Thomas Graves

Bill, Do you think it was just a coincidence that the almost-October-1 Mexico City dude Goodpasture chose from the photos to "mistake for" (or almost kinda suggest was, through carefully-chosen words and simple juxtaposition in the cable's text) Lee "Henry" Oswald ... was ... KGB officer / agent, Yuri Moskalev, ... or do you think her choosing Moskalev to serve as the "Mexico City Mystery Man" was a deliberate decision? Is it possible that someone wanted, as part of an elaborate Mole Hunt or act of disinformation, somebody else to think that it was Moskalev who was impersonating Oswald over the telephone and/or in-person there? Thanks, --Tommy

You're "right as five rabbits," Ken. Mr. Ball does say "shotgun" instead of "rifle." I noticed that, too, but the point I was trying to make is that Dougherty might have been suggesting that he heard later that the shooter was on the fourth floor, but that he hadn't seen him there. A shooter on the fourth floor ties in nicely with Baker's statement that he encountered a man in a tan jacket on that floor, if my memory is serving me correctly. I suppose it could be argued that Dougherty meant that he heard later that Truly had been on the fourth floor when he was trying to find him for "the FBI man," but I don't know how realistic that is, and from the context of Ball's question it seems possible that Dougherty was alluding to hearing about a shooter, not about where Mr.Truly was when Dougherty was looking for him. Question: Was Truly on the fourth floor for any length of time about the time the rifle was discovered or "discovered" on the sixth floor? --Tommy

Why is Redlich's memo so revealing? 1. Redlich writes that "it is possible... that a worker moved the west elevator either up or down from the fifth floor" while Baker and Truly were ascending by the stairway. 2. Redlich then notes that "we don't know the name of any such worker" and that "none of the investigations appears to have turned up anyone who admits to being on the west elevator at this time". 3. Yet Roy Truly, just the day before (March 24), has offered the name of just such an employee: Jack Dougherty. 4. Perhaps Redlich is unaware of or has forgotten Truly's mention of Dougherty? No, for Redlich himself writes: "Truly thinks that Dougherty was working there at this time. I know that Messrs. Ball and Belin plan to question Dougherty, who would have to explain why he was up there working so soon after the shots were fired". 5. So why is Redlich ignoring Truly's solution? Why is he still treating the movement of the west elevator as a total riddle? Why isn't he simply recommending that Dougherty, as a matter of priority, be asked to confirm that it was indeed he who used the west elevator? 6. We are surely compelled to conclude that Redlich has knowledge that Dougherty has already ruled himself out as the person who took the west elevator off the fifth floor. Excellent points, Sean. You seem to be saying that Redlich knew that Dougherty couldn't have taken the west freight elevator to the first floor at that time (right after the shots) because Truly said that, although that elevator wasn't on the fifth floor when he and Baker were climbing the stairs on their way to the roof, he had seen it on the fifth floor again when he and Baker were taking the east elevator down from the roof. Question: Couldn't Dougherty have been riding down in the west freight elevator from the fifth to the first floor while Truly and Baker were ascending the stairs, and then couldn't somebody else have taken it from the first floor back to the fifth floor in time for Truly and Baker to find it there as they were coming down from the roof? Am I missing something here? OK. Thinking out loud here. I guess the problem would be timing, wouldn't it. What Dougherty said suggests that he took that elevator down right after he heard a shot (he said he thought it was a backfire), but Truly said he looked up the shaft and saw both elevators "stuck" on the fifth floor (I'm guessing) about 60 to 90 seconds after the shots. Hmmm. I'm starting to see your point. Looks like Dougherty was either wrong about taking that elevator down so soon after the shots, or he was lying and didn't take that elevator down at all, but walked down the stairs to the first floor, instead. I don't suppose Dougherty could have taken the elevator down when he said he did and then someone else could have taken it back up to the fifth floor before Truly looked up the shaft? Nah. That elevator probably traveled too slowly for that scenario to have happened. Hmmmm.... From the Warren Commission Testimony of Jack Edwin Dougherty: [...] Mr. BALL - Tell me this---when you heard that explosion or whatever it was--- that loud noise, where were you on the fifth floor-tell me exactly where you were? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I was about 10 feet from the west elevator---the west side of the elevator. Mr. BALL - That's the elevator that uses the push button; is that right? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes. Mr. BALL - And what were you doing? Mr. DOUGHERTY - I was getting some stock. Mr. BALL - And what did you do THEN? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I came on back downstairs. Mr. BALL - How did you come downstairs? Mr. DOUGHERTY - I used that push button elevator on the west side. Mr. BALL - Did you hear Mr. Truly yell anything up the elevator shaft? Mr. DOUGHERTY - I didn't hear anybody yell. Mr. BALL - Or, did you see Mr. Truly? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, when the FBI men---I imagine it was who it was---he showed me his credentials, but he asked me who the manager was, and I told him, "Mr. Truly." He told me to go find him. Well, I didn't know where he was so I started from the first floor and Just started looking for him, and .by the time I got to the sixth floor, they had found a gun and shells. [The next part is very interesting:] Mr. BALL - When you went up to the sixth floor, it was after they found the shotgun and shells? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir; and I found out later he was on the FOURTH floor, which I didn't find. Mr. BALL - Did you ever see a gun around there? Mr. DOUGHERTY - No, sir; I sure didn't. Mr. BALL - Did you ever see anybody with a gun in the place? Mr. DOUGHERTY - No, sir. Mr. BALL - Did you see any strangers in the building that day? Mr. DOUGHERTY - No, sir. [...] I wonder what in the world Dougherty was referring to when he said, "I found out later he was on the FOURTH floor, which I didn't find." [emphasis added in original] Is Dougherty suggesting that he heard later that the shooter, whom Truly and Baker may have encountered on their way up, was on the fourth floor, but that he hadn't seen him there? Thanks, --Tommy

