John Dolva

November 22, 1963 "It has been a day of changing conditions, a tendency for sun, gusty wind conditions, the physical characteristics of the kill zone means that the wind at street level may be unpredictable, but where I am, elevated, it's steadier. I have a clear line of sight over most of the target area. The sun is off to the side behind me. It's noontime, late in the year, northern hemisphere. At my side is my 'signal man?', my job is to just track and shoot. My 'signal man', keeps a wide eye open for the right time, taking into account upcoming people clusters and obstructions, ready to tap my shoulder. I have prepared in detail. Out of a selection of rifles, I have chosen for this occasion a 7.65 caliber 1949 FN Semi Automatic Argentine Mauser. While not an ideal snipers rifle according to some, in my hands, with my experience highly reliable. (Should the patsy be hard to tie down, the backup patsy with a mauser to match alternate bullet identification is waiting (unwittingly) in the wings.) The barrel has a right hand twist (clockwise twist when looking from the trigger area). I'm using a scope that gives me a good field of view for this shot. This is calibrated with the bullets/cartridges which are prepared by myself with careful test shooting to maximise reliability. I have choosen bullets that have similar behavioural characteristics to those of the patsies' rifles. I am shooting at a distance of about 150 meters, on a slightly downward path from an area of known wind conditions into one with possible unpredictable conditions. While I am shooting on a roughly north south direction the coreolis force considerations are minimal over this distance. The temperature, air pressure, path slope, are also accounted for. Over this distance the bullet should settle out of a predictable tumble/yaw quite quickly. I don't like to use a silencer and am confident that the diversions will successfully make that redundant anyway. I call this type of shot a sideways slam dunk. The path the bullet will be following will be an arc that rises first then drops with increasing rapidity as the velocity of the bullet drops. Also, taking into account the barrel twist and the slight coreolis force I expect this arc to also curve to the right. I expect that on impact the bullet will be pointing fairly level as opposed to the path which will be as stated a downward, sideways right curve. My 'signal man' will ensure that collateral damage will be kept to a minimum, and as the bullet will drop down into the vehicle onto target, wound ballistics should ensure rapid deceleration of bullet and any exits should be contained within the vehicle. The clip of 20 is superfluous but it does not need to be fully loaded to function properly. The physical characteristics of my location will contain brass spitting out of the chamber. It is reasonable for me to expect a close pattern at 150 meters. As I know that the target will be travelling from east to west, from my point of view right to left, and I am right handed the pan track is standard. The radio is tuned. The diversion team is in place. The patsy is 'in the building'. whack whack, pick pick, rattle click, zip, bye. A glance over my shoulder as I leave tells me that the conspiracy to create the conspiracy speculations that will hide the real conspiracy is already proceeding successfully. Home."

The wound ballistics re my suggestion could be : the bullet enters the skull on a tangent. At the point of entry it will tend to according to exterior ballistic theory, assuming a right twist bore, be swinging in from the left and dropping down, meanwhile airlift will tend to have the nose pointing up slightly with regards to its actual path. As it enters the skull, it will deviate inward, or down. To the left of the bullet is a wall of skull. To the right the brain. The top of the skull is shattered, so the wall of skull to the bullets left will act as a dam to deflect the peak pulse of the cavitation and direct brainmatter and skull parts back in the direction of the entry. This wall has however been seriously compromised and the further passage of the now fragmented bullet will along with the directed force blow out the right of kennedys skull. Fragments can exit here and end up where found later, under seat etc. . There are smears on the xray photos plus fragmentation pattern radiating out from this area (no, I'm not a radiologist), there was an initial report re. throathole being from fragment from headshot exit. Bullet paths within the body were not followed. Exhumation may show bullet parts in lower trunk. EDIT:: as for Witnesses?? :: Harry D. Holmes, FBI informat T7, said : "Actually, for a while, they thought the shots came from my building, the Terminal Annex. So immediately we interviewed everybody on the floors on that side of the building to see what they knew or had seen because there was a possibility that it came from the post office. Of course, that was cleared up in a hurry." "they thought" ? (agencies. DPD? Witnesses?) "my building" "we interviewed" ? (not the 'agencies' ?) "...to see what they knew": us, our people in our building. So it seems the word of Harry was sufficient for the 'agencies' to accept that the shot did not come from the post office?? funny that.? Of course, they knew it came from the TSBD. Who the h..l was this Harry dude? The more I read of his testimony and role in the whole thing it seems strange that he packed such an enormous untouchability. He brought Lee's Post Box to attention of DPD, he took part in Oswalds interviews, he delayed the transfer so that Oswald was still there when Ruby turned up, he took part in uncovering the trail to the Carcano. As postal inspector he would have been part of the CIA,FBI,Postal Inspection Service, illegal Top Secret mail opening operations. Had he seen the Back yard photos? Oswald would have been known to him and through him, as T7, the FBI. He lied at WC about postal regulations, and also said he couldn't remember the names of people he associated with yet described himself (apart from calling himself a trained 'suspicioner' ( a play on the french word spy?)) as someone with a perfect memory? After the WC he seemed to vanish into thin air. What did he look like? It's a puzzle worth looking at. EDIT:: Christopher, I've looked into that and it is actually possible, the view through a scope would be approximately as in the image. Jackies head is not in the way. The fifth floor corner office is a bit below the sixth floor of the TSBD and directly opposite. It's about 156 meters away from the head shot edit:: so, a shot from the left wing. but not Castro.

