Duke Lane

You may be right, Duke, but the record is as it is. On the face of it, he believed Dubinsky was a Stalinist. He either heard this at a Bircher meeting, or by reading Bircher literature. Either way, the point is (and I stress, on the face of it, dealing with the record as it is), he believed this was a fact - not the propaganda it actually was. To believe it, necessitates a Bircher mentality.It was actually Peter Dale Scott who first caught the reference: From p277 of paperback edition: "The possibility that Oswald was an informant for the centralized security team would explain his visit to the Dallas American Civil Liberties Union, a liberal group being investigated by Revill's intelligence section, in the company of an extreme right-winger (Michael Paine)." His end-notes explain the "extreme right-winger" reference: "Michael Paine revealed his right-wing politics in his Warren Commission testimony, by a passing reference to 'the Stalinist, Dubinsky, David Dubinsky'. Dubinsky, one of the CIA's and Angleton's top agents of influence in the world anti-Communist labor movement, was a recurring target of those in the Willoughby and John Birch circles who felt the CIA was tainted by Communist connections." I do disagree with Scott (and it seems, everyone else) about Paine ever being at that ACLU meeting with Oswald - but that has no bearing on the Dubinsky reference. Well, as to your last point, as you said: the record is as it is. More than just "on the face of it," but as corroborated by an associate of his with whom he worked. Of course, you have to allow for the possibility that Krystinik wasn't part of the plot, and that Oswald was actually at the ACLU meeting, a point made with certainly only by Paine and pal. If Oswald was there, then either someone got him there (Paine, most likely), or Oswald simply told Paine that he'd been there, and MP decided to project himself into the circumstance for some reason, as if he were there when he really wasn't. He'd also have had to convince his pal Krystinik of the fact, or to perjure himself before the Commission with impunity. The simplest solution is, of course, that Paine took Oswald to the ACLU meeting where they met Krystinik. Accepting that as a given, the question is why Paine also took LHO to a Bircher meeting - as testified to by pal Krystinik in reference to Oswald alone - and didn't say so. He did testify that he, himself, was there "the night of the Stevenson incident," while Krystinik put Oswald there "the night before the Stevenson incident." Two JBS meetings on back-to-back nights that Oswald went to one alone (how did he get there?), and Paine went to the other separately the next night? I'm not buying into this cheaply.... As to the Dubinsky characterization (what prompted this whole discussion in the first place!), you note: Actually, I don't think that anyone's statement of belief - or perhaps more correctly, their repetition of something that they'd heard - "necessitates" any kind of "mentality." To bring that close to home, does someone's stated belief that the WC didn't truly investigate, discern or report "the truth" about the Kennedy assassination - or their repetition of an understanding that Johnson, the CIA and/or the FBI were somehow involved in it - "necessitate" an "anti-governmental mindset?" If so, does that make the vast majority of us here "traitors?"MP actually said ""I mentioned the Stalinist, Dubinsky, David Dubinsky was the only name I remember aside from Stalin." He had NOT previously mentioned "the Stalinist Dubinsky" as this interpretation of his words might suggest. If his testimony is to be taken literally, word-for-word, then he did not "mention" the Stalinist Dubinsky, but in actual fact, there is a pause (comma) following the word "Stalinist," so the reading might just as possibly be: I mentioned the Stalinist [pause] Dubinski [pause] David Dubinsky is the only name I remember aside from Stalin .... The fact that he followed that up immediately with the qualification that "[it] was a name I remember there, and I can't now remember whose side who was on" shows that he could not - or at least might not or probably didn't - know enough about Dubinsky to call him "the Stalinist Dubinsky" since he couldn't, after all, remember "whose side who was on." Painting Dubinsky as a Stalinist clearly puts Dubinsky on one "side" or the other, belieing the qualification he made in the very same breath as seemingly calling Dubinsky a "Stalinist" ... that is, "he's a Stalinist, but I don't know whose side he was on." Doesn't make sense. "On the face of it," then, MP only said that Dubinsky's was a name he remembered - the only one other than Stalin's - and, since he'd never mentioned Dubinsky elsewhere, and he did mention "the Stalinist group" with respect to his father's associations, I'd have to say that his mention of "the Stalinist" and Dubinsky together in a single sentence - one right after the other, in fact, but separated by a pause of indeterminate length - is more of an "incident of recall" than an attempt to state his belief, parallel to JBS' own, that Dubinsky was a Stalinist. With apologies to Professor Scott, whom I've never met, I can only say that this whole "right-wing beliefs of Michael Paine" thing - on the basis of this segment of testimony - is a straw we shouldn't grasp at too vigorously as it may not float very well at all. At least, not on the face of it, the record being as it is and all.

Oops.

