Antti Hynonen

Hear hear. Shanet, those are the questions and statement that I would like to see explained and discussed. Well put.

Hi Tim, Yes you are right about the evidence that supports Lee's Mexico trip. We also have his wife, Marina, who says he went there. Now if that's not reliable what is? Joking and sarcasm aside, my point was: * this poor fellow was in so many places doing so many things that there was at the least one person impersonating him. * now, that we have established the fact that he was impersonated, we have to ask why? * I will further argue, that the answer lies in the events which took place on 11/22/63. Considering my statements here and in my previous post, there is no other solution to the "riddle wrapped in an enigma", except that there was a conspiracy to frame Lee Oswald as the single lone nut assassin of president Kennedy. This is something the honorable WC declined. These facts alone should have been enough to prove a conspiracy took place and it should have been properly investigated in 1963 and 1964. No proper investigation took place until Garrison started poking around a few years later. We all know what started happening to folks related to the case at that time....

Tim, I'd like to present my own conclusions on the Odio and Oswald in Mexico incidents. The official story (WC) is LHO is in Mexico, they have their air tight story together, with voice recordings (that can easily be determined not to represent Lee Oswald's voice), oh, and also photos! We can all see from James Richard's post that they are not Lee Harvey Oswald. At the same time there are two eye witnesses (Sylvia Odio and her sister), who claim that they were visited by three men (one of whom is Lee, a.k.a. Leon Oswald) during the days when Lee Oswald was supposed to be in Mexico City. Both Sylvia and her sister seem pretty sure it is the same man who came to their house (positive ID). Naturally the WC decides to go with the Mexico City theory, as it makes more sense to have sombody raving at the Russian and Cuban Embassies there as opposed to having him associated with anti-Castro Cubans in Dallas. These incidents are perfect examples of the thorough work done by the WC, just ignore the other evidence if it doesn't fit with the rest of the story. Conclusion: Based on the information we know: Lee Oswald was being framed as a patsy. Therefore, knowing of these two individual - almost simultaneous events, as well of what happened on 11/22/63, there was a conspiracy to frame Lee Oswald.

Richard, You could be right about there not being a path between the throat and the back wound. However, as I recall the wounds were never examined thoroughly enough to determine what direction the bullets were headed, or whether they infact were shallow wounds. The theory I presented (through and through, from throat to back) would help explain why there are no bullets to be found in the body.... of course someone could have dug them out between Parkland and Bethesda.

George, Many books have been published since the 1960's. Practically all of them provide some new detail, refer to new interviews or at the least present a new theory. Of course the basic facts of the case were known in 1963, but since then the investigation has come a long way. The conspriators have done an excepetional job in destroying evidence, providing false/misleading evidence (disinformation) and eliminating and threatening witnesses. Therefore IMO it is unlikely that any hard evidence will be found which could be used in legal proceedings. Some books published in the last few years are: Crossfire, Blood Money & Power, Someone Would have Talked. An interesting TV documentary started in the 1980's is The Men who killed Kennedy (a total of 9 episodes have been completed). The last three episodes were pulled off the air due to legal prosecution by a group of individuals. They are also officially not availbale on DVD or video any more, however, the first 6 series are. The books and the videos I mentioned have provided new information, details and interviews on this case. I believe no new major facts of the case have come to light since 1963-1964. I will try to answer your questions. Question one: What may seem a big step forward to one researcher may seem a minor step to another. The answer will depend on who you ask. In my view, we have taken thousands of little steps since 1963. Question two: I can't define any new "facts" that all researchers can agree on, as to me it seems many researchers seem to follow their own line of inquiry and the leads that make sense to them. The case is so big that most will only focus on the issues they find interesting. Other researchers may have a different view.

Richard J. Smith Posted Yesterday, 04:29 PM QUOTE(Nic Martin @ Jan 25 2005, 03:42 AM) QUOTE(Richard J. Smith @ Jan 25 2005, 01:24 AM) Paul, It's rather obvious you don't respect our opinions, calling them nonsensical, nor do you see the facts that have been posted here. You've asked questions in other threads, and we have responded. Now you've started yet ANOTHER thread calling our research BS. You, like most other LNs, choose to ignore the evidence presented. Try reading through some of the on-line seminars before you start another thread. If you did some of your own research instead of believing the LN tripe fed to you, you would at least be heading in the right direction. Explain why the autopsy photos show no large gaping wound in the back of the head as described by over 30 witnesses. Explain how a single bullet could have entered JFK's back, dropped 4 inches, bruised the upper lobe of the lung, then rose to exit the throat, striking John Connally 3 times, leaving the bullet nearly undamaged. Explain how this lone nut Lee Oswald had documented contacts with Cuban exiles, the CIA...forget it Paul, you don't really want to know. Looking forward to your next thread. RJS With every post you make, I adore you more and more. Thanks Nic. I do, however, need to correct something I said in my post. There was steam coming out of my ears when I wrote it, so I wasn't as clear headed as I should have been. "Explain how a single bullet could have entered JFK's back, dropped 4 inches, bruised the upper lobe of the lung, then rose to exit the throat" The bullet wouldn't have DROPPED 4 inches. Considering the downward angle, and the lung bruise, the bullet would have to have RISEN about 4 inches to exit the throat where it did. The back wound and the lung bruise align pretty well. From the autopsy report: "There is contusion of the parietal pleura and of the extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura are intact overlying these areas of trauma." So what does this mean? There was a bruise and discoloration under the lining of the upper right lung lobe. The lining(pleura) was not perforated. You can get an idea of contusion and ecchymosis after you whack yourself on the fingernail with a hammer(don't try this at home kids). It bruises, and blood seeps under the nail causing discoloration. In my opinion based on the back wound location and the bruised lung, the bullet entered JFK's back and acted like a hammer striking the fingernail. Either that bullet continued on into the chest cavity passing close enough to the lung to bruise it, or it was a relatively low power hit, and entirely possible that the bullet did indeed get pressed out of the wound during cardio resusitation. I would also like to note that an autopsy photo was taken of the right upper lobe of the lung, and it is missing(ref telecon between Ramsey Clark and LBJ. If anyone would like to read this, I'll find it and post it). So how in the world(unless you truly have a magic bullet) did this bullet enter the back, bruise the lung, rise at least 4 inches and exit the throat. The answer? It couldn't have. RJS

