David Josephs

Pat, You seem to be struggling with terminology. Do you know the difference between firing for accuracy and firing for accuracy under rapid fire conditions? Additionally there is nothing to be gained from the rifle tests, and why is that? Because as Frazier clearly tells us someone removed that scope. There is no two ways about that, and thus, the old CT drivel about a misaligned scope is hogwash purely because there is no way to prove that. So again, I ask, Can you provide me with one shred of proof that the rifle scope was misaligned at the time of the assassination? Mike, Mike.... why oh why do you keep sidestepping the real issue... Plain and Simple: The scope on the rifle recovered from the TSBD is of no consequence.... Getting that rifle into Oswald's possession, getting the rifle to the TSBD, getting that rifle - assembled - to the 6th floor SE corner, getting Oswald to the 6th floor SE corner window, addressing the 3 men seen with rifles on the 6th floor at 12:15, .... are you seeing my point? I can claim Oswald shot JFK with a Sherman Tank from that window - are we going to spend days back and forth about his ability to aim and fire a Sherman Tank ??? No, we're first going to have to prove that Oswald and the Tank are somehow connected, and somehow made it's way to the 6th floor. Same with that rifle As I've said repeatedly... proving the condition of the weapon is pointless... there is no real way to know... but let me suggest this... at some point during the 22nd Ruth Paine, or even that night before when she turns out the light, disposes of the rifle in the blanket if there ever was one... because lo and behold, it was never a 6.5mm MC. The HIDELL rifle from Kleins, delivered incorrectly with no record of Oswlad ever picking it up and now no real proof the MO used to pay for it was ever cashed, is found where it was... in the TSBD. No one fired it, no clip falls out when the last round is ejected, as it is supposed to No clip is seen in the bottom of the rifle in the Alyea film A clip magically appears later in Day's possession The verdict, within hours is that Oswald, acting as Hidell bought, paid for and used this rifle in a spontaneous action that kills JFK. We don't want to know where he was at the time We don't want to know that a rfile addressed to Hidell could not be delivered to Oswald's PO Box We don't want to know that the bag that supposed held the rifle was seen by and described as too small for such an action by the only person who saw it We don't want to know that other men looking like Oswald and bringing attention to themselves in a sinister manner We don't want to know that Oswald is impersonated in Mexico We don't want to know he did NOT get on that bus We don't want to hear from Roger Craig - that's for dam sure! We dont' want to believe the 60 witnesses who heard and saw atleast a shot from a place other than the TSBD We really won't want to know about the men with rifles on the 6th floor at 12:15 We don''t want to know about the people leaving the back of the TSBD right after the assasination and driving away We don't want to know about missed shots, extra wounds, shots from the front, a shallow back wound and everyone from Parkland to Bethesda, from Jackie to Hill (what were they 1 foot from JFK?) describing the hole in the back of his head and the bullet entrance at the right temple So Mike.... whether the scope was properly aligned and whether Frazier did accuracy test is a complete waste of time and THAT WAS THE ENTIRE POINT... bury the CT in minutia... and it continue to work to this day... we can't help it... we love minutia, we can hang our hats on it. Until you read Unspeakable and about 10 of the other essays and articles suggested we are going to be stuck talking technicalities regarding an impossibility - Oswald never shot that rifle. 3 teams of much more experienced assassins killed JFK for any one a 100 reasons... accomplish all those things I list above and THEN we can talk scopes. So I will ask again... if a shot from the right front is an exploding bullet, how does it blow a hole in the BACK of JFK's head? My gut feeling is it didn't... another head shot did. DJ Frazier clearly tells us there is no way to know. What do you say? Ugh, Now back to removing a virus on the work servers.......good lord.....