Pat, By "from a second shot" I suppose you mean "from a second head shot" which hit, from the rear, what was left of JFK's head. Do you think this second head shot came from the TSBD, the roof of the County Records building, or where? Do you think this second head shot hit JFK 3/4 of a second after the fatal frontal head shot? Thanks, --Tommy I suspect there was more than one shot at Z-224 (a low-velocity shot from the roof of the Dal-Tex entering low on the back of Kennedy's head and exiting his throat while a near simultaneous shot hits Connally in the armpit). I suspect the rifle firing these bullets was a semi-automatic equipped with a silencer. Thanks, Pat. But that's not the question I asked. Or is it? The question I asked was about the shot you were referring to when you said "from a second shot" in an earlier post. I'm trying to figure out if by that phrase you meant "from the second head shot." I'm trying to figure out if you think that JFK was hit in the head by two, and only two, bullets, the first one in the front of the head and the second one in the back of the head; the first one at Z-313 and the second one a few frames later. What do your low-velocity, silenced, semi-automatic shots at Z-224 have to do with these two shots which must have happened around Z-313? Thank you, --Tommy

Pat, By "from a second shot" I suppose you mean "from a second head shot" which hit, from the rear, what was left of JFK's head. Do you think this second head shot came from the TSBD, the roof of the County Records building, or where? Do you think this second head shot hit JFK 3/4 of a second after the fatal frontal head shot? Thanks, --Tommy

Sean, So the only question now is, was it Harvey or Lee? (Sorry, I couldn't resist. Excellent post.) --Tommy

