Terry Adams

Michael,

I looked at the picture before reading the rest of your post. I was "convinced" that it was JFK. It just goes to show that we can't necessarily believe our eyes. It shows how things like this, purposeful or not, an example being the Discovery Channel debacles can cause opinions to be framed in a particular direction that can be completely off the mark. This is a perfect illustration of just such a situation.

I am a lifetime hunter and I have a license to carry a concealed weapon. I cannot imagine though, that I would show up at a rally where the president of the United States is to be speaking, with a gun, whether I have the right or not. If there are no laws on the books to stop this then there must be a new set of laws enacted that are directed toward the president and vice-president. I think that they need to include members of congress as well. These town hall meetings worry me. Our public officials need more protection.

Bill,

I was just about to make a new post concerning Specter's switch to the Democrat party, but decided t see if someone had beat me to it. And, a good thing that I did look, because there it was. My thoughts were that this may cause him to be more receptive to look at his infamous "theory". I do believe that he is probably the one person, with the exception of the president, (which, BTW, I do not see any present or future president doing) that could get the assassination of JFK brought to the forefront. I know that you are calling for the formation of a new grand jury to look into it. So, do you think that he may consider some kind of action in that direction, especially with 70 plus percent of the voters (which, it seems, he desperately needs right now) already saying that there was a conspiracy. What I'm obviously getting at is that he might do such a thing to keep his prestigious place in Washington circles. Any thoughts?

Terry

Guys,

I know that this picture and the identity of the person shown have been heavily discussed in the past on the forum, but I would like to add my" two cents worth" anyway, FWIW. After John Dolva mentioned Captain Crowder, I googled a picture of him sitting on his horse. Possibly some similarity there, but the bigger question is; did Captain Crowder say where he was in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963? And, maybe more importantly wouldn't a Texas ranger wear his Stetson? Again, just some food for thought. Also, I might add, I'm not sure that my "two cents worth" would actually be appraised that high.

Terry

"duck hunting" with two young male "friends"

Alvin,

I am somewhat confused, are you one of the young men that accompanied David Ferrie to Houston? And, if so, I want to be among the first to welcome you to the forum. There has been an amazing about of speculation concerning Mr. Ferrie's actions during the time of the assassination. Maybe you can enlighten us as to some of the facts versus fantasy.

And, if I may go so far as to ask, tell us about this man. Who was he? We are basically limited to what the movie JFK has him depicted as. How close was the movie in showing what kind of person he was, and do you know anything about his involvment, if any, in the death of President Kennedy?

Thank you,

Terry

Hello Don

I hope that you and your family had a great Thanksgiving. I wanted to bring to everyone's attention, the statement that Dr. Williams made about "the fatal wound in the back of the president’s head".

My question is: Is Dr. Williams one of the Doctors that was pictured in an article (which I cannot find today) shown with their hand on the back portion of their head indicating where they had seen a massive wound. The one that I am referencing has each doctor pictured with his hand in an almost identical location as do the others , on the back of their head. I did find, however, an article where Doctors Jenkins, McClellan and Peters,among others, said many years later, when shown the autopsy photos, that the wounds depicted on those photos correlated with what they saw in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, seemingly changing their previous positions as to where the large head wound actually was.

I suppose what I am asking is this Doctor telling (retelling) his story and sticking to it?

Terry

I placed this on the 45th Anniversary post before I saw that one had been started on the Meyers book.

Officer Tippit's murder is so overshadowed by the assassination of the President, it is important for us to remember the tragedy that his family had to endure as well. Our prayers are certainly with them during this time as well. Having said that, I would like to take some time to discuss something that I found while reading the article.

"Considering the amount of time that had elapsed and Oswald's own knowledge of what he had done, I don't believe anyone can safely assume that Oswald would have acted calm and cool in the presence of any Dallas police car." Dale K. Meyers-With Malice: The Tippit Murder 45 Years Later.

I was going to post about how Oswald would not immediately turn around upon seeing officer Tippit, but as I read on, Mr. Myers beat me to it. He indicated that most believe that no one would have been so obvious as to do an about face with a police officer looking at him. However, he says that is exactly what Oswald did because of his having been overcome with nerves and concern about being caught.