Some members met this pronouncement with incredulity, myself included. Greg Parker went a step farther to note that not only were the Paines not "high ranking members of the Communist Party," but moreover Ruth's estranged husband Michael leaned to the opposite extreme: This intrigued me, and lacking specifics (or a response to my query as to what "propaganda," exactly, Paine had espoused), I decided to read the testimony in whole to see what this was referring to. While I haven't had time to read through all of Paine's 80 pages of testimony (in three appearances), this is from his first: Mr. Liebeler. Are you a member or have you ever attended any meetings of the John Birch Society? Mr. Paine. I am not a member. I have been to one or, I guess chiefly one meeting of theirs. ... Mr. Liebeler. Would you tell us the circumstances of your attendance at that meeting and what happened? Mr. Paine. I had been seeking to go to a Birch meeting for some time, and then I was invited on this night [the night Stevenson spoke in Dallas, op cit] so I went. It was an introductory meeting. ... Mr. Liebeler. For the record I think the record should indicate that Mr. Stevenson was in Dallas on or about October 24, 1963. Who invited you to this meeting? Mr. Paine. I had tried once before to go to a meeting which didn't occur. There happens to be a member of our choir, a paid soloist who is a John Birch advocate so I have been applying — so I have been telling her, that I wanted to go. I suppose, I don't remember for certain but I suppose she was the one who told me where and when. ... Mr. Liebeler. May I ask, did you go out of curiosity rather than sympathy or rather how did you happen to go? Mr. Paine. I am not in sympathy. — Mr. Dulles. So I gathered. Mr. Paine. — I have been to a number of rightist meetings and seminars in Texas. I was interested in seeing more communication between the right and the left; there isn't much liberal out there and so I wanted to be able to speak their language and know that their fears — and be familiar with their feelings and attitudes. (2H287-89) While there is a lot more to Paine's testimony than the handful of pages I've read so far, the picture that emerges thus far is that Michael was - or wished to portray himself as - a "student of political philosophies" who was "interested in seeing more communication between the right and the left," and who absorbed himself with the more "radical" elements of either side as if to be able to somehow facilitate that dialog. His father, George Lyman Paine, according to the son, was himself apparently really a "high level" left-winger who took young Michael - at Michael's "considerable insistence" - to meetings of the various CPUSA factions in New York. Nobody, he said, attempted to recruit him to the cause, but they "were glad to meet Lyman's son." One might conjecture that nobody would have felt the need to "recruit" an "heir apparent" ... and if anyone was to have to "recruit" young Paine, it would be the elder who would do so. According to some sources from the above Google link, the senior Paine was "was a founding member of the Johnson-Forest Tendency of the Socialist Workers Party" on the one hand, while on the other reportedly "went undercover as [a] communist" in partnership with one James Burnham (who himself reputedly "went on to teach the newly formed CIA about covert operations [and] to teach philosophy at Yale and recruit CIA agents from among his students") and "infiltrated the leadership of the American Trotskyist movement -- the world's largest Trotskyist organization — and helped tear it apart." Michael, at age 34 in front of the Warren Commission, said that he had "very little specific knowledge about what [his father] does." Even as a youngster, he "had [his] own dreams of how [he] would like to see society at the time and it wasn't along-the same line" as the Trotskyists he was introduced to by his well-thought-of father. He did, however, at one point became a "member" of the ACLU - an organization decidedly not right-wing - but his support of the organization and its ideals were tepid at best: he supposed "you become a member as soon as you contribute money, and I may have contributed money a good many years back," but "I didn't start going to a meeting of the organization until I was — I have only been to about four perhaps, in Dallas, four meetings" (2H387). Not exactly what you'd call an "activist" by any stretch of the imagination, hardly a devout follower, and really not much of a "member" at all when you get right down to it. ACLU ... JBS ... CPUSA ... what exactly was Michael anyway, if he could be classified at all? Despite the appearance of frugalilty - not to necessarily say "poverty" - while his wife lived in a tiny Irving bungalow, and which he himself claimed as home in March 1964 (he lived in an apartment in Dallas during the year prior that he and Ruth were separated), Michael was a design engineer at Bell Helicopter in nearby Fort Worth (he said it was "difficult to say" if he had a security clearance for his job), not generally a meager profession, and especially in the times of and leading to Vietnam. His profession aside, Michael Paine did not come from poor stock. According to a page on which Michael and Ruth are referred to as "a tiny footnote in history," Michael Paine was of a lineage that has more recently culminated with former Democratic Presidential candidate and Senator from Massachusetts John Forbes Kerry (another "JFK" from Massachusetts - how ironic!), but which also included the former president of Alexander Graham Bell's telephone company, the CEO of the shipping empire of William Russell (founder of Yale's Skull and Bones Society), a shipping captain who "played a prominent role in the outbreak of the Chinese Opium War," a railroad tycoon, and a wealthy US Governor General of the Phillipines (ref: Wikipedia, "The Forbes Family of China and Boston"). Michael's mother, the former Ruth Forbes, was the Governor General's niece. The elder Ruth was an artist and a great-grandaughter of the man who owned Walden Pond and who employed the writer Henry David Thoreau who made it famous, Ralph Waldo Emerson. She was also reputed to be a long-time friend of Mary Bancroft, Allen Dulles' wartime lover and his chief contact with one of the leaders of the plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler, according to JFK researcher Richard Bartholomew. After being divorced from Lyman, Michael's mother married her third husband in 1948, philosopher and inventor Arthur Middleton Young, who has been called "the greatest theoretical genius since Einstein," and whose most prominent and lasting invention was the Bell helicopter. I think it's fair to say that it wasn't at any country "folk dance" that Michael's mother met "A.Y." Thus, even while Young was no longer directly associated with Bell after 1953, it would nevertheless seem that Michael may not have been such an "ordinary" engineer after all, and that the good folks at Bell Textron were as happy to meet "the stepson of A.Y." as the Trotskyists were to meet "the son of Lyman." It is difficult to imagine that he was paid at a level to only be able to afford for his wife, a kindergarten teacher from whom he was estranged since September 1963, a mere thousand-square-foot tract home. That home is valued at under $100,000 today, meaning that in the early '60s, the Paines probably bought it for well under $5000. Surely an engineer with a pedigree such as Michael's, working as a "favored" employee (as a step-son to the inventor of Bell's raison d'etre) and - supposedly, but also likely - with trust funds of his own supporting him probably could have much done better if he'd wanted to. (For those ultra-conspiracists among us, it should be noted that an anagram of "Arthur M. Young" is "naughty rumor" ... which we all recognize as being those things that the Warren Commission sought hardest to quash, even while the rest of official Washington sought only to edify the man's creation!) What is interesting to me is that Michael Paine's testimony seemed to hold its share of self-corrections, which one might almost preface with an "oops!" For example: There happens to be a member of our choir, a paid soloist who is a John Birch advocate so I have been applying — [oops!] so I have been telling her, that I wanted to go. ... and later: [T]here isn't much liberal out there [around Dallas] and so I wanted to be able to speak their language and know that their fears — [oops!] and be familiar with their feelings and attitudes "Oops," he didn't mean to say he'd been applying to become a Bircher, he merely "wanted to go" to a meeting out of mere curiosity, and "Oops," he wasn't trying to assimilate/ingratiate himself into the ACLU by learning to "speak their language," but merely wanted to "be familiar with their feelings and attitudes." One can only wonder where the comment about their "fears" was headed before he'd caught himself! If I'm remembering correctly - I haven't finished reading his testimony yet - one of the four ACLU meetings he'd attended in Dallas is one that he went to in the company of Lee Oswald and (again, if memory serves) at his behest, not Oswald's. While dad Lyman appeared to be one of the "higher-ups" in a Trotskyite movement, the claims of his having "infiltrated" and "tore apart" that would suggest that he was not necessarily what he appeared to be. As I recall from one of more of the "Lyman" Google links, he was also considered in the '50s to assist the CIA in some fashion, but the idea was rejected for unspecified reasons. He did, however, do something for the Company in the '60s. If that and his association with a man reputed to have trained CIA operatives are true, it would stand to reason that his "Communist" leanings were a mere facade. Thus, even if Communism was, in fact, "a generational trend passed on to their children," it doesn't appear to be one that was necessarily "passed on" to young Michael ... if indeed such a "trend" existed in the first place (like bleached blond hair being a "dominant gene," eh?). Indeed, based on their lineage, it would seem that Messers Paine would more likely gravitate toward the conservative - that is "right" - spectrum than the liberal. Even if Lyman were a dyed-in-the-wool Trotskyite (a far cry from Marxist-Leninism), young Michael wouldn't be the first progeny to reject, even rebel against the politics of his forebear. Bell Helicopter also doesn't seem like the kind of place to harbor Commies either, especially in its design engineering departments, security clearance or not. ("Now, Michael, remember to promise that you won't give these plans to anyone with a funny accent, okay?") Even if Michael and Ruth were "card-carrying" Commies, about all that that might prove is that they were FBI informants since without FBI "infiltrators'" dues, chances are that there'd be no "Communist Party" in the USA! I don't have the reference at hand, but it strikes me that there were literally hundreds around the country who were true "threats" compared with many hundreds more who wore a badge when they weren't at a "party" meeting! Without delving too far into how "convenient" it would be to have the "patsy" and his Soviet wife in the care and custody of a pair of right-wingers cum "liberals," it makes entirely much more sense - as perhaps betrayed by Michael Paine's words about "applying" to the JBS and his purported espousal of their "propaganda" as "fact before the Commission" - that the Paines were much more comfortable than they portrayed during that time period, and that they were much more likely conservatives than "high-ranking members" of the left-wing Communist Party. Sorry Duke, didn't see your request.What I was referring to was this part of his testimony: Mr. LIEBELER - Did you ever join any of these organizations? Mr. PAINE - Well, I didn't know of any organization as such. I went to this meeting in downtown New York. I didn't know--so therefore I knew three groups. Maybe it was the Socialist group and the Stalinist group and I think the group that Lyman was in, I don't know, maybe he was a Socialist. Mr. LIEBELER - Which was the second group, was it the Stalinist? Mr. PAINE - I mentioned the Stalinist, Dubinsky, David Dubinsky, was the only name I remember aside from Stalin, was a name I remember there, and I can't now remember whose side who was on. The only way anyone could call Dubinsky a Stalinist would be by believing Bircher propaganda. Dubinsky was in the CIA's pocket as part of the use of labor in anti-Communist projects. Bircher's were the only ones to ever call him a "Stalinist". With regard to MP attending meetings of right wing groups... this activity started just after his split with Ruth in '62 when he attended a NIC meeting. This was also about the time Larrie Schmidt was trying to infiltrate that particular group (see CE 1036 letter from Schmidt to Jones dated Nov 2, 1962). Mr. PAINE - No; I have never seen General Walker that I can recall. Mr. LIEBELER - You have never seen Walker? Mr. PAINE - Unless he was--in a year previous to that I had been to the Indignation Committee meeting--no-- that is the answer to your previous question. Thanks, Greg. This, in and of itself, isn't probative as to MP's leanings when one considers that he was at a JBS meeting at about the time Adlai Stevenson was in Dallas (not for a JBS meeting ... tho' it seems that he happened into one, eh?). Since this was a purportedly a "recruitment" meeting and they did show a film or films, it is possible that this was part of that. (More on that meeting below, too.)That said, MP was deposed in March 1964 or thereabouts. It does seem to be an odd detail to remember if that was the source. If you pick apart what he was saying in context - and without taking the time to read the rest of his testimony right now surrounding it - he "knew of three groups" apparently in New York. They were all Communist groups of one ilk or another. He remembers one "benefactor" as being Stalin, and may seem to recall Dubinsky being a benefactor of another? Or perhaps it's just a case of bad punctuation? Remember: this "written record" is not a record of what people wrote, but of what they said as taken down by a court reporter. We don't add punctuation to our spoken words, and even people who write often, even professionally (like court reporters), don't always use it correctly. A comma, a period, an em dash, ellipses ... they all denote pauses of (perhaps) different lengths, so who's to say what should have been in the sentence above if the reporter used incorrect punctuation. A comma, as used in the written record, would indicate only a brief pause ... but was it? So another interpretation might be that since he did not ever "mention" Dubinsky elsewhere in his testimony (tho' he could have been referring to preliminary discussions off the record), he could have been speaking more like this: "I mentioned the Stalinist- [catches himself up short] - Dubinsky, David Dubinsky was the only name I remember aside from Stalin." You've done it yourself sometime in your life: talking about one thing when something else you'd couldn't remember popped into your head. "I mentioned the Dallas cops - Lane. Duke Lane, the guy I remember besides Tippit...." Did you just say that I was a Dallas cop? It could be read that way. I think it's fair to say that he qualifies the fact that he's not calling Dubinsky a Stalinist, per se, since he does remark that "I can't now remember whose side who was on." I'm sure there's some empirical data out there somewhere that supports that theory ... after all, how many career Marines' and other military officers' sons and daughters wore sandals and put daisies in gun barrels in the late '60s and early '70s?Further curiousity/speculation: if kids often feel compelled to veer to the opposite direction of Mom and Pop, what of when Pop ain't what he seems to be? While Lyman was "big" in Trotskyite circles - but not a Marxist-Leninist (sound familiar?) - and his public persona fit that, would he have been the same in private, "compelling" his son to veer to the right ... in the same "direction" as dear old dad, but unbeknownst to the kid? If one is to believe some JBS literature I've seen - which is reminiscent of the old adage about "smoking your own dope" - so was President Eisenhower ... "even though I disagree with some of the things they've said about me [being a witting and willing tool of the international Communist conspiracy]."I thought it was interesting in reading the testimony of Mike's pal Frank Krystinik that the two overlapped somewhat in that Paine had mentioned that he had been to just one JBS meeting, which happened to be the night of the "Stevenson incident" (which, incidentally, Larrie Schmidt of Conservatism USA - Bernie Weissman's group, as it were - was quite proud of: see CE1032 et seq.), thus "distancing" Paine from that little demonstration ... while Krystinik mentioned that he'd spoken with Oswald after the ACLU meeting (he was predisposed from talking with MP toward not liking LHO) and that Oswald had mentioned having been at a JBS meeting "the night before" the Stevenson incident. Thus it would appear that, in addition to bringing LHO to an ACLU meeting, MP also brought him to a meeting of the JBS, something he doesn't mention in his own testimony. Paine's stated rationale for getting involved with LHO in this arena (bringing him to meetings) was to broaden Oswald's horizons, expose him to additional political thought ... but it nevertheless seems odd that he would go to a JBS "recruiting" meeting (that he told the WC about) on the very night of a JBS "party," but not mention his bringing LHO along for the ride. Krystinik said that the meeting was "the night before" the Stevenson deal, which actually makes better sense when you consider that it is usually the dyed-in-the-wool types of any organization - Moose, Masons, Elks, VFW, etc. - who conduct "recruitment" or "indoctrination" meetings. It would thus seem that they, perhaps more than any other Birchers, would want to be at the Stevenson protest rather than away from it ... unless it came up suddenly and they couldn't rearrange already-laid plans. There would also be the advantage of being able to add new recruits to the demonstration the next night, which they clearly couldn't do if both events were on the same night. That MP shied away from admitting that LHO had gone with him to the (only?) JBS meeting that he went to also suggests that MP would want to distance himself from the spitting by saying he "couldn't possibly have been there" because he was at another meeting across town. His skirting the one issue puts the other under suspicion.

