CIA Chief Says Oswald Was Soviet Agent

[Joe Bauer]

On 2/24/2021 at 5:24 PM, Robin Finn said:

Outline for Phillips' book can be viewed here as a part of the Harold Weisberg collection.

A few brief thoughts about certain story content aspects in the Phillip's "Amlash Legacy" book outline.

The mention of the $800,000 and the way it was acquired and then kept and used brings to mind the true life reality of huge chunks of hidden source under-cover cash so often used in covert spy programs and by those involved in these.

E. Howard Hunt spent money way beyond his normal pay grade amounts.

At one point he and his family lived the country club life, large tract estate type private home digs, kids in very expensive private schools (maybe even nannies?) drove big flashy Cadillacs, smoked the finest cigars, dining in fine restaurants, probably affairs while away in other countries.

A real James Bond in this high class lifestyle way.

All on his civil service salary? No way. 

And I don't think Hunt's spy novel income was that lucrative...was it?

Nixon's slush fund cash. A million in cash needed? No problem.

Iran Contra...drug cash millions flowed through or in the least "around" the likes of Oliver North.

Didn't we send huge pallets of cash ( billions ) to the Middle East to pay off whoever we needed to work with us outside of official channels?

It's simple human nature that large amounts of all that cash gets siphoned off all the time in that world. Phillip's "Amlash Legacy" recounts a similar side story plot line.

Hunt demanded large chunks of cash from the Nixon team when he was being tried for Watergate and was willing to push this demand as far as he could even with blackmail threats. He just couldn't bear his family falling into a working class income poverty lifestyle after providing them with the good life for many years imo.

My larger point being the role of huge amounts of unaccounted for cash being a part of the world of covert action spycraft and the skimming of this in certain specific cases, probably in Hunt's case imo.

Poor Oswald sure didn't benefit much from this perk if he was indeed a part of that world.

Baby June had to sleep in an open suitcase because he and Marina could not even afford a crib? They lived in one low rent apartment after another. Marina had to be helped constantly by better off others for basics like food, housing, clothes, even bad teeth and pre-natal care.

Oswald couldn't provide his family with much of these basic needs with a car being a beyond expectation dream luxury. 

 Even his choice of guns ( the Carcano anyway ) were the cheapest ones anyone could afford. BB guns probably cost as much.

Oswald had a wife and child to support. He barely provided for them his entire time before 11,22,1963.  He hated that others had to help his pregnant wife and baby with these basic needs.

Agent Oswald ? Ha.

On a Texas School Book Depository minimum wage salary? Or even unemployment in New Orleans...where he picked up a few extra bucks handing out FPFC leaflets?

And where did less than minimum wage unemployment income collecting Oswald get even the few extra bucks to hire some helpers in his leaflet passing job?

If Oswald cracked...it wouldn't be illogical to think he did so after living a life so financially deprived, struggling and humiliating, he couldn't even provide his wife and beloved daughters the barest of basics and knew he had lost them to others who could?

Just some quirky thoughts related to Phillip's "Amlash Legacy" and the story line of huge amounts of unregistered suit case cash and it's high intrigue context in the romantic ( but also real ) spy world life imo.

Hence, E. Howard Hunt's country gentleman/ Bond type spending habits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 4, 2021 by Joe Bauer

[Joe Bauer]

Barbara Oakley, Professor of Engineering at Oakland University joined Connie Willis (info) in the first half to discuss learning techniques to help master any material. She builds on insights from neuroscience and cognitive psychology for a crash course to improve your ability to learn, no matter what the subject is. Oakley recalled that the idea for the course was developed with Salk Institute neuroscientist Dr. Terrence Sejnowski. Another inspiration, strangely enough, came from the worst professor Oakley ever had, who made learning so tortuous that she decided to do the opposite of anything he suggested. The professor said he never watched television, so Oakley began watching more TV, and discovered that "there’s all sorts of neural tricks that really good video editors use, that you can use to learn," such as perceived proximity to the viewer.

Oakley continued with the observation that the brain learns in two ways: declarative (hearing or experiencing something) and procedural, meaning repetition of facts or techniques. She said that there has been a decline in average IQ in the last few decades (after centuries of average intelligence increase) and believes it is due to the reluctance of educators to impose repetition on students. She compared this to "limping along on one leg to move forward." Oakley also suggested that when we are stuck on a problem in learning, that it is helpful to "do something completely different for awhile and then come back" to the problem, because during that time, the brain is "working away in the background and making these connections" which we are unaware of, but help to solve issues. She also emphasized that being flexible and open to new knowledge and facts helps immensely in the learning process.

