B. A. Copeland

Any person alive today and interested in the JFK murder has every single reason to believe that much of the autopsy evidence is not acceptable evidence today.

With all due respect, do you honestly think a 50+ year old brain (and a very important brain at that!) will be somehow recovered? A brain, that, in essence, will clearly show (as if there aren't so many other pieces of evidence) that there were multiple shooters? I have an extremely difficult time believing that this evidence is sitting somewhere waiting to be found but I've an open mind.

Was LHO considered a suspect in the Walker shooting long after the fact? or was it at the time of the shooting itself, as it was being investigated?

Oh ok. I've never seen that explanation but interesting, thanks.

I'm not sure why a big deal isn't being made of this, if even remotely true lol...this is potentially huge. I'm truly interested in WKH at the moment but, due to his profession, its difficult to find more data about him, even photos.

Thanks Paul.

Wait, what do you mean or what are you implying Cliff? (honest question). I figured he could've been distancing himself but the answer is probably out there in some form, given I have not exhaustively researched it.

Ahh I see and could you either direct me or summarize the evidence that shows, to any degree, that he was there? There were also two witnesses, if I am not mistaken, who said that the shooter was not Oswald, please correct me if I am wrong. I don't wish to derail this topic so I won't respond in this topic to your response, should you choose to respond and thank you for the response regardless.

Wait....for the record Paul, do you believe, beyond reasonable doubt, that Oswald fired at Walker? Even against the evidence that others were involved with that event?

I am currently going through this entire topic again (what amazing work!) and I noticed that Pat Speer quoted this common (and with all due respect, oftentimes irrational) line or train of thought to Sean Murphy sometime ago (post #816) and just for the record, most philosophers, probability theorists, etc., do not believe in it anymore for it is unnecessary or demonstrably false. The other issue with the claim is that the "extraordinary" term can be quite subjective and vague. Let's take prayer man and it's probability of being LHO for example: how likely would the evidence be if it had NOT occurred (i.e, if LHO wasn't out front or, to be more precise, if Oswald conceretely NOT PM?). If these events hadn't occurred: -Interrogation of Oswald. -Oswalds' claims during interrogation. -Bookhouts presence and notes of interrogation. -Holmes' presence of the interrogation. -Fritz' notes from Bookhouts interrogation notes. -Bakers asking PM where the stairs were. -Bakers affidavit on 11/22/63. -Storage room incident+witnesses to that event. -FBI's accounting for all TSBD employees on 11/22/63. ....I must ask, how probable would it be for Oswald to have been PM? I think the answer's fairly obvious. Well known Philosopher and Theologian William Lane Craig further or much better explains it (albeit in a Christian theological worldview context): So in the end, Murphy did nor does not need to provide "extraordinary evidence" (whatever "extraordinary" means in context of PM discussion lol...) but just evidence that seems abundant and existent given the argument Sean presents are based on factual events and powerful deductive reasoning. I post this because it might rear it's ugly head in the future again, yet, there is no need for the "extraordinary" in the first place.

So then if the Odio scenario is questionable at best and there seems to be evidence that the WC wanted to avoid this story, it cannot be used in any way to even show that LHO was possibly being framed? Is it possible (or worth) to at least consider the earliest version of the story as told by Odio? I guess Fonzi wasn't really touching on anything signficant after all if this the story is to be carefully avoided to show LHO was being set up...

No DVP, I don't believe Klein's was in on the conspiracy (I'm not sure that would be necessary). At least, the evidence, as I have seen and observed, does not lead me to that conclusion and I think its a perfectly valid question to ask. Thanks for asking. There is an interesting thought however. You ask "do you really think Klein's is a co-conspirator in this thing?" and you frame the question as if to assume that it would be "absurd". If we take a step back and have an honest look at the JFK murder we see many, many instances of what may be the conspirators in action without many individuals literally being involved in the conspiracy/coverup. Perhaps you do not interpret the evidence as conclusive as involving a conspiracy but lets just say, for the sake of discussion, Klein's is technically involved in the coverup or framing of LHO. Klein's doesn't necessarily have to be "in on the conspiracy". They could have simply been used in some way by those who wished to frame LHO in order for the official conclusion to work. If LHO never ordered a rifle then we'd have a problem even though I believe many problems existed and exists to this very day. The most important matter or question is, would that be a rational theory to espouse? I believe so unless the evidence overwhelmingly and undoubtedly says otherwise. If we follow the evidence, what we have are many instances of copied documents and no originals. I do not believe this particular batch of evidence would be effectively used against LHO were he to stand trial today.

