Bernice Moore

Hi Miles: Who said this guy was a shooter...or had a gun, ?? Those are your thoughts though and you are entitled. Lots of men it seems had one overcoat, and over their arm, they wore them that morning because of the rain. The man in the lighter suit to the right, has a dark overcoat over his arm...nearest to the fence......the man you are commenting on is not the same person......he has a dark suit and a light overcoat.... He seems to have a light coat over his left shoulder in the first frames..possibly.?. .or it could be a part of another person ? Another look and I believe you are correct and it belongs to someone else . Malcolm Summers, yes he stated that a few days later..that he saw a man with a gun..."toward the knoll" there are many areas on the knoll.. "Don't you all come up here any further" which part...?? He was not specific at all..that I recall and was not near the knoll, ...if so it is hard to tell exactly where he meant..but will check for myself. I doubt they knew exactly where their FBI men were specifically, at any time that day.. If you get into their information, they are hard to pin down IMO..there is not all that much, and their reports are scanty..Also they left a lot of witnesses information out of their statements, changed others, so I kind of doubt theirs would be in any better order......imo.. The film is such a short clip, I think Darnell said it is 10 seconds, so we do not know, if the man was waiting for that lady, or whomever, or just arriving there for a look around...he does not appear to be looking around in the clip...seems to be just arriving... I do not see him looking around..but perhaps just arriving... If he was a part of any ops team, I seriously doubt he would still be there...or just arriving ?? Some also have tried to tie Summers story into the Files story ..I have noticed with his info or what some try to inform us helps back his .... this keeps cropping up, subtley but is here...perhaps you believe his story, I do not...but I have mentioned that before to you...then again to each their own...... Here are the Darnell frames in order ......as he has swung away from the fence.. B..

Hi Antti: The coloured photos of the Paines, as well as many others come from the link at Baylor. They are from the collections of Penn Jones.. http://www3.baylor.edu/Library/BCPM/JFK/Jo...JonesPhotos.htm B..

********* There are others seen, Jack and others have said there were a vine type tree plants every now and again planted along the fence... Here is another Darnell frame, and a couple of Gifs.none of them are really clear, but you can see now there are two of them spaced apart.....could be...if that is the mark that you are pointing out... I think they are the plants growing up along the sides of the fence.....they show stems branching off. I have add another it shows other similar branches behind the policeman along the fence.... B Thx, B for the Darnell gif, et al., because I noticed here & in other frames a man in a dark suit standing where the north edge of the sidewalk disappears under & at his feet, who has a light colored overcoat draped over his right hand. This man: carries his overcoat in a normal way. He drapes it over his right forearm such that it touches his elbow as you can see his hand. But the man here: carrying a light colored overcoat (gray trench coat?) has his overcoat draped over his hand & away from his crooked elbow by a foot at least. This man is hiding a concealed weapon. M ****************** Hi Miles: Don't know.......to me it appears he is holding two coats, one over each arm, and is perhaps smiling as the lady closest to the camera approaches him....?? Wondering if she was the Misses, and she took off up the steps and into the parking lot and left him holding all...and he is perhaps just catching up to her.......then again he may have two weapons one under each coat..... but I just kind of doubt it...?? Have a look.... B...

Kathleen: I recalled the thread, and posted a photo and the explanation..I believe.. It is very difficult at times, to figure out what is in the distance and or up close, So we go to the books or what is available and double check...hopefully the answers are there..that is the important part...if and when possible.. Evan: In Trask's book, and also within the motorcade studies, it states that one more convertible was not available that day, for the LBJ, SS. ??.. They were provided by Earl Hayes Chevrolet, and were used by the dignitaries and the photographers, others were on buses, which were # 13 & 14th in the motorcade. All were placed many cars back of the presidential Lincoln X 100, in fact the photog convertibles were 6th, 7th, and 8th..none up front.. So as seen the door was open to jump out quickly if the need to arose...is the explanation ..The door is seen ajar as well on...Main St. for instance...see attached, I think this is another Dillard photo.. ...not positive.. ......as well as we see it ajar on Houston Street as they approached the TSBD.. in a Hughes photo... B..

********* There are others seen, Jack and others have said there were a vine type tree plants every now and again planted along the fence... Here is another Darnell frame, and a couple of Gifs.none of them are really clear, but you can see now there are two of them spaced apart.....could be...if that is the mark that you are pointing out... I think they are the plants growing up along the sides of the fence.....they show stems branching off. I have add another it shows other similar branches behind the policeman along the fence.... B

Now fellas.... Don't you think that "Green Giant "( Jolly perhaps ) sounds better than "Blockhead"... I have gone another way, persevere.... Miles : I believe you are trying to get the "how much would be shown ?"of a human whom is standing in back of the fence.. I don't think that there is a problem, a part of him would show at that time...imo. Also keeping in mind whether he stood on the back bumper of a car, that of course would bring him up that much higher.. I have found stashed away in the "packratsnest".....a photo that was taken facing the fence, when the Gov did their DPD radio tapes studies...I believe if memory serves me, they took their studies approximately 10 feet from the corner......and Yes the man behind the fence is holding and aiming a rifle..I think they fired such that day, if someone can help with that information, please do so......this should give you a pretty good idea.. of how much of him, they, would be seen... Also some others taken by researchers of people appearing behind the fence...also do not forget the photo of Lane and Sam Holland taken in 67..Sam was a short man, and you can still see his head, up above.......and a Darnell frame showing the height of the policeman compared to the fence at the top of the stairs area... Perhaps these will help in your studies.... B....

