Bernice Moore

Post # 58 Quote" "Can someone do a side-by-side comparison of the above film frame (rotated 90 degrees) with the 11-22-63 evening Bethesda autopsy photo captured of the president's left profile that is cropped from below his neck wound, to the top of his head?" Don Roberdeau ********************** Hi Don: I think this is what you wanted to see.....? ********* Myra: I think the photo of JFK is around 1957, he was a Senator, that is E.T Smith US Ambassador to Cuba, with him....It is from the E.F.. B.

It has also been said to pull the researchers away from their studies. This pretense of so called "new evidence" which has also been used in the past as a ploy... and will be again no doubt...... The brace..without the wrappings.. B

James -- thanks for posting this. Clearly shows minimal "bunch." J. William, Mark and Bernice -- I appreciate the adult discourse. I'm obviously going to have to raise the level of my presentation... ***************** Hi Cliff: No discourse from myself, he was turned and looking the other way, with his right arm not raised in as high a postion, down Elm......I was just the messenger that posted the frame from the film......we must look at it all, as it becomes available.....imo.. ************** James the photo, you posted was originally by Lee, you will have to contact him..perhaps he has the name of the photographer.... B..

******************** Robin: To continue, with your thread... This is the best I could do before, loosing it entirely... With the President, and Greer..? As far as the Hard Hat man, that could have been started in another new interesting thread. Thanks B.

From the George Jefferies film, on Main Street....... B

************* That is Main Street, Charlie.... B

The photo does show Craig looking eastward. It is unclear what he is looking at. There is nothing to indicate the man in the distance is Oswald. The man is not coming down the knoll and is in the far distance. This photo is from a sequence that also shows a Rambler station wagon. Therefore some theorize....Craig+Rambler+man=LHO. Jack ************ Scott: There are some good photos in relation to all this, in Gary Shaw & Larry Harris' "Cover Up"...( 76 & 92 ) ...also I would think photos in POTP. by Trask..there are several photos showing Roger in this book.....that day.. I do not have Trask'shandy.... Here are a couple of photos..for now.... As Jack states, Craig said the man, was singular.....What some seem to point out are two men walking down the sidewalk, two, and not a single man running down the grass..knoll.... that Craig states he saw, as he was standing on the South side... " I returned to the south side of Elm Street, and several officers and bystanders were looking at the curb on Elm Street where a nick caused by a bullet was reported to have hit. We were looking at this when a shrill whistle caught my attention. And I saw a man coming from the direction of the Book Depository. He was running down the grassy knoll. ----- and driving real slow west on Elm, coming down the hill toward this white male, was a green Rambler station wagon driven by a dark-complected male or Latin, very stockily built ,and he was looking up at the man running down the grassy knoll. And when the car and the man came parallel, the car stopped, the man jumped in and the car proceeded west on Elm Street. " He could not get across the street to stop the car because of the heavy traffic, and it was gone... In a taped interview 1971, Craig related the same story to Shaw that he had told the the WC..... When he had been shown his WC testimony in 1968 by Penn Jones, for the first time...Craig was dismayed at what he read, and marked 14 corrections in Jones copy of Vol.V1.....( Penn Jones in his Volume 3 )..In the 71 interview with Shaw he discussed the alterations: "Well, what shocked me most was the pattern, it was so consistant. They put all my testimony down but they altered it. The fine points. Like the color of the car, they changed it from green to white. The license plates: the attorney asked me if it was the same color as a Texas plate. When I told him I couldn't see the number, I said " it was not" and he took out the word "not"..which changes the story consistantly. I'd have to look at it again but I counted 14 changes to my testimony. The color of the jacket , they said it was green: they changed it to the color of the car. I believe they changed the colour of the clothing of the man running down the hill".. He was not alone they changed many testimonys.. B..

Bernice, Weren't all these photos taken at Bethesda? I'm talking about the difference in his eye status between Parkland (where Dr Crenshaw said he closed the President's eyes) and Bethesda (where the "autopsy photos" show them to be open). I would expect photos taken during the same session to look the same. ********************* Myra: Yes of course they were all taken at Bethesda, we only wish....... Quote: ""I would expect photos taken during the same session to look the same."... Yes, I would expect so, and also in agreement with such as x-rays and autopsy photos and first statements ....but.... as in the statement above, sometimes they do tend to open.....though Very little of anything, relates the same, in so much of the said evidence..pertaining to the assassination, and the autopsy...depends what you read and what you decide to believe.. I haven't decided as yet..I am still waiting... Below is some info ....and also in relation to a wound seen over the left eye, and with a wound noted to the right eye area..also... Re Dr.Boswell's autopsy drawing.... Any wound to the right or left temple area would effect the eye..pertaining to that side.............but.......? Thanks Ed.... B.. Wounds to the Left of JFK's Head? http://www.dealeyplazauk.co.uk/JFK%20Wounds.htm

For your comparison..... Stare of death...the slice ? head wound... and from the sides.... Is there a difference in how much the eyelids are closed.?? B

Lordy Greg: ""I am having major problems at present in posting, and am only able to do so by finding a reply box in my browsing history. Bernice, and any one else I may owe replies to, I will attend to same when the problem is fixed. I will just say quickly to Bernice that I made the mistake of getting an opinion on the two copies of the photo from my partner. Since she has sided with you (she sees no difference, either), I'm afraid I'll have to stand firm -- otherwise, I mean... where would agreeing with her lead? Harmony? I don't think I could live with that ."" Can't have you agreeing with your better half, no way..not allowed... The problems will be corrected I am sure... For now.B

