Gene Kelly

Tony and David:

Bringing us back to this thread, if we belive there's some likelihood that 'Prayer Man' is indeed Lee (or Harvey) Oswald, its baffling what happened next. Looks like eyewitness accounts put this person going back into the TSBD (after the shooting becomes evident) which seems counterintuitive. None of this makes sense anymore, and we're left to speculate. Prayer Man's shirt and appearance certainly look like the Oswald who's later arrested. Lee is escorted out the back of the Texas Theatre never to be seen again (except by Mathers and an officer on a CIA flight to Area 51). I do agree that - in the chaos and movement following the shooting - anyone could've left the TSBD. Pictures (and Craig's observation) give us an "Oswald look-alike" leaving in a Rambler. I personally don't belive in any of Oswald's recorded escape routes... buses, taxis, walking quickly or redbird flights. Its all slight of hand by magicians prompting us to focus on the wrong stuff.

Gene

It’s always been my belief that, regardless who was in the 6th floor sniper’s nest, They were not working alone. How could they be certain no one would walk in on them? What was the plan, to turn and shoot whom ever walked in on the 6th floor, then turn back around and shoot Kennedy? Whoever planned to shoot from that window had an accomplice or accomplices, at least a lookout. I don’t believe it was LHO, but I do think that before he left the building he knew something was wrong and maybe his life was in danger, therefore he didn’t just walk out the front door.

Tony:

It seems things didn't go as planned either in the TSBD or at the Tippit scene. The "rabbit" suspected a setup, and ran... or went to the Theatre to await extraction. It gets to one of the central questions of the assassination: was "Oswald" part of the play and knowledgeable, or an unwitting patsy? What did Harvey know and consciously do? Was he aware of Lee? At each scene in this play (TSBD and 10th and Patton) a "convoy" of accomplices (to use Garrison's words) was planting evidence, controlling witnesses and cleaning the crime scene.

I've studied the Tippit murder closely this past year and I am reading Joseph McBride's book. I think the TSBD was a similar scenario: plot gets off track, evidence is scrambled and re-planted, DPD (or complicit Sheriffs' Deputies, phony ATF) conspirators manage the evidence and control the crime scene including witnesses. What better controllers than law enforcement figures ... authorities to be trusted, obeyed and with plausible reason to be there. The TSBD has become for me a giant tall diversionary location -- before, during and after the event -- with slight-of-hand tactics and magicians taking our eyes off of the stage, to allow the actual shooters to walk away safely.

I've come to suspect any and every person or anecdote (that we've collectively studied in depth now for 50 years) associated with the TSBD. You name it: Baker rushing up, the lunchroom encounter, guns sticking out of windows, Mausers vs. Mannlichers, brown paper bags, Aleya filming the evidence discovery, elevators, 5th vs. 6th floor, Truly's story, Mooney encounters, etc. I don't trust any of it as recorded or described in WC depositions or press stories. I've come to see something phony and sinister in almost everyone filmed or recorded at/near or inside the TSBD: Shelley and Arce look mighty suspicious to me. So does DPD Capt. Westbrook and Sgt Hill, Frank Ellsworth (with other un-named ATF agents) and Postal Service Inspector Harry Holmes. They all too quickly ended up at the TSBD... it's a wonder the building didn't collapse with so many ardent and brave 'responders'.

So, to answer you point, you bet there were accomplices. -- Gene

The brilliance of the plan, whether deliberate or accidental, is that there are loose ends unraveling in so many directions that 50 years later, even those who agree that there was a conspiracy can't agree as to who did what, how, why, where, and when.

The TSBD had many exits, and there were many known and some unknown people seen inside, and exiting at the relevant time.

It was a terrible spot for a sniper, unless he was a loner (or you are trying to foster that myth). It was a great place for planting evidence though. It may have been difficult to "hide a carbine" and scatter 3 shells, and find a paper bag, and...at other spots.

Ken:

Presuming we accept current thinking that Oswald didn't fire a weapon - and the shots fired (by a person unknown) from TSBD were purely diversionary with sole intent to frame the patsy - that individual played a uniquely central role. He or she also had vital knowledge far too damaging to allow in existence or chance remaining silent and undiscovered. Whoever it was (probably 'camouflaged' as a TSBD worker or as law enforcement), I have to think this particular loose end (especially this loose end) didn't live too long to attest to what actually happened... nothing left to chance. This would explain why we still have to speculate fifty years later. With due respect to Larry Hancock, this someone would've (could've) talked if and only if they remained alive. Do we know much about Danny Arce, and whether he lived a long and prosperous life after 1963? To answer Bill Kelly's challenge, I'd line up all the names of suspect TSBD workers and law enforcement responders, and correlate which ones dropped off of the face of the earth shortly after Dealey Plaza.