Here's another review....on the.. Pains of the Paines Garage B -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MRS. PAINE'S GARAGE: A WORK OF DECEPTION FROM BEGINNING TO END James H. Fetzer The DULUTH NEWS TRIBUNE (10 March 2002), p. 6F, has published a review of a book by one Thomas Mallon, Mrs. Paine's Garage (Pantheon Books, 2002), written by George Bennett of Cox News Service. Bennett's fawning praise provides conclusive proof that he knows no more about the assassination of John F. Kennedy than does Mallon himself. Most Americans today, alas!, the majority of whom were not even alive at the time of his death, are sufficiently ignorant about the history of this case to be easily deceived. Those who know more will recognize it as a work of deception from beginning to end. Interest in this slender volume implicitly emanates from the proposition that Ruth H. Paine assisted Lee Oswald, the alleged assassin, obtain a position at the Texas School Book Depository PRIOR TO public knowledge that the President was coming to Dallas. Since the extraordinarily vague affidavit she submitted on 22 November 1963, with which this book begins, implies this occurred in mid-October, while announcements of the trip appeared NO LATER than 13 September, such a contention is simply false. Once recognizing that there was ample time to bring the patsy to the President, the entire Paine affair begins to assume an ominous visage. Interest in Paine's garage, for example, derives from Oswald having stored his Mannlicher-Carcano, wrapped in a blanket, in that place. But no remnants of having been wrapped in a blanket were ever discovered on the alleged assassination weapon--not the least hairs or fibers--which is very curious, indeed, had the weapon actually been stored there. The alleged instrument, a cheap, mass-produced World War II Italian carbine, has a muzzle velocity of around 2,000 fps, which means that it is not a high-velocity weapon. Since the President's death certificates (1963), The Warren Report (1964), and even more recent articles in The Journal of the American Medical Association (1992) report that JFK was killed by high velocity bullets, it follows that he was not killed by Oswald's weapon, thereby greatly reducing interest in Mrs. Paine's garage. Indeed, though it may come as news to the author, many other students of the case, including Harold Weisberg, Whitewash (1965), Peter Model and Robert Groden, JFK: The Case for Conspiracy (1976), and Robert Groden and Harrison Livingstone, High Treason (1989), have also made the same observation. These are not books cited in this study, however, which raises rather serious questions as to why someone whose knowledge of the assassination appears to be so meager would write a book about it. He does not know that Oswald had a history with American intelligence; that Oswald was being "sheep dipped" in New Orleans; that Oswald was an informant for the FBI; that the "paper bag" story is a fabrication; that Oswald was in the lunch room on the second floor having a coke during the shooting; that Oswald passed a paraffin test; and on and on. A weightly body of evidence substantiates all of these discoveries, but none of them is even mentioned, much less disputed, by the author of this book. The sources he does cite, moreover, are far from reassuring. His Acknowledgements, for example, lists six persons, including Mrs. Paine and her former husband, Michael, Priscilla Johnson McMillan and John McAdams. McAdams has gained a certain degree of notoriety for his one-sided defense of the "lone nut" hypothesis, which disregards overwhelming contradictory evidence, including proof that the "magic bullet" theory is not only false but anatomically impossible (http://www.assassinationscience.com). Priscilla Johnson McMillan, however, is the most intriguing name on this list. It was she who "interviewed" Oswald on the occasion of his pseudo-defection to the Soviet Union; it was she who was selected by the United States government to accompany Stalin's daughter, Sevetlana, when she defected to the United States; and it was she who was chosen to "baby sit" Marina during those turbulent times in the aftermath of the assassination. Her CIA connections virtually qualify as "common knowledge". As Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason (1997), has observed, the Paines were introduced to the Oswalds by George de Mohrenschildt, a member of the Dallas Petrolium Club, a friend of H.L. Hunt, an ex-Nazi spy, and a CIA operative who would commit suicide when he was about to be interviewed for the HSCA reinvestigation in 1977-78. The connections between de Mohrenschildt and George Herbert Walker Bush have been extensively explored by Bruce Campbell Adamson, Oswald's Closest Friend (1996). Any other author might have wanted to follow these leads, but not Thomas Mallon. The book abounds with faulty comparisons and incomplete reports. Mallon remarks that Lee and Ruth were alike because they both had fathers in insurance, but does not observe that, unlike Lee, she did not have an uncle, Charles "Dutz" Murret, who worked for a Mafia chieftain, Carlos Marcello. And he belittles Marina's conclusion that Lee was framed, which diverged from her original position, without admitting she now knows vastly more about the assassination than was available to her then. The skimpy information this book purports to provide that might be relevant to the assassination tends to exonerate Oswald. When Marina tells him in Russian that the President is coming, for example, he responds "with no more than an uninflected 'Da', a sort of verbal shrug most accurately translated as 'Uh, yeah.'" Taken at face value, that his hardly the type of response that one would expect from an ideologue whose strong beliefs would lead him to commit assassination. Mallon reports that, on 21 November 1963, Lee tried to convince Marina that she should move back with him as early as tomorrow. That he should have worried about such things at this late date--the evening before the assassination!—does not harmonize with a man intent upon a capital crime from which he was most unlikely to emerge alive. And the very idea that he should have formulated the intention to commit such a monstrous deed on his way to work defies credulity! The book to which it bears closest comparison appears to be Oswald's Tale (1995) Norman Mailer's unfortunate descent into psychobabble. Following Mailer's lead, Mallon takes massive liberties with conjectured reconstructions of the thoughts of Ruth, Marina, and even Lee, even when they were never expressed in English or in Russian. Mallon may have received Rockefeller and Guggenheim fellowships in the past, but--if there is any justice in academia!--that should never happen again. Mallon predictably makes a point of introducing the alleged "backyard photographs" of Lee with his trusty Mannlicher-Carcano in one hand and Communist newspapers in the other, wearing the revolver with which he is alleged to have shot J.D. Tippit. Robert Groden, The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald (1995), pp. 90-95, offers a nice review of evidence that those photographs were faked, which has been confirmed in a study by Jack White. Using the known dimensions of the newspapers, White has proven the person shown in the photographs is too short to have been Oswald. The book endorses the idea that Oswald was responsible for an alleged attempt on the life of Major General Edwin Walker that occurred on 10 April 1963. But there are many reasons to doubt it. The situations were very different: a high-powered 30.06 rifle versus a medium-to-low powered 6.5 mm carbine; a stationary versus moving target; a miss versus two hits out of three. It is difficult to imagine how their varied circumstances could have been less suggestive of a common shooter! Unless, of course, their politics were similar--but Walker was a right-wing general, while Kennedy was a left-wing president. Kennedy had even relieved Walker of his command in Germany! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that these shootings were not performed by the same shooter. It does provide an opportunity for Thomas Mallon to compose another book. If Lee also had a 30.06, then he had to have stored it somewhere. We can now look forward to a sequel, Mrs. Paine's Attic. Mallon also asserts that, "Oswald took a bus and taxi back to his rooming house in Oak Cliffs, where he picked up the pistol that he used minutes later to kill the patrolman, J. D. Tippit, who stopped him at the corner of Tenth and Patton". If he were correct about this--Mallon offers no reason for thinking so!--then Oswald must have been the only assassin in history to make his escape by public transportation. He also ignores evidence that Tippit was shot with automatic(s) when Oswald was packing a revolver. Readers may have difficulty reconciling how an author of a book published in 2002 could be so abysmally ignorant of the current state of knowledge about this case as published, for example, in Assassination Science (1998) and in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), both of which bring together the work of leading experts on various aspects of this case. Indeed, the evidence that the author was not dedicated to the search for truth becomes nowhere more evident than in trashing current research. Surprisingly, the book contains so much filler that can only be properly described as complete drivel as to raise questions about the author's motivation. Examples abound, including Ruth Paine's extended prayer early on, which ends with her entreaty, "Dear God. Guide me. Oh, guide me.", to which the only appropriate response must be, "Dear God. Spare me. Oh, spare me!" Which causes a serious student of the case to speculate as to precisely what Mallon thought he was doing. He concludes his work by attempting to ridicule presentations at JFK Lancer's NID 2000 Conference, which featured many of the contributors to these books. Mallon's attacks on this conference, which I co-chaired, are so selective, so biased and unfair that they remove any lingering shreds of credibility that this work might still retain. They establish conclusive evidence that his book abounds with deceptive falsehoods and that its true purpose appears to have been to assassinate assassination research. Mallon even tries to discredit eyewitness Jean Hill, to whose memory this meeting was dedicated, by observing that, in addition to reporting sensing a shot from the grassy knoll, she claimed to have seen "a little dog" in the backseat with Jackie and Jack. Mallon implies that she is not credible, no doubt ignorant of the fact that photos have shown that Jackie had a small stuffed dog that was given her by a spectator! He attacks Ian Griggs, Executive Secretary of the Dealey Plaza/United Kingdom Society, even though his report--that Oswald had stayed at an expensive hotel en route to the Soviet Union, a very odd aspect of the government’s story--provides another small piece to a puzzle that suggests the alleged assassin was working as an intelligence operative for the United States at the time. Mallon displays arrogance in passing such judgments given his own extremely modest knowledge. He belittles other contributors to the conference--including, for example, Anna Marie-Walko, Larry Hancock, and Craig Roberts—but tells his readers nothing about the quality of their findings or other contributions, including that Roberts has authored an important book about the assassination, Kill Zone (1994), based upon knowledge he acquired as a military sniper, which led him to conclude that the official account could not be correct. This is a book that Mallon ought to read. The author does not even describe the most important symposia held at this meeting, involving some of the leading experts on the assassination. He does not mention the contributions from Peter Dale Scott, David W. Mantik, Noel Twyman, Jim Marrs, and Stewart Galanor, among others. He thereby deceives his readers, who would not know of these omissions unless they had been there. This is a familiar fallacy that is known as special pleading, which serious scholars are taught to avoid. But not Thomas Mallon. Stewart Galanor, for example, discussed several of the paradoxes of the assassination, among which is that, since there exists extensive evidence of a shot to the throat from in front, yet the official inquiry concluded all the shots had been fired from behind, how could JFK have been shot from in front from behind? Moreover, since the head shot trajectory advanced by the Warren Commission, when properly oriented to correspond to the position of his head at the time of the shot as the Zapruder film displays, has an upward direction, how could JFK have been shot from below from above? Galanor has elaborated these points in his book, Cover-Up (1998), which Mallon also ought to read. David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., presented evidence that the official account of a shot that passed through the back of the President's neck and exited his throat without hitting any bony structures before impacting Governor Connally and inflicting several wounds is not merely provably false but actually anatomically impossible. When the path it would have had to have taken is tracked from the official point of entry to official point of exit on a scan of a neck with the President’s dimensions, any such bullet would have had to impact cervical verteba. This explains why Arlen Specter did not simply ask the physicians their observations of the wounds but hypothetical questions that implied the official trajectory. Another symposium with Mantik, with Noel Twyman, author of Bloody Treason (1997), and with Peter Dale Scott, Ph.D., author of Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (1993) and of Cocaine Politics (1998), among his many books, discussed the difficulty of conveying discoveries about this event to the American people, especially via the mass media. This appears to be due to media reluctance to come to grips with the case and the influence of illusion and denial in presenting evidence that the American government played a role in the death of the 35th President of the United States, a difficulty compounded by "the silence of the historians". Mallon’s book is a stellar example. This theme was also apparent in a symposium that included Jim Marrs, author of Crossfire (1989), a principal source for the movie, "JFK", and Charles Drago, who is often called "the conscience of the research community". Drago rightly asserted that anyone sincerely interested in this case who does not conclude that JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy is either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired. Mallon might be excused for not knowing that the autopsy X-rays have been fabricated to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of the head caused by a shot from in front, that other X-rays have been altered by the addition of a 6.5 mm metallic object in an effort to implicate a 6.5 mm weapon, or that the brain shown in diagrams and photos at the National Archives is not the brain of JFK, as previous studies have established. If he has never read Bloody Treason (1997) Cover-Up (1998), Assassination Science (1998), or Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), that reinforces his lack of qualifications as an expert on the death of JFK. But how can he feign ignorance of the important discoveries presented at the Lancer Conference he attended and pretends to critique? His selective and distorted discussion of this meeting proves that Mallon has produced a work as deceptive about assassination research as it is about the alleged assassin. Mantik's demonstration that the "magic bullet" theory is anatomically impossible arguably qualifies as the most important presentation at this conference. At a single stroke, it pulls the rug out from under The Warren Report (1964), The HSCA Report (1979), and Case Closed (1993), which are based upon it. Yet Mallon does not even mention this development in reviewing the very conference where it was presented! That would have contradicted his depiction of assassination research as a sham. It must have been ironic for Mallon to sit in the audience and listen to leading experts on the assassination discussing the difficulties of disseminating what we know about the death of JFK, when he himself was engaged in composing a book with the objective of publishing false and misleading information, not only about Oswald but about the conference itself. This was not supposed to be a novel, but it is a work of fiction. Mallon himself has to be either incompetent or corrupt. If he did not know the current state of research on the assassination, then he was unqualified to write this book. And if he wrote it in knowledge of the current state of research on the assassination, then he is complicit in perpetuating a fraud on the American people. And we know by his own words that he was present for Lancer 2000. Thomas Mallon has to have known better. The author has discredited himself with this spiteful, misleading, and disgraceful book, which should never have been published. Every one who wants justice for JFK has to expose charlatans of this caliber and the myths that they perpetuate. Mallon now joins the ranks of other authors, such as Norman Mailer and Gerald Posner, who have also written disreputable books about JFK that are destined for the trash bin of history. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- James H. Fetzer, McKnight Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, is the editor of Assassination Science (1998) and of Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000). His academic web site may be found at http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/.