*********** Thanks Mike, for your kind words... for you.. Jack :"I prefer strict use of grammar for concise communication. However, in informal use I frequently type thru instead of through, and similar informalities." ......Glad to read that.... here you too I use them as pauses, probably so that my typing can catch up to what I am thinking of...at times ?? I am not a very good typist. Also we were taught by one teacher, to try this, as it was acceptable, her theory being... we would not use, too many un-needed words. It is just something I do...no real explanation...we all carry on and try to do the best we can, then pick up and carry on from there. Thanks B

Hi Greg: Quote:Greg Parker :"Do you have a copy of Marina & Lee? If so, will you have a look at the fishing photo and compare with the copy Bernice supplied here? Is there anyone who wants to check it out? To my eyes, Oswald is shorter in the copy Bernice uploaded than in the same photo from M & L. I'd appreciate any opinions on that. "" Quote:Greg Parker: ""As to H & L CD, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I have the book, not a CD. I have scanned the photo from the book and will try and upload it and a comparison capture from your version. "" I believe what you may mean above, re the book, H & L, having no CD.....may pertain to the below information of the small editions..that Jerry Robertson published..on John Armstrongs work. With his permission.. I am referring to John Armstrong's "Harvey & Lee : How the CIA Framed Oswald" hardcover complete edition, with CD inserted in a pocket, within the front inside cover.. It is 983 pages, with 800 plus documents and photos, contained on the CD....there are no photos or documents within the book itself, but the CD contains all. Perhaps your book, is pertaining to his presentation at the Lancer Conference in 1997, and or what Jerry pubished,..If so ,there is so much more information within the hard cover 2003 edition..which is available for $44.95 plus postage.. Below is some information on John's 97 presentation at the Lancer Conference... Review of John Armstrong's presentation, "Harvey and Lee" November In Dallas Conference 1997 by TOM DeVRIES Unfortunately, the length and depth of the "Harvey and Lee" information did not permit adequate time for clarification. Conference moderator, Debra Conway and Peter Dale Scott, the next speaker, graciously allowed Armstrong an extra 30 minutes (over the scheduled two hours forty minutes) to finish when the crowd began chanting, "let him finish!" Copies of the presentation's 40 page script, selling for $8.00 each by Lancer at the adjacent book store, caused a small stampede when announced toward the end of the presentation. (More are now available with the presentation video.) But unfortunately, it doesn't contain the more than 150 documents and there's often no attempt made to describe sources or answer important "who," "what," "when," 'why," "where," and "how" questions. However, the presentation video, available from Lancer for $40.00, answers many questions because the camera focuses mainly on the documents with Armstrong reading script and adding details on the video and vocal tracks. There are many leads to follow, and of course speculation based on what this work indicates could run wild. Like Armstrong, many good researchers dislike speculation, particularly when it's not labeled as such. But most explorers, scientists, and researchers form hypotheses and make guesses when determining which roads to explore and how to go about it. http://www.jfklancer.com/KWinter97-2.html HARVEY AND LEE John Armstrong's Documented Study of Two Oswalds Indiana researcher Jerry Robertson has reprinted and self-published John's Harvey and Lee speech together with carefully reproduced images of his documentation. This work has been prepared with Mr. Armstrong's approval. In many cases, Jerry went to the effort of reordering documents from the National Archives to get the clearest copies in existence. For serious researchers, this is currently the best source available anywhere to help understand both John Armstrong's analysis of the two Oswalds and to see excellent reproductions of many of the documents that gave rise to it. For a year or so, Jerry gave away entirely free copies of his work to interested researchers, but resellers are now charging $20 for the latest version of the two-volume set. Some years ago, Mr. Robertson self-published a significant book about the Kennedy assassination called DENIAL. His first work disseminating John Armstrong's research was called DENIAL #2: The Research of John Armstrong and was recently retitled as Harvey and Lee 1997. In July 1999, Jerry completed a second title--Harvey and Lee 1998--based on John Armstrong's November 1998 Dallas presentation. This work continues the theme first fully presented in 1997, includes evidence unavailable just a year earlier, demonstrates how much we know now that was not known in 1964, and makes a more detailed analysis of how witness testimonies and physical evidence were, in John’s own 1999 categorizations, "suppressed, destroyed, ignored, altered, and fabricated," both immediately after the assassination and later. http://home.wi.rr.com/harveyandlee/ Walt Brown http://www.jfkresearch.com/critique/critique-view.html This above that Walt critiques is the book I was referring to.... ********************************* Now back to fishing...... I have examined the copy of the fishing photo, in Marina & Lee, and compared the one on the CD, from H & L...imo they are the same....they are not of the same texture, one being fainter to some degree than the other....and bit shadowy that I see. I have placed them upper and lower, for an easier comparison, I think, and I do not see any degree of difference.. Note also, the LHO the Zigers met was very short....this is what they. the Ziger sisters told John Armstrong, when he met with them..in Argentina......about 5'2"... Now a small quote from page 112.."Marina and Lee"... " When the Zigers returned, Mrs. Ziger a short plump, woman, greeted Marina with great warmth and kissed her tenderly"..end quote. You will have noticed that McMillan in her book has described her as short ....and yet, Lee Harvey appears to be approximately the same height as she is.....in both photos taken in Minsk the summer of 1960..so it would appear that they are both short.... Re: the photos below, the top one is from the CD from "Harvey & Lee: How the CIA Framed Oswald".........the lower from "Marina and Lee." Thanks B