 

I find I have to do this stepping back and looking at everything JFK/Oswald related event with a new perspective every couple of years.  It seems to present things in a more reasonable light imo.

[Benjamin Cole]

19 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

Benjamin, on your pet theory, who was Del Valle and others working for? Who approved their hit(s)? The US military would have known of the CIA plot and maybe they took JFK out ( or approved it)?

Chuck-

Thanks for your question. 

In my pet theory, LOH was run by DA Phillips, in a false flag fake assassination attempt. My guess is Phillips had to get tacit agreement from higher-ups and did so, no paper trail. 

OK, someone inside CIA either intentionally or maliciously leaks details of the false-flag operation to CIA assets in the Cuban exile community. 

The exiles show up in Dallas, perhaps drop names and convince LOH they are there to help him. Or maybe Del Valle just sneaks into the TSBD, while another colleague hides in/around Grassy Knoll. They wait for sound of gunfire, then commence shooting in earnest.  

I suspect the exile on Grassy Knoll area was a diversion, and just had a snub-nose .38 to release a lot of smoke and noise. Just two guys in whole operation though---no large conspiracy. 

So, in the whole world, only Phillips, LOH, and the two exiles (and the leaker) even had a clue to what happened. LOH correctly thought he was a patsy, and Phillips might have thought LOH shot in earnest, and the leaker might not know much either. Only that he leaked. 

I will explain more fully in long post in a couple of weeks. 

I like my explanation of events, as I prefer conspiracies with very few actors and moving parts. 

The real conspiracy was after Nov. 22, the cover-up. Then, people fall in line with the official story. 

 

 

[Ron Ecker]

What I remember about Woolsey is with regard to the Oklahoma City Bombing, specifically his promoting the idea of Iraqi involvement. Evidence for this involvement was presented by Jayna Davis in her book The Third Terrorist, and I remember Woolsey endorsing the book in a TV interview and calling Davis a "hero" for writing it.

The last I heard (I never looked much into it) is that the evidence for an Iraqi connection in the bombing wasn't that convincing. About like the evidence for Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction" that gave us the invasion of Iraq.

 

 

[Denny Zartman]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I like my explanation of events, as I prefer conspiracies with very few actors and moving parts. 

But what good is it if it doesn't fit the facts?

[Benjamin Cole]

17 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

But what good is it if it doesn't fit the facts?

Thanks for your comment. 

I assume you mean there is no evidence LOH was in, or not in, the so-called sniper's nest. Yes, I assume he was in the nest, and fired twice, intentionally missing. The Tague shot comes to mind. 

A bigger drawback to my theory is that LOH's cheek was famously clear of nitrates. But that test is a bit dicey, both false positives and negatives. 

I have fashioned my explanation to fit the facts, at least as I know them. 

I will in a couple of weeks post my article here. I think it withstands criticism, and holds water.  I look forward to your comments.

No, I cannot say my views "proves" anything, anymore than saying "Dulles ordered the JFK hit," proves that version. 

I will say my theory is more plausible than ones with a lot of actors and moving parts. 

[Joe Bauer]

Oakley also suggested that when we are stuck on a problem in learning, that it is helpful to "do something completely different for awhile and then come back" to the problem, because during that time, the brain is "working away in the background and making these connections" which we are unaware of, but help to solve issues. 

 

I find I have to do this stepping back and looking at everything JFK/Oswald related event with a new perspective every couple of years.  It seems to present things in a more reasonable or at least refreshed light imo.

Excuse the black background, I couldn't copy the text and lose it for some reason.

I do want to share again about stepping back now and then and looking at the most basic, pretty much consensus accepted facts we know about the Oswald case with a simpler, more broad or just different take to see if maybe the answer key is more forest through the trees obvious than one might think? 

Oswald is the ultimate truth hidden puzzle. Still a confounding conundrum after 58 years!

Mailer took him on and felt he had him figured. Many others too. Vincent Bugliosi created the world's heaviest literary door stop in his "Oswald alone did it" tome.

