Jump to content
The Education Forum

Strongest piece of evidence


Recommended Posts

For me the strongest piece of evidence that Oswald is innocent of being the Sixth Floor Sniper is the alleged encouter in the Second Floor lunchroom between Officer Marion Baker, Roy Truly and Oswald within a minute and a half after the last shot.

http://educationforu...opic=15429&st=0

While the official story has Oswald hiding the rifle and descending the stairs and Baker seeing Oswald enter through the lunchroom's south door window, a more detailed analysis, as the Secret Service did when they tried to Re-enact the assassination, shows that Baker saw Oswald through a closed door.

As Baker relates, he saw Oswald through the door window moving from the right to the left in the vestibule entering the lunchroom.

Since the door had an automatic closing device, and if the door was open or ajar even a few inches, the rectangular window naturally gets smaller as seen from the position where Baker was by the stairs. If Oswald had gone through that door, the door would probably have still been open a little bit, and Oswald couldn't have been seen by Baker through the window.

In addition, if Oswald had gone through that door, Roy Truly, who was ahead of Baker on the way up the stairs, most certainly would have seen Oswald and an open door, but he didn't.

In addition, if Oswald had gone down those stairs from the Sixth floor to the Second floor, he would have had to encouter Jack Dougherty on the fifth floor by the stairs, and the two secretaries who descended from the fourth floor to the first floor, but they didn't encounter anyone.

There is another south side door to the vestibule of the Second floor lunchroom, that leads to the same location, and it is this south door that Oswald had used to enter the vestibule so that he could be seen walking past the west door window, as Baker saw him.

Since Baker and Truly encountered Oswald in the lunchroom less than a minute and a half after the last shot, Oswald couldn't have fired that shot, deposited the rifle and made it down the stairs past Dougherty, the two secretaries and Truly without any of them seeing him, and for Baker to see him in the vestibule through that west door window, he had to have entered it from the south door, coming from the offices, the rest room or the first floor steps, the same way he left a few minutes later.

The Secret Service stoped their reenactment at that point, with the last photo of the reenactment photo sequence being the photos of the door as seen from Baker's position.

They recognized the significance of this as well since they called Truly back for a second round of questioning but only asked him one question - did that door have an automatic closing device? Yes it did.

And the door was closed when Baker saw Oswald walking in from the south door, not the west door, so he didn't come down those stairs and wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper.

Further support for this is provided by Ms. Mooneyham, the court clerk from across the street who saw a man in the Sixth Floor window four to five minutes after the last shot - and that person, who was apparently moving boxes around, was certainly not Oswald, and if he wasn't the sniper, had to have seen him and was most certainly an accomplice.

I don't know who the Sixth Floor Sniper was, but if you believe Baker, Truly and Oswald and the circumstances they say they met, then it wasn't Oswald.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but it better be good.

Well that's my two cents.

BK

http://jfkcountercou...-copa-2010.html

Bill,

This doesn't account for Baker's original first-day affidavit nor the statement that O.V. Campbell made to the press regarding seeing Oswald in a utility cupboard on the first floor shortly after Baker and Truly had entered the building.

There was another reason for the change in Baker's affidavit that took the encounter from the 3rd or 4th floor down to the 2nd. I just don't know what it is. Baker states that the man he ran into was walking away from the stairs (no mention of doors, cokes and lunchrooms) was in his thirties and wearing a light brown jacket. Backed up by the witnesses outside the TSBD who saw a man in the window.

If the Jack Revill TSBD list was made in the TSBD by speaking to employees and William Shelley then there is evidence that Oswald possibly gave the officers his name and address before leaving and was vouched for by somebody. Truly claims he vouched for Oswald to Baker but perhaps the vouching didn't take place on the 2nd floor. What if the vouching took place on the first floor around 12:45pm and it resulted in Oswald being let loose?

Truly moving the encounter to the lunchroom served a purpose. As did Baker reinforcing it by changing his recollections. What was it?

