Ian Lloyd

If PM is holding a camera, it doesn't appear to be the most advantageous position to get a decent photograph of the president, seems to me about all he'd end up getting is a good pic of the backs of the peoples' heads in front of him...this isn't to say that I don't think he's holding a camera, the comparisons above are compelling in that respect.

Could the guy standing in the background under the tree be the person shown as figure 'E' in the TSBD doorway?

Thanks all - So, it certainly looks like it's Shelley. In which case I also doubt very much that he is the same person as the person shown as figure 'E' in the photograph shown in post 1831. Also extremely unlikely to be PM.

Oops, just saw your line above the GIF...sorry.

I've just thought - I need to check affidavits and testimony of BRW as he may have said that he was taken to the DPD with Arce and Shelley?...

Just seen the GIF - the red circle seems to appear around a different person?

Thanks Tommy - has this photograph been confirmed as Shelley i.e. compared to a contemporaneous photograph of him or someone positively identifying him?

Thank you Tommy.

Since I know of nothing to contrary, it must therefore be true that he wore a shirt and tie?

I'm not trying to be clever or awkward, just trying to work out the PM and Shelley conundrum in my own mind - I've probably missed the absolutely positive ID of Shelley somewhere along the line.

Is it just me, or does PM disappear from some of these visuals, only to reappear in others?

Also, wasn't LHO supposed to be dressed in a t-shirt when he was seen after the shooting by a woman TSBD office worker? PM is not dressed in a t-shirt in the Wiegman, Darnell, Couch films.

BM

That was Mrs Reid. I believe she got on board with her boss, Mr Truly (who penciled her name in the margin of his statement) by changing the time she had seen Oswald to corroborate the 2nd floor myth.

Didn't some of LHO's other co-workers (Frazier, Jarman, Norman, BRW?) also testify that he usually took off his shirt or jacket and worked wearing just a white tee-shirt?

Shelley is eliminated by his testimony

Shelley's testimony is suspect on many counts, but I don't think he's Prayer Man because of the clothing differences.

It seems you can barely make out Prayer Man's t-shirt or bare chest under his dark shirt.

Shelley was wearing a suit and tie that day.

--Tommy

Tommy,

Would you please direct me to where this is stated as fact please.

Thanks.

The other photos of Shelley show him to be quite lean. The man in the tie behind Lovelady looks like he has a paunch and a double chin.

Which other photos of Shelley? Are they actually confirmed as being Shelley?

Hi Vanessa,

Yes, I recall many people speculating regarding Shelly being depicted in that photograph but I didn't realise it had been definitively concluded that it was him. I cannot find anything absolutely conclusive in the Google images that the photograph you refer to actually depicts Shelley.

Yes, he was a supervisor so may well have been wearing a shirt & tie etc.

Hi Vanessa,

I didn't realise that Shelley had been definitively identified in photographs.

Just wondering if he really would have been wearing shirt & tie, etc...

Mr. BALL - Where had you been working?
Mr. SHELLEY - I had been on the sixth floor with the boys laying that floor that morning.

Is he?...

Mr. SHELLEY - In my office next to Mr. Truly's and 1 ate part of it which I do usually and finish up later on in the day but I went outside then to the front,
Mr. BALL - Why did you go to the front?
Mr. SHELLEY - Oh, several people were out there waiting to watch the motorcade and I went out to join them.
Mr. BALL - And who was out there?
Mr. SHELLEY - Well, there was Lloyd Viles of McGraw-Hill, Sarah Stanton, she's with Texas School Book, and Wesley Frazier and Billy Lovelady joined us shortly afterwards.
Mr. BALL - You were standing where?
Mr. SHELLEY - Just outside the glass doors there.
Mr. BALL - That would be on the top landing of the entrance?
Mr. SHELLEY - yes.

Whilst I accept that possibly contradicts what I said, it's possible that he could have moved down a step to get a better look down Elm Street?

I suspect that PM was standing a step down from the top landing.

Could PM be William Shelley?

Very good Ian, that's it....perhaps anyone who has a copy might take a quick scan and make sure Hill is discussed as I recalled just as another check....

