T. Folsom

Well, let's get started: 1. the evidence indicates something in the neighborhood of 8 to as many as 14 shots having been fired. Folsom: 8 to 14 shots? Are you serious. The evidence doesn't support any such thing. Why do you ignore the witnesses? The majority of witnesses heard three shots and no more. And among those who said they heard four or more shots only a couple said they came from more than location. 8-14 is literally laughable. You are accepting several bizarre theories as established fact. 2. - A bullet was lodged in the chrome around the Lincoln's windsheild. This has been photographed. If it hadn't have been photographed, it wouldn't exist, as Johnson ordered the limo stripped and rebuilt. Why would Johnson, the President of the United States, personally intervene and initiate the destruction of evidence in the largest murder case in US history? Don't anwer that yet - there's also hard, documented evidence that Johnson made that call. - 2 furrows were seen in the grass across from the Grassy Knoll. - A missile struck the curb, wounding James Tague with flying debris. - A missile struck Elm street - supposedly the first shot was a miss. Even the LHO did it alone theory admits this fact. - A missile struck the sidewalk, leaving behind a clear trail in the concrete. - A missile struck the concrete next to a manhole cover. Folsom: A bullet was NOT lodged in the chrome around the windshield. There was a small dent from a fragment from the head shot. Where is this alleged bullet that you claim was lodged in the windshield? And what kind of bullet could not pass through a windshield frame in the first place? There is NO EVIDENCE of any bullet lodged in the windshield frame. The alleged furrows were not caused by bullets. What is your course for this nonsense? Is this the Buddy Walthers photograph? The FRAGMENT that struck the curb was not an intace bullet. If it were intact there would have been residue of copper left on the curb--there wasn't. All that was found was lead with traces of antimony, from the INSIDE of a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet. The missile that struck Elm street was most likely the bullet that traveled on after splitting apart (jacket and core) and struck the curb near Dr. Tague. The mark in the concrete that appears in "High Treason" was NOT a bullet mark on the sidewalk. There is no evidence that a bullet struck the sidewalk at all. Likewise, there is no evidence of a bullet striking a manhole cover anywhere along the parade route. That is how I explain these "shots" of yours. The only evidence we have is of three shots. One missed and struck the curb near Tague, one struck Kennedy and Connally, one struck Kennedy in the head. This scenerio agrees with the casings found in the TSBD, it agrees with the number of shots most witnesses heard, and it agrees with the fragments and damaged bullet (399) found. Based on the EVIDENCE, only three shots were fired. 3. The HSCA in 1979 concluded that a shot came from the Grassy Knoll, and proved a conspiracy. Folsom: The faulty acoustics study rushed through during the closing days of the HSCA has been totally descredited upon further review. I place absolutely no weight on the acoustics findings of the HSCA. This was a desparate attempt to justify their 18 month investigation in hopes of pacifying the conspiracy supports who helped organize the committee in the first place. 4. But the bag had no traces or indication of having stored a gun - which would have left traces of oil. Frazier and his sister testified that LHO cupped this package between his hand and his armpit - a Carlicher-Marcano, even broken down, wouldn't have fit. Folsom: Please site your source that proves that ALL paper bags used to conceal a rifle would have traces of oil on them. That is a ridiculous statement. I have personally dissasembled a rifle similar to Oswald's, wrapped it in brown butcher paper and left it overnight, and there was not a trace of gun oil anywhere on it. Frazier and Linnie Mae both admitted they paid very little attention to the package--why should they? Their testimony is very weak. Concerning the photograph Robert Groden included in "High Treason" that was NOT taken the day of the assassination. A photograph taken on the actual day of the assassination DOES show the room complete with curtain rods. Incidently, what happened to those curtain rods if Oswald took them in to the TSBD? 5. Who saw Oswald bring the package into the TSBD? FOlsom: Frazier saw Oswald walk ahead of him with the package by his side. Later paper matching that which Oswald was carrying into the TSBD was found at the SE corner window of the TSBD