Mark Stevens

5 hours ago, Tommy Tomlinson said:

Yeah, I've heard that the nitrates, barium, antimony etc can be picked up from sources other than GSR such as various types of printers ink.

But I've also read that the Wade led Dallas prosecutorial record of the time is littered with subsequent exonerations and guessed that they weren't too worried about False Positives.
The identification of nitrates would not automatically prove the presence of GSR, but a complete absence would strongly suggest that a gun had not been fired.

I'm just wondering if the tests were actually used in Texas court trials around 63 as evidence.

The tests were definitely used in Texas at that time.

Even the best GSR tests have their shortcomings and test accuracy can be impacted by a variety of factors. Two factors which are relevant considering Oswald is the passage of time between the alleged firing of shots and the time the test was taken, additionally it's more likely whatever traces were found on Oswald were a result of cross-contamination than was from him firing a gun.

From the FBI's Forensic Science Communications

Summary of the FBI LAbrotaory's Gunshot Residue Symposium May 31 - June 3, 2005

Quote

All participants agreed that GSR sampling should be done at the scene, where permissible, and as expeditiously as possible. With respect to sampling and transfer concerns, it was unanimously agreed that it would be best to sample a subject’s hands before bagging the hands or placing the subject in a police vehicle. It was also agreed that armed law enforcement officers can transfer GSR particles to a subject through contact. Almost all participants agreed that if the subject’s hands cannot be sampled before placing the subject in a police vehicle, the subject’s hands should be bagged in order to prevent possible contamination. Another recommendation was that, to the extent possible, all used cartridge cases and/or firearms be kept away from the GSR sampling kits, the area where sampling will take place, and the area of the laboratory where GSR analyses are performed.

Quote

Debra Kowal also provided data from a three-part study that attempted to determine the occurrence of GSR in the law enforcement environment (Kowal 2005). In the first part of the study, vehicles from half of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s substations were sampled for GSR in the backseat “cupping area,” a well or cutout in the lower portion of the seat where restrained individuals can rest their hands during transport. Two-component particles were detected on 45 of the 50 analyzed samples. Four of the 45 samples also contained three-component PbBaSb particles. Only 5 of the 50 samples were negative for the presence of GSR particles.

Kowal conducted a second study with respect to the secondary transfer of particles from the backseat of a patrol vehicle to a restrained individual’s hands. A handcuffed person known to have GSR on the hands was placed in the backseat of a patrol vehicle for approximately 10 minutes, followed by a restrained individual known to have hands free of GSR. Sampling of the second person’s hands indicated that 12 three-component and 10 two-component particles were transferred from the seat to the second individual’s previously GSR-free hands.

The third part of the study described the transfer that took place when an individual with “clean” hands was handcuffed by an on-duty officer and placed in the backseat of a patrol vehicle for 10 minutes. Of the 41 samples collected from the hands of the previously “GSR-free” individuals, 20 had an average of 5 two-component particles transferred from the law enforcement environment (on-duty officer and/or patrol vehicle), 17 had no GSR-like particle transfer, and 4 contained PbBaSb particles. In 3 of those 4 cases, the officers had qualified with their service weapons during their shifts. The fourth transfer was noted on an individual who was handcuffed by an officer who had last drawn his firearm in the preceding 30 days.

In summary, the authors of the Kowal study demonstrated in the first part that GSR is in the environment of patrol car backseats. In part two, they demonstrated that transfer of GSR between a vehicle backseat and an individual is possible. And in part three, results indicated that GSR can be transferred from a law enforcement environment to an individual’s hands. However, there are not sufficient data to statistically calculate a rate of transfer.

Quote

Michael Martinez reported on a study of 100 handcuffed subjects who were sampled for the presence of GSR while in the custody of local law enforcement officers. Sampling took place after transport to magistrate court or jail while the subjects were awaiting arraignment. Two-component particles (either PbBa or PbSb) were located on 16 percent of the subjects on their dominant, unwashed hands. None of the subjects in this study had three-component particles on their hands. The authors concluded that the particles were transferred from a law enforcement officer, an inanimate object, or the back of the law enforcement vehicle in which the subjects had been transported (Martinez and Garcia 2005).

