Andrej Stancak

I appreciate, Sandy. I do not claim to know the answers, I only see questions.

Folded hand, since it carried a parcel - subtract some 3-4 inches from the maximum arm length.

Yes, there is something illogical in the curtain rod story. Mr. Frazier insisted he saw a package two feet long which he saw Lee holding between his hand and armpit. For a person of Lee' height, the arm length would be 22-24 inches, which would be what Mr. Frazier reported. The size of the parcel was later specified to be some 27-28 inches, however, Lee would not be able to carry a parcel of this length in the style described by Mr. Frazier. Scenario 1: Lee gave a false reason for his travel to Irving on Thursday since he actually wanted to get his rifle to the Depository. Wesley believed the story, and the package appeared to him as curtain rods. Wesley Frazier has repeatedly described the style with which Lee carried the parcel (tucked in hand, stuck in the armpit). Such parcel could not be the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, even not a disassembled rifle. So, Lee could not give a misleading information about the curtain rods because Wesley claimed seeing Oswald to carry a parcel which could maybe be curtain rods but not the rifle. The problem here is the observation of a parcel of 2 feet length and especially the style how Lee carried that parcel. There is no explanation to this mess unless one starts to look at the veracity of initial assumptions. Scenario 2: Lee got an offer to sell his unused and unusable rifle which he may have bought as a part of his minor role in the investigation of advert type gun sales, which was ongoing in spring 1963 (details in Deep Politics... by Peter Scott-Dale). He told Frazier about the purchase offer and who was the would-be buyer, and so they both knew that the reason for their travel to Irving was to bring the rifle to the Depository next day (neither of them had any sinister intention). And so they did. It rained, and Wesley dropped off Lee with the rifle in front of the main entrance, and went on alone to park his car. Lee placed the rifle into the storage room, went out and re-entered the building via the back entrance. That would be all to it unless the shooting occurred. Right after the shooting, they both stood in the doorway as in Darnell's film, frozen and pondering if the shooting had anything to do with the rifle they brought to work that morning. Lee entered the vestibule and went to the storage room only to find out that the rifle was missing. Wesley hung around in the vestibule for tens of seconds to learn about the rifle. Then their ways split but their common trouble stayed. Lee started to flee since he knew he has been framed and was a marked man - he knew who the would-be buyer was. Wesley went into the basement and contemplated his options: he used to give lifts to Lee, they were friendly, and they brought a rifle which was now missing and which, who knows (at that time he could not know) was used in the shooting. Once it became clear that there is a search for Oswald, he knew he was also in trouble. Wesley returned to Irving and had a chat with his sister. In one interview which Mr. Frazier gave some years ago, Mr. Frazier mentioned that he actually has worked, before coming to Irving, in a shop which also sold curtain rods. The idea which popped up was to claim that there was a long package but since that would connect Wesley with the assassination as an accessory, the package actually could not be a rifle because it was too short. The shortness of the package was the safety break to which he sticks until today. Wesley could always deny that any rifle was mentioned on Thursday or Friday because he only heard about curtain rods, and the package was indeed too short to be a rifle. Naturally, scenario 2 contains some details which cannot be proven without having more information. However, unlike scenario 1 which obviously does not hold, scenario 2 appears to me logical. Late edit: Wesley could also assume that a two feet parcel actually could also contain a disassembled rifle. He did not know how long a disassambled rifle would measure. The curtain rods would accommodate also this case - Wesley could not know only by looking at the size that there were no curtain rods in the parcel. Only, it turned later that this Mannlicher-Carcano was still some 36 inch long if disassembled.

It is important to note that by questioning the veracity of the curtain rod story, I am not questioning Mr. Frazier's profile or personality, or attribute to him any evil role in the assassination or to his attitudes towards Lee Harvey Oswald. As far as I can judge from the interviews which Mr. Frazier gave over the years, he is a good citizen and a good man. He sincerely believes in Lee Oswald's innocence, and in my view he knows he can be confident on this point knowing more about the Friday morning and noon than he admitted so far. However, he just happened to occur in a situation which overwhelmed him and posed a threat to him and his family severely. I mentioned in on of my previous posts, no one wants to lie. People prefer speaking the truth unless they are forced to lie. However, the question we are trying to answer on this Forum is what happened on the 22nd of November 1963. The pressure to cover up the truth, in my opinion, is very obvious throughout the case. The pressure would be the strongest in the most sensitive points, those which directly matter Lee Harvey Oswald's whereabouts and his rifle. Should Oswald's innocence perspire in any of these explosive aspects of the case, it would have to be suppressed by all means because there would not be any case against Lee Harvey Oswald.

