David Josephs

Hey David... a quick thanks for your fantastic book. Enjoyed and continue to enjoy your work A thought dawned on me after your post... Were was Perry trained that would have him do a horizontal incision versus a vertical one? This article suggests that VERTICAL incisions were the order of the day for years and years.... yet I am having a tough time finding what would have been the suggested method in 1963 ER settings just a thought. DJ Tracheostomy—The horizontal tracheal incision I. Katoa1 c1, K. Uesugia1, M. Kikuchiharaa1, H. Iwasawaa1, J. Iidaa1, K. Tsutsumia1, H. Iwatakea1 and I. Takeyamaa1 a1 (Kawasaki, Japan) Abstract The complication rate after emergency tracheostomy is two to five times greater than after elective procedures. One of the main causes of the high risk of complications in emergency tracheostomy appears to be the amount of time required to open the trachea. Therefore, simple and fast procedures are mandatory. We have developed a new procedure as follows: A horizontal skin incision is performed. Strap muscles are dissected and retracted laterally. A transverse cut between tracheal rings below the thyroid isthmus is performed up to membranous portion of the trachea. The cut ends of the trachea remain open naturally because of the elasticity of the trachea. Skin and tracheal cut-ends are then joined by interrupted sutures. We have used this procedure during the past three years and have not experienced any major complications. This demonstrates the clear advantage and the more physiological nature of the procedure over various other incisions of the tracheal wall. (Accepted January 09 1990) Correspondence: c1 Dr. I. Kato, Department of Otolaryngology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Miyamae, Sugao 2-16-1, 213 Kawasaki, Kanagawa, Japan Footnotes Paper presented by Dr. K. Uesugi at the 6th World Congress of Bronchoesophagology in Tokyo 15-18 October 1989.

Thanks to Allen E via Bernice - always facinated by this story and how Dennis David did not meet the same fate. In one section the Autopsy surgeon has no powder burns or marks of any kind that suggest the barrel was anywhere near Pitzer's head... yet lo and behold, the Autopsy makes no mention of this fact... they took a cast of his hand, but not of the gunshot area? Hmmmm... where have we heard this before... 'cause if you're gonna kill yourself, you'd obviously hold the gun as far away from your head, head, mouth, whatever... as possible. From the Autopsy: SKIN: Sections from the margin of the entrance wound reveal a loss in the continuity of the epidermis with a marked basophilic degeneration and hyalinization of the underlying collagen. Scattered throughout these tissues are prominent collections of dark brown to black granular material presumably representing nitrates. The neighboring portions of the skin reveal moderate basophilic degeneration of collagen but no lesions of the epidermis or deposits of a foreign material are present.

So what? I could link to several LNT sources that “spell out” the same view as each other, ditto sources pushing creationism etc. just because a site is a LNT source doesn't mean that the factual events related to the creation of the CIA in 1947 (or any factual presentation) on that site are incorrect... at least not until proven so. In the Rothschild paper it says: 1920: Winston Churchill (whose mother, Jenny (Jacobson) Jerome, was Jewish – meaning he is Jewish under Ashkenazi law as he was born of a Jewish mother) writes in an article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, dated February 8th, "From the days of Illuminati leader Weishaupt, to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky, this worldwide conspiracy has been steadily growing. And now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America, have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and become the undisputed masters of that enormous empire." Now I looked thru the entire article that Churchill wrote for the Feb 8, 1920 issue - page 5. I could not find the word for word quote but did find this paragraph that pretty well spells it out. International Jews. In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. Looks pretty accurate to me.... Rather than keep going... if you are so suspect of the history, (not the anti-semitism as we both know how real that is)check it out yourself as I expect anyone reading anything onwhich they are going to base their opinions would do. These are important topics but just like all other topics obscure sources that don’t back their claims are of little or no value except perhaps for entertainment. There are a number of JFK books without footnotes and sources that still serve as excellent source of information (I'd have to look again but aren't Manchester and Buchannan's books without sources and footnotes? If a book can expose an idea that requires further investigation which proves fruitful - that book, regardless of the lack of sources, can still be considered more than entertainment. Did you mean ‘ideological’? ‘Idealistic’ did not make sense in either instance. I don’t know anything about. thevenusproject.com but it seems to be the typical utopian clap trap and its association with ”zeitgeist the movie” is a bad sign. But at this point I’m guessing you’re a member of the 'cult'. My bad, "idealistic" is not the correct word. Not sure what is... you calling one person's ideas on how to build a better world "typical utopian clap trap" is just as prejudicial as DVP calling refutiations of the SBT unfounded - no point in discussing "ideas" with you Len.... the fact is you fail to see how an intelligent person can pick and choose what makes sense and do the legwork to substantiate the info as opposed to the one of the bewildered herds who barely have time to look up from the trough. Guessing doesn't become you Len. If you are wondering if I would prefer that 1% of the population not control 50% of the wealth and that a better way be sought... or that I prefer the government stop lying to us about damn near everything - the i GUESS you can call me a cult member.... True but irrelevant many predictions about the future did NOT come true. Can you point to anyone who was not a top computer scientist who proposed such a thing 30 years ago? Can you point to any economists who believe what you do? Point to someone??, who cares? - I am pointing to people NOW who have ideas about ripping the control of the world from the bankers.... there are those who talk of Nationalizing the FED and printing our own money... not a bad idea.... of looking at RESOURCE based models this is not about predictions about the future Len.... this is about offering/discussing ideas that are in such conflict with the reality of the times (ending the Cold War for example) that they seem ridiculous on their face. what happened to Copernicus? About 1532 Copernicus had basically completed his work on the manuscript of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium; but despite urging by his closest friends, he resisted openly publishing his views, not wishing—as he confessed—to risk the scorn "to which he would expose himself on account of the novelty and incomprehensibility of his theses." Fact is the earth was not the center of the universe - I am sure you'd have been one of nay sayers holding to the old beliefs.... True, but same applies to crackpot notions that went no where. The Shakers were scorned, by your "logic" we should assume they were right. Sorry Len, I do not see the "logic" connection you've made. By my logic, any "crackpot notion" (Christianity comes to mind) can be looked at as you are.... brushed aside, not investigated, not considered.... but by those who do and actually find a better way to live with fellow humans and want to tell others... there is no right or wrong, there is... How do we want to live as a people? The Talmud and Torah are basically "crackpot notions" of how people should live together and is considered not entirely "right" by most the world. You going to stop living a Jewish life becuase of that? We can just as easily make the argument that if we all lived as Jews the world would be a far better place.... doesn't take away from the history of judaism and you'd have just as hard a time convincing the world to adopt that destiny as you would with the venus project.... so what? Some did, some did not. Presumably most if not all the former were very good at documenting their claims something these crackpots failed to do. No doubt there is significant SLANT in the Satan sourced article and significant optimism in the others... but what "CLAIMS" are you talking about Len??? We all would like every piece of information sourced back to an unimpeachable source - how often does that happen for you in your travels? As we've seen in the JFK case, anything is possible with regards to sources, documentation and evidence... This is yet another piece of the Rothschild article... looks like a number of references and sources, and they are throughout the article... maybe one should read thru the linked articles and/or watch the entire zeitgeist movie before expressing one's opinions? 1995: Former atomic energy scientist, Dr Kitty Little claims the Rothschilds now control 80% of the world’s uranium supplies giving them a monopoly over nuclear power. (I found who she is/was yet was not able to substantiate this info... I would give it less weight than other info I have sourced.... would the article be better filled with references, of course, but Google makes finding things pretty swift these days...) The Defense Investigative Service circulates a memo warning US military contractors that, "Israel aggressively collects (US) military and industrial technology." The report stated that Israel obtains information using, "ethnic targeting, financial aggrandizement, and identification and exploitation of individual frailties," of US citizens. 1996: A General Accounting Office report, "Defense Industrial Security: Weaknesses in US Security Arrangements With Foreign-Owned Defense Contractors," found that according to intelligence sources, "Country A," (identified by intelligence sources as Israel, Washington Times, 22 February 1996), "conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any US ally." A pdf file of the report is here: www.gao.gov/archive/1996/ns96064.pdf An unformated text version is here: http://fas.org/man/gao/gao9664.htm The Jerusalem Post (30 August 1996) quoted the report, "“Classified military information and sensitive military technologies are high-priority targets for the intelligence agencies of this country." The report described, "An espionage operation run by the intelligence organization responsible for collecting scientific and technologic information for (Israel) paid a US government employee to obtain US classified military intelligence documents." The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (Shawn L. Twing, April 1996) noted that this was, "a reference to the 1985 arrest of Jonathan Pollard, a civilian US naval intelligence analyst who provided Israel's LAKAM espionage agency an estimated 800,000 pages of classified US intelligence information." www.washington-report.org/backissues/0496/9604014.htm I'd prefer we don't get into a debate over what constitutes a worthwhile pursuit and what you consider "crackpot notions" - DVP believes that anything that points away from Oswald is a "crackpot notion" and you, me and every other member has gone round and round with that... I commented on this thread as I had seen and heard this info in a variety of forms, the cartoon above was very interesting and unique regardless of its slant, biases and what not... the message is still the same... FED = BAD and if it takes a hate of jews ridden article to get people to wake up - or an idea of what utopia could be like with a switch to RESOURCE based economies, so be it. When Dan Rather and Peter Jennings get on TV and tell us Oswald was innocent (as opposed to Jesse Ventura), only then we can begin to feel like we're making any headway. Until then I guess we keep reading the books, forums and articles and keep spreading the word. Kinda sounds like a religion, don't it?