I would like to take this time to emphatically disagree and argue that the time for "nerves" had long passed, way back at the TSBD. Lee Harvey Oswald was very calm when confronted by officer Baker, and raised no cause for alarm, even with a gun pointed at him. He was just standing there enjoying a coke.

I went deer hunting here in Kentucky last weekend and managed to get a nice six point buck. I must say that "buck fever" is real. If one gets as nervous as I was from shooting an animal, I can not even imagine how one would react after having just shot the President of the United States.

As a side note, I will also mention for all of us that have talked about whether it could have been determined if the Manlicher Carcano was fired that day, I did smell both the bullet and the rifle, and the strong smell of gunpowder was present in both.

Terry

Officer Tippit's murder is so overshadowed by the assassination of the President, it is important for us to remember the tragedy that his family had to endure as well. Our prayers are certainly with them on this day. Having said that, I would like to take some time to discuss something that I found while reading the article that Steve brought to our attention.

"Considering the amount of time that had elapsed and Oswald's own knowledge of what he had done, I don't believe anyone can safely assume that Oswald would have acted calm and cool in the presence of any Dallas police car." Dale K. Meyers-With Malice: The Tippit Murder 45 Years Later.

I was going to post about how Oswald would not immediately turn around upon seeing officer Tippit, but as I read on, Mr. Myers beat me to it. He indicated that most believe that no one would have been so obvious as to do an about face with a police officer looking at him. However, he says that is exactly what Oswald did because of his having been overcome with nerves and concern about being caught.

I would like to take this time to emphatically disagree and argue that the time for "nerves" had long passed, way back at the TSBD. Lee Harvey Oswald was very calm when confronted by officer Baker, and raised no cause for alarm, even with a gun pointed at him. He was just standing there enjoying a coke.

I went deer hunting here in Kentucky last weekend and managed to get a nice six point buck. I must say that "buck fever" is real. If one gets as nervous as I was from shooting an animal, I can not even imagine how one would react after having just shot the President of the United States.

As a side note, I will also mention for all of us that have talked about whether it could have been determined if the Manlicher Carcano was fired that day, I did smell both the bullet and the rifle, and the strong smell of gunpowder was present in both.

Terry

Gil,

As I read the article, I realized that here was a man who basically has had his life ruined, simply by allowing a man to ride with him in his car from Dallas to Irving on Thursday, Nov. 21, 1963, and back the next day. The interview shows a man who is very troubled by his roll on that fateful day. I found it fascinating that he and his sister's story as to what they had seen or thought they had seen pertaining to the size of the package LHO placed in Wesley's car that morning never waivered. Wesley is very adamant about watching Oswald walk away from the car in the parking lot of the TSBD as he made sure that his car battery was charged. He had time to look at the size of the paper bag, and there was, and is no question at least in his mind, that the package could not have held the disassembled Manlicher Carcano. It was too short. Also, he mentioned that Lee said Marina had made him some curtains for his apartment. Has she ever said whether or not she did, in fact, do such a thing? My understanding has always been that Oswald alone mentioned curtain rods. If Marina actually made curtains, that, IMO, certainly puts a different spin on the story. But, as an aside, I have always had trouble wrapping my mind around someone needing a paper bag for curtain rods. It would seem that anyone would have just had them open, as they are very small and would not create a problem in transporting them. And it is no small matter as to the timing of the trip out to Irving the night before the assassination.

To be fair, it could be as Gerald Ford said, they were just honestly mistaken about the size of the paper bag.

It is very sad that this man has had to live his life very differently that he would have had he not befriended a man by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Terry

Mr. Aynesworth says that if he had not given Mr Lane the notes that contained eye witness reports from November 22, 1963, the conspiracy theories that are prevalent today would not exist. (The following is an excerpt from JFK: Breaking the News). Please read the page and give your thoughts and/or opinions.

Terry

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

Bribery, Coercion and Opportunists in the "Big Easy"

Excerpt and original text Copyright © 2003, Hugh Aynesworth

In my view, were it not for the pervasive influence of a handful of individuals, there would be no plague of conspiracy theories surrounding the Kennedy assassination.

