David Josephs

Bill... I have to agree with you here - Duncan's method, and the same one I employed, completely forgets about key photographic realities, but at the same time, putting some people in "about" the same spots and taking a photo proves nothing scientifically. I've taken the photo Jack offered (qualified that it was not a reproduction attempt although it is eerily similiar to the Moorman set-up) and superimposed it and the sizes are off. Myers shows the sizes are off... All you've shown is that they are close, when eye-balled. Even though I did not go to NARA like Mantik, his 45 page paper with explanations and images sure goes a long way to support his observations. We have nothing like that from you Bill. The "light-blob" that we've seen posted that is supposed to be someone falling to their left is not very convincing. If've zoomed in and added brightness and contrast... All I see is one light blob move toward the other white blob... I do not see how this is a person... YET.... I am not doubting what you saw when you saw it Bill... but if you can make out a person in a version of this film AND in Muchmoore, how about showing us? Is There a book, video, photo, anything that shows a person there in these two films that a regular person can make out... that we can agree we both see something there other than a blob of light? btw - what part of GA is reflecting that light within the shadows that we see falling left to right? and what do you say the other light blob is? I am reading thru the "GA Competition" thread from a few years back as well.... over 70 pages so need some time... facinating subject... DJ

Again Duncan... the focal distance and apeture setting of this photo can in no way be compared to the Moorman camera's setting. Moorman's Lens: 100mm f8.8 3-element glass What are the specs of this photo? I completely agree that by sight it just doesn't make sense but I still believe there is much more to the analysis than just doing what you and I did. ALL distance effects are affected by the apeture and focal distance, especially the height of things in a vanishing point photograph. http://3dsixthsense.blogspot.com/search/label/Focal%20Length Focal Length : The distance between the lens and the light-sensitive surface, whether film or video electronics, is called the focal length of the lens. Focal length affects how much of the subject appears in the picture. Lower focal lengths include more of the scene in the picture. Higher focal lengths include less of the scene but show greater detail of more distant objects. Focal length is always measured in millimeters. A 50mm lens is a common standard for photography. A lens with a focal length less than 50mm is called a short or wide-angle lens. A lens with a focal length longer than 50mm is called a long or telephoto lens. Field of View (FOV) :The field of view (FOV) controls how much of the scene is visible. The FOV is measured in degrees of the horizon. It is directly related to the focal length of the lens. For example, a 50mm lens shows 46 degrees of the horizon. The longer the lens, the narrower the FOV. The shorter the lens, the wider the FOV. Relationship Between FOV and Perspective :Short focal lengths (wide FOV) emphasize the distortions of perspective, making objects seem in-depth, looming toward the viewer. Long focal lengths (narrow FOV) reduce perspective distortion, making objects appear flattened and parallel to the viewer. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/telephoto-lenses.htm TELEPHOTO PERSPECTIVE: A telephoto lens is special because it has a narrow angle of view -- but what does this actually do? A narrow angle of view means that both the relative size and distance is normalized when comparing near and far objects. This causes nearby objects to appear similar in size compared to far away objects -- even if the closer object would actually appear larger in person. The reason for this is the angle of view: Even though the two cylinders above are the same distance apart, their relative sizes are very different when one uses either a wide angle lens and telephoto lens to fill the frame with the closest cylinder. With a narrow angle of view, further objects comprise a much greater fraction of the total angle of view. A misconception is that a telephoto lens affects perspective, but strictly speaking, this isn't true. Perspective is only influenced by where you are located when you take a photograph. However, in practical use, the very fact that you're using a telephoto lens may mean that you're far from your subject -- which does affect perspective. This normalization of relative size can be used to give a proper sense of scale. For full impact, you'll want to get as far as possible from the nearest subject in the scene (and zoom in if necessary). In the telephoto example to the left, the people in the foreground appear quite small compared to the background building. On the other hand, if a normal focal length lens were used, and one were closer to the foreground people, then they would appear much larger relative to the size of the building. However, normalizing the relative size too much can make the scene appear static, flat and uninteresting, since our eyes generally expect closer objects to be a little larger. Taking a photo of someone or something from very far away should therefore be done only when necessary. In addition to relative size, a telephoto lens can also make the distance between objects appear compressed. This can be beneficial when you're trying to emphasize the number of objects, or to enhance the appearance of congestion. So Duncan, while the composite gif suggests a size difference, there appears to be MUCH MORE to the analysis than what we're doing. Bill, No doubt much of your argument is sound and solid yet there are a number of conflicts: Bowers statements, Arnold's statment about hitting the dirt after the first shot and hearing more shots while on the ground... that wouldn't work with the Moorman photo as much as you want to explain away the shots and the Yarborough statement yet even Yarborough places the diving man earlier in the assassination timeline than z313(using Z timings at this alos seems a bit foolish, if altered, we have no idea of the time frames supported by that film), we KNOW there were other people behind that wall at the time of the assassination from Sitzman and a variety of other sources... there is no other substantiation for GA being there. GA doesn't mention the 2 black people, the coke bottle, the bench, the lunch, the man that runs up the steps after 313 and would basically run right over or past GA. I believe I have as much supporting either one or both of those black people as being BDM and the image in Nix/Muchmoore moving to their left as you do supporting it being Arnold. Yet they too disappeared as I remember and have not been heard from since. Arnold's story is convincing no doubt, is it possible that he heard the stories and decided to put himself into the situation? Possible? And Bill, thanks for the discussion... GA and BDM are extremely interesting subjects, and while they may have no direct bearing on the assassination politics, it is yet another one of the mysteries of the day that gets the thought processes flowing... DJ