No Len, I am not saying the links I provided are gospel, just that much of the information contained in that cartoon is spelled out pretty well in these two articles and in zeitgeist the movie. All the peripheral crap about the jews, zion, and any other astro-theological info thrown at you is just interesting imo. But does not take away from the Money and Banking history, or the reality of the FED and Central Banking systems and the lengths those who run them go to insure their control, and the actual control over governments, people etal these banks enjoy. And just because a site chooses to be idealistic in its approach, I don't think we can conclude their information is inaccurate. It's a RESOURCE based approach rather than a monetary approach. thevenusproject.com is about as idealistic as it gets but if we don't go for it all how are we to get anything at all? 30 years ago, If i told you that in 2010 you could get a hold of anyone on the earth in an instance and talk to them as if they were right next to you, without wires.... you'd say I was nuts... This is no different. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic Any sufficiently advanced concepts about humanity, society or reality is usually met with your kind of response There were obscure sites a while back that used to say Oswald did not kill Kennedy... did any of those turn out to be reliable?

There are times Len, that reading your posts brighten my whole day... "Jooz", love it... (edit: btw - the history of the house of Rothschild paper has a number of anti-semetic passages...fyi) HOW THE FED CREATES MONEY We've been talking about how the privately owned Federal Reserve can produce money from thin air. Here's how it's done. 1. The purchase of bonds is approved by the Federal Open Market Committee. 2. The Fed buys the bonds which it pays for with electronic credits made to the sellers bank. These credits are based on nothing. 3. The receiving banks then use these credits as reserves from which they can loan out ten times the amount. To reduce the amount of money in the economy they simply reverse the process. The Fed sells bonds to the public and money is drawn from the purchasers bank to pay for them. Each million withdrawn lowers the banks ability to loan by 10 million. The Federal bank in this way has overall control of the US money supply, as each country's central bank does in the same way. The bankers, through the magic of fractional reserve banking have been delegated the right to create 90% of the money supply. This control makes a mockery of any elected government. It places so called leaders behind a toy steering wheel, like the plastic ones, set up to amuse small children. Or as Rep.Charles Lindbergh father of famous aviator Lucky Lindy puts it when commenting on the Federal Reserve Act: "This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalised. Studies show that most people learn more effectively with visual aids and thru the use of cartoons. http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kHhc67GopM Seems most, if not all of this info comes from these sources. The Zeitgeist film has some far out ideas but is rather interesitng in fact... The two articles are for those who can't stand cartoons and really want to understand the FED. i.e. THE TALLY STICKS (1100 - 1854) King Henry the First produced sticks of polished wood, with notches cut along one edge to signify the denominations. The stick was then split full length so each piece still had a record of the notches. The King kept one half for proof against counterfeiting, and then spent the other half into the market place where it would continue to circulate as money. Because only Tally Sticks were accepted by Henry for payment of taxes, there was a built in demand for them, which gave people confidence to accept these as money. He could have used anything really, so long as the people agreed it had value, and his willingness to accept these sticks as legal tender made it easy for the people to agree. Money is only as valuable as peoples faith in it, and without that faith even today's money is just paper. The tally stick system worked really well for 726 years. It was the most successful form of currency in recent history and the British Empire was actually built under the Tally Stick system, but how is it that most of us are not aware of its existence? Perhaps the fact that in 1694 the Bank of England at its formation attacked the Tally Stick System gives us a clue as to why most of us have never heard of them. They realised it was money outside the power of the money changers, (the very thing King Henry had intended). What better way to eliminate the vital faith people had in this rival currency than to pretend it simply never existed and not discuss it. That seems to be what happened when the first shareholder's in the Bank of England bought their original shares with notched pieces of wood and retired the system. You heard correctly, they bought shares. The Bank of England was set up as a privately owned bank through investors buying shares. Even the Banks resent nationalisation is not what it at first may appear, as its independent resources unceasingly multiply and dividends continue to be produced for its shareholder's. These investors, who's names were kept secret, were meant to invest one and a quarter million pounds, but only three quarters of a million was received when it was chartered in 1694. It then began to lend out many times more than it had in reserve, collecting interest on the lot. This is not something you could just impose on people without preparation. The money changers needed to created the climate to make the formation of this private concern seem acceptable. Here's how they did it. With King Henry VIII relaxing the Usury Laws in the 1500's, the money changers flooded the market with their gold and silver coins becoming richer by the minute. The English Revolution of 1642 was financed by the money changers backing Oliver Cromwell's successful attempt to purge the parliament and kill King Charles. What followed was 50 years of costly wars. Costly to those fighting them and profitable to those financing them. So profitable that it allowed the money changers to take over a square mile of property still known as the City of London, which remains one of the three main financial centres in the world today. The 50 years of war left England in financial ruin. The government officials went begging for loans from guess who, and the deal proposed resulted in a government sanctioned, privately owned bank which could produce money from nothing, essentially legally counterfeiting a national currency for private gain. Now the politicians had a source from which to borrow all the money they wanted to borrow, and the debt created was secured against public taxes. You would think someone would have seen through this, and realised they could produce their own money and owe no interest, but instead the Bank of England has been used as a model and now nearly every nation has a Central Bank with fractional reserve banking at its core. These central banks have the power to take over a nations economy and become that nations real governing force. What we have here is a scam of mammoth proportions covering what is actually a hidden tax, being collected by private concerns. The country sells bonds to the bank in return for money it cannot raise in taxes. The bonds are paid for by money produced from thin air. The government pays interest on the money it borrowed by borrowing more money in the same way. There is no way this debt can ever be paid, it has and will continue to increase. If the government did find a way to pay off the debt, the result would be that there would be no bonds to back the currency, so to pay the debt would be to kill the currency. With its formation the Bank of England soon flooded Britain with money. With no quality control and no insistence on value for money, prices doubled with money being thrown in every direction. One company was even offering to drain the Red Sea to find Egyptian gold lost when the sea closed in on their pursuit of Moses. By1698 the national debt expanded from £1,250,000 to £16,000,000 and up went the taxes the debt was secured on. As hard as it might be to believe, in times of economic upheaval, wealth is rarely destroyed and instead is often only transferred. And who benefits the most when money is scarce? You may have guessed. It's those controlling what everyone else wants, the money changer's. When the majority of people are suffering through economic depression, you can be sure that a minority of people are continuing to get rich. Even today the Bank of England expresses its determination to prevent the ups and downs of booms and depressions, yet there have been nothing but ups and downs since its formation with the British pound rarely being stable. One thing however has been stable and that is the growing fortune of: THE ROTHSCHILDS (1743) A goldsmith named Amshall Moses Bower opened a counting house in Frankfurt Germany in 1743. He placed a Roman eagle on a red shield over the door prompting people to call his shop the Red Shield Firm pronounced in German as "Rothschild". His son later changed his name to Rothschild when he inherited the business. Loaning money to individuals was all well and good but he soon found it much more profitable loaning money to governments and Kings. It always involved much bigger amounts, always secured from public taxes. Once he got the hang of things he set his sights on the world by training his five sons in the art of money creation, before sending them out to the major financial centres of the world to create and dominate the central banking systems. J.P. Morgan was thought by many to be the richest man in the world during the second world war, but upon his death it was discovered he was merely a lieutenant within the Rothschild empire owning only 19% of the J.P. Morgan Companies. "There is but one power in Europe and that is Rothschild." 19th century French commentator 1