My own study of Oswald and his doings in his short 24 year long life ( as non-credible layman as this has been ) has left me just as unsure about his guilt in the JFK affair as ever. Like thousands of others interested in Oswald you just get exhausted trying to get a handle on him, his actions and his involvement in the "Big Event."

Often I just contemplate the simplist of questions regarding LHO.

The most obvious and head shaking incongruities.

Why get involved in extremely inciting political activity in New Orleans? Why do this so publicly? Newspaper coverage, filmed by others, radio appearances? You don't even have a job and your family desperately needs financial help?

Why take the most guilt incriminating photos one could ever imagine with the backyard photos and make and keep copies and even hand them out?

Why so much planning with the General Walker shooting like casing his home, making maps and drawings, probably observing Walker's night time study room presence, finding a prearranged nightime shooting location, getting his rifle there unnoticed and burying it in a safe location afterwards, coordinating his travel to Walker's home and an escape plan and even giving Marina a "if I am caught" note to help her and his daughter avoid any associative guilt problems?

Yet, Oswald has hardly any similar pre-planning with his next hit assignment of the "President of the United States" in broad daylight with hundreds of bystanders just below him and dozens of armed security too? Was this a suicide mission?

Oswald's set up, execution and escape plan with this 1000X more important hit is to simply carry his gun in with witness Buell Frazier seeing it wrapped up in his arm, build a wall of boxes around him on the 6th floor and his window perch in his spare work down time, make two bullseye hits on JFK in 6 seconds, toss his 3 times fired rifle behind some boxes, run down the stairs to stop in the lunch room to buy a machine dropped soda pop, then, casually walk down to the first floor entrance, dispurse phone location advice to reporter Robert McNeil and then saunter ( not run ) a few blocks to get on a city bus, then get off and hail a cab ( with first allowing another lady the first cab ride in his southern gentleman manner ) and then simply riding back to his Beckley room and from there ... It's all just incongruously crazy!

Oswald was relatively intelligent. He was tested and placed in a marine job assignment that took more mental ability than truck driver, cook, parachute rigger, MP, etc..  Air Flight control assignment requires some abstract mental acuity ability.

Oswald learned the Russian language to debateable degrees..."on his own!"

Try that challenge.

Oswald arranged and carried out world travel itineraries. Coordinated boat, train and plane travel and through a complicated set of geographic and political obstacles. He did more world travel than most 24 year old American men even though much of this was military related.

He read constantly. 

How then could studying for and acquiring a simple drivers license and learning to drive a car elude such a person? Not knowing or seemingly wanting to learn how to drive a car crippled Oswald in so many ways here in the states, especially in his role of husband and father?

Oswald did exhibit a fair amount of normal young man behavior socially besides some rough passages in his adolescent New York City time.

He joined the junior Civil Air Patrol. He joined the Marines.

He messed around with club girls in Japan. He got the clap or some other VD. He got into a couple fist fights as so many Marine enlisted men do.

In Oswald's Russia time diary he mentions eyeing at least a few Russian girls starting from his first arrival there and in Minsk it sounds as if he probably even scored and wasn't a virgin when he met Marina.  He went to dances and hoofed it. Maybe not as disco savvy as John Travolta in "Saturday Night Fever" but he at least got out there and tried.

Oswald got along normally with Marina it seems in most ways until they came to America. He truly loved and doted on his daughter Junie from her birth and he reportedly liked and even playfully engaged with other children in a normal way when he was around them.

LHO wore his wedding and Marine Corps rings to the end.

My point is Oswald wasn't your typical socially frustrated mentally deranged killer type. Texas U. Tower nut case Whitman, delusional Mark Chapman, Bush family friend mental case John Hinkley, acid burnout Manson brainwashed Squeaky Fromme, frustrated Palestinian rage Sirhan Sirhan, dark apartment poster living Arthur Bremmer, or even alcoholic jealous rage filled Mac Wallace.

Oswald was far from fitting of the mentally insane, socially frustrated, drug or alcohol addled or even suicidal murderer mold.

He was noticeably withdrawn, even surly and disagreeable to some to certain degrees. 

But not in an overtly unpredictable outburst or threatening sense way imo.

He didn't drink and lose control in public. He took Marina and Junie to parks, shopping, he listened to classical music. He was frugal and didn't even indulge in overeating. Those are self-control, self-disciplined traits.

