Mathias Baumann

And by the way... are you aware that the HSCA concluded there was a high probability that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy?

The single bullet theory is NOT a rational explanation. It violates the laws of physics. Bullets travel in a straight line unless they are deflected by a solid object. But President Kennedy was not leaning forward when the "single" bullet hit him. The involvement of other gunmen is NOT speculation. It is backed up by the testimony of numerous witnesses AND scientific evidence.

Hello Lance, Saying that extraterrestrials from another solar system have visitied Earth is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. In the case of UFOs there's no extraordinary evidence for their existence - at least none that I'm aware of. Also, the laws of physics show that space ships can't travel at the speed of light, not even close to it, so a journey from here to the closest star would take millennia. In comparison saying that President Kennedy was assassinated as the result of a conspiracy is NOT an extraordinary claim. In fact throughout history we've seen numerous examples of political conspiracies to kill heads of state. Think of Caesar, Lincoln, the Austrian Archduke etc. On the other hand the laws of physics tell us that bullets travel in a straight line unless they are deflected by a solid object. And we have physical evidence (the holes in Kennedy's clothes) that strongly suggests that a trajectory from the 6th floor was just not possible. We also have scientific evidence of a shot on the grassy knoll, which is supported by the testimony of dozens of witnesss who either heard a gunshot, saw smoke or smelled gun powder there. Also, scientific experiments show that bullets are deformed considerably when they hit solid objects, unlike the "magic" bullet. We also have strong evidence that Oswald met with people who had the means and the motive to kill the President (Cuban exiles, David Ferrie). We know that Jack Ruby, Oswald's murderer, had ties to people who had the means and the motive to kill the President (La Cosa Nostra). So I think a better comparison would be the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II. It's also surrounded by many wild conspiracy theories. Who pulled the strings? Was it the Mafia? Gladio, NATO's secret army? The KGB? Arab terrorists? Turkish Intelligence? We don't know. But what we DO KNOW is that there WAS a conspiracy. Because other gunmen were caught in St Peter's square. (And by the way there's a peculiar similarity between Oswald and Ali Agca. Both had traveled abroad shortly before the respective assassinations, thus creating false leads... Agca supposedly met with a Turkish Mafia boss in Bulgaria.) So just because some people concoct "wild" conspiracy theories does NOT necessarily mean there was no conspiracy at all. The actual conspiracy may have been very small, possibly just a handful of people. But Oswald was carefully chosen for his "Communist" background. The conspirators most certainly knew of his meeting with Kostikov and that this trail would lead the investigators to Moscow and Havana. So there was no need for them to cover up anything, the authorities would take care of that in order to prevent an international crisis and possibly a nuclear war. To explain the Kennedy assassination you do NOT have to presume that the conspirators controled all levers of power. However, some of the conspirators probably had access to confidential information on Oswald (the Kostikov meeting). We know that the Mafia, Cuban exiles, and CIA agents had co-operated in political assassinations before. And each of these groups had their own respective reasons to get rid of Kennedy. So in my mind it is perfectly reasonable to assume that individuals from each group might have conspired to carry out an assassination on Kennedy. In fact I'd be very surprided if that topic had never come up in those circles. In other words I think you don't need to have "conspiracy mindset" to make a reasonable case for conspiracy. Hello James, do you know where I can find detailed information on the tests Hathcock performed? All I can seem to find on the Internet is that quote from "Killzone". Do you have the book? What was Roberts' original source?

So how did Vincent Bugliosi figure out why Oswald killed Kennedy? As you say he didn't live to tell us. Because he was killed while in the custody of the Dallas Police. After they had received threats against his life. Killed by a man who was allowed to stalk Oswald in the Police Department carrying a concealed gun. What was Jack Ruby's motive? Did he kill Oswald because he loved the Kennedys so much? So why did he miss out on his chance to see them when they came to Dallas? How come that 8 (!) police officers failed to see him come down the ramp? If he didn't come down the ramp, how did he get into the basement? Who let him in? By the way this is what the Italian military concluded when they tested the rifle: And this is what Oswald's former captain had to say about Oswald's rifle skills: And even the Warren Commission could not find a single person to testify that Oswald ever bore a grudge against Kennedy. Also you're completely forgetting the important fact that the last official investigation concluded that there WAS a second shooter and thus a conspiracy. Corroborating what dozens of ear witnesses have always maintained.

Very good question. Most of the so-called "conspiracy theorists" are obviously motivated by their desire to learn the true circumstances of President Kennedy's death. But what motivates lone gunman advocates? They think they already know what happened: Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy for no reason at all with a crappy old WWII rifle. However I don't think it's money that motivates them - not from selling books and certainly not from the CIA. I think deep inside they know that the Warren Commission's story can't be true. But to them all the alternatives seem even more incredible. So that creates some form of cognitive dissonance. The only way to overcome this is by either ignoring or downplaying all the evidence that contradicts the "offical story".