Right, let us check Mr. Frazier's credibility. George O'Toole took a training in psychological stress evaluation (PSE) technique which was based on the analysis of voice. The technique is known as voice stress analysis nowadays. There are mixed views about the reliability of this method, however, this research is maybe the only scientifically based approach towards testing the veracity of important players in the JFK assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald in the first place. In his book "The Assassination Tapes. An electronic probe into the murder of John F. Kennedy and the Dallas Coverup" (Penthouse Press Ltd., New York, 1975), O'Toole devoted two full chapters to Wesley Buell Frazier. In Chapter 10 (The Phantom Polygraph Test), O'Toole describes the circumstances under which the polygraph test has been taken on Wesley Frazier on the night of assassination. Frazier was taken to the headquarters on Friday evening. It was Wesley's own sister who volunteered the information to the Dallas Police detectives that Wesley gave a ride to Lee on that fateful day. The police was finished with Frazier by about 9PM. (The interrogation, apparently, was dramatic as Cpt. Fritz allegedly asked Frazier to sign his admission of Wesley's role in the assassination of President Kennedy. However, this was not mentioned in the book.), and Frazier was sent home. Police officers gave him a ride to Irving, and when they were about mid-way to Irving, a radio call arrived ordering the car to return with Frazier back to the headquarters. The purpose of this second visit to the Dallas Police was Frazier's polygraph test. The test was conducted by Detective Lewis, and it lasted from 11.20 to 12.10. The police report allegedly said that Frazier's affidavit was truthful, and Frazier was eventually sent home. The critical part of the affidavit appeared to be the famous curtain rod story. According to Frazier, Oswald brought a long package to the work on Friday morning, and the parcel contained curtain rods. The Warren Commission also heard the same story from Frazier, and concluded that parcel contained not the curtain rods but the disassembled rifle. The point was, however, that the curtain rod story was a story such as when someone says he/she is half-dressed and half-undressed. The parcel was too short by a large margin to contain even a disassembled rifle. Linnie, Wesley's sister, backed his brother. The polygraph test was most likely ordered by Fritz who was confronted by two testimonies - Oswald's testimony in which he claimed that he only brought a lunch in some kind of a grocery bag, and Wesley's who spoke about the curtain rods. Who was right? The polygraph test might tell. Unfortunately, no one seem to have ever seen the results of the test. It could have either confirm Oswald's assertion or Frazier's assertion. O'Toole decided to analyse Frazier's voice during Frazier's talk for the CBS. Frazier repeated the curtain rod story. Frazier showed a remarkable level of stress throughout the interview. "It was such a classical example of the smooth, maximum hard stress waveform, maintained throughout almost the entire statement, that a PSE specialist to whom I showed it remarked, "On a scale to ten, this stress is somewhere near eleven" " (p. 172). "Frazier was in a state of sheer terror". O'Toole decided to acquire direct voice recordings from Frazier, and approached his sister. Linnie declined an interview and became increasingly tense when speaking about Wesley and the possibility of an interview. Wesley was in the army then, and Linnie promised to convey a message about O'Toole's visit to him. However, Linnie was the end of the road, she never facilitated any contact to Frazier. In the meantime, O'Toole called the well-known Paul Bentley to ask about the polygraph test. Since the call was recorder and analysed by O'Toole, it was determined that Bentley was in the maximum hard stress when saying "I don't recall that even occurring". It was then similar with the analysis of voice of Detective R.D. Lewis who allegedly carried out the polygraph test with Frazier. Lewis denied knowing about the polygraph test: "No, uh, uh. Not connected with Oswald" and showed hard stress while pronouncing these words. It was similar with Gerald Hill. Hill showed a hard stress while denying the fact of polygraph test being taken. So, the polygraph test was taken and it is mentioned in one of the Warren Commission volumes, however, no one in the Dallas Police Department remembered, and those supposed to know showed a hard stress. O'Toole then called Detective Stovall who was actually in the car which returned Frazier to the police station. Stovall told the Commission about the polygraph test. Stovall showed hard stress when talking about the polygraph test, and although he did not deny it, he was very evasive. This contrasts with the fact (possibility?) that Stovall was actually in the room with Lewis when the polygraph test was taken. Further details on Frazier's polygraph test are in another book, quoted by O'Toole, by Jim Bishop (The Day Kennedy Was Shot, Gramercy Books, New York, 1968). I have read almost the whole book just to learn more about the buzz in the Dallas Police and about Frazier, and will quote from this outright lone-nut treasure on a next occasion. The actual interview with Wesley Frazier was conducted by Detectives Stovall, Adamcik and Rose. O'Toole was not able to get Detective Adamcik (who worked before as a patrolman under no one else than Gery Hill). Rose said that only Lewis was with Frazier, and he and another detective (Stovall?) waited outside. A hard stress appeared when O'Toole asked about the result of the polygraph test: "Yes, he got a very good chart, and it showed that he was telling the com-, he was telling just exactly the truth". Interestingly, Rose wished to convey some information about Frazier during his testimony for the Warren Commission but somehow it all evaporated: Mr. Rose: Let's see, there was something else I was going to tell you now, I wanted to mention - we did run Wesley Frazier on polygraph, did you know that? Mr. Ball: I know you did - we know about that. Mr. Rose: Yes. Mr. Ball: Thanks. Since the polygraph test could not be denied anymore, O'Toole returned to Detective Lewis and literally made him to remember. Lewis did remember the test. When asked about the result (if he passed), Lewis said: "I don't offhand remember, but I would say that he did, otherwise it would have stuck with me", and a hard stress appeared in his voice. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 11 describes all attempts to locate and contact Frazier. It was a good piece of detective work, not worse than Barry Ernest had to deliver. Army, Boeing Aircraft Company, and again army, many blind avenues, and a false collaborator. It was getting better by locating Frazier in Fort Polk, Louisiana, then Fort Sill, Oklahoma about 1973, but no cigar. Eventually, O'Toole met a man named Tony Pellicano who was a specialist in searching for missing people. Pellicano located Frazier in - Irving, Texas, the place where it all began. It was Pellicano who took a recorded interview with Wesley Frazier. Pellicano: He asked you, he said "Wes, I want to go home, and I want to bring out some curtain rods for my room?" Frazier: That is true. Because, you know, he had an appartment you know, over at Dallas, you know. (The stress hit maximum hard on "That is true" but dropped down to mederate-to-good on the rest of statement). Pellicano: He said "I want to pick up some curtain rods" and what did you do, drive him on home? Frazier: No, what he did, you know., Thursday he came out. His wife lives out there in Irving, you know, and so, you know, he told me he wanted a ride home out to Irving to see his wife. I said "Very well". So you know, he did and he said, you know, on the way out, he said the next morning he is going to bring some curtain rods, you know, for his apartment over at Dallas. I said "Very well", you know, so I didn't think anything else about it, you know. (The stress wa nearly at maximum hard during the entire statement). Pellicano: What happened then? What did you do? You picked him up the next morning? Frazier: You know, he come down to where I live, you know, and he got out and walked in, you know, sit down in the car, you know, so, you know, when I got in the car, I glanced at the package, and I didn't think anything about it, and asked him, I said , "What is that?" And he said, you know. "That is some curtain rods I told you I was going to bring", you know, so I just dropped the subject right there, you know, because I didn't think anything more about it, you know. (The statement began at moderate-to-good stress and stayed at that level until "And he said you know, "That's some curtain rods...", at which point in reached maximum hard. The stress then dropped to good-to-hard level and remained there for the rest of statement). Pellicano: Did he tell you they were curtain rods? Frazier: Right. Pellicano: I mean, did it took to you like it was a package of curtain rods? Frazier: Yes, it did. (There was good-to-hard stress in "Right" and hard stress in "Yes, it did"). After some further talking about Oswald (moderate stress only), Pellicano resumed the topic of curtain rods: Pellicano: Well, when you went to work, did he take that package up with him into he building? Frazier: Yes, he did. (There was a maximum hard stress). Pellicano: Did you see where he put it? Frazier: No, because he walked on ahead. (There was good-to-hard stress). Pellicano: Did he tell you he was going to go home with you that night? Frazier: What night was that? Pellicano: That is Friday night, you know the day that the president died. Frazier: No, because he come up with some theory about - I asked him about this. He said he had to go to get his driving licence. (Maximum hard stress appeared). Pellicano asked about the polygraph test, and Frazier described the procedure, during which time only a moderate stress appeared. Pellicano: There was nobody else in the room with you? Frazier: That is correct. (Maximum hard stress appeared). Pellicano: Well, what did he do, ask you all them questions that he asked you before? Frazier: Right. That is true. (Moderate stress). Pellicano: And did he tell you that you have passed the test? Frazier: Yes, he did. He said I did very well. (There was maximum hard stress). After further questions, Pellicano changed the subject: Pellicano: Do you know Paul Bentley? Frazier: Paul Bentley? Pellicano: Yes. Frazier: No, I don't. (There was maximum hard stress in both Frazier's replies). When asked about Lee owning a rifle: Frazier: Well, actually, to tell you - I never saw it, you know. They found it in the building, you know, after president was shot, you know. Pellicano: You never knew he had his gun, then? Frazier: That is true. (This produced good-to-hard stress). Pellicano: Did the police ever ask you did you ever know if he had a gun or nothing? Frazier: They asked me that, and I told them I did't know, you know, because I told them I never had been over to the man's -- Pellicano: I'm talking about way before this thing ever happened. Did any police ever come up to you and ask you to get this gun? Frazier: Oh, no. Pellicano: Never happend? Frazier: No, never happend. (This produced hard stress). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is everyone's chance to draw conclusions from O'Toole's investigation into Frazier's story. I drew mine: Frazier lied about curtain rods, his voice had failed him. There were no curtain rods in Paine's garage (Michael Pine remembered some two rods?), Oswald did not need any curtain rods in his rooming house, Oswald denied carrying any curtain rods, and no curtain rods were found in the Depository (however, his blue jacket was found - in the first floor lunchroom, where else?). Frazier invented the story to save his skin, most likely with the help of his sister. It would be a speculation at this point to offer further potential scenarios. However, the way I see it, Frazier had been caught by the Dallas Police lying about curtain rods. They let him go, maybe after telling them the truth which could be that horrible for the Dallas Police that they better let the lie live. Frazier saved his skin since he knew about Oswald's framing and who framed him and yet survived, and he survived only because he did not break his silence. This man will never tell the truth who Prayer Man was. His life is at stake.

