Ron Ege
-
Posts
207 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Ron Ege
-
-
19 hours ago, Christian Toussay said:
..Which one? I was advised the "Debunking the pareidolia argument" were down, so I reposted them....
Christian, all good now; thank you.
-
13 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:
No, he was not, and did not. Your link did not work for me. Good chance he ate his cheese sandwich in the domino room, after getting a coke. Then wandered out front, with Shelly. Where he finished off the coke.
Someone shot from the snipers nest. Quite possibly as a distraction for those below to look up and back (SSA's-Altgens) or a few to hear. Maybe they hit Connally, no one knows for sure. I've wondered if those shots were with the Mauser, if the Carcano was a prop, already planted before the assassination.
Who, how did they get away?
Ron, thanks.
I believe that your theoretical scenario is/was quite feasible.
Any group that planned well enough to assassinate the POTUS was certainly intelligent enough to plan their successful getaway.
As the TSBD was not secured immediately after the shots, the perpetrator(s) certainly had ample time to exit; either out the back door as some have allegedly witnessed, i.e., a person or persons unknown seemed to have scurried out within a very short time after the shots.
Alternatively, what do you think of the possibility perpetrator(s) being incognito, e.g., dressed as uniformed DPD officers and/or civilian clothed DPD detectives or some other seemingly possible other identify (with fake IDs), which by just appearance and demeanor alone would have been satisfactory for the real authorities to assume their presence was justified given the commotion at the time?
Might they have had enough time to just casually walk out of the building, back or front, anytime before the building was secured?
-
18 hours ago, Christian Toussay said:
OK, so I posted a distinct thread to rebuke the argument of pareidolia, which is essentially the argument which is/will be brought forth by critics of the results I am presenting here. Refer to this specific thread to understand why the argument simply just do not stand.
Continuing our tour of the known/suspected shooting locations in Dealey Plaza, I will post now results obtained on two films showing the Sniper's Nest respectively 10 mns (Bronson film) and 5/10 seconds (Hughes film) before the shooting. The Hughes frames were downloaded from the JFK Lancer site circa 2015, and the Bronson frames were obtained via screen capture of a YouTube video circa 2018.
Everybody here knows, I guess, that the foundation of both the WC and HSCA is that LHO fired the shots that killed JFK from the so called Sniper's Nest on the 6th floor of the TSBD. The HSCA did concede that he had help from another shooter on the Knoll, but happily enough, he missed the target so basically that doesn't count...
I guess all JFK researchers, whatever their inclination, have their own scenario for Oswald: so I guess the image posted below, which is a summary of the results obtained on the Sniper's Nest, will not sit well with everybody.
The post is a composite, showing frame 2 from the Bronson film and frame 2 of the Hughes film:
Note that Hughes frame n°2 still presents remnants of the forgery process used to hide this image: note solid dark areas on the right, notably occulting top right part of cap.
The whitish/pinkish blob in the center of the image in what would be the hands area is also very suspicious.
This presentation is not about interpretations, but about new data brought forth by a new methodology. Nevertheless, this image not only buries the Lone Nut Theory, but allows us to "re-read" the data in a way that allows answers for old questions and mysteries, if logical thinking is put to use.
I will give one single example:
- Oswald was not in the Sniper's Nest and did not shoot at Kennedy
- so Oswald could not have been present on the 6th floor either, as some suspect: if he had been, he would have been killed on the spot by this DPD officer. Case closed
I will post different versions of results obtained of the Bronson and Hughes film for analysis by serious researchers...
Christian,
Thank you for all of your efforts, thus far. Regrettably, your link did not work for me, either. Please retry.
-
I "don't have any dog in this fight" - just curiosity.
Some examples of Tippit's reported alleged DOA time at Methodist Hospital.
- 1:15 p.m.
Tippit_Murder (harveyandlee.net)
- 1: 25 p.m.
From Wikipedia (link would not copy/paste)
- 1:30:30 p.m.
J.D. TIPPIT / November 22, 1963 - The Evidence - Timetable of Events (jdtippit.com)
- 1:15 p.m.
Lastly (maybe someone has another link/source/reference?), we have the Dallas PD timestamp, heretofore mentioned.
It would seem that Dr. Earl F. Rose would use Officer Tippit's DOA time that was allegedly noted by Dr. Richard A. Liguori, the on-duty Methodist Emergency Room (ER) doctor.
Would the ER doctor just approximate the DOA time or maybe the ER clock and/or the doctor's watch was off?
Who to believe?
-
Maybe, "Any port in a storm" ?
-
15 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:
To believe they didn't find a Mauser is to believe the cops couldn't read.
Denny, good one!
