Gary Murr

Fellow Forum Members:

I apologize if anyone has been attempting to contact me via e-mail over the past few days. Due to a server malfunction my prior e-mail address and all of the information stored therein was completely destroyed/deleted. Effective immediately I have a new e-mail address which I am attaching herein.

Gary Murr

New e-mail address: gary.murr@bellnet.ca

I would like to ask for assistance on a piece of research I’ve been working on for some time. It is carried out far from the internet with a scientist who is a friend of mine. He is working on a new book on the case. I don’t want to mention his name because I don’t have his permission to do so. Let me say that he is a true scientist and a very bright historical researcher. The point at issue concerns the provenance of CE 543.

The three cartridge cases found near the 6th floor sniper’s next ended up with the designations CE 543, CE 544, CE 545. CE 543 was unusual because it had indications that it had been cycled through a Carcano (not necessarily Oswald’s) several times. For example, it had a mark from the magazine follower that could not have been incurred on November 22nd since a live round was found in the chamber of the weapon. Most importantly, it has a dent in the lip that makes it impossible to have contained a projectile in its present form. The dent was studied by experts from the House Select Committee who claimed to have produced a similar dent by working the action on Oswald’s weapon very fast. However, the dent so produced does not replicate in many ways the dent on CE 543. Could the dent have been incurred as the House Committee believes during the ejection process? Maybe. At least one researcher in the United States, says he has produced a similar dent with a Carcano and 6.5 mm ammunition by cycling the weapon very fast. According to this individual, the cartridge case spins back after being ejected and hits the metal top of the Carcano. Another individual in England, has replicated the dent by dry-firing cartridge cases in the Carcano. Other indications supplied by Director Hoover in a letter make me suspect that the true cause of the dent was the dry-firing of the cartridge case in a Carcano prior to November 22nd. If this is the case, then CE 543 was never fired on November 22nd but dropped at the scene. If this could be proved, the importance is obvious.

My friend, the scientist, has opined that the dent may have been caused by the Dallas police while the rifle and CE 543 were in their possession. If some Dallas policeman inserted CE 543 into the Carcano and dry-fired it, this would violate every protocol known to the police about the protection and sanctity of evidence. It would, in fact, be a crime. And why would this be done? The live round in the chamber of the weapon showed conclusively what ammunition the rifle fired. I have argued this with my friend but he is still unconvinced.

What do we know of the provenance of CE 543?

We know that two cartridge cases and the live round were picked up from the Dallas Police on the evening of November 22nd and flown to Washington for examination in the FBI Crime Lab. The third cartridge case was picked up from the Dallas police on November 27th by the FBI. The three cartridge cases were given FBI numbers of C6, C7, C38. CE 543 had the earlier FBI number of C7.

In Six Seconds in Dallas, I argued that CE-543 had been retained by the Dallas police and only turned over to the FBI on November 27th. I argued for this on the basis of some confusing testimony by Lt. Doughty concerning the cartridge cases. It seems to me now that I was wrong... that CE 543 was turned over to the FBI on the evening of November 22nd. First, it only seems natural that the first two cartridge cases to reach the FBI lab would bear the numbers C6 and C7 while the third case (that arrived days later) would bear the FBI number C38. Secondly, someone sent me FBI 302s from the time Six Seconds was published. One contained a long analysis and criticism of Six Seconds that asserted that CE 543 was picked up from the Dallas police on the evening of November 22nd.

So which was it? Did CE 543 leave the custody of the Dallas police on the evening of November 22nd or several days later? The obvious way to find out would be to look at Robert Frazier’s lab notes concerning evidence when it arrived at the FBI Lab. I know John Hunt has done some good work in this area. Just a day or so ago, Gary Murr was able to give a very full answer to a question asked by David Healy. He stated on the thread “Z-frame numbering and Gary Murr” on 3/26/09 at 9:08 PM:

“Unfortunately, this documentation is currently only available if one travels to NARA II in College Park, Maryland, the reason being that it is from one of the massive bulky lab files generated by that division of the FBI in conjunction with their examination of all evidence given to them that related to the assassination event. Shaneyfelt and others in the FBI lab, in particular fellow agent Robert Frazier, constructed numerous files of worknotes when they were examining evidence and this surviving documentation is both historically important, relevant, and useful in trying to ascertain a wide variety of matters pertaining to the issues of evidence and provenance.“

Gary Murr’s report would confirm that the FBI Lab made complete notes on each bit of evidence when it arrived at the lab. Certainly, the arrival date of C7 and its condition (dented lip and all) should appear in these noted. Would Gary Murr or anyone else who has interest or knowledge about this please reply? This seems to me to be a question that can be answered and when answered will gain a place in a wider argument. Thank you.

Josiah Thompson

Hi Tink:

I apologize for not responding sooner to this thread; it could not be avoided. I will check my files and see if I can find anything that specifically relates to this issue, particular in the Frazier notes that I do possess. Off the top of my head I do not specifically recall this matter, but that does not mean that Frazier or someone else in the lab did not produce notes on the topic - indeed I strongly suspect that they did. Unfortunately in the two trips to NARA in which I searched these bulky lab file holdings I did so with an eye toward another project I was working on at that time. But again, let me see what I can find. I would appeal to John Hunt, who spent more time in this quagmire than I, to search his scans and see if he has anything that could help us all with this thread.

Regards,

Gary Murr

1. Each "chambering" of a round is of itself a "unique" event.

A. The 6.5mm Carcano round, as produced by WCC (or for that matter anyone else) will vary in actual diameter by several thousands of an inch.

Generally, these rounds will run in the 0.265 range, but many will exceed this by several thousands and many will fall even below the 0.260 range.

Depending upon how seated into the cartridge casing, the bullet diameter can affect the extent to which the round can be driven forward with the force of the bolt, thus affecting the "seating" of the casing within the taper area of the chamber.

B. Although rated at approximately 1.185 inches in length, not unlike the diameter, each round may be slightly different in length, thus again affecting to exact position at which the round seats in the chamber.

C. Lastly in this category, the exact length at which each round is inserted into the cartridge casing and crimped in place, may also vary by a few thousands of and inch, thus again affecting the ultimate seating of the round in the chamber.

2. Although similar to the naked eye, each casing, not unlike each individual bullet, may vary in both diameter as well as exact length by a few thousands of an inch.

A. This dimension is particulary critical in the "neck" area of the casing where the round is actually crimped and the neck must fit into the tapered chamber.

B. A "longer' casing and specifically the neck, will affect the extent to which the entire round can be driven forward. A slightly larger diameter cartridge/neck may in fact "seat" even though the bullet nose has not reached it's maximum depth within the taper of the chamber and beginning point of the riflings of the barrell.

Likewise, a slightly smaller taper on the diameter of the neck may allow the round to be driven farther forward then are most other cartridge casings.

3. The actual powder charge within the casing also has considerable effect on the extent to which the casing expands as well.

And, after firing there is always a "residue" inside the barrell as well as the chamber of the weapon, which has some effect on the seating of the next round.

This is especially true if there is any inadequate burning of the propellant/powder.

A. In "Match" grade ammo, the round as well as the exact amount (grains) of powder are carefully monitored.

In "production" ammo, the actual grain weight of the powder can vary considerably, thus affecting internal pressures upon the casing during firing, and having some bearing on actual expansion of casing.

4. Head Spacing.

Head spacing is one of the singular most important aspects of proper seating of the cartridge within the chamber of the weapon, and this is an "adjustable" feature of the weapon in order to achieve the best seating and minimal "blowback" of any escaping gases around the seated casing.

5. Thermal expansion of component parts.

This happens to be the single most common item which totally affects the depth at which a cartridge casing may go in it's seating process.

A "cold" weapon which has not been fired has the internal aspects of the chamber actually larger in size at the time that the first shot is fired, then in subsequent shots.

Immediately after the first shot, the heat from propellant ignition immediately causes the steel within the chamber as well as the rifle barrel to expand.

Thus, even the second round is now being seated into a chamber which is in fact smaller in size than was the chamber at the time that the first round was fired.

Subsequently, when the next/third round is fired, it has to seat into a chamber which was in fact slightly smaller in dimension than was the second round, and considerably smaller than was the first round fired, due to a continuation of thermal expansion of the barrel and chamber after each progressive round, as well as the slightly longer time frame which gives the metal more time to expand due to the heat.

For this reason, depending upon the weapon, it is sometimes harder to drive the bolt forward and completely seat each succeeding round.

This is a particularly common problem when the weapon has insufficient head space adjustment to compensate for this thermal expansion of the chamber.

It is also noted that when the cartridge expands in this now smaller chamber, the cartridge is attempting to expand in a far tighter space and there is considerably less forced exerted by the cartridige in it's backward force which is exerted against the bolt face and the firing pin.

This "tighter" sealed cartridge is what creates frequent differences in the depth of firing pin indentation as well as machine/tool mark transfer from the bolt face to the base end of the cartridge.

Thermal expansion of the chamber is what causes many of the rapid fire weapons to "hang-fire" as the expanded cartridge is now wedged so tight within the chamber of the weapon that the casing extractor will not provide sufficient grip to extract the empty casing.

If one goes back and studies the history of the M16, they find that the first versions of the weapon frequently would not even drive the round fully forward to the extent that the round would seat and the bolt would completely lock in place for firing.

This was of course due to the rapid rate of fire and the heat generation and expansion of the chamber of the weapon.

Therefore, the next version of the weapon came out with the "Forward assist" which was basically a manually means of exerting pressure against the bolt in order to completely drive the round into the expanded chamber of the weapon.

Therefore, with all of these variables, any exercise in attempting to determine much of anything based on the photographic examination of casing mouth size, is an exercise in futility.

The maching/toolmark work/comparison of the firing pin impressions as well as the transfer marks from the bolt face to the base of the empty cartridge cases are recognized as "ABSOLUTE PROOF" that these casings were fired in that weapon recovered, to the exclusion of ALL other weapons.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clay Shaw Trial:

Q: Would you please describe these tests and the results of them?

A: The tests I conducted consisted of firing test cartridge cases in the 6.5 millimeter Italian military rifle and comparing the firing pin markings left in these fired cartridge cases with the firing pin markings in the three fired 6.5 millimeter cartridge cases which I had received for comparison.

This test also included comparing the marks from the bolt face of the weapon as left on the test cartridge cases. There was a microscopic examination, that is mounting the two portions, the test on one side of the microscope and the evidence on the other side, and comparing the microscopic marks found in the firing pin impressions and those microscopic markings left by the face of the bolt of the weapon in which they were fired.

As a result of these examinations I concluded that all three of the fired cartridge cases submitted to me for examination had been fired in the 6.5 millimeter Italian military rifle which had been also submitted for comparison.

Q: Mr. Frazier, is that a conclusive test you just described?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: As a result of having made that test are you able to testify that those three empty cartridge cases had been fired from the rifle submitted to you from the exclusion of all other firearms?

A: Yes, sir.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WC:

Mr. FRAZIER - I am sorry--yes, 543, 544, and 545. These three cartridge cases were placed one at a time on the comparison microscope, and the surfaces having the breech-face marks or the bolt marks were compared with those on the test cartridge cases, Exhibit 557. As a result of comparing the pattern of microscopic markings on the test cartridge cases and those marks on Exhibits 543, 544, and 545, both of the face of the bolt and the firing pin, I concluded that these three had been fired in this particular weapon.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lastly!

When WCC produced the WCC ammunition, each and every round produced had a "moisture seal" of light read lacquer painted over the primer and it's entire area of installation at the base of each bullet.

This is a common practice for ammunition produced to military standards, and virtually no "reloader' would have the equipment nor expend the time to engage in such activities as they are part of the designated manufacture of the ammunition with a guaranteed shelf-life of 5 years.

Each and every round which FBI Agent Frazier examined had this original "moisture seal" still at/on the primer of the weapon, thus demonstrating clearly that no reloading/replacement of the primer of the casing had taken place.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. The bases were cleaned of a paint which was placed on them by the manufacturer. In spots this red lacquer on the base of the case was overlapping the head of the case where some of the microscopic marks were located, and some of that color was taken off.

Mr. EISENBERG - Why is that lacquer put on the cartridge cases?

Mr. FRAZIER - It seals the primer area against moisture.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey Tom:

A great and most informative post that everyone should read over carefully. Just by way of substantiation on a couple of points you have indicated herein: I am attaching a j-peg of the headstamp of a WCC 6.5mm cartridge which clearly shows the red lacquer primer sealant that was affixed to everyone of the 4 million rounds of this ammunition manufactured in 1954. Also, regarding your contention about the variance in the "amount"/ grains of powder found in production lot runs of military ammunition, such as the WCC 6.5mm lots, Robert Frazier indicated during his testimony that he weighed several cartridges of this ammunition as part of his examination of this ammo and arrived at a figure of 161 grains as an average weight for this same mass produced cartridge. However, as his handwritten work notes indicate, in truth Frazier only weighed three such rounds which possessed individual total weights of 160.85 grains, 161.50 grains, and 161.10 grains. Frazier also took each of these rounds apart and weighed only the powder found within the three cartridges; these weights for the powder only were; 43.60 grains, 43.50 grains, and 43.80 grains. Though the variances may not appear particularly startling, they are indicative of the discrepancies found within "production" runs of ammunition and could effect pressure etc.

