Frank Agbat

To my tired eyes it reads: As I recall, this description was of the individual in Helm's affidavit of 7 Aug Not Oswald!

Myra, I've always found the "Mafia Done It" scenario to be one that is fairly "safe" - at least in terms of playing the proverbial game of "survival." Fingering the mafia is a bit like the old saying, "if you steal from a thief, you can be certain he won't call the police." It stands apart from politics - neither "side" gets terribly offended. The mob is despicable, so lumping another reason to loath them is an easy pill for most to swallow. It certainly isn't a stretch to imagine them committing illegal activities... They don't offer any particular nationality, so blaming the mob won't start a diplomatic emergency (or worse)... Perhaps first and foremost, they're not the CIA or any other government agency. To go along with the ease of blame, there is credibility and believability to the various arguments that provide the mob means, motive, and opportunity. Thus, there is a way for someone like Mr. Blakey to "confront the new evidence of conspiracy" and not rock any boats... Blame the mob and call it a day... So you CAN have your cake and eat it, too...

Talk about confusion ! Wow ! Your series of video cartoon's , I suppose intended to confuse a person with a 3rd grade education is laughable at best . Which brings up the point of your education level ; if you ever passed the 6th grade , your not using the marbles god gave you . So , what's the real problem here ? Low self esteem ? Unable to admit to a failed world view ? Unable to come to grasp with an act of inexplicable violence , which goes on around us every minute of every day ? When you do come down to earth after soaring like a eagle , perhaps you'd like to talk turkey with Prof. Rahn who's 300 page Monograph Length Treatises blows your silly assumptions asunder : http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/scientific_to..._head_shot.html I don't think you'll do this because like most Con - Artists in ' The Great JFK Assassination Hoaxing ' business , you run faster from challenges like this then you talk . I invite you to prove me wrong .........Sincerely Tom Lowry PS : So where's the beef ? After studying this case for 25 years , I've yet to find one demonstrable thing wrong with the WCR , which stands as a bedrock of honesty and unlike your presentation , stands for the truth . If you honest with yourself , you'll remove this rubbish off the Internet , it serves no good , except to confuse people who like yourself are unqualified to pass judgment upon technical issues , that you've proven by your video , are quite beyond your grasp . Over on the McAdams forum, John McAdams defended Baden by claiming Baden obviously understood the photograph because he knew it was the forehead. This evades every aspect of the video. If Baden had studied the photo long enough to know it was the forehead, how come he presented it upside down, and how come his interpretation differed so much from Angel's interpretation? Nothing quite like a pan from the McCIAdams people to cement the fact that you've done well! Keep up the good work!

Ed, You wrote, "Either the film was 'doctored' or it was not, There is no middle ground ( "tertium non datur" ) , but apparently you think that there are two or more alternatives, not alone w.r.t to (2) , but you erroneously apply the self-same malarky above in the opening quote in responding to (1)" Strawman (but I appreciate the Latin). This is not what I said. I was referring to your YES/NO questions as being a false dilemma, because to THOSE questions, there are conditions that exist that could lead to a third (or more) answer... Consult: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma Also, you wrote: "The point being, that those who persist in rejecting the alterationist claims, have no grounds whatsoever for concluding that by so doing, it verifies the authenticity of the film, and that's it in a nutshell; nor can they prove that the fim is authentic (question # 2). All they can do is engage in tub-thumping rejectionist rhetoric and trotting out testimonials to the so-called 'experts'" Rejecting a claim does not *necessarily* lead to the opposite being true, with this I agree. However, there is a BIG difference between "rejection" and "questioning", a distinction which seems to have been missed.

