5 depict the presidential limousine as it turns off of Main Street and travels north on Houston Street. Sequence 6 depicts the presidential limousine passing in front of the Texas School Book Depository, and eyewitness Rosemary Willis running alongside the south side of Elm Street. Sequences 7, 8, and 9 depict events in Dealey Plaza following the assassination. The sixth sequence encompasses frames MN207 through MN278 and covers a time period of 3.15 seconds; beginning 12.54 seconds before the fatal head shot and ending 9.45 seconds before the head shot. The frame rate of the Martin camera, relative to Zapruder’s camera, was determined to be 22.8 frames-per-second. There are no camera stops or splices between Martin frames MN207-MN278.

Besides the same matching (3.16) time frame, the Martin film was running exactly at the same rate as Towner.

I guess Martin's camera was made from the same elements as Towners, which is supposed to be running at approx 18fps, but on the same day, at the same time approx, both frame rates were identical and they all sync up with Z.

chris

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.

Martin,

You are making my point:

They may well have been part of a cover up. But nothing of what you have brought forward here, or for that matter, what has ever been brought forward suggests that the WC knew what it was they - possibly - were covering up. And that, Martin, is a fact, not speculation.

If you have anything that proves the contrary, I will immediately re-evaluate my position. It is, without a doubt, a very different ball game what the answer to this is, would you not agree? Did, or did not, the WC know that they were covering up a conspiracy?

The reasonable answer is that they did what LBJ and Hoover instructed them to, "nail this guy, we can't afford the trouble that might otherwise arise".

And that is exactly what I think their mission was, and what they lived up to.

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.

Martin,

You are making my point:

They may well have been part of a cover up. But nothing of what you have brought forward here, or for that matter, what has ever been brought forward suggests that the WC knew what it was they - possibly - were covering up. And that, Martin, is a fact, not speculation.

If you have anything that proves the contrary, I will immediately re-evaluate my position. It is, without a doubt, a very different ball game what the answer to this is, would you not agree? Did, or did not, the WC know that they were covering up a conspiracy?

The reasonable answer is that they did what LBJ and Hoover instructed them to, "nail this guy, we can't afford the trouble that might otherwise arise".

And that is exactly what I think their mission was, and what they lived up to.

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.

Getting you to spin your wheels and get all worked up is a pleasure CL...

NEARLY means 30-40 feet to you... nice.

and Let's try to remember where Altgens RAN FROM after his 5th photo

Mr. ALTGENS - Turning right--headed toward the Book Depository Building.

Mr. LIEBELER - All right.

Mr. ALTGENS - I thereupon grabbed my gadget bag that I carry my extra lenses in and ran fast down across the Dealey Plaza to get down in front of the caravan for some additional pictures and I took this one picture----

Mr. LIEBELER - Wait just a minute now--at this point, as you ran across, you were along Elm Street; is that correct?

Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I ran across and reached up into--well, the curb area on the west side of Elm Street. DJ: He of course means SOUTH, but WEST of the TSBD

Mr. LIEBELER - Across Elm Street from the Texas School Book Depository Building?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; and if I had a picture I could probably show you exactly where I was standing. I did show it to Agent Switzer, if that would be of any help to you.

Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; I would like to locate that spot. I show you Exhibit No. 354, which is an aerial view of the area that we have been discussing.

Mr. ALTGENS - This is the Book Depository Building, correct?

Mr. LIEBELER - Yes.

(The witness points to the School Book Depository Building.)

Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.

So see if you can follow CL... Altgens runs PAST MOORMAN'S POSITION to the curb to take his famous photo... we can see the shadows of Mary and Jean in his photo

and he claims this position is approx 15 feet from JFK at the time of his head exploding... We KNOW Moorman was than close yet it's 30 more frames before we see Altgens

Mr. LIEBELER - Now, the thing that is troubling me, though, Mr. Altgens, is that you say the car was 30 feet away at the time you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and that is the time at which the first shot was fired?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - And that it was 15 feet away at the time the third shot was fired.

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - But during that period of time the car moved much more than 15 feet down Elm Street going down toward the triple underpass?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER - I don't know how many feet it moved, but it moved quite a ways from the time the first shot was fired until the time the third shot was fired. I'm having trouble on this Exhibit No. 203 understanding how you could have been within 30 feet of the President's car when you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and within 15 feet of the car when he was hit with the last shot in the head without having moved yourself. Now, you have previously indicated that you were right beside the President's car when he was hit in the head.

Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it.

BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight.

Losing ground here CL... I could post a whole bunch more corroborating evidence for this short movement... 313 - 255 = 58 frames @ 18.3 = 3.17 seconds and according to the WCR survey data the distance from 313 back to 255 is 4+65.3 minus 4+16.4 = 49.9 feet. Except elsewhere in the WCR we KNOW that z313 was at 4+95 or 30 feet farther down the street.... (plus if you read any of Chris or Tim's work you know that already)

So the WCR contradicts itself as to the location of z313 by 30 feet... and lo and behold, Chris finds a 30 foot error... the film... and the data accompanying the film DO NOT WORK TOGETHER...

So it is really no surprise the recreation is designed to minimize this distance... by moving the camera and not taking a full frame image designed to match Altgens... the entire process was designed to cover up the 30 feet and the real location of Altgens. but then again - you aint never gonna learn what you dont wanna know...

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0487a.htm CE354

Now - Altgens 6 was taken at z255... except:

Mr. LIEBELER - You testified previously, I believe, that the first shot that was fired had just been fired momentarily before you took the picture, is that right?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; it was so close you could almost say it was simultaneous because it was coincidental but nevertheless that's just the way it happened.

That sure blows the z220 shot to hell... must be that z242 shot the NPIC found...

So, bottom line, regardless of all your photo mumbo jumbo, the data contradicts the physical evidence, as does the testimony...

The WCR was trying to hide as much REAL EVIDENCE as possible since they new it would disprove their conclusions.

The cheering I am getting is wonderful...

The longer you stay here, arguing your worthless points, the less likely you are to interrupt on other threads...

I'm being nominated for the Education Forum's "How to keep a xxxxx busy" award....

and all one need do is disagree with you

Your image's lines are all wrong CL... bad measurements on a map that is not correct to begin with... FAIL again CL....

You think cause you draw a few lines on a map that you're believeable?

Your LOS and FOV is determined by the focal length... if the receration camera was 50mm and taken closer to the limo location than the 105mm Altgens... it too can be cropped to be ALMOST the same LOS and FOV as the Altgens photo...

What you CAN do is compare movement of different objects relative to other objects on a given LOS and calculate the movement. You can also TRIANGULATE multiple LOS and find an exact camera position. In other words we can know the recreation camera was, and in this case its less than a foot from the altgens 6 location. Again htis is photo analysis 101 and you fail...miserably.

Then do it CL... put up your work for all to see...

determine the EXACT location of the cameras in the recreation AND Altgens photos and plot them onto a map of DP using multiple LOS, your lever math and anything else you want. Just SHOW YOUR WORK for once.

And enough with the claim that distance and focal length can be played with...you don't have clue what it is you are talking about. Case in point...the Altgens 6 was taken with a 105 mm lens. The Moorman of the motorcycle cop was taken with a 100mm lens both from nearly the same position. Why is it they have vastly different FOV?

First off the polaroid lenses were originally 114mm

Secondly... Both from nearly the same position? REALLY?

You are now telling us that the Moorman image below was taken from the same position as Altgens' image (and the recreation)? But they were nearly 40 feet apart CL...

The FOV is different cause the cameras are pointed in different directions - yet when sized for comparisons the FOV are virtually the same

The FACT that Altgens and Moorman can be overlaid and do fit suggests that the images were indeed taken much closer together than the physical evidence shows the distance between them to be...

So which is it... was Moorman further down the street for her photo or Altgens further up the street?

BTW davie, the focal length of the lens is immaterial. Is this so hard for you to understand? Take a photo from the same distance with two different focal length lenses and crop to match. Guess what davie jo, the perspective stays the same.

Let's play with CL a bit - shall we...

Not real good with that focusing are you - Mr. Professional

The 24mm photo is out of focus... or is not focused on the van but on some item closer to the camera... as can be seen in the enlargement...

You suppose they took a recreation photo SPECIFICALLY to crop to size and enlarge

cause they couldn't simply put a 105mm lens at the spot Altgens took his photo?

There a reason this 105mm recreation image HAD to be cropped - it was not taken at the spot Altgens was standing, not even close

So once again CL... with which lens did they shoot the recreation photo so that many of the same components in the Altgens photo cannot be seen in the recreation photo...

and from what distance... I agree with you that SAME DISTANCE DIFF LENS can be sized to match, never said it couldn't...

