Scott Kaiser

The Testimony of Sgt. James A Zahm

In order to show that a shot from the Texas School Book Depository was an "easy shot", the Commission called as an expert witness, Sgt. James A Zahm, a Marine Corps NCO who was in charge of the the Marksmanship Training Unit at the Weapons Training Battalion Marine Corps School, Quantico, Va.. Sgt. Zahm was the non-commissioned officer in charge of the long-range team. This consisted of about 40 members of the Marine Corps Rifle and Pistol Team, and he was responsible of the training, providing weapons, and hand loading the ammunition for practice and eventual firing at 600 and 1,000 yards.

( 11 H 306-307 )

Zahm went on to talk about his experience with rifle scopes:

" the higher powered telescopes are used in the particular type of firing we are doing right now, deliberate slow fire at extreme ranges of 600 and 1,000 yards. We use 12-power to 20-power telescopes." ( ibid.)

So here's the Commission's expert witness on rifle scopes, an NCO in charge of a Marine Corps "long range team" that fired at targets from "600 to 1,000 yards" using "12-power to 20-power telescopes".

And this is the guy whose going to give testimony saying that an 85 yard shot with a 4-power scope is an easy shot ?

But that's exactly what he did.

Mr. SPECTER. How would you characterize that, as a difficult, not too difficult, easy, or how would you characterize that shot?

Sergeant ZAHM. With the equipment he had and with his ability, I consider it a very easy shot.

testimony of Sgt. James a. Zahm ( 11 H 309 )

Let's look at this statement, "with the equipment he had and with his ability".

First, "the equipment he had" :

There's no evidence that Sgt. Zahm ever fired the Depository rifle and could not have possibly known the condition of the rifle prior to the assassination. Therefore, his "expert" testimony regarding "the equipment he had" is nothing more than an opinion devoid of any first hand knowledge and thus any factual basis.

Next, "his ability" :

There's no evidence that Sgt. Zahm was present during either of Oswald's two rifle qualifications and thus he could not have had first hand knowledge of Oswald's ability with a rifle. Because of this, one can assume that Sgt. Zahm was also not present when Oswald's scores were tallied and had no first hand knowledge of whether or not the scores accurately depicted what Oswald shot.

Sgt. Zahm admitted under testimony that his evaluation of Oswald's ability was based solely on the documents he saw:

Mr. SPECTER. Have you had an opportunity to examine the documents identified as Commission Exhibit No. 239 and Exhibit No. I to Major Anderson's deposition, Sergeant Zahm?

Sergeant ZAHM. Yes; I have.

Mr. SPECTER. Based on the tests of Mr. Oswald shown by those documents, how would you characterize his ability as a marksman?

Sergeant ZAHM. I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian, throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.

( 11 H 308 )

But when Zahm is faced with whether or not Oswald could have aimed at and hit Kennedy in the head, he backpedals:

"....I think that aiming at the mass of what portion of the President is visible at that distance and with his equipment, he would very easily have attained a hit, not necessarily aiming and hitting in the head. This would have been a little more difficult and probably be to the top of his ability, aiming and striking the President in the head. But assuming that he aimed at the mass to the center portion of the President's body, he would have hit him very definitely someplace, and the fact that he hit him in the head, but he could have hit, got a hit.

Mr. SPECTER. So you would have expected a man of Oswald's capabilities at a distance of 265.3 feet to strike the President someplace aiming at him under those circumstances?

Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.

( 11 H 309 )

So the "easy shot" wasn't so easy after all. In fact, the only easy part about it was that a rifleman with Oswald's capabilities, using a four power scope, could have hit the President "someplace" and that a head shot from that distance would have been " a little more difficult ".

The reader should keep in mind that Oswald's qualifications with a rifle in the Marine Corps was with a .30 caliber rifle with no scope. As this photo shows:

The point being that Oswald would have had to have experience in "sighting in" a scoped rifle. There's simply no evidence to suggest that Oswald had the skills to do that.

Zahm's own testimony indicated that in order to sight in a rifle, one would have to have fired at least 10 rounds through it:

Mr. SPECTER. How many shots in your opinion would a man like Oswald have to take in order to be able to operate a rifle with a four-power scope, based on the training he had received in the Marine Corps?

Sergeant ZAHM. Based on that training, his basic knowledge in sight manipulation and trigger squeeze and what not, I would say that he would be capable of sighting that rifle in well, firing it, with 10 rounds.