What do you make of the "six or seven witnesses" who claimed that Oswald ran up the alley, and not Jefferson? Depending on the time and the location of the officer and witnesses, some people saw a suspect running down Jefferson. and some people saw a suspect running down the alley between 10th and Jefferson. Is it possible that they were witnessing two different individuals? You can follow the progress of the suspect as he heads west on Jefferson from Patton St. up until about 1:32PM, and then everything seems to change.1:19PM The Dispatcher tell Unit 85 (Patrolman R.W. Walker) Suspect running west on Jefferson from the location. 85: 10-4. and more of the same... On November 22nd, patrolman J.M. Poe arrived at work to patrol his normal patrol region of the western part of the downtown area. (WC vol. VII, pp. 66+). When the call came over the radio that the President had been shot, he reported to the scene of the crime. While he was guarding the building with his partner, L.E. Jez, a call came over the radio that Officer Tippit had been shot. He responded to 10th and Patton, where he wound up interviewing Helen Markham. Later in the day, he reported to Chief Curry what he had done that day. (Dallas Police Archives, Box 7 Folder # 5, Item # 8). In his official report, Poe wrote that: "We were met by a white female who identified herself as being Helen Marsalle, 328 E. 9th St., who stated she witnessed the shooting of the officer... "There were approximately six to eight witnesses, all telling officers that the subject was running west in the alley between tenth and Jefferson Streets" Later in the day, Poe filed a Supplementary Offense report (Box 7, Folder # 2, Item # 37). Here he wrote: "We were met by a white woman who identified herself as being Helen Marsille of 329 E. 9th Street who stated that she witnessed the shooting of the officer... 6 or 7 witnesses said that the suspect was running east in the alley that was between Tenth and Jefferson". Steve Thomas Well, first off, Ms Helen Marsille seems to have lived at the same address as (or possibly across the street from?) Ms Helen Markham, so my first question would be: is this simply a misspelling? Unless a city directory or something shows a "Marsille" on that block, I'd have to guess that it is. After all, what's the likelihood that two Helen "M's" lived in the same building or across from each other and witnessed the shooting, too?!? Not being a statistician, my guess is that there'd be several zeroes between that decimal point and the '1' at the end!We do know that Poe was at 10th and Patton with Helen Markham (and a cigarette cellophane containing ".38 automatic rather than pistol" shells!) as opposed to wandering around the neighborhood as, say, Jerry Hill was. If he went poking around, it's news to me ... or maybe I've just forgotten, but I don't think he did. That said, Poe's witnesses - however many there were - probably were at the same location if he heard anything that they said, directly to him, among themselves, or otherwise. Without an identification of who these "six to eight" or "six or seven" people are, it's hard to qualify their statements beyond general observation. ... And that general observation is that enough people saw him go at least to Patton & Jefferson and thence west to prove that the shooter didn't take the alley from Patton to points west ... although it is clearly possible that he went in the alley AFTER he went behind Bellew's Texaco at Jefferson & Crawford (although I have different hypothesis entirely). If those witnesses saw him in that portion of the alley, west of Crawford, then it would be interesting to know who they were. They were not the Brocks at the Texaco, who didn't say that they had any customers in the shop at the time, and it wasn't anybody in the Abundant Life Tabernacle, at least not per Jerry Hill, the only one who made even a perfunctory "search" of the place (and given its size, it's pretty amazing it didn't attract more than just his attention! See this tour for a photo). Otherwise ...? Yes, it is possible that they may have witnessed two different men in the alleyway ... which goes several blocks east of Patton, and two or three blocks west, all the while being "between Jefferson and Tenth," so where they saw him east or west of Patton matters, too. ... Which is the long-winded version of saying "I don't have an opinion" I guess!!