Gene

"If not Oswald, how did the sixth floor sniper get away and who was he?'

It depends on the original plan... seems aspects of the "Plan" went awry (caracano vs. mauser, kill shot, setup, Lee or Harvey, Tippit, Redbird, etc.). Perhaps no one was supposed to "get away". Perhaps the patsy was intended to be stuck in the TSBD and/or killed escaping. The expert snipers willing to analyze this attack on the President almost all reject the TSBD as an ideal location, precisely because (in part) it did not afford a good escape route. The shots from TSBD were a diversionary tactic, meant to attract attention and incriminate. Maybe it was Danny Arce (temporary worker of plywood floor fame) and he didn't 'escape'... rather, he was escorted out by the DPD.

I'd also speculate that the designated TSBD shooter (who took some "public relations shots" from TSBD for posterity) was a chess piece quickly removed from the board afterwards. Whoever that person was, they were central to something that was designed never to see the light of day. Maybe it was "Lee", who walked out of the building, left in the Rambler and was later spirited out of the back door of the Texas Theatre (courtesy of Collins Radio) and caught a CIA flight to Area 51... never to be seen or heard from again. We know what happened to harvey; whatever happened to Lee? Somebody orchestrating Project Phoenix has the shovel that left him in the desert.

I think the Carcanos won the popularity contest mostly by default. Most of them, and the ammunition for them, had been left behind by fleeing Italians during WW II. Considering that the SMI ammunition was not the greatest to begin with, and the primers fitted into the bases of the cartridges were corrosive, and the ammunition would be almost 70 years old (or much older) by that point, I'm sure they had lots of fun with those Carcanos.

In reading William Orchard's "The Shots in Dealey Plaza" (November 2011), he states that the decision to "pin an inferior Italian rifle on the patsy was a sign of disrespect for the FBI".

In the other Cabluck photo Haygood is seen still running towards the overpass wall.

so it must soon after the assassination. ( taken just prior to Bond 6 ) I won't guess at the timing in minutes. ?

Robin: This is off-thread, but there's man standing in the top (Cabluck) photo with his hands in his pockets, wearing white slacks. He's in the center-right portion of the photo, and across the street from the Knoll. He is standing still and "observing" (almost casually) and sticks out in contrast to almost all others who are reacting, gesturing, running or otherwise moving. He appears younger and well built... most interesting, he has something in his right rear back pocket. It looks like a radio, with antenna protruding up (under his jacket). He literally stands out, in contarst to just about everyone in the frame. - Gene

Hi Gene

I have often pondered these questions myself. In my mind, the obvious rifle to have planted would have been a semi-automatic M1 Garand; the rifle Oswald trained with in the USMC. It has an excellent peep sight and a rate of fire that would have allowed a shooter to empty the entire eight round clip in the time it took to fire three shots from the Carcano. One did appear in the same Klein's ad as the Carcano but it sold for $80, as opposed to the $12.95 Carcano. Perhaps, it seemed unbelievable that a man with a family earning minimum wage could afford such a weapon.

Sometimes I think the conspirators wanted investigators to see through the whole lone assassin story, and to "discover" Oswald was a Soviet or Cuban agent and invade Cuba in retaliation; much the same way Iraq was invaded for somehow being tied to 9/11.

But, most of the time, I think it was just 1963, and even those who thought of questioning their government did not have access to the massive information sources available to us now on the Internet. The Carcano was likely chosen simply because it was a snappy looking little rifle, well within Oswald's price range, and for a few measly dollars extra, it came equipped with a scope. At this point in time, most hunters did not have scopes on their rifles, unlike today, and the mere fact the rifle was equipped with a scope would have been enough to impress most hicks. The conspirators likely never dreamed that, fifty years later, we would be picking apart the history of the Carcano and the finer points of Carcano ballistics.