Problem is these two photos cannot be sized to match since they were taken from different positions - nothing lines up with anything else - you can only line up individual elements within the photos...

and since you don't know whether they moved 20 feet closer and used a 50mm lens then cropped... or moved 15 feet closer and a few steps over and used a 105mm lens as is...

You can come to no conclusion related to the position of the camera in the recreation... for once again... the lever only allows movement in a small arc perpendicular to that which you are using as the fulcrum...That movement off LOS axis can be represented by a line extending from this arc ot the TSBD... this line can be used as LOS anywhere along it's length...

If I were to move 20 feet closer to the TSBD on a line thru the limo and 1/2 foot to the right... I'd be pretty close to being on that LOS you claim can only be in a 10" arc connected to your lever.

Since the photos cannot be matched we KNOW they were not taken at the same location - you claim a 10" movement (in which direction CL?) on an arc based on lever math - and that this accounts for all the displacement of objects in the image...

I am saying, based on the following illustration... that any movement in the original position (blue line) creates a LOS that can be duplicated either closer or father away from the original location (red arrows pointing to locations along the LOS where a camera COULD have taken the recreation photo) and that the inability to line up the two images would be the same - can't be done. Bottom line is you have no idea were the recreation image was taken from cause your lever math does not disinguish between movements along the new LOS closer and farther from the subject... it can only discuss HORIZONTAL movement along an arc...

So as you keep saying... you cannot measure between two images with different perspective... these two images have different perspective... by definition there is nothing you can offer to determine the distance of the camera in the recreation photo other than the angle of change in the LOS. Distances and focal lengths can be played with until the "cropped" recreation matches a piece of the Altgens photo...

Hi there Glenn...

I've gotten past the point where a discussion about whether there was a conspiracy or not is warranted... there was.

The most simple and direct proof of such a conspiracy is the SBT and the evidence related to it...

Every bit of physical evidence points to a hole 5 3/8 - 5 3/4 inches down from the collar... the jacket AND shirt have holes in these locations

the hole in the back - while described poorly in the autopsy - is in the same location....

Add this to Rankin's statement in the 1/27/64 Exec Session about a fragment leaving the throat "as described in the autopsy" - when it is not...

and I believe you begin to see how the medical evidence - THE record of the assassination - was altered to fit a BETTER shooting scenario that included only Oswald.

Add now add to this the Dallas homocide department, after catching their man so effectively and quickly and KNOWING he was the murdered of both men, decide NOT to record a single word of 12 hours of interrogation... NOTHING that would be admissible in court... how can a major metropolitan city's Homicide Division be so inept with something so important?

From False Mystery

Strange Inferences ·;

At the time the first bullet impacted upon the President, Governor

Connally, according to the Commission, was seated in a position which

placed him in front of the President (W-106). The first shot to hit the

President was designated by the Commission as having hit the Governor

at any place between Z frames 207 through 225 (W-106). During 1

these frames the angle from a rifle in the sixth floor window of the

Depository Building was roughly from 21° to 20° (W-102, 103).

One would expect such a shot with a downward trajectory from the

sixth floor, hitting the President 5 3/4 inches below the coat collar and not

hitting any bone, (W-88) (the autopsy report describes the bullet entering

"the upper right posterior thorax" [W-541]) would continue its path

downward at a roughly 20° angle and emerge from the abdominal area.

Instead, this remarkable bullet turned upward. It then exited from the

President, who was sitting perfectly erect (W-102, 103), and tore

through the left portion of his tie knot (W-91).

One would certainly, once accepting this unusual and highly

improbable course of the bullet, have to concede that it would fly harmlessly

over the Governor's head heading for the sky. But the Commission

asks us to believe that this strange bullet changed direction in

mid-air. No bullet ever has, unless spent. But this bullet was far from

spent, for it had an entrance velocity after passing through the President

of 1,858 feet per second (W-95).

Or how about the wholesale change to witness testimony AFTER THE FACT...? still not convinced?

Thanks CL

For once again proving what a complete waste of breathe you remain.....

Ignorant people such as yourself insult those they cannot understand... lash out at Chris and Tom for showing what a complete you are and always will remain...

Now you proclaim that the recreation photo could be taken with any lens, from any distance cause all that matters is perspective....

So show us the full recreation photo CL... if it was taken with a 105mm lens like Altgens... it would look the same as Altgens (as it should)... it does not... it is either cropped

or was taken with a longer focal length and there was no cropping

or was taken with a shorter focal length and was severely cropped

OR - it was taken from a different location.... further up Elm and off the LOS as to make it impossible to tell exactly where....