with Oswald's prints on it. It makes absolutely no difference at all if anyone else saw Oswald take it up there or not. 6. Brennan saw a man standing - the window was only open some 12", which would have required that the shooter be in a prone position. Have you ever seen the window in question? Seen the hot water pipe, the height of the sill from the floor, the foliage that blocked a clear view of Elm? Amos Euins? Euins said it was an 'elderly negro' he witnessed. He didn't say the man was standing. Rowland saw a 'colored man' in this window. Other witnesses, including Rowland, attested to another shooter on the other side of the building. How about these witnesses? Have you ever reviewed these accounts? Folsom: Having never been in the TSBD of course Brennan would assume the man was standing. I would have assumed the same thing, so too would you most likely. Most buildings have buildings at such a height that seeing someone from the waist up would lead a person to assume they were standing. On this point Brennan was mistaken. But that does not discredit his identification of Oswald in the least. Euins stated he saw a "pipe" stiking out of an upper window. And he said he saw the man firing it at the motorcade. He never once mentioned any "elderly negro." You are mixing his testimony with that of the infamous Arnold Rowland. Arnold Rowland's testimony is extremely unreliable. It was Rowland who later claimed he saw an "elderly negro." Incidently, Rowland ALSO said the gunman was standing, just like Brennen, so your criticism of Brennan just lost all of its steam. But back to Rowland, Rowland had given seven previous statements to the Dallas police and had never mentioned any black man in his first seven attempts to tell the truth. Rowland's wife who was with him did not see either man, nor did he even tell her that he had seen a black man. So much for Rowland's reliability as a witness. In fact immediately after the shooting, Rowland told officer F.M. Turner and Secret Service Agent Sorrels that he saw a single young white male, with brown hair holding a rifle. Rowland is all over the field with his "testimony." He also claimed he saw women on the triple underpass (there were none) and he said at the sound of the first shot the crowd started laughing (no one else reported such a reaction. Rowland's own wife testified that he had lied on severl previous occasions and that she did not believe his story of other gunmen. 7. Where's the bullet that was lodged in the windshield chrome? Where's the bullet that struck Kennedy in his head? Folsom: Well as for the windshield bullet--you are right--there wasn't one. No intact bullet struck the frame. Where's the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head, well most of it was recovered, and some particles are still in Kennedy's skull. I'm a bit baffled by your questions on this one. (Lee) What type of analysis was used in substantiating the claim about the bullets having been fired from an Mannlicher-Carcano - was it because they were all showed to contain lead? (Folsom) A test bullet was fired from Oswald's rifle. It matched CE 399 to the exclusion of all other rifles on the planet. (Lee) Let's briefly go to the rifle. It's sights were badly off. The MC was a bolt-action carbine - not meant for sniping, and not meant for high velocity. Where was it found on 11/22/63? Do you know? What about the reports on the wounds as having been fired from a high velocity weapon? (Folsom) You're nte really raising any good points here Lee. There is no way to know what condition the sights were in at the time of the shooting was there. It wasn't tested at the time of the shooting. The scope was SLIGHTLY (not badly) off when tested, but the sight could have easily been misalligned when Oswald was hiding between the boxes on the sixth floor, couldn't it? The condition of the sights at the time the FBI tested it is really moot. (Lee) On the day of 11/22 there were reports of other rifles - a Mauser and a British Enfield. What of these? One was even photographed. (Folsom) Sure there were reports of other rifles. They were wrong. Some thought the rifle was a German Mauser, a rifle that appears similar to a Mannlicher-Carcano. Just because someone mistakenly said the rifle was a Mauser doesn't mean a Mauser was found. And I'd like to see the photograph you are referring to. Then I will comment on the alleged murder weapon found. (Lee) Let's go to Lee. LHO barely made 'Marksman,' the lowest grade. His nickname was 'xxxxbird' because he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. His face tested negative for gunpowder. His hands contained proof of nitrates - the