Lee

I'm well aware that Baker's first report places the encounter on the fourth floor, but I also think, based on everything I can learn about him and his filmed interviews, that he appears to be a good cop that wouldn't lie to fit a cover story, and what I am using as evidence is the evidence used by the WC to frame Oswald - and all three - Baker, Truly and Oswald agree that the encounter occured in the lunchroom which is on the second floor by the coke machine.

Now if you look at the youtube of Baker, he says that he saw Oswald "walking away" from him but he saw him through the window in the door. If Oswald had gone through that door, he wouldn't have seen him at all because the door would have been partially open and Oswald would have made the left and not have been visible through the window, and if Oswald had gone through that door, Truly would have surely seen him and didn't.

Now you don't want to believe Baker, Truly or Oswald then there's nothing to believe.

I believe Baker and I believe the encounter took place, and I believe the door was closed and Baker saw Oswald in the vestibule through the window moving from right to left into the lunchroom and Baker followed him there.

Everybody has thresholds of belief, and what will change their minds, but to me this is the key that exonerates Oswald from being the Sixth Floor Sniper, and the quest to find someone else who did that shooting, someone who also had a reason for being in the building at the time, someone who either stayed behind and calmly moved boxes around (as seen by Ms. Mooneyham and confirmed by the Dillard/Powell photos), or somebody who was an acomplace to the shooter who did leave immediately, but still wasn't Oswald.

In order to understand the reasoning behind all this you must read the first thread and the chapter in the book that I reference - Michael Roffman's Presumed Guilty, who first recognized this point.

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I won't engage in any argument over the following : the Katzenbach memo.

edit add : if strongest if it existed could possibly be Jackies hat.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The blowout of the back of the head becomes a blowout of the front

and DVP... Let's not talk about Oswald being able to make the trip in 90 seconds, I saw the TV Special as well and see that it is possible... please explain when and how he gets UP to the 6th floor after being seen on the 1st and 2nd floors as late as 12:20 as well as how Oswald knows the motorcade is 20 mins late passing the TSBD. The paper said Arrival at 11:30 and a 45 min ride to the Trade Mart... he'd be EXPECTED to pass the TSBD around 12:10 at the latest... this would be around the same time witnesses see multiple men on the 6th floor with rifles... and lo and behold, immediately after the shots, within 90 seconds, Oswald is STILL in the 2nd floor lunchroom while Baker runs into a man on the stairs between the 3rd and 4th floors.... no lunchroom, no vestibule, no window in the door, no slow closing door....

The fact that testimony C.Arnold's has been changed and/or supressed that placed Oswald downstairs as late as 12:25 is no surprise either.

So all these people are wrong??? Along with the 60 people, including DPD and SS agents who placed at least one shot from the fence on the GK.

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's gone. The possibility of advanced tests irrespective of cleaning can possibly tell a story. Is that why it's gone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that so many of the witnesses on Elm ran up the hill toward the fence and claimed to have heard shots from that area, coupled with the fact that no reliable evidence or witness can put Oswald in that window at the time of the shooting. There are several other items that are quite convincing, but that's the most obvious to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi David,

Read my post " Now, Who shot Connally ".

It deals with the shot JFK took in the back that only penetrated the lenth of a finger and did not exit JFK'S body to hit John Connally. Note the pristine witnessess given, from Gary Shaw's book " COVER UP ".

The stretcher bullet was faked

The zig zag line it took in mid-air did not exist

The clothes, coat and shirt being bunched up doesn't matter

The height of the jump seat and distance from the door makes no difference

CE399 did not exist. It's a red herring. The single bullet theory could not have happened.

On this one point alone is more proof than one needs to proclaim a conspiracy because when you realize that CE399 didn't exist then you have to realize also there were at least four shots!

PS, Can DVP explain this info away?

