George Sawtelle

W Tracy We finally agree on something. Thus we have basis for agrument because if we didn´t agree on something we couldn´t argue, right? There were two men who look alike to a degree (somewhat) in Dealey Plaza the day JFK was killed. In fact they look alike to the point that 4 people think they saw the real Oswald get into a rambler on Elm Street minutes after the assassination. But it couldn´t have been the real Oswald because he was a few blocks away trying to catch a bus or cab to go to his apartment. Agree or disagree?

Jim I think it´s more than debunking Armstrong. It´s mainly debunking two Oswalds. Tracy´s LN theory and two Oswalds are mutually exclusive.

W. Tracy Putting aside Armstrong´s work on the two Oswalds, let me ask you this: Do you believe that there could be two men, not related by blood, that look so much alike that they could pass for twins, and that happen to live in the same country? Of course the answer is yes. Furthermore, is it possible that there could have been a man who resembled Oswald to the point that he could pass for Oswald´s twin, a man unknown to Oswald? Of course the answer is yes. Knowing the answer to both questions, the next logical step is looking at the evidence that supports two Oswalds. As you look for evidence of two Oswalds, forget about Armstrong´s work.

W. Tracy It´s not that Armstrong´s theory is garbage, it´s all about no two Oswalds. At least it´s out in the open. You will say anything to discredit Armstrong as long as it helps your theory that there was only one Oswald. If I tell you that there were two Oswalds you´ll blindly go after my logic and try to discredit it. So what ever I say about why I believe there were two Oswalds is not good enough for you. Eventhough there is strong evidence that indicates that there were two Oswalds in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination.

W Tracy There were two Oswalds in Dealey Plaza the day Kennedy was killed. Armstrong attempts to explain how two Oswalds existed. Discrediting Armstrong doesn´t take away from the fact that two Oswalds existed.

You´re right. At the time of the assassination Harrelson had not been convisted of killing anyone. I think he had a criminal record however.

And the research community can´t have Holt running around Dealey Plaza with Harrelson and Rogers because just maybe Dunbarr is right, just maybe, and if he´s right about Holt he maybe right about you know who and maybe he´s right about JVB and ... well you know what mean. So it´s Gedney, Abrams and Doyle.

David Harkness also is wrong about where Amos Euins/Eunis was standing during the shooting. He wasn´t on the grassy knoll. He was standing on the southwest corner of Houston and Elm. Euins said he walked over to the grassy knoll after he noticed people running toward the knoll. I´m assuming his testimony wasn´t changed. It appears from the arrest record that Abrams, Doyle and Gedney were arrested at 4:00 pm. Harrelson, Rogers and Holt were walked through Dealey Plaza before 4:00 pm. Based on the shadows Harrelson, Rogers and Holt walked through Dealey Plaza at about 2:00 pm ?????. The DPD doesn´t want to acknowledge that Harrelson, Rogers and Holt were taken in that day. If they did, people would question why a killer like Harrelson was let go.

Michael C Since this thread appears to be dying I don´t think anyone would mind if we steer off topic a little. Plus I would like to finish how the plotters pulled off the double switch. Immediately after the shooting, the sixth floor shooter handed the rifle to a man dressed as a Dallas policeman, and used the elevator to get down to the first floor. The man dressed like a Dallas policeman and another man dressed like a Dallas policeman had walked up the back of the fire escape (routine security right! ) before the motorcade arrived; one stationed himself on the roof of the TSBD and the other went over to the southwest window of the sixth floor. Both fake policemen then walked down the fire escape with a rifle.They got into a fake police car and drove off. The rifle has never been found. Oswald either received a phone call at the phone near the front door of the TSBD or was told before hand to leave the building asap since his plane would be waiting for him at Red Bird to fly him and others to Mexico. Two Oswalds in the same building would mess things up. He was probably told not to carry a weapon to work since he may be frisked after the assassination and it wouldn´t look good if he is found carrying a pistol. But they also told him that he needed to be packing for his trip to Mexico. The rest is history.

Michael C And that´s a valid concern. Apparently the plan was do not resist if captured since we will get you out. OTOH, Oswald was told don´t worry you´ll be downstairs when the shooting starts so you have nothing to worry about. But the plotters didn´t tell him that there would be a guy who looked a lot like him doing the shooting from the sixth floor TSBD.

Michael C They had a communist lined up within minutes of the assassination. The real killers (tramps) who had been captured were let go.

Michael C Harrelson and Rogers are the kind of guys you hire to kill a president. Cold, unnerving under fire. Mafia hitmen also. They are not afraid to die and adhere to the oath of omerta.

Michael C Lois Gibson identified the three tramps as Harrelson, Rogers and Holt. She has a good track record. Harrelson was a hitman for hire. I think Harrelson was the shooter on the grassy knoll who shot Kennedy in the head. Harrelson was charged with the murder of a federal judge in Texas who was shot with an exploding bullet (Sheehan). Similar to the bullet that blew out the back of Kennedy´s head. Rogers was a navy vet who worked for naval intelligence. He was a cold blooded killer. Holt worked for Meyer Lansky and the syndicate.