same that could be found in the ink in the books that a School Book depository would have in abundance. (Folsom) False. Lee scored his first time as a Sharpshooter. This was the second-highest ranking in the Marine Corp--an outfit that prides itself on its marksmanship training. Later when Lee knew he was getting out of the Marines he scored lower--at a time when he cared little about his ranking. His second score means very little to me. Concerning his face testing negative, are you aware that when the FBI tested his rifle their faces ALSO tested negative for nitrates, since Oswald's rifle had a sealed chamber. So this point means nothing either way. The nitrate on his hands is also neutral. I don't base my belief in Oswald's sole guilt in either the nitrate or gunpowder tests at all--that's why I didn't mention them. You shouldn't have either. (Lee) That's not evidence, that's behavior and therefore subjective. How about the other missing TBSD employees? (Folsom) Behavior is circumstantial evidence and it is very damning evidence. You are trying to tell me that when John Wilkes Booth jumped from the upper balcony after shooting Lincoln and then fleeing the theater and the city on horseback that is NOT EVIDENCE? You need to read a lot more. That is extremely damning evidence. And please list the other employees who left within two minutes of the assassination. (Lee) Given the situation in Dealey Plaza, would you have waited for a bus? I think the word 'gridlock' would be an understatement. What does this prove? (Folsom) The very fact that he didn't wait for the bus near his place of employment is evidence he wanted to flee the area and FAST. If Oswald saw that gridlock was going to be an issue, why would he board the very bus that was scheduled to travel directly into that gridlock in a few blocks. This is the actions of a panicked individual attempting to think of an escape on the fly. (Lee) Sorry - not sure where this is going. Is it consistent with a guilty man, and again assuming behavior? This is really second guessing the mindset of LHO, without having anything substantial to work with. I mean, if you use this logic, than you'd have to conclude that it was also very possible that he was in a rush, as he was afraid of missing the opening scene in 'Cry of Battle' with Van Heflin. (Folsom) Boy you conspiracy believers cannot see the sun at noon can you. If Oswald was in a hurry to get to the theater, why didn't he ask the taxi driver to take him to the Texas Theater? And why drop him off three blocks from home if he was in a hurry to get to see a movie. It is obvious that Oswald was trying to cover his tracks As to Oswald ignoring Earlene Robert's comments about the assassination, it is ridiculous to think that since Oswald was at Dealey Plaza he would have no interest in the biggest news story in the past 100 years. Your comment, "Didn't he know Kennedy was shot" is silly and ignores the implications of someone showing absolutely no interest in the unfolding coverage withing five miles of his home. I am only marginally interested in current events, and if the President were assassinated within five miles of my home I would be GLUED to the television to learn all I could. As to Oswald and Tippit, I won't respond to any of your allegations until I have your sources. Then I will respond. (Lee) What would this have to do with anything again? Is this his behavior that you are examining? Ask this question instead - WHY would he enter this theatre? Why would he even risk being seen out on the streets of Dallas? Is it at all possible that this was a pre-arranged meeting? (Folsom) What kind of ridiculour logic is this? Are you implying it would be better for Oswald to go home and wait for the police to stop by and question him. He had to take the cab to his boarding house because he had to flee the scene of Dealey Plaza as quickly as possible. He then needs to get his gun and flee his boarding house, which would be the FIRST place the police would check for the employee that did not return from work, then he has to get out of the city ASAP. Some have speculated (although no one knows) that Oswald was headed for a bus terminal that had a bus that would take him to Mexico. True or false, his ducking into the theater immediately after seeing the police closing in on Jefferson is behavior that is dripping with guilt. If Oswald is innocent as you claim, then why wouldn't he pay for his ticket, walk inside, sit down and meet with his imaginary, never identified, never discussed contact? Why? Because the contact theory is unfounded, unbased on evidence, and unprovable. That is exactly why conspiracy-lovers embrace it.