Hi Larry,

Unfortunately, I don't have my copy any more, I gave away most of my books on the assassination a few years ago to budding researchers. I do recall that O'Toole did have some odd encounters with the people he tracked down (R.D. Lewis sticks out in my memory), but I can't recall much about Hill. The book is certainly an interesting read whether you believe the voice analysis stuff or not!!

Ian, it is possible that CONNALLY was targeted, the shot that wounded TAGUE may have been the result of a plan that called for a total of three rifle shots, one to cover the silenced shot.

Ian, your asking me to fill in blanks that may never be possible to fill even after a tremendous amount of research, right now I am still grappling with the ramification of four shots, when they were fired and from what locations.

I know it would be more convenient to present a finished scenario complete with all details, but at this time, this is just not possible (what I have been presenting is a 'work in progress'), the assassination lore has had 51 years to develop intricate schemes to try to explain some phenomenon, yet keep in mind after 51 years assassination researchers can not claim definitively when the first shot occurred or the second shot nor when TAGUE was injured or by which shot or why, nor is there any general agreement as to where the shots originated from nor is there any realistic answers as to why most testimony does not corroborate any particular scenario presented. The researcher today can't satisfactorily explain what is happening in Altgens #6 and why the SSA or bystanders are not reacting.

With the four shot model we can definitively identify the first and the second shots as well as a likely time for the third and fourth shots, all supported by significant portions of testimony as well as photographic and film evidence.

Simply put, I do not yet have all the answers.

If you take the time to understand this model and give it a chance you may be surprised how valuable it is to explain what actually happened during the assassination. You may quickly realize it is the only model that can explain what happened in DP on 11/22/1963.

Robert,

Thanks for your response - I was just wondering about it, that's all.

Well done on your efforts so far, it's certainly led to another avenue of research and made a lot of people re-think the assassination.

Robert,

If the first shot was at Z313 and that shot clearly mortally wounded JFK, who or what were the 2nd & 3rd shots intended for?

Paul, perhaps I can point you in the right direction and somebody else can give you the actual names. The investigator who went to Dallas with voice stress equipment wrote a book afterwards and spent a great deal of

time on Hill because he thought that Hill was offered up to deflect researches and that his voice stress raised some real credibility issues. That book probably as as much insight on Hill as anything I have seen and it

might produce some leads...just can't recall the author or title.

The Assassination Tapes by George O'Toole?...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-assassination-tapes-electronic-Kennedy/dp/0891100008

Jon, one other piece of evidence I believe is of paramount importance is FRITZS notes that claim OSWALD went to the second floor lunch room following the assassination to get a coke and was confronted there by an officer. This piece of evidence if authentic is the most important evidence we have to corroborate BAKER and TRULY's actions as well as OSWALDS.

Threes a charm.

I would like to know if researchers have confirmed FRITZs notes to be authentic, any comments?I can't recall offhand now who it was, but in the last year or 2, a compelling case was made for Fritz having made th notes long after the "interrogation" by pulling bits out of the reports written by others who were in attendance - may be worth doing a bit of digging on it...

I can't recall offhand now who it was, but in the last year or 2, a compelling case was made for Fritz having made his notes long after the "interrogation" by pulling bits out of the reports written by others who were in attendance - may be worth doing a bit of digging on it...

Also, it's worth bearing in mind that, according to Fritz's good friend, Harry D. Holmes, he & Fritz had worked on many cases together and he credited both himself and Fritz with having fantastic memories and that they didn't need to rely on notes from interrogations i.e. they didn't bother making any!!!...

Also a bit disingenuous regarding the number of the cop car that sounded its horn outside his rooming house - trying to make out the car number was 10 when Earlene Roberts said she recalled it was 106 (the whole cop car number thing is another story)...

Hi all:

I believe the importance of WCD 298 cannot be understated. To some, WCD 298 is the primary Achilles heel of the WC Report. Something led initial investigators that had studied the z-film, surveyed Elm Street & Dealey Plaza fixed structures & photographed that crime scene in re-enactments to arrive at the placement of the 3 shot locations indicated by the 3 strings on the 3d model that is not evident to others studying that same material years later. The most popular interpretations today consist of the following:

1. Initial investigators saw visual evidence in (at least) the z-film that was later removed (film alteration/falsification).

