Duke Lane

If I'm not mistaken, Brewer may also have mentioned them and their affiliation with Big Blue during his testimony. You'll have to recall, however, that even Brewer didn't know he was chasing an "assassin," just some guy he thought was acting funny; he apparently left them in the store since there was no apparent reason for him to ask them to come along with him. I seem to recall that he'd said that, when he returned to the store, they'd left and maybe even locked the door behind them. It's possible if not probable that they came outside when police cars started showing up en masse to watch the commotion (elsewhere I've posted the names of all the officers - 40-something of them - who'd responded to the Oak Cliff shooting, most from Dealey Plaza. I've since learned that over 20 sheriff's units also responded, and it's possible that a number of deputy constables did as well since one of their stations was located at 12th & Beckley). What became of them and who they are is anyone's good guess: it doesn't seem that anybody's ever asked John Brewer. What they might have been, if they'd seen what Brewer had noticed, are witnesses to Oswald's last free moments. There's no indication, however, that they ever saw Tippit's killer.

I have no particular qualms about the fatal shot - or any or all of them - having come from the 6th floor southeast window. If it could be shown with 100% certainty that this is indeed the case, that does nothing toward proving whose finger was on the trigger. The proof that Oswald was not there is the fact that none of the four men upstairs who were on the fifth and/or sixth floors said that they had seen him there, which they absolutely must have if he was there. Bonnie Ray Williams was on the sixth floor to within three minutes of the shooting, in a position where he would have seen - and probably did see - whoever was in the "sniper's nest" area. Jack Dougherty was standing "ten feet west of the west elevator" - that is, directly in the path of the fleeing assassin (which scenario was only necessary if Oswald was the shooter having to hurry downstairs to meet Baker & Truly in the second floor lunchroom within 90 seconds) - and was not run over by Oswald as he had to have been. Hank Norman and Junior Jarman did not go upstairs until after they had heard - either directly from a police radio, or through the word spreading through the crowd - that the Presidential parade was on Main Street. The earliest that could have been was 12:22, or possibly as late as 12:26. They then walked around the TSBD via Houston Street and rode the freight elevator to the fifth floor. Bonnie Ray joined them after they had arrived at the windows, and immediately after he had left the sixth floor. Both elevators were on the fifth floor, according to the testimony of Roy Truly, who had looked up the shaft and seen the bottoms of both elevators at the same level after entering the building behind Officer Baker, and before the two of them began their ascent by stair. The east-side passenger elevator could only be operated by someone inside the elevator car; the freight elevator, while able to be called from another floor, would not operate if the gate was open. Truly was unable to call either elevator to the first floor, thus indicating that the freight elevator gate was open. When Baker & Truly reached the fifth floor, the freight elevator was gone. Jack Dougherty himself testified to his location at the time he heard "a backfire," and that he was "getting stock" on both the fifth and sixth floors. Since the only other persons known to be upstairs - the "three blind mice" at the front windows - were away from the elevators. While any could have left the gate open (despite Jarman's testimony that he'd closed it upon exiting), Jack's proximity to the west-side freight elevator - "ten feet west of the west elevator" - his "getting stock," and his admission that he'd ridden the freight elevator downstairs after hearing the "backfire," does more than simply suggest that it was Jack who'd had the elevator gate open. When Roy Truly saw the elevators upstairs, he not only yelled up for it, but also rang a bell that was used to alert anyone using the elevator that someone else needed it and to make sure the gate was closed. Standing directly beside it, Jack did not react to the bell or Truly's yelling. Whether this was a pre-arranged signal or not, it certainly served to alert anyone upstairs that someone else wanted to use the elevator. Since Bonnie Ray could've seen Oswald but apparently didn't (he'd have had no fear of retribution from Oswald after the weekend was over, so if he'd seen him he could have said so), and had been upstairs past the time that the parade had been scheduled to go by - meaning that anyone who'd intended to shoot the President would have had to have been in position before the scheduled 12:25 arrival - and Jack did not get run over (or hear or see anything) while standing directly in Oswald's presumed path from the time he'd heard the "backfire" until he'd taken the elevator downstairs after Truly had started upstairs, demonstrates conclusively that Oswald was not upstairs; someone else therefore must have been. Whoever was upstairs doing the shooting was not constrained by the time needed to meet Officer Baker on the second floor, and thus had nearly all of the time that it took Baker to run inside, wait for the elevator briefly, start upstairs, encounter Oswald, and run up the remaining flights of stairs, stopping to look beyond each landing, before it was necessary to go down ... or possibly up to wait at the sixth floor while Baker & Truly boarded the east elevator (which Truly did not even remark to Baker about its being missing when they got there) and rode it up to the seventh floor, clearing the way for the freight elevator to go down without the chance of encountering Baker on the way. ... And that, my friends, is how it's quite possible that the fatal shot came from the 6th floor southeast window without having been fired by Lee Oswald. It likewise explains the "elderly Negro" (Bonnie Ray with white stuff in his hair) seen by someone on the street, and it's my bet that it was Jack Dougherty both standing at "parade rest" (his WWII service before his release on medical grounds was guarding aircraft on the ground, i.e., sentry duty) and babysitting Bonnie Ray and the boys on the fifth floor to make sure they didn't go downstairs before the shooting was done, as well as how the shooter(s) got out of the building. Luke Mooney saw them on his way upstairs but apparently never realized it.

Here's another bit of information, via the Couch film, that was sent to me. Despite its poor quality, this appears to be a scene on Stemmons, with cars exiting at what could be Continental Blvd, judging by the length of the words on the sign. On the right there are three motorcycle or three-wheel officers standing by one motorcycle, and a fourth standing by the motorcycle in the center; two of the officers' motors are not shown. There are also three men in plain clothes standing with a fourth man on the left. Since we can reasonably deduce that there are at least two other motorcycles unaccounted for and that it's unlikely that these guys standing on the highway aren't all that kept traffic back, and it is clear that there are no vehicles on the highway behind them (other than perhaps on the side of the road: the image is too blurry to state for certain), the existence of the road block is now established, is it not? If anyone (Robin Unger, where are you?) has a clearer copy of this or adjacent frames, by all means, put it up here!

Oh, come on, Bill! You really believe that some DA, who has to stand for election, is really going to get a bunch of citizens together to sit on a grand jury and pay them by the day at $40 apiece, all to get to the root of a question of who put false information onto an improperly obtained form and sent it out to people who either didn't receive it or thought so little of its contents that they put it in a box somewhere and forgot about it without bringing it to anyone's attention, said "major crime" occuring some 30 or 40 years ago? Let's say the man was politically suicidal enough to do that. He drags Perry in, who tells him who the men were. He subpoenas said men, who come in and tell him the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I mean, what's the big deal? It was 30 or 40 years ago, they can't be prosecuted, just like the guy who sold the pot and made a gazillion bucks. Oh, and no perjury charge either. Damn, that was well worth the county's money, bringing someone before a solemn deliberative body on the off chance that you can get them to lie about something that might be a misdemeanor and be able to charge them with something new ... you think? Oh, and did I mention that they've got to go to the expense of trying the guys for perjury too ... if they lie and their fancy-suited lawyer doesn't get it thrown out as entrapment? Well worth it, though, if you consider all the harm it engendered. Yup, got put in a box, sure did. Stored away, forgotten. And then embarassed a few guys years later when they discovered the shocking original of this piece of tripe. Now that might be a crime worth a hanging, cuz y'know, if those first guys hadn't fabricated the thing, the others would never have found it and would've been spared the ignominy. Got any other major crimes to solve today? The important thing here is to get a conviction - on anything, it doesn't matter - as long as they get punished, right? I'm not even sure that a grand jury can hear misdemeanor questions. Incidentally, I'd love to be that DA's opponent come election time!

Why search for tips in the first place? Is Dave not satisfied that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Tippit? I'm not. Why should anyone else be?