Is this an example of your research abilities? Do you really think that every Advance Placement American History Teacher is listed on the Internet? If you believe that, then you certainly haven't done much research. The fact that my name doesn't show up on a Google search means only one thing--you are more concerned with finding everything you can about your opponent than about researching the topic at hand. I just looked up my wife's name under Registered Nurses. She didn't come up either. Using your logic, she must not be a nurse. I assume you research everything you can about your postal letter-carrier before you dare accept any of his or her bills, letters, or packages huh? And you referred to ME as paranoid? Do you plan to address any of the issues I raised or simply waste time trying to find out all you can about me? I've met a hundred people like you over the years and you are all as predictable as a ten cent novel--question, question, question but seldom answer.

Debating why Oswald waited to shoot until after the car made the turn on to Elm Street is really pointless. First of all, debating motive in ANYTHING is dodgy at best. We really don't know why anyone does anything, do we? That is exactly why establishing motive is not a part of the legal system. Often times motives are clear and well defined. O. J. Simpson killed Nicole Brown because he was overly possessive and hated the thought that anyone else should be enjoying her assets. John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln to avenge the South and strike a blow for the Southern rebellion. Other motives are bizarre. John Hinkley shot President Reagan so that actress Jodie Foster would fall in love with him. Ummmmm....go figure. Why Oswald waited to fire at Kennedy after the turn on to Elm street has a few possible explanations. (Of course, since I consider theories and speculation about stockade fence shooters or multiple gunmen to be ridiculous and totally without serious merit or evidentiary support, I will not entertain such nonsense in my points.) 1. Oswald may have realized that shooting directly at the President would place Governor Connally in his path, blocking Kennedy from his view until right beneath the TSBD. 2. Oswald may have realized that the gentle slow down Elm towards the triple underpass would offer him a much longer time to fire off the necessary number of shots he believed would be necessary to hit the President. 3. Oswald may have felt that witnesses on Houston and the corner of Main may have had a perfect view of him firing directly into their faces as they followed the motorcade towards Elm and Houston. 4. Oswald may have been a couple of seconds late in picking up the President in the car. Remember there were six people in the limo and Oswald may have needed 10 seconds or so to insure he was aiming at the correct individual. 5. Oswald may have waited for no other reason than he preferred an unobstructed rear shot than a frontal shot. But most importantly, we simply don't know. There could be a valid reason or a ridiculous reason.

Ramsay wrote: The Commission's verdict was a lie, a deception, baloney - and insulting baloney at that. They didn't even do a good job on the deception. The politicians, the military and the intelligence services had been getting away with so much since 1945, had the major media so totally co-opted into the Cold War crusade against the Soviet Union, they didn't think it would matter that the Commission's report was nonsense: they thought the schmucks would buy whatever was served up to them. T. Folsom: I hate to spoil the party but could you be a little more specific? Could you explain the following troubling pieces of evidence that I'm having a little trouble with: 1. What did Oswald take to work in the brown paper package that he claimed contained "curtain rods?" And, when you state what he took, please explain what happened to it. 2. Who did Howard Brennan see with a rifle in the SE corner window moments before and during the assassination? Why did he later say it was Oswald if he feared revealing such information might jeopardize his life? And an important second point, WHO did Oswald's co-workers hear firing a bolt-action rifle directly above their heads at the time of the assassination? Remember, they identified it as a bolt-action rifle even before the rifle was found. Pretty lucky guess, huh? 3. Why did Oswald flee the building within two minutes of the shooting? Why not stay and complete his work day like the other employees did? 4. Why didn't Oswald wait for the bus across the street from the TSBD at the corner of Houston and Elm instead of running seven blocks to catch the same bus? 5. Why did Oswald ask the cab driver to drop him off three blocks beyond his boarding house rather than just drop him off at his boarding house after the assassination? 