David Josephs

Excuse my jumping in... I am sure Jim will get to you in time yet I had an observation. IMO there is a HUGE difference between the shock "and procedures" in the ER in Dallas and at Bethesda's autopsy. There were no military brass at Parkland watching over the doctors as they proceeded to see a frontal throat wound and a large right rear blow-out. No one wathcing over Hill as he looks down into JFK's head, or Jackie for that matter. Nothing could be done to assist JFK at Parkland - shock or no shock they performed the duties they were expected to perform fairly well. The same cannot be said of the Bethesda "autopists" (if they can be called that). Their shock had to be at the manner in which they were ordered to do things that evening, what was readily apparent to them and what they were ultimately ordered to put into the official record. That is the same shock and repulsion that we feel today. DJ

Hey Jim, The Invitation actually says "twelve noon" yet I am not sure who these invitations were sent to... if VIP you'd imagine they'd want to be there early to greet him while the posters say 12:30 for the rest of the people.. just a guess. I did have this from one of my own essays but would have to research the source as it's not listed: SS agent Lawson told Police Chief Curry that the Luncheon at the Trade Mart was to begin at 12:15 (45 minute ride from Love Field after arriving at 11:30) The invitation says 12 noon. They arrives at 11:39 and leaves for Trade Mart at 11:55. and this: Duke Lane Ed Forum Post http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofiversion/index.php/t14478.html Jun 18 2009, 05:50 PM I was leafing through old issues (is there any other kind?) of The Third Decade and came across an article by Timothy Cwiek in Volume 3, Issue 2 (January 1987) called "The Motorcade Route Stories that Never Were." Accompanying his article, reprinted on the back cover, were newspaper articles from both the Dallas Times Herald and Morning News detailing the route in print (published in the WC evidentiary volumes as Commission Exhibits 1362 and 1363, respectively). CE1362, published on November 19, indicates that the Dallas route was "revealed," indicating that: From the (Love Field) airport, the President's party will proceed to Mockingbird to Lemmon and then to Turtle Creek, turning south on Cedar Springs. The motorcade will then pass through downtown on Harwood and then west on Main, turning back to Elm at Houston and then out Stemmons to the Trade Mart. The return trip will be more direct: Stemmons to Harry Hines, to Mockingbird and on to Love Field — a distance of 4.2 miles. A couple of things stand out in these articles. First, while the Times Herald indicates that Kennedy would have a "three hour visit to the city," it does not even note when that visit will begin. The News, on the other hand, indicates that the President's plane was due to land at Love Field at "about 11:30 a.m." For what it's worth, no time for Kennedy's planned departure is given in either article. I don't see how else Oswald would have known the time to be later than that. then again the bag in Wesley's car that morning was not big enough to hold the rifle anyway... Oswald didn't seem involved in the timing needs of the assassination at all that day.

