Joe Bauer

I don't think there is much debate over Lee Bower's under oath, WC testimony of seeing two men in the area of the picket fence ( although 15 feet apart ) on 11,22,1963 just before everything broke loose there.

Bowers was clear that these two men were not dressed like railroad men. He clearly described one man as younger appearing and wearing a plaid shirt or coat versus the other man being older and heavier and wearing a white shirt and dark pants.

Exactly the same "plaid shirt" description that Julia Ann Mercer gave her police interviewers that same day regarding seeing a younger man wearing this same type shirt while leaving the stalled Dealey Plaza plumbing truck and carrying a rifle case up the grassy knoll toward the general area of the picket fence, an hour or more before the motorcade.

One could dismiss these two matching male, age and clothing observation testimonies in the same area and only 1 hour apart by two separate eyewitnesses as coincidence or even made up. My common sense doesn't make that easy to do so.

How many of the male bystanders in Dealey Plaza wore plaid shirts that day?

One? None? Maybe Billy Lovelady?

And as I have mentioned before, of all the people wanting to get a view of JFK's motorcade through Dealey Plaza that sunny day, who in their right mind would choose a viewing location behind a view obstructing fence in the dark shadows of overhanging tree branches, AND standing in shoe dirtying mud in a tight space between car bumpers and the fence, when there were so many open view dry areas to do so? We know from several eyewitness accounts of fresh muddy shoe prints , mud on a car bumper and cigarette butts that someone was in this location at least while the cars were parked there that day.

That action is so illogical it's ridiculous. 

Only covert security might position themselves in such a damp, dirty and difficult view area contrary to those chosen by two hundred other motorcade viewers in the Plaza.

It's hundreds of illogical actions like this related by witnesses to the event or illogical interactions with the main suspects by other witnesses that FORCES a rational thinking person to conclude something other or much more than the WC "Lone Nut" finding.

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

So, he was "given" a heart attack and guarded until he died, because he'd started to sing?

With everything we do know about Morales, when I see straight on - full face photos of him I get a chill.

This was a man who you called when you wanted the final option carried out in dealing with perceived enemies. A most serious minded, temperament and facial expression kind of man who apparently enjoyed and was proud of his work and even bragged about it to his childhood buddies later in life. 

Pity those who found themselves facing that icy stare of Morales in person ... the face of death.

One can only wonder whether Morales's home town buddy or buddies recounting tale of his "we took care of that XXX " drunken bragging/sharing in his retired days regarding JFK and RFK were true.

Considering what is known about Morales and his career work and his personal feelings toward the Kennedys, it's hard to dismiss the tale out-of-hand.

It seems attractive Marina was preyed upon ( maybe "hit on" is a more commonly used phrase ) by so many men for months after 11,22,1963.

Jim Martin?  Robert Oswald? Hugh Aynesworth? Others?

That kind of pressure on such a young woman in an extreme emotional situation almost beyond description must have made getting through it even harder for Marina.

Two small children to nurse and care for. No money in the beginning. Dependent on Ruth Paine.

An absolute nutty mother-in-law.  A brother-in-law who totally felt Marina's husband shot and killed JFK. Amazing she got through it all and looking more attractive and together with each passing year. Shows an unusually strong personal constitution if you ask me.

Excuse the following question but...does anyone here feel that Ruth Paine might have had more in mind than simple human concern in wanting Marina to actually live with her?  I've read a few reported statements (hints?) of this sexual inclination inference regards Ruth Paine over the years.

It seems Marina couldn't break that bond with Ruth Paine fast enough as soon as she could afford to do so. And she ( Marina ) reportedly never spoke to Ruth Paine again after 54 YEARS! 

11 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Denny:

What's most interesting to me about Roscoe White is that he showed up at the Dallas PD in late 1963, with no prior experience in law enforcement (i.e. a convenient plant), and only lasted with DPD less than two years after the assassination. White worked in the DPD Identification Division, and allegedly had a talent for composite photography. He is suspected of creating  the backyard composites, and being the "enterprising young officer" who provided them to LIFE.  He apparently had numerous unexplained trips to New Orleans (see the EF Thread entitled "Return to Roscoe White" started by Alan Espy in September 2006).

Consider the fates of researchers Larry Howard, Joe West, Bud Fensterwald and Larry Ray Harris - the presenters of White's story - all of whom died not long after the Ricky White news conference.  

