Gil Jesus

No amount of turning is going to put an impact mark on the windshield on the right.

When you put the windshields side-by-side, you can see the difference in the damage. I'm sorry, but these are NOT the same windshields.

I can agree with the part that he was supposed to meet someone there. Wasn't there a witness in the theater who claimed that Oswald was moving from seat-to-seat sitting next to people ? Isn't this what an intel operative would do ? Sit next to someone, say a phrase and expect that person to answer with another phrase ? Then if that person doesn't answer with the correct phrase, he moves on to the next person ? Sounds plausible to me.

When you use words like "could have" and "plausibile", you're speculating. There was no other "at that time" that makes any sense. The reporter was asking about "at that time" referring to the time of the shooting. Was he in the building "at that time" he took the day off to go to the movies ? Was he in the building "at that time" he came to work ? You're grasping for straws, Roger. Oswald was in the building at the time of the shooting, but not on the sixth floor. There's no evidence to corroborate Hosty's note that Oswald was outside the building. 31 Depository employees, some who knew him, were outside the building, some on the steps, some in front of the bulding, some across the street. Not one ever said they saw Oswald. And if they didn't know Oswald on the 22nd, by the time they were interviewed in March 1964, the whole world knew what Oswald looked like. If he were out there, one of those 31 employees would have mentioned seeing him. No Roger, he was asked by the reporter if he was in the building "at that time" the President was shot. He understood the question and answered it accordingly. You don't have to overthink it. The evidence speaks for itself.

I'm interested in hearing what you think the reporter meant when he said, "at that time" if he wasn't talking about the time of the shooting. At what time ? Were the reporters gathered at police headquarters because of an epileptic seizure ? Or was it because Bonnie Ray Williams had eaten his chicken lunch on the sixth floor ? Please, tell us what that "anything else" was.

Pauline Sanders left the SECOND floor lunchroom at 12:20. She told the FBI that she never saw Oswald AT ANY TIME on Novermber 22, 1963. ( 22 H 672 ) That includes the second floor lunchroom. She took up her place to watch the motorcade in front of the TSBD. In addition, there were seven other office people in front of the building who gave statements to the FBI ( Jane Berry, Avery Davis, Judith McCully, Madie Reese, Sarah Stanton, Betty Thornton and Otis Williams ). This is in addition to Lovelady, Shelley and Frazier. None of these 11 people ever reported seeing Oswald on the front steps. IMO the evidence indicates that Oswald was in the Domino Room on the first floor eating lunch. Not one employee reported to the FBI that they saw him in the second floor lunchroom, no one saw him on the sixth floor and no one reported seeing him outside on the front steps of the building. I agree with Pat. People look at blurry pictures and see whatever they want to see. That's why I don't get involved in picture interpretations. If people want to believe that Oswald was on the front steps and there was a conspiracy between the employees to cover it up, well, you can ignore reality and speculate that the world is flat, that men can get pregnant, or that the truth is whatever you say it is. Nowadays, everybody has their own "truth". It all comes down to: does the evidence support the theory ? IMO the evidence doesn't support Oswald being on the front steps. Who that is I can't tell you. I can't even tell if it's a male or female. But IMO, the evidence tells me that it's not Oswald.

The Warren Commission used circular reasoning in their case against Oswald. Its supporters use it to defend the Commission as well. Normal reasoning starts with a premise that is proven and leads to a conclusion. Circular reasoning starts with a conclusion, accepts it as fact without physical proof, then circles back to the premise using the conclusion as proof of the premise. For example, McWatters handing the transfer to Oswald would result in the Dallas Police finding it on his person. That's normal reasoning. Circular reasoning says because police said they found McWatters' bus transfer on Oswald, that means McWatters handed it to him. It doesn't matter to these people that McWatters testified that Oswald was NOT the man he gave the transfer to, or that Oswald was NOT even the man who got on his bus, the fact that the police said so is the proof. And any evidence to the contrary they completely ignore. Just like the coverup Commission they defend.