The American Heritage Dictionary defines "document" as:A written or printed paper that bears the original, official, or legal form of something and can be used to furnish decisive evidence or information. Something, such as a recording or a photograph, that can be used to furnish evidence or information. A form is no more a "document" than blank film is a "photograph." The simple use of a blank form is not a crime unless the purposes for which that form might be used are illegal. It is not a crime, for example, for me to fill out an "official IRS Form 1040" to make it look like I made a million dollars last year if what I do with that filled-out form is not illegal. If I use it to impress my neighbor with how much money I made, no crime has been committed. If my neighbor rushes to his IRS auditor with the information that I made a million bucks but paid taxes on only $100K (my boast to him), still no crime has been committed. If the IRS auditor comes to my house in his official capacity to perform an audit on me, I've still committed no crime. Even if I show him the form I filled out to impress my neighbor, I've yet to commit a crime because I did not submit that form to the IRS. If, on the other hand, I did make a million bucks and I use that same form to show that I only made $100K, and submit that form to the IRS as evidence of how much money I made and taxes I owe, and by so doing am attempting to evade paying my fair share of taxes then yes, at long last, I've now committed a crime: attempting to evade payment of taxes by submission of false information to the legal authority charged with the responsibility to collect same. I can even use that form showing I made a million bucks to prove that I'm a very successful businessman in order to get a well-paying job for which I may be otherwise qualified, but the employer made my earning that much to be a precondition of employment. I can be fired; they can institute a civil action against me; I might even be prosecuted for fraud (intentional deceit perpetrated for profit or gain or some unfair or dishonest advantage), but the IRS can't prosecute me - and even if they could, they probably wouldn't - for using their form for deceitful purposes as long as I didn't deceive them to my advantage (they probably also wouldn't prosecute me for claiming to have made a million bucks last year as long as I went ahead and paid the appropriate taxes on it, and that amount was more than I actually owed). I can send love letters through the mail on FBI letterhead; it's okay to use a US Senator's envelope to mail payment to my credit card company as long as I put a stamp on it and don't use it for franking purposes (not that I think anyone's really going to bust me over 36¢ of postage!). I could go on and on, but the point is that simply using a piece of paper, whatever its lawful use may be, for some other purpose is not per se a crime unless the purpose it's used for is a crime. Simple deception only for the sake of deception, while maybe a sin, is not a crime. Other factors come into play as well: while Lane may have been, at one time, a pro bono representative of Marguerite Oswald, that relationship is not deemed to continue forever (if she'd paid him, the relationship would end when she stopped paying him; because he didn't charge her and still isn't charging her does not mean that he is "still her attorney"). The spurious document also did not impinge upon Marguerite's personal interests beyond her "interest" in her son's name and reputation. Likewise, there was no legal or even quasi-legal action taking place in which the document might be considered evidence: there wasn't, isn't, and never was any kind of court action taking place that this document might've had any effect on the outcome of same. Moreover, the attorney never received the document, and as previously noted, the document was never turned over to any investigative body with any sort of jurisdiction over the crime of murder that this document didn't even address. No harm, no foul. We might also note a little thing called "the statute of limitations." The only crime that carries none is murder, and the perpetrators of this so-called "crime" did not commit murder, nor did the document, so whatever crime you think was perpetrated, I'm quite certain the statute of limitations has long since expired: Marguerite died in January, 1981 - 27, almost 28 years ago - and she obviously received her copy of the document before her death, so if you think the "crime" has a 30-year statute of limitations, I guess you'd better get humpin' on it. Oh, and by the way: before you can file on it, you'd better have some legal standing to make the complaint - it had to affect you, personally, somehow - or else you're not going to get anywhere with it. (I'm often reminded of the time some guy was hauled into federal court because the IRS learned - through his 1040 - that he had several million dollars to his name that he had never claimed having earned and therefore hadn't paid taxes on. The man confidently strode into court and told the judge that he'd made the money some ten years before by selling marijuana and that it was rightfully his ... and because it was more than seven years ago that he'd failed to report the earnings, the IRS couldn't touch him ... and furthermore, because the statute of limitations had expired for the sale of an illegal substance, he couldn't be prosecuted for that either. He walked. On a similar note, the City and County of Denver, Colorado, enacted a law taxing marijuana and other substances, and requiring purveyors of such things to obtain a tax stamp to affix to their product upon sale thereof. Thus, when someone was caught selling a baggie, they not only had committed that crime, but had also evaded taxes, failed to affix said stamp to their product, etc. Of course, appearing at the county courthouse to obtain such a tax stamp also would likely trigger and investigation of your fine self, so nobody wanted to get one anyway!) So the bottom line is that, no matter how outraged you might be by these shenanigans, there's nothing that can be done about it now, even if it was a "major crime." Some other things:Embarassing someone is not a crime. Deceiving an attorney is not a crime. There is no indication that the guys who filled in and mailed this form were public officials of any sort, and to prove it, I may just march on over to our local PD here and get a copy of a blank arrest form just to show you it can be done. The completed form is not "evidence" in anything since there was no legal action taking place - not even an active or inactive investigation - for it to be considered legal evidence. Its content and context had nothing to do with a murder, so even if it were "evidence," it is certainly not "evidence in a murder investigation." "Public documents" are only that when someone in a public capacity completes them in conjunction with an official function or capacity; merely writing a letter on FBI letterhead does not make it a "public document." You have no evidence that the guys "stole" the blank form either. Oh, and didn't Penn Jones get the original page of the multi-part form? Geez, wouldn't you think that should've been on file at DPD? Since it quite obviously wasn't on file there since it did not originate there, there is no way it can be considered a "public document." For all the outrage, there's just nothing there. Even if Perry was as outraged as you are over this behavior, just like the guy who made a gazillion bucks selling pot and admitted it after the statutes of limitations had expired, there just ain't nothin' nobody can do about it, so "so what?" Save the outrage for something you can do something about. Oh, puh-leeeze!! Mary Bledsoe a "major player?" Get real! All she ever did was rent a room to Oswald for a week and see him on a bus. BFD.As to it "explaining her animosity toward Oswald," (1) it never happened, so it doesn't explain anything, and (2) if it had happened, I'd think she'd have said so. After all, she made particular mention of the fact that she didn't like Oswald having stored his milk in her refrigerator(!); don't you think she would've mentioned a fight, which is a heckuva lot less petty of a disturbance in her well-ordered life?

CAPS off; stop yelling, it doesn't become you.Didn't I once mistake YOU as a lawyer, too? And since I did, shouldn't you be a bit more professional? I can tell the difference between a crime and a hoax, and I'm not a "barrister" either ... and you're not a Brit. It's okay to be pissed off about this whole case, but I think it's a good idea not to make it personal. You have, and you shouldn't. Your apologies are appropriate, so do it.[/soapbox]

So you agree that Dave Perry has performed a signal service to JFK research by helping to expose several major hoaxes. Why not say "Bravo Dave Perry, you have exposed another hoax?" ... Yea, I'm sorry Dave Perry won't join the forum so we can disucss the merits of withholding the names of those who fabricated the DPD police report in order to smear Mark Lane. Fabricating evidence in a homicide is a crime, not a hoax. Bill, I see your point, but ...! If I understood it correctly, is it not a fact that this false information was sent to Mark Lane and to Penn Jones, and was in Marguerite Oswald's files at TCU (or somewhere), but was not sent to DPD or to the FBI or to any law enforcement jurisdiction of any kind? So what's the problem? To begin with, an altercation between Oswald and Ruby at Bledsoe's house has nothing to do with any murder. It's perhaps an interesting sidebar or even a bit of background, but is only distantly related to any "investigation of a murder." Secondly, it was sent to private citizens, not to anyone charged with investigating the crimes. Had the document in question been sent to DPD or the FBI - those officially charged with pursuing the official investigation - then I certainly agree that a crime took place. But since neither Lane nor Jones nor Marguerite Oswald were part of those agencies, no crime took place. Even they did not bring it to police attention (possibly because they, too, thought it a hoax? Well, Lane never even got it, so he doesn't even count here), so no such "evidence" was ever provided to anyone. There is, for example, a crime - perhaps several by now - of "lying to a federal agent" and/or "providing false information" and/or "obstructing justice," any or all of which are chargeable as a result of you wittingly telling official investigators a mistruth. "I know for a fact that Duke Lane was in the house when Jon Benet Ramsey was killed; I picked him up outside, but didn't know what he'd done at the time" is such an example. On the other hand, saying the same thing, but saying that "I'm sure because he told me he was" does not make either of us criminally liable since (1) I didn't tell the witting mistruth to the police; and (2) because you did tell them what I told you in good faith. The extra element in this example, however, is that you told the cops, which nobody in the "Bledsoe affair" did. Even if they had, the person who'd sent that document to them isn't any more liable for fabricating the "evidence" than I would have been about telling you the lie about my being in the Ramsey's house. Would you hold that I should be arrested for pulling your leg - and going to great lengths to do so - over a beer or ten in a pub? Oh, I suspect that if you'd brought that information to police, they'd have followed up on it, questioned me and I, of course, would've laughed it off and told them about what a bad dart shooter you were. They might well admonish me about telling things like this to people, that I'd wasted their time (albeit indirectly) about which they were none too happy, and a particularly zealous cop might even arrest me for it, but since I made no attempt to mislead investigators (how was I to know you'd take me seriously and call the cops? Sheesh, that Bill!), it's highly unlikely I'd be convicted ... even if the DA brought me to trial, which I doubt. So, go ahead and say it: "Bravo, Dave Perry, you've exposed another hoax!" (Here, let me help: b. b-brrr, brrraaa, b-brrraaa-vo! - C'mon, you can do it! - D-daaave P-p-peeerrrrry! - next sentence now ...! )