Sorry... got to fix that.... and no Tommy... IMO H&L needs to be understood and accepted as fact just like conspiracy is. If we neglect to include H&L in the scenario, we get results that dont tell the entire story. If H&L stays off by itself, it becomes very hard to incorporate the ramifications into our analysis. We don't have discussions any longer as to whether there was a conspiracy or cover-up or whether Oswald was the assassin... these concepts are understood. I think it not only FAIR but NECESSARY that we include H&L as part of our accepted knowledge base. I'm doing a very in-depth analysis of the book... that H&L is still a debated topic is akin to saying the CIA did not bother Garrison... there is simply too much evidence to the contrary. So, what happens to this thread when we KNOW there is a H&L? It begins to make some sense... Witnesses in all locations are telling the truth when they claim to have seen Oswald... although it is not possible for him to be in 2 places or more, at once. TS White see an OSWALD in a car with Carl Mather's license plates.. AFTER the arrest at the theater. Others see Oswald leaving the TSBD in a variety of manners Oswald(s) meeting the description leave breadcrumbs in the months leading up to Nov. So Tommy... what I suggest is that you read up on the H&L threads as well as visit harveyandlee.net and we can hash it out on the H&L threads... but from what I've learned, H&L must be considered when offering ANY scenario of occurances in Dallas that day. DJ Have it your way, David. R.I.P., "Oswald Leaving TSBD?" thread. It was great while it lasted! --Tommy

David, The woman Reid saw was not Harvey? One would certainly hope not. Regardless, shouldn't this be on a "Harvey and Lee" thread? --Tommy

Incredibly, David, I have never seen JFK's head turn at z157 pointed out before, or even heard of it, for that matter. I'm a bit confused, though. Does he make a lightning fast snap in both directions, or just one? It's a bit hard to tell from the gif. How many oddities, and outright contradictions of eyewitnesses, have to be pointed out before it is admitted the Z-toon is a lie? It's interesting that JFK snaps his head to his right (in response to an audio stimuli?), whereas the SS agent seems to be visually interested in something on the other side of the car. [edit] I just found this on the Richard Randolph Carr Spartacus page : From the Staff Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations (March, 1979) [...] 110. In an FBI interview on November 24, 1963, Mrs. Virgie Baker (nee Rackley) reported that at the time she heard the first shot, she looked in the direction of the triple underpass and saw what she presumed to be a bullet bouncing off the pavement. Mrs. Baker was located immediately across the street from the depository when she heard the shots. She thought they came from the direction the triple underpass. In the FBI report, no further details or information were given by Mrs. baker about the location or direction of the object she believed to be a bullet. 111. Mrs. Baker testified before the Warren Commission of July 112, 1964. At that time, she stated that the object she believed to be a bullet hit the pavement in the street at the point of the Stemmons Freeway sigh on Elm Street.She said it hit in the middle of the lane on the other side of the street, which would have been the left-hand lane going in the direction of the triple underpass. At first Mrs. Baker said the bullet hit behind the President's car. Then she said she could not remember whether it hit to either side or behind the President's car. Mrs. Baker said she was sure she saw the object hit before she heard the second shot. 112. Committee investigators were unable to locate Mrs. Baker. 113. In a sheriff's department notarized statement dated November 22, 1963, Royce Skelton stated that he also saw a bullet hit the pavement in the left or middle lane, to the rear of the President's car. Skelton gave this account of the sequence of events: We saw the motorcade come around the corner and I heard something which I thought was fireworks. I saw something hit the pavement at the left rear of the car, then the car got in the right hand lane and I heard two more shots. I heard a woman said "Oh no" or something and grab a man inside the car. I then heard another shot and saw the bullet hit the pavement. The pavement was knocked to the south away from the car. 114. In his Warren Commission testimony on April 8, 1964, Skelton said that he saw smoke rise from the pavement when the bullet hit. Skelton said also that the sound of the gunfire came from the area of the President's car. Skelton said he was located on the overpass directly over Elm Street at the time of the motorcade. He said the sound of the shots definitely did not come from where he was. Skelton also offered that the smoke he saw rising from the cement when the bullet hit "spread" in a direction away from the depository; he said the "spray" of flying cement went toward the west. On the photograph designated Skelton exhibit No. 1, Skelton marked where on the street he saw the bullet and in which direction he saw the "spray." 115. Committee investigators were unable to locate Royce Skelton. Question: Could the phenomena that Mrs. Baker and Mr. Skelton are describing be what Secret Service agent Hickey is looking at in the video clip, above? --Tommy