Pat: In a way, both sides could be right about whether the right occipital cortex was present or absent in President's brain. In the drawing in David Lifton's book (p. 471 in my paperback edition), which was also the part of the House Committee exhibits, there is a residual occipital cortex in the right hemisphere, just above the cerebellum. However, the largest part of the occipital cortex is certainly gone in this brain. The situation in such macerated brain may look differently while the brain is still in the skull (and the skull still support and lifts the tissue) compared to when this damaged brain is placed on the flat surface. It would be a mistake to claim that the right occipital cortex was in place (as if it would be an intact brain) but also that it was missing completely (since some residuals can indeed be seen in the drawing in David Lifton's book). I hope this helps. Late edit 1: On a different note, the shape of the brain injury in the drawing of President's brain does not make too much sense. The injury looks basically of equal width along the line crossing the frontal and occipital poles of the right hemisphere. The whole right medial wall is missing which prevents an estimate of the entry/exit of the projectile along the sagittal plane (a plane visible as if from the side view but defined by its position along the left to right axis). The brain damage after a thru-and-thru gun shot would still show a conic shape with a slightly narrower diameter of injury at the entry site and a larger diameter wound at the exit site. The brain in the drawing does not allow to determine neither the direction of the projectile nor the plane connecting the entry and exit. Was this a result of a surgery to conceal the direction of the projectile? Late edit 2: The more I look at the drawing the more I am convinced that the whole medial wall of the right hemisphere has been excised post mortem. It is just not possible that every bit of tissue over the entire medial wall would disappear that cleanly.

The would-be Oswald in Mr. Blevins's enhancement would obviously be too tall compared to what could be expected if a real 5'9'' man stood at the western half of the sniper's window. Here is a 3D reconstruction of the sniper's nest window from Dillard's perspective. The manikin is as close to the window as possible. Please note that the top of his head does not reach the third horizontal grille in that window. Whoever created the fake figure forgot that this particular picture was shot at a sharp bottom-up angle. However, the fake human figure appears as if shot with zero elevation. Besides the lack of appropriate shadows on the man's face, there are no details corresponding to the trunk and lower body. Final verdict: an obvious fake.