Ron, I have to say I have read about that theory too. I didn't give it much attention due to the reasons you stated. As for Mr. Paul Troglia, I seriously question his motivations. Is he here to debate or to try and annoy?

Paul, Richard, if you were to watch the informative A&E and History channel series "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", you would know about this particular incident and many more sources of information. This is from memory, so others may jump in and correct me if I'm wrong. Mortician Paul Groody, then of the Miller Funeral home, testified that during the late evening of Nov. 24th 1963, or around that date, two agents came to the funeral home and asked to see the body of Lee Oswald. Groody showed them to the body which he had prepared for the funeral. The "Agents" were left alone with the body. Soon after they left, Groody went in and discovered that Lee Oswald hands were covered in ink and Groody had to remove the ink, so the body would be presentable at the funeral. The argument here was that among others, the prints obtained that evening at the funeral home were actually (a palm print) placed on the Mannlicher rifle too. I don't know of the details. However, the whole thing is quite suspicious as Lee Oswald was fingerprinted at the DPD not once, but as I recall 3 times already. The fact is that immediately no prints were found on the rifle, then all of a sudden a palm print was discovered (2 or 3 days later....) , probably because it was needed.

Richard, Thanks for correcting that. I wonder if the publication of these records is known by John Armstrong. I recall one of the issues he wished to investigate further was Lee's employment at different times. As I recall he wanted to use Lee's tax records to prove the point that Harvey and Lee both had independent jobs at different locations at the same time or something to that effect. I can't access the files through the link you gave, nevertheless, I'm glad they're released.

He looks a lot like Donald Rumsfeld.....

Hi Paul, Thanks for your comments. Probably not, however, that would involve receiving explanations for the many issues which remain suspicious to say the least.

Some reasons: * The more I read and hear about this, the more it seems like a conspiracy; the more interesting it gets. * The official government investigators, didn't follow-up with any evidence pointing towards a conspiracy. * So many pieces of evidence and so many documents were classified and locked up due to reasons of "National Security". * Oswalds tax records are classified, due to "National Security". * According to several sources, witness statements were altered. * The alleged murder weapon could not have been used with the accuracy as seen on 11/22/1963. Reasons: misaligned scope, weapon in poor state and also of sub-standard quality, furthermore tests to replicate have shown that the shots were "impossible" to complete with the weapon and under the circumstances. * Apparently at least 2 Carcanos have been entered as evidence at different times (with the same serial numbers). Yes, same number but not identical impression of serial number on the 2 weapons. Also one had a sling attached to the bottom of the weapon, whereas the other had a side attachment.

In a recent interview (2004) Howard Hunt was asked where he was on 11/22/1963. he replied: "No comment." His wife added something like: Howard told me he was not in Dallas that day, and I believe him. In my view, an answer such as: "No comment", is typically a response to an awkward issue, an issue one does not wish to discuss, kind of like the 5th amendment in court. To me it says he's probably among the fellows of the "inside ring".

Al, Thank you for your assessment. Seems like you have given it a lot of thought and appropriately used witness testimony and what little other evidence there is to make your conclusions. It seems like you would agree with what was presented on this issue in the movie JFK. Military style ambush, triangulation cross fire, hunting rifles, professional hit men or serious hunters. Of course in the film they elaborated and discussed 3 separate sniper teams with radio communication etc. nevertheless a well presented theory (if not fact).

Al if this is true of what Tim did, I will have to say that he has sunk to a level far lower than what I could have imagined. Telling your superiors that you have physically threatened him is a punch below the belt (I read all of Tim's and your postings, and did not find anything threatening, certainly not to a level such as he is attempting to indicate). Desperate people try desperate measures.

