10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I would just like an informed crowd on the JFK case to go ahead and chime in on this issue.

How many shells were up on the sixth floor and were found at about 1:00 PM?

Please offer your insights if you can as to why you think what you do.

Jim,

Read pages 90-94 of Noel Twyman's Bloody Treason here (especially page 92):

https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Bloody_Treason.pdf

Here's a wild thought.

Did Fritz take the live shell from the rifle and throw it on the floor with the spent shells?

Steve Thomas

4 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

I have a question for the general forum. Fritz said that he turned the unfired bullet over to the crime lab "later", before it went to the FBI.

Has anyone seen a crime lab receipt for this unfired bullet being received from Captain Fritz? I can slog my way through the DPD Archives, but that's going to take a while.

 

Steve Thomas

Okay. I found part of the answer. This looks like the receipt of the Crime Search Section turning over the live round to the FBI.

DPD Archives Box 9, Folder# 4, Item# 32

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box9.htm

CSS Section

This is a handwritten note

“1 live WCC 6.5 shell in barrel ready to fire of rifle# C2766 when rifle ready to fire on 6^th floor” (I think WCC should be MCC)

Date submitted 11/22/63 “about 2:15PM” written above that is 1:45.

Submitted by J.C. Day and Captain Fritz. It doesn't say who in the lab this was originally turned over to Friday afternoon.

It looks like this was turned over to Vincent Drain on 11/22/63 at 11:45 PM

Steve Thomas

16 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Jim,

 

You may be interested in this.

Look at the DPD Archives Box 5, Folder# 2, Item# 102 page 1

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box5.htm

This is an inventory of the evidence in the case.

1 live round 6.5 Recovered by Dep't Sheriff Luke Mooney at 411 Elm, 6th floor, in the southeast window.

6.5 spent rounds (3) Found by Deputy Sheriff Mooney; picked up by Det. R.M. Sims.

No mention of the live round ejected from the rifle and retained by Fritz.

 

Steve Thomas

 

Compare this to:

DPD Archives Box 6, Folder# 1, Item# 23 page 5

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box6.htm

This is an index tab for the evidence in the DPD case file under “e” for evidence

live round 6.5

3 6.5 spent rounds Found by Dep Sheriff Mooney. Picked up by Det. R.M. Sims.

Notice how the wording about where that live round was discovered has changed.

Steve Thomas

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I would just like an informed crowd on the JFK case to go ahead and chime in on this issue.

How many shells were up on the sixth floor and were found at about 1:00 PM?

Please offer your insights if you can as to why you think what you do.

Jim,

You may be interested in this.

Look at the DPD Archives Box 5, Folder# 2, Item# 102 page 1

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box5.htm

This is an inventory of the evidence in the case.

1 live round 6.5 Recovered by Dep't Sheriff Luke Mooney at 411 Elm, 6th floor, in the southeast window.

6.5 spent rounds (3) Found by Deputy Sheriff Mooney; picked up by Det. R.M. Sims.

No mention of the live round ejected from the rifle and retained by Fritz.

Steve Thomas

Fritz did have a way of hanging on to things, didn't he?

The old klepto.

Steve Thomas

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Boy what an interesting question that is.

So what time could this be, like around 12: 45 when Mooney gets to the sixth floor?

Jim,

It's impossible to know really. He said that within seconds after the shots rang out, he ran across Houston, up the embankment, jumped the fence and ran into the railroad yards.

(Mooney is another one of those witnesses who said the second and third shots were closer together than the first and second shots).

He left the rail yards and went into the TSBD through the back door. He said there were already other officers in the rail yards checking the cars, so he didn't stay there very long. He said he was only there for a few seconds until he received orders from Decker, relayed by another officer, to cover the TSBD.

I have a question for the general forum. Fritz said that he turned the unfired bullet over to the crime lab "later", before it went to the FBI.

Has anyone seen a crime lab receipt for this unfired bullet being received from Captain Fritz? I can slog my way through the DPD Archives, but that's going to take a while.

Steve Thomas

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

So the cartridges were found about 20 minutes before the rifle.

Therefore, they had to find a rifle to match the cartridges or else you have two gunmen and a conspiracy right?

Steve, when did the first policemen enter the sixth floor?

Jim,

I have to admit that I have not worked out the exact timing, but from what I've read, aside from Baker and Truly, the first people to go into the Depository were Sheriff's Deputies. Surprising as it is being a City jurisdiction, aside from a couple of officers (like the two Smiths and Welcome Barnett) working traffic control, the Dallas City Police didn't seem to have much of a presence in the Elm and Houston area proper.