EDIT:: In the collage I also shifted the limo ahead to where the head shot occurred. Here's the vidcap.

Sorry, Lee,, should have said. I thought it was obviously a collage created by me. It's from a vid cap from the top of the Post Office above the corner of Commerce and Houston. It's from a sequence in Stone's JFK where Price talks about what he saw. In the collage I've just placed it in the office below, and pasted in other images etc. plus a bit of painting and saving so it looks a bit like a photo.I'll post the vidcap in a moment, it shows the wider panoramic view from that point.

Hi Lee, yep I agree re disagreeing/agreeing. I'm not interested in being right, I'm interested in seeing someone right. You, me, Joe Doe , all the same to me. Breaking the mold and exploring things helps to get points cleared I think. The wound ballistics re my suggestion could be : the bullet enters the skull on a tangent. At the point of entry it will tend to according to exterior ballistic theory, assuming a right twist bore, be swinging in from the left and dropping down, meanwhile airlift will tend to have the nose pointing up slightly with regards to its actual path. As it enters the skull, it will deviate inward, or down. To the left of the bullet is a wall of skull. To the right the brain. The top of the skull is shattered, so the wall of skull to the bullets left will act as a dam to deflect the peak pulse of the cavitation and direct brainmatter and skull parts back in the direction of the entry. This wall has however been seriously compromised and the further passage of the now fragmented bullet will along with the directed force blow out the right of kennedys skull. Fragments can exit here and end up where found later, under seat etc. . There are smears on the xray photos plus fragmentation pattern radiating out from this area (no, I'm not a radiologist), there was an initial report re. throathole being from fragment from headshot exit. Bullet paths within the body were not followed. Exhumation may show bullet parts in lower trunk. As to where bullet came from? How about this? EDIT:: as for Witnesses?? :: Harry D. Holmes, FBI informat T7, said : "Actually, for a while, they thought the shots came from my building, the Terminal Annex. So immediately we interviewed everybody on the floors on that side of the building to see what they knew or had seen because there was a possibility that it came from the post office. Of course, that was cleared up in a hurry." "they thought" ? (agencies. DPD? Witnesses?) "my building" "we interviewed" ? (not the 'agencies' ?) "...to see what they knew": us, our people in our building. So it seems the word of Harry was sufficient for the 'agencies' to accept that the shot did not come from the post office?? funny that.? Of course, they knew it came from the TSBD. Who the h..l was this Harry dude? The more I read of his testimony and role in the whole thing it seems strange that he packed such an enormous untouchability. He brought Lee's Post Box to attention of DPD, he took part in Oswalds interviews, he delayed the transfer so that Oswald was still there when Ruby turned up, he took part in uncovering the trail to the Carcano. As postal inspector he would have been part of the CIA,FBI,Postal Inspection Service, illegal Top Secret mail opening operations. Had he seen the Back yard photos? Oswald would have been known to him and through him, as T7, the FBI. He lied at WC about postal regulations, and also said he couldn't remember the names of people he associated with yet described himself (apart from calling himself a trained 'suspicioner' ( a play on the french word spy?)) as someone with a perfect memory? After the WC he seemed to vanish into thin air. What did he look like? It's a puzzle worth looking at.

Lee, don't get me wrong. I think your argument is coherent. I'm suggesting an alternative direction for the headshot that doesn't contradict the sound heard. I'm not saying there weren't other shots as well. Decoys, missed shots, and bodyshots. on the image (rewmoved to other post) the straight brown lines are the direction of the soundwave, concentrated by the lens to a loud phantom crack.(red arrow.) This is behind the witnesses, directly behind. Also the point of focus here is directly inline with suggested path. It is also the first time that the path is clear of people on both sides of the street.