McWatters testified that Oswald WASN'T the man he gave the transfer to. So what makes you say police found it on Oswald ? Because THEY said so ? Oswald was completely searched TWICE before they allegedly found that transfer. The transfer was supposedly found on Oswald as he was searched waiting for the first lineup to begin at 4:05 pm. So the police arrested Oswald and didn’t search him for almost an hour and a half after his arrest ? It was allegedly found by Detective Richard Sims, who took it back up to the office, initialed it and put it in an envelope and left it in a desk of a superior officer of whom he could not remember. ( 7 H 173 ) It appears more than likely that this item was planted by police to defend the idea that Oswald fled on his own and not with an accomplice. Why do I call this transfer phony ? Several reasons. Firstly, Officer M.G. Hall assisted Sims and Boyd with the escort of Oswald to the first and second lineups. His report makes no mention of of a search or of finding any bus transfer on Oswald. Secondly, an FBI teletype dated 2-3-64 notes that Detective Paul Bentley reported that he “completely searched Oswald and nothing was left in his pockets.” No mention of any bus transfer. Capt. Fritz verified that “Oswald was completely searched following his arrest and was allowed to keep nothing.” Verification that Bentley emptied Oswald’s pockets comes during a second search as he sat in Capt. Fritz’s office by Dallas policeman Charles Truman ( CT ) Walker who told the HSCA in a 1978 interview that he “searched him good, but found nothing“. This is the Commission’s evidence that Oswald boarded a bus after leaving the Texas School Book Depository. A bus driver who wouldn’t identify him. A teenage passenger who couldn’t identify him. A woman who whose memory was damaged so badly from a previous stroke that she had to read from a script. She couldn’t remember what bus she was on. Mr. BALL. Which bus did you catch ? Mrs. BLEDSOE. Well, I don't remember whether it was the Marsalis or the Romana. ( 6 H 408 ) She could have been on another bus for all we know. She claimed Oswald’s wife was Spanish. She claimed all the buttons on his shirt were torn off. She claimed his face was distorted. Poor thing, the only thing distorted was her memory. This was a witness who obviously had suffered brain damage. And there’s the bus transfer that was taken from Oswald after his pockets had been emptied, he was searched twice without any mention of a bus transfer and was issued from a transfer book that eventually vanished into thin air. This is the “evidence” that forms the foundation of the Commission’s conclusion that Oswald boarded a bus to escape the scene of the assassination. An unreliable witness. Lying police officers. A disappearing transfer book. It all makes a great fairy tale.

I hate to burst your bubble, but McWatters never positively identified Oswald either as the man who got on his bus or the man he gave the transfer to. Based on that fact, the rest of your summary is flawed.

To our friends in the United Kingdom: My most heartfelt condolences for the loss of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, the longest reigning monarch in British History. Those of us across the pond will never forget her break with a 600 year old tradition by requesting the Band of the Coldstream Guards play the "Star Spangled Banner" ( US National Anthem ) at the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace after the attacks of 9/11. America has lost a dear friend and we all share in your grief.

I can't see how anybody, regardless of what you believe, could look at the targets in evidence and conclude that the CE 139 rifle was accurate. When the physical evidence is at odds with the testimony, then testimony is wrong. The Commission's experts lied and those lies were repeated in the Report. The targets are the proof. And it calls into question ANYTHING the Commission's Report concludes. If they lied about that, what else did they lie about ?