Found this thread when looking for something else and found it interesting... not sure if ever settled... It sure looks to me like Mrs Frazen is an awfully long distance from her husband and NOT holding his hand in the Nix film whereas in Zap she is next to him and holding his hand. I am NOT saying she disappeared or moved from one second to the next, but if someone could explain this large distance between Mr and Mrs Frazen I's appreciate it... DJ

Yes Duncan, that's the one.... Although my size comparison results in GA being not as small as yours... While on the surface this looks like a conclusive analysis - it just doesn't seem right... Are the lens apeture and focal lengths the same in the image of GA as the Moorman image? Was the distance to the subject the same? Obviously, when you add the legs to GA it seems even more ridiculous that he is that close to the camera, or even there at all. While I disagree with the process of comparing a different photographed person to be scaled and arrive at any conclusions, the addition of legs in what appears the correct scale, makes it very obvious. Bill/Martin, why is the image of GA with legs not representative of how that image would look without the wall in the way and therefore prove the GA image to be a result of image enhancement?? Thanks DJ

Bill - In my opinion... the measurements of whether BM, GA and Hatman are correct requires much more precise measurements than placing people where you think they were and taking a photo. The amount of space this consumes in the moorman photo is unbelieveably small as you know. A few % points difference in the size translates to much greater distances than cannot be measured by eye-balling. I am trying to find the debunking of Dale Myers' analysis yet have not found anything conclusive... Searches come up with Ed Forum threads that go round and round. I think I am agreeing with the fact that the ground level was different enough from the front of the retaining wall to make those types of size comparisions moot. If you can explain to me and the new reader to these subjects why the Dale Myers' image here is incorrect and the men are not really farther away from the camera then you would place them. http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_3.htm I am aware of the "Moorman in the street" argument yet I do not believe she was in the street - would that make as much difference in the images as the Myers animation shows? Martin - In reality, the grass surface is actually a bit lower at the inside corner of the wall as seen in the photo posted earlier. It dips quite a bit at the corner in fact. A person standing back, west of the sidewalk would indeed be quite a bit taller than someone standing at the corner of the wall. DJ

If this is correct - and I seem to remember some of these elevation charts were not correct - then the ground behind the wall is almost 2 feet higher than at the base of the wall facing Moorman. 2 feet difference on a 5 foot wall is 40% - a BIG difference when assuming the ground behind the wall is at the same level as in front for sizing GArnold. With respect to lens apeture and distances I honestly do not know what to believe anymore. But at least to my thoughts... GA's size is much more of a reality now then before these images... DJ

Some images that show how much higher the ground behind the wall is compared to the front corner of the wall. Initially I did an image much like Duncan's in which the size looks as if it doesn't make sense. But the problem was, up till now, that we never seemed to show a photo of the elevation back there. How the ground dips near the front inside of the wall and the front outside, what moorman sees, extends well below the level of the walkway. I simply took an image of another person and placed them in these different locations. Granted, this is 2D representation of 3D space yet from this view if seems that a person standing back toward the fence might be represented as we see in moorman and is much taller than his counterpart by the wall. and from behind we see the man at the wall much shorter than the other people. Given how the Knoll slopes away so fast... does this change your thoughts Martin... Obviously, Bill believed this all along...

Simple question... which/whose office does that 3rd floor window represent? This the office next to the broom closet that Braden might have been in? Wouldn't knowing whose office it was go a long way in helping decide if a shooter in that room was even possible? And what's the logic in breaking glass when the wondow can be lifted slightly with the same effect and not get noticed. Let's see... broom closet thru an open window protected by the fire escape... or a broken window in full view..

John... obvious what I posted was a shotgun... but if you look at the shotgun at the beginning of alyea and the 2nd rifle in Duncan's photo... they are nothing alike. Kinda strange too that this mystery rifle seperates Fritz from Day and where the rifle was found... finally - to address Len's question... wouldn't finding a second rifle on the 6th floor ice a conspiracy? If you want a plot to be uncovered, a second rifle makes a bit of sense... DJ

Second weapon rotated. Are there, or are there not two rifles in this photo? Where did this picture come from? Is it a still from a film? My Alyea mpeg stops just before this scene would play out... Fritz has the handkerchief ready to take the rifle at the end of my Alyea while the photo shows him holding the scope with it. Assuming Alyea keeps filming to get the 2 rifle screen grab I offer this view as Day finds the rifle... Fritz is past Day from this angle (which you see in Alyea as he stands in front of Fritz). there is a shotgun behind the box just past Day, which would be directly in front of Fritz... The barrel is pointing up. What is strange to me about the 2 rifle photo is that the butt of the rifle is at the top leaning against the box... would anyone put a rifle on the ground or lean it that way? with the heavier butt at the top and barrel opening on the ground?? Could the 2nd rifle be that shotgun that gets moved? just a thought DJ It also appears as if the splice in Alyea gets rid of Fritz working the bolt action... the rifle chamber is open by then and there is of course no clip to be found. Could comeone check their Alyea as Day picks up the rifle to see if the bolt has already been opened... I cannot tell from my copy. If it is already open... before Fritz is supposed to have ejected the live round... it would be of some concern... no?