While I share your indication that Robert Frazier did not purposefully commit perjury at any point during his three testimony sessions before the Commission, I also know that Robert Frazier knew a great deal more about a lot of matters of evidence than he ever revealed to the Commission, and this was particularly true when it came to the WCC 6.5mm ammunition. What many people may not be aware of is that Frazier spent over five hours with Melvin Eisenberg, the Commission staff member who would question Frazier on matters ballistic during Frazier's longest session before the Commission, March 31, 1964, a few days prior to this same testimony session. Again, Frazier's surviving notes constructed during and after this pre-testimony session with Eisenberg clearly indicate that he and Eisenberg potentially discussed facts Frazier knew about the WCC ammunition that never came to light during the actual testimony session.

FWIW

Gary Murr

Gary Murr response to DHealy: (Lancer forum Tue Oct-29-02 10:06 AM) **

...

You also appear to be having trouble grasping the significance of this point. You asked me how "that pesky old 8 weeks...square(s) up with the NPIC documents that have Z-frame numbers."? Well, that is the whole point. If the NPIC/CIA "textual materials" of attempted explanation for a variety of shooting scenarios pertinent to the Zapruder film are using Zapruder frame numbers assigned by Lyndal Shaneyfelt on January 30, 1964, then these same "textual materials" supplied by NPIC/CIA HAD TO HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED AFTER JANUARY 30, 1964. If that is true, and both Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter of NPIC claim that they had nothing to do with the construction of these various writings, indeed these calculations were done at a later date during the tenure of the Warren Commission, then how can these same textual materials and their Zapruder frame numberings be part of a conspiracy to alter the Zapruder film while at NPIC over the weekend of the assassination?(See the Records of the ARRB:"Contact Report", prepared by Douglas Horne, ARRB; dated 06/12/97: Also, "Meeting Report" prepared by Douglas Horne, ARRB, 06/18/97;Final Version; Topic:ARRB Staff Interview of Ben Hunter; ARRB Douglas Horne Files, Box 4, "Zapruder Film Issues.")

...

no "grasping" problem at all Gary. Quite the opposite in fact, you in the above state:

are using Zapruder frame numbers assigned by Lyndal Shaneyfelt on January 30, 1964

forgive me the following, a cite (a document stating same) please for the above 01/30/1964 date would be much appreciated. Or can I use you as the "official" source for the numbering date?

Also I'll make this same response to the on-going Zapruder film thread started by BKelly.

Thanks for you patience Gary,

DHealy

**= should be noted Gary Murr responded to this same Z-film frame number question/topic (of which I was involved in) here on this Ed Forum during 2007

Hi David:

I apologize for not responding sooner, but it was unavoidable as I was no where near my home and access to my materials when this thread, and related others, began. I thank you for your patience. My personal collection of documents now exceeds 300,000 pages and it took me a little while to "lay my hands" on the material I was seeking in order that I could formulate a cohesive response to your request. I am not exactly a shining example of exactitude when it comes to cataloging these materials, something I am saving for retirement! I also must apologize if I have misinterpreted some of your responses concerning the film of Abraham Zapruder and the question of alteration, in particular pertaining to the roll played, or not played, by the CIA and NPIC - but that is a matter that perhaps is best discussed, if you so desire, another time and in another thread, or for that matter, in private if you wish.

In response to your immediate request for a citation in support of my contention that Lyndal Shaneyfelt constructed the Z-film numbering system universally accepted and utilized when discussing the Zapruder film on a specific date, January 30, 1964, I hopefully have attached two images taken from Shaneyfelt's worknotes he generated in conjunction with this specific aspect of his contact with the film of Abraham Zapruder. Unfortunately, this documentation is currently only available if one travels to NARA II in College Park, Maryland, the reason being that it is from one of the massive bulky lab files generated by that division of the FBI in conjunction with their examination of all evidence given to them that related to the assassination event. Shaneyfelt and others in the FBI lab, in particular fellow agent Robert Frazier, constructed numerous files of worknotes when they were examining evidence and this surviving documentation is both historically important, relevant, and useful in trying to ascertain a wide variety of matters pertaining to the issues of evidence and provenance. The two pages from the Shaneyfelt worknotes that he constructed in conjunction with the Zapruder film can be found in: 62-109060-4199, Box097B, Folder 7, and 62-109060-4199, Box 098, Folder 3. I have also spent some time over the last couple of days searching FBI documents accessible via the internet, in particular the Mary Farrell Foundation website, in an effort to ascertain if any of this material is available to the interested researcher. I suspect that Rex Bradford and others have not had the time to reproduce the materials from these numerous bulky files generated by the FBI lab, documentation that literally goes on for thousands and thousands of pages. However, I did stumble across one page from this same series of notes and if you have access to the FBI documents generated at the Mary Ferrell website you will find it as part of 62-109060-2348, the second page. You will note, once again, Shaneyfelts distinctive "LS" scrawl and the date of "1-30-64: affixed to this page, taken from the same workbook I possess a copy of and have reproduced pages for you in this reply.

I hope you find this of some interest.

Gary Murr

Exactly what I was looking for, thanks Gary!

--finally--

Regarding the above notes you speak of, did Shaneyfelt state what film he viewed determining the numbering sequence (#0183, #0185, #1086, #1087) or a Washington based/created dupe of one of the four?

David Healy

Hi David:

In a pique of unbridled optimism, I once attempted to track or create a provenance for the theoretical in-camera original of the Zapruder film and the copies generated in Dallas on November 22, 1963 - an exercise that produced more than its share of frustration, not to mention confusion! In that regard, and in answer to your question, Shaneyfelt never identifies in his working notes just which Zapruder film copy he was utilizing in conjunction with this exercise on his part. However, my personal opinion is that it was a copy generated from Dallas dupe identified as #0186, and I will give you the reasoning behind my speculative opinion.

One thing we do not know to a certainty, and just possibly may never know, is just how many copies of the Zapruder film were generated by FBI lab personnel once they got their hands on the SS provided copy via Dallas. In my digging through the FBI lab bulky materials at NARA II there is clear indication of the existence of at least six copies of the Z film, three to be found in 62-109060-4182, Part 2, Box # 094C, Folder D, two of which are labeled as " copies of 8mm Zapruder film made from first copy borrowed from Secret Service." There are three more copies found in 62-109060-4193, Box # 102A, Folder 4, which is labeled "3 copies of Zapruder film" two of which appear to be full copies of the film, while the third is only a partial, chopped-up copy. Again documentation in this folder indicates that "the copies were made from the first copy borrowed from the Secret Service."

The interesting thing about those FBI copies of the Z film that are classified as "complete" and do contain head leader material is that optically imprinted on the film is the printer # 0186. Understand that this is an optical/photographic imprint visible on the surface of the leader, an image generated from the actual punched-in imprint produced on this, the second first generation copy produced on behalf of the Secret Service. My study of the records of the ARRB indicate that on four occasions between August of 1996 and April of 1997, Douglas Horne examined nine "different" copies of the Z film at NARA, duly recorded in a lengthy memorandum he generated under the date of April 7, 1997 [ARRB: Memorandum dated April 9, 1997. To: David Marwell, Jeremy Gunn: From: Doug Horne. Records of the ARRB, 4-Series-Research and Analysis, Box 37, File 4.0.2. Subject Files: Zapruder, Abraham.] In his "data chart" that is part of this memorandum, Horne noted that the "complete" FBI copies of the Z film he examined had "the number 0186 photographically printed onto this film, but is not punched into the film, as it i in Secret Service Copy # 2." As I stated above, this was noted by myself during a visit to NARA in 1999. I also have communicated with Les Waffen, NNSM at NARA on more than one occasion concerning the markings on the FBI copies of the film and again, the only "identification" apparent on those copies that do contain leader is this # 0186 imprint. In October of 1996, Waffen and nine other individuals spent just under five hours, "at the request of the DOJ", in examining the original Zapruder film, Zapruder's original camera, and six copies of the Zapruder film, one of which, identified as "65 JFK .024" is stated as being "FBI copy of the Z film" with a "notes for file" in Waffen's original October 30, 1996 memorandum that states: "Textual documentation [found with 65 JFK .024] indicates this as copy made from 1st copy borrowed from the Secret Service." Apparently "this copy was received in NARA from FBI in 1995, transferred to NNSM in April, 1996." [Waffen was kind enough to supply me with a copy of his memorandum dated October 30, 1996 on this subject matter].

On February 23 and 24, 1998, Harry Livingstone and three of his associates were "provided access to various JFK assassination materials..." an event monitored by Alan Lewis of NNSM, NARA, permission granted to Livingstone by Les Waffen and Steve Tilley [FOIA, NARA]. Included in the various materials Livingstone et al had access to on February 23 and 24, were eight copies of the Z film, "segments" of which were photographed by Livingstone associate, Matt Branham, on the 24th. Included in this group of Z film copies was "65JFK24" the FBI copy with the printer # 0186 in its leader. [Letter with accompanying memorandum dated 2/25/98, from Alan Lewis, to Les Waffen, Steve Tilley: Subject: Examination of JFK Assassination Materials. Again, this document was graciously supplied to me by Les Waffen].

I hope this at least attempts to answer your question, David. As I stated above, and herein reiterate, my speculation/assumption is that Lyndal Shaneyfelt worked with a copy of Z film #0186, but this has to be identified as speculation on my part, based upon what I have written above.

Gary Murr

David G. Healy said:

Gary Murr response to DHealy: (Lancer forum Tue Oct-29-02 10:06 AM) **

Quote

...

You also appear to be having trouble grasping the significance of this point. You asked me how "that pesky old 8 weeks...square(s) up with the NPIC documents that have Z-frame numbers."? Well, that is the whole point. If the NPIC/CIA "textual materials" of attempted explanation for a variety of shooting scenarios pertinent to the Zapruder film are using Zapruder frame numbers assigned by Lyndal Shaneyfelt on January 30, 1964, then these same "textual materials" supplied by NPIC/CIA HAD TO HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED AFTER JANUARY 30, 1964. If that is true, and both Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter of NPIC claim that they had nothing to do with the construction of these various writings, indeed these calculations were done at a later date during the tenure of the Warren Commission, then how can these same textual materials and their Zapruder frame numberings be part of a conspiracy to alter the Zapruder film while at NPIC over the weekend of the assassination?(See the Records of the ARRB:"Contact Report", prepared by Douglas Horne, ARRB; dated 06/12/97: Also, "Meeting Report" prepared by Douglas Horne, ARRB, 06/18/97;Final Version; Topic:ARRB Staff Interview of Ben Hunter; ARRB Douglas Horne Files, Box 4, "Zapruder Film Issues.")

...

no "grasping" problem at all Gary. Quite the opposite in fact, you in the above state:

Quote

are using Zapruder frame numbers assigned by Lyndal Shaneyfelt on January 30, 1964

forgive me the following, a cite (a document stating same) please for the above 01/30/1964 date would be much appreciated. Or can I use you as the "official" source for the numbering date?

Also I'll make this same response to the on-going Zapruder film thread started by BKelly.

Thanks for you patience Gary,

DHealy

**= should be noted Gary Murr responded to this same Z-film frame number question/topic (of which I was involved in) here on this Ed Forum during 2007

Hi David:

I apologize for not responding sooner, but it was unavoidable as I was no where near my home and access to my materials when this thread, and related others, began. I thank you for your patience. My personal collection of documents now exceeds 300,000 pages and it took me a little while to "lay my hands" on the material I was seeking in order that I could formulate a cohesive response to your request. I am not exactly a shining example of exactitude when it comes to cataloging these materials, something I am saving for retirement! I also must apologize if I have misinterpreted some of your responses concerning the film of Abraham Zapruder and the question of alteration, in particular pertaining to the roll played, or not played, by the CIA and NPIC - but that is a matter that perhaps is best discussed, if you so desire, another time and in another thread, or for that matter, in private if you wish.