thanks John... to elaborate a bit If we can show that LHO was not on an assassination timeline (bring the rifle, hide it, get to a spot to shoot him, shoot him, etc...) all these other facts about the rifle and pistol are moot. He'd have to either sit and wait at the 6th floor window starting as early as 11:45 (plane was supposed to land at 11:30 and be at the Trade Mart by 12:15)... know exactly when the plane landed and when it was expected to pass the TSBD and ALSO know that no one would be up there at the time.... be in communication with those that did know and would insure no one was in his way.... or not be involved at all, not care when the limo was passing, and be seen anywhere BUT the 6th floor as late as 12:25.... You decide: We know men were claimed to be seen between 12-12:15 at various windows on either end of the 6th floor, one on the 7th and the black guys on the 5th. The motorcade did not even leave Love field until 11:55, so for there to be 3 teams - in place - there needed to be unobstructed access to the GK, Sniper's Lair (if a shoot came from there), Dal-Tex, RR yard, etc... And these people had to be aware of the expected landing time of the plane - as you said there was an ongoing radio report of the flight and motorcade procession yet I can't imagine using that as the basis for setting up the assassination timeline... We do know that people were told to leave the GK/Overpass area well before 12pm (Altgens and Arnold(if there)) Bowers sees the 2 men at the GK fence by 12:20 after the car circles the lot - they know somehow to be there at that time and they must know they are safe from interference... isn't there a DPD uniformed officer there chasing people away? There is someone in the SW 6th floor building going in and out of the shadows as well as an older, thin Negro according to A. Rowland at the SE 6th floor window. and all this time Williams says he was alone up there until 12:15 at least... Jack Dougherty had also been on the 6th floor till after 12:20 and saw no one... ?!?! I found this testimony a little strange in that you'd think there would have been a number of radios on, in and around the TSBD, with people checking on the progess of the parade yet only when Mrs. Reid calls her husband does she find out the parade is late. I don't recall anyone else mentioning a radio braodcast while in the TSBD... any help? Mrs. REID. Well, I left, I ate my lunch hurriedly, I wasn't watching the time but I wanted to be sure of getting out on the streets in time for the parade before he got there, and I called my husband, who works at the records building, and they had a radio in their office and they were listening as the parade progressed and he told me they were running about 10 minutes late. But I went down rather soon and stood on the steps. Some other food for thought on this 38 min timeline (limo leaves Love Field and the assassination at 12:33) http://karws.gso.uri...ternalComm.html Then, there is the mishandling of the Carolyn Arnold statements. Taken together, the two support her later claims that she saw LHO on the first floor at 12:25; making it unlikely that he went up five flights of stairs and ran over to the window to shoot JFK. In her hand written statement she told the FBI she saw LHO "at about 12:25 PM" (Weisberg Post Mortem, p. 333 citing Commission Document 706(d)). The FBI retyped her statement to read that she LHO "a few minutes before 12:15 PM" (Roffman, p. 185, citing CD 5:4l). On page 276 Roffman notes the dishonestly of the Warren Report which claimed "that it knew of no Book Depository employee who claimed to have seen Oswald between 11:55 and 12:30 on the day of the assassination." British journalist and author Anthony Summers provides the following summary of his 1978 interview with Mrs. Arnold: When I found Mrs. Arnold in 1978 to get a firsthand account, she was surprised to hear how she had been reported by the FBI. Her spontaneous reaction, that she had been misquoted, came before I explained to her the importance of Oswald's whereabouts at given moments. Mrs. Arnold's recollection of what she really observed was clear--spotting Oswald was after all her one personal contribution to the record of that memorable day. As secretary to the company vice- president she knew Oswald; he had been in the habit of coming to her for change. What Mrs. Arnold says she actually told the FBI is very different from the report of her comments and not vague at all. She said: "About a quarter of an hour before the assassination [12:15], I went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment. . . . Oswald was sitting in one of the booth seats on the right-hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him but I recognized him clearly." Mrs. Arnold has reason to remember going into the lunchroom. She was pregnant at the time and had a craving for a glass of water. Carolyn Arnold sees Oswald eating lunch on the second floor lunchroom. ”Oswald was sitting in one of the booth seats on the right hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him but I recognized him clearly.” ref. Crossfire, p 49; Conspiracy - Who Killed Kennedy?, p 108 http://www.mtgriffit...ments/hasty.htm A few minutes later, Bill Shelley and Charles Givens saw Oswald on the first floor, at around 11:50. Then, ten minutes later, Eddie Piper also saw Oswald on the first floor. Moreover, as mentioned, Williams began eating his lunch on the sixth floor at right around noon and didn't leave the floor until around 12:15 or 12:20. Since Oswald was seen by Piper on the first floor at noon, and since Williams was on the sixth floor at noon to eat his lunch, the only time Oswald could have gone up to the sniper's nest was after Williams came back downstairs at 12:15 or 12:20. The motorcade was scheduled to pass in front of the TSBD at 12:25. As it turned out, the motorcade was running five minutes late, but Oswald could not have known that. Arriving at the sniper's window at 12:16 at the earliest, Oswald would have been hard-pressed to build (or finish building) the sniper's nest, arrange the boxes next to the window as a gun rest, and then reassemble the rifle. One witness, Arnold Rowland, insisted he saw a man with a rifle--an assembled rifle--on the sixth floor at 12:15 or 12:16, and Rowland said nothing about seeing any boxes being moved in the sniper's nest. Mr. BALL. Was that the last time you saw him? Mr. PIPER. Just at 12 o’clock. Mr. BALL. Where were you at 12 o’clock? Mr. PIPER. Down on the first floor. Mr. BALL. What was he doing? Mr. PIPER. Well, I said to him-“It’s about http://www.ratical.o.../PG/PGchp7.html Jarman and Norman appeared together on the first floor again, about ten minutes after stepping outside. Because the crowds in front of the Depository were so large, the two men went up to the fifth floor at 12:20 or 12:25. To do this, they walked around to the back of the building, entering on the first floor through the rear door and taking the elevator up five stories (3H202). Obviously, Oswald could not have told the police that "Junior" and a short Negro employee were together on the first floor unless he had seen this himself.[3] For Oswald to have witnessed Jarman and Norman in this manner, he had to have been on the first floor between either 12:10 and 12:15 or 12:20 and 12:25. The fact that Oswald was able to relate this incident is cogent evidence that he was in fact on the first floor at one or both of these times. If he was on the sixth floor, as the Commission believes, then it was indeed a remarkable coincidence that out of all the employees, Oswald picked the two who were on the first floor at the time he said, and together as he described. Since this is a remote possibility that warrants little serious consideration, I am persuaded to conclude that Oswald was on the first floor at some time between 12:10 and 12:25, which is consistent with the previously cited testimony of Eddie Piper.[4] Now, let us revisit the statements made by Bonnie Ray Williams. First of all, when the WC asked Williams about his FBI statement, he denied telling the FBI that he left the sixth floor at 12:05 (4:103). And, when the Commission asked Williams to give an approximate time for his departure from the sixth floor, he said he left at around 12:20 (4:103). Former WC member Gerald Ford said Williams left the sixth floor "just minutes before the Presidential motorcade reached the corner of Houston and Elm" Mr. WILLIAMS. It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had eaten the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10 or 15 minutes after 12. I could say approximately what time it was. Mr. BALL. Approximately what time was it? Mr. WILLIAMS. Approximately 12:20, maybe. Mr. BALL. Well, now, when you talked to the FBI on the 23d day of November, you said that you went up to the sixth floor about 12 noon with your lunch, and you stayed only about 3 minutes, and seeing no one you came down to the fifth floor, using the stairs at the west end of the building. Now, do you think you stayed longer than 3 minutes up there? Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sure I stayed longer than 3 minutes. Mr. BALL. Do you remember telling the FBI you only stayed 3 minutes up there? Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not remember telling them I only stayed 3 minutes. Not the first or only time the FBI recollection/recording of witness statements wound up being in favor of LHO did it as opposed to what was said. Did they ever make an error in recording a statement that FAVORED LHO? edit: It has been brought to my attention that the poster is probably a phony as it appears to have their arrival at Love Field that day as the image - which would be impossible. the VIP luncheon invite is still up for discussion - since it was a fundraiser, there is no reason to assume a noon start for luch was not correct and that the invite is legit... DJ