Robert: I'm still pondering the plotters' choice of this weapon, and intrigued that some would link Edward Lansdale to a ceremonial style version (side strap, gas vents etc.). It also seems clear that the backyard picture rifle is different from that "found" in the TSBD and in the archives as CE 139. Then there's the confusion associated with the Mauser which is real (i.e. documented) and can't be ignored... another form of diversion perhaps. I'm thinking there must have been several of these patsy/plant weapons used, as there seem to have been multiple plot locations like Chicago, Tampa, Washington, Trade Mart, etc. (reminds one of the old Morrow story on purchasing rifles) where more than one MC (or Mauser) would be employed. In the end, it seems the Klein paperwork dictates a common inexpensive mail order weapon was in order, although there must have been other mail order choices. Harvey was stationed in Rome at this point, so Italy (and its Communist fascist connection with Oswald's legend) as a point of origin must be considered in that context. Was the MC used at Bay of Pigs? In the end, I think the MC is least traceable to US military and expert sniper operations, plus easily connected to Oswald and his "trophy". Given Oswald's lack of shooting expertise - and his Communist/Marxist cover - this poorly designed weapon is a logical choice for him, especially if you can put some of its brass in the limousine to seal the deal. Still, its choice is intriguing, and I can't help feeling there was something intentional, symbolic or strategic with its choice as the murder weapon. After reading your (and others') description of the design and operation of this rifle, its not a credible "smoking gun"; surely the plotters would anticipate investigators reaching that conclusion, yet they still used it... why? Maybe the plot that never played out - the one that spirits Oswald out of the country to Cuba/Castro - had more MC's waiting to be discovered. I do agree with BK/Roberts and am strongly convinced the TSBD was pure diversionary in its entirety... a setup for Oswald and designed to attract attention away from the expert mechanics. - Gene

I think Frazier is stretching the truth in a number of places, as well as embellishing it. It sounds very impressive to have three shots hit within the space of a dime, even if it is only 15 yards out. This is not a bad grouping, even for 15 yards, and even if it is high by the incredible amount of 2.5 inches. The one inch lateral deviation to the right at 15 yards is about what one would expect from a side mounted scope, as that is roughly how far apart scope and barrel are. However, one would expect line of sight and line of departure, with a side mounted scope, to be on a converging lateral course and be meeting at the 100 yard mark. Why, then, does this rifle have a lateral spread of 5 inches on the target at 100 yards?

The answer is quite simple, actually. There is no question that the phenomenon, witnessed by Frazier, of the bullets landing progressively further to the right of the bullseye at 100 yards, making a 5 inch lateral spread on the target, was also occurring on the 15 yard target, despite all of the 15 yard bullet holes landing within the space of a dime. Frazier wrongly attributed this "walking away" from the bullseye to the scope needing to "settle in" following adjustments made to it but, this is utter nonsense. The real reason was that the end of the wooden forestock was warped from improper storage and maintenance of the rifle. The forestock was pressing against the barrel, bending it slightly and causing the shots to go wide. With each shot, the barrel heated and expanded, causing the forestock to push on the barrel with increasing pressure and making the shots land even further to the right, eventually resulting in a 5 inch spread at 100 yards.

How, then, could all the shots land within the space of a dime at 15 yards? Once again, we must use algebra. Assuming a dime to be 3/4 inch in diameter, we can say the following:

.75 is to 15 what "x" is to 100

.75 x 100 divided by 15 = x

75/15 =x

x = 5 inches

In other words, the "walking away" of the bullets, seen as a 5 inch lateral spread at 100 yards, still takes place at 15 yards but manifests itself as only a 3/4 inch lateral spread.

The Texas sharpshooter is a fabled marksman who fires his gun randomly at the side of a barn, then paints a bullseye around the spot where the most bullet holes cluster. The story of this Lone Star state shooter has given its name to a fallacy apparently first described in the field of epidemiology, which studies how cases of disease cluster in a population.

From the Wikipedia article "John F. Kennedy assassination rifle":

"FBI tests

The FBI tests of the Carcano's accuracy showed:

1)FBI firearms expert Robert A. Frazier testified that "It is a very accurate weapon. The targets we fired show that." From 15 yards (14 m.), all three bullets in a test firing landed approximately 2.5 inches high and 1-inch (25 mm) to the right, in the area about the size of a dime. At 100 yards (91 m.), the test shots landed 2.5 to 5 inches (130 mm) high, within a 3 to 5-inch (130 mm) circle."

Sounds impressive, doesn't it, especially if you do not know that much about shooting.

Straight away, I have no idea what a "3 to 5 inch" circle is, and I'll bet Frazier doesn't, either. Groupings of bullets on a target are usually defined by the diameter of a circle, not an oval, such as Frazier's first reference to a circular group "about the size of a dime". Perhaps Frazier thinks a 5 inch group simply makes the Carcano sound inaccurate. I know that if I had a rifle that shot 5 inch groups or "3 to 5 inch" groups at 100 yards, I would not call it an accurate rifle; rather, I would be taking it to a gunsmith to find out what is wrong with it. A good quality, well maintained bolt action rifle should have no problem putting three shots inside a 1-inch circle at 100 yards. More later regarding what I believe the defect was with the Carcano.

As is obvious by looking at one, a rifle scope is a tube that is mounted above the barrel of a rifle (another tube), usually 1.5-3 inches higher than the barrel. The view through the scope to the target is a straight line, and is called the Line of Sight. As the bullet is affected by gravity as soon as it leaves the muzzle, it cannot follow a straight line to the target but must be delivered in a curving parabolic trajectory that, for most of its journey to the target, is higher than the Line of Sight. This curved path is called the Bullet Trajectory.