This social and personality reality about Oswald so contradicts his reported crazy, risky Walker, JFK and Tippit actions from a mental state perspective it just adds to the seemingly unsolvable Oswald puzzle. 

When you throw in Judyth Vary Baker and her exact same O'Reilly Coffee cover job hiring day as Oswald... the Oswald puzzle game really gets going. Where's my valium.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Joe Bauer

[Paul Brancato]

12 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Thanks for your comment. 

I assume you mean there is no evidence LOH was in, or not in, the so-called sniper's nest. Yes, I assume he was in the nest, and fired twice, intentionally missing. The Tague shot comes to mind. 

A bigger drawback to my theory is that LOH's cheek was famously clear of nitrates. But that test is a bit dicey, both false positives and negatives. 

I have fashioned my explanation to fit the facts, at least as I know them. 

I will in a couple of weeks post my article here. I think it withstands criticism, and holds water.  I look forward to your comments.

No, I cannot say my views "proves" anything, anymore than saying "Dulles ordered the JFK hit," proves that version. 

I will say my theory is more plausible than ones with a lot of actors and moving parts. 

Benjamin - I appreciate your thoughtful and serious presence here. Yes the nitrate test is not foolproof. But accounting for LHO in the sniper’s nest requires a lot of belief. Was the MC his rifle? How strong is the evidence that he brought it to work?  How was he able to extricate himself from the building so quickly? I could keep going. 
Two main points - Oswald doesn’t have to be involved in any way except as a convenient patsy in order for your theory to work. If you need another shooter missing on purpose fill in the blank. As for Phillips, you are aware that the evidence placing him with Oswald in Dallas rests on Veciana, who I think John Newman has proved was a prevaricator. Again, Phillips may have been involved, might even have been running Oswald, but that doesn’t prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor. I’d rather just look at Phillips on his own, rather than tying him to Oswald. Plenty to wonder about there. He was an excellent propagandist. Others here have tried to use his manuscript as proof of something. I think that’s a rabbit hole.
I also think that Oswald might have been a Soviet agent, or a double agent of some kind with unclear ties. But if Woolsey is right that does not implicate the Soviets in the assassination unless Oswald was the assassin, or at least one of them. He was a very poor choice of assassin, but an excellent choice as a patsy. i personally believe that Oswald himself is the ultimate rabbit hole, since so much JFK research history revolves around who he was and what part he may have played. It’s caused all of us to take our eyes off the ball. If he didn’t do it, and that is a widely held view here, whether he fired or not, then Who did? Very little attention is given to that most important question. 
 

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Benjamin - I appreciate your thoughtful and serious presence here. Yes the nitrate test is not foolproof. But accounting for LHO in the sniper’s nest requires a lot of belief. Was the MC his rifle? How strong is the evidence that he brought it to work?  How was he able to extricate himself from the building so quickly? I could keep going. 
Two main points - Oswald doesn’t have to be involved in any way except as a convenient patsy in order for your theory to work. If you need another shooter missing on purpose fill in the blank. As for Phillips, you are aware that the evidence placing him with Oswald in Dallas rests on Veciana, who I think John Newman has proved was a prevaricator. Again, Phillips may have been involved, might even have been running Oswald, but that doesn’t prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor. I’d rather just look at Phillips on his own, rather than tying him to Oswald. Plenty to wonder about there. He was an excellent propagandist. Others here have tried to use his manuscript as proof of something. I think that’s a rabbit hole.
I also think that Oswald might have been a Soviet agent, or a double agent of some kind with unclear ties. But if Woolsey is right that does not implicate the Soviets in the assassination unless Oswald was the assassin, or at least one of them. He was a very poor choice of assassin, but an excellent choice as a patsy. i personally believe that Oswald himself is the ultimate rabbit hole, since so much JFK research history revolves around who he was and what part he may have played. It’s caused all of us to take our eyes off the ball. If he didn’t do it, and that is a widely held view here, whether he fired or not, then Who did? Very little attention is given to that most important question. 
 

Paul--

Yes, thanks for your sentiments and comments, and I enjoy your presence as well. Conversation, and not contention, is the way to go. 