( 11 H 308 )

In other words, for Oswald to have scoped in the disassembled rifle he would have had to have fired ten rounds through it after he reassembled it inside the building on November 22nd.

There's no evidence that Oswald fired 10 rounds through the Depository rifle on November 22, 1963.

In addition to these facts, there's no evidence that Zahm had any experience with ANY Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, let alone the alleged murder weapon. The one time he was asked a question by counsel specifically about the Mannlicher-Carcano, counsel rephrased the question:

Mr. SPECTER. How much familiarity would a man with Oswald's qualifications, obtained in the Marine Corps, require in order to operate a rifle with a scope such as a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle with a four-power scope?

Sergeant ZAHM. How much familiarity would he require?

Mr. SPECTER. Let me rephrase the question. Would it be very difficult for a man with Oswald's capabilities as a marksman to use a rifle with a four-power scope?( ibid. )

So we see that counsel was careful not to seek out information from Zahm with respect to the Mannlicher-Carcano specifically, but rephrased the question to aim it at "a rifle" instead.

Zahm had no business testifying about Oswald's ability or about the alleged murder weapon. He had no first hand knowledge of Oswald's ability, he had no first hand knowledge whether the test scores were accurate, he had no experience with the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and his expertise was with long range shooting from 600-1,000 yards using a 12 to 20-power scope.

One good point his testimony brings out however, is that if the rifle was brought into the building "broken down", the shooter had to have fired 10 rounds through it in order to scope it in.

Unless, of course, this rifle had a "Magic Scope".

So the "easy shot" wasn't so easy after all.

I wonder? If the shot was not so easy after all could one consider it a lucky shot?

Under the assumption that this particular topic will be transferred to the Robert Kennedy section, I am posting the following article about the subject that appears in today’s (Sunday) New York Times:

February 25, 2012, 4:09 pm

A Kennedy Is Arraigned Over a Dispute at a Westchester Hospital

By MATT FLEGENHEIMER

The New York Times

Douglas Kennedy, the youngest son of Robert F. Kennedy, the senator from New York who was assassinated in 1968, has been arraigned on charges resulting from a confrontation that began as he tried to take his newborn son out of a Westchester County hospital.

Two nurses said they were injured by Mr. Kennedy’s actions. A lawyer for Mr. Kennedy gave a different account of what happened and said his client would fight the charges, two counts of harassment as well as one of endangering the welfare of a child, a misdemeanor.

According to a complaint filed in Mount Kisco Village Court, Mr. Kennedy, 44, defied the nurses’ orders on Jan. 7 by trying to walk out of Northern Westchester Hospital with his son, who had been born two days earlier. During an ensuing argument, the complaint said, Mr. Kennedy twisted an arm of one of the nurses as she blocked a doorway, and kicked the other nurse.

Mr. Kennedy was arrested. He was arraigned on Thursday.

In a statement released with his wife, Molly, Mr. Kennedy, a Fox News reporter, denied any wrongdoing and said he had wanted only to take his newborn son, Bo, out “for fresh air” when a nurse attempted to “grab our child out of his father’s arms.”

Mr. Kennedy’s lawyer, Robert C. Gottlieb, said Saturday that one nurse was “lunging to grab the child” during the scuffle. Mr. Kennedy, he said, was only trying to protect his son.

“It wasn’t a kick,” Mr. Gottlieb said. “He lifts his knee, she runs into that knee, and it’s that contact that then propels her or throws her back.”

Elliot H. Taub, who is representing the nurses, Anna Margaret Lane and Cari Maleman Luciano, denied that any lunging had occurred and said the nurses had been hurt as a result of Mr. Kennedy’s actions. Ms. Lane, he said, had pain in an arm and Ms. Luciano had pain in her pelvis and neck.

Mr. Taub said his clients were “probably” going to pursue a civil case against Mr. Kennedy.

Dr. Timothy Haydock, a friend of the Kennedy family and an emergency room physician at the hospital, said in a statement that he had been present during the confrontation and saw the nurses as “the only aggressors.” Before the episode, he said, other nurses had agreed that taking the baby outside for a brief time posed no safety risk.

Mr. Taub said no one was allowed to remove newborns from the maternity unit without permission from a medical authority or a discharge order.

“Neither one of those existed,” he said.

The hospital confirmed only that an episode had occurred on Jan. 7 between a patient’s family member and members of the nursing staff.