Bottom line Duncan... if the film did not lose any time... or no more than a few frames... none of the other things you list are required. and they are also not required if the film was "retouched" and stayed on it's timeline. Plus... didn't the acoustic evidence coincide exactly with the shot sequence seen on Zapruder if one worked back from 313... There's the reality of a conspiracy and all the evidence that points to it and then there's paranoia over each and every piece of evidence available. I think you've made your point about Z film "alterationists/fabricators".... but surely you can agree that the film could be altered without it conflicting with the other evidence...

Well, here they are all the way from Betzner thru Nix as he pans from them to the kill shot... There would be no other spot behind Zapruder that could film everything from Betzner to Nix without completely distorting the viewing angles... Either this OTHER film was taken from a camera suspended over his head or you have 3-5 other film cameras going, all behind Zapruder and from angles much higher than can be seen in any photos of DP. Using Willis for example... how does someone else take that footage... we see zapruder on the pedestal and nothing but sky and trees behind him... yet someone else takes this image??? From where? and this image at z451... was there someone on top of the pergola filming this? Sorry, but fabrication, while possible does not seem very probable... whereas alteration on the film itself, before copies, makes much more sense and requires no timing concerns... the limo could not have stopped and every other piece of visual evidence was also altered... that's absurd. Covered or erased... that's another issue entirely and the reason the film needed to make that stop at Hawkeye... how I see it.

An interesting Soliloquy Duncan.... but I must disagree... If TIME was removed from any of the Z film then I can see your points... IMO time was not changed in the z film... only what can be made out... and since time is consistant across all the films and photos, none of those other events need to be dependent on the changing of what we see on the Z film... Case in point... here is an obvious black square that has been superimposed over JFK's head and enhanced a bit along with the frames before and after... the black area covering the back of JFK's head seems an obvious alteration to the original film... without it affecting the timing of Altgens or any of the other flims/photos. {click on gif} MUST alteration mean splicing time from the film? I don't think the evidence supports it, as well as your post which illustrates the folly of assuming the Z film had things taken out like a limo stop or other such actions that are not corroborated by the other films/photos. DJ

I appreciate what you are saying Jim... and thanks for the history... one simple question then.... name any other supporter of the Gov't position who has a better relationship with those on this forum. Who has ever shown an inkling of doubt and the possibility of a change in their position that would have any impact on the LN community - make 'em sit up and think... if that's at all possible. maybe he's just playing with us... but the bit about the paper bag from Montgomery could have taken a while to track down and he just emailed me the critical passage which placed even more doubt on the contents of that bag and the statements/attitudes of the DPD at the time. and that's just one incident... so many on this forum have received info from him along with the rebuttals. The company line was established when the HSCA concluded there was a conspiracy and a very strong chance of a second shooter.... and since THAT is the official history, THAT is what Gary and the Museum need to present... otherwise they should just call it the 6th Floor Warren Commission Report Support Museum... the earth is no longer flat, the sun never revolved around the earth... and the WCR conclusions are outdated, unsupported and essentially fictitious. Ignoring the need to stay current speaks volumes.

Jim, I find nothing wrong with an American citizen saying and trying to prove whatever they want to.... especially in the position he occupies.... Does he know it's wrong? Did Sec'y Powell know it was wrong lying to the UN? Damn right he did, but he did it anyway as he was ORDERED to by his president. Some people resign when it gets to that point... some simply lie and smile and deal with their demons. This thread started with Duncan showing us that GMack has real concerns over the evidence and the government's case... the "bits and pieces", "more to it than Oswald"... "BUT I CAN'T PROVE IT" He simply does not acknowledge the proofs or the evidence he's been presented... It is just too bad that he doesn't afford the independent research the same latitude the government's evidence and conclusions reveal. Sadly, the conclusion for the uninformed, after watching that TV show, would be that no shot hit JFK from the front? or "that's the biggest pile of BS I've ever seen"?... seems the more the WC defender tries, the more ridiculous they look... Would we like GM to quote the exec session that deals with the pesky frontal shot? of course and yes, I too believe it to be deceitful to leave out that portion of the factual record... the government's position as it was actually recorded instead of finally presented. Is there anyone else in the WC defender community that even considers the reality of a conspiracy, who, if finally converted or finds that piece of evidence to convince them, would benefit the cause of righting History in this case? If not, it seems we'd be better served as a community to work with this man who at least leaves the door cracked... than to talk about petty posting or unfriendly PMs. ------------- Again, well put Bill... the dilemna is real... and Duncan, the other thread's dilemna does not concern GM's opinion but the responsibility he and the Museum have to "update history" as more and more information becomes available regardless of his opinion, which as you showed here is much more open to the possibilities. Enough with this dead horse then.... There is simply no other non-CTer who openly admits to the problems in the government's case as Gary does, and imo, no other government story supporter who desires to find that "smokin' gun" that makes all the difference as much as he does. the fact that we've found many of them and they remain unaccepted perpetuates the dilemna... DJ