As the barrel is lower than the scope and is angled upwards to "lob" the bullet in a parabola to the target, the bullet will cross the Line of Sight shortly after leaving the muzzle of the barrel; usually at a distance of 10-15 yards. If the rifle and scope are zeroed to hit a target at 100 yards, the bullet will cross the line of sight at 10-15 yards, on the ascending leg of the parabola, and cross the line of sight again at 100 yards, on the descending leg of the parabola. In other words, the rifle is accurate at two ranges, 10-15 yards and 100 yards.

With this in mind, let us examine Frazier's claim of the Carcano being 2.5 inches high at 15 yards, and 2.5 to 5 inches high at 100 yards. See anything wrong with these claims? I think they are lies, and I will tell you why.

If 10-15 yards is the range at which the bullet trajectory crosses the line of sight, it goes without saying that a scope should be adjusted to hit a bullseye centre at this range. In fact, this is the range gunsmiths will use to "bore sight" a rifle scope. Watch this excellent brief video about boresighting a rifle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgB9J9Bt_Rs

It is clear, after watching this video, that if the Carcano had been placed in this gun vise, the crosshairs of the scope would have been looking 2.5 inches below the bullseye, with the rifle bore lined up on the bullseye. I must point out that a 2.5 inch difference between bore and scope at 15 yards is a VERY large difference. As they say, being a tiny bit out up close equates to being a LOT out far away.

If the bullet hits high at 15 yards, it should be a simple exercise in algebra to determine how high it should hit at 100 yards. Remember, as well, that if the barrel is elevated high enough, the descending leg of the parabola may not begin until well after 100 or 200 yards, giving us almost a straight line from muzzle to where the bullet hits at 100 yards.

15 yards = 540 inches

100 yards = 3600 inches

2.5 is to 540, what "x" is to 3600 or, 3600 x 2.5 over 540 = "x" = 16.67

I do not know if the enormity of what I have shown is apparent to all of you, so I will try to explain. If the rifle shoots 2.5 inches high at 15 yards, the barrel is so drastically elevated, the bullet will land 16.67 inches high of the point of aim at 100 yards, NOT the 2.5 to 5 inches claimed by Frazier.

Frazier (and the FBI) have either told a monstrous lie to the WC, or Frazier was not the expert he claimed to be.

Robert: Regarding the apparent tight spacing of the test shots, have you ever heard of the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy"? It's a common mistake made (in logic) when trying to fit certain statistics to a false technical premise. In other words, the shooter is "off target" but - because the shots are closely spaced - still claims to be 'accurate' by circling the scatter. I believe that's what Frazier's comments and the Wikipedia article is attempting to accomplish. -- Gene

David (and David): Doesn't it seem out of the ordinary that police would allow a news photographer to videotape the early moments of an evidence search? Alyea not only gets into the TSBD and is allowed onto the crime scene, but he photographs the critical collection/discovery of evidence. I can see a crime photographer from the DPD... but a newsman? And he is allowed to leave TSBD with his camera and film... and then it's broadcast on TV? In contast, others' cameras are purportedly being confiscated by the FBI and SS as key evidence (e.g. Z film)... some allegedly taken and destroyed. I'm resisting seeing evil in everyone and everything associated with the case. But I cannot see police allowing that to happen in this day and age, much less at the scene of a presidential assassination.

Interestingly and ironically, I have previously used that exact same type of argument to EXONERATE the police of any wrong-doing or evidence-planting, etc.

Because if the cops were up on that 6th floor planting evidence and switching rifles around (and God knows what else), as many conspiracists seem to believe WAS happening shortly after 12:30 on November 22nd, then the LAST thing they'd want is a TV news cameraman FILMING all of this type of sinister activity. Does anyone think they'd WANT it on film?? That's kinda crazy.

I do, however, think it was a bit crazy to allow Alyea to stay on the sixth floor--smack in the middle of the crime scene. He was allowed access to everything on the sixth floor, it would appear. And the excuse used by reporter Kent Biffle (who was also allowed to roam freely in the building, along with Alyea) that the police "were stuck with us; what were they going to do, throw us out a window?" is totally ridiculous [see "JFK: Breaking The News"; PBS-TV; 2003].