Can someone here tell us how these four men died and when and where? And their ages at the time?

Has there been any objective investigative work done focused on Jack Shaw that verifies or not his statements regarding the Roscoe White family and specifically their living beyond White's apparent workday job income levels?

Is Jack Shaw Dead?  

We know Geneva White had shock treatments. Tragic and sinister if she was forced to undergo these by her husband. It wouldn't be an illogical way to protect the secret revelations Geneva claimed her husband shared with her regards JFK. Just claim she is crazy if she ever publicly shared these herself.

I want to know more about Geneva White, Jack Shaw and of course Roscoe White and his relationships while in Dallas, especially any interactions with Jack Ruby.

Could someone steer me to some credible critiques of I WAS MANDARIN and the articles writer and any other at least half-way respected publications that deal with this story? 

I just read the piece again and it does a good job of destroying Geneva and Ricky White's stories, yet also reveals many incredibly provocative and suspicious facts about Roscoe White and his life and activities after 11,22,1963. The Jack Shaw relationship with the Whites adds a very intriguing aspect to the whole story IMO.

Thanks.

Quote

 

 

 

It would seem that David Perry was instrumental in infiltrating/defusing the Roscoe White story.  Then we see the characters of Ricky and Geneva defamed/discredited (e.g. mental problems).  Something's fishy here, and there seems some substance to all of this.  Kind of like seeing/smelling smoke (after the shot) ...

Gene 

On 1/13/2018 at 6:14 PM, Rob Couteau said:

More character assassination against Mark Lane, a great American and true patriot. And notice how the following quote is slipped into the piece as if to cast doubt on JFK himself: "Shamrock further stated that the Soviets mourned President Kennedy’s death, a situation which Shamrock considered very unique inasmuch as the person being mourned was the leader of another country.” This article is another great example of how the MSM work diligently to twist things out of proportion (or simply put - to disinform). One way they do this is to purposely fail to provide proper context. As we all know, shortly after Kennedy was elected, Dulles and the Joint Chiefs were urging JFK to launch a nuclear first strike against the USSR. During the Missile Crisis, the Joint Chiefs demanded a nuclear strike against Cuba that would have triggered a nuclear Armageddon.  It was only because JFK and Khrushchev each worked together to avoid the crisis that we're here today. (During the Missile Crisis, Khrushchev even told Andrei Gromyko: “We have to let Kennedy know that we want to help him. Yes, help. We now have a common cause, to save the world from those pushing us toward war.”) If the Kennedy brothers had not kept the right-wing fanatics in the government at bay, apocalypse would have been the result. Nobody knew this better than Khrushchev, who had his own right-wing war hawks to deal with. Of course he mourned JFK's loss!

 

Norman Cousins quotes Khrushchev as saying: "The Chinese say I was scared.

 

Of course I was scared. It would have been insane not to have been scared. I was frightened about what could happen to my country – or your country and all the other countries that would have been devastated by a nuclear war. If being frightened meant that I helped avert such insanity then I’m glad I was frightened. One of the problems in the world today is that not enough people are sufficiently frightened by the danger of nuclear war." Our media continues to portray Khrushchev as a raving maniac while the real maniacs were the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Which is why Kennedy had to open a secret channel of communication with him during the crisis. I suppose that Mark Lane should be honored that the powers-that-be are still so afraid of the truth he unearthed. No wonder Khrushchev's son Sergei told author Jim Douglass "I think if Kennedy had lived, we would be living in a completely different world."

There is a well respected American writer/historian whose primary focus was Khrushchev and Russia during and after he was relieved from power. I watched an interview of him on TV not long ago and his presentation was incredibly insightful and his views on Khrushchev mirrored Rob's summary above. Although it went much deeper in context. I wish I could remember his name.

Anyone here knowledgeable about the most respected Russia political historians of the Khrushchev era?

When Khrushchev relates that the Chinese derogatorialy thought he "was scared" during the Cuban missile crisis, I assume he is inferring that they ( the Chinese communist leadership ) perhaps would not have negotiated a stand-off peace with JFK and been inclined to risk all-out war with the U.S..

Regardless if 10's of millions of innocent people ( including their own ) would have died in just the first two weeks of such and the world would have descended into an insanity of massive mindless battle with unfathomable injury, damage and chaos to most all the industrialized countries on Earth that we might not have even been able to recover from. 