By Gil Jesus ( 2022 )"The various tests showed that the Mannlicher-Carcano was an accurate rifle and that the use of a four-power scope was a substantial aid to rapid, accurate firing." ( Report, pg. 195 )Both of the above points are lies. The Mannlicher-Carcano was NOT an accurate weapon and the scope did NOT enhance its speed or accuracy. For any test designed to recreate performance to be valid, all of the conditions that existed in the original performance must exist in the test.Otherwise, you're measuring apples against oranges.Three tests were done for speed and accuracy, two by the FBI and one by the Army. All three tests showed that the rifle was unable to perform at the level of speed and accuracy attributed to it by the Warren Commission. The FBI tests"It is a very accurate weapon. The targets we fired showed that". ( FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier's testimony in 3 H 411 )The targets, however, proved that that was a lie. The first FBI test was done on November 27, 1963. It tested the rifle at distances 15 and 25 yards because, according to testimony from one of its firearms experts, Robert Frazier, the facility to test rifle at long range was not available.The tests were conducted for speed and accuracy. ( 3 H 402 )Three FBI experts fired the rifle at 15 yards. Charles Killion fired three rounds in 9 seconds and Cortlandt Cunningham did it in 7 seconds. Frazier completed the sequence in 6 seconds.Killion's 3 hits were 2 1/2 inches high and 1 inch to the right. Cunningham's 3 shots were 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right. Frazier's 3 shots were the same as Cunningham's, 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right. ( 3 H 403 - 404 ) https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/FBI-test-15-yards.jpg Frazier was the only participant in the test at 25 yards. In this test, Frazier fired two sets of three shots.In his first set, he fired three rounds in 4.8 seconds, but his shots were 4 inches high and 1 to 2 inches to the right, same as it was at 15 yards. ( 3 H 404 )In his second set, he fired three rounds in 4.6 seconds, but 1 shot was an inch high and the other two were 4-5 inches high. ( ibid. ) https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/WH_Vol17_246-ce-550.jpg The short distance tests showed that, even with the scope, the rifle missed the aiming point by almost a half of a foot.It wasn't until almost 4 months later, on March 16, 1964, that the FBI was able to test the rifle at long range. This test was conducted with a target at 100 yards and the only shooter once again was Robert Frazier.I refer to this test as the second FBI test because it wasn't done at the same time and date as the short distance test.In this test, Frazier fired four sets of 3 shots.In his first set, he fired the three shots in 5.9 seconds, but was 5 inches too high.In the second set, he fired the shots in 6.2 seconds, but was 4 inches high and 3-4 inches to the right.In his third set, he fired the shots in 5.6 seconds, but he was 2 1/2 inches high and 2 inches to the right.In his final set, he fired the three rounds in 6.5 seconds, but was 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right. ( 3 H 405 ) https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/frazier-100-yards.jpg The long distance test conducted by the FBI proved that the further the target, the more a shooter missed what he was aiming at. What was a 2 1/2 to 4 inch miss at 15 yards, was a 4-5 inch miss at 100 yards.In total, 3 FBI agents fired 27 rounds from the CE 139 rifle and not one round hit where they were aiming at.The results of these tests proved that the rifle was NOT accurate and that Frazier lied under oath when he testified that it was.Undaunted by the results of the FBI's tests, the Commission did what it usually did when the FBI's evidence did not give it the results it desired: it turned to a second opinion.In this case, it turned to the US Army.The Army testsBecause the FBI's tests had proven that the CE 139 rifle was inaccurate weapon, the Commission needed results proving otherwise. For that it turned to the US Army's weapons testing facility at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. The man who supervised the testing was Ronald Simmons, Chief of the Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army.For the sake of being brief, I'll refer to these as the "army tests".The Army's testing of the CE 139 rifle was done on March 27, 1964, eleven days after the FBI tests showed that the rifle could not have committed the crime.The first test they did was a dispersion test. This is a test to measure the distance between or the "spread" of bullets fired at a target.To minimize the dispersion or "spread" of the bullets, the testers used a "machine rest". ( 3 H 443 ) https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/machine-rest.jpg It was under these conditions, firing the rifle in a machine rest, that Simmons called the CE 139 rifle, "quite accurate" ( ibid. ), something the Commission quoted in its Report ( pg. 194 ), but failed to reveal under what circumstances the comment was made.It's hard to image any rifle not being accurate when set up in a rig like that.In fact, when comparing the accuracy of the rifle in a machine rest with its accuracy in the hands of a master rifleman, the rifle was anything but accurate.The dispersion of the bullets on the targets of 240 and 270 ft show a wide spread. ( grey circle , below ) https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/spread.jpg Not only was the dispersion wide on the second and third targets , almost half of those shots missed the target.But having the rifle in a machine rest wasn't the only advantage the Army shooters had that a shooter from the sixth floor did not have.Advantage # 1: Skill level https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/master.jpg