This could explain why we don't see any startle response: Maybe the spectators were meditating.

Hello David, that's a very good point you're raising here. The lack of startle reaction does certainly NOT prove that a shot from an unsuppressed high-powered rifle has just been fired. So people still smiling in the Altgens photo should make us very suspicious. Try out this calculator here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Acoustic/isprob2.html Even at a distance of 50 meters the 150 decibel muzzle blast would still have a level of about 120 db, 10 db above the average human pain threshold. The sonic boom would still have been at 110 db at a distance of about 20 meters. You've also pointed out that the first sound was different than the others, as a large number of witnesses described it. How is that possible if all of the 3 shots were fired from the same rifle? How could Bonny Ray Williams not realize that the first shot had been fired from just a few meters above him? How could experienced polive officers mistake the first gunshot for a firecracker?

David, that may be true for the muzzle blast but what about the sonic boom? It would've passed just a few meters over the crowd's heads. Certainly close enough to startle people.

Have you never wondered why the first shot was described different than the others? Or why Bonnie Ray Williams thought it came from outside the building (the backfire of a motorcycle)?

David, The people in front of the TSBD were supposedly close to the line of fire. So they would have been exposed to a 135 db sonic boom. 110 db is the average human pain threshold. The muzzle blast would've been even louder (about 150 db). How long does it take you to react to a painful stimulus? About 2 seconds? Do you really think those people would still be smiling if they had just heard a terribly loud noise?

Hello Francois, whatever caused President Kennedy to bring his fists up to his throat was NOT the shot of a high-powered rifle from the 6th floor window. Look at my posts above and specifically at the crowd in the Altgens photo right in front of the TSBD. Those people would not be smiling anymore if the 135 db pain-inducing shock wave of a supersonic bullet had just passed only a few meters above their heads.

Thank you. That's what I thought - a lot of conjecture and little hard evidence.

Thank you!

Hello Bart, what do you mean by your last sentence? I certainly did not mean to "draw you" into anything. I just wanted to elicit some information. Having read some of your interesting articles on "Prayer Man" I was just hoping for an intelligent conversation. If my post has come across as being provocative, I apologize. Being not an expert on photography I surely don't want to start a pointless discussion on the backyard photos. Reading your website I've found that you know a great deal about the TSBD employees. I'm sure you're familiar with this article as well: https://www.facebook.com/322459544515376/posts/this-is-fascinating-article-by-william-weston-about-the-history-of-the-dallas-sc/550127641748564/ I wonder if you've come across any persuasive evidence that the TSBD was indeed used as a front for gun running or other covert intelligence operations as William Weston seems to imply?

Okay, thanks, I've read it. So Oswald said he never owned a revolver and that he didn't bring one into the movie theater. Well, I guess, I might have said the same thing if I had been caught trying to shoot a police officer. The problem I see is this: If Oswald really was COMPLETELY innocent and not involved at all, how did the conspirators manage to set him up as the "patsy"? And why did Oswald leave his workplace if he didn't suspect SOMETHING? Now imagine that right next to the place you're working the crime of the century takes place. Would you just leave and watch a movie? I certainly wouldn't. I'd stay to find out what exactly just happened and wait for the police to take my testimony. The fact that Oswald leaves betrays some sort of guilty conscience. And WE KNOW he owned a revolver. It can be seen in the backyard photos. I've yet to see persuasive evidence that the photos were faked. I've shown them to an expert friend of mine and he couldn't find anything wrong with them.

Good points. And wasn't the rifle hidden so well that it took the Dallas Police a considerable time to find it? I think it was hidden WELL BEFORE the shooting.

Hello James, in the article you posted I found an interesting link: https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/2018/bleau-mechanism/bleau-phillips.pdf There it says: Now I did some research on Freeport Sulphur. I found this interesting piece of Information: Does anyone have more infos on Freeport Sulphur? Where exactly is the connection between David Attlee Phillips and Clay Shaw?

Some additional remarks: The decibel scale is logarithmic. That means for instance that 110 decibels are 32 times as loud as 70 dB. A motorbike has a sound level of about 100 db. The shockwave of a supersonic bullet has a level of 135 decibels. That means the gun shot was orders of magnitude louder than the parade and even well above the average human pain threshold, which is at 110 db. It has been pointed out that two of the Service Service agents have reacted to some kind of stimulus. We can also see that Jacqueline Kennedy too is already grabbing at her husband's arm. So obvisously enough time has passed since the gunshot for people to begin reacting to it. But why don't we see any reaction in the people CLOSEST to the alleged source of gunfire and RIGHT UNDER the supposed trajectory of the bullet (and therefore its sonic shockwave)? Mind you, the noises these people would've been subjected to are WELL ABOVE the human pain threshold. The most logical conclusion in my opinion is that at the moment the photo was taken NO gunshot had been fired from the 6th floor window of the TSBD. But I'd love to hear alternative explanations.