There is a curious little passage in Deputy Sheriff, Luke Mooney's WC testimony: (He's the one who found the shells)

WC testimony of Luke Mooney

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/mooney1.htm

"Mr. MOONEY - Mr. Webster and Mr. Vickery were there with me at the time that we received these orders from another deputy.
Mr. BALL - They are deputy sheriffs?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir; they were plainclothes officers like myself, work in the same department,..."

(After going into the TSBD)...

"So I looked around their office there, just a short second or two, and then I went up the staircase myself. And I met some other officers coming down, plainclothes, and I believe they were deputy sheriffs. They were coming down the staircase. "

"I got out on the floor with these women and looked around in their office and I then took to the stairs and went to the 6th floor, and Officers Webster and Victory went up to the 7th floor. I was the only person on the 6th floor when I searched it and was reasonably sure that there was no one else on this floor as I searched it and then criss-crossed it, seeing only stacks of cartons of books."

(Is it Vickery, or Victory?)

I myself, have never seen any statements by Deputy Sheriff's Webster, or Vickery or Victory. Their statements might exist, it's just that I've never seen them, so I don't know what they might have seen or heard.

It's interesting. Baker and Truly were supposed to have been about the earliest people around those top floors, but the two groups of people don't seem to have run into each other.

Who were these plainclothed men coming down the stairs as Mooney was going up?

Steve Thomas

2 hours ago, Rick McTague said:

Steve,

These two factors make it improbable, in my opinion, that the only shots fired at JFK happened as the WC report said.  Who loads different types of rounds, in reverse order of intended targets?  Who partially loads a clip when they are intending to assassinate the president?

Thanks

Rick

Rick,

I have long speculated that somebody screwed up and planted the wrong caliber bullets in the sniper's nest. The 6.5 caliber spent shells were found, photographed, dusted for prints, and placed in an envelope at 1:00 PM. They had already been entered into the chain of evidence. The rifle was discovered at 1:22 PM

Read this WC reply by Will Fritz carefully when he was asked about the mention of a 7.65 caliber Mauser:

"Mr. BALL. Well, did you ever make any---did you ever say that it was a 7.65 Mauser?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I am sure I did not.
Mr. BALL. Or did you think it was such a thing?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I did not. If I did, the Mauser part, I won't be too positive about Mauser because I am not too sure about Mauser rifles myself. But I am certainly sure that I never did give anyone any different caliber than the one that shows on the cartridges."

It's not the rifle he is concerned about. It's the caliber of the bullets.

I can't think of any other reason why; when that live round was ejected and fell to the floor, that Fritz picked it up and stuck it in his pocket, rather than calling Studebaker and Sims to come over and put it in an evidence bag. My belief is, that he looked at it and realized that the caliber of the live shell did not match the caliber of the spent cartridges.

Steve Thomas

I have been thinking about the physical process you go through to load bullets into a clip, and the fact that the live round in the rifle did not have any fingerprints on it. Don't you have to press down on the bullet with your thumb to get it into the clip? Even if the shooter wore gloves to load the clip, wouldn't the unfired bullet have at least Fritz's and Day's fingerprints on it? Both of them handled it. And why would Fritz have stuck this bullet in his pocket and not place it in an evidence bag and give it to Studebaker or Sims who were collecting evidence at the TSBD? The fired shells were placed in an envelope that was marked with the date and time. Why wasn't this done with the unfired round?

Day's and Fritz's testimony are at odds as to when that bullet was dusted for prints.

Mr. BELIN. What did you do with this after you put your name on it?
Mr. DAY. Captain Fritz took possession of it. I retained possession of the rifle.

Mr. BELIN. Did you process this live round at all for prints?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I did. I did not find any prints.

Mr. BALL. After the pictures had been taken of the rifle what happened then?
Mr. FRITZ. After the pictures had been made then I ejected a live shell, a live cartridge from the rifle.
Mr. BALL. And who did you give that to?
Mr. FRITZ. I believe that I kept that at that time myself. Later I gave it to the crime lab who, in turn, turned it over to the FBI.

Mr. McCLOY. Before Captain Fritz ejected the live cartridge, did you dust the rifle for fingerprints?
Mr. DAY. Not before.

Mr. McCLOY. When was the rifle as such dusted with fingerprint powder?
Mr. DAY. After ejecting the live round, then I gave my attention to the rifle.

Mr. McCLOY. Can I ask one question there, did you take any precautions as to fingerprints before you ejected this?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. So in your opinion your fingerprints wouldn't show?
Mr. FRITZ. He could have taken mine but I let him dust first before I ejected a shell.