"what matters more is the head shot... and the historical reality that frontal shots and a likely conpsiracy was the result of the HSCA investigation." The HSCA concluded that there was 1 shot from the front, not "frontal shots". Why would you claim otherwise? Todd, He didn't make that claim. Read it again: "what matters more is the head shot... and the historical reality that frontal shots and a likely conpsiracy was the result of the HSCA investigation" In what part of that passage does he say that the HSCA itself concluded that a frontal shot struck the head? Martin, Read what I wrote again. I never said that he said “the HSCA itself concluded that a frontal shot struck the head". Todd Ooops. My bad. Apologies all round. ...and I never meant to imply that the HSCA said anything more than there was a 95+% chance of certainty that a shot was fired from this acoustically represented area (which just happened to be in front of the muddy bumbers on the south face of the picket fence... the "hat man" seen in Moorman by the tree) the sentence I wrote should have been frontal shot, not shots since I use "and".... If GM is indeed the mouthpiece of the government's position... then shouldn't THIS be the loudest shout? http://www.jfklancer.com/HSCA.html The Findings: The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established, it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy. The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy was premised on four factors: 1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent weight. 2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable. 3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more limited conspiracy could not be ruled out. 4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact, fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly stated, in expressing its finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy." Wouldn't this, by itself, have made a great book cover for "JFK and the Unspeakable" Guess I'll need to research a bit more about how DVP, GMack, McAdams, Myers & Posner deals with this... What can they say ?? one government commission was right the other wrong?? Awaiting my GMack email.... and the point remains... what does the defense of the SBT have to do with the HSCA conclusions or the reality of the headshot? and finally... I see no one has produced a name of a LNer who can even carry on a civil, intelligent conversation about the possibility of conspiracy and the evidence that supports it... let alone one who recognizes some of the government's evidence problems

Only asked you to comment on the original purpose of the thread as you are already here.... and yes, it would have been better if Duncan posted his video on the original thread.... as for answering FOR him... I was not... I was posting a reply on a public forum... The mis-attributed quote was not intentional... as a simple hack amateur researcher enthusiast I do get sloppy from time to time... but I dont get onto threads just to say what a waste of time they are. I'll do what I can to try and start threads and make points that Mr. Lee Farley feels is worth his time and effort to read and comment upon... so sorry to have wasted your precious time. I'm quite sure each and every thread you've participated in prior to this has been more to your intellectual tastes... No moaning going on at all, Lee. Amusement is all I can muster in this instance. I still believe that since Gary DOES assist many on this forum, as well as disturb, he represents a unique breed and I challenge you to show us another WCR supporter in any position of importance that accepts some of the limitations of the "official position" and who might ultimately champion that position? If the recognized support of a Gary Mack type person was put behind all the evidence against the official version... a JFK II from Stone, if you will... I believe we as a CT community would be very well served. I struggle with his PM's and emails as well. From what I've seen happen to other conspiracy theorists on this forum from supposed "CT supporters" I can't imagine any reason Gary would subject himself to that. Robert Morrow's position is well presented and well documented... his passion for it seems to know no bounds... I don't know that it has a place on every thread he posts on... but the passion he brings is not a bad thing. And thanks Michael - and John... I went to the Forum Index and found there is no listing for Gary Mack and as I read thru some of the PAST threads, it's always about Gary Mack the man and not his position or the bigger issue of 1 - accurately presenting the CT evidence in the same manner as the LN evidence at the museum (not just selling conspiracy books) or 2 - determining the interest in a CT Museum for just that purpose.... the thread I started had to do with the resulting dilemna he faces and the challenges/opportunities a person like GMack presents... If you or anyone else feels we have a better "friend" on the LN "government story" side... please enlighten us. DJ

Martin, He and the owners of the museum are also part of "We the People", just as the KKK, Nazi party, the president's cabinet and ACLU are.... each entitled to their opinions and freedom of expression within the law. It was a theory that IRAQ/Saddam was behind 9/11. At one point over 75% polled believed it thanks to what we now know was a directed advertising campaign specific to that purpose.... they lied their asses off... and to the UN and world to boot. Was history corrected when it was found to be false? Kind of.... While a theory and not as believed as in the past... the SBT is still the historical explanation of what occured for those injuries... what matters more is the head shot... and the historical reality that frontal shots and a likely conpsiracy was the result of the HSCA investigation. The Museum of Natural History does not pay homage to the theologies challenging its conclusions regarding creation and evolution. Should it? If the answer if "no" then we need a museum of our own. With 85% of the world believing in a conspiracy... how hard would that be?

Hey there Lee... sorry for telling you what to do, say post, etc.... Aways find it amusing though when a member comes onto a thread they feel is a waste of time and takes the time to post such a comment and completely ignores the point of the thread. This was never about what Gary says publically but the dilemna he faces and the cosequences for the CT community. Would be nice though if you actually addressed any of the questions posed on either of these two new threads on Gary.... Who else do you have in mind, supporting the WCR, while at the same time publically accepting there are severe unresolved issues? Who would you like as the spokesperson for all that is wrong here? Now that we are looking more deeply at WHY as opposed to HOW... which is a great major step forward and why Jim's book is being read more widely imo.... it stays away from the CIA generated minutia and concentrates on HISTORY... the real history. Yet once we have the HOW and the WHY - isn't the next step updating history? and how do we go about that? This was never about Gary the person... but LN mouthpieces who may lend the greatest credibility to Oswald NOT being history's JFK assassin. Respectfully DJ Martin.... missed shot, blew his head off... point is a very public LN, WCR supporter acknowledges a shot from the GK... as did the HSCA. A conspiracy is the natural byproduct of that conclusion. A complete "exhibit" that explains WHY the HSCA concluded this and all the other "evidence" available supporting a shot or shots from the GK SHOULD be presented at the 6th floor... no?

I couldn't agree more, Jim. Just another unnecessary thread to add to all the other unnecessary threads. Simply designed to split the debate and wear people down into complete and utter apathy on certain issues. Akin to the 400,000 Robert Harris "debates." I wonder what Duncan's reaction would be if I opened a post with a simple proclamation that "everything Duncan writes is unqualified crap" and then posted a video that detailed one single issue. Lee... First off I cannot agree that the acceptance and even reality of the SBT removes a shooter from the grassy knoll blowing JFK's head off.... these two concepts are NOT mutually exclusive by any means.. and if you continue on from that sentence with Gary's POV... he gives strong credibility to the acoustics that place such a shot there... and in Badgeman who also would have shot JFK in the head from there if he actually exists... while at the same time carefully accepting and supporting the conclusions that keep him employed. Amazes me how people such as yourself come to a thread, conclude that it's just another unecessary thread, read thru its posts and feel compelled to add a comment identifying it as such... DON'T view the Harris threads and DON'T involve yourself in threads you consider folly.... how hard is that? Instead, instigate and post responses that perpetuate the nonsense. The "crap" Duncan refers to are things like Dean's comments because he doesn't like what Gary PMs him, or your insistence that GM has no redeeming value whatsoever... Lee: "As far as I'm aware, Bill, Mr. Mack has said nothing publicly on any of those points in quite some time. Everything he says and does publicly - like on Inside the Target Car - supports the official story that Oswald acted alone. He might talk about the acoustics or badgemen or the fake SS agent in private but not at the museum or on the Discovery Channel. Which proves my point doesn't it?" I believe this proves MY point Martin.... has VB, Myers, McAdams, Posner ever showed the slightest indication that something other than the WCR is gospel? Is it sad that he has to tow the company line? That the man has a DILEMNA that dove tails into OUR DILEMNA of not having a single, respectible, public CONVERT given the proponderance of evidence and that Gary may be the only chink in the armor at htis point.... Do you have anyone else in mind? Finally, Robert's posts help identify what I saw as the problem/dilemna, that no one seems to want to address... We still don't have a place that people can walk thru and experience that shows the 6th floor exhibits for what they are and presents the variety of Conspiracy ideas and the extensive evidence in their support.... We don't need conclusions in this museum... just the evidence.... a few "really? I didn't know that"'s and some coverage and who knows...maybe history does change. Do you suppose they put up the proof that FDR/USA knew about Pearl Harbor at the Pearl Harbor museum? probably not