************************** Greg: ....I just reloaded the fishing photo again, from the CD...I will post, I see no difference , after comparing........the other is still one page 1.. Perhaps you are not about to start throwing the word, "alteration " around just yet , but you already have. ??? Bernice, I indicated I'm not a photo expert, but to me, there looked to be difference in Oswald's height between the two copies. If you don't see it, then maybe I'm wrong. I am also including another photo taken that same day, as the one you mention, re his head bearing the weight of his head, showing a close up of LHO's face, another photo taken from the H & L,CD, he still appears mighty healthy to me...including full cheeks and all..... Not as full as in the other photo, though. Will you now, please upload from your H & L, CD, the same photos, and post for all the members satisfaction ,so that the mention of your using the word "alteration" will be put to rest.... Thanks Should I read this as a clue you've taken some sort of umbrage? If so, I promise you, there was no intent on my part to suggest you have altered anything. I am curious about where your copy came from, though. As to H & L CD, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I have the book, not a CD. I have scanned the photo from the book and will try and upload it and a comparison capture from your version. 1st photo is a section of the one you posted. 2nd is a section of the same pic from Marina & Lee. In the M & L version, the top of LHO's head seems (to me anyway) to be at least level with the top of the female's head. This does not appear to be the case in the your copy. ************* Greg: No not as full, because he was bent over but full..not at all gaunt, or pasty or thin looking....imo I am, not a photo expert either but have studied them.....as best I can...and followed them that are.. See his top lip in each photo, on the left, I see a faint black line, ?? They line up, in both with the back ground..that is what I see, anyway.. and I took the tops of their heads by comparison, for their heights....and they appeared to be the same distances..apart..and I checked the backgrounds and such.... I took no umbrage, but the word "alteration" has been way overdone, and the accusation has been made by some to the point, of no return. So yes imo, ones ears do perk up....and I will ask for clarification...always.. imo. In my copy of Harvey & Lee which I obtained from the jfkresearch forum, where John's book is available, there is an envelope with a CD inside the front cover. The CD contains the documents referred to within, in relation, to his findings, the photos are also on the CD...... That is where my copy came from.. I do not know about any other copies of the book that are available other than from where I obtained mine.? I will check the photo in Marina & Lee and compare.. Below I am posting the one photo comparison, that always makes me stop personally and look...and study.I realise there is a 4 years difference approximately, between, but it is such a startling comparison, that I cannot believe my eyes. Even the shape of the face, the chin, almost every aspect of this being has imo changed, in some regard' To me this does appear to be two separate men..the one from his passport to Russia, the other taken upon his arrest.. It is a fascinating subject, and as John himself said, "we don't know" all the answers.... Graig I had to reduce in size the one on the first page, fishing,ran out of upload space,same photo. Thanks B.. *********************** Jack : Ziger sisters, and their great height difference. I could not recall their name, when I made the post, never surprising... but did the height, and did not want to mention anything that I could not give the information in relation to.. Thanks.... B.......PS I have no idea why this posted twice in one....?? two for one sale, I presume....?? Now the second one is gone, always an adventure.....