2. Initial investigators simply were mistaken or lying (confident that the public would never know about WCD 298 or see the z-film in its entirety as a motion picture or complete series of film frames).

3. The depiction of the shots by 3 strings on the 3d model featured in WCD 298 is the closest truth of the JFK assassination the public will ever see. The 3 strings are the remaining evidence of what was removed (that justified the existence of each string) before the public could visually scrutinize the Government's case against Lee Oswald.

A key talking point is that the last of the 3 strings indicated as a shot & hit to JFK in WCD 298 is NOT supported by any evidence released to the public by the WC, FBI or SS EVER. The attached string tells the public it was a hit, not a miss. That's why the string was placed where it was. The extant z-films tells us JFK was down in the back seat at this position on Elm Street & not visible to a TSBD sniper's nest shooter; in fact, JFK ceased to be a target to such a shooter in a few frames after z-313 (when he fell across the seat, dead).

I'm not a researcher, but if I were, I believe I'd begin any contemplated work with WCD 298 & an analysis of it & the other events that led to the creation of the 3D model featured in it.

I'd also point out that WCD 298 basically was swept under the rug by the HSCA in its own ambush analysis that has the 1st shot around Z-190 & the attack ending at z-313. WCD 298 has the attack ending further down Elm Street (near the North pergola sidewalk concrete steps). Focus on WCD 298 was lost after the HSCA report until diligent researchers brought it back to life & in the public consciousness.

A salute to Robert, Chris & those keeping the focus on WCD 298 & what it means to solving the riddle. With Robert's model, the challenge will be to determine what it was that initial investigators saw that no longer exists in the film record. That's going to be a toughie, as it forces analysts to resort on what witnesses said they saw & heard & autopsy evidence that many simply don't trust.

BM

Not forgetting that the FBI report states 3 shots, 3 hits - that has never been changed.

I think I understand now. The photos of the testing by Shaneyfelt show the rifle, at the 6th floor window, quite high in the air and mounted on a tripod. Its position is far higher than a position a shooter would have naturally assumed on the window sill.

For that matter, how did the WC arrive at the figure of the rifle being 2 feet above the window sill? If the boxes were stacked 2 feet higher than the window sill, giving Oswald a shooting rest, how did Brennan give such an accurate description of Oswald?

The other thing about that picture of Shaneyfelt with the rifle on the tripod - look at the angle the rifle is at, seems quite steep to me - how does that work with any of the shots that struck the occupants of the limo?

David:

No real significance here unless, of course, one could "prove" that the assassin purchased 6.5mm WCC MC ammo from Masen and used it in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. While this type of SP bullet could have produced fragmentation after-effects as witnessed on the JFK autopsy skull/head x-rays, if one believes that this SP bullet/ammunition was used in the commission of this crime, and CE399 was a part of this same crime, one would have to account for an assassin [or assassin's?] utilizing multiple yet "different" types of 6.5mm WCC MC bullets. What this document and others produced by the FBI lab on this specific issue indicates is that Masen pulled some of the bullets originally affixed to the cartridge during their manufacture by Western and replaced them with SP - soft-point "hunting" type bullets. In fact, one of the documents generated by the FBI even speculates as to what type of instrument Masen used in removing the original bullets that he did when he acquired his lots of ammo. And Western did not load any of the 4 million plus rounds of 6.5mm MC ammo that they produced with SP bullets.

Gary Murr

Similar to the revolver allegedly used in Tippit's murder?...

A bit more here in CD 298...

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10699&relPageId=1

Even stranger - when I open the forum page, it says I'm signed in but when I click on a topic, the reply box doesn't appear, as if I'm not actually signed in. I had to sign out then sign in again. All of this on Chrome. On IE, it seemed to be ok and didn't show me as signed in or have my name on the bottom of the JFK home page.

Seems to be a Chrome thing.