****************** ""The window right of the tree and above the traffic lights is still of interest to me..Is there someone standing there? "" Eugene The crop of the windows in Altgens.....enlarged and lightened... Also the full photo.... just lightened.. It is somewhat blurry ( touched ) shadows ? in that area as well as at a couple of other windows.... .not from the enlargement I do not believe.... As it appears to be the same in each copy I have looked at ??.. P.S Also the original copy that I worked from..... B.....

Hi Miles: There were several structures in the parking lot, that appear to be in some of the photos, in I think one of the Cabluck's, some thought for a time there was a person showing behind the side of the fence..somewhere in the Badgeman area, but it was in the distance, a part of a background structure...... Also on here recently there was another thread where someone wondered why the lights were seen above the pergola.....but they were not lights,they were in the background in the distance....in the parking lot...But you would have sworn that they were there on top...background structures and trajectories...they call it. If you have Trasks book or some such, have a look and you will see things..that are in the background distance.......and some over time have sworn they were or could be shooters but they were proven to not be... FWIW......FYI.. B....

Here it is Robin, an oldie but still a goodie...been around awhile.. .the green is also the cropped version... Also that fence area ,I have enlarged and cropped..It is not a human, I cannot recall right now what it was, in the background, the water tower?? Unless he was a giant with a big square head.... Perhaps someone will recall.. B..

That is an Allen photo.....first released in Shaw's "Cover-Up" Here is the uncropped.....two sizes..the first I posted on a page or two back,was the cropped for Miles.. B

********* Your welcome Eugene: It may be of help in some way in your studies...... B..

************* Hi Duncan: I have them but have no way of capturing photos from, wish I could... But, I obtained such from a man by the name of Aaron Mintz His email ad is ahmintz@housing.umass.edu His site is http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~ahmintz/index.htm He carries, well just about all, do not know as yet, what he does not...... It is a great site..he resides in the states..is retired and this is his interest, and he is a very pleasant man. The four parts are on 2 DVDs, The W/R CBS TV 1967..it is all there....and yes is extremely interesting.. Correction.......Sorry error....they cost cost $29.25 USD..reasonable I feel.. .......and his service is great and he has PayPal... So anyone interested, get in contact with him...he has a list of what he has available re the Assassination as well as on other subjects.. FYI............. B

Peter, Did you mean this one???? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5Yf_H5v47Y Although I do not post much, I read a great deal of these threads, both old and new. Gary seems to be always there with answers, and is a great resource for documents and photos. He invites those, who wish to view them, to make an appointment and come and see them. Sometimes, he raises objections to arguments, but this is necessary for anyone who is doing serious research. I can honestly tell you that I think the world of him and have nothing but the utmost respect for him and what he does. THANK YOU,GARY!!!! ah, the good ole day's.... much has changed young lady! So, shall we annoit him this day or wait a few hundred years? **************** Hey David: By gosh it does appear that some are "annointing him" ... Hey peoples do a search on older threads re the Gary.....much information..fyi.... B...