Stained glass BY ANN ZIMMERMAN Nov.27, 1997 The man on the phone speaks in conspiratorial tones. His name is Martin Barkley, a 40-something divorced father of two who has devoted so much of his life to a single purpose--proving that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill John Kennedy from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963. His research qualifications amount to having worked security for several large companies and spent time in Army intelligence. His personal link to the assassination was that his uncle was the longest-serving Dallas police officer when Kennedy was shot--and, of course, he whispered something conspiratorial at Thanksgiving dinner days after the assassination. Barkley is a true believer, and he talks in elliptical phrases and vague pronouncements. On this day, he says he wants to share his theory that Dallas' powers-that-be are perverting the information presented in the Sixth Floor Museum, Oswald's alleged sniper's perch--and this city's biggest tourist attraction. Barkley argues that those in charge of the museum are toadies for the Warren Commission. "The way to control an issue is to manage information on both sides so nothing gets out of control," he says, espousing a typically muddy slogan. He says he will prove this all with a guided tour of the Sixth Floor, where he used to work as a security guard. Barkley was a seasonal hire two years ago and was laid off--ostensibly when tourist traffic slowed down, he explains. But he's convinced that he was, in fact, terminated because he answered visitors' probing conspiracy questions too honestly, too carefully, too knowledgeably. Of course, he can't prove it. Barkley insists we meet late on a Sunday, when we would arouse the least amount of suspicion. When he arrives that afternoon, he wears an overcoat over his tall frame and a fedora that doesn't obscure piercing blue eyes. Still, the disguise doesn't work: Two minutes after we step inside the building, security guards surround him and want to know why he's there. "See what I mean," he whispers, as the guards escort us up in the elevator. He reels off an enormous list of ways the museum subtly controls the mind of the visitor. He is suspicious of a sign that directs visitors to begin the tour with the panels and videos highlighting Kennedy's early years; Barkley believes the "flow" of the exhibit--which winds through Kennedy's all-too-brief presidency, his fateful visit to Texas, then the assassination--is intentionally misleading and exhausting. "By the time the visitor gets to the end," Barkley insists, "he's too tired to read about conspiracies." Barkley's rant is a fairly predictable and obvious one. Indeed, place a museum on the sixth floor of the old School Book Depository, and you're pretty much admitting you think Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. It's not like the county opened a Grassy Knoll Museum. Yet Barkley is not all hushed whispers and vague hypotheses. Displayed halfway through the tour in the Sixth Floor Museum is one of the most famous windows in the world--the perch from which Oswald allegedly killed Kennedy with a cheap Italian mail-order rifle. Behind a thick wall of Plexiglass, the window has been exhibited here since 1995, and since then, more than a million visitors have scrutinized it, studied it, even venerated its tragic place in history. The window, located in the southeast corner of the museum, sits only a few feet from where Oswald killed Kennedy--allegedly, of course. It bears the caption "The Original Window from the Sniper's Perch." But is it? Barkley believes the infamous perch that hangs in the museum is a fake...a fraud. He may be right. Just a cursory look at the window on display reveals that it differs significantly from pictures taken of the window moments after the assassination. For instance, the window on display has a thick smudge of paint and putty on a pane of glass at its top half. But there is no such smudge on any pictures of the original sniper's perch. Also, old photos of the window--photos that are on display at the museum--show markings on the green wooden sash along the bottom portion of the window. The window encased in the Plexiglass exhibit has no such markings. Of course, conspiracy theorists say they never believed it was the real window all along. So here's one more riddle for the theorists to solve: If this isn't the real window, and it likely isn't, then where is it--and how did this impostor wind up enshrined in this museum? We're through the looking glass, as Kevin Costner's Jim Garrison drawled in JFK, where every answer spawns a dozen more questions. "There is just no end to this," says Robert Groden, a prominent local conspiracy theorist who served as a photo analyst on the 1978 U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations. "It's just mystery after mystery." For more than two decades, the window--or what one man believed was the famous sniper's perch window--hung like a trophy, or a deer's head, in the banquet room of one of the wealthiest men in Dallas. Col. D. Harold Byrd kept it in his University Park home as a souvenir, a tragic keepsake he ordered removed from the building on Elm and Houston streets that he owned and leased to the Texas School Book Depository. Byrd kept it there until his death in 1986, at which time it fell into the hands of his son Caruth--who, the story goes, kept the window out of public view for almost a decade. Caruth Byrd wanted to keep the window buried, forgotten about. He rejected enormous financial offers from those who collect such morbid artifacts, and refused the requests from those who wanted to place the window in a Dallas museum commemorating the assassination--fearing the museum would be an embarrassment to the city. He preferred to keep hidden this reminder of Dallas' shame...until one day, in 1994, he had a change of heart and turned the window over to the Sixth Floor Museum. On February 21, 1995--President's Day--more than 100 elected officials, members of the Dallas County Historical Foundation, and assassination eyewitnesses gathered at the Sixth Floor Museum for the window's dramatic unveiling. "I thought and thought about what to do with it," the garrulous, barrel-chested Byrd told the assembled crowd during the unveiling ceremonies. "I've had offers for a lot of money for it, but I decided the best thing to do was bring it home where it belongs." The window has remained on display here ever since, an authentic piece of history that offers its own special peek into a tragic day in this city's history. At least, that's what half a million visitors a year believe. There are those who doubt Byrd's tale--those who have photographic evidence right in the museum that proves the window on display is not the real sniper's perch, those who have spent months studying the discrepancies. And there is at least one man who claims to own the window itself. First, there is Barkley and his band of conspiracy theorists, including James Bagby, another former security guard at the museum. After overhearing some museum visitors question the authenticity of the window last March, Bagby studied the window for himself. He first noticed that the one-inch thick, salmon-colored smudge of paint and putty on the display window isn't apparent on an old picture of the real window. The smudge, which is on what would have been the outside of the glass, matches the color of the wooden trim on the outside of the window. A note on the exhibit points out that the "paint on the exterior trim is original to the time of the assassination." After studying pictures of the real window taken the day of the assassination, Bagby also noticed the distinct markings on the wooden sash along the bottom of the window that do not appear on the window on exhibit. Bagby first brought these discrepancies to the attention of museum archivist Gary Mack eight months ago. "'What you've discovered is quite important,'" Bagby says Mack told him. "'But I wouldn't be telling anyone about this.'" Jeff West, executive director of the Sixth Floor, and Mack now admit they have questions about the authenticity of the window--no, make that doubts. "We have concerns," West says. "It definitely bears scrutiny." "It's a corner window," Mack adds. "Whether it's the window where shots were fired, we're not sure." What makes all this speculation significantly more intriguing is that Conover Hunt, the museum consultant who helped put the Sixth Floor Museum together, knew from the beginning that there was someone else out there who claimed to own the real window. His name is Aubrey Mayhew, a music producer from Nashville who may be the one person who can repair this jagged puzzle--or bust the whole thing into a million pieces. The tale of the sniper's perch is not only a whodunit, but a whogotit. And with any mystery, perhaps it's easier to begin at the beginning, during those moments just as the echo of gunfire began fading in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, and Dallas police ran inside the brick building at the corner of Elm and Houston. They were directed there by witnesses who thought they saw what appeared to be the barrel of a rifle jutting out of a half-opened window on the sixth floor of the building, which housed the Texas School Book Depository, one of two textbook distribution sites for the state. On the cavernous sixth floor, filled with stacks of book-filled boxes, police said they found three shell casings in front of the open window in the southeastern-most corner of the building. They also claimed to find a rifle, which Oswald was said to have bought through mail order, stashed under boxes diagonally across from the window. Until the end of the 1960s, the Texas School Book Depository Company remained in the building, which was owned by Col. D. Harold Byrd. Byrd was an oil millionaire and husband of Mattie Caruth, whose family once owned most of the land from downtown Dallas to Park Lane. The Caruth family, after whom Caruth Haven Road is named, donated all the land for Southern Methodist