David Josephs

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

First off, thanks Jack... great stuff at that link and site I wonder if this isn't the piece Day would have been talking about as the most likely to have a shooter's prints. Need to search thru and see if there are any photos of the window later, during reinactments... That one where the camera is mounted on the rifle on the tripod right in front of the 6th floor window.... Wonder if Gary Mack can peak over at the window and see if this piece is still missing...

Thanks Pat... very interesting about that Dangerous Assassins quote... any chance you could scan and post the page(s) with that discussion? I am sure it will be very difficult to find a copy of the book.... and what are your thoughts about the difference in appearance from the posted image above to this one? It's as if whatever was in the bag in the above image was pushed even farther in for this photo.... yes his hand doesn't seem that much farther up into the bag.... the top 1/4 has definitely been pushed up between these two shots. I have to assume no rods or blinds were ever found, at least not to my knowledge. So how does a 24" folded bag both in frazier's back seat hold a 42" blind or curtain rod... or a rifle of the same size with a number of other rifle parts and pieces?

Include me out, Duke. There are two separate and very distinct murders here, involving different witnesses, and different medical and ballistic evidence. I think Henry Wade once said that the Tippit murder would be tried first, but I am unable to find the reference for that. (if anyone can point me to the source for Wade's statement, I will be extremely grateful). THere may have been a prima facie case against Lee Oswald in the Tippit murder (prima facie only, as Duke well knows) but the case against him in the JFK murder amounted to Almost NOTHING. I defy you Duke, and I defy David Von Pein, to make out a prima facie case against Lee Oswald for the murder of JFK, leaving aside all evidence relating to the Tippit murder. He had no motive, he was not insane, and he was on the first floor of the TSBD when the shooting went down. Mr. Carroll... I don't believe Duke said "and find him guilty" but that there is more than enough evidence to allow a trial to have gone ahead... and given what was allowed to be known at the time... his fate based on the circumstantial evidence and the strong (at the time) physical evidence - getting Oswald off may have been difficult if not impossible. But it sure would have opened up all sorts of interesting investigations and lines of questioning... Tough part now would be to use what was general knowledge and available in 1964... Innocence wasn't the point.... History was. I too believe, 100% that Oswald was not at that window with a rifle or in any way involved with the actual assassination as we now know it. But I too don't believe that Oswald was a complete innocent bystander, caught up in extraordinaty circumstances. and I will gratiously allow for us to differ on that point. I also believe he was nowhere near Tippit at any point that day. The fact that JACK RUBY killed him, of all the people who might have done so or wanted to - opens the doors to the strongest pieces of evidence... so one may say that Jack Ruby is the stongest piece of evidence for a conspiracy to kill JFK that had nothing at all to do with Oswald.

I've been in a conversation with GMack about the paper bag and one of the points we've all been concerned with is how does the bag stand up all on it's own in this photo? What, if anything, would a DPD put INSIDE A PIECE OF EVIDENCE that was supposed to have carried another critical piece of evidence without thinking about contaminating any evidence removed from the inside of the bag.... what if there is another rifle in there? This photo gives a much different look at the bag as well... much thinner than in other photos..... I had also asked about Sawyer's oral history if there was one... sadly there wasn't So Gary did me the wonderful favor of digging up the applicable piece of Montgomery's oral history. Obviously its years and years later yet his memory is not too bad.... Gary wrote: David, The Museum never got an oral history from Sawyer, unfortunately, but here’s what L.D. Montgomery said on 11-25-2002. Please note that his memory of the event was very hazy and I’m not at all confident he was accurate: L.D.: It must just have been a little… it seems like that paper, seems like it was a little stiff paper. I’m trying to think and trying to remember. Was there anything in it? Gary: That was my next question. L.D.: That’s what I was thinking. Was there a little piece of that white Venetian blind that was in there? That might’ve been what was holding it up. Because you know, he told ‘em that was a Venetian blind, but he had the rifle in there. But he may have had a little piece of that… you know, a long piece of that Venetian blind in there. That’s what I was thinking. Maybe that’s what it was that was in there, and that’s why it held that up. Gary: You don’t remember looking inside? L.D.: (nodding) Oh yeah, I remember looking inside. That’s why I was thinking. I was thinking that I remembered now that there was a piece of that in there. Uh-huh. Interesting how he asks if anything is in it before Gary gets to.... and to think from that photo the bag is just standing up by itself. But then to discuss a Venetian blind piece (staying with the company line only a little jumbled after all these years or a TRUE MEMORY?) and that he did indeed look inside and did see a piece of a blind that was long enough to hold the entire bag up. In our discussion I felt that finding a bag with window covering material in it, at the TSBD, on the day of the assassination would go a long way in proving Oswald's original story.... or at least make it very suspect that either multiple bags were found/created. If there was anything in that bag, it surely was not entered into evidence. So, does it matter that the bag he is photographed with has something other than the rifle that was supposedly in it, in it? And how/where was that piece when the bag was found, folded into an 8"x24" rectangle and lying flat on the floor by the sniper's nest? And finally, if that piece is long enough to hold the entire 42" plus bag upright... how does this become a 2-2.5' bag in frazier's back seat? Thanks Gary and thanks to Montgomery for leaving such an interesting statement DJ

