Charles Drago

It is my understanding that the back brace did not extend upwards past mid-abdomen, and primarily consisted of ACE bandages. If memory serves, there are photos of brace components post-removal at Parkland. I also believe that the brace in its entirety is held at the National Archives. So ... My vote is that a prototype headrest for a BMW concept car was thrown at JFK and -- lucky shot of all time -- somehow lodged beneath his suit coat.

T'weren't God what done the wroughtin'.

And yet you get it wrong.

Thanks, Don, for understanding my point and expressing it simply and clearly. Charles

C'mon, Cliff, we're looking at a perfectly rectangular add-on obscuring the key area of the image.

OK Frank, If I were forced to suggest one story line for you, it would best be expressed in the mantra/incantation/manifesto that I've posted innumerable times on this Forum, and that I included in my introduction to Professor Evica's final book, A Certain Arrogance: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK murder who does not conclude that it came about as the result of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. In other words, the "how" question of the assassination has been answered beyond all doubt and to the degree of metaphysical certitude: CONSPIRACY. This "false mystery," as Vincent Salandria aptly described the case more than 40 years ago, is solved in terms of the "how." CONSPIRACY. Here's your story: NO MORE DOUBT. CONSPIRACY. Now we must deconstruct, if you will, the "how" in order to eliminate "who" suspects and "why" scenarios. In terms of "how" JFK was killed: "Who" could have done it in such a fasion? "Who" could NOT have done it in such a fashion? The latter question is of key importance to our task. Would-be investigators of the crime, and the public at large, cannot hope to determine truth and effect justice in this case unless they segregate the "how," "who," and "why" questions. This approach remains the sine qua non for success. Case closed. CONSPIRACY. Charles PS -- Alas, Mrs. Paine's Garage is part of the cover-up. But now that I think of it: Since yours is a visual medium, locate video footage and still photos of Michael Paine c. 1963. Who does he resemble?

The grey rectangle obscuring the shirt collar, Miles, is most noticeable and most worthy of investigation.

Frank, There's a story-within-a-story here, I think. Professor Evica's And We Are All Mortal was published 30 years ago. His definitive and to-date unchallenged treatment of CE 139 has been all but lost to the majority of serious, honorably intentioned researchers to the degree that a Gary Mack can state, as if it is a matter of established and unchallenged historical record, that Lee Harvey Oswald owned the alleged murder weapon in the JFK case. John Kelin's recently published masterpiece, Praise from a Future Generation, would return our focus to the so-called first generation of Warren Commission critics and their discoveries -- not to mention the collective courage of their conviction that conspiracy in the JFK case is established historical truth. Professor Evica, who emerged somewhere between the first and second generations of WC critics, cites Sylvia Meagher in his brilliant demolition of the Oswald-owned-the-gun "certainty." In other words: The work has been done. It is up to us to keep it in the public eye. I respectfully urge you to contact John Kelin and make his work better known. Best, Charles

Mr. Root, I have neither the time, the inclination, nor the good will to educate you -- especially in light of the manner in which you demonstrate your, well, limitations by conflating evaluations of the "how" of the assassination with studies of the "who" and the "why" of the crime. "Who" equals more than one -- the inescapable conclusion based on review of the evidence. "More than one" equals conspiracy. "Conspiracy" is actively denied, and evidence of "conspiracy" is actively suppressed or falsified, by the parent state and its wholly owned subsidiaries. Beyond this: Educate yourself. Charles Drago

OK, Old Timer, I'll take the blame for not making my major point with sufficient clarity. So I'll try again. I'll retype what you wrote above for the sake of emphasis: "JFK may very well have been whacked by more than one guy, and there may have been a conspiracy and coverup." "May"??? WRONG!!! JFK WAS whacked by more than one guy, and there WAS a conspiracy, and there IS an ongoing coverup. I so state not out of hubris or arrogance. I so state out of knowledge. Period. And I shall not be a party to the reduction of the investigation of this case to a "whodunit" game. Not by you. Not by anyone. I DENOUNCE all who, despite reasonable access to the evidence in JFK's murder, maintain either that one guy did it, or that the jury is out on the "how" question. or that we must keep an open mind. I know -- and so should you -- that LHO never fired a shot at JFK. But I'm willing to let that one slide for a bit. I challenge you, not-so-young man: Declare yourself. Do you acknowledge conspiracy in JFK's death? Take a position. You are obliged to do so. You are not entitled to the comfort of not knowing. Of not saying. Understand? Charles