All the police needed to do, even after the building was officially "sealed off", would be to escort those two gentlemen (Alyea and Biffle) to the front door, then open the door to let the men exit the building, and then lock the door again after the men had left. Why on Earth was that impossible to do? And yet they didn't perform that simple door-opening task. Or at the very least, the police should have kept Alyea off of the "crime scene" floor. But they didn't perform that easy task either. ~big shrug~

In summary, I do not believe for even a second that the Dallas police and Sheriff's officers were on the sixth floor monkeying around with the evidence connected to the President's murder. And therefore, I certainly don't subscribe to the unsubstantiated theory that Tom Alyea filmed merely a "re-creation" of the rifle being discovered.

David: Interesting perspective. Thanks for the reply. - gene

Now that we have established the primary reason the 6.5mm Carcano was dubbed the "Humanitarian Rifle", that being the terminal ballistics of the 6.5x52 mm cartridge were insufficient to give the rifle serious stopping or killing power, let us see if we can find other reasons for this nickname.

As I stated in the last post, the M91 6.5mm Carcano long rifle was not an inaccurate weapon; its only fault was that it fired a very long, stable, round nosed, full metal jacket bullet that adhered strictly to the conventions of the Hague Peace Conference. It was designed to cause limited damage in a wound and it did everything its designers intended.

The only relief to this carbine madness was the introduction in 1928 of the M91/28 TS carbine. It was an all new rifle and not a cut down version of a long rifle. Its introduction ended the manufacture of M91/24's. Perhaps their stocks of worn out M91's were running out, or perhaps someone came to their senses and realized what inadequate weapons were being supplied to Italian troops. Regardless, many of the M91/24's were made and saw great service in WW II and likely contributed to the poor performance of the Italians in North Africa.

So, we have now seen another reason the Italian troops dubbed the 6.5 Carcano the "Humanitarian Rifle". Careful note should also be made of the Italians' propensity for recycling worn out or overstocked M91 long rifles, with no regard for the detrimental effects on rifle accuracy of removing the tightest part of the progressive twist rifling. This will be discussed again in the next installment of the "Humanitarian Rifle", in which I will discuss the real reasons the 7.35x51 mm M38 Carcano was discontinued.

Robert: I appreciate the lesson in ballistics as well as the historical evolution of the MC. I'm beginning to see why you've stated that the weapon found was incapable of the performance credited to it. And to the extent that we can believe the evidence presented relative to shot accuracy, sighting the scope, JFK's extant wounds and the purported spent ammunition found... none of it fits consistently with the M91/38.

Given your obvious expertise, I'm also curious as to what you think about this particular weapon being selected for the patsy and cover-up. Was it because it's a commonly acquired and cheap weapon? Does the foreign make create a false flag deception? Would Italian heritage give it a fascist or communist flavor, consistent with Oswald's bona fides? Is it something more difficult to trace as to origin and provenance? was it intended to point one away from American roots and US military/intelligence? Is there a ballistic rationale for this particular weapon (e.g. impossible to silence, easy to break-down, etc.)? Given that this was a thoughtful plant on the part of calculating planners - and of all of the possible weapons to chose from - why pick the lowly MC to frame Harvey?

Gene

I was recently watching the Alyea portion of Robert Groden's DVD "The Assassination Films" and I heard Groden say something as the Alyea film was being shown on the screen that I had totally forgotten about. Groden claims that Billy Lovelady said at some point after Nov. 22 that he was up on the sixth floor when a rifle was first discovered and that the footage we see in Tom Alyea's film (below) is merely a re-creation. It's all a staged/fake scene of Lt. Day pulling the rifle out from behind the book cartons.

Of course, the person who filmed all that activity which certainly shows a CARCANO and not a MAUSER, Tom Alyea, has never said a word about his footage only depicting a re-creation. So I guess Groden must believe Alyea was really filming the "staged" event much LATER in the day, right? Or did the DPD just happen to have Oswald's Carcano right there with them in the building, in order to plant it behind the boxes at about 1:30 PM and then "stage" the finding of a SECOND rifle. And apparently Will Fritz or J.C. Day must have acted as film directors and told Alyea when to start filming the fake/staged scene.

Plus, there were a variety of TV and radio reports [some of which can be seen in the video below] that incorrectly labelled the rifle found on the sixth floor as all kinds of different types of weapons -- such as an Argentine Mauser, a German Mauser, a Japanese rifle, and a British .303 rifle.

David (and David): Doesn't it seem out of the ordinary that police would allow a news photographer to videotape the early moments of an evidence search? Alyea not only gets into the TSBD and is allowed onto the crime scene, but he photographs the critical collection/discovery of evidence. I can see a crime photographer from the DPD... but a newsman? And he is allowed to leave TSBD with his camera and film... and then its broadcast on TV? In contast, others' cameras are purportedly being confiscated by the FBI and SS as key evidence (e.g. Z film)... some allegedly taken and destroyed. I'm resisting seeing evil in everyone and everything associated with the case. But I cannot see police allowing that to happen in this day and age, much less at the scene of a presidential assassination. - Gene

Do you guys still think a shot from the 5th floor West face of the building is feasible? As I think it through, it make sense. Not expert in the trajectories, but... with the entire world focused (for 50 years) on the open windows of the 6th floor South side of the building, it amazes me that other locations were not more rigorously investigated.