Excellent... thanks all. I don't see this as apologizing for him at all. Obviously we are not going to look to the likes of McAdams, VB, Myers, et al to "see the light" even when it is shined in their collective eyes. I don't see that as the case with Gary... and in due time wouldn't the public cross-over of someone recognized as a staunch government story supporter/promoter help the spread of this word.... Do you see Myers geting on youtube to profess his new found understanding of the case? VB? course not... Gary? maybe, but would it cause a ripple. Is he visible enough an "Oswald did it" mouthpiece to make waves as a CT supporter? The CTer are a people without country... metaphorically. I ask again, are Websites and essays, books and articles enough without a physical location, recognized and supported by the 85% of the world who sees the truth, soas people from all over the world can visit and see the nasty underbelly of the US during that time. What would such a museum look like and could something like that ever come to pass inthe good old US of A? The GM dilemna, imo, is the difficult position of those in the "Oswald did it crowd" who understand the mountains of evidence and the forces that keep that doubt from being recognized or expressed. There are few if any people we can identify who have changed their position on account of the evidence... especially in the media where it would do the most good. Shouldn't it be one of the grand purpose of the CT crowd, now, to unify it's positions, accept that the 3-5 main theories may conflict in areas but the underlining thesis is the same.... and find ourselves a home to tell the world?

That's so eloquent Dean.... Thanks for sharing the extent of your insight and knowledge on yet another thread. Your valuable contribution continues. Read the entire post and address the question about the museum's responsibility if you want to contribute, Otherwise, start your own thread about Gary and blast away... this one's about his dilemna, and the CTer's dilemna of getting what we feel is factual information to a wider audience.

Seems you missed what I wrote, David. Gary Mack is accusing the DPD of involvement in the MURDER of Lee Oswald. Gary is not promoting the "Government Case" on that issue, although he IS promoting the absurd theory that Lee Oswald -- who had no motive -- murdered JFK. And I think you missed mine Ray. If you are saying that Gary Mack has publically accused the DPD of involvement in the murder of Oswald, I see this as a prime example of how he is much more willing to see other possibilities than "Ruby did it out of Love for the Kennedy's" and the rest of the government's position. He is obviously willing, when he feels the evidence supports it, to present an opinion contrary to the official story.... we don't have to give him a medal, but he's not Dale Myers or VB either. And yes, I believe his position is that there has been no "official evidence" to show that Oswald did not shoot the president... or that others did... just as you say there is no evidence proving he was involved with any intelligence agencies. Why are his dismissals of the evidence any different than yours?

Dean, Because he “talks trash” to you, he’s SCARED to post...? that’s rubbish. The last thing this forum needs, as you (and I for that matter) so often prove, is more trash talking. So if anything, those messages belong in PM’s to you and in emails or other private communications to anyone else. If we would stick to a discussion of the facts instead of the constant bashing, the archives of this website would be 1/3 the size. Poor Dean... big bad GaryM attacked you. You have a past. That's nice. You know what you know and present your case quite well, what difference does it make what GMack PMs you? I disagree with much of what he sends me, and have encountered the same kind of off-topic “discussion” from him as with others on the live forum. History or not, you posted your thoughts on an open forum and I defended Gary’s position, criticized his support of the “official” conclusions, and discussed options and alternatives. Being SCARED has nothing to do with it. Bill Miller presents Gary’s difficult position quite well - thanks Bill. And let’s try to remember, Gary’s actions are nothing compared to the likes of Bugliosi, Myers and Posner who’s influence is much more substantial and who'se opposition must remain ever vigil - and I thank them all for it. and They don’t post here either... they scared? or just smart to steer clear of the insult fest that would be heaped upon them? Even for those of us “on the same side” - insults are the norm... there is no CT consensus... and as Salandria put it, that was one of the main objectives of leaking the conspiracy to begin with. I tend to agree. It’s interesting how you can read thru my posts and call me “naïve”. Great job? You got that right. Thanks. --------- Mr Carroll... thank you too for putting Gary’s situation into a better perspective. We don’t have to agree with it but in terms of presenting the “government’s case” he is most assuredly the more generous in his allowed concessions than DVP, or his ilk. Furthermore, to address your “topic rehash” comment. I’ve been in and around this and other forums for 10 years, this one just over 6... my experience is that the main topics do get revisited quite often and are routinely debated. So what... don’t read them and don’t post on them if this is just old hat. But rest assured, NEW MEMBERS or lurkers will read what’s on the first page of topics well before searching the archives for old, outdated information. So I’d like to know, with all the success and money from presenting the conspiracy side of JFK (Lane, Stone, Costner, Ventura) – where’s the CIA/LBJ/JEH/MAFIA Museum in Dealey Plaza? or wherever it should be.... ----- Robert... cutting and pasting what is an excellent presentation was not the intent of this thread. And as I elude to... the museum can not, and should not present every far out scenario that comes along.... but we must agree, like your conviction about LBJ, that there are 3-5 very solid possibilities as suggested by the evidence. Interpretation and analysis of this evidence results in disagreement among CTers which in turn fuels the non-CTers to sit back and laugh. But interpretation and analysis is what has brought the majority of the world to an overwhelming understanding that “something ain’t right”. The question is whether or not it’s Gary role thru the Museum to expand it’s presentation to include the available information in support of the other Theories that DON’T rely in the Single Bullet THEORY, and let people decide for themselves... Or just stick to history as it is written?