"These are his words and there is simply no way to prove these claims..." Quite incorrect! CE399 proves absolutely that it, and it alone, is directly responsible for the upper back/lower neck wound incurred by JFK. (Hint) The fact that the deformed base to CE399 measures 4mm X 7mm and the fact that the "punch-type" wound of entry into the back of JFK measures exactly 4mm X 7mm, should provide a clue for even those who are not "smarter than a fifth grader". If Mr Purvis actually means that CE399 did NOT pass thru JFK, but entered him EXACTLY perpendicular, base first, after tumbling thru the air after hitting a limb... I see why he prefers to state that this is the "Magic Bullet" as not only does it enter and leave perfect dimensions that match the pre-flatteneed bullet... but it too disappears. Maybe it's the bullet referred to by Belmont here: If this letter is a proven fake, please say so... thx. And then the Autopsy states it did not hit a bone: Autopsy report: The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body. The FBI report may be more in line with Thomas' theory... yet where'd the bullet go? And if a pointed bullet was found on JC's stretcher as having come out of JC's thigh... even more evidence of a 2nd shooter. Sibert/O'Neill report During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. HUMES located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column. 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. and from the autopsy again: 2. The second wound presumably of entry is that described above in the upper right posterior thorax. Beneath the skin there is ecchymosis of subcutaneous tissue and musculature. The missile path through the fascia and musculature cannot be easily proved. The wound presumably of exit was that described by Dr. Malcolm Perry of Dallas in the low anterior cervical region. CE399 had no blood, tissue, fibers at all on it... if the bullet entered open end first and left fragments in his chest how is it that the bullet is completely clean? Finally, Mr. Purvis, you state the rifle was ABSOLUTELY fired during the assassination event. The fact that a wound matches a bullet has no direct bearing at all as to whether a rifle was fired that day or not. Or even the fact that bullet matches that rifle... we have no idea how THAT bullet came into being... CE399 is not substantiated by anyone who supposed found it and transported it. Please explain to us novices how THAT rifle was proven to have been fired THAT day... everything I've read says you can only tell if the rifle was NOT fired - if it was cleaned prior to that day and not fired, it would still be clean... if not clean you would have to prove that the rifle was cleaned and not fired prior to that day, and then found residue from firing it. Are you able to do any of this? DJ

Martin Are you replying to me or Martin? I will assume you put his name on accident I have like 20 different copies of Moorman on my computer, that is the best blowup I have of that area I will countinue to use it until I come across a better blowup of that area it this it Jack ??THE JACK GARY MOORMAN FBI PRINT...I AM NoT SURE IF THIS IS THE ONE THAT IS of SUBJECT.....best b We did NOT use the FBI print. I don't think we even had it. We used the Thompson #1 print. Jack I have to agree that in this blow-up it sure does look like a person... My hurdles to this conclusion though includes a look at the sunlight patterns on the FRONTS of these supposed people as well as the reflective nature of the badge, shoulder patch and the sunlight we see on the GA image and Hatman...the right sides of these "people", as we face the photo, should be in darkness, in the shadows. As we can see by the roscoe overlay, the badge should not be seen at all based on how a person holds a rifle, and since there is no light shinning on the arm patch there is no reason it should be illuminated. If what we are seeing is the first shot from the GK, then Arnold's hittin gthe dirt can be justified... would 2-3 more shots be fired from that location given the distance and how everyone saw JFK's head blow up... conjecture... Just like the conjecture, as well as the conclusions about Yarborough: Bill wrote: Yarborough probably did believe he saw Arnold on the first shot back in 1978. The reason for my saying this is because in Altgens #6 ... Yarborough still seems to be smiling and oblivious to any shots being fired. The same can be said about others like Charles Brehm who are still clapping up to that point. Seeing how Yarborough and JFK were friends ... I think we can agree that a smiling Yarborough probably means that he is unaware at that moment that shots are being fired at the motorcade. This means that the next shot(s) were the first ones he recognized, thus he called the kill shot the first shot. Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch, to come to conclusions about what people did or didn't see or did or didn't THINK as the result of an image in a photo? In addition, Yarborough specifically says he heard all three shots. That the kill shot was NOT the 1st shot he hears but the last. If you are going to use Yarborough to confirm Arnold then Arnold CAN NOT be in Moorman... he would have already been on the ground based on his own testimony and Yarborough's. The following affidavit was executed by Ralph W. Yarborough on July 10, 1964. PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY AFFIDAVIT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ss: In response to the oral request of one of the attorneys for the Commission that I send you an affidavit for inclusion in the record of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, I make the following statement: On November 22, 1963, as the President and Mrs. Kennedy rode through the streets of Dallas, I was in the second car behind them. The first car behind the Presidential car was the Secret Service car; the second car behind them was Vice-President Lyndon Johnson's car. The driver and a secret service agent were on the front seat of the Vice-President's car. Vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson sat on the right side of the rear seat of the automobile, Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson was in the center of the rear seat, while I sat on the left side of the rear seat. After the Presidential motorcade had passed through the heart of downtown Dallas, experiencing an exceptionally warm and friendly greeting, as the motorcade went down the slope of Elm Street toward the railroad underpass, a rifle shot was heard by me; a loud blast, close by. I have handled firearms for fifty year, and thought immediately that it was a rifle shot. When the noise of the shot was heard, the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop). After what I took to be about three seconds, another shot boomed out, and after what I took to be one-half the time between the first and second shots (calculated now, this would have put the third shot about one and one-half seconds after the second shot--by my estimate--to me there seemed to be a long time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time between the second and third shots--these were my impressions that day), a third shot was fired. After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up, gained speed rapidly, and roared away to the Parkland Hospital. I heard three shots and no more. All seemed to come from my right rear. I saw people fall to the ground on the embankment to our right, at about the time of or after the second shot, but before the cavalcade started up and raced away. Due to the second car, with the secret service men standing on steps on the sides of it, I could not see what was happening in the Presidential car during the shooting itself. Some of the secret service men looked backward and to the right, in the general direction from which the rifle explosions seemed to come. After the shooting, one of the secret service men sitting down in the car in front of us pulled out an automatic rifle or weapon and looked backward. However, all of the secret service men seemed to me to respond very slowly, with no more than a puzzled look. In fact, until the automatic weapon was uncovered, I had been lulled into a sense of false hope for the President's safety, by the lack of motion, excitement, or apparent visible knowledge by the secret service men, that anything so dreadful was happening. Knowing something of the training that combat infantrymen and Marines receive, I am amazed at the lack of instantaneous response by the Secret Service, when the rifle fire began. I make this statement in this paragraph reluctantly, not to add to the anguish of anyone, but it is my firm opinion, and I write it out in the hope that it might be of service in the better protection of our Presidents in the future. After we went under the underpass, on the upward slope I could see over the heads of the occupants of the second car (Secret Service car) and could see an agent lying across the back or trunk of the Presidential car, with his feet to the right side of the car, his head at the left side. He beat the back of the car with one hand, his face contorted by grief, anguish, and despair, and I knew from that instant that some terrible loss had been suffered. On arrival at the hospital, I told newsmen that three rifle shots had been fired. There was then no doubt in my mind that the shots were rifle shots, and I had neither then or now any doubts that any other shots were fired. In my opinion only three shots were fired. The attached photograph from pages 24 and 25 of the Saturday Evening Post of December 14, 1963, shows the motorcade, as I remember it, an instant after the first shot. [Photograph is Yarborough Exhibit A.] Given and sworn to this 10th day of July, 1964, at Washington, District of Columbia. Signed this 10th day of July 1964. (S) Ralph W. Yarborough, RALPH W. YARBOROUGH.