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 (severly cropped ALTGENS 6) 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. Mr. LIEBELER - But it was almost directly in front of you as it went down the street; isn't that right? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. Mr. LIEBELER - Am I wrong, or isn't it correct that under that testimony the car couldn't have moved very far down Elm Street between the time you took Exhibit No. 203, which you took when the first shot was fired, and the time that you saw his head being hit, which was the time the last shot was fired? DJ: Even Liebeler is not buying it !! Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I have to take into consideration the law governing photographic materials and the use of optics in cameras--lenses--and while my camera may have been set on a distance of 30 feet, there is a plus or minus, area in which the focus still is maintained. I figure that this is approximately 30 feet because that's what I have measured on my camera. Mr. LIEBELER - And you say Exhibit No. 203 was taken about 30 feet away? Mr. ALTGENS - But it might be 40 feet, but I couldn't say that that's exactly the distance because while it may be in focus at 40 feet, my camera has it in focus 30 feet. It's the same thing--if I focus at 15 feet, my focus might extend 20 feet and it might also be reduced to 10 feet, but my focusing was in that general area of 30 feet. I believe, if you will let me say something further here about this picture---- Mr. LIEBELER - Go ahead. Mr. ALTGENS - Possibly I could step this off myself from this position, this approximate position where I was standing and step off the distance, using as a guidepost the marker on this post here or some marker that I can find in the area and I can probably step it off or measure it off and get the exact footage. I was just going by the markings on my camera. 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 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. Mr. LIEBELER - So, it is clear from your testimony that the third shot--the last shot, rather--hit the President? Mr. ALTGENS - Well, off and on we have been referring to the third shot and the fourth shot; but actually, it was the last shot, the shot did strike the President and there was no other sound like a shot that was made after that. I was just going to make a conclusion here, but that's not my place to do that, so I'll just forget it--what I was going to say. Mr. LIEBELER - Well, what were you going to suggest--go ahead. Mr. ALTGENS - Well, it seems obvious now, when you think back on it--of course, at the time you don't reason these things out in a state of shock, but it seemed obvious to me afterwards that there wouldn't be another shot if the sniper saw what damage he did. He did enough damage to create enough attention to the fact that everybody knew he was firing a gun. Another shot would have truly given him away, because everybody was looking for him, but as I say, that's an obvious conclusion on my part, but there was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. {yeah, thanks for toting the company line Mr. A} Chris... please tell me if what you are presenting supports this conclusion: Distance from 313 to 341, 28 frames, is about 22 feet. Distance from 255 to 313, 58 frames, is about 45 feet 45 + 22 = 67 feet Altgens is at MAX 40 feet from his z255 image which he says is the first shot but we know this not to be the case - which in itself is a case for at least 4 shots. Move the entire scene 30 feet to the west and Mr. Altgens is telling the truth yet is in direct conflict with Nix, Zapruder and Muchmoore... In an alteration we can have all the extra frames at 24 fps used to push the limo east 30 feet ???? I am just having a difficult time visualizing how that is done on the Z film. and more importantly, when and where is the 24fps movie shot from? As this collage illustrates - a camera anywhere but in Zapruder's hands would have to move a huge distance to maintain camera angle integrity. I keep thinking that maybe the Zap film was actually 24fps, claimed at 18.3 fps and a single film has more than enough frames to remove as needed to result in the claimed 18.3fps version we now see. If you can somehow convert the math into real concerns on the extant Zfilm, as I am attempting above, and get it right - which of course I am not sure of in my case - I think it will allow us to find more and more places where this type of alteration occurs... Would an overly wound B&H camera run at 24fps for a shot (short - freudian slip?? ) period of time? DJ

No, I'm addressing ALL the issues related to the bag that I'm interested in. Good thing you don't confuse yourself with little things like facts & evidence. Proving a picture of the planted bag was or was not the same as a picture of a fabricated bag will go a long way to help us understand the reality or not of the bag Oswald was SUPPOSEDLY carrying a disassembled rifle to work in.... Nothing like staying safe and secure in one's comfort zone... saves the trouble of learning anything, testing hypotheses, digging a little deeper and being wrong, humbled and admitting it from time to time.... the worst of all sins. Thanks so much for your contribution to this thread Craig... it's value is obvious

Jim... As I wrote, I am not questioning the conclusion that the MO was not deposited.. I am simply a little surprised that we cannot produce an image of a correctly deposited and cashed item from Kleins thru the banking system FROM THAT DEPOSIT or any deposit for that matter. Not a soft shoe but a tap dance... and of course I was being light hearted... and I DO take his and your word on the process. But we do not have these other checks for one of two reasons 1) the other checks have the stamps you are talking about and would make the Oswald MO look ridiculous 2) the other checks DO NOT have the stamp... or some of them do not and some do... and that makes it less suspicious either way it would be good to know. The overlapping DALLAS PO Stamp in the bottom right corner is also a bit puzzling... How does that stamp make its way onto this MO and is it on top of or underneath Oswald's MO stamp... I'll get back to you.

Mike - So what? So pictures of a bag outside the TSBD show an 8.5" width. Craig, and now it seems you, are not addressing the issues. A 2" long grocery sack was put in the back of Fazier's car - according to Frazier... if you look at Fritz' notes Oswald denies telling Frazier why he went home (Paine claims it was to patch up things with Marina)or anything about curtain rods... complete hearsay. No one sees him bring it in other than Frazier- who says a 38" rifle part can be tucked under his armpit and extends down to his hand... Frazier could not see it from behind... and no one sees it from the front as he walks in... No one photographs it where it lay, in the corner of the sniper's nest. Let's also remember that the TSBD was evacuated and searched leaving ample time to create this bag if need be.... No one knows what is inside the bag in the TSBD photos - what is holding this up? If you check the bag threads the policeman himself doesn't recall but says somehting was in there... Mike - a lot has to be proven before the bag Fazier testifies to becomes the bag in evidence - or should I say bagS. With regards to the firing and condition of the rifle... 1) we do not know that rifle was fired that day, 2) when tested those who fired the rifle had residue on their cheeks.. Oswald none 3) the lip of one hull was bent while another was shown to have been struck twice. 4) no clip was ever found/photographed at the scene like the mystery bag, 5) Oswald has to have been at the window with a rifle in his hands for that rifle to be used as evidence - he wasn't, 6) is Craig Roberts wrong? DJ