In response to your immediate request for a citation in support of my contention that Lyndal Shaneyfelt constructed the Z-film numbering system universally accepted and utilized when discussing the Zapruder film on a specific date, January 30, 1964, I hopefully have attached two images taken from Shaneyfelt's worknotes he generated in conjunction with this specific aspect of his contact with the film of Abraham Zapruder. Unfortunately, this documentation is currently only available if one travels to NARA II in College Park, Maryland, the reason being that it is from one of the massive bulky lab files generated by that division of the FBI in conjunction with their examination of all evidence given to them that related to the assassination event. Shaneyfelt and others in the FBI lab, in particular fellow agent Robert Frazier, constructed numerous files of worknotes when they were examining evidence and this surviving documentation is both historically important, relevant, and useful in trying to ascertain a wide variety of matters pertaining to the issues of evidence and provenance. The two pages from the Shaneyfelt worknotes that he constructed in conjunction with the Zapruder film can be found in: 62-109060-4199, Box097B, Folder 7, and 62-109060-4199, Box 098, Folder 3. I have also spent some time over the last couple of days searching FBI documents accessible via the internet, in particular the Mary Farrell Foundation website, in an effort to ascertain if any of this material is available to the interested researcher. I suspect that Rex Bradford and others have not had the time to reproduce the materials from these numerous bulky files generated by the FBI lab, documentation that literally goes on for thousands and thousands of pages. However, I did stumble across one page from this same series of notes and if you have access to the FBI documents generated at the Mary Ferrell website you will find it as part of 62-109060-2348, the second page. You will note, once again, Shaneyfelts distinctive "LS" scrawl and the date of "1-30-64: affixed to this page, taken from the same workbook I possess a copy of and have reproduced pages for you in this reply.

I hope you find this of some interest.

Gary Murr

Next item up for bid!

Many years ago, when I worked in "Area Studies" and was involved in works which involved the posting of a variety of reports received from a variety of sources, which ultimately were utilized to develop an "intelligence analyst" report, we, not unlike JEH, developed our own system of identification.

With this, it became a common factor to always be able to go back and individually locate the "First Report" which one initially prepared.

In that, each individual who was so involved, usually developed his own separate and independent method of instantly identifying and locating a "First Information Received" Report.

Some used various "colored dots", some utilized colored paper.

Personally, I always preferred "Colored Paper" as it stood out relatively well, and one merley had to change "color code" for second generation; third generation; etc;. reports.

Thusly, anything found in the "teal blue" or whatever it is, is an absolute "First Generation" report, which was made/created shortly after receipt of the information, and from the notes taken from receipt and evaluation of that information.

In that regards, the "Teal Blue" copies of reports were made directly from those handwritten notes which are in a notebook/diary, and thus are not likely to be that different in scope; content; and/or context from what is actually written in the handwritten notes.

In that regards, my "ORIGINAL" report states that Heiberger was dispatched to Georgia on the "Oswald was Here" episode.

Therefore, my original notes would state the same thing.

And, since Henry Heiberger was quite forthwright and open in our discussions, and not unlike virtually every other FBI Agent, spoke highly of Melvin Purvis and wanted to know my relationship to same, I do not think that Henry Heiberger was making any attempt to intentionally decieve me in these regards.

Hey Tom:

Many thanks for taking the time to respond to my narrative ramblings; it is appreciated. I agree with you that I doubt Henry Heiberger intentionally intended to deceive you and, by the same token, you have to naturally rely on your particular method of tracking your accumulated documentation, an ongoing battle that I can readily sympathize with. As I stated in my post, until such time as one is able to uncover documentation in support of Henry Heiberger's revelations to you regarding "Oswald Was Here" one cannot state, to a certainty, that the Georgia incident did not occur. If the content of the Heiberger - chalk - Georgia incident is as stated by Heiberger - i.e. a suspicion that he was diverted, intentionally, away from the Warren Commission and matters ballistic etc. - then a suspicious individual might conclude that any documentation in support of Heiberger's relayed narrative would have been conveniently "lost." Regardless, I, for one, have enjoyed your various postings, but in particular your "take" on matters that relate to the various reconstructions that occurred in Dealey Plaza. As I think you will see, upon release of my book, the various exhibits you have shared with members of this forum that relate to survey plats et al have helped me to answer a myriad of previously vexing questions.

Regards,

Gary

At least we know that I did not just dream up the bit about the RR Boxcar; Oswald"; & chalk.

I was out of attachment space previously, but here are the two "original" drafts, as written from my notes, etc; when I spoke with Heiberger; Gallagher; Frazier; Heilman; etc; etc; attempting to resolve some of these issues.

That they are of the "teal blue" color tells me that they are the original, and I knew that I had taken them out some time back for another reason, which I will get into in the next post or so.

With this information, there is now absolutely no doubt that this is what Heiberger relayed to me. And, the only deletion here is I deleted the "the hell" in "I don't know what the hell that was all about" as I did not want to present Heiberger in some "bad" light.

Since we are back on the subject of the clothing, I will again share what little was determined.

Of specific note, one may want to pay special attention to that section as regards JFK's coat, since it has already come up in discussion.

Henry Heiberger and I had considerable discussions regarding each specific piece of clothing, and what he told me is a long way from what is presented in the WC testimonies.

Tom:

As before, many thanks for reproducing the copies of your notes regarding your interviews conducted with the various FBI agents mentioned in this posting. Am I to conclude from this material that a discussion regarding the clothing of John Connally did not come up during your various interview sessions? For reasons that are more than obvious, I would, quite naturally, be extremely interested in any statements offered by anyone in the employ of the FBI lab who may have been involved in examining the clothing of John Connally.

Gary

Next item up for bid!

Many years ago, when I worked in "Area Studies" and was involved in works which involved the posting of a variety of reports received from a variety of sources, which ultimately were utilized to develop an "intelligence analyst" report, we, not unlike JEH, developed our own system of identification.

With this, it became a common factor to always be able to go back and individually locate the "First Report" which one initially prepared.

In that, each individual who was so involved, usually developed his own separate and independent method of instantly identifying and locating a "First Information Received" Report.

Some used various "colored dots", some utilized colored paper.

Personally, I always preferred "Colored Paper" as it stood out relatively well, and one merley had to change "color code" for second generation; third generation; etc;. reports.

Thusly, anything found in the "teal blue" or whatever it is, is an absolute "First Generation" report, which was made/created shortly after receipt of the information, and from the notes taken from receipt and evaluation of that information.

In that regards, the "Teal Blue" copies of reports were made directly from those handwritten notes which are in a notebook/diary, and thus are not likely to be that different in scope; content; and/or context from what is actually written in the handwritten notes.

In that regards, my "ORIGINAL" report states that Heiberger was dispatched to Georgia on the "Oswald was Here" episode.

Therefore, my original notes would state the same thing.

And, since Henry Heiberger was quite forthwright and open in our discussions, and not unlike virtually every other FBI Agent, spoke highly of Melvin Purvis and wanted to know my relationship to same, I do not think that Henry Heiberger was making any attempt to intentionally decieve me in these regards.

Hey Tom:

Many thanks for taking the time to respond to my narrative ramblings; it is appreciated. I agree with you that I doubt Henry Heiberger intentionally intended to deceive you and, by the same token, you have to naturally rely on your particular method of tracking your accumulated documentation, an ongoing battle that I can readily sympathize with. As I stated in my post, until such time as one is able to uncover documentation in support of Henry Heiberger's revelations to you regarding "Oswald Was Here" one cannot state, to a certainty, that the Georgia incident did not occur. If the content of the Heiberger - chalk - Georgia incident is as stated by Heiberger - i.e. a suspicion that he was diverted, intentionally, away from the Warren Commission and matters ballistic etc. - then a suspicious individual might conclude that any documentation in support of Heiberger's relayed narrative would have been conveniently "lost." Regardless, I, for one, have enjoyed your various postings, but in particular your "take" on matters that relate to the various reconstructions that occurred in Dealey Plaza. As I think you will see, upon release of my book, the various exhibits you have shared with members of this forum that relate to survey plats et al have helped me to answer a myriad of previously vexing questions.

Regards,

Gary

In reading through a previous posting thread initiated by Tom Purvis - "A Few Miscellaneous Items" - an item mentioned by Tom regarding Henry Heiberger of the FBI lab, a chalk message regarding Oswald, and the mention of a "RR boxcar" sent me digging through my files as I was sure I had something squirreled away on a similar, if not the same, subject matter. Tom indicated in his previous thread that Henry Heiberger had indicated in an interview/converation with Tom, that he, Heiberger, had been "sent to Georgia to examine "Oswald was Here" found written on the inside of an abandoned RR boxcar, and was thereafter tasked to determine who manufactured the chalk which had been utilized to write this. Thus, he was unavailable for testimony before the WC." What follows is a brief outline of documentation that I possess which involves Heiberger, an alleged "Oswald" message and chalk. Because the location of this incident is not Georgia, but rather Detroit, Michigan, I do not know if it is the same episode that Tom Purvis indicates Heiberger relayed to him "long ago." What I do know is that I can find no reference to, or copies of, a travel/"pay voucher" issued to Heiberger to travel to Georgia to investigate the incident outlined by Tom in copies of FBI documentation I have acquired over the past forty plus years.

At approximately 9:30 am on the morning of December 2, 1963, four employees of the Kahlbaum Brothers, Inc., Mill Company,(3546 Mill Street, Newport, Michigan) manager Harold P. McCormick, and three men in his employ, Edward Van Washenova, Allen Bressler, and Gerald Masserant, opened NYC RR boxcar # 124475, parked on a RR spur siding beside the Kahlbaum Mill. This RR car had been put into this position on the siding on Friday evening, November 29, 1963. The boxcar in question was opened by these individuals in order that the car be "readied to accept" a load of grain. Upon opening the car, the following message, written in yellow chalk, was found on the facing wall. "Lee Oswald, Dallas Texas. Future Man of Destiny, Apr. 4, 1963." Harold McCormick notified the Detroit Field Office of the FBI and on December 3, 1963, SA J. Paul David Costello of the Detroit FO "examined New York Central Boxcar number 124475 at the siding next to the Kahlbaum Brothers" site. In his report SA Costello noted the following: "Inisde the car on the west side, printed in yellow chalk, slanting upwards, was "Lee Oswald, Dallas, Texas. There was a line under Dallas, Texas. The letter 'D' was found to be seven feet from the base of the car. Printed to the right, also in yellow chalk, 'future man of destiny, Apr. 4, 1963.' Apr. 4, 1963, was found to be 5', 8" from the floor of the car." The inscription was actually photographed by SA James E. Cullen of the Detroit FO lab on the evening of its discovery, December 2, 1963, a photograph that was eventually submitted to the main Bureau lab in Washington, D. C. On the same date as the Costello examination, December 3, 1963, a letter was sent to the Director of the FBI, attention FBI Laboratory, a letter that "requested the Laboratory to attempt to determine if certain chalk samples obtained from NYC railroad car # 124475 at Newport, Michigan, could have been made by chalk commonly used by railroads." On the following day, December 4, 1963, a follow up communique was issued from the Detroit office, enclosing with this same correspondence "a medium hard 'lumber crayon' on the type used by the NYC RR in Detroit to make various markings on freight cars..." in the area of the Kahlbaum Brothers Mill. This same second Detroit FO letter "requested" that the main Bureau lab "compare this 'lumber crayon' with samples submitted with relet to determine if the samples came from a similar crayon." The December 3 letter from the Detroit FO had transmitted "under separate cover...twelve specimens of chalk and crayon taken from the above railroad car..." submitted to see if any of these items could be identified with the "Oswald" chalk writing found in the empty boxcar.

As the surviving evidence sheet generated by "HBH" - Henry Heiberger - indicates, the Detroit FO communications were slightly misleading. What Heiberger had received from the Detroit office were "twelve specimens of chalk taken from a boxcar" and a singular "crayon" submitted by the Detroit office "under letter of 12/4/63." Heiberger assigned these items both "Q" and "K" nmumbers, ranging from Q199 - Q206 and K45 - K48."

Between December 2 and December 4, 1963, several members of the Detroit FO followed up on this incident, conducting 15 different interviews, including an eventual day by day routing for the RR car in question that spanned a time frame from March 14, 1963 to it's opening on December 2, 1963 by the Kahlbaum Brothers Mill employees. It was discovered that on the date of the inscription, April 4, 1963, the RR car was "on the line of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy railroad..." having been transferred to that particular railroad on March 27, 1963. On December 5, 1963, SA Horace P. Beckworth of the Detroit FO interviewed one Russell Norman Torrey, a receiving clerk with Super Foods Inc. Mr. Torrey confessed that on the afternoon of November 26, 1963, that while unloading a NYC "freight car filled with Quaker Oats cereal..." he "stopped work for a few minutes in the afternoon, before the car was completely unloaded, and wrote on the inside wall of the freight car with yellow chalk that he uses to normally mark freight boxes. He printed the name 'Lee Oswald, Dallas, Texas, future man of destiny, April 4, 1963.'" Torrey explained this "doodling" as a result of his constant listening to a radio during this work period and hearing "constantly" the name of Oswald and Dallas. The phrase "future man of destiny" Torrey believed to have been either uttered on the radio, or by one of his fellow co-workers involved in the unloading of the freight car. The date of April 4, 1963 was explained by Torrey; he was born on April 4, 1938. SA Beckwith bought the Torrey story, including the further Torrey statement that he "did not intend anything malicious by writing the above on the wall of the freight car." When shown a copy of the photograph taken by the Detroit FO, "Torrey advised that that was definitely his handwriting and written by him."