Another symposium participant offered information, which had been shared previously on the Forensic SEM listserv, describing a contamination study of different types of law enforcement vehicles, as well as table surfaces and restraining bars in interrogation rooms. No three-component (PbBaSb) particles were found in most of the sampled vehicles, although two PbBaSb particles were detected in vehicles with cloth seats. Table surfaces revealed a much higher rate of transferred PbBaSb particles, reinforcing the need for sample collection prior to leaving the scene. Thus, although the study determined that there is a chance of secondary transfer to subjects from transporting or detaining them, it was relatively low based on the collected data. That observation was corroborated by the majority of the symposium participants.

Quote

The majority of symposium participants overwhelmingly agreed that particles can transfer from one surface to another and that bystanders (e.g., a person present at the time of the shooting who does not come into direct physical contact with the shooter, firearm, or any other surface potentially contaminated with GSR) can test positive for GSR. Michael McVicar also shared the results of a study that sought to determine whether a bystander could be reasonably distinguished from a shooter. The conclusion was that the high degree of variability that exists in the deposition of GSR as a result of the ammunition-firearm combination and the number of shots fired produces an overlap between the GSR concentrations obtained from sampling either a shooter or bystander as quickly as 15 minutes postfiring. Therefore, the number of particles cannot be used as a basis for determining if someone fired, or was merely in the vicinity of, a recently discharged firearm (Lindsay and McVicar 2004).

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2006/research/2006_07_research01.htm

I have an article with someone knowledgeable of Marina, I believe it is an author and I want to say McMillan (I can't see her saying this though) in which the person is asked something regarding "the one thing Marina wishes people knew" or something along those lines. The comment attributed to Marina is "when the police came the afternoon JFK was shot Lee's rifle was in the garage." I cannot find the reference at the moment but I will continue to look.

Is anyone familiar with this statement from Marina?

1 hour ago, Robert Wheeler said:

That's some six dimensional level of incomprehensible text.

If you assume something makes sense, but it doesn't to anyone else, who's problem is it?

If you assume someone is a Racist, but nobody else does, who's problem is it?  

You seem to have understood enough to make an asinine comment...so...there's that...

Your assumptions aside, I'm not assuming anything. I'm making factual statements based on what I know to be true. I'm not saying because these people live in Texas and support Trump they must be racist. I'm saying since X amount of them have used the word nig*** they are racists. I'm saying due to the words I have heard come from their mouths regarding black people, and a host of other peoples, they are racist.

There have been some Trump supporters I've never heard make racist statements. I wouldn't know whether or not they were racist and I'm not talking about them. There are other Trump supporters I know for a fact are not racist in much the same way I know others are, from personal observation and experience. 

I've met plenty of Trump supporters who weren't racist. What I haven't met is a racist who wasn't a Trump supporter. I and many others believe a large portion (possibly 90%+) of Trump supporters are racists. While some of this belief might be made through "assumption," much of it is through personal observation of how many racists are in fact Trump supporters. I don't know what this might say about America, I know what it says about Trump though.

10 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

4. If Trump supporters are all "racist", then by default I am a racist. Since I'm the only Trump supporter here, I figured I would point out there is no sadder form of race baiter than a white guy.  

I don't know you, nor have I really followed much of anything you've said except a few posts on this thread so I'm not really addressing you as much as making general observations.

I will say though that the actual saddest form of a racist, race baiter or anything is the one who denies his words, meaning, and intent and instead hides behind the guise of the oppressed and pretends it is truly he who is being marginalized and mistreated.

