John Dolva

In my dealings with Holt (a couple of letters and a phone call), I found him to be a rather charming con man. 1960s photos of Holt are dissimilar to the tramp photos. Jim spent several days with Holt and believed his story. My dealings with other "retired" agency people leads me to believe that nobody ever retires from the company. In the attached New Orleans photo, Holt identified himself as being the little guy in dark glasses at right, who plainly does not look like the tramp. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I am wondering if members agree that maybe something is not right re this photo of Lee. If a photo known to be Lee is resized so that the eyes are spaced the same, and other facial proportions are confirmed as the same in both photos, then the size of the head that the face appears on is different. On the other hand, if one makes the distance from shoulders to top of head the same , then the top of head to tip of chin is correct, but the facial proportions are significantly different. The pixelation also is different over the face area, as if the resolution of two merged images was different. Also to my eye the orientation or aspect of the face seems to not be as I would expect it to be if the face was turned as it is. It seems to be obvious to me so has this been noted/dealt with before? Perhaps I'm seeing it all wrong? Please check. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yup, perhaps I am seeing it wrong. Thomas in another thread posted an image which makes me think it's possible that what I am taking as a chin may be the part where the throat rises up to the chinline above the adamas apple.

In my dealings with Holt (a couple of letters and a phone call), I found him to be a rather charming con man. 1960s photos of Holt are dissimilar to the tramp photos. Jim spent several days with Holt and believed his story. My dealings with other "retired" agency people leads me to believe that nobody ever retires from the company. In the attached New Orleans photo, Holt identified himself as being the little guy in dark glasses at right, who plainly does not look like the tramp. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I am wondering if members agree that maybe something is not right re this photo of Lee. If a photo known to be Lee is resized so that the eyes are spaced the same, and other facial proportions are confirmed as the same in both photos, then the size of the head that the face appears on is different. On the other hand, if one makes the distance from shoulders to top of head the same , then the top of head to tip of chin is correct, but the facial proportions are significantly different. The pixelation also is different over the face area, as if the resolution of two merged images was different. Also to my eye the orientation or aspect of the face seems to not be as I would expect it to be if the face was turned as it is. It seems to be obvious to me so has this been noted/dealt with before? Perhaps I'm seeing it all wrong? Please check.

I thing that Gerry choosing to be here is a fortunate thing. I get the impression that he is willing to share information. Like all humans he doesn't accept personal attack. I think if one has a problem with takes on events and data it's more constructive to couch it in those terms. To create unpleasant personalised atmospheres is anti truth. (As an aside, I think Tim to his credit has weathered some pretty discouraging times and hope he continues with his input. I reserve the right to differ on things with everyone and assume the same rights to everyone.) My attitude re disinfo. It exists. It'd be wonderful if it didn't. It's existence is info in itself. Learn to recognise, decode and use it for what it is. In saying that I am not naming ANYONE. I'm just speaking as an independent skeptic. The only person that I am not skeptical of is Jesus...ah hang on...my 8 year old daughter is pretty neat too.

Nic, If I had an oportunity to speak to Marina, I would try to think of questions that might give me an answer to what she meant when she said that Oswald abused her. Depending on life experience one person might think harsh words to be abuse, another might reserve it for severe sexual attacks. As I'm trying to understand Oswald I find this to be a unexplored area. Perhaps it's an 'unmentionable' where one is left to assume what she means. Perhaps coming from another culture she means something in a different way to say USA '63?

Yes, either that or along a contour to stop it from rolling. Is that a second bike lying down next to sign?

just logging a useful reference, http://www.dfwmaps.com feartures available : contours to 2 feet, aerial, online distance calculations to 0.1 foot etc...