OK, first let me say I am trying to get to the true story, regardless of whether it fits any particular narrative, be it left-wing, or right-wing, or anti-CIA, or pro-CIA, pro-globalist establishment, etc, etc. 

Ponder this scenario: Yes, LOH was a CIA-intel agency asset, but then lost his mind and shot JFK. This "absolves" the CIA and the globalist-establishment in many regards, but also explains the long cover-up.

Reasonable scenario? 

I don't buy it---the Zapruder film, I contend, shows separate shots hitting JFK, then Connally, and then JFK, in too-rapid succession for the rifle we are told LOH had. I see that with my own eyes. (In addition, as witnessed by Connally, his wife, and the three Secret service men in the follow-car). 

OK---so at least two gunman, or one gunman with a different rifle from the one LOH had. The M-C rifle could not have done it. 

Where was LOH when shots rang out?

About all we can say with a modicum of certainty is that no one saw LOH at the time of the shooting. That much seems clear. Beyond that, the witness accounts are so jumbled, and the FBI/WC so polluted affidavits and testimony, that we are left with ciphers. 

IMHO, there was time for LOH to purposely shoot and miss, then stash his rifle in a pre-arranged hiding spot, and walk quickly down the stairs to encounter Officer Marion Baker. Was there another lady going down the stairs? Maybe, but the timing is not certain. Suppose LOH and the lady were but one floor apart? So what?

I suspect I share with you a belief that more important than who pulled the trigger is, "Who organized the shooting?" 

Yes, my JFK assassination version comes down to relatively low-level Cuban CIA assets, who were leaked to by an unknown higher-up CIA figure, maybe intentionally and maliciously, maybe not. 

There was no grand conspiracy by the establishment-globalist, multinational-military-intel blob (a group I detest, btw). 

However, what is true is true. Some anti-Trumpers wanted to believe Brian Sicknick was murdered by a MAGA mob. That became the working narrative. I say, you can despise Trump, that is fine, but you still have to say what is true. 

Add on: Even without the JFK assassination, the damage the multinational-globalist-military-intel blob has done to America (and parts of the world) is incalculable. First, they hid the truth on the JFK assassination, and that is that CIA assets did it. 

Then, they got the US into Vietnam, followed by Iraq, Afghanistan and too many other ventures to recount. They created a mercenary military to do their bidding, when draftees no longer would. Prosperity for ordinary Americans counted much less than prosperity for the multinationals, let alone the horrible carnage wrought. They perverted modern media beyond recognition---and now are moving to silence all voices except their own, through copious de-platforming and so on. 

PS. I do not know what to think on the Veciana-Phillips-LOH meeting. Veciana is on the record and taped, and said it happened. I tend to believe him. 

The very intelligent Newman is working with paper records, that can be backdated, forged, or disappeared. Even in 1963, there were airplanes, and Phillips could spend part of a day in Dallas, no paper trail left today. CIA assets often worked through other entities, such as Army or Air Force, or private-sector. So Veciana was detailed to the Army but worked for the CIA.  

One does not have to be Sherlock Holmes to suspect the CIA paper record is intentionally obfuscatory, when it is not intentionally misleading. 

Anyways, in a couple of weeks I will (drum roll, then trumpets) present my article here. I think it holds water. 

---Best regards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Calvin Ye]

Woolsey is full of lies

Edited April 6, 2021 by Calvin Ye

[Greg Doudna]

On 3/2/2021 at 11:06 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

Thanks for your comment. 

I assume you mean there is no evidence LOH was in, or not in, the so-called sniper's nest. Yes, I assume he was in the nest, and fired twice, intentionally missing. The Tague shot comes to mind. 

A bigger drawback to my theory is that LOH's cheek was famously clear of nitrates. But that test is a bit dicey, both false positives and negatives. 

I have fashioned my explanation to fit the facts, at least as I know them. 

I will in a couple of weeks post my article here. I think it withstands criticism, and holds water.  I look forward to your comments.

No, I cannot say my views "proves" anything, anymore than saying "Dulles ordered the JFK hit," proves that version. 

I will say my theory is more plausible than ones with a lot of actors and moving parts. 

