Paul Jolliffe

Rich, I strongly suspect that Eugene Rostow was speaking for the sponsors (and apparently had one with him at that very moment in his office) on Sunday afternoon, November 24, 1963! Rostow should have been interrogated under oath about his repeated Sunday afternoon phone calls to Katzenbach and his later call to Moyers. At that moment, "Oswald's" body was not even cold - yet Rostow's pressing concern was to make sure that LBJ created a body that would issue a "no - conspiracy" finding! The ultimate sponsors of the assassination were in Yale Law School Dean Eugene Rostow's social and political circle - he knew exactly on whose behalf he was speaking.

Yes, Ron, that's the way I read the article, too. Whatever we may think LBJ's role in the assassination was, this article provides no support for anything.

Cory, The most interesting extended analysis of the formation of the Warren Commission (and all of the attendant pressure on LBJ to form such a commission) can be found in Donald Gibson's "The Kennedy Assassination Cover-up". The first 130 pages or so are magnificent - I highly urge you (and everyone else) to read Gibson's work. The pressure on LBJ to have a quasi-independent body offer up a counter to whatever the FBI might come up with started on Sunday afternoon, 11/24/63 with phone calls from Yale Law School Dean Eugene Rostow to Acting Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach. While those phone calls were not recorded, we do have the tape of Rostow's call to Bill Moyers (LBJ's Special Assistant and later Press Secretary), which was compeleted before 4:00 pm. "Oswald's" body was not even cold yet! No one knew at that moment what the hell was going on! Yet Rostow had one overriding mission - to get LBJ to create a body that would issue a no-conspiracy finding. I commend Gibson's work - it is invaluable in helping us to hear from where the pressure came. https://www.amazon.com/Kennedy-Assassination-Cover-up-Donald-Gibson/dp/1615779639

You don't get it, do you Tracy? All of those "alternative explanations" that you claim disprove the H&L thesis (never mind whether they are slipshod, juvenile, illogical and, in some cases, downright stupid) none of it matters! It was not up to you nor me nor anyone else to find "alternative explanations" - it was up to the Warren Commission to explain these problems in THIER OWN EVIDENCE! The reason you and I and everyone else is having this discussion today, 55 years after the issuance of their report, is because they, the Warren Commission completely failed to address any of this! Those on the WC aware of the evidentiary problems sought desperately to avoid the implications, and yet, some of the truth did slip out - they (inadvertently) published the Fall 1953 public school records indicating that there were indeed two different LHO's in two different schools in two different states. You may claim that this (and everything else) has all been "altenative explained" away elsewhere all you like, but the fact remains: It was up to the Warren Commission to explain it, and their collective failure (they couldn't even answer such a simple question as "where did the accused go to junior high in the fall of 1953?") voids all their conclusions about anything for all time.