Good ears, Richard: it does sound like the last words are indeed "or out". However I'm not sure about "inside". Can't for the life of me work out what it is, but it sounds like "In the st[???] or out". Or possibly: "Either st[???] or out". Since we'll never know for sure anything / everything Oswald told his interrogators, it's a shame he didn't yell out to the reporters in the hallway "I was right outside the front door!" when asked, "Were you inside the building at the time?" --Tommy It's a shame Oswald wasn't asked, "Were you inside the building at the time?". Sean, You're right of course. I just listened to it again (before I read your reply, actually, because of this very issue), and the reporter asked Oswald, "Were you in the building?," not "Were you inside the building?". Then I hurried back to my post to correct it, but, darn it, you'd already caught my mistake! My bad. Regardless, is it fair for us to conclude that, although Oswald was not technically "inside" the building, he was still somehow "in" it (or thought he was "in" it) because he was, after all, standing just outside the front door and actually underneath part of the building? I mean, that counts for something, doesn't it? It's a shame the reporter didn't ask him, "Were you by or at or near or just outside the building at the time?" LOL --Tommy

Good ears, Richard: it does sound like the last words are indeed "or out". However I'm not sure about "inside". Can't for the life of me work out what it is, but it sounds like "In the st[???] or out". Or possibly: "Either st[???] or out". Since we'll never know for sure anything / everything Oswald told his interrogators, it's a shame he didn't yell out to the reporters in the hallway "I was right outside the front door!" when asked, "Were you inside the building at the time?" --Tommy

Hello Richard Sadly, I lack the talent and the expensive equipment to perform such a correlation between the two films. I often post such things in the hopes that someone with more capability than I will take the time to do the in depth work. From watching slow motion versions of both films, the timing of the missing frame and "squiggle" in the Towner film seems to be extremely close to the timing of the "melted" frames in the Hughes film. BTW, what do you think of the rear door of the 4th car in the motorcade (white Ford sedan) being open on Houston St., as seen in the Hughes film, long before it is seen to be open in Altgens 6? I'm not saying I subscribe to this theory, but if the "jump" or "squiggle" in Towner correlates time-wise with the "melted frames" in Hughes, an obvious inference that could be made is that there was a shot taken at that time. I suppose the argument would be that that was why Towner "flinched" right then and that's also why the Hughes film got "melted" right there from repeated slow motion / stop action viewings of those frames, or, perhaps, even intentionally. --Tommy All very real possibilities. However, the oddity in the Towner film I do not believe can be ascribed to Towner flinching. In viewing the super-slow motion, frame by frame gif of the Towner film I linked to, Towner's camera stays locked onto JFK. As each frame unfolds, seconds apart, JFK moves forward an equal distance. In the frame immediately prior to the "squiggle", JFK simply seems to move twice as far as the other space intervals reveal. Quite simply put, one frame appears to be missing, nothing more. What are your thoughts on the rear door of the 4th car (white Ford sedan) being seen to be open on Houston St.? This is the first time I spotted this in the Hughes film. I believed, up until now, that the SS agent had opened this door only on Elm St. and in response to rifle shots. Robert, I believe it was SOP for Johnson's Secret Service followup car to have that door open when traveling in a motorcade on surface streets. I think I've seen a photo that shows that door open when the car was on Main Street or some other street in Dallas on 11/22/63. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong! --Tommy

Larry, That very interesting! I wonder if someone went over Puterbaugh's head in deciding such things at Love Field. Do you remember if any significant changes in the motorcade were made, like moving the press buses farther back in line? Thanks, --Tommy

Hello Richard Sadly, I lack the talent and the expensive equipment to perform such a correlation between the two films. I often post such things in the hopes that someone with more capability than I will take the time to do the in depth work. From watching slow motion versions of both films, the timing of the missing frame and "squiggle" in the Towner film seems to be extremely close to the timing of the "melted" frames in the Hughes film. BTW, what do you think of the rear door of the 4th car in the motorcade (white Ford sedan) being open on Houston St., as seen in the Hughes film, long before it is seen to be open in Altgens 6? I'm not saying I subscribe to this theory, but if the "jump" or "squiggle" in Towner correlates time-wise with the "melted frames" in Hughes, an obvious inference that could be made is that there was a shot taken at that time. I suppose the argument would be that that was why Towner "flinched" right then and that's also why the Hughes film got "melted" right there from repeated slow motion / stop action viewings of those frames, or, perhaps, even intentionally. --Tommy

