David Josephs

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-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_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.

first big smile of the day MH... at some point it does become re dic less Cmon mike - if he wanted to get away with it... he makes sure to use an immediately traceable weapon in a state where they are sold on street corners for cash.? As the Guinness boys yell, "BRILLIANT !!"

Fair enough Mike, but no issue re: the reassembly... once dialed in, the scope is rock solid... all $4 worth or whatever? when did he do this ?? Simply fire 3 well aimed rounds, and then adjust based on those measurements. As an example shot 1 is 1" high and 1" right shot 2 is 1.5 high and 1" right shot 3 is 2" high and 1" right The average is 1.5" high and 1" right Adjust the top elevation dial 6 clicks up Adjust the windage dial 4 clicks left. Fire 1 round to verify. That's really all there is to it. A LOT of my post was not addresses buddy. alot. how does he wait till 12:15 to first even think of going up there to decide which shot was the best? did you even read the post about the bullet marks on the street? the county records building... I know I'm in it deeper than you at the moment so no worries... but how exactly does he compensate for the wind in his scope realignment betweewn 12:15 and 12:30 without firing a shot? edit: no question about the difficulty of the shot mike. but if oswald is in the lunchroom at 12:15 and 1-3 men are seen with rifles by MANY people on the 6th floor at the same time and we have photographic evidence of these people... what are we talking about?

Jim et al... Just take a look at Sun Tzu's Art of War to grasp the mindset... The practiced art of deception, misdirection, and attack from within and without has nothing to do with "context".. just winning the war. As long as we engage, we grant credibility where none has been demonstrated. Is our convincing DVP of ANYTHING the point of these threads - and if so, how fruitless is that pursuit? Do serious people looking into the assasination actually regard DVP's site, or McAdams the FINAL word... I mean if someone goes to the trouble to search for info they will most definitely stumble across some counter point to DVP and J.M.... and if they do not search that out... would they have believed any of the counterpoint in the first place? Mindset.... Influencing the Hearts and Minds of the People... Now who do we know good at that I wonder? DJ Bob Weir from "Black Throated Wind" - "You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know"

As far back as 1966 Josiah Thompson pointed out in the New York Review of books that CE399 was planted evidence: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1966/oct/06/the-second-oswald-1/ THe fragments found in DC, like CE399 had no trace of human blood or tissue, and they look planted also. THe rifle found in the TSBD showed no sign of recent firing, and also looks planted. No one in Parkland hospital observed a wound in JFK's back, and the Zapruder film shows clearly, as Ayoob observes, that JFK was shot in the head from the right front, with an exploding bullet. Also, Lee Oswald was not on the Sixth floor at the relevant times, had absolutely no motive to kill JFK, and was also framed for the Tippit muder. THe HSCA was set up to deal with these problems and prove that the physical evidence was not planted. Blakey came up with the Jet Effect, which Sturdivan's testimony proved was junk science, and he came up with the acoustics which supposedly proved three shots from the TSBD, but the acoustics also turned out to be junk science. Blakey also came up with GUinn's CABLA CADABLA, which supposedly proved beyond doubt that CE399 and the limo fragments were NOT PLANTED. Of course Guinn's cabla-cadabla has also been shown to be junk science, and has been rejected by state and federal courts. Even Blakey himself now admits that Guinn's theory was junk science. SO all the proofs that the evidence is genuine have ended up on the scrap-heap of history, and we are back to planted evidence. [Edit From Pat Speer earlier on this thread, further evidence that the rifle was planted Every time I read the comment about the misaligned scope I have to laugh. It is purely an ignorant statement. There is no way to prove the condition of the scope during the assassination. You would think if nothing else, people would have learned that by now. Mike - not proving the condition of the scope and it's alignment isn't the point.... As a shooter yourself... if you dissassemble a rifle, reassemble it with the scope on it... would you feel confident that the scope you were looking thru was ready? Is there ANY WAY POSSIBLE that scope was aligned to Oswald the marksmans needs after the reassembly? How would he know without firing a shot (please remember Mike that we have to take the word of the WCR... all he did was go to the garage, dissasseble the rifle, stuff in the bag Frasier sees and bring it to work... Hide it for the morning... and at the approriate time to be in position to fire the shots he as reassemblied the rifle and looks thru the scope for the first time that day - without firing a shot.) I prefer we stay focused on what needed to happen for Oswald to have been the successful LN you claim.... instead of the condition of the scope alignment... which if you remember COULD NOT BE SIGHTED CORRECTLY WITHOUT SHIMS.... what would have to occur to allow Oswald to use the rifel and scope to its utmost efficiency... I mean please remember... two out of three hits on a moving target... with perfect accuracy... are you saying he just got lucky and that luck was his plan - for we know he did not behave like a trained marksman in his preparation. I want to understand Mike... as you know. A man dedicated to killing the president with a scoped rifle has to have his own plan to set in motion, no? If you can walk us thru this plan, and if it makes sense, I am more than willing to learn. DJ