What possible influence do the JCS have in getting a president elected in the first place? and a simple Google search yields this JFK: Oliver Stone and the Vietnam War By Stanley Karnow http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/karnow.htm Lifting a Quote Out of Context In one of JFK's most pivotal scenes, a secret agent tells Garrison about a late 1963 White House reception at which Johnson told the joint chiefs of staff, "Just let me get elected, and then you can have your war." Stone, by his own admission, borrowed the anecdote from my book, and I am convinced of its accuracy, having heard it from Gen. Harold K. Johnson, then the army chief of staff and a guest at the party. I used the story to illustrate Lyndon Johnson's practice of making different promises to different factions. In this instance, he estimated that by placating the brass he could rally their conservative allies on Capitol Hill behind his liberal social agenda. At the same time, as I wrote, he confided to members of Congress who had qualms about Vietnam that he had no intention of getting immersed in that "damn pissant little country." However, Stone, to depict Johnson as a warmonger, lifted the story out of context. Stone and Sklar cite Stanley Karnow's Vietnam: A History, Viking, 1983, as authority for their Johnson dialogue: http://www.ctka.net/letters/jock2.html Johnson subscribed to the adage that "wars are too serious to be entrusted to generals." He knew, as he once put it, that armed forces "need battles and bombs and bullets in order to be heroic," and that they would drag him into a military conflict if they could. But he also knew that Pentagon lobbyists, among the best in the business, could persuade conservatives in Congress to sabotage his social legislationunless he satisfied their demands. As he girded himself for the 1964 presidential campaign, he was especially sensitive to the jingoists who might brand him "soft on communism" were he to back away from the challenge in Vietnam. So, politician that he was, he assuaged the brass and braid with promises he may have never intended to keep. At a White House reception on Christmas Eve 1963, for example, he told the joint chiefs of staff: "Just let me get elected, and then you can have your war." (p. 326)

thanks Lee, Greg... knew these reports were out there.... and this even reinforces the thought that the Baker/Truly encounter actually happened between the 3rd and 4th floor as Baker writes and was NOT LHO... One note... I have heard the the "Everybody will know who I am now" quote was more of a dejected, defeated statement than one of pride and ownership of the assassination or of Tippit's murder. I am sorry for not being able to provide a cource for this... any help out there? DJ

Gil - Given the tap dance around an actual photograph of an actual money order deposited either in the same deposit or one occuring in that timeframe from Kleins... All we have is what YOU SAY they were supposed to do. How many other MOs were not stamped yet deposited that day, that week? Is it really that hard to find? You seem to be able to find just about everything related to this MO, and I for one thank you, but please... 1. The number of the money order was out of sequence for the Dallas PO. please illustrate 2. The MO contained no stamp from the First National Bank of Chicago 3. The MO contained no stamp from the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago. 4. The MO contained no stamp from the Federal Postal Money Order Center in Kansas City. So obviously all the other checks and MOs deposited by Klein's on 3/13/63 did have these stamps... right? please illustrate I am NOT disbelieving you Gil - it makes all the sense in the world that the Oswlad MO should have these things... and don't. and you are right, producing a money order with these stamps originating from another bank will help, but is not the same as Kleins' process... do we not have a single deposit from Kleins that can support your assertion? if you can't produce for us the result of SOP for deposits at Kleins it is very possible that none of the deposited paperwork has these stamps - which in turn would take us in yet another direction... If the stamps were indeed on any of the other paperwork we can understand why the WC or FBI don't include any of them for comparison... Finally - and please excuse me if you covered this, where was the money order found?