Thank goodness it was Khrushchev and Kennedy handling this crisis at that time.

Paul, I haven't read the chapter in Albarelli's book you mentioned yet. Can you give me the title of the thread?

Regards Mae Brussell, she reported so much stuff that at times it was dizzying.

Listening to her broadcasts was sometimes exhausting but she did come up with really important information in her massive culling of the wheat research effort that her listeners otherwise may have never been made aware of.

Often dark truths. Things that a true democratic society needs to know about to keep some control over human nature power grabbing by those whose interests conflict with a such a society.

Lance's views on the JFK assassination and other major society changing events in our modern history, and especially those who proclaim these events as conspiracies beyond rational thought as he describes such, are ones that I have many times given consideration to myself.

And I trust so many others who believe these events were results of conspiracies have too.

You do ask yourself at times to examine what is real and rational and what isn't? 

Whether you are overthinking about these subjects and why?

Whether you are too involved emotionally versus rationally and objectively in these events because they were so traumatic to your personal sense of the world and it's order? 

Is the conspiracy view something that we choose because it makes us feel more secure in a very insecure world versus non-conspiracy coincidences?

Are we conspiracy believers just very bored persons looking for something to fill that void? 

All very valid view points that must be considered in this realm.

Regards Lance's assessment of government on all levels as being so riddled with disorganization, inefficiency and stupidity that makes deep conspiracies involving them more unlikely than likely, I must respond with my view that this take is way too simplistic considering how much the higher or highest rungs of power in government are often very separated from the large bureaucracies beneath them.

These higher rungs of government ( especially the military and black budget agencies and their think tanks ) can be very organized, efficient, and intelligent. And they can keep secrets.

From my simple, less than higher education working person's point of view, which is all I have had to draw on and depend on to get me through 60+ years of living in this often tough world, I have seen many conspiracies exposed in every level and area of government. Conspiracies that if suggested before they were exposed would be met with derisive criticism of those suggesting these including calling them whacky and nuts as the writers Lance mentioned like Bugliosi constantly did also.

Crooked cops, judges, mayors, back room real estate and rezoning deals and pay offs, sex scandals, killings thought to be random later found to be perpetrated by organized crime, you name it.

Conspiracies happen every day, all around us, all the time.

To think that the JFK, RFK and MLK killings couldn't have been carried out by corrupt and powerful groups and conspiracies involving them versus lone nut crazies who just got lucky is to me as irrational as Lance labeling CTers as fringe nut cases.

5 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Lastly, it seems to me that Internet forums of all types gradually deteriorate and end up being dominated by some version of the lunatic fringe.  Those who really had something worthwhile to contribute at the outset eventually get tired of the silliness and fall away.  I have seen this on numerous forums, including Christian ones, and a friend who is really proficient in photography told me the other day that he has observed exactly the same thing on photography forums.  When I look at the posts from several years ago, it seems to me that the same thing may have happened to some extent here.

I really hope this is not the case with this forum.

It is simply the best we have. Thousands of readers. Many highly educated.

And besides the JFK assassination, there are so many other "hidden secret agenda truths" of great importance to us all that have been found, exposed and revealed as a peripheral result of this research effort.

And are still being revealed 55 years after 1963!

JFK's nation shocking assassination and it's inadequate, unanswered questions coverage and investigation was sensed by thousands of reasoned, moral and justice honoring men and women who then took on personal missions to find the truth. And often these mission's involved lifetime efforts with great financial sacrifice.

These men and women may have just become typical lawyers, writers and educators were it not for their inspiration for the truth following 11,22,1963. 

And because of their noble efforts in this often downplayed and even maligned area of study, we are all beneficiaries in being gifted with something more closely resembling the truth ... and in many more areas than just the JFK assassination, although usually related.

When I listened to Mae Magnin Brussell ( Her grandfather started I.Magnin and I lived in the same small town location of her radio station ) starting in 1971 ( "Dialogue: Conspiracy" and"World Watchers International")  I was often exhausted because she covered so much material she had discovered ( for hours non-stop ) and did so in a highly energized way while she herself never tired.

However, so many things Mae Brussell found and covered in her broadcasts, came back to me in my later years when they were actually proven to be true !