The first of these regrettable characters was Jack Ruby, who by stealing the executioner's role, created generations of doubters, and not unreasonably so. It was an audacious, desperate act that would seem to make sense only if Jack Ruby had a very powerful, rational motive for killing Lee Harvey Oswald.

The truth is that he did not; the hard evidence in the case supports no other conclusion.

Based on indisputable facts, I believe that Ruby acted spontaneously in the basement at City Hall. The opportunity to kill Lee Harvey Oswald suddenly presented itself, and Ruby acted accordingly. He could just as well have been driving home from the Western Union office at that moment.

The second key character was Mark Lane, for whose predations I must shoulder some blame.

Had I not foolishly given Lane a packet of then-secret witness statements in December of 1963, believing him when he said his single motive was to act as devil's advocate for Oswald ("I want to represent this boy," Lane told me. "I don't think he did it."), I wonder if people such as Lane, and later Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone, would be viewed today as brave souls who fought to bring the light of "truth" to the assassination story.

Lane, an attorney and one-term New York Democratic state assemblyman from the JFK wing of the party, in early December wrote a lengthy piece in The National Guardian laying out a litany of reasons that made him conclude Oswald could not have killed Kennedy. The story was published well before Lane ever visited Dallas, spoke to any witnesses or investigators or contacted me. It was riddled with inaccuracies and unsupported suppositions.

When he first called me in December, I told him I was very busy, but agreed to meet with him at my apartment the next evening.

"Do you know anybody who knows Jack Ruby well?" he asked. I said that I knew Ruby well enough to intensely dislike him. "Really?" Lane replied, his interest plainly apparent.

"Well, there's no doubt that he and Oswald were involved," he said, "but we don't know exactly how."

Then he mentioned he had an appointment scheduled for the next day with a Dallas business figure who had seen Oswald and Ruby plotting together, just a few weeks before the assassination. "I talked with him on the phone and he sounds like the real thing," Lane offered.

"How many people have you interviewed so far?" I asked.

"Well, you may be the first," he said. "Then this other source, this lawyer with an impeccable memory. Maybe I'll get to him tomorrow. But I will share it with you if you will help me."

"Who's footing the bill for your investigation?"

"I am, completely," he assured me. "I am certainly not in it for the money. This will cost me plenty, but I think it's very important."

Lane came by the apartment again the next evening. He said his good source, the one who could put Ruby and Oswald together in the Carousel Club, had bowed out, for the time being.

"He's had some threats," said Lane, "and he needs some time to think it over. We're going to talk again tomorrow."

At this point, I had not yet met Carroll Jarnagin. But I'd heard about him from Johnny King, who had said Jarnagin was "a nice-enough guy, but a bad lush" and that he thought I should talk to him eventually, if only to discount the story.

"He's told us other stories," King laughed. "One about LBJ that we would have loved to believed, another about John Tower. The guy gets around-especially in his own mind."

At this early stage in the story, I was still running down what at first often looked like great leads that connected Oswald with others in the shootings. It was too soon to dismiss possibilities. And under the general rule that even a blind pig can sometimes find an acorn, I was deeply curious to learn the identity of Lane's source, hardly guessing who he would turn out to be.

Lane tried to impress me with how much he knew about the assassination, which wasn't much at all. I'd recall this conversation three years later when I first sat down with Jim Garrison. The New Orleans DA didn't know much either.

Lane would mention this source or that eyewitness, and I would contradict him. "No, he didn't say that." Or, "She wasn't in a position to hear that."

"But how do you know?" he kept asking.

Because, I explained, in some cases I conducted the first interview with the individual in question, or knew something about them that called their word into question. A lot of them changed their stories as time passed, too.

"A few days after somebody got to them," Lane added, conspiratorially.

There also was another reason I was sure of my facts.

"I know what they said to the cops, too, within hours of the shootings," I said. "They might have 'refined' the facts later, but I know what they originally said." "What makes you so sure?" Lane asked.

Like a dummy, eager to prove my point to this opportunist, I went into the next room, grabbed a stack of papers, came back and tossed them on the coffee table.

"There are the eyewitness accounts," I said, "made the afternoon of November 22nd."