By your own admission CL, if the camera was moved 20 feet closer and 1 foot to the right and taken with a 50mm lens

the recreation photo can STILL be made to look as if the camera was in the original Altgens location due to the similiar perspective and cropping/enlarging...

when in reality the camera was not where the recreation camera was positioned and the recreation is a lie to hide where Altgens really was..

Yet another MISTAKEN WITNESS CL?? So many of them for you to try and refute... and you fail each and every time...

BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight.

Whatever helps you sleep thru the night CL....

regardless - you're still seen as an inconvenient interruption and an intellectual midget when it comes to understanding the mechanics of the conspiracy

or the realities of evidence and authentication...

You STILL dont understand the math of either Chris/Tom or your pathetic lever attempt... or why it is so apparent the recreation did what it did...

Where's the rest of the recreation photo CL... if they only moved 10 inches... why the cropping that removes any reference to the actual location of the camera?

Unless you have the FULL recreation photo somewhere... if not... you have no idea where the camera was, or why they would recreate it in such a way as to hide the actual location of Altgens...

Maybe the attitude of the WC could shed some light... did THEY care where Altgens was?? Not so much...

Mr. LIEBELER - The important thing is--it's not all that important as to how far you were away from the car at the time you took the picture--the thing that I want to establish is that you are absolutely sure that you took Exhibit No. 203 at about the time the first shot was fired DJ: which would be about z250-z255Except LIFE puts the shot at z264 while NPIC puts it at z242 - both AFTER JFK and JC are hit and that you are quite sure also in your own mind, that there were no shots fired after you saw the President hit in the head.

Mr. ALTGENS - That is correct; in both cases.

Y'know CL... instead of living in a vacuum, maybe you'd be better served to read a little background first... know WHY the location of Altgens is so important...

but I forget that you dont really care about this... only interruption, trolling and insulting...

hey, at least you found your calling...

Still trying to peddle those 3 inches of yours ?

Lamson... you are simply not worth the time or effort

When and if you ever

- stop trolling the forums,

- disrupting every thread,

- proclaiming yourself God/Emperor of the photo

- and learn something about math

maybe others will be interested in playing in the sandbox with you...

as for me... you're just another annoying gnat on a bull's A$$ wishing someone would give you the credibility and respect you so crave on the threads you continually interrupt.

and from the emails I get... I'm no where near the only person here who knows this..

So you keep on getting your jollies anyway you know how.... I'm sure at your age ANYTHING will do....

and continue posting - so we see how little you know or understand about the assasination

btw - please, please don't forget the cute little insults you've become known for...

they've become the only reason to read your posts anymore...

While making points regarding the practice of businesses in the early 60's NOT following any of the Standard Operational Procedural rules of their business

that Drittal, or some other form accomplishes the CERT requirements for mailing a pistol....

why do we forget all the other aspects of the purchase process for whcih there is not record, no proof, and no authentication?

as outlined below....

Each of the monetary transactions that created and accomplished the pistol order are not available for review...

The SOP for Seaport who rec'd an order in January, without an envelope yet with a $10 bill attached

The SOP for Railway to send Seaport their money

The SOP for Railway to collect and deposit THIER share of the fees ($1.27)

The SOP for anyone picking up a package ar Railway

The SOP for payment to railway of the $21.22 ($19.95 + $1.27)

and the SOP for recording all these transactions for the IRS, FTB, or any other taxing entitity.

Someone placed the pistol order... or it was created after the fact... to connect Hidell to Oswald

isn't the idea of an alias to remain UNidentified by using the alias... Braden comes to mind.

So DVP... we have the coupon and SOME of the paperwork... why not ALL the paperwork if it leads back to Oswald/Hidell the purchaser of THAT pistol?

DJ

This is it... the sum total of ALL the evidence related to the purchase of the supposed murder weapon of JD Tippit.

Serial # hadwritten on the order... sounds familiar

No records related to the $10 cash deposit or the envelope that and the coupon arrive in

No records of the $1.27 Railway collects

No record of the $19.95 forwarded from Railway

No record of anyone at Railway picking up the carton

No record of another Money Order or cash rec'd to pay the COD balance for the pistol

No record of when Seaport recieves the coupon although it is at least 6 weeks before they process it

(if 1/2 or 1/27 is the date on the coupon) and yet both weapons are shipped to the PO Box on the same day...)

but other than that... a perfectly legit transaction...

Thanks Gil...

DJ