The Torrey "confession" information was immediately relayed by teletype to Bureau HQ in Washington and on January 9, 1964, Henry Heiberger sent a simplistic three sentence letter to the SAC Detroit, the last two sentences of which read: "The Laboratory examinations of the twelve specimens of chalk taken from a boxcar which were submitted by your office under letter dated 12/2/63, and the crayon submitted by your office under letter of 12/4/63, were disconinued on the receipt of your teletype of 12/5/63. These specimens are being returned to you under separate cover by registered mail." And with that the paper trail that I possess ends.

The entire incident can be found in the formal report issued by SA Lawrence W. Cooper, Jr., of the Detroit Field Office of the FBI, File Number DE: 100-31965. Other documents, including Hieberger's correspondence, is found in the Bureau's Lee Harvey Oswald HQ file at: 105-82555-1301 and 105-82555-1692. The HSCA were aware of this particular incident as a result of an inventory of the Detroit FO files conducted in January of 1977, the DE 100-31965 file being duly noted in a teletype of January 7, 1977 from the Detroit FO to the Director.

As I stated at the start of this narrative, I do not know if this is the "chalk" incident relayed to Tom Purvis by Henry Heiberger or not. I do know it is the only record involving Heiberger, a boxcar, "Oswald" insciprtions and chalk that I have been able to find, to date. I also can find, in the documentation I possess, no references to Heiberger being sent to Georgia to investigate the incident relayed by Heiberber to Tom. This, of course, does not mean that it actually did not happen. Henry Heiberger and John Gallagher did meet with Melvin Eisenberg of the Warren Commission in March of 1964, a meeting arranged by Eisenberg, in an apparent effort on his part to better understand both OES (Optical Emission Spectrography) and NAA. Of course as we know, Heiberger was never called to testify before the Commission, and Gallagher's last minute September 1964 deposition at the hands of Norman Redlich turned out to be a joke, and not a particularly funny one at that.

FWIW

Gary Murr

I was sent a document with FBI File number 62-109060-1390; dated November 17, 1963. Does anyone known anything about this file number of what this document is about... if in fact it is a real FBI document, and not a planted document?

Any help would be appreciated. Thank You.

William:

I cannot state to a certainty, but suspect that the document you were sent is incorrect. As a result of my numerous trips to Harold Weisberg's house in Frederick, Maryland, I was able to acquire, over a period of years, approximately 200,000 pages of FBI documents. My particular copy of 62-109060-1390 is a multi-paged teletype from the SAC, Louisville, Kentucky office to the "Director." It is dated "12-5-63", December 5, 1963, and was sent at 8:22 pm EST. The teletype concerns the report of a Covington, Kentucky police officer and a story related to him by "an old woman" concerning the shooting of President Kennedy.

Don't know if this helps, or not, but FWIW.

Gary Murr

Thank you very much. This helps a lot.

Background:

The document which was sent to me, some years ago, was dated November 17, 1963. I was trying to find information which may have been in FBI files pertaining to two Cubans which had given information to the Secret Service and Military INTEL about a, "hit", on President Kennedy. (ref; Information from West Palm Beach Florida. FBI Office of Orgin; OO. Miami Florida)

I question the document I had received on open forum, in 2003, (not sure if it was this forum) was called a disinformation expert working for the CIA. It was said I was trying to "hide JFK documents" from the research community.

The document I obtain at that time was not on LHM and the type was from two different typewriters. Also the word "assassination", was spelled wrong. I told the source this and too, I tried to cross check the numbers in 2003, and came up with nothing. The source of the document became very upset and told me I was covering for the FBI because my code name Buck Pearson had been written in the side margins.

This document was recently found in my files by my attorney and publisher and I was asked about it.

Your information has been of great help. Thanks again. This is an example of what this forum is all about; exchanging information, pro and con. Thanks again.

William:

You are welcome; glad it was of some relevance to you.

Gary Murr

I was sent a document with FBI File number 62-109060-1390; dated November 17, 1963. Does anyone known anything about this file number of what this document is about... if in fact it is a real FBI document, and not a planted document?

Any help would be appreciated. Thank You.

William:

I cannot state to a certainty, but suspect that the document you were sent is incorrect. As a result of my numerous trips to Harold Weisberg's house in Frederick, Maryland, I was able to acquire, over a period of years, approximately 200,000 pages of FBI documents. My particular copy of 62-109060-1390 is a multi-paged teletype from the SAC, Louisville, Kentucky office to the "Director." It is dated "12-5-63", December 5, 1963, and was sent at 8:22 pm EST. The teletype concerns the report of a Covington, Kentucky police officer and a story related to him by "an old woman" concerning the shooting of President Kennedy.

Don't know if this helps, or not, but FWIW.

Gary Murr

Wade, I put a ton of information about these early surveys up in chapter 2 and 2b at patspeer.com.

Tom, where can one see the 2/7/64 FBI survey plat? Is it in one of the FBI's reports?

Thanks,

Pat

In order that Kathy does not have to "chastise" me again for supposedly NOT sharing information, I have again removed the FBI Survey Plat from it's frame.

(even though I have repeatedly stated that I would not do so anymore)

This is the "revised" plat in which Mr. West took the US Secret Service Survey Plat of 12/5/63, and with the FBI's "input" on 2/7/64, changed the impact location for the Z313 headshot.

Howlett wanted a copy of this revision and gave Mr. West the address/telephone number/etc; where he could be reached when the revision was completed and he wanted a copy of this revision.

However, he still wanted the SS survey work, if changed, to show in order that he could tell the changes.

Hi Tom:

I, for one, greatly appreciate your efforts with this topic, something which you and I have discussed in the past. Is it safe to assume that your statements that Howlett contacted West for a copy of the FBI revision was information supplied to you by Robert West during one of your interviews/conversations with Mr. West? If so, do you have any idea when, in 1964, this Howlett - West exchange may have occurred? Your final statement would also seem to indicate that there could potentially exist, somewhere, a copy of a West plat that shows both the "SS survey work" and the FBI changes, perhaps something constructed in order that the viewer could, indeed, see the "changes".

Many thanks,

Gary Murr

Hugh Aynesworth did pen stories introducing the possibility that Oswald did not act alone. One such piece was published in 1964 and it focused on General Walker who Aynesworth quoted as saying that the Warren Commission was a 'white-wash'.

Another curiosity was a 1964 story Aynesworth did about a French aviator named Jean Dabry who along with other European flyers was in Dallas as part of a nationwide tour. Aynesworth reported that Dabry had said most Europeans believed that Oswald had accomplices and that it was most 'strange' that Oswald was himself killed.

There is also the question about the publishing of excerpts from Oswald's diary under Aynesworth's byline. Jesse Curry claimed that he had the diary locked up and did not share any details it contained. Who leaked the information would be of great interest.

FWIW.

James

James/William/et al, and FWIW:

I came across the Aynesworth/Oswald diary incident during my research on the wounding of John Connally, specifically in the surviving papers of Holland McCombs, as you shall see later in this posting. The following is a brief narrative summary of my understanding of this particular transaction/incident.

On Saturday, June 27, 1964, the Dallas Morning News ran a front-page article written by/accredited to Hugh Aynesworth under the heading caption, “Secret Diary – Oswald’s Thoughts Bared.” This was supplemented with a full page copyrighted article captioned, “The Lee Harvey Oswald Diary – October 16, 1959: I Want Russian Citizenship.” The article thereafter received (understandably) wide dissemination, not to mention notoriety, including synopsised versions in the various Washington, D. C. newspapers on the following day, Sunday, June 28th. The FBI’s original memorandum constructed in conjunction with the publication of the article, a memo written on June 28, 1964, by Walter Sullivan and addressed to Alan Belmont, stated that “the original diary was delivered by the Dallas Police to the Bureau and a photographic reproduction of it appeared as Exhibit 36 in the Bureau’s initial report on the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy.” The Sullivan memorandum went on to further state that “Aynesworth’s article carefully follows the diary and quotes voluminously from it. It is obvious he has a copy of the diary and that this is the basis for his article.” On this same date, June 28, ASIC of the Dallas FO was telephonically contacted by Bureau HQ at which time he advised Washington that he and the DFO “did not know the source of the information for Aynesworth.” However, it was further reported that “Aynesworth is a police reporter for the Dallas Morning News and has been anti-Bureau throughout the whole investigation.”(FBI: Record No: 124-10369-10009; Record Series HQ: Agency File No. 62-117290-Admin. Folder – V8; specifically: Record No. 124-10030-10464: Record Series HQ: FBI Case File No.: 105-82555-4377)

In this same memorandum Kyle Clark revealed to Bureau HQ that on repeated occasions Dallas Assistant DA, William Alexander, had “contacted the Dallas office and wanted photographic copies of all the property obtained by the police department and turned over to the FBI.” Alexander’s rationale for these requests was in order to aide DA Henry Wade in his testimony before the Commission. The requests were rebuffed by the Dallas FO and Alexander had been referred to the Dallas Police Department “as they had been given photographs of all of the property.” Because of the information Aynesworth had included in his article, and other items mentioned by Aynesworth, “ASAC Clark and SAC Shanklin are of the opinion that Alexander is probably the source of the (Aynesworth) leak.” At the time of the article, only the Warren Commission, the Dallas Police Department, and the FBI had copies of the Oswald diary. The Bureau “know we did not furnish the material to Aynesworth,” ruled out the Commission as the source of the leak, and concluded by “suspecting that Alexander or someone in the Dallas Police Department” as the source of the Aynesworth leak. The original memorandum constructed concluded further action “without making any direct inquiry,” instead alerting the Dallas office to “try and learn the source of the leak and advise the Bureau.”

The following day, June 29, 1964, Kyle Clark had a meeting with Capt. Will Fritz of the DPD at which time Fritz indicated that he had been unable, “to date,” to determine if the diary had been furnished to the Dallas Morning News “by anyone on the Dallas Police Force.” In response to this reply, Clark asked for, and obtained permission, to indicate to Fritz that the DFO felt that “it was William Alexander, the County Attorney, who sought the material in question” in the first place and thus was potentially under suspicion. Fritz’s reaction to this news was not recorded by Clark in his covering memorandum of the interview. On the same date, June 29, 1964, James Malley, FBI liaison with the Commission, discussed the article with J. Lee Rankin, advising Rankin “that reporter Aynesworth of the Dallas Morning News was not friendly and that while the Bureau would handle the Commission’s request if desired, it appeared a better approach would be for the Commission to directly contact the newspaper and request information from the newspaper as to the source of the article.” Rankin indicated to Malley that the matter would be discussed at an afternoon session with members of the Commission and the Bureau would be informed of future action.

On July 1, 1964, the Bureau received a letter “from J. Lee Rankin of the President’s Commission dated June 30, 1964, requesting a thorough investigation concerning the publication of the Lee Harvey Oswald diary by the Dallas Morning News. The letter contained the actual resolution passed by the President’s Commission,” and based upon this resolution, “ASAC Kyle Clark of the Dallas Office…was instructed to conduct immediate investigation in order that the results could be furnished to the President’s Commission at the earliest possible time.” Hoover made sure that this became “news” and an article captioned “FBI Requested to Investigate Leak of Portions of Oswald’s Diary” was published in both the Washington Post and the Washington Times Herald on June 30, 1964.