Gene, according to first DPD reports , the rifle was found on the "fifth" floor.

Ray: you are correct, and I went back to look at original references regarding this very basic fact. It's often overlooked, and since no one ever challenged this anomaly and Warren didn't highlight it, it's lost in the enormous detail of the case. I also think many write this off as a confused and honest error (i.e. they really meant the 6th floor). It's unclear who (DPD officer) actually found the rifle, or when. Some accounts initially describe it as a Mauser. If we discount the shaky paper bag and curtains legend, then someone had to get it into the building at some convenient time. In a murder case, is there anything more basic than finding the weapon? I sure wish that I could interrogate Sgt. Gerald Hill. I'm now convinced that Oswald is “prayer man”, just not sure if it’s Harvey or Lee. But solving one mystery usually opens three new ones in this case. Accepting the amazing evidence that Oswald was in the doorway during the shooting inevitably leads to a renewed line of inquiry about what was going on inside the TSBD in those first key minutes. - Gene

We are still at the point where we must discuss with members whether there was a conspiracy or not

and we have to address WCR apologists who attempt to defend and rationalize the actions and evidence offered of the military, SS, CIA, and FBI

as opposed to taking that next step and putting the assasination into the context it belongs - that this was NOT some isolated event in a timeline that ENDS with his death...

the assassination is just one event in a string that goes back to the mid 1800's... if not farther.

Jim et al are busy writing and informing those that search the truth about this conspiracy as opposed to arguing about it here.

When page after page is needed to address members claiming the evidence from Bethesda is not only authentic but entirely indicative of what occurred in DALLAS

one has to scratch one's head and wonder WTF is going on in our community.

When there are those that can still talk about shots from the 6th floor and not have the time or desire to understand what the FBI did with CE884 and WCD298

Vince - it would like you having to convince people of the "back of the limo" BS put forth by the SS over and over and over again... and then a concluding post stating, "well the SS wasn't involved anyway"

At some point these undeniable facts need to be understood as such... we need to stop arguing over whether the world is flat or not...

and continue our efforts to uncover who and why THEY keep telling us the world is flat with all sincerity and seriousness..

my .02

David:

I agree with your assessment of regarding continued engagement of knowledgeable folks like DiEugenio and Dunn. It's like we keep shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic ... endless debates about what's now obvious become stale and uninteresting. There's no sense in it. I enjoy professional and courteous debate; but I cringe when threads degenerate into name-calling, insult and taunt. I've never liked type-casting (democrat vs. republican, liberal vs. conservative, LN vs. CT). The world's not that simple, and to paint it in those terms is to ignore the in-between or shades of coloring. I think that this is what drives folks away from the Forum. Prominent authors also come and go (e.g. Joan Mellen) but the discourteous discourse drives them away.

As you pointed out in the Tippit and Prayer Man threads, we need to think and talk in terms of two Oswalds, to better understand what's happening... anyone who still has doubts about the Oswald enigma is simply uninformed or not interested. But once you accept the existence of a double (and impersonators/imposters), events take on a clearer meaning, and it opens one up to fresh inquiry and more meaningful dialogue. The Secret Service was compromised that day, as were the DPD ... to not see that is to not look closely enough. Witnesses were intimidated and eliminated, as was evidence... perhaps folks don't want to belive that can happen in a case like this. The autopsy, the many "investigations" (FBI, Warren, Garrison, HSCA, even perhaps AARB) and the media were tightly monitored and controlled... it smacks of X-Files but unfortunately it's true. Files and testimony remain sealed and protected, even 50 years after the fact. It's as if the truth is just too painful to confront or to know. When I talk to friends about what I know and believe, they look at me as though I have two heads. And while I'm confident in my knowledge, I do belive that - for many - this is all just too much to fathom or take in. In the JFK case, life is stranger than fiction.

If there's one thing I've learned as a student of this assassination story, it's that almost any area that you dig into appears tainted and flawed... each and every one of them. When you finally arrive at a basic set of credible facts about the ballistics/guns, Tippit, the wounds/autopsy/doctors, Oswald/Ruby, witnesses, Warren testimony, et al... its typically a shocking mess of inconsistency. Everything (and everybody) becomes a literal dead-end. That in itself is very telling.