6. Why didn't Oswald sit and watch the coverage of the assassination at his boarding house when he arrived there? Oswald was very politically aware and interested in current events - why rush in, grab a revolver, and rush to a movie for which he was already late? 7. Why would Oswald shoot and kill Officer Tippit if he were an innocent man wrongly accused of a crime he did not commit? 8. Why would Oswald duck into the Texas Theater, risking arrest for not paying admission, if he were innocent? Remember, Oswald had over $12 on him at the time of his arrest--more than enough to pay for admission. 9. When Oswald was approached in the Texas Theater and asked to stand up by a police officer, tell me why Oswald wouldn't naturally assume it was for sneaking into the movie theater without paying admission? Why would he jump up, yell, "This is it!" Strike the policeman and then attempt to shoot Officer McDonald? All for sneaking into the movie theater? (Careful with this explanation.) 10. Why would Oswald lie about owning a rifle if it was clear that the weapon in question couldn't have been the one to shoot the President? If the rifle was, as Ramsay claimed, a "clapped-out, dirt-cheap, bargain-bin, piece-of-xxxx, surplus rifle with inaccurate sights." If ANY of Ramsay's claims were even marginally accurate, wouldn't Oswald have gladly admitted to owning the rifle, knowing full well it could never be linked to the assassination? Why lie about a rifle that was incapable of committing the crime? I have about fifty more questions, but to avoid overload I will stop at these ten. After you have responded to these innocent queries, we will discuss each of your answers in greater detail. Good luck.

RE Wrote: There is evidence, however, that the man with the umbrella, regardless of what he was doing in the plaza, was not Mr. Witt. The evidence is Witt's own testimony v. what cameras in the plaza recorded. I prefer to believe the cameras. While all this sounds sinister in and of itself you really haven't said anything. What testimony are you referring to? When was the testimony given? What do his actions reveal? And most importantly...WHAT IN THE HECK DOES THE UMBRELLA MAN HAVE TO DO WITH THE ASSASSINATION OF KENNEDY???!!!??? Please be very specific about your allegations and we will discuss your "findings."

I would be extremely cautious when using the words "expert" and "Jack White" in the same sentence. I would even be hesitant to use them in the same book. Jack White is one of the great con men of Kennedy assassination research. White has absolutely NO recognized training in photographic analysis or film analysis at all. Has everyone but me forgotten his public humiliation before the HSCA when he admitted that he did not even know what he was talking about. He came into the HSCA hearings confident that he could fool REAL scientists. He attempted to explain his bizarre triangulation method to prove the backyard photographs were forged and exposed himself as a fool. He is of the same ilk as Robert Groden--another "god" of the conspiracy community who has been similarly destroyed under competitant cross examination during the O.J. Simpson civil trial, in which Groden was forced to admit that he was not a college graduate and not even a high school graduate. When asked which recognized photographic analysis organizations he was a member of, he sadly answered, "None." He even confessed he did not even know the names of any such organizations. White and Groden have had a lot of people fooled for a lot of years, but REAL science and REAL experts are not fooled by these carnival hucksters and conmen. They have nothing of evidentiary value to contribute to the study of the Kennedy assassination at all.