JIM

jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ALL BOLDING, UNDERLINE, ITALIC ARE MY DOING FOR EMPHASIS

I'd like to know how anyone on the planet can read this memo and not understand what our government was going to do to Oswald and to history...

MEMORANDUM

April 27, 1964

TO: J. Lee Rankin

FROM: Norman Redlich

The purpose of this memorandum is to explain the reasons why certain members of the staff feel that it is important to take certain on-site photographs in connection with the location of the approximate points at which the three bullets struck the occupants of the Presidential limousine.

Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President by the third and fatal bullet. The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building.

As our investigation now stands, however, we have not shown that these events could possibly have occurred in the manner suggested above. All we have is a reasonable hypothesis which appears to be supported by the medical testimony but which has not been checked out against the physical facts at the scene of the assassination.

Our examination of the Zapruder films shows that the fatal third shot struck the President at a point which we can locate with reasonable accuracy on the ground. We can do this because we know the exact frame (no. 313) in the film at which the third shot hit the President and we know the location of the photographer. By lining up fixed objects in the movie fram [sic] where this shot occurs we feel that we have determined the approximate location of this shot. This can be verified by a photo of the same spot from the point were Zapruder was standing.

We have the testimony of Governor and Mrs. Connally that the Governor was hit with the second bullet at a point which we probably cannot fix with precision. We feel we have established, however, with the help of medical testimony, that the shot which hit the Governor did not come {after} frame 240 on the Zapruder film. The Governor feels that it came around 230 which is certainly consistent with our observations of the film and with the doctor's testimony. Since the President was shot at frame 313, this would leave a time of at least 4 seconds between two shots, certainly ample for even an inexperienced marksman.

Prior to our last viewing of the films with Governor Connally we had assumed that the President was hit while he was concealed behind the sign which occurs between frames 215 to 225. We have expert testimony to the effect that a skilled marksman would require a minimum of time of 2 1/4 seconds between shots with this rifle. Since the camera operates at 18 1/3 frames per second, there would have to be a minimum of 40 frames between shots. It is apparent therefore, that if Governor Connally was hit even as late as frame 240, the President would have to have been hit no later than frame 190 and probably even earlier.

DJ: AND THIS IS THE ENTIRE CONSPIRATORIAL ATTITUDE IN A NUTSHELL - "EVEN THOUGH WHAT WE SEE WITH OUR OWN EYES TELLS US THAT OSWALD COULD NOT HAVE SHOT THAT RIFLE TWICE BETWEEN Z215 AND Z230, HE MUST HAVE BEEN SHOT EARLIER...." THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION TO THIS STATEMENT IS THAT THERE WERE AT LEAST 2 SHOOTERS, NOT THAT EITHER MAN WAS HIT AT A DIFFERENT FRAME THAN IS APPARENT FROM VIEWING AND FROM CONNALLY'S TESTIMONY.

We have not yet examined the assassination scene to determine whether the assassin in fact could have shot the President prior to frame 190. We could locate the position on the ground which corresponds to this frame and it would then be our intent to establish by photography that the assassin could have fired the first shot at the President prior to this point. Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin.

I had always assumed that our final report would be accompanied by a surveyor's diagram which would indicate the appropriate location of the three shots. We certainly cannot prepare such a diagram without establishing that we are describing an occurrence which is physically possible. DJ: YOU MEAN LIKE THE SBT MR. REDLICH? Our failure to do this will, in my opinion, place this Report in jeopardy since it is a certainty that others will examine the Zapruder films and raise the same questions which have been raised by our examination of the films. If we do not attempt to answer these questions with observable facts, others may answer them with facts which challenge our most basic assumptions, or with fanciful theories based on our unwillingness to test our assumptions by the investigatory methods available to us.

I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely misleading picture.