For all that to work... doesn't that little paper bag in the back seat of the car need to be MUCH BIGGER than anyone says it was to hold a broken down rifle? How did the bag even get back to the Paines to begin with... if Oswald made it Wed/Thur there are not enough fold marks on it to have been made small enough that Wesley would not notice it on the ride home... or was it made well before hand (even though it does not match the paper at work) And finally... given that Oswald does not know the motorcade is late by 20-30mins minutes (announcements for the luncheon range from 12 to 12:30) we are supposed to believe he waits until AFTER the earliest announced time for the luncheon to actual begin, to make his way up to the 6th floor, assemble the rifle, etc... ? Once again, facts are nice but without context and perspective to other facts they are meaningless. There are so many, "Even if's" this, that or the other happens... there are enough other facts that contradict the conclusions of the isolated fact you are discussing. Oswald was seen after 12:10 and as much as 12:20 on the 2nd floor. He had no idea when the motorcade was passing HIS window. DJ

Facts without perspective and context are meaningless... Wow, are you a waste of time.

No, I don't need to "take the next step" . I make ZERO claims about the entry wound nor will I. I have stated that quite clearly. IF YOU want to speculate, by all means be my guest. I'll decline. I'll deal directly with that which can be proven via fact, thank you very much. Craig, you make very specific claims about the entry wound by promoting the FACT (in your opnion) that the jacket and shirt were 3+ inches out of alignment with the entry would in the back - otherwise why make the claim to begin with? Laying the jacket/shirt flat directly implies an entry location that is 3+ inches higher than the autopsy photos and description - again, otherwise why bring it up... just for the sake of arguing? Do you believe a bullet created the holes in the jacket and shirt? Do you believe a bullet caused the wound in JFK's back? did you honestly spend 20 pages simply arguing that there was a fold at the top of JFK's jacket? and that this assertion carried no claim with it?? If that is really what all this has been about you're an even greater waste of time than orignally believed. When you're ready to actually make a claim based on these FACTS of yours, start a thread so you can be picked apart like you try to do to others. You're simply a critic Those who can -- do. Those who can't -- criticize.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15981&view=findpost&p=199005 Rather than posting it twice