I found that the majority of so-called conspiracy "researchers" really hadn't revealed anything new. They were very skilled at asking questions but woefully lacking in producing an alternate explanation of ALL of the evidence. When I carefully examined all of the events that occurred that day in Dallas it seemed that Oswald's guilt was the only explanation that fit with the evidence. I am convinced that Oswald broke his weekly routine the day before the assassination when he asked Frazier to take him to Marina's house to visit her on a THURSDAY rather than on Friday as he always had done in the past. Oswald taking the "curtain rods" to work in a brown paper sack (that was later found at the SE corner window of the TSBD) and the police never finding any curtain rods in the building. Oswald being witnessed by Brennan, and others seeing a gunman firing from the SE corner window of the TSBD such as Amos Euins and Bob Jackson. The fact that the only bullets recovered that day either matched Oswald's rifle directly or were consistent with other Mannlicher-Carcano rifle bullets points to Oswald. Oswald fleeing the scene of the crime 90 seconds after the shooting literally drips of guilt. Oswald traveling seven blocks to catch a bus that was scheduled to stop at the intersection of Elm and Houston. The fact that Oswald did not wait on the bus once he learned it was going to be stalled in traffic and the fact that Oswald asked the cab driver to drop him off several bloskc from his boarding house, rather than right in front of his Neeley Street boarding house. The fact that Oswald walked right past landlady Earlene Roberts without comment, even when told of the assassination of the President. The fact that Oswald responded to simple questioning from Officer Tippit with four bullets and another flight from justice. (Tell me when you want me to stop...) Oswald entering the Texas theater without paying even though he had $12 on him at the time. The very fact that Oswald would even think of leaving work after the assassination and then head to a movie after picking up his revolver is evidence of Oswald's guilt in my mind. His attempted murder of a third person that day when he buried the gun in Officer McDonald's stomach and pulled the trigger. The fact that Oswald lied about his rifle and his whereabouts at the time of the assassination is further evidence of his guilt. Whew.... Now on the other hand. What do the conspiracy "researchers" offer. Well first they wanted to claim that Oswald was in the doorway of the TSBD, but that one did not pan out when Billy Lovelady was identified. Then they wanted to claim that the secret Zapruder film would reveal a gunman or gunmen or evidence of a frontal shot. But that too did not pan out when the release of the Zapruder film revealed only rear entries and frontal exits. Well then they claimed that Oswald wasn't even the REAL Oswald, that his grave would be empty when opened. But that too did not pan out when Oswald's grave was opened in October of 1981 and Oswald was there after all. Theory after theory after theory came and went like so many fashions. While recent scientific recreations using computer technology have 100% verified the single bullet conclusion and the rear entrance wounds to both men, the conspiracy "researchers" don't counter with anything. they simply stand on the sidelines, fold their arms, wag their heads, and say, "Well. It didn't happen like THAT." When asked to explain how it really did happened (explaining what happened to bullets, wounds, witnesses, rifles, etc...) they simply lower their heads and walk from the fields to develop another wacky theory. When I completed my Masters Degree in American History I learned a great deal about evidence, research, analysis, critical thinking, and methodologies. In each case conspiracy "researchers" were sadly lacking. And that is a few of the reasons why I believe Oswald and only Oswald killed Kennedy in Dealey Plaza 40 and a half years ago.

Wim wrote: Could I address you on a first name basis? That is rather custom here on this forum. I am being adressed as Wim. Would you mind sharing at which southern California higschool you are teaching? T. Folsom: Well I hate to spoil the party but "T" is fine. Concerning which high school at which I teach, my private life is...well...exactly that, my private life. Where I teach American History is not really germane to the discussion is it? Now on with some points: Wim wrote: "Theories about gunmen in sewers, or behind the stockade fence, or hiding in trees on the grassy knoll are so ridiculously illogical they do not really merit serious discussion. " (T. Folsom) 1) Then why are you bothering to take part? Perhaps I misunderstood this purpose of this forum. If the purpose is to toss around strange theories and glassy-eyed scenerios then you ARE right, I'm in the wrong place. If, on the other hand, this is a place to debate the evidence as it is now constituted then I wonder why on earth wouldn't you want someone in here to offer a voice of reason in a sea of paranoia? 2) Apparently you are representing a small minority here and in the american public as a whole. If your conclusion is so obviously deductable from the Zapruder film, why do so many disagree with you? Is it because the majority is dumb and you are smart? The relative size of a group in no way establishes the validity of their claim now does it. Remember that in the early 18th century MOST Americans advocated slavery and diminished rights for women. Are you implying that because they were in the majority that they were right? Incidently, the number of people here in the United States that believe in a conspiracy is rapidly diminishing. In 1966 the Saturday Evening Post conducted a poll in which nearly 90% of all Americans accepted the conspiracy theories put forth be various "reseachers." When ABCNEWS conducted a similar poll LAST November for the 40th anniversary, that number had dropped to barely 65%. As more and more science is made available more and more conspiracy theories evaporate into the night. At that rate in less than fifteen years the MAJORITY of Americans will have discarded conspiracy thought as a solution to Kennedy's assassination. 3) If the Zapruder film excludes the possibility of a frontal shot, why did the Warren Commission keep it from the American Public, if it would strenghen their case, as you say. The reason for the Warren Commission keeping the Zapruder film from the public was sadly very simple and very poorly thought out. The Kennedy family, concerned that such a grotesque display of their husband, brother, and father's death would be made public led them to plea with Chief Justice Earl Warren to prevent that (and other graphic depictions) from being released to the public. Jackie Kennedy talked about the artifacts associated with the Lincoln assassination that were released and were soon touring the country in state and county fairs and she did want a similar side-show with her husband's death. Incidently, the Zapruder film MUST support the rear shot scenerio, otherwise why would so many conspiracy nuts now be claiming that it has been altered? If the Zapruder film supported a frontal shot then why alter it? You can't have it both ways. 4) Do you build on any authority, qualifications or background to make the statements you do? Your profile doesn't reveal much, so forgive me for wondering. Yes. My authority, qualifications, and background are the following: I can read. I can see. I can think.