Additionally, I know literally hundreds of Trump supporters. All of them are not racist by any means, but 95% of them are. I'm using 95% generously because I know for a fact that some of them aren't, the number in all liklihood is closer to 99% are racist.

20 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Then the 43% figure is way way off?

I'm not familiar with where the number came from or what methodology was used. Based on overall military statistics it would appear as though it isn't.

31 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

43 % of our military enlisted ranks are black?

Really?

It's that high versus white, Hispanic and Asian?

That's a remarkable number.

Especially considering blacks only make up 13.4 % of our population.

Hispanic 18% and white 60.1%.

2018 Military Demographics

I have a variety of odd stories I rarely get to introduce, I figured this thread was good for this one though.

Anyone familiar with this?

I believe the range is the one being discussed, I've never heard anything about this supposed location though. I believe if this was actually linked to Oswald in some manner we would have heard more about it. If the casings were Carcano ammunition for example...

1 hour ago, Pamela Brown said:

That's debatable, imo...

https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/henry-ford-grand-cross-1938/

Henry Ford was given the Grand Cross in 1938 for his "service to the reich." They were giving him an award but he hadn't really done anything in service for the reich, other than write and support a great amount of antisemitism, hire the leader of the German American Bund to work at Ford and otherwise inspire Hitler enough to mention him in Mein Kampf and hang a portrait of him above his desk.

Considering the fact that Hitler wasn't into automobile manufacturing, the only real other thing they had in common was their antisemitism. I believe at this point in time enough documentation exists showing how fond of Ford Hitler was. While Ford was clearly antisemitic, he never outright supported Nazi Germany, to the best of my knowledge. What little he did was related to Fritz Kuhn.

With this all in mind there isn't really any other reason to give Ford the Grand Cross other than the overall respect and admiration they had for his "work," which wasn't Model T's and assembly lines. It was spewing enough antisemitic hatred to have his newspaper shut down.

Best enlarging I could do.

5 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

When someone hits a deer in the head from a football field away with one shot from a high powered rifle, do their heads explode like JFK's? Shatter into so many separated pieces of bone? And make mush of their brains to a gel state that oozes out of their heads like JFK's did at Parkland?

I'm not a hunter, although almost everyone I know is. I am though familiar with firearms. Most hunters do not aim for the head simply due to the small size and difficulty making the shot. 

I don't believe there is a simple answer to your question though. While not pretending to give a ballistics course, the force of impact depends on a variety of factors and even the same 9mm weapon might give different results when fired with ammunition of different weight, diameter, shape, etc. A bullet could tear a head open with one round and with the same type of round with a lower grain count might simply enter the head and not even exit. In the first instance leaving a gory scene, in the second leaving a wound similar to RFK's. This bullet type (.22) is often considered great for a head shot because it has the velocity to enter the brain and maybe even bounce around, but rarely the remaining velocity to exit.

What is more consistent is the behavior of specific ammunition types. Meaning if a person is shot by 2 hollow point rounds both of those wounds are going to be quite similar as will the wounds of a person shot with 2 full metal jacketed rounds. If a person is shot with 2 different types of ammunition, their wounds will likely be quite different.

34 minutes ago, Mark Tyler said:

In terms of the assassination narrative it's very hard to say.  I don't feel a late shot helps or hinders any particular theory (conspiracy or lone gunman).  My real goal with this work is to separate the wheat from the chaff, i.e. establish where the real evidence lies and where the red herrings are.  Maybe in a year or two when I have completely finished studying the evidence I may come off the fence, but at the moment there are still unresolved areas that could affect my thinking (e.g. the single bullet theory which which may help us locate the position of the assassin somewhere other than the sixth floor window).

This is the most common response to a late shot people have given me over the last year: "why would the assassin bother to shoot again if he hit his target at Z313?".  As with all questions it has various assumptions and preconceptions baked into it:

• The assassin saw what we see in the Zapruder film at Z313.
• The assassin knew JFK was mortally wounded.
• The assassin had time to weigh up whether to shoot again.
• There was only one assassin (and one target as you say).