I would assume there is always two sides to every story, however, none of this really answers any of my questions. I'm afraid that again, your name, money and power always seems to have the better of any sticky situation, it gets you off the hook eh? Its okay to ignore my questions, I'm sure no one has the answers to them anyways.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to kick someone!

I am requesting that the moderator(s) move this topic to the Robert Kennedy section to forestall further internal controversy in the forum. The reason I posted the article here originally is that while the JFK assassination drastically affected the U.S. and to an extent the whole world, it obviously traumatized the members of the Kennedy family and continues to do so. The family has had a seemingly endless number of personal problems and tragedies. This incident involving RFK's son kicking the nurse is the latest example, which ultimately, in my opinion, can be traced back to the killings in 1963 and 1968 that have left indelible scars on family members.

This incident involving RFK's son kicking the nurse is the latest example, which ultimately, in my opinion, can be traced back to the killings in 1963 and 1968 that have left indelible scars on family members.

Curious? And would like to know? Is it okay for us who are not a Kennedy, but a regular ole citizen of the United States to go around kicking or beating up on someone? And blame it on our past, the lost or killing of our parent?

I blame Sturgis and possibly Richard Poyle for knowing about or killing my father, sense Richard didn't like my father at all and says so in the FOIA documents.

Does that give me the right to kick a nurse?

I'm not in no way shape or form blaming Kennedy for everything, nor am I saying the CIA was to blame for everything, however, I'm sure the both can take some blame on many things, there have been those who have numbered the CIA's misfortune and faults, but has overlooked calculating Kennedy's? Would anyone care to discuss that or number what Kennedy neglected to do or not to do? Thank is the question...

I think Jim DiEugenio is an honest man. But he is absolutely in denial about JFK's rampantly promiscuous sex life. He also has not figured out the critical role of both Lyndon Johnson and George Herbert Walker Bush in the JFK assassination.

Which is like saying the Chicago Bulls were a pretty good team in the 1990's, but who was the Michael Jordan guy anyhow?

Lyndon Johnson was one of handful of select senators and congressman who were supervising the CIA in the early years. (I am talking late 1940's; early 1950's. LBJ was a protege of the powerful Sen. Richard Russell, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I don't think they had the Senate Intelligence Committe back then, so it would have been under Armed Services.) LBJ's CIA ties ran very, very deep.

And they sure did come in handy on 11/22/63.

I'm not saying he is dishonest, but all I've got was Jim is a CIA did it and everything else no matter what you say kinda guy, sure the CIA is to blame for a lot of things but so was Kennedy. I can't say he was perfect and everything, oh well...

I remember one time DiEugenio was ranting about C. David Heymann, about how terrible he was and what a supposed fraud and xxxx he was. That piqued my curiosity and I bought Heymann's "Bobbie and Jackie: A Love Story" and it completely convinced me that Bobby and Jackie were having a torrid love affair post JFK assassination. I have heard this from other credible sources as well.

http://www.amazon.com/Bobby-Jackie-C-David-Heymann/dp/1416556249/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330218140&sr=1-1

I don't really think Mr. Caddy's post right here is relevant to understanding the JFK assassination, but the topic of the Kennedys' dysfunctional and highly promiscuous sex lives is certainly a topic that has relevance to the 1963 Coup d'Etat. Without John Kennedy's Achilles' heel of rampant promiscuity, Lyndon Johnson could NEVER have strongarmed/blackmailed his way onto the 1960 Democratic ticket. That is an extremely important point.

And I do think it gives us tremendous insight into Robert Kennedy's character - or rather *lack* of character - that he would carrying on an affair with "the widow" as Ethel used to call Jackie, while simultaneously having a wife and 10 to 11 children. I read Heymann's book front to cover and he convinced me. I don't think he fabricated the entire book.

I have not touched on Lyndon Johnson's insane sexual promiscuity and what we can learn from that and from Madeleine Brown and Mary Margaret Valenti (nee Wiley). I have some information on LBJ's sexual habits that I will eventually post that will give you more insight into him.

I remember one time DiEugenio was ranting about C. David Heymann, about how terrible he was and what a supposed fraud and xxxx he was.

Robert,

I wish I could share in some of the stories I've been told at the SFRG about DiEugenio, but I won't do that, I think I've learned more about him then ever before, lets just say its no use in arguing with him anymore.

Scott, I look forward to reading your book. Take your time putting it together and get it done right.

It is natural for the anti-Castro Cuban community to believe (incorrectly) that Fidel Castro killed JFK. The unfortunate and ugly reality is that some of their own probably coordinated with the CIA in killing John Kennedy. People often prefer a comfortable lie to the ugly truth.