Including Nazis re-integrated into our society and Allen Dulles's connection to them, even during the war. 

And I realized that this woman was not fringe or whacky and instead was an amazingly inspired and talented researcher whose mission to inform us and warn us about things going on all around us (that she surmised we truly needed to know)  was a really important, good and courageous effort and sacrifice on her part.

As far as the UFO/Alien story is concerned ( and I have read a lot about this subject ) I am more a believer than not...but even discussing this subject ( especially here on this forum) comes with risks that could harm the forums integrity... IMO.

I wish there was a similar forum of this high caliber available to discuss this subject separately.

Coast To Coast posting just doesn't get it.

David I typed "the kid in the restroom" and "Mike Robinson" in the search box...and nothing comes up except our own recent posts.

Would this story be in a past "Roscoe White" thread.

4 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

The other side of the coin is:  If you had spent decades, as I have, truly neck-deep in the UFO community, the Near Death Experience community, the Shroud of Turin community, and the Paranormal In General community, you would realize that this forum and the JFK assassination community in general are MIRROR IMAGES of those other communities.  At least 50% of the discussions here are a JFK version of "we never went to the moon," "there are alien bases on the dark side of the moon," et al.  It is a mistake to think that a forum such as this epitomizes serious JFK assassination research.  To a large extent it epitomizes the "alien bases on the dark side of the moon" wing of JFK assassination research.  All of the other communities likewise have their genuinely scholarly wings, their genuinely sane and serious research wings, their debunker wings and their Wacky True Believer annexes.  You have to be deep enough into the field to be able to identify the Wacky True Believers.

Within every lunatic fringe, the Wacky True Believers take themselves very, very seriously.  This is one of the hallmarks of a lunatic fringe.  Any suggestion that they occupy the lunatic fringe is met with foaming-at-the-mouth hostility.  No, they are the keepers of the flame, the ones with the secret truths

I have experienced, in the company of a diehard skeptic, a so-called "daylight disk" at close range.  There was no doubt this was something highly unusual, and there was even a "psychic" component associated with it.  I have likewise experienced a number of paranormal phenomena, mostly relating to survival after death.  Those experiences and vast studies have convinced me that the UFO phenomenon is not a mundane one and that personal consciousness in some form survives bodily.  However, I am not a Wacky True Believer in any way, shape or form and am painfully aware that the lunatic fringes of all communities in which I am interested, including the JFK assassination research community, are very large, very vocal, and very self-promoting.  Why the Wacky True Believers do not realize the silliness of what they spout (or perhaps spout it even though they do recognize its absurdity) is a great psychological mystery.

The "UFO angle" to the JFK assassination, like the "UFO angle" to Marilyn Monroe's death, has persisted for many years, from the early years after the assassination.  Oh, yes, there are those here who actively promote it.  It is, of course, complete and utter nonsense.  it is simply the Lunatic Fringe of the UFO Community Meets the Lunatic Fringe of the JFK Assassination Community.  If it has relevance, that relevance is perhaps in making at least some readers step back and ask themselves, "Hey, how much of the other stuff on this forum that sounds superficially plausible is actually equally nutty?  How many of the people here who superficially sound like sane and serious researchers are actually Wacky True Believers?"

Do not make the mistake, however, of thinking that a forum such as this is ABOVE such nonsense, that the discussions here uniformly represent the scholarly or sane and serious wings of JFK assassination research.  Oh, NO, NO, NO, NO.  If you make that mistake, you have fallen into the very trap that the Wacky True Believers want you to fall into.

What I do find odd here is the mix.  You will not find scholarly, sane and serious, or even debunking members of the UFO community at, for example, the site of David ("The Queen is a shape-shifting reptilian alien") Icke.  He is too silly even to bother with, even though he has legions of Wacky True Believers who have made him rich.  This forum, however, attracts a broad spectrum of participants even though large swaths of the discussion are devoted to conspiracy theories of the "alien bases on the dark side of the moon" variety and virtually none of the discussion is devoted to the conclusions that the most scholarly, sane and serious researchers have consistently reached.

I was a non-posting/non-contributing member of the forum reading audience for years.

This audience is many, many times greater in number than actual posters.