I feel some of these assumptions are wrong (possibly all of them), but ultimately it's hard to know for sure as the assassin never came forward to explain his actions.

We can deduce that a 5 second gap between shots implies 2.5 seconds to operate a bolt action gun, 2 seconds to line up the target, and 0.5 seconds to squeeze the trigger.  This matches the gap between the known victim reactions in the Zapruder film to two of the shots fired at Z220 and Z310.  With a large majority of witnesses describing three shots, when was the third fired?  Logically it must be before Z220 by about 5 seconds, or after Z310 by 5 seconds.  I favour the latter because of the dozens of witnesses who say that's what happened, compared to the almost zero reliable witnesses who support a very early shot at Z160 or before.

If the third shot was fired between Z220 and Z310 as some witnesses claim, we have two guns firing as there wouldn't have been enough time to accurately fire 3 shots in 5 seconds.  However, this creates a loose end because many witnesses say the shooting lasted about 10 seconds, and Z220 to Z310 is only 5 seconds.  By contrast, if a witness missed the first or last shot it would explain why those witnesses say the shooting lasted just 5 seconds (e.g. James Altgens).

A return of fire scenario is interesting and worth considering as Jean Hill suggested this is what she thought was happening after the head shot as the secret service agents were all brandishing guns (and she said the shots came too quickly for a single gunman).  However, none of the agents said this is what happened and no other witnesses volunteered this idea so I suspect it's probably not what happened.  If more than one gun was fired that day I suspect it was either another assassin or maybe a decoy shooter to distract from the "real" assassin who may not have been located in the TSBD.

My best estimate of when the final shot was fired is circa Z400 which is about 5 seconds after Z313 so I don't think this is close enough to be mixed up with the previous shot.  Any witness can be wrong of course, but for so many to be wrong in exactly the same way seems unlikely.

When studying the witness statements my general attitude is to accept what the witnesses say happened unless there is a conflict or contradiction.  In this part of the case there are witnesses who did not hear a shot after Z313 such as James Altgens who I mentioned earlier, so we have a conflict between the witnesses which must be resolved somehow.  In the case of Altgens I explained that he was distracted in the time Z370-Z430 by:

• A loud siren 20-25 feet away.
• Noisy bikes and cars whizzing past.
• He was taking a photo at the time (the so called Altgens 7 photo).
• The gruesome head shot moments before.

By contrast the Houston Street witnesses mentioned earlier had no such distractions so I consider them to be in a better position to recall a shot or shots fired in the time frame Z370-Z430.

In summary, some of the witnesses must have been mistaken.  Either there was or there wasn't a late shot.  I think there was a late shot because of the high number of quality witnesses who say there was a shot in the circa Z400 time frame, including the Camera Car #3 witnesses whose observations can be clocked using the known car positions relative to the Zapruder film from Z190 to Z400 which contains the three shots they reported.

Great reply Mark, some interesting points to mull over.

Thanks.

8 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

It’s not my job to educate you here, if you familiarise yourself with the Bay of Pigs invasion and the politics, it may offer you more insight but, none should be so blind as those who do not wish to see. I suspect somehow here your ego has been bruised and now you’re behaving as an internet xxxxx, I left your comment regarding LBJ being an innocent in Dallas on Nov 22nd 63 (on the other thread), as I suspected it to be the case, that you were indeed being obtuse and had some weird axe to grind or complex. There is more than enough information on this forum for you to read, some of it from very credible authors in regard to ‘cui bono’.
The next thing is you’ll be telling me is Oswald fired all of the shots in Dallas with that Carcano. I am certain you can find some others in the youtube comments or Reddit to stimulate your juvenile mindset and good luck to you, as that’s me ‘out’, I don’t have the time for you, sorry.

Uhmm...OK dude....

If you make claims, it is your "job" to support them. If that includes "educating" someone, then well that's what it is. If you aren't able to support a claim, you probably shouldn't make it.