Steve, Peter Dale Scott has long argued that "Oswald's" Russian defection was a part of CIA Counter-Intelligence Chief James Angleton's long-running operation to ferret out a suspected mole in the CIA. Scott's impressive work has been supported by others for decades. Was that (the molehunt) the sole purpose of "Oswald's" defection? Probably not. It was probably piggy-backed onto any number of objectives from any number of American intelligence agencies. The main thing though is that the defection itself was a "false" defection, and if Scott is right, then whether "Oswald" actually gulled the Russians into buying him as a real defector was ultimately not that important to Angleton. Angleton was hunting moles in America, not trying to elicit clandestine information about the USSR from teenage "defectors." (That's my conclusion, not Peter Dale Scott's.) I believe that is why "Oswald" was sent on such a hair-brained scheme - were the CIA/ONI/M-2 really so stupid as to believe that the Soviets would fall for "Oswald" as a true defector? From the available evidence, it would seem that the Soviets saw right through "Oswald" in a matter of days. And treated him as anything but a true defector for years after. As to Marita Lorenz and her Florida LHO, well, somebody was down there using the name LHO at some point. Hell, even the LHO who walked into Carlos Bringuier's store in New Orleans seemingly claimed to have been in Florida! Here is Vance Blalock's testimony: Mr. LIEBELER - What did you think of Oswald?Mr. BLALOCK - He seemed like a very intelligent man to me, well spoken, looked well dressed, well groomed.Mr. LIEBELER - Did you think anything else about him, or is that about it?Mr. BLALOCK - That is the impression that I got right at the moment.Mr. LIEBELER - Did he say anything about Florida?Mr. BLALOCK - Just mentioned the Cuban anti-Castro organization there.Mr. LIEBELER - What did he say about that?Mr. BLALOCK - I don't remember exactly, but I think he said he had been there and he had looked into it. I couldn't say for sure on that.Mr. LIEBELER - Did he mention the name of the organization?Mr. BLALOCK - No, sir. No, I don't recall any name. Later: Mr. LIEBELER - So the best you can recall, Oswald didn't say that he had recently visited someone in the Cosa Nostra?Mr. BLALOCK - No, sir. Yes, sir.Mr. LIEBELER - But you do recall sort of vaguely that Oswald did say that he had been in Florida and he had visited an Anti-Castro Cuban organization there?Mr. BLALOCK - Yes, sir; I do. Blalock's testimony was NOT contradicted by his friend, Philip Geraci: Mr. LIEBELER - Do you remember whether Oswald said anything about having been in Florida?Mr. GERACI - In Florida?Mr. LIEBELER - Yes.Mr. GERACI - I am not too sure about that.Mr. LIEBELER - You don't remember one way or the other whether----Mr. GERACI - The only thing I remember about Florida is when he asked was headquarters down there. He could have, but I don't know. But better than that, the FBI itself had allegations from a witness, John K. Kaylock, that LHO was in Punta Gorda Florida on October, 2, 1963, apparently predicting the assassination. Was Kaylock a crackpot? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. The FBI did NOT want to know. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=96509#relPageId=6&tab=page What I do know is that the CIA really, really wanted to know what the author Nathaniel Weyl had been told about LHO in Florida. Here is a declassified document CIA analyst Helene Finan from 1964: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10121-10377.pdf So, was at least one LHO in Florida when another LHO was somewhere else? A helluva lot of intelligence agents sure thought so as far back as 1964 . . .

David, When I mentioned Earl Warren's presidential ambitions, I was referring specifically to his decision to support FDR's 1942 Japanese Internment Executive Order. Absolutely Earl Warren wanted to be president of the United States, and in 1948, he almost came a heartbeat away. After all, it took a miracle in 1948 for Harry Truman to defeat the Republican nominee, Thomas Dewey and his vice presidential nominee . . . Earl Warren.

If (IF) that were the case, then Warren's only honorable choice was to resign from the commission. Resignation rather than the active promotion of an obviously false "solution" would have at least salvaged some of his reputation and probably would have helped America to get closer to the truth. Instead, he chose the politically expedient path and denounced any and all who voiced even the slightest doubts about his findings. No, I am afraid Joe that you and I will have to disagree about Warren. And such disagreement, in a free forum such as this one, is a perfectly fine thing.

And yet, remarkably, just yesterday Lance admitted that he could provide no explanation for the conflicting school records fiasco. Further, Lance demanded that it was up to the H&L supporters to explain the incompatible documents published by the Warren Commission: (" If you think these records on their face show something inexplicably mysterious, why don't you contact the respective schools, school districts or state departments of education and see what they say? My guess is that the "mystery" would immediately go poof - and that's what you fear. The H&L game is to posit "mysteries" on the basis of documents that may appear inconsistent because you don't know enough about the subject matter to understand what they actually say, then to "solve" those mysteries with "Harvey" and "Lee.") Tracy, it appears you and I agree that the documentary record shows that someone named "Lee Harvey Oswald" enrolled at Beauregard Jr. High in New Orleans on January 13, 1954 after he and his mother left NYC. I have news for you Tracy - all H&L supporters accept that as a fact. No one disputes that. So, stating the obvious does nothing for your argument. The real problem, once again, is that the Warren Commission published this record from the fall of 1953 in NYC: And the Warren Commission also published this record from New Orleans from the fall of 1953: Just as Jim Hargrove and John Armstrong have long contended, these documents conflict. They don't match. They are incongruous. "Lee Harvey Oswald" could not be in both NYC (at P.S. 44 in the Bronx) and at Beauregard Jr. High in New Orleans in the fall of 1953 ("1953 -54 - Report 1") If there was an explanation for this mismatch, the Warren Commission was obligated to provide it. (Not the defenders of H&L. The burden of proof was then, and shall ever be, on those who defend the Warren Commission's version of events.) The Warren Commission made no attempt to explain any of this, probably because those who knew of it could provide no "innocent" (i.e. no conspiracy) explanation. As to why they published it? My guess is that not all of those responsible for drafting the report were fully appraised of the "problem", and that in the crunch of the deadline, some of the truth inadvertently slipped out. In any event, it is not up to us to explain this. That failure lies for all time with those malefactors of the "official solution", the Warren Commission.