Completely ignoring posts that challenge your conclusions will not get you very far here MH. I posted a very specific batch of photographic evidence that you either ignored, haven't gotten to or haven't an answer for.... To prove the trajectory you have to ASSUME shots were fired from that window and know the precise location of the limo at the time. And I'm wondering if you remembered to include the 3 degree downward slope of the street in your calcs... It doesn't appear so. I posted a z-frame showing how JFK was not hunched over or leaning forward around the time of the throat/back/SBT (please remember it's just a THEORY) bullet(s).... and what the shot had to do when coursing thru the body.... please explain how this is consistant with your conclusions Thanks DJ

David Von Pein or anyone.... Please provide us, on this thread and in your next post, Oswald's movements from 11:45 thru 12:30. I am making the assumptions that 1 - Oswald killed JFK 2 - Oswald did it alone, completely, with no outside assistance whatsoever You are the prosecutor and have to present the evidence that Oswald did all these things beyond a reasonable doubt: Bought the rifle Bought ammo and the clip Practiced at a shooting range while supposedly at work Made the paper bag Dissassembled the rifle Brought a 42" bag with a dissassembled rifle in it out of the Paine house and put it into Frazier's car Brought the bag and rifle into the Building Placed the bag and rifle on the 6th floor Knew when the motorcade was arriving Knew when the limo would be passing the TSBD Got up to the 6th floor for the last time (KEY MOMENT--- WHEN DOES THIS OCCUR???) Built the Sniper's lair from boxes leaving only one fingerprint and one palm print - without being seen Assempled the rifle - without being seen - loading a half empty clip Sight/align the scope without taking a shot.. which was attached to a dissassembled rifle part and banging around in the paper bag Build the rifle rest, also without leaving fingerprints Not be seen by any of the people seen on the 5th/6th floors during this time (testimony readily available) Shoot three times, hitting twice when even the WCR cannot determine how he was able to shoot 3 times in that amount of time Stand at the window afterward, long enough to be seen and possibly even photographed Move the boxes between the Dillard and Powel photos Hide the rifle under boxes yet again without leaving any fingerprints Get to the 2nd Floor lunchroom without being seen Be seen thru a window in a door looking into yet another doorway...by a running policeman, who does not mention the encounter at all in his signed and sworn affidavit written that afternoon with Oswald at the same station Oswald leaves the 2nd floor lunchroom Oswald speaks to a policeman and others(?) before leaving the TSBD We will deal with AFTER that once this timeline has been established. He wasn't wearing that coat, he wasn't on the stairs, he's 140 not 165 pounds - at least according to this application - looks like his writing.... For our purposes we have to assume that Oswald WAS NOT being used or set up so no one else would have filled this out... only Oswald... you suppose he knows how much he weights? 12:44 9 (Inspector J.H. Sawyer) "About 30, 5'10", 165 pounds." Not sure DVP, but that's not sounding like Oswald.... And Brennan seems to be describing the same person Sawyer and Baker saw.... just not Oswald. Which was why, at the end of it all Brennan does NOT make an identification of Oswald. Never did. I want to believe you DVP... I want to understand your position and incorporate into my understanding the possibility we are all wrong. But you have to help me out a bit - as important as it is to check the CTers references and sources, the same is true with your info or any info offered to support what I am asking above. If you or anyone is simply going to shout out answers to the above scenario without reference to the supporting evidence, please don't waste our time. I have shown here that there are definite steps the Lone Nut Oswald would have had to go thru to be where he was when you, the WCR et al. say he was.... If you can provide a post to this effect, I believe you will find many of us scratching our heads in wonder about how we could have been so wrong about Oswald's guilt. Thanks DJ