That aside, I'm lost as to how you got under the impression you did. Maybe you expected half the forum to jump on and support your opinion and maybe it is you with a bruised ego. What would mine be bruised for? You haven't made any factual claims regarding this speech, or negated anything I've said. You've barely even engaged in conversation. Nothing you've done would be enough to bruise a peach, much less an ego. I mean seriously, what has taken place in this thread that would leave me with a bruised ego?

I have a weird ax to grind because I don't think LBJ did it? That's weird....

Juvenile mindset because I explained JFK's meaning behind his speech? I asked an honest question because I genuinely don't see what you see and I'm confused and curious as to what you see. I didn't even speak in an adversarial manner or belittle your points. I just explained what his words meant, and this is what you took from it all?

Wow....

2 minutes ago, Mark Tyler said:

.....

Regarding a shot after the head shot, what would you believe the implications of this to be?

I've never personally believed or considered a shot after the head shot simply due to the "logistics" of it all. For instance in all possible shooting locations I've considered, each had a great view of the target and could clearly see the result of the head shot. There would be no need to fire another round considering what I view to be the severity of that wound.

The only way I feel a shot could have happened after the head shot was if Kennedy was not the target or was not the only target. Even though he had what appeared to be a fatal wound, if he was not the only target or even the target then other shots would be necessary.

Another way I could consider is if the shooter had a poor line of sight to the target and could not see the result of the head shot. This seems doubtful to me because if this shooter couldn't see the target well enough to see the head shot, this shooter likely would not even have a shot to begin with and would not be firing at all.

The last option is some form of return fire, but from and to leave me with no real options.

I believe based on what I currently know that reports of shots after the head shot are mistaken and are either echoes or other sounds or the witness recollection of the timing is off.

On 8/29/2020 at 11:18 AM, Chris Barnard said:

I don’t believe he is talking about Freemasory per se, but, perhaps the presence of networking/manipulating news to mislead the public. We should be aware that not only in america but globally, organisations exist that do subvert democratic processes, that do have great influence. They could stem from Yale, Harvard, a religious order of some kind or be just a bunch of fat cats bankers at a social club. There can be lots of products of that. 

I don’t think there is one single point in the speech, he is addressing the press. 
But, he is clearly dressing down his own government/military in that paragraph. If I give this context, look at the date of the speech; a week after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, I my opinion he is going to have some axe to grind there. 
 

I guess I still don't follow, or at the least I don't see what you see in that paragraph. Can you tell me what parts of the speech you feel is a dressing down of government/military?

If it's anything in this paragraph:

Quote

And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

What JFK is saying here is that his words can be misinterpreted by people who want to restrict the flow of information and he won't allow that to happen. He then basically directly addresses those groups and tell them his words do not mean to restrict free speech or the flow of information. This relates to his overall speech asking the press to be more responsible and to not share information they don't have to. In his opinion, these words could very well be taken by those in military/government positions to mean it's OK for them to restrict and suppress speech/information which it does not, and he will not allow.

He does address those groups, I just don't see anything that I can relate to as a dressing down.

He may very well have an ax to grind, but it could be with the press. I'm not personally familiar with the reporting before/post BoP but maybe information was printed that in some way could have compromised the event or person's involved, or that was true in his opinion. It is a Press Association speech, it is members of the press present and the overall topic is laid out right at the beginning:

Quote

 

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

 

He clearly has a fairly singular point. We need information, but we need security. Information which maintains our integrity and ability to govern is of inherent importance and should never be compromised. Information which maintains our security and protects "our way of life" might not necessarily be articles in Popular Mechanics, or local news stories of "behind the scenes of the inner workings of an aircraft carrier."

12 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

And here:

“And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian ormilitary, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifledissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.” 