Probably just me, as a plain ole citizen firearms owner and casually interested in them, whenever I look at/handle any firearm that is not mine, after ensuing the firearm is clear, the very first thing I do is to naturally look at any nomenclature engraved thereon - you know - the manufacturer, the caliber - that sort of thing.
I'm kind of thinking, that a little later that very same day if someone should ask me what kind of gun I looked at - well, "Gee whillikers, Batman" - I do rightly believe that I'd rightly remember, even if i should "confuse my memory" by say, writing a report on what I saw and/or just happened to sign an affidavit, there about.
'Course, I cannot comment on what my actions would be if at one time, I had just happened to manage or own a gun store. Do ya think that maybe all that familiarity with firearms might confuse me?
Almost forgot, gosh. I guess maybe if I were Dallas, TX, law enforcement officer examining a firearm that could've been used to kill the POTUS, I'd probably be so discombobulated that I'd just report any ole manufacturer/caliber that came to mind.
Whatcha think? 🤪
-
22 hours ago, Gerry Down said:
Thanks for that insightful response. I had not considered that due to budgetary constraints, marines could not just go to the rifle range whenever they wanted and shoot. Perhaps if they were about to go on an overseas mission, then they would be allowed practice on the rifle range, but unless there was a realistic chance of seeing live action, i guess the marines would have limited access to the rifle range on base.
With regard to your comment above, you say the skillset between a MC and an M1 are not exactly transferrable. Could the same be said between an M1 and a shotgun? The reason i say this is because Oswald is said to have been a poor shot with a shotgun while he was in Russia, and i just wonder if the practice he had been doing with the M1 while in the marines could have affected his shotgun skills to the point that it degraded them due to his being used to firing the M1.
Gerry, thanks.
I cannot speak for Oswald, but my skills with either would not necessarily be affected by shooting one of them more than the other.
-
On 3/22/2024 at 8:11 AM, Gerry Down said:
A few weeks after Oswald first entered the marines, in December 1956, he scored 212, which was slightly above the requirements for the designation of sharpshooter. In May 1959 he scored 191, which reduced his rating to marksman.
In a recent interview Larry Hancock made the point that this may have been because Oswald was practicing more with the rifle in the run up to the Dec 1956 test and so scored better but had been working in radar in the run up to the May 1959 test and so possibly had been practicing less.
As someone who has not served in the military, I was wondering could any marine such as Oswald practice shooting on the shooting range whenever they wanted? I presume a marine would be allowed to practice, and probably specifically encouraged to practice, in the run up to a test such as the one in May 1959. If so, then Oswald had no real excuse for failing to score as a sharpshooter on the May 1959 test.
I presume there could have been consequences if he had failed he test? Such as being docked pay etc. Or not being allowed to deploy outside the U.S. on any mission.
LINK (41 minutes 30 seconds):
Gerry,
Excellent question.
Anecdotally, I will weigh in - simply, as a 29 plus years USAF veteran ('61-'90), having had much inter-service interaction with other services' members over those years, with discussions relative to differences in their respective basic training courses to include such topics as initial rifle qualification, as well as annual rifle requalification, thereafter.
I believe Larry's assumption to be correct. As far as I am aware, each service's initial rifle qualification course is more extensive than the annual qualification course. Thus, it is not surprising that Oswald's initial qualification score would be better than his subsequent annual score because of the initial qualification training's overall intensity. Annual qualification training is of the "refresher" type - given the fact that one has previously experienced a "baseline; no need to "begin from scratch".
Over the years, I found it not unusual that not only USAF but also other services' members, experienced their best score on their initial rifle qualification. The exception to the rule might have been a service member assigned "combat arms" designation, e.g., one sometimes respectfully referred to as a "grunt" or "ground-pounder", i.e., a MOS certified "job" - specifically, as a rifleman, thereby being granted more training/practice than those who are not. If memory serves, Oswald was a radar operator - having no need undergo specialized rifle training/practice.
Personally, in '61, at 18 years of age, with the M-1 Carbine, never having fired a rifle or pistol before, I scored one point below expert. Subsequent years proved to be less successful - scoring low in the sharpshooter range.
Before leaving for Vietnam in '66, I had to go through the initial qualification with the USAF'S newly adopted M-16. I reached one point above expert. Thereafter, never again - scoring only in the low to mid-range sharpshooter range.
Fortuitously, in June '61 whilst in basic training at Lackland AFB, TX, on an "extra duty day", I was assigned to the office of the official USAF Rifle Team whose members competed with other services. The non-coms there were "extra kind" and treated me as if I were human!.
My duties were light, and I was able to spend most of the day in casual conversation with them, regarding their duties. For them, along as their other sundry duties were completed, they could pretty much - "practice as much as they wanted".