Thanks Ray... You do know that Tom alos believes CE399 a plant, or at least not the bullet that hit either man.. at least that's my understanding of his position. Now if we can just get Tom to acknowledge the fact about the scope, the reassembly process and what I understand to be the process of re-sighting the scope. Sighting-in a Rifle Scope http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/hunting/traditional-methods/rifle-scope4.htm The process of aligning a scope­ is called sighting-in. It takes time and patience to sight-in a scope properly. But all that time and effort will pay off when you can fire at a target and have confidence that your shot will be true. Tom - could you explain the difference between sighting a hunting rifle as opposed to the MC if there is one http://www.chuckhawks.com/sight-in_rifle.htm How to Sight-In a Hunting Rifle By Chuck Hawks After you have firmly mounted a scope on your rifle and focused it to your eye, bore sight the rifle. Use a bore collimator or do it the old fashioned way, but get it done before you fire the first shot from your rifle. See my article "How to Bore Sight A Rifle" for further details. I am assuming a telescopic sight because this article is about sighting-in a hunting rifle and all game animals, small or large, deserve your best shot, which cannot be delivered with iron sights. In any case, the iron sights typically supplied with new factory made rifles are so crude that you would probably spend more money on ammunition attempting to sight them in than you would on an economical scope. If you are reading this article in hopes of learning how to hammer the factory rear sight to and fro in its dovetail slot to adjust for windage, you are going to be disappointed. Once your scoped rifle has been bore sighted for 100 yards it is time to go to the rifle range, which should offer at least 25 yard and 100 yard (or 100 meter) firing positions. If your local range doesn't, find one that does or head for the hills with your portable shooting bench and measure the required ranges as accurately as possible. Start at the 25 yard position. Put up a large paper target. I usually use an NRA 100 yard small bore rifle target, which has a large black bulls-eye. Get really comfortable on the shooting bench, so that none of your muscles are cramped or in tension. Bring a pillow or a folded-up blanket to sit on (as required) to get your head and shoulders at a comfortable height at the bench rest. When you are seated and comfortable, position one or more sandbags on the table so that you can comfortably rest the forearm of your rifle (or the hand holding the forearm of your rifle) on them. If you don't have real sandbags, an 8-10 pound bag (or two) of kitty litter works well. (I duct tape the ends of "Jonny Cat" brand bags of kitty litter and they last for many trips to the range.) I cover the Jonny Cat bag(s) with an old blanket for comfort, and to protect them. A commercial rifle rest (I have heard that Outers makes a good one) is probably better than sandbags, but sandbags (or kitty litter) are cheaper. Never rest any part of a rifle, and particularly the barrel, on a hard surface. On recoil the rifle will jump away from a hard surface, giving you a false point of impact. Because I will be holding the forearm of my rifle in my hand in the field, I do the same at the range. I rest my hand over the sandbag and grip the forearm of my rifle in my hand, just as I would in the field. Try to hold the rifle as firmly as you would in the field. Changing the way you hold a rifle will change its point of impact, so I try to hold my rifle at the range as much as possible as I will be holding it in the field. Remember that you are sighting-in a hunting rifle. You could probably get somewhat smaller groups by minimizing all human contact with the rifle, especially by letting the sandbags or rifle rest entirely support the forearm. Small groups are desirable, but in this case getting the point of impact correct is even more important. You can always shoot for the smallest possible group size later. Anyway, by now you should be in a steady position at the shooting bench with the rifle pointed at the 25 yard target. If you are using a variable power scope, set it to the highest practical power. In other words, the highest power that delivers a sharp, clear image. This may not be the maximum power. Many scopes look better slightly below their maximum magnification. For example, the view through a 3-9x scope may look better at 7x or 8x than it does at 9x. Now load one round into the chamber and prepare to shoot. Put the crosshairs directly on the center of that big, black bull. Before you shoot, close your eyes for 10 seconds and then open them. Did the crosshair drift off the center of the target while your shooting eye was closed? If it did it means that your muscles are under tension trying to keep the rifle on target. Shift your position slightly until you can close your eyes and find that the rifle is still aimed directly at the point of aim when you open them. Now your muscles are properly relaxed and you are in a position to do your best shooting. Go through this little routine before you fire every shot. Carefully fire one round. Call the shot. If the crosshair was on the center of the target when the gun fired, you don't need to shoot again. If it wasn't, mark that hole as a flyer and shoot again. Get a perfect surprise break. Okay, examine the target and find the bullet hole. You can probably see it through your rifle scope, and certainly through your spotting scope. (You did bring a spotting scope, didn't you?) Even though you bore sighted your rifle the bullet hole is probably not going to be in the center of the target at 25 yards, but at least it should be somewhere on the paper. Measure (or at least accurately estimate) its distance from the "X" in the center of the bull. Let's say, for example, that single perfect shot hit 3 inches high and 2 inches to the left of the center of the target. Adjust your scope the number of clicks or increments required to move the point of impact to the center of the target. For example, let's say the instructions that came with your scope advise that each click moves the point of impact 1/4 MOA, which is 1/4 inch at 100 yards. Fine, but since we are shooting at only 25 yards, we will need to multiply the number of clicks by 4. To move the point of impact down the required 3" at 100 yards would require 12 clicks (four clicks per inch). At 25 yards, remember, we will have to multiply the number of clicks by 4, so turn the elevation adjustment in the down direction 48 clicks (12 x 4 = 48). It is a good idea to go a little past the new setting and then come back whenever adjusting a scope. I'd turn, say, 50 clicks and then come back 2 clicks for a total of 48 clicks down. This helps settle the adjustments of many scopes. I also tap the adjustment dials after setting them, for the same reason. Now adjust the windage. You need to move the point of impact 2 inches to the right, which at 100 yards would require 8 clicks. At 25 yards that means 32 clicks (8 x 4 = 32). Turn the windage adjustment a total of 32 clicks to the right (usually marked "R" on most scopes). Okay, now get back into that comfortable position and fire one more perfect shot at the 25 yard target. Ideally, if the scope's adjustments are accurate, it should hit inside the "10-ring" of a 100 yard small bore rifle target. If it does, your preliminary 25 yard sighting is close enough. No need to waste ammunition getting it perfect. You will do that at 100 yards. If the second shot is not within an inch of the center of the target, you will have to adjust the scope again. By the third or fourth shot and adjustment of the scope the bullet should be landing inside of the 10-ring. If it isn't, something may be wrong. Check the scope mount screws for tightness. They must allow absolutely no movement of the scope under recoil. Let's assume that your rifle is now hitting within an inch or less of the point of aim at 25 yards. Great, now it will at least be on the paper at 100 yards. Hopefully, it has only taken 2 or 3 shots to achieve this. The rifle's barrel is probably not too hot, your shoulder is still in good shape, and you haven't wasted a lot of ammunition. Now put up a 100 yard target. You can use the 100 yard small bore rifle target, but I prefer the Outers "Score Keeper" target. It has a central bull's-eye and 4 smaller bulls, one in each corner (which I ignore). Best of all, it is overlaid with 1 inch grid lines, making it easy to see how far your bullet holes are from the point of aim using only your spotting scope--no need to measure. This saves a lot of steps when shooting at 100 yards. Wait until your rifle barrel has cooled to the ambient temperature (keep it out of the sun), and then get back into your comfortable bench rest shooting position. Remember to close your eyes before you shoot to check for a perfect, tension free hold. This time you will fire 3 shots, slowly and very carefully, at the exact center of the 100 yard target. Take your time and make each shot a perfect surprise break. Call your shots and check each one through your spotting scope. That way, if you call a flyer, you will know which bullet hole to disregard. Re-shoot any flyers so that you have 3 good shots on the target. Now estimate the center point of impact for the three bullet holes. If you have an accurate rifle and shot it well, they should be within about a 3 inch (or smaller) circle somewhere on the 100 yard target, so this should not be too difficult. Now is the time to use what you learned by studying the "Expanded Rifle Trajectory Table" on the Tables, Charts and Lists Page. If you did your home work before leaving for the range you should know where you want your bullets to hit at 100 yards to take full advantage of your rifle's maximum point blank range (MPBR). For many typical long range rifle calibers, such as the .243 Winchester with a 95 grain bullet, 6mm Remington with a 100 grain bullet, .25-06 with 100-125 grain bullets, .270 Winchester with 130-140 grain bullets, 7mm Magnum with 140-160 grain bullets, .300 Magnum with 165-180 grain bullets, or .338 Magnum with a 200 grain bullet, the rifle should be sighted to put the point of impact approximately 2.5 inches above the point of aim at 100 yards. In other words, you should aim exactly at the center of the bulls-eye and the bullets should land about 2.5 inches directly above the center of the bulls-eye. Get it? That maximizes the point blank range of your rifle, eliminating the need to hold over any big game animal from the muzzle out to a distance of about 300 yards (or more) with the cartridges and loads mentioned above. Check the Rifle Trajectory Table for the exact 100 yard point of impact and MPBR for your cartridge and load. If you are sighting-in a medium range rifle like a .30-30 with 150-170 grain bullets, .300 Savage with 165-180 grain bullets, .30-06 with a 220 grain bullet, .32 Winchester Special with a 170 grain bullet, .338-57 O'Connor with 200-225 grain bullets, .35 Remington with a 200 grain bullet, .358 Winchester with a 200 grain bullet, .416 Rigby with a 400 grain bullet, .444 Marlin with 240-300 grain bullets, or .450 Marlin with a 350 grain bullet, you will want your bullets to hit about 3 inches high with a center hold at 100 yards. This will give you a MPBR of about 200-250 yards, depending on the individual caliber and load. Once again, you will aim at the center of the bull's eye, and adjust the actual point of the bullet's impact to be about 3 inches directly above your point of aim. Let's say, for example, that your are sighting-in a .270 Winchester rifle using a load that drives a 130 grain bullet at a MV of 3100 fps, and your first 100 yard 3-shot group landed in a 2 inch circle centered 3.5 inches above the center of the target and 1.5 inches to the right. With that load you want the bullets to hit exactly 2.5" above the point of aim (the center of the bull's-eye) at 100 yards, so you need to move the point of impact 1 inch down and 1.5 inches to the left. For serious sighting-in it is best to adjust the scope in only one direction at a time. Scope adjustments frequently interact with each other (they should not, but in the real world they may); so by changing only one at a time the effect is minimized. Move the elevation adjustment 4 clicks in the "down" direction. That should be 1 inch at 100 yards for the scope in our example. Now shoot another careful 3-shot group, making sure that the barrel has time to cool between shots. Take your time and do it right. Did the center of the group move so that it is now 2.5 inches over the point of aim? If it did, good enough; if not, you will have to make another elevation adjustment and shoot another 3-shot group. This is where a good scope with precise adjustments really justifies its higher price. Once the elevation is correct and the center of your group is the necessary 2.5" above the point of aim, go on to the windage adjustment. The rifle in our example is hitting 1.5 inches to the right, so we need to move the center of the group 1.5 inches, or 6 clicks, to the left. Go ahead and make the required adjustment. After the barrel has again cooled to the ambient temperature, fire three more careful shots, always holding on the exact center of the bull's-eye. If all went well, the rifle should now be putting its bullets 2.5 inches directly over the center of the bulls-eye, the point of aim. If you have the extra ammunition, shoot a final 5-shot group to insure that everything is as it should be. Congratulations, your rifle is now correctly sighted-in. If all went well you have probably used about a box of cartridges to sight-in your rifle. That's not too bad. I'd stop at the end of that first box and either shoot something else or call it a day and go have a cup of coffee. (Never drink coffee before a range session as it will increase the size of your groups, guaranteed.) You deserve it! http://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm.sightin.html This method of rifle sight in is universal for any rifle type, sighting system, caliber and or cartridge. I will explain why at each step of the rifle sighting in process. 1. At exactly 50 yards put up a target that you can clearly see with your sight system. a. For a air-rifle of reasonable power, 50 yards will most likely be the furthest maximum point blank range in the trajectory path for sighting in purposes. b. For a rimfire rifle, 50 yards will most likely be the true zero point in the trajectory path for sighting in purposes. c. For a muzzleloading rifle, 50 yards will most likely be the mid range rise in the trajectory path for sighting in purposes. d. For a centerfire rifle, 50 yards will most likely be the point blank range in the trajectory path for sighting in purposes. 2. Now with your rifle properly rested on a rifle rest on top of a solid shooting bench, slowly and methodically fire three precise rounds. 3. Make an exact measurement from the center of your group to the center of your target make your windage adjustment accordingly, if you need to go left or right and you have windage adjustable scope bases, use the windage screws on the base, not the scope, rule of thumb for windage adjustment, if your bullet impact is to the left side of target loosen the right rear windage screw on the base and tighten the windage screw on the left rear side of the base. 4. Fire three more rounds to confirm your setting, if all is well and you have centered your group move on to step 5. If you are not satisfied with the accuracy of your ammunition at this point go no further until you have the ammunition you are happy with. 5. Depending on your rifle scope this is all you will be able to accurately do for this range outing, there are a lot of rifle scopes that do not like windage and elevation adjustments all at the same time. Any attempt to keep shooting with one of these scopes will only waste ammo and aggravate you to the point of despair. 6. Establishing a reference zero. a. Low powered air-rifles and small .22 rimfires, at exactly 50 yards zero your rifle. b. More powerful rimfires move out to exactly 75 yards and zero your rifle. c. 30/30 trajectory class centerfire rifles and muzzleloading rifles move out to exactly 100 yards and zero your rifle. d. High powered rifles move out to 100 yards and make sure your rifle is still center and a little high and then move on out to 200 yards and zero your rifle. 7. Trajectory plotting your rifle and ammunition combination for proper sight in. Class a and b rifles take your target and move it closer to you, firing 3 shot groups in 10 yard increments, mark the range on the target at each shot group. Class c and d rifles take your target and move it closer to you, firing 3 shot groups in 25 yard increments, mark the range on the target at each shot group. a. Continue moving the target closer to you until one group of shots emerges as the highest, this is confirmed when the next target move closer to you the grouping is lower. b. Congratulations riflemen at this point of the rifle sighting in procedure you have now established a true zero point and more importantly you have found the mid-range rise for your rifle, scope mounting, and ammunition selection. c. Now measure the center of your highest group on your target to your zero point, this is your true mid-range rise. d. Is this acceptable, or does it need to be adjusted for more or less rise. d. part 1. If the mid-range rise is to much, class a & b rifles move your target 10 yards closer, class c & d rifles move your target 25 yards closer to you from your original zero yardage and re-zero your rifle. Then repeat step 7 of the rifle sight-in procedure again. d. part 2. If the mid-range rise is not enough, class a & b rifles move your target 10 yards further, class c & d rifles move your target 25 yards further from your original zero yardage and re-zero your rifle. Then repeat step 7 of the rifle sight-in procedure again. Note: Repeat this procedure till you have exactly what you want. 8. Establishing your rifles maximum point blank range. Now that you have established your mid-range rise and your true zero, it's time for the final step in properly sighting in your rifle (M.P.B.R.). Class a and b rifles take your target and move it from your true zero point further from you, firing 3 shot groups in 10 yard increments, mark the range on the target at each shot group. Class c and d rifles take your target and move it from your true zero point further from you, firing 3 shot groups in 25 yard increments, mark the range on the target at each shot group. a. Continue moving the target further from you until one group of shots emerges as the same distance low as your mid-range high. Note: Example 2" high, 2" low. b. Congratulations riflemen at this point of the rifle sighting in procedure you have now established a true zero point, you have found the mid-range rise and you have found your true maximum point blank range for your rifle, scope mounting, and ammunition selection. Your Rifle Is Now Properly Sighted-In. Okay Tom, your turn - are these people wrong? If thery're not... when did Oswald have the time to do this after reassembling his rifle? Thanks DJ