Steve Thomas

33 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I'm thinking of the 2004 Australian test, which essentially showed that the SBT is "valid" (with respect to the basic path that the 2004 test bullet took through two "bodies", with the missile ending up in one unbroken piece).

Makes me wonder why you put "bodies" in quotes.

Steve Thomas

1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

Ron,

 

I was watching an interview with Carmen Boulter the other night. She is a Professor at the University of Calgary in Canada. She teaches in the Graduate Division of Educational Research in the Faculty of Education. She said that any theory must have validity and reliability.

That is, any theory must have the quality of being logically or factually sound, and yield consistent results over time.

Testing a theory can be reliable, meaning that the test-takers will get the same score no matter when or where they take it, within reason of course. But that doesn't mean that it is valid or measuring what it is supposed to measure. A test can be reliable without being valid. However, a test cannot be valid unless it is reliable.

I think a perfect example is this WC exchange with Captain Fritz. He is speaking of Roger Craig...

Mr. FRITZ. "One deputy sheriff who started to talk to me but he was telling me some things that I knew wouldn't help us and I didn't talk to him but someone else took an affidavit from him. His story that he was telling didn't fit with what we knew to be true."

 

Fritz is being reliable, but is his theory valid? He is consistent with the evidence he had at hand, but what does he do when presented with new or conflicting evidence? He dismisses it outright.

 

Steve Thomas

Ron,

Here's another one looking at it from a different angle:

The theory is that you can hit a moving target with a bolt action rifle three times in less than six seconds.

So, they tested that out, and sure enough it can be done. So, the theory is valid.

But is it reliable? Can you consistently prove that theory over multiple tests?

Well, no, you can't.

The theory is valid, but not reliable.

A theory has to be both valid and reliable.

Steve Thomas

3 hours ago, Paz Marverde said:

In the past few days, I saw people here saying the solution to this Forum's problems is to give more space to the most astonishing theories on JFK assassination. The more a theory is astonishing, the more it has the right to be here. On the other side, I saw people saying just the opposite: the more a theory is near to what the WC said, the more it has the right to be here.

 

Paz,

Sometimes, just the sheer number of theories that are out there, are used to dismiss all of them.

Here is an example. This was on CNN on Tuesday, March 20, 2018...

"5 things you may not know about JFK's assassination"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/jfk-assassination-5-things/index.html

"Whether you were alive at the time or not, you probably know that Lee Harvey Oswald killed the President, only to be fatally gunned down by Jack Ruby two days later.

You probably also know there are hundreds of conspiracy theories about who was behind the assassination, and whether Oswald was the lone gunman or if there was another shooter on the infamous grassy knoll."

One statement is a statement of fact. The other is just "hundreds of conspiracy theories."

Steve Thomas

2 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

Paz,

Good suggestion, though even with evidence there are those who would call a theory "crap."

 

Ron,

I was watching an interview with Carmen Boulter the other night. She is a Professor at the University of Calgary in Canada. She teaches in the Graduate Division of Educational Research in the Faculty of Education. She said that any theory must have validity and reliability.

That is, any theory must have the quality of being logically or factually sound, and yield consistent results over time.

Testing a theory can be reliable, meaning that the test-takers will get the same score no matter when or where they take it, within reason of course. But that doesn't mean that it is valid or measuring what it is supposed to measure. A test can be reliable without being valid. However, a test cannot be valid unless it is reliable.

I think a perfect example is this WC exchange with Captain Fritz. He is speaking of Roger Craig...

Mr. FRITZ. "One deputy sheriff who started to talk to me but he was telling me some things that I knew wouldn't help us and I didn't talk to him but someone else took an affidavit from him. His story that he was telling didn't fit with what we knew to be true."

Fritz is being reliable, but is his theory valid? He is consistent with the evidence he had at hand, but what does he do when presented with new or conflicting evidence? He dismisses it outright.

Steve Thomas

16 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

On other forums I've found that "Ignore" works better in theory than in reality.  You end up seeing the Ignored poster's posts when someone you don't Ignore quotes them,

Lance,

You also have to be logged in for the Ignore function to work.

Steve Thomas

Dear Moderators,

I think it would be very helpful to add a thread title to the opening page that contains instructions for members on how to use the ignore function.

You could place it at the top alongside How to Donate to the Site, and Membership Behavior, etc. Put it up there and then lock it down.

Michael Clark provided instructions, but I'm afraid those will get lost in time as newer posts come online.

That way, you leave it up to the individual user to decide who he or she wants to interact with.