Hi Harry: Yes, the Treason poster is a prime example...they had to get rid of him one way or another..... ...in whatever way......and known now, that the smearing of at least of his reputation was in full steam ahead ..and coming from all sides..... ..Hoover and or the Nixon people, which is gone right now....perhaps both, made sure that they informed LBJ and his cronies, of JFKs addisons desease hopefully, to be used to destroy his winning the nomination at the convention, that also comes to mind... Since his murder the smearing Killing Kennedy books have kept on coming..The range of what the gov. flunkies, were up to was by the use of a Pulitzer prize winner such as Seymour M. Hersh......now that had to have been some pay off....... In reality it also shows us to what extent the media contacts and all were controlled. ..as he was a reporter.. it still keeps coming all these years later....many....Thanks.... Katheeen: Perhaps next time it may be a good idea to wait till that proof is found, or having something in hand,before posting the accusations..just a thought... I have read some information on these accusations in the past, from memory, it seems that someone said their names were written down in a family bible, as being married.. but that has never been forthcoming....it was also stated that ole Joe, had the marriage annulled, when the documentation could not be found, the story then became well ole Joe, controlled all and paid someone to have the records destroyed...so the accusations were based on something that someone said they saw, in a family bible that was never available, and someones guess that docs were trashed....This is far from the only book that has tried to sully all, again and again, there are quite a few....I checked the book, quickly, and there is not one piece of documentation....you may be interested in this article below.... By David R. Wrone when he states that the real reason that Hersh wrote this "door stopper" was to use the personal information, made up if needed, and not sourced, nor documented.....to present a false impression of JFKs foreign policys... to trash his Presidency, and it continues.....he calls it using the " honey trap.".. B......... Seymour Hersh, THE DARK SIDE OF CAMELOT Little, Brown and Co.; 1997; 498 pages, $26.96 SHAME ON YOU, SY, FOR THAT AWFUL BOOK ON JFK By David R. Wrone (CAPITAL TIMES OF MADISON, WI, 16 January 1998). In an interview given on publication of his alleged expose of John F. Kennedy's private life and public policies, the famed investigative reporter Sy Hersh said he wanted to make "a big score" and retire. To this end the Pulitzer prize winner has prostituted his nation's history and, at the same time, sustained the intelligence and military forces that bitterly opposed JFK--those who among other infamies sunk us in Vietnam and who tried and failed to initiate nulcear war over Cuba. Hersh does it with a corruption of scholarship perhaps unequalled in recent times. He uses not a single source note, but employs caption notes that refer to many books and no pages, so a reader cannot easily check his truthfulness. Hersh has corrupted the facts. On major issues he is coy, strongly using suggestive language with a statement of fact where none exists. Sources are often made up to fit his perceived beliefs. In addition he relies on interviews with people bitterly opposed to JFK's policies and usually not identified as such. Hersh reviews JFK's rise to power and then largely concentrates on the foreign policies of his presidency, alleging that the crude principles of his reckless and corrupt personal life--astutely masked during his lifetime by his power and friends--led the United States into one disaster after the other. Hersh suffuses the book with putative accounts of JFK's sex scampers but these are a honey trap to snare a reader into accepting Hersh's false presentation of his foreign policy--which is the true intent of the book. How bad is Hersh's scholarship? Consider the Section of THE DARK SIDE OF CAMELOT in which Hersh states that JFK "endorsed" the CIA assassination of Lumumba of the Congo. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since CIA thugs beat Lumumba to death on January 17 and JFK was sworn in on January 20, Hersh must overcome a serious chronologial problem. He does this by baldly asserting Kennedy vigorously supported and emphatically agreed to Eisenhower's policy to kill the African leader. Hersh carries this subterfuge off by only quoting former CIA men who were ideologically opposed to JFK's policies, by refusing to cite the copious well-known record affirming an opposite interpretation, and by not interviewing the numerous individuals who would have provided a true picture. Early in January 1961, Kenedy's staff and special Congo study group had alerted the CIA that American reactionary policies in the Congo would change and that a JFK emissary had warned Belgium intelligence services not to "liquidate" Lumumba. By February 2, Kennedy had devised a plan for a new Congo policy that would ultimately include Lumumba. He did not learn of the murder of Lumumba until February 13; a famous photograph depicts him receiving the news, his head bowed in anguish. Hersh also devotes much attention to "proving" JFK tried to assassination Castro using the CIA and Mafia. In the course of this effort, he asserts that President Kennedy used Judy Exner, a sex partner, to carry cash to the mob bosses to pay for making the hit. A key document of the Castro murder attempts is a 1962 Department of Justice memorandum by the CIA's inspector general Sheffield Edwards. Hersh uses parts of the document in other contexts, but when he comes to the attempts on Castro's life he carefully omits what it says about them, since the document's contents would destroy his framing of JFK. The CIA-Mafia attempts on Castro began in August 1960 and ended in November 1960, before JFK took office in 1961. Only six people knew of it, all CIA men, and they only orally. No one else knew--not Ike, not JFK--until many months after the fact when the FBI stumbled onto a bungled CIA phone tap for a mobster and it exposed the affair. A shocked Robert Kennedy ordered a complete explanation. As it turns out, the CIA had set aside $150,000 for the job, but the Mafia said no and refused to accept any money. EXner could not have carried money, as she told Hersh; there was none to carry and the affair had occurred and was over before he entered office. There were, in fact, no JFK directed or encouraged attempts on Castro's life. Hersh frequently castigates JFK for using private back channels to negotiate a secret deal with Khruschev to end the Cuba missile crisis--a deal Hersh suggests Kennedy pursued in order to improve his standing with the American people. The fact is back channels worked and, after the crisis, the executive branch institutionalized it with direct phone lines and other systems, which later presidents have found to be quite useful. The real reason JFK kept the pact secret was spelled out in Khrushchev's memoirs, KHRUSHSCHEV REMEMBERS, and in Robert Kennedy's writings on the subject. It had nothing to do with self-promotion. The Kennedys were intensely afraid of an American military coup d'etat and overthrow of the U.S. govenment accompanied by a launching of a massive nuclear strike against the whole of the communist world. Only through this private method could and did JFK hold the irate military in check. It can be argued today that nuclear war was avoided by President Kennedy's unparalleled action. Even in the minor themes of THE DARK SIDE OF CAMELOT, Hersh perverts our history. He states a high-ranking Navy officer told him that, "at the request of Robert Kennedy", the notes containing vital information about JFK's postmortem were not published. By exclusively relying on that prejudiced source, Hersh sustains the generation-old effort of many federal officials to blame the failed inquiry into JFK's death upon his brother's refusal to give them access to key medical records. But in well-known sources, which were spurned by Hersh, we know RFK by letter gave explicit permission to use all autopsy materials. The same definitive sources also show it was the FBI that, after realizing the materials might hold data incompatible with its invented lone assassin theory, manufactured the libel that Robert Kennedy had denied access. Significantly, prosecutors did take the critical notes. They were not destroyed and were, in fact, placed in Navy hands. They were released by the Navy for Arlen Specter, Warren Commission counsel, who used them to examine the autopsy doctors. They were supposed to be part of Exhibit 397 of the Warren Commission, but it does not contain them. They are not in any archive or known agency files. On this serious issue--which genuinely is worthy of discussion--Hersh is embarrassingly silent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID R. WRONE taught history at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point for thirty years before retiring in 1994. One of his primary areas of academic specialty was the presidency and the assassination of John F. Kennedy. http://www.assassinationscience.com/wrone2.html

Where is the proof that they were ever married, and the proof that they were ever bigamists......? Documentation, please.... B....