University and leased the land for NorthPark Mall. Afraid that curiosity seekers would carve off pieces of the sniper's-nest window, Byrd instructed his employee, Buddy McCool, to remove the window six weeks after the assassination, according to interviews with McCool and Byrd filmed in the early 1970s. Whether McCool removed the right window is the question at the heart of this mystery. The location of the sixth-floor sniper's perch is among the most infamous points of interest in the whole world. Yet it's conceivable that six weeks after the assassination, Byrd's lackey could have been confused about its exact location. There is no one alive who can verify which window McCool took out that day. Byrd obviously took it on face value that he had the right one. He decorated the bottom half of the window with newspaper clippings of the assassination and postcard pictures of Kennedy, Dealey Plaza, and the book depository; then he had the whole thing framed. He hung it in the banquet room of his Vassar Street mansion--later bought by oilman T. Boone Pickens--next to photos and mementos of his long, colorful career, which included co-founding the Civil Air Patrol, drilling numerous wildcat oil wells in East Texas, and funding the Antarctic explorations of his cousin, Admiral Richard E. Byrd, who named an Antarctic mountain range after the Texas colonel. Byrd held onto the former book depository building until 1970, when he auctioned it off to a Nashville music producer named Aubrey Mayhew. Mayhew was a Kennedy memorabilia collector who planned to turn the structure into a commercial museum commemorating Kennedy's life. Still reeling from the fallout of the assassination that branded Dallas as "The City of Hate" and placed the blame for Kennedy's murder on Dallas' hostile environment, local city fathers recoiled at the idea of a museum that would consecrate the town's darkest hour. They also found Mayhew's intention to profit off the tragedy distasteful. Mayhew tried several times to get city permits to start building his museum, but he was repeatedly turned down. A group called Dallas Onward, formed to protest turning the building into a national Kennedy landmark, helped thwart Mayhew's efforts. By 1973, Mayhew defaulted on his loan, and Byrd repurchased the building after the bank foreclosed on it. He immediately put it back up for sale, this time asking $1.2 million for it. At the time, he said, he hoped whoever purchased the site "would use the building in a way that would not be a slam on Dallas...that would not blame Dallas for having the right environment for causing Kennedy's death," according to a filmed interview with Byrd. The city passed an ordinance preventing the building from being torn down. Several city leaders, including real-estate developer Ray Nasher, were conducting their own campaign to create a private, nonprofit museum and monument to Kennedy on the site. In 1977, Dallas citizens voted to use bond money to purchase the building from Byrd. The first five floors were refurbished for Dallas County administrative offices. But little did anyone know that before Aubrey Mayhew vacated the premises, he hired two carpenters to remove two windows from the southeast corner of the sixth floor and replace them with windows from the north side of the building. He says he sneaked off with the sniper's-perch window--"the ultimate piece of Kennedy memorabilia"--while no one noticed. Or so he claims. If there is anyone to blame for this predicament, perhaps you should look no further than Conover Hunt. A museum consultant from Marshall, Hunt first got involved with converting the sixth floor into a museum in the early 1980s. Hunt immediately noticed the sniper's-perch window was missing. The entire casement that contained the two windows on the southeast corner had been replaced with windows from the north side of the building. She wasn't sure she would ever get her hands on the real ones. Then, in 1987, two men contacted her, both claiming to have possession of the sniper's perch window. Caruth Byrd called Hunt and told her he had inherited the window from his father, who had died the previous year. Caruth said he stashed it behind some drawers in his house on a sprawling ranch in Van, just east of Canton. Hunt says she asked Byrd to send her proof that he had it, but he wasn't forthcoming. Still, Hunt says she was inclined to believe Caruth, because she knew several people, including Joe Dealey Sr., late publisher of The Dallas Morning News, who had seen the window hanging in Colonel Byrd's house. Caruth Byrd eventually allowed Hunt to see the window, which he moved to a vault in Inwood Village. But he refused to donate it or loan it to the museum. The Sixth Floor Museum was still two years away from opening, and Byrd, echoing concerns his father had uttered years earlier, was afraid the museum would be tacky and an embarrassment to the city. Not long after Byrd met with Hunt, Aubrey Mayhew sent Hunt a letter. He, too, said he had the window--both windows, in fact--from the sniper's perch, and he wanted $250,000 for them. Hunt says she asked Mayhew to send her a picture and measurements of the windows. "He never did," says the whiskey-voiced Hunt. "I was naturally cautious. If someone wants to sell it, the least they can do is send a picture and the exact measurements." Hunt explains that she never flew to Nashville to see Mayhew's windows because she couldn't justify the expense without first having some proof that Mayhew actually had the windows. In 1994, Caruth Byrd suddenly changed his mind about burying the past and let the museum know he was willing to loan out the window. Hunt retrieved it from Byrd's ranch and analyzed it. She says the paint color matched the other windows along the southern wall, and the shape led her to believe it was one of the two corner windows that were missing. "And the provenance--the history of ownership--was excellent," she says. She admits she did not compare Byrd's window with pictures of the original. Although the window on display touts it as "The Original Window from the Sniper's Perch," leading visitors to believe it was the window through which Oswald allegedly shot Kennedy, Hunt also admits that she was never certain of that. "There were two windows missing, so there was a 50-50 shot that this was the one through which the gunman fired." Now that questions are being raised about the window's authenticity, Hunt defends herself by claiming that both windows are historically significant--even though there's a good chance the museum isn't advertising the truth. "Until you have both windows together and have them professionally examined, you won't have an answer," she insists. "The fact that people are studying the window, examining the evidence, is healthy. These things happen all the time in my business." It's now early November 1997, just weeks before the 34th anniversary of Kennedy's assassination, and Caruth Byrd has no idea the Sixth Floor Museum has any concerns about the window he loaned them. A Confederate flag and a flag of John Wayne fly over his 150-acre ranch in Van, the Caruth Byrd Wildlife Compound. A large man with white hair and bulging blue eyes, Byrd divides his time between his private wild kingdom, where more than 3,000 exotic and endangered animals roam, and his Hollywood home next to Gene Autry, where Byrd produces movies and TV specials. "Watch out for the kangaroo xxxx," he warns as we approach the front porch of his house, which resembles a huge dude-ranch lodge. He and the kangaroo, he explains, shared a morning doughnut on the porch. A self-professed mortician, veterinarian, gourmet cook, and "the best organ player in the world," Byrd is a hard man to characterize, at once grandiose and earthy. He describes himself as a man "who was born with a silver spoon up my ass," but who despises the phony airs of the Dallas rich. His main residence on his compound, where he lives alone, is covered with hundreds of pictures of him with such Hollywood notables as Burt Reynolds and Lee Majors. Among the photos lining the walls is a picture of him donating the window to the Sixth Floor Museum. Byrd launches into the story about how his father ordered an employee to remove it, and he rolls a videotaped interview with the worker that confirms his story. Byrd says he decided to loan the window to the Sixth Floor after he got a call from The Smithsonian Institute, asking him to donate it to the Washington museum. "I decided if it went anywhere, it should stay in Dallas," Byrd says of his decision. He has no doubts that his window is the real sniper's perch, and he is shocked to learn that the people running the Sixth Floor now have questions about its authenticity. The name Aubrey Mayhew makes Byrd bristle. "He's a nut who tried to buy the building from my dad," Byrd says. "If he says he has the window, then where in the hell is it? He can't produce one." Mayhew is the equivalent of the sniper's-perch second gunman, the man who may or may not hold the answer to the mystery of the missing window. But if he does possess the proof, making him produce it may be impossible. Mayhew is a bitter fellow who believes a cabal of powerful Dallasites conspired to take away from him the building that houses the Sixth Floor Museum. Mayhew claims he lost everything in pursuit of creating a Kennedy museum here--his livelihood, his wife and two children--and he blames Dallas for those losses. So it's not surprising that when finally reached in Nashville, Mayhew almost explodes when asked about the authenticity of the window on display in Dallas. "Of course it's not the real window!" he bellowed over the phone. "I've been telling you people this for 30 years. I'm really a low-profile, non-publicity guy. All I can tell you is that Mr. Caruth Byrd is an idiot, and his father is an idiot and a thief." Mayhew went on to insist that he still has the real window in storage in Detroit. When asked why he never showed it to the people at the Sixth Floor when they asked, he shot back: "I don't have anything to prove." A 70-year-old music