Hello Paul, you're raising a very interesting point here. The first shot was described as different than the others by a great number of witnesses. It is interesting that even police officers or Secret Service agents would mistake a gunshot for a firecracker, isn't it? (http://www.jfksouthknollgunman.com/index.php/06-2-assassination-firecrackers/) To me that sounds like evidence that different kinds of weapons were used that day. Now about your second point: Wouldn't people have reacted in the way you've suggested regardless of its origin? No, I don't think so. A bullet flying at supersonic speed creates a sonic boom that would obviously be more likely to be heard by people close to the line of fire. Like people right in front of the School Book Depository. But strangely they don't appear to be startled, NOT EVEN THE BABY. Now you're asking why some of the Secret Service agents are looking towards the TSBD? Two possible answers come to my mind: 1) They've heard the sonic boom of a bullet flying over their heads. 2) They may have seen the impact of the bullet on Kennedy's back and are looking for the origin of the shot. Also notice that NOT ALL of the agents are looking back at the building. Some seem to be UNAWARE that anything out of the ordinary has happened at all. Now consider the testimony of Bonny Ray Williams, who was situated right beneath the 6th floor window: At first he and Jarman thought that the first shot could've been a motorcycle backfire. So they thought that it came from OUTSIDE the building although they supposedly were the closest witnesses to that gunshot. Don't you find that strange? About your first question: How do I know how people would've reacted? If a bullet flew right over their heads the people in front of the TSBD they would have been exposed to a sound level of about 135 dB --> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/jfk8/sound2.htm In psychological experiments only 100 dB is enough to induce startle reactions. --> https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/startle-response I wish I could claim credit for this. In fact Robert Harris figured all this stuff out a long time ago. I think his research has been overlooked. Update: Various sound levels for comparison: https://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Training/PPETrain/dblevels.htm

Thanks for all the anwers. Hello Bart, your first link doesn't seem to be working. I get the message "Unfortunately we can not connect you to the page you seek. Many reasons could explain this, but please give us a heads up if you think it is an error on our part. And if you would like to take another look at the site, you might find something to spark your interest here. Thanks for spending time with us at dmagazine.com" Concerning your second post, I've read Mick Purdy's article and a few of the comments below. So, if I got the gist of it, Mick believes, Frazier did not take Oswald to work on November 22 1963. He argues that no-one saw Oswald walking over to Frazier's place. I don't find that remarkable at all. Oswald was certainly of great interest to a select few with CIA's counterintelligence, but before November 22 1963 12:30 am Oswald was a nonentity to most other people in the world. For the same reason I find the testimony of Willie Randle's neighbors suspicious. How could they be sure it was Oswald they saw? Had they seen him before? How could they tell the bag was big enough to carry a rifle? That sounds more like some sort of malicious gossip and I guess that's why the police didn't follow up on this. On the other hand we do not only have the testimony of Frazier and Randle BUT also the testimony of Oswald himself. He confirmed that Frazier had given him a ride, although he denied the curtain rods story. But I've found one other very interesting nugget of information concerning the bag: I've never heard about this story. Does anyone have more information? Hello Harry, are you implying that Lee Harvey Oswald may have received intelligence training?

Hello Bart, thank you for your response. By TT you mean the Texas Theater, right? So you think the police planted the gun on him? What's your evidence for that? Another question: I've always wondered why Frazier and his wife were so adamant that the bag Oswald carried to work was not tall enough to conceal a rifle. If I recall correctly, the figure standing next to "Prayer man" in the Darnell fillm IS Frazier. And yet Frazier can't remember who that person next to him was... how do you reconcile these two facts? May Frazier be trying to hide his own involvement in the "spy game" to frame Oswald? Hello David, fascinating article, especially this part: I had already forgotten about this. Surely Oswald didn't follow the motorcade in his chrystal ball...