Is there anything significant about the time being 6:15? Was this just Day holding up the rifle for the press? Be nice to have an real timeline following the rifle... the photos of Day carrying the rifle out of TSBD... what time is that and what goes on between then and this photo? Looks like an evidence "patch" or piece of tape WAS on that spot at some point.... Again, Jack, do you have the other photos from that 6:15 session that also show the rifle? and I'd still like to know what is holding up the bag Montgomery is removing from the TSBD... yet anojther MC? A mauser? DJ

I had hoped that it might be clear tape to protect a fingerprint but CE721 shows the print in question was on the other side of the magazine. Could it simply be a lighting and resolution issue.... I've never seen photos of Day and the rifle that clear, where are they from and are there others showing the other side of the rifle? Thanks Jack DJ

Thanks Pat.... wanted to hear from you on this, yet..... Isn't this one of your slides? You are saying in your reply to me that CE364 is the replica and that the FBI were the ones who wrote on it, not Day. "Replica bag" yet in this slide the bag without writing is compared to CE364 and the claim is made that the writing is gone yet Day was able to read the words off the bag. If Day wrote on the original, why are you using the replica to make your point? If Day was shown either CE626 or CE142... the pictures most likely, not the actual bag, there is no way he could read any words as there are obviously none as you can see on the front or back of the bag at NARA. and finally, in every shot except out front of TSBD the bag is pressed flat, just as they say they found it... is there any documentation of what they did with it at the FBI and how did it get from being a 8"x24" folded flat bag to what it looks like in Montgomery's hands... Finally, is there any real clear evidence that there is Day's writing on the "original" bag ? thanks DJ

There's the original bag, which according to WCR is both CE626 and CE142 There is a replica bag CE364 This is this testimony by Day that the bag he wrote on was the bag they found edit: btw - there is NO MENTION of CE364 in Day's Q&A... He somehow reads his words from CE626 or CE142... I guess. Mr. BELIN. I will now hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 626 and ask you to state if you know what this is, and also appears to be marked as Commission Exhibit 142. Mr. DAY. This is the sack found on the sixth floor in the southeast corner of the building on November 22, 1963. Mr. BELIN. Do you have any identification on that to so indicate? Mr. DAY. It has my name on it, and it also has other writing that I put on there for the information of the FBI. Mr. BELIN. Could you read what you wrote on there? Mr. DAY. "Found next to the sixth floor window gun fired from. May have been used to carry gun. Lieutenant J. C. Day." Mr. BELIN. When did you write that? Mr. DAY. I wrote that at the time the sack was found before it left our possession. Mr. BELIN. All right, anything else that you wrote on there? Mr. DAY. When the sack was released on November 22 to the FBI about 11:45 p.m., I put further information to the FBI reading as follows: "FBI: Has been dusted with metallic magnetic powder on outside only. Inside has not been processed. Lieut J. C. Day." Mr. BELIN. Did you find anything, any print of any kind, in connection with the processing of this? Mr. DAY. No legible prints were found with the powder, no. Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether any legible prints were found by any other means or any other place? Mr. DAY. There is a legible print on it now. They were on there when it was returned to me from the FBI on November 24. Now I can allow that Day does not write this on the bag until back at the station seeing that there is no writing at all where it should be in photos of the bag leaving the TSBD. You can see that the tape at the right on CE364 and the tape at the top middle of the TSBD photo are similiar. We should see writing at the top left of that bag if Day wrote this before leaving. Okay, maybe he didn't. Then again.... Mr. BELIN. What did you do with the bag after you found it and you put this writing on after you dusted it? Mr. DAY. I released it to the FBI agent. Mr. BELIN. Did you take it down to the station with you? Mr. DAY. I didn't take it with me. I left it with the men when I left. I left Detectives Hicks and Studebaker to bring this in with them when they brought other equipment in. So in reality... this bag should have at least some writing on it and it should be plainly seen... and if it was folded flat on the ground, why didn't they photograph it, and why did they obviously open it and stick something in it to keep it erect? But how is it that CE364 is the "REPLICA bag" http://history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh16.htm CE 364 - Replica of the paper bag found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building shortly after ... yet this is the one with the writing while the bag at NARA, the original bag supposedly, has no writing on it? the paper samples taken that day match the "original" bag but not the "replica" bag since that paper was taken by the FBI in December from supposedly so different a batch of paper as to be NOT identical in characteristics to the "original" bag's paper. If Oswald did not take the bag home thursday night with Frazier... when/how did he make it and get it home... and if paper is replaced as often as they said, he had to have made the bag that week... there is no evidence for that at all. So which Commission Exhibit is which?