Michael C I agree with Michael W ... excellent post. I think it was Prouty or maybe it came out in the movie ¨JFK¨, apparently a brigade of army troops was placed on standby in Washington DC to respond to rioting after the assassination. It looks like maybe our seat of government was to be protected at all costs. What was said in your post makes a lot of sense. Backup plans had to be in place because Kennedy would never be allowed to survive that day.

Thomas G Sounds interesting. Mr Tidd may be on to something. Thanks

Tommy dearest Do you believe there were two Oswalds? If not, how do you account for two Oswalds identified in Dealey Plaza on 22 Nov 1963? What about pictures showing two Oswalds who look very similar but are not the same man.

W. Tracy It´s only logical that all charges be dropped against a suspect who dies. I´m not disputing that. Immediately after the assassination some people, important people like Salandria, Lane, especially after Ruby killed Oswald, felt a conspiracy killed JFK. The Texas attorney general, Waggoner Carr (???), wanted to do an investigation into the assassination. LBJ talked him out of it. The conspiracy angle was very strong in Washington and Dallas. The attorney general of Texas should have conducted an investigation and a grand jury should have decided that a trial was or was not warranted. LBJ, wanting to do the investigation in Wash DC does not make it lawful. That is why I said what I said about Norwood. He was right.

Thomas G Happy to know you don´t disagree with me. Now if only you could coax Tracy to do the same I would be happier.

Dearest Tommy It´s sad that no one has ever been tried for the murder of JFK or Officer Tippit? The Warren Commission wasn´t a trial. And it really wasn´t a grand jury. As far as I know a grand jury has never been convened. I guess the closest we´ve been to a grand jury is the HSCA and the AARB. But we all know that those committees were more political theatrics than a legal proceeding. And how could anyone trust the FBI and the CIA to provide honest, real evidence when those two agencies are the ones who covered up the assassination in the first place. If anyone here believes the FBI and the CIA are to be trusted then you must have been living in fantasyland for the last 50 years. The US government had no jurisdiction. Only the state of Texas could investigate and take their evidence to a grand jury. If the grand jury felt that no charges can be brought because of lack of evidence, then no trial until there is enough evidence.

Tracy P Oswald was a suspect not the killer. Oswald had not been convicted of anything. The investigation was the task of the DPD and if a grand jury indicated that a trial was necessary it should have been convened in Texas.

Tracy P Because Oswald was innocent until proven guilty, the murder of JFK should be investigated by the entity which had jurisdiction. Back in 1963 there was no distinction between the murder of a US president or the murder of a private citizen. Murders were to be investigated and tried in the jurisdiction where the murder occurred. Therefore the murder of JFK should have been investigated and tried in Dallas by the attorney general of Texas. The death of Oswald was lost evidence. Sometimes evidence is lost but that does not stop a trail. The authorities in Washington, including the president, broke the law. They had no authority to convene the Warren Commission to investigate the murder of JFK. So in that respect Norwood is correct.

Jeff Another way to look at it. The HSCA concluded that there was a 95% possibility that the assassination of JFK was a result of a conspiracy. That means there is a 5% possibility that it was a lone nut. That´s plausible deniability. With plausible deniability beyond a reasonable doubt goes out the window. That is all the CIA really wanted. Eventhough the alteration left a lot to be desired, it gave them plausible deniability.

Jeff Those folks who did the cover-up recognized that ... the apparent sequence cannot be reconciled with the lone nut three shots bolt action rifle paradigm. That´s why the Zap film was edited. When we fully understand the briefing board action we know that the film was altered. Horne laid it out for us, all we have to do is tweak Horne´s revelations.

Jeff I´ve provided a chain of events that would be necessary for alteration of the original. What I have written is my analysis of the evidence as presented by Horne and Thomas. Anyone who has access to the evidence may do their analysis and come up with something that either agrees with mine or takes off in another direction. I might add that my analysis is basically Horne´s. Your evidence has come from your own experience and Sherry Fiester´s book. You may have mentioned other sources however I haven´t gone back and read all your posts on this subject. Whatever evidence you used you apparently have performed an analysis and you made conclusions. And that´s fine. So there is really no disagreement between you and me. The disagreement results from the evidence that we have used in our analysis. The most important points of Horne´s evidence: 1. Zapruder gave the original to rep from LIFE. 2. Brugioni used the original to make one set of briefing boards. 3. McMahon used the original to make a second set of briefing boards. OBSERVATION: Brugioni makes briefing boards from the original and McMahon makes briefing boards from the original. If the original hasn.t been altered why make two sets of briefing boards? The fact that McMahon also makes briefing boards means the original used by Brugioni was altered. 4. The government can´t have different films floating around so the copies made in Dallas are destroyed and copies of the original are made and handed to the SS, CIA, and FBI. 5. The altered original is returned to Zapruder and there is no problem if he makes copies and gives them to whoever. Thank you Douglas Horne for letting us know what happened.

Jeff Shortly after Homer McMahon finished his job on the second set of briefing boards, copies of the altered original were made and given to the SS and FBI. The copies that were made in Dallas were destroyed. The altered original was handed back to Zapruder and then recovered by LIFE through negotiation with Zapruder. What this means is that not one Zap film seen on the internet shows frames Z-208 to Z-212.