Robert, it's not there anymore, but the warehouse was located at 1917 N Houston. See CE1381 among other references. It was only about a block away (if that) since, in 1963 and until construction had been completed on Houston Street in 1964, Houston curved into Ross beginning at Pacific, which is the street one block north of Elm (Ross is two streets north).There was (is?) a building north on Central Expressway, I think, on the west side of the highway where you could (can?) clearly read "Texas Schoolbook Depository" as you travel. I haven't seen it in a while, so couldn't tell you if it's there still. At least, that's where I recall it having been. Thanks for the information, one can get lost in the WC Hearings and Exhibit's, it's hard to know every nook and cranny. BTW, I have been looking through the 1444 documents, would you happen to know if the Waggoner Carr Collection contains any corresponding info on the 'Oswald Phone Call's matter,?' I've read Walt Brown's article in the April 2006 DPQ and feel he brings up some interesting points. I've been corrected - somewhat, anyway - by another local who's been here longer than I, who said that prior to 1963 (a few days after the assassination), Houston and Ross did not intersect at all.My observation was based on a WC document (introduced in Worrell's testimony, I forget the number, but maybe 369 or something like that?) that shows Ross curving into Houston and joining it at what might be called a "K" intersection at Pacific with Houston continuing north; a 1962 and 1967 Dallas Transit Company map showing the curve, but Houston NOT continuing north (just merging with Ross and turning east); and a 1963 Mapsco that shows Houston going north to intersect at right angles with Ross a block north of Pacific and continuing on to McKinney Ave, pretty much as it all does today. The latter two I obtained recently at the downtown main Dallas Library. I have no way of knowing with certainty which is correct since I didn't get here until the late '80s.

Robert, it's not there anymore, but the warehouse was located at 1917 N Houston. See CE1381 among other references. It was only about a block away (if that) since, in 1963 and until construction had been completed on Houston Street in 1964, Houston curved into Ross beginning at Pacific, which is the street one block north of Elm (Ross is two streets north).There was (is?) a building north on Central Expressway, I think, on the west side of the highway where you could (can?) clearly read "Texas Schoolbook Depository" as you travel. I haven't seen it in a while, so couldn't tell you if it's there still. At least, that's where I recall it having been.

There is apparently no dissent that the limo braked on Elm St just prior to the last shot(s) that killed JFK before entering the Triple Underpass. Likewise, it is clear that by the time the motorcade entered the Stemmons Freeway entrance ramp, the limo had passed Chief Curry's lead car, which then in turn passed the limo to lead the way to Parkland. This suggests that the lead car had also slowed down, or at least had not continued ahead at the same speed as it had previously been moving, otherwise it would seem as if it would have or should have been a longer distance ahead of the limo as the cars emerged from under the bridge. Walt Brown makes much ado about this in his book The Warren Omission, but doesn't seem to ask the question whether the lead car might have slowed down because they noticed the limo lagging farther behind than it had been before it had braked, or if the limo braked in response to the lead car having braked first. Offhand, the fact that Sheriff Decker called in to have his officers get over to the railroad tracks suggests that the lead car hadn't found itself suddenly far ahead of the limo since Decker was apparently still in Dealey Plaza, if not when he made the radio call, at least when he heard the (final?) shot(s) that killed Kennedy. Alternatively, I've also read elsewhere on this forum (a post by Al Carrier, I think?) that USSS protocol was for the driver to keep his left foot on the brake pedal to be able to brake in emergencies ... so that when Greer turned around to his right at the time of the fatal shot(s), his left foot naturally depressed the brake pedal. Never having before noticed anyone question this particular aspect, I wondered if in fact there is any evidence that shows the lead car's brake lights on as well, and if so, did they come on before or after the limo's? Or is it more likely that the second (Carrier) explanation is the correct one? Just curious ....

His death certificate gives Tippit's time of death, after being picked up and delivered by ambulance to the hospital, as having been pronounced at : 1:15 P.M. I think the document speaks for itself.Chuck Clearl as mud. You see, they drove the ambulance backward so they could get there earlier ....Another factor not documented by anyone is the haste in which everyone acted, with the singular exception of the one man who actually looked at his watch, who had been caught in a strange time warp. If the shooting took place at zero minutes, zero seconds (00:00), then: 00:05 - the shooter turned away 00:08 - gunman opens cylinder 00:10 - Davis girl reaches doorway and 00:11 - Benavides opens truck door 00:12 - gunman shakes shells loose 00:15 - Davis calls to sister-in-law who while 00:15 - Benavides starts to cross street after ensuring gunman's not too far away 00:16 - Davis #2 rushes immediately to the door as 00:17 - gunman grins at girls and 00:18 - Benavides looks momentarily at dead cop as 00:19 - gunman reaches corner and 00:20 - Benavides reaches car door while -05:00 - TF Bowley stops car and looks at watch (1:10 p.m.) after Tippit is lying in street and 00:25 - gunman rounds corner past Davises' house -04:00 - TF Bowley reaches patrol car and -03:50 - examines officer briefly to see that he's dead and -03:45 - notices that 00:30 - Benavides gets in car and 00:35 - gunman runs across Patton on his way to Jefferson while 01:00 - Benavides gives up on fumbling with radio and exits car and -03:00 - Bowley enters car and reaches for mike, fumbles with it for four minutes and 01:15 - Radio transmission begins as 01:20 - gunman turns onto Jefferson Blvd. Benavides was a bit shy about admitting how he'd been sitting on Bowley's lap as if Bowley wasn't there, and it took Bowley more than a week to get over having Donnie on his lap by which time he'd forgotten that detail and did not mention it in his affidavit. That happens when you'rrrrrrrrrrrre mmmmmmmooooooooooooooovvvvvvvvvvvvvvvingggggggggggggggggggg ssssssssslllllllllllllllllllooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwww lllllllllliiiiiiiiiiikkkkkkkkke tttthhhhhhaaaaaaaaaattttt. (Ref: Star Trek #183) With no strain noted in the voice on the radio and that all of the above events having occured as fast or faster than estimated, it is then possible to conclude that it was Donnie Benavides who made the transmission within a minute of the shooting. Something else to consider: if you can manage to get ten people to stand near you at any given time (try this, it is a real experiment!!), ask each of them to "mark" the time on their watches and to tell you what it read at the moment you said "now." If, in the age of quartz and satellite-coordinated watches, any of them differ by more than 30 seconds from yours, ask them when the last time they set their watch to a standardized (atomic) clock or time-of-day service was. If any differ by more than one minute, ask them when the last time that their watch stopped was, and if it was because they hadn't wound it. If nobody has a wind-up watch and any time is different by more than 90 seconds, consider what it must have been like when people did have to wind their watches, when watches actually stopped as often as once a month or more frequently, and when they couldn't set their watch by the clock in the corner of their computer screen even if they don't ping an atomic clock once a week. When the word "ping" didn't even exist and a computer had vacuum tubes that filled a very cold room. Then ask yourself it if makes one good gosh-darn what anyone's "professional qualifications" were when determining how "reliable" they were when they told someone what time it was. They were only as reliable as their watches ... which probably weren't all that terribly accurate! Someday, I'll have to post why the time on Bowley's watch doesn't mean much either....