Me neither. --Tommy

It's the right side of the head above the ear, where Hill has pointed it out every time he's been asked to do so. That Anthony thought it was the back of the head only serves to prove my point--that people often confuse the side of the head above the ear with the back of the head, or call the side of the head above the ear the back of the head. Pat, IMHO, the fact that you can't see the tips of any of his fingers suggests that the area he's describing is more on the back of his head than on the side. --Tommy

Aynesworth claimed to have been standing near Howard Brennan during the shots, to have run down to the Newman family on the Grassy Knoll right after the shots, and then to have made his way to the TSBD, where he may have asked Oswald where the nearest phone was. I'm wondering if he or his reporter sidekick were captured on film during any of this. Also, just to have an idea what he looked like back then, was he caught on the footage taken of Oswald's murder? --Tommy You're mixing Aynesworth up with Pierce Allman. An understandable mistake... Thanks Pat. That's what I get for "going from memory." LOL OK, well, hmmm... Does anyone know of any footage of Pierce Allman or his sidekick right after the shooting stopped? --Tommy

Aynesworth claimed to have been standing near Howard Brennan during the shots, to have run down to the Newman family on the Grassy Knoll right after the shots, and then to have made his way to the TSBD, where he may have asked Oswald where the nearest phone was. I'm wondering if he or his reporter sidekick were captured on film during any of this. Also, just to have an idea what he looked like back then, was he caught on the footage taken of Oswald's murder? --Tommy

Robert, Great post, but I'm sure you meant to say Charles William Thomas, not "William Thomas." --Thomas

I have a question for Bill Simpich, too: Bill, Is it fair to say that Goodpasture (in trying to figure out who, by impersonating Oswald in a wiretap, had penetrated LIENOVY) chose Moskalev to serve, photographically, as the fake Oswald-at-the-Cuban-Consulate-on-October-1 figure not only because he was captured on film about the same time (Oct. 2) that Oswald was allegedly there, but also because, of all the American-looking men captured on film there about that time, Moskalev came the closest to matching the biometrics of "re-defector" Robert Webster, whose vital statistics, as you point out, had been used a few years earlier in describing Oswald in some of Angleton's mole-hunting "marked cards"? Was Goodpasture knowingly perpetuating the false information in those old marked cards, or was she simply unaware of Oswald's true biometrics? Concomitantly, was it just a coincidence that the guy who eventually became known as "Mexico City Mystery Man" was a KGB officer / agent (Moskalev), or was there something "more" to it? Thanks, --Tommy edited and bumped

David, I see your point. They needed a proofreader. Hmmm, actually, that wouldn't explain it, would it. You seem to be arguing that the the bad guys made that sentence up and put it in Oswald's mouth. i'm saying they probably didn't make it up because I don't think they were clever enough to not answer the question in such a creative, Oswald-like way. But you're right. Oswald probably didn't say exactly that sentence. He probably said, "You know how young guys are when they have a gun, they just carry it," and they misquoted him, seein' as how so much time had elapsed and all. Question: Since the bad guys claimed that Oswald denied owning a rifle, why didn't they have him deny owning a revolver, too? Then, they could "produce" the one he may-or-may-not have owned and substituted it for the one that may-or-may-not have been planted on him in the theater, yelled xxxx xxxx pants on fire, publicized it, faked the ballistics, and gotten their gun back! --Tommy bump