I find the below a bit naive... his livelihood is his vested interest in his "public" position. An IBM spokesman/representative is not going to ackowledge evidence of thier involvement in the Holocaust by helping the Nazis find, and inventory the Jews of Europe.... regardless of the evidence... And Condi Rice is not going to tell us they were expecting airplanes to hit buildings.... His posting on these forums can be seen as presenting the views of the Museum, just like when I say somehting in public about the Lottery I work for... the assumption is it represents the position of the company and not my personal beliefs.... the fact that he allows some of the more sanitary exchanges to be posted (and I am no expert on ALL his posted comversations... anything contrversial in there?), shows he's not "scared", just careful. Yeah, what would we do without him? Maybe one of these days he'll strap on a pair and start posting for himself. It will never happen, he is to scared Gary also writes me from time to time and we have some very intersting email exchanges, some of which he agrees to let me post and share.... Most recently though, not so much, as our discussion has turned to why the Museum does not give equal (or any for that matter) time to any of the competing THEORIES that have as much if not more reliable evidence than the Governmental investigative THEORIES that are put forth so effectively by the museum. without getting into the details, as he requested our recent exchange not be posted,I was going to send this reply but felt it more valuable to post.... I hope you agree... and therein lies the problem facing the real citizens of the US... the continuing attitudes of people such as yourself, who actually have the opportunity to change history to reflect reality as opposed to the fantasy fostered upon us all these years. When you finally realize that what you are defending is the unsupportable (at least with verifiable evidence) OPINION of the most powerful and corrupt people the US has known... you could also realize that YOUR voice could carry significant weight in setting the record a bit more straight. I realize you enjoy your position, salary, authority and influence and are most likely not empowered to make the waves necessary to bring light to the truth. Claiming there is no “evidence” in the face of it may be the company line or you just refusing to see. Not a single piece of your rebuttal to me refutes the conclusion that “we can’t place Oswald with a rifle in that window”... Or Wade’s knowing he was FBI, or the Exec session where they simply cannot figure out how JFK is hit in the throat from the back... or the fact that the 2 shots heard almost of top of each other by people in all areas of the Plaza makes it impossible for even that Rifle to have been the lone culprit... let alone Oswald it’s as if none of this exists for you or the Museum or if it does, you conveniently forget that the evidence FOR the conspiracy is presented BY the very investigation/commissions/panels you defend..... It’s as if you’ve completely dismissed the US Standard Operating Policy of maintaining civil unrest to justify the attacks on civil liberties and the growth of the military/governmental machine... As if the weight of evidence brought forth by experts and researchers without your agenda, without your fears or without “their” control, is simply something you can dismiss with a wave and an email. Weitzman wrote what he wrote, Baker wrote what he did, and at least 60 people heard and/or saw evidence of shots from OTHER than the 6th floor... But as Douglass, Salandria and others have brought to light... the why and what for, and what happened next of the assassination points to the real situation that most of the people on this planet understand as being the real history of the event. and when the final documents see the light of day, and we can conclude they are indeed real and not created to maintain the charade... the Lone Nut, "Oswald did it alone crowd" can finally just go away to their place in history along side those who believe the earth was flat and the universe revolved around us..... sadly, those who subscribe to the “universe (as we define it) revolves around us” belief are all too real and all too well entrenched so as anyone pushing too hard in it’s face... simply gets eliminated. Gary, thanks for all you do help with and support... the 6th Floor Museum should, in my opinion, be the one place that offers its visitors all the relevant theories in the same light.... the “government endorsed one” given the poor evidence that supports it should not be offered to the exclusion of all others. But then again, does the Museum of Natural History also present the notion that the Universe and World were created in 6 days about 6000 years ago along side their dinosaur bones exhibit? One has substantial evidence backing it while the other requires FAITH. The time has come for the FAITH in Oswald, the lone killer, to be put aside... and let the FACTS speak for themselves

A simple scenario... The RUSSIAN premier (who in the last election narrowly defeats a man who had been priming/permitting the KGB to kill world leaders and assist RUSSIAN businesses rape and pillage third world neighbors to the south) and Vice premier (who gave up one of the most powerful position in the RUSSIAN government to basically become a peon) take a trip to the vice-premiers home province. The RUSSIAN premier is killed while traveling thru this provence. The RUSSIAN vice premier insists on being sworn in immediately and in front of the premiers grieving wife and then winks to one of his associates after becoming premier. and then proceeds to reverse virtually every significant peaceful thing the RUSSIAN premier was trying to do... Who do you suppose the RUSSIAN premier's secretary is going to say did it? Or anyone else for that matter. This is how I've explained the situation of the JFK/Oswald connection to newbies.... if it doesn't make sense to start with the most obvious group... those who benefitted the most.... then what's the point of investigating anyone at all? Substitute "ANY COUNTRY" for "RUSSIA" and the finger still points to those who benefitted the most. and then expand the list from there.

So you believe he was one of the plotters? Can you please give us a clue as to his MOTIVE for wanting LBJ as president in preference to JFK? Sorry Mr. Carroll... not being a "complete innocent bystander" in no way implies he was one of the plotters (I assume you mean of JFK's assassination) Being a "complete GUILTY bystander" implies it - but that's not what I wrote. If I understand your position, you believe that despite the numerous examples and proofs regarding the people and events surrounding Oswald suggesting anything but Oswald being completely innocent, you still conclude he had no governmental connection and no involvement with the people and events he has been connected to.... Proof that has been provided over and over in thread after thread that I've read and seen you ignore and redirect - like your question to me about plotting... there is more than BLACK and WHITE in this Ray... at least to most everyone who looks at it. Just because he may have had some dubious connections and there were many curiously stange events surrounding his history - there is no leap that places a rifle in his hands or suggesting a triangulation of fire... k? "COMPLETELY INNOCENT" - really? Well I simply will not get into that discussion with you other than to say there is no way you, or anyone else for that matter, has the information available to make that determination. What we do have is quite a bit of evidence that Oswald MAY have been more than he seems.... which in my book removes the words "COMPLETE" and "INNOCENT" from any conclusion about Oswald. BYSTANDER on the other hand is exactly what he was... and then he was killed and framed. We want the "strongest piece of evidence for conspiracy?".... How about the behavior of a government intent on finding the assasin(s) of its president and the manner in which that occurred.... The impartial, unbiased and grossly influenced investigation of the matter sums it all up.

The man is supposed to have put a disassembled 8 lb rifle into one of these paper bags and not leave a single trace of oil, a scratch, NOTHING that indicates a rifle was ever in the bag they tested and claim was a 24" x 8" flat paper sack. Obviously an assembled rifle wwould have fit in that bag.... yet how is it that frazier cannot see the bag as Oswald walks away from him? DPD Montgomery was no doubt larger than Oswald and that bag almost dwarfs his upper body. and finally... the bag you two are discussing isn't the bag Frazier says he saw... and I believe that is Pat's entire point. Recreating photos like this is imo a bit absurd. You can never get it exactly right and measurements cannot possibly make any sense as a comparison. How about trying to figure out how Oswald took a 24" wide piece of paper and created a two and a quater fold bag that was 8" wide? Was there a 32" x 6" piece of paper found anywhere indicating he had cut it to size? If it was folded over and about 24" long... you want to explain how he fit that rifle in there to begin with? Probably not.

Huh, I just took a look at an FBI photo of the window taken the next day, and it appears that the molding that is missing is missing from the second window, not the first. Hmmm... The FBI reports in April claim it is the sniper's nest window that's missing the molding... Hmmm... FBI photo from 11-23 Thanks for that Pat.... I did a quick comarison of the FBI image you posted and the Studebaker image... the cobwebs are even in the same place... they dusted that whole area for prints between 11-22 and 11-23 didn't they???