See also the topic "A Paine on the 'Right' Side" elsewhere on this forum.

Elsewhere on this forum, under the "Curtain Rods" thread, Mark Carter posited that Michael and Ruth Paine were "high ranking members of the Communist Party" and that Ruth "framed" Lee Oswald by concocting an elaborate ruse involving the supposed bundle of curtain rods: Some members met this pronouncement with incredulity, myself included. Greg Parker went a step farther to note that not only were the Paines not "high ranking members of the Communist Party," but moreover Ruth's estranged husband Michael leaned to the opposite extreme: This intrigued me, and lacking specifics (or a response to my query as to what "propaganda," exactly, Paine had espoused), I decided to read the testimony in whole to see what this was referring to. While I haven't had time to read through all of Paine's 80 pages of testimony (in three appearances), this is from his first: Mr. Liebeler. Are you a member or have you ever attended any meetings of the John Birch Society? Mr. Paine. I am not a member. I have been to one or, I guess chiefly one meeting of theirs. ... Mr. Liebeler. Would you tell us the circumstances of your attendance at that meeting and what happened? Mr. Paine. I had been seeking to go to a Birch meeting for some time, and then I was invited on this night [the night Stevenson spoke in Dallas, op cit] so I went. It was an introductory meeting. ... Mr. Liebeler. For the record I think the record should indicate that Mr. Stevenson was in Dallas on or about October 24, 1963. Who invited you to this meeting? Mr. Paine. I had tried once before to go to a meeting which didn't occur. There happens to be a member of our choir, a paid soloist who is a John Birch advocate so I have been applying — so I have been telling her, that I wanted to go. I suppose, I don't remember for certain but I suppose she was the one who told me where and when. ... Mr. Liebeler. May I ask, did you go out of curiosity rather than sympathy or rather how did you happen to go? Mr. Paine. I am not in sympathy. — Mr. Dulles. So I gathered. Mr. Paine. — I have been to a number of rightist meetings and seminars in Texas. I was interested in seeing more communication between the right and the left; there isn't much liberal out there and so I wanted to be able to speak their language and know that their fears — and be familiar with their feelings and attitudes. (2H287-89) While there is a lot more to Paine's testimony than the handful of pages I've read so far, the picture that emerges thus far is that Michael was - or wished to portray himself as - a "student of political philosophies" who was "interested in seeing more communication between the right and the left," and who absorbed himself with the more "radical" elements of either side as if to be able to somehow facilitate that dialog. His father, George Lyman Paine, according to the son, was himself apparently really a "high level" left-winger who took young Michael - at Michael's "considerable insistence" - to meetings of the various CPUSA factions in New York. Nobody, he said, attempted to recruit him to the cause, but they "were glad to meet Lyman's son." One might conjecture that nobody would have felt the need to "recruit" an "heir apparent" ... and if anyone was to have to "recruit" young Paine, it would be the elder who would do so. According to some sources from the above Google link, the senior Paine was "was a founding member of the Johnson-Forest Tendency of the Socialist Workers Party" on the one hand, while on the other reportedly "went undercover as [a] communist" in partnership with one James Burnham (who himself reputedly "went on to teach the newly formed CIA about covert operations [and] to teach philosophy at Yale and recruit CIA agents from among his students") and "infiltrated the leadership of the American Trotskyist movement -- the world's largest Trotskyist organization — and helped tear it apart." Michael, at age 34 in front of the Warren Commission, said that he had "very little specific knowledge about what [his father] does." Even as a youngster, he "had [his] own dreams of how [he] would like to see society at the time and it wasn't along-the same line" as the Trotskyists he was introduced to by his well-thought-of father. He did, however, at one point became a "member" of the ACLU - an organization decidedly not right-wing - but his support of the organization and its ideals were tepid at best: he supposed "you become a member as soon as you contribute money, and I may have contributed money a good many years back," but "I didn't start going to a meeting of the organization until I was — I have only been to about four perhaps, in Dallas, four meetings" (2H387). Not exactly what you'd call an "activist" by any stretch of the imagination, hardly a devout follower, and really not much of a "member" at all when you get right down to it. ACLU ... JBS ... CPUSA ... what exactly was Michael anyway, if he could be classified at all? Despite the appearance of frugalilty - not to necessarily say "poverty" - while his wife lived in a tiny Irving bungalow, and which he himself claimed as home in March 1964 (he lived in an apartment in Dallas during the year prior that he and Ruth were separated), Michael was a design engineer at Bell Helicopter in nearby Fort Worth (he said it was "difficult to say" if he had a security clearance for his job), not generally a meager profession, and especially in the times of and leading to Vietnam. His profession aside, Michael Paine did not come from poor stock. According to a page on which Michael and Ruth are referred to as "a tiny footnote in history," Michael Paine was of a lineage that has more recently culminated with former Democratic Presidential candidate and Senator from Massachusetts John Forbes Kerry (another "JFK" from Massachusetts - how ironic!), but which also included the former president of Alexander Graham Bell's telephone company, the CEO of the shipping empire of William Russell (founder of Yale's Skull and Bones Society), a shipping captain who "played a prominent role in the outbreak of the Chinese Opium War," a railroad tycoon, and a wealthy US Governor General of the Phillipines (ref: Wikipedia, "The Forbes Family of China and Boston"). Michael's mother, the former Ruth Forbes, was the Governor General's niece. The elder Ruth was an artist and a great-grandaughter of the man who owned Walden Pond and who employed the writer Henry David Thoreau who made it famous, Ralph Waldo Emerson. She was also reputed to be a long-time friend of Mary Bancroft, Allen Dulles' wartime lover and his chief contact with one of the leaders of the plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler, according to JFK researcher Richard Bartholomew. After being divorced from Lyman, Michael's mother married her third husband in 1948, philosopher and inventor Arthur Middleton Young, who has been called "the greatest theoretical genius since Einstein," and whose most prominent and lasting invention was the Bell helicopter. I think it's fair to say that it wasn't at any country "folk dance" that Michael's mother met "A.Y." Thus, even while Young was no longer directly associated with Bell after 1953, it would nevertheless seem that Michael may not have been such an "ordinary" engineer after all, and that the good folks at Bell Textron were as happy to meet "the stepson of A.Y." as the Trotskyists were to meet "the son of Lyman." It is difficult to imagine that he was paid at a level to only be able to afford for his wife, a kindergarten teacher from whom he was estranged since September 1963, a mere thousand-square-foot tract home. That home is valued at under $100,000 today, meaning that in the early '60s, the Paines probably bought it for well under $5000. Surely an engineer with a pedigree such as Michael's, working as a "favored" employee (as a step-son to the inventor of Bell's raison d'etre) and - supposedly, but also likely - with trust funds of his own supporting him probably could have much done better if he'd wanted to. (For those ultra-conspiracists among us, it should be noted that an anagram of "Arthur M. Young" is "naughty rumor" ... which we all recognize as being those things that the Warren Commission sought hardest to quash, even while the rest of official Washington sought only to edify the man's creation!) What is interesting to me is that Michael Paine's testimony seemed to hold its share of self-corrections, which one might almost preface with an "oops!" For example: There happens to be a member of our choir, a paid soloist who is a John Birch advocate so I have been applying — [oops!] so I have been telling her, that I wanted to go. ... and later: [T]here isn't much liberal out there [around Dallas] and so I wanted to be able to speak their language and know that their fears — [oops!] and be familiar with their feelings and attitudes "Oops," he didn't mean to say he'd been applying to become a Bircher, he merely "wanted to go" to a meeting out of mere curiosity, and "Oops," he wasn't trying to assimilate/ingratiate himself into the ACLU by learning to "speak their language," but merely wanted to "be familiar with their feelings and attitudes." One can only wonder where the comment about their "fears" was headed before he'd caught himself! If I'm remembering correctly - I haven't finished reading his testimony yet - one of the four ACLU meetings he'd attended in Dallas is one that he went to in the company of Lee Oswald and (again, if memory serves) at his behest, not Oswald's. While dad Lyman appeared to be one of the "higher-ups" in a Trotskyite movement, the claims of his having "infiltrated" and "tore apart" that would suggest that he was not necessarily what he appeared to be. As I recall from one of more of the "Lyman" Google links, he was also considered in the '50s to assist the CIA in some fashion, but the idea was rejected for unspecified reasons. He did, however, do something for the Company in the '60s. If that and his association with a man reputed to have trained CIA operatives are true, it would stand to reason that his "Communist" leanings were a mere facade. Thus, even if Communism was, in fact, "a generational trend passed on to their children," it doesn't appear to be one that was necessarily "passed on" to young Michael ... if indeed such a "trend" existed in the first place (like bleached blond hair being a "dominant gene," eh?). Indeed, based on their lineage, it would seem that Messers Paine would more likely gravitate toward the conservative - that is "right" - spectrum than the liberal. Even if Lyman were a dyed-in-the-wool Trotskyite (a far cry from Marxist-Leninism), young Michael wouldn't be the first progeny to reject, even rebel against the politics of his forebear. Bell Helicopter also doesn't seem like the kind of place to harbor Commies either, especially in its design engineering departments, security clearance or not. ("Now, Michael, remember to promise that you won't give these plans to anyone with a funny accent, okay?") Even if Michael and Ruth were "card-carrying" Commies, about all that that might prove is that they were FBI informants since without FBI "infiltrators'" dues, chances are that there'd be no "Communist Party" in the USA! I don't have the reference at hand, but it strikes me that there were literally hundreds around the country who were true "threats" compared with many hundreds more who wore a badge when they weren't at a "party" meeting! Without delving too far into how "convenient" it would be to have the "patsy" and his Soviet wife in the care and custody of a pair of right-wingers cum "liberals," it makes entirely much more sense - as perhaps betrayed by Michael Paine's words about "applying" to the JBS and his purported espousal of their "propaganda" as "fact before the Commission" - that the Paines were much more comfortable than they portrayed during that time period, and that they were much more likely conservatives than "high-ranking members" of the left-wing Communist Party.