Morning Jim.... Page 285 footnote 380 p.463. "A person planning to kill the president could have read the Dallas Morning News on Wed, 11/20 which stated the pres. motorcade would arrive at 12:39pm Friday at the Trade Mart. That schedule allowed for five minutes driving time from Elm and Houston.... to the Trade Mart. (CE1364) An assassin on the sixth floor of the Book Depository would have expected the motorcade to pass under the building's window at 12:25" He does not mention the Nov 19th articles, as well as the one he references on the 20th, that discuss an 11:30 landing time and the route. He prefeaces this section with the Carolyn Arnold info and does offer the question as to why an assassin would be sitting on the 2nd floor at 12:15 when the limo would be passing the window around 12:25... (I would have added, 'at the very latest given the available information.) He does mention Reid in the context of Oswald passing her with a coke in his hand... but nothing about Reid's time in the lunchroom or her testimony... or that fact that she spoke to her husband who knew from the radio that motorcade was at least 10 mins late... Since his book is not a microexamination of these details I feel he at least covers the concept... but that where it ends. Shalom DJ

This Thread is about the mindset of the Conspiracy Theorist To compare... what would then be the mindset of a Theoretical physicist who uses math instead of eivdence? The Physicist tries to explain a series of events or predict a series of events using the tools available, trial and error, and repetition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics Theoretical advances may consist in setting aside old, incorrect paradigms (e.g., Burning consists of evolving phlogiston, or Astronomical bodies revolve around the Earth) or may be an alternative model that provides answers that are more accurate or that can be more widely applied. So DVP et al.... All a conspiracy theorist does is use the tools available, trial and error, and repetition to explain a series of events in a manner than makes sense AND leads to other understandings surround the event being theorized about. DVP - YOUR Conspiracy Theory is that there was no Conspiracy... I'm cool with that. Calling well documented examples of more than one person involved in the events of 11-22-63 FANTASY without proving your point is tantamount to you proclaiming the earth is flat... Since you cannot prove Oswald was in the window with the rifle at the time of the assassination - all your over the top name calling and ignoring of this information just makes you close minded... or a disciple of a doctrine that does not require proof but only FAITH in the source of the information.... be it the Bible or the WCR. As I posted in the LN mindset thread... To you and your ilk, nothing of significance has occurred in this case since Oswald was arrested at the Texas Theater Nothing. And as I reread your posts with that understanding... what you post and why is very clear.

Great post Tom... To the mind of the Lone Nutter... nothing of significance has occurred in the case since the point Oswald is arrested at the Texas Theater. Nothing. When one reads his and other LNer posts in that light - everything makes sense. An innocent government does not proceed as they have these past 50 years.

Here is that photo that may be Oswald chatting after the assassination... yet this is a piece of one of the 3 tramps photos which was quite a time after the assassination, right? Since Oswald was never on the Bus... and the Oswald Craig sees gets into a car, corroborated specifically by Oswald himself with his "you leave the Paine's car out of this" comment... it leaves a small probability this is still Oswald... imo. We have an Oswald entering the Theater at 1:05 - there's a good chance this is the same Oswald that first goes home, changes and leaves - or is it?? He must have had transportation to get to the Theater so quickly... but I must think that the fake police car that honks while Oswald is there may have actually taken this Oswald to the Theater, or near by.... thinking out loud here. So if the 1:05 Oswald is the real Oswald how did he get there so fast...? If not the real Oswald then we have an Oswald entering his room and leaving by 1:03... and walking over to the Texas Theater in 30 minutes... and because we have the Tippit incident occuring during this time the only routes reviewed lead to Tippit rather than the Theater. Puts the Tippit murder in a bit of a different light, no? An Eyewitness places Oswald somewhere else at the time of Tippit's murder. Isn't that what reasonable doubt is all about?? From David Wood II's timeline: 1:35 PM (Nov. 22, 1963) A man is noticed slipping into The Texas Theater at 231 W. Jefferson. Concession stand operator, Butch Burroughs says that it could not have been Oswald because Oswald entered the theater shortly after 1 PM. If this testimony is correct, Oswald could not have shot officer J.D. Tippit. Julia Postal, the theatre cashier, has been alerted to the fact that LHO slipped into the theatre without paying. Postal has been informed of LHO’s presence in the theatre by Johnny Calvin Brewer, the manager of nearby Hardy’s Shoe Shop. He is twenty-three years old and noticed LHO seemingly attempting to duck out of sight of police cars as they passed by on the street. Brewer claims that he sees a man standing in the lobby of his shoe store at about 1:30 PM. He watches the man walk west on Jefferson and thinks (Brewer says he is not positive) that he ducks into the Texas Theater. It is not until December 6th, two weeks after Lee Harvey Oswald's arrest, that Brewer describes the man he saw as wearing a brown shirt. He asks theater cashier Julia Postal if she has sold the man a ticket. Postal replies "she did not think so, but she had been listening to the radio and did not remember." She does remember, when testifying before the Warren Commission, that she sold 24 tickets that day. Need to run, but there's more to this timeline... and now we can expand it to beyond 12:31:30 to 1:50 and the 2 Oswalds being escorted out of the Theater... front and back. DJ

Jim... has the 2nd part of that been posted? All I see at ctka is the first thanks DJ

Thanks Jim... regardless of what one thinks... a laymen like myself can be pretty intimidated by the wealth of knowledge and skill of presentation seen on these pages. My desire from day one was to find something unfound or unnoticed... and be right about it. just an fyi... Josephs' I came across a mention of this in Unspeakable as well.. yet Douglass claims incorrectly that the Trade Mart being only 5 minutes from Dealey and a 12:30 start time means the motorcade was passing the window at 12:25 - so he claims the limo was only 5 mins late. I will go find the actual footnote but I was surprised he did not present anything beyond this declaration to set the time of the limo passing the TSBD like the actual arrival time of the plane and driving timeline already available in writting. Still working on that article/paper... Now you got me motivated to move a bit faster. much appreciated DJ

Tom - I am not a "know nothing" nor am I claiming the "sky is falling" so adding childish insults to your airy posts, and then filling them with more air accomplishes nothing. I ask you these questions in all honesty in the assumption you ARE an expert in what you understand about ballistics, Oswald's history, etc... I've acknowledged my lack of understanding about rifles, ballistics, blood splatter and look to experts on both sides of the coin to learn... Is it not true that a marksman would fire a couple of shots when aligning a scope, each time the rifle is used, dissassembled, reassembled and used again??? Are you suggesting that in the few minutes he might have had to assemble the rifle the sight was exactly how he wanted? How would he know without firing a shot? You also ignored my question about his shooting ability - did he use a scope in firing his weapon in the Marines or not? Simple right? since you seem to know everything about Oswald and his abilities. Unless he assumed he'd only need one shot, does a marksman usually use a scope when needing to fire rapidly at a target less than 100 yards away? Especially if he trained without one?? And you of course ignore how the rifle even gets to Oswlad, to Frazier's car, to the TSBD, to the 6th floor, reassembled, aligned, and in Oswald's hand. - inconvenient isn't it Tom - when YOU present yourself as an expert in one area info while the rest of us actually look at the entire picture. Who pray tell was seen with a rifle on the 6th floor West window at 12:15 while Oswald was in the lunchroom downstairs, in addition to others seen on the 5th, 6th and 7th floors with rifles. Or are you even aware of these sightings - do you bother with info outside your self proclaimed expert area to put your understanding of the assasination into perspective? I have no beef with you Tom... why must you instigate an argument with your demeanor in your replies? Just answer the question... if we here are too far beneath you to understand your answers so be it... but you don't even TRY to support your conclusions. Chief of Police Curry, "we could not put Oswald in that window with that rifle". That's pretty definitive Tom... was he lying as well? Amos puts a black man in that window at the time of the shots Prisoners in the jail across from the TSBD saw multiple men and rifles Do you even bother familiarizing yourself with the testimony, evidence, research... or just shrug it off. Address the questions Tom... I never asked about adjustable sights - I asked about the alignment of the scope after reassembly. Stay on point for once - k? and since your crystal ball is no better than mine - where do you come off with knowledge about "LHO's actual firing position/sight picture alignment/cheek spot weld/arm length V weapon stock length; etc; etc; etc;," Since you can't and don't have this knowledge you ASSUMPTIONS are just that... unsubstantiated assumptions. Assuming a conclusion "Oswald fired the MC from the 6th Floor" requires proof, extraordinary proof... and you provide none becasue there is none.... he was never there. Until you actually address any of these questions you remain like others unnamed here pontificating your position without a shred of support - even discredited support would be an attempt and better than the air you peddle as your opinion. Tom writes: Just that I can prove to anyone who maintains an open mind that the rifle (Model 91/38 Carcano Short Rifle) was: A. An extremely accurate rifle, with an equivelant accuracy to the US issue M-14, which is still the basis of many of our current sniper rifles. B. There was more than sufficient time for even a relatively inexperienced operator of the weapon, to accomplish the simple shooting feat which transpired. 2. As well as the fact tha LHO was FACTUALLY a superior marksman when shooting at targets to ranges of 300 meters, when firing from a fixed stable firing position. Please Tom, my mind is open to your analysis as long as you focus it to what you consider the Oswald Carcano, it's physical characteristics, it's ability as an accurate weapon within minutes or hours of it being reassembled and no practice shots being fired, the physical condition of the firing pin, hulls that were left, shooting position given the EXACT dimensions of the corner he supposed had this wonderful stationary position, who moved and why the boxes move between 2 photos wihtin seonds of each other when he has to haul ass to be ficticiously encountered by Baker/Truly... and then explain how his marine rifle and its condition at the time is in any way similiar to the Carcano in question... you consider cardboard boxes stradling a windowsill while hunched and squished against a pipe thru a half open window a "fixed stable firing position"? I suppose you do not have Groden's Killing of a President but if you do there is an amazing photo of the view down elm from the county records building... there's a bullet mark on the ground by the manhole cover that was seen by Ofc Foster and Dect Walthers and photographic evidence of something being picked up from the spot by an unidentified man. As expert marksmen and snipers... Mike/Tom... is this not the PERFECT location for a sniper? After spending some time with Groden's book last night - AND assuming what we see in parts of Zap are factual... a headshot from the rear in addition to the one from the front is extremely likely - once you stop clouding YOUR MIND with the idea that it was Oswald, alone, which caused all the injuries and bullet marks left that day. Peace dude... DJ