Since the alleged ownership of CE 139 by Lee Harvey Oswald is generating some extremely warranted interest, I think all would benefit from reading the following passages from And We Are All Mortal: New Evidence and Analysis in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, by George Michael Evica (1978; University of Hartford Press). Chapter One, pages 7-10 Did Oswald Ever Possess Any Rifle? Marina Oswald was the [Warren] Commission’s sole witness cited for the Report’s conclusions that Oswald possessed a rifle before the alleged attack on General Edwin Walker and that the alleged rifle was moved from Dallas to New Orleans and from New Orleans to Irving, Texas. The Commission’s own records help to establish that no piece of the Oswalds’ luggage or any other container used in moving the Oswalds was large enough to hold the Commission’s disassembled rifle. … The Commission attempted to prove that a rifle was stored in the Paine’s garage prior to the assassination: it failed. Marina Oswald testified to the Commission that she had entered the Paine’s cluttered garage to look for parts to a baby crib; lifting a corner of a folded blanket on the floor, she said she saw part of a rifle stock (in another version of this incident Marina decided it was the barrel she had seen). But Marina’s testimony was not corroborated; she could not distinguish either between kinds of rifles or between kinds of pieces (rifles and shot-guns, for example) … When shown a rifle on November 22nd, at about 9:00 p.m., she was unable to identify it: “Marina Oswald advised an Agent of this Bureau on November 22, 1963, that she had been shown a rifle at the Dallas Police Department … She advised that she was unable to identify it positively as the same rifle kept in the garage at [the] Paine residence … ” Three months after the assassination, Marina’s memory improved so that on February 6th, 1964, when shown what the Commission alleged to be the same rifle, she said, “This is the fateful rifle of Lee Oswald.” But Sunday, September 6th, 1964 … the following odd exchange occurred: Senator Russell: Did you testify that you thought this [CE 139] was Lee’s rifle that was shown to you? Marina (translation): No – I’m sorry. As far as she knows about the arms, the rifle which was shown to her looked like the one he had. Translator (Peter Gregory, an important member of the Dallas/Ft. Worth White Russian community) in English: Yes; That’s right. Senator Russell: That’s all I asked her. That’s just exactly what I asked her. Translator (in English): Yes, that’s right. Most crucially, Marina’s testimony on the alleged assassination weapon was coached, altered, or corroborated by individuals associated with Jack Ruby, the Great Southwest Corporation, George de Mohrenschildt (who admitted consulting with a Dallas C.I.A. agent concerning Oswald), and two of de Mohrenschildt’s associates (the co-founders of a C.I.A.-subsidized Russian Orthodox church in Dallas). The F.B.I. reported that a Marina Oswald interview had taken place on February 18th, 1964, in the office of attorney William A. McKenzie, who had been recently associated with the law firm representing both the Great Southwest Corporation (owned by the Murchisons’ lawyers, the Bedford Wynne family, and the Rockefellers) and George de Mohrenschildt. The F.B.I. reported that: “Marina said to her knowledge Oswald had only one rifle and that rifle is the one he maintained in the Paine Garage.” But Mrs. Declan Ford (another member of the White Russian émigré group) admitted: “… Mr. McKenzie didn’t know what they would talk about but he advised her [Marina], ‘They will ask you if there were two guns, you tell them there was one gun that was used … ’” Peter Dale Scott found this involvement of the intelligence-oriented Russian émigré group in the transmission of Marina’s testimony ominous enough to suggest a House Select Committee investigation, pointing out that Peter Gregory altered Marina’s testimony on the rifle and supplied other details which were corroborated by Marina’s second interpreter – who, with Gregory, helped found an Agency-supported Orthodox parish. Details of Marina’s coached and altered testimony were echoed in statements given the F.B.I. by Charles Camplen and James F. Daley, employees of the Great Southwest Corporation. William A. McKenzie, in whose office the February 18, 1964 Marina Oswald interview as recorded, and who Mrs. Declan Ford asserted had supplied Marina with the Line “ … there was one gun that was used,” had resigned from the Wynne family law firm to represent Marina Oswald. McKenzie had been a law partner of attorney Bernard Wynne whose law firm represented the Wynne/Murchison/Rockefeller Great Southwest Corporation – at whose motel Marina Oswald was hidden by the Secret Service. While acting as Marina’s lawyer, McKenzie was associated with attorney Peter White, who in 1954 arranged for the dismissal of charges against Jack Ruby. The Warren Commission ignored the fact that Peter White’s name, address, and phone number all appeared in Jack Ruby’s notebook – Peter White, the office mate of Marina Oswald’s attorney and representative – though the Commission questioned Ruby’s roommate George Senator about other entries in that same notebook. With evidence available of coached and altered Marina Oswald testimony on the very existence of a weapon and on that weapon’s characteristics, directly traceable to individuals associated with an organized crime figure (Jack Ruby) and with the C.I.A. (George de Mohrenschildt), Marina’s uncorroborated testimony on a “rifle” must remain dubious and suspect. (emphasis added by Drago)