Boy oh boy, the girl turns out to be a boy, could this be a sign that John has changed sides, working now for the disinfo-league George <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry for the delay in answering. My internet connection has been down for a couple of days. The girl is indeed 500 years old. Three Inca children, two girls and a boy aged between 6 and 15, were left to die at the top of Llullaillaco, a mountain in the Andes in the early part of the 15th century. Apparently this was part of some human sacrifice ritual. The bodies were found during a recent expedition on the 22,000-foot (6,700m) mountain. A combination of high altitude, low oxygen, humidity levels, zero-degree temperatures has enabled the bodies to be perfectly preserved. According to my source the body is of a girl. However, the newspaper where it came from has been a long time member of Operation Mockingbird. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> translated by http://ets.freetranslation.com/ from University of Chile site. (Interestingly Doctor Mario Castro's surname is translated both as 'Fort' and 'I neuter') http://www.med.uchile.cl/noticias/archivo/...bril/plomo.html Mummy Boy from the Hill the Leads Boy from Hill the Leads gave positive doping Mummy Boy from the Hill the Leads Over 500 years ago a group of Inca rose since the Plaza Baquedano to the Hill The Leads, located to 5.400 meters of height. In this feat of the climbing participated a boy of eight years, beautifully dressed, who would be sacrificed to the God during the solsticio of summer. The small one was found by a group of arrieros in 1954 al interior of an artificial rocky formation established in the summit, where had been left by their companions next to some silver figurines that conformed their trousseau. The smaller one lay on fetal position and in excellent conditions of conservation. The National Museum of Natural History was transformed into custodian of this hereditary piece, preserving it and doing some radiological studies and parasitológicos in 1954 in which they participated two educators of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Chile, the doctors Thulium Pizzi and Hugo Schenone. Subsequently, in 1982, an axial tomography was done computed of the prince from the Hill The Leads and the wounds were analyzed verrugosas of the smaller one, caused by the virus wart. In these analysis also participated educators of the House of Beautiful. To continue with this tradition of institutional cooperation, at the end of 2002 the Clinical Hospital of the University of Chile put at the disposal of the museum its new Center of Imagenología for develop a project that to permit to complete the investigations initiated in 1982, utilizing for it technology of tip. September 7, 2003 was carried out in the hospital an integral study and interdisciplinario of the boy, where also they participated professionals of the faculties of Medicine and Pharmaceutical and Chemical Sciences. By means of a magnetic nuclear resonance of complete body and a scanner, could be analyzed the state of conservation of the internal weavings of the smaller one. Likewise, they were done biopsies of liver, muscle and bone. Also samples of hair for drug analysis were taken that corroborated that the boy had consumed, perhaps by a long period, leaf of coke. "We could verify the good state of health of the boy, with nuclei of growth developing rapidly and lack of illnesses or alterations. Did neither there were signs of violence. It was a smaller physically active one, of good muscular development and normal texture, that passed away for a hypothermia", indicated the professor Mario I Neuter, educator of the Faculty of Medicine. The investigator added that since they could recover the DNA mitocondrial of the boy they expect to compare these results with the DNA of other mummies of similar characteristics. "All the studies will be published in a book that will commemorate the 50 years of the discovery of the prince from the Hill The Leads", explained the doctor Fort.

Jim, possibly again a multilayered opportunistic one. Lee, as stated in my suggested scenario. The KGB choosing to use Lees departure as an opportunity to seed a double agent. Many of these schemes were happening and perhaps 11/22 events provided an opportunity to bring this particular one to fruition. Prior to the assassination perhaps an intent was to use a future Oswald move into the Cuba theatre as a reason to come running with arms full of Oswald info? One thing I have difficulties with, as anyone who might have read the stuff I've discussed on Oswald might know, is just how much of a loose cannon he was, particularly now with a family. Very unpredictable person to try to build an important intelligence operation around. He certainly didn;t heve round the clock body guards? Much more likely, in my mind, to see events around him as agencies/interests opportunistically, after the fact, using him. Some questions with regards to McCloy that need answering are: When was McCloys travel to Geneva decided and when was it announced? Was it reasonable for McCloy to expect to have access to Nosenko? Where was Angleton? My reading of the Orchid analogy is that it came about as a result of Epstein trying to find out what Nosenko knew. Angleton in response pointedly separated Oswald and Nosenko. If one assumes that the two are connected then it can be read one way. If one assumes not, it can be read differently. Possibly this could put Angleton (and the CIA?) out of the loop. Anyway, it seems there are many ways to read these events. I'd be very interested to see how you read them Jim. (as an aside, offhand , Jim would you know what McNamara was doing while McCloy was in Geneva?)

