Pat Speer Chats with Francois Carlier

[Gil Jesus]

5 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

While I have your attention though, I wonder if you could comment on Gil Jesus's point about a broken-down rifle after reassembly would need to be sighted-in anew, involving shooting the rifle, in order to be useful with accuracy in the assassination. Gil Jesus cited expert testimony that multiple shots would be required to accomplish that.

But Oswald did not fire target shooting in the TSBD on the morning of Nov 22--did not sight the rifle in in the TSBD that morning after a reassembly--before, according to the Warren Commission, being the shooter using that rifle to fire at and accurately hit the president using a rifle that had to have been sighted-in. 

Does it not appear that the Mannlicher-Carcano had to have been infiltrated into the TSBD intact so as to be sighted-in, i.e. not in broken-down form on the morning of Nov 22 and then reassembled in the building that morning and used without any mechanism for having it sighted-in? 

But if the rifle was infiltrated into the building intact and sighted-in, not in broken-down condition, then it was not infiltrated into the building by Oswald on the morning of Nov 22 but through some other mechanism which could even have been on an earlier day than Nov 22.  

Since you are knowledgeable of and advocate the LN view, what is the LN-view response to this? I am unable to find in Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, either from memory of prior reading or in the index just now, anywhere where Bugliosi addresses this. Do you know if Bugliosi addresses this? Do you address it on your website? 

Thank you for expressing that Greg. Either the 40" rifle was brought into the building in the 38-inch "paper gunsack" disassembled and had to be sighted-in by firing ten shots, or the rifle was brought into the building intact and the "gunsack" is a fake that never contained the rifle. They can take their pick, but they can't have it both ways. They can't have a 40" rifle in a 38" package. Let's see them squirm out of this one. Don't hold your breath waiting for any answers to your questions.

Edited March 27 by Gil Jesus

[Joe Bauer]

My take on James Hosty was one of loyalty to his employer above and beyond that to anyone else. When Hosty was asked many years after his initial Warren Commission testimony why he didn't tell the Commission about the presence of and his personal destruction of his office's Oswald file on the day of Oswald's death, he said with a chuckle..."they didn't ask."

"They didn't ask." ???

Hosty chuckles when relating his holding back from the Commission the fact of his destruction ( upon orders from his boss Gordon Shanklin ) of their Oswald file just two days after the JFKA? Any person older than 13 can understand the "bomb shell" implications of that specific information withholding. 

Hosty chuckles when retelling of his office's destruction of mind-blowing important evidence? The Committee would have had no choice but to have stopped their proceedings right after such an admission. It would have thrown the entire investigation into chaos.

Yet, Hosty's destruction of their Oswald file upon Oswald's death did happen. It was a truth that was denied the Commission and the American people who were desperate for the truth.

Catholic James Hosty took "a sworn" oath before testifying before the WC. With his right hand raised and left hand on "the Bible" he swore to tell the WC "The Truth, THE WHOLE TRUTH, And Nothing But The Truth...So Help Me ... God!"

He violated that oath to the WC, to the American people and to ... God!

He knowingly and purposely withheld the "whole truth" from them.

Hosty knew how important his office's Oswald file was to any investigation. He knew how important it was that they burned the file ( destruction of evidence ).

Hosty chose to put his loyalty to his employer above any sworn oath loyalty to the investigation that was created under the highest authority to find the truth of the JFKA, to the American people and even to his own God!

That action destroyed Agent James Hosty's truth telling integrity and credibility imo.

And compels me to believe Agent Bookhouse's Oswald interrogation report over Hosty's, regards Oswald's actions on the first floor and his possible walk out onto the front entrance steps, if even briefly just after the shooting.

And the following is just another James Hosty gem regards his holding back information from the American people regards Oswald, the WC and who knows what else.

I caught a radio interview Of Hosty just after his book "Assignment Oswald" was released. In this he spontaneously blurted out this incredulous admission.

He volunteered to the interviewer..."we had three of them." 

Three of them? Hosty was saying his employer the FBI had 3 members of the Warren Commission feeding them information! Possibly violating the tenants of their so called "independence" integrity precepts. Gerald Ford wasn't enough? 

I caught that amazingly revealing and important incrimination statement by Hosty and immediately recognized it's importance. I thought the radio interviewer would catch it too. Yet, the radio host immediately interrupted the still talking Hosty in mid-sentence and changed the subject with some inane question. I can't prove the radio host knew what he was doing or was just conducting the interview poorly. 

I would have immediately asked Hosty..."who were these three WC members that were feeding you inside info during the proceedings?" Gerald Ford of course...but the other two?"