Precisely, Ron. And let us not forget Warren Commissioner and Profiles in Courage Award winner Gerald "The Unelected" Ford's wilfull falsification of evidence -- making him an accessory after the fact to murder -- relating to the location of the posterior wound of entry. Then again ... JFK was not in tip-top physical condition, his skin was flaccid, perhaps it was carried skyward by that dastardly ill-fitting shirt ... or if the Z-film was altered, perhaps what we cannot see is that he was actually bent over tying his shoe or kisisng his wife on her inner left thigh (didn't Seymour Hersh report that she liked to be aroused in such a fashion?) ... almost ANY explanation other than the facts! Then again, and in relation to where this thread has traveled, facts are not ... wait for it ... in fashion. PS -- Cliff is right, but we don't need the clothes to know the truth of the location of JFK's back wound.

Bumped from the Dallas County DA's office finds cache of JFK memorabilia thread: QUOTE(John Simkin @ Feb 20 2008, 01:47 AM) The assumption being made is that the conversation was part of a film script (Countdown to Dallas) that Henry Wade was working on. However, Michael Hogan has pointed out on another thread, that Countdown to Dallas was a proposed documentary on the assassination. If that is the case, the Oswald-Ruby conversation is not part of a script. Craig Watkins said these documents will be available to researchers. It seems to me that researchers need to take a close look at this contract. Who signed the contract? Did they make documentaries or feature films? Watkins said the contract suggested that Wade would have become a "rich man" if the film was made. Maybe he was offered even more money that stated in the contract not to make the film. *** My guess is that the film was to have been falsely characterized as a documentary, that Wade would have served the function of the false authority from which an entirely fabricated "transcript" would draw its bona fides, and that the project went south, as they say, when the notion of producing a limited hang-out was rejected by conspirators on the grounds of lack of need. (Of course these efficient killers of kings were wise enough to keep this stash intact; a strategically timed future release might reap the benefits of confusing and otherwise misdirecting investigators-to-come.) Technically, John, the "transcript" was precisely a script component: a fictive construct disguised as a genuine document and inserted into a larger cinematic fabrication. Of course researchers must take a close look at the contract and all other components of this newly discovered cache of materials. Forensic examinations of documents, films, still photos, etc. -- including the boxes they're in and the safe itself -- must be conducted. In the meantime, let's do what we can to keep the material off the Sixth Floor.