That can't be right because Oswald was never on the sixth floor. Seriously does anyone really buy the idea that a man could rapidly fire 3 shots into the most powerful man in the world in 5-8 seconds, hide his weapon, squeeze through stacks of boxes, and run down four flights of stairs all within 90 seconds only to appear as cool as a cucumber when confronted by a Policeman with his pistol in hand? Because that's absurd. A minute and a half after you've killed the President and you're not bothered when confronted by the police? Come on pull the other one, its got bells on. I imagine that if Baker ran into one of the actual shooters they too may be very cool right after the deed... so if Oswald can be proven to be a cold blooded killer exhibiting no emotion or remorse for action in his past, then maybe. If you could somehow actually get the rifle into his possession If you could actually prove he made the bag, brought it home, disassembled the rifle leaving no prints, put the rifle into the bag leaving no evidence of such, bring the bag with gun inside (all 32" plus loose metal parts), believe that frazier sees a 3 foot, industrial material made bag as Oswald walks to his car instead of the barely 2 foot "grocery type bag" he testified to, made the sniper's nest, assembled the rifle - again leaving no prints as well as no marks on the inside of this bag, load a partially filled clip that also was never seen or photographed in the TSBD, carefully fold and place the bag completely flat in the corner exactly where he was supposed to be standing, completely disregard the testimony of many who place armed men on the 5th, 6th and 7th floors between 12:15 and 12:25 completely disregard the witnesses that see Oswald elsewhere as late as 12:25 completely disregard that Oswald's actions between 11:55 and 12:25 do not support his being on the 6th floor at any time or planning to be there in time for the announced arrival of the motorcade completely disregard the conflicting testimony as to where and what kind of rifles, bullets, clips, bags etc... are found (3rd, 4th and 5th floors) completely disregard the number of people coming and going from the front and especially the back of the TSBD between 12:30 and 12:50 especially Det Sawyer, and Officers Haygood and Harkness (the source of their info that no one has entered or left was a negro man at one of the back doors.... (at 12:35 Haygood encounters this man... at 12:37 Harkness goes to the back and encounters what he is told are Secret Service agents - not! - and at 12:55 or so, 20-25 mins later, Sorrells goes around back and instead of asking the officers he supposedly sees back there he asked a negro man standing on the loading platform if anyone has come or gone... he does not ID this person) completely disregard photos of bullet tracks, bullet scars and even an unidentified man picking up a bullet and walking off from areas suggesting shots originating from other than the TSBD completely disregard the movement of the boxes between Dillard and Powell when Oswald would have to be going down the back steps completely disregard the obviously suspect medical evidence which so many actual witnesses are on complete disagreement completely disregard the multi-billion $$$ and war escalating motives of the Mil Ind Congressional Complex completely disregard the multi-billion $$$ motives of the Fed Reserve owners, the TX oilmen, and the CIA in opium rich SE Asia completely disregard the historical reality that was LBJ, JEH, Helms, Angleton, Phillips, Hunt, etc.... and the Cold War Now that you're in the right mindset.... you can see how Oswald would have been considered the only viable suspect.