Hi Ron, My hunch is that this man in the light-colored raincoat crossing Elm is David Atlee Phillips. Whoever it is, he certainly does look like a spook, doesn't he? He seems to be trying to look relaxed by nonchalantly "whistling a tune" as he strolls across the street with both hands in his pockets. FWIW, I think the oldest of the three "tramps" was probably E. Howard Hunt or perhaps Chauncey Holt. Thomas <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If one takes an arm off another in the crowds and uses it to guesstimate the hand in pocket it may be, as he doesnt look altogether glad, he may have a gun in his pocket?

searching as per above links A 8-9 yo boy buried alive 500 years ago. Probably son of local chief. "In 1954, archeologists discovered a 500-year-old frozen boy on the peak of El Plomo mountain in the Andes. Suddenly, the accounts of the Spaniards were accompanied by physical evidence, lending credence to the previously discounted theory. Perfectly preserved, the body was found with many artifacts, including jewellery, textiles, a gold llama, and a silver figurine. The seven-year-old sacrifice had frozen to death, dying in his sleep in the cold of El Plomo." "Scientists believe that the children were selected for their physical perfection. Perhaps beauty was important because the Incans believed that the child became an emissary to the deities, particularly the Sun God, Inti. One theory scientists have is that the deified child was supposed to appease the gods and assure rain, plentiful harvests, and protection for the Incan people. Another theory states that the child was chosen because they were the son or daughter of local chieftains. Capacocha established a close link between the Emperor of the Incans, who was considered a relative of the sungod, and the local leader. A third idea is that capacocha occurred during auspicious events, such as droughts, eclipses, or the death of an Incan Emperor. Maybe the child was meant to be an escort for the Emperor on his journey to the afterworld."