Bell background stabilized [movie attached]. Should Ed or Officer Murphy appear on the Stemmon's (I believe) overpass? If so, where would they be in Bell?Well, maybe don't be so quick with the praise or even the belief that Murphy was really there.I received the following email the other day; I don't know if the writer believes EH was on the bridge or not, but apparently there is some issue about the traffic stop that I described in "FM," to wit: Well, I looked and doggoned if that didn't seem to be the case, but with all the testimony and documentation about it, I had difficulty in believing it was fabricated so thoroughly, even down to the point of getting a newspaper employee to lie and adding radio transmissions referring to it. I likewise couldn't imagine that DPD or the Secret Service would have allowed a parade - any parade, much less that featuring a US President in it - to simply get onto the highway and blend into traffic, and that's just what I replied (in a little more depth, as is my wont). The clincher came a few hours later: From the tone, it seems as if there could be no other The writer vouched for the absolute veracity of the Bell film and its transposition to video, and that "a [film] speed error cannot be responsible," ruling that possibility out. Since I don't think the "B-film" is doctored, the only option I apparently have is to admit I'm wrong; there are no others, it seems. (Unless, of course, you'd like to admit to doctoring the film, Chris? It'll save me an awful lot of work!) Here's the dilemma; work with me on it if you would. The traffic was still moving at what looks like highway speed, so the claim that traffic was stopped cannot be true This is roughly a five-second clip. In that five seconds, the limo does appear to just be entering the underpass and, "five seconds or less" later, the limousine does appear to be through and beyond the underpass, in keeping with the estimate above. No fakery there, is there? Not that I can figure so far. In the background are cars going across Stemmons Freeway south to north (left to right on the film). They're all going at about the same speed which, if it's "highway speed," is probably around 60 mph. I'd concluded in "FM" that the barricade was at or near the railroad bridge over Stemmons, depicted with the series of "M" balloons in the image below. From the end of the section of highway shown on the B-film (depicted by the red line on the image below) to where the balloons are, Google Earth estimates it at 0.06 miles or 342 feet. According to UK-based Hints and Things' "Approximate Stopping Distances" page (strangely enough in miles per hour and feet! See chart near the bottom of the page), at 60 mph there is a "thinking time distance" (the distance travelled before reacting to brake lights in front of you) of 60 feet and a braking distance (the time to stop after putting your foot in the brake to the time you actually stop) of 180 feet, for a "total braking distance" of 240 feet. Thus, if a car shown in the film at the farthest north portion of the highway (to the right in the film) didn't even notice anyone's brake lights ahead at that point would have 102 feet left over after stopping; that is, the driver would be able to react and brake within 240 feet before coming to a complete stop. So it would seem that if the cars were all moving at 60 mph, it is not so "the claim that traffic was stopped cannot be true," for most of them could have stopped within the 340 feet to the barricade ... and this assumes that they were "taken by surprise" by cars ahead suddenly braking and didn't slow down before the last possible second. The traffic was still moving at what looks like highway speed ... I'd noted above that all the cars were "going along at about the same speed," but was that "highway speed," i.e., around 60 mph? I decided to spend a bit more time on that question, even though the above is dispositive of the "impossibility" of a traffic stop at the railroad bridge. Here's what I observed and measured: As the clip starts, you notice a white car just entering the frame; in the screenshots below of the movie Christ posted, it is to the left of where the vertical and horizontal red lines intersect; you can see it more clearly in the second from, which is slightly advanced from the first. You can see the relative slide location from the slider bar at the bottom of the QuickTime window. Since Bell's camera was jittering, the car as seen in the second frame has not so much advanced forward as the camera lens has moved slightly to the left: compare the relative location to the left edge of the slide of the "half-domed" building that the car is passing, as well as the left edge of the frame compared to the edge of each image (separated by a thin white vertical line). In the third frame, which the slider bar at the bottom shows being about half-way through the total sequence, the car is still to the left of the red lines; I've added a yellow line to show where the nose of the car had been in the first frame. In the black portion of the 3rd frame, I've enlarge the same locations from both the first and the third frame and aligned them vertically so you can see if they're aligned properly; I think you'll agree that they are. In the fourth frame (and please bear in mind that, for my purposes here, "frame" means "screenshot," not actual film frames), we see that the nose of the car has passed beyond the left edge of the "Fort Worth" [Turnpike] sign over the left lane of the entrance ramp, its tail barely still in front of the half-domed building. This is the end of the five-second clip as shown by the slider bar at the bottom. In the fifth frame, which was actually about 25% of the way through the sequence (see slider bar) but which shows the entire distance the car has traveled, I've marked where its nose was at the beginning and at the end of the entire film sequence. Based on this, I'm going to estimate the nose of the car starting at just above the right-most lane of Commerce Street at about the point where the sidewalk meets the road, and the end point at about middle of the left lane of the entrance ramp. I should point out, also, that through the underpass you can just see the shadow of the curb that separates Commerce Street to the left and the entrance ramp to the right; I've put a green line beneath that location in each frame. The question now becomes: how far did the car travel in five seconds? For this we turn to Google Earth. Unfortunately, I couldn't get a screen shot to show what the measurement of the white line is, but exactly what you see here is 142.9 feet. For the sake of argument, let's call it somewhere between 130 and 150 feet. This screen shot does, however, show where the non-existent motorcycle barricade was supposed to have been, another 1/10th of a mile up the road. So here are my calculations: 130 feet in five seconds is 26 feet per second; 150 feet in five seconds is 30 feet per second (fps). 26 fps x 60 seconds = 1560 feet per minute x 60 minutes = 93,600 feet per hour ÷ 5280 feet per mile = ~17-18 miles per hour. 30 fps x 60 seconds = 1800 feet per minute x 60 minutes = 108,000 feet per hour ÷ 5280 feet per mile = ~20-21 miles per hour. (Incidentally, to have been going even 30 mph, the car would've had to travel 220 feet.) There was no vehicle backup and those cars weren't slowing down for any cars just off camera to the right It's true that there is no vehicle backup (i.e., traffic jam) shown in the section of highway that's in the B-film, and maybe we can't tell why cars might've been slowing down (if they were); in either case, we don't exactly know what was off to the right of the filmed area. Does that mean we can say what those slowing vehicles weren't slowing down for? The bigger question is whether they were just going slow - as we've demonstrated above - or if they were, in fact, slowing down. The above are speeds for covering the entire distance; to settle the question of whether the car was slowing, the yellow lines in the image below show where the nose of the car was at the beginning, middle and end of the five-second clip. It appears from this that the car move a bit farther in the first 2½ seconds than it did in the second 2½ seconds. There is a definitely more space between the 1st and 2nd lines than there is between the 2nd and 3rd. Using PhotoShop's measuring tool, I found the distance between the left edge of the 1st line and the left edge of the 2nd line to be 106 pixels; the distance between the left edge of the 2nd line and the left edge of the 3rd is 81 pixels; and the distance from the left edge of the 1st line and the left edge of the 3rd line is 189 pixels. Thus, the math based on a 150-foot measurement of the total distance the car traveled: For the first half of the film: 106 pixels ÷ 189 pixels = .56 150 feet x .56 = 84 feet ÷ 2½ seconds = 33.6 fps 33 fps x 60 seconds = 1980 feet per minute x 60 minutes = 118,800 feet per hour ÷ 5280 feet per mile = ~22.5 miles per hour For the second half of the film: 81 pixels ÷ 189 pixels = .44 (.56 + .44 = 1.00) 150 feet x .44 = 66 feet (84 + 66 = 150) ÷ 2½ seconds = 26.4 fps 26.4 fps x 60 seconds = 1584 feet per minute x 60 minutes = 95,040 feet per hour ÷ 5280 feet per mile = ~18 miles per hour So, if these calculations are correct, the white car slowed down about 4-5 mph between the first half and the second half of the five-second clip: not only was it going well below "what seems to be highway speed," but it slowed down even further as the clip progresses, thus showing that this car, at least, was slowing down. Why it was slowing down can only be inferred without going through similar exercises for each of the other cars and trucks shown on the film, some of which are off the screen by the end of the clip. As you watch the Bell film, however, you'll notice that all of the vehicles on the highway are - as I'd said earlier - moving at about the same speed, even those in the passing lanes: you can see a pickup truck begin to pass the white car; it did not whiz by at twice or three times the white car's speed. The same can be seen farther up the road (to the right) with other vehicles as all of them pretty well keep pace with each other. (The pickup truck, which enters the clip behind the white car and begins to pass it, does not entirely pass the car by the end of the clip. Maybe it would've if there were more to the film, but even its progress seems to slow a little as you advance the clip.) I think all will agree that the distance along the highway seen in the Bell film is not any 300 or 450 or more feet (which if the white car covered that much distance in five seconds it would have been going 40-60 mph), and that being the case, the cars aren't "moving at ... highway speed" no matter what it "looks like." So now the questions: Is there another a positive ("yes") answer to the presumption that "either the Bell film has been faked ... or your sources are wrong. Any others come to mind?" Are my calculations correct to within a reasonable degree of certainty as to distance and speed? Were the cars going at "highway speed" or were they travelling much slower? Were the cars - or at least the white car - at least apparently "slowing down for any cars just off camera to the right?" Is the evidence of traffic on the 60-mph Stemmons Freeway moving across the Dealey Plaza area (1/10th of a mile from the barricade) at just 20 mph, when coupled with the citations in "Freeway Man," either "documentary proof" or "proof positive" that there was a traffic barricade holding up traffic? And, Is this now entirely dispositive of the question about the traffic stop? Unfortunately, given the fact that the three wheelers had apparently already moved ahead to stop traffic, Officer Murphy would not be shown in the Bell film ... and Ed, of course, was never there. (If he had been, he'd have been somewhere in the area shown by the red square in the image below. If anyone finds him there, you'll have eyes - and an imagination - much better than mine. Tentative Conclusions The initial analysis was that The traffic was still moving at what looks like highway speed, so the claim that traffic was stopped cannot be true; that is, "that's not the way I perceive it, so it is impossible for you to be right." I tend to differ: impressions are not "facts" no matter how expert the source or how great the hubris. Meanwhile, the statement those cars weren't slowing down for any cars just off camera to the right simply has no basis in observable fact. Does anyone disagree?----- PS - Chris, I never thought you'd messed with the film. You probably didn't really think I thought so either.