So, unless Oswald was an official USMC Rifle Team member (I've not aware, if he was), it is much more that highly doubtful that he would have had carte blanche - when it came to range time. His normal and additional duties time would've precluded extensive practice, not withstanding the fact that budgetary manpower/equipment/ammunition considerations would have also precluded "practicing as much as he wanted".
Even so, let's allow that Oswald clandestinely was somehow able to "practice as much as he wanted" with the M1 Rifle. How beneficial would that have been, considering the his alleged dastardly deed was done with the MC? Did some unknown person procure a MC rifle for him to practice? Not that anyone knows of.
Those with even a rudimentary knowledge of rifle shooting absolutely know that there a huge difference between operating a bolt action rifle versus a semi-automatic. The experience is not precisely linear nor exactly transferable between the two rifle types.
Oswald's alleged shooting prowess has been much discussed, here and elsewhere. Personally, I am unaware of anyone, in the "recreations" of the alleged 11/22/63 assassination scenario, equaling Oswald's feat. Those world's expert riflemen were allowed practice shots before the recreation. Additionally, the alleged MC's condition, as found on 11/22/63's had been markedly "improved) and the exact shooting scenario (height/distance) at a moving target no less, was also "improved".
Do I believe that Oswald could still have "dun it". I suppose so - as long as someone can show me a study, where, without artificial means, ""pigs can fly".
I only share the above with the thought that it may help to generate some interest/comments in your post. Further, it is my hope is that one of the members here is a USMC veteran of the late '50s/early '60s era or perhaps knows someone who was and can relay their thoughts/comments, furthering our understanding of USMC rifle qualification' specifics, back in the day.
Gerry, thanks; you contribute much here, and I enjoy your posts.
-
3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Ron,
First, thanks for studying my presentation.
When I made that presentation, I was still open to the possibility that an encounter between Officer Baker and Oswald did occur on the second floor. However, because of what I found and presented in my Darnell study, I was convinced that the encounter must have occurred significantly later than what the Warren Commission said.
At the time, I was a new researcher and didn't understand the implications of a later encounter. I began reading the statements of Baker and others involved in that story (like Vickie Adams, Billy Lovelady, and Bill Shelley). It was then that I began have doubts that the encounter ever even occurred.
Eight years have passed, and I've believed for most those eight years that there was no such encounter, and that it was just a WC fabrication designed to place Oswald at a certain location at a certain time. Bart Kamp's discovery of the Hosty's P. Parade note was the last nail in that chapter's coffin.
It is clear now that the second floor encounter never occurred, and that Oswald was likely out on the steps of the TSBD during or near the time of the shooting.
Thank you; I am much inclined to agree.
-
10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Sorry, but you all are wrong on the path Officer Baker took across Elm Street Extension.
I analyzed this in depth years ago and showed that the path Baker took was, at first, across the street roughly following the crosswalk lines. The crosswalk isn't perpendicular to the road... it runs at an angle. On the TSBD side of the road, the crosswalk ends roughly in front of the mailboxes on the east side of the TSBD entrance. (BTW, coincidentally, the people's shadows lie in approximately parallel to the crosswalk. Because of this, you will see that people crossing the street are walking the direction of the shadows.)
Now, if Baker had continued running in that direction, then Alan Ford would be correct in saying he was headed toward the man waving the long bag, or whatever it is he is waving. However, he does NOT continue running that direction. After passing the man who many identify as Roy Truly, Baker veers to his right. It is easy to see this (see the GIF videos in my presentation) because at the very end of the Darnell clip, Baker is running roughly perpendicular to the camera's view. That's right... we don't see him from behind, but rather from his side! At the end of the clip he is headed toward the Elm/Houston intersection.
Here's my analysis.. it's a quick, easy to follow presentation:
Officer Marrion Baker's mad dash for the.... Dal-Tex building?
Sandy, thank you for the reminder. I reread your post and I agree.
Please refresh my memory. If Baker was not running directly into the TSBD, then would it not be your stance that the "official" timeline for his alleged confrontation with Oswald had to be later than that which has been "officially" established, and therefore seriously put in question the WC's determinations of the subsequent actions of Baker/Truly and other TSBD employees, when trying to identify Oswald's exact location just before/during/after the shots- if the confrontation (with Oswald, that is) happened at all? I have my doubts that it did.
Thank you.
-
Gil, another outstanding presentation on your part; thank you!
Me thinks we should prepare ourselves for naysayer responses - just misperceptions, faded memories, kook' affidavits/testimonies, WC photos/illustrations/verbiage tell a different story . . . . . . .
-
Just curious; assuming at least a young teenager in age, how many males in 1963 do you think would mistake a '61 Ford Falcon for a '62 Ford Thunderbird?