publisher who once worked with jazz great Charlie Parker and produced and co-wrote songs with outlaw country singer Johnny Paycheck ("Take This Job and Shove It"), Mayhew said over the phone that he was planning to come to Dallas the following week to see some of the songwriters with whom he still works. It was just a coincidence, he said, that it would be the day before the 34th anniversary of Kennedy's death, and he promised to call when he got to town. He phoned a few days later and agreed to meet, but warned he might not have much to say. Three hours into a meal of coffee and apple pie at the Grand Hotel, he was still talking. A short man in a windbreaker, Mayhew says he is "neither rich nor crazy." He explains that he was a coin and metal collector in the early 1960s when he became fascinated with all the metal objects that were created with Kennedy's likeness after his death. He produced a book on the subject, then went on to collect all manner of Kennedy memorabilia. It's a hobby he likens to a disease. He was in search of more memorabilia when he came to Dallas in 1970 and attended an auction of 20 parcels of D. Harold Byrd's real estate, including the building leased to the Texas School Book Depository. He wasn't even a registered bidder, he says, but wound up offering $650,000 for the property. He claims he beat out two other bidders, including an entrepreneur who was going to raze the building and sell it off at a dollar a brick. "It was just a piece of real estate everyone wanted to forget," Mayhew says. Mayhew explains he wasn't sure what he was going to do with the building--or how he was going to pay for it. At the time, he says, he was making $100,000 yearly working for a music company. He eventually seized on the idea of turning the building into a "first-rate museum." Shortly after he bought the building, the Texas School Book Depository moved out. But not before one of their employees gave him an affidavit, he says, confirming that D. Harold Byrd had instructed a workman to remove a window from the Sixth Floor. But "he went to the wrong side of the building," Mayhew claims, "and took it from the southwestern corner." Afraid that a vacant building was more susceptible to vandals, Mayhew says he hired two carpenters to remove the two windows and the surrounding casement that comprised the sniper's nest and replace them with identical windows from the building's north side. Mayhew says he stored the original windows in Dallas for 20 years. Mayhew insists that several wealthy Dallasites, whom he refuses to name, initially backed his plans for a museum. He quit his job to work on it full-time, spending weeks on end in Dallas and living in the building, where he began housing assassination artifacts. He claims to have spent more than $10,000 on architectural renderings of the proposed museum. But the city hated his idea. The Dallas Times Herald, he says, ran a full-page cartoon lampooning his idea with a caricature of a museum showing a neon arrow pointing up to the sixth floor sniper's perch. Esquire magazine chided his plans in its annual Dubious Achievement Award issue, asking who was going to get the JFK chicken franchise. Mayhew says that while the local campaign against him raged, he was also fending off an attempt by the state's Commission to Commemorate JFK to get the Texas Legislature to seize the building from him. Meanwhile, Mayhew recalls that city planners repeatedly rebuffed his attempts to get building permits, once claiming that the building's wooden interior was not fit for refurbishing. His backers eventually pulled out, and he was hard-pressed to find new ones. He was falling behind on his $6,000-a-month payments, but he claims that the president of Republic National Bank was going to give him an extension. He says he vowed to fight foreclosure on the grounds that the building was his homestead. "I had no income, a building producing no revenue that was costing me $6,000 a month, and all I ever received was constant blows from the city and state," Mayhew says. "The pressure was mounting." In the summer of 1972, a small fire broke out in the building. The police charged one of Mayhew's employees, Winfred Anderson, with arson. Anderson pleaded guilty and received probation; he also implicated Mayhew as the person who was behind the fire--which Mayhew vehemently denies. The police, Mayhew insists, let him know that they would arrest him if he set foot in Dallas County again. Not only does Mayhew profess his innocence, he claims he was framed in a convoluted plot to keep him away from Dallas so he would lose the building. Two weeks after the fire was set, the bank foreclosed on the building, which D. Harold Byrd promptly re-purchased. The city, Mayhew says, confiscated Mayhew's memorabilia left inside the building. Mayhew says he went back to Nashville a broken man. His wife left him and took his two children to live in New York. He still nursed his idea of building a museum: A year or two later, he hooked up with Gerald Jay Steinberg, a Washington, D.C.-area dentist who claimed to have the largest Kennedy collection in the world. Together they opened an antique store in Georgetown, while they set about cataloging their combined collection for future display. On weekends, Mayhew says, he commuted by bus to New York to try and patch up his marriage--to no avail. Mayhew's relationship with the dentist soured after just five months. Both men accuse each other of stealing a chunk of their respective collections. Steinberg says that Mayhew claimed to have the sixth-floor window back then, but Steinberg says he never saw it. Mayhew went back to Nashville to begin rebuilding his music career. He also says he opened a small but classy JFK museum that was eventually burglarized. In 1987, "in a moment of weakness," Mayhew says, he wrote to Conover Hunt, who was organizing the Sixth Floor Museum. "I told her I had the window and wanted $250,000 for it," Mayhew says. "I just wanted to recoup just some of the money I felt this city owed me." He is asked why, then, he didn't send Hunt the pictures and dimensions she requested. Mayhew claims it wasn't that simple. He says Hunt didn't respond to his letter for some time, and that when she first contacted him, she really didn't seem interested. He felt she was just blowing him off. And maybe she had good reason. After all, he never offered one bit of proof that he has the windows. If there's any reason at all not to dismiss Mayhew, it's the simple fact that the window on display on the Sixth Floor is not the real deal. Maybe, just maybe, Mayhew's telling the truth. "We know there are two windows, and you've proven that one's not it," he says. "So you take it from there." For the last decade, Mayhew has had no contact with the Sixth Floor Museum. Then, several months ago, he says he received a letter from the museum's archivist, Gary Mack, a former Dallas television station announcer and JFK researcher--and one of those who isn't sure anymore that the window on display is so authentic. Mayhew says Mack told him he was interested in his collection. "He said things had changed, and he understood the difficulties I had in the past," Mayhew says. "He said he wanted to come to Nashville and see my collection and that maybe we could join forces." Mayhew says he eventually responded to Mack's letter, writing that perhaps they would meet if the museum had indeed changed. Mayhew says he wants the museum to acknowledge that he once owned the building: A plaque on the outside of the building only mentions Byrd. He also wants the museum's historical information to mention him and acknowledge that he saved the building from being destroyed. Mayhew believes that had the other bidders gotten the building instead of him, they would have torn it down. At the bottom of the letter, Mayhew added: "P.S. In case we do join forces, I get the chicken franchise"--a reference to the Esquire Dubious Achievement Award 25 years earlier. Mack never responded to Mayhew's letter. Marian Ann Montgomery's title at the Sixth Floor Museum is--no kidding--director of interpretation. All that means is that she's the museum's chief curator, but it's still a creepy job description to put on one's resume. Maybe the conspiracy theorists are right; maybe we're not paranoid enough. As visitors stream into the Sixth Floor Museum, looking at the window they assume is real, Montgomery must now consider that someone has interpreted this relic all wrong. "Well, obviously there's some difference between the window and pictures of it," Montgomery says. "We're in the process, as museums always are, of checking to see if we need to change the caption." This included Montgomery phoning Caruth Byrd a few days ago and asking him some pointed questions about the window that once hung in his father's house. Montgomery asked Byrd if he had any explanation for why there were no marks on the bottom of the window. "Hell, maybe my father had it cleaned up," Byrd says he told her. During our conversation, I mentioned to him that another concern was that smudge of paint and putty that appears on his window, but is not on the window photographed after the assassination. "Maybe my dad broke the glass and it was repaired," he offers this time. Byrd is clearly agitated by this line of inquiry. "Hell, if they don't want it at the museum, I'll take it back," he barks. "I'll sell it to someone. I'll sell it to Michael Jackson." Montgomery also contacted Mayhew by phone. Montgomery says that Mayhew had "some relations with the museum that were less than friendly before. We have to rebuild that relationship before we can get close to him." She told him she was coming to Nashville and wanted to see his collection and his window. He told her she couldn't come. "They just want to use me," Mayhew says. "They don't have anything I want." But this man from Tennessee might well have something the Sixth Floor folks want--them, and the millions who only think they've seen, and seen through, a little bit of history. dallasobserver.com | originally published: November 27, 1997 B