Benjamin I think Pat Speer has shown the LHO paraffin test data is as strongly stand-alone decisive that LHO did not fire the Carcano, as about any single piece of evidence can be, when the full facts are considered. This is not referring to the original chemical paraffin tests carried out by the DPD the evening of Oswald's arrest, which while they suggested LHO did not fire a rifle that day fell short of exculpation because paraffin tests done chemically were, as you put it, "dicey, both false positives and negatives". However that description does not apply to the NAA (Neutron Activation Analysis) subsequently carried out on the DPD paraffin casts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, which is highly accurate and which from Pat Speer's analysis is practically certain positive exculpation establishing as a baseline fact that LHO did not fire the Carcano that day.

In fact, Pat Speer's 4f, "Casts of Contention", http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4e%3Acastsofcontention, may be just about the strongest single stand-alone evidential exculpation of Oswald as a shooter of JFK there is. It takes work to read through Pat Speer's analysis (58 pages printed out) but it is just devastating, showing not only the exculpation but agencies' dissembling in the way that exculpatory evidence was handled and reported. If there is a rebuttal of Speer's 4f I would like to know; I am not aware of any. I am surprised Pat Speer's 4f has not received more attention.

Thanks for your contributions and I look forward to your article.

[Benjamin Cole]

51 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Benjamin I think Pat Speer has shown the LHO paraffin test data is as strongly stand-alone decisive that LHO did not fire the Carcano, as about any single piece of evidence can be, when the full facts are considered. This is not referring to the original chemical paraffin tests carried out by the DPD the evening of Oswald's arrest, which while they suggested LHO did not fire a rifle that day fell short of exculpation because paraffin tests done chemically were, as you put it, "dicey, both false positives and negatives". However that description does not apply to the NAA (Neutron Activation Analysis) subsequently carried out on the DPD paraffin casts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, which is highly accurate and which from Pat Speer's analysis is practically certain positive exculpation establishing as a baseline fact that LHO did not fire the Carcano that day.

In fact, Pat Speer's 4f, "Casts of Contention", http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4e%3Acastsofcontention, may be just about the strongest single stand-alone evidential exculpation of Oswald as a shooter of JFK there is. It takes work to read through Pat Speer's analysis (58 pages printed out) but it is just devastating, showing not only the exculpation but agencies' dissembling in the way that exculpatory evidence was handled and reported. If there is a rebuttal of Speer's 4f I would like to know; I am not aware of any. I am surprised Pat Speer's 4f has not received more attention.

Thanks for your contributions and I look forward to your article.

Greg D--Thanks for head's up on Pat Speer's work regarding Oswald's cheek, and I will of course check it out, as Pat Speer is a very solid researcher and thinker, and I will get back to you. 

As idle chit-chat, I wonder what would happen if someone placed Saran-wrap style stretch-wrap on their face before firing a rifle. Saran wrap was introduced in 1949. 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Benjamin Cole writes:

Quote

Where was LOH when shots rang out?

About all we can say with a modicum of certainty is that no one saw LOH at the time of the shooting. That much seems clear. Beyond that, the witness accounts are so jumbled, and the FBI/WC so polluted affidavits and testimony, that we are left with ciphers.

It's true that the eyewitness evidence for a gunman on the sixth floor is jumbled. But we know that a gunman was seen several times over the 15 minutes or so before the shooting. We also know that Oswald was on the ground floor around five minutes before the shooting, when he saw James Jarman and Harold Norman enter the building by one of the rear entrances (http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-alibi) .

If Oswald was the (or a) gunman, he must have started out on the sixth floor; then, at almost the exact time the motorcade was due to pass by the building, and not knowing that it was running late, he must for some unexplained reason have dashed, unnoticed, down to the ground floor, where he saw Jarman and Norman; then he must have dashed, again unnoticed, back up to the sixth floor to take his potshots at Kennedy; and finally he must have dashed back down to whichever floor Officer Baker was actually on when he noticed the presence of someone who didn't match Oswald's description.

Placing Oswald on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting is fundamental not only to the lone-nut argument but also to many conspiracy-based alternative scenarios. The balance of the evidence very strongly suggests that he simply wasn't there.

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Benjamin I think Pat Speer has shown the LHO paraffin test data is as strongly stand-alone decisive that LHO did not fire the Carcano, as about any single piece of evidence can be, when the full facts are considered. This is not referring to the original chemical paraffin tests carried out by the DPD the evening of Oswald's arrest, which while they suggested LHO did not fire a rifle that day fell short of exculpation because paraffin tests done chemically were, as you put it, "dicey, both false positives and negatives". However that description does not apply to the NAA (Neutron Activation Analysis) subsequently carried out on the DPD paraffin casts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, which is highly accurate and which from Pat Speer's analysis is practically certain positive exculpation establishing as a baseline fact that LHO did not fire the Carcano that day.