*********************** Hi Eugene: Thanks for the colourization and your work....... There are some who think that what you mention about a left head wound was very possible......and also witnesses, who mentioned such........ Your photos below..... B..... Wounds to the Left of JFK's Head? Copyright © Russell Kent, April 15 1996 When I first became interested in the JFK assassination, I thought that I would be able to fully understand at least one aspect of the case - the medical evidence. I now realise how naive that thought really was. There can't be many parts of the case that are more confusing, contentious or crucial. Initially I wanted to illustrate how confusing the medical evidence can be and how easy it is to paint different versions of what really happened - this article presents the evidence for wounds to the left of JFK's head. However, while writing this article, I have to say that it might support some startling conclusions. Most of the available evidence points to wounding in the right rear (occipito-parietal) of the head: The Zapruder film shows wounding in the right Most of the reports from the Parkland Memorial Hospital doctors mention wounding in the right rear (1). Most of the eye-witnesses report wounding in the right rear (2). The major wounds disclosed in the autopsy photographs and x-rays were in the right of the skull. So where does the evidence for wounds in the left come from? What's the Evidence? Remarkably, the evidence comes form several doctors, a priest, a Secret Service agent and JFK's press secretary. Dr. Jenkins Dr. Marion T Jenkins was Professor and Chairman of Anaesthetics. His natural position in the trauma room would be at the head of the patient monitoring and administering anaesthetics or, as with JFK, oxygen. He would have had a good chance to study the head wound carefully. Bearing this in mind, part of Jenkins' testimony to the Warren Commission is extraordinary: "Dr. JENKINS. I do not know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process. Mr. SPECTER. The autopsy report disclose no such development, Dr Jenkins. Dr. JENKINS. Well, I was feeling for - I was palpating here for a pulse to see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so I thought there was a wound there also." (3) Notice that Specter, very carefully, does not say that there was no wound in the left temporal area, rather he says that the autopsy report doesn't disclose such a wound. We know that the autopsy report failed to disclose many things which were apparent - the atrophied adrenal glands, for example (4) Was a wound in the left side of the head omitted too? Two pages after this remarkable testimony, Jenkins asks to go o ff the record for a discussion with Specter. One page later, the questioning continues: "Mr. SPECTER: Aside from that opinion [that one bullet must have traversed the President's pleura], have any of your other opinions about the nature of his wounds or the sources of the wounds been changed in any way? Dr. JENKINS. No; one other. I asked you a little bit ago if there was a wound in the left temporal area, right above the zygomatic bone in the hairline, because there was blood there and I thought there might have been a wound there (indicating). Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the left temporal area? Dr. JENKINS. Yes; the left temporal, which could have been a point of entrance and exit here (indicating), but you have answered that for me. This was my only other question about it." (5) Jenkins was obviously bothered by his recollection of a left wound and he is very specific about its location. It is particularly suspicious that Specter seems to have "answered that" after an off the record discussion. Dr. McClelland Dr. Robert N McClelland attended JFK in Parkland Memorial Hospital. He testified to the Warren Commission and they reproduced his admission note for JFK written at 16:45 22/11/63 regarding the treatment the President received. McClelland wrote, "The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple" (6). At this time he was Assistant Professor of Surgery, he would not be expected to mistake the site of a wound in any patient. But JFK was not just any patient, he was the President. I suggest that McClelland would have written a very carefully considered admission note for this patient. In a short admission note, this divergence from the "official" line is easily spotted. Yet Specter did not ask McClelland to clarify this statement, he directed McClelland away from re-reading his report by asking him to check his signature. Specter then asked whether McClelland would stand by his report before bringing questioning to a speedy halt (7). In an interview with Gerald Posner, Jenkins claims that McClellands's impression of a wound to the left temple is mistaken and stems from a short exchange between the pair when McClelland entered Trauma Room 1. Jenkins claims that McClelland asked where JFK was hit. Jenkins claims that he was searching for a temporal pulse at this time and that McClelland assumed that Jenkins was pointing out a wound. As we can see previously from Jenkins' own testimony, however, it is quite likely that Jenkins was indeed pointing to an area he thought was wounded (8). Dr. Giesecke Dr. Adolf H Giesecke, an anaesthetist, would also have been at JFK's head - the best place to get a good look at the head wounds. Once again, he too mentions damage to the left of JFK's head when giving testimony to the Warren Commission: "Dr. GIESECKE. It seemed to me that from the vertex to the left ear, and from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing. Mr. SPECTER. Was that the left-hand side of the head, or the right-hand side of the head? Dr. GIESECKE. I would say the left, but this is just my memory of it." (9) Why didn't Specter pursue this? With Jenkins he was keen to have the doctor change his recollections or to add a note of doubt ("The autopsy report disclose no such development . . ."), but with Giesecke he allows it to pass without comment. Perhaps Specter was worried that getting Giesecke to think carefully about the site of the exit wound he saw would lead to a discussion of a frontal entrance wound. Dr. Stewart Dr. David Stewart was in attendance in Parkland Memorial Hospital when the President and Governor Connally were brought in for emergency treatment. He spent most of his time with Governor Connally. He was interviewed on KNEW television by John Dolan in 1967. "Dolan said he was particularly concerned with the statement about the shot that killed the President coming from the front'. Stewart said, " Yes, sir. This was the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance. There was a small wound in the left front of the President's head and there was a quite massive wound of exit at the right backside of the head and it was felt by all of the physicians at the time to be a wound of entry which went in the front". (10) Father Huber Father Oscar L Huber was one of the priests that gave the last rites to the already dead JFK (11). Part of the ceremony included tracing a cross on the President's forehead using holy oil. Obviously, Father Huber would have been in an excellent position to look at JFK's head wounds. Father Huber was quoted in the press the weekend that the President died saying that he had seen a terrible wound over the President's left eye (12). Malcolm Kilduff In 1963, Malcolm Kilduff was JFK's Press Secretary. In a 1991 interview with Harrison Livingtsone, Kilduff gives this remarkable response: "Livingstone: As you know, the face was not damaged at all. No witness saw any damage to the head past the midline of the skull, forward of the right ear. Kilduff: Forward of the right ear? No! Forward of the left ear, they did. I did. The bullet came in on the right side and exited the left side." (13) SSA William Greer Secret Service Agent William Greer drove the Presidential limousine through Dallas on November 22nd 1963 and must have got a look at JFK's head when they arrived at Parkland Memorial Hospital. Greer described to author David Lifton how JFK's head "looked like a hard-boiled egg with the top chopped off" (14). This would mean damage to the left as well as the right. Dr. Boswell Dr. J Thornton Boswell, one of the Bethesda Naval Hospital autopsists, described much damage to the left of JFK's skull and brain (15): Explaining a 10cm area marked on the left of the skull diagram, Boswell said, "This was a piece of 10 centimetre bone that was fractured off the skull and was attached to the under surface of the skull." (16) On the front of the autopsy face sheet prepared by Boswell there is a small dot at left eye labelled "0.4cm" (17). On the back of the autopsy face sheet prepared by Boswell an arrow at the presumed wound of entry points to the front and left (18). On Boswell's drawing of JFK's skull there is a 3cm rectangle at the site of the left eye with a ragged margin seemingly indicating a fracture or missing bone (19). Dr. Humes Dr. James J Humes, the lead autopsist at JFK's autopsy, described massive wounds in the left of JFK's head and brain (20): In the scalp, Humes described two enormous tears "c = From the left margin of the main defect across the midline antero-laterally for a distance of approximately 8cm." and "d = From same starting point as c 10cm posterio-laterally"(21). In the skull, Humes described "complete fracture lines" meaning that the skull bone was broken right through (22): ". . . multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound in the occiput. These vary greatly in length and direction, the longest measuring approximately 19 cm." (23). The word "radiate" implies damage to the left of the skull. This is supported by the phrase, "vary greatly in length and direction". In the brain, Humes described a "1.5cm tear through the left cerebral peduncle" deep in the brain (24). Summary The evidence for wounding in the left of JFK's head comes from the following sources: Four Parkland doctors (two who would have been at JFK's head) - admittedly, one was hearsay Two autopsy surgeons A priest A Secret Service Agent JFK's press secretary. Conclusion I recently had the chance to walk around Dealey Plaza several times, slowly and thoughtfully. I have heard it said that an assassin could have hit JFK with a rock thrown from anywhere in the plaza, but had previously dismissed this as flippant. Having walked round there myself, it does not seem to me that a shot from just about anywhere would be difficult - including a shot from JFK's left, from the other grassy knoll. On the other hand, Dr. Kemp Clark (the only Parkland doctor we can trust to have had a good look at JFK's head) did not describe the extent of damage noted at the autopsy. David Lifton has more than raised the mere possibility that JFK's body could have been tampered with prior to the autopsy in Washington DC. Notes (1) Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits, Commission Exhibit 392, cited hereafter in format CE 392. (2) Robert Groden, "The Killing of a President", p86 - 88. (3) Testimony of Dr. Marion T Jenkins, WC 6H48 (page 48 of the sixth volume Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits). (4) Harrison Livingstone, "High Treason 2", New York, Carroll & Graf, 1992 p179 (5) Testimony of Dr. Marion T Jenkins, WC 6H51. (6) Dr. McClelland's Parkland Memorial Hospital Admission Note , CE 392. (7) Testimony of Dr. Robert N McClelland, WC 6H35. (8) Gerald Posner, "Case Closed" (9) Testimony of Dr. Adolf H Giesecke, WC 6H74 (10) Harold Weisberg, "Post Mortem", self published, 1975 p60 -61 (11) William Manchester, "The Death of a President", p258 (12) Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin, November 24 1963 (13) Harrison Livingstone, "High Treason 2", New York, Carroll & Graf, 1992 p447 (14) David Lifton, "Best Evidence", New York, Carroll & Graf, 1988 p448 (15) Autopsy Face Sheet completed by Dr. J Thornton Boswell (CE 397) and discussion in "Best Evidence" chapter 18 (16) Testimony of Dr. J Thornton Boswell to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, HSCA 7 p253 (page 253 of the seventh volume of hearings) (17) CE 397 (WC 17E45) (18) Sylvia Meagher, "Accessories After The Fact", Vintage Booke Edition, June 1992 p161 (19) CE 397 (WC 17E46) (20) Autopsy Report, Kennedy, John F., CE 387 & Supplementary Report, CE 391 (21) CE 387 (22) Ibid (23) Ibid (24) CE 391 Acknowledgements Many thanks to Ian Griggs for generous access to his copy of the Warren Commission 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits.