Gene

Greg:

I'm curious as to your comment about Rusk ("That he became the "go to" man OPERATIONALLY when it was crunch time for decision making is indicative of a darker agenda"). I don't think it was unusual for Stevenson to go directly to Rusk, since I belive the ambassador to the UN reports through the Secretary of State. I don't know much about Rusk, his background and affiliations, and where his allegiance stood. There are some strong hints of who comprised the cabal (imho) from BOP. It seems Dulles, McCloy, Averill Harriman, Dean Acheson and Dillon are all suspect in retrospect... not sure about Bundy, as he was one of Kennedy's young wiz kids from Harvard). Wasn't Dulles out of the country at the time? The air cover story seems a red herring in my mind, an excuse to throw blame on the new President. BOP was not only sabotaged internally (almost intended to fail), it also had false flag pretext actions (designed to induce a declaration of war) as sub-elements (e.g. the attack on Guantanamo by soldiers dressed in Cuban uniforms). The invasion escalated from a small covert action to a large-scale military action in a few months. It's an amazing act of treason by CIA, and an end-run around the presidency... and also as if someone is beginning to sabotage Kennedy's continuance in office. But now you've raised my interest in Dean Rusk, a name not normally associated with the 'bad guys".

Gene

Greg:

Very well done. I too believe Bay of Pigs is essential to understand as one of the historical backdrops central to the murder of the President. I'm not a historian nor am I schooled in covert action, but BOP is a precipitating factor or root cause (imho) of JFK's death. It was one of many pretext (i.e. false flag) operations - before and since - designed to escalate conflict for political purposes. I can't help but think that John Kennedy considered such actions as ill-advised (even insane) and that he was incensed at CIA's duplicity. I'm reminded of what a knowledgeable investigator once told me, when I asked him about the incredulous act of conspiring to kill the president ...his considered reply was "what makes you think that's the worst thing that they've ever done?" That notion has remained convincing in my thoughts ever since.

Gene

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20949

Since this thread should concentrate on OSWALD LEAVING THE TSBD, I started a thread about potential trajectories and WCD 298

DJ

I agree David ... sorry if this tended to divert the thread. Thanks to James for an interesting scale mockup. Looks like a West face shooter would have had a very difficult line of sight and a small time window of opportunity, even with a slowed down limousine. Perhaps it was nearer the elevator shaft (for egress), or some other consideration. Its hard for me to belive that - of all the locations possible - that one would be selected (Dal Tex looks ideal from the mockup). But I still have a strong bias towards more careful planners (shooters in places other than TSBD) and maximum diversion (focused on the TSBD).

Back to that figure in the doorway ... I went back to some other threads to read up on Billy Lovelady. If indeed he had on a striped shirt, then it's certainly not him. And using Sean's logic of elimination (i.e. most likely a person who worked in the building as opposed to someone walking in off the street), then a strong case can be made for it being Oswald. I find it interesting that the figure stays tucked in the alcove for the entire passing of the motorcade, which suggests he wasn't that interested in seeing the President. He also had to still be there as Baker runs up to the building. I also went back to the beginning of Bill Kelly's thread and pondered his original question. What's now unclear to me is if the prayer man (ostensibly Oswald) goes back into the building, or leaves from the alcove shortly after the Baker encounter. Is it Harvey leaving the TSBD, to begin his journey via the Craig sighting ... or Lee doing his "chores" as operatives call them?

Do you guys still think a shot from the 5th floor West face of the building is feasible? As I think it through, it make sense. Not expert in the trajectories, but... with the entire world focused (for 50 years) on the open windows of the 6th floor South side of the building, it amazes me that other locations were not more rigorously investigated.

Not sure if this is more incriminating of Truly or Officer Baker. Truly seems to be the "inside" man (inside the TSBD machinations) while Baker becomes the outside man... the first responder, and a quick one at that. Baker could've chosen many buildings to rush into, but he goes straight to the TSBD.

Both of these individuals are central to incriminating Oswald, including first sightings and locations. If indeed the lunchroom encounter never happened, and the coke is a fantasy, then both are culpable. Truly seems more able to be "manipulated" (by the powers that be) while Baker is after all a policeman. But both are right in the thick of it. Now I'm curious to see how (if at all) the HSCA treated these individuals and the veracity of their statements.