To whom it may concern The angles you are using are in direct conflict with the original evidence (pre burned notes of Humes and imo Finck that Humes stole) After a while... "Oooops we got it wrong the first time, it could not have happened that way and be consistent with Oswald did it" gets a bit old, don't you think? FBI Report of Autopsy "This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger." This post of Michael Griffith's work explains quite alot - thanks Bernice http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15105&view=findpost&p=175791 Gunn: Could you explain to me what your recollection is of that, or to what you were referring with that statement [his abovementioned statement to the HSCA]? O'Neill: Because I had heard--I had seen, supposedly, drawings from some publication where Boswell made drawings or alluded to the bullet wound in the back not actually in the back, but in the back of the neck. And I disagreed with that thoroughly. (Deposition, p. 111). So when Boswell claimed the back wound was not in the back but rather in the back of the neck, O'Neill "disagreed with that thoroughly." O'Neill was then asked to examine Exhibit No. 159, on which Boswell had relocated the back wound to a spot on the back of the neck. O'Neill said in reply, ". . . naturally, I would disagree with that," adding the following: O'Neill: But I can't understand why he [boswell] would do something like that, really, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHERE IT WAS IN ANY SIZE, SHAPE, OR FORM-FASHION. (Deposition, p. 114, emphasis added) So, we now have another very solid, emphatic witness that the back wound was where Boswell ORIGINALLY marked it on the autopsy face sheet. And, as most of us know, this low location, which rules out the single-bullet theory, is supported by the holes in the back of Kennedy's shirt and coat, by the death certificate, by the 1/27/64 WC transcript, by Special Agent (SA) Clint Hill's description of the wound, by SA Glen Bennett's description of the wound, by SA Roy Kellerman's 8-24-77 HSCA wound diagram, by SA James Sibert's 8-25-77 HSCA wound diagram, and by the accounts of medical assistants at the autopsy. James Sibert The following is a brief summary of key points from James Sibert's deposition to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). Sibert is a former FBI agent who witnessed the unloading of the body from the casket and who witnessed the autopsy from a distance of a few feet. * Sibert said he doubted the single-bullet theory (SBT)because the back wound was just too low on the back for it to be possible (Deposition of James W. Sibert to ARRB, September 11, 1997, pp. 161-162). He added that another reason he doubted the SBT was what he saw when the pathologists probed the back wound (Deposition, p. 162). * Sibert unequivocally placed the back wound BELOW the scapula, i.e., below the top of the shoulder blade (Deposition, pp. 74-75, 114, 161-162). * Sibert said the autopsy pathologists determined that the back wound had no point of exit (Deposition, pp. 110-112, 118-119). * Sibert said that the placement of the back wound below the scapula was both what he saw **and that it was "the first location that Humes gave us," i.e., that that was the location Humes gave for the wound during the autopsy (Deposition, pp. 161-162). (It should be noted that that location agrees with the location given for the wound on the autopsy face sheet.) * Sibert noted that the back wound location's matched the holes in the back of the president's shirt and coat, and he rejected the theory that the shirt and coat bunched-up high enough to account for the location of the clothing holes, observing that the shirt would not have moved markedly even if Kennedy had raised his arm and that the president's back brace would have helped to hold the shirt in place (Deposition, p. 162). DR. MALCOM PERRY- The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGappA.html http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/pdf/WcEx1205.pdf Jim, I guess I can count as "others" J...Edgar...Hoover Richard Helms Chief Rowley SS ALL the information had to ultimately go thru these three men or men under their command Please see my post completing the circle with Warren basically saying that anything supplied by the SS or FBI is good enough for us... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17066&view=findpost&p=214405 and since the FBI got much of their info from SS and CIA sources.... well you get it DJ

Thanks Jim.... and thanks to Michael for the link I know I experienced an "ah-ha" moment when reading these memos, just wish there was a way to do a "TRUTH" campaign ala the anti-smoking people and let the "masses" read this. Hoover and the FBI had it solved that evening, regardless of the evidence. Pretty neat. Greg... That Baker incident has always been so very bizarre to me... How do we get from the Baker Affidavit to Truly's and Baker's testimony? and are you saying that Fritz just threw that into his notes? I can't find it right now but wasn't there an entire batch of reports written by everyone in the interrogation room describing what was said... I know Holmes wrote one... did they corroborate that Oswald told the lunchroom story? Not sure where I got this but it makes our point From the angle of the photo we should be looking directly into the lunchroom thru the window... we are obviously not.