I think it is very reasonable to assume that "Dark Complected Man" in Dealey Plaza - the man with the walkie talkie who is also hand signaling - was an anti-Castro Cuban working with professional CIA assassins to kill JFK. These were the same folks training to kill Castro, who turned their guns and their hated on John Kennedy.

I am sure you are aware that even today in 2012 you can find some people saying some very nasty things about John Kennedy in the Florida Cuban communities.

I once interviewed Bobby Ray Inman, the former #2 at CIA, on April 2nd, 2009, and he told me that he would go to his grave thinking Fidel Castro killed JFK. Self-delusion in action; notice how Inman said he would go to his grave thinking that; completely not open to learning truth.

I estimate the odds of Fidel Castro killing JFK at 1 to 10,000,000. Meaning bet $1 dollar, get $10 million if Castro actually did it. Perhaps the odds are even less than that.

As for LBJ and the CIA being involved: 99 to 1. Bet $99, get $1 dollar if LBJ and CIA were actually involved.

It is natural for the anti-Castro Cuban community to believe (incorrectly) that Fidel Castro killed JFK.

Robert, you would be surprise at how many really believe that Castro was involved and how many don't, in fact Castro's arch enemy, someone who has tried to assassinate Castro several times and who got shot by Castro's hit man Tony Delaguardia says Castro was not involved, so it all depends on who you ask, several have said to me personally that Castro was not involved, it all depends on who's hoping that some American president would still go after Castro like they did with Bin Laden.

Well, this is the first time I have heard of you, Scott

For over four years I have released lots of informtion on my father, not may people have herd of me or my father, I have kept this information quite for 35 yers, there is still information about me that people are not aware of, as for Pujol being a proud assassin, I'd say he didn't complete his job, Fidel Castro is still alive isn't he?

-------------------

You are correct, Scott, that Fidel is still alive but since Pujol was involved in one way or another in countless attempts if I understood him, than he is a member of an assassination group. Now if his group did not kill anybody else in their cause of getting rid off Fidel, or even if he did something to stop killing others, than I would amend it to a "failed assassin” at best.

He is also a xxxx in thinking that Castro would risk being invaded or killed by US forces by killing Kennedy for something IKE/Nixon, set up with the CIA/Mob when JFK was a senator and the Bush gang supported when JFK is the only one to try to end the Cold War with Cuba and pledged to Russia that he would not invade Cuba or allow it to happen from the USA.

So what is your reason to put his confession of being a failed assassin on here if you think, like Pujol, that Fidel did it, what is your evidence?

Did you report your knowledge to the FBI?

Maybe the reason I haven't heard of you before on this matter is you don’t make any sense. If he is your Father, I can understand your bias but without evidence you are not doing his legacy any good.

So what is your reason to put his confession of being a failed assassin on here if you think, like Pujol, that Fidel did it, what is your evidence?

I apologize for not getting to you sooner, I've been in and out of meetings in Miami, now I'd like to address your question/statements. First, I don't think like him, I think like me. At first it made sense that Fidel ordered Kennedy's hit, but it took me time to understand it differently, I no longer believe Castro ordered Kennedy's hit, I am NO researcher, nor have I investigated any part of the assassination as many of you have done for years, I merely wanted to find out what happen to my father. And it was along the way that I discovered my father being connected to everything else. Secondly, if you have been paying attention you would have known that my father is Edwin Kaiser, my last name is not Pujol, although he is a very good friend of mine.

JFK is the only one to try to end the Cold War with Cuba and pledged to Russia that he would not invade Cuba or allow it to happen from the USA.

The international laws allows any foreign invader who is allies with the United States request the United States while at war to participate upon 72 hours if the foreign country asks for assistance, and although the United States Navy would be on stand by, the Bay of Pigs didn't last that long for American military to be used.

Maybe the reason I haven't heard of you before on this matter is you don’t make any sense.

Um, no! The reason you haven't heard of my father was because he would not make his name known like Hemming or Sturgis who would seek attention, my father had one goal on his mind, and that was to oust Castro, any anyone who worked with my father would tell you that my father was a straight shooter, he didn't like attention or to be known. The only reason anyone here knows about my father was because I started releasing information little by little over a four year span. For years, those who have been investigating Watergate including people like Jim Hougan who wrote a book on Watergate, got the sixth person wrong and were "guessing" at who this sixth person was, here is Jim's email to me.