1961 Red Ford Falcons
1962 Red Ford Thunderbird
How about mistaking a red '57 Plymouth for either the Thunderbird or the Falcon?
1957 Red (mostly) Plymouths
Or a '57 Blue and White Plymouth for any of 'em?
1957 Blue and White Plymouths
-
On 11/9/2023 at 6:24 AM, Gerry Down said:
I wonder if this incident will form any part of this new book:
Gerry,
Great question - as I believe there is "lots more to see" - re Vinson's story.
Certainly, the C-54 could've easily been CIA, since the agency's "airline", Air America, was covertly owned and operated by it from 1950 to 1976. During my tour at Tan Son Nhut Air Base (TSNAB), South Vietnam, I served in a reconnaissance wing command post situated on the flight line.
At the time TSNAB was said to be the world's busiest "airport". Just one example; one early morning, the pilot of one of the wing's RF-101s radioed in that his takeoff would be significantly delayed. When I queried, "Why?", he responded, "Be advised, I am number 47 in line to be cleared for take-off; nuff said.
Anyway, Air America aircraft/flights were so numerous, we GIs referred to the conflict as, "The CIA's War."
More than likely, the "clerk" who Vinson referred to was a dispatcher in the Andrews AFB, MD Base Operations. Having served in the capacity at Charleston AFB, SC, prior to my Vietnam tour, his story rings true.
If the C-54 was on a routine flight, i.e., non-covert flight to Colorado, there would be no reason to deny a GI boarding so he could return to his Ent AFB, Colorado Springs unit.
And it is true, that very typically (at least in the U. S. Air Force), the aircraft's crew chief and who also often doubled as the flight engineer would be on board. Anyone's guess as to why there was not one on that flight, is as good as any.
I find it curious that the pilots did not say a word to Vinson; having flown as a passenger on a significant number of military aircraft, there is very typically, in the least, a "Welcome aboard, Sarge" from the pilots or some such.
The alleged diversion to the Dallas, TX area after the assassination is also curious. One would think that if the two guys dressed in beige overalls, who boarded at the dirt strip were associated with the shooting, that there would've be a prearranged flight for them - not one that was diverted to them. Unless, something went awry with their original escape plan.
The two's complete silence upon boarding and during the flight is also quite unusual; nary even a curt, "Hey, how's in going"?, to Vinson.
I am wondering if the two could've come into play as part of Alan Ford's thread, "The Floor-Laying Crew"?
Most inquisitive of Vinson's story is his recruitment into the CIA, he declining, and then being summarily assigned to the CIA in 1965, when he had only 18 months left on his enlistment before retiring.
That was quite a departure from the way such "special assignments" (SAs) were processed, back in the day. Usually, candidates would be informed by the base personnel office that such a SA was available and that the person's records indicated that he/she was eligible.
Then HE/SHE could apply and the "hiring agency" would review the application. There would be a three years minimum commitment should he/she be accepted.
Me thinks that the way Vinson's SA was processed was to ensure his secrecy for perpetuity (which of course, was eventually waived).
Complete access to Vinson's military personnel would be quite interesting - and maybe very revelatory.
-
From the link - credit John Simkin, Oct. 20, 2004:
" . . . . According to a memo written by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to the Warren Commission after Lovelady had been interviewed and photographed in 1964 by FBI agents, Lovelady was reported to have been wearing a short-sleeved red and white, vertically striped shirt. The FBI claimed that he had been photographed in the clothes that he wore on the day of the assassination.
The House Select Committee on Assassinations looked into this issue:
A widely publicized photograph taken by Associated Press photographer James W. Altgens within a few seconds after President Kennedy was first shot shows a spectator who bears a strong physical resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald standing at the west end of the Texas School Book Depository entranceway. Altgens has stated that he took the picture of the presidential limousine, with the Texas School Book Depository entranceway in the background, just after he heard a noise "which sounded like the popping of a firecracker."
Warren Commission critics have charged that there was insufficient basis for this conclusion, and have faulted the Commission for presenting " no supporting visual evidence by which one can appraise the resemblance between Lovelady and the man in the doorway, or Lovelady and Oswald, although nothing less hangs on the accurate identification of the doorway man than Oswald's possible total innocence of the assassination".
This issue has also persisted because of reported discrepancies in connection with the clothing worn by the Altgens figure and Billy Lovelady on November 22, 1963. In media prints of the Altgens photograph, the man appears to be wearing a long-sleeved shirt similar to the one in which Oswald was arrested.
The HSCA went on to argue: Lovelady later explained that when he was interviewed and photographed by the FBI, he had not been told to wear the same shirt he had worn on the day of the assassination and that, in fact, he had been wearing a long-sleeved, plaid shirt when he was standing in the Texas School Book Depository doorway.
