Gerry Down

I think Steve Roe answered this one well on page one of this thread. What quiet possibly happened is that Oswald reserved the book behind the counter in case the book would be gone by the time the library issued the card. But I'm open to other possibilities if someone has any other ideas.

It can't be a transcription error. We have both the check out date and the due back date. The two dates are Wednesdays spaced exactly 2 weeks apart, which was the normal book loan time for that library.

I would have thought that if Oswald used Ferries library card to take out a book, that would be registered at the library as though it was Ferrie himself who took out that book. Therefore that first book would not be traced to Oswald at all after the assassination. Furthermore if the library card was expired since March 1963, that library card wouldn't be able to be used to check out any books at all.

It would appear something thicker than a marker was used to block out the stamped address. Perhaps Oswald used a paint brush to ensure enough thickness of a light color would cover over the stamp. Did Oswald have access to a paint set? Were any paints found among his possessions after the assassination?

The blocked out text is unusual in the sense that these leaflets were yellow in color and it would appear the marker used to block out the text was of a similar light color, perhaps also yellow or a light grey. But one would imagine if you used a yellow or light grey marker for example, that that would not be enough to cover out the black stamped address underneath. You would think the stamped address would show through a light colored marker that was attempting to cover over it.

Thanks for that. To me this is a very clear copy.

There appears to be potentially cursive writing on the blocked out area, but i could be misinterpreting this.

Jean Ceulemans posted an interesting document (CE 1412) on another thread which I felt warranted its own thread due to its importance. This document shows one of the FPCC leaflets which LHO gave out at the Dumain St. Wharf around mid June 1963. Patrolman Girod Ray attained the leaflet and kept a copy of it which he produced to the FBI in the summer of 1964. As you can see, the address which LHO would have stamped onto the leaflet is blocked out. As this leaflet is very close in time to the timeframe when LHO said he had an office in New Orleans (as he wrote in a letter to V.T. Lee), the likelihood is that the address blocked out is non other than the 544 Camp Street address. We do have a Corless Lamont pamphlet with the 544 Camp Street address which Oswald had on him in Aug 1963, but we’ve never had one of the actual FPCC leaflets with the 544 Camp Street address stamped on it. It would appear this is one of these leaflets. It’s just the 544 Camp Street address is blocked out. So who blocked it out? Was it Oswald himself? Or the FBI? Or someone else? There appears to be a second smudge off to the right of where the stamped address would be. This second smudge appears to be something else that was blocked out. Any thoughts? Here is the leaflet (with what appears to be a second leaflet "The Truth About Cuba" LHO was handing out also which references President Kennedy): LINK: https://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1412.pdf (NOTE: The above link goes to a PDF of CE1412. On page 3 of that PDF, the numbers of the pages appear to be numbered starting at 1 and going to number 7 on the last page of the PDF. This is why there is a no. 5 written on the bottom of the above FPCC leafet and the no. 6 printed on the second leaflet on the right above which references President Kennedy.)

Very nice map. Please do share on this forum if you manage to find a clearer copy.

This would fall into the category of hearsay. Douglas Caddy says Phil Dyer said Clay Shaw said x,y,z. And even then it might not be that straight forward as there appears to be other people involved, such as a number of women. So it’s not clear if Phil Dyer heard Clay Shaw say something of if it’s one of the women who said what (they thought) Clay Shaw said and Douglas Caddy took it up wrong from Phil Dyer and thought Phil Dyer himself heard Clay Shaw say something when it might have been one of the women who relayed to Phil Dyer what Clay Shaw said.

So Humes took sections from the right cerebellum? Could this be the damage to the cerebellum that Stringer remembered seeing?

I think what could have been in the works here was to send in a few Amworld boats from central America filled with Cuban exiles, the US would pretend this was another bop invasion, and then send in the military to actually do the invading because the Amworld people were too few in numbers to actually do anything meaningful once they landed ashore in Cuba.