ALL BOLDING, UNDERLINE, ITALIC ARE MY DOING FOR EMPHASIS I'd like to know how anyone on the planet can read this memo and not understand what our government was going to do to Oswald and to history... MEMORANDUM April 27, 1964 TO: J. Lee Rankin FROM: Norman Redlich The purpose of this memorandum is to explain the reasons why certain members of the staff feel that it is important to take certain on-site photographs in connection with the location of the approximate points at which the three bullets struck the occupants of the Presidential limousine. Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President by the third and fatal bullet. The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building. As our investigation now stands, however, we have not shown that these events could possibly have occurred in the manner suggested above. All we have is a reasonable hypothesis which appears to be supported by the medical testimony but which has not been checked out against the physical facts at the scene of the assassination. Our examination of the Zapruder films shows that the fatal third shot struck the President at a point which we can locate with reasonable accuracy on the ground. We can do this because we know the exact frame (no. 313) in the film at which the third shot hit the President and we know the location of the photographer. By lining up fixed objects in the movie fram [sic] where this shot occurs we feel that we have determined the approximate location of this shot. This can be verified by a photo of the same spot from the point were Zapruder was standing. We have the testimony of Governor and Mrs. Connally that the Governor was hit with the second bullet at a point which we probably cannot fix with precision. We feel we have established, however, with the help of medical testimony, that the shot which hit the Governor did not come {after} frame 240 on the Zapruder film. The Governor feels that it came around 230 which is certainly consistent with our observations of the film and with the doctor's testimony. Since the President was shot at frame 313, this would leave a time of at least 4 seconds between two shots, certainly ample for even an inexperienced marksman. Prior to our last viewing of the films with Governor Connally we had assumed that the President was hit while he was concealed behind the sign which occurs between frames 215 to 225. We have expert testimony to the effect that a skilled marksman would require a minimum of time of 2 1/4 seconds between shots with this rifle. Since the camera operates at 18 1/3 frames per second, there would have to be a minimum of 40 frames between shots. It is apparent therefore, that if Governor Connally was hit even as late as frame 240, the President would have to have been hit no later than frame 190 and probably even earlier. DJ: AND THIS IS THE ENTIRE CONSPIRATORIAL ATTITUDE IN A NUTSHELL - "EVEN THOUGH WHAT WE SEE WITH OUR OWN EYES TELLS US THAT OSWALD COULD NOT HAVE SHOT THAT RIFLE TWICE BETWEEN Z215 AND Z230, HE MUST HAVE BEEN SHOT EARLIER...." THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION TO THIS STATEMENT IS THAT THERE WERE AT LEAST 2 SHOOTERS, NOT THAT EITHER MAN WAS HIT AT A DIFFERENT FRAME THAN IS APPARENT FROM VIEWING AND FROM CONNALLY'S TESTIMONY. We have not yet examined the assassination scene to determine whether the assassin in fact could have shot the President prior to frame 190. We could locate the position on the ground which corresponds to this frame and it would then be our intent to establish by photography that the assassin could have fired the first shot at the President prior to this point. Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin. I had always assumed that our final report would be accompanied by a surveyor's diagram which would indicate the appropriate location of the three shots. We certainly cannot prepare such a diagram without establishing that we are describing an occurrence which is physically possible. DJ: YOU MEAN LIKE THE SBT MR. REDLICH? Our failure to do this will, in my opinion, place this Report in jeopardy since it is a certainty that others will examine the Zapruder films and raise the same questions which have been raised by our examination of the films. If we do not attempt to answer these questions with observable facts, others may answer them with facts which challenge our most basic assumptions, or with fanciful theories based on our unwillingness to test our assumptions by the investigatory methods available to us. I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely misleading picture. Dec 5, 1963 (over 5 months before the above sentence is written) - 1st Exec Session... Warren speaking “Now I think our job here is essentially one for the evaluation of evidence as distinguished from being one of gathering evidence, and I believe that at the outset at least we can start with the premise that we can rely upon the reports of the various agencies that have been engaged in investigating the matter, the F.B.I., the Secret Service, and others that I may not know about at the present time. It may well be that this project should be undertaken by the FBI and Secret Service with our assistance instead of being done as a staff project. The important thing is that the project be undertaken expeditiously. --------------------------- This "Tentative Outline" was attached to a "Progress Report" dated January 11, 1964, from Commission Chairman Earl Warren to the other Commission members, and reveals the extent to which the Commission's conclusions were formulated prior to its investigation. H. Evidence Implicating Others in Assassination or Suggesting Accomplices 1. Evidence of shots other than from Depository? 2. Feasibility of shots within time span and with use of telescope 3. Evidence re other persons involved in actual shooting from Depository 4. Analysis of all movements of Oswald after assassination for attempt to meet associates 5. Refutation of allegations In the outline Redlich later gives to Rankin... this entire section is left out. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGappC.html Finally there is the WCR itself Several witnesses outside the building claim to have seen a person in the southeast corner window of the sixth floor. As has already been indicated, some were able to offer better descriptions than others and one, Howard L. Brennan, made a positive identification of Oswald as being the person at the window.57 Although there are differences among these witnesses with regard to their ability to describe the person they saw, none of these witnesses testified to seeing more than one person in the window.58 One witness, however, offered testimony which, if accurate, would create the possibility of an accomplice at the window at the time of DJ:ACCOMPLICE? LHO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MEN SEEN AND THE WCR MAKES NO ATTEMPT TO CONNECT THEM THIS ALONE IS MORE THAN REASONABLE DOUBT. the assassination. The witness was 18-year-old Arnold Rowland, who testified in great detail concerning his activities and observations on November 22, 1963. He and his wife were awaiting the motorcade, standing on the east side of Houston Street between Main and Elm when he looked toward the Depository Building and noticed a man holding a rifle standing back from the southwest corner window on the sixth floor. The man was rather slender in proportion to his size and of light complexion with dark hair. Rowland said that his wife was looking elsewhere at the time and when they looked back to the window the man “was gone from our vision.” They thought the man was most likely someone protecting the. President. After the assassination Rowland signed an affidavit in which he told of seeing this man, although Rowland was unable to identify him. When Rowland testified before the Commission on March 10, 1964, he claimed for the first, time to have seen another person on the sixth floor. Rowland said that, before he had noticed the man with the rifle on the southwest corner of the sixth floor he had seen an elderly Negro man “hanging out. that window” on the southeast corner of the sixth floor.63 Rowland described the Negro man as “very thin, an elderly gentleman, bald or practically bald, very thin hair if he wasn’t bald,” between 50 and 60 years of age, 5 feet 8 inches to 5 feet 10 inches tall, with fairly dark complexion. Rowland claimed that he looked back two or three times and noticed that the man remained until 5 or 6 minutes prior to the time the motorcade came. Rowland did not see him thereafter. DJ: OBVIOUSLY NOT THE 5TH FLOOR NEGRO MEN AS THEY WERE QUITE OBVIOUSLY THERE BETWEWEN 12:25 AND 12:31 He made no mention of the Negro man in his affidavit. And, while he said he told FBI agents about the man in the southeast corner window when interviewed on the Saturday and Sunday following the assassination, no such statement appears in any FBI report. DJ: THERE SEEMS TO BE CONSPIRACY IN JUST ABOUT EVERY BIT OF INFORMATION RELATED TO THIE CASE. AS CURRY SAID, THEY SIMPLY CAN NOT PLACE OSWALD IN THAT WONDOW WITH THAT RIFLE... AND NEITHER COULD THE WC.