"Where did you get these?" Lane was amazed.

I could not divulge my source, I said. But the reports were real and legitimate.

Lane began to read; we didn't speak for a long time.

"The only reason I'm showing you these," I finally broke the silence, "is that you made many, many misinterpretations in your article. If you are truly interested in giving Oswald a fair shake from a historical standpoint, I think you need to know what the investigation shows so far."

"Oh, yes," Lane agreed.

He glanced at his watch and asked, "Could I use your telephone? I was supposed to call Oswald's mother about now. I'm meeting with her tomorrow and don't want to miss her, or call too late."

"Are you representing her?" I asked, thinking back over my recent, testy confrontations with Marguerite.

"Not yet. But I intend to."

"Then be my guest," I said, pointing out the telephone resting on a table in the adjoining room.

We lived in a small, one-bedroom apartment at the time, so I couldn't help hearing Lane's conversation even if I tried, which I didn't. Three or four times he said to her, "I really don't think it will make much difference."

When he finished, I softly eased into the subject. "I couldn't help but hearing Mark, what was all that 'doesn't matter' stuff about?"

"Oh, she is quite an opinionated woman," he said. "She thinks Lee was a paid informant of the FBI and she asked how much difference that would make. I told her it probably doesn't matter either way."

He changed the subject.

"You know, you are an important contributor to the truth in this case," Lane said, exuding sincerity.

"Will you help me find the truth? I have to go back to New York in a day or so, and I was wondering if I could borrow these statements for a few days. I want to contact these people to see what, if any, pressure has been brought on them, and if they have something different to say now."

All these years later, I could still kick myself for this next sentence: "Of course. I'm not writing anything more about the witnesses, at least not for now."

I didn't even take the partial precaution of making Lane go photocopy the pages. In part, that was not so simply done in 1963 as it is today; public photocopy machines were not common. Plus, I had made good notes on all the most important witnesses.

Lane, despite his promises, did not return the witness reports to me immediately. But I was busy with other parts of the assassination story, and saw no reason to distrust the earnest young lawyer from New York. I did call his office a few times. He was never in.

Then I began seeing wire service stories from Europe, reporting the fund-raising activities of so-called "Who Killed Kennedy?" committees across the continent. The dispatches said that British philosopher Bertrand Russell was involved with the committees, and reported that Mark Lane was their executive director. I also read about Lane appearing at a press conference, waving a fistful of documents in the air, proclaiming that the papers proved that witnesses in Dallas contradicted the authorities.

I had made a horrific mistake.

A few days later came a telephone call from Bertrand Russell himself in London. "First," the old man said in an authoritative British accent, "I want to congratulate you on stealing all those statements from the Dallas police. I don't profess to understand how you did it, but you have done the world a great service."

Famous as he was, I confess to little detailed knowledge of Russell's thought processes. I knew nothing of his politics and I had no idea why he was calling me. I wasn't even positive, at first, that Bertrand Russell was really on the phone. Were it not for that aristocratic accent, I would have suspected some jokester at the paper. But nobody I knew could sustain such an accent for long.

I told Russell that I had not stolen anything from any investigative agency, and I didn't know where anyone would get that idea, surely not from me.

"Oh, Mr. Lane informed me you would say just that," he replied with a chuckle.

Russell said he had some questions for me "about some of the stories you have written." I advised him to submit his queries in writing and I'd be please to answer them as best I could. This did not please him. He seemed accustomed to people doing as he instructed them. The conversation soon ended.

Yet he did write me three times over the ensuing months, exploring all possibilities of official chicanery, falsification and the like. The only subject I wouldn't touch is one I still don't touch today. I do not know exactly how to explain Kennedy's and Connally's wounds. The Warren Commission might be correct or might be totally wrong about its much-maligned "Single Bullet Theory," the allegation that one shot careened through the president's back and throat and then into Gov. Connally.

But I do know that I heard three distinct shots that afternoon; so did several others whom I interviewed shortly thereafter.

On Feb. 7, Lane finally responded to my demands that he return the files. He also offered me a job as his investigator, assuring me in a letter that "our communications and contacts would be priviledged [sic.] and I need not divulge them to anybody."