In fact, Pat Speer's 4f, "Casts of Contention", http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4e%3Acastsofcontention, may be just about the strongest single stand-alone evidential exculpation of Oswald as a shooter of JFK there is. It takes work to read through Pat Speer's analysis (58 pages printed out) but it is just devastating, showing not only the exculpation but agencies' dissembling in the way that exculpatory evidence was handled and reported. If there is a rebuttal of Speer's 4f I would like to know; I am not aware of any. I am surprised Pat Speer's 4f has not received more attention.

Thanks for your contributions and I look forward to your article.

Greg--

Ok, I have now read through Speer's chapter 4.

Excellent work by Speer. 

Speer makes a solid case that anyone shooting a Mannlicher-Carcano should have telltale residue (chemical or metallic traces) on their cheek afterwards, for at least several hours.

There is the problem of washing the face. It seems unlikely Oswald washed his face, but then there are times his whereabouts are unknown, after the shooting. Though unlikely, Oswald might have washed his face with a garden hose, or inside the Texas Theater before taking a seat. There is some confusion about Oswald going upstairs or not at the theater. I wonder where the bathrooms are. 

Possibly Oswald even washed his face at his rooming house, through not mentioned by the landlady. But if he made a quick jag to the bathroom before or after entering his room, would she have noticed? As I recall, she was watching TV or reading a book. 

Also, are we certain Oswald was never even allowed a bathroom break while being detained? The DPD has been lambasted for poor police procedures. 

It is little surprising that something such as which way the breeze is blowing can affect cheek-test result. Sure, the breeze was blowing towards Oswald, which should enhance the amount of traces left on Oswald's cheek. But, we all know breezes can swirl.  

Lastly, the casts of Oswald's cheek, which admittedly were negative, were done many hours after the event. The longer one waits, the higher the chances for a false negative.

All in all, I think the negative result of the cheek test in Oswalds case is suggestive, but not conclusive. And yes, the FBI and the WC lied their teeth out about the whole matter, and they framed Oswald in many other ways. I am amazed they didn't just rig the cheek test too--ala CE 399.   

I am being a bit whimsical when I say Oswald might have used saran-wrap on his face before shooting. Since I contend LOH was part of a false-flag but phony assassination attempt, there would be no need for that. But maybe he planned on a little insurance in case he was caught. 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Benjamin Cole writes:

It's true that the eyewitness evidence for a gunman on the sixth floor is jumbled. But we know that a gunman was seen several times over the 15 minutes or so before the shooting. We also know that Oswald was on the ground floor around five minutes before the shooting, when he saw James Jarman and Harold Norman enter the building by one of the rear entrances (http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-alibi) .

If Oswald was the (or a) gunman, he must have started out on the sixth floor; then, at almost the exact time the motorcade was due to pass by the building, and not knowing that it was running late, he must for some unexplained reason have dashed, unnoticed, down to the ground floor, where he saw Jarman and Norman; then he must have dashed, again unnoticed, back up to the sixth floor to take his potshots at Kennedy; and finally he must have dashed back down to whichever floor Officer Baker was actually on when he noticed the presence of someone who didn't match Oswald's description.

Placing Oswald on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting is fundamental not only to the lone-nut argument but also to many conspiracy-based alternative scenarios. The balance of the evidence very strongly suggests that he simply wasn't there.

Jeremy-

Thanks for your comment. 

Well, maybe. 

On the other hand, let us say you are relatively crafty and smart fellow ala Oswald. You want to be seen just before and after the shooting in innocuous locations, so indeed you to try to arrange just that. Plant exculpatory evidence. 

Five minutes--from when LOH saw Jarman and Norman--is plenty enough time to get upstairs. 

People have re-traced LOH's steps on the way down many times, and he had enough time to run into Marion Baker. 

Also, neither here nor there, but please read the WC testimony of Amos Lee Euins. He states flatly he saw the gunman, and the gunman was bald. I ask this every few days, but why is Euins' testimony always ignored?