Lovelady did not appear to be asked about the shirt he was wearing on the day of the assassination by the Warren Commission. According to Michael Benson, Lovelady said he was wearing a red and white stripped shirt. However, the HSCA claimed he was wearing a plaid shirt. Unfortunately, Lovelady was not able to confirm this as he died just before the publication of the HSCA report. He died of a heart-attack aged 42 in January, 1979."
And wasn't there a thread which posited that BL's plaid shirt, in which he posed for the picture, was, perhaps, remade from the same material as the alleged original?
Was that the genesis of the pocket-no pocket discussion?
-
On 6/21/2023 at 1:16 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:
The one, and only, Lee Harvey Oswald. No doppelgangers required.
Jonathan, thanks.
Of course, SS cards in the era contained no photograph. So, Oswald "modified" his SS card or someone else did it for him.
Was there not a least one thread here where the was a long debate whether or not those two photographs were of the same person - as well as many other photographs purported to be of Oswald with some here agreeing and some dissenting
I am no photography expert or knowledgeable enough to discern if the facial structure/features in all, many, several, or few of all the photographs in question in the aforementioned thread are or are not of Oswald.
FWIW, if memory serves the long-hair photograph (above) and the the one of Oswald with Marina, on the bridge in Minsk appear to be same person, no?
-
17 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:
I looked at Costella combined edit frame by frame. It does not match up at all with your video when I just concentrate on Connally's reaction after coming out from behind the sign.
I have no idea whether your video clip is more to be believed than Costella's. Sounds like another subject for debate. Which evidence is real, not doctored, and worthy of believing?
Pat and Charles - thanks.
Is it possible that Connally's reaction, circa 224 (the wince?) is just part of hearing the first shot, recognizing it as a rifle shot, and thinking, "This is not good" - causing that initial "reaction" as a part of him just beginning to attempt to digest the scenario, while at the same time unconsciously wincing and maybe just thinking of "ducking" his head and crouching a wee bit, deciding his next move, which was what, turning around to look at JFK?
After Viet Nam, I readily wince and do a "wee duck" as a reflex action - immediately after my brain registers an unexpected and loud noise (bang! of any sort), especially what I think or know to be a gunshot; and I maintain that for a second or two before deciding, "All good."
And wasn't Connally's best judgement that he was hit at 234?
Not ever having been hit in the back by rifle bullet, I cannot say definitely that I would be yelling out at that instant. 'Twould seem the shock would prevent that for a second or two assuming one remained conscious.
-
2 hours ago, Michael Crane said:
Was he naked?
Was his head wrapped with a couple of towels?
Was his body wrapped in a sheet?
Was it James Jenkins or Paul O'Connor again?
I can only find one man & his name was James E.Metzler.
Enquiring minds wanna know.
Michael, thanks. Dunno if these might be helpful.
Gainesville man recalls JFK autopsy (ocala.com)
Paul O'Conner -Specifically:
"The casket he was put in in Dallas was not the same one he came to Bethesda in," he said. "And I understand from talking with people at the emergency room in Dallas that he was not placed in a body bag. When he got to us he was in a body bag."
When Kennedy's body arrived on O'Connor's table, it was in a body bag. Unzipped, the bag revealed a gruesome sight.
"I looked at it and said, 'My Lord in heaven.' It looked like a bomb went off inside his head," he said. "My primary role was to get the body in and log it in, which I did, and then I was going to remove the brain. But there was no brain. Most of it was blown out."
And:
ARRIVAL AT BETHESDA (whokilledjfk.net)
Sibert and O'Neill:
" . . .This author estimates that Sibert and O'Neill, along with Greer and the ambulance, arrived at the morgue entrance just prior to 7:17 PM. Sibert told the ARRB that he and O'Neill assisted Greer and Kellerman in taking the ornamental bronze casket into the anteroom of the morgue at about 7:17 PM [15, p. 45; p. 50]. In their interview with Specter, both agents said that "preparations for the autopsy" occurred at approximately 7:17 PM [12, p. 2]. . ."
And:
The Kennedy Casket Conspiracy – The Future of Freedom Foundation (fff.org)
Dennis David - specifically:
" . . . What did the casket look like? David stated that it was a simple, gray shipping casket similar to the ones commonly used in the Vietnam War. . . "
And:
ARRB MD 64 - O'Connor-Purdy HSCA Interview (8/29/77) (maryferrell.org)
Paul O'Connor - again - specifically:
. . . . O'Connor said the casket was a pink shipping casket and it arrived at approximately at eight o'clock. He said the body was wrapped in a body bag, and the head was wrapped in a sheet . . . "
-
14 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:
Thanks. Though Connally seems very unsure of the numbers here.