I never answered his letter and thought I was through with him at that point. But less than a month later, Lane testified before the Warren Commission about his secret source: Carroll Jarnagin.

Lane told the commission that he considered his informant "a reliable and responsible" person who had been present at an assassination plot meeting at the Carousel Club attended by Ruby, Weissman, and Officer J.D. Tippit! The alleged session occurred a few days before the assassination.

The lawyer told the commission that he would try to convince his informant to testify. Of course that never happened. The commission pleaded with him and finally paid Lane's airfare from Europe to testify. Still he would not divulge his source.

Perhaps Lane knew of Jarnagin's attempt to sell his ever-changing story or had been told that he had miserably failed a polygraph given by the district attorney's office. For whatever reason, Lane resisted.

Chief Justice Warren didn't like it.

"We have been pursuing you…with letters and entreaties to give us that information so that we might verify what you have said-if it is a fact or disproving it if it is not a fact," Warren said.

The surprise to me was not that Lane would not back up his tale; he had made many, many assertions that were untrue to this point. I was more amazed at the commission's poor background investigation.

Several people in Dallas were well aware of Jarnagin's tale, and that he later admitted making it all up.

Henry Wade and Chief Curry testified before the commission, at length. No one thought to ask them about Jarnagin, even though Wade had personally arranged for Jarnagin's polygraph and later told me "it went off the charts-far off the charts."

This is the sort of evidence Lane typically produced in support of his various conspiracy theories of the JFK case and, later, the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., which he has argued was the work of off-duty FBI agents under J. Edgar Hoover's personal control.

To dismiss Lane's imaginative scenarios as rubbish, as I did at first, is to completely miss the point.

Lane found that he could make almost any assertion about the assassination-even under oath-with impunity. He almost single-handedly invented the lucrative JFK conspiracy industry.

No wonder he and Marguerite got along so well.

His book, Rush to Judgment, was a mishmash of unproven and unlikely allegations and off-the-wall speculations. Fifteen publishing houses turned it down, because they were too far behind Lane on the manufactured-controversy learning curve.

Only Holt, Rinehart and Winston guessed the true potential for profits in Rush. They issued the book as a $5.95 hardback in 1966 and sold 30,000 copies in just two weeks. It was a publishing home run, and it showed the way for legions of other buffs to get rich and famous.

In addition to Ruby and Lane, the third leg of the conspiracy stool was Jim Garrison, the unhinged New Orleans district attorney who by virtue of his office lent reassuring, mainstream legitimacy to the wildest theories-governmental sanction for just about any crackpot claim.

As Rush rocketed to the top of the bestseller lists in the autumn of 1966, Garrison happened to meet Louisiana senator Russell Long on an airplane trip from Washington to New Orleans.

Long, who always believed there had been a conspiracy behind the 1935 assassination of his father, Huey Long, the famous "Kingfish," harbored doubts about the Kennedy case too, and urged Garrison to look into the matter.

In late 1966, the district attorney began checking out volumes of the much-maligned Warren Commission report from his local library.

Fast forward to mid-January 1967. Jack Ruby had just died of cancer. I was just starting my new job at Newsweek in Houston, when I received a call from Garrison. He invited me over to discuss the Kennedy assassination.

"I keep running into your name." he said. "I think you have information that could help me in an ongoing investigation-and I'm very sure I have information you would consider more than just interesting."

Jim Garrison (originally Earling Carothers Garrison) at the time enjoyed a favorable press. A few months earlier Jim Phelan had published an admiring profile of the hulking one-time FBI agent in The Saturday Evening Post.

Garrison told me he was investigating the Kennedy assassination, and thought I could "fill in some holes" for him. Sensing this might be the start of a great story, I agreed to what would become a long series of encounters with Garrison.

Richard "Dick" Hathcock--"And I'm sure Mr. Payne can tell you a great deal more about that rifle then I can. The day after John Kennedy was killed in Dallas, I received a phone call from Jerry Crowe, an FBI agent here in Los Angeles, who asked me if I had an agent working for me who was named Roy Payne and I said yes. Jerry wanted to know if he could come by the office and see me and Mr. Payne, and we arranged for that meeting. It's my opinion that the reason he wanted to see Mr. Payne was because Payne's fingerprints undoubtedly were all over that rifle from his having handled it so many time. It's also my opinion that, unless that particular rifle had been found or in some way involved in the whole thing, that the FBI would have no interest in it."