David: The brain weight of 1500 g was too large relative to the damage sustained. Exposing a brain to formalin for three weeks increases the brain weight due to swelling by 8-9%. Thus, 1500 g would correspond to an intact brain. However, I am sure you would agree that a large part of Kennedy's right brain hemisphere was missing. The figure "1500 g" appears to be made up. I wrote an essay on this topic a while ago (thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com), however, I am posting it here too: From: thejfktruthmatters.worpress.com (March 26, 2016). 1500 g. This was the weight of President Kennedy’s brain during the pathological examination made at the Bethesda Naval Hospital on December 6, 1963 [1]. The brain weight figure allows to infer on the weight of President’s brain at the time of autopsy. Unfortunately, the Bethesda pathologists did not weigh President’s brain during the autopsy in spite of this procedure being a routine part of every autopsy [2]. A three week formalin fixation has been shown to increase the brain weight by 50 g on average [3]. More recent data suggest a variable percent increases in brain weights due to the formalin fixation with an average weight increase of 8.8% over the period of few weeks [4]. If we apply the swelling factor of 8.8%, the estimated weight of President Kennedy’s brain at the time of autopsy was 1373 g. This figure appears to be too large relative to the amount of damage to the President Kennedy’s brain. The damage to the right hemisphere and the associated loss of brain tissue has been estimated by Mr. David Lifton to be as much as 70% in the right hemisphere [5]. If a normal brain would suffer such loss of tissue, it could not weigh 1373 g. To provide some approximation of the weight of intact and injured Kennedy’s brain, normative data obtained in large cohorts of people can be used. The study by Debakan et al. (1978) [6] analysed the post-mortem brain weights in 2773 males and 1963 females in 23 age categories. The mean weight of a male brain in the age range of 40-50 years was 1430 g (standard deviation 20 g). As President Kennedy was tall (72.5 inches, 184 cm), and since brain weight correlates with body height and weight [6], it is reasonable to estimate that the weight of Kennedy’s brain would be in the upper range of the normal distribution of brain weights in his age category. The upper weight value corresponding to the top 5% brain weights for males aged 40-50 years, estimated using the Z-scores method, would be 1496.2 g (rounded to 1496 g). If Kennedy’s brain sustained a loss of 70% of brain tissue in one hemisphere [5], his brain at the time of autopsy weighed only 972 g. However, even if we accept a smaller than 70% loss of brain tissue of 50% in one hemisphere, the brain weight at the time of autopsy would be only 1122 g. After correcting these brain weight estimates for swelling due to immersing the brain into a formalin solution, Kennedy’s brain during the pathological examination on December 6 was expected to weigh 1058 g or 1221 g for a 70% and 50% loss of tissue in one hemisphere, respectively. These calculations suggest that the brain examined on December 6, 1963 was different from the brain removed from President Kennedy’s skull during the autopsy on November 22, 1963. Further, this finding sheds a new light on the omission to weigh the brain during the autopsy [2]. The following two explanations need to be considered: The pathologists were stressed out and confused during the autopsy itself and forgot to measure the brain weight. This would be an unlikely but honest error. The pathologists intentionally skipped weighing the brain during the autopsy either to conceal the real loss of brain tissue, and/or to be able to use a different brain in further examinations. The correct brain weight data at the time of autopsy might have prevented the use of a different brain as the other brain would have been weighed during the follow-up pathological examination of the fixated brain, and the discrepancy in the autopsy and post-autopsy weights would be evident. If this explanation is correct, it is also conceivable that the generals and some unknown civilians present in the autopsy room [5] couched or ordered Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell not to weigh the brain. As my calculations suggest that other than President Kennedy’s brain was examined on December 6, I am inclined to accept the latter explanation. The calculations and the conclusion accord a previous note by Mr. Doug Horne (2006) that the weight of 1500 g would be too large for the brain showing extensive tissue loss [7]. Footnotes: [1] Appendix IX. Commission Exhibit 391. Supplementary report of autopsy number A63-272. https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf [2] During his deposition for the ARRB, the interviewers asked Dr. Humes about the lack of the weight figure in the autopsy form. Dr. Humes had a difficult time to explain (ARRB deposition 1996, pp. 74-75): I’d like to draw your attention to a few items on the first page of this document. Right next to the marking for brain, there’s no entry of a weight there. Do you see that on the document? A. Yes, I see that it’s blank, yeah. Q. Why is there no weight for the brain there? A. I don’t know. I don’t really–can’t really recall why. Q. Was the fresh brain weighed? A. I don’t recall. I don’t recall. It’s as simple as that. Q. Would it be standard practice for a gunshot wound in the head to have the brain weighed? A. Yeah, we weigh it with gunshot wound or no. Normally we weigh the brain when we remove it. I can’t recall why–I don’t know, one, whether it was weighed or not, or, two, why it doesn’t show here. I have no explanation for that [3] Frýdl V, Koch R, Závodská H. The effect of formalin fixation on several properties of the brain. Zentralbl. Allg. Pathol. 135:649-55 (1989) [4] Itabashi, H.H., Andrews, J.M., Tomiyasu, U., Erlich, S.S., Sathyavagiswaran, L. Forensic Pathology: A Practical Review of the Fundamentals. Academic Press & Elsevier, 2007, p. 22. [5] Lifton, D. Best Evidence. Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc., New York, Fourth Edition, 1989, pp. 470-472. [6] Debakan, A.S., Sadowsky, D. Changes of brain weights during the span of human life: relation of brain weights to body heights and body heights. Ann. Neurol., 4: 345-356, 1978. [7] Spartacus Educational Forum, thread: Cover-up of medical evidence. Post by Doug Horne, dated May 16, 2006, No. 3. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6849&hl=