A chance encounter? _____________________________ In this thread I'm trying to draw on known events with a minimum of elaborate assumptions to prop the thoughts up. But with a different interpretation of said events, I think that by separating Lee from the assassination and instead viewing him as a parallel event that intersected in Dallas with the conspirators, a lot of things makes more sense. _____________________________ Kennedy is already being targeted. If not Chicago, then Miami. If not Miami, then Dallas. If not Dallas, then... * The plan in Dallas is for a hit in Dealey Plaza, just before the speech at the Trade Mart to the DCC mambers where Kennedy planned to talk tough on communism. _____________________________ Lee meanwhile has a life entirely separate from all this. _____________________________ If one combines Lees and Marinas testimonies and assume that they are largely correct. Lee is an 'independent Marxist' with a loose CIA-FBI connection as a result of events rather than the events being a product of such an involvement. He went to the USSR while back in the USA events with regards to Cuba were unfolding. He finds the USSR boring and restrictive. However, he manages to inspire a young soviet woman to go back home with him. Lee probably sees himself as a bit of an adventurer. His adolescent hero is probably something like that of the media portrayal of Morgan. In the New Orleans Radio interviews he incurred the wrath of parties interested in restoring Cuba to pre-Castro dictatorship purely for economic reasons. This coincides with anti-Kennedy sentiments. Lee wants to go adventuring in Cuba. He needs to establish credibility within the Castro crowd. He takes a pot shot at Walker, He makes speeches, attempts to join organisations, he poses for some limited circulation publicity shots. (here the question is not one of fakery but of who in 'the loop' saw them). Meanwhile, of course he has a family to support and a life to live. In preparation for a time in Cuba, he distances himself from Marina and the girls so that he can see them being taken care of without him being around. Thinking all was proceeding according to plan, getting a job at the TSBD was just a job. _____________________________________ Here the two threads start to intersect. _____________________________________ Lee is already known and marked by the anti Castro crowd. The plan is adjusted for Lee to be the patsy. Two birds with one stone. He gets an inkling of what is on the move when in the lunch room. He knows he didn't do it and is relying on witnesses to back him on that. However, he has his own plans for the future and don't want them tainted by this new development. So he walks away. He is followed. He suspects this may be the case. His movements are those of someone seeking to shake a tail. To ensure an officially sanctioned killing of Lee, he is followed, and Tippit is shot, the shooter/s figuring that a cop killer gets shot at first; asked questions later. However, they underestimate Lee. He momentarily retreats to the theater where he considers how to deal with this startling turn of events. They 'hate' him and what people like him are. So they are blind to the fact that he is a loose cannon with a subtle streetsmart. He is not surprised when the police turn up. He probably figures that the safest place is in custody. It gives him a chance to speak. His prime concern is to set up the platform re representation. He seeks out previously unused avenues to the intelligence community. However, again, as with so many things in his life he is out of his depth. He is marked for elimination no matter what. But, before he is silenced he has managed to seed doubt with regards to his involvement. He was not to be intimidated. He didn't go on the defensive and make a fool of himself. He took it in his stride and went on the attack. ______________________________________ He was silenced. Now the task of covering up could no longer rely on pre-assassination plans. It becomes an intially desperate tying up of loose ends. Further murders and intimidations. Seeding of mis-information et.c. which leaves us where we are today. The agencies realise during the investigation that they could look bad, so to protect future ops their involvement in a coverup overlaps with the conspirators. Possibly the conspirators are counting on this to further muddy the waters. _____________________________________ Conspirators: Walker & co? Lees pro-Castro persona marks him. The pot shot at Walker seals his fate. His self reliance and lack of a proper big picture perspective makes him vulnerable to manipulation. He was already engaged on a path outside society that necessarily predisposed him towards deceit. The conspirators merely adopted and used him in their own much more organised and 'powerful' purposes. ____________________________________ Lee : the Accidental Patsy. ____________________________________ I like this way of looking at things. It simplifies the picture and doesn't rely on intricate scenarios which are so dependent on everything fitting together. *(Are there any death threats against Kennedy for the time following Dallas?. What was the very last death threat against Kennedy? Where was Kennedy supposed to go next? If there was official involvement could a sketchy future itinerary indicate this? Was the plans for the coming 2 months as detailed as the plans two months before the assassination?) EDIT:: # What I am getting at here is : If one was to study the formulation of Kennedy's itinerary over several months right up to 12.45 on the 22 november 1963 is it possible to see a pattern. One would expect that right up to the moment of his death being known that everything was preceding as normal, as if the 23rd would deal with a President alive, and so on. Therefore to look for is anything unusual in the diaries, itineraries, plans of anyone involved that reveals an expectation that Kennedy would not be around. This would apply re plans etc of anyone outside of the Government, even something as ridiculous as a cancelled subscription, a postponed purchase, a cancelled milk delivery, an altered meeting agenda. A delayed newspaper advertisement. Did anything 'pause', as if in anticipation?

This is an interesting question Adam. The answer for me is simple. but how to really explain to someone who doesn't believe? I op in a christian channel and am often asked just that question. I'm sure there are better or more sophisticated answers but mine goes something like this. God's realm or kingdom is not material. The senses we use to understand the material world can't be used to understand the world of god. If we don't believe in god then there is no god. If we choose to believe in god then instantly he reveals himself. And bingo, there's the proof. How does a rational person choose to believe in something that doesn't exist? One way is to wait attentively. Go on with everyday life, remain rational. But listen.... While waiting, contemplate what god might be if you DID choose to believe. Obviously a god to choose to believe in would not be bad. this god would be wise, or to use some terminology : omniscient , omnipresent and omnipotent. To me this god would also be into freedom not prejudice, and into forgiveness and righteousness. 'there is no shadow to gods turning' ie when he responds to you asking for attention and god turns to you, god doesn't turn away from me. In other words, a power so awesome that nobody on earth could ever hope to come close to being the same. A pretty good god to believe in, trust in. As gods realm is in the spirit, and in choosing to believe that, one is then translated into gods kingdom, and the material world reveals itself for what it is : changing, in a continual flux, cause and effect on and on and on. In no longer attaching self to this flux, a balance is approached, imbalances resolved, healing. God has proven his existence, because you choose to see.