Yeah quite a lot for Oswald to do and what puzzles me is how/why Truly backs the revised WC testimony story.... ... and one thing stranger is Seymour Weitzman's "Mauser 7.65" affidavit written the next day, after all the confusion about the rifle(s) found, he still signs his name to it. One more fun "TIMING" anomolie is the reporting of Oswald missing by Truly to Fritz via Lumpkin and the finding of "rifle(s)" and where they may have been found. There are NUMEROUS referneces to the rifle and hulls being found on the 5th floor, as Truly eludes to as you will see... After confirming his running up with Baker, the Oswald lunchroom incident, on up to the roof and back down..... Mr. BELIN. And then you got down eventually to the first floor? Mr. TRULY. That is right. Mr. BELIN. About how long after these shots do you think it took you to go all the way up and look around the roof and come all the way down again? Mr. TRULY. Oh, we might have been gone between 5 and 10 minutes. It is hard to say. Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got back to the first floor, or what did you see? Mr. TRULY. When I got back to the first floor, at first I didn't see anything except officers running around, reporters in the place. There was a regular madhouse. Mr. BELIN. Had they sealed off the building yet, do you know? Mr. TRULY. I am sure they had. Mr. BELIN. Then what? Mr. TRULY. Then in a few minutes--it could have been moments or minutes at a time like that--I noticed some of my boys were over in the west corner of the shipping department, and there were several officers over there taking their names and addresses, and so forth. There were other officers in other parts of the building taking other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not among these boys. So I picked up the telephone and called Mr. Aiken down at the other warehouse who keeps our application blanks. Back up there. First I mentioned to Mr. Campbell--I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him, he looked around and said no. Mr. BELIN. When you asked Bill Shelley if he had seen whom? Mr. TRULY. Lee Oswald. I said, "Have you seen him around lately," and he said no. So Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, "I have a boy over here missing. I don't know whether to report it or not." Because I had another one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all there or not. He said, "What do you think"? And I got to thinking. He said, "Well, we better do it anyway." It was so quick after that. So I picked the phone up then and called Mr. Aiken, at the warehouse, and got the boy's name and general description and telephone number and address at Irving. Mr. BELIN. Did you have any address for him in Dallas, or did you just have an address in Irving? Mr. TRULY. Just the address in Irving. I knew nothing of this Dallas address. I didn't know he was living away from his family. Mr. BELIN. Now, would that be the address and the description as shown on this application, Exhibit 496? Mr. TRULY. Yes, sir. Mr. BELIN. Did you ask for the name and addresses of any other employees who might have been missing? Mr. TRULY. No, sir. Mr. BELIN. Why didn't you ask for any other employees? Mr. TRULY. That is the only one that I could be certain right then was missing. Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do after you got that information? Mr. TRULY. Chief Lumpkin of the Dallas Police Department was standing a few feet from me. I told Chief Lumpkin that I had a boy missing over here "I don't know whether it amounts to anything or not." And I gave him his description. And he says, "Just a moment. We will go tell Captain Fritz." Mr. BELIN. All right. And then what happened? Mr. TRULY. So Chief Lumpkin had several officers there that he was talking to, and I assumed that he gave him some instructions of some nature I didn't hear it. And then he turned to me and says, "Now we will go upstairs". So we got on one of the elevators, I don't know which, and rode up to the sixth floor. I didn't know Captain Fritz was on the sixth floor. And he was over in the northwest corner of the building. Mr. BELIN. By the stairs there? Mr. TRULY. Yes; by the stairs. Mr. BELIN. All right. Mr. TRULY. And there were other officers with him. Chief Lumpkin stepped over and told Captain Fritz that I had something that I wanted to tell him. Mr. BELIN. All right. And then what happened Mr. TRULY. So Captain Fritz left the men he was with and walked over about 8 or 10 feet and said, "What is it, Mr. Truly," or words to that effect. And I told him about this boy missing and gave him his address and telephone number and general description. And he says, "Thank you, Mr. Truly. We will take care of it. And I went back downstairs in a few minutes. Mr. DULLES. When you reported that Oswald was missing, do you recall whether you told the police that he had been on the second floor? Mr. TRULY. No, sir; I did not. Mr. DULLES. You did not? Mr. TRULY. No, sir; I just said, "I have a man that is missing. I don't know whether it means anything, but this is the name." Representative FORD. Do you know about what time that was that you told the police? Mr. TRULY. I could be wrong, but I think it was around 15--between 15 minutes or 20 minutes after the shots, or something. I could be as far off as 5 minutes or so. I don't know. I did not seem to think it was very long. We might have spent more time up on the roof and coming down, and then I might have walked out in the shipping department. Everybody was running up asking questions. Time could fool me. But I did not think it was but about 15 or 20 minutes later. The problem here is even if it was a full 30 mins after the shots, this is only 1:00. Mr. BALL. While you were there Mr. Truly came up to you? Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; where the rifle was found. That was about the time we finished Mr. Truly came and told me that one of his employees had left the building, and I asked his name and he gave me his name, Lee Harvey Oswald, and I asked his address and he gave me the Irving address. Mr. BALL. This was after the rifle was found? Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; after the rifle was found. Mr. BALL. Another witness has testified that the rifle was found at 1:22 p.m., does that about accord with your figures or your memory? Mr. FRITZ. Let's see, I might have that here. I don't think I have that time. and then back to Truly - and this is where it gets strange... BALL know the rifle was found at 1:22 "officially". Tippit was killed a few minutes before 1:16pm "officially" This testimony suggests to me that "A" rifle was found earlier than "THE" rifle... Mr. BALL. Now, you recall that in your testimony before the Commission you told them that at some time after the shooting, you advised Captain Fritz of the name of Lee Oswald and his address in Irving? Mr. TRULY. Yes, I did. Mr. BALL. And in order to place the time of it, was it before or after the rifle had been found on the sixth floor? Mr. TRULY. I wouldn't know. I think it must have been around the rifle was found, because I was not on the sixth floor at that time, but when told--let's go back a few minutes--pardon me--I told Chief Lumpkin a good many minutes after we came down from the roof and he went ahead and gave some orders to two or three policemen surrounding him and then said, "Let's go up and tell Captain Fritz." Mr. BALL. Now, what did you tell Chief Lumpkin when you came down from the roof of the building? Mr. TRULY. When I noticed this boy was missing, I told Chief Lumpkin that "We have a man here that's missing." I said, "It my not mean anything, but he isn't here." I first called down to the other warehouse and had Mr. Akin pull the application of the boy so I could get--quickly get his address in Irving and his general description, so I could be more accurate than I would be. Mr. BALL. Was he the only man missing? Mr. TRULY. The only one I noticed at that time. Now, I think there was one or two more, possibly Charles Givens, but I had seen him out in front walking up the street just before the firing of the gun. Mr. BALL. But walking which way? Mr. TRULY. The last time I saw him, he was walking across Houston Street, east on Elm. Mr. BALL. Did you make a check of your employees afterwards? Mr. TRULY. No, no; not complete. No, I just saw the group of the employees over there on the floor and I noticed this boy wasn't with them. With no thought in my mind except that I had seen him a short time before in the building, I noticed he wasn't there. Mr. BALL. What do you mean "a short time before"? Mr. TRULY. I would say 10 or 12 minutes. Mr. BALL. You mean that's when you saw him in the lunchroom? Mr. TRULY. In the lunchroom. Mr. BALL. And you noticed he wasn't over there? Mr. TRULY. Well, I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him around and he said "No." Mr. BALL. Now, you told Chief Lumpkin that there was a man missing? Mr. TRULY. Yes; and he said, "Let's go tell Captain Fritz." Well, I didn't know where Captain Fritz was. Mr. BALL. Now, did you tell Chief Lumpkin the man was missing before or after you called to the warehouse and got the