Please explain, DJ. We have two film sources showing someone in the Arnold location doing what he said occurred and you simply say his testimony removes him from the Moorman photo. You are aware aren't you that when he says the President got to 'this position' that he is demonstrating the limo's location at the time of the head shot. Yarborough independently reads Golz article and contacts Golz telling him that he saw the man mentioned in Earl's article. Yarborough in his TV interview says that he knew that this individual had had his training on what to do when in the line of fire. So please explain yourself in detail if you will. Bill do my best Bill... Let's start with Yarborough: As noted previously, Arnold’s story was first publicized in a Dallas Morning News story of August 27, 1978. A follow-up story of Sunday, December 31, 1978, again authored by Earl Golz, noted, “Some assassination researchers said they doubted Arnold’s story because they could not find him in photographs and movie film taken at the time of the assassination.” 64 Earl Golz, “Panel Leaves Question of Impostors,” Dallas Morning News, December 31, 1978. However, Golz wrote, Arnold’s “presence on the grassy knoll was confirmed Saturday by former U.S. Sen. Ralph Yarborough of Texas, who was riding in the motorcade two cars behind the presidential limousine. He was a passenger in a car with Vice President Lyndon Johnson and Mrs. Johnson.” 65 Earl Golz, “Panel Leaves Question of Impostors,” Dallas Morning News, December 31, 1978. “Immediately on the firing of the first shot I saw the man you interviewed throw himself on the ground,” Yarborough told The News. “He was down within a second of the time the shot was fired and I thought to myself, ‘There’s a combat veteran who knows how to act when weapons start firing.’” 66 Earl Golz, “Panel Leaves Question of Impostors,” Dallas Morning News, December 31, 1978. In his affidavit submitted to the Warren Commission, Yarborough stated, “I heard three shots and no more. All seemed to come from my right rear. I saw people fall to the ground on the embankment to our right, at about the time of or after the second shot, but before the cavalcade started up and raced away.” (Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VII, p. 440.) Yarborough elaborated slightly upon his statement ten years later, in The Men Who Killed Kennedy: During that shooting my eye was attracted to the right. I saw a movement and I saw a man just jump about ten feet like at the old time flying tackle in football and land against a wall. I thought to myself, “There’s an infantryman who’s either been shot at in combat or he’s been trained thoroughly: the minute you hear firing, get under cover.” Yarborough saw someone “jump about ten feet like at the old time flying tackle in football and land against a wall;” Gordon Arnold said he “hit the dirt” behind the concrete wall. 67 Earl Golz, “SS ‘imposters’ spotted by JFK witnesses,” Dallas Morning News, August 27, 1978. Gordon Arnold said he was in uniform that day; 68 Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt (New York: Henry Holt and Co., First Owl Book Edition, 1987), pp. 112-13. Yarborough surmised that the bystander he saw was an infantryman or combat veteran, because he appeared to know “how to act when weapons start firing.” Was Yarborough describing Gordon Arnold, or someone else entirely? In 1993 Ralph W. Yarborough was interviewed at his Austin home by historian David Murph of Texas Christian University. Murph reminded Yarborough that he had been quoted as saying he had witnessed a man on the grassy knoll throw himself down on the ground, and that the man had impressed him as a combat veteran. Yarborough seemed puzzled to hear that his words had been applied to someone standing on the grassy knoll. That couldn’t possibly be correct, he insisted repeatedly. “Remember where I was in the motorcade — with the Johnsons,” he cautioned Murph, “too far back to have been able to see anyone [on the knoll] drop to the ground when firing began.” 69 David Murph, e-mails to author, July 8 and 10, 2003. Thanks to David Perry for putting me in contact with Dr. Murph. Whoever Yarborough had described (and there were many people in Dealey Plaza throwing themselves down on the ground as the shots rang out), 70 Journalist Hugh Sidey was a passenger in the motorcade. When the vehicle he was in turned the corner to Elm Street, he would recall, “It looked like a giant hand or wind had swept the place, everybody was lying down on the grassy knoll. At the curb there was a young man [probably a reference to eyewitness Bill Newman] with a little boy. He was hammering the ground with his fist, with his other arm over the boy protecting him, just in anguish.” (The Newseum with Cathy Trost and Susan Bennett, President Kennedy Has Been Shot [Naperville, Ill.: Sourcebooks, Inc., 2003], p. 25.) http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold2.htm Not exactly an unimpeachable source our Senator.... Now the 2 photographic sources: Nix and Moorman. Neither one can be said to identify GA only that the film suggests something moved in the manner GA described moving after the first shot, not after the head shot. You say the Groden Nix presentation was plain as day... you could tell he had on light clothes, a hat, and a camera in his hand? Is there not one single frame that can be shown to support this claim or are we simply inferring from GA's account that what we see in Nix is him? Moorman. We can debate the existence of BM, GA and Hatman in Moorman all day and still not get anywhere. Whether the size analysis is correct or not, why there are white sunlight spots intermixed in the shadows on the FRONTS of these men standing in th shadows and resolution issues. But to definitely say that GA is in the photo given the discrepencies, I think, is a stretch. add Bowers, Hoffman and Holland's recollection and we have even more conflicts with GA's story. We know for a fact that these three were there. However, Bowers’s description of the men is at odds with the Mack/White interpretation of the images in Moorman. Neither man described by Bowers wore a police uniform, for example; Bowers said “there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket.” 2 Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VI, p. 287. “Were they standing together or standing separately?” Warren Commission counsel Joseph Ball asked him. “They were standing within ten or fifteen feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew,” Bowers replied. 3 Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VI, p. 287. Another witness brought forward in The Men Who Killed Kennedy to corroborate Gordon Arnold’s story is Ed Hoffman, who tells an extraordinary story of witnessing Kennedy murdered by a rifleman and a backup stationed behind the picket fence. Neither of the individuals described by Hoffman wore a police uniform, however; and, in truth, Hoffman’s story has changed so many times over the years that his credibility problems rival or even surpass those of Gordon Arnold. After the shooting, Bowers observed, at least one, possibly both of the men remained in the area as police and bystanders began flooding into the parking lot. 4 Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VI, p. 288. These two men were the only strangers Bowers noticed in the area. 5 Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VI, p. 288. If his testimony is to be believed, he did not see a man fitting Gordon Arnold’s description walk toward the railroad bridge; he did not see anyone fitting the description of a plainclothes officer or agent in a suit; he did not witness a confrontation between two such individuals; he did not see a man fitting Arnold’s description walk back along the fence; he did not witness a second confrontation between the two individuals, in the same approximate area as the two men Bowers did describe; he did not see a police officer behind the fence prior to or immediately after the shooting; he did not see a man wearing a hardhat (a la Mack and White) standing behind the fence; he did not see anyone fire a gun; he did not see a weapon of any kind; and he saw no one flee the area. He simply heard three shots and could not tell which direction they came from. Hopefully the detail is there for you Bill... when you quote GA "he says the President got to 'this position' that he is demonstrating the limo's location at the time of the head shot" please provide a source... from my readings, his story, like Ed Hoffman's, grows and changes over the years. what he said in '78 is not the same as in '82, 85 or '88. I get the distinct impression that Altgens at z255 gives us a much better idea of where Yarborough was and when the first shot from the front was fired... That an assassin would continue to fire from such close range AFTER blowing his head off seems a contradiction.