I well knew and highly appreciated ( like most other non-posting readers ) that this was an online forum where some of the most highly credentialed, educated and respected JFK researchers were willing to share, debate and inform others of what they have discovered in their "years" of hard, diligent, intelligently organized and probably expense sacrificing work in their pursuit of the JFK assassination truth.

Now retired and with more free time, the time spent checking into the forum on an almost daily basis as a non-posting reader was satisfying a lifelong yearning of mine ( from the age of 12 through my 60's ) to know so much more about the most serious, competent and thorough JFK research. 

Seeing Mark Lane himself posting here was a highlight.

Of course I knew, and still know, that I am not in this esteemed researcher league and only have in common my lifelong passion for the JFK truth which is as strong and sincere as these high bar researchers.

So it is with some guilt ( after reading Lance's posting above) that I must admit that I am one of those forum contributors who probably lowers this high research bar with my poorly informed but impassioned post responses . 

I most often stay out of most thread discussions as I still have enough respect for the integrity of the forum to stay put in the reading audience and let the big boys and girls share their truly worthy research findings uninterrupted.

Even so, when enticed by certain thread topics, I have decided to occasionally selfishly indulge myself by jumping up on the stage with you all. Call it an older age bucket list thing. Just wanted to feel more engaged with this passionate subject.

But I still wouldn't call my less informed engagement a strictly "fringe" one.

I do trust my common sense to keep me logically grounded in considering all the different realms of the JFK assassination research and speculations.

SS Agent William Greer didn't shoot JFK. He could barely keep the limo in a straight line with both hands on the wheel and his head turned 180 degrees backwards watching JFK get hit in the head at the same time.

Is Mike Robinson alive today?

How well has he and his story been studied?

The story is compelling of course, but as always, nothing if untrue,

When did Mike Robinson first make his story known and to whom?

Does anyone know the title of the thread here that discusses Robinson's story? 

I was the exact same age as Mike Robinson the day JFK was slaughtered.

I still have a clear and vivid recollection of almost everything I did and saw and heard that weekend, culminating with my most vivid memory of all... watching Jack Ruby shoot Lee Harvey Oswald inside the Dallas PD building, 11,24,1963.

I believe much of White's story.

Will comment later on this.

On 12/27/2017 at 9:08 AM, Joe Bauer said:

Weren't there at least some Dealey Plaza ear witnesses who said the last shot sounded louder or more powerful than the first two?

Bang ............................ Bang ... BOOM ???

If so, could that more powerful sound wave effect have come from two shots being fired relatively at the same time? 

Another often repeated observation I know, but the shooter's accuracy improving as his target gets farther away defies logic. Especially in the JFK case.

The first and closest target shot misses completely. The second farther away shot hits JFK in the back, which as a lone wound he may have survived.

Then at 265 feet distance this two off-target closer shot shooter finally makes the perfect "bulls-eye" shot on JFK's cantaloupe sized head "while it is moving"  dramatically up and down and side-to-side ( in the short time between the second and third shots JFK jerks his whole upper body up, comes back down, then turns his head to look at Jackie and even leans it slightly toward her, then moves his head back forward and down again ) in a vehicle that is moving farther away ahead and dropping on a downward slope ... all at the same time?

That's "three - even four - noticeably effecting dynamics of movement" of JFK's head all during the lining up and firing time of the so-called third (and obviously hurried) shot.

Up and down, side-to-side, farther away and dropping downward on the slope of Elm street as it nears the overpass.

I know that hitting a bulls-eye on a "stationary" cantaloupe sized target not quite as far away as the length of a football field and brought even closer with a telescopic sight would probably be a somewhat easy feat. 

But have that cantaloupe sized target move in three or four ways simultaneously while trying that shot with a known inaccurate bolt action rifle and from a cramped position in a hurried stop action, reload and re-sight way under life and death stress circumstances ( Oswald or not the shooter must have known this could very well be a suicide mission ) and see how far from easy a bulls-eye would be. 

Now, if a second, more highly trained shooter in another less visible location versus the 6th floor open window and with a better quality rifle had only one shot to line up in this stressed 6 seconds, that last moving target bulls-eye makes doable sense.

Felt the need to edit and repost my thread response above for the sake of clarity and coherency . My writing skills are awful.

I do feel there is worthiness regards the questions I present suggesting the improbable and illogical circumstances of the third bulls-eye shot on JFK's head.

 

 

I've listened to the Coast To Coast AM radio talk show since the 1990's and have heard John Lear being interviewed several times on that show.