Steve, bear with me as I try and get my head around what you think this means. Since the Oswald who returned from Russia was not "boy like" in stature, did he grow between the taking of the photo and his return to US, or did yet another imposter take over from the imposter who went there in the first? Is there some other explanation... apart from the photo only making him seem very very small? ***************** Hi Greg: I believe this is the photo that Steve mentions here..I am also posting another taken of Marina and Lee the day they left the USSR. He still, by the photo, appears to have his bull neck, and has not got a wasted appearance ..a full head of hair and full cheeks, and a double chin....?? B.. Thanks for posting those, Bernice. I recognise both, as they're in Marina & Lee. If you have Marina and Lee, could you take a look at the fishing photo and tell me if you see any difference between that and the one you posted? I'm not a photo expert, so I'm not about to start throwing the word "alteration" around just yet... I see no problem with the other photo. Next to that "farewell" photo in Marina and Lee is another taken a couple of weeks prior to that. The "farewell" photo Lee is, imo, the same person as in the other. The neck, fullness of face and double chin are all explicable by virtue of his chin on the frame bearing the weight of his head. ************************** Greg: ....I just reloaded the fishing photo again, from the CD...I will post, I see no difference , after comparing........the other is still one page 1.. Perhaps you are not about to start throwing the word, "alteration " around just yet , but you already have. ??? I am also including another photo taken that same day, as the one you mention, re his head bearing the weight of his head, showing a close up of LHO's face, another photo taken from the H & L,CD, he still appears mighty healthy to me...including full cheeks and all..... Will you now, please upload from your H & L, CD, the same photos, and post for all the members satisfaction ,so that the mention of your using the word "alteration" will be put to rest.... Thanks B