I have a question for Bill Simpich, too: Bill, Is it fair to say that Goodpasture (in trying to figure out who, by impersonating Oswald in a wiretap, had penetrated LIENOVY) chose Moskalev to serve, photographically, as the fake Oswald-at-the-Cuban-Consulate-on-October-1 not only because he was captured on film about the same time (Oct. 2), but also because, of all the American-looking men captured on film there about that time, he (Moskalev) came the closest to matching the biometrics of "re-defector" Robert Webster, whose vital statistics had been substituted for Oswalds's few years earlier to be used as Popov' Mole mole-hunting "marked cards"? Was Goodpasture knowingly perpetuating the false information in those old marked cards, or was she simply unaware of Oswald's true biometrics? Concomitantly, was it just a coincidence that the guy who eventually became known as "Mexico City Mystery Man" was a KGB officer / agent (Moskalev), or was there something "more" to it? Thanks, --Tommy

David, I see your point. They needed a proofreader! Hmmm, actually, that wouldn't explain it, would it. You seem to be arguing that the the bad guys made that sentence up and put it in Oswald's mouth. i'm saying they probably didn't make it up because I don't think they were clever enough to not answer the question in such a creative, Oswald-like way. But you're right. Oswald probably didn't say exactly that sentence. He probably said, "You know how young guys are...," and they misquoted him, seein' as how so much time had elapsed and all. Question: Since the bad guys claimed that Oswald denied owning a rifle, why didn't they have him deny owning a revolver, too? Then, they could "produce' the one he may-or-may-not have owned and substituted it for the one that may-or-may-not have been planted on him in the theater, yelled xxxx xxxx pants on fire, publicized it, and gotten their own gun back! --Tommy Tommy - What I'm arguing is that without a tape recording (stenographer notes can be changed or transcribed incorrectly) we cannot know.... and going on the basis of what the rest of the evidence tells us - Oswald was guilty before it even happened so much so that virtually every piece of evidence recorded and offered confirms this preconclusion... is it really a surprise to you that the DPD coordinated its story and made sure to account for all the WHY's... while at the same time dropping the clues to their compliance with the conspiracy? The amount of "evidence" created after the fact is mind boggling... everything from ONI files "compiled" for outside review which cherry-picked the info, to the interpretation/inclusion of parts of the FBI WCDocs, to what the FBI reports themselves say, to who they DIDN'T talk to. COULD he have said it? of course... SHOULD the DPD be infinitely ashamed of itself and held accountable for not bothering to record as evidence the FREELY GIVEN statements of the suspect PRIOR to his arrest for said crime or arraignment... of course.... Now... to Fritz's notes and his report.... In the NOTES (p3 of 5) - it says Oswald tells him he "bgt gun 7 mo Ft W.(orth)" surprisingly THAT didn't make the interrogation reports... In the REPORT (p3) it says that Oswald said "he went home, changed his trousers, and got his pistol and went to the pictures" In the NOTES (and from Bookout) we learn it was not just his trousers but his shirt as well.. WHERE does Oswald talk about putting on a jacket before he left?? Fritz's report continues with WHALEY identifying Oswald... even though he was not the cab driver of 1st choice.... and on and on.... ==== Tommy - my overridding point here is that the evidence - especially "this is what Oswald said and did according to us... yet we have no proof" - is not something we can have any real faith in... The EVIDENCE offered supports his changing his shirt... and that the recollections of those who see OSWALD prior to his arrest (Bledsoe and Roberts) are at best coached reconstructions using the evidence found and clothing on when arrested as its basis. Fritz writes twice in the3 notes he changed his shirt... yet fails to inform the FBI who has the "arrest shirt" on the 22nd, that it is NOT the shirt worn at 12:30.... Why not? David, So what you're saying is that since we can't know for sure if Oswald said what his interrogators claimed he said, we should assume that they lied about everything he said. Interesting. And if Oswald happened to tell a fib or two, did they let those "stand" to show what a rotten, low-down xxxx he was, or did they distort those, too (and perhaps unwittingly turn them into true statements)? I hope you don't think that Oswald always told the truth, and therefore all of the so-called "false" statements he made in adult life were put in his mouth (or on his job applications, passport forms, etc) by the omniscient and omnipresent Bad Guys. --Tommy