Dave that doesn't answer the questions that must all be taken into account with Waldman 7. I mentioned that facts stated above and I'll toss in a comment made by Dave Josephs in another topic that enhances my point I think: (source: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21008) The entire rifle ordering case and the alleged evidence proving LHO ordered it stand or fall together. If you show me Waldman and an honest and impartial jury observes the extreme problems with the First National Bank of Chicago and/or the Fed. Reserve Bank regarding the FBI (+ the problem stated above about his alleged travel to purchase a money order, etc, when he's proven to be working that day)... could a verdict of guilty still be applied? In the case (what I strongly perceive) against LHO, one cannot ever merely rely on photographs to prove a case, especially in the matter regarding his guilt. Context is key and there are many evidential and rationally justifiable reasons to believe that much of the photographic record indicating LHO's guilt has been either suspiciously fabricated, altered, destroyed or all the above. Could we really bring into court Oswald's "purchasing" such a weapon when we have a very distinct problem with the financial 'chain of custody' as it were, of the finances allegedly used to pay for the rifle? Case in point: I ask you humbly, after reading and studying the above and finding it to be factual (does actually Waldman 7 utterly crush Armstrong's presented evidence or anyone who espouses the conspiracy theory of events?)......would the case for LHO ordering said rifle suffer or not? Would copies of copies, etc, be accepted into court to prove LHO's guilt?

But David, given Armstrong's proving the broken chain of custody of the rifle, from order to shipment, you honestly believe somehow it still ended up with LHO? Then there's that insane long travel that would be necessary on a day where he is proven to have been working at the time. I mean....you honestly believe it still?: Surely....to anyone open-minded enough I guess....this just reeks of something very suspicious...if not wrong IF Armstrong has presented a solid case here. I must also admit, that, perhaps for you and those who hold so strongly to the "LHO did it" theory, the ARRB really wasn't a very big deal (especially the medical evidence, which, in your mind I assume?, proves LHO even had help at Bethesda), nothing new that would counter the "LHO did it" theory arose as far as evidence yes? I mean what do you even say about Gerald Ford literally admitting he moved a wound on a diagram to seemingly fit with what was established officially? So many questions... (source: http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html) (P.S - I 'seemingly' cherry picked the medical and rifle order evidence because I was actually reading about these very two aspects of the case and have been for about a week now and, happening across this topic, I decided I'd present this evidence to someone who strongly believes in LHO's guilt and who, without question or objection, accepts the WC's conclusions.)

Hmm....I'm not so sure. The neck leading into the shoulders seems too steep downward but it could be a variety of factors to consider.....in another topic lol. Thanks for the input and feedback for those of you that responded. Sorry, back on topic.

Just a quick question (not to divert the topic but slightly related to it) but doesn't anyone else (unless there are visual elements I am unaware of in photography which I admit, may be quite a handful) see the oddity in Lovelady's extremely "slanted" or cut left shoulder in the Altgen's photo? Please tell me I am missing something.

Obviously, the Editors-in-Chief for the Washington Post, New York Times, and Boston Globe; as well as, Senior White House Correspondents from NBC, ABC, and CBS were all "Friends of Walker" and followed is command. Not to mention they are all embedded in Intelligence apparatus of the US lol...