David, Thanks for your attention and input but in this scenario, JFK is a KING and LHO is a PAWN, and I am trying to play this out under those conditions. If you want to see how an Oswald as King scenario plays out, do so and let me know how it plays out. I understand your perspective and agree that both JFK and LHO were played as MARKS by the same Inside Men/Outside Men who brought JFK to Dealey Plaza, and that is the key to figuring out who had the knowledge and connections of what both MARKS were doing and when they were doing it. While Oswald was certainly a MARK, I can't see him as a KING in any circumstance. \ That's what makes the Oswald PAWN takes KING such an anomally. As you point out, in the game of chess, the Pawn is never in the position of taking out a King because the King could never move into a checkmate position. That's why it is so important to determine how and why the KING was maneuvered into such a position. BK Always a pleasure reading and joining in on your threads Bill... maybe I just don't get the point though. When the King dies, the game is over. When the King cannot move as it will put him into check or checkmate, the game is a draw - no winners I guess there is a scenario in which the king is put into a positon where the move AFTER the one he makes allows the PAWN to put him into checkmate. Here we go... the Black King tries to block the pawn from reaching the end by moving out of check from the White King. Problem is in this example, Oswald is more likely the black Pawn than either of the 2 white pawns. For Our Pawn to take our King he too has to be moved into a position to checkmate him... A job at the right time and at the right place the ride home to get curtain rods the night before Hidell connected to the rifle found at the scene via photos, order forms, etc... Wallets establish Hidell = Oswald Photo established that Oswald has the rifle Oswald at work that day Oswald on the 6th floor that day Oswald's fingerprints all over the sniper's nest - (oops) Oswald's fingerprints all over the rifle - (oops) Oswald knows when the motorcade is coming by and is in position and prepared - (oops) Oswald is identified at the window with the rifle - (oops) No other shots are fired and there are no other people with rifles seen in and around TSBD - (oops) Oswald takes the easiest of shots as JFK approaches him on Houston - the King is hand delivered for execution - (oops) Someone sees Oswald escaping from the 6th floor - (oops) The TSBD is sealed off so no other person can be considered the assassin - (oops) So... how and why was the KING moved into position to be taken by a Pawn (or at least make it look like the Pawn did it) Your original post Bill suggests this line of thinking shifts us away from the assassins and to those controlling the movements of the KING into the Pawn's area. But it was a magic trick... while all were looking/hearing at what was happening it the Pawn's area, the actual killers of the KING are elsewhere ready to spring the trap. I've done it many times playin... get the opponent to think you are attacking from one spot while you sacrifice a piece to gain the correct position to end the game from another. The creation of the "Pawn's area" was part of the plot and strategy... once the Pawn is identified as the one who took the King, all the other pieces on the board are rendered useless and unecessary. What the Bishop and Knight did during the game is of no consequence since the game is now over and we all know the Pawn did it. Basic chess, Art of War... deception.... the reason a Patsy was needed to begin with... my .02 DJ