Craig's work with hypotheticals and physics is all well and good... I will let Pat continue to battle it out with him... Problem is the bag these two are discussing WAS NOT THE BAG OSWALD BROUGHT TO WORK... If he brings a bag at all... The only person putting a bag in his hands is Frazier... and that bag, as you can read, is a small paper sack folded over... Not exactly the 3+ foot bag made of shop packing paper... THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DALLAS BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Buell Wesley Frazier, Age 19, 2439 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas WE 3-8965 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says: I work at Texas School Book Depository, Corner Elm and Houston. I have worked there since September 13, 1963. I fill orders. About a month ago, I met Lee Harvey Oswald at work. I saw that he was a new man, and I walked up to him and asked him if he was Lee. I figured he must be Lee as my sister had told me about him. I asked him if he would like to ride back and forth with me as I knew his wife lived with Ruth Paine near my house, and he said he would, but only on week ends as he had an apartment of his own in Oak Cliff. After that every Friday evening Lee would ride home with me and then ride back to work with me on Monday morning. He has only rode home from work with me on Fridays, but yesterday morning, Thursday, November 21, 1963, Lee told me that he wanted to ride home with me that evening. I was surprised, and I asked him if he was going with me Friday also, and he said, "No". He told me that he was going home to get some curtain rods. Thursday afternoon Lee rode to Irving with me to Ruth Paine's house, where his wife is staying. I let him out of my car in front of Ruth's house, then I went on. This morning, Friday, November 22, 1963, I got up between 6:00 - 6:30 AM, and got ready to go to work, and then sit down to eat breakfast, about 7:15 AM, me, my mother, and my two little neices [sic] were at the table, and my sister was at the sink. My mother looked up and said, "Who is that looking in the window?" I looked up and said, "That's Lee." I got up and finished getting ready and got my lunch and went to the door and met Lee on the car port. We then walked to my car, it was parked backed up at the side of the car port. Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under. I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods. We drove to work the same way that I usually go. We came into town on Stemmons Freeway to Main and Main to Record, and then on across the McKinney and by the warehouse to the parking lot. I parked the car and sit there awhile and run the motor to charge the battery, and while I was doing that, Lee got out and opened the back door and got the package out of the back seat and walked behind the car, then I got out of the car and started walking toward the building where I work. I noticed that Lee had the package in his right hand under his arm, and the package was straight up and down, and he had his arm down, and you could not see much of the package. When we started walking, Lee was just a few feet ahead of me, but he kept waking faster than me, and finally got way ahead of me. I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm. I did not see him anymore for about 30 minutes, and then we were both working. Lee did not carry his lunch today. He told me this morning he was going to buy his lunch today. I was standing on the front steps of the building when the Parade came by, and I watched the Parade go by. After President Kennedy had got out of my sight, I heard three shots. I stood there, then people started running by, and I turned, and went back in the building and got my lunch and eat it. I did not see Lee anymore after about 11:00 AM today, and at that time, we were both working, and we were on the first floor. Wesley Frazier SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963 /s/Mary Rattan Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes. Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of. Mr. BALL - About what time of day was that? Mr. DOUGHERTY - That was 8 o'clock. Mr. BALL - That was about 8 o'clock? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - What door did he come in? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, he came in the back door. Somebody's lying here Mike..... why would Frazier lie and make the bag too small in all its descriptions? And now it looks as if the Commission itself is not sure which bag is what exhibit The CHAIRMAN - The Commission will be in order. Mr. BALL - I would like to assign Commission Exhibit No. 364 to a paper sack which the FBI has identified as their C-109 Exhibit. That will be the Commission's Exhibit No. 364 for identification at this time. The CHAIRMAN - All right. (The paper sack referred to was marked Commission's Exhibit No. 364 for identification.) Mr. BALL - Also for the record I would like to announce that prior to--this morning, Mr. Cortlandt Cunningham and Charles Killion of the Federal Bureau of Investigation laboratory, the Ballistics Division, Firearms Division, I guess it is, broke down, that is unscrewed Commission Exhibit No. 139, an Italian rifle, and that rifle has been placed in, after being disassembled., has been placed in Commission's No. 364 for identification, that paper sack. The CHAIRMAN - All right. Mr. BALL - We have also here before the Commission, Commission No. 142 which is a paper sack which is identified as the FBI's Exhibit No. 10. I think that has its number, exhibit number on it. I have been informed that was 142. My notes show that the brown paper sack is 142. I think we can call the witness now. CE364 is a REPLICA BAG made by the FBI http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0492b.htm CE142 is supposed to be the actual bag.... if they have the actual bag... what in the world do we need a reploica at the commission questioning??? http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0269a.htm Now a question for the lawyers.... Isn't asking Frazier what Oswald said hearsay? inadmissable in court hearsay? I know the WC was not a court... but anything learned from what Frazier says Oswald said is useless as evidence unless corroborated... right? Mr. BALL - Did he say anything about being in the Marines? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; he told me he was a Marine. Just imagine: Mr. Ball - Did Oswald say he was going to kill the president? Mr. Frazier - Oh yes, said it all the time...he was obsessed... every time we drove home... blah, blah, blah... and finally Frazier's testimony Mr. BALL - What did the package look like? Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I would just, it is right as you get out of the grocery store, just more or less out of a package, you have seen some of these brown paper sacks you can obtain from any, most of the stores, some varieties, but it was a package just roughly about two feet long. Mr. BALL - It was, what part of the back seat was it in? Mr. FRAZIER - It was in his side over on his side in the far back. Mr. BALL - How much of that back seat, how much space did it take up? Mr. FRAZIER - I would say roughly around 2 feet of the seat. Mr. BALL - From the side of the seat over to the center, is that the way you would measure it? Mr. FRAZIER - If, if you were going to measure it that way from the end of the seat over toward the center, right. But I say like I said I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give and take a few inches. Mr. BALL - How wide was the package? Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I would say the package was about that wide. Mr. BALL - How wide would you say that would be? Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, say, around 5 inches, something like that. 5, 6 inches or there. I don't-- Mr. BALL - The paper, was the color of the paper, that you would get in a grocery store, is that it, a bag in a grocery store? Mr. FRAZIER - Right. You have seen, not a real light color but you know normally, the normal color about the same color, you have seen these kinds of heavy duty bags you know like you obtain from the grocery store, something like that, about the same color of that, paper sack you get there. Mr. BALL - Was there anything more said about the paper sack on the way into town? Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there wasn't. Mr. BALL - Did you usually walk up there together. Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; we did. Mr. BALL - Is this the first time that he had ever walked ahead of you? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did. Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that. Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part-- Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand. Mr. BALL - Right hand? Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body? Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down. Representative FORD - Under his right arm? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package? Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word. Mike... Absolutely nothing in Frazier's testimony or Affidavit suggest the bag, if it existed, was anything more than 2' long, and a grocery store type bag.... now look at any of the pictures of the bag being held outside the TSBD - same bag as Frawier describes? Once again, measuring bags that cannot be physically placed where it was supposed to be other than by the testimony of the same DPD officers, like Lt. Day, who are shown to have told all sorts of interesting stories... precludes the need to compare bags. Mr. BALL - Did the two of you walk together down to the parking lot? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; we did. Mr. Lamson cannot show us when Oswald made this bag, the WC did not even ask Frazier if Oswald had brought home ANYTHING let alone a paper bag that thursday (unless you can prove it was brought to the Paines earlier, which you cant), we have no idea if and when any rifle in a blanket even existed othe than the testimony of Marina and there is no testimony or evidence when Oswald, who was asleep by 9pm thursday night, could have disassembled the rifle and placed the parts into the non-existent paper bag. I see no point in discussing the bag outside the TSBD until there is any evidence that Oswald had anything to do with it... Kind of like the Rifle. So Mike - if Craig convinces you of ANYTHING regarding those bags outside the TSBD, great. Ask him to get the bag made, to the Paines and back again... and then show us any physical evidence it was in the TSBD, like the clip. and yet another absurd example of WC evidence gathering against Oswald: Ruth Paine is allowed to DRAW A PICTURE of CURTAIN RODS she supposedly found in her garage after 11/22.... and let's please remeber that Ruth has a proven connection to the intelligence community... it's hard to give her credibility when speaking against Oswald... imo. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0097b.htm

Dont have the book handy Jim... Is it a memo of the process or a picture of the back of a properly cleared money order... maybe even from the same deposit?