Steve Thomas

2 hours ago, Chris Scally said:

Accordingly, I would recommend wholeheartedly that those of us who are interested in intelligent and civil discourse on the true subject matter of this Forum (as opposed to some of the totally insane theories which are sometimes peddled here and elsewhere) consider the simple option of ignoring all posts from those who seek to bring this Forum to its knees.

Amen.

Steve Thomas

I guess I had no idea.

From the WC testimony of George Bouhe:

Mr. BOUHE - For 9 1/2 years I was employed as a personal accountant of a very prominent Dallas geologist, and probably capitalist if you want to say it, Lewis W, MacNaughton, senior chairman of the board of the well-known geological and engineering firm of DeGolyer & MacNaughton, but I was MacNaughton's personal employee.

From: Everette Lee Degolyer, 1886-1956: A Biographical Memoir, by A. Roger Dension. National Academy of Sciences, 1959.

http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/degolyer-everette.pdf

"He (DeGolyer) lived to be honored by the highest elective offices and to be awarded the highest decorations of the American Association ofPetroleum Geologists and the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers. He was a lecturer much sought after, filled distinguished positions at three universities, and was awarded honorary degrees by six. Nine or more United States Government agencies,commissions, advisory boards, and committees called on him for service which he generously contributed.This combination logically made his advice much sought after in business, and he was for many years the world's leading oil consultant. The opinion of his firm, DeGolyer and MacNaughton, on an appraisal of the worth of a property or a company was accepted as final in financial and government circles the world around. This firm was at one time or another consultant to ten or more foreign governments on subjects ranging from organizing exploration programs to the proper price for oil F.O.B. tankers in the Persian Gulf."

George Bouhe would play a prominent role in the life of Lee and Marina Oswald.

Steve Thomas

I have been involved in Internet communications for a long time – even before Windows was invented, and people were communicating in community bulletin boards using DOS.

Haters (I won't use the “T” word) exist for one purpose; to steer the conversation so that it's about them, and not for whatever the discussion is about at the time. It doesn't matter what the Forum is about, or the form that it takes. The moment the Forum, or discussion group, or newsgroup or whatever changes so that the dialog becomes about him or her, and not about what the Forum was created for, the hater wins. You can't win against a hater, because they live for the combat. They thrive on it. The best you can do is not give it food.

The alternative is to leave, which is a loss for everyone else because intellectual thought dies and all you are left with is desert sand.

Steve Thomas

The U.S. State Department was very concerned about the Russians sending false defectors to the United States by having their women marry foreigners, returning with these new husbands to their new home, and then divorcing them. Manufacturing a case for domestic abuse would certainly fall into this scenario.

I've always been surprised by how fast Marina arranged to get away from Lee Oswald once they got back here to the U.S. They returned to the U.S. in June, and by September, was it?,  she was living with someone else.

In his WC testimony, George DeMohrenschildt said:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/demohr_g.htm

Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. “Right from the very first day my wife told Marina, "You have to learn English, you have to be able to communicate, and especially since you do not get along with your husband and you are going to leave him some day--you have to be able to support your child and yourself. You have to learn English and start immediately on it."

WC Testimony of Jeanne DeMohrenschildt

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/demohr_j.htm

Mr. JENNER. Now, as I understand it, you met the Oswalds in the summer of 1962.
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. In the late summer.

How would Jeanne DeMohrenschildt know in the late summer of 1962 that Marina was going to be leaving Lee unless Marina told her so?

Steve Thomas

47 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul,

I really hope you reconsider.  You were on of the best posters here.  And on top of that you were really a class act.

Please think this over.

The departure of you and David is a real loss to this site.

I recently posted a thread asking people not to feed the trolls. I did not use any names.

The thread disappeared within two hours.

Steve Thomas

2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

So why didn't these supposed Mad Doctors try to cover this up during their so-called alteration session?

Marine guards standing at the ready pulling a body bag from the rear door of the plane and throwing it onto the copter?

"Mad doctors"?

"throwing the body"?

my, my, my.

Texas didn't "want" to do the autopsy. They were required to.

The Secret Service, sworn to uphold the law, broke it; and by doing so, broke the chain of evidence, creating 50 years of confusion.

Steve Thomas

8 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

I mean really Steve...that's a huge heap of speculation.

Was there a period of time when the bronze casket was left alone at Parkland long enough for JFK's body to be witched to a shipping casket?

I couldn't find one. As I said, " I was not able to find a time when Jackie left JFK's body long enough for a switch to be made at Parkland."

But I wondered to myself if that's what the big fight in the hallway was all about. I wondered if the bronze casket was empty at that point.