Dec 5, 1963 (over 5 months before the above sentence is written) - 1st Exec Session... Warren speaking

“Now I think our job here is essentially one for the evaluation

of evidence as distinguished from being one of gathering evidence,

and I believe that at the outset at least we can start with the

premise that we can rely upon the reports of the various agencies

that have been engaged in investigating the matter, the F.B.I., the

Secret Service, and others that I may not know about at the present

time.

It may well be that this project should be undertaken by the FBI and Secret Service with our assistance instead of being done as a staff project. The important thing is that the project be undertaken expeditiously.

---------------------------

This "Tentative Outline" was attached to a "Progress Report" dated January 11, 1964, from Commission Chairman Earl Warren to the other Commission members, and reveals the extent to which the Commission's conclusions were formulated prior to its investigation.

H. Evidence Implicating Others in Assassination or

Suggesting Accomplices

1. Evidence of shots other than from Depository?

2. Feasibility of shots within time span and with

use of telescope

3. Evidence re other persons involved in actual

shooting from Depository

4. Analysis of all movements of Oswald after

assassination for attempt to meet associates

5. Refutation of allegations

In the outline Redlich later gives to Rankin... this entire section is left out.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGappC.html

Finally there is the WCR itself

Several witnesses outside the building claim to have seen a person

in the southeast corner window of the sixth floor. As has already been

indicated, some were able to offer better descriptions than others and

one, Howard L. Brennan, made a positive identification of Oswald as

being the person at the window.57 Although there are differences

among these witnesses with regard to their ability to describe the person

they saw, none of these witnesses testified to seeing more than one

person in the window.58

One witness, however, offered testimony which, if accurate, would

create the possibility of an accomplice at the window at the time of

DJ:ACCOMPLICE? LHO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MEN SEEN AND THE WCR MAKES NO ATTEMPT TO CONNECT THEM

THIS ALONE IS MORE THAN REASONABLE DOUBT.

the assassination. The witness was 18-year-old Arnold Rowland, who

testified in great detail concerning his activities and observations on

November 22, 1963. He and his wife were awaiting the motorcade,

standing on the east side of Houston Street between Main and Elm

when he looked toward the Depository Building and noticed a man

holding a rifle standing back from the southwest corner window on

the sixth floor. The man was rather slender in proportion to his

size and of light complexion with dark hair. Rowland said that his

wife was looking elsewhere at the time and when they looked back

to the window the man “was gone from our vision.” They thought

the man was most likely someone protecting the. President. After

the assassination Rowland signed an affidavit in which he told of seeing

this man, although Rowland was unable to identify him.

When Rowland testified before the Commission on March 10, 1964,

he claimed for the first, time to have seen another person on the sixth

floor. Rowland said that, before he had noticed the man with the

rifle on the southwest corner of the sixth floor he had seen an elderly

Negro man “hanging out. that window” on the southeast corner of the

sixth floor.63 Rowland described the Negro man as “very thin, an

elderly gentleman, bald or practically bald, very thin hair if he wasn’t

bald,” between 50 and 60 years of age, 5 feet 8 inches to 5 feet 10 inches

tall, with fairly dark complexion. Rowland claimed that he looked

back two or three times and noticed that the man remained until 5 or 6

minutes prior to the time the motorcade came. Rowland did not see

him thereafter.

DJ: OBVIOUSLY NOT THE 5TH FLOOR NEGRO MEN AS THEY WERE QUITE OBVIOUSLY THERE BETWEWEN 12:25 AND 12:31

He made no mention of the Negro man in his affidavit.

And, while he said he told FBI agents about the man in the

southeast corner window when interviewed on the Saturday and Sunday

following the assassination, no such statement appears in any

FBI report.