I'm not sure what you mean, and if you mean to imply by that statement that he wasn't speaking about the need to keep some secrets. I do though believe this portion relates to actions being exaggerated and taken out of context. For instance him asking newspapers to not print certain information would be called censorship, etc. He won't allow that to happen. Basically, if the public needs or should know government business they will, but this business might not include the flight ceiling of the newest aircraft, or dive depths of new submarines... It should and will though include government mistakes, corruption, and other information deemed in the good of the public.

He does open his monologue with this:

Quote

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

He does in the very next paragraph (from your quoted snippet) state:

Quote

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

That would appear to "ask" for some secrecy and it continues with statements such as:

Quote

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

I believe it's clear he is asking news organizations to practice some "responsibility" and while we are not technically at war, to treat situations like we are and to not print information which might help our enemies.

I've pretty much only heard (from others) that this speech was directed towards organizations like Freemasonry, I've never heard that he was speaking about the Soviet Union.

What point do you believe JFK is trying to make with his speech, which he himself titled "The President and the Press?"

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

There isn’t much I can agree with here, aside from the fact we just don’t know, because anything could be argued at least two ways. So you can say you think the Connellys didn’t have foreknowledge and reacted instinctively, and I can say I think they did know or at least John, based on what I have seen. Like much of the theory around the assassination, its speculative. 
What I do know is, we’re not taking about long shots, we’re talking about shots that very competent marksman wouldn’t likely miss. Another aspect is if there was foreknowledge we don’t know exactly what the foreknowledge was. 
Are you accepting that Lyndon B Johnson may have had foreknowledge that something was happening that day? 

Really curious as to what you "can't agree with."

Is it that people's reality is shaped by their perception, or that Connally and the SS had no foreknowledge? Is it that even well trained people cower in fear, or otherwise act in contrary to their training?

As far as competent marksman go, I just last week read about a very competent marksman who shot his daughter in the head, on stage, in front of around 200 people because he wasn't so competent that time. I don't care how competent a person is, only those with a true death wish or balls of steel would put themselves in the line of fire. Based on Connally's future statements, I doubt he had any foreknowledge, and if he did who did it come from?

As far as LBJ, no I do not accept that. I do not believe LBJ had any foreknowledge of or participation in the assassination.

I'm also curious to "what you have seen." Is this pertaining to Zapruder and Connally's reactions in the car, or something else outside of that which gives you the belief that he had foreknowledge? If it's his reaction in the car, from what I see he is hit and doesn't even immediately get down. He heard shots and looked around vs. ducking. None of that meshes with foreknowledge, unless he was hoping to die as well in the crossfire.

5 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

I think that’s fair comment in parts, I have only fired guns at targets and animals, I have not been fired at myself. The closest I have come to it is in San Salvador, having a gun battle of sorts going on outside of our hotel in the street. I was very grateful for walls and my bed was up against the door. I don’t have combat experience but, I do have a serving member of the British special forces as a fishing buddy for a few years and discussions about such topics to come up. He is absolutely trained not to freeze in very perilous situations, he is a door kicker. 
 

We certainly do see people in the limo itself have differing reactions, don’t we? 

I don't believe training is the real indicator. Many people have training and still freeze, cower, or otherwise act contrary to how they were trained.

I do agree that the people in the limo have different reactions. I guess the question is...so what? What does their differing actions mean, or prove? For me, it just proves what we all know about human nature and it proves my favorite theorem, Plato's Allegory of The Cave. I believe a great deal of life experience can be explained by the allegory. In this instance, each person in the car had a different perspective, different perception, and therefore a different reality to which they were reacting. For the Connally's it was gunfire and shots in their direction, for Jackie it was being covered in her husbands blood and brains. Her reality was far different than Nellie's and I would expect her reaction to be equally different.

To further my point about training, is the Secret Service driver trained to slow down and even possibly brake in the situation Greer was in? Or is he trained to evade and escape? It would appear as though he acted contrary to his training.