Lee, here's an image (removed to other post) that clarifies my suggestion. I took the side xray photo and 'wrapped' it on to a 3d model of kennedy's head, then twirled it into the direction corresponding to a photo of kennedy (added a skull too for effect) superimposed them and tilted the lot roughly into the orientation I think he was in if one looks at the limo roughly head on.

Another thing that may be an issue is the apparent difference in head size in l. When all the heads are resized to the same ear to ear dimension as the mug shots, the second and third photo heads have consistent dimensions apart from slight differences caused by how the head is tilted. The profile shot can be used to show this: as when the head is tilted forward the length of the head appears to increase. However this factor is small as lining up the top of the ears and the center of the eye line easily shows. The first photo on the other hand shows a shorter head. This may be explained by the fact that this photo is blurred. The extent and direction of this blur can be seen by comparing the buttons which show up nicely against the darker shirt. When increasing the gamma the lighter blurred sections diminish and if one places a head at the extreeme of the blur then one gets an overall a head size that does correspond with the mug shots. Should the photos turn out to be possibly genuine, then what does that mean? Like Pat, though in my case not by choice but by circumstance, I see evidence of a conspiracy even if these images are genuine. I've only been looking at the whole issue for a few months. So I suppose I can say I'm not aligned to ANY school, but only seek to understand things to the best of MY ability. This 'opening of the mind' thing that Pat alludes to in another thread and that others, Lee for example, can lead to interesting theories. In confirming/debunking them much may be learned. Anyway, that's what I believe. I don't understand why the photo's absolutely have to be false in order for there to be a conspiracy. (BTW, I still havent come to any conclusion one way or the other re their genuineness, maybe it's not possible to do more than say one is more likely than the other when taking other evidence into account, I don't know. So, Pat? I'm still not clear on the number of ring's and on which hand conventional wisdom says he had during these so called 'backyard photos.?

Less clear on this. In the first photo there appears to be a ring on the third finger. In the third there appears to be five rings, 4 at obviously 'not ring' places. One possibly in same location as in the first. Was he wearing, known to have worn, one two or three rings?

As you say Lee, there was no damage to the left hemisphere. I'm not suggesting there was.

arr Pat, flattery will get you anywhere. Seriously though. In this tilted grayscale 3D depth map the right hand in the first photo (which as you say is much more blurred than the other two.) there appears to be a shadow on the two middle fingers. In the second there appears to be reflections on the same two fingers. In the third there appears to be depressions in the skin on the same two fingers. Was he supposed to be wearing two rings?

Ok, JL, sorry I missed your post before. The way I see it is that the shadow of the post is almost completely behind the post. There is a wedge of dark shadow that thins perceptibly and moves up along the ground (which is not level, confusing the actual location of shadows.) while the wedge of light broadens. 'Oswald' leans to the (his) right , the post is most likely plumb.

here

Good to see you've broken free from the mold, Lee. It's an interesting scenario. You've actually interpreted the witness reports in a way that I can add a different perspective to in order to support the idea of a left shot. Yes, they did HEAR a shot from where you say. BUT the shot came from the left. That quarter round thingy is like a lens. It acts as a concentrating lens focusing soundwaves and where they meet the amplitude rises dramatically causing a phantom crack. Here on a bit of Don's work is a rough sketch to illustrate.

There is another point of interest to me. On the surveyed map the area surveyed is correctly described as the northern half of Dealey Plaza. Because the left field is of interest to me it stands out to me that this half of Dealey Plaza has always since been called Dealey Plaza. Somehow, half, the southern half has been deleted from history. of course it's still there. But I can't find any detailed survey of it and have to rely on projections and aerial Photos, which seem sufficient. But still, a detail would be nice.

Stephen, yes, absolutely. Whether that is measurable is another question. So far I've focused on the background in order to see what the body/face ends up like. The sequence seems clear. The fact that the sheet of paper next to the fence is the same in all three photos indicate that during the photoshoot it did not rain nor blow a strong wind. This (apart from the even spacing of the shadows up the post, the widening light bars through the stairs on the ground etc) indicate the photos were taken in one session. Now, with regards to the body/face. The contours that are providing the surfaces blocking light, shift as the body face shifts. In the middle photo the chin is closer to the base of the neck indicating the head is tilted forward. This alters the shadow position. The way the body is tilted/leans supporting the presumably heavy rifle, balancing against a light newspaper alters it as well. And the fact that the first photo is blurred in vertical direction changes what is perceived too. Further a shadow cast by something close to the shadow moves proportionally less. Given the resolution of the material available it may be impossible to give a certain answer to your question. To some extent the profile can be tilted and shadows guesstimated. The overall cumulative error margins may however move any definite statement into the realm of 'belief'. However trying seems worthwhile. BTW:: any idea what the paper on the ground might have been. Perhaps a poormans 'brown bag' to conceal the newspapers. Which may negate the idea I suggested at an earlier stage about the 'mint' condition of the papers. If it's Oswald he may have just been cautious while bringing them home. And as soon as home photographed. This would also indicate an ignorance of the Postal Inspector-CIA-FBI letter opening program?