And as I was panning down in this direction, just as I got to about this position, a shot came right past my left ear, and that meant it would have had to have come from this direction. And that’s when I fell down, and to me it seemed like a second shot was at least fired over my head. There was a bunch of report [sic] going on in this particular area at that time. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold1.htm Sorry Bill... GA could not have been standing at z313 if he hears shots fired over him. Yes he has knowledge of the events... but at the same time his own testimony removes him from the Moorman photo... BDM MUST be either Hudson or one of the two black "kids" Sitzman and others see. Badgeman and Hatman are simply too small to be where they need to be And then there is the Hatman to the west, behind the tree, where all the muddy footprints and cigarette butts were found. NOT saying he has anything to do with BDM... just that the BM trio was, imo, not there.

Bill – How GA knows what he knows is quite the mystery to me.... He was either 1) there as he says he was, or 2) he saw it from another vantage point, saw the black kids hit the ground and a shot coming from the GK and related the story as if it were him or 3) he somehow hears the story while overseas and adopts it as his own In TMWKK his reactions seem genuine to the Moorman photo and the supposed proof he was there. But by the same logic, the location he chooses to film the motorcade given all the area there for him to find a great vantage point... and how he steps back into the shadows and farther away from the street... BDM, if sinister, would not be hitting the dirt as seen in Nix or described by Yarborough and Rosemary. He said he “felt” the first shot come from behind him, only inches over his left shoulder, he said. Now this has to be the frontal throat shot since he talks about more shots to come. “I had just gotten out of basic training,” Arnold said, “In my mind live ammunition was being fired. It was being fired over my head and I hit the dirt.” Arnold, then 22, said the first two shots came from behind the fence, “close enough for me to fall down on my face.” He stayed there for the duration of the shooting. The “He stayed there” is not a quote from GA so I am not sure that accurately describes what he did... but that makes sense given the timing of the throat shot, and the witness statements. Problem is... if he was down after the throat shot... he WAS NOT standing up in Moorman filming the motorcade... he was on the ground. The Moorman BM group is a fabrication... GA could NOT have been in that photo and the size of BM and Hatman leads to them not actually being there either. Much more likely one of these 2 black people was BDM if it wasn't Hudson Sitzman is very specific about them being there thru the headshot, then throwing the bottles and running... Is there no other mention of this couple seen running behind the pergola and thru the RR yard? Cliff – Rosemary was a child at the time and quite a distance from the BDM position. Not saying she was wrong by any means... just that there was also a motorcade between her and the GK. She saw something for sure... being able to pinpoint it as a single, conspicuous person... and to give ANY credibility to HCSA findings it a matter of conjecture... I believe Rosemary and I also believe Sitzman. And if we believe Arnold, he was on the ground right by z205, the 1st shot, the throat shot and NOT seen in Moorman. I put together this sequence of Rosemary... we don’t see her after z220 or so. 5-6 seconds before the headshot equates to about 100 frames or 213... the graphic does show her following the limo from z214 thru 219 and maybe even looking a bit past (east) of it. Is the bottle seen in Willis 6? My copy is not clear enough to tell. I seem to see it in Bond 4, and in the same spot in Moorman. I also see what may be the head of BDM sitting on the bench in Moorman (thoughts?) If BDM was one of the “kids” Sitzman sees, they are in the perfect position to leave the bottle there. Need to find images between z202 willis 5 and Moorman. Any ideas? Finally... I have this that I believe shows the bottle even in moorman and someone sitting at the bench... but you have to squint really hard...

Herb... you gonna say that 59 witnesses who saw and heard shots from the GK also does not "ring true". What about her statement or person leads you to believe her statement doesn't ring true? For what purpose would Sitzman make that up? and if "made up" please explain how the coke, bag and broken glass with liquid winds up where they are, who put them there and finally, since that bottle is not in any other photo... when did the coke bottle get put on the corner of the wall? Ken... So it sounds like you are agreeing with me... that BDM is really the boy and girl standing together... that makes sense to me as well which would explain why they disappeared so quickly yet I would place the boy in front based on Rosemary Willis' and other's description... I wonder if Arnold ever mentions these two sitting on the bench having lunch... Bill?

Sitzman: And they were eating their lunch, 'cause they had little lunch sacks, and they were drinking coke. The main reason I remember 'em is, after the last shot I recall hearing and the car went down under the triple underpass there, I heard a crash of glass, and I looked over there, and the kids had thrown down their coke bottles, just threw them down and just started running towards the back and I ... Of course, I don't see anything unusual in that because everybody else was running that way, 'cause when I look over on my left side, the people on the hill were all running back the same way too. So Bill... Sitzman is very specific that she sees and hears them just after z313 and that they had been there a while... if GA was back there based on his lone testimony and the moorman interpretation, then we should definitely see the 2 kids on the bench in some picture, especially wills5 and betzner. I do not support alteration to remove these 2 kids so I have to ask again... if Sitzman is telling the truth we ought to be able to find a photo of someone sitting on that bench and eating.... or at least standing back there... Cliff: I can't suppose why a person does what they do... so I wont speculate... but you can help by determining where they were in the last 5 minutes before 12:33. Stating categorically that there is only one person behind the wall in Moorman - GA - does not seem supported by the photographic evidence. I thought Duncan easily showed how the size of GA in moorman is much too large for him to be standing there Seems more to this than just GA and Moorman and Badgeman and BDM.... where arew those kids or whoeve left that sack lunch and coke bottle there? DJ