David, I had a piece of metal lodged in my back, and a herniated disc shoved it into my sciatic nerve, it was cutting into it and well...most unpleasant. Metal?!? Yow. … sciatic is horrible, know that pain … dragging my left leg behind me for months. The statement about the halo coming out of the back of the head is our biggest indication that this is back spatter, and in the direction of the shooter. We do not see this on the z film. I contend the reason we do not see it is because it is far less visible, and well, the z film is sure not in high definition. Bobby Hargis did encounter debris, I have no doubt about that. The question here is, did something slam into Hargis, or did Hargis slam into something? I dare say it would be difficult to tell from the riders perspective. A .5 ounce of matter, which would be a pretty small piece, impacts at 2.5 ounces at just 5 miles an hour. (weight x speed)impact energy. So I have no doubt that Hargis would have felt matter hit him. Yup… weight and speed for sure… How he adds the thing about the TSBD given he was splattered and left rear of Jackie… company line? Mr. STERN - Just a minute. Do you recall your impression at the time regarding the source of the shots? Mr. HARGIS - Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn't any way in the world I could tell where they were coming from, but at the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered, with blood--I was Just a little back and left of--Just a little bit back and left of Mrs. Kennedy, but I didn't know. I had a feeling that it might have been from the Texas Book Depository, and these two places was the primary place that could have been shot from. And a little later was a VERY short interview Mr. STERN - So, at that point you were still uncertain as to the direction of the shots? Mr. HARGIS - Yes, uh-huh. Mr. STERN - Then, what did you do? Mr. HARGIS - Well, then, I thought since I looked over at the Texas Book Depository and some people looking out of the windows up there, didn't seem like they knew what was going on, but none of them were looking towards, or near anywhere the shots had been fired from. At the time I didn't know, but about the only activity I could see was on the bridge, on the railroad bridge so---- DJ: Does this suggest he is talking about the RR overpass as being anywhere the shots had been fired from? Multiple shots is something I look at heavily some years ago. The thoughts I have on this, is that it is very unlikely. My reasoning is pretty simple here. We just do not see multiple impacts. The backward motion we see, in my opinion, can not be contributed to a bullet. Bullets just do not transfer that much energy to the target. Further we really only see one spatter pattern from the front of the head. With multiple shots we would have seen this pattern repeated for each shot. I will have to look for all the sources yet these are the shots Ive heard described by witnesses 1. A bullet strikes the road behind the limo witnesses see sparks. One is even asked whether they saw something hitting the street bi and official 2. A bullet leaves a scar by the manhole cover across from Zapruder... the scar leads back to the courthouse and Murray photos an unidentified man picking up the bullet, pocketing it and off he goes. see photo and testimony of the policeman who saw this occur... (name please edit: Foster - see below) 3. A 45-60 degree downward entrance wound in JFKs back as described initially by Dr. Humes to FBI (6th floor was not more than 22 degrees at the time of the back shot 4. A throat wound of entrance was described by multiple doctors at Parkland.. an FBI agent (Elmer Todd ?) dedicates his job to getting Dr. Perry to recant 5. A bullet hole is witnessed in the windshield of the limo again by many while sitting at Parkland. An interesting story exists about the man at the Ford plant who replaces the windshield and swears to a thru and thru hole 6. A bullet hits a curb then hits Tague 7. John Connally has quite a few injuries suggesting one and even possibly 2 different shots although we will take his word that he was only hit once and not with the same shot that first hits JFK 8. The headshot 9. There are those that argue about a shot after or before the headshot... the MATH and Toms threads are showing serious flaws in the location of the shots Theres the extra bullet found at Parkland the pointed one witnesses describe later when they cannot ID ce399 Theres an extra 7.65 bullet floating around... trying to find the article and image of the empty envelope... not luck yet. The Official story has only 3 shots... in reality there is sufficient evidence for many more... and no surprise these other shots are surrounded with controversy. To address the medical evidence I must confess is a bit intimidating for a simple minded sob like myself. So very much of it relies on witness testimony. One thing I do acknowledge, is that all of the doctors seem to agree that what they see in the xrays, is representative of what they saw at Parkland. This is not true Mike... the evidence suggests that the Drs at Bethesda saw the same right rear blowout as the personnel at Parkland. But if memery serves, Blakey suppressed that info.This is very disconcerting because we have different description of what was actually seen. So I ask myself, how can they agree on the xrays being accurate, and then disagree about what they saw? So it seems this whole mess goes right back to witness reliability. I can say that what we see in the xrays, is perfectly represented by the Warren Commissions findings that one bullet entered the rear. Honestly to me the medical evidence is the most difficult. The Xrays support the Warren Commission findings... quel surpris!! Problem is the xrays are not consistent with each other or the photos or the memories of those who took and developed them. Call me crazy but I prefer to stick with evidence which exists as close to 12:30, 11/22/63 as possible. And that evidence is in direct conflict with what appears in the WCR. Other issues I have with a front shot add to my belief that this never happened. Some of those other issues include: 1) The lack of a viable shooting position from the front left. This position has to accomplish a couple things. It has to leave a wound that does no left side damage to the Presidents head, which almost all the medical evidence agrees on, and it also has to leave Jackie unwounded. I have worked the map to death, and can still not find one location in the front of that limo that satisfies this. I suggested a spot in my previous post... the storm drain, Badgeman or even the South Knoll are also possible yet evidence is pretty sketchy... so Ill go with the one that corresponds to the testimony of Bowers and the RR men. And they were pretty specific about what they saw.... 2) The Xrays themselves show a back to front dispersal of particles. Meaning the bullet was intact upon entry and shattered moving forward. Further, we see no rear directing particle dispersal. Well there Mike, not entirely buying that first sentence. Ive inverted the 2 main xrays we have access to, to highlight the fragments... I just cant see how you determine these to be back to front... please enlighten me. Additionally, please reconcile the graphics of the Parkland people (and ultimately the autopsy sheet of Boswell) to these xrays.... and finally, check this overlay out. The photo of JFK completely negates the Xray as genuine. 3) We simply have not one shred of evidence of any other shots being fired that day. Im looking for hard physical evidence, not unreliable witness testimony. These are just a few of my issues with a front to back shot. Mr. BALL - Tell me where you were standing on the triple overpass about the time that the President's motorcade came into sight? Mr. FOSTER - I was standing approximately along the - I believe the south curb of Elm Street. Mr. BALL - Were you on the overpass? Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir; at the east - be the east side of the overpass. Mr. BALL - On the east side of the overpass? Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. Mr. FOSTER - I moved to -down the roadway there, down to see if I could find where any of he shots hit. Mr. BALL - Find anything? Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. Found where one shot had hit the turf there at the location. Mr. BALL - Hit the turf? Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Did you see any marks on the street in anyplace? Mr. FOSTER - No, a manhole cover. It was hit. they caught the manhole cover right on the corner and - Mr. BALL - You saw a mark on the manhole cover did you? Mr. FOSTER - Yes sir. Mr. BALL - I show you a picture here of a concrete slab. or manhole cover. Do you recognize that picture? Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Does the picture show - tell me what it shows there. Mr. FOSTER - This looks like the corner here where it penetrated the turf right here [indicating]. Mr. BALL - See any mark on the manhole cover? Mr. FOSTER - No, sir; I don't. not on the - well, it is on the turf, on the concrete, right in the corner. Mr. BALL - Can you put an arrow showing the approximate place you saw that? Mr. FOSTER - Should have been approximately along here[indicating]. Mr. BALL - Make it deep enough to mark. The arrow marks the position that you believe you saw the mark on the pavement? Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - It was not on the manhole cover? Mr. FOSTER - No, sir. Mr. BALL - Went into the turf? Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Did you recover any bullet? Mr. FOSTER - No, sir. It ricocheted on out. Mr. BALL - Did you have the crime lab make a picture of that spot? Mr. FOSTER - I called them to the location. Mr. BALL - And told them to make a picture? Mr. FOSTER - On, I didn't tell them. Called them to the spot and let them take it. Can I see the picture? Mr. BALL - Yes, sir. Is this the picture? Mr. FOSTER - That resembles the picture. Mr. BALL - I offer this as "B" then. Mark it as "B" so that we have "A" and "B" now. Officer, this will be written up and submitted to you for your signature and you can read it over and change it any way you wish, or you may waive your signature at this time, which do you prefer? Mr. FOSTER - Well, it doesn't matter. Mr. BALL - Suit yourself. You make the choice. Mr. FOSTER - I would just as soon go ahead and sign it. Mr. BALL - All right. We will notify you and you can get in here and sign it. Mr. FOSTER - All right. Mr. BALL - Than you. One moment please. Who gave you your assignment, Mr. Foster? Mr. FOSTER - Sergeant Harkness. Mr. BALL - You did permit some railroad employees to remain on the overpass? Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - How did you determine they were railroad employees? Mr. FOSTER - By identification they had with them. Identification they had and the other men that was with them verifying that they were employees. Mr. BALL - Okay. Wonder what mystery man is putting in his pocket? The rest of his testimony about the RR workers on the overpass is also very interesting. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/foster.htm I'm sure you know me well enough to know that I do not believe in any evidence alteration. One of the main reasons I do not believe in this, is what we do have in evidence is to consistent with itself. Meaning the story we have been given, does fit the physical evidence. Perhaps I am naive, but I really believe if a mass alteration cover up occurred we could find it pretty readily with the technology we have in this day and age. To date, I have not read one credible account, nor witnessed one bonafide expert come forward to claim things have been altered. Thats a pretty stout statement Mike. Not one credible account...? Please describe for me what a credible account would look like to you... and then please read this: http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong.htm or Mantiks 20 conclusions after nine visits or The Snipers Nest by Allen Eaglesham or the documented 3 casket entries or the 2 Brain exams or Moyers and/or Gil Jesus account of the rifle If youve read thru all of these and still feel there is no credible evidence for alteration of the physical, written, medical, and/or photographic records Id surely like to understand how... The WCR states that no one sees Oswald from 11:50 until the Baker/Truly incident FBI reports were altered to give us that impression... ignored witnesses ALTERS the outcome, and as Ive shown above either the photos or the xrays can be correct not both they contradict each other... and then theres Chris work right here that is supporting the alteration of the Z film... Now on a side note. You know I am pretty firmly in the LN camp. You probably also know I have my own JFK website. If you should ever decide that you would like to write an article for that site, please let me know. Id love to post it for you. I do believe that there are questions left unanswered, and I think these questions hamper not only research, but history in general. In my opinion, for whatever that's worth, these unanswered questions by the CT community promote research for the whole community. I have articles from both sides of the coin, and post them. Im glad to hear you are well buddy. thanks, you as well... so enjoyable to post, debate, discuss at this level... Mike I can appreciate you being firmly in your camp Unspeakable may help you see the assassination in a much broader view than the Lone Nut (who was neither) doing it on his own. Mexico City alone establishes someone other than Oswald using Oswalds name and exact circumstances... And then you might read Gaeton Fonzis The Last Investigation. Or the history of the Paines or his buddy George DeM. You mention being naïve and that technology would find it pretty readily the fact is it has. Ask yourself this.... does an innocent government behave as it did? Does a government intent on finding the killer of its president proceed as it did, perform as it did, and ask questions like how did he get shot in the throat from there? answer it by saying he must have turned all the way around as he waved then see the film and realize that didnt happen.... and ignore it anyway? Not my question yet cant place whos it was, originally. It makes for a wonderful perspective by which to judge events... imo. DJ