Hi Peter: ""There are other interesting things in the book, including an aborted car bomb plot intended for then, President elect , Kennedy."" You may be interested in this article below, the assassination attempt..in Florida by Richard Pavlick ......but for the Misses and the children.... ""I understand the book is full of , well it is simply full of it. But it is funny how the truth gets mixed in with the lies."" Seems there is something in every book..... B.... Article published November 21, 2003 Kennedy presidency almost ended before he was inaugurated 3 years before he would die in Dallas, Kennedy escaped a man with a car packed with dynamite In 1960, Richard Pavlick drove his 1950 Buick to Florida and wired it with dynamite to blow up John F. Kennedy. ( U.S. SECRET SERVICE ) By ROBIN ERB BLADE STAFF WRITER On a bright Sunday morning nearly 43 years ago, a ramshackle Buick crept through the posh streets of Palm Beach, Fla., toward a sprawling, Mediterranean-style mansion. At the wheel was a disheveled, silver-haired madman. His aged right hand rested near a switch wired to seven sticks of dynamite. Inside the two-story stucco home was his target - president-elect John F. Kennedy - readying for morning Mass. Richard Pavlick stopped a short distance from the house and waited, unnoticed by U.S. Secret Service agents outside. It was decades before today’s proliferation of suicide bombers, but Pavlick’s plan on Dec. 11, 1960, was as simple: ram the president-elect’s car and detonate the dynamite. Pavlick’s suicide note had been written to the people of the United States, reading in part: "it is hoped by my actions that a better country ... has resulted." The mansion’s door opened. Mr. Kennedy emerged. But the 73-year-old Pavlick hesitated, then relaxed his fingers. What saved the future president from assassination that day was neither the intervention of law enforcement nor a malfunction of Pavlick’s device - a bomb that the Secret Service chief later said would have "blown up a small mountain." It was timing and perhaps a moment of conscience for Pavlick. Just steps behind the president, Jacqueline Kennedy appeared with toddler Caroline and newborn John, Jr. "I did not wish to harm her or the children," Pavlick would later explain. "I decided to get him at the church or someplace later." Pavlick never got the chance: He was arrested the following Thursday by authorities acting on information about his deep hatred for Kennedy. Sticks of dynamite were found in his vehicle. Word of the assassination attempt was quickly hushed at the time - apparently by the White House and a press corps warned of the national security threat from potential copycats. But tomorrow, as the nation marks the 40th anniversary of president Kennedy’s assassination on Nov. 22, 1963, the outcome of the Pavlick case raises questions as interesting as the continuing debate over whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Had Pavlick been successful, Oswald and his murder by Jack Ruby would never have occurred. Had Mr. Kennedy been killed, Lyndon B. Johnson would have been sworn in as president in January, 1961. How would he have handled U.S. involvement in Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, or the civil-rights movement in the South? The Peace Corps might never have happened. And Camelot would have never materialized. "It shows you how history can turn on a dime, and how the world can change in an instant," said Robert Dallek author of the recently-released book, An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963. But like many other Kennedy scholars and biographers, Mr. Dallek had never heard of Richard Pavlick’s assassination attempt until contacted by The Blade. Two years after the Palm Beach incident, the U.S. Secret Service Chief U.E. Baughman would begin his memoirs, in part, with Pavlick’s assassination attempt. "The closeness of the call was appalling," Mr. Baughman wrote in Secret Service Chief. "Hardly anybody realized just how near we came one bright December morning to losing our president-elect to a madman." eThe story of Richard Paul Pavlick is a historical anomaly of sorts. Though his disjointed, meandering thoughts have been well documented through his prolific letters to politicians, courts, and newspapers, very little is known about his actual life until he surfaced in the 1950s as a crusty, often incoherent man with no family. Reportedly a former postal worker, he made himself a common fixture at the Belmont, N.H., post office and at public meetings in this town with no stoplight and a single full-time police officer. He ranted when he felt the American flag was not displayed appropriately, complained about government, and frequently swore about Catholics and the Kennedy family’s wealth. "He didn’t trust anybody," said Doralyn Harper, then a young mother and today the chairman of Belmont’s Board of Selectmen. "You never knew what made him tick." During one dispute over a water bill, the supervisor of the water company appeared at Pavlick’s house. Pavlick met him with a gun, recalled then-Police Sgt. Earl Sweeney. Pavlick forfeited his gun after police were called. Other than that, he was not judged terribly dangerous, Mr. Sweeney said. But after Mr. Kennedy defeated Republican Richard Nixon for the presidency that November, Pavlick became more virulent, more animated, authorities said. For Pavlick, Kennedy represented twin evils: He was Catholic and, in Pavlick’s mind, had won the presidency because of the influence and money of his father, Joseph Kennedy. And then one day, Pavlick turned over his property - little more than a shack at the edge of town - to a local youth camp, loaded his few belongings into his Buick, and vanished. It was the local postmaster, a 34-year-old father of six, who first became suspicious and was later credited with saving Kennedy’s life. Thomas Murphy had more than a few times been on the receiving end of Pavlick’s rants about Kennedy. And in the days after Pavlick’s disappearance, a succession of cryptic postcards arrived at the post office from the eccentric retiree, foreshadowing a disastrous event, and telling residents they would hear from Pavlick soon "in a big way." Mr. Murphy was startled to note that the postmarks on the postcards were from the same cities, dated the same day, as Kennedy’s visits. "So if Mr. Kennedy was in St. Louis giving a speech, someone would get a post card from Pavlick there," Mr. Sweeney recalled. "And then if the president was in San Diego, the card would come from there. "It was what we’d call stalking him, though we didn’t have that term in those days." Mr. Murphy called the local police, who contacted U.S. Secret Service. They interviewed locals, and the montage of a madman began to form. Perhaps most terrifying, they learned he’d been buying dynamite. eIn his 1962 book, Secret Service Chief Baughman would note that Pavlick’s most troubling quality was that he was not someone acting with "random impulse. He had planned the assassination with care." Pavlick, investigators would learn, had blended in with crowds across the country as he shadowed the president-elect. He’d visited the Kennedy compound at Hyannis Port, Mass., coming within 10-20 feet of the senator, according to the Secret Service. He’d photographed the Kennedy home and observed his security guards. In the days following his self-canceled Dec. 11 attempt on the president-elect, Pavlick had visited St. Edward Church to learn its interior, even while Kennedy was inside. But by now, the Secret Service was tracking him and had delivered a warning message to Palm Beach police: Be on the lookout for a 1950 Buick, License B1 606. On Thursday, Dec. 15, 1960, Patrol Officer Lester Free spotted Pavlick’s car as he cruised into Palm Beach via the Royal Poinciana Bridge. Police immediately surrounded the car and took him into custody. The vehicle was still laden with dynamite. Ironically, he’d say in a later letter, he’d been staying just a short distance from Secret Service agents. Pavlick confessed, according to authorities and to Mr. Baughman. Ultimately found incompetent to stand trial, he was sent to a federal mental institution and later - after Kennedy was killed - to a New Hampshire facility. Mr. Murphy, the postmaster, was honored for his work by the U.S. government, and wore the tiny pin of commendation to work and on his suit coat. But the story of Pavlick did not end there. From his confinement, the septuagenarian continued his letter campaign: to Congress, to the U.S. Supreme Court, and to newspapers. By his own account, he’d sent 10,000 letters and spent more than $12,000 trying to be freed, according to a letter on file at the National Archives. A New Hampshire newspaper took up his cause and Pavlick was released in 1966, having never stood trial. Though the national press never paid him attention after that, Pavlick continued to be a nuisance in town and turned his wrath toward the postmaster, whom years before had foiled his plans. He stalked the family, sitting in his car on their street, staring at their home. "Of course, he hadn’t done anything illegal," Police Sergeant Sweeney recalled recently, "so I’d just have to park down the street and give him the hairy eyeball until he’d move on." "It was terrifying, horrible," Mr. Murphy’s widow, Polly, recalled in an interview with The Blade. At her home in Belmont, Mrs. Murphy still has a scrapbook full of newspaper clippings and photos of the events. Her husband never doubted the he’d done the right thing, "but he did wonder if it was worth all of the trouble afterward," she said. Mr. Kennedy was briefed on the Pavlick arrest, but paid it little attention, recalled Ted Sorensen, a long time friend of the Kennedys and a White House speechwriter. "He told me about it and was ... bemused," Mr. Sorensen told The Blade earlier this week in an interview from Rome, where he is attending ceremonies honoring the late president. "He wasn’t panicked." For all their differences, Mr. Dallek said there is a common, frightening thread between Pavlick and Oswald, the man who four decades ago tomorrow ultimately succeeded in killing the president. It’s that they both illustrate the fragility of the presidency in the face of madmen and the fickle nature of fate, said the author. "I think the public can’t accept the idea that someone as inconsequential as Oswald could have killed someone as consequential as Kennedy," Mr. Dallek said. "They don’t want to believe the world is that chaotic. It is."