The eventual “investigation” lasted for almost eight weeks with the FBI questioning individuals from the Dallas Morning News, CBS News, Time-LIFE, the DPD and the DA’s office, though the main content of the matter was resolved, to the satisfaction of the Bureau and the Commission, by the first week of August, 1964. There were numerous investigative speed bumps along the way, with perhaps the largest one being an incident that arose on July 8, 1964. On that date Detective H. M Hart, Criminal Intelligence Section, DPD, relayed a letter to Captain W. P. Gannaway, Special Service Bureau, DPD, the “SUBJECT” matter of which is listed as: “Diary of Lee H. Oswald.” According to Hart, “confidential informant T-1” stated to Hart “that Representative Ford (fnu), a member of the Warren Commission, sold SUBJECT (i.e. Oswald diary) to the Dallas Morning News. Mr. Ford had a copy of the diary and took it to executives of LIFE magazine and also Newsweek magazine. Source states that these executives paid Marina Oswald, widow of Lee Harvey Oswald, $16,000.00 for the world copyright of the diary. Source further states that proof of this is in the hand of the Dallas County District Attorney’s office.” In an “Evaluation” statement added to the bottom of his letter, Detective Hart further indicated: “Informant considered reliable; possibly true.”(A copy of this correspondence can be found at two different locations within the Dallas City Archives holdings of the Dallas Police Department: Box 13, Folder 4, File # 51; and Box 18, Folder 4, File # 12)

Two days after the Hart letter, July 10, 1964, LIFE magazine published an article that included, once again, information from Oswald’s diary. On this same date, J. Lee Rankin sent Hoover a second letter in which “the President’s Commission requested the Bureau to conduct appropriate investigation concerning circumstances surrounding the obtaining and publication of Oswald’s diary in the July 10, 1964 issue of “Life” magazine.” J. Lee Rankin had been informed of the alleged Gerald Ford leak/sale of the diary, precise date unspecified, though surviving documentation would appear to indicate that this revelation took place no later than July 10, 1964. The confidential Hart “source”, informant T-1, was revealed in a Rosen to Belmont memorandum dated July 13, 1964, to wit: “Assistant District Attorney William Alexander, Dallas County, has intimated that Representative Ford was the source of the leak of Oswald’s diary to the news media.”(FBI: Record Number: 124-10054-10322: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 105-82555-4401)

The day after the Rankin-to-Hoover letter, Supervisor Ludwig Oberndorf of the Washington Field Office “advised that the interview with Representative Gerald R. Ford, a member of the President’s Commission, had been approved…Representative Ford has requested that he be interviewed in order that he could go on record concerning this matter.” This particular communiqué had been “submitted for record purposes” only, by Rosen, though there appears little doubt that Rankin was informed of the identity of informant T-1. By the following day, July 14, 1964, the Bureau were identifying the

”two matters” of the Dallas Morning News article of June 28 and the LIFE magazine article of July 10 as being “directly related” and over the next three weeks numerous individuals were interviewed by members of the FBI though everyone interviewed “either denied or have refused to identify the source of the diary.” The investigation eventually involved members of the Washington, New York, Houston and Dallas Field Offices with a “breakthrough” occurring on July 22, 1964. On that date the Dallas FO furnished the Bureau Lab “one roll of 35 mm positive film containing photographs of the diary, as well as one roll of 35 mm negative film of this positive and Xerox prints of the pertinent pages of the Oswald diary. These 35 mm films and prints were obtained from the District Attorney’s Office in Dallas, Texas. In addition, the New York Office has furnished the original Xerox prints of the 12 pages of the Oswald diary that “Life” magazine obtained and published in their July 10, 1964 issue.”(FBI: Record Number: 124-10048-10258: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 105-82555-4509) As a result of comparative analysis of this material, “Laboratory examination of these items has established that the 35 mm rolls of film obtained from the Dallas District Attorney’s Office contain imperfections in their original state that are reproduced in the Xerox copies used by “Life” magazine. This shows that the “Life” magazine copies originated from the 35 mm rolls of film from the Dallas District Attorney’s Office.” Further legwork established that the Dallas DA’s office acquired their copies of the Oswald diary material, and other evidence, from the Dallas Police Department, their film “taken to the Recordak Corporation in Dallas where a 35 mm positive, 35 mm negative and 3 sets of hard copies were made for the District Attorney’s office. The “Life” magazine prints are these same ‘hard copies’ or are ‘hard copies’ subsequently made from the District Attorney’s 35 mm film.” Though the correspondence on this issue is theoretically from W. D. Griffith and addressed to Bureau Lab Chief, Ivan W. Conrad, the stenographic notations present on the documentation clearly indicate that the comparative analysis and resulting conclusions were the work of “LLS,” Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt. On the same date as the lengthy “Shaneyfelt” memorandum on this matter, July 22, 1964, the information and results of the FBI Lab analysis were supplied to the President’s Commission by way of a letter sent to J. Lee Rankin. A memorandum attached to the letter that was to be sent to the Commission (Rankin) indicated the following, by way of updated “background” information: “Extensive investigation has been conducted by our Dallas, New York, and Houston Offices in this matter. Regarding the publication of Oswald’s diary in “Life” magazine, we have now determined arrangements for the publication were handled through Paula Aynesworth, who is the wife of Hugh Aynesworth, reporter for the Dallas Morning News and who published Oswald’s diary on June 27 and 28, 1964. Paula Aynesworth received $2500 for this information from “Life” magazine.”(Ibid prior footnote in this section, as well as: FBI: Record Number: 124-10034-10316: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 62-109060-1st numbered document after serial 3524)

The FBI identification of Paula Aynesworth as a paid source of information on the Oswald diary is accurate and confirmation of this is found within the surviving papers of Holland McCombs, Corbitt Special Collections, University Archives, University of Tennessee at Martin. On June 27, 1964, Holland McCombs sent Natalie Kosek, Life Picture Bureau, Head Office, New York, a “Rush” memorandum and package. Addressed to Will Lang, Life Magazine, Time and Life Building, Rockefeller Center, New York, McComb’s indicated the impending arrival of a copy of “Oswald Russian Diary,” a package air expressed via American Airlines, Flight # 92, due to arrive at Kennedy Airport at 9:43 pm on the evening of June 27, 1964, Waybill # 886657. In the package were “photostatic” copies of 12 pages from the diary, but there were attached McCombs constructed stipulations to be followed prior to publication in LIFE magazine: “In page 6 should cross out three or four lines that describe Zeger. Page 7…where ‘Zeger advises me to go back to the U.S.A., etc…page 9. ‘I confided in Zeger, ‘etc… Our thoughts are that Mr. Zeger would be seriously hurt by the Communists if this were run verbatim. In the writings of Hugh Aynesworth he has changed the name to Andrei Tovli when it was something risky and left Zeger in it as a place where Oswald partied occasionally…even mentioned the part about the daughters etc.” (Holland McCombs Collection, Corbitt Special Collections, University Archives, University of Tennessee at Martin. Box 153, Folder F-9)

In addition to the Oswald diary package, McCombs included a copy of a signed agreement between LIFE magazine and Paula Eby Aynesworth, a document dated June 27, 1964. The terms of this agreement stipulated that Paula Aynesworth was to receive the sum of $2500.00 “in cash or via Western Union money order addressed to 729 North Buckner Blvd., Dallas 18, Texas, by Tuesday, the thirtieth of June, 1964.” There were other clauses in this document, including the “understanding” that Paula Aynesworth would not be held responsible in the event that “copies of above document are released by other parties than Paula Eby Aynesworth.” In his letter of accompaniment McCombs boasts of him and LIFE having a “fast leg up” on the Oswald diary material with the added comment that “here’s hoping it will be worth the $2,500.” McCombs even went so far as to suggest that Time-Life send him a “rush check…first thing Monday morning…” so that he could cash same “and hand over the cash to Mrs. Aynesworth…” McCombs also enclosed a verbatim copy of “Aynesworth’s story of diary in Dallas Morning News.”

On July 27, 1964, five days after he received original communication on the Lab examination of the 35 mm film and hard copies, J. Lee Rankin received a second letter from Hoover, a document that once again was ghost-written by Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt. In the concluding paragraph, the following was indicated: “The Xerox copies of the diary obtained from the District Attorney’s Office and the Xerox copies obtained from “Life” magazine were all examined for latent fingerprints. Seventeen latent fingerprints and three latent palm prints were developed on the copies from “Life” magazine. Five latent fingerprints and four latent palm prints were developed on the copies from the District Attorney’s Office. One of the latent fingerprints on the copies from the District Attorney’s Office is identical with the left thumb print of a William Franklin Alexander, who may be identical with William F. Alexander, Assistant District Attorney, Dallas, Texas. The other fingerprints and palm prints have not been identified.”(FBI: Record Number: 124-10044-10266: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 62-109060-3567.) This Hoover-to-Rankin letter was two pages in length, but there was a third page “Note For Dallas” attached to the letter, a note not sent to Rankin: “The Dallas Office should obtain, if possible, the fingerprints and palm prints of William F. Alexander and W. H. Davis, Jr., of the District Attorney’s Office. They should also obtain, if possible, fingerprints and palm prints of Hugh Aynesworth and Paula Aynesworth for comparison with the unidentified latent fingerprints and palm prints…”

On July 29, 1964, an interesting “Airtel” was sent to SAC, Dallas, from the Director. This three page document contained a number of suggestions for clarification for the individual responsible for generating reports on the Oswald diary information “leak,” SA Robert P. Gemberling of the Dallas FO. The very first “clarification” was a note that Gemberling’s report of his “interview with Holland McCombs, Dallas Correspondent for “Life” magazine, should not be included in the next Oswald report.” The airtel contained numerous follow-up suggestions for Gemberling, as well as omissions to be clarified, and concluded with this statement: “Investigation indicates W. F. Alexander, Assistant District Attorney, Dallas County, Texas, is a strong suspect and our laboratory has determined that copies of Oswald’s dairy in possession of “Life” magazine originated from the film that was in possession of the Dallas District Attorney’s office furnished by District Attorney Henry Wade.” Five days later, August 3, 1964, aspects of the investigation were halted in Dallas. In an Airtel sent to SAC Dallas, Shanklin was “advised against” fingerprinting the individuals described in the prior Airtel of July 27, 1964 because “newspaper officials were touchy about this matter and instructed their employees to clear any interviews concerning the diary with managing editor. We have proven ‘Life’ magazine’s copies of diary came from Dallas DA’s office and any effort to obtain prints from principals involved could result in unwarranted publicity or possible embarrassment. It is recommended no prints be sought from these people unless Commission specifically requests.”(FBI: Record Number: 124-10044-10266: Record Series: HQ: 105-82555-4559) As far as I have been able to ascertain, the Warren Commission pressed this issue no further. In a two page letter that accompanied the Hoover-to-Dallas Airtel of August 3, 1964, time was taken to once again lash out at the DA’s office, this script though assigned to Hoover actually the prose of “RDR” – Richard D. Rogge: “Since the initiation of this investigation District Attorney Wade has been a thorn in the side of the Bureau by his impulsive manner of making inaccurate press releases resulting in confusion. Wade’s Office has been negligent in the handling of evidence and he has shown a lackadaisical attitude in this regard. Further, in his testimony before the President’s Commission Wade raised several points which apparently were construed by the Commission to substantiate uninformed charges that Oswald could have been an informant of this Bureau. This necessitated an unusual amount of work on our part to refute.”

The investigation dwindled onward, Marina Oswald denying on August 8, 1964, that though she had been contacted repeatedly by Hugh Aynesworth and had been interviewed by him “she told Aynesworth she did not care to discuss the diary.” Gerald Ford was interviewed by Cartha “Deke” DeLoach on August 17, 1964, at which time “he desired to unequivocally state, and to furnish a signed statement if necessary, that he did not leak the information in question.” This information was presented to the Commission, by way of a wrap-up letter dated August 26, 1964, from Hoover to Rankin, a communiqué that ended: “No further action is being taken by this Bureau concerning the leak of Oswald’s diary to the Dallas Morning News and Life magazine in the absence of a specific request from you.” None, it would appear, ever came thereafter from Rankin.

In the end it would appear that the “leak” of the Oswald diary to the media came about as a result of acquisition of materials from the District Attorney’s Office by the Aynesworth’s. Thereafter Mrs. Aynesworth at least got something out of it - $2500.00 – while the Bureau and the Commission investigated, to a dull conclusion, the entire affair. On July 13, 1964, William Alexander was interviewed by the FBI, vehemently denying any knowledge of the entire matter. It was further reported that Alexander stated, “President Johnson, John Edgar Hoover, the FBI and the Warren Commission ‘could kiss my a—‘…” On the same date, “Mr. William A McKenzie, attorney for Marina Oswald, on 7-6-64 said he sold publication rights of the diary to Life Magazine on 7-1-64. A Mr. Schad of Life Magazine obtained the diary from Hugh Aynesworth of the Dallas Morning News. It is noted Aynesworth appears to be deeply involved in this matter and when interviewed, has refused to reveal the source of his information and was uncooperative.”(FBI: Record Number: 124-10172-10043: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 105-82555-4522)

As I said, FWIW.

Gary Murr

In addition to the document references indicated in this posting, one can also find relevant materials in: FBI: Record Number: 124-10369-10009: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 62-117290-Administration Folder-V8; and: FBI: Record Number: 124-10371-10183: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 62-117290-Administration Folder – E11:

It seems to me John Connally was considerably taller than JFK.

They say JFK's jump seat was 6" higher than JC's seat.

If JC's height was close to 6" more than JFK's this alone would negate the SBT.

Anyone know JC's actual height?

Hi Jim:

John Connally was six feet, two inches tall. As a matter of interest, the FBI SA who was the "Connally" stand-in during the Commission staff generated reconstructin of May 24, 1964, J. Doyle Williams, was 6 feet, four inches tall; he did manage to squeeze into John Connally's jacket for this same event. FWIW

Gary Murr

Where did you get Doyle Williams height? After retirement he lived in my neighborhood

and I saw him occasionally at neighborhood meetings and the cafeteria. He was about

my height, 6'2", as I recall. He was aware of my identity as a JFK researcher, though

we never had been introduced. We once briefly discussed the JFK case, and he told me

that his assassination assignments were unusual because that was not his regular FBI

activity. Hoping to stump me, he said his regular job was "dactylographer". I replied,

"Oh, you worked with fingerprints, huh?" He seemed disappointed that I knew. He said

as we parted, "You are wrong, you know...Oswald did it alone." A feebie to the end.

He died three or four years ago.

Jack

Hi Jack:

Thanks for the insight regarding J. Doyle Williams in retirement. It is appreciated. I got Doyle Williams height measurement from data contained in the notebooks of Robert Frazier and surveyor Robert West, notebooks they constructed on site in Dallas in conjunction with the May 24, 1964 re-enactment. As you may know, Doyle Williams was the FBI agent accosted and knocked to the floor by Secret Service agents at Parkland Memorial Hospital on the afternoon of November 22, 1963. I do not know if you were aware that he was later censured by Hoover for failing to properly report this incident, a censure that cost Williams money out of pocket.