John, I am wondering why you would ask re photographic analysis. So assuming that there is something to be had from analyzing it in a serious way I can't at this resolution come up with much. The wrap appears to be leather texture. There may be a mouth piece from something like a bugle and a couple of tassels. It's possible that the person marking something in the background has a non caucasian face shape. So is the lab in say Lima? The nose of the person appears pushed out of shape. The forearm width is less than the wrist width of the 'doctor' unwrapping. If it's a european manufactured piece of brass (plate?) then if it was from very early in invasion it would be considered very valuable perhaps. Later perhaps more common? The tasslels appear to be fine. Military? Without better resolution perhaps 150 to 400 years? At death? and sex? Jack is of course correct. Prerhaps the decoration would indicate son of chief? Teens?

While not anexpert on anything here's a guess. John, given that she looks asleep and young and that you ask the question. She is a native of somewhere. Mayan? Indian?. She has clean neat clothing hence not disaster victim, yet unprepped for surgery she is surrounded by masked 'doctors' in an apparently sterile environment. Some of these 'doctors' are focused elsewhere, hence likely not emergency. She is sitting up yet apparently not aewake and not in pain. I wouldn't be surprised if she is a remarkably well preserved few hundred? Though I would have expected more desiccation.

Sorry Stephen. That one doesn't even qualify for Clan MacGregor. I searched again - can't find that bicycle anywhere else in any other photo or film. I had heard that a photo was taken of the bicycle in question with the rider. This was allegedly published in Dallas in the 1964 timeframe. I can't find the book or the photo. - lee <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Lee, one place I thought of looking was the other side of the triple underpass I remember seeing one with some schoolage children as the limo was racing up the street

hmmm this problem re double posts seems to have surfaced agian lately...so I'll take advantage of it and post the image meant to go with the above post.

_______________________________________ I was in two minds whether to post this or not..but I read these topics through and could find no real evidence referred to, only one assumption on top of another. This is not to discount though, that it does have a certain simplicity to it that makes sense. In a rather jocular manner here are some questions... Let me see if I got this right...and as far as I understand it this is merely a hypothesis constructed to explain some things? The CIA plans a fake assassination of JFK. Was this 'rogue elements' within the CIA that planned this fake assassination or was it the whole of the CIA? 'Rogue elements' hijack this game plan and uses it as the base for a real attempt. This attempt is successful. (does this mean the CIA attempt was not carried out or was carried out? if carried out, was this fake assassination carried out from the 'snipers nest'? ok...my turn, outta the way quick..he's getting away......? if it wasn't carried out..why not?) The CIA now becomes concerned with hiding their game plan and therefore aids the coverup? Is this all of the CIA or 'rogue elements' again? is it suggested perhaps that these 'rogue elements' who planned the fake assassination cover up the 'rogue elements' real assassination and were in turn aided in this coverup by the 'real' CIA or just 'rogues'?? If nothing else, certainly creative. Obviously I'm skeptical...but then one often hears complaints of law enforcement bodies : "surely they have more important things to do?". I may have missed something, but is there any proof? this might jog some memories...(or at least tickle the odd funny bone) __________________________________________ anyway.. Joking aside. IS there any evidence for this interesting scenario, which really isn't as far fetched as some.