Stephen, I have long believed that the "other Oswald(s)" showed up prior to the assassination for the purpose of building name recognition and leaving an impression on witnesses. Driving the car at 80mph shows at the very least, recklessness (and one could argue impulsive behavior). The phrase, "coming in to some money" indicates that an "event" is on the horizon (inheritance, new job, settlement, etc, etc.) There is no need to indicate *what* the event might be... just leave it to the imagination. I think these various events were all staged to be intentionally contradictory, but memorable. When the general public hears about all the various "Oswald" events, it merely adds confusion -- driving most people to get lost in the fog and conclude, "Yeah, this guy was a nut case." Why a car dealership? Who knows... Heck, there might have been another dozen or so "Oswald" events that went unreported. I postulate that there had to be *enough* "sightings" that some could be forgotten by "the masses (them asses)" and the fog would still remain. Apart from getting attention, I don't really see any motive for the car salesmen to concoct a story. Not to downplay the "15 minutes of fame" factor, but there isn't any other motivation that comes to mind.

A great quote, and quite accurate. Again, my statement that this is a false dilemma applies. You demand a yes/no answer to a question that may have more than two possibilities. (Aside - a common example of a false dilemma logical fallacy is the phrase "you're either with us or against us." In reality, there are shades of gray). I believe Robin expressed a similar sentiment in one of his replies. Now, if I were to offer my answer to question #1 (ignoring the requirement for a yes/no answer) I would respond: "My current understanding of the provenance of the film, as well as widely-accepted body of scientific knowledge indicates that alteration is unlikely, at least within the detection capabilities of today's technology." I'd like to think that this qualifies for an open-minded position, as I've certainly not closed any doors or avenues of discussion. I think the test that would interest me the most would be to attempt to do precisely what Jack White postulated... Take a roll of split-16, blow it up to a series of 8x10's, and let a good airbrush artist go to town on it, and then re-film on to Kodachrome using a B&H Movie Camera.

Ed, Your questions create a logical fallacy in several ways. First, you have created a false dilemma by forcing only a yes/no answer when there are obviously alternatives. Secondly, you are shifting the burden of proof, incorrectly, away from the claimant. In essence, the logic goes like: "I believe the z-film was altered. Prove to me that it wasn't." This not only incorrectly shifts the burden of proof, but also requires proving a negative. It is, obviously, perfectly acceptable to call any given theory into question. However, when calling into question a theory that has by in large been accepted, the burden of proof falls squarely on the claimant.

I don't think the real issue here is the capability to alter the film, per se. We've been doctoring photographs (and film) since the early days of the science/art. It is a certainty that films, in 1963, could be altered. The REAL questions, IMO, are: 1) Did ample opportunity exist to alter not only the Z-film, but all the other films and stills? 2) Did the capability exist in 1963 to make alterations that remain undetectable in 2006?

Peter, I think you make some good points. The Cuban population in Florida has most certainly been politically parlayed for the past 40+ years. It does seem, also, that one cannot discuss the JFK assassination without "Cubans" entering the discussion somewhere, somehow. While I agree with the "demon" concept you brought forth, it just strikes me that "dirty laundry" *has* to be at the forefront of the ongoing policy. Considering all the despicable regimes that America has proverbially climbed into bed with, that laundry must be "some kinda dirty!"

For starters, you should consider reading some books on the subject... For starters, I'd recommend "Breach of Trust" by Gerald McKnight. This will help give perspective on what the Warren Commission was really chartered to do. I'll give you a hint, though. It wasn't to "solve the case." But now, some questions for you: There have been two government "investigations" into the JFK. One said LHO acted alone, a second one indicated that LHO was involved, but there was substantial evidence of conspiracy. Which one got it right? Both? Neither? Secondly, if you've got it all figured out, why are you here?

Richard, If you want your points to be discussed rather than ignored, try losing the caps lock key and tone down on the punctuation. One exclamation point is plenty.

I've had this on my mind for quite a while, and whether or not it is related to the JFK assassination I do not know... Nevertheless, if one looks at the various nations that have come in and out of "favor" with the United States' since the end of WWII, there are only two that I can think of (off the top of my head) that have held a consistent position: North Korea and Cuba. On the surface, the situation in North Korea seems fairly straightforward. I'm sure it isn't, and I don't want to derail this thread with an NK discussion. Cuba, on the other hand, puzzles me. Why, after all these years, does the US continue with a cold-war-era policy toward Cuba? Cuba isn't a Soviet puppet or military base -- the Soviet Union is gone. The USA can't claim too much in the way of "human rights violations" as we have granted "most favored nation status" for trade with China (a nation with an incredibly dubious record with respect to the treatment of its citizens). The USA gets all sorts of cheap labor and goods from sweatshops in China, but these things must be shipped across the Pacific at tremendous cost and delay. Healthy trade with Cuba would help both American businesses AND the people of Cuba tremendously. It seems to me that normalizing relations and trade with Cuba is probably long overdue. Why is is that the US Government continues the policies from 40+ years ago? Just what is the big deal with Cuba?