It so happens that my daughter Marlo recently met Tom Hanks, and will be working closely with him and Sandra Bullock on their new movie, which will be filmed in old New York, beginning next week. I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions, though I MAY forward him the opinions of Ayoob, depending on how things go. Since Tom Hanks is an OSWALD ACCUSER like yourself, I suspect he is BEYOND THE REACH OF EVIDENCE. "I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions, though I MAY forward him the opinions of Ayoob, depending on how things go. Since Tom Hanks is an OSWALD ACCUSER like yourself, I suspect he is BEYOND THE REACH OF EVIDENCE." 1. Since I was not present on the sixth floor of the TSDB, I honestly have no way of proving and/or disproving (beyond all doubt) that LHO was or was not the shooter. Just that I can prove to anyone who maintains an open mind that the rifle (Model 91/38 Carcano Short Rifle) was: A. An extremely accurate rifle, with an equivelant accuracy to the US issue M-14, which is still the basis of many of our current sniper rifles. B. There was more than sufficient time for even a relatively inexperienced operator of the weapon, to accomplish the simple shooting feat which transpired. 2. As well as the fact tha LHO was FACTUALLY a superior marksman when shooting at targets to ranges of 300 meters, when firing from a fixed stable firing position. 3. And lastly, in regards to: "I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions," As long ago stated, I was perfectly content being out here on this "limb of facts" all by myself. However, now that those who possess true qualifications, such as Mr. Williams, are willing to also venture out here in the "foot-in-mouth/danger zone out on the limb", it is a distinct pleasure to make room for other knowledgeable and qualified individuals with whom to converse intelligently on the subject matter. Hell Tom Ill do some limb sitting with ya anytime. Some dont get it, some never will get it. Mike - Still working on the response... hopefully worth the wait. Tom - please reference the fact that the sight was off, significantly, and wasn't Oswald's supposed marksmanship done without the benefit of a scope that would have required some time to re-acquire the target after working the bolt... twice? Also please reference the actual tests done with that rifle and rifles similiar... the frequency of jamming, misfiring was extraordinarily high. The MC may have been a great rifle in its day... and if well maintained, properly sighted and with a full, working clip might indeed have been capable in capable hands. This simply wasn't the case for THAT Carcano. In reference to his shooting ability... the records shows he was marginal at best, his peers called him "Maggie's drawers" is that the expression when you miss, repeatedly? Now, if you could actually put the recovered rifle into his possession you might have a leg to stand on... but you can't as been shown time and time again, most recently in a great thread by Gil Jesus. So please... before you tear me a new one because "I don't get it" you will have to show point by point against what has already been proven with regards to Frazier's story, the bag, the rifle's history, testimony that he had nothing in his hands when he arrived at work and how the rifle gets from wherever it was, to the TSBD in Oswald's possession... and since it needs re-assembly - when that occurs, when Oswald gets to the window, unseen and how not a single person identifies Oswald in that window... 2 black men, others with rifles at 12:15 and after - but not Oswald. btw - AS you know... Brennan DOES NOT ID OSWALD. Not a single soul puts Oswald on the 6th floor let alone in that window. Mike.... I will leave you with this, for now... Sheriff Decker and Chief Curry where in the lead car and closest to the overpass and RR yard... you asked about a location for the frontal shooter... Dispatcher 12:30 p.m. KKB 364. 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Go to the hospital - Parkland Hospital. Have them stand by. 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there. 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Have Parkland stand by. Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) I am sure it's going to take some time to get your man in there. Pull every one of my men in there. Dispatcher Dallas 1, repeat, I didn't get all of it. I didn't quite understand all of it. Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) Have my office move all available men out of my office into the railroad yard to try to determine what happened in there and hold everything secure until Homicide and other investigators should get there. When witnesses ran behind the fence they found a car with muddy footprints on the back bumper and many, many cigartette butts... a number of witnesses put 2 men behind that fence in that exact spot... and the mooreman photo also shows something highly irregular at this spot. This is where I believe the frontal shots originated... not sure about the throat shot but the frontal head shot, if there was one as many, many witnesses agree upon, would have been from there. Finally, Ray.... do you have anything to add with regards to the ballistics involved? Particle trails, ammo post impact characteristics, blood splatter analysis, xray analysis, photo anaylsis... anything? If you would like to pursue the Tom Hanks is an Oswald Accuser line of thought... I blieve there are numerous threads about that or you can start a new one. We're trying to understand the difference between what a trained ballastics expert sees and the rest of us.... at least to understand how Ayoob's ascertions are not applicable and what assertions are. thanks. DJ Last thought... look at the Moorman photo... Jean Hill was standing right next to her. Are you saying that standing in that position, not 20 feet from JFK and 30 yards from the fence - these two people could not tell if a shot was fired virtually right in front of them - with Decker and Curry corroborating? To me, that's one of the biggest stretches a LNer must make to confine the assassination to 3 shots from the rear. Peace DJ

Greg, After first read I believe you are correct about the Jiffy Store... what did it was your comment about his lack of him making a scene like other genuine sightings.... and really, what does it accomplish. I kept turning pages in the 201 file thinking these reports might help... you know other sightings and comments... uhhh, not so much Not really sure why I bit so hard into that one with you... but thanks for playing along You have to admit though... Oswald looked much thinner and ragged in Nov than in August. Time wore hard on the man.... In terms of the thread... which I surely didn't mean to hijack... Oswald not on that bus is a game changer, a breakthrough, but only if you know what that means. And how much does one need to understand to know what that means? A ridiculous amount... that's how much. and how does proving him off the bus get him out of the window killing the president in the minds of the masses? People want to see a photo of Oswald while the president is being shot.... or someone to say they saw him as the shots were fired. He needs an alibi and he doesn't have one...

Great post Mike... thanks and I would love to write for your site... just wish I was a better writer, period. I'm finally getting out of work and will look at this post again at home and reply... You've said some interesting things. I will leave you with this... Kellerman himself basically tells the WC that there were more than 3 shots and Homer McMahon claims to have seen the Z film and it showed 6-8 shots from 3 different directions - but no one would hear of it. One has to ask oneself why he would say such a thing. DJ ps PLEASE get "JFK and the Unspeakable" and read it. Amazing wealth of info and all in one place. Of course it's CT slanted... but once you read some of the things in there you may see the CTer in a different light. Then again, maybe not... LOL

Thanks Greg... [deleted] Always a pleasure DJ EDIT: WRONG GREG re: the jiffy store.

Jim, Great question but sadly unanswerable... The timeline I see has him in the 2nd floor lunchroom as late as 12:25 to as early as 12:15 as seen by Carolyn Arnold (not the FBI statement, her subsequent correction of that statement) and then again at 12:31:30 in the 2nd floor lunchroom. Although that incident may not have even happened given Baker's affidavit. British journalist and author Anthony Summers provides the following summary of his 1978 interview with Mrs. Arnold: When I found Mrs. Arnold in 1978 to get a firsthand account, she was surprised to hear how she had been reported by the FBI. Her spontaneous reaction, that she had been misquoted, came before I explained to her the importance of Oswald's whereabouts at given moments. Mrs. Arnold's recollection of what she really observed was clear--spotting Oswald was after all her one personal contribution to the record of that memorable day. As secretary to the company vice- president she knew Oswald; he had been in the habit of coming to her for change. What Mrs. Arnold says she actually told the FBI is very different from the report of her comments and not vague at all. She said: "About a quarter of an hour before the assassination [12:15], I went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment. . . . Oswald was sitting in one of the booth seats on the right-hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him but I recognized him clearly." Mrs. Arnold has reason to remember going into the lunchroom. She was pregnant at the time and had a craving for a glass of water. Mr. BELIN. All right. Do you know about what time it was that you left the lunchroom, was it 12, 12:15? Mrs. REID. I think around 12:30 somewhere along in there. Mr. BELIN. All right. When you left the lunchroom, did you leave with the other girls? Mrs. REID. No; I didn't. The younger girls had gone and I left alone. Mr. BELIN. Were you the last person in the lunchroom? Mrs. REID. No; I could not say that because I don't remember that part of it because I was going out of the building by myself, I wasn't even, you know, connected with anyone at all. Mr. BELIN. Were there any men in the lunchroom when you left there? Mrs. REID. I can't, I don't, remember that. DJ: not sure - but "I can't" suggests something very interesting. Oswald was there at 12:15, Reid was there at 12:15 or as late as 12:25 (she made it out front to see the motorcasde on time so she had to have left by then) and when asked about men left in the 2nd floor lunchroom she seems pretty nervous in her answer Oswald had no idea when the motorcade was actually going to pass, so to have him still in the 2nd floor lunchroom as late as 12:15 seems a bit cavalier to me given what needed to happen once he got up there. and if Reid saw him and was scared to say anything it could have been later. 12:00 12:05 12:10 12:15/25 12:30 12:31:30 Lunchroom lunchroom lunchroom lunchroom ??????? lunchroom (Edit: this was supposed to line up so the ???? was under the 12:30... didn't work) I'm thinking it was Oswald in the lunchroom with a Coke. DJ No one saw him leave the 2nd floor lunchroom.