No. It's that the Moorman photo, which the Z film proves is doctored, proves that the Z film is doctored. QE...Q?It is, I think, an example of what was meant when they said that "the physician who treats himself has a fool for a patient!"

With so many faked and fudged films and photos out there, one must really wonder: is Kennedy even really dead?!? Perhaps it would be easier - and a shorter list? - if someone could provide an inventory of those that are real and genuine ....

As a corellary to my signature-jingle below, I would add that there are often deep thoughts to be found in even the shallowest of media.Take, for example, the television show '24' in which the current POTUS has apprently been complicit in several activities that could have had - and in some cases, such as the assassination of his predecessor, actually did have - dire consequences for the nation. Clearly, he doesn't want his involvement in these things known, and, while admitting to "mistakes," defends against disclosure of these incidents because "it would cause people to lose faith in their government" and undermine if not destroy its very legitimacy. For that reason alone, the truth will officially be denied and obfuscated at least for our lifetimes. Regardless of who killed Kennedy or who was behind it or why it was done, quite simply it was the government - through a commission appointed by, reporting to and, when all was said and done, endorsed by its chief executive - that prosecuted, promulgated and propagated what is surely the world's most expensive work of fiction. The government - together with our "fourth estate" - that has steadfastly and emphatically denied any other possibility than the lone-Oswald theory for forty-plus years can scarcely afford to tell the world that, "heh-heh, we were only kidding" about its investigation into and solution of the murder of its own chief of state. Every word spoken in support of the Warren Report only cements their inability to ever extract themselves from the morass. Everyone may know that the emperor is naked, but only a few have the nerve - or little enough to lose - to fail to admire his new clothes. Besides, why belabor the obvious? And so I think it is with historians as well as lawyers: if you know you can't win the argument, at least have the good grace not to start it. Your work will not only go unheralded (no matter how true it may be), but you will be ridiculed by those who have no choice but to perpetuate the lie they'd foisted on you, if only to maintain their own credibility and seeming integrity, without which they could not survive. In 1963, close on the heels of the Cuban Missile Crisis (and the "accession to Communist demands" with the ceding of missile sites in Turkey - which is, after all, what we objected to, "guns" aimed so close to our own heads), in the midst of the Cold War and the Red Scare, not long after the witch hunt that was the McCarthy era (a good idea gone wrong?), there seems little doubt that many people considered JFK to be a real threat to the national security who unfortunately - and misguidedly - enjoyed the support of a majority of the American people because of his youth and charisma. If Truman and Eisenhower were "witting tools of the Communist conspiracy," what could the perception of people who believed that have been of Kennedy? You can also toss in the "Negro situation," the imbroglio over steel prices and oil depletion allowances, Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs and myriad other misguided, "unamerican" programs and initiatives represented by JFK, and you have a sure recipe for "disaster" - after all, people (and especially institutions) do not like change - and a wider spread of support for removing the "threat" by whatever means available. God knows, we could not have depended upon the American people - the "average Joe" does not know what's good for him - to have done so at the polls in 1964, so a more dependable solution had to be found to ensure that the country would continue on the "right" course. In 1963, it was "good for the country." If later it was a "mistake," it was nevertheless done, and no "good" could have come out - or could still come out of - admitting the error: we cannot and we will not. When a government admits its wrongs, its effects are far-reaching. Consider why nations don't often "apologize" when they can instead "regret" incidents, or why the Catholic Church - a nation-state itself - does not apologize for or admit to to the things it's done that seem glaring errors (to be generous) now, but may not have been at the time they were committed (the Inquisition being a good example, as might be the Pope's acquiescence to - if not downright collaboration with - Nazi Germany). The historian must recognize this historical fact, replete with vast precedent, and in recognizing it for what it is, cannot sensibly refute the "official truth" because it would mean that he's learned nothing from his profession and therefore loses credibility - not only for being a "conspiracy theorist," but for attempting to buck the system that cannot be bucked.