Steve Thomas

1 hour ago, David Lifton said:

 If someone has objections to any thesis that I have advanced, I'm interested in hearing about what those objections  are.

David,

I remember talking to you about this several years ago, and you convinced me that what I was talking about wasn't feasible, but I don't remember what you said.

I was talking about the possibility of using the tunnels that Price talked about in his testimony and reports.

I was not able to find a time when Jackie left JFK's body long enough for a switch to be made at Parkland.

Here's what I posited back then:

"I got to wondering where a "pink/grey" shipping casket may have come from. I mean, what does a hospital do when a person arrives DOA at a hospital, or dies during surgery, etc? Do hospitals keep a supply of caskets in storage or something?

Dr. Price, Parkland Hospital Administrator was asked this. In his Warren Commission Price Exhibit 33, page 111 he wrote this:

http://www.aarclibra...ice_Ex_2-35.pdf

About this time a secret service man came to me and asked how we could move the president's body. He asked if we had a casket, a basket or anything that we could get to move the body immediately. I told him that we had nothing like that, but that we had several military installation nearby where we could get a casket, or we could get one from a local funeral director. He asked me to wait where I was, stating he would be back in just a minute,. I noticed that Steve had started out of the area with a secret service man and asked where he was going. He said to get a casket, and I told him to wait a minute as someone had just asked me about one and had asked that no further action be taken at that tine. Another man in the group who had been talking with Mrs. Kennedy and the other secret service agents near her came to me and asked that we get a casket of any kind from any place the quickest possible way. I then turned to Steve and relayed the request to him, and asked that he see what could be done about it.

I don't know who this "other man in the group talking with Mrs. Kennedy" was. If you needed a "pinkish/grey" shipping casket similar to ones used to ship servicemen home from Vietnam, what better place to get one than from a military installation?

Is this how the casket was removed?

On page 110 of this Exhibit, Price wrote:

While talking with Mrs. Nelson, one of the secret service men who had been bruised or had a minor injury came to me and asked if there were another way that the President and Mrs. Kennedy could be taken out of the building. I told him there was a tunnel exit and that if he would come with me, I would walk it off for him. I walked down to inspect the tunnel, then returned to the surgery area of the Emergency Room.

(Does anyone know about a Secret Service man who had been bruised or had a minor injury?)

While I was talking with him, (a Mr. Maher) another secret service man grabbed me by the arm and asked if I knew an alternate route the Johnson*s could use for an exit. I told him I had walked out an alternate route with another agent a few minutes ago and that if he would come with me, I would show him. We went to the Emergency Room elevator, one of the maintenance men was manually operating it and told him to take us to the basement....

I instructed the elevator operator to go to second (floor for an emergency delivery of blood),and then to take us on down to the basement. The secret service agent and I "ran" the alternate route, then when we got back to the Emergency Room area, he asked me to show him where the Johnsons were.

While all the attention was on Air Force One, could the shipping casket have been placed on Air Force Two, or the C-130 military plane that took the limousine back to Washington? I would have to find the radio logs for Air Force Two or the cargo manifest for the C-130 to find out more."

Do you happen to remember what you told me at the time?

Steve Thomas

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Frazier had an Enfield rifle. And since Frazier drove the assassin to work in his own car on the day of the assassination, OF COURSE Frazier (along with his rifle) is going to be considered a potential suspect and a possible accomplice. Why WOULDN'T he be considered in such a light right after an assassination had just been committed by a person who was driven to work by Frazier on the day it happened?

The same goes for Joe R. Molina, another Depository employee with an apparent "subversive" history (per the DPD files). Molina was questioned within 24 hours of the assassination and released when it was discovered he had nothing to do with the assassination. The same with Frazier.

William Randle's rifle (scope) is investigated. Again, so what? That's to be EXPECTED, in my opinion, since Mr. Randle had a "connection" to Buell Wesley Frazier, who was also investigated.

 

 

Don't overlook a common police interrogation technique. Treat all suspects as if they are guilty and force them to prove they are innocent.
See the FBI  interview of William Chambers. Captain Jones pulls him aside and instructs him that when interrogating the three tramps,
 "Find out which one shot the President".

 FBI 124-10179-10312
http://jfkassassinationfiles.com/fbi_124-10179-10312
page 2

That's the way Buell Wesley Frazier was treated. That's the way Joe Molina was treated.

Steve Thomas

17 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

To Steve and Ron:

Thompson does not believe that today, about the two head shots back to back.

 

Jim,

I'm thinking about all of the ear witnesses who were asked to recreate the sounds of what they heard.

Steve Thomas