"Hi, Scott -

Thanks for sending the materials that you did - your father was obviously a very interesting man. As his son, you might want to think about putting together a biography - which is, I suspect, what you are already doing.

The address-book is a potential gold-mine in that connection, but in order for it to be useful, you'll have to make each entry legible - then work to identify each of his contacts. The book that results would probably be a history of anti-Castro activity in Florida and the Caribbean - not a bad topic.

Your mother's remark is incomprehensible: "according to my mother my father went to Washington with Frank during Watergate and broke in and stole some photographs of Hunt, Sturgis and Liddy." "Broke into" what? Surely, not the Watergate. And surely not after the Watergate arrests.

As for "the sixth man" remark, most people (including myself) think that was Lou Russell."

^^"End of email"

I can assure you, it was not Lou Russell, furthermore, I would appreciate it if and when you are addressing me either with a question or statement you give me my respect, as I would return the same, you didn't need to assume Pujol or anyone else is my father. I suggest you do some more research before assuming something like that, you know absolutely nothing about my dad.

And if anyone has been looking into my father for what ever reason is because I decided to release his information that is true, backed by documented evidence, and those who knew him best knew what he was like and what he stood for. You would have never heard of my father who controlled the CIA and many around him with the information he carried in his attache case, which by the way was his "free get out of jail card", and he played his card often.

Scott Kaiser

P.S. I had a good time with Gordon Winslow and those from the SFRG in Miami, thank you Gordon for listening to what I said, I hope you enjoy the material I provided.

I have information to exchange.

Well, this is the first time I have heard of you, Scott

For over four years I have released lots of informtion on my father, not may people have herd of me or my father, I have kept this information quite for 35 yers, there is still information about me that people are not aware of, as for Pujol being a proud assassin, I'd say he didn't complete his job, Fidel Castro is still alive isn't he?

Excellent work, Rob. What is very bizarre how less than two days after the assassination he has found so many holes in the story, which at that time had barely even been created. He was probably very familiar with assassination attempts and the stories behind them.

He was probably very familiar with assassination attempts and the stories behind them.

I have not completely ruled out Castro knowing something before hand of Kennedy's assassination, as my friend Jose Pujol puts it so passionately, he thinks Castro was involved, others who have fought Castro and plotted to assassinate him said, "I don't think Castro was involved directly, but he help by incorporating something".

Well, this is the first time I have heard of you, Scott, or Jose Pujol and his accent is hard for me to get all his words but He admits being involved in plots to kill Castro and I believe he said he was told by Americans in Canton Ohio during Ikes presidency to be on the side of getting rid of him and then he says he fought with Fidel and Che but obviously as an asset for the CIA.

Of course, the CIA had infiltrators helping Castro in the beginning like David Ferrie and Watergate Burglar Frank Sturgis.

Folks like these still want to kill Castro and with people like the Bush family as their friends and protectors I see why Castro is very suspicious of US intensions and the Cold War still on with just a bit of softening by Obama.

I saw the plot to kill JFK in Texas and was told about it by my friend, Phil Ochs who was a National Security Observer being filmed by a British cameraman in the garage Doorway of the Dal/Tex building right after the assassination.

He hung himself on April 9th, 76 just when Congress was threatening to get to the truth and found out about the attempts to kill Castro that Jose Pujol admitted too, but was posing as a fellow revolutionary. Phil could not handle telling the truth to his fans and it would have been too dangerus for us both at that time.

Sure Castro knew about the CIA attempts to kill him and Oswald was working on a cancer virus with Ferrie and his girl friend Judyth Baker in New Orleans.

Castro knew that the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was practically a government front it was so infiltrated and Oswald was not even in a real FPFCC group. But my friend, Phil Ochs, was because the day he told me about the plot months before it happend and asked me if I would let him know If I learned anything, he said he was going to a Fair play for Cuba meeting in NYC to find out more.

Well after I came out and ran against Bush Sr. for Prez in 90-91 as a write-in and reported my story to the FBI in Tampa, I called VJ Lee who ran the organization back then if he knew Phil Ochs and he said, "Oh yes Phil was working for us", and when I told him Phil was working for US National Security he was not surprised.

So, Jose thinks Castro was the man behind it and I think what else would a CIA asset who plotted the death of Castro say, the same thing that Frank Sturgis said and the reason Phil and I were set up to be in Texas on that day was we were considered Commies" by Hoover and the Governments War against Communism and on top of that we were Folk Singers who fought for Peace in Viet Nam, Civil Rights and went down to Mississippi for Freedom Summer and as long as Hoover was up there the truth tellers were threatened the most and I have had many close calls myself and am lucky to tell you all the truth and the truth is worth dying for.