In regards to the thread subject, Lear ( to me ) is one of those characters that you're not quite sure of for varying reasons.

Kind of like Bob Lazar.

But enough of what they say indicates they both know what they are talking about "in certain key areas."  Enough to not discount totally what they have to say and share.

Lear of course does have unique credentials in his flying history and birth father. I am certain he has had some very interesting discussions with people connected to some high agencies.

After listening to or reading their tales you are just left to judge for yourself ( using your own lifetime experience trust gauge) how much to believe of what they say as true or not.

Astronaut Gordon Cooper and his UFO/ET story intrigues me much more than either Lear or Lazar.

It would be extremely interesting to hear or read about anyone who was close to JFK regarding whether they ever heard JFK discuss the topic of UFOs/ETs.

I sure haven't heard of such.

Lastly, if there was any one area of secrecy in the highest levels of command and government in this country and the USSR in 1963 that would send a fear of even death for revealing...it could only be this one. Hence no one sharing about it back then and even now.

I assume Doug Caddy is very, very busy at this point in time writing a book?

However, I hope he does see this thread eventually and shares his E.Howard Hunt E.T. conversation story once again.

1 hour ago, David Andrews said:

If we're going to dish von Braun rumors, his niece claimed that when he was terminally ill he told her not to believe in aliens, because they were an enormous military hoax.

Wonder if proud Nazi Von Braun may have told his niece the holocaust was a hoax as well?

My common sense tells me that millions of people worldwide ( most non-military) reporting and sharing similar observation stories (with thousands of new tech photos and even video ) of aerial objects moving and performing in ways that defy gravity and inertia beyond anything we could manufacture until the last decades, all being a part of this hoax is literally impossible.

Overall I trust average working folk and their word over high elitist class persons who always seem to have a hidden, self-serving agenda going on behind the scenes and their words.

The subject is relevant to this forum in the context of how JFK may have been informed of and involved with it and whether this may have been another dynamic in his removal.

According to Doug Caddy's recounting of a personal one-on-one dinner meet up with E. Howard Hunt where upon Caddy asked Hunt why JFK was removed, Hunt responded with ... the E.T. presence.

On 8/2/2011 at 3:58 AM, Gil Jesus said:

And what has always bugged me about this is Arnold Rowland's description of the rifle he saw firing from the window.

Mr. SPECTER. Can you describe the rifle with any more particularity than you already have?

Mr. ROWLAND. No. In proportion to the scope it appeared to me to be a .30-odd size 6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope.

Mr. SPECTER. When you say, .30-odd-6, exactly what did you mean by that?

Mr. ROWLAND. That is a rifle that is used quite frequently for deer hunting. It is an import.

( 2 H 170 )

BTW, the rifles were brought into the building on Wednesday the 20th. If my memory serves me correctly, that's the day that a Dallas Police patrol car allegedly saw "men with rifles" behind the picket fence.

“Two days before the assassination, two Dallas police officers were making their usual rounds on patrol. As they entered Dealey Plaza, they observed several men engaged in target practice with a rifle. The men were situated behind the wooden fence on the Grass Knoll. By the time the policemen reached the area the men had vanished, apparently leaving in a car parked nearby.”

MICHAEL KURTZ in his book, “Crime of the Century” (second revised edition) citing an F.B.I. report dated 11-26-63.

“That same morning [Wednesday, November 20, 1963], in the center of Dallas, two police officers on routine patrol entered Dealey Plaza, through which the presidential motorcade would pass on Friday, and noticed several men standing behind a wooden fence on a grassy knoll overlooking the plaza. The men were engaged in mock target practice, aiming rifles over the fence, in the direction of the plaza. The two police officers immediately made for the fence, but by the time they got there the riflemen had disappeared, having departed in a car that had been parked nearby. The two patrol officers did not give much thought to the incident at the time, but after the assassination of the President two days later, they reported the incident to the F.B.I., which issued a report of it on November 26. For reasons that have never been satisfactorily explained, the substance of the report was never mentioned in the F.B.I.’s investigation of the assassination and the report itself disappeared until 1978, when it finally resurfaced as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request.”