Bill: Your question as to when Ochus Campbell returned to the Depository building has been already discussed in quite a detail in the original Prayer Man thread. I cannot add anything to what Sean Murphy wrote on August 24, 2013, page 18 in that thread. Please check it for yourself. I see no reason for copying/pasting Sean's original post here. If you follow up few more posts in the original thread, you would also acknowledge that there are two independent sources of information that Lee Harvey Oswald was in the storage room after the shooting. One is Campbell's observation, and the other is the testimony of the postal inspector Holmes. As far as the timing of Oswald's dwelling in the storage room is concerned, there are some unknowns, that is for sure. We do not know for how long would Oswald as Prayer Man stay in the doorway after the last frame of the Darnell's film. Although I do not wish to re-ignite the discussion of Baker's run to the Depository, the timing of his entering the building might have been delayed by him first running to the east corner of the building and only then returning to the main entrance. This would explain the absence of his entering to the building in Wesley Frazier's testimony who otherwise had to see Baker should Baker continue his dash up the steps into the building. A tentative scenario could be this: Time 0 s: last frame of Darnell; Prayer Man and Frazier at their locations in the doorway; Campbell moving towards the Grassy Knoll; Baker about 8-10 yards from the entrance and heading towards the east corner of the Depository. Time 0 + ~10 s: Frazier and Prayer Man go into the the building via the glass door. Campbell still wanting to go to the Grassy Knoll. Baker reaching the east corner of the building. Time 0 + ~30 s: Frazier on his way to the basement, Oswald enters the storage room; Baker decides to go to the building; Campbell about to reach the decision to return to the building; Time 0 + ~50 s: Frazier about to enter the basement, Oswald in the storage room (not everyone would agree, however, maybe searching desperately for the rifle he may have left there); Baker reaches the glass door, followed by Truly. Campbell on his way back to the Depository. Time 0 + 55 s: Frazier in the basement, Oswald in the storage room, Baker sees him in there and asks if he worked here, Truly answers on Oswald's behalf. Campbell about to enter the steps leading to the building. Time 0 + 65 s: Baker and Truly rush out from the vestibule, Campbell enters the glass door, Oswald is still in the storage room. Time 0 +70 s: Baker and Truly out of the vestibule and in the open plane area, Campbell spots Oswald in the storage room. Thus, Baker+Truly and Campbell could see the same Lee Harvey Oswald in the storage room at two slightly different time instants. Please note that from Campbell's perspective it would be about two minutes to return to the Depository because my time 0 corresponds to about 30 seconds after the last shot. I hope it makes sense.

Paul: I answered with this: " Someone who knew from the very start how the investigation should end, and someone who hung around when the testimonies were taken. " I was not specific but it is obvious that since Baker was a patrolman, he hung at the DPD, and he gave an affidavit to the FBI that the ones who couched him (and Truly) would be some members of the DPD and the FBI. The reasons of the DPD and the FBI for couching Baker might have been different, more sinister in members of the DPD who appeared to actively frame Oswald for the murder of President Kennedy. Less sinister in the FBI agents who followed Hoover's early decision to scapegoat Oswald. I think we agree or have very close opinions on the point of framing. "... how the investigation should end" : this would be "Oswald being the lone assassin and dead". The story "The Thin Blue Line", flagged up by Joseph McBride, illustrates how fellow DPD officers adjusted their testimonies to convict an innocent man. They did it in the seventies, and they certainly could do it in 1963. As for the "forces": the assassination had multiple limbs. The limbs did not need to know too much about each other. The most proximal limb which was responsible for framing and silencing Oswald in Dallas was the rogue DPD, however, the rogue members of the DPD were connected to the deep forces ("politics") which also moved other limbs. Whether the connection was purely ideological (racist, ultra-right views shared with KKK, JBS, General Walker) or more concrete (bags of money delivered to members of the DPD from H.L. Hunt by Jack Ruby), this I do not know. At the end of the day, it was all interconnected in "deep politics" terms. It is beyond my depth of knowledge to fish in these muddy waters and pull out some diamonds of truth. However, it would be a mistake to think that the most proximal limb (the rogue DPD) was actually the sole limb in the assassination. Whilst Baker certainly needed to be couched to say what was appropriate for the LN version, Commissioner Ford or Aarlen Specter knew themselves what to do. In that sense, Ford indeed was not "forced" to falsify the location of the back wound. However, he was forced by the circumstances. Late edit: "Once you realize that Fritz & Co. were part of the JFK Kill Team, and so were the actual WC liars, then the myth of Prayer-Man can rest in peace." Paul: even if Fritz & Co. were the "JFK Kill Team", they still needed a patsy. The patsy was Lee Harvey Oswald. Unfortunately for whoever who framed Lee Harvey Oswald, Lee went out as the motorcade was passing the Depository to see what was this commotion about, holding a Coke he bought some minutes ago on the second floor. So, Prayer Man stays as a problem even for those believing your theory about Fritz&Co. being responsible for the murder of President Kennedy.

Thanks, Bart, this is very useful, and not that easy to find.

Bill: I do not know how much time would it take to run one or two extra flights. I am trying to figure out the scenario you have in mind in which Oswald would meet Baker and Truly in the first floor while descending from the second floor. It would depend at which section of the first floor the encounter was supposed to be. If it would be the open plane area leading to the stairs and elevators, then Eddie Piper would not only see Baker and Truly but also Oswald. This apparently did not happen. It could then be that Baker and Truly met Oswald in the first floor vestibule, and Oswald came in from the second floor via the front stairs. In that case, the encounter would happen in the first floor and Oswald could not be the assassin because his route (+Coke) would be considerable longer and Baker's route considerably shorter, and this would exonerate Oswald. Therefore, the first floor encounter would have to be suppressed (although Oswald may not be Prayer Man in such a scenario). This hypothetical scenario would serve you in refuting Oswald being Prayer Man, however, it would not serve you in keeping the second floor encounter. Which of the two prospects would you choose? "Killing" Prayer Man or burying the second floor encounter? And please bear in mind, it is all about the start of Oswald's departure from the second floor lunchroom: if he started soon, he would reach the vestibule/glass door when the motorcade was turning to Elm, he would enter the doorway, he would be Prayer Man, and would be met by Baker and Truly when he returned to the vestibule. Welcome to Prayer Man's camp. "why not have Lee out of breath and looking nervous. Instead they described a man who didn't appear to have just made record time getting to the second floor lunchroom from just being on the 6th." This is an interesting comment. I would say: 1) Any deviations from the truth were intentionally kept to minimum to avoid ripples in the story. 2) Not being short of breath did not prevent the Dallas Police, the FBI and the Warren Commission to still insist that Oswald had to get to the second floor lunchroom from the sixth floor. Therefore, it was not necessary to add this detail to Baker's and Truly's testimonies. 3) If Oswald would be described as short of breath and aroused, the question would be how came that no one (neither Baker nor Truly, Vicki Adams, Sandra Styles, Mrs. Garner) heard him running - only running could explain him being short of breath. 4. If Oswald would be described as short of breath, the question for Baker would be why he did not find this man suspicious and enquire about his state.