Varnell can be as convinced as he wants but the hard facts simply blow him out of the water. This is really simple Jim and you can ask Varnell to end it once and for all... Just show us a fabric arrangement that can produce the betzner artifact that is not a 3+ inch horizontal fold...and works in the correct lighting as seen in Betzner and that arguement is over. How more simple can that be? So WHY are YOU not pushing your PAL Varnell to simply prove his position works. It's not hard Jim. Why not lean on him to actually prove me wrong or him right. BTW, try not to be a hypocrite...it just makes you look more foolish.... Simple proof of concept photos will do the trick. So snap to it Jim. Instead of complaining why not actully DO somehting? As I tend to focus on the images more than Jim and Varnell let me take a stab at it A few illustrations and a request for a real answer from Mr. Lamson This is F5 with the shirt hole, jacket hole and scapula added. For the sake of this discussion, we will accept the F5 photo and the identification of the bullet hole on the body as being correct – okay? The holes in the Jacket and Shirt line up with the hole in his back as well as to each other. Craig seems to assert that BOTH the Jacket and Shirt have ridden up 3+ inches or 7.62+ centimeters. This suggests either 1)that the holes we have in the Jacket and Shirt should line up to be 3+ inches LOWER than the hole in his back; or 2)the hole in his back must be 3+ inches higher than the holes in the clothing. If Craig could please tell us which of the three arrows in Croft represents the entry (since the fold is the SAME in each photo per Craig) that best lines up with the holes in the Jacket, Shirt and Body maybe we’d be in a position to actually discuss something of value. If the Pink line, based on the Ryberg illustration, then the folded jacket has no bearing as this is above the fold. If the Yellow line then we should have 3 holes in both the Jacket and Shirt as this is directly thru the fold If the Green line, is the angle steep enough to extend back to the 6th floor and why do we not see the holes in the jacket and shirt 3+ inches lower than the hole in the body? At this point I am NOT disputing the 3+ inch fold - accepting that as truth for a moment Craig, you need to take the next step and explain how that translates to the physical evidence and autopsy photo as shown in the top composite.

Hey there Craig GREAT to hear from you. Keep up the GREAT work. You are truly an inspiration to us all. thanks DJ

Not if you don't let them. David, I see you have been a Forum member for six years, but it seems you have been much more active posting in the last year or so. You're well-versed, well-spoken, and a very good critical thinker. The good points you often make speak to that. Although it sounds like I am singling you out, I am really directing these remarks to some of the members that "that think and post rationally," as referenced you above. Why would anyone that knows and still cares about President Kennedy's murder 47 long years after it occurred, and still has the fires of curiosity and understanding burning, want to spend their time debating someone who brags about knowing little (and by their own admission, could care less) about the assassination of an American president? Some members design their posts to infuriate others. To become infuriated is playing the game on their terms. (I'm just coining a phrase; I realize that studying President Kennedy's assassination is not a game, but in the vacuum of this Forum it sometimes seems that way.) Switching gears David, what do you know about Maggie Field? Michael - Thanks for the kind words... been on vacation at the beaches in Atlantic City and other than reading "Brothers" have taken a break from reading and dealing with the likes of the Lamson's out here. For years I read and posted on Lancer as well as read/lurked here but had some problems with my sign on and they were not accepting new members so I was in a Catch-22. Thru discussions with Larry Hancock who was gracious enough to contact John for me - I was able to get back to contributing what I can where I can. I have not read each post on this thread since my break yet can see from the following posts just on this page Craig remains himself thru and thru. He has no answers, only arguments - baseless at that - so I do indeed heed your advice and warning to the other posters and not bother with him any longer. Mike Williams and I started out that way, and I have no problem being disagreed with as long as the arguments make sense and are presented without personal attack, neither of which Craig seems capable of doing. JFK and the Unspeakable is next on my must read list - I am interested in how this and "Brothers" interrelates, contradicts and supports each other. Maybe instead of discussing folds he can explain why the Commission had such a hard time with how a frontal shot was accomplished from Oswald's supposed location. That is if he's read the executive session transcripts - yet given they are a factual record of what these men thought in what they supposed was "private".... I amsure he will dismiss their concerns as easily as he does all the other "facts" of the case. sincerely DJ ps... I am not familiar with Maggie Field... but will be by the end of the day, thanks