Tim, Castro had for a long time lived a very dangerous life. He had faced death in prison and on the battlefield. Death to a revolutionary like Castro was an everyday thing. The expendability of the individual for the revolution was a known and debated and accepted thing. His integrity as a leader of the Cuban revolution aroused sufficient loyalty to keep him alive. Therefore he knew the revolution did not need him, his survival was a testiomony to that. I suspect that when he dies that will continue to be the fact. Perhaps John is correct here in the 'projection' analogy?

the graphs of grayscale in these 'ditortion corrected' images are of the forehead just above the eyes and the chin. It seems to me that all three faces are all over the same. The fact Oswald had not shaved for the mugshot doesn't obscure the overall reflectivity/shape of his chin. I'd still appreciate a statement on the conventional wisdom re the order in which the photos were taken. I'm suggesting as above. EDIT :: Oh , OK thank you, Pat I missed your post. Thanks.

As Robert Charles-Dunne has pointed out on the thread on Enrico Mattei (Thomas Buchanan claimed that the same people were responsible for the deaths of Mattei and JFK) this kind of logic could be applied to any political party. For example: A person political philosophy obviously has an impact on your views on the JFK assassination. The point is, will your political philosophy influence every thing you say. Is Tim right that some people are “willing to subject himself or herself to the discipline of the party”. That everything they say is guided by the party line. This is of course possible. Some communist reporters went along with Stalin’s view that in the 1930s that the supporters of Leon Trotsky were really agents of Western fascists and therefore needed to be executed. (The vast majority of journalists in the UK and the US also agreed this was true at the time.) Others went along with the idea in 1956 that it was necessary to send the Red Army into Hungary to defeat a “fascist counter-revolution”. Although some Communist Party journalists went along with the Soviet line, large numbers resigned from the party over these two issues. In fact, the second of these two issues virtually destroyed the Communist Party in the UK. The important question concerns the following: "Is a communist any different from any other supporter of a political party?" It is obviously true that any partisan political supporter is vulnerable to this kind of mind set. It is one of the reasons I am not a member of any political party. I dislike the idea of having to take into account what the party line is on any given subject. It is interesting that Tim first brought this subject up as he is the most partisan of all our members. In several areas of the forum I have criticised the policies of George Bush. Not on one occasion has Tim agreed with me (even when I pointed out that Bush was providing financial backing to the communist dictator in Uzbekistan). Instead, he only defends Bush. It is because of Tim’s partisan views that most members do not take his postings seriously. Tim always follows the party line. Sigmund Freud had something to say about this. It was his theory of “projection”. This is the tendency to see your own unacceptable attitudes in other people. According to Freud’s theory, Tim knows he is morally wrong to accept everything that George Bush says is true (probably something to do with being a born again Christian). Therefore, he projects this irrational feelings on the people he sees as the "enemy". When he was growing up in the 1950s and the 1960s he was constantly being told that the communists were evil. In fact, it was a form of brainwashing that resulted in a large proportion of the American population endured. Tim obviously got it worse than most. This is not to say that all members of the Republican Party are not to be trusted (after all, then I would be guilty of Tim’s offence). However, it does mean that anyone who accepts the discipline of the party line, is a useless historian or an ineffective JFK researcher. It also raises the question, if Tim is asked questions about his past, will he tell the truth, or will he follow the party line? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Excellent points, in my opinion. The enshrined strictures of party membership goes across the board. Similar strictures are apparently imposed when blindly attaching oneself to anything, including conspiracy theories. I used to be a member of the youth wing of the SWP (militant) in Australia. I contemplated membership in the Labor party and various Unions. When approached to become member of the SWP proper I couldn't make the leap as quite simply some of my ideas would have to be ditched, for no good reason as I saw it. Today I am not a member of any party except the JohnD party. Mebership is small, well, in fact limited only to myself. Ah.. thats not entirely true, I and a friend who changed his name to Santa Clause did in the 1992 elections NSW form the Christmas Party, and yes we did affiliate with Godfrey Bigot who ran on a platform against Facism. However apart from that I'm independent. I'm also a born again christian. I think Bush is a very bad man, presiding over a very bad party.