So, please tell Jose we both believe in freedom but I am no proud Assassin which may be our big difference.

No book is "the best book ever on the JFK case."

Never happened and IMO, never will.

This is why i placed a top ten at CTKA.

This case, as Weisberg so memorably put it, is beyond the reach of any one person. THat is because the cover up was so huge. In every direction. Therefore, one has to acquire the skills of os many disciplines that it would take a lifetime to reinvestigate the whole thing.

The best thing to do is to pick books from each generation and after that to take the best books from each camp--CIA, LBJ, Mafia, etc. and then make up your own mind.

Again I have to disagree, IMO... I think that there are lots of "good books" out there. Mark Lanes "Rush to Judgement" has sold over a million copies. Now is there a book out there that really captures who, what, where, when, and why Kennedy was assassinated? Sure there are, how accurate are they?

By the way, everyone here in Miami says hello!

Also, I haven't forgotten about you Jim! As I said, you'll have my answer shorty, so stay turned, sit back and relax, its going to be a "bumpy" ride.

NOTE: RADIO INTERVIEW TODAY ABOUT Doorway Man on "The Real Deal" at 5 PM/CT

kdruckman and I will talk about, "JFK SPECIAL: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!",

and the extended discussion and debate that has taken place on this thread during the

broadcast of "The Real Deal", revereradio.net, from 5-7 PM/CT today, 20 February 2012.

The program will subsequently be archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com. Tune in!

RADIO INTERVIEW TODAY ABOUT Doorway Man on "The Real Deal" at 5 PM/CT kdruckman and I will talk about, "JFK SPECIAL: Oswald was in the doorway, after all

You can't be serious, its a joke right? Comeon man, please tell me that this is a joke I'll understand, but! If you get people to beleive you, like I said earlier, I have some great ocean front property in Arizona I'll sell to them for a cheap price of $10,000 per person cash only and I have 10 properties left! Man this will be the fastest 100 grand I'll ever make.

BTW Larry, if you do this, don't forget about Watergate: Hunt, Helms, McCord, Sturgis etc.

The Secret Team takes out another president.

Ok, Jim...

Here is Julie's answer.

And, NEVER suggest in the future that I have duped my wife.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uS1-AM6e-Gg

Oh, oh... I bet you knew I was going to post, didn't you? Well, Greg! Great job, I said earlier you have a smart women, she's pretty too! You lucky guy you, just kidding man, good job! I don't think there would have been a better way to get your message across then on Youtube, no type-o's there eh?

Why not just ask Judyth Baker if it is her Lee in the doorway and settle this imbroglio once and for all?

That is so funny Zach! Cause when I saw you on here, I was thinking the same exact thing, you just beat me to it, I'd say great minds think a like!

Hi Scott,

I found a decent amount of information on Griffith but nothing that hasn't already been fleshed out on here. He was definitely in high demand as a public speaker promoting the military. Although the quality isn't the best, I did find a rare image from 1933 that I attached.

Good luck,

Zach

Cool beans! Thanks Zach!

What it honestly looks like to me, is two different people who are headless, each holding one arm above their headless body holding the other persons hand, please don't let this get out, I don't want for anyone to think I'm crazy.

Scott, You know better. This has nothing to do with anyones identity. It has to do with the circled image and those identified as "B" and "A".

But!!! FWIW.... I think it was a great presentation by James H. Fetzer, and a good argument, not one I would convict someone to <Just saying>.

May I say then, I apologize, however, I did look at photo image "A" and "B", and in my honest opinion it looks like a photo my ex-wife brought home one day, she called it a sonogram.

Armando cubria Ramos, was sentenced to thirty years in Guanajay Prison, His crime according to the charges brought was, Conspiring against the state. His livelyhood was listed as a "Salesman" FWIW. Steve.

His crime according to the charges brought was, Conspiring against the state.

Its sad!

But!!! FWIW.... I think it was a great presentation by James H. Fetzer, and a good argument, not one I would convict someone to <Just saying>.

Jim,

My wife, Julie, who you've met, has no dog in this fight at all. She couldn't care less about the subject and she is unaware of my position

in this debate. She is also honest to a fault.