To further my point about reactions, just look at any video of disasters. Whether caused by man or natural. Bombings are a great (poor choice of words) choice to look at. In these videos there are various reactions. Shock, crying, anger...any number of emotions and reactions are on display. Everyone reacts differently based on not only their perspective and their individual reality, but factors that make up their overall emotional and mental state as well. 

I believe assigning any type of rationale to how the people in the car reacted is worthless and will not lead anyone to anything fruitful with possible exception given to the SS men and Connally himself. If any of these people had foreknowledge, their reactions would surely be telling. I can't see Connally knowing anything though with him being in the same car, much less directly in front of JFK. He had tremendous confidence in the shooters if this is true. I'd say the same is likely true for the SS men, I seriously doubt they had any legitimate foreknowledge and anything they did was genuine reaction.

Been some time since I reviewed this, but in my opinion it is actually speaking of the need for secrecy and especially for newspapers to not print a "state secret" such as military capability. 

Basically says some secrets are necessary but transparency is equally necessary. 

I don't believe it refers to any type of secret society, be that Freemasonry or government agencies. 

11 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

 I watched it he Zapruder film missing frames/FF and inconsistencies being explained and one thing connected to this, Costello or Costella or whatevery his name is explains that the Connelly’s are completely ducked down when the limo allegedly stops for the volley of fire that some describe. Yes, you’d duck as soon as shots are fired, yes you’d pull your wounded husband down with you (thats logical) but, at the same time Jackie didn’t do that, I happen to think all apart from ex military might freeze or exhibit shock in the moment and not hit the deck immediately. It makes me wonder if Nellie Connelly also knew what was to happen that day, I think John Connelly did. If so, then that gap illustrated in the video is probably accessible for longer for a south knoll shooter. 

I think this idea is pretty absurd and I'd have to ask outside of television, what experience do you have with shootings of any kind as well as with people who have been involved in shootings, even as witnesses? There is no one thing that is going to happen, and while a person's past experiences and training will directly impact their fight or flight response and what form that response takes, to posit that anyone other than former military would freeze is just flat out wrong.

3 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Chris, remember what Connally said to his wife"They're going to kill us all." (My bold)

Doctors at Parkland exclaimed the same thing. "They've shot the President." 

12 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Yes, but there is a serious question about whether LHO actually ever saw "I Led 3 Lives."

Robert Oswald wrote:

One of his favorite programs was I Led Three Lives, the story of
Herbert Philbrick, the FBI informant who posed as a Communist spy. In the
early 1950's, Lee watched that show every week without fail. When I left home
to join the Marines, he was still watching the reruns."

But Robert Oswald joined the Marines and left for San Diego on July 15, 1952, and, as you say, the "I Led Three Lives" program didn't premiere until roughly a year later. This gets worse in Youth House....  

 

 

So is it your position then that since he had left for the service he wasn't in a position to know or comment on the family activities? 

6 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

"I Led 3 Lives" first aired in 1953, so the same year Oswald allegedly started to display his left-wing leanings. For a 13-year-old to become fascinated with a political ideology as complicated as Communism is a rare and remarkable thing. (Most adults cannot comprehend the philosophical and economic ideas that form the basis of Marxism.) However, playing the role of your favorite TV character in real life is more like the behavior you'd expect from a person that age.

I think Oswald was never genuinely interested in Communisum. He never met a real communist in his life. And a real communist would not subscribe to both a Stalinist and a Trotksyite newspaper.

I have a similar experience in life and I believe a great deal of it all depends on environment and upbringing. I have a complicated political ideology, but I tend to as a blanket statement say that I am a Communist. (Considering where I live and work, I often have interesting conversations.) I came to all this though at a young age, and by the time I was 15 was more of a Communist than a Capitalist. While I'm more "learned" now, much of my knowledge at that time, and even through the years of Oswald's short life was more superficial than true understanding. I still to this day lean the way I lean and many of my beliefs derive directly from experiences from those times.