Gary

It seems to me John Connally was considerably taller than JFK.

They say JFK's jump seat was 6" higher than JC's seat.

If JC's height was close to 6" more than JFK's this alone would negate the SBT.

Anyone know JC's actual height?

Hi Jim:

John Connally was six feet, two inches tall. As a matter of interest, the FBI SA who was the "Connally" stand-in during the Commission staff generated reconstructin of May 24, 1964, J. Doyle Williams, was 6 feet, four inches tall; he did manage to squeeze into John Connally's jacket for this same event. FWIW

Gary Murr

Hi Tim:

In answer to your query regarding any notes generated by staff of the Warren Commission. As far as I know, and it has been seven years since I glanced briefly at some of this during a venture at NARA II, the bulk of these surviving notes are found in two different locations, identified in the JFK Assasination Records Collection Register. Entry 35, which is a single box of material, consists of "notebooks" constructed by some staff members in conjunction with their taking of testimony of various witnesses. Though I glanced briefly in this box, it would appear that the bulk of this pertained strictly to those individuals actually called to testify before the Commission. However, the largest collection of surviving staff notes are contained in 35 boxes of "office files" generated by the Commission staff. I was into some of this material, including files constructed by Arlen Specter, but I was looking for information that pertained to his contacts with John Connally. If you get the chance to visit the NARA II facility, these files and notes are available for examination.

FWIW

Gary Murr

From his biography I suspected you would be a fan of his.

This reminds me very much of the quote by ??? that everyone is entitled to his opinion but no one is entitled to his own facts.

Hi Tim:

I believe this particular quote is attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

FWIW

Gary Murr

'Gary Murr' wrote:

[...]

The Zapruder frame count that is universally accepted and utilized by all those who study and refer to the film by frame number, the system that starts with frame 1, excluding the few personal scenes shot at the beginning of the roll by Abraham Zapruder, and ending with frame 486, was assigned to the film byFBI SA Lyndal Shaneyfelt on January 29, 1964.

dgh: January 29th .... hmm, considering NPIC testimony (taken by Doug Horne) states the NPIC guys who worked with the Z-frames (as they said late the 22nd, certainly that weekend), their working doc's of that weekend show the Z-frames clearly numbered and fps determined? Coincidence shows us Shaneyfelt used the same numbering sequence 9 weeks later? Fascinating....

This excercise on the part of Shaneyfelt was conducted as a result of a direct request by Norman Redlich of the Warren Commission staff. I do not know which specific FBI generated copy of the Zapruder film Shaneyfelt used; all I do know, to a certainty, is that the FBI produced more than two copies of the film for their own use from a first generation copy of the film supplied to them by the Secret Service the day after the assasination. I suspect that the copy Shaneyfelt utilized was the same one that he and a select group of Warren Commission staff members had studied both prior to the Redlich request and for months after the Redlich request.

dgh: again, how did those frame numbers show up on NPIC documents the weekend of the assassination? BTW, there were more copies floating around within 2 weeks of the assassination than Carter had little liver pills -- I suspect that's one of the reasons (amongst others) why the 6th floor museum is collecting what hasn't been destroyed over the years.

I will also indicate the following, and again I hate to be annoyingly repetative, but it is covered in great detail you-know-where- in my forthcoming book. Lyndal Shaneyfelt was NOT responsible for the "accepted" and universally utilized average Zapruder film run speed of 18.3 fps. His methodolgy applied in his study of the film arrived at an average that was close, but it was not 18.3 fps.

dgh: no one said he was responsible for determing the camera speed, however the FBI was responsible along with B&H in determining the gate assembly speed of the camera. He takes claim to *numbering* the Z-frames. Frankly, I hope your above is correct. you see January 29th 1964 would allow 9 weeks for film alteration... the audience for any alteration of the Z-film would be quite small, in fact the Warren Commission ONLY!

Likewise, Mr. Shaneyfelt was NOT the FBI Lab employee who originally examined the Zapruder film AND camera and, in essence, Shaneyfelt became the FBI "expert" on the Zapruder film strictly by accident for reasons that are explained, in detail,.... you know where.

dgh: I seriously doubt "by accident", in fact I find that nonsense...

One of the (fatal?) flaws prevalent in the research of those who see the hideous hand of the CIA in some sort of nefariously instantaneous plot to alter the film of Abraham Zapruder before the body of the slain President barely had a chance to grow cold is that they see the entire CIA Document 450-NPIC incident as a SINGULAR entity/occurrence over the weekend of the assassination. This simply is not true. As I am able to prove in my forthcoming work, the entire NPIC-CIA-SS-Zapruder film scenario was not one but three "separate" but related incidents that evolved not over days, or weeks, but months. I exchanged correspondence on this issue with Douglas Horne for, as a complete reading of all of his ARRB generated memoranda reveal, he suspected as much, but was unable to follow through to fruition on these same suspicions for a variety of reason's most of which were beyond his control. I also believe I have discovered who the mysteries agent/Zapruder film delivery boy "Smith" of the Secret Service was, but I will leave that for those who want to read more.

dgh: all sounds fascinating Gary -- unfortunately we have Shaneyfelt lying or we have the good folks at the NPIC lying, after all how could they be working with a Z-film, on the weekend of the assassination, with Z-frame numbers as we know them today -- Then we have this FBI guy (Shaneyfelt) who allegedly assigned numbers to the film frames (by your account) around Jan 29th, 1964 -- some 9 weeks later.... What is true, Gary? Shaneyfelt or the NPIC number the frames.... Doug Horne comment on that?

Oh, didn't Shaneyfelt do the initial Z-film recreation (for the FBI/SS) on Elm Street within weeks of the assassination? I believe he's (Shaneyfelt) pictured in the TSBD snipers window along with a rifle with a camera mounted on it.... Not bad for a regular ole FBI grunt! AND who Smith is is irrelevant to this thread. FWIW...

FWIW

Gary Murr

David:

The FBI was considerably involved in what is referred to as the SS assassination re-enactment and survey work of December 2, 3, & 4th, 1963.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/gauthier.htm

Mr. SPECTER. Would you state your full name for the record, please?

Mr. GAUTHIER. Leo J. Gauthier.

Mr. SPECTER. And by whom are you employed, sir?

Mr. GAUTHIER. The Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. SPECTER. And what is your rank with the Federal Bureau of Investigation?

Mr. GAUTHIER. Inspector. I am in charge of the Bureau's exhibit section, where we prepare investigative aids, consisting of diagrams, charts, maps, three-dimensional exhibits, in connection with the presentation of cases in court.

Mr. GAUTHIER. Our data to build this were compiled on December 2, 3, and 4. It took about 5 weeks to prepare this exhibit in Washington.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Survey Plat for this work of course being that survey plat which demonstrates the impact point of each of the three shots fired, with the Z313 location being the second shot, and the location at stationing 4+95/aka in front of James Altgens position being the third shot impact point.

Thusly, the FBI was highly involved in this work.

Then, on 2/7/64, the FBI "re-did" the survey work and assassination re-enactment. However, the third shot/Altgens impact point was still left in it's original location.

There is of course no "official" known record as to who from the FBI was advising on these, as few persons were even aware of the existence of such re-enactments and surveys.

As regards Shaneyfelt with the rifle at the window, (CE 887)

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol18_0050b.htm

This photograph was purportedly taken during the WC work of May 1964.

Personally, this photo was one of those which had "escaped" my attention until such time as Mr. West brought out that "no one could have accurately fired that rifle, the way that they had it jacked up".

Thus, I never took the time to get back to Mr. West to verify if this photo, CE887, was what he actually saw.

But, I would assume that it is when one looks at the photo and compares it with what Mr. West informed me.

(to be continued)

Hi Tom:

As you are well aware, I have the greatest respect for your work on the various reconstructions carried out in Dealey Plaza, and in particular your endeavours to contact and thus communicate with Robert West, among others. However, I am not aware of any documentation which directly supports direct FBI cooperation on the matter of the Secret Service reconstruction(s) conducted in Dealey Plaza during the first week of December, 1963. Yes, I understand the Leo J. Gauthier was in Dallas during that particular week, accompanied as he was by three members of his Exhibits Division staff. Gauthier actually left the area on December 4 while the members of his staff stayed behind for two more days to finish their work. The question posed of Specter to Gauthier in the quote you cited above refers, as far as I can tell, to the construction of the two scale models generated by the Bureau. As fas as I know, and you can correct me on this if I am wrong, the SS reconstructions of this week were just that, reconstructions carried out by the SS for the SS. I am not naive enough to believe that agents of these two agencies were not aware of the presence of each other in the area during the first week of December 1963, (indeed there exists documentation which indicates that at least SS - SA John J. Howlett was interviewed by members of the Dallas Field Office of the FBI on the matter of SS reconstruction) but surviving documentation generated by both parties in the aftermath of their visits to the area reflect to very different agenda's. However, perhaps Mr. West indicated directly to you that Gauthier and/or members of his Washington based staff directly sought out West and the SS for help with their project. I do not have the time herein to examine the documentation that was generated by the two agencies involved in the weeks after their December 1963 visit to Dealey Plaza, and heavan fobid that I refer to my forthcoming book, replete as it apparently is with untrustworthy investigation, on this subject matter. All I do know is that I, like you, know that both the FBI and SS position the fatal shot along Elm Street at a point that is totally incongruous to the eventual solution as proferred by members of the Warren Commission staff. However, as you are also aware, the FBI and SS agreed to disagree as to where specifically this impact occurred.

I am intigued by your revelation of an FBI survey conducted in Dealey Plaza on February 7, 1964, with the apparent aid of Robert West. I have to admit that I was not aware of the existence of this specific event, and plead ignorance of its contents. If you would care to enlighten me further, by private e-mail exchange, I would be greatful.

Regarding just who is posed with the rifle in the photograph discussed in this thread, I based my answer upon identification of the individual given to me by Harold Weisberg, someone who had to sit across the table from both Lyndal Shaneyfelt and Robert Frazier, and on more than once occasion, during his FOIA endeavours to gain the release of documentation generated by the Bureau on the assasination event.

Regards,

Gary Murr

Gary;

1. The information in reference to "who" is at the window in CE885 is gained merely from the WC report, which states that it is Shaneyfelt.

Which, based on other mistakes of the WC, could also be a mistake on their part as well.

2. Initially, Thomas H. Kelley of the SS was placed in charge of the SS responsibilities in Dallas.

3. Initially, James R. Malley of the FBI was placed in charge of the FBI responsibilities in Dallas.

4. As indicated, the December 2, 3, & 4th, 1963 survey work and assassination re-enactment was primarily the responsibility of the US Secret Service, and specifically, Edward E. Moore, with John Joe Howlett, and was done in conjunction/cooperation and assistance of the FBI.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. SHANEYFELT. On most occasions, Mr. Gauthier of the FBI was present, I was present, Mr. Malley of the FBI was present. Inspector Kelley from Secret Service, and Mr. John Howlett from Secret Service.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And herein lies much of the secrets as to the "how" we got from three-shots/three hits, to the WC only one impact location known.

And, although from all known information, the SS (&FBI) work of/up to December 5, 1963 appears to be quite accurate, then things began to change.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscamall.htm

Mr. MCDONALD. Now, prior to December 12, the Bureau released its report on the assassination?

Mr. MALLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. Malley, yesterday, Mr. Kelly, with the Secret Service, testified that on December 9, 1963, they were instructed to turn over the assassination to the FBI. To what extent was this investigation continued by the FBI?

Mr. MALLEY. Are you referring to what Secret Service was doing or what?

Mr. FORD. No; when they turned the investigation over to the FBI on December 9, after receiving orders from the White House, to what extent was this investigation continued from that point on?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscakell.htm

Mr. FORD. When the FBI took control of the assassination after December 9 I think you said,

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At this point in time, we had an assassination survey and re-enactment, as well as survey plat, which indicated three shots fired, and three hits, with the last impact being down in front of James Altgens position, the second impact being within a foot or so of Z313, and the first shot impact being up around the Z212/214 location.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm

Mr. SPECTER. And when was the first time that you were a participant in such an analysis?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. On January 27, 1964.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thereafter, the FBI took complete control of the Investigation and on 2/7/64, they conducted their own assassination survey and re-enactment*

This work, left the first and third shot impact points in their respective SS determined position and attempted to move the Z313 impact point some 24.5 feet back up Elm St., well prior to the Presidential Limo having even passed the position of Mary Moorman/Jean Hill/& the first yellow mark on the curb of Elm St.

This, JEH claimed was where JBC was hit.

This lie, did not fly, as there was absolutely no way to coverup the Z313 impact, and in event that JBC had been hit at 24.5 feet prior to Z313, then Z313 most certainly could not have come from the Carcano rifle.