Hmmm... Greg... unless you're just funning with us... I tried to stay away from ce399 cause we'd all agree, well most of us, that that bullet passed thru no one - so to use it to compare to what happened to the bullet hitting JFK in the head - apples and oranges Would have loved to hear an answer to the question, "So CE399 passed thru JFK, smashed JC's rib and wrist without so much as a scratch and the same type of bullet hit JFK on a boney substance and basically disintegrated..... what up? " and the beat goes on.... Arlen? where's Arlen to answer this one?

David, Man its good to hear from you again as well. Two horrid back surgeries later, and Im on the move, albeit slowly. I can only guess that Tom is making a scale reference here. The head of a rabbit with a small bore .22, and likewise the larger head of a man, and the larger projectile. I would have to disagree 100% with the author of the statement that the projectile were traveling 3000 to 4000 fps. Had this been the case, the secondary wound path would be huge. If we think of the head as a vessel filled with a liquid, as blood, and cerebra fluid is a liquid, and brain matter, which is gelatinous, a semi liquid, we soon realize that the material in the head will not compress very much at all. That pressure has to go somewhere. With a small bore, and hyper velocity that pressure would be monumental. I dare say, head removing. What I see in the z film is one shot from the rear. I can offer you my opinion on this. There are two types of spatter forward, in the direction of the bullet, and back, which as it implies moves back towards the shooter. Forward Spatter is higher in velocity, is much more diffuse, and generally far more prevalent. Back spatter is much lower in velocity, much less diffuse, and no where near as prevalent. WE can see that in the above example. So the questions become two fold. What do we see? What do we not see? What we see is a slight movement of the head forward. Consistent with a rifle bullet strike. We see a very diffuse cloud of matter exit the front of the head, forward spatter. We do not see this replicated out of the back of the head, which we certainly would, had we witnessed a front striking rear exiting shot. So why does the damage look so unusual? Because by nature it is hard to categorize head wounds. The head being filled with fluid is going to crack open where ever it dang well pleases. It has to, that pressure just has to go someplace. I have viewed a few head shots in my day, and one thing is certain, wounds created by exactly the same weapon, with exactly the same ammo, can look quite different. I do not know if this helped at all David. Mike Hey there buddy, Back surgery is horrible... had mine in '96... L4/5 herniation. Glad to hear/see your somewhat back in action. With regards to blood splatter and your declaring the shot from the rear... makes sense that we see blood on the seat, in the limo, on John C, the agents, windshield, rearview mirror BUT We can't forget Bobby Hargis being pelted with blood and debris and the multiple witnesses describing a halo of blood flying out the back of his head... What are your thoughts on a rear shot and almost simultaneously a frontal shot - given what we've heard about Collins Radio and the likelihood that those involved were in contact with each other... "SHOOT" could have caused 1, 2 or even 3 simultaneous shots. Any indications in what we see on Zap supporting this (beyond the slight forward movement of his head and then the violent fall backward. I suggest we don't see what we should see coming out of the back of the head for a very sinister reason. Almost 60 people standing right there - who were at least asked - also agree... this includes the SS, DPD, Senators, and civilians. And I hear you about head shot damage... who knows. Would you at least agree that whatever was described BEFORE HE LEFT PARKLAND would naturally be more reliable than the chain of events that ultimately gets him to Bethesda... and the wounds seen there, in a military hospital, surrounded by military personnel... etc etc etc. Of course it helped... thanks. BTW - on an aside - know about that show Top Shot? DJ

Uh Tom... Which faked and altered Xray are you refering to? The one which shows an intact back of the head and no skull bone on the left side forward of his ears? Or the other one that shows no skull bones at the right rear and a completely intact left front. Maybe some other piece of thoroughly discredited medical evidence? And I wonder what these professional Parkland Hospital employees are referring to? It's cool that you have this whole thing figured out... just wish you would actually get to some point about how and why a bullet designed not to disintegrate, does, while leaving what has been recognized as a VAPOR TRAIL OF PARTICLES from a bullet designed to remain intact. How about the bullet or bullets that hit JFK were not FMJ 6.5 mm rounds.... rather than trying to squeeze the round peg of the bullet's characteristics into the square hole of what actually was witnessed. Anything that we have with regards to the assassination's medical evidence after the body left Parkland is completely suspect... half truths at best. If the Xrays are faked/altered how can one say the "vapor trail of particles" was even there to begin with... because there is corroborating evidence. Please produce something that refutes this chart... the MC could only fire at most 2400 fps which corresponds to hardly any dmage at all - as designed... even at the top velocity the large nose piece and other large pieces are evident.... there is no mass of fine particles... again as designed. But if you want to keep pushing that round peg at least produce a little support for your statements. More than willing to be wrong Tom, have re-evaluated my position in a number of areas... as the experts, if you and Mike could help us understand why/how you feel that JFK was hit with a FMJ 6.5mm round fired from ??? with a Carcano... It would be greatly appreciated.