The more I look at this, the more oddities I see. The "d" in Hidell appears to be crossed, like a "t". Perhaps it is a hastily dotted "i" (which for a fast writer, can turn into a dash). The "Drittal" line, however, is even more troubling. I can see it as "J." more than "D." at the start of the line, with an outside shot at "O." However, I don't see "F." as the second initial. Perhaps it is "Fr." Or even "Fri."? As in J. Fr. Drittal... "Drittal" itself is odd, too. "Drittol", "Grittol" (The space between the vowel and the "l" at the end is large - perhaps there is a letter between -- as in Drittaul). The PO box number looks obviously tampered to me... 2415, 2915 (edit) I had someone who is not familiar with the case look at the PO Box line, and she thought it could also bee 2815...

John, I agree -- the "A.J. Hidell" is notably sloppy, and probably is covering an L.H. Oswald underneath. I don't believe that the "O" in Oswald was lowercase, however. I think he descended slightly below the line with the capital O, and the "H" in Hidell is larger than most of his other capital letters to compensate for it. I'd also venture that the pen he used wasn't writing very well, as a portion of the capital "O" in "Oswald" appears to have not come out very well. It also looks like he might have gone over his letters twice when writing "Hidell". Nevertheless, I agree that it is quite possible that this is an overwrite. Good catch... Now... to understand what it all means??

Perhaps it is fatigue or just plain tired eyes... When I looked at the picture of Hal Feeney, the first thing I thought was, "Maurice Bishop."

Perhaps LHO ordered something, and the order form was used as a shipping label?

Another thing that has been totally consistent with these shows is they invariably start with the predetermined conclusion and work backwards. These shows are not only shams, but are scientifically weak. They set out to prove that the SBT is possible. No matter what, showing that a given event is possible does not prove that it occurred. What is most notable to me is that we NEVER see these 'high profile' shows and networks bringing their dummies, their 3d models, their animations, and their lasers into focus on alternate theories. Has anyone ever seen a serious modeling of a GK shooter, a South Knoll shooter, a post Z-313 third shot, etc? Nope. What we see on TV are various "let's see how the SBT really worked" shams. However, we all know what would happen if one of these shows actually attempted such a task... The results would call into doubt any number of tenets of the official theory. This, obviously, cannot be allowed and would never see the airwaves.

So which Z-frame generally matches Station #4+96?

Thomas, I agree that the sniper's nest *did* offer a straighter shot than many people realize. I have no doubt that I could make a killing shot from this location, given, of course, a reasonably competent weapon and the appropriate amount of time. In your opinion, had the seating arrangements been reversed -- that is to say, Jackie and JFK switching sides -- would the shot opportunities have remained the same?

John, I think you're spot on. We need to research the materials side of things a bit more. I can certainly look into it, but I'm not a materials expert. However, I do know several people who are, and perhaps I can impose upon them for a quick tutorial...

John, I wonder if the trajectory-plotting program you have would again prove useful here. Perhaps for initial considerations you could place the barrel at the curb and find the minimum muzzle velocity necessary for a fragment to travel approximately 20.61 feet. Just a thought... But let's look at the 0.1J/mm^2. A Joule is one kg m^2 / s^2 (aka 1 Nm). So if we had a 3g object flying at 100 fps smacking poor James Tague in the face... let's see... 3g = 0.003kg 100fps = 30.48 m/s KE = 1/2 mv^2 => .003(929)/2 = 1.39J Which might, or might not be enough.. We're back to not knowing the shape or the orientation of what struck Mr. Tague... And herein lies the difficulty. Knives cut because they have a small contact area with the skin (fractions of a square millimeter), and if the alleged curb slice happened to be "sharp" the velocity required to cut might not be high at all...