I'm having a bit more trouble with the quote than Bill, Mike.... The use of first person suggests a transcript.. there was none, only notes and after reports as bill mentions. Then there's the little "..." that is obviously leaving something out.... "Jerry Organ" insisting this is what LHO said in an interrogation requires a bit more than his say so... I think that's fair. I've read some of the followup reports... Postal Inspector Holmes wrote one if I remember correctly. I don't seem to remember 1st person quotes as much as he said this or that in this or that way. Let's find the record of that quote... k? http://www.jfklancer.com/Fritzdocs.html On the last page of Fritz's notes we see - 4th. 11-24 Insp Holmes - Sorrels - Kelley et al http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/haappanen-notes.pdf Interesting article about the notes and lack thereof... There is no record of Oswald saying these things.... same ole story Mike... conclusions and discussion based on incorrect information leads to ... ??? and finally on this subject... if anyone, after the fact and without a tape or steno, claims Oswald said this or that.... it's going to be very hard to believe. http://www.jfklancer.com/Holmes.html and you will find this interesting as well... On the other hand, I believe the Baker/Truly lunchroom scene never happened... or did not happen the way it was later testified to.... another thread another day... Here are all Fritz's notes transcribed: If someone has a link to the after reports of the interrogation.. I know I've seen them Transcription of Captain Fritz Notes From Oswald Interrogations Friday, November 22-24, 1963 Note: Prepared by Review Board staff to assist the reader, but not an official transcription 1st 11-22 B.O. + James P. Hosty Jame W Bookout 3:15 p.m. Didn't own rifle saw one at Bldg M. True + 2 others home by bus changed britches Ans Hosty adm going to Russia adm wrighting [sic] Russian Embassy + to Hosty says lived Russia 3 yrs. Does write over then now school in Ft W. - to Marines says got usual medals claims no political belief belongs Fair Pl Hdqts NY off N.O. says supports Castro Rev. claims 2nd floor Coke when off came in to 1st floor had lunch out with Bill Shelley in front lft wk opinion nothing he done that day etc. ? punch clock 8-4:45 wre not rigid abt time wked reg 1st Fl but all over speaks Russian ?Why live O.H. Lee says landlady did that Terminate interview with line up 4:15 4 man left to right as #2 Time of filing 11:26 pm Johnson Pres 22nd Precinct 2 F154 Received evidence 1st then filed 2nd Interview 23rd Present 10:35-11:34 T.J. Kelly Robt Nash Grant ?? B.O. + myself Boyd + Hall Says 11-22-63 rode bus got trans same out of pocket says 1 p.o. box denied bringing package to wk. Denied telling Frazier purpose of going to Irving - denied curtain rods - got off bus after seeing jam got cab etc .85 fare told you wrong before at apt. Changed shirts + tr. Put in dirty clothes = long sleeve red sh + gray tr. morning 23rd. says 11-21-63 says two negr came in one Jr. + short negro - ask ? for lunch says cheese sandwiches + apple says doesn't pay cash for wife staying with Mrs. Payne denies owning rifle in garage or elsewhere admits other things these Came there 63 - N.O. Says no visitors at apt. Claims never order owns ???? for gun denies belonging to Com party says bgt gun 7 mo Ft W. didn't know what Place. ams to grest ant questioning Arv. July 62 from U.S.S.R. Int by F.B.I. Ft W says Hard + Soft meth etc Buddy says on interview of Payne by F.B.I. He thought she was intimidated Desires to talk to Mr. Abt. I ask who says Smith act att. Says did live N.O. 4706 Magazine St. Frem Apt. Wked Wm B. Riley Co 640 says nothing against Pres does not want to talk further - No Pahy at time in past had refused Oswald A.C.L.U. member he says says [sic] Mrs. Payne was too. I ask abt organization he says to pay lawyer fees when needed B.O. asks about Heidel selective s. Card - adm having would not admit signature - wouldn't say why he had it. Says add. Book has names of Russian Emigrants he visits - denies shooting Pres says didn't know Gov. shot 3rd 11-23 - 6:35 Shows photo of gun. Would not discuss photo denies buying gun from Kleins. Comp of wanting jacket for line up. Says I made picture super imposed arr 10-11:15 4th. 11-24 Insp Holmes - Sorrels - Kelley et al Chief