Paul: I would like to know who actually guided Baker and Truly but I do not know. Someone who knew from the very start how the investigation should end, and someone who hung around when the testimonies were taken. However, it was the same force which compelled Commissioner Ford to move the back wound to the neck, the same force which decided that 27 inch equals 38 inch, the same force which made sure that no faithful trace from Oswald's interrogation would be available, the same force which allowed Lee Harvey Oswald to be killed by Jack Ruby, the same force which cleaned and refurbished the limo right away, the same which made a surgery on President's head prior to the regular autopsy, the same force which brought the motorcade to Elm street. This was not the making of one man. No normal person lies gladly. People do not want to lie, and do not lie unless forced by the circumstances. It could be presented to Baker and Truly as their patriotic duty and as a relatively minor thing: "You do not need to lie, you just say that you met him in the second floor vestibule rather than in the first floor vestibule. That's all."

Bill: Mr. Truly could not say that Lee Harvey Oswald was approached by Officer Baker on the first floor. This is the point. If he would admit this, Lee Harvey Oswald could not be the assassin because he would not have time to run down to meet Baker who has just entered the first floor. That would be a killer blow to the lone nut theory which started to shape very early on (actually, it was prepared before the act). Truly and Baker were forced to lie. Gerald Ford lied by moving the back wound from a thoracic level to the neck. If this wound would stay where it really was, the lone nut theory would be gone. Moving the first floor encounter to the second floor was a similar necessity. Only the second floor offered the benefit of uncertainty as to where people could come from. This was the reason for selecting the second floor as their meeting point. Please note that moving the encounter from the first to the second floor allowed to keep certain features as if it were the truth: the "vestibule", the words used, the Coke, and the rest of Baker-Truly trip to the upper floors (I hope I will not be accused of plagiarism since I am only repeating Sean Murphy's comments). I have explained and documented the witnesses roles and possibilities in several posts, including some quite dramatic video recordings of interrogations. The men who stood on the top landing and saw Oswald in the doorway were immediately taken to the police headquarters. Ladies were offered a bail-out in the sense that there will be an (unsigned?) FBI report and no one will ever call them again. Did you watch Serrano's interrogation in the matter of her sighting of the Polka dot dress lady? Exactly this type of offer Serrano received, and she then kept silence for more than 40 years. And yes, Oswald's whereabouts on the first floor have to do with him being Prayer Man. These are the high-voltage issues, and they can bring down the lone nut version of events. As to your beliefs and height and weight impressions: no one cares what you believe, only that we are polite at this Forum and better ignore such empty comments of yours.

Paul: Oswald was on the fifth/sixth floor around 11.50 at which time he was abandoned by the floor laying crew. Thus, Shelley could only see him later than 11.50, after Oswald also came down. Shelley for some reason mixed up his time estimate. This can happen, no big deal. The point is that Oswald came down to the first floor, and not to the second floor and staying only there. Carolyne Arnold: what a brave lady she was. This was one of the most courageous witnesses. Bookhout, Hosty and Fritz: well, you seem to see liars everywhere. You can disqualify any information using your method, basically ruining any chance to understand what happened. Their confirmation of Oswald's statement of his presence in the domino room would certainly not help them to make Oswald a lone nut. I miss a logical reason why would they want to falsify Oswald's statements about his presence in the first floor during the shooting. Piper: you said Oswald took the elevator to get from the sixth floor to the second floor at which place he stayed for the entire period until his encounter with Officer Baker. However, Eddie saw him on the first floor at 12noon which means that Oswald did not do what you suggest. You missed Oswald's sighting of Jarman and Norman who were passing by on their way from Elm to the fifth floor. Oswald could furnish this information only if he actually saw them, meaning he was on the first floor. ---------------- I know that the Baker-Oswald second floor encounter is a holly cow for many assassination researchers, something which is difficult to part with. However, it is basically re-experiencing the 2013 Prayer Man thread (around pages 5-15) in which several astute researchers were perplexed by Sean Murphy's burial of this holly cow. You may find those early pages in the main Prayer Man thread ("Oswald leaving ...") therapeutic.

Yes, you may be right and I may be wrong, it seems like a continuation of their morning encounter. Thanks.