Concerning the direction of the shots. I cannot believe what I am reading in these posts. There is not one single speck of hard evidence to support the belief in ANY shots from the front of the motorcade. I am speechless. Has anyone on this site even watched the Zapruder film? The Zapruder film (and yes it is authentic, there is no evidence of ANY tampering of any kind to the Z-film) shows NO shots entering the front of the President's head. The only reaction to a show is when Kennedy suffers the entrance wound to the back of the head. it breaks apart, blowing a five-inch wound to the right front of the President's head. The Zapruder film is as clear as day on this topic. Kennedy's head suffers the massive trauma to the right frontal lobe, it is propelled backwards by the expulsion of matter, and he falls forward after his backward movement. Theories about gunmen in sewers, or behind the stockade fence, or hiding in trees on the grassy knoll are so ridiculously illogical they do not really merit serious discussion.

I don't have an obituary or any details concerning his death. All I can offer is the background that he ranks among the great frauds of the Kennedy assassination community. There is not a single speck of evidence that Arnold was even IN Dealey Plaza that day. While it is tragic that he died, it does rid the research community of one more unreliable witness to rank up there with Jean Hill, Beverly Oliver, and Roger Craig.

Mysterious? What on earth is mysterious about Louis Witt bringing an umbrella to Dealey Plaza to view the motorcade? The notion that the umbrella man was anything more than an interested bystander is ridiculous. There is not one shred of evidence that has EVER come forth that the man holding the umbrella had ANYTHING to do with the Kennedy assassination. And why is it unbelievable that Louis Witt would not know he was the infamous "umbrella man?" Why would he know if he was not a Kennedy assassination buff? Remember, in 1977 when the HSCA convened, the Zapruder film had only been shown on television ONE time, and that was 18 months earlier when Robert Groden illegally showed on Geraldo Rivera's "Goodnight America" program. And since that program aired at nearly midnight, MOST, MOST Americans never saw the Zapruder film. It wasn't until the Zapruder film began to receive widespread attention in the early 80s that most Americans even saw the actual film from start to finish. To attempt to create some strange theory surrounding Louis Witt is so farfetched it makes logical thinkers roll their eyes and suppress their laughter.

My name is T. Folsom I am the head of the Advanced Placement American History department at a southern California high school. I have a Master's Degree in American History with an emphasis on 20th Century American History. I have earned nearly 30 semester units beyond my Master's Degree, all in American History. My interest in the Kennedy assassination stems back to the early 1970s when I was originally convinced of conspiratorial involvement. After reading much more on the case and after learning proper analysis methodologies and evidence analysis I am no longer a conspiracy supporter. I am convinced beyond all doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. I've lived in New Zealand for two years while serving a full-time mission for my church in the late 1970s and I have traveled throughout the United States and England over the past ten years.