For its test, the Commission used three riflemen rated as Master ( the highest rating ) by the National Rifle Association. These were not men who grab a rifle and take pictures in their backyard, making believe they're something they're not. These guys were the real deal.Two were civilians employed by the US Army as gunners and the third was on active duty. ( 3 H 445 )And their skill level was far superior to Oswald's. In addition to being rated as Master riflemen, all three had experience in national shooting match competitions sponsored by the NRA. ( 3 H 450 )In comparison, they were major league and Oswald was bush league.On May 6, 1959 Oswald participated in a his final qualification test. In that test, he qualified "marksman" with a low reading of 191. The bare minimum to qualify was 190. ( red boxes below ) https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/poor_shot.jpg Lt. Col. A.G. Folsom Jr. Head of the Records Bureau of the Marine Corps., reported to the Commission that, "a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor shot".Lt. Col. Folsom's understanding of Oswald's rating was verified by Sgt. Nelson Delgado, Oswald's Sergeant, who described how poor a shot Oswald really was. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Sgt.-Nelson-Delgado.mp4 Skill advantage: riflemen. Advantage # 2: Firing at stationary targetsAnother advantage the Commission's shooters had was that they were firing at stationary targets placed at 175, 240 and 270 ft. rather than at a moving target.Simmons told the Commission that in his opinion, the moving of the target would have no effect on the accuracy of fire because Kennedy was moving away from the rifle and was "exposed to the rifleman at all times". ( ibid.)But this is not true. Anyone who has fired a rifle before knows that shooting at a moving target requires establishing a "lead". You must keep the gun moving with the target, in the same direction but in front of it, maintaining your "lead" as the target moves and then pull the trigger while you're continuing to move the gun.This is called follow-through and it's necessary to hitting a moving target. If you stop the gun and lose that lead, you will miss.This is a special skill that you can't learn from shooting at stationary targets in competitive events.A target moving away from you would normally require a "lead" above it, not below it. A rifle firing as much as 5 inches high and 5 inches to the right would have required the shooter using it to aim his crosshairs just above Kennedy's left shoulder in order to hit his head.We will never know what skills these riflemen had at shooting at moving targets. How much time it would have taken to fire three shots and how accurate those three shots would have been will remain one of those mysteries of the case.The fact remains that shooting at a stationary target gives a shooter an advantage in speed by not having to reacquire the target and the "lead" between shots.Speed advantage: riflemen Advantage # 3: Time of first shotThe Commission concluded that because of the leaves on the tree outside the TSBD, the gunman's view from the sixth floor was obstructed until Zapruder frame 210. ( Report, pg. 105 ) Kennedy's reaction is apparent at Z225, some 15 frames or 0.8 seconds after he emerges from behind the tree.This means that a gunman firing from the sixth floor had only .8 seconds to aim, lead the target and fire the first shot.But the riflemen in the Commission's test were allowed to take as much time as they pleased aiming at the first target. ( 3 H 445 )This advantage would be for accuracy. The shooter takes his time aiming for the first shot, when it's fired he can see where it hits and make an adjustment in his aim for the subsequent shots.And the first shot will always be the most accurate.Accuracy advantage: riflemenAdvantage # 4: Number of attemptsThree riflemen were given two attempts each with the CE 139 rifle. In total, 6 attempts were made and 18 shots were fired. In addition, the shooters were allowed 2-3 minutes each to work the stiff bolt back and forth before firing. There is no evidence that Oswald fired the rifle before November 22, 1963 and on that date, he allegedly only got one attempt of 3 shots.Familiarity advantage: riflemenAdvantage # 5: HeightWhile a shooter firing from the sixth floor would have been firing from a height of 60 feet, the Commission's shooters fired from a height of only 30 feet. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/WH_Vol17_260-tower.jpg Lowering the height from which the rifleman fires lowers the distance the bullet has to travel to the target. Using this calculator, where a is the height of the 6th floor in feet ( 60 ) and b is the distance of the head shot ( 240 ) we get a distance of 247.39 feet the shot has to travel.https://www.google.com/search?q=hypotenuse&oq=&aqs=chrome.0.69i59i450l8.1463681633j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8But at a height of 30 feet, that distance comes down to 241.87. Not a big difference, but a difference nonetheless. And any shortage in distance is an advantage in time.Timing advantage: riflemen The test resultsIn spite of all the advantages the shooters had in this test, riflemen Staley and Hendrix were unable to complete the three-shot sequence in less than 6.45 seconds. Staley's best was 6.45, Hendrix's was 7 seconds flat. ( 3 H 446 )Since their times were not anywhere near the 5.6 seconds the Warren Commission concluded was the firing sequence, I'll avoid critiquing their accuracy. Suffice it to say that they could not duplicate Oswald's alleged performance.However, the third rifleman, Miller, was able to fire three shots within the Commission's 5.6 timeframe, albeit his accuracy was way off.In his first attempt, Miller was able to fire three rounds in 4.6 seconds and his second attempt, 5.15. But