Miles: The new parking sign and pole were put up after Nov. 1963....after the day of the shooting, that day it was attached to the lamp pole....as seen below in a cropped Cancellare taken the day of the assassination..... The original parking sign on the pole was still there in 64.....the photo below was taken the day of the reconstruction of the assassination,from the overpass and it is dated and marked as such.......all I know about that one...other than that would be Spring, May 64 I think.....not positive on the month..right now.. The next was taken a few years ago..the pole, sign and no parking sign have been moved also at least 3 lamp posts have been added ..compared to 1964.. The last two are from this year, from Jack White, he has mentioned that he knows of the signs being moved three times, these compare the lamp post and the sign now, and how they were in 2003...as you can see more changes......these are from the post recently done on the forum... I have read of someone, name gone, getting in touch with the Dallas Board of Works, but they were told that there were no records kept on such.........?? But you could try them again.. Your welcome Miles....... B......

The single pole sticking up, Miles in that one photo which was taken approx 40 feet from the corner of the fence, is a no parking sign pole...that photo was taken some years later, 2005, see the upright metal poles behind the fence, and the back of the new sign... the sign is not the same as it was...back in 63..they have all been replaced now..during the years.. They have been using and or replacing the metal rods..now for support behind the fence as sections have been replaced I believe...which used to be 4 1/2 feet high from the back side, and 5 feet from the front Elm side , due to the lay of the land..in 63..not sure now ..what the heights are.. The grassy knoll itself is approx 200 feet long...Dealey Plaza, itself approx 300 feet, the size of a Canadian football field...... The steps area, was rebuilt some years ago, after torrential rains and the hill slide down...... they then re-enforced and built it back up...and also cemented the area where the bench had been the day of the shooting, that was grass and dirt back in 63......also note the parking lot has now through the years been asphalted......it was all dirt and gravel.. many changes have taken place through the years......see below.. The signs and the lamp poles have pretty well all been moved as far as I know from the reading I have done, some several times down through the years. They just moved the lamp post you see near the Turnpike sign, a matter of weeks ago again...photos showing such are on a thread on the F..... also some Trees. have been moved and replaced......in the park.. The Stemmons Freeway sign according to Penn Jones, and others, was moved shortly after the assassination, others within months.. That is also one reason it is so difficult today for the researchers who go to the plaza, to be able to gauge any true measurements.... All it seems has been made as difficult as possible.... or is it just progress..... sure...It was designated as a Historical Site many years before the city took the least bit interest in trying to contain the changes, now they are trying, so it is said, to change it back....to how it was.... The Files sketch that Jimmy did, that you posted......was made when he had changed his mind, from at first marking on the map on the 27th of Aug. 1992, see below.....and stating he was on the grass on the knoll, to the right of the pergola, near the TSBD......when he shot the President. When he drew this sketch, his story had changed he was now shooting the President from 40 feet down the fence from the corner...... that changed again to being approx 10 feet from the corner....now the last I read it is 20 feet from the corner ??...imo, too many changes to be taken seriously...... This below shows you the parking sign on that pole..and others. ..Perhaps we shall get some help soon...with all the sign business....... P.S. The photo seen below showing the empty parking sign pole was taken in 2005..imprinted on the bottom...probably taken on a visit to the site.....? B..

Hi Miles: This may help show you the view you would like..? It is looking out onto Elm Street, from behind the fence, where Sam Holland went..... 40 feet from past research, puts the shooter to the right of the tree seen on the right and behind the Turnpike sign...that is too far down..... The Moorman, possible shooter, Hatman, site is not the Holland site, Holland is down further to the left, looking at the fence from the street.....see Duncans work...approximately, I think right now that is till he tells us for sure...?. Below is attached also the Moorman, showing on the Left in yellow....the fence, the Hatman possible shooter or look out ?, which if I recall correctly is somewhere in the 20 feet range, and along the side of the fence to the right is the Badgeman..... marked in yellow... Also the Holland Lane frontal, frame marked.....I believe from Chris..? also an Allan photograph showing you perhaps a better view of almost the complete fence areas taken shortly after that day..... The Hollands site is down further, but not forty feet , perhaps, round guess here 30..ish.. The last photo is taken approximately 40...feet from the corner, and behind the turnpike sign as seen.....some years later.. This may help .. .Gents.....