Actually, it's sort of difficult to get past Manchester's contradiction in terms: So Chaney was "an ordinary policeman" whose experience was not even as impressive as two qualification courses on an indoor range required of a vaunted presidential bodyguard?!?But, then, that's Manchester (and a host of others) for ya! ... And here I'd always thought that it had something to do with the '60s "electric Kool-Aid acid tests" made famous by Ken Kesey and the Grateful Dead's San Francisco crowd during the Summer of Love!!

Specifically...? That's an interesting proposition, as I often think of Michael Paine in the role of Lee's "ACLU sponsor," as in "let's go to a meeting, Lee," quite the opposite of "spouting JBS propaganda as fact." Paine as right-winger would actually make a lot of sense in myriad ways. As in "welcome to my house, let me help get you set up?" See also the topic "A Paine on the 'Right' Side" elsewhere on this forum.

That may be in one of his statements -- I haven't checked, but I cannot find it anywhere in his WC testimony.What he did testify to was that he only caught a glimple of Oswald as he entered. If it was just a glimpse, I see no reason to label him a xxxx for saying he didn't see anything being carried. I believe he was carrying his lunch as he (is alleged to have) told Fritz. By odd coincidence, Frazier described his lunch as being exactly the same as what Oswald claimed he himself had. Pity no one could corroborate Frazier here as -- for the first time -- he ate alone in the basement that day. This would mean a) Frazier did see Oswald with a bag - perhaps an oversized one for a lunch bag - but that's what it was Dougherty missed seeing it in his glance at Oswald c) Frazier was pressured to lie about his lunch and it's contents by saying it was his - presumably in case someone remembered seeing it in the Domino room where it was left d) his testimony re the size of Oswald's bag was to the best of his memory and e) he either did misremember what Oswald said was in it, or was also pressured to say he was told it was curtain rods, but not about the size of the bag - this aspect being less important as they could always claim he was mistaken about that. I may be misquoting Dougherty - I haven't checked either, but I recall that he'd made a comment to the effect of an LHO "pit stop" somewhere ... but I could just as easily be mistaken. It's not really material in any event since Frazier said that Lee was only about 50 feet in front of him, and that Lee had waited for him to finish revving his engine to charge up the battery before heading to the building himself. Having to pee was not a dire emergency, then, it would seem, but might well account for him hurrying just a little faster than Frazier.I'm not labelling Dougherty a xxxx over his "glimpse" statement. I am, however, suggesting that he's a character who perhaps bears a tad more scrutiny than he's gotten, and that given much of what he said he did that Friday afternoon, the "glimpse" statement could well be a lie. You do realize, don't you, that Jack Dougherty is the only male TSBD employee who was on-site at lunchtime (and killing-time) whose actions and whereabouts were not corroborated by anyone until more than five minutes after the shooting although they should have been able to be? (Oswald's supposed whereabouts, while likewise not corroborated, were not such that anyone else necessarily "should have" seen him.) You note about Frazier that it was "for the first time" that he'd eaten lunch alone in the basement that day ... but he did end up out front at shooting-time with Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady. Also "for the first time" that day, Jack Dougherty didn't take his entire lunch break and instead went back to work on the fifth and sixth floors after a quick bite in the first-floor domino room ... and he didn't eventually end up anywhere around anyone else ... or at least not anyone who thought to mention him. The "quick bite" is only according to Junior Jarman, who also did not see Jack on the fifth floor by the elevators or even testify to having heard him - or anyone else at all other than the two boys he was with in the windows, who also did not see or hear Jack or Lee or anyone else - on the fifth or sixth floor. This despite the "fact" that it was "so quiet" that they "heard" empty shells hit the floor above them. Bonnie Ray Williams also did not see Jack while they were both on the sixth floor, nor did he see Jack on the way down to the fifth floor or when he arrived there. Neither of the other two boys saw him when they arrived on the fifth floor either ... yet he was there(?). Or maybe they did see Jack and felt that it was more prudent to deny it. It was Jack who rode the elevators up and who was the only person who'd been in a position to ensure that the freight elevator could not be called down by someone else by leaving the gate open, and it was he who rode the elevator down from the fifth floor while Baker and Truly were running up the stairs to the fifth floor after encountering Oswald on the second. According to Truly, the elevators were both on the fifth floor when they began their trek upstairs from the ground floor, and neither was available from the second floor either after the lunchroom encounter. When they arrived at the fifth floor, one elevator had gone down - "presumably" taken by Jack, said Truly - and he and Baker then took the other (passenger) elevator to the top. If the "Lee Harvey Oswald was a loser who sought fame by killing someone rich and powerful" supposed motive has any credence whatsoever, then such a motive applied manifold to Jack Dougherty, who served only a matter of months in the US Midwest pulling guard duty during WWII when every other able-bodied male his age was off getting shot and killed, in for the duration while Jack was given a medical discharge for problems that he clearly did not perceive - even as late as 1964 - that he had. On the second pages of the two interviews he gave to the FBI prior to his WC testimony was noted the following, as addenda to the interview reports referenced: Also present during the interview with JACK EDWIN DOUGHERTY was his father, R. C. DOUGHERTY, who advised his son received a medical discharge from the U. S. Army and indicated his son had considerable difficulty in coordinating his mental facilities with his speech. [Dougherty Exhibit C, November 22, 1963] It was noted during interview of JACK DOUGHERTY, he had difficulty in correlating his speech with his thoughts, therefore, his father assisteded him in furnishing answers to questions asked. [Dougherty Exhibit B, December 19, 1963] In his testimony, he denied both a problem with his speech and any sort of medical issues while he was in the military. (That Jack's father also happened to be able to be at his side when he was interviewed on the afternoon of the shooting is another of those interesting sidebars to the story.) Jack - who was "borderline retarded" according to some descriptions, and at 40 years old still lived at home with mommy and daddy (a fact not lost upon other TSBD employees, especially younger ones) - was a "special" employee of the TSBD company who arrived at work and entered the building an hour earlier than everyone else - including Troy West, it may be noted here - so that he could "check for leaks" in the pipes and problems with water pressure before everyone else arrived. Jack's apparent initiative did not escape Roy Truly's notice either ... at least not after the assassination. What other opportunities that those "extra duties" may have afforded him is certainly open to speculation ... but could clearly have encompassed both paper and tape among other large and bulky items. The point to this exercise? Simply to emphasize that just because Jack said he saw Lee and that he didn't see anything in Lee's hands is no reason to believe either statement. If there's anything else, well, I guess those are some pretty large lines to read between, eh?