What's wonderful is that people like Mr. Lamson will continue to infuriate anyone who thinks and posts rationally. He's pulled his face and mind so close to the chlorophyll in the leaves of the trees that he's totally forgotten to look at the forest at all. His imperical evidence is that since there is a hole in the shirt and jacket 4.5 inches down from the collar and he can prove what amounts to be EXACTLY a 3+" rise in the shirt and jacket based on shadows made out in detail from a poor image to begin with then the shot MUST have hit JFK 1.5 inches down from the collar. Never mind what everybody saw, what the autopsy doctors saw, how far Humes stuck his finger in, how Humes described a 45-60 degree downward angle and that he could feel the end of the wound, how it was represented on the autopsy sheets, where the bullet holes were in the jacket and shirt... JUST NEVER MIND all that.... Like Howard Brennan, Mr. Lamson can magically tell dimensions based on this visual representation. Building a soapbox on one poorly represented piece of supposed evidence shows how insincere you are about the realities of this case. How convenient it is for you to dismiss all the other evidence that destroys your suppositions and simply respond with accusations and insults. Besides... from the way you put it... there should be at least 3 bullet holes in the jacket... 1 and 2 in and out of the horizontal fold and a third at the point it pierces the jacket where it it laying on his shirt.... or did it hit too low to go thru the folds as it shows in Croft and Towner or too high to have been part of the hiked up jacket and shirt...???

Yes, thats exactly what I do. Photographic principles cannot be swayed by politics nor bias. Facts are facts. Of course the big problem for folks like you is that you DON'T look at the photos in a vacuum. You apply your BELIEFS and bias and you make horrible mistakes because of it (that and the level of photograpic knowlege in is near zero). You simply have no objectivity. Facts are facts, regardles of who's ox they gore. Learn to deal with it. Impeachable fact... there is a 3" blindfold over your eyes and ears... "I don't do medical" So, in essence, you cannot tell if the hole in his back, as observed and recorded by Doctors and photographs as illustrated above is in the place it should be given the 3+" hike in the shirt and jacket? As a photographic analyist these things are not apparent to you... That from what may appear to be a fold on the top left of his jacket (and your use of a fine image to illustrate your point so clearly) has a direct bearing on the entrance wound moving from his shoulderblade to his neck, on the right side of his back. Photographic analysis par excellence CL... keep up the stellar work

Yes, thats exactly what I do. Photographic principles cannot be swayed by politics nor bias. Facts are facts. Of course the big problem for folks like you is that you DON'T look at the photos in a vacuum. You apply your BELIEFS and bias and you make horrible mistakes because of it (that and the level of photograpic knowlege in is near zero). You simply have no objectivity. Facts are facts, regardles of who's ox they gore. Learn to deal with it. As you say, facts are facts... Learn to deal with it. Explain your 3+" jacket and shirt ride-up theory as it relates to the bottom photo. No more of your BS, no more hiding behind folds and shadows and light. Simply explain how once the jacket and shirt are gone and all that's left is a bullet hole and the official record of the bullet hole done at the autopsy... compared to this drawing used by the WCR to illustrate where that hole was.... you can claim the shirt and jacket were bunch up over his head for all that matters... or you can just ignore the reality of where the shot actually hit, as you've done this whole thread. If you are indeed correct Craig, why oh why is the actual bullet hole NOT in his neck at all but just to the left of the right shoulder blade. Maybe they could bend his head back a little farther so the hole looks as close to his neck as possible.... and it's STILL NOT IN THE NECK. The scapula forms the posterior (back) located part of the shoulder girdle. In humans, it is a flat bone, roughly triangular in shape, placed on a posterolateral aspect of the thoracic cage. Let the Lamson tap dance begin... again.