name? Mr. TRULY. No, I called the warehouse beforehand. Mr. BALL. You didn't talk to any police officer before you called the warehouse and got the address? Mr. TRULY. Not that I remember. Mr. BALL. You did that on your own without instructions? Mr. TRULY. That's right. Mr. BALL. So, when you talked to Chief Lumpkin, you at that time had in your possession there the address of Lee Oswald in Irving? Mr. TRULY. That's right, I had scribbled it down on a piece of map or something so I would remember it. Mr. BALL. That is the address that he had put on his application form for employment? Mr. TRULY. That's right. Mr. BALL. And did you know of any other address Mr. TRULY. I didn't know of any other address at all. Mr. BALL. Of Lee Oswald? Mr. TRULY. I supposed that's where he was living. Mr. BALL. Where was Captain Fritz when you saw him? Mr. TRULY. He was on the sixth floor in the area where they found the rifle. Mr. BALL. And was the rifle there at the time? Mr. TRULY. No, I never saw the rifle. Mr. BALL. Was this after or before the rifle had been taken from the building? Mr. TRULY. It was before the rifle had been taken from the building. Mr. BALL. And do you know whether it was before or after the rifle was found? Mr. TRULY. Apparently the rifle had been found before I got to the sixth floor, but just how early, I don't know. Mr. BALL. But you had heard that the rifle was found, had you, by your talk with Fritz? Mr. TRULY. That's--I don't know--I learned it was found while I was on the sixth floor. Mr. BALL. While you were on the sixth floor? Mr. TRULY. While I was on the sixth floor. Mr. BALL. In other words, you went with Chief Lumpkin to the sixth floor, didn't you? Mr. TRULY. Yes. Mr. BALL. And what was your purpose of going there? Mr. TRULY. My purpose in going there was to inform Captain Fritz that this boy was missing and give him his telephone number, and his Irving address, at the suggestion of Chief Lumpkin, who accompanied me. Mr. BALL. Did you give Captain Fritz this name and address? Mr. TRULY. Yes, I did. Mr. BALL. Was it while you were there that you learned the rifle had been found? Mr. TRULY. I don't remember who I learned this from---- Mr. BALL. I didn't ask you that, I'm talking about time only. Mr. TRULY. That was while I was on the sixth floor is when I learned the rifle was found, but I did not see it. DJ:Wasn't there an awful lot of commotion going on about the rifle when found?... dusting, ejecting, looking, examining, etc... Truly tells Fritz at the spot the rifle was found about Oswald yet does not see the rifle? Read on.... Mr. BALL. All right. Now, was it before or after you told Captain Fritz the name and address of Lee Oswald, that you learned that the rifle was found? Mr. TRULY. I can't remember, I believe it was afterwards. Mr. BALL. You are sure it was after you told Captain Fritz---after what, you tell me? Mr. TRULY. I told--well, when Chief Lumpkin and I went to the sixth floor, Captain Fritz was standing in ,the area where I later learned they had found the gun, and Chief Lumpkin told Captain Fritz that Mr. Truly had something to tell him, which I would like to tell him, so he stepped over 4 or 5 feet to where I was, away from the other men---officers and reporters, I would say, that were on the floor, and I repeated the words to Captain Fritz. Mr. BALL. What did you tell him? Mr. TRULY. I told him that we had a man missing---I told him what his name was and his Irving address and he said, "All right, thank you, Mr. Truly. We will get right on it," or words to that effect, and so I left the sixth floor shortly. While I was up there, just as I left Captain Fritz, a reporter walked over and said, "What about this fellow Oswald?" And I said, "Where did you learn the name 'Oswald'?" Because I had talked rather low to Captain Fritz and I said, "He's just an employee here," and I left, and sometime---someone informed me that they had found the gun. I don't know who it was. Mr. BALL. About that time? Mr. TRULY. It was along about that time, as near as I can remember, and I went back down to the first floor and I don't think I was up on the sixth floor any other time that day. I possibly could have been, but I don'.t recall it, because I was besieged by reporters and everybody else on the first floor, and talking to officers and so forth and I had no occasion to go back up there. Mr. BALL. Now, about what time of day would you say is your best estimate that you told Captain Fritz of the name "Lee Oswald" and his address? Mr. TRULY. My best estimate would be a little before 1 o'clock--10 minutes. Mr. BALL. The gun wasn't found until after 1 o'clock? Mr. TRULY. It wasn't found until after 1 o'clock? Mr. BALL. No, it wasn't found until after 1 o'clock. I won't tell you exactly the time the gun was found, but I will say that the gun was not found until after 1 o'clock. Mr. TRULY. Well, I may be mistaken about where I learned they had found the gun. I thought it was on the sixth floor--it could have been some other place. Mr. BALL. Captain Fritz said you didn't tell him that until after the gun was found and that seems to correspond with your memory too, is that correct? Mr. TRULY. It sure does, because I remember clearly that Captain Fritz was over at where the gun was found and I'm sure they must have found it or he wouldn't have been standing in that area when we came up there. Mr. BALL. Now, if the gun was found after I o'clock, when was it that you discovered that Lee Oswald wasn't there? Mr. TRULY. I thought it was about 20 minutes after the shooting--the assassination, but it could have been longer. Mr. BALL. In other words, you thought originally it might have been 10 minutes of 2 or so that you learned that? Mr. TRULY. Ten minutes to 1. Mr. BALL. Ten minutes to 1? Mr. TRULY. It was around 1 o'clock--that period of time after I came down from the sixth floor to the first floor was rather hazy in my memory. Mr. BALL. You think it might have been after 1 when you first noticed he wasn't there? Mr. TRULY. I don't think so---I don't feel like at was. It could have possibly been so. Mr. BALL. Well, if the gun was not found before 1:10, if it wasn't found before that, can you give me any estimate? Mr. TRULY. That seems to be a longer time after the assassination. Mr. BALL. You didn't wait 20 minutes from the time you learned Lee Oswald's address until the time you told Captain Fritz, did you? Mr. TRULY. No, sir; I did stand there on the first floor waiting until Chief Lumpkin got through talking for a few minutes. Mr. BALL. Tell me about how many minutes you think it was from the time you obtained the address of Lee Oswald until you told Captain Fritz the name and address? Mr. TRULY. I think it was immediately. Mr. BALL. Immediately? Mr. TRULY. Immediately, after I called to the warehouse and got his name and address in Irving, I turned around and walked over and told Captain Fritz at that time. Mr. BALL. Chief Lumpkin? Mr. TRULY. Yes; Chief Lumpkin. Mr. BALL. Yes; Chief Lumpkin. Mr. TRULY. And I remember Chief Lumpkin talking to two or three officers and I stepped back and he went ahead and told them a few things--it could have been 2 or 3 or 4 minutes. Mr. BALL. Not over that? Mr. TRULY. I don't believe so, and then he came to me and said, "All right, Mr. Truly, let's go up and see Captain Fritz and tell him this." Mr. BALL. Then, if the gun wasn't found until after 1:10, you think it might have been as late as 1:05 or so before you discovered that Oswald wasn't there? Mr. TRULY. It could be--it could have been. Mr. BALL. You have no exact memory as to the time you discovered he was not there? Mr. TRULY. No, sir; I didn't believe after thinking things over--it was over in 15 or 20 minutes after the shots were fired, but after retracing my trip to the roof and the time delay and back, I would have to say that it was farther along in the day than I had believed, so it could have been I or 1:05 or something like that. Mr. BALL. Before you discovered Oswald wasn't there? Mr. TRULY. That's right, and at such time that you have information of the officers taking the names of the workers in the warehouse over in and around the wrapping tables, it was at such time that I noticed that this boy wasn't among the other workers. Mr. BALL. You remember you had seen him on the second floor, didn't you? Mr. TRULY. That's right. Mr. BALL. That's when you were with Officer Baker? Mr. TRULY. That's right. Mr. BALL. Now, you heard that Tippit had been shot, didn't you? Mr. TRULY. Not after--until after I had told Chief Lumpkin and Captain Fritz and come back down to the first floor, then I learned that he had been shot. The first I learned of it--there was a young officer ran in the front door and told another officer, possibly a lieutenant, that there was an officer shot in Oak Cliff and that was all I knew at that time. I did not know that they had captured Oswald then. Later on a newspaper reporter told me. Obviously we cannot timestamp these things other than the official records... The way this reads we have Fritz finding "A" rifle, Truly telling him about Owsald and then Fritz learning about Tippit. Fritz did not return to the TSBD until just before 1pm