Robert,

I had read this article before and was left with the same feeling that I have now. I believed then as well as now that Loran Hall was directly involved in the assassination of the president. I have always felt that Gerry Hemming either was involved or had knowledge, but, in actuality, he may have just been in the same circles as the killers. I'm not really sure on that. I think that his "involvement" will always be a matter of contention.

Terry

"his seemingly close links to the Kennedy’s"

Steve,

We can only hope that president-elect Obama will open the files and even call for a new investigation. But, the mere fact of what you mentioned above about his ties with the Kennedys will probably keep a status quo on the government position pertaining to the assassinations. As we have read many times, the patriarch of the Kennedy clan, Senator Ted Kennedy, has indicated that he accepts the findings of the Warren Commission. Robert Kennedy Jr. has said that he believes that that it could have been possible there was a second gunman in his uncle's murder, but he too, has indicated that there probably does not need to be further investigations, at least as to his father's killing.

Terry

Thanks to everyone that responded. I just wanted to pass along what I had learned from a chance meeting with a guy in the hills of Eastern Kentucky, of all places. I do feel, even though the consensus is that Mr Gritz was less than truthful in his writings about the JFK assassination, it is important for us to be ever diligent in our efforts for getting at the truth behind this terrible tragedy. Another example of the fact that we may find evidence anywhere is that upon reading about the death of Harold Doyle, here on the forum, I was surprised to find that he was buried less than 35 miles from my home in neighboring Pike County, Ky.

Terry

I was at a Civil War Reenactment yesterday in Southeastern Kentucky and while there I met a very interesting gentleman. His name is David Norman F. Todd from Tennessee. I purchased a civil war era surveying instrument (transit) from him and asked him how long this had been an interest of his. He answered with: Are you referring to Civil war or all types of American history? I answered with "all types". His response was that he had been doing this for about 45 years. I made an determination in my mind that he was probably in his early to mid 80's. His business card indicates, as did his displays that his expertise was portraits on canvas. Anyway, as it is whenever I meet someone who studies history, I mentioned my interest in the JFK Assassination, and also mentioned that I belonged to a forum of researchers based in England (The Education Forum) and in America (JFK Lancer). He asked to what extent was my interest and I informed him that it was my belief that there was more than one shooter in Dealey plaza on November 22, 1963. He hesitated before he answered and I half expected him to say that I was confused and he was going to explain to me how it was that I was wrong. Instead the surprising answer that I got was a question. "Would you like for me to tell you who trained the team that did the shooting"? I'm sure that I had an expression of shock on my face, and said;"by your using the word team, we must be on the same page". He gave me the name of James "Bo" Gritz ( he said that Mr. Gritz liked to be called by his nickname). He then said that Mr Gritz was a highly decorated Vietnam War veteran who had told him that that the assassination was carried out in the way that made him(Bo) feel that it had to be some of the very people that he had trained in Ft. Bragg, North Carolina back in the 60's. I told Mr Todd that I could not wait to get back home to my computer and look for information on Mr. Gritz.

What I found was a character, to say the least. He was well known for attempting missions into Vietnam and other parts of Southeast Asia to free U.S. prisoners of War that he felt were still being held there after the war ended. This is just the "tip of the iceberg" on Mr. Gritz. He was involved in the "Ruby Ridge incident where he convinced Randy Weaver to turn himself into authorities. As we all know, Mr Weaver's wife and son, as well as an US Marshall were killed there. There is much more to read on this guy at http://www.bogritz.com/

Mr. Todd also seems to have quite a past. He told me that he had been a lobbyist in Washington D.C. in the 60's. He informed me that he had nineteen (19) indictments against him during the Watergate investigations, of which eighteen (18) were dropped. He was prosecuted for the last one. He did not say if he was found guilty, but by his silence, I do believe he was. He also told me that a member of his family was married into the Bush family. His thoughts on why JFK was murdered was due to the president's plan to do away with the Federal Reserve. I told him that I would be in touch with him by email and went on my way trying to absorb all that I had been told in that chance meeting.