David, I realize this is almost turning into a separate thread about Earl Warren, but I must respectfully disagree. Whatever you or I may think about Warren's role in the 1954 Brown vs. the Board landmark decision must be weighed by his role in the 1942 decision to support FDR's plan to lock up roughly 80,000 Japanese-Americans citizens in California. These 80,000 people were American citizens! (FDR also locked up about 35,000 Japanese nationals without any due process. I don't like that, but to lock up actual American citizens is an entirely different matter, and should have been completely unacceptable!) And Mr. Civil Rights, Earl Warren, was more than fine with it! Warren was the Governor of California, and I suspect he had one finger in the political wind - he was aiming at the White House, I suspect. For whatever reason, Warren was willing in 1942 to trample the rights of American citizens. It would seem, in 1964, that he was fine with conducting a sham "investigation." We don't know the truth about the JFK assassination today because he was too (scared? unwilling? intimidated?) to conduct an honest investigation then.

Joe, Whatever faith Russell may have had early on in his career in the FBI had disappeared by the time of the Warren Commission. Russell repeatedly told friends, colleagues and associates that the FBI's investigation was insufficient, shoddy and inaccurate. Personally, I doubt that Russell really understood the implications for the "solution" if the magic bullet theory was rejected. We know that without the magic bullet theory, the entire no-conspiracy answer collapses into nothing. But I don't think Russell really comprehended that. He didn't like Earl Warren, he didn't trust the FBI, and in the end, he was disgusted enough with LBJ's willingness to facilitate the cover-up that Russell even broke his longtime friendship with Johnson. Before he died in 1971, Richard Russell had even urged a private researcher (Harold Weisberg) to pick up the trail and conduct a real investigation. https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=bhMwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=aTMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3085%2C4917493

Karl, Given the casual seated positions of both the press photographers in the immediate foreground and the Secret Service agents in the Queen Mary (at least three of them have at least one leg outside their respective vehicles, and the photographer to our right seems to have both legs outside the car!) it doesn't seem very likely that the motorcade could have been traveling very fast. You're right that it is a highway, but those vehicles just couldn't have been zipping along - those guys would have risked tumbling out.

Harold Weisberg long ago insisted to me (Weisberg somehow got ahold of a witness) that when Hoover learned of the assassination, he flipped out. As Weisberg said, the most important dictum FBI-ese was "cover the Bureau's ass" and the second one was "cover your own ass." Weisberg stated that Hoover was mortified that the FBI would be blamed for failing to prevent the assassination, and that the obvious, immediate answer was to craft a solution with a "lone nut", a person flying under the FBI's radar. After all, no one could blame the FBI for failing to uncover a conspiracy if in fact the "lone nut" had conspired with no one. "Oswald's" arrest meant all FBI fingers would be pointed at him, and "Oswald's" murder solved the problem of having to prove their case against him in court. The "evidence" would never be tested, and that was fine with Hoover. Was Hoover also vulnerable to blackmail from Mob/CIA sources about his personal life? Of course. Did Hoover fear the CIA? Yup. Was "Oswald" a long-time creature of the CIA, foisted in 1963 on an unwitting FBI to ensure their help in the cover-up of the assassination? Seems awfully likely to me. Apparently Hoover realized belatedly just how trapped the FBI was. The CIA had done its homework. They knew how the FBI would react. And they were right.