Ian, since you asked about opinions on the comment RE: "Oswald business"; I'd say "they" are referring to Oswald's trip to Mexico and the Cuban and Russian embassies. Perhaps they were also aware of the tape recordings, photographs and even the alleged money given to "Oswald". This info was something that worried Hoover, LBJ and the CIA... Who attempted to sweep all of it under a rug...

Al, thanks. I get the point. The picture makes it very clear what a rifle shot to the head can do. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, the damage to the person in the photo you sent is probably 4-5 times more severe than the damage to JFK 41 years ago. I am not familiar with the Lattimer tests. It would be nice to hear more of your conclusions or ideas of what weapons were used to assassinate JFK 41 years ago, and how you came to these conclusions.

Anyone who learns to speak and write a new language within a few years time, that also requires learning a new alphabet and completely new sounds is probably smarter than your average Joe. I too, must join the group that considers LHO smarter than average. My opinion is based on what LHO is known to have said and known to have done. His actions on and around 11/22/63 however, do seem quite unusual and irrational compared to his typical behavior. Perhaps his poor motivation at work can be explained by his true professional motivations being elsewhere whilst employed as a laborer. I find it impossible to believe that a man interested in foreign languages, photography, literature and politics is satisifed with a job requiring him to fill book orders in a warehouse, nor do I believe that a man with those interests is someone of inferior intellect.

Al, I e-mailed you RE the photo. As a non-expert in ballistics, I'd just want to confirm that the WC alleged weapon and caliber was a Mannlicher Carcano 6.5 mm. Al's photo is of a wound from a 50 cal. rifle. The 50 Cal. translates to 12,7 mm. This is roughly twice the cailber as compared to the MC 6.5. How should this be taken into account when comparing the two shootings and the wounds?

Al, Perhaps you could write a few lines on this thread by just doing a general comparison of the photo you have and the available JFK photos? I mean no photos needed on the thread, just discuss how the wounds are similar or how they differ, and what can be deduced from the comparison and JFK's wounds. Personally, I'd be interested in hearing more expert opinions as to whether it was likely that JFK's head wound was caused by a FMJ bullet or not and whether it could have been caused by a large caliber revolver or pistol (closer range), as opposed to a high powered rifle fired from a distance. Not knowing much, I would still argue that a full metal jacket bullet would typically cause a through and through wound, with a small entry wound and an exit wound varying in size and shape (even if hit in the head). However, I have a hard time believing that an exit wound caused by a FMJ bullet would take off a quarter of one's skull (like JFK).

Top Ten: 1.) Marina (Oswald) Porter 2.) Ruth Paine 3.) Michael Paine 4.) Buell W. Frazier 5.) E. Howard Hunt 6.) Det. Stovall 7.) Det. Rose 8.) Sp. Agent Hosty 9.) Domingo Benavides 10.) Danny Arce I don't know if all are alive, never the less it would be interesting to interview these people. Surely if they have nothing to hide, they would all agree to a polygraph test....

Jack: Was your assailant ever caught? Who was (S)he?

Sure Tim, I do. As I recall the finding of Malcolm Wallace's fingerprint is disputed (well, what evidence is not disputed...???). It would be interesting to follow-up on that and see if that evidence is anything that could be used in a court of law one day. At any rate I was referring to witness testimony, primarily (Marina, Buell W. Frazier etc.). The alleged weapon has already been looked at by unbiased experts. From their statements, my personal conclusion is that the Carcano was not used in the assassination (at least not in a lethal way), also it seems like more than one Carcano have been entered as evidence at different stages of the investigation. The autopsy has also been discussed by many researchers, and among many the conclusion is that the WC entered false information into their report (re: Rydberg et al drawings vs. the fact that shoulder wound was actually some 4 inches lower, close to spine, as seen on autopsy photos). In the thread re: back-yard photos, I have suggested that Marina (Oswald) Porter's statement regarding these photos is very shakey to say the least. Researchers have found out that there were several poses of the back-yard photos, both with, and without the guns. It is also disputed whether more than 1 camera has been used to take the photos. Jack White says they are all fakes and fabrications, perhaps so. Bill Miller's work regarding the photos and the non-altering size of Lee's head is convincing too. Also, I'd be interested to see if Buell Frazier would do a second lie detector test, I know one was administered during the night of Nov. 22 1963-Nov. 23rd 1963. Since it was done by DPD, it leaves us with certain doubts. Frazier and his sister both insisted that the package Lee put in Wes Fraziers' car and brought to the DPD was 2 feet long. However the physical evidence shows that a Carcano will be at least some 3 feet long no matter what you do in terms of disassembling. Perhaps Wes Frazier can explain what happened to the 2 foot long package on Nov. 22nd 1963? There are several other pieces of evidence and many statements that do not make sense. The mere fact that the entire case against Lee Oswald is full of coincidences, suspicious evidence, changed testimony, contradicting testimony should indicate that foul play was part of the game that cost the lives of 3 men in Dallas on Nov. 22nd 1963 and the lives of many more later. Why are simple things classified as matters of "National Security" such as Lee Oswald's tax records, not to mention all the FBI and CIA documents.