Paul: 1. Bill Shelley saw Oswald on the first floor allegedly 10-15 minutes before 12, however, it would be later than this time because at that time Oswald was still on one of the upper floors: Mr. BALL. Did you ever see any guns in that building between that date and the time the President was shot? Mr. SHELLEY. No, sir. Mr. BALL. On November 22, 1963, the day the President was shot, when is the last time you saw Oswald? Mr. SHELLEY. It was 10 or 15 minutes before 12. Mr. BALL. Where? Mr. SHELLEY. On the first floor over near the telephone. 2. Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in the first floor vestibule at 12.15 or 12.25: Mrs. R. E. ARNOLD, Secretary, Texas School Book Depository, advised she was in her office on the second floor of the building on November 22, 1963, and left that office between 12:00 and 12:15 PM, to go downstairs and stand in front of the building to view the Presidential Motorcade. As she was standing in front of the building, she stated she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of LEE HARVEY OSWALD standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse, located on the first floor. She could not be sure that this was OSWALD, but said she felt it was and believed the time to be a few minutes before 12:15 PM. 11/26/1963 at Dallas, Texas, File # DL 89–43, Special Agent Richard E. Harrison 3. Oswald's own report according to Bookhout and Hosty conjoint report, dated November 23. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=637 "OSWALD stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunch room; however he went to the second floor where the Coca–Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca–Cola for his lunch. OSWALD claimed to be on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed this building. … he then went home by bus and changed his clothes. " 4. Cpt. Fritz testimony for the Warren Commission: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=624 "I asked him what part of the building was he in at the time the President was shot, and he said he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor". 5. Junior Jarman: confirmed that Oswald used to have his lunch on the first floor: Mr. BALL - Did you ever see him when he was eating his lunch? Mr. JARMAN - Yes. Mr. BALL - Where? Mr. JARMAN - Sometimes in the, as we called it, domino room, and again over coffee table where they make coffee. Mr. BALL - Is that the first floor? Mr. JARMAN - That is the first floor. Then he surprisingly slipped the information that he was with Oswald on the first floor: Mr. BALL - What time did you quit for lunch? Mr. JARMAN - It was right about 5 minutes to 12. .... Mr. BALL. Then what did you Mr. JARMAN - Went and got my sandwich and went up in the lounge and got me a soda pop. Mr. BALL - Where is the lounge? Mr. JARMAN - On the second floor. Mr. BALL - On the second floor? Mr. JARMAN - Yes. Mr. BALL. Then where did you go after you got your soda pop? Mr. JARMAN - Came back and went down to the window. Mr. BALL - What window? Mr. JARMAN - Where Oswald and I was talking. Mr. BALL - Where? Mr. JARMAN - Between those two rows of bins. Mr. BALL - Where Oswald and you had been talking? Mr. BALL - What did you do there? Mr. JARMAN - I was eating part of my sandwich there, and then I came back out and as I was walking across the floor I ate the rest of it going toward the domino room. Councel Ball must have been shaken by Junior's bold revelation and he wisely did not elaborate on that point but rather evaded. It went well according to the plan, with Jarman denying seeing Oswald and arguing with himself: Mr. BALL - You say you wandered around, you mean on the first floor? Mr. JARMAN - On the first floor. Mr. BALL - Were you with anybody when you were at the window? Did you talk to anybody? Mr. JARMAN - No; I did not. Mr. BALL - Were you with anybody when you were walking around finishing your sandwich? Mr. JARMAN - No; I wasn't, I was trying to get through so I could get out on the street. Mr. BALL - Did you see Lee Oswald? Mr. JARMAN - No; I didn't. 6. Oswald saw Jarman and Norman as they returned from Elm via back door: Cpt Fritz: Oswald said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys who worked with him. One of them was called `Junior' and the other was a little short man whose name he didn't know". FBI agent Bookhout: "Oswald had eaten lunch in the lunchroom . . . alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called `Junior' and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize" SS Inspector Thomas Kelley: "Said he ate lunch with the colored boys who worked with him. He described one of them as `Junior,' a colored boy, and the other was a little short negro boy". Now, these two men indeed were returning from Elm via back door. How could Owald know about these two men passing by if not sitting in the domino room? 7. Eddie Piper's testimony: Mr. BALL. Was that the last time you saw him? Mr. PIPER. Just at 12 o'clock. Mr. BALL. Where were you at 12 o'clock? Mr. PIPER. Down on the first floor. Mr. BALL. What was he doing? Mr. PIPER. Well, I said to him---"It's about lunch time. I believe I'll go have lunch." So, he says, "Yeah"---he mumbled something---I don't know whether he said he was going up or going out, so I got my sandwich off of the radiator and went on back to the first window of the first floor. Mr. BALL. The first window on the first floor?

Bill: I think that there is quite a difference in our attitudes towards the Warren Commission Report. You seem to take the Report literally and consider any view which opposes the course of actions as described in the Report as unjustified. Since it has been prepared by the government and since witnesses testified under oath, all what is described in the Report should be the truth. Warren Report in your eyes may contain errors but those only result from lapses of memory, and are not reflecting any evil intention on the part of a witness or the council. A researcher having this view will stick to the Warren Report "facts" and will happily copy parts of the testimonies again and again considering them to be a proof. Basically, this attitude will only result in highlighting some omissions and discrepancies in the Report but would never question the validity of the Report itself. Researchers of this sort will never come out of the box, and will not cause any crack on the official version. Other researchers, and I belong to those, admit that there are pieces of truthful information in the Warren Report. However, this other group of researchers opines that the Report itself is a cover-up, an instrument of the Government to conceal the truth for maybe a noble or a criminal reason. The Report only elaborates on the framework document prepared by the FBI only three days after the assassination. The FBI furnished all visual evidence to the Commission, and also interviewed a number of witnesses on behalf of the Commission. As the Report aided only one preconceived version of events, it had to be twisted and information either trimmed or changed to meet the goals. Examples? Moving the back wound from the back to the neck is a good example. Saying that the rifle could be packed in a sack measuring 27 inches means ignoring the fact that the rifle, even if broken, could not fit that bag. Altering Vicki Adams' testimony and accepting her authorised and correct version was criminal. Ignoring a number of witnesses reporting shooting from the Grassy Knoll is a wishful trimming of reality. And there are many more examples, highlighted early on by the pioneers (Lane, Epstein, Sauvage, Josten, Mellen, to mention just a few). There were innocuous pieces of information in the Report and here I would not doubt their veracity at all. This may include the question to Marina about the clothing worn by Lee Harvey Oswald on the morning of assassination. Such low-voltage question would be asked, answered, and recorded. However, there were also high-voltage questions which referred to Lee Harvey Oswald's whereabouts and which needed to be in line with the lone-nut version. Only these points needed to be carefully checked and sanitised. Thus, having in the Report truthful answers to a large number of questions does not guarantee that the critical questions were also answered truthfully. Baker's second floor encounter with Lee Harvey Oswald is one of the high-voltage questions. While you assume that the Report is basically a source of truthful information (within the limits of human memory) and therefore Baker's encounter had to happen as described, other researchers assume that this is actually where the truth needed to be suppressed in the Warren Report else the preconceived lone-nut theory would collapse. It is difficult to prove that Baker's testimony was not faithful. Sean Murphy did this work in the main Prayer Man thread. It is very instructive how Baker's reports of the encounter changed, the timing of testimonies, or the Coke bit. These are the cracks in the official version which allow to say that the second floor lunchroom encounter did not happen.