Thanks, Chris. I deleted the previous posts because they were not only dupes, but incomplete dupes. My "reply" screen started clicking like mad and then left me with a box full of unsaved text and code that I had to recover. I'd had no idea they had actually posted. I will post the completed version later. It is, in keeping with my usual wont, much more involved. Sorry for any confusion.

It'll be a cold, cold day, I'm quite sure. Looks good ... only wish my eyes were better! Can you email me stills in something I can magnify? Judging from the sizes of the vehicles on Stemmons, I'm not quite certain that you'd be able to see individual people (you can't see anyone in a car, for example). There is no question that traffic was stopped before the motorcade reached the highway proper, and it's still moving in this clip, the motorcycles from the south (left) not yet appearing on the image. I estimate Murphy's position to be in the vicinity of the highway signs in front of the peaked roof to the left of the aqua-colored tower. Ed's supposed location would be in the area around the two lead cars at the very beginning of this clip (hold the slide bar all the way to the left to see where I mean, it's not easy to see in motion).

Who said that the bus was searched? If it was, how long did they say it was held up? Did anyone corroborate that? Is there any other evidence that would support or refute that recollection? What is it? I don't believe that the bus was searched, but you can prove me wrong.OK, perhaps you read my statement in a way that you thought I was convinced by this "report". It was the report that I found strange, and it is. It appears in a statement from Roy Milton Jones (from memory). BTW, on the balance of evidence/probability, I don't believe the bus was searched either.Right. It couldn't have been detained for an hour, as Jones said, and still have been able to pick up the woman with the suitcase before she got to Union Station, as it did. You can find out about the jacket by reading Buell Frazier's and Frankie Kaiser's testimonies. Anything, I suppose, is possible; the question is, is there any evidence to support the possibility beyond pure conjecture? OK, so he did wear a (grey) jacket to work. I am only trying to see what can be concluded or exluded from information available. So Frazier reports LHO heading off before him with a package under his arm towards the TSBD and no others report seeing him with it around his arrival. So it seems likely that a "secure" spot for the package was somewhere near the entrance of the building.Problem: Frazier said he wore a grey jacket? Oswald didn't wear a jacket when seen by Bledsoe or Whaley (in his initial statement, on 11/23/63). The "grey" jacket was found in Oak Cliff, a block from the Tippit shooting, after he'd apparently put it on at 1026; the blue jacket was found at TSBD 10 days later.As to "Frazier reports LHO heading off before him with a package under his arm towards the TSBD and no others report seeing him with it around his arrival. So it seems likely that a 'secure' spot for the package was somewhere near the entrance of the building," while it is indeed possible, there's no evidence that Oswald did anything but go directly into the building. And as a bit of information you're not likely to read anywhere in the very near future, Oswald had a distinct reason for not stopping along the way from the car to the building: he had to visit the head in a hurry. The only person who said he saw Oswald enter the building was Jack Dougherty, who said that he didn't see anything in Oswald's hands. That doesn't mean that Oswald didn't have anything in his hands, only that Jack didn't see it; Frazier said that you couldn't see it from behind, and tho' he couldn't testify to this, it seems pretty apparent that you couldn't see it from the front either: after all, it was in his hand and under his armpit. The other thing it means is that it was not a 40" rifle being snuck in in a bag. Could be, but flesh out how you think it would work. Cop picks up his buddy Oswald after Lee gets his gun; drives him down to 10th & Patton, says "okay, here's where you shoot one of my fellow officers in cold blood while I sip a coke in my car," and Lee says "okey-dokey, artichokee," gets out, guns Tippit down, and takes off running without his cop-buddy? I know that's sarcastic, but nevertheless, to hypothesize it, you should fill in the relevent fact and see if they "listen."/Sarcasm mode on/ Maybe he was a suspected jaywalker and got a lift and droped off [sarcasm mode off]. I don't know and I am not convinced by the police car in the alleyway story either. Do you think LHO was present in Tippit's shooting? Do you think is likely that 2 Dallas patrol cars were moving around the relatively small area around Oak Cilff in the half hour between 12.45 and 1.15?My point was that it doesn't seem even remotely possible that one cop would drive a civilian to a part of town, leave him off with a gun in his hand, then stand idly by while a fellow officer gets shot and the guy doesn't do anything about it, especially knowing that Oswald, who'd just been in his car, had done the shooting. If it was Oswald and he thought he was getting set up, why wouldn't he turn on his "ride" once he had the gun in his hand?My answers to the your questions are no and yes.

"Out" means, in essence, "unavailable" or "away from the car" or even "done for the day." Remember that, when it becomes jargon - i.e., something you use every day in speaking to your peers - meanings may not always be exact. I cannot recall Nelson ever having been any focus of inquiry, officially or otherwise; had he not been ordered into Oak Cliff along with Tippit, he'd probably have been a complete non-entity. I cannot speak to what anybody thought, but only to the reasonableness of a possible interpretation. Here are the facts and my interpretation: At 12:42, a call was made for "all downtown units" to proceed Code 3 to Elm & Houston. According to Chief Curry, Lieutenant Pierce and Sergeant Owens, SOP was for outlying units (from any major crime scene) to move in closer from their assigned districts in the event they might be needed. This was the rationale used to explain why JD Tippit was at Lancaster and 8th, in District 106, nearer to downtown than his usual patrol in District 78, in the beginning of April prior to anyone becoming aware of the 1:46 order for him and Nelson to "move into central Oak Cliff." At the time of the latter call, Nelson was on Marsalis at the R.L. Thornton Expressway, which is I-35E south of downtown; JD Tippit was at Kiest & Bonnie View; Tippit was in his regularly assigned district, while Nelson was already several miles north of his district, the northern border of which was Ledbetter Avenue (Ledbetter was also the southern border of Tippit's district). For the record, some officers manned adjacent districts in addition to their "primary" districts, such as Patrolman R.W. Walker (not to be confused with C.T. Walker) who was patrolling both districts 85 (his primary) and 86; Nelson was also assigned to either 88 (to the west) or 79 (Bill Anglin's district; Anglin was assigned to the parade), thus making Nelson's the outermost districts. It should also be noted that, while officers were expected to be in their regularly assigned districts whenever they were available, this was not always the case since things both official (such as bringing someone to jail) or unofficial (coffee breaks, meals, etc.) might take them out of their assigned districts, sometimes quite distant if they went home to eat (Tippit lived about 8 miles from his patrol district, for example). Prior to the 12:46 call, Nelson was heard from at just before 12:40 signalling "clear," location not stated. Where he'd started from and where he'd been two minutes later when the "all downtown units" call came through is anybody's good guess. He was, however, going north "on Marsalis at R.L. Thornton," which could only be away from his district. Whether he decided that he was a "downtown unit" because he was only a couple of miles away is likewise anyone's good guess since we don't know his thoughts. We do know, however, that a] he was already proceeding toward downtown and was at the edge of the central Oak Cliff business district when the 12:46 call came in, b] that he acknowledge the order to "move into central Oak Cliff," and c] next radioed in at the far northeast portion of "central Oak Cliff" at the south end of the Houston Street viaduct, before d] ending up at the TSBD. Between c] and d] is when he made the "out down here" call, about three minutes after making the "south end Houston Street viaduct." I cannot prove where "down here" is, but given the three-minute lapse between being at the end of the viaduct where Gloco was located and being "down here," it seems quite unlikely that "down here" is at the south end of the viaduct at the Gloco. Moreover, since he'd ended up at TSBD and left there again later after the citizen call, it likewise seems unlikely that he would have gone south on Lancaster to points unknown and then back to TSBD just so he could be assigned somewhere else from there. Frankly, part of that supposition is based on my feeling that Nelson wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, this because he seemingly didn't think his ignoring the "central Oak Cliff" call had any significance, and the fact that he wouldn't talk about something apparently insignificant unless he was paid for it. Whatever it was that he was willing to talk about for money, if it was nefarious and someone paid him the money he wanted, he was exposing himself tremendously to whatever repercussions might befall him; not very bright. In sum, the fact that he was already heading in toward downtown, without being told to, after the "all downtown units" call, added to SOP (which he was exceeding) of moving in toward a scene, leads more to the conclusion that he actually went downtown than that he just decided to hang out at a filling station for a while. It is, of course, possible that he did stay at the bottom of the viaduct at the Gloco station for his own report, putatively to the Chief of Police, stated that he was "assigned to the TSBD" and that he "remained [in front of it] for the remainder of the afternoon," both of which are clearly false statements. There is more to the overall story than this, but my opinion is that a] there was a police car at the Gloco station, and b] it was not Nelson's. I'm not sure where you gather that information from. There's no indication that either of these cars crossed paths during that timeframe. Explain it to me.OK, if we go with the theory that Tippit is responding to the go to Oak Cliff call from Bonnie View and Kienst and is at Lancaster and 8th at 12.54. Also we have 5 witnesses saying there is a Dallas patrol car at Gloco in this timeframe that heads off at a rapid pace southward. Assuming that Tippit hears the commotion going on about the TSBD on the radio and sees a car heading fast in a direction away from that location, might he think something might be up? Might he be inclined to follow?OK, I get you now: you're talking about the car speeding south on Lancaster being seen by Tippit as he crossed over from the highway. Possible, but who knows? The first issue is that we don't know how far south on Lancaster the car went; second, we don't know what time it left the Gloco: if it was as late as 1:00 - as "Car 10" leaves open - then Tippit was probably long gone from there.The innate difficulty in making this match-up, however, is that there was no radio call of any emergency in Oak Cliff. Would one cop think that there was an emergency that he didn't hear about just because another cop sped by or was disappearing in the distance? Since he didn't hear about it, wouldn't it make sense that, before rushing blindly after another officer for no apparent reason, he would ask dispatch about it (which he did not)? Not only was there no emergency call, but there was likewise no call for backup: even despite the circumstances of the day, none of the other cops in town provided backup for others on a whim, that is, without checking with dispatch first. Other than that none of the other cops ended up dead that day, why would we think that Tippit would do such a thing? A cop speeding through the area without an emergency call is not something that would arouse another cop's suspicion; what was there to be suspicious of? Something had happened downtown, but by this point, not an awful lot was known about it in the field other than that there was a shooting involving the President. Nothing was going on in Oak Cliff, but even if Tippit was suspicious for some reason, why would he start to follow another cop without saying anything to dispatch or trying to call the other cop, especially if he felt something was amiss? But let's say that he did: Tippit followed him ... where? If he lost the other cop, it seems all the more curious not to contact dispatch: "I saw another patrol whizzing down Lancaster, but lost sight of him. Looked like he was on an emergency [the ostensible reason Tippit was assigned to Oak Cliff in the first place]; does he need help?" Instead, nothing but dead silence on the issue. Tippit, who's in that part of town to handle "any emergency that comes in" sees an apparent emergency situation, loses sight of the patol in question, then just shrugs it off, says nothing to anybody, and goes merrily on his way. Doesn't listen. Or maybe he didn't lose him. Followed him ... where? And did what? Certainly didn't assist in any emergency; we'd have known about that: cops just didn't deal with emergencies without telling other cops about them (a prime clue that the stop on 10th wasn't an emergency either), one of them would have announced something over the radio. So Tippit sees the other guy doesn't have an emergency, apparently doesn't stop to converse with him since there was only one other cop on duty in Oak Cliff and nobody reported talking with Tippit before his death. So, again we have Tippit shrugging it off and ignoring all police procedure, and again, it doesn't listen. Only if you put stock in the Andrews story about a wild-eyed Tippit jumping out of his car to check to check the guy's back seat before rushing back to the car and roaring off is there any indication that something might be up in Oak Cliff at the time. But then, only a matter of minutes later, Tippit's completely calmed down, cruising slowly down a side street, and pulls over to talk with some guy on the side of the road "real friendly like," isn't tense, doesn't draw his gun, and ends up dead in the process. Where's the connection between the harried Tippit and the one who got shot, not a care in the world? More in the next post.