H Eugene.......... This is what David Lifton found recently, at the N/A....a much fuller transcript of Mary's information than what is on the clip I posted......You may be interested in this, in particular what she says herself about the shots.....posted by Jack White on Feb.07/07.... B...... Yesterday while reviewing some transcribed old notes taken many years ago at the National Archives, David Lifton came across a long forgotten information of the mother lode variety. He was transcribing by hand, listening with earphones to audio tapes made on the afternoon of 11-22-63, from KRLD Radio tape reels. The reel was an interview by Jay Hogan of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill at 3:30 pm...on KRLD RADIO excerpts, Tape 5B and 6A at NARA. I am excerpting from the lengthy transcript several relevant parts of the interviews. Decide for yourself the importance of this first day evidence: HOGAN: Q: Hello, Mrs. Moorman? A: Yes. Q You took the picture just after the shooting, or just before? A: Evidently, just immediately, as the. . . Cause he was, he was looking, you know, whenever I got the camera focused and then I snapped it in my picture, he slumped over. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: About how close were you? (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A: 10 or fifteen foot, I, no more . . . Because I fall behind my camera. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: Were you up on that grassy bank there? A: We stepped out in the street. We were right at the car. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: How many shots did you hear? You say "shots rang out". A: Oh, oh, I don't know. I think three or four is what I, I uh, that I heard. Q: Uh huh. A: (continuing) that I'm sure of. Now, I don't know, there might have been more. It just took seconds for me to realize what was happening. Q: Yeah, uh, what as your first thought? A: That those ARE shots. I mean, he had been HIT. And that they're liable to hit me, cause I'm right at the car, so I decided the place for me is to get on the ground (laughs) Q: So huh, how did the president respond to this shot. I mean, did he just slump suddenly? A: He grabbed his chest, and of course, Mrs. Kennedy jumped up immediately, and fell over him; and she said: "My God, he's been shot." Q: Did you notice any other reactions... (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A: Uh, they hesitated just for a moment [referring, I believe, to the car itself, rather than to the behavior of any particular individual--dsl] cause I think they were like I was, you know--'Was that a shot," or was itj ust a backfire, or just what? And then, course, he clutched himself and they immediately sped up, real fast, you know, like--to get OUT of there. And, uh, the police, there were several motorcycles around him; and, uh, they stopped, and uh--one or two must of went with him, And one ran up the hill, and a friend that was with me ran up the hill across the street from where the shots came from. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: It (shots) seemed fairly close by? A: Yes, uh huh. Q And form what direction did they seem to be? A: Oh, Lord? North. Just back there (at--laughs) Q: Just just right at you? A: Yes, sir. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A: The sound popped, well it just sounded like, well, you know, there might have been a firecracker right there in that car. Q: And in your picture, uh, you uh took this picture just BEFORE the shot? (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A: Evidently, at the minute (means "instant") that he, that it hit him because, uh, we was we was looking, at me, or I mean, he was looking, you know, at the people when my picture came out. They just slumped over, so I must have got it. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A: Yes, uh huh. You could see he's clutched, he's bent over, and she's... and she hadn't even gotten up in my picture, and she DID get up, STOOD UP, in the car. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: Uh huh. And you and your friend Miss Hill, uh, were together there at the scene. Was anybody else with you? A No, uh uh. Q: OK, well we sure thank you. FROM HERE ON OUT, the interview continues with Jean Hill Q: (continuing) And also, here, we do have Miss Hill. Miss Hill, you were an eyewitness, also? A: Yes, I was . I suppose we were the people closest to the President's car at the time. Q: Uh, that as about 10 or fifteen feet, you'd say? A: Not anymore than that at all. Q: Uh huh. You were both looking right at the presidential car, then? A: Yes, we were looking right at the President. We were looking at his face. As Mary took the picture, I was looking at him. And he grabbed his hands across his ch-when two shots rang out. He grabbed his hands across his chest. I have never seen anyone killed, or in pain before like that but there was this odd look came across his face, and he pitched forward onto Jackie's lap. DSL NOTE: I believe this must mean: "to the side onto Jackie's lap" --because Jackie was to the left of JFK, not in front of JFK. In my interview of the Newman's, circa 1971, in person, and on tape, they talk of JFK falling to the side, or being thrust towards Jackie. A: And uh, she immediately, we were close enough to even hear her, and everything, and she fell across him and says "My God, he's been shot." Q: ..... Did you notice particularly any of the other people around? At the time (she cuts in) A: There was NO one around us on our side of the street. We had planned it that way; we wanted to be down there by ourselves; that’s the reason we had gotten almost to the underpass, so we’d be completely in the clear. Q: Any other reactions form the other people in the motorcae, that you recall? A: The motorcade was stunned after the first two shots, and it came to a momentary halt, and about that time 4 more uh, 3 to 4 more shots again rang out, and I guess it just didn't register with me. Mary was uh had gotten down on the ground and was pulling at my leg, saying "Get , get down, they're shooting, get down, they're shooting; and I didn't even realize it. And I just kept sitting there looking. And uh uh just about that time, well, of course, some of the motorcycles pulled away. And some of them pulled over to the side and started running up the bank; there's a hill on the other side (she is interrupted) Q: Yes, Maam. A: And the shots came from there. After they were momentarily stopped--after the first two shots--THEN they sped away REAL quickly. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: Well, thank you Miss Hill, and also Miss Moorman, for speaking with us about this. A. Thankyou. ANNOUNCER: That's two eyewitnesses to the murdered president, who saw on his face the anguish of his very last hour alive. Before we go back to CBS, here again are some announcements of special local importance. TO SUMMARIZE: MOORMAN 1. HOW CLOSE TO CAR: 10 or fifteen foot, I, no more 2. WHERE WERE YOU: We stepped out in the street 3. HOW MANY SHOTS: three or four ... there might have been more. 4. WHAT DID MRS. KENNEDY DO: Mrs. Kennedy jumped up immediately, and fell over him; and she said: "My God, he's been shot." 5. WHAT DID THE LIMO DO: they hesitated just for a moment...and they immediately sped up 6. WHAT DID THE MOTORCYCLES DO: they stopped 7. WHERE DID THE SHOTS COME FROM: Oh, Lord? North. 8. WHAT DID YOUR PHOTO SHOW MRS. K DOING: he's bent over, and she's... and she hadn't even gotten up in my picture, and she DID get up, STOOD UP, in the car. HILL: 1. HOW CLOSE TO CAR: about 10 or fifteen feet...not anymore than that at all. 2. WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT DO: he pitched forward onto Jackie's lap. 3. WHAT DID MRS. K DO: she fell across him and says "My God, he's been shot." 4. WERE THERE OTHER PEOPLE AROUND YOU: There was NO one around us on our side of the street 5. WHAT DID THE LIMO DO:The motorcade was stunned after the first two shots, and it came to a momentary halt. After they were momentarily stopped--after the first two shots--THEN they sped away REAL quickly. 6. WHERE DID THE SHOTS COME FROM: there's a hill on the other side...and the shots came from there. THIS IS FIRST DAY TESTIMONY FROM THE TWO CLOSEST WITNESSES. Jack B..........

Hi Eugene: No need for an apology, we all make errors, zillions, we just carry on... But thank you...appreciated.. ** The Duncan: Hey there.....am looking...in case I have that photo for you...... But for now, perhaps this may help in some way..... ** Miles for your info also.... ** Sam Holland & Mark Lane where Skinny thought approx, the shot and smoke came from..thanks to Chris I believe...and also for the new frames.. ...and yes it was studied and this was approximately 25 feet from the corner of the fence, nearest the steps... Thanks Gents... B.....

Hi Gil, Myra..... Thanks again for the videos..... You may be interested in this study by Doug Weldon on the hole through the windshield. A shot from the South side....also where the smell of gunsmoke has also been mentioned.. at the time... I await his book, which will be forthcoming one of these days.... His studies are also included in Dr.Fetzers books... Gil.....Here are a couple of photos of the storm drain on the North side of the overpass...for now. and yes it is said that there was another exactly like it on the South side..both were situated on the angle part of said fence and were out of site, to those on the overpass at the time..Doug mentions the drains in his work... One is showing Jack Brazil, in the North side storm drain, the other, one of Jim Garrison's men entering to examine such.... 1.. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=35 2 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=226720 B.......

Looks good Eugene, question ,should there not be some blood spray being seen..? Bernice, Errrr...umm...mmmm.....ahem...... The answer is no. No blood spray - mainly because the fatal headshot has not yet been fired. Sorry. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eugene, From many witness reports, as he was hit in the head he began to fall to his left....instantly.. ""As I snapped the picture of President Kennedy, I heard a shot ring out. President Kennedy kind of slumped over. " The words here are "As I."...not "After I".. In Moorman we see he is beginning to do so....how many microseconds did it take for that bullet to reach his head..? VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Mary Ann Moorman, Address: 2832 Ripplewood, Dallas. Age 31, Phone No. DA 1-9390. Deposes and says Mrs. Jean Hill and I were standing on the grass by the park on Elm Street between the underpass and the corner of Elm & Houston. I had a Polaroid Camera [sic] with me and was intending to take pictures of President Kennedy and the motorcade. As the motorcade started toward me I took two pictures. As President Kennedy was opposite me I took a picture of him. As I snapped the picture of President Kennedy, I heard a shot ring out. President Kennedy kind of slumped over. Then I heard another shot ring out and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up in the car and said, "My God he had been shot." When I heard these shots ring out, I fell to the ground to keep from being hit myself. I heard three or four shots in all. After the pictures I took were developed, the Picture [sic] of President Kennedy showed him slumped over. When the pictures were developed, they came out real light. These pictures have been turned over to Officers [sic] investigating this incident. /s/ Mary Ann Moorman Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963 /s/ Aleen Davis Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry also.........To each their own beliefs, or whatever they think at this time, there are other opinions, as well as yours.. No need for any errs.... umms..... hmmms..... or ahems.... B.