And:
Connallys John B Jr and Nellie (archive.org)
Specifically:
Governor Connally believes, as nearly as he can judge it, that the bullet struck him in the 234th frame. This is at least nine frames and one half second later than the Commission says he was hit. He might. Connally admits, possibly have been hit a frame or two earlier but no more. “Having looked at frames 233 to 235,“ he said to LIFE, “I can begin to sec myself slump in 234. The slump is very pronounced in 235. I am hunched. It looks as if my coat is pulled away from my shirt. My mouth is elongated. I don’t think there is any question that my reaction to the shot begins in this time sequence."
-
10 minutes ago, Ron Ege said:
Gerry, thanks.
Don't know if you find this helpful.
The Testimony of John B. Connally (jfk-assassination.net)
Specifically:
Senator COOPER. That is when you heard the first rifleshot?
Governor CONNALLY. This was after I heard the first rifleshot. There was no pain connected with it. There was no particular burning sensation. There was nothing more than that. I think you would feel almost the identical sensation I felt if someone came up behind you and just, with a short jab, hit you with a doubled-up fist just below the shoulder blade.
Senator COOPER. That is all.
Mr. SPECTER. I have just one other question, Governor. With respect to the films and the slides which you have viewed this morning, had you ever seen those pictures before this morning?
Governor CONNALLY. I had seen what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in the hospital in Dallas. I had not seen the slides.
Mr. SPECTER. And when do you think you were hit on those slides, Governor, or in what range of slides?
Governor CONNALLY. We took--you are talking about the number of the slides?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit in the range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in that bracket.
Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then.
Mr. SPECTER. The series under our numbering system starts with a higher number when the car comes around the turn, so when you come out of the sign, which was----
Governor CONNALLY. It was just after we came out of the sign, for whatever that sequence of numbers was, and if it was 200, I correct my testimony. It was 231 to about 234. It was within that range.And:
What Caused Connally's Lapel Flap? : The JFK Assassination (22november1963.org.uk)
Specifically:
Conclusion: Identifying the Culprit
Wecht and Milam conclude that the lapel flap was almost certainly caused by the most obvious candidate, a gust of wind:
- Records at Love Field airport, close to downtown Dallas, show the steady wind speed to have been around 13 knots, or 15 miles per hour, with gusts (HSCA Report, appendix vol.8, pp.173–182).
- Films and photographs of the motorcade show the flags on the presidential limousine flapping, and several of the occupants holding onto their hair and hats from time to time.
In conclusion, the experimental evidence refutes rather than supports the notion that President Kennedy and Governor Connally were wounded almost simultaneously at frame 224 of the Zapruder film. The single–bullet theory remains just as implausible as ever.
-
15 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:
Where did he say this?
Gerry, thanks.
Don't know if you find this helpful.
The Testimony of John B. Connally (jfk-assassination.net)
Specifically:
Senator COOPER. That is when you heard the first rifleshot?
Governor CONNALLY. This was after I heard the first rifleshot. There was no pain connected with it. There was no particular burning sensation. There was nothing more than that. I think you would feel almost the identical sensation I felt if someone came up behind you and just, with a short jab, hit you with a doubled-up fist just below the shoulder blade.
Senator COOPER. That is all.
Mr. SPECTER. I have just one other question, Governor. With respect to the films and the slides which you have viewed this morning, had you ever seen those pictures before this morning?
Governor CONNALLY. I had seen what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in the hospital in Dallas. I had not seen the slides.
Mr. SPECTER. And when do you think you were hit on those slides, Governor, or in what range of slides?
Governor CONNALLY. We took--you are talking about the number of the slides?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit in the range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in that bracket.
Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then.
Mr. SPECTER. The series under our numbering system starts with a higher number when the car comes around the turn, so when you come out of the sign, which was----
Governor CONNALLY. It was just after we came out of the sign, for whatever that sequence of numbers was, and if it was 200, I correct my testimony. It was 231 to about 234. It was within that range. -
5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:
You don't know that Oswald carried the bag tucked under his armpit. You are taking Frazier's word for this and are rejecting Dougherty's clear, adamant recollection that Oswald had nothing in his hands when he entered the TSBD.
And if the paper bag in evidence is the one Oswald carried, and if Oswald carried the disassembled Carcano in that bag, why was there not one speck of oil in/on the bag?
Michael, Bill, Gil, et al - thanks.
Going with the supposition that Oswald did carry his lunch to work that morning in what has been described as the typical 27 inch department store bag/sack, could he not, for whatever reason, just cupped the bottom with his hand and tucked the top under his armpit - to have both hands available to zip up his jacket?
I would think that even a 27 inch bag/sack with just a small lunch therein, would collapse easily so as to fit in the crook of his arm, whilst doing so. Just a thought.