JOHN DAVIS, in his book, “Mafia Kingfish”

Two more specific subject connected "coincidences" ( just more on a mountain of hundreds of others ) of rifle guns being seen at the grassy knoll and in the TXSBD building within 2 days of 11,22,1963 that we are to just shrug about?

Dealey Plaza eyewitness Arnold Rowland never said he saw anyone actually shooting a rifle from the TXSBD building on 11,22,1963 , but his WC testimony has always interested me enough to go back to it now and then because, if true, it suggests so much more than his WC questioners seemed to want to know.

Rowland's wife did her best in her testimony to discredit her young husband's truth telling integrity, which I found weird if not sickening, but I wonder if she was lead into this by her questioners in an intimidating setting?

But, Arnold Rowland knew what a 30-odd-6 rifle looked like. He had been around and even used one.

And I always believed Rowland had a better and more close up view of the TXSBD building upper floor windows than most would imagine.

We actually have a couple of buildings in our downtown the size of and even bigger than the Texas School Book Depository building.

I have twice positioned myself on the street near them at the approximate distance Arnold Rowland stated in his WC testimony he was from the TXSBD building between 12:pm and 12:30 pm on Houston Street next to Dealey Plaza on 11,22,1963.

I also did this at Rowland's stated noon hour and in a position like Rowland described where the sun was shining on the building side I was studying.

Let me say, I was taken with how much closer and visible these 6th floor windows were to my sight than I had imagined at the distance I was. Especially with the noon time sun shining on them.

These physical realities made me believe that good vision  Arnold Rowland could very well see what he claimed he saw in those TXSBD building 6th floor windows and with the specifics he states just before JFK's motorcade arrived.

The other story of men ( young or old) mock target practicing with rifles from the grassy knoll picket fence aiming back toward Dealey Plaza just two days before 11,22,1963 in that specific area is just another head shaking, hair raising coincidence relative to what happened there soon after.  And coincidentally on the same day rifles are brought into the TXSBD building to be shown off for the first time anyone can recall?

Combined with rifle sighting reports from Julia Mercer, Ed Hoffman, Gordon Arnold, etc., in Dealey Plaza on 11,22,1963 it seems that area had practically become a public firing range / gun show during those three days.

Please...at what point in number do coincidences centered around a single event become more than coincidences?

In the entire story of JFK in Dallas on 11,22,1963 a rational person is forced to consider that question. 

Just an observation, but I had never really looked at many pictures of the Houston onto Elm intersection in a view from the School Book Depository side.

I was surprised how "tight" that veering to the left turn appears to be "from that view" which looks back at the main part of Dealey Plaza.

Maybe even greater than a 90% turn? 

I could see someone driving a hugely long "boat" of a limo ( like JFK's ), that required larger turning radius steering,  not compensating enough for that tight turn, especially if they had only driven it once or maybe twice before. 

Otherwise, I'm not informed about the other points in the thread regarding the veracity of Truly and his testimony and statements.

Were there any other points of the downtown Dallas motorcade that required 90 degree turns such as JFK's took onto Houston and then Elm?

It seems the main reference source for downplaying if not completely dismissing the Joseph Milteer story was ( or still is ) John McAdams's website essay, where he conjures up a laughably weak critique of other author's takes on Milteer being someone of interest in the JFK assassination.

Like Vincent Bugliosi, John McAdams loves to repeatedly intersperse emotionally unbalanced suggesting adjectives such as Whacky, Crack Pot, Bizarre, etc. in his JFK CT debunking pieces.

They're all a bunch of Loonies!

This type of extremely juvenile derogatorily suggestive labeling of anyone claiming something these two don't believe actually hurts, downgrades and deflates their own presentations.

It's a clear exposing of "their own debate argument insecurities" when they feel the need to divert to immaturely inserting common psychological fear projection pictures into the minds of their readers thinking this somehow bolsters their debate presentations versus their adversaries.

But this silly tactic doesn't work with rational thinking and even half-way intelligent and informed people regards the subject at hand.

Unfortunately, this does work with millions of others who are not well informed or inclined to be such and who are more susceptible to this kind of emotional fear projection game.

No one can argue the content of the November 13th, 1963 Miami police surveillance tape of Joseph Milteer and police informant Willie Somersett.  It is what it is. 

And Jim Marrs' description of Milteer as the "Miami Profit" because of this tape says it all.

Milteer's predictions of what takes place just 11 days later in Dallas, Texas are so specific in all the major details that to dismiss them as nothing is simply illogical.