Thanks Bill, I'd love your opinion on my post regarding the black kids Sitzman sees. You'd have to agree that anyone sitting on that bench would have his shoulders and head above the wall as seen from Willis and Betzner BDM, if sinister, would literally be 5 feet infront of these two... with a rifle? Cliff? Is the scenario of the black man getting up, going over to the wall, putting his coke down, (z160 - z205) getting photographed as BDM then returning to his seat. If he moved we should see him moving ala BDM, if he stayed seated with the woman... Where are they? DJ

A subtle correction of Gary Mack from Rosemary Willis via the HSCA, emphasis added... http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm Rosemary Willis was there. Gary Mack was not. The back of the bench is at the height of the wall... Sitting there, the boy and girl should have been seen, their heads and shoulders would be above the wall so there should be some indication of them in all three of these photos: Betzner Willis Moorman Sitzman: Some ran ... I mean ... I finally got back up to the alcove. There was bunches of people just swarming back there, and I think almost everybody on that hill ran back up that way. And another thing that I remember this day: there was a colored couple. I figure they were between 18 and 21, a boy and a girl, sitting on a bench, just almost, oh, parallel with me, on my right side, close to the fence... Sitzman: And they were eating their lunch, 'cause they had little lunch sacks, and they were drinking coke. The main reason I remember 'em is, after the last shot I recall hearing and the car went down under the triple underpass there, I heard a crash of glass, and I looked over there, and the kids had thrown down their coke bottles, just threw them down and just started running towards the back and I ... Of course, I don't see anything unusual in that because everybody else was running that way, 'cause when I look over on my left side, the people on the hill were all running back the same way too. I believe we do not know whoe those kids were and I also assume the woman with baby and other black man in the first photo were NOT the 2 people Sitzman describes.... The coke bottle would not just get to the corner of the wall by itself... We do not see the bottle in Moorman, Willis or Betzner so it had to be placed there AFTER Moorman... did they throw them on the ground and only 1 of them broke meaning someone picked it up and put it on the wall... or one of them put it on the wall while the other threw theirs down....? either way, if we believe her, these kids were there the duration of the Z film and should have been captured on film somewhere... Is there any reason one of them couldn't be BDM while the other, maybe the smaller women, is out of site on the bench? to me, anyone on that bench would have been seen over the wall.... DJ

Not sure why we'd need a rebuttal... Only if one is inclined to believe it was a woman holding baby, a conclusion which assumes both Rosemary Willis and the HSCA analysis of Willis #5 got it wrong. For those who hold to the possibility it was, indeed, a woman holding a baby, then on what basis are Rosemary's statement and the HSCA analysis impeached? I don't see where she indicates anything about the person disappearing after the headshot. Her rapid headsnap occurs Z214-217, and the only activity on the knoll she described was BDM disappearing "the next instant." With a shot to the throat at Z190 and BDM disappearing about a second later with a "very distinct straight-line feature" "near the region of the hands" seems to me to make a compelling case for BDM as a shooter, although certainly not conclusive. Interesting point you make Cliff... will have to do more thinking on the subject.... yet if and I do mean if GA was there, BDM would be right next to him and he does not describe anything like that. At the same token I still have a difficult time seeing GA as BDM. Fair enough. It could be a coincidence that someone who went to see Kennedy holding a very distinct straight-line feature in their hands decided to disappear about a second after the guy they came to see was shot in the throat. quite a few leaps of faith in this statement, I supposed if you are inclined to think it was a shooter, a “straight line feature” becomes a rifle. Stationary for how long? There was less than a second between Betnzer 3 and Willis 5. trying to say that BDM had to get there and leave in some manner. The black couple was sitting right there and this person would just shoot regardless? BDM cannot vanish, he either is GA who dove to the ground, the black man eating lunch and putting his coke on the wall (how else does that get there – anyone?), or someone else. Somehow Hudson walks from behind the steps, past BDM position without being stopped or questioned by anyone whereas others where specifically told to leave the area. Hudson says he’s in the area from 12 on. None of this occurred during the time frame in question, did it? Rosemary started running west as the limo turned onto Elm Street and she told the HSCA she saw two "conspicuous people", Umbrella Man and Black Dog Man. Her description of UM matches Louis Witt's descriptions of his actions -- he was pre-occupied with the umbrella. Although she doesn't say exactly when "the next instant" of BDM's sudden disappearance occurred, her rapid head snap was drawn by something that occurred to her left, and BDM's absence from any other photos is consistent with his disappearing about the same time as her head snap. Well if Nix’s interpretation is correct something moves right after the headshot... something falls to their left. This occurs well after the head snap.... Wasn't she a bit pre-occupied with Abe during the time in question? not preoccupied enough to NOT know about the 2 black people, what they were doing, where they were and about how old they were.... She was VERY observant of that area. If you were going to see the President of the United States in a motorcade why would you disappear just as the limo was approaching your position? And is a coke bottle a "very distinct straight-line feature"? you’d disappear because shots were being fired. And depending on the image, photo, lighting, etc... my guess is that yes, a coke bottle could look like a straight line feature. If he were shooting a standard round, that would be less likely, perhaps, but the nature of the throat wound is consistent with non-conventional weaponry, seems to me. And it doesn't appear as if JFK were reacting to a conventional bullet strike. One more intriguing thing Rosemary Willis said to the HSCA: Ms. Willis said she was aware of three shots being fired. She gave no information on the direction or location of the shots, but stated that her father became upset when the policeman in the area appeared to run away from where he thought the shots came from; that is, they were running away from the grassy knoll. It would have taken a big dose of suicidal bravery for anyone to directly accuse a cop of shooting Kennedy, seems to me. I'm not saying that it is a fact that BDM was a shooter, but that could be a reasonable conclusion that fits the extant evidence better than the other explanations that are kicked around. agreed... I think you bring up a very interesting line of thought. Thanks. DJ