This "lie" by JEH & Company was soon discovered, and that is why you have never seen or been made aware of it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscamall.htm

Mr. MCDONALD. I am looking at a memo dated November 26, 1963, from Mr. Evans to Mr. Belmont and it is titled "The Assassination of President Kennedy," and it says--this is dated 4 days later, "From the facts disclosed in our investigation, there is no question that we can submit in our report convincing evidence, beyond any doubt, showing Oswald was the man who killed President Kennedy."

Then at the bottom of this page there is handwriting, which has been identified as Mr. Hoover's. And in the last line Mr. Evans is

making reference that a case of this magnitude cannot be fully investigated in a week's time. And Mr. Hoover has written underneath, "just how long do you estimate it will take."

Then under that he went on to write, "it seems to me we have the basic facts now."

Again, we are 4 days after the assassination. You were in Dallas at the time.

Mr. McDONALD. I will quote one more memorandum to you, and that is dated 29 November 1963, which is found in the Senate Intelligence Committee's, the Church Committee's, Book 5 Report on page 34. In it, the memorandum is by Mr. Hoover, recounting a telephone conversation he had that day with President Johnson. And he says, "I advised the President that we hoped to have the investigation wrapped up today but probably won't have it before the first of the week, as another angle had developed. Again we are getting an example of at the top level the case being in a sense completed.

Now, again, from your Dallas perspective does this jibe with what you were doing in Dallas?

Mr. MALLEY. Well, again, I say that when people say that they hoped to have it completed and so on, I don't think for a minute they were talking about having every facet fully and exhaustively investigated. I think what they are saying is that, based on the information that was available at that time, the essential facts of the investigation had been developed. It doesn't mean it was over by any means.

Chairman STOKES. Let me read to you some excerpts from an interview with former Assistant Director Sullivan that was conducted by another House committee in 1975 after which I will ask for your comment.

In the interview, Mr. Sullivan was asked to recall Director Hoover's relationship to the Warren Commission. In the interview, Mr. Sullivan stated that Mr. Hoover, and I now quote Mr. Sullivan,

"did not like to see the Warren Commission come into existence, that he did show marked interest in limiting the scope of it or circumventing the scope of it by taking any action that might result in neutralizing it."

In this same interview, Mr. Sullivan went on further and said this, and I again quote "From what I saw and what I heard, what I understood, he, Mr. Hoover, was not pleased about the creation of the Warren Commission, No. 1. No. 2, he was not interested in seeing the Warren Commission conduct an exhaustive investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy because he thought that the FBI investigation was adequate."

Chairman STOKES. Mr. Malley, let me again quote Mr. Sullivan during the course of interview. He says, "It is my understanding from conversations on this subject, that he, Hoover, did not want the Warren Commission to conduct an exhaustive investigation for fear that it would discover important and relevant facts that we in the FBI had not discovered in our investigation. Therefore, it would be greatly embarrassing to him and damaging to his career and to the FBI as a whole."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Need I say more?

*P.S. For David.

When the same "actors" wear the same clothing and drive the same car, it is often difficult to tell if the photographic record of the performance date was 2/7/64 or May 24, 1964.

Hi Tom:

As always I enjoy your responses and, no, you need not say more. As you should be aware, I "understand" better than most. This particular thread need progress no further for it has been sidetracked from its original train of thought, and Mr. Healy's original question, which I have previously answered.

Whether it was intentional or not, I would just like to make one comment. Your positioning of the Shaneyfelt quote, "Mr. SHANEYFELT. On most occasions, Mr. Gauthier of the FBI was present, I was present, Mr. Malley of the FBI was present. Inspector Kelley from Secret Service, and Mr. John Howlett from Secret Service..." would seem to leave the reader with the impression that Shaneyfelt was indicating that these individuals were, "on most occasions," present at the various Dealey Plaza reconstructions outlined by yourself elsewhere in this thread, and indeed at other points in this forum. However, taken in the entire context from which this answer is borrowed, the June 4, 1964 testimony session of Lyndal Shaneyfelt, this particular answer offered by Shaneyfelt was in response to a question posited by Arlen Specter regarding who was present at the lengthy Zapruder/Nix film analysis sessions convened by members of the Warren Commission staff (rather than reconstructive efforts in Dealey Plaza). There were, in total, seven such analytical film sessions, which occurred between January 27, 1964 and the last such session, held on the morning of Tuesday, April 21, 1964. Only Lyndal Shaneyfelt and James Malley were present at all seven sessions. Gauthier attended three of these sessions, Inspector Thomas Kelley four of these sessions, and John Joe Howlett was present for five of the sessions.

As I stated in an earlier response, I would be most greatful if you could enlighten me further regarding the specific FBI reconstruction that occurred in Dealey Plaza on February 7, 1964.

Regards,

Gary Murr

'Gary Murr' wrote:

[...]

The Zapruder frame count that is universally accepted and utilized by all those who study and refer to the film by frame number, the system that starts with frame 1, excluding the few personal scenes shot at the beginning of the roll by Abraham Zapruder, and ending with frame 486, was assigned to the film byFBI SA Lyndal Shaneyfelt on January 29, 1964.

dgh: January 29th .... hmm, considering NPIC testimony (taken by Doug Horne) states the NPIC guys who worked with the Z-frames (as they said late the 22nd, certainly that weekend), their working doc's of that weekend show the Z-frames clearly numbered and fps determined? Coincidence shows us Shaneyfelt used the same numbering sequence 9 weeks later? Fascinating....

This excercise on the part of Shaneyfelt was conducted as a result of a direct request by Norman Redlich of the Warren Commission staff. I do not know which specific FBI generated copy of the Zapruder film Shaneyfelt used; all I do know, to a certainty, is that the FBI produced more than two copies of the film for their own use from a first generation copy of the film supplied to them by the Secret Service the day after the assasination. I suspect that the copy Shaneyfelt utilized was the same one that he and a select group of Warren Commission staff members had studied both prior to the Redlich request and for months after the Redlich request.

dgh: again, how did those frame numbers show up on NPIC documents the weekend of the assassination? BTW, there were more copies floating around within 2 weeks of the assassination than Carter had little liver pills -- I suspect that's one of the reasons (amongst others) why the 6th floor museum is collecting what hasn't been destroyed over the years.

I will also indicate the following, and again I hate to be annoyingly repetative, but it is covered in great detail you-know-where- in my forthcoming book. Lyndal Shaneyfelt was NOT responsible for the "accepted" and universally utilized average Zapruder film run speed of 18.3 fps. His methodolgy applied in his study of the film arrived at an average that was close, but it was not 18.3 fps.

dgh: no one said he was responsible for determing the camera speed, however the FBI was responsible along with B&H in determining the gate assembly speed of the camera. He takes claim to *numbering* the Z-frames. Frankly, I hope your above is correct. you see January 29th 1964 would allow 9 weeks for film alteration... the audience for any alteration of the Z-film would be quite small, in fact the Warren Commission ONLY!

Likewise, Mr. Shaneyfelt was NOT the FBI Lab employee who originally examined the Zapruder film AND camera and, in essence, Shaneyfelt became the FBI "expert" on the Zapruder film strictly by accident for reasons that are explained, in detail,.... you know where.

dgh: I seriously doubt "by accident", in fact I find that nonsense...

One of the (fatal?) flaws prevalent in the research of those who see the hideous hand of the CIA in some sort of nefariously instantaneous plot to alter the film of Abraham Zapruder before the body of the slain President barely had a chance to grow cold is that they see the entire CIA Document 450-NPIC incident as a SINGULAR entity/occurrence over the weekend of the assassination. This simply is not true. As I am able to prove in my forthcoming work, the entire NPIC-CIA-SS-Zapruder film scenario was not one but three "separate" but related incidents that evolved not over days, or weeks, but months. I exchanged correspondence on this issue with Douglas Horne for, as a complete reading of all of his ARRB generated memoranda reveal, he suspected as much, but was unable to follow through to fruition on these same suspicions for a variety of reason's most of which were beyond his control. I also believe I have discovered who the mysteries agent/Zapruder film delivery boy "Smith" of the Secret Service was, but I will leave that for those who want to read more.

dgh: all sounds fascinating Gary -- unfortunately we have Shaneyfelt lying or we have the good folks at the NPIC lying, after all how could they be working with a Z-film, on the weekend of the assassination, with Z-frame numbers as we know them today -- Then we have this FBI guy (Shaneyfelt) who allegedly assigned numbers to the film frames (by your account) around Jan 29th, 1964 -- some 9 weeks later.... What is true, Gary? Shaneyfelt or the NPIC number the frames.... Doug Horne comment on that?

Oh, didn't Shaneyfelt do the initial Z-film recreation (for the FBI/SS) on Elm Street within weeks of the assassination? I believe he's (Shaneyfelt) pictured in the TSBD snipers window along with a rifle with a camera mounted on it.... Not bad for a regular ole FBI grunt! AND who Smith is is irrelevant to this thread. FWIW...

FWIW

Gary Murr

David:

The FBI was considerably involved in what is referred to as the SS assassination re-enactment and survey work of December 2, 3, & 4th, 1963.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/gauthier.htm

Mr. SPECTER. Would you state your full name for the record, please?

Mr. GAUTHIER. Leo J. Gauthier.

Mr. SPECTER. And by whom are you employed, sir?

Mr. GAUTHIER. The Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. SPECTER. And what is your rank with the Federal Bureau of Investigation?

Mr. GAUTHIER. Inspector. I am in charge of the Bureau's exhibit section, where we prepare investigative aids, consisting of diagrams, charts, maps, three-dimensional exhibits, in connection with the presentation of cases in court.

Mr. GAUTHIER. Our data to build this were compiled on December 2, 3, and 4. It took about 5 weeks to prepare this exhibit in Washington.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Survey Plat for this work of course being that survey plat which demonstrates the impact point of each of the three shots fired, with the Z313 location being the second shot, and the location at stationing 4+95/aka in front of James Altgens position being the third shot impact point.

Thusly, the FBI was highly involved in this work.

Then, on 2/7/64, the FBI "re-did" the survey work and assassination re-enactment. However, the third shot/Altgens impact point was still left in it's original location.

There is of course no "official" known record as to who from the FBI was advising on these, as few persons were even aware of the existence of such re-enactments and surveys.

As regards Shaneyfelt with the rifle at the window, (CE 887)

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol18_0050b.htm

This photograph was purportedly taken during the WC work of May 1964.

Personally, this photo was one of those which had "escaped" my attention until such time as Mr. West brought out that "no one could have accurately fired that rifle, the way that they had it jacked up".

Thus, I never took the time to get back to Mr. West to verify if this photo, CE887, was what he actually saw.

But, I would assume that it is when one looks at the photo and compares it with what Mr. West informed me.

(to be continued)

Hi Tom:

As you are well aware, I have the greatest respect for your work on the various reconstructions carried out in Dealey Plaza, and in particular your endeavours to contact and thus communicate with Robert West, among others. However, I am not aware of any documentation which directly supports direct FBI cooperation on the matter of the Secret Service reconstruction(s) conducted in Dealey Plaza during the first week of December, 1963. Yes, I understand the Leo J. Gauthier was in Dallas during that particular week, accompanied as he was by three members of his Exhibits Division staff. Gauthier actually left the area on December 4 while the members of his staff stayed behind for two more days to finish their work. The question posed of Specter to Gauthier in the quote you cited above refers, as far as I can tell, to the construction of the two scale models generated by the Bureau. As fas as I know, and you can correct me on this if I am wrong, the SS reconstructions of this week were just that, reconstructions carried out by the SS for the SS. I am not naive enough to believe that agents of these two agencies were not aware of the presence of each other in the area during the first week of December 1963, (indeed there exists documentation which indicates that at least SS - SA John J. Howlett was interviewed by members of the Dallas Field Office of the FBI on the matter of SS reconstruction) but surviving documentation generated by both parties in the aftermath of their visits to the area reflect to very different agenda's. However, perhaps Mr. West indicated directly to you that Gauthier and/or members of his Washington based staff directly sought out West and the SS for help with their project. I do not have the time herein to examine the documentation that was generated by the two agencies involved in the weeks after their December 1963 visit to Dealey Plaza, and heavan fobid that I refer to my forthcoming book, replete as it apparently is with untrustworthy investigation, on this subject matter. All I do know is that I, like you, know that both the FBI and SS position the fatal shot along Elm Street at a point that is totally incongruous to the eventual solution as proferred by members of the Warren Commission staff. However, as you are also aware, the FBI and SS agreed to disagree as to where specifically this impact occurred.

I am intigued by your revelation of an FBI survey conducted in Dealey Plaza on February 7, 1964, with the apparent aid of Robert West. I have to admit that I was not aware of the existence of this specific event, and plead ignorance of its contents. If you would care to enlighten me further, by private e-mail exchange, I would be greatful.

Regarding just who is posed with the rifle in the photograph discussed in this thread, I based my answer upon identification of the individual given to me by Harold Weisberg, someone who had to sit across the table from both Lyndal Shaneyfelt and Robert Frazier, and on more than once occasion, during his FOIA endeavours to gain the release of documentation generated by the Bureau on the assasination event.