No, I don't reject Oswald "ditching" the bag or Dougherty misremembering. Oh, for a good TSBD CCTV system back then!
-
1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:
Thanks Ron.
The interesting thing is Myers himself in With Malice is willing to consider that the Warren Commission erred in claiming Oswald wore his blue jacket (CE 163) to work the morning of Nov 22, and suggests that it "remains a possibility" that Oswald may have worn his gray jacket to work that morning, in agreement with the compelling testimony of Buell Wesley Frazier and others.
Of course Myers assumes that the gray jacket described by Frazier was the off-white light tan CE 162, even though CE 162 is nothing like Frazier's description of the gray jacket. Myers does not question that equation. But Myers is open to the possibility that Oswald was wearing his gray jacket--whatever jacket that was--instead of his blue 163 that morning.
In this alternative possibility suggested by Myers, at that critical last stage when Whaley said Oswald left his cab wearing a gray jacket, Oswald walks (unwitnessed) on Beckley, then Oswald enters the rooming house (now witnessed again) without a jacket--where either one of the witnesses is wrong or Oswald discarded his jacket en route--Myers suggests Earlene Robert could be wrong in his scenario, and that Oswald did enter the rooming house wearing his gray jacket (which, in that scenario, Oswald did not change unlike other of his clothes, and wore again which Myers holds to be CE 162 back out the same door).
Whereas in my reconstruction I accept both the witness of Whaley and Earlene Roberts (finding both their Oswald jacket-wearing/non-wearing witness claims credible), and therefore conclude an abandoned jacket in between like the Tippit killer abandoned a jacket in between two witnessed points.
So there are the three options:
- Whaley's claim was wrong (belief of Bill);
- Earlene Roberts' claim was wrong (suggested as a possibility by Myers);
- both witnesses were correct: Oswald left the cab with the gray jacket, and entered the rooming house without it (my judgment)
And the conclusion drawn from accepting both of those witnesses as credible concerning Oswald's gray jacket and lack thereof also explains what became of Oswald's gray jacket and why it is not in existence today.
Greg, thanks; well written.
Me thinks the preponderance of the evidence supports that Whaley was not wrong. That would leave us with your options 2 & 3.
Whaley spent much more time in proximity to Oswald than did Roberts. Didn't she say that when Oswald came in the door that she was attending to the TV, getting updates on JFK?
-
6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:
To which you replied, without answering the question asked:
But you see Bill, Linnie Mae Randle did not positively identify the "gray" jacket she saw as 163 as you are claiming--the same gray jacket described by Buell who saw it more than she did. Linnie Mae said that the "gray" jacket she saw resembled 163. You conflate "resemble" as if that is a positive identification, instead of "resembled".
In other words, there is no need to suppose either Linnie Mae, on the basis of her brief memory of the jacket, or Buell, on the basis of his more familiar and multiple times of knowledge of Lee's gray jacket, were mistaken. Linnie Mae only makes a positive identification with 163 by you setting up a straw man claiming that her "resembles" 163 in color means positive identification it was 163.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket. I will show you some clothing here. First, I will show you a gray jacket. Does this look anything like the jacket he had on?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. That morning?
Mrs. RANDLE. Similar to that. I didn't pay an awful lot of attention to it.
Mr. BALL. Was it similar in color?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I think so. It had big sleeves.
Mr. BALL. Take a look at these sleeves. Was it similar in color?
Mrs. RANDLE. I believe so.
Mr. BALL. What is the Commission Exhibit on this jacket?
Mrs. RANDLE. It was gray, I am not sure of the shade.
Mr. BALL. 163.But let's return to Buell Frazier's description of the gray jacket that both he and Linnie Mae saw, a gray jacket that they both DID positively dis-identify (denied without question an identification) was the near-white light tan CE 162. Both said Oswald's gray jacket which they saw that morning was not 162, because Oswald's gray jacket was not near-white like the light tan 162. Instead, Oswald's gray jacket was a non-near-white gray.
Now compare that gray jacket of Oswald that Buell and Linnie Mae kept saying was "gray" and which Buell said was "more or less flannel, wool-looking" with the jacket Oswald is wearing in Minsk in that photo of him with his coworkers in Minsk. That is a black-and-white photo, and because it is black-and-white you criticize the notion that it could be the gray jacket Buell Frazier described, and which Linnie Mae also saw, by suggesting Oswald's Minsk jacket in that photo could equally well be dark blue.
But here is why I don't think your suggestion is correct that that could be the blue jacket that Oswald had in Minsk according to Marina: because I accept that CE 163 was Oswald's blue jacket or coat. The jacket in the Minsk photo Oswald is wearing is certainly not CE 163, and one does not need a color photo of the Minsk photo to know that.