My guess is that the film was to have been falsely characterized as a documentary, that Wade would have served the function of the false authority from which an entirely fabricated "transcript" would draw its bona fides, and that the project went south, as they say, when the notion of producing a limited hang-out was rejected by conspirators on the grounds of lack of need. (Of course these efficient killers of kings were wise enough to keep this stash intact; a strategically timed future release might reap the benefits of confusing and otherwise misdirecting investigators-to-come.) Technically, John, the "transcript" was precisely a script component: a fictive construct disguised as a genuine document and inserted into a larger cinematic fabrication. Of course researchers must take a close look at the contract and all other components of this newly discovered cache of materials. Forensic examinations of documents, films, still photos, etc. -- including the boxes they're in and the safe itself -- must be conducted. In the meantime, let's do what we can to keep the material off the Sixth Floor.

Gary Mack tells me that Thayer Wado died on New Year's Day 1989. Well that's good enough for me.

I fail to see the accuracy of the statement "virtually no hard evidence." Cliff, This semantics nonsense gives the game away -- yet again. For Mack and his acolytes would have us believe that word gaming and linguistic subtlety -- especially when coming from an "expert" on the case who allegedly is on the side of the angels and who is speaking on a truly rare-as-hens'-teeth American television forum -- are wholly appropriate within the context of our struggle. "Virtually" + "hard" = "cover-up." Not to mention "accessory after the fact." Charles

It's not the physical threat that's disturbing. Rather, its the ... disturbance. If you take my meaning. Looks like we coaxed another one into the light.

Klingon -- But enough about Gary Mack. I can offer no insight into Operation Highjump (Highbrow? -- but enough about me) other than to note that the entire story is so novelistic in its complexities and cinematic in its breadth as to set off the same sorts of alarm bells that have been clanging since the recent LHO/Ruby "transcript" was released. So why does it fascinate me so? Why does it ring THE Bell, if you take my meaning? For extremely significant analyses of Crisman and the "wandering bishops," see Peter Levenda's Sinister Forces trilogy. You, dear David, more than most will be thrilled with the work. I'm on the "lot, lot deeper" end of this thing. MK/ULTRA -- at the very least -- emerges from that befouled spiritual well, and not vice-versa. But now we're in over our heads. And I must relieve Kirk on the bridge. Spock out.

Indeed.

Charles, The fact that Gary's real name is Larry Dunkel is not new. IIRC, when he began working with a TOP 40 radio station (because the name Dunkel was not "memorable"), he chose the name Gary Mack. When he went to television, and was hired as an announcer, people in his business knew him by Gary Mack, as well as the JFK research community. That's why he kept it. Nothing secretive. Dear Kathy, ... Oh, never mind. Charles

Sorry, Stephen. "Opinion" in terms of how JFK was killed is of no import. The fact is that his death was the result of a criminal conspiracy. There are no honest, informed, rational arguments for the LN position or for Oswald having fired at JFK. "Our" case has been built, tested, and proven. Conspiracy is historical fact. And anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in this case who does not conclude conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. I see no other explanations. But hey, that's just me, man. Sorry, Charles. I just disagree with you on a couple of points. Opinion IS of import, even on central matters. None of us holds the truth in his vest pocket, and to deny this is to hold one's self above others. Your comment that anyone who disagrees with your conclusions must be either cognitively impaired or complicit is tantamount to calling them stupid or evil. There are NO other possibilities? Like somebody having a different opinion? That is a classic case of peremptorily defining the playing field so as to exclude. It is anti-intellectual and wrong. I respect that you feel that way - that's just me. You should respect those who don't. I KNEW my comment would light a fire, but it needs to be said. Again and again. Respect others' opinions even if you don't understand them. Stephen, You appear to be young, so I'll take your tender years into account and gently admonish you. We are at war, young man. We are at war with the conspirators who killed John Kennedy. The conspiratorial truth of this matter is not in my vest pocket or in anyone else's. It is truth. When you avail yourself of the evidence of this case, you either conclude conspiracy or you are cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. This isn't some post-modern exchange on the nature of knowledge and knowing. JFK was hit by more than one guy. Period. Play whodunit and howdunit games elsewhere. This isn't about opinions. Your opinion on the shape of the earth is of no consequence. This, again, is war. Charles