Tim, good thinking in action = wisdom drat , couldn't help myself....

test1

Day was appointed by Kennedy as Postmaster General in '61. Three weeks after his appointment Dulles, Helms and Roosevelt came to see him. He didn't want to know what they wanted to talk to him about. He resigned for undisclosed reasons in july '63. Apparently he had 'differences' with Kennedy. The CIA and the FBI were involved in secret mail opening operations presumably involving the Postal Inspectors. This seemed to largely be interception of mail to and from Communist countries. "WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1975 U.S. SENATE, SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENT, OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at l0:08 a.m., in room 318, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Frank Church (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Church, Mondale, Huddleston, Hart of Colorado, Goldwater, Mathias, and Schweiker. Also present: William G. Miller, staff director; Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr., chief counsel; and Curtis R. Smothers, counsel to the minority. The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will please come to order. Today the committee continues its investigation of the mail-opening program, endeavoring to determine in depth how it happened that for 20 years mail was opened by the CIA and the FBI, contrary to the laws of the United States. ....... For that purpose, our first witnesses are three former Postmasters General, Mr. J. Edward Day, Mr. John ,A. Gronouski, and Mr. Winton M. Blount. Mr. Schwarz. Mr. Day, when did you hold the position of Postmaster General ? Mr. Day. January 21, 1961, until August 9, 1963. Mr. Schwarz. Was there a time when Mr. Helms and Mr. Roosevelt and Director Dulles came to visit with you about the subject of CIA and mail ? Mr. Day. They came to visit me, yes, on February 15, 1961, about 3 weeks after I took office. Mr. Schwarz. All right. There is a document in your book which is exhibit 8,l dated February l 1961, the day after- Mr. DAY. I don’t have any book of that kind. Mr. Schwarz. Mr. Blount can show it to you. It is right there. This is a CIA document, written by Mr. Helms, reflecting the fact of the meeting and stating in the second sentence of the paragraph, “We gave him the background, development, and current status, withholding no relevant details.” To your recollection, were you told that the CIA was opening mail in New York City ? Mr. DAY. No. Mr. Schwarz. Do you deny that you were told that, or is it simply that you do not recollect it ? Mr. Day. I don’t recollect it. And I do have several very distinct recollections of that meeting, which are inconsistent with this memorandum of Mr. Helms. These three gentlemen came to see me. I knew Mr. Roosevelt from past years. Mr. Dulles, after some preliminary visiting and so on, said that he wanted to tell me something very secret, and I said, “Do I have to know about it?” And he was somewhat taken aback by that. And he said no. I said my experience is that where there is something that is very secret, it is likely to leak out, and anybody that knew about it is likely to be suspected of having been part of leaking it out, so I would rather not know anything about it. What additional things were said in connection with him building up to that, I don’t know. But I am sure, from my recollection of that meeting, and, actually, from other things in your own record, that I was not told anything about opening mall. Mr. Schwarz. What are the other things you refer to? Mr. Day. Well, for example, there is the memorandum, I believe you read part of it, that was prepared by the CIA staff before they came to see me. They really were laying for me. I barely found out where my office was when they came over there. It said, if the Postmaster General asks if any mail is being opened, tell him that it is being opened. Well, obviously, I didn’t ask them if any mail was being opened." How much can be said about Harry's involvement in any set-up of Oswald? Were Oswalds mail to photographer with the Backyard photos observed?

John, To me this translates as an error that was corrected? - lee <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Absolutely, Lee. Or was it. A lot of errors were put in place that day it seems. "they thought" ? (agencies. DPD? Witnesses?) "my building" "we interviewed" ? (not the 'agencies' ?) "...to see what they knew": us, our people in our building. So it seems the word of Harry was sufficient for the 'agencies' to accept that the shot did not come from the post office?? funny that.? Of course, they knew it came from the TSBD. Who the h..l was this Harry dude? The more I read of his testimony and role in the whole thing it seems strange that he packed such an enormous untouchability. After the WC he seemed to vanish into thin air. What did he look like? It's a puzzle worth looking at. There may be nothing, but...

Shanet, come back , Please.

Good question Stephen, I don't know. you're preempting me . I was going to get to that. I know there are charts for differrent seasons showing daily solar angles at different places on the earth. I think one needs to know where the object casting the shadows are. Shadows can travel surprisingly fast. The camera is a self winding one and apparently Oswald (if the story as told by Marina is true) had to put down the gear to help Marina wind. edit:: if someone could confirm/debunk my suggested sequence of photos in above image. I'm assuming, because I read somewhere, that the time was in the afternoon. In the morning it would be reversed of course. If it's not known, then the location/orientation of the building should help.