Terry

John,

Welcome to the forum. All that I can say is "Wow" certainly is the word. Feel free to enlighten us more on your history in New Orleans. I would especially like to hear your thoughts on Clay Shaw's guilt, IYO, as well as all of the other information that you have given us. I have always felt that Jim Garrison was a patriot and tried his best to bring the people involved in the assassination of JFK to justice. I am looking forward to your future posts.

Terry

The truth about JFK's health, as Robert Dallek fails to point out here and in his Readers Digest article of the same theme a few years ago, is the JFK died as a result of a bullet in the head. And all the rest is total BS.

"the sinking feeling I had one lovely spring afternoon in 2002 when an archivist at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library wheeled out the cartload of files showing how badly we had all been deceived about JFK's health."

Give me a freakin' break. Why doesn't Dallek go to the JFK Assassination Records and wheel out the files that show how badly we have all been deceived about JFK's death?

All I have to know about JFK's health is how he died and who killed him.

Dallek makes me sick.

BK

Bill,

As I was reading the article that Douglas posted, I was nodding in agreement, but when I read your reply I was slapped back to reality. We are here for one purpose, and that being an effort to bring the truth about the assassination of JFK to the light of day. We do need to know about the health of our president, but that has nothing to do with this massive deception that has been perpetuated on the American people. I agree that Mr Dallek is reading from the wrong archives.

Terry

Bill,

After listening to Dr. Wecht on Black Op radio, discussing the upcoming symposium, and realizing that the date had passed, I really wished that I had gone. Now, having said that, I have just completed your summary about what went on there, and except for rubbing elbows with some very impressive names in the research community, I do not believe that I could have been on site and understood any better that which was presented than I do now. Thank you very much for your very in-depth and matter of fact analogy of the event.

Terry

"The two patrol officers did not give much thought to the incident at the time, but after the assassination of the President two days later, they reported the incident to the FBI, which issued a report of it on November 26."

Thanks for that information, Gary. Sadly, I feel that this information was passed over as was so many statements made by other "confused witnesses". It did not fit the JEH scenario, so there was no place for it, IMO.

Terry

"Aside from Craig - whom I tend to believe"

Lee.

I was considering a post of whether the members of the forum believed Roger Craig or not. I, after having watched him being interviewed (and using a layman's ability at studying facial expressions) also "tend" to believe him. As for the man wearing the plaid shirt, he certainly looks like the "odd man out" with his beret in cowboy country.

Terry

"Just two days before President Kennedy's murder, suspicious activity caught the eyes of two Dallas policemen on routine patrol in Dealey Plaza. The officers observed several men with rifles standing behind the picket fence on the plaza's grassy knoll. The riflemen were participating in mock target practice —aiming their guns over the fence in the direction of the street. By the time the patrolmen reached the area, however, the unidentified men had vanished.

Realizing the significance of this information in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, Dallas police forwarded it to the FBI. But an FBI report on the incident, dated Nov. 26 1963, apparently was not turned over to the Warren Commission. This report — clearly pointing to a conspiracy — was finally made public in 1978 in response to a Freedom of Information request."

(An Excerpt from: Updated: Richard Nixon’s Greatest Cover-Up: His Ties to the Assassination of President Kennedy by Don Fulsom. (10/15/03; updated 09/01/08) Article in Crime Magazine.

The first sentence in the second paragraph indicates that the report of the sighting of gunmen was made prior to the assassination. (i.e; implication that papers were filed on Nov. 20, 1963). Does anyone know if this was, in fact, the case?

Terry Adams

I was born in a small town in extreme Eastern Kentucky, just 13 miles from the Virginia border. It is the very heart of Appalachia. My grandfather and father were Land Surveyors. I worked in that field for a large part of my early years, but decided that I wanted to go in a different direction with my life. I have an Associate of Arts Degree from the University of Kentucky and a Bachelors Degree from Morehead State University. Soon after completing my schooling, I went into the Coal Business and was very successful in that endeavor. As time went by I ventured into other businesses and still continue today to work for myself. I presently work as a private leasing/purchasing agent of land and minerals. I also instruct new people who enter into the coal trade. I am a member of the local Masonic Lodge and am a Shriner. I have been active in local politics most all of my adult life, having held public office, as well. My hobbies include traveling, fishing, and hunting. I am an avid reader of non-fiction. My preference is books about early America, the Civil War, and of course John F. Kennedy. I am also a proud father of two sons, as well as a grandfather.