Since you freely admit you have no coherent explanation for the school records mess, yet you have the arrogance to insist that some rational non H&L explanation exists somewhere in some fantasy land, your insulting posts on this topic will not be missed. The school record debacle is solely the fault of the Warren Commission's failure to investigate properly "Oswald's" background. The failure to answer such a simple question as "where did the accused go to junior high school in the fall of 1953?" reveals an incompetence of colossal proportions at best. It's really not a difficult question, Lance. Why did the Warren Commission publish school records that indicated that "Oswald" attended school full time in both NYC and New Orleans in the fall of 1953? I don't know why they did that, but the fact remains, that's what they published. Of course, the simplest answer is very reasonable: there were two separate sets of 1953 school records because there were two separate young boys using the name "Lee Harvey Oswald."

Warren Commission member Richard Russell assumed (mistakenly) that his September 16, 1964 drafted dissent ("I do not share the finding of the Commission as to the probability that both President Kennedy and Governor Connally were struck by the same bullet") about "this bullet business" (he didn't believe the "single-bullet theory". Why not? As he said "John Connally testified directly to the contrary") would be incorporated into the body of the Warren Report. It was not. Russell was unaware of this incredible omission until talking with Harold Weisberg on June 5, 1968. (A propitious date in history!) Russell had personally forced a last-minute meeting of the Warren Commission back on September 18, 1964 so that his dissent and his suspicions about the inadequacy of the investigating agencies (particularly the FBI and the CIA) would be a part of the public record. Instead, Chief Justice Earl Warren misled Russell by having a stenographer from Ward & Paul present, seemingly taking exact dictation, but instead just taking vague minutes. When in 1968 Harold Weisberg showed Russell the public record of the September 18, 1964 Executive Session, Russell was astounded to learn that no record of his dissent existed. As Gerald Ford later admitted, whatever it was that the stenographer was doing at that 1964 session was at the explicit direction of the Chief Justice of the United States. In simple terms, with this charade, Warren lied to Russell and to the American public about the credibility and strength of the evidence in order to preserve the fiction that the assassination was solely the work of a "lone nut." Why did Warren do that? Because he was an intellectual coward, afraid of where a real investigation might lead. He was afraid that the truth, whatever it was, might be catastrophic for America. In other words, Earl Warren thought he knew what was best for America, and with what the American people could be trusted when it came to the murder of their president. And if that meant lying to both a fellow commission member, a long-time respected member of the U.S. Senate, and lying to the American people about the greatest political murder in American history, well, Earl Warren was just the man for the job . . .

Jim, The fall 1953/54 record from BJHS is not an FBI record, is it? It is, in fact, the record from the New Orleans School District itself, isn't it? I am referring to the document with the grades of "70" for both General Science and Physical Education. It appears to me that it was filled out by NOSD officials. I ask because at the top, it says that Oswald received a "p" during 53 - 54 Summer School Session in at least one class. Beneath that line, but still in the Summer School Session section, it lists the 54-55 session, but neither "p" or "f" is recorded. "P" is passing. "F" is failing. It also appears to me that the year "53-54" has been altered slightly. It appears to have originally read "52 - 54". More interestingly, in the column marked "Grade" (meaning school year), the extant "9" is distinctly different from the "9" beneath it. The lower "9" in the 54-55 row, appears authentic. The upper "9" does not. I think it originally was a "7" and was later altered to read "9". If I am right, might that indicate that Oswald took at least one summer school class at Beauregard, probably at the conclusion of his 7th grade year during the summer of 1952? Does anyone else see an altered "9" at the top? Can anyone tell me why "Oswald" apparently received a "p" for at least one class in summer school, maybe during the summer of 1952 (or maybe 1953?)

Rich, Where did you get the info on JFK Jr.'s beliefs about GHWB? That is fascinating, but I've never seen that before. When and where did JFK Jr. say that? Can you link it, please?

David, Thanks for that passage from High Treason 2. I had forgotten all about that exchange. The case that the Fox photos weren't even taken there is one helluva lot stronger than I thought!