First off… While I have read parts of Armstrong’s work I am not intimate with the details and I certainly do not imply that the other OSWALD was the Harvey to the arrested Lee or vice versa… What I am saying is that there is abundant testimony from a variety of witnesses that a man matching Oswald’s description was seen in and around Dallas not only on the 22nd but in the weeks prior as well. From Unspeakable p.286-303…. Wise, White, Burroughs, Haire and Vinson all saw this other person on the 22nd… Greg, you wrote: One further thing Moore said - the individual had been nervous while in the shop. Does that sound like Lee Oswald to anyone? What it DOES sound like is an under age kid whose just bought beer and is nervous about getting caught. I can't believe anyone assumed this was actually Oswald... that's the whole point. The description is similar to the man seen taken out the BACK of the Texas Theater in handcuffs and driven off in a police car... Now I'm thoroughly confused, David. Here is part of what was posted as being Armstrong's words: "The FBI interviewed Fred Moore who said Lee Oswald entered the Jiffy store on Industrial Blvd at 8:30 a.m. and bought two beers-while Harvey Oswald was working at the Book Depository. So the answer to your disbelief that anyone could believe it was Oswald is – Armstrong said it was Oswald (Lee Harvey). That is NOT MY belief. I thought I made it clear that I believe it was an under age kid. With all due respect… you “made it clear that (you) BELIEVE” from your interpretation of the testimony… it was a kid… you are entitled to an opinion yet a person, obviously not the LHO working at the TSBD on the 22nd, was nervous – and given who he may have been, nervous sounds about right – it was going to be a busy day for this person… in my interpretation of the statement. Moore states the name on the ID as Oswald… the description is very much like Oswald, and he came back again later… to make another impression. And please stop bouncing back and forth on the time... It seems to me that you are trying very hard to make what Moore says, not what he says. The question is "why is ANYONE showing an OSWALD ID other than Oswald?" and one that may have had "H. Lee Oswald" on it. I don't know that anyone did show ID. The FBI report is dated Dec 2 so Moore had plenty of time to obtain Oswald's date of birth from the papers. He lied because typically, those types of shops do not ask for ID – particularly if the person looks like they "might" be old enough – and even when they do ask – they will typically accept any old thing as valid. Moore was dealing with the FBI. He said he asked for ID because they had previously been caught selling to minors. That, to me, sounds like he is giving a reason for asking for ID when it would be common knowledge with law enforcement that they don't, as a rule, do that. CYA. (I can just imagine it... "You asked for ID? Get outa here!" with Moore replying, well yes, sir. You see, we had been caught before selling to minors....") How many times had they been caught (he seems to suggest more than once)? How many times did it take getting caught before they decided it wasn't worth it any more and they started asking for ID? What were the penalties they paid on those other occasions? This whole paragraph is nothing but conjecture on your part Greg… You ask good questions yet if what Moore said was recorded correctly by the FBI… the event occurs at 8:30 and again before 9:30 when Moore’s boss arrives. He even mentions H. Lee Oswald – are you claiming they referred to him as such that weekend so that Moore could have picked up on that name? Please cite the source. ASSUMPTION of CYA is also interesting Greg… but this is really not just some isolated incidence and while your assumption of “follow up questioning by the FBI” is also interesting… but sadly, NOT what happened or what was recorded. If all we are going to discuss is your assumptions of what he said as they exist in a vacuum – unrelated to anything else – why bother? Like discussing the backyard pic as real or not even though we know Oswald never had the rifle, the rifle doesn’t match. etc... what’s the point? http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.ja-ex34.htmlhttp://www.acorn.net...R/.ja-ex34.html John Armstrong theorizes this was Lee Oswald's wallet, not Harvey's, perhaps containing the same license shown to store clerk Fred Moore hours earlier when Lee bought two beers then some "peco" brittle. A Texas driver's license belonging to "Lee Oswald" turned up at the Texas There you go. According to Armstrong, it was Lee Oswald – not according to me. Department of Public Safety the following week. Aletha Frair, an employee saw and handled Oswald's Texas driver's license Lee, who drove; not Harvey, who didn't. Six other employees Ray Sundy, Joyce Bostic, Inez Laake, Gayle Scott, Peggy Smith and Mrs. Ernie Isaacs also saw Lee Oswald's driver's license. They noted it was dirty and worn as though it had been carried in a billfold. The license was the main topic of discussion in their office for quite a while. Mrs. Lee Bozarth, an employee of the Texas Department of Public Safety, stated categorically that she knew from direct personal experience that there was a DPS driver's license file for Lee Harvey Oswald. The file had been pulled shortly after the assassination. Lee Oswald drove, and had a valid Texas driver's license. Harvey Oswald, the man under arrest at 2 pm, November 22, did not drive, and did not have a license. But did he not put in some paperwork at some stage? Going form memory. Where do you get the impression the LHO walked off the job with any regularity and stayed away for well longer than any normal break time would be allowed. I never said he DID. I said it was possible. He did the same in New Orleans, in case you're not aware of it. But to reiterate, I DO NOT believe this was Lee Oswald, or anyone deliberately impersonating Lee Oswald, so what is theoretically possible really does not matter to me here. Fair enough Greg… but you not believing its possible does not make it so. First you discuss his walking off the job and drinking beer at 8:30 then you say it was not Oswald... and as I’ve said already – I agree, it was not Oswald... but based on the testimony it was just as likely the ID said H. Lee Oswald as your belief that it didn’t. Funny how much you sound like the FBI/SS though Greg.... 3 bullets, no more... don’t care what you saw, heard or say. So Moore’s wrong because you want him to be? You going to say the same about Odio as well? that he drank beer in the early morning.... that he would have acted nervous buying beer and calm when a cop points a gun at him... Lee Oswald was known to drink beer in the Marines and in NO. But if it wasn't Oswald at the Jiffy Store, what does it matter? that he would have acted nervous buying beer and calm when a cop points a gun at him... How could you take the rhetorical "Does that sound like Lee Oswald to anyone?" as indicating I thought him being nervous buying a beer sounded like an accurate description? Did I not then indicate it sounded more like a minor buying a beer? Again and again Greg.... rhetorical questions about LHO at the Jiffy Store when you already acknowledge he was not there... and we all agree that we was not there. No Greg, the person in the store was not LHO the TSBD employee... Agreed. Mr. GIVENS. Well, I first saw him on the first floor. Mr BELIN. About what time was that? Mr. GIVENS. Well, about 8:30. Jarman, James Earl TSBD employee The first time I saw Lee Oswald on Friday, November 22, 1963 was about 8:15 a.m. He was filling orders on the first floor. A little after 9:00 a.m. Lee Oswald asked me what all the people were doing standing on the street. Not sure what you're trying to prove here. The incident at the store was at 9:30 am and according to google, it's a 13 minute walk. My experience with google however, is that the estimates are always conservative. But 13 minutes still gets him there by 9:30. Not that it matters. We're talking theoretical possibilities only. It wasn't him. And it didn't happen on the Friday. Truly, Roy TSBD Superintendent Arrives at work around 8am and remembers seeing Oswald already working on the first floor. They exchange Hello's Very friendly boss, but I don't see the significance here. Simply supporting our agreed upon – He was not there – statement. And whoever was, was there at 8:30 not 9:30... and back again by 9:00. Givens and Jarman’s testimony support this. Roy seeing him at 8am and Givens at around 8:30 suggest he did not leave – as we agree. My guess regarding Moore's Boss withholding the Jewish name comment may be on the same order as Moore makeing sure he says he was asking for ID... CYA. How does that work? Is mentioning a Jewish name incriminating? Enlighten me! Isn't it much more likely it wasn't said at that particular time because - apart from anything else - "Lee Oswald" is not a Jewish name? Whether something "makes more sense" is simple conjecture, right? You haven't anything that would suggest that other than Rubenstein being so much more Jewish sounding than Oswald the comment was or wasn't ever delivered... an interesting conjecture none the less. Conjecture based on one actually being a Jewish name and the other, not – and the fact that the Ruby slaying of Oswald gets mentioned as a reference point for when the beer drinking took place (i.e. the day before). And then of course, there is also the fact that Worthington did not remember it. Your conjecture as to why Worthington denied remembering it needs further fleshing out as it makes no sense to me at all. Your employee makes what could be, in 1963, a somewhat racist comment and you’re confused as to why Worthington might not want to mention it? Just as believable as the man with the Oswald ID being an underage boy. You want to hang your hat on Worthington not remembering what Moore said about LEE OSWALD being a good Jewish name as a complete negation of his testimony? Seems a bit of an overplay on that point in my opinion. “on the previous day” was not necessarily something that MOORE said as opposed to what Barry writes as a description.... adds more confusion – doesn’t it? Couldn’t have been Oswald so make sure the report is as ambiguous as possible... The man sees a DL with H. Lee Oswald, 3/10/39... and then recognizes the man from TV over the weekend. Odio saw him months before and also remembered him from the TV... so do a number of other witnesses... if you want to simply shrug Moore off, nothing I can do. But if you want to read about the entire day and who was seen and who looked like Oswald and where he went and what he did... then look back a few weeks and see the multiple Oswald sightings – incriminating sightings – I think you may see this in a different perspective. I also want to say that of course it is possible the entire thing was made up... there were many leads claiming to have seen Oswald – at some point though Greg, connected evidence starts to trump assumption. We as a research community are getting ever closer to the reality that multiple Oswalds were obviously at play in the months, weeks, days and the day of the assassination. Are you also saying it was Oswald who was at the shooting range, gun shop, gets into that refrigeration guy's truck* to tell that same "shoot the president with a rifle" story..., makes the calls from Mexico City, etc... I don't think so... All of those episodes need to assessed on their own merit – just as I have done with this. Whether none, one or all of those other episodes turned out true, they have no bearing on THIS one being true. I have to disagree there Greg. If a pattern emerges that Oswald is being impersonated – and a VERY STRONG PATTERN EMERGES when we look at all these separate incidences... and yet another incidence occurs that ultimately emerges as a pattern for the day (buying beer/candy, men seen on the 6th floor with rifles at 12:15, Craig seeing him getting into a car, (pretty much proved he wasn’t on the bus) seen entering the theater first at 1:05 buying the popcorn at 1:15 all the while Tippit is murdered, seen being ushered out the BACK of the theater, being seen in a red falcon at 2pm, being seen getting on an undocumented US transport plane) and then add the different people and places an Oswald knew and stayed with, etc in the weeks prior, all intertwined with Cubans and CIA.... Now, when someone says a man with an Oswald ID is seen the morning of the assassination mere blocks from the assassination spot – and the rest of the day ultimately plays out as continue to learn... I think there is a significant bearing on this incident being truthful.... much more so than your underage/CYA assumptions I've read your post a couple times now and still do not see how you determine Moore's story is a waste of time and Armstrong's use pathetic... given all this other evidence What evidence? What you have is the say so of one man of whom you know nothing. All we do know is that his manager did not support the only part of his story he actually may have been able to support, had it been true. Apart from that, we have Moore placing the incident on the Saturday – not the Friday, along with his inability to ID Oswald as the man. Your assumptions of the testimony. Not how I read it. AND NOT REALLY THE POINT OF MY ORIGINAL POST which had to do with the emerging proof that two or more Oswalds had been in play for many months. The HSCA could not get away from Odio’s testimony – Oswald was in the company of Cubans months before the assassination. Very inconvenient. So if you are looking for me to agree that the Jiffy Store sightings may NOT have been of an Oswald... I agree. But MAY NOT is most definitely not WAS NOT... Your assumptions are just as fragile as Moore’s sighting... I am more than willing to leave it at that. I think you are saying that you feel that proof of multiple Oswalds should be stronger than Moore’s statement, or are you saying that Moore’s statement should not even be considered because of what you describe as the inconsistencies? Just sounds awfully suspect to dismiss what may be indicative of a conspiracy for the reasons you name. If the idea had been to "create and cause more confusion in the aftermath of the assassination and/or to establish a conspiracy was in the works", then the plan failed miserably here. Moore said there were others in the shop, but does your version of "Lee Oswald" stay in the shop to drink his beers (as Moore indicated folk usually did) to create a scene that they all would recall? No. He nervously leaves to drink them – just like a minor would who didn't want anyone taking too much notice of him while he drank. Assumptions Greg... pure assumption on your part. I can just as easily assume his buying beer at 8:30 – which required ID – and then to return for Candy... left more than enough of a memory for Mr. Moore – whether you accept it as such or not. And what you describe as “nervous” does not even appear as a statement attributed to Moore – sorry if I don’t accept FBI reports on face value.... Seems that ANYTHING could have been and was written on these reports that had NOTHING to do with what was said. My assumption now. Moore had an under-age drinker on Saturday morning. The drinker left so as not to be noticed. Just as he was leaving, Worthington entered from the back. Moors says something to Worthington along the lines of "there goes another kid buying beer". Over the next week, he dramatizes this episode, telling people it was Oswald. Someone contacts the FBI to report it. Moore then spins his story to them when they call around, but realizing the potential trouble he could get in for making up the story, he refuses to ID Oswald. He also gratuitously adds a comment he made on the Sunday about Rubinstein and instead claims he made it about Oswald on a previous day. Conjecture to be sure – but far more grounded in what we actually know about the incident than anything else presented. Nice Story – and he did not refuse, just said he was thinner in the face.... Looks to me that the NO photo does show him a bit fuller in the face... no? I look forward to your response. DJ *edit: not sure if it was a refrig repairman's truck... but the man goes back and tells the story to a friend and ultimately is severely beaten... if I remember correctly Doesn't matter. It is not part of this episode. That story may or may not be true. This one is not. edit #2 - one more thing Greg... if you are right and the Oswald sighting was Saturday morning, while Oswald was in jail, wouldn't that seem a bit strange to you? I never said it was Oswald there on a Saturday morning. I said the episode happened on the Saturday morning. And I said Saturday because it is what Moore said. “on the previous day” is what the report says... not “yesterday”... was Friday previous to Sunday? Yes. Sorry but I cannot conclude that this means Saturday when the entire rest of the statement points to Friday... simply a generalization in my book Your problem appears to be that you have started with a conclusion and now you are trying to hammer all the bits into that. I simply assessed the situation based on what is in the FBI report and let it lead wherever it may. thank you for defining “my problem” Greg.... your assessment is highly speculative and filled with assumptions... my interpretation fits with the events of the day and has other substantiating evidence for a second Oswald being in Dallas that morning. That day. Dismiss what you will... Verdict: Moore was likely trying to puff up his importance among family and friends and spun a story around a kid buying beer on a Saturday, claiming it was Oswald buying beer on Friday. He has no support for this claim from any other source – indeed odd if this was a deliberate an attempt to create a scene – and one part is in fact denied by the person (Worthington) he claimed could verify it (the comment about the name). He had plenty of time to get Oswald's date of birth from newspapers, so I don't see how that can be used as supporting his story. He was then left in a situation when confronted by the FBI, of having to confirm the incident or look like the fabricator he actually was, but at the same time, get himself off the hook by refusing to ID a person he had never actually eyeballed to begin with. Try looking at the evidence without the H & L lens. Your vision may improve. At the very least, it would stop all the confusion about who we are both talking about. That is to say, when I refer to Lee Oswald, I am referring to the historical person – the one who was in the Marines, lived in NO and handed out leaflets and later got a job in Dallas at the TSBD. I Know H & L supporters cannot do that, but if you would kindly ( a ) stop assuming I am talking about two different people and ( b ) when you refer to the person you believe was Lee Oswald, call him just that, and when you are referring to the mythical "Harvey" please refer to him as a possible double, or something along those lines. Just trying to make the discussion a little easier and more comprehensible, is all... As I stated – I do not have an opinion one way or an other regarding Harvey and Lee per Armstrong. I do not come to this discussion with that mindset... I believe we have put to bed the idea that whoever was in that Jiffy Store was NOT LHO, the man killed by Ruby 2 days later. But to completely dismiss the possibility based on your interpretation of the words in the FBI report is too much of a stretch... You tell an interesting tale none the less... but the person having an Oswald ID is just as likely if not more so than your scenario... I don’t have to assume anything either, just take his words at face value – the evidence you claim to produce does nothing to support the idea the person was underage, did not show an Oswald ID and did not return and leave before Worthington arrived... your explanation requires we ASSUME quite a lot... possible for sure... plausible... ?? I just look at the rest of the day’s events and what we come to know as evidence and testimony from those who we would say are reliable – There was more than one person representing themselves as Oswald... plain and simple... Greg, I want to give your reply the thought it deserves.. but it was your post: Here's what the FBI report says in summary: Moore thought that the customer had first come in at about 8:30, purchased two beers and returned later to buy two pieces of Peco Brittle. and then Not sure what you're trying to prove here. The incident at the store was at 9:30 am and according to google, it's a 13 minute walk. My experience with google however, is that the estimates are always conservative. But 13 minutes still gets him there by 9:30. Not that it matters. We're talking theoretical possibilities only. It wasn't him. And it didn't happen on the Friday. was it 8:30 as the FBI reports or 9:30 as you assume? David, if the incident happened on Friday, it happened at 9:30 as that is when Worthington entered on Friday. But Moore let slip it actually happened the day before Oswald was shot by Ruby. If Saturday is correct, then his recall of it happening at 8:30 may be right. and if it was Saturday and the ID was an "Oswald" - which is Moore's statement AS RECORDED BY THE FBI (who if anything could be counted upon to skew any reference AWAY from if being another Oswald), not Armstrong's - that's an even better case for multiple Oswald's... ignoring all the evidence that supports other "Oswalds"... leading up to Robert Vinson's account... just does not make your interpretation of Moore's testimony as likely as there being a second Oswald. Who is ignoring the evidence? not me. The report states "further identification of this individual as Oswald, Moore said, arose when he had seen Oswald on television in the course of his travel from the Dallas Police Department prior to his being shot by Ruby. At this time, he recalled the name and the identification of Oswald as the customer in his store the previous day." Am I right in assuming this has been missed or ignored in all other assessments of this document? Addressed above....There are no quotes around that statement Greg and I feel you are assuming a conclusion that may not be accurate.... Moore’s report state 8:30 am, Friday, Nov-22-63 on both page 1 and 2. Worthington’s statement states early morning, Friday Nov-22-63, prior to the assassination of the president With regard to the ID: I have already dealt with that: he had a long time prior to the interview to get the month and year of birth of Oswald from the newspapers. Take that recall of the birth date away and there is zip evidence any ID was shown. In regard to his memory... you can't have it both ways and say he misremembered the day it happened but had perfect recall of Oswald's date of birth from the driver's licence. ”Take away the recall of the birth date” ?? why? Because you want it to go away? Moore saying the man said, “Sure I got ID.” And He did not misremember the date Greg... that is a poor assumption on your part – three times and from corroborating witnesses place the event Friday morning 11-22-63. If Moore or Worthington expressed any doubt about that don’t you suppose the FBI would have recorded it that way? Such as, “Either Friday or Saturday morning... Mr Moore claims......” Read the report again Greg – it was obviously Friday and Moore obviously saw and remembered something. Is it perfect? No. But much more substantial that you are trying to make it appear. Here is the quote from the report on the ID issue: "Identification of ID as Oswald, Moore said, arose when he asked for identification as to proof of age for purchase of two bottles of beer. Moore said he figured the man was over 21 but the store frequently requires proof by reason of past difficulties with local authorities for serving beer to minors." Be honest. How many little stores like that back in '63 do you think asked someone who looked over 21 for ID? He fabricated the request to look at the ID and then came up with an excuse why he asked for it when it would have been common knowledge that such requests were rarer than assassins buying guns through the mails. Assumptions again Greg... nothing but your suppositions. But I'll be back with a response line by line as you so graciously offered me - and I appreciate your time and manner Greg - as well as respect your position... as long as you support it with more than you interpretation or assessmento f the info but with the info itself - taken with other info in the same area - and offer your conclusions. [edit done here] I have supported it with a thorough analysis of the evidence -- and the ONLY evidence is the FBI reports. This is far more support than offered any where else. Others have put the cart before the horse by virtue of the information being left unfiltered through any thought processes and simply slotted straight into a pre-determined theory . I'm not offering a theory. I'm offering an analysis based solution. If you think others have better support their positions on the "Jiffy Store Incident" with the evidence, I'd like to see that additional evidence. And if you believe I am wrong that those others have indeed given due thought and consideration to the contents of the two documents, then please explain how they missed such a simple thing as Moore placing the event on Saturday? Because he obviously did not place the event on Saturday as you are interpreting, and as I referenced above. Taking “the previous day” to be a literal statement against 3 references to Friday morning Nov 22, 1963 in the same FBI report you are quoting... why aren’t the 3 other references enough to show you that “the previous day” was not meant to mean Saturday... but looks like an expression of speech. If the FBI agent who recorded this believed he meant Saturday... after spelling out “Friday morning Nov 22, 1963” three times would he not mention that to show how impossible Oswald being at the store Saturday would have been – obviously a mistake... but that’s not what the report says Greg. So once you explain those three specific date references away versus your assumption and interpretation of a word I’ll have a better understanding of why you choose only parts of the FBI reports to make your point and not the entire thing. [end edit] Surely you can't argue that the OSWALD recorded on tape and film at the Mexican Embassy was actually Oswald... Someone used his name... why? and how is that any different from someone using his ID the morning of the assassination other than to confuse and stick out like a sore thumb...? David, one provable example of someone impersonating Oswald does not validate all other sightings. That just defies logic. Never said it validated it Greg, what I said was that if you put this report in the context of what we now know was going on with Oswald being impersonated and incriminated that day and in the weeks before, it is not so much of a stretch, from that report, to conclude the person in the Jiffy Store that morning bought the only thing that required ID. One point on your side that you did not present was the physical description of this person included the age 21. If Moore sees the license and also suggests he sees a birth year of 1939... one would assume either he or the FBI agent would know that adds to 24. Just trying to understand it myself as well Greg. I found that a bit odd yet the repetition of the Friday morning time and date points to the event happening on the 22nd. To finish up – if we are looking at statements regarding Oswald and his whereabouts... Baker’s says he met a man “walking away from the stairs as we reached the 3rd and 4th floors”. Truly says the man works there... The lunchroom is on the 2nd floor and nowhere in this statement.... They testify to an entirely different scenario without repercussion. IMO that was the Oswald look alike and when they found witnesses to the 2nd floor lunchroom and Oswald just sitting there... something got changed to put Baker and Truly in that room... although there is no evidence at all from that day to the day of the testimony that the lunchroom scene even happened. Greg, thanks for the patience – life has been a bit busy and I’ve been working on this an and off the past few days. Of course we wish this was a bit more cut and dried but nothing about this case is. If you feel the incident was not an Oswald sighting I respect that... as I’ve said and agreed to – there are some inconsistencies... yet I feel there are just as many if not more consistencies both in the Moore’s story and in the context of the assassination to believe him. DJ