Regards,

Gary Murr

Why should we trust ANYONE who is not observant enough to

spell Mr. HEALY's name as HEALEY? What confidence does that

give us that your other observations are accurate?

And what does it matter that you have a chapter of great length

about a certain subject? Accuracy, NOT LENGTH, is the objective.

And maybe you have quoted interviews correctly...but were

the people you interviewed telling the truth?

Duh.

Jack

Jack,

You say the dumbest things sometimes. Out of all Gary Murr said, you think it should not be trusted because he added one extra "e" to Healy's name. Why not heed the advice of Martin Luther King, Jr. when he said that a person should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin .... except replace the word 'character' with the word 'post' and 'not the color of their skin' with 'not because of a typo or the misspelling of Healy's name'.

Bill

I apologize for inadvertently spelling Mr. Healy's name incorrectily; it was not intentional. It is rather obvious, on the other hand, that Mr. Healy was never truly interested in an answer to the question he originally posed in the first place. And it is painfully obvious that he has not studied the entire record assembled by Douglas Horne (and others) and the CIA-NPIC analysis of the Zapruder film. Had he been he would realize that at no time did Mr. McMahon or Mr. Hunter indicate, to anyone, that they were responsible for the "working documents" that do contain the Zapruder film frame count under discussion. In truth they did indicate that this same documentation had been generated at a later point in time "for the Warren Commission" by "mensuration experts" employed elsewhere by NPIC. Mr. Hunter knew the name of at least one of these individuals but refused to reveal it to Mr. Horne for reasons that Doug Horne would be glad to reveal to Mr. Healy, should he, Mr. Healy, care to contact Mr. Horne. And it is even more obvious that Mr. Healy knows nothing about the history of the various reconstructions generated in Dealey Plaza after the assassination or he would not have written the following idiotic statement: "Oh, didn't Shaneyfelt do the initial Z-film recreation (for the FBI/SS) on Elm Street within weeks of the assassination? I believe he's (Shaneyfelt) pictured in the TSBD window along with a rifle with a camera mounted on it ..." The FBI never generated "the initial Z-film recreation...on Elm Street within weeks of the assassination." In fact the FBI never had any intention of generating a Zapruder film recreation in Deaey Plaza at any point in time after the assassination. The photograph of which I assume you are speaking was actually taken on May 24, 1964, some six months after the assassination, and the individual pictured "with a rifle with a camera mounted on it..." is SA Robert Frazier, not Lyndal Shaneyfelt. This particular reconstruction was done for the Warren Commission and involved the participation of members of the FBI, Secret Service, the Dallas police force, and the survey team of Mr. Robert West and some of his associates. The Warren Commission's "interests" at this same reconstruction were, in turn, protected by Arlen Specter, Norman Redlich, and J. Lee Rankin.

From my perspective this is the end of this discussion. After all, I would not want to clutter up this particular thread with anymore untrustworthy comments.

Gary Murr

perfectly fine Bill, I expect no less from you -- You're not the only Lone Nut xxxxx (hiding in CT respectability) that refuses to answer, if FACT, none in your camp CAN answer..... Keep pulling wool, Bill...

David, you should really consider the validity of the things you say and how others will perceive them if you don't wish to be seen as someone who consistently says things that have no basis or merit. In the 'Men who Bowers saw' thread you posted twice and both times you said things that were not even about the topic - one of them being you saying peek-a-boo to someone named Gary and the other response was just as senseless. These two ridiculous childish post of yours came in a thread where I have been repeatedly saying how a shot came from the fence, supported by the smoke seen by the witnesses. So what do you then say ... 'dah, Miller's a lone nutter, dah!' Tokyo Rose came closer to citing more facts than you do.

Now about the numbering problem you spoke about. I have discussed this with Gary Mack in the past and his analysis seems about the most sensible as any I have heard to date. Gary says that any researcher wanting factual documentation regarding the Zapruder film must read Richard Trask's book National Nightmare. The NPIC story appears on pages 298-304 where, using good source and reference material, it is obvious that the NPIC study was performed on one of the copies made in Dallas that first day, not on the original film. Furthermore, while the original NPIC examination may have occurred the weekend of the assassination, the charts were prepared or annotated on or after December 2nd as a result of a LIFE magazine article.

surely there's testimony then stating how and where, and when FBI Shaneyfelt numbered the frames, eh? What the 6th floor museum thinks is irrelevant. This ain't PR hon. If things are so obvious to YOU then a cite must be in the offing, was it the original Z-film, or a first generation dupe? If a dupe, then THAT kind of testimony just blows the SBT/LHO did it all by his lonesome right out of the Dallas Texas water, doesn't it!

Why are you Lone Nutter's so damn sloppy?

Gentlemen:

When I first saw Mr. Healey's original question, I was tempted to respond, having spent a considerable amount of time studying this particular subject matter in conjunction with a chapter in my forthcoming book that deals with the entire NPIC-CIA-SS-Zapruder film debate. I decided, however, to watch the thread unfold, if you will, to see if anyone else would offer up an answer to any of Mr. Healey's questions. Unfortunately that has not occurred and "personality" conflicts have become embedded within the thread itself. So be it. Nonetheless, I will indicate the following, in response to the original question posed by Mr. Healey, with the caveat that the entire matter is covered in a chapter I have in my book that runs to over 100 pages in length, and thus I will apologize, in advance, for the brevity of my response.

The Zapruder frame count that is universally accepted and utilized by all those who study and refer to the film by frame number, the system that starts with frame 1, excluding the few personal scenes shot at the beginning of the roll by Abraham Zapruder, and ending with frame 486, was assigned to the film byFBI SA Lyndal Shaneyfelt on January 29, 1964. This excercise on the part of Shaneyfelt was conducted as a result of a direct request by Norman Redlich of the Warren Commission staff. I do not know which specific FBI generated copy of the Zapruder film Shaneyfelt used; all I do know, to a certainty, is that the FBI produced more than two copies of the film for their own use from a first generation copy of the film supplied to them by the Secret Service the day after the assasination. I suspect that the copy Shaneyfelt utilized was the same one that he and a select group of Warren Commission staff members had studied both prior to the Redlich request and for months after the Redlich request. I will also indicate the following, and again I hate to be annoyingly repetative, but it is covered in great detail you-know-where- in my forthcoming book. Lyndal Shaneyfelt was NOT responsible for the "accepted" and universally utilized average Zapruder film run speed of 18.3 fps. His methodolgy applied in his study of the film arrived at an average that was close, but it was not 18.3 fps. Likewise, Mr. Shaneyfelt was NOT the FBI Lab employee who originally examined the Zapruder film AND camera and, in essence, Shaneyfelt became the FBI "expert" on the Zapruder film strictly by accident for reasons that are explained, in detail,.... you know where.

One of the (fatal?) flaws prevalent in the research of those who see the hideous hand of the CIA in some sort of nefariously instantaneous plot to alter the film of Abraham Zapruder before the body of the slain President barely had a chance to grow cold is that they see the entire CIA Document 450-NPIC incident as a SINGULAR entity/occurrence over the weekend of the assassination. This simply is not true. As I am able to prove in my forthcoming work, the entire NPIC-CIA-SS-Zapruder film scenario was not one but three "separate" but related incidents that evolved not over days, or weeks, but months. I exchanged correspondence on this issue with Douglas Horne for, as a complete reading of all of his ARRB generated memoranda reveal, he suspected as much, but was unable to follow through to fruition on these same suspicions for a variety of reason's most of which were beyond his control. I also believe I have discovered who the mysteries agent/Zapruder film delivery boy "Smith" of the Secret Service was, but I will leave that for those who want to read more.

FWIW

Gary Murr

We all know that per Dave Belin, if LHO already had that Coke in hand when Truly & Baker spotted him, he'd be an innocent man (not enough time to get it).

No, says Vincent, the fact that he had a Coke in hand, rather than his usual Dr. Pepper, is final proof that he shot JFK. You see, there was a functioning Dr Pepper machine on the first floor where he claimed he ate his lunch.

That Coke is more important to VB, you see, than the absurdity of the SBT!

Tim:

I guess then taking VB's methodology here and applying it elsewhere within the confines of the TSBD that Bonnie Ray Williams must have eaten his lunch on the 1st floor, not the sixth. After all, Mr. Williams theoretically left behind his Dr. Pepper bottle when finished!

Gary Murr

Bill,

It is to a Mr. Conrad and it is from R.H. Jevons.

James

Gee James, From 1:55 to 2:21 - that wasn't bad.

If it was a scavanger hunt you would have won.

Had to start a new card on those guys, you got a make on them?

BK

Gentlemen:

A minor point to be sure, but in truth Roy Jevons did not compose the memorandum in question. As examination of the stenographic notations in the bottom left hand corner indicates, the content of the memo was actually constructed by "JC" - SA Jay Cochran, night shift supervisor of the FBI lab. He dictated it to Miss Barabara Novotny, stenographer/secretary in the Physics and Chemistry section of the lab. Cochran shared office number 7410 with a number of fellow SA/lab employees, including Robert Frazier, Cortlandt Cunningham, and James Killion, to name but three. This practice [of a SA "underling" actually constructing a memorandum on behalf of a superior] was commonplace as examination of literally thousands of pages of FBI memoranda will reveal.

FWIW

Gary Murr

This is most interesting...

Notice the chalk area on the jacket of the stand-ins for JFK and JBC.

Now compare to the location of Specter's pointer...

vis:

Interesting...

Good point, Frank:

If you look closely at the first image John posted, as well as the close-up posted here by Frank, you will note a surveyor's "string" in the background that is angled down the window/. This string was "representative" of the angle devised earlier in the day (May 24, 1964) in Dealey Plaza as the SBT solution. I do not have all of the Shaneyfelt work notes in front of me at the moment, but I believe the gist of this particular "garage" rexonstruction was to make sure these two reconstruction trajectories "lined up," so to speak, to the wanted solution. Perhaps John Hunt can enlighten us further.

FWIW

Gary Murr

In my first reply to this thread I indicated that the surveryor's "string" is visible running in a downward angle on both the window and the wall. For some reason the "wall" portion of my description was dropped from the reply post. Sorry

Gary Murr

This is most interesting...

Notice the chalk area on the jacket of the stand-ins for JFK and JBC.

Now compare to the location of Specter's pointer...

vis:

Interesting...

Good point, Frank:

If you look closely at the first image John posted, as well as the close-up posted here by Frank, you will note a surveyor's "string" in the background that is angled down the window/. This string was "representative" of the angle devised earlier in the day (May 24, 1964) in Dealey Plaza as the SBT solution. I do not have all of the Shaneyfelt work notes in front of me at the moment, but I believe the gist of this particular "garage" rexonstruction was to make sure these two reconstruction trajectories "lined up," so to speak, to the wanted solution. Perhaps John Hunt can enlighten us further.

FWIW

Gary Murr

Two copies of the Time/Life survey plat data block.

The bottom/smaller copy shows the last part of Hardin's name and the last part of Breneman's name which is written in just to the left of the data block.

This says:

Drawn Paul D. Hardin

Instr. C. H. Breneman

Somewhere, are copies which clearly demonstrate the names. The original Time/Life Survey Plat is now in a frame to attempt to prevent further damage and I do not particulary want to have to take it out again.

Hi Tom:

Many thanks, once again, for the re-posting; it helps to clarify confusion [in my mind]regarding an exchange between LIFE and Hardin/West that occurred in November of 1966. I appreciate this and can sympathize with your concerted effort to preserve your copy of this document.

Gary

Gary;

Quite obviously, you have what would be considered "new information" as well.

And although I can certainly appreciate the work as well as the potential cost of developing additional information which may have relevance, I would also hope that it will be made publicly available in one form or another soon.

The answers to the JFK assassination are scattered throughout the manipulations of the evidence and witness's, and prior to my cease of oxygen consumption, I would like to see Specter & Company as well as all of those responsible for this sham exposed.

For years, I "guarded" my resevoir of heretofore unrevealed facts and information, as it was felt that "Stupid" people do not have the right to know.

However, old age ultilmately revealed that I had once fought for their rights to be as stupid and misguided as they want to be, as well.

If I can be of any assistance, let me know.

Tom

P.S. You can freely post absolutely factual information here with little difficulty, as there are only a few who may recognize it's worth and further it.

It's those who do not log on and are observed under the "anonymous" category who are looking for bread crumbs.

Personally, I waited until virtually all of them had totally committed themselves to the ignorance of "Multiple Assassins's" and "Body Snatchers".

Now, they would have to admit complete prior stupidity, were they to jump onto the factual bandwagon.

Tom:

If things work out according to plan, [yikes!!!] I hope to be in a position to "reveal" material that I hope will be of interest very soon. And while some may not like the form that will eventually emerge, my hope is that it will both enlighten, entertain, and help further the search for the truth of November 22, 1963. I think you will enjoy my treatment of Specter et al, but only time will tell.

Regards in research,

Gary