On 11,22,1963 Agent James Hosty ( on high alert duty in a highest Presidential security assignment ) watched JFK pass by him during the Dallas Motorcade parade and then simply walked into a local coffee shop to grab a bite to eat as soon as JFK's limo continued beyond his sight. He heard about the shooting soon after.

Hosty's security duties ended as soon as JFK passed by him downtown? Common sense tells me someone in Hosty's employment position that day would at least hold off going to lunch until JFK safely reached the Dallas Trade Mart...no?

 

Edited March 27 by Joe Bauer

[Denny Zartman]

Great work on this thread, @Sandy Larsen and @Gil Jesus .

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The reason you disagree with what has been proven, is because it is inconsistent with you pet theory.

Well, guess what...

Oswald had no gunshot residue on his cheeks. Which proves that he didn't fire a rifle that day.

Your theory, therefore, is kaput.

But you will disagree because -- despite all your calls for everyone to keep an open mind -- you've got one of the most closed minds of anyone on the forum.

But so it goes.

Keep an open mind.

 

Pat Speer did a pretty good job on LHO's cheek, and the gunshot residue test was administered too many hours after the event to be considered accurate.

In addition, upon researching, I found out that washing the face, or even perspiration, can remove the gunshot residue from the face. LHO may have washed his face at his rooming house, in a bathroom at the TSBD before leaving the building, or at the Texas Theater. If he was running around after the JFKA, maybe perspiration did the trick. 

Moreover, if LHO was a trained CIA asset, then covering the face with paper (in the TSBD, lots of it) or saran wrap before firing would also work, something he would know.

In addition, if the TSBD was "exhaling" when LHO fired the rifle, that may have blown residue outward from him. In the literature, there is discussion about firing into and away from the wind and getting no gunshot residue dose in the latter case.  

This is all IMHO. I respect your opinion on what happened to LHO on 11/22/63. It is just a different opinion than mine. 

 

Edited March 27 by Benjamin Cole

[Mark Ulrik]

On 3/26/2024 at 11:55 AM, Gil Jesus said:

If Oswald was on the first floor at 12:25, he could NOT have been the shooter on the sixth floor at 12:30.

Because when the FBI tried to assemble the rifle using a dime, it took them SIX minutes to do so. ( 2 H 252 )

But it doesn't matter how long it took if Oswald had access to the sixth floor prior to 12:25. What allows you to rule that out? When do you think the "sniper's nest" was constructed?

On 3/26/2024 at 11:55 AM, Gil Jesus said:

In addition, any rifleman will tell you that once a rifle is disassembled, the scope has to be readjusted because you lose "Zero" ( the POI or Point of Impact ). The Commission's own expert on the scope, Sgt. James Zahm, testified that in order to scope the rifle in, Oswald would have had to have fired ten rounds through the weapon.  ( 11 H 308 )

But Zahm was talking about sighting in the rifle for the first time, not about needing to do it after each reassembly. It would probably have been ideal, but don't forget that the scope was directly attached to the receiver/barrel and wasn't among the parts that needed to be removed. It can't even be known if Oswald ever had the opportunity to properly sight in the rifle, or how much it would have helped, but it most certainly wasn't an option on 11/22. It's likely, however, that he switched to the iron sights upon realizing that the first shot was a complete miss. Which would tend to somewhat moot the argument that sighting in the rifle was an absolute requirement for success, don't you think?

PS: I hadn't noticed DVP's reply to Greg where he makes similar observations, so apologies for the redundancy.

Edited March 27 by Mark Ulrik

[Gil Jesus]

4 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Whether or not the rifle's scope had to be "sighted in" after being reassembled is something that I don't think has been proven one way or the other. 

"Disassembling and reassembling a precision weapon will cause “zero shift”, that is a change in point of aim vs. point of impact." - Chris Everett, gun expert.

[Benjamin Cole]

Note to anyone: 

Perhaps the purported rifle was secreted into the TSBD the night before, and assembled. 

The telescopic sight was likely not used. 

If what I suspect is correct, LHO didn't need the scope, since he was intentionally missing on his single shot in the rough direction of the President. This may have been the Tague shot. 

Just IMHO, per usual.

[Mark Ulrik]

4 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Whether or not the rifle's scope had to be "sighted in" after being reassembled is something that I don't think has been proven one way or the other. And it's largely a moot point when we consider that Oswald might very well have utilized the rifle's iron sights instead of using the scope on November 22nd.

We can never know which method he used, but the iron sights are certainly an option that cannot be ignored.

I myself am of the opinion that Oswald very likely did try to utilize the 4-power telescope on his rifle for the first shot he fired at the President, but when that shot went wild and missed the entire limousine and everyone in it, he then quickly switched to using the gun's iron sights for his second and third (successful) shots.