Fair enough Mike... let's stay with the rifle in the sack... I think we'd both have to agree that "sack" would have to be over 3 feet long to hold all the parts. When you get the chance, read Frazier's testimony or anyone else who say Oswald that morning... the sack they describe and the sack in evidence are not even close to the same.... and if you want to get into the paper bag you might want to check out some of the existing threads... Quick sample... the Bag photographed outside the TSBD is about 8 inches wide and was folded over once and then a third or about 20" in total width... the paper at the stations where the bag was supposedly made is 24" wide. No extra paper was found.... and the tape only comes out wet unless you take the machine apart... the operator of that station NEVER leaves... eats lunch there.... IT's the chicken and the egg again... if the bag was not made by Oswald, assembled at the station or near by based on the tape... 1)how does he get it home 2)when does he put the rifle in it 3)the bag described in the back of Frasier's car is simply NOT the same... so again... I am okay if you say a half dozen or more metal and wooden pieces in an unpadded paper bag is "OK" for transport... problem is, like the timing, the bag, and rifle were never in contact with each other, Oswald never carried THAT bag, and there is no physical evidence the bag in evidence was ever on the 6th floor of the TSBD. See Mike... one has to prove all the suppositions that bring us to a conclusion before acknowledging the conclusion even merits examination. I'll agree to let the rifle arrive safely and the scope in perfect working order if you can get that rifle into that bag into Oswald's hands, onto the 6th floor and him getting there in time to use it... If you can't do those things, talking about whether the shots are easy or not iskinda worthless... right?

Can you show us examples of other USPS money orders processed that day to back up your statement above? reasonable doubt written all over this one Craigster -- Can you show us examples of other USPS money orders processed that day to back up WCR exihibit-statement, your move! Yah Dave, that's a pretty weak argument from that guy. To suggest that USPS money orders processed on THAT DAY didn't need a bank endorsement or tracking stamp for payment...this is SOP for paying instruments of utterance, such as checks and money orders. Doesn't matter what day, what US bank or what type of document it is. They're all stamped "Paid" when paid. Not even Von Pein would try to suggest that. Gil... While a suggestion is one thing... proof is another. Do you or do you not have an example of what the 1st Bank of Chicago put on the backs of the checks and Money Orders they processed for ANY day that month? Any day at all? Not disagreeing with your logic... there SHOULD be something there... but are you sure and why?

Add in the rest of the world and it's more like 10:1..... We're the only people who still tries to believe that political assassination does not exist in this country... while the rest of the world knows better.... much better.

Sure Mike... 1. In the photo overlay... it is obvious that JFK has a forehead, a Top of the Head, a right Temple, cheekbones, etc... NONE of these appear on the xray. How is that possible? 2. There is no bullet hole to the left of the particle/vapor trail - if anything the opening is quite a bit lower... How do these fragments stay in a straight line from back to front when the path of the bullet, if from back to front, is obviously lower? 3. Why do you suppose the face on xray stops at the line of his nose? See all those circles drawn by Parkland witnesses, Bethesda witnesses and the embalmer.... not a single one puts a gigantic hole as seen in the xray at the front of his face, or anywhere else infront of the ear for that matter... (now if you're going to tell me that witness testimony is not reliable we're not going to get anywhere... these people saw what they saw and not a single on has ever drawn a wound as depicted in that xray.... until Dr. Boswell.... 4. What do you make of the perfect black circle hovering over his right temple/forehead area? and if you look it is also in the other Fox photo from that angle. It also shows yet again that there is quite a lot of JFK in front of his right ear that simply disappears on the lateral xray... If you have not checked out the 5 Investigations link to the History-matters site you might want to do that before you comment. Mantik's 9 visits is pretty important as well. Batter up! DJ One last question... would you or ANY SHOOTER put and carry a disassembled rifle in a paper sack? Isn't that a sure way to bang some parts together that shouldn't... Especially if you have 4 live rounds in there as well?

I am afraid that I have to agree with Craig here Gil.... What I understand you saying is that the First Bank of Chicago would have put their mark on the back, and they didn't. It would be very helpful to see what a correctly deposited check/MO/anything looks like to compare. DJ

The question was, "Do you know whether or not this is YOUR COMPANY'S endorsement" The "It's identical to our endorsement" answer sounds too much like a non-answer answer. It may indeed be almost identical but whether it was his comapny's stamp is another question entirely. Anyway... I started to look more closely at the two stamp samples we have - your assumption being that this was created after the fact. Seems to me that while close, they are not identical and whether that is simply stamp wear or what, I thought you might like to take a look. I imagine creating a stamp is no big deal but why there are such differences in many of the letters, especially the KLEIN'S lettering and the apostrophe is not even close at all... The one Waldman uses on Ex.9 looks newer and cleaner that the older one on the back of the Money Order - single use versus multiple possibly - yet there are difference.... like the tilt of the N in the bottom stamp as opposed to the "I". DJ

I hardly believe Tom would run from that David. That is, if you will pardon the pun, a no brainer. If that's what you think Mike.... yet you too have not addressed the skull graphics I posted and asked you questions about. I realize you and Tom are not Xray technicians... neither am I. Please help us understand how First - the xray and photo overlay are in ANY WAY CONSISTENT with each other... and Second - please reconcile the images in the other graphic.. and yes, imo the BLACK CIRCLE we see over JFK's right eye is hiding the area in which he was shot... at least one of the shots. I look forward to it. DJ edit: and speaking of No Brainer... are you getting the idea why there had to be a substitute brain for the historical record? JFK's was blasted apart and never sectioned. But that's yet another strange occurance in the world of benign government interaction.