Hey there Mike... good to hear from you again. Would enjoy your take on this. When one goes and finds a recognized expert in the field who categorically states something: P.S. "The explosion of the President's head as seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film is simply not characteristic of a full metal-jacket rifle bullet traveling at 2,200 fps or less. It is far more consistent with an explosive wound of entry with a small-bore, hyper-velocity rifle bullet traveling between 3,000 and 4,000 fps, and probably toward the higher end of that scale" Tom replies: Being "not characteristic" does not imply not possible! Hell! Anyone who has shot rabbits with a standard "gilded" .22 round and a "hollow-point" .22 round would know this. One does not need Ayoob to recognize this simple fact. The simple fact is, that for the most part, the head shot impact at Z313 is totally consistant with what a FMJ Carcano bullet can and will do when it strikes and penetrates the skull in the manner which IT DID! You both know much more than I ever will about ballistics.... Why does Tom bring up "gilded" or "hollow-point" .22 rounds when we are talking about a FMJ 6.5mm round??? Does FMJ rounds completely disintegrate and leave vapor clouds along it path? If the frontal shot exploded - what blows out the back of his head? Does z313 +/- a few frames look like 2 simultaneous shots? Since I truly don't understand how Ayoob can say one thing and then Tom simply shrug it off without any real response other than Ayoob being willing to accept a change in ideas - maybe you could clear it up for us? DJ

Greg, I want to give your reply the thought it deserves.. but it was your post: Here's what the FBI report says in summary: Moore thought that the customer had first come in at about 8:30, purchased two beers and returned later to buy two pieces of Peco Brittle. and then Not sure what you're trying to prove here. The incident at the store was at 9:30 am and according to google, it's a 13 minute walk. My experience with google however, is that the estimates are always conservative. But 13 minutes still gets him there by 9:30. Not that it matters. We're talking theoretical possibilities only. It wasn't him. And it didn't happen on the Friday. was it 8:30 as the FBI reports or 9:30 as you assume? and if it was Saturday and the ID was an "Oswald" - which is Moore's statement AS RECORDED BY THE FBI (who if anything could be counted upon to skew any reference AWAY from if being another Oswald), not Armstrong's - that's an even better case for multiple Oswald's... ignoring all the evidence that supports other "Oswalds"... leading up to Robert Vinson's account... just does not make your interpretation of Moore's testimony as likely as there being a second Oswald. But I'll be back with a response line by line as you so graciously offered me - and I appreciate your time and manner Greg - as well as respect your position... as long as you support it with more than you interpretation or assessmento f the info but with the info itself - taken with other info in the same area - and offer your conclusions. Surely you can't argue that the OSWALD recorded on tape and film at the Mexican Embassy was actually Oswald... Someone used his name... why? and how is that any different from someone using his ID the morning of the assassination other than to confuse and stick out like a sore thumb...? DJ