I'm naturally curious whatever became of Eyewitness, the previous authorized and validated version of Ed's story, actually translated back to him in ASL by his pastor and friend and approved by him as being completely and 100% accurate. I will make a prediction: since I sent Casey Quinlan a copy of my "Freeway Man" article, we will now find that Ed remembers the traffic jam on the highway, manages to account for it somehow, but will be at a loss to explain how he ran by so many cops without getting stopped or without seeing them (or will say that none were there or had already left behind the motorcade). For those of you still debating the details to Ed Hoffman's bogus story, read the article and if you can document any contention - especially relative to the traffic jam - I'm sure we can figure out some appropriate penalty. It's sad that the story has to be perpetuated through the sale of another "authorized" book, and scary that anyone claiming the mantle of "researcher" would pretend that an already complete and thorough account can somehow be added to. It will be interesting to see what shortcomings Ed finds in Eyewitness now that it is no longer the "definitive" version of the story. Worst is that there are "versions," and we must wonder when they'll cease coming into being. I'll read it when it reaches the half-priced book outlets. I'd say "I'll see you at the conference," but I fear I'd be thrown out on my ear, definitely PNG.

Harry Holmes would have had access to the serial number at the post office and someone may have phoned ahead for him to involve himself in particular with the gun items. As an FBI informant, and possible ATF informant, he may have notified Ellsworth when the rifle and pistol arrived. The keys of course are the Hidell alias and the serial numbers. If they could tie Oswald to the Hidell alias AND the rifle order, and likewise to that alias and the pistol order, they could at least in part incriminate him. And once someone passed on the 2766 numbered rifle (as I believe the 38 short rifle was obtained via Montreal), and added the C, it would have been all set to help frame Oswald. Otherwise, as you suggest, someone buys a 38 short from a local source, either a store, or another gun owner. More likely the latter since the gun showed heavy usage in various areas of the rifle.While I'm not discounting any possibilities or necessarily playing devil's advocate here, I'm trying to work out how such a scenario might've played out.We have a gun - presumably a 91/24 - with serial C2766 arrive by mail order addressed to the mailbox of Oswald/Hidell, one of whom signs for(?) the package. It is presumably in the possession of one Lee Harvey Oswald for some indeterminate period of time, and we will presume for the sake of argument that it likewise left his possession at some indeterminate time prior to November 21, 1963. We now suppose that someone who planned to both shoot POTUS and implicate LHO is somehow not only aware of Oswald's mail-order purchase, but also the result of that purchase, to wit a cheap, almost useless piece of junk with no aim, a surplus Mannlicher-Carcano 91/24 that would just happen to also accept a barrel from a superior MC model 91/38 that differs only in the length of the barrel and consequently its ability to accurately hit stuff. Said person is not only able to learn the serial number of the original rifle, but also is able to locate the action of a model 91/38 with the exact same serial number. While we know that there were in fact duplicate serial numbers on these rifles, one question to deal with is "what are the odds of finding two rifles in the United States available for sale at the same time with the same serial number?" I wouldn't think that it was possible to order guns or parts by serial number, would you? If it were possible, I'd be surprised if that information didn't come to the fore, presuming that the replacement barrel came from a "legitimate" source as opposed to a "back door" source. There were, as I recall, only a limited number of wholesale outlets for these guns (and dozens of retailers): who would not have recalled an order for a gun with a particular serial number? Can we posit a "back door" source that kept rifles or parts with a variety of serial numbers in the event a client needed a duplicate number for any reason? If so, how could that source be assured of a gun with a serial number the same as what they had in stock would be shipped to any particular location, much less customer? Or maybe they were expert at fabricating new parts with specific serial numbers, made to order for each customer? Presuming the purchase of a duplicate-numbered barrel, someone has to know what the original number was. The record doesn't show, to my knowledge, that anybody ever had the gun in their possession and thus could have known what the serial number was. Oswald's possession is merely inferred, as I recall, by virtue of his having taken out the postal box rather than as a result of his actually signing for receipt. I agree that it's certainly possible for Harry Holmes to have access to the serial number, how and why would he have come upon this information or have cause to even be curious about it? Presumably, the rifle was boxed for shipment rather than simply having a shipping label affixed to the stock, thus requiring the parcel to be opened prior to its delivery. As far as I know, Oswald wasn't the subject of a COINTELPRO (or whatever) mail-opening operation, and am fairly confident that Alex Hidell was not ... which wouldn't necessarily preclude a postal inspector (fairly high up on the federal investigative food chain, btw; see Wikipedia and the USPIS official site) from opening a package, but even so, why would he either record or pass along information about the serial number of a mail-order rifle? Above all, why and to whom would he pass it along? Ditto this question in relation to ATF agent Frank Ellsworth: even presuming that obtaining this information was a part of either of their duties, to whom could they have given it who would obtain a "duplicate" 91/38 barrel with the same number with the specific purpose of getting Lee Oswald to go home early on a particular Thursday afternoon to pick up a package of "curtain rods" to bring to work the next morning for what good reason? How would the information go from either of these two federal law enforcement officials into the hands of anyone planning on assassinating POTUS and framing LHO so expertly? (Ellsworth seems to be eliminated from this scenario, at least from the standpoint of the story - the accuracy of which I'm not certain - that he'd been at DPD when Oswald was arrested and, upon seeing him, thought that Oswald was another of Ellsworth's persons of interest, John Thomas Masen, whom Ellsworth had arrested earlier in the month in connection with a gun-running operation. This suggests that he had no idea who Oswald was. Holmes, on the other side of the coin, seems to have been inordinately interested in the proceedings against Oswald at DPD while assassination is not listed among the jurisdictions of USPIS.) The hard parts are figuring how the serial number info was transmitted from those who had it to those who needed it to buy/manufacture a "duplicate" 91/38 barrel, and who convinced Oswald - and on what basis - to go to Irving off of his normal schedule and picking up a package. It's not "listening" well yet.