Yes, I for one. The photos were taken several year apart. One photo is in color, the other is in black and white. I the color one he a smiling juvenile, in the black and white one he is a serious-looking adult. In the color one, he has his head tilted back, in the black and white one he doesn't. In the color snapshot he has lots of spectral highlights on his face and "red eye", in the black and white one his face has no spectral highlights and eyes are normal. In the color one he's standing in front of a dark background, in the black and white one he's standing in front of a light background. Etc, etc. Same ears. same nose, same eyebrows, same small mouth. Same guy. --Tommy PS I'm sure it's already been noted that FBI agent John Fain interviewed Marguerite Oswald on May 12, 1960, (seven and one-half months after Oswald had "defected") and claimed that Marguerite described Oswald as being (a Robert Webster-like) " 5'10", 165 pounds, blue eyes." https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11090&relPageId=12 In reality, Oswald was only 5'9" and weighed about 140 lbs (131 lbs at his autopsy), and had hazel-gray eyes. Marguerite said after the assassination that Oswald had never weighed more than 150 pounds in his life. What's interesting is that an unidentified "witness" allegedly told Dallas Police Inspector Sawyer fifteen minutes after the assassination that the assassin he'd supposedly seen, from street level, in the sixth-floor window was 5'10", 165 pounds. Just like Robert Webster. (To the great credit of the "witness", at least he didn't say that the assassin was 5' 9 1/2" and 166 pounds and had blue eyes. LOL) The question is, who fed FBI agent Fain (and the 11/22/63 "witness") with Webster's physical description in lieu of Oswald's? --Tommy Thanks again Tommy for the response. I suppose they could definitely be the same but the amateur artist in me gives an astounding "no" off the bat lol...I mean they look like two different inidividuals. Tilsted back head doesn't produce too much a difference in appearance of the same person does it? (at least significantly) I don't mean to forcefully push the dual Oswald theory here (there seems, on the surface good evidence or arguments for that, despite counterclaims to such a theory) but perhaps in 6 years one's appearance could change depending on the age prior to the 6 years. The Fain question is a very good one and also, does anyone have any idea who that CIA recruiting officer was who probably recruited Oswald in the 50s? (I had notes written about this from Jim D's Destiny Betrayed 2md Ed but have since lost them...) he would be a key individual as far as Oswald's intelligence history is concerned as well.

On the subject of the Oswald double, it is indeed confounding and confusing, as it would be designed to be but honestly tell me....honestly, 6 years apart, does anyone honestly believe these two are one and the same person??:

Hi B. A., Good to see you here again. My "take" on it is that the limo did not come to a complete stop but did slow down dramatically for a second or two. I think the witnesses who said that it came to a complete stop just noticed the red brake lights coming on as Greer braked, saw the limo slow down abruptly as Hill was running towards it, trying to climb aboard, and then saw the limo rapidly accelerate away, and due to the dreamlike and hectic "confusion of the moment", later thought they remembered seeing the limo actually stop, but it hadn't. But then again, I'm probably wrong, and I'm just a "dumb cluck" who's suffering from a very severe case of "Cognitive Dissonance". LOL --Tommy Hey there Tom. Thanks for the response. I didn't want any reader of my post to get caught up in the "slowed or stop" issue because I'm sure many of us agree that at the very least or minimum, the car certainly slowed before the fatal headshot. What I wanted to show was that, logically speaking, if the vehicle did indeed slow down from it's initial speed beginning at the turn onto Elm, that slowing is not shown in the film and if it isn't, we're back to the zfilm issue again whether we like it or not. The film "somehow" isn't giving us an accurate representation of the events which it was supposed to have recorded unmolested. If you were the perps you would be downright stupid not to tamper with the greatest and most powerful "visual" witness (the film) if you're aiming for a coverup on such a grand scale, it's just common sense. It's great to see many of you here again and thanks again for your insightful response.

So here's an interesting thought: If the vehicle indeed slowed down to what some considered a halt, and if this is not present in the extant zfilm (if this "slowing" is in the film then I have a very poor understanding of the term "slowed", "halt", etc.)....then could this logically imply that the film most are familiar with today is not (or I should say "does not") somehow accurately record the shooting (or at the very least, the vehicle and driver's actions) as it actually occurred on that very tragic day?

A special and humble thanks to all who have made this forum what it has been, will be and keeping it secure for the foreseeable future.

So will all the topics & posts vanish? All the valuable research and exchange of words with very good researchers disappear? I hope not.....

Oh no...thanks. Is there any way I can learn why or how other than contacting him personally? (which I am unable to do since I do not have any personal contact info of his).

I haven't seen any recent posts and as I tried to look up his profile it was an odd one (last post was in 2005?, no way). Thought I'd ask and see whats going on. Thanks.