David, I see your point. They needed a proofreader. Hmmm, actually, that wouldn't explain it, would it. You seem to be arguing that the the bad guys made that sentence up and put it in Oswald's mouth. i'm saying they probably didn't make it up because I don't think they were clever enough to not answer the question in such a creative, Oswald-like way. But you're right. Oswald probably didn't say exactly that sentence. He probably said, "You know how young guys are when they have a gun, they just carry it," and they misquoted him, seein' as how so much time had elapsed and all. Question: Since the bad guys claimed that Oswald denied owning a rifle, why didn't they have him deny owning a revolver, too? Then, they could "produce" the one he may-or-may-not have owned and substituted it for the one that may-or-may-not have been planted on him in the theater, yelled xxxx xxxx pants on fire, publicized it, and gotten their own gun back! --Tommy

Richard, I've read in either Truly's or Shelley's WC testimony that the order fillers like Oswald rarely had occasion to go up to the sixth floor to fill an order. Anyway, what does it really matter which shirt Prayer Man was wearing? Would the "tan" "light brown" "brown" button-down collar one be better at covering Oswald's tee shirt? Is that why he has to be wearing that one? Do you think it's impossible that Oswald lied about changing his clothes? He was known to have prevaricated from time to time, wasn't he? if you had gone home just to get your revolver and some ammunition, would you admit it to the interrogators? Do you think Oswald really went home just to change his dirty clothes and grabbed his gun as an afterthought? Or do you think that gun was planted on him at the Texas Theater? --Tommy Thomas, hope you don't mind my addressing your question... Look at all the images of either Oswald... but focus on Harvey. Appears to me that he is ALWAYS dressed fairly well... from USMC days thru FPCC leafletting - and was dressed just fine at the theater until they roughed him up a bit. My point is that HARVEY it seems, liked to make a decent impression. He did so to Truly when he was interviewed.... and I have yet to see a photo of HARVEY where he is not dressed well. The big IF Oswald knew he had to get tot he theater to meet a contact... and knowing he was doing the work for the FBI/CIA he would have to protect himself... Although there is testimony from those in the theater at the time that the revolver was being held by a dark, short sleeved arm... and we KNOW the Seaport Chain of evidence is bogus.... so his being set up with a planted gun... especially given what Hill says about the shells... is very possible/probable. Ask yourself whether WESTBROOK's finding of the jacket makes any sense... Oswald grabs a jacket only to take it off and leave it on the ground ??? How reliable is the half blind Earlene Roberts? The problem I have is Fritz page 2... "Says 11-22-63 rode bus got trans same out of pocket ........ got off bus after seeing jam got cab etc .85 fare told you wrong before at apt. Changed shirts + tr. Put in ditry clothes - long sleeve red sh + gray tr." The "TOLD YOU WRONG BEFORE" sounds like a quote from Oswald... was he telling them that was NOT how it happened yet they did not include that part?? IDK... but the bus ride and Baker/Truly did not happen as these notes suggest... and Oswald I believe says so repeatedly.... These notes were not made public or even offered to the SS/FBI until ?? (any help?) so that Bledsoe's story could be made to support the notes.... I am also not 100% convinced that HARVEY was the man who went to his room in "shirt sleeves".... unless he had already removed his shirt as he was moving along. (As a side note, I know I have favorite clothes, no reason to believe that Oswald here did not like much of the same things... grey slacks, t-shirt and brown/reddish sport/dress shirt as a "jacket" or covering. He also had some blue stuff but for the most part his clothing was all very similar) Awareness of this info about his changing clothes (or Baker's affidavit saying nothing about a lunchroom, door or little window) leads me back to the conclusion that the evidence compiled to convict Oswald was created on the spot as needed... Soemthing the DPD and FBI were notoriously known for. DJ David, If, as you think, the revolver was planted on Oswald at the theater, who, then, do you think came up with the classic Oswald line as to why he had taken the dang thing with him to the picture show -- "You know how boys do when they have a gun, they just carry it." - and - If you were Oswald and had a pistol, given the situation you were in or thought you might be in, wouldn't you have it taken it to your dark, prearranged meeting place, too? --Tommy