Wow, David, ignorance becomes you. The jacket is folded 3+ inches, and that is unimpeachable. I don't need to explain anything else. It's you who now needs to deal directly with this folded fabric. You can't explain it away. You can't prove it does not exist. Does it make the SBT possible or impossible? I don't know and I don't care. I don't deal in speculations. I'll leave that for the wingnuts. Forget the jacket entirely.... the photo clearly shows the wound is nowhere near the neck as depicted in Ryberg... In fact, the photo shows the wound to be right about where the holes are in the shirt and jacket... You can tap dance around that all you want... Bunched up... funny... maybe the time has come for you to stop holding on to your three and a half inches so tightly

Wow, nice clear image you got there Craig... the fact you are pointing to a shadow on his left shoulder should prove to everyone that his jacket and shirt are up around his ears so a shot to the left of the spatula winds up being thru his neck. No wonder you don't like to post your image analysis during a discussion... Is that how you explain this?

deleted by poster....

Why don't you just try the search function. There are a couple of very long treads where you will find it all. Why not post that one picture worth those thousand words instead of having us wade thru thread after thread to find what may, or may not be what you are trying to say in your posts on this thread? You claim Betzner proves it... show us Craig... do you not have these images anymore? I keep an 8Gb flash drive with everything, so in 5 minutes I can post an image that supports my posts, or attempts to refute others. Or I open Photoshop/ImageReady and do a little work to see if what you are saying is even remotely possible. You not being able to point to a supporting argument or supporting images is not my problem. I don't believe what you are claiming and I posted an image supporting my point... If you can link us, or show us where I/we are so wrong... I'd be more than willing to rethink my position... but you do none of that. I already know you're wrong about this... not my concern to make your case for you. Laughing, insulting and saying you've already did it, proves nothing. Show us your work here and now... or are you concerned someone might have an issue with it, call you on it and show where you might be mistaken in your analysis and conclusions? It's not like you being wrong is even remotely possible though

Craig, How about posting some of the work you've done to illustrate what you are talking about instead of simply throwing insults around? This took all of 5 minutes and give you a decent idea that the shirt hole and back hole line up pretty well and the back hole is NO WHERE NEAR the neck. Even taught my daughter the word "Spatula" which is that bone, right by which the shot hit... NOT up in the neck by any stretch of the imagination. Now I know you're the "photo expert" and you'll tell me all about how my overlay is not "perfect" - it doesn't intend to be, just an illustration of the "close enough for government work" it can be ...pun intended could you post your photographic work here to support what you are claiming? should be easy to dive into your vast catalog of images to prove your point... no?

Thanks Robin... Did a look thru Survivor's Guilt hoping to get some clarification about Howlett and Patterson... this is what I found and it seems Sorrels gets his hands on THE moorman photo... but I have yet to do my digging... Do we know how and when Moorman gives Sorrels the photo? And based on this write-up... how do Howlett and Patterson get to Moorman and the photo that disappeared? Agent John Joe Howlett (Dallas Office agent, stationed at the Trade Mart): Howlett, a Dallas office agent stationed at the Trade Mart on November 22, 1963, merely detailed his Secret Service career in a short but cordial letter to the author dated November 26, 1997. (For the record: V.P. LBJ Detail, October–November 1962; transferred to the Dallas office, February 1963; temporarily as-signed to Chief's office, January 27–31, 1964, February 3–5, 1964, April 14–15, 1964; several temporary assignments at LBJ Ranch, 1963–8; temporary mem-ber of WHD in June/July 1968). Agent Howlett’s job during the Warren Com-mission’s investigation was to see if Oswald could have done in the first few seconds what the Commission claimed he did, involving a couple tests of Howlett carrying the rifle from the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, placing the rifle down, then alternately walking and “fast walking” down the stairway to the second-floor landing and entering the lunchroom where Oswald encountered DPD Officer Marrion Baker. Both tests barely met and possibly slightly exceeded Oswald’s real time, assuming, of course, that he did what the Commission claimed he did in the first place.37 Howlett also testified briefly before the Warren Commission—as Counsel Albert Jenner put it, “… you have been present throughout my examination of Mrs. Paine and my examination of the premises, and you have assisted me … In making measurements and also in recounting the appearance of rooms, front lawn, garage, and otherwise ….”38 By the time of the HSCA hearings, Howlett was working in the Little Rock, Arkansas office.39 Conclusion: Howlett did his job the best that he could. Agent William H. Patterson (Dallas Office agent, stationed at Love Field): SA Patterson’s November 25, 1963 report contains the following: “During the interview of the subject’s wife [Marina Oswald] she advised that the FBI had contacted her about the location of her husband about 10 days prior to the as-sassination and she told them that her husband worked in the building from which the President was killed [note: as written, this is ridiculous]. She also stated that she had been interviewed in October and gave the same basic in-formation to the FBI. While I was at the police station, I engaged an FBI agent in a conversation and found out that he was on the subversive desk. He stated that Oswald had contacted two known subversive agents about 15 days before the shooting but the entire information was top secret and he could not tell us any more but he felt sure that the file would be turned over to our Chief [Row-ley]. The wife also advised that she had seen the rifle that was used in the shooting at her home about three weeks before the shooting. She advised that she was a Castro supporter and from the interview it was felt that she is still a hard core communist. She stated that he [Oswald] had never mentioned killing the President but would not mention anything about shooting Connally. She stated that she did not know the man that killed her husband [Ruby]. It was felt by the interviewer [Patterson] that she was not telling the truth and still believed in communism.”64 [Emphasis added.] In addition to the fact that Marina barely spoke English and no interpreter is listed as being present in Patterson’s report, Marina has never said that she was a Castro supporter or a hard core commu-nist; exactly what she allegedly was not “telling the truth” about is hard to dis-cern from the agent’s report. The information about Oswald, if true, is startling, in and of itself. The FBI’s early knowledge about Oswald is an undisputable matter of record. Conclusion: Patterson’s reporting leaves a lot to be desired. Agent Sorrels was responsible for the Secret Service’s acquisition of the Zapruder film, the Orville Nix film (again, Nix was a friend of Sorrels), the Moorman photo, and the Phil Willis photos—in short, the major photographic evidence in the case.107 DJ