Keyvan, I agree that Greer's failure to speed the limo out of Dealey Plaza until it was too late was a huge factor in the assassination. That failure may well have been deliberate on his part. Further, his apparent braking of the limo to a crawl was critical to the success of the assassination. You are correct to suspect him of complicity. A possible (and only a possible, not a sure) defense might point out that: 1. The presidential limo was not a high-performance vehicle. It did not accelerate quickly - it was a 6.000 pound armored monster that was compared to driving a huge sled. Slow, unresponsive, slushy. Incredible, but allegedly true in 1963. 2. Greer was genuinely alarmed by the men on the overpass - under no circumstances should any men have been permitted to watch the motorcade from the Triple Overpass, immediately over the head of the president! Any assassin located there did not need to shoot the president - all they had to do was to drop a brick on his head, and the Secret Service was helpless! Therefore maybe (MAYBE) Greer was innocent of complicity. But whether he was guilty of complicity or not, Greer's driving actions were derelict and contributed to the president's murder. To me though, the single most suspicious Secret Service agent is Winston Lawson, the advance man ultimately responsible for the motorcade route down Elm Street. Only because the motorcade made that fateful turn off Main and up Houston did it come within sniper range of any concealed spot in Dealey Plaza. If it had stayed on Main at a reasonable speed, the odds of a successful head shot from behind any fence or any high-rise building would have been astronomically small.

Keyvan, I agree that Greer is a suspect. However, in his defense, the Secret Service protocols were violated left and right on the motorcade route, and that was the responsibility/fault of Winston Lawson, the Secret Service advance man who (ultimately) opted for the bizarre 135 degree turn onto Elm Street. Walt Brown interviewed Greer (in 1970?) and published his work in 1985. Greer told Brown that as soon as he completed that tough turn onto Elm (the limo almost hit the north edge of the curb in front of the TSBD) that he looked ahead and saw . . . men on the overpass, beneath which he was to drive the limo! This was such a flagrant violation of Secret Service protection protocol that he began scanning left and right to see if there was any other way around them. There was not. Greer claimed (to Brown) that it was the dangerous presence of several unknown men on the triple overpass that caused him to momentarily slow the limo. He claimed this was such an obvious red-flag that he (almost involuntarily) hit the brakes. Was Greer telling the truth? I don't know, but whether he was in on the plot or not, the unacceptable presence of men on the overpass directly above the presidential limo would have alarmed any trained Secret Service agent. A further factor in favor of this thesis: I believe that the very first shot fired at President Kennedy came just as the limo was turning onto Elm from Houston. That shot missed, but it caused JFK to involuntarily flinch to his left. That flinch was edited out (apparently) of the Z-film (Zapruder claimed he never stopped filming, yet there is an obvious break in his footage.)The Hughes film and the Towner film both have obvious damage to the key frames just as the limo completes its turn onto Elm. This damage occurred while these films were in the hands of the authorities. It is not a coincidence that visual confirmation of an "early" shot was concealed in all three films. Therefore, I think it highly likely that a muffled - but audible - shot was fired from the Dal-Tex building at the motorcade just as the limo turned. It missed. I doubt Greer had any idea that the kill zone extended to the corner of Elm and Houston.

Karl, Here is the landing area, according to Robert Vinson: next to the Trinity River, between I - 35 and the Corinth Street Bridge. Vinson described the landing as "very rough." That fits with the terrain. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dealey+Plaza/@32.7621142,-96.8072064,44a,35y,122.48h,72.87t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x864e9915d508f639:0xcfa47bf25b709fe0!8m2!3d32.7788184!4d-96.8082993 According to L. Fletcher Prouty, it was just long enough for a skilled C-54 pilot to land and take off. Prouty claimed that the Berlin Airlift vets did indeed have that ability.

David, I didn't say Lee only received the .38 at the Texas Theater. Instead I argued that Lee carried it with him to the Texas Theater from the site of the Tippit murder. No, I wrote that "Oswald" (Harvey) got the .38 from the contact, the same person to whom Lee delivered the gun. That unknown person was "Oswald's" mysterious contact and was responsible for framing him with the real .38. Burroughs said that the pregant woman got up and left after "Oswald" (Harvey) sat next to her. I can't tell what Davis had to say of the last person he saw sitting beside "Oswald." I agree that both Lee and his handler (the mysterious "assistant manager" who knew nothing about the Texas Theater, the one who provided the impossible alibi for Lee) risked arrest by remaining in the Texas Theater until the DPD arrived. I don't think they planned to do so. However, I speculated that Westbrook, Bentley and others inadvertently arrived "too soon", preventing a clean getaway. Thus the "Oswald arrested in the balcony, Oswald taken out the back" fiasco. That whole debacle was an improvised fall-back plan to cover the Lee's exit from the TT.