Steve, bear with me as I try and get my head around what you think this means. Since the Oswald who returned from Russia was not "boy like" in stature, did he grow between the taking of the photo and his return to US, or did yet another imposter take over from the imposter who went there in the first? Is there some other explanation... apart from the photo only making him seem very very small? ***************** Hi Greg: I believe this is the photo that Steve mentions here..I am also posting another taken of Marina and Lee the day they left the USSR. He still, by the photo, appears to have his bull neck, and has not got a wasted appearance ..a full head of hair and full cheeks, and a double chin....?? B..

Thank you so much, Bernice. We actually approached CBS about using 30 seconds from their '67 interview with Humes. They wanted a minimum of $1000. A little rich for a quick vid on Youtube. Thanks, again. ************** Robbery as usual ...not only CBS but so many have tied up..so very much, and imo on purpose and not only for monetary purposes.. I cannot tell you where or if from someone, originally. Nor how long I have had them....Just that they were in some older folders.. which I have been going through. This was fortunate as did not have access to them on the pc last week... Your welcome..hope they may be of some use to you. B..

Good. You're fired. Your response is just what I am talking about. How about you, Paul ... are you going to contact MSNBC, FOX NEWS, or any other news affiliate and share these ground breaking finds wih the world or are you satisfied with just making stupid add nothing remarks on what is supposed to be an education forum? Let us see just how serious this topic is to you! Bill Bill, It's taken me too long, but I've finally worked out of whom - and what - you remind me: a Stalinist apparatchik of, say, anytime between the early 1920s and the early 1950s. The sort routinely called on by the Ossetian mountaineer to shout down dissent, and bully the meek. Incidentally, your masquerade as an impartial sceptic would be rather more convincing were you occasionally to show some - any -interest in the abundant evidence that the Z-film is a fake. That would be far cleverer. As to trotting off to MSNBC, Fox News, or any other news affiliate, I did, once, to a UK near-equivalent and a very interesting experience it was, too, if only for the opportunity to encounter first-hand executive paranoia. Paul Paul: MSNBC nor Fox, would not show any interest imo... A Stalinist apparatchik.......now there's a new one... I had thought it was The Napoleonic Syndrome.. B..

Commander J.Thorton Boswell, MD .U.S.N Commander James J.Humes, MD USN Lt. Colonel Pierre A.Finck, Med.Corp U.S.N Together.....then Single of Dr.Pierre Finck....and a single of Humes in later years. B

*************** It certainly did... ......Thanks Jack, Your photo..... B..

I want you to know Bernice that the images Jack is having you post look very familar to the paintings Van Gogh was creating just before he went totally mad and cut his ear off. ****************** That is just your opinion..and you are one of a zillion.... And I want you to know Bill : That no one, is having me do anything, that I choose not to...... I have and will continue, to help anyone in anyway, and with such as anything I may have in my files, folders etc, whatever, I always have and I always will...... No matter what their personal opinions are, which after all, we all have our right to. Do we not.? Be it the assassination, big foot, apollo photos, extraterestrials, whatever, that is everyones right.. Clear... B

Jack, I am glad to see that you understand what the word "ignorant" means. In another thread you said this about the Wiegman and the Bell films which will apply to all three of the examples you listed ......................Jack: He has showed an image in Bell VERY SIMILAR TO THE IMAGE IN WIEGMAN. The Wiegman image clearly IS NOT SUNSPOTS ON THE WALL. What should be addressed are the images in each film. After all, BOTH FILMS MAY BE TAMPERED WITH and we must understand what anomalies may have been introduced by the retouchers, whether they be sunspots or men in white shirts. If it looks like a duck....is it? So once again you don't have your facts correct and you have jumped from you not knowing how to explain something to it possibly being altered as a solution. So everyone is not ignorant about the two films in question - allow me to share this information I had learned from Gary Mack. "Dave Wiegman rode directly to the Trade Mart and then on to Parkland Hospital where he shot more footage for NBC News. Some time after 1pm, his exposed reels were picked up by a WBAP-TV employee and driven from Parkland to the NBC affiliate on the east side of Fort Worth, which was about an hour's drive in those days. The film was processed and shown unedited on NBC at 3pm Dallas time. It was narrated by WBAP-TV newsman Charles Murphy, according to extant video tapes, who confirmed the film was unedited. This means there was no possible time or opportunity to alter the Wiegman film. In fact, comparison of that first broadcast with Groden's version shows there are a few seconds of footage missing from his copy! Furthermore, the former WBAP-TV still has prints of the film dating to 1963. I have video tapes of those prints and they, too, are identical to what was shown at 3pm on November 22, 1963. As for the Bell film, Mark Bell went home with his camera that afternoon and filmed a few scenes outside his Oak Cliff home. They show his wife at the time, his house, and either his mother or hers. After processing of his film, Bell never bothered to inform investigators of his footage. No one knew about it until 1967 when LIFE magazine learned of it and published a few frames. That same year, Josiah Thompson obtained a copy of the film from Bell and Thompson's print is at The Sixth Floor Museum, as is Bell's camera original film. I have examined both. They are identical and there are no splices in either film." I could not agree more with your statement. I think that point was driven home as I debunked all those foolish alteration claims you made in "Hoax". So in the future I would like to cite your statement above each time you repeat the same mistakes.Bill ************* Quote ""In fact, comparison of that first broadcast with Groden's version shows there are a few seconds of footage missing from his copy! "" Bill may I ask : If you know from where abouts these frames from the Groden version are missing , beginning, middle, or towards the end...? Thanks B..

Another photo from Jack..... B

Photo from Jack. B

John and Andy Do what you must. Enforce your Forums rules.....add some, delete some, whatever....is needed.. ....if and when you see a problem, use your own judgement, you are the administrators....and that is a period. If any complain, with their excuses, so what....you do control such. and before this turns into an argument thread about not arguing.... Humans being what they are, do need control and rules, or anarchy prevails.. That is the nature of their beast. B