Bill: the witnesses did no fear HIM (Oswald), they feared of the Dallas Police Department and the FBI agents. Joseph McBride pointed to the machinery of the Dallas Police and the District Attorney in his book Into the Nightmare. In the story "The Thin Blue Line" one can see how accused people and witnesses were treated to yield one desired outcome. The well known officer from JFK investigation Gus Rose is one of the key players in this story:

We have the notes from the interrogation. Oswald himself claimed that he was in domino room, and that two men, Junior and Norman, briefly entered the domino room. One, maybe both, of them confirmed that they had seen someone in domino room. How could Oswald know that these two men entered the domino room unless he was in that room? Jarman and Norman were scared to death to say whom they saw, and conveniently said that they did not remember. Carolyn Arnold was convinced about seeing Oswald in the first floor vestibule. Shelley also saw Oswald on the first floor near the telephone around the noon. I find these testimonies truthful and they are the best what we have given the paucity of details about Oswald's whereabouts after 12noon. Warren Commission certainly did not wish anyone saying that Oswald was anywhere besides the sixth floor prior to the shooting. As per who was willing to testify about Oswald whereabouts, the answer is that no one. Everybody was scared to death. If you would like to understand what treatment was offered to witnesses potentially seeing things opposing the official line, please watch this recording. It was much worse in Dallas in 1963. As per the colour of Oswald's slacks: you can start by first refuting Marina's testimony. She clearly identified the slacks under oath.

Bill: we speak about different time instants, not about the time when Baker and Truly already passed the small counter door. During the shooting, Piper was sitting near one of the south windows, and he was there also just before the shooting. Oswald would be already in the vestibule or on his way to the vestibule from the domino room while Piper was trying to watch the motorcade without much success. Oswald entered the doorway from the vestibule at some point in such a way that he could be captured in Wiegman's film; Piper was still sitting at the window and was not able to see him at all. After the shooting, Oswald stayed in the doorway for tens of seconds pondering what the shooting meant for him (as did Frazier), entered the storage room next to the front stairs (seen by Occhus Campbell at +2 min), checked the rifle and not finding it where it was supposed to be, he decided to leave at once being certain he has been just framed. Whilst in the storage room or when leaving the vestibule after checking the storage room, he was encountered by Baker and Truly. At that time, Piper was "right there where they make coffee" still unable to spot Lee Harvey Oswald. I hope it makes sense.

Thanks, Bart, for posting this. Here is a paragraph from Larry Sneed's "No More Silence" which can be attributed to Roy Lewis: "Due to my lack of excitement, I was one of the last ones out of the building before the motorcade arrived. That's why I wasn't outside near the street like most everybody else. Instead, when I came out, I was standing with some ladies from up in the offices right in the middle of the steps in front of the building that led to the sidewalk beyond the glass door." and: ."... The people down in front of me hit the ground then everybody started running toward the grassy knoll. Apparently the people assumed that whoever was doing the shooting might have been over there so I followed them. But before we could get far, a policeman stopped us and told us to go back into the building ans wait...." I read this narrative as indicating that Lewis could only be outside the building just before and after the shooting. I guess we need to trace the origin of the T15 reference in the chart you posted. Are 22:621 and 24:259 the volumes:pages of the Warren Report, and where does this chart come from? These discrepancies are actually quite informative.

Bill: I see it differently. Piper was sitting next to some window in the office space area of the first floor during the shooting. He could not see anyone in the vestibule because the vestibule was separated from the open space by a wall. When Piper went back to the north of the first floor, Oswald, if he was in the vestibule, could not be seen by Piper. So, Piper may have been speaking the truth about not seeing Lee Harvey Oswald, however, this has no bearing to Oswald's presence in the vestibule/doorway. Roy Lewis's testimony is not conclusive at all: "On November 22, 1963 at approximately 12 :25,PM I stood by myself on the inside of the front entrance of the Texas School Book Depository Building to watch President John F . Kennedy come by the building in a motorcade . I heard three shots fired from somewhere above me, but was unable to see the person who fired them " "The inside of the front entrance" could be both the vestibule or one of the lower steps. Roy Lewis was interviewed two years ago, and it seems clear from that interview that he was outside, maybe somewhere around the lower east part of the doorway, or just in front of that corner. He was somehow guided by the interviewer to admit that he was the Afro-American gentleman in the lower west corner of the doorway which very likely was not the truth. Anyway, Lewis did not say that he would be standing behind the glass door during the shooting, The relevant instant in this interview starts at: 54.18. Thus, neither Piper nor Lewis provides any testimony excluding Oswald's presence in the vestibule before and in the doorway during the shooting. Now, we still have Shelley's, Arnold's and Jarman+Norman's testimonies pinning Oswald to the first floor in instants of the period from the noon onward.

Bart: I am at loss here: Lewis came out late, but was he out on steps or in front of steps, or still inside the building behind the glass door during the shooting?

Bill: could you please be more specific as to the witness lurking in the first floor vestibule during the shooting - who was this person and can we read his/her testimony. I have just posted notes on the well-known testimonies of people who in contrast to your witness saw Lee Harvey Oswald on the first floor prior to the shooting. Thus, it is not a sort of wishful thinking of those doubting the second floor encounter, rather it is a view supported by the witness testimonies.