I simply showed her the Altgens full size first and then showed her the cropped area in question. I asked her several questions about

what she could see in the doorway. I asked her if she thought that the figure was subject 1 or subject 2. I showed her a picture of subject

1 (Oswald) and a picture of subject 2 (Lovelady) [the same pictures you are using].

She looked at me as though I had lost my mind. She said: "I can't tell anything from that picture!" I asked why and she replied, "It's not

clear enough and the area is too small." I asked if she thought Doorway man was wearing a V-neck shaped t-shirt or a round collar. She

began to laugh AT me. I asked her, "Hey, what's so funny?" She said, "You are! I can't tell anything from that little fuzzy picture."

I asked if she thought it looked like the photo might have been intentionally obscured and that was perhaps why she couldn't make out

the details? She looked at me as if I was a raving maniac again!

She said, "You guys are actually trying to figure out who killed Kennedy from a tiny portion of an old blurry photo?"

My wife is not blind and neither am I.

EDIT: [i just read this to Julie and she corrected me] --

She said, "You forgot to mention that I said I can't tell the shape of the t-shirt's collar because of the dark shadow under the chin."

Jim, she said this UNSOLICITED by me. That was her honest take on the matter.

Greg, you have a very smart women, Orlando Bosch was a well known figure in Miami, a very respected individual within the Cuban Community, for years people have been arguing the fact about the dark complected man sitting next to the umbrella man, thinking it was Orlando Bosch, I showed the photos to Orlando's closest and personal friends, they laughed at me too, the photos are to blurry and inconclusive I was told. I thought to myself, why would I want to try and make a mountain out of a molehill? There is absolutely no reason for these friends of mine to lie to me, in fact, those who were bias would be more blunt, its really hard to pick people out of those photos taken in 1963. Technology back then was not as sophisticated as it is today.

As far as I know they could have been another spectator trying to find a good spot to see the presidents car as he was passing by the TSBD, now I'm not saying what I'm saying for you or anyone else beleive its not Oswald or Lovelady, but unless there is "better proof" its one of them, this information or method should never be used to positively identify and sentence someone to life, this is whats wrong with our Justice system today, and so many people get falsely accused.

TRANSCRIPT OF A RECORDING OF A MEETING

BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND H. R. HALDEMAN,

THE OVAL OFFICE, JUNE 23, 1972, FROM

1:04 P.M. TO 1:13 P.M.

(Background noise, sound of writing and some

unintelligible conversation)

HALDEMAN: (On the phone) (Unintelligible) Where are they? Okay. I'll be up in just a minute. (40 second pause, with sounds of writing)

HALDEMAN: I see a time way back (unintelligible) might

find out about that report before we do anything.

PRESIDENT: (Unintelligible) (35 second pause)

PRESIDENT: Okay (unintelligible) and, ah, just, just postpone the (unintelligible, with noises) hearings (15 second unintelligible, with noises) and all that garbage. Just say that I have to take a look at the primaries (unintelligible) recover (unintelligible) I just don't (unintelligible) very bad, to have this fellow Hunt, ah, you know, ah, it's, he, he knows too damn much and he was involved, we happen to know that. And that it gets out that the whole, this is all involved in the Cuban thing, that it's a fiasco, and it's going to make the FBI, ah CIA look bad, it's going to make Hunt look bad, and it's likely to blow the whole, uh, Bay of Pigs thing which we think would be very unfortunate for CIA and for the country at this time, and for American foreign policy, and he just better tough it and lay it on them. Isn't that what you...

HALDEMAN: Yeah, that's, that's the basis we'll do it on and just leave it at that.

PRESIDENT: I don't want them to get any ideas we're doing it because our concern is political. JUNE 23, 1973, FROM 1:04 P.M. TO 1:13 P.M.

HALDEMAN: Right.

PRESIDENT: And at the same time, I wouldn't tell them it is not political.

HALDEMAN: Right.

PRESIDENT: I would just say "Look, it's because of the Hunt involvement," just say (unintelligible, with noise) sort of thing, the whole cover is, uh, basically this (unintelligible).

HALDEMAN: (Unintelligible) Well they've got some pretty good ideas on this need thing.

PRESIDENT: George Schultz did a good paper on that, I read it... (Unintelligible voices heard leaving the room).

This is all very good information and well worth reading, all very well documented research, I can't thank you enough for this information, and I'm now seeing how it links to my dad, I really can't thank you all enough, and if there's anything I can do for you Tom and Linda just let me know, I'll try.

Scott,

Feel free to message me at FB anytime you need research help.