In the video there is a few seconds of a photo showing what appears to me to be the well known "indentation" in the upper part of the limo front windshield frame.

Not a bullet hole in the front windshield.

It is such a big and noticeable indentation, I can't see the caretakers of the president's limo letting this large ugly anomaly not be repaired if it supposedly happened weeks or even months earlier.

If it happened in Dealey Plaza on 11,22,1963...maybe this was from the first shot?

Those older Lincolns ( especially limos) were built like battleships with heavy solid steel. To make that deep and noticeable indentation in that kind of steel took something powerfully impacting.

Weren't there at least some Dealey Plaza ear witnesses who said the last shot sounded louder or more powerful than the first two?

Bang ............................ Bang ... BOOM ???

If so, could that more powerful sound wave effect have come from two shots being fired relatively at the same time? 

Another often repeated observation I know, but the shooter's accuracy improving as his target gets farther away defies logic. Especially in the JFK case.

The first and closest target shot misses completely. The second farther away shot hits JFK in the back, which as a lone wound he may have survived.

Then at 265 feet distance this two off-target shot shooter finally makes the perfect "bulls-eye" shot on JFK's cantaloupe sized head "while it is moving"  dramatically up and down and side-to-side ( JFK jerks up, comes back down, then turns to look at and even leans slightly toward Jackie then back forward and down again ) in a vehicle that is moving farther away ahead and dropping on a downward slope ... all at the same time?

That's "three - even four - noticeably effecting dynamics of movement" of JFK's head all during the lining up and firing time of the so-called third (and obviously hurried) shot.

Up and down, side-to-side, farther away and dropping downward on the slope of Elm street as it nears the overpass.

I know that hitting a bulls-eye on a "stationary" cantaloupe sized target not quite as far away as the length of a football field and brought even closer with a telescopic sight would probably be a somewhat easy feat. 

But move that cantaloupe in three or four ways simultaneously while trying that shot with a known inaccurate bolt action rifle and from a cramped position under life and death stress hurried circumstances ( Oswald or not the shooter must have known this could very well be a suicide mission ) and try this.

Now, if a second, more highly trained shooter in another less visible location versus the 6th floor open window and with a better quality rifle had only one shot to line up in this stressed 6 seconds, that last moving target bulls-eye makes doable sense.

Rick, if that statement by Harvey's widow wasn't a "Freudian Slip" I wouldn't know what was.

Just a curious aside.

In the link to the home movie that Doug Caddy provides in the thread above this one, we see Oswald at his brother Robert's house at Christmas time.

In this home movie clip we see Lee Oswald wearing a vest sweater.

In this thread we see a still photo of Oswald, also wearing a vest sweater. Same sweater?

Even if it isn't, at least we know that LHO owned, wore and obviously liked this particular type of clothing.

Doesn't mean anything I know, unless of course maybe someone who said they saw Oswald in some other suspicious place and suspicious time ( like Oswald being seen in the Carousel?) may have described him wearing this particular type of clothing.

Isn't there a picture out there of another alleged Oswald sitting in the Carousel during a strip show and isn't this alleged Oswald also wearing a sweater?

Watching this CBC produced "Fifth Estate" documentary during the Cyril Wecht interview there is an x-ray photo shown of Texas Governor John Connally's right wrist bone area and one can clearly see the extent of the bullet damage there supposedly caused by the "Magic Bullet."

I had never seen this x-ray photo before.

Upon seeing this x-ray I am amazed at how much more damage there is to Connally in this one bone area than I ever knew.

There is literally a good size hole ( size of a quarter?) in the wrist!

That wrist bone area in the Connally x-ray is fairly "blown out!"

Couple this extensive bullet impact bone damage in Connally's wrist area with what Wecht also describes as "another 5 inches" of rib bone destruction in Connally. Again, reportedly from one single Carcano fired bullet.

When one sees clearly the condition of the "Magic Bullet" reportedly found on Connally's stretcher and compares the extensive bone damage in Connally ( both wrist and rib ) supposedly caused by this quite undamaged and relatively little lead losing bullet, how could any expert in the fields relevant to this case ( human bone destruction versus bullet damage and metal loss ) conclude that the single "Magic Bullet" did this damage?  Common sense and scientific fact surely says they can't.