Or, actually, at any time at all. At least, not on a factual basis. Well, I've never disputed that someone else was the shooter: Junior Jarman proved that ... which is fodder for a different thread! The simple fact that someone else was on the sixth floor (and had no need to make it downstairs in 90 seconds) is all the explanation necessary to "get" Oswald to the second floor.Still, what remains to explain a piecemeal introduction of the weapon into TSBD is not only who had the opportunity to assemble it and where, but also who had convinced the taciturn stock boy to bring a solo rifle barrel into work (and there's no mistaking it for something it wasn't), why he had to go to Irving to get it (knowing as we do that he didn't bring it out with him on Thursday evening), and how it got to Irving in the first place. Since he didn't bring it to Irving with him either on Thursday night (or at anytime prior that we know of), and I think that he remained inside all of that evening - didn't go out for a walk or to take a smoke - if the rifle barrel wasn't there already, then the only time there was for someone to get it to him would've been Friday morning between the Paines' and the Randles' homes. We're then left with the question of why someone would meet Oswald clandestinely on the street in the morning only to give him something to take to work to either return to him (whoever gave Oz the package) or to give to someone else: why couldn't he take it to work himself (if the giver worked there) or even just take it there himself? It wouldn't seem that the giver would've known Oz from around Irving since Oz didn't "hang around" there, and that the only people he "socialized" with (using the term loosely) were people in Dallas, mostly those he worked with, so it would seem that whoever had given him the package had driven out from Dallas to Irving to give Oz a package to bring back to Dallas. Red flags flying everywhere! Ozzie would do this ... why? Another "possibility" is that someone in Dallas, perhaps at work, had asked Oz to pick up a package for him from someone out in Irving "the next time he was going there," which normally would have been over the weekend (too late to kill JFK) and not on Thursday. So, in theory, Oz either changed his normal schedule to accomodate a need for someone to have this package on a Friday morning (and he would do this ... why?), or else had coincidentally decided to go to Irving on the day before the assassination when this package would be needed, which provided, at the last minute, a convenient way to put this package containing a rifle barrel in his hands. This strikes me as leaving things entirely too much to chance, and/or just too great an opportunity to pass up when it suddenly arose, requiring some quick thinking and fast acting. Implicating Oswald in a conspiracy (not then but now, long after the fact) such that he wittingly went to Irving to get a rifle barrel, wherever it was at the time, and bring it into work for someone, would seem to require that he actually plan it with someone, or at the very least, talk with them long enough to make the arrangements to pick up this package. Who would this have been, and when would they have conspired with him? According to Mary Bledsoe, as well as to either or both Earlene Roberts and/or the Johnsons, Oswald was at home every evening except those when he'd (presumably) gone to Irving: practically every evening, if not every evening, is accounted for going back to October 8 when he moved into Bledsoe's house (he was there through October 15, when he moved into 1026 N Beckley, 1/2-mile away, the day before he'd started at TSBD. Just for fun, check out this map showing the distance between the two houses. If you zoom in on 1026 - the one with the red roof - you'll see there's an alleyway between Crawford and Beckley, allowing for a pleasant short-cut through the park. More on this later). The only times he'd have had to plan the assassination was going to and from work, and on those occasional walks he'd take during his 45-minute lunch breaks. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that his departure and arrival times at home were accounted for down to the minute, or even the hour, nor do I recall that there is any accounting of exactly how he got to and from either Bledsoe's house at 621 N Marsalis, or to the Johnsons' house at 1026 N Beckley. Did he take a bus? Which one? Are there reports from people who rode either of the bus lines that would've gone down Marsalis or down Beckley indicating when he got on or off of whichever bus it was that he rode? Is it possible that he got a ride from someone? If so, who? Did Earlene Roberts or the Johnsons indicate at what time Oswald left in the morning or came home at night? (Bledsoe's not such a major concern inasmuch as Oz wasn't working during that week. He was home during mid-afternoons, interrupting Bledsoe's naps, on at least a couple of the four days he was actually living there.) So if he conspired with anyone, it seems as if those are the only times he had available to do so. If he walked or got a ride home - or even if he went straight home or not - we'd have no idea who he might've been chatted up by to get that package from Irving. Walking home or to work would've taken him about 40-45 minutes, which might be a viable idea going home, but not so much when he had a schedule to meet getting to work. A bus hardly seems to be the place to discuss something like this, other than perhaps asking the favor to pick up an innocuous package from a buddy who lives out in Irving "on Friday morning." (Was it that weekend that Ruth Paine was planning to have a birthday party for one of her kids, or was that another weekend? I recall something about Ozzie's not wanting to be there among all those screaming brats, and that he either hadn't gone to Irving one weekend, or it was a reason for him not going to Irving the weekend of the 22nd. That's the only reason I could see that he would make a special trip for someone at a time he didn't normally go out there: "sure. Friday morning would be a good time. I can see Marina on Thursday, and skip the party on Saturday.") Since we're playing "Fun With Conjecture," we should note that there was at least one other employee of the TSBD who rode a bus between work and home, and likewise rode a bus that Ozzie might've taken: the Marsalis bus that ran only a few blocks from Ozzie's new digs at 1026 and afforded him that pleasant short-cut through Lake Cliff Park, said bus route also going past his own home at 1827 South Marsalis. And, just to fill in some of the pieces, that fellow happened not to drive and might therefore have had a reasonable excuse to ask Oz to pick up a package for him from someone who lived a longer distance away than he'd want to walk or ride a bus, if a Dallas bus even served that section of Irving. This was, of course, the same fellow who said that he didn't see any package in Oswald's hands when Oz came into the building that morning, and wouldn't have wanted to admit having seen said package since he was the recipient of it. So if Ozzie rode the Marsalis bus with Jack Dougherty, the two "oddballs" of the TSBD might've struck up something of a friendship (some "friend" Jack turned out to be, though, huh?), and actually chatted about the shooting - Jack could've gotten off the bus at 5th and walked to the park with Ozzie, where they could talk without being overheard, then got back on the bus using a transfer or paying an extra quarter to complete the ride home, being gladly reimbursed for the extra expense when the deed was finally done. The facts that Jack was also on the sixth floor immediately prior to the shooting and corralled the "three blind mice" on the fifth floor while Kennedy was getting drilled, and standing directly in the path of Oswald's supposed flight down the stairs (but managing not getting run down by him or even seeing him for that matter!), then finally helping the bad guys escape down the elevator while Baker and Truly were coming up the stairs, sure lends some credence to such a conjectural scenario, don't you think? Well, of course he wasn't the triggerman, and while he might technically be "a part of a conspiracy," he wouldn't necessarily be a witting one, which can make all the difference in the world. Maybe under this scenario, he looked to see what was in the package, or even felt its end where that distinctive rounded-off little hole was together with a sighting post. OK, so this is Texas and someone had me bring in a new barrel for their rifle; so what? The President's been shot you say? From this building? Holy spit, Batman, I've been set up! I can maybe buy that. Maybe.The latter half of that quote, however, leads to another problem, and that is that whoever had arranged for said barrel to somehow end up in Oswald's hands had to have known the serial number of the gun that had been delivered to Oswald (or Hidell) in order to somehow get a duplicate-serial numbered barrel to place into another stock. Leaving aside the issue of how that was managed, there remains the question of who would've known or been able to know the serial number of the 91/24 in order to be able to get a 91/38 barrel with the same serial number. There is speculation that Ozzie had taken part in something of a "sting" operation in conjunction with Senator Thomas Dodd's Senate Subcommittee (of the Judiciary Committee) to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency. According to a law review of the Gun Control Act of 1968, "when Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut (a major gun-producing state) became chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on juvenile Delinquency in 1961, he 'directed the staff of the Subcommittee to initiate a full-scale inquiry into the interstate mail order gun problem.' During 1961-1962 staff studies of mail order guns sold to residents of the District of Columbia and several states provided evidence that 'criminals, immature juveniles, and other irresponsible persons were using the relative secrecy of the mail order-common carrier method of obtaining firearms, because they could not purchase guns under the laws in their own jurisdictions.' ... The emphasis in these hearings was on the mail order mechanism, juveniles and felons as purchasers, and 'the cheap products which are so frequently sold via mail order'," the review states, adding that "five days after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Senator Dodd amended his bill to cover mail order traffic in shotguns and rifles." (Noteworthy is that, among those classes of people who are prohibited from owning firearms under the GCA are anyone who has been discharged from the US Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions, and anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship. Sound familiar?) Under this auspice, in theory, Oswald was acting on behalf of some third party (presumably ATF?) in obtaining the rifle and handgun, and thus (which may or not be a part of the theory) would have surrendered either or both of these weapons to such a party. Whoever that might have been could conceivably have been privy to the serial number of the rifle that could've been traced to Oswald. But if not, who else might've had access to or knowledge of the "original" serial number to duplicate, and how might they have obtained, from all the MC rifles sold during that time frame (including by a large Dallas sporting goods chain, the name of which escapes me at the moment), a 91/38 barrel with the same serial number? While arguably do-able, was it feasible to be accomplished by anyone whom Oswald might have trusted enough to take a package from blindly, without his knowing its contents? (It's fair to say that he didn't receive the package in Irving via mail or parcel delivery since no such delivery was remarked upon by Ruth Paine or Marina, either of whom might've actually received such a package during the day. Ruth was no friend of Oswald's - at least, not after he was accused of murder - and would seem likely to have remarked upon it had it actually happened.) Even without fingerprints? Other than resting the barrel on one's hand - and presuming that it was not merely the vestige of a full set of prints that were otherwise wiped off after the shooting - how does only a palmprint end up anywhere? Perhaps if there were a tear in the bag, there perhaps as a result of Oswald's opening it to confirm that the hole and sight post at the end were indeed part of a rifle barrel, it might be there while his fingerprints were on the outside of the bag, which would no longer seem to be in evidence (excluding that which was "found" on the sixth floor after the shooting based upon Frazier and Randle's testimony), but how else might that have occurred? If the barrel was in its wrapping the entire time, how did Oswald's palmprint end up on the barrel anyway?(In A Citizen's Dissent, Mark Lane - no relation, btw!! - makes a point that palmprints are not as unique as fingerprints; maybe, maybe not, I just don't know. Even so, the odds of a non-unique palm print being found with ridges matching Oswald's in the same vicinity seem pretty long. What constitutes a "palmprint" anyway? Is it the heel of his hand that the print matched, or elsewhere such as the middle, which actually changes quite a bit?) Realizing that his life might be in danger also accounts for his actions on Jefferson Boulevard, no matter who he thought was after his happy ass! Well, I just alluded to a distinct possibility, but as I noted before, that's fodder for a different thread!