Just saw this, goes to show I'm on cloud 9 right now, there is so much reading I'm doing, thanks! Mrs Minor...

Some of what has been written has been written by (Joe Raines) and myself on facebook attached is my father's phone book page of the general

Joe Raines--- For your father to have a generals number is very interesting and if the general is assigned to Washington that is even more interesting? Maybe they were good friends? But I don't think so. General Griffith served under secretary of war from the forties into the fifties if this is the right guy? He was a personal assistant to Louis Johnson. The fact Gen Paul had unknown duties tells me he was in the very trenches of national security and could never speak about any of his activities or knowledge of things until he passed on. Now the Gen has been in the trenches of national security and its possible he may have been a big part of the CIA, or associated with CIA as an advisor?

Joe Raines--- The general 1917 to 1966, worked under Johnson and was apparently involved with the armed forces. Working under Johnson it was apparent Johnson was a very big player and when he took sick some tried to claim he was mentally ill. Griffith didn't like president Truman because he fired MacArthur and Louis Johnson. According to the Gen Johnson was the ME man and oil was still the subject of many meetings. One thing was clear was JFK and the CIA were at war over the bay of pigs and the CIA was spoiling for a war it was said and JFK wanted to prevent war at all costs and if I am not mistaken Gen Griffith was still involved with operations or had good knowledge of what was taking place! It seems the information of the Generals death is unclear?

Scott Kaiser--- You're right, he (General Paul Griffith) also served in the pentagon for an undisclosed amount of years, his time and duties with the pentagon are unknown. Paul Griffith dies in 1966, just three years after the Kennedy assassination, hello! Does anyone know how he died at the age of forty nine? That's 49, he was Sectary of Defence in charge of the Navy and all our military, why would my father have a General and a president's phone number in his phone book? My father was no one or should I say had no real government job or did he? And yes, my father also has president Nixon, Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis in his phone book. Along with many others, I mean many important people that were either implemented in Kennedy's assassination or Watergate, so you tell me? And could Father John Bonn be a priest that maybe my father confessed too?

Joe Raines--- There were a handful of suspicious deaths of some people trying to get interviews, or those who may have seen something that some did not want known! Now time may have passed by, and if there was once a group responsible for this assassination, and possible cover-up, they are either dead, of feel safe enough that no one is going to find anything! Still the facts that were first given don't add up. The reports are not accurate and anyone who seemed to have a different version such as an eyewitness, was either shot dead or killed in an an automobile accident. Now maybe one death can be explained away or over looked, but there was a good amount of suspicious deaths of so called witnesses, or people of interest who were murdered under questionable circumstances. As a former investigator I always keep an open mind to details or certain things that stick out. Believe me when I say the most important witness in the center of this whole assassination of JFK, Mr Oswald, was himself assassinated right in front of millions. This was planned right up to the shot fired into Oswald's gut! The first lame excuse was Jack Ruby a nightclub owner was over come with grief and anger. So tell me this, knowing there would be outrage and some looking to take revenge why is it Oswald is led right by a crowd, no secret Service, no bullet proof vest on Oswald, and no other visible armed officers or even military? Why wasn't Oswald surrounded? No one should have even been aware of what time, or where the transport of Oswald to court would be? This was National security, and what was very troubling is no one really focused on this? Oswald was setup, and it appears some cops may have also had a hand in this!! Look at the killing of MLK, and tell me this was just one person?

I am seeking additional information about General Paul Griffith, his work with the Pentagon, Washington D.C., his death, anything about him and what were his duties? Thanking you all, well in advance for any information anyone can provide.

P.S. I also wondered if the "Guy" in my father's phone book page is in fact Guy Banister? It wouldn't surprise me considering the company my father kept.

Scott

http://​www.trumanlibrary.org/​hstpaper/griffithph.htm

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20673422/Guy%20Banister%20and%20General%20Paul%20Griffith.jpg

Hi Scott,

The Paul H. Griffith Papers (1917 - 1966) in The Truman Library

Thought you might find this interesting:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NMpMJlJMtSUJ:www.trumanlibrary.org/hstpaper/griffithph.htm+%22paul+h+griffith+papers%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

--Tommy

bump

Tommy, I just noticed your post, "no bump", thanks for that info, and yes! Its all very interesting, I'm like in Heaven reading every-one's information, and I owe it to you all, goes to show, I'm no reseacher never said I was, and I wouldn't have this information if it wasn't for all of you. You guy's and women are incredible!