My "interest" was sparked by my experiences and as a result of a being a product of the various "systems" I was a product of. Interesting enough, many of my early year experiences mimic Oswald's early years.

I only mention all of this to say for many people, their political interest and leanings begin developing at a young age and I believe Oswald was one of these people. 

4 minutes ago, John Kowalski said:

Saw a documentary called Three Identical Strangers which is based on the true story of three identical triplets who were separated at birth as part of an experiment to determine the impact of nature versus nurture on human development. They were raised in three different homes, one blue-collar, one middle class and one affluent, and these homes had different parenting styles.

One of the them enrolled in college and noticed that people were addressing him by a different name, which was the name of one of his brothers who attended the same college. Publicity about them reached the third brother who realized that he was related to them. After they reunited they discovered that they had been part of a long-term experiment.

 

I'm familiar with this.

For me it further solidifies at least one of the points I make regarding the "Harvey & Lee" theory: other people they came into contact with would have likely been aware of the name, familial, and physical similarities between the two boys and at some point someone would have mentioned to the other the fact that there was another boy with an almost identical name, similar appearance, and who had family members with the exact same names.

That fact is what alerted Bobby Shafran to his brothers, as soon as people saw him they remarked on everything I mentioned above and he found it odd enough to look into.

I believe the same would have happened with Oswald. At some point some one of the many contacts they shared would mention the similarities to one of the supposed boys and the entire situation would have exploded. 

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

No, it isn't.  Why don't you at least try to understand the basics of Harvey and Lee before arguing against them.

What am I arguing against? I asked a question... 

What's basically incorrect then? 

ETA:

Also, this is taken directly from the "Harvey & Lee" website:

Quote

A program created by US intelligence merged the identities of Russian-speaking HARVEY and American-born LEE Oswald. The result, ten years later, was that young Russian-speaking HARVEY had an American background and birth certificate. HARVEY was an ideal candidate to “defect” to the Soviet Union and work as an undercover agent who secretly understood Russian.

This seems to be basically the exact thing I said.

Quote

A program created by US intelligence merged the identities of Russian-speaking HARVEY and American-born LEE Oswald. The result, ten years later, was that young Russian-speaking HARVEY had an American background and birth certificate. HARVEY was an ideal candidate to “defect” to the Soviet Union and work as an undercover agent who secretly understood Russian.

If I'm wrong, you really should update your website.

If I'm wrong, can you please clarify for me what I'm wrong about, and how what I said differs from what you write on your website?

I gotta say, I'm completely lost and confused.

As I understand the "Harvey & Lee" theory, the entire project was created because "they" needed a native speaker of Russia to be infiltrated into the country for spying missions. It was necessary to have a native speaker versus someone American who learned Russian due to accents, etc... which would raise suspicion of the spy and his mission. A native speaker might seem more inconspicuous and not arouse suspicion.

Is this basically correct?

32 minutes ago, Mark Tyler said:

• She saw a dog in the limo.

As explained on page 214:

"Between the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and they kept asking me what kind of a dog and I said, "I don't know, I wasn't interested in what was in the seat," but I said, "It was white and fuzzy," and I said, "It was something white and kind of fuzzy and it was in the seat between them," and I said, "I just got to thinking---it must be a small dog," because I had remarked to my girl friend as they were taking us in the police station, I said, "Why?" I said, "I could see Liz Taylor or the Gabors traveling with a bunch of dogs, but I can't see the Kennedys traveling with dogs. Why would they have a dog with them on tour?" And, when we remarked about that she and I both--and I said, "Did you see it? What kind of a dog was it? Why were they taking a dog?" I found out later that it was those roses in the seat, but I knew they were looking at something and I just barely glanced and I saw this."

She said "barely glanced" so it's not surprising that she interpreted the white and fuzzy object as a dog in that split second.

I believe this would be the lamb chop doll she had. I'm not near my files but the pictures and information is easy to find.