William, I'm reasonably certain that the predominant "fork of the tree" is not what cast the shadow. It is in the wrong place *and* in the wrong orientation. Additionally, I'm beginning to have some questions about the density (darkness) of the shadows underneath the "tree with the fork" as compared with other objects in the photograph. Now, that said, it may be legitimately explained as a side-effect of halftoning the image (as we are looking at a scan of a printed copy). Likewise, it could have something to do with the nature of the film involved. However, to be completely honest, this area of the photo strikes me simply as "too dark" and "damned irregular." The swath of "shadow" seems too dark, and isn't going the right direction. I'll need to study this more...

Thomas, I've heard various people theorize about the presence of several folks wearing hardhats; specifically, that there was construction in the general area of DP, and people wearing hardhats were not to be unexpected. However, it does seem that the overall effect of what you're telling us here is that it leads to the impression that Altgens was closer to the Limo than he really was... Thus his position can be made to look like he was describing Z313 rather than a later frame. Thus when Altgens describes a shot that occurred "near his position" it looks like he is describing Z313 and not Z348, some 30 feet of so down the road... Now -- to eliminate some other problems, all you need to do is remove the near-stop condition of the limo and any specific shot evidence around Z348 or so... This could *easily* be done with 1963 technology by simple frame decimation... FYI -- I proved this to my own satisfaction by removing Z313 and viewing the altered z-film. The removal of a single frame here or there is virtually undetectable. Now, that said, I'm not an expert on the provenance of the z-film, et al, and I'm NOT going to get into a discussion about alteration. Additionally, this experiment also showed me that Z's camera could have *easily* missed rear ejecta if the 313 shot were actually from the front... However... back to the topic at hand... WHY is it necessary to perform these various slights of hand, especially if it strengthens the single rifle/single-assassin theory?

Hi John, Correct -- a perfectly elastic collision DOES show conservation of Kinetic Energy. I wasn't necessarily theorizing on a perfectly elastic collision, but a simplified one dimensional collision. My whole point was that just because the velocity of the bullet fragment may have been 257 fps, this doesn't necessarily limit a curb chip's velocity to 257fps or below... this is due to conservation of momentum. I still think you're on to something here --- I was just bringing up some possible counter points to consider.

Hi John, Sorry for not replying to this sooner -- I had some chores to take care of. I'm specifically saying that Kinetic Energy is not conserved. While Energy *is* conserved, KE is often not, as some is frequently lost in heat, sound, and various difficult-to-measure internal energy losses. I'm talking about the conservation of momentum, which holds for both elastic and inelastic collisions. You are absolutely correct to point out that momentum is a vector quantity. Looking at a simple unidimensional model, conservation of momentum can be stated as: m1v1 = m2v2 (m1 and v1 are mass and velocity of object #1, while m2 and v2 are the mass and velocity of object #2.) So, if we know m1, v1, and m2, we can solve for v2. v2 = (m1v1 / m2) or, to re-write: v2 = v1(m1/m2) I was mentioning the case where m2 is lower than m1. In this case, the m1/m2 fraction is > 1.0, and the result is that v2 ends up greater than v1. ----- So, in terms of the Tague scenario, it is possible that whatever struck Tague was very small (and possibly sharp) and moving very quickly, even though the maximum velocity of the lead curb strike was "only" 257 fps. I put only in quotes, because it is only slow relative to the original muzzle velocity considered in the scenario. 257 fps is still moving at a pretty good clip (~175 miles per hour). I'm theorizing (as devil's advocate) that any of the following *could* have occurred: a) the bullet fragment "splatted" itself, sending a small, but fast moving shard of itself across Mr. Tague's cheek, creating a cut. the fragment impacted the curb, fragmenting a small portion of curb which cut Mr. Tague's cheek. The remaining portion of the fragment "bounced" off the curb, and is probably still out there somewhere c) the curb hit, etc, are unrelated to projectiles, etc, and Tague was wounded in some other way d) something completely different!