he missed the second shot on both attempts. This is what his scorecard looked like: https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/miller-both-attempts.jpg Miller was the best for speed, but he missed the "target" twice and nearly missed it on his last shot.As a result, Miller's performance, while as fast as or faster than that of the Commission's lone gunman, it could not match his alleged accuracy.And for accuracy, we need to look no further than the scope. The defective scopeWhen the FBI fired the rifle in November of 1963, it found that the shots were all high and to the right from the aiming point. But because the shots were so closely grouped together, it never occurred to the FBI experts to try to sight the rifle in.When they did the long distance test at Quantico, they DID try to sight the rifle in and found that adjusting the windage ( horizontal adjustment ) turret on the side of the scope moved the elevation ( vertical ) adjustment as well. ( 3 H 405 ) https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/scope-adjustments.png This made the scope impossible to sight in and the FBI was left with sighting in the rifle "approximately". They test fired the rifle and found that "the shots were not landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact". ( 3 H 405 )Frazier was unable to tell the Commission exactly when this defect occurred but the fact that the rifle was firing high and to the right when the Bureau fired it for the first time indicates it was damaged prior to the November 27th testing.Frazier testified that this defect could be compensated for by merely aiming the crosshairs low and to the left ( 3 H 407 ), meaning that a shooter wishing to shoot Kennedy in the head would have to aim just over his left shoulder.When Ronald Simmons testified before the Warren Commission, he made no mention that the windage adjustment was interferring with the elevation adjustment. He admitted that his people could not sight the rifle in and introduced two shims, one for the elevation and one for the azimuth ( windage ). ( 3 H 443 )As it turned out, the shims were not an advantage, especially after 58.3 yards ( 175 ft ). The shims appeared to make the shots miss low and to the left.The second and third targets ( 240 and 270 ft, respectively ) showed a wide dispersion and 5 of the 12 shots missed the target completely. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/5-of-12-missed.jpg Conclusion One of those flunkies the Commission called on was Marine Master Sergeant James Zahm, who told the Commission that Oswald's training and the equipment he used made him capable of committing the crime. ( 11 H 309 )But Zahm was neither an expert on Oswald, the scope or the rifle. He had never spent time on a firing range with Oswald. He had never test fired the rifle or tried to sight in the scope.His opinions were based on the use of a scope that was NOT defective and he was never shown the targets that were shot at.How anybody could consider that this rifle, with this scope was an accurate weapon is beyond me. The targets presented as evidence indicates that the Commission's experts were XXXXX or had no idea.The FBI targets in particular show where the shooters were aiming at and where the bullets hit. Frazier's own testimony was that even at 15 yards, the rifle fired 2 1/2 to 4 inches high from where they aimed it. ( 3 H 404 ) At 25 yards, it was 4-5 inches high. At 100 yards, it was 2 1/2 to 5 inches high.An accurate weapon, sighted in correctly, hits where you aim it.The Army installed shims to try to sight the rifle in. They used unmarked targets displaying shoulder and head only and gave no direction to their shooters where to aim. ( 3 H 445 )How does one measure accuracy and omit having a common aiming point ? How does one measure how far off the bullet was without a reference point ?Were they aiming for the head ? Center mass ? Were they all aiming at the same spot or someplace else ?The Commission never asked. And it never heard from the Army shooters who participated in the test.The Commission used riflemen with superior skills firing at stationary targets.They were able to take as long as they wanted for the first shot, even though a shooter from the sixth floor would have only .8 seconds to fire the first shot.They got more attempts and more shots ( the FBI's Frazier got 7 attempts and 21 shots ) than was attributed to Oswald. And they fired from a tower that was lower than the sixth floor, shortening the distance the bullet had to travel to the target.In spite of all of these advantages, advantages that Oswald did not have, six gunmen took 15 attempts and fired 45 shots from the CE 139 rifle and failed in every attempt to hit what they aimed at.And there is no evidence that Oswald was any more proficient in the operation of this weapon than they were.In fact, there's no evidence that Oswald fired as many or more shots through this weapon than Robert Frazier did.And Frazier never hit what he aimed at.Which brings us to the defective scope. The evidence indicates that the scope was defective on November 27, when the FBI first tested the rifle and it fired high and to the right.No evidence exists to show that the scope was damaged after the assassination or while in the possession of the Dallas Police.Absent that evidence, we must assume that the condition of the scope when received by the FBI was the same condition it was in at the time of the assassination.The scope was defective as it would not allow you to sight the rifle in. The FBI couldn't sight it in and the Army couldn't sight it in.Six expert riflemen took 15 attempts and fired 45 shots from the CE 139 rifle and failed in every attempt to hit what they aimed at.But Oswald hit two out of three.This rifle, with this scope, was not accurate enough to kill President Kennedy. The rifle tests proved that.