Above I was stating ONLY that "Mark" related the OFFICIAL STORY of the CURTAIN RODS accurately. I was not commenting on other aspects of his posting, such as his suspicion of a "communist" connection or that the Paines were communists. THAT COMMENT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CURTAIN ROD STORY!I was pointing out that any testimony that Frazier and LHO ENTERED the TSBD TOGETHER WAS FALSE. Frazier lingered far behind while watching a switch engine move a train. Oswald was seen entering the building ALONE and NOT CARRYING A PACKAGE. The curtain rod story was a fabrication BECAUSE THE PLOTTERS NEEDED A WAY THAT THE MC RIFLE GOT INTO THE BUILDING. Some are not interested in comprehending what is written, but only in making scurrilous personal attacks. Pity. Jack Just to complicate matters a tad, if Frazier watched a locomotive switching boxcars, by his own testimony that was a peripheral action to his running his engine to recharge the battery (an old generator system, remember). What he actually said - with the "filler" greyed out below - was: I was sitting there, say, looked at my watch and [it was] somewhere around 7 or 8 minutes until [eight o'clock] and I saw we had a few minutes and I sat there, and as I say you can see the Freeway, Stemmons Freeway, from the warehouse and also the trains coming back and forth and I was sitting there. What I was doing--glanced up and watching cars for a minute but I was letting my engine run and getting to charge up my battery, because when you stop and start you have to charge up your battery. "Cars" might be railroad cars, or they might be cars that he could see on the Stemmons Freeway. Either way, he only "glanced up" at them; it was not how he was passing the time. Frazier did not "linger far behind while watching a switch engine move a train" (my, how we can add details that aren't in evidence, eh?). He did say that he "usually" liked to do that, but he stated under oath that he was a mere 50 feet behind Oswald when Oswald entered the TSBD: [Oswald] got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that has the big sleeves in them and he put the package that he had, you know, that he told me was curtain rods up under his arm, you know, and so he walked down behind the car and standing over there at the end of the cyclone fence waiting for me to get out of the car, and so quick as I cut the engine off and started out of the car, shut the door just as I was starting out just like getting out of the car, he started walking off and so I followed him in. So, eventually there he kept getting a little further ahead of me and I noticed we had plenty of time to get there because it is not too far from the Depository and usually I walk around and watch them switching the trains because you have to watch where you are going if you have to cross the tracks. One day you go across one track and maybe there would be some cars sitting there and there would be another diesel coming there, so you have to watch when you cross the tracks, I just walked along and I just like to watch them switch the cars, so eventually he kept getting a little further ahead of me and by that time we got down there pretty close to the Depository Building there, I say, he would be as much as, I would say, roughly 50 feet in front of me but I didn't try to catch up with him because I knew I had plenty of time so I just took my time walking up there. [emphases added] Despite all the extraneous verbiage in his account, Frazier never said that he'd watched a switch engine move boxcars or anything of the sort that morning. It is a distinct possibility that Oswald hurried somewhat ahead simply because he had to attend to a call of nature. Not only have I heard that second-hand from Frazier, but Jack Daugherty also testified to the fact that going to the men's room was the first thing that LHO did as he came in the door that morning. Proof of the second-hand story I'd heard? Maybe not, but at least some credibility and substantiation given it. If, that is, you can believe anything at all that Jack Daugherty said. Besides Buell Frazier, Daugherty was the only person who said he saw LHO entering the TSBD that morning: one saw a package, the other didn't. Which shall you believe ... and more importantly, why? Moreover, the police - sorry, I don't recall which one right now, but I'm inclined toward saying it was Will "No Notes" Fritz - said that LHO denied taking curtain rods to work that morning, and had said that Frazier had been "mistaken" on that, that it had actually been another morning he'd brought them. Machts nichts, of course, since there's no proof of anything Oswald did or didn't say while being interrogated, but there you have it. Finally, Jack, you note that "the curtain rod story was a fabrication because the plotters needed a way that the MC rifle got into the building." Fair enough ... but how did it come to pass that they managed to get 19-year-old farm-boy Frazier, who was all of two months new to the Big City, to not only concoct that story but moreover, to steadfastly deny that it was long enough to actually contain even the disassembled Carcano? It seems like, in that scenario, Frazier defeated his own purported purpose: put forth the story and then deny the details that make it possible. It makes one wonder why those apparently resourceful enough to murder a President and get away with it for 40+ years would entrust such an important part of the mission to a young hick who talked too much (look at all that grey text above!!) and couldn't keep his facts straight. I've also never heard it said that Frazier was well rewarded for his part in the conspiracy and cover-up either. Frankly, it makes better sense that the "NO curtain rods" story is the preferred one, and that Daugherty not only lied about not seeing a package in LHO's hands, but was actually the receipient of such said package, either directly from LHO on his way in the door, or indirectly if LHO simply left it in the wash room to be exchanged or picked up later by someone he knew or not, or saw or not. (That scenario if fairly easy to construct - right up to the time of the shooting - using what information is on record, actually.) In the end result, you're right, of course - and Mark is wrong - that LHO and Frazier entered the TSBD together, but the devil is in the details and - just as you say - one must try to "comprehend what is written" by at least reading what actually IS written!

Are you joking or being serious? For a start where does it show in any of the numerous films or photos Clint Hill turning towards the TSBD and 'signalling' Oswald to shoot? ... Well, geez, wouldn't it be in the same film that shows JFK turning completely around to wave at the crowd when Oswald shot him in the throat? I mean, c'mon, really: some things are just painfully ob[li]vious, don't you think?

Gosh, one can only hope that the "new book" is more thoroughly researched and substantiated than this post, and that the verity of various people's statements is qualified by more than just their age or "time on the scene!"

Thanks, Steve - you da man!!

Maybe ... tho' I'm not sure my asking will elicit a response!! Can't hurt to try, however. Thanks!

From that particular version of the film, Jim is talking about Marrion Baker. There is also someone running along the sidewalk directly in front of the TSBD who is not Roy Truly who, tho' he may have raced to the front door, did not do so from the western end of the building. Mr. Belin. Do you remember where you were standing with Mr. Campbell? Mr. Truly. I would judge out in Elm Street, 10 to 15 or 20 feet from the front steps. We first stood on the steps, the bottom steps a few minutes, and then we walked out in the line of spectators on the side of Elm Street. (3H219) Otherwise ...?

Ah, but there's more!If you view the film - even the crappy online version that you'd referenced earlier - you will see, off to the "left" of Baker (from the film's perspective), you will see another runner moving in the same direction, also pretty fast. He disappears into the "haze" of the online version before long; I don't know what you'll see on a better version. In the photo above, you'll see a sort-of-triangular sign to Baker's left, just to the right of the dark "square." Below and to the right of that sign, you see what appear to be the figures of two people (men?) standing nearby each other, and to their right, a couple of "bumps" that could be two people's heads standing very close to each other. One of those two is actually running to the east, pretty much apace with Baker. You'll have to watch the film .... Right now, my verdict is that "the tie goes to the runner" whether or not Worrell was in DP at all that day. About 10-15% of what I've put together so far is started on another thread here (James Worrell: Fact or Fiction?). We'll see where it goes ....

The running man in this film appears to be a cop. Robin Unger brought this to my attention, indicating that it is Marrion Baker. Gary Mack also noted, separately and without identifying the man (as Baker or anyone else), that the film begins approximately 25 seconds after the shooting.Below is a freeze-frame from Couch, with the "running man" highlighted and identified as Baker. Note the boots (motorcycle cop!), belt and something on his head (helmet?). The traffic light overhead and what hardscaping you can make out at the lower left, it appears that there's a curb ("kerb" to our British friends!) there: it would appear as if this is the "peninsula" between the Elm Street "parkway" and the Elm Street "extension" that runs in front of the TSBD. The dark square appears to be the "alleyway" between the west end of the building and the storage adjunct that used to be there. The man running to our right would thus appear to be running toward the main entrance to the Depository. Between the apparent uniform and his actions, I'd have to agree that it's Baker. Too, if Mack's estimate is correct, it just gave LHO 25 more seconds to get to the 2nd floor ...! (Not that it really matters.)

Does anyone have a copy of - or an online reference to - the report referenced in the subtitle of this topic? Of particular interest is the statement(s) made by or attributed to Sam Pate on or around page six of this report. Thanks in advance for your help!!