DJ: THERE SEEMS TO BE CONSPIRACY IN JUST ABOUT EVERY BIT OF INFORMATION RELATED TO THIE CASE. AS CURRY SAID, THEY SIMPLY CAN NOT PLACE OSWALD IN THAT WONDOW WITH THAT RIFLE... AND NEITHER COULD THE WC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tippit and everything associated with his death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gremlins

Lee, I have it on the best authority possible that the American Motor Company was not involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm well aware that Baker's first report places the encounter on the fourth floor, but I also think, based on everything I can learn about him and his filmed interviews, that he appears to be a good cop that wouldn't lie to fit a cover story, and what I am using as evidence is the evidence used by the WC to frame Oswald - and all three - Baker, Truly and Oswald agree that the encounter occured in the lunchroom which is on the second floor by the coke machine.

Bill,

Fritz testified that Oswald said he was in the second floor lunchroom when the encounter took place and that he further said he was in the first floor having lunch when the assassination took place. To believe this, you have Oswald on the first floor having lunch – not hearing or suspecting anything amiss, then going up to the second floor post-assassination for a coke just barely ahead of Baker & Truly. You also have Fritz testifying that Truly had told him that the encounter had occurred "near the back stairway". Since no floor was mentioned, this, to my mind, has to be a reference by default to the first floor. I further believe that this was part of what was said by Truly to Fritz when Truly was reporting Oswald missing. The eavesdropping Biffle fills in what Fritz leaves out – "in a storage room on the first floor". A small storage is indeed located "near the back stairway".

Fritz' testimony regarding Oswald's alibi is untrustworthy whether because he was deliberately changing Oswald's alibi to something that could be challenged, or he was simply confused by his own very sloppy hand written notes. But those notes, if punctuated and with missing words inserted, actually can back up Oswald saying he was on the first floor after buying a coke on the second floor when the encounter happened.

My only disagreements with Lee on this are that I think your position is an easier "sell" to both the legal system and to the general public, so from a purely pragmatic point of view, I'd go along with this being presented. The end result is the same anyway, and history books can make the correction later. The other point of disagreement is that I do not believe Baker was the one who cleared Oswald to leave the building. Oswald had two separate cop encounters (the first was with Baker; the second was with ?) Baker had two separate encounters of his own (the first with Oswald; the second with the person described by the 6th floor witnesses – someone older, heavier and dressed differently to Oswald)

The second person encountered by Baker was not out of breath for a very good reason. He'd only had to come down two floors.

Now if you look at the youtube of Baker, he says that he saw Oswald "walking away" from him but he saw him through the window in the door. If Oswald had gone through that door, he wouldn't have seen him at all because the door would have been partially open and Oswald would have made the left and not have been visible through the window, and if Oswald had gone through that door, Truly would have surely seen him and didn't.

Now you don't want to believe Baker, Truly or Oswald then there's nothing to believe.

I don't believe Oswald said what Fritz claimed he said, and there is good evidence to support that notion. Truly and Baker are a different kettle of fish. Baker's apparent honesty does not trump the facts. To me, it works the way; the facts trump his apparent honesty. Like Lee, I think Baker told the truth initially, but then was coerced into changing his story – or maybe just allowed himself to be convinced that it happened the way Truly said. Despite changing his story, Baker deserves to be regarded as a hero for his actions during the crisis.

I believe Baker and I believe the encounter took place, and I believe the door was closed and Baker saw Oswald in the vestibule through the window moving from right to left into the lunchroom and Baker followed him there.

Everybody has thresholds of belief, and what will change their minds,

That you remain unconvinced by arguments against a second floor encounter is – probably more than anything else – a clear indication as to how hard the "sale" is. If it can't be sold to some one of your stature and knowledge, I wouldn't even bother trying with a GJ. On the other hand, your version would play well to the legal fraternity because it employs more than just witness statements – it employs science. And in the end, your version – as much as I disagree with it – is closer to the truth than the official version, in that it shows the impossibility of that official version. In short, as I've indicated before, you have my support on going with your "destroy the myth" model, complete with graphics.

but to me this is the key that exonerates Oswald from being the Sixth Floor Sniper, and the quest to find someone else who did that shooting, someone who also had a reason for being in the building at the time, someone who either stayed behind and calmly moved boxes around (as seen by Ms. Mooneyham and confirmed by the Dillard/Powell photos), or somebody who was an acomplace to the shooter who did leave immediately, but still wasn't Oswald.