That is fascinating. One could argue the CIA edited them out because they knew of LHOs connection to INS in New Orleans. It would be interesting to see what else was edited out to see if any pattern emerges as to what the CIA did not want seen. That would involve a detailed study of comparing the final books to the draft. Of course such a study would need to be approached with caution as I presume the writers of the report themselves would be doing some editing themselves and not just the CIA. In which case it might not be possible to definitively say it was the CIA who edited out those INS footnotes.

Same here. The Church Report is six books long, unlike the Warren Report which is just one book. Then there are seven books of hearings.

@Tom Gram is well versed in this area, more so than me.

According to the book In Search of Enemies by CIA whistleblower John Stockwell, it says: "[The Church Committee] published its final report in April 1976 but the CIA was permitted to edit that report before it was released." So if the CIA edited the Church Report, how come they forgot to edit out the footnotes at the bottom of some pages of book V which refer to testimony by INS/customs officers in New Orleans who may have interacted with LHO? The testimony of some of these INS/customs officers seems to have gone missing as is well known to JFKA researchers, but the footnotes referencing those testimonies have been left behind. One possible reason is that those testimonies have nothing to do with CIA involvement with LHO, but rather have to do with FBI involvement with LHO. I'm thinking of the Orest Pena sighting of LHO in the company of FBI agent DeBrueys and some INS/customs officers walking across the street from the Habana bar. This could mean the FBI/INS/Customs were behind the disappearance of those testimonies, but if they did not have access to edit the final report (like the CIA did) then they may not have had the ability to remove references to those testimonies in the footnotes of Book V. The CIA should have known those testimonies linked LHO to INS/Customs officers but for some reason they left the footnotes referencing the testimonies in place. Perhaps the CIA officers editing the Church Report did not want to draw attention to themselves by editing out those footnotes as it would make it look like they were trying to hide something by editing out those footnotes.

At z313, JFK is practically looking down at the floorboards. Because his head is tilted so far downwards, this is how an eop entrance shot could exit somewhere out the top right front of jfks head where we see the exit explosion on the z film.

The bullet did come in at a shallow angle, about 12 degrees or so. The bullet fragments exited the front of jfks skull in a mushroom-like pattern. Some went up and some went down. Some went left and some went right. One of the fragments that went up hit the windscreen chrome.

I don't endorse the WCR - I think there is a lot more to the JFK assassination story that we haven't been told. And I'm the one who posted the Litwin thread. Litwins research is useful as it exposes a lot of disinformation circulating on the JFK assassination. And disinformation is of no use to anyone whether you are a CTer or a LNer.

Oswald was the only employee missing who didn't return. Givens was also missing, went up a few blocks to his friend, but I think he returned.

Thanks for the tip.

Robert Reynolds is episode 1.

Fred Litwin has launched a podcast and is currently on episode 7. Here are some interesting episodes so far: Episode 1: This episode contained some useful info on the JFK files. An interesting point I had not known before is that NARA originally held a lot of its files on floppy disks which subsequently got corrupted. Anyone familiar with the floppy disks of the 1990s will know how easy they could fail. If I understood episode 1 correctly, what this means is that the Mary Ferrell website would have had access to a lot more of NARAs files had these floppy disks not broken. Episodes 2, 3 and 4: Nothing of note stood out for me in these episodes but others might have a different experience. Episode 5: This was an interview of Steve Roe who gave an interesting biography of Walker. Episode 6: In this interview of Gus Russo, Russo mentions his time in the making of the 1993 PBS documentary Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? From the sounds of it, as part of the making of that documentary there were many interesting interviews conducted on key people who did not make the final cut of being entered into the documentary. It sounds like there could be key interviews sitting on a shelf somewhere where most JFKA researchers have never had access to them. Episode 7: In this interview of Dave Perry, Perry mentions a book written specifically on the death of Lee Bowers which I had not heard of before. The book is titled JFK Assassination Eyewitness: Rush To Conspiracy. Hopefully Litwin will provide more interesting interviews in the future. Its good to get both sides of the JFKA debate for balance when researching the case.

Rubbish test. They used ballistic gel to mimic cartilage??