David, A simple answer: Lee (American-born LHO) delivered the actual Tippit-killing .38 to his contact up in the balcony of the Texas Theater. That contact then delivered that same .38 to "Oswald" (Harvey) down on the main floor. Harvey had the torn dollar bills because he did not know Lee's contact, nor did he know that the purpose of the meeting was to take possession of (to be framed for) the .38 that could be linked ballistically to the Tippit murder. (Incidentally, I think it likely that Lee was to make his getaway immediately after his rendezvous with his handler, but that the DPD's Westbrook, Bentley and others "jumped the gun" (sorry!) and arrived too soon, before Lee could escape. If not for Lee's handler (the mysterious, nameless "assistant manager" who provided an impossible alibi) Lee would have been arrested right then and there! Thus the whole "Oswald arrested in the balcony, Oswald taken out the back" fiasco.) "Oswald" (Harvey) may have met Lee before - I suspect they had met. But it is certainly plausible to me that Harvey would have been tipped off that he was being framed for something terrible if he met Lee face-to-face. "Oswald" (Harvey) might have gone off-mission. Thus an intermediary was used to keep Harvey (literally) in the dark until they could kill him.

Karl, Thank you for emphasizing this. I tried to make that very point (amoung many others) back in August. Johnny Brewer, from his vantage point on the sidewalk in front of Hardy's Shoes,simply could not have seen whether or not "Oswald" or anyone else actually bought a ticket from Julia Postal. The ticket booth was slightly recessed from the sidewalk. To see such a ticket purchase, Brewer had to walk nearly to the entrance of the Texas Theater. (This is the video with the infamous edit/splice of Brewer's key statement at the 1:32 mark, a splice that omits Brewer's sentence about exactly what happened after he stepped out onto the sidewalk to watch the man head toward the Texas Theater. This edit coincides perfectly with two other filmed edit/slices of Brewer's filmed statements, all at precisely the same moment. Why? To hide the existence of the strangers still in Hardy's with whom Brewer had a conversation in which he was urged/pressured/ordered to go up and call the police, even though, as he admitted in 1996, he had no reason to do so!) This video below (inadvertently) shows up that from the 1960's.

Steve, It's actually a little better than that: Ball had actually ended the deposition when Applin volunteered the information about the odd inactions of the mystery man at the back of the Texas Theater! When re-reading Applin's testimony, it is obvious that Josephy Ball both knew of and desperately wanted to avoid any statement about this mystery man, a man whom Applin later identified as Jack Ruby. How do I know that Ball already knew? Because Applin told the FBI about this man, and Ball had the FBI reports! Ball knew exactly what to avoid! Now, was Jack Ruby actually present in the Texas Theater during "Oswald's" arrest? I don't know. But if we use Peter Dale Scott's "negative template" theory about sensitive names, then I'd guess that yes, Jack Ruby was indeed present in the Texas Theater around 1:50 or so. Mr. BALL - Okay, fine, that is all, Mr. Applin.Mr. APPLIN - But, there is one thing puzzling me.Mr. BALL - What is that?Mr. APPLIN - And I don't even know if it has any bearing on the case, but there was one guy sitting in the back row right there where I was standing at, and I said to him, I said, "Buddy, you'd better move. There is a gun." And he says--just sat there. He was just back like this. Just like this. Just watching.Mr. BALL - Just watching the show?Mr. APPLIN - No; I don't think he could have seen the show. Just sitting just like this, just looking at me.Mr. BALL - Did you know the man?Mr. APPLIN - No; I didn't.Mr. BALL - Ever seen him since?Mr. APPLIN - No, sir; didn't. I tapped him on the shoulder and said, "Buddy, you'd better move," and----Mr. BALL - Were you scared?Mr. APPLIN - Well, when I seen the gun I was.Mr. BALL - Did you tell the police officer about this man?Mr. APPLIN - No, sir; at the time, I didn't think about it, but I did tell--I didn't even think about it when I went before the Secret Service man, but I did tell one of the FBI men about it.Mr. BALL - Okay. I guess that is all, Mr. Applin. Thank you very much.Mr. APPLIN - All right.

David, Are you suggesting that these Fox photos of the autopsy were not taken in the Bethesda Morgue? I mean, surely President Kennedy's body was there at some point on 11/22/63 and surely photos were taken, right?