I don't consider what any author publishes as "historic proof".

And a Texan who had experience shooting. He heard a shot, he recognized it as a rifle shot. He turned to the right, didn't see the President and was turning back to the left and got almost facing straight forward when he felt the impact of the bullet that hit him. This is his summary and it's significant because the BULLET WAS TRAVELLING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF SOUND. So if he HEARD the shot and was not hit, then that bullet did not hit him. And that's what he said. "I'm convinced that the first shot did not hit me. Then I was hit." He heard the shot that did not hit him, then felt the impact of the bullet that did. His account is evidence that Kennedy was slumping to his left, out of Connally's range of vision at the first shot. Then Connally was hit. Connally's account indicates he and the President were hit by separate shots and resulted in the FBI and SS reports on the assassination concluding just that. More importatntly, it blows away the SBT and provides proof of a second gunman.

Sorry to hear of his passing. He was someone who I enjoyed messaging with. I once asked him about the book W.R. Morris wrote on the assassination using him as a source and he said that Morris was an exaggerator. That led me to research the death of another of Morris' subjects, McNairy County Tennessee Sheriff Buford Pusser. I believe that Morris exaggerated Pusser's story as well and Pusser died as the Tennessee Highway Patrol said he did, as a result of an accident. In the movie "Walking Tall, Final Chapter" the message is implied that Pusser was murdered, his tire was shot out, but I believe the cause of the crash was the failure of at least one of the Firestone Steel Belted Radial 500's he had on his 1974 Corvette. Several years later those tires were recalled in what was ( at the time ) the largest tire recall in history. The impression I got of Harry was that he was an honest man and we need more like him in this age of fakery and deceit. He will be missed.

Folks can hear it from the horse's mouth: Dr. Joseph Dolce ( pronounced Dole-chay) on CE 399 causing all of the non-fatal wounds : https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/dolce.mp4 Summary by Dr. Cyril Wecht: https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/wecht_magic-bullet.mp4

Au contraire mon frere: https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-murder/

Or maybe what you see in those pictures is not the paper "gunsack" but a paper filler used in the cartons to protect the books. https://gil-jesus.com/the-paper-gunsack/

At 7: 21: "This is an Argentine-made bolt action rifle" I wonder where they got that from ?

Judge for yourself: https://gil-jesus.com/the-agents-in-the-limo/

The Dallas Police executed a search warrant on Saturday, November 23, 1963 at the home of Ruth Paine. During that search, police claimed to have found pictures of Oswald with a rifle and handgun in a holster on his hip. ( Stovall Exhibit D ) But the itemized list of things they recovered during that search ( Stovall Exhibit B ) does not include the photographs or negatives, or an ad from Klein's they recovered showing the alleged murder weapon. Why not ? Not only are they missing from the evidence list, photographs of the evidence recovered show no "backyard photographs" or ads for Klein's. Why not ? So are we to believe that they had this rock solid evidence linking Oswald to the rifle and the handgun, both murder weapons, and they didn't even put them on the evidence list and didn't even photograph them with the rest of the evidence they confiscated ? What the fudge-and-cookies ?

A white jacket that becomes tan. .38 auto shells that become .38 specials. An automatic pistol that becomes a revolver. A cop killer who discards his jacket but holds on to the weapon tying him to the murder. At a time when police are looking for the killer of a brother officer who was reportedly on foot, he has $ 13.87 in his pocket but instead of escaping the scene by bus or taxi, he elects to avoid capture by fleeing on foot down a street crawling with cops. He furthers his chances of escape by acting suspiciously and drawing attention to himself. Then he figures he'll avoid arrest by beating the Texas Theater out of a 90 cent movie ticket. Yeah, that's believable.

Let me add a couple more to that: This same man fled after killing a police officer and discarded his jacket while keeping the revolver that connected him to the murder. This same man chose to avoid police by fleeing down a main street that had a heavy police presence, drawing attention to himself and risked arrest by beating a theater out of 90 cents, even though he had $ 13.87 in his pocket. I guess it makes all the sense in the world to them.

The owner of a video has every right to determine how that video will be distributed. If the lone nutters are focusing on you, it's because they feel guilt that they screwed up. When they don't like the message, they go after the messenger. That's what they do.

Sounds like somebody edited out the tossing of the jacket before they showed the film to them. The reason why I say that is because what the women saw was confirmed by the witness at the scene who was mentioned in the radio transcript. ( 21 H 397 )