Bernice - Just a thought..... azre you using the Quick Reply or the Full Editor? Quick Reply does not offer attachments... Have to click on Full Editor. Don't mean to assume anything about you Bernice... just sometime you start with the simple things... like "is it plugged in?" If not, you can email me the photos and I can try to attach them.... and thanks again for your ongoing contribution here... as a lover of the photos/videos I have always been happily surprised by what you find and offer. DJ

Thanks Lee.... read thru some of the Bledsoe thread - at least the civil parts - and too was excellent. It becomes more and more apparent Oswald was not in many of the places he is claimed to have been... Reading from Crenshaw's work about Specter I am always blown away by that hypethetical question about the SBT. "...Assuming that the bullet went back to front and exited the throat... would you consider a wound described as such a wound of exit?" Tom, as we have seen, has gone running when asked to discuss the xrays and photos he uses as "Proof" that and any explanation as to why a FMJ behaves differently than designed... or how a single shot to the top of the head leads to cerebellum and floor of the skull injuries... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17282&view=findpost&p=220202

C'mon Mike.... You gonna waste time arguing POST ASSASSINATION descriptions of the weapon? Your post earlier was right to the point... HOW TO ALIGN A RIFLE SCOPE requires at least 3 shots in a controlled environment with a 4th to confirm the adjustments. Please tell me when you believe Oswald did this with THAT rifle so that YOU would be confident as a sharpshooter that after disassembly, transportation within an unlined, unpadded paper sack... and re-assembled... those little adjustments stayed since as you post: Mr. FRAZIER - When we fired on November 27th, the shots were landing high and slightly to the right. However, the scope was apparently fairly well stabilized at that time, because three shots would land in an area the size of a dime under rapid-fire conditions, which would not have occurred if the interior mechanism of the scope was shifting. So the scope was working very well 48 hours after the assassination. Still not helping your case here buddy. So if I understand correctly.. you DO NOT BELIEVE that this "high and to the right" was the condition of the scope during the assassination... yet the scope was "fairly well stablized at the time". Oswald carried the disassembled rifle to work with the scope already aligned, assembles the rifle... scope is still aligned... fires the rifle 3 times and leaves it.... the DPD now have it in their possession and within 48 hours after the assassination the scope is working perfectly - only high and to the right... The scope DOES NOT CHANGE ALIGNMENT during Oswald's journey with it YET the scope CHANGES ALIGNMENT in the 48 hours between discovery and testing. (you claim the condition of the scope at the time of the shots is unknowable - I agree - yet as I keep eluding to Mike... some things have to happen in a certain order for Oswald to pull this off alone... Using a properly sighted scope HAS to be one of them, no?) I would have to agree that "high and to the right" does seem to take into account the wind blowing from the shooter's right to left, so whoever left the rifle was at least thinking of that.... or am I making an assumption about scope alignment related to wind? Explain again how/when Oswald makes adjustments to the scope on the day of the assassination with the wind blowing as it was... or who he knew ahead of time that the wind would be out of the south east... so he could align properly... and when again was that 4th shot, the test shot confirming the scope was still as he wanted? DJ You and Pat can argue all day about this and that test AFTER THE FACT. Did Oswald use a scope when he was certified marksman in the Marines? Describe the difference between what Oswald shot in the Marines and the MC found that day. Does a shooter of any quality use a scope when potentially required to fire in rapid succession on a moving target form that distance? and finally, talking about what OSWALD did when you have not proven he could have even have gotten there in time is moot. Get him there first Mike - then talk to me about his scope, his skills and what he needed to do in order for his shooting to be effective. thanks