I know I've posted this picture before on other threats, but unfortunately it hasn't attracted the attention it deserves in my opinion. So I'm posting it again: I think this photograph is important, because it constitutes exactly the kind of "hard physical evidence" Paul Baker was talking about. If we examine this photo closely, we'll notice that President Kennedy has obviously already been hit by a bullet. He can be seen grasping at his throat. In the background we can see the School Book Depository. In front of it there's a crowd of people, most of whom seem completely unaware of what has just happened. Now important is what we DON'T SEE. And that is any kind of involuntary startle reaction. But that is exactly what we would expect if a high-powered rifle had just been fired just a few meters above them and if the shock wave of a super-sonic bullet had just passed over their heads. Notice that even the baby (slightly to the left of "doorman") does NOT exhibit any kind of reaction to a loud noise. (And I guess we all know how easily little children are startled by loud noises.) And if you've ever been startled by a loud noise, you can certainly confirm that people react almost instantaneously to really loud noises. So in my opinion, this photo is "hard, physical" evidence that the shot that hit Kennedy in the back, WAS NOT fired from Oswald's rifle. And this again is corroborated by the holes in Kennedy's clothes that rule out a trajectory from the 6th floor window.

I think this is a very important question. Let's assume Oswald intends to murder President Kennedy either as part of a conspiracy or as a lone gunman. So he carefully makes a bag to hide his rifle from Buell Frazier and his other co-workers. Why would he leave his revolver at home, a weapon that he could conceal much more easily? After all, he HAD to take into account that police would immediately seal off the crime scene (although that didn't actually happen). The revolver would then have been his only conceivable chance to force his way out of the building. Now I guess you could argue that Oswald didn't see a realistic option to get out of the building at all. So if the police apprehended him a revolver in his pocket would of course be interpreted as a sure sign of his involvement in the assassination. But having left behind HIS RIFLE at the crime scene Oswald had to know that if he was apprehended it would only be a matter of time until the rifle would be traced back to him. So in my opinion, leaving behind your revolver doesn't make a whole lot of sense if you're planning to commit the crime of the century, does it? It does make sense however if you assume that Oswald was blithely unaware that there was going to be an assassination that day. Is there evidence that he wasn't aware of what was going to happen? I think there is some, for instance: 1) Oswald did not seem to know at all that President Kennedy was coming to town. He allegedly asked one of his coworkers what all the commotion outside was about. 2) When approached by officer Baker Oswald was reportedly drinking a coke and did not appear excited at all. Peculiar behavior for a man who has just killed the most powerful man in the world. Some people even think there's definitive photographic evidence that Oswald was in fact standing outside the School Book Depository at the very moment of the attack. So might Oswald have been completely innocent? Did he really just bring curtain rods to work that day? I don't think so. Lee Harvey Oswald was NOT a normal person. However, he was not a lone madman either, as the Warren Commission would have us believe. Oswald was obviously in some way or another playing spy games. He'd lived in Russia. He was married to a Russian woman. He'd tried to infiltrate anti-Castro Cubans. He'd handed out pro-Castro leaflets. He had met with KGB agents in Mexico City. Even a cursory glance at his past would show that he was (or pretended to be??) a Communist sympathizer. In other words, an investigation of his background would certainly raise the question if Cuban or Russian intelligence might have been behind his actions. Oswald was therefore the best patsy imaginable if the conspirators intended to prevent a thorough Investigation. Just a year before the world had been on the brink of a nuclear war, mind you, so a conspiracy traced back to Moscow or Havana would haven been political dynamite. So we can conclude that if there was a conspiracy in Dallas Oswald was a vital part of it. (Gilberto Lopez might have played the same role in Tampa...) So if the conspirators needed Oswald in order for the plot to work, how did they make sure he was going to get caught red-handed? They had two options: 1) Involve him directly by making him one of the shooters. 2) Place evidence at the crime scene that would incriminate Oswald. Option 1) again raises the question why Oswald did not have his revolver on him. Option 2) however does not explain why Oswald left the Book Depository and went home to get his revolver, if he wasn't aware that evidence of HIS guilt would be found. That leads us to option 3) Make Oswald HIMSELF leave incriminating evidence at the scene. That was of course the most preferable option, because for the conspirators it had the additional charm of not risking exposure when planting the evidence. And it would also explain why Oswald did not immediately leave the building, but when he did, he went to get his gun. Because when finally he had figured out what had happened, it dawned on him that he was to be the fall guy and that he needed a means to protect himself. Now the question might arise: "Why did Oswald then conceal the rifle if he was even unaware of the presidential motorcade? After all, rifles being shown around were not unheard of at the School Book Depository?" Now this is mere speculation, but I think that Oswald was constantly being manipulated by people who exploited his fascination with all things connected to the world of spies. So I think it's possible that someone might have come up with a plausible "spy game" scenario that involved Oswald smuggling his rifle into the TSBD and concealing it behind some boxes. That would also explain Oswald's "I'm a patsy" comment.

What about the bullet holes in Kennedy's clothes? And the Zapruder film that shows him sitting upright when he's hit in the back? What about the Dictabelt that corroborates the testimony of several dozen witnesses concerning a shot from the grassy knoll?

What makes you think that?