1.5) Order one rifle and be photographed holding a different one 6.5) After building the Sniper's Lair, removing his fingerprints from each and every box he touched to build it 7.5) Know at the time that the limo was late (plane landing 20 minutes late and the stops in the motorcade enroute) and would not be passing the TSBD until 12:30, instead of the scheduled 11:55 so he did not have to be in position by 11:50 but 12:25. Just a few additions. Amazing to me how ferocious the LNer gets when confronted with REASONABLE DOUBT, as if their Church of Oswald's Guilt is being attacked, blasphemy!! kooks... paranoids.... There is no room for rational thought, constructuve discussion or debate... only insults and misdirection... I don't know Mr. Carlier, all I see is his posts here on this thread... not a single quote, reference, link to evidence or factually supported statement is uttered either for or against Bill's list of questions. How does one have a discussion regarding whether facts are indeed facts comprised soley of opinion statements? I have no problem with a knowledgeable LNer making their point(s) yet they never seem to employ the "does this make any logical sense" or "what other ways can this info be interpreted" thought processes. There are witnesses that place Oswald anywhere but the 6th floor right up until as late as 12:25. Rather than argue, show us any evidence that places Oswald where he was supposed to be, when he was supposed to be there. DJ

Appreciate the input Mark yet I don't think anything in my post supports CE399 as the Magic Bullet except for mentioning it passing thru JC and the effects on the bullet's weight compared to, supposedly, the same ammunition behaving completely differently. I've not read where Thomas posted what you describe as his position yet I have not read everything to be sure. In either case, CE399 still supposedly passed thru someone's body and emerges without any trace of that occuring. I've also stated that SWITCHING evidence was much more likely than PLANTING evidence There are some very definitive statements in his post and I believe I've addressed them... If Thomas could reply I am sure we both can be satisfied. He wrote: P.S. Not that you are likely to believe it either, but if one will follow ALL of the eyewitness statements they will find that sufficient witness testimony exists to document that each of the three shots fired in the assassination sequence were observed to have been fired from the window of the sixth floor of the TSDB. You in agreement to that statement? or this one given the analysis I posted? 1. CE399, to the exclusion of ALL other weapons, was fired from the recovered 6.5mm Model 91/38 Carcano Short Rifle that was found/recovered on the sixth floor of the TSDB. and finally this one: the fact that these bullets were fired from the recovered assassination weapon and were ABSOLUTELY fired during the actual assassination event. These are his words and there is simply no way to prove these claims.... DJ

I'm not a shooter, either, but it makes sense to me to put a guy dressed as a cop in that location, have a very loud round fired from the TSBD to distract attention, then claim that BDM was returning fire should anybody see him. After all, the HSCA identified a "very distinct straight line feature" in the region of BDM's hands...did the Mom also bring her broom with her and the baby?? On what basis do people impeach the testimony of Rosemary Willis and the HSCA analysis? http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm I've yet to see any sort of rebuttal to this. Not sure why we'd need a rebuttal... Rosemary does establish someone/something at that spot who disappears right after the headshot, or at least very close to that time period, she is not specific but infers it's after z313. There are no conclusions regarding the "very distinct straight line feature" due to the fuzziness of the photo. "...could not conclude whether it was or was not a weapon" I don't think anyone disputes it was there and then was gone and it was there well before Betzner's z185 photo since there is not movement betwewn betzner and willis, BDM was not moving thru the area but stationary. Hudson walks right past that spot... the young man runs up to that spot immediately after the shots... (which is pretty insane if the shots came from that area, to run TO that spot in the manner he does) Sitzman talks about the two black people on the bench which would have been even farther north than BDM, yet no mention of BDM. I imagine if they were sitting on the bench, and one got up with a coke bottle to get a better view he/she would have suddenly appeared there when they stood up and then disappear again shen they ran off leaving the coke bottle behind... they broke the other one. Your theory is interesting yet a policeman in plain sight shooting into the limo???

Interesting analogy Bill.... First off, the King is not allowed to move himself into check or checkmate. The only way a Pawn can win an attack on a King is if the Pawn is protected from capture by the king (or any other piece) and only after the Pawn moves into a position that puts the King into check or checkmate. The PAWN needs to move: A stalemate occurs when, for the player with the move: The player has no legal moves, and The player's king is not in check If this happens, the king is said to have been stalemated and the game ends in a draw. A player who has very little or no chance of winning will often try to entice the opponent to inadvertently place the player's king in stalemate in order to avoid a loss. I would offer that Oswald was the KING in the process of being checkmated while he tried to cause a stalemate - not get killed before getting caught and be in a position to put fear into the other "pieces" Pawns and more were moved into positions that kept the King on course to his checkmate JFK was maneuvered into a position of being taken out from the blind side, but I do not think of him as the King here... just another piece taken from the board in an effort to checkmate the real King, Oswald, and accomplish what was ultimately accomplished. Whether checkmating Oswald was designed to invade Cuba, escalate Vietnam, restore America to its anti-commie stance or one of a large number of reasons... the killing of JFK was only part of the game, the sacrifice of an important piece in order to win. DJ