Appreciated by all, I'm sure. So I'll reply to your post there, here, and comment on your most recent here, below: A definite thought ... but aren't curtain rods straight? Did the gun barrel separate from the firing mechanism? How would a "curtain rod" with a trigger sticking out the side and an offset onto which the stock attached not raise an eyebrow?Yes, Duke, the barrel does separate from the firing mechanism. [image from gun parts website. Watermark or no, it's not copyrighted or copyrightable.] Reference #14 in the diagram. So the barrel wouldn't have any of the receiver or "action" attached, if it were disassembled...and could conceivably have been carried in separately from the rest of the rifle. The barrel shown here is 20.9" long; now, I'm 6'1" tall, a bit taller than LHO, but I wouldn't have any problem carrying a 21" rifle barrel tucked under my armpit in my cupped hand. ... Good find. I'm 5'11" and wear 34" sleeves; I can put 23" under my arm with my fingers extended as far as they'll go while still being able to hold onto something, "cupping" it in my hand and not wrapping my hand around it where it can extend beyond the end of my hand; 21" is probably the extent to which I can cup it and not appear to be holding anything. Now, here you may actually be onto something. For years, the argument has always been whether or not Oswld carried the rifle into the TSBD on November 22; I don't know if I've ever heard a theory that Oswald might have smuggled part of the rifle into the TSBD at an earlier date, and then just brought the barrel in on the 22nd.But a rifle barrel might well be passed off as "curtain rods" without raising an eyebrow. Perhaps this might even open up a discussion that Oswald might have obtained the 91/38 in pieces, rather than as a complete rifle [as the 91/24 from Klein's was when shipped to him]. Only problem is, Ozzie presumably would've had to bring the rifle stock and receiver, either to his apartment or to the TSBD, from the Payne residence in Irving at some time as well...and there's just no evidence or testimony on record of which I'm aware that would cover that possibility. Not to say he couldn't or didn't do it some other time; just that there's nothing in the record to indicate that he did. At the other end of that equation, we'd also have to allow for him to assemble the rifle from these myriad pieces, with machine screws to boot (typically with slots smaller than a dime, as used to piece the stock and action together), and presumably more time to assemble, which he didn't have very much of to begin with (to the tune of under a minute ... which would've been too late anyway if the motorcade had been on time!). I'd think on that basis alone - not to even mention getting the other parts to and from Irving/1026 - you'd have to discount this notion, no matter how enticing a solo rifle barrel in a "curtain rods" package might be. But can we put a 91/38 into Ozzie's possession anywhere other than - TFIC - on the sixth floor? Where did he get it? How do we know he got it? Sure, it could've been passed off to him by anyone, anywhere, "under cover of darkness," as it were ... but we don't have any documentation on what "could've" occurred that we have no way of knowing about.

A definite thought ... but aren't curtain rods straight? Did the gun barrel separate from the firing mechanism? How would a "curtain rod" with a trigger sticking out the side and an offset onto which the stock attached not raise an eyebrow?

If the shoplifter was still in the car why would JD call "clear"? I would have thought this is an indication that he ready to respond to a new call and unencumbered. Is 3 minutes enough time to deal with the shoplifter and drop her maybe even a few blocks away?I think it's fair to say that it's not an exact science. "I can take another call" does not necessarily mean "I have absolutely no distractions and am sitting here waiting for you to tell me what to do." Nor need it be, because under most circumstances, officers are not getting a new call immediately after finishing another one; there's usually a lag - sometimes quite long - between finishing what they're doing and having something else they need to respond to.All of that to say merely that Tippit may very well have had someone sitting in the car with him when he said he was "clear," knowing full well that he would be spending a few more minutes with them, but could leave them if he was needed elsewhere. This is not far from Gloco....... Has it been established that "down here" refers to the TSBD". Has it been established that Nelson was at the TSBD at this time? Could he be parked at Gloco?The south end of the Houston Street viaduct is exactly where the Gloco was. Since he was AT the Gloco, why would he wait three minutes to say he was there, when three minutes is also about the distance to TSBD and he did end up leaving there later. If you wish to put him at the Gloco, you can do so since it's not possible to prove beyond any doubt that he wasn't there, or was at TSBD at any given time, since the question of his whereabouts never arose during the official investigation and neither he nor anyone else was ever asked on record. Check out, however, what Dale Myers has to say about him and what he had to say in With Malice: chances are, such a supposition wouldn't hold up. I'm not sure where you gather that information from. There's no indication that either of these cars crossed paths during that timeframe. Explain it to me. You can find out about the jacket by reading Buell Frazier's and Frankie Kaiser's testimonies. Anything, I suppose, is possible; the question is, is there any evidence to support the possibility beyond pure conjecture? Who said that the bus was searched? If it was, how long did they say it was held up? Did anyone corroborate that? Is there any other evidence that would support or refute that recollection? What is it? I don't believe that the bus was searched, but you can prove me wrong. Could be, but flesh out how you think it would work. Cop picks up his buddy Oswald after Lee gets his gun; drives him down to 10th & Patton, says "okay, here's where you shoot one of my fellow officers in cold blood while I sip a coke in my car," and Lee says "okey-dokey, artichokee," gets out, guns Tippit down, and takes off running without his cop-buddy? I know that's sarcastic, but nevertheless, to hypothesize it, you should fill in the relevent fact and see if they "listen."

I don't know that there's anything "crucial" about this time frame. He had been to lunch at home until 11:50, as I recall, and had to drive into that area from where he lived. According the the story told to Chris Scally by Larry Ray Harris, the market manager called the police about the shoplifter, yet there is no indication that this was ever reported over the police radio; it was, of course, before the shooting downtown, so it's not as if there was too much going on.There are various possibilities including that Tippit may have been driving by and seen the manager holding someone or that he'd simply stopped there - he was on routine patrol in the area, after all - to get a pack of cigarettes or a coke. That, of course, leaves open the question of how the dispatcher would have known that he was "out on investigation" (Signal 4) since all he said on the radio at 12:17 was that he would be "out of the car for a minute, 4100 block of Bonnie View." The mark-out record was apparently stamped on that day and with that time, so it is not apparently something that was dummied up later (especially since resetting the clock probably involved opening the machine up and adjusting it in full view of officers who were assigned to that duty 24/7). This then implies that there was some communication between Tippit and dispatch; since it wasn't by radio, the best guess would be that it was by phone. It strikes me that Dale Myers asserted exactly that. Since this was before the downtown shooting, the phone lines were presumably as easy to get through as any other normal time. Since there are no recordings or other records of phone calls made in and out of dispatch, there is no way to state that categorically. The inference, however, between the storekeeper calling the cops and the dispatcher knowing why Tippit was out of the car, is that they did talk and the only way that was possible at the time was by telephone since it wasn't by radio. Only one man knows for absolutely certain what JD Tippit was doing during that time of day, and he was killed at 10th and Patton Streets in Dallas on November 22, 1963. I cannot prove the negative, that he "was up to nothing nefarious," but there is nothing other than supposition about various possibilities that even remotely suggests that he was. "Could he have, do you think he might've, isn't it possible" all form questions without any substance. If there is actual substance, I'd be glad to hear of it.