I hear you Jim.... BUT In one sentence you say Marina cannot be taken seriously as a witness and in the next you state she said she never saw a rifle with a scope. If she is unreliable, she's unreliable. I had these same discussions with Bill Miller. Either a witness is discredited or not... if not, then we can't hang our hat on the things she says that are in support of our theories and not when they aren't. Bottom line is I agree with you about the Photos... especially the manner in which they were found and how Fritz refers to them hours before they're even discovered at the Paine garage DJ

Still one of my favorites Lee... "The American system is the most ingenious system of control in world history. With a country so rich in natural resources, talent, and labor power the system can afford to distribute just enough to just enough people to limit discontent to a troublesome minority. It is a country so powerful, so big, so pleasing to so many of its citizens that it can afford to give freedom of dissent to the small number who are not pleased. How wise to turn the fear and anger of the majority toward a class of criminals bred - by economic inequity - faster than they can be put away, deflecting attention from the huge thefts of national resources carried out within the law by men in executive offices." Howard Zinn: A People's History of the United States

Read it and will be reading it again (and probably again..) I also agree with your assessment about needing it to be indexed... Hopefully the time will come when it is scanned/entered into a digital file and offered on CD with the books so we can search more effectively. Any chance of someone doing a "Cliff notes" type version without coloration? The key factual points, with understandable graphs/charts that can show quickly, for example, the photographic evidence differences among so much else. If Doug would send me a complimentary copy I could get right on that! And I MUST get Douglass' book. Reading "Brothers" first should be interesting to follow with UnSpeakable. To my previous point, you name half dozen books used by Douglass that would be great to read, but who has that kind of time? Take Care Jim, DJ

You're going to have to be a bit more specific than that mike... Why cant it be an entry wound? And please tell me what a Mercury bullet would do striking the right temple of the man... The cloud on the xray and the zillions of tiny particle suggest it was not a FMJ bullet... or am I wrong... DJ

This is the largest version of the photo I've ever seen... Google is amazing! Click on it... it's 4234 × 5283. Also know there's a fine presentation on the subject but I don't have my flash drive with me... and I can't seem to find it on google... okay, not always amazing... tomorrow edit: found it - http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=3&topic_id=85804&mesg_id=85804&page= DJ http://oswald-framed.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-dartmouth-professors-analysis-of.html http://www.oswaldsghost.com/Site/Press_Information_files/Oswald%27s%20Backyard%20photo_1.jpg

Oh boy Mike... bringing up the backyard photo as proof he picked up the rifle when we don't even fully know that that photo as authentic... Furthermore, if you look carefully at that photo you'll see the ring that holds the (brain fart.. shoulder sling??) at the top of the rifle, is on the bottom (underside) of the rifle... If you look at photos of the rifle in evidence, the ring is on the side. I'm not convinced they're the same rifle or even Oswald in the photo... another subject, another disagreement... DJ