"The point is that sniffing/looking only eliminates the possiblity that the weapon was fired: no smell, no GSR, no shots. DPD apparently didn't eliminate that negative possibility. Nevertheless, Fritz was correct in saying that a smell or the appearance of GSR does not tell you if the gun was fired at 11:00, 1:00, on Friday, or on Tuesday, or at 3:00 a.m. the previous Sunday (presuming the smell would remain that long).

GSR would prove that the gun was fired; the smell might suggest when it was fired within certain time limits (the duration of the smell under prevailing circumstances), but neither would be able to show that it was fired at 12:30 on Friday, November 22, to the exclusion of all other dates and times, much less locations."

Duke,

Senator Yarborough smelled smoke. That had to be immediately after the shooting (time frame), for the smoke to have lingered, right? To me it also proved shots down near the ground in Dealey Plaza. Also, I don't think that, in 1963, Mr. Day was talking about exact science when he discussed whether it could be determined if a gun had been fired "today. yesterday or last month". That was CYOB talk. The smell of gunpowder would have been VERY strong in the barrel that soon after the shooting, would it not? It would say that the gun had been fired very recently. It could not, as you say, give an exact time that the gun fired.

DENIS MORISSETTE'S KENNEDY ASSASSINATION PAGE, Question to DPD Lt. Carl Day : Was Oswald's rifle tested as to whether or not it was fired on November 22, 1963?

DAY : The only examination of the rifle by the Dallas Police Department was the checking for prints that I did and this wasn't completed before the gun was released to the FBI.

(Day cont.) I am not sure what you mean by 'tested'. I am guessing that you are wondering if the gun was fired on November 22, 1963. Contrary to the movies, where they smell a gun to see if it has been fired, I know of no reliable test to accurately determine if a gun was fired today, yesterday or last month.

I had found this statement over a year ago, but had misplaced it. I cannot imagine "ANYONE", especially a police officer, saying that one cannot tell if a gun had been fired recently. This absolutely can be done by simply smelling the barrel. When I was young and would go rabbit/squirrel hunting here in the hills of Eastern Kentucky, I would always clean my gun after I got home. This included using a rod and an oiled swath of cloth to remove the gunpowder residue from the barrel, if I were lucky enough to shoot at one of these wary little critters. I can recall, clearly, that the smell of gunpowder was present in the barrel, sometimes many hours after having been fired. I personally believe that this is the elephant in the room" when it comes to the Warren Commission's theory on the assassination. The ear-splitting silence about there being no powder smell from the gun says it all, IMO.

Terry

"P.S. Aren't there plenty of ducks to hunt in Louisiana in the Fall?"

Thomas,

Someone also mentioned in a previous thread that surely there was an ice skating rink closer to New Orleans than Houston. As far as money, I do believe that it is a matter of record that he owned a plane. (would require a certain amount of wealth) If I am going off the premise of your topic, please forgive me, but, some questions that I have are: Has David Ferrie been completely dismissed as being involved in an assassination plot as far as mainstream writers are concerned? When the Jim Garrison case was dismissed as folly by the establishment, did this remove guilt ( in the eyes of the powers that be ) from everyone mentioned by him, along with Clay Shaw? Or, am I just singing to the proverbial choir? Is it that only we "conspiracy nuts" look at the likes of Mr. Ferrie?

Terry

Is everyone here agreeing that "Frenchy" and Mr. Doyle are the same man? I do not see it. I look at the nose, the forehead, and especially at the ears. IMO, none of them match, even remotely. Of course we know the old saying about opinions, but if the pictures inserted by James are of the two men at nearly the same time in their lives (same age +-), I do not believe that they should even be compared. And, again I add, FWIW, it is just my opinion.

Terry