In order to understand the reasoning behind all this you must read the first thread and the chapter in the book that I reference - Michael Roffman's Presumed Guilty, who first recognized this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops. I spoke too soon.

My contact at AMC called me after posting the above and said that he cannot speak for the Rambler Division.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Jim.... and thanks to Michael for the link

I know I experienced an "ah-ha" moment when reading these memos, just wish there was a way to do a "TRUTH" campaign ala the anti-smoking people and let the "masses" read this. Hoover and the FBI had it solved that evening, regardless of the evidence. Pretty neat.

Greg... That Baker incident has always been so very bizarre to me... How do we get from the Baker Affidavit to Truly's and Baker's testimony? and are you saying that Fritz just threw that into his notes? I can't find it right now but wasn't there an entire batch of reports written by everyone in the interrogation room describing what was said... I know Holmes wrote one... did they corroborate that Oswald told the lunchroom story?

Not sure where I got this but it makes our point

From the angle of the photo we should be looking directly into the lunchroom thru the window... we are obviously not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

Very good question.

If I had to name the strongest and most revealing evidence in the 1963 Coup d'Etat, I would say it was what the usurper, traitor, murderer president Lyndon Johnson told his most beloved mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown on 12/31/63 ... that it was Texas oil and the CIA who murdered John Kennedy.

I truly believe that Madeleine Duncan Brown and her account with Lyndon Johnson is one of keys to truth in the JFK assassination. I think Lyndon was completely honest with her (a rarity for him), EXCEPT that he left out his own partipation in the plot to murder John Kennedy.

Madeleine Duncan Brown was the most beloved mistress of Lyndon Johnson for 21 years from 1948 until 1969. Madeleine is one of the truth tellers and keys to understanding the ugly reality of the JFK assassination. She had a son Steven Mark with Lyndon in 1950. Madeleine lived from 1925 to 2002 and was madly in love with Lyndon Johnson when she wrote the book Texas in the Morning 24 years after the death of LBJ. She makes some BLOCKBUSTER revelations in this book, such as:

In the night of 12/31/63 morning of January 1, 1964, just 6 weeks after the JFK assassination, Madeleine asked Lyndon Johnson:

"Lyndon, you know that a lot of people believe you had something to do with President Kennedy's assassination."

He shot up out of bed and began pacing and waving his arms screaming like a madman. I was scared!

"That's bull___, Madeleine Brown!" he yelled. "Don't tell me you believe that ____!"

"Of course not." I answered meekly, trying to cool his temper.

"It was Texas oil and those %$%& renegade intelligence bastards in Washington."

(said Lyndon Johnson, the new president; Texas in the Morning, p. 189)

[LBJ told this to Madeleine on 1/1/64 in the locally famous Driskill Hotel, Austin, TX in room #254. They spent New Year's Eve `64 together here (12/31/63). Room #254 was the room that LBJ used to have rendevous' with his girlfriends - today it is known as the LBJ Room, and rents for $600-1,000/night as a Presidential suite at the Driskill; located on the Mezzanine Level.]

What Lyndon Johnson did not tell Madeleine was that Texas Oil (read H.L. Hunt, Clint Murchison, Sr) and the CIA (especially the Gen Ed Lansdale, Operation 40/Operation Mongoose crowd) were murdering John Kennedy with the full knowledge, approval and participation of VP Lyndon Johnson.

Two extremely important books to read:

1) LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination (2010) by Phillip Nelson which references Madeleine Brown several times. http://www.lbj-themastermind.com/

2) JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters (2008) by James Douglass. These 2 books read together are potent and very informative. Review: http://www.ctka.net/2008/jfk_unspeakable.html

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...