Richard:

Your suspicion of a shooter(s) in a West-facing window makes sense, of course, and perhaps I should not dismiss such a strategic position. I'm making the classic mistake of trying to put myself in the plotters' "shoes" and applying my own logic to something that's unfortunately so speculative 50 years later. Whenever I take the entire assassination story up to 1,000 feet, I'm always left with an over-arching conclusion that the people who set this up were expert in such matters, and therefore had contingency plans in place, along with ground-level precautions such as using police (and "sweepers") to control evidence and eyewitnesses. Therefore, the TSBD becomes (for me) a place to draw attention and to incriminate Oswald ... a pure head fake or diversionary measure (like the stalled pickup truck, the ambulance, canyon fire, Tippit's murder). Someone once posted an intelligence strategy akin to magic, where such slight-of-hand and illusionary tactics are applied to an operation like this. That's why I have difficulty in allowing actual shooters to be positioned in the TSBD.

I do still like David's idea that we need to think in terms of two Oswald's in trying to unravel this story. One excellent outfall of this thread is that I no longer take as gospel the lunchroom legend, or the written statements about Baker, Truly, and the coke... as David put it so well, the eyewitness accounts are accurate but none of the "evidence" seems to hold water. And if Prayer Man is indeed Oswald, then this becomes a real game-breaker.

Gene

David: I agree that one needs to get beyond any doubt about two Oswalds, and start thinking in terms of the movement of both Harvey and Lee. Only then do the pieces of the puzzle start to come together. Lee is setting up Harvey as a patsy, its that simple. I have not read the H&L book, so there's deeper insights that I need to learn ... but my first question (of many) would be, whatever happened to Lee?

Richard: I'm inclined to agree with Bjorn that there were no real assasins in the TSBD that day. Surely some plotters intentionally being seen at the window, and perhaps even someone firing a gun from another spot in the building - all as diversionary tactics - but not the real shooters. The idea that a trained sniper (and his handlers, spotters, break-down man, etc.) would risk being in the same building where all of the evidence is being planted and overt attention is being drawn to doesn't fit with the elaborate nature of this plot.

Sean: This is excellent attention to detail, and your insights about Redlich (and his lingering questions) are thought provoking. Its refreshing to focus back in on the basic facts of exactly where "Oswald" was (in the Building) and who actually saw him. Presuming that both Harvey and Lee are somewhere in that building, is it possible that Lee is running around (inside) being seen while Harvey is on the front steps (i.e. prayer man)? This begs the question of what exactly Harvey thought he was actually doing while watching the motorcade.

Gene

David:

I think Westbrook and Hill are the key figures that - if fully researched - would become compelling evidence for the plot and planners. They are indeed controlling evidence and witnesses, and incriminating Harvey at every step of the way in the 90 minutes following the assassination. That includes at the TSBD, the Tippit murder scene, the Texas Theatre and later during Oswald's so-called interrogation and arraignment. If there were one or two people I could bring back and subject to truth protocols, these two officers are the ones.

Gene

You're welcome Vince. Perhaps you can answer a question that I've wanted to ask about Bugliosi, and why he's taken such a position and story-line. I know he's a high-profile attorney with some infamous clients. Is it simply for publicity? Why would he publish such a long tome that has such a preposterous conclusion? To me, the evidence of conspiracy is at every corner of the murder and story: whether one studies the autopsy, Oswald's bona fides, the SS (your specialty), Tippit's murder, Johnson's actions, New Orleans and Garrison, HSCA, Roselli's death etc. How could an intelligent and experienced attorney not see those signposts? Bugliosi's extreme defense of a simpler answer is illogical and not credible. Maybe there's more to him that I don't appreicate.

Pat:

Your analysis of the press and articles leading up to the 50th is quite telling, even depressing. The themes mirror how I feel personally when presenting my knowledge of all the facts ... the ones that scream complexity and complicity. I avoid use of the term 'conspiracy' as it connotes negative images and motives. I try to objectively relate that there are just so many loose ends in every aspect of the murder. Yet it is a hard story to tell, and an even harder one to "sell" since there's disinformation, resistance, character assassination and so many legends that one never knows where to begin or ground themselves. I admire the work of folks like you and Vince, performed in an environment and time where most do not want to dig into the facts or confront the underlying truth. My synopsis of your retrospective on the Onslaught is that we cannot get our history from the television pundits or large news agencies. It reminds me of the advice that we can only believe half of what we read, and nothing of what we hear. We have to do our own due-diligence, and independent research ... you simply have to do the work, no one's going to hand it to you, especially this case. I recommend a good book called The Signal and the Noise by Nate Silver, which teaches how to discern the truth from the considerable amount of "noise" we are confronted with today. Unfortunately, many conveniently latch onto the noise as truth.

Gene

I second Ken's comment... when Larry and James contribute, one knows the truth is close by. HDG by nature of his associations and avocation seems a person of interest. Everyone in his 'circle' becomes suspect (e.g. handler named Rip, Roselli, obsession with killing Castro, AMMOT's, etc). The only statement that threw me was when Larry mentioned that Cuesta was a "straight shooter" ... pun intended?