Duncan, I cannot divine your intellect and instincts from the few posts you've offered with which I'm familiar. So what follows is far more general than specific, if you take my meaning. Don't f**k with semantics! This is too serious. This is life and death. Get serious or get lost. The "key word in Gary's statement" is NOT "virtually." The statement in its ENTIRETY is key. What YOU are chasing, and what I and others have caught up to, captured, understood, and presented to the world, is not a "belief" but the REALITY of conspiracy in the murder of JFK. If "Gary Mack" -- and I now must enclose that pseudonym in quotes because I'm told on excellent authority that the given name of that poster is Larry Dunkel -- is about the business of "promot[ing] Oswald [as] the lone shooter," then "he and his players" would be EXPECTED to endorse a Badgeman or Gordon Arnold in order to ingratiate themselves to the truth tellers. You need to go back to square one, Duncan, and think long and hard about the complexities and sophistication of the world on which you would comment. "Hard" evidence? Mack's "hard" evidence couldn't really be hard if it overdosed on Cialis. "Virtually" my pocked olive derriere! Charles

Please be advised that I shall no longer carry on this exchange via private messages. If Mr. Mack desires to address my points and elicit my responses, he can do so publicly or not at all. Charles Drago

For a discussion on LHO’s ownership of CE 139 – the alleged murder weapon – I refer you to And We Are All Mortal: New Evidence and Analysis in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, by George Michael Evica. From Chapter One, pages six-seven: Which Rifle Was Delivered, If any? And to Whom? Lee Harvey Oswald rented Dallas Post Office Box 2915 from October 9th, 1962 through May 14th, 1963. But according to the F.B.I., he did not authorize an A” Hidell” (or anyone else) to receive mail at that address, information transmitted to the Warren Commission in a Bureau report dated June 3rd, 1964. But the Warren Commission ignored this F.B.I. finding, opting for ignorance: “It is not known whether the application … listed ‘A. Hidell’ as … entitled to receive mail … In accordance with postal regulations … [the records were] … thrown away after the box was closed on May 14th, 1963.” Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes of Dallas was the [Warren] Commission’s source for part of this misinformation. “… when a package is received for a certain box, a notice is placed in that box regardless of whether that name … is listed on the application as a person entitled to receive mail … The person having access to the box then takes the notice to the window and is given the package. Ordinarily … identification is not required.” Earlier, however, Inspector Holmes was quoted in the New York Times of November 30th, 1963, as stating that “no person other than Oswald was authorized to receive mail” as his post office box. We would assume that Holmes was speaking with some authority: that he knew the regulations and/or he had access to the Oswald post office box application. But Holmes was the Commission’s source for its statement that Federal regulations dictate the destruction of post-office box records. Checking those same regulations, we find Holmes to have been in error. … Holmes spoke with no authority either in the New York Times or in his testimony for the Warren Commission. Unless, of course, as of November 30th, 1963, Oswald’s postal records had not been destroyed, and Holmes had access to them, but by the time he was a Commission witness, those records no longer existed, having been “thrown away” in contravention of the existing Federal regulations. As Sylvia Meagher commented, the Warren Commission seems to have made no move to establish whether any employee at the Dallas main post office remembered handling the Klein’s parcel; any employee at the main office remembered surrendering the Klein’s parcel to anyone presenting the post-office box notice; any record of the notice of the delivery of the parcel existed at the main post office. Especially since Postal Inspector Holmes was also wrong about the lack of difficulty with which Oswald would have taken delivery of the Klein’s package addressed to “A. Hidell.” The Warren Commission presented the testimony only of a post-office substation inspector, Holmes, rather than taking testimony from employees at Dallas’s main post office, where Oswald had his box, and where the Postal Manual might have been honored. … No proof that the Klein’s Carcano addressed to “A. Hidell” was delivered to Oswald was obtained from any postal employee at the main post office in Dallas. As Mark Lane commented, Federal regulations which are inexactly cited and which are never made a part of the Commission’s public record, either in its Report or in its twenty-six volumes of Hearings, tend to make us doubtful of the thoroughness of the Warren Commission. The Commission did not attempt to get evidence independent of its only witness in this area, Post Office Inspector Harry Holmes, who, it seems, was also an F.B.I. informant. I additionally refer one and all to Chapters One through Five of my late friend and mentor's work for in-depth discussions related to the ownership and provenance of CE 139. Oswald's rifle, Mr. Mack? Not so bloody fast.