Nic, don't you think that he and others in the Kennedy family and their intimates DO think about that a lot? I think it is interesting that the 'think tank' produce vic-a-vis 'environmental' (read : pro-industry irrespective of environmental effect except insofar as circumventing protest) policy that Bobbie Jr. is attacking quite vigorously in this speech are spawns of the JBS and allied think tanks. For some time now these elements have been guiding conservative thought on enviromental issues. It could be argued that this speech IS a declaration of his thinking in the Kennedy issue. That remains to be seen. If so, I don't envy him. But, given what his Family have gone through, I suspect he's approaching these issues 'eyes wide open'. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Obviously they think about it, but I'm not sure how many of them today believe in a conspiracy, or - given the fact they're married with children, would speak out if they did. Considering the many ways in which people have shut Kennedys up, Bobby Jr. of all people, would probably rather turn a blind eye for his safety & the safety of his family. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I dunno, Nic. Seems to me the speech is full about talk of conspiracy. And he pulls no punches when it comes to naming those responsible. I think that in discussing the great presidents, Kennedy's name resounds the loudest simply because he jumps to Lincoln where one might expect him to name Kennedy. Instead he quotes Lincoln saying during the height of the Civil War "I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country I fear the bankers more." The heading of the speech is "We must take America back" In the first paragraph he talks about early poignant memories. then... "This is the worst environmental president we’ve had in American history." "...the past four years as part of a deliberate concerted effort to eviscerate 30 years of environmental law" "It’s a stealth attack." "The White House has used all kinds of ingenious machinations to try to conceal..." "But most insidiously, they have..." "...teaching corporate polluters how to evade..." "put a lobbyist of the American Petroleum Institute whose only job was to read all of the science from all the different federal agencies to make sure they didn’t say anything critical, to excise any critical statements." "He was there to lie to the American public " "to subvert the very laws they’re now charged with enforcing in order to enrich the president’s corporate pay masters." "we have a negligent and indolent media...there is no such thing as a liberal media in the United States of America" "there is a huge informational deficit in the red states" "This is the subversion of our democracy." then towards the end of the speech: " And you know, as I said, you look at all the great political leaders in this country and the central theme is that we have to be cautious about, we have to avoid the domination of our government by corporate power. Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth who would erode them from within. Dwight Eisenhower, another republican in his most famous speech ever warned America against the domination by the military industrial complex. Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history, said during the height of the Civil War "I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country I fear the bankers more." Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is "the essence of Fascism" and Benito Mussolini who had an insider’s view of that process said the same thing. Essentially he said that - he complained that Fascism should not be called Fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state of corporate power. And we what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called Communism. The domination of government by business is called Fascism." shades of Costner? "I look at this White House and I ask myself - and this may be unfair - but I ask myself a lot of times, how did they get so many draft dodgers in one place? You know, the president, Dick Cheney five deferments; John Ashcroft, six deferments. Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Tom DeLay, all of their buddies. Dennis Hassert, Rush Limbaugh, well, you know, there are a lot of people who dodged the draft during the Vietnam War and I know a lot of them. Most of them did it because they had moral qualms about that war. But not these people. These people love the war; they just wanted somebody else to fight it. And it occurs to me that the reason for that is that these are people who don’t understand the values that makes America worth fighting for. But America is worth fighting for and it’s worth dying for. Those of us who know that it’s worth fighting for have to take it back now from those who don’t. Thank you very much."

Nic, don't you think that he and others in the Kennedy family and their intimates DO think about that a lot? I think it is interesting that the 'think tank' produce vic-a-vis 'environmental' (read : pro-industry irrespective of environmental effect except insofar as circumventing protest) policy that Bobbie Jr. is attacking quite vigorously in this speech are spawns of the JBS and allied think tanks. For some time now these elements have been guiding conservative thought on enviromental issues. It could be argued that this speech IS a declaration of his thinking in the Kennedy issue. That remains to be seen. If so, I don't envy him. But, given what his Family have gone through, I suspect he's approaching these issues 'eyes wide open'.