It's possible, IMO, that Oswald abandoned the scope upon realizing (after his first missed shot) that the cheap four-power telescope did, indeed, require some readjusting after the rifle had been broken down and then reassembled.

But, as I said, we'll never know for sure which method of sighting Oswald used in Dealey Plaza. It will forever remain one of the several "unknowables" in the JFK case.

As an addendum to the "Assembled vs. Disassembled" topic, allow me to offer up these remarks from a few years back (taken from a lengthy discussion I had with David Lifton concerning the rifle and curtain rods and, of all things, fishing poles).

Good post! Btw, Greg's question inspired me to respond to Gil's post without realizing that you had already covered the same ground above, so apologies for that.

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Mark Ulrik said:

It's likely, however, that he switched to the iron sights upon realizing that the first shot was a complete miss.

Since this is a thread on an interview with Pat, I think Pat’s work on Oswald’s alleged shooting feat may be relevant here. The scope/iron sights issue is addressed in depth:

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4g-thoughts-on-shots-and-the-curtain-rod-story

Long story short: it was not an easy shot, and assuming that Oswald switched from scope to iron sights mid-shooting and went 2/2 makes it even harder. 

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

That action destroyed Agent James Hosty's truth telling integrity and credibility imo.

And compels me to believe Agent Bookhouse's Oswald interrogation report over Hosty's...

 

Joe,

What was Hosty's motive for lying, by saying that Oswald claimed to have been out watching the Presidential Parade?

I'm afraid you haven't thought this through.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Great work on this thread, @Sandy Larsen and @Gil Jesus .

 

Thank you Denny.

It's very frustrating for me when people refuse to follow the evidence.

Also, when people think a coverup can take place without people doing deceitful things.

 

[Denny Zartman]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

Long story short: it was not an easy shot, and assuming that Oswald switched from scope to iron sights mid-shooting and went 2/2 makes it even harder.

Oh, I'm sure Oswald's nerves were steady as steel, especially after running up four flights of stairs and the length of the sixth floor. Isn't that why they do decathlons? I'm sure a rapid heart rate helps riflepersons be more accurate.

And exactly why did that first shot miss, anyway? Is it because it was deflected by tree branches, as the Lone Nut theorists claim? I wonder if switching sights while shooting at a moving target through an obstruction makes the shot easier or harder?

Probably easier. Otherwise the LN's would have to explain why Oswald would, using the scope, not only miss the target but the entire limousine as well.

[Sandy Larsen]

23 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It's very frustrating for me when people refuse to follow the evidence.

 

I was thinking of the second-floor encounter (that never happened) thread when I wrote that. I don't know if that is on this thread.

 

[Denny Zartman]

9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It's very frustrating for me when people refuse to follow the evidence.

Also, when people think a coverup can take place without people doing deceitful things.

I hear you on the frustration. You have a lot more patience than I do, and I appreciate you and @Gil Jesus bringing the receipts and doing an exemplary job of it.

There's no argument that hasn't already been made to them a dozen times over, so the entire effort is futile imho. If an Lone Nut theorist ever conceded a crucial point, they would then be forced into a position of having to explain why they ignored all the other tell-tale signs of conspiracy over the years. That's never going to happen. It's easier for them to just stare straight up in the sky at noon and swear that it's really midnight.

It's extra frustrating knowing that they are essentially allowing the killers of Kennedy and Tippit to go free and for history to remain distorted with falsehoods. But they choose to profess they believe Oswald was up there in the sixth floor window shooting at JFK, despite evidence to the contrary.

[Joe Bauer]

57 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Joe,

What was Hosty's motive for lying, by saying that Oswald claimed to have been out watching the Presidential Parade?

I'm afraid you haven't thought this through.

Here is just another example of Hosty either lying or purposely misstating facts when questioned under oath:

"Oswald’s interrogation on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, was attended by two FBI special agents, James Hosty and James Bookhout, both of whom recorded handwritten notes.

Bookhout told the Warren Commission that he destroyed his notes later, after writing a formal report, as was the FBI’s custom. 1 Hosty told the Warren Commission much the same story, adding that he specifically recalled placing his notes in a wastebasket.

2 Thirty-two years later, however, Hosty’s book Assignment Oswald appeared with a photographic reproduction of the notes, >>>> which turned out to have not been destroyed after all. <<<<

Hosty explained that he had truthfully testified to the Warren Commission,

>>>>> in that at the time of his testimony he sincerely believed that he had destroyed the notes but subsequently he had discovered them in papers on his desk." <<<<<