All good things in all good time... - Jerry G... Run for the Roses

Greg... You might want to start at the beginnign of this thread... those questions are addressed in my first post. CE exhibits 1362, 63, 64 are Dallas Morning News about the route and luncheon Arrival at Love field at 11:30... Luncheon to START at 12:30. VIP Invite says 12 noon - I believe I had confirmation of this being an actual invitation by GMack... I'd have to go check emails though. The real question is "What does the Lone Nut Oswald know and what is his plan?" If the even is panned to start at 12:30... as all announcements in the papers confirm... Why is he still sitting in the lunchroom at 12:15? Who are the people Rowland sees in the WEST window at the same time? When does he reassemble the rifle and confirm alignment of the scope? http://www.history-m...Vol16_0488b.htm Mr. SPECTER - Before you go on, let me ask you at which time was this on your return to position "V"? Mr. ROWLAND - This was 12:15. Mr. SPECTER - All right; proceed to tell us what you saw and heard at about that time? Mr. ROWLAND - We were discussing, as I stated, the different security precautions, I mean it was a very important person who was coming and we were aware of the policemen around everywhere, and especially in positions where they would be able to watch crowds. We talked momentarily of the incidents with Mr. Stevenson, and the one before that with Mr. Johnson, and this being in mind we were more or less security conscious. We looked and at that time I noticed on the sixth floor of the building that there was a man back from the window, not hanging out the window. He was standing and holding a rifle, This appeared to me to be a fairly high-powered rifle because of the scope and the relative proportion of the scope to the rifle, you can tell about what type of rifle it is. You can tell it isn't a .22, you know, and we thought momentarily that maybe we should tell someone but then the thought came to us that it is a security agent. We had seen in the movies before where they have security men up in windows and places like that with rifles to watch the crowds, and we brushed it aside as that, at that time, and thought nothing else about it until after the event happened. Mr. SPECTER - Now, by referring to the photograph on this Commission Exhibit No. 356, will you point to the window where you observed this man? Mr. ROWLAND - This was very odd. There were this picture was not taken immediately after that, I don't think, because there were several windows, there are pairs of windows, and there were several pairs where both windows were open fully and in each pair there was one or more persons hanging out the window. Yet this was on the west corner of the building, the sixth floor, the first floor--second floor down from the top, the first was the arched, the larger windows, not the arch, but the larger windows, and this was the only pair of windows where both windows were completely open and no one was hanging out the windows, or next to the window. It was this pair of windows here at that time. Mr. SPECTER - All right. Will you mark that pair of windows with a circle? (Witness marking.) Mr. SPECTER - What is your best recollection as to how far each of those windows were open? Mr. ROWLAND - To the fullest extent that they could be opened. Mr. SPECTER - What extent would that be? Mr. ROWLAND - Being as I looked half frame windows, that would be halfway of the entire length of the window. Mr. SPECTER - Is that the approximate status of those windows depicted here in Exhibit 356? Mr. ROWLAND - Yes. Mr. SPECTER - In which of those double windows did you see the man and rifle? Mr. ROWLAND - It was through the window to my right. Mr. SPECTER - Draw an arrow right into that window with the same black pencil please. Thanks David, Sorry, but I really am pushed time wise right now. Can you confirm JFK's arrival time at Trade Mart was set for 12:15 and that this would mean going past the TSBD at 12:10. (I understand where you're coming from and it is important, but I'm looking at a different angle, though probably connected) . Was the 12:15 arrival time for JFK public knowledge? Those are important questions to me, so any help appreciated. Okay. Have managed to read through the entire thread. My main interest is if this timeline would have the motorcade passing the TSBD at 12:10. It seems, if on schedule, it would have indeed been passing at that time. It had to be an "inside" job with up-to-date information being relayed, and not just within Dallas. This information ups the ante considerably. Well done! Thanks Greg, that means quite a lot to me coming from you. But please don't stop with the 12:30 timing... The posts following about the finding of the rifle and Truly talking to Curry is pretty eye opening as well. and you'll notice that DVP et al has avoided dealing with the LIST that a LN Oswald would have to run thru to even be ready to take those shots... If DVP can't put Oswald in the window at the right time and accomplish all these feats of magic... what has this world come to?

Mike... start with this thread.. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16336 If you want to discuss timing let's stay in that thread... I am still interested in the ballastics and sniper positions, extra shots, etc... from this one... But you're probably going to have to reread my looong post or print it... There's a bunch there and you input would be valuable and appreciated. Please remember this is not about his doing it or not... I am willing to conclude that IF Oswald was up there and the rifle was in decent working order and the scope assisted him in the process he might have actually hit someone... still does not explain the ENTRY WOUND to the front of the neck. Read about FBI agent Elmer Moore... "Moore told one Jim Gochenaur how he was in charge of the Dallas doctors testimony in the JFK case. One of his assignments as liaison for the Warren Commission seems to have been talking Dr. Malcolm Perry out of his original statement that the throat wound was one of entry, which would have indicated an assassin in front of Kennedy" The early sessions of the WC had to deal with this wound in the front... acknowledge there was no thru and thru shot from the back as described by an autopsy report that is most curious as to origin... they talk about needing to see ORIGNIAL AUTOPSY NOTES (you know the ones Humes burned - another act of an innocent government right?) And no one has addressed the original question and their tangents... Mike... head back to page one and address some of these concerns please.. this thread is NOT about whether it could be done but what appears to have happened and how it is explained by the WCR and 2why it is eaither correct or not. On last note about the shots... The hand written notes that are the only evidence of the Z film being at NPIC that weekend includes a time line at the end of Z frames, Shots in frames from the Life pictoral and "Other frames with shots" - (NOTE these notes are at MAry Ferrell's but the printout I have has the address truncated... could someone post a link to these notes?) All together there are 6-8 shots at varying times along the film.. frames 190, 206, 224, 242, 265, 312 all come to mind but I do not have the sheet infront of me.... Just like Homer said. But I have to agree with Costells here... how does Horne not follow up on this testimony? "6-8 shots but the SS agent there said there were only three....." After reviewing Horne once again... along with these NPIC notes.... I am thinking that the 2 different sets of boards were both designed to show 3 shot scenarios to 2 different sets of people with only the smallest of overlap... but that's another discussion for another time... Peace DJ

No worries buddy.... but you've got your work cut out... You've touched on a few things but not the most important.... Talk to me about what Oswald needs to do, as a qualified marksman, to get from the lunchroom at 12:15 to shooting 3 shots in whatever time you want to give him with a properly sighted, reassembled rifle - unless you can claim that an improperly sighted rifle would make no difference in his ability. I want to be sure Mike that we are addressing the same issue.... and I don't mean to be flip but you wrote: Frazier tells us that the first time the weapon is fired for accuracy is on 3/16/64, at 100 yards. A truer statement was never uttered. I contend one of the ONLY times that rifle was fired for accuracy is on 3/16/64. Certainly not 11-22-63... at least not for accuracy - I look forward to your reply... Hope the BDay came off well and you're feeling better DJ