The above brings to mind another dimension. Lees little girls. For Marina, Lee is the father of her two little girls, For the little girls, he is daddy, a big wondrous guy who plays with them. Kids have a pretty simple view on things. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Lee loved his girls. And that they loved, needed him. Once Lee was arrested, and the whole thing blew up into what it became, Marina now is faced with two dazed and confused children. No doubt there are nights of tears. Many Americans now realised what Marina and the girls must have been going through, and it is to the DPD's credit that they undertook to forward and contribute to a happier '63 christmas for the girls than what it might otherwise have been. Kids see and hear what is going on. It's hard to believe that they now did not now become the most important consideration for Marina. She had to get on. Shape a life and have it make sense to her children. In this situation I think part of why there is a feeling that Marina knew more, is the fact that anything she would say would impact on her childrens happiness. A mother in these circumstances makes sacrifices. Perhaps here she chose to sacrifice Lee? Such things however are not forever, hence in time moments arrive when the children can be aware of other things. Therefore, perhaps it could be argued that Marinas later statements are truer? One might argue that Lee did not love his children enough? Otherwise why subtract himself from their lives? Hence, his 'lone nut assassin' persona. However, there is some telling evidence around that he loved both his children and Marina. Sometimes it's not just the bullet that behaved magically in order to explain the lone assassin. It seems to me that Lee himself was a square peg forced into a round hole. In simple terms it seems either of two if Lee was the shooter : he was a manipulated agent, or he was a lone NUT. On the whole at this point in this debate I think the unpredictability of Lee in any assassination attempt argues against him being a manipulated agent. There are too many trails leading to possible conspirators. On the other hand his behaviour up till at least around the move to Dallas is too responsible to picture him as an assassin. I actually know little of him as a person during the time in Dallas, so I'll look into that, except to say that the behaviour and words after the assassination seems to be seamlessly sane continuation on from the radio interviews. In other words if there is a break in Lees persona whereby a lone nut becomes arguable then it occurred in a brief space of time. These things doo happen. they can also be made to happen. At this time there was mind control experiments being carried out by the CIA in New Orleans. (see Tom's Tulane posts) Is it perhaps simplistic at this point to say : either Oswald was crazy as a result of some deep psychosis manipulated by outside forces to manifest as the assassin, or he was innocent.

Greg, I have thought a bit more on what you are saying. With regards to woman in this case. Keeping the times in mind PLUS the fact that Lee is also partially a product of his USSR experience. My understanding is that Soviet stand on womens rights at this time was the more progressive. He has married a Soviet woman who agrees to travel to the USA with him. I'm assuming here that this was a CHOICE she made. Once back in Lees home turf, was Lee more or less 'sexist' with regards to 'his woman' than the next guy? was Marinas experience one of greater or lesser freedom than her neighbours, than Paine's? How could he control her when working and living separately? It seems to me that his experience and supposed leftwing face would make him less controlling. So if he was controlling? Then could an argument be made that this facade was just that, a facade? OK : it is a facade. well, He's just undermined his facade. Again. out of control manipulation. Sloppy. Or just a guy making his way. I think Jims sobering anmalysis with regards to how Oswald was managed makes sense. It fits with how the agencies would treat anyone coming or going from the USSR as Lee did. Obviously Kennedy's murder can't have been planned that early. Was Lee 'a sleeper'? _________________________________________________ Ok , a rough 'timeline' a difficult child hood perhaps, but he did have family, and people who were concerned for his well being. At 15 he takes a precocious step of contacting a group on the outside of accepted society. sign of spy qualities or a well developed conscience? At 17 he joins the marines. gets involved in intelligence issues. ? At discharge he follows up on age 15 direction. armed now with US army experiences. He returns home with a wife and child, has another child. He gets involved with the Cuban issue. Kennedy is murdered. There is the fact that humans tend to have dreams. It is highly commendable but rare for someone to really change their direction. Much that appears as a change is merely diversions albeit on many occasions lifelong ones. But often it is said. 'I now can do what I really wanted to do all along'. Lee strikes me as being precocious. I take this as a sign of above average intelligence. He is young and without some experience but probably with far more than most of his peers. He can act independently and seems quite courageous. He has 'built' a life that has a logical thread to it. If his leftwing stance is genuine it seems to, as one would expect, become more sophisticated. In Dallas he is probably regrouping for the next phase. Does it make sense that the next step in this life is the grave? If he was as smart as I think he was, is getting caught so easily the next logical event? More and more I am getting an idea of an Oswald that indeed must have been NUTS on 11/22 in order to kill Kennedy. Was he nuts? If so it seems to me he must have lost it in a very short time. The unwittingly manipulated or the betrayed participant? or lunatic? Children are perceptive. Has his girls talked of their last memories of their dad?