Can we hypothese that LHO took the handgun to the TSBD that day, therefore he didn't need to retrieve it from the roominghouse? He was arrested with a gun, so either; a) he went to 1026 to retrieve it but without travel assitance didn't shoot Tippit with it or he went to 1026 to retrieve it and then later finished up at the Texas Theatre or c) the gun was placed in his posession sometime before or during his arrest. d) he had the gun with him at the TSBD and didn't visit 1026 So for LHO to be tagged with 2 murders he needed assistance (someone else was involved) or Tippit's murderer was not Kennedy's (if LHO was) I'd have a difficulty with (d) since not only would he have had to manage getting the rifle into the building and up to the sixth floor (which nobody saw him do), he also would've had to have brought the pistol in as well, which might well have involved him sitting directly next to Buell Frazier with a gun in his belt, uncomfortable if in back, bulky if not obvious if in front. Too, he'd have had to store it somewhere that made it readily accessible within about a minute of his encounter with Geraldean Reid before leaving the building, which leaves open the possibility of it being discovered by a co-worker. There is also the possibility of it having been seen by someone on the bus or elsewhere during his travels from the TSBD to Oak Cliff.Since there's not a scintilla of evidence or even a suggestion that he had taken the pistol to work with him that day or on some day before, I think we'd have to discount that possibility. Does ( mean that he went directly from 1026 to the theater?

OK, let's look at it in "linear" form:12:17 - Tippit "out of the car a minute, 4100 block of Bonnie View." According to a 1984 letter from the late Larry Ray Harris to Chris Scally (a member of this forum), Larry Ray had been the one to track down the manager of the Hodges Super Market at 4121 Bonnie View, who related the shoplifter story. The market owner told Larry Ray that "Tippit placed the woman in the squad car and left." This is cited in Bill Drenas' "Car 10" article (search for "4121" to find the specific reference). 12:20 - Tippit radios "clear" from Hodges, apparently with the shoplifter in his car. The mark-out record for this incident reflects the calls made by Tippit: This is Hodges Market today, with a map showing its location relative to Kiest and Bonnie View about a mile away: 12:45 - Tippit contacted by dispatch, indicates that he is at "about Kiest and Bonnie View." The transmission is made about half-way between the 12:45 and 12:46 time checks; Tippit could be anywhere within a reasonably short distance of the actual intersection. He is told to "move into central Oak Cliff" along with Nelson. (Nelson reports "going north on Marsalis at R. L. Thornton," which is now part of I-35E at that location.) 12:49 - Nelson calls in, "87. I'm on south end Houston Street viaduct;" dispatcher acknowledges: "10-4." This is approximately 1.2 miles directly north on Marsalis, estimated at a three-minute drive by Google Maps. The location is at the far northeast edge of Oak Cliff. 12:52 - The following exchange takes place on Channel One: 87: 87. DIS: 87. 87: 87 out down here. DIS: 10-4. According to Google Maps, the TSBD is 1.7 miles from the south end of the Houston Street viaduct, and takes approximately five minutes to reach from there. This call is only three minutes from Nelson's previous call. Since Nelson is next heard from at the TSBD and given the time difference between his transmissions, it is reasonable to assert that Nelson went to the TSBD instead of moving into central Oak Cliff as he was ordered. This is particularly so since his later report (in conjunction with the "Car 170/207" investigation) indicates that he had been "assigned to the Texas School Book Depository," where he remained "the rest of [the] afternoon" (which he clearly did not). 12:54 - The following exchange takes place on Channel One: DIS: 78. 78: 78. DIS: You are in the Oak Cliff area, are you not? 78: Lancaster and 8th. DIS: You will be at large for any emergency that comes in. 78: 10-4. This exchange takes place approximately half-way between the 12:54 and 12:55 time checks, that is, about nine minutes after the original call directing Tippit (and Nelson) into central Oak Cliff (my mistake calling it eight minutes). So, based on the available evidence, both men left their 12:45 locations and drove independently to other locations as they'd indicated in approximately the same amount of time as it would normally take them, with Nelson's being shortened by possibly driving on "code 3" (lights & sirens), and/or not being exactly at the TSBD at the time he radioed being "out down here." That Tippit was in the 4100 block of Bonnie View at 12:17 and 12:20, and still approximately only a mile away at 12:45 suggests that he never left the area and, after driving away from Hodges Market with the shoplifter in his car, it is a reasonable conclusion that he may have spent all or part of that time in driving her home and/or giving her a stern lecture about what he would do if he ever had to respond to such a call again. In any case, the evidence is that Tippit was up to nothing nefarious at that point in time. Furthermore, also according to Google Maps, it would have taken approximately 15 minutes to have driven from 4100 Bonnie View to the location of the Gloco station at 1502 N. Zangs Blvd, or more roughly to the north end of Lancaster Avenue, the street that the police car there left "tearing down" at some point between 12:45 and 1:00. According to the story developed by Bill Turner cited in "Car 10" (search for "tearing") "Tippit stayed at the station for about 10 minutes, somewhere between 12:45 and 1:00 P.M., then he went tearing off down Lancaster at high speed." Consequently, if Tippit had only driven the shoplifter a block away from the market and let her off, he would have presumably reached the Gloco at about 12:35, where he remained "for about 10 minutes." Presumably then he received a call asking his location, which he responded to with a lie, claiming to be some five or six miles away. Then, he went "tearing off down Lancaster" where nine minutes later he reported being at the intersection of that road and 8th Street, a three-minute ride, less "at high speed." Of course, it is possible that Tippit also was never at Lancaster & 8th as he reported, and possible that he had simply picked a place to be nine minutes after the first transmission that happened to be approximately nine minutes' drive from where he'd lied about being at the time of that transmission. That's either awful lucky or great planning. But given all that is known about JD Tippit, he was not of the character, much too mild-mannered, to be involved in planning this sort of operation. For the record, I do not believe that the Gloco folks were lying, but merely mistaken. Two of them were a couple driving by the station, who saw Tippit and waved to him; they did not indicate that he acknowledged their wave in any way. The other three were employees of the gas station, none of whom apparently approached the police car for the 10 minutes it was there. None, then, either apparently observed the driver closely nor had any interaction with him. This is especially true of the Volklands, the couple who were driving by: not only did they see him from a distance, they were also driving past him at some 30 miles per hour. I also don't agree with Bill Drenas' assessment that "we have to question the truthfulness of this statement" of Tippit's saying that he was at Kiest and Bonnie View because "it is much easier to believe that Tippit was not being truthful about his location than to discount the statements of five witnesses that knew him personally and place him at a location approximately 5 miles away from the location he reported, at approximately the same time." In support of this, Bill notes that dispatcher Murray Jackson, "a close personal friend of Tippit's" who had been the one to effectively order Tippit to his death, had said in an interview that "if somebody is out of pocket off their district and you ask them their location, they are either not going to answer or they are going to give you somewhere else anyway," in other words that dispatchers have no way of knowing where officers really are because if they want to lie to you, they will, and you'd have no way of knowing. (As "a close personal friend of Tippit's" - he reportedly spent the night sleeping on the Tippits' couch - it particularly seems unlikely that Jackson would be accusing his friend of lying to cover his whereabouts. Indeed, testimony before the Warren Commission by Tippit's superiors - Sergeants Calvin "Bud" Owens and Jim Putnam, and Lieutenant Rio Sam Pierce - all had more than adequately covered justifiable reasons why JD Tippit would not have been within his regular district when he reported being at Lancaster & 8th. This was, of course, before it was known that Tippit had been ordered into central Oak Cliff.) In sum, the bulk of the evidence shows that was where he claimed to have been and not at the Gloco station; moreover, other than the Gloco witnesses placing him there and pure speculation, there is no evidence that he was in any way "in on the plot" and even less that he was somehow involved with Oswald. I think the above covers your other points ...?

Looks nothwithstanding, I am a funny guy!

WOW!! FROM A RADIO TALK SHOW!! GUESS IT MUST BE BOGUS THEN.

Gee, the more I look at it, the better I get your point. I mean, what, Earlene Roberts actually thinking that she could see a number of that size from so very far away to be able to make out whether it read "170" or not? How ridiculous is that? I mean, talk about "exaggerating something out of all proportion," pretending to be able to read the number when she clearly couldn't see well enough to notice those much larger block letters reading "DALLAS POLICE" above and below it on a CIVILIAN car that she at least had the wherewithal to recognize as not being an accident patrol car. It's very nearly a wonder that she could even distinguish that the object was a car!Thank you for pointing this out. I have no idea and no excuse why I'd failed to notice it before. It might be wise if everyone would simply ignore everything I've written in the last 800-some-odd posts because it's now clear to me that I've never had any idea of what I'd been talking about. Gosh, I'm just so ashamed of myself. Can anyone find it within themselves to forgive me, and not relegate me to the fate that befell that evil outcast, Earlene Roberts, who wandered through the world forsaken, without friend but only foe? I should also point out that "Tippits" was not the officer's name, and "Robert" was not Earlene's, as per the above. Is this ESL? It might explain why we're having so much difficulty with the written word (or should that be capitalized, "the written Word?").