I've started a new thread so as to simplfy, to the degree possible, the chances of following this odd correspondence. My original post and Mack's first reactions will not be color-highlighted. I'll highlight Mr. Mack's latest comments in red, and my latest responses in green. Charles, Almost all of your comments are merely opinions and theories. I asked for the hard evidence that shows someone other than Oswald shot JFK. Please supply something, anything, if you can. And I've added some comments below. Gary QUOTE Mr. Mack was not quite clever enough when he constructed his question on the false premise that "hard" evidence exists to establish that LHO fired at President Kennedy on 11/22/63. The burden is yours, sir. You are making the accusation, Mr. Mack. Where is your proof? GM: I'm not trying to prove anything. History has concluded Oswald killed Kennedy and that many disagree with that finding. "History," sir? Surely you are referring to the official, tainted, unsupported, thoroughly refuted contention of your parent state. In doing so, it is you, Mr. Mack, who is opining even as you reveal your dependence upon the false authority of the state. "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle. No one has been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand." --Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry, quoted by United Press International, November 5, 1969 GM: Curry made several conflicting statements about that very issue over the years. His opinion was just that, an opinion, not evidence. He has also said they had no evidence of someone else. There is no reliable eyewitness testimony placing LHO in the "assassin's nest" during the shooting. GM: That's your characterization and is not evidence. There is also no evidence placing him anywhere else. No, sir, I am not characterizing Howard Brennan's alleged eyewitness testimony as invalid. Impartial investigators have established this fact. And simply because LHO's whereabouts during the shooting cannot be established does not mean that he was, well, shooting. MY whereabouts during the assassination cannot be proven. There is no sustainable explanation for how LHO could have done the shooting, paused to admire his work (as eyewitnesses described a "figure" in the "assassin's window" doing after the final shots), wiped down and hidden his weapon beneath boxes, descended from the sixth to the second floor of the TSBD without being seen by individuals on the only available staircase during the time frame, and arrived in the lunchroom to enjoy a soft drink no later than 90 seconds after the shooting ceased. GM: The shooting took as long as eight or nine seconds, which is plenty of time. Pausing is a vague term that could have meant only a few seconds. Who says the rifle must have had prints, since some old wood doesn't readily take prints; what's more, what evidence is there that he could not have wiped the rifle with his shirt while he walked? The SS film and simple re-creations show there was plenty of time to reach the lunchroom. The two women in the staircase were simply not there when Oswald was, for there's nothing in their story that gives a precise time line. And Oswald was entering the lunchroom when first seen, according to Baker's observation of seeing the back of his head as he walked away. "Plenty of time" for what? Given the 90-second time constraint, ANY pause proves fatal to the already moribund LHO-as-lone gunman myth. NO shirt fibers were found on the rifle. No prints were on the metal areas (trigger, trigger guard, etc.). "SS film and simple re-creations" show no such thing. None I have seen take into account ANY pause or the time it would have taken to place the rifle as it allegedly was found. You are merely opining when you state with finality and authority that "the two women in the staircase were simply not there when Oswald was." Their testimonies strongly suggest that they were there. All you present is wishful thinking. So too with your contention that "Oswald was entering the lunchroom when first seen." Baker does not opine on the entering or leaving issue, I believe, but only seeing LHO walking away. Again, nothing but wishful thinking on your part, Mr. Mack. CE 399 -- the so-called "magic" or "pristine" bullet -- may be ballistically linked to a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle allegedly purchased and owned by LHO. However, there is no sustainable evidence whatsoever to support the contentions that LHO ever transported that weapon to the TSBD, that the bullet now in evidence was the projectile found in Parkland Hospital, and that it struck either JFK or JBC. No sustainable evidence whatsoever. GM: Again you have given an opinion, one that is merely a possibility, not evidence. Chain of custody for CE399 is broken. Parkland personnel who discovered and temporarily had custody of a bullet were not able to identify CE399 as the missile they handled. There is ZERO sustainable evidence to suggest that CE399 hit JFK or JBC. If I'm wrong, demonstrate it. Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) tests linking bullet fragments recovered from assassination victims to LHO's alleged ammunition have been fully discredited, have ZERO scientific reliability, and thus have no bearing on this case in terms of establishing LHO's guilt or innocence. GM: Aha! We certainly agree, but that simply means the bullets may still be from Oswald's gun. Or any other gun in the entire known universe that loads that type of ammunition. There is no sustainable forensic evidence to indicate that LHO fired a rifle on 11/22/63. Positive parrafin tests of his hands are just as likely to have resulted from his handling of printed materials during the performance of his TSBD job as from firing a pistol. GM: But that's no hard evidence of another person firing. If his hands tested negative, that might be significant. That his hands tested positive, given alternate possible innocent reasons, is insignificant. Parrafin tests of his cheeks -- where evidence of having fired a rifle would be expected to be noted -- were negative. GM: Not true; read Cunningham's testimony. Oswald's rifle did not deposit any nitrates on the cheeks of test firers. I shall do so. The presence of LHO's palm print on a portion of the rifle barrel that is not visible when the weapon is fully assembled is suspect. The print was not noted during initial intense examination by the FBI in the Bureau's state-of-the-art lab; rather, it was miraculously discovered after LHO was killed, and after a suspicious visit to the funeral home by government agents who may have applied the print post mortem. GM: That fragment proves only that he handled the gun at some point in time. There's no evidence that the gun was not his. I shall refute this claim of ownership in a separate post which will immediately follow. LHO's post-assassination behavior hardly can be described as "flight." He went home, and in a relatively unhurried manner. GM: His landlady said otherwise in recorded interviews that day. Did LHO's landlady comment on his movements from the TSBD to her rooming house? No one ever has suggested a plausible motive for LHO to kill JFK. GM: Or for most other wackos who suddenly decide to kill people. What was the motive for the shooting in Illinois the other day? For that matter, just because Oswald's motive isn't known is no reason to conclude he had no motive. Or that he isn't from the Pleides. So, then ... No means. GM: His gun was there and he was experienced with firing rifles. See below for "his gun" refutation. There is no sustainable evidence to suggest that "his" gun was fired that day. No motive. GM: No known motive. Right. No motive. Nothing to submit to a jury. Nothing. No opportunity. GM: He was present in the building with no alibi for the crucial time. Who else was in the building with no alibi? There you go, opining again. LHO did not have the opportunity to do the deed, observe its aftermath, hide the weapon, get downstairs in his invisibilty cloak, and appear in the lunchroom. None. Your opining notwithstand. No physical evidence. GM: His gun plus the nitrates together are quite powerful. Nonsense. "His gun"??? See next post. There is no unambiguous, sustainable evidence to prove that LHO fired any weapon that day. How many TSBD employess might have registered similar nitrate levels on their hands? No photographic evidence. GM: No photos means only no photos, not innocence. No eyewitness evidence. GM: Brennan saw a guy that could have been Oswald. He certainly didn't describe someone radically different. Brennan's value as an eyewitness has been demolished. You may have another opinion. The fact that Brennan was the darling of the WC is of no consequence whatsoever. The only argument in support of LHO firing at JFK is an argument from false authority -- the state. GM: So I repeat, what is the hard evidence of someone other than Oswald? Well, JFK, JBC, and Jim Tague were shot by somebody. And there is NO SUSTAINABLE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that LHO did any shooting that day. There is strong circumstantial evidence that he could not have done the shooting from the sixth floor under any realistic circumstances. So ...