Greg , food for thought. initial reaction .. why? elaborate, expensive (?) , iffy. ................... Another thing that seems not quite right to me is again with regards to the NO radis interviews. Oswald has just been arrested. First interview he is allowed to speak freely and is quite provocatively, and given the emotions of people around the Cuba issue, ('irrational' feelings mostly connected with pride and loss, and where that loss is of person, even so far as 'hero worship'. I'd imagine 'latin machismo' may play a part here too?) quite a dangerous position to put himself in. Further he clearly points the finger at business interests and allies them with criminals. It strikes me that at this point, if being 'handled' it could be argued that this handling is sloppy. How could they rely on Lee staying out of jail or hospital for his date with destiny? In the second interview Carlos is quite keyed up and disdainful of Lee. Lee however is 'given the floor' and Carlos remains silent throughout. I would have liked to hear more from Carlos. perhaps more of these interviews are available. Anyway, the picture emerges (to me) of a Lee that is NOT being handled. There are too many unpredictable factors and those that stand out are such that the circumstances also reveals the presumed 'handlers'. Again : "sloppy" It seems that if he was a patsy then becoming one was more of an opportunistic event than a carefully crafted conspiracy. (multiple patsies ?0

I am wondering where Marina fits into this. Assuming some degree of involvement with intelligence agencies by Lee. Does it not seem strange that he would marry, have children with and who then accompanies him back to the United States. If he was a person meant to go to the USSR to come back and then say negative things about the USSR, doesn't a wife implicitly deny this. At least there are some nice women in Communist countries? How could he if he is an agent also marry someone whom he had known for 3 odd months, and then bring this 'unknown quantity ' back to the US? Further, there seems to be no real control exerted on Marina by Oswald once back in the US. She is left to associate as she wishes. IE.: unknown quantity: freedom. Could be seen as sloppy agent (or outside real control), not agent at all, or some other reason at work? I am wondering how thoughts such as these are reconciled?

Here is an indication why I think this might be an important issue. I have this year experimented with many different ways of isolating different values from images. One thing I repeatedly come up with is a line that doesn't appear to the eye in the z313 (I'm obviously assuming for the sake of this exercise that it's genuine, however as this topic is about a concept and associated techniques, it is hoped that anything developed from it could be applied to any image.) Here on both sides of the line mentioned is a triangular area of different scale of luminance to the other areas. The left periphery extended intersects with the building under construction on the corner of commerce and houston, the right periphery extends out towards the triple underpass and the central line extends to the corner of the post office roof. (I have here tinted these lines/areas blue for emphasis) If one here takes into account the alteration that is known to have been applied to this image by someone 'distortion correcting' it, then this line would drop down slightly. Further assuming a clockwise barrel twist and a descending trajectory, as described in above post, then this line intersects with Harry D. Holmes' office window.

DOesn't ring any bells. But it is interesting how you took the hand out and ssemingly rotated it. What program are you using? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi Stephen I'm using Image Analyzer, a great 'help ware' program from http://meesoft.logicnet.dk/ . grab the plug ins. There isn't much documentation but if you keep in mind keywords like Z buffew and depth maps its not hard to figure out. Combine it with any good image manipulation program. (BTW I'm working on a 3d model for dealey plaza to get different perspective views. Overlayed on a aerial photo with a z buffer scaled according to survey data, just mentioning it as stuff on alteration can be checked like this and it would be good if anyone intersted was also developing models. Other project working on. kennedy's skull to 'wrap' the xrays onto. again anyone who wants to swap models much appreciated.)