But the jacket Oswald is wearing in that Minsk photo looks like it could be Oswald's other jacket, the gray jacket Oswald had in Minsk... the one described by Buell Frazier. The one Buell said one would wear on a cool day outdoors when it was too cool to be comfortable in shirt sleeves alone.
Linnie Mae when shown 163 said 163 resembled Oswald's gray jacket--the one described by Buell--in color.
So did Mr. Ball. Mr. Ball was calling 163 a "gray" jacket as he led Linnie Mae to agree to a color resemblance between 163 and the gray jacket of Oswald Linnie Mae recalled (see testimony above).
There was no positive identification from Linnie Mae of 163, which you should stop misrepresenting as such. Rather, Mr. Ball obtained from Linnie Mae agreement that what Mr. Ball called the "gray" 163 resembled, in color, what Linnie Mae and Buell were referring to, Oswald's gray jacket, which actually was gray.
The "gray" 163 (per Mr. Ball, which actually was blue) resembled the actually gray gray jacket Oswald was wearing, in terms of resemblance in shade, resemblance in tone, and that was true as far as it went, between Oswald's gray and blue jackets--the gray described by Buell and in the Minsk photo, and the blue being 163.
Greg, thanks.
There's some back and forth here, but I believe that you are on quite solid ground, making the case that there were three jackets, Oswald's two and the one "found" under a vehicle at the gas station. Others who have also addressed the issue, to me, have buttressed your position.
I personally, do not recall ever, anyone plausibly refuting that there was a not a third jacket - and no credible evidence that the third "found" jacket could conceivably and rationally be construed to have been owned by Oswald.
Not being omniscient, I cannot know if Oswald actually "ditched", what from the credible evidence we have, was the grey jacket, the one that quite credibly, he wore to work that morning. But in the light of anything else, it "went" somewhere - between leaving the TSBD, and if we choose to believe Roberts, Oswald entering her rooming house.
-
6 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:
I don't have a problem with Oswald using a 27 inch paper bag for his lunch if that was the only size bag available from the Paine home. They went shopping. They had kids. They bought lots of groceries. Personally, I don't find anything extraordinary about them having large bags at the house.
In fact, Frazier described the bag he saw as a "large department store paper bag".
Large department store bags aren't put together with tape.
Certain facts remain:
That no witness ever saw him bring a 38 inch package to work that day.
That the FBI could not identify the three loose fibers they found in the "gunsack" as coming from the blanket in the Paine garage.
That the FBI could find no evidence that the rifle was ever in the "gunsack".
That's just a few.
Add to that the fact that Frazier told the FBI that he, "does not feel he is in a position to state that the original ( CE 142 ) is or is not the sack" that Oswald brought to work that morning. ( CE 2009, 24 H 410 )
As a result, Commission counsel never presented Frazier with CE 142 and asked him to identify it under oath.
Why not ?
Because Frazier was the witness who got the best look at the bag and he knew damned well that wasn't the bag. He knew the bag he saw didn't have tape on it.
It WAS shown to his sister during her testimony ( 2 H 249 ) and she was asked to identify it.
She never did positively identify it.
So here you have two witnesses whose estimations on the length of the bag are consistent with the length of curtain rods and who never positively identified CE142 as the bag they saw.
Not only that, their estimations are so precise they corroborate each other, leaving one to believe that either they coordinated the length between them or that they are telling the truth.
In other words, there's no way these witnesses could be wrong about the length of the package they claimed to see.
You're talking about almost a foot. IMO, there's no way they could be that far off.
And besides the evidence indicates that CE 142 was not the bag they saw on 11/22/63.
Gil, thanks.
I don't disagree with anything you have written.
Given Dougherty's recollection that Oswald upon entering the building that morning had "nothing in his hands", then does that leave us with either him temporarily "storing" his lunch bag somewhere on the the dock - or, maybe more likely, Dougherty misremembering? The latter seems the better choice, as Buell's and Linnie's testimony appear to much support that there WAS a lunch bag, just not one with a rifle. The bag just didn't disappear.
If it were the 27" variety grocery bag, seems it would be fairly difficult to fold it up and stuff in a jacket pocket. And, Frazier testified that Oswald walked away from the car with the bottom cupped in his hand, with the top tucked in his underarm. Oswald could've stuffed into his zipped-up jacket, but why bother. In a couple of minutes, he'd been in the building, anyway.
Solving JFK podcast
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
I have listened to all of the episodes; I don't remember anything that is extremely contentious with what a CT'er is commonly familiar with. Would you be willing to share your take?
Currently listening to: JFK: The Enduring Secret podcast JFK The Enduring Secret on Apple Podcasts. My comment on it - as above.
I'm very interested in any of the EF members' opinions on either or both.