The blowout of the back of the head becomes a blowout of the front and DVP... Let's not talk about Oswald being able to make the trip in 90 seconds, I saw the TV Special as well and see that it is possible... please explain when and how he gets UP to the 6th floor after being seen on the 1st and 2nd floors as late as 12:20 as well as how Oswald knows the motorcade is 20 mins late passing the TSBD. The paper said Arrival at 11:30 and a 45 min ride to the Trade Mart... he'd be EXPECTED to pass the TSBD around 12:10 at the latest... this would be around the same time witnesses see multiple men on the 6th floor with rifles... and lo and behold, immediately after the shots, within 90 seconds, Oswald is STILL in the 2nd floor lunchroom while Baker runs into a man on the stairs between the 3rd and 4th floors.... no lunchroom, no vestibule, no window in the door, no slow closing door.... The fact that testimony C.Arnold's has been changed and/or supressed that placed Oswald downstairs as late as 12:25 is no surprise either. So all these people are wrong??? Along with the 60 people, including DPD and SS agents who placed at least one shot from the fence on the GK.

Let's also give it a bit of a break as well John... the movie is almost 20 years old and was done without the benefit of the FOIA documents that have been found since. Rather than the Leonardo movie the community at large wold have hoped to see a "JFK" size movie that adds all the new information and maybe even creates a push for a new level of disclosure. Maybe Jesse V can get his TV series made into an all encompassing Conspiracy movie and bring everyone up to date... that interview with Vincent B is priceless - reminds me of when M Moore interviewed Charlton Heston....

Some others of Ferrie after his "accident"

History, while in some cases considered incorrect, is still permanent... whereas memory - one hopes - can still be "adjusted" so that history is reflected accurately.... Let's hope the Museum sees how important it is to begin telling both sides... present the evidence, or at